Armor designs for females?

[Pugwampy]

I kinda fell hard for that PF Players handbook half elf girl wearing the yellow bikini/undies example .

I basically played her as a priestess running around in the yellow bikini . I wore armour but i always stated it covered my torso only and my bikini bottom always poked out ....

[Kardwill]

To be fair, it's not a bad idea once magic protection becomes involved... "Let's make this area here look visibly unguarded, but put the highest magical protection known to man there anchoring it to the less protective metal/leather... because it LOOKS exposed, the attacker will wail ineffectively at this one spot allowing an opening in their defenses to strike."
Such a tactic would lure what an attacker would assume is a fatal strike and bam... deflected by magical defense and now you have a sword in your attacker's ribcage.

Well, that would explain the logic behind the "leather armor" in the second post, where the whole torso is protected except the heart.

[Knaight]

It's been done, though. Look at the Mass Effect series. In #1, all characters use spacesuits with full helmet when doing missions in dangerous environment, and are in full body armor while in combat. These ARE form-fitting armors with boob plates, sure, but they don't look too much out of place.
And then theres #2, where you find characters fighting almost nude or with deep-cleavage chestplates and where several female character's "spacesuit" (Jake and Miranda) consist of revealing clothes with lots od skin exposed and a flimsy mouth-and-nose mask, when their male counterparts wear full bodysuits with helmets.

Sure, and these spacesuits with uncovered skin all look really stupid. It's one thing when you've got something like the Guardians of the Galaxy spacesuit - a translucent energy field fits the setting, and there's still something there, even if the something in question doesn't match up with actual space suits in any way. Similarly, there's plenty of science fiction with skin tight space suits with small helmets, which also work and do a decent job conveying that the culture behind them has been in space long enough to make more minimalist designs, and those work. It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb, and the same thing applies to armor*.

*Among other things - there are certainly other pieces of a material culture that can be screwed up so much that it is just jarring. Stupidly oversized weapons often fit in this category, and there are some sci-fi vehicles that are hilariously bad.

[goto124]

It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb

Spoiler: Can anything beat this?

Show

[Kardwill]

Spoiler: Can anything beat this?

Show

Well, there's Jake's "Dominatrix G-string with mouthmask spacesuit, while we're fighting enemise that routinely use chemical and nannite warfare" in one of my previous posts. I still think it's worse, since it covers maybe 5% of her torso and 20% of her head, tops. But I think it's at least partly because the game-designers were lazy and didn't care to design a spacesuit for the "sexy" new characters.

Your example, though is mind-numbingly glorious in its stupidity, though, so I'm willing to concede you the win oO

(BTW, isn't the torso the part where you would REALLY want to put the rigid parts of the spacesuit to hold internal pressure, even if it's not an armor and you don't care about cold and radiation?)

[Satinavian]

(BTW, isn't the torso the part where you would REALLY want to put the rigid parts of the spacesuit to hold internal pressure, even if it's not an armor and you don't care about cold and radiation?)

pressure is only 1 atm difference. Skin can hold that fine. you don't really explode in space. It is actually far more important to maintain oxygen supply and to prevent use of body fluids. So the depicted variant actually does protect the more important areas better.

It is still an utterly stupid idea for way to many reasons. Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

[goto124]

Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

That sounds worse, to be honest.

[Max_Killjoy]

From what I've read, a skintight impermeable suit is enough to protect the skin from pressure differences, it's the temperature differences, hypervelocity dust grains, etc, that require heavier suits.

The challenge for the skin tight suit is that any gaps or wrinkles or folds do tend to produce devilish "hickies" via creating low-pressure pockets.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sure, and these spacesuits with uncovered skin all look really stupid. It's one thing when you've got something like the Guardians of the Galaxy spacesuit - a translucent energy field fits the setting, and there's still something there, even if the something in question doesn't match up with actual space suits in any way. Similarly, there's plenty of science fiction with skin tight space suits with small helmets, which also work and do a decent job conveying that the culture behind them has been in space long enough to make more minimalist designs, and those work. It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb, and the same thing applies to armor*.

*Among other things - there are certainly other pieces of a material culture that can be screwed up so much that it is just jarring. Stupidly oversized weapons often fit in this category, and there are some sci-fi vehicles that are hilariously bad.

This is a very good explanation of why the exact line varies with the person and the piece of media.

Spoiler: Can anything beat this?

Show

But... but... why? There's no reason to have specifically those bits uncovered.

On the subject of skintight spacesuits, isn't there research into those in real life?

[Max_Killjoy]

On the subject of skintight spacesuits, isn't there research into those in real life?

There is -- which is where I got my info.

