Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /nfs/c05/h04/mnt/71378/domains/www.atomiclaundromat.com/html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 250
There is a form of reasoning behind molded breasts for breastplates; it would avoid having to painfully compress the breasts (which would restrict movement pretty badly in regards to any motion you’d be making wearing armor; i.e. melee combat) or having the breast plate so oversized that it would interfere with movement by what being what amounts to an upside-down pear shape (like a fat man’s armor made for a ridiculous pot belly upside-down).
I’m going to point out a reason that ancient women’s armor SHOULD have been sculpted in such a manner, and would have been historically more logical to have molded bosoms and even windows…
Chauvinism works both ways. Males expected females to be lesser fighters, weaker, and vulnerable… likewise, only the most heinous of lout would actually bring harm to a female. What this means is, a female that is immediately recognizable as female in combat (instead of a long haired male or another guy in armor) was shielded from more harm by the mere fact of her gender than by any armor, and in addition would be able to strike foes more effectively as they passed a female opponent up for a male one, leaving themselves vulnerable to the female’s assaults. This would have even been more effective against chivalrous opponents, as they would not be able to even strike a female foe in their own defense after the initial attack of opportunity and at most might try to restrain the female foe.
Sure, in more modern times the revealing outfit grants little of that same protection, but in a ‘less civilized age’ it would have been practically the best armor available.
Also, lightweight and revealing leather armor would have provided greater mobility and speed, allowing a skilled female opponent to strike quickly and decisively while more heavily armored foes lumbered sluggishly through combat. Many lesser minor wounds that could be attained with ease and speed, could likely be far more deadly than a one or two sluggish mighty blows that may never hit their mark in the first place.
Nobody cares what gender you are in battle. In battle, you don’t have time to think “Oh it’s a female need to leave them alive so the population can be replenished.” You’ll be thinking “Oh shit I need to kill all of these enemies so I don’t die.”
Lightweight and revealing armor is a barely negligible difference in mobility. People who have trained to be soldiers would be used to the weight of the armor. And besides, true plate armor wasn’t as heavy as popular media likes to portray. It isn’t restrictive to movement either. And — in your scenario — if the woman’s opponent is wearing full plate armor her “lesser blows” wouldn’t really do much would it? A broadsword only weighs about three-to-five pounds, so there won’t be many “sluggish mighty blows.”
Your logic is so bizarre I can only hope you’re trolling.
It’s okay to say “I like seeing pictures of women in skimpy costumes.” The problem is feeling guilty about it and trying to justify it. You don’t need to make up things. I have a large folder devoted just to skimpy fantasy costumes. But I dislike seeing people spout logic-defying rhetoric to make themselves feel better about liking certain types of fantasy art.
Just because there are people pointing out the problems with that kind of art won’t make it disappear from the universe without a trace. You don’t have to defend it. This kind of stuff is deeply ingrained in our society — as long as there is an audience for attractive people in skimpy armor, there will be artists that will produce it.
All people are asking is some other types of women being represented in fantasy art as well. I have yet another folder on my computer, devoted to sexy women in reasonable armor. And yes, they are sexy despite not showing a great deal of skin or having a chestplate sculpted to their breasts.
I apologize about my previous post. It was late at night and it was a knee-jerk reaction without a thought about how you might feel in response.
Dude all I know is if I had two jiggly soft things right out in front, I’d want them ARMORED. in a way that doesn’t compress them. Something equivalent to a nice roomy codpiece.
If female armour wasn’t as sculpted as the males, either they could only be worn by pre-pubescant girls, or it would look like they are wearing a metal muu-muu
You might want to read the link provided by LazerWulf.
Armor protects against piercing damage but not impact so there is a lot of padding under it. This lessens the need for boob pockets. Add to that the cleavage indent can deflect stabs at the chest into the center instead of away from it.
Properly designed female armor(for protection not for sexy) would give women a uniboob that would stick out farther in the center of the chest.
The problem with these “real” armors is that they lack severely in visual psycological tactics.. aka sex appeal which is very useful in distraction and misplaced sympathy on the battlefield.
Which is where we run into the whole “sexism” thing with all of this, Richard. Most female characters are there to be sexy, and that’s why their armor is made to be sexy. I mean, it’s not a problem that sexy armor exists because there’s nothing wrong with being attracted to women and enjoying looking at sexy women. But it’s when sexy armor is ALL that exists in the majority of fiction that it becomes a problem, because then women only get a place IF they’re sexy.
Juno’s boobplate at least is a rather mild example and is in general pretty conservative… until it falls off so we can spend a week or two gawking at her being unwillingly naked.
Again, nothing wrong with liking it, just it’d be nice if we could maybe have some strips that do something other than fanservice or making Angela look insane.
“it’d be nice if we could maybe have some strips that do something other than fanservice”
Didn’t a guy lose all his clothes a little while ago, back by the beginning of the series?
Then it becomes double standards: have you seen the ancient Roman slash Grecian-region breastplates for males? Some of those can tend to be just as stylised as the despised female breast-plates
This will only make sense until the next comic is posted, but…
Obviously nobody can immediately write or draw another comic after this one, when the topic is so fresh in your mind, when your mental images keep bouncing back and forth between two nearly equal ideas, and what were we talking about again?
There is a form of reasoning behind molded breasts for breastplates; it would avoid having to painfully compress the breasts (which would restrict movement pretty badly in regards to any motion you’d be making wearing armor; i.e. melee combat) or having the breast plate so oversized that it would interfere with movement by what being what amounts to an upside-down pear shape (like a fat man’s armor made for a ridiculous pot belly upside-down).