[Arbane]

Women rarely used armor at all since few women in any civilization were allowed into combat... it's genetically stupid to allow women into war after all.

As for drawing female armor to show cleavage... I can see it being a thing. Not for dungeon delving maybe, but as formal wear or around town when you're trying to gather information etc. You're still mostly protected, and many women DO like to show off that particular part of their body.

Women have always fought. Not as many as men, but they have.

As for cleavage-plate, GREAT IDEA! it's as expensive, heavy, and uncomfortable as real armor, but without the protective qualities!

Ubermagic _barely_ justifies it, but again, with magic that good, why not just enchant normal clothes and save some weight?

[CharonsHelper]

Women have always fought. Not as many as men, but they have.

I don't see how that in any way contradicts what he said.

Everyone knows that some women have always fought (amazons have been mentioned multiple times in this thread) just as everyone knows that they were a rather rare exception (varying how rare depending upon the place/time/culture) to the general rule of them not fighting.

[Deophaun]

From what I've read, a skintight impermeable suit is enough to protect the skin from pressure differences, it's the temperature differences

Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.

Now, thermal radiation (in addition to all the other kinds of radiation), yes.

[CharonsHelper]

Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.

To add to that - from what I understand astronauts have to worry about not overheating when they're out in space. Their space suits have small AC units to compensate.

[Max_Killjoy]

Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.

Now, thermal radiation (in addition to all the other kinds of radiation), yes.

To add to that - from what I understand astronauts have to worry about not overheating when they're out in space. Their space suits have small AC units to compensate.

I did say "temperature differences", not "you'll freeze really fast"...

[scalyfreak]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say 'I don't know why they'd be wearing a bikini instead of toplessness', I meant 'I don't know why they'd wear a bikini instead of normal clothing (including cheat support)'. On the other hand, as I said, it's your Amazon, if she doesn't want to wear a robe then that's cool, feel free to dress your characters however you want. I've played enough bare chested sexy men in my time to throw stones.

For the same reason female athletes occasionally wear only a sports bra to a strenuous workout: Maximum mobility and comfort. To me, a bra on a warrior woman in a hot climate where men g shirtless, makes perfect sense for these reasons.

Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.

[Max_Killjoy]

For the same reason female athletes occasionally wear only a sports bra to a strenuous workout: Maximum mobility and comfort. To me, a bra on a warrior woman in a hot climate where men g shirtless, makes perfect sense for these reasons.

Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...

Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.

These forums really need a "facepalm" emote...

[goto124]

And certain real-life tribes in hot climates don't even bother with the bra.

[1337 b4k4]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

Let's be completely honest, if it exists, it's a fetish for at least one person if not more.

Shortpacked tries to explain it.

Yeah, I've seen this one too, and while it makes for an amusing comic, it:
A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, and don't like the lean, big eyed and big lipped.
B) Doesn't account for why so many more women (at least in my experience) seem to find Chris Hemsworth's Thor far more attractive than Orlando Bloom's Legolas, or even Val Kilmer's Batman.
C) Completely glosses over the fact that women are (like men) complex individuals who find a multitude of things attractive. I know women for whom aforementioned Thor is a turn on, and for whom Sephiroth is equally a turn on. And I know others whose taste in men is decidedly and strictly average, where neither the pretty boy look nor the Conan look do anything for them.

You might not like it, but D&D is more the odd outlier than the norm and has been for a very long time.

Yet as I pointed out, even D&D wasn't an outlier. What you saw on those covers is largely what early D&D art looks like too.

Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...

OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.


Edit
-------

While considering this today, an idea crossed my mind, inspired by Talakeal's assertion that some of this may be a result of trying to mash anachronistic modern styles with an earlier period look. With respect to the bared midriff armor (and not the boob window/plate thing), it seems to me in digging through mounds of artwork for this thread, that the armor that doesn't cover your midriff is a trend of the mid 90's - early 2000's fantasy artwork. Coincidentally, that same time period is really peak bared midriff shirts and spaghetti strap tops for women's fashion. Likewise in this period you see a reduction in the number of armor skirts that were popular in 80's fantasy art (a time of mini skirts and such in women's fashion). I think it's very possible that Talakeal is on to something here that at least some of this is meshing modern fashion with old materials. For the folks with 5e D&D and recently (say the last 7 years) published TTRPGs, are there any trends in the fantasy artwork that are more or less armored versions of modern fashion?

[goto124]

A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, [snip]
C) Completely glosses over the fact that women are (like men) complex individuals who find a multitude of things attractive.

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle.

That bit about modern fashion is really interesting. Not sure what's the current fashion though...