I’m going to point out a reason that ancient women’s armor SHOULD have been sculpted in such a manner, and would have been historically more logical to have molded bosoms and even windows…
Chauvinism works both ways. Males expected females to be lesser fighters, weaker, and vulnerable… likewise, only the most heinous of lout would actually bring harm to a female. What this means is, a female that is immediately recognizable as female in combat (instead of a long haired male or another guy in armor) was shielded from more harm by the mere fact of her gender than by any armor, and in addition would be able to strike foes more effectively as they passed a female opponent up for a male one, leaving themselves vulnerable to the female’s assaults. This would have even been more effective against chivalrous opponents, as they would not be able to even strike a female foe in their own defense after the initial attack of opportunity and at most might try to restrain the female foe.
Sure, in more modern times the revealing outfit grants little of that same protection, but in a ‘less civilized age’ it would have been practically the best armor available.
Also, lightweight and revealing leather armor would have provided greater mobility and speed, allowing a skilled female opponent to strike quickly and decisively while more heavily armored foes lumbered sluggishly through combat. Many lesser minor wounds that could be attained with ease and speed, could likely be far more deadly than a one or two sluggish mighty blows that may never hit their mark in the first place.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Nobody cares what gender you are in battle. In battle, you don’t have time to think “Oh it’s a female need to leave them alive so the population can be replenished.” You’ll be thinking “Oh shit I need to kill all of these enemies so I don’t die.”
Lightweight and revealing armor is a barely negligible difference in mobility. People who have trained to be soldiers would be used to the weight of the armor. And besides, true plate armor wasn’t as heavy as popular media likes to portray. It isn’t restrictive to movement either. And — in your scenario — if the woman’s opponent is wearing full plate armor her “lesser blows” wouldn’t really do much would it? A broadsword only weighs about three-to-five pounds, so there won’t be many “sluggish mighty blows.”
Your logic is so bizarre I can only hope you’re trolling.
http://www.teso-rp.com/forum/m/9324623/viewthread/8870127-en-guarde-rp-combat-vs-reality-plate-armor
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/90533272790/combat-vs-reality-plate-armor-boob-plates-and
http://jethroq.tumblr.com/post/82928423868/plate-armor-isnt-exactly-spandex-but-its-also
http://ancientpanoply.tumblr.com/post/27649332374/a-video-made-for-the-museum-of-cluny-and-its-the
It’s okay to say “I like seeing pictures of women in skimpy costumes.” The problem is feeling guilty about it and trying to justify it. You don’t need to make up things. I have a large folder devoted just to skimpy fantasy costumes. But I dislike seeing people spout logic-defying rhetoric to make themselves feel better about liking certain types of fantasy art.
Just because there are people pointing out the problems with that kind of art won’t make it disappear from the universe without a trace. You don’t have to defend it. This kind of stuff is deeply ingrained in our society — as long as there is an audience for attractive people in skimpy armor, there will be artists that will produce it.
All people are asking is some other types of women being represented in fantasy art as well. I have yet another folder on my computer, devoted to sexy women in reasonable armor. And yes, they are sexy despite not showing a great deal of skin or having a chestplate sculpted to their breasts.
I apologize about my previous post. It was late at night and it was a knee-jerk reaction without a thought about how you might feel in response.
Oh good one Angie. Might have overdone it a bit. Hopefully there is enough of Davids Brain cells left functioning.
I love how his glasses steamed over.
Dude all I know is if I had two jiggly soft things right out in front, I’d want them ARMORED. in a way that doesn’t compress them. Something equivalent to a nice roomy codpiece.
… … why am I suddenly imagining Angela in such an armor?
If female armour wasn’t as sculpted as the males, either they could only be worn by pre-pubescant girls, or it would look like they are wearing a metal muu-muu
You might want to read the link provided by LazerWulf.
Armor protects against piercing damage but not impact so there is a lot of padding under it. This lessens the need for boob pockets. Add to that the cleavage indent can deflect stabs at the chest into the center instead of away from it.
Properly designed female armor(for protection not for sexy) would give women a uniboob that would stick out farther in the center of the chest.
http://www.pinterest.com/daeruin/real-women-in-real-armor/
The problem with these “real” armors is that they lack severely in visual psycological tactics.. aka sex appeal which is very useful in distraction and misplaced sympathy on the battlefield.
Which is where we run into the whole “sexism” thing with all of this, Richard. Most female characters are there to be sexy, and that’s why their armor is made to be sexy. I mean, it’s not a problem that sexy armor exists because there’s nothing wrong with being attracted to women and enjoying looking at sexy women. But it’s when sexy armor is ALL that exists in the majority of fiction that it becomes a problem, because then women only get a place IF they’re sexy.
Juno’s boobplate at least is a rather mild example and is in general pretty conservative… until it falls off so we can spend a week or two gawking at her being unwillingly naked.
Again, nothing wrong with liking it, just it’d be nice if we could maybe have some strips that do something other than fanservice or making Angela look insane.
“it’d be nice if we could maybe have some strips that do something other than fanservice”
Didn’t a guy lose all his clothes a little while ago, back by the beginning of the series?
Then it becomes double standards: have you seen the ancient Roman slash Grecian-region breastplates for males? Some of those can tend to be just as stylised as the despised female breast-plates
Dang it…I was hoping they’d have a good talk, lol
Reminds me of an article I read a while back.
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you
This will only make sense until the next comic is posted, but…
Obviously nobody can immediately write or draw another comic after this one, when the topic is so fresh in your mind, when your mental images keep bouncing back and forth between two nearly equal ideas, and what were we talking about again?
Yes. I completely agree with whatever you were talking about. Something about something else, right?
*snrk* you said bouncing