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah, I've seen this one too, and while it makes for an amusing comic, it:
A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, and don't like the lean, big eyed and big lipped.
B) Doesn't account for why so many more women (at least in my experience) seem to find Chris Hemsworth's Thor far more attractive than Orlando Bloom's Legolas, or even Val Kilmer's Batman.

My sister has joked that girls (up into their teens) like the 'heartthrobs' while women like the 'real men'. (And yes - she is really into Thor. And liked the werewolf more than the sparkly vampire. And teases her husband about both... girls are complicated.)

[goto124]

girls are complicated.)

With the people I've met and talked to, of different sexes and genders and sexual orientations, humans are complicated. Including straight men.

[1337 b4k4]

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle.

Absolutely I think media is going to generally go for a least common denominator (generally the rule for items targeted at mass consumption), but even in media I think you'll find a surprising range of "sexy". Looking at recent super hero movies, consider the differences between Black Widow (who does the skin tight suit, but really doesn't show a lot of skin), to Wonder Woman (boob plate a hoy!), to Pepper Potts (business attire, fancy dresses and wit to match Tony Stark, yowza), to Nebula and Gamora (turning on the Captain Kirk contingent) to even Peggy Carter (classic turn of the century sexy).

For the women (from my perspective with some slight input from the women in my life) you likewise have Thor (doing the big muscles thing), Tony Stark (the confident, collected swagger), Bruce Banner (the damaged soul), Hawkeye (lean [pouty lips? maybe. could one of our women commenters weigh in on this], confident and scruffy), and Captain America (the "All American" boy/man).

What is notable in the differences (and this is something sociologists have found time and again) is that media targeting men for "sexy" generally conveys it via imagery (although I'd argue in Potts and Cater's cases it's also personality / attitude) and when targeting women it tends to aim at personalities / emotions (with the possible exception of Thor), which may explain why static artwork has a harder time being broadly appealing to women as opposed to men. With static art it's harder to convey personality. At least that's a possible theory, bearing in mind that I am neither sociologist, psychologist nor a woman.

[goto124]

A huge chunk of media using static imagery to appeal to men for years means there's a well-developed basis for static image appeal that's easy to build off and that the auidience quickly understands.

If someone wants to use static imagery to appeal to women, that basis is a bit less developed. Possible, just harder.

[2D8HP]

(And yes - she is

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle....

IIRC what I've read, most on-line dating messages are sent by men to the same minority of women, but women have a wider variety of "types".

Yes men have different "types", and yes women do share "types", but two random American men are more likely to share what they regard as an attractive women, than two random American women are to regard who is an attractive man. Women are more likely to have different tastes in men, but men are more likely to have the same taste in women (image wise).

How much media images are influencing tastes vs. how much tastes cause media images, I have no idea.

I haven't given any links because I'm just not in the mood to read on the subject again (maybe someone else can verify or disprove).

[ImNotTrevor]

(And yes - she is



IIRC what I've read, most on-line dating messages are sent by men to the same minority of women, but women have a wider variety of "types".

Yes men have different "types", and yes women do share "types", but two random American men are more likely to share what they regard as an attractive women, than two random American women are to regard who is an attractive man. Women are more likely to have different tastes in men, but men are more likely to have the same taste in women (image wise).

How much media images are influencing tastes vs. how much tastes cause media images, I have no idea.

I haven't given any links because I'm just not in the mood to read on the subject again (maybe someone else can verify or disprove).

From my advertising class, it's usually that the way society is moving influences the media representation (at least in advertising.)

It's also worth noting that the most likely source to produce a standard of beauty for women is other women, not men. (Ads appealing to women tend to come from companies that aren't exactly full of male employees, as a general rule.) This is exactly as true the other way. Male masculinity standards come from other men. This should be neither controversial or surprising, but you'd be amazed the backlash you can receive for merely suggesting this.

That and target audiences are usually assigned to a target market AFTER they see who it appeals to and rarely before. Doing it the other way is risky, and large companies don't stay large by taking needless risks.

[scalyfreak]

Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...

OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

It is equally difficult to build an equivalent of the modern-day bikini top, since they almost always rely on the elasticity of the material to stay in place and cover what needs to be covered. However, in theory a long scarf and a few ribbons can be as effective as a modern day sports bra, if your goal is to keep involuntary movement to a minimum, as long as you wrap and tie tightly enough. Not all women are built like Pamela Anderson, after all. Especially not those who spend their adolescence pushing their bodies towards peak physical performance - look at the average female gymnasts and ballerinas, for example.

Remember, our goal here is function, not form. If a female warrior's top priority when she dresses for work is to look sexy, what she chooses to wear isn't really the problem. So a non-elastic bikini on the amazon who fights alongside the bare-chested barbarian makes perfect sense to me.

I feel like I'm getting way too close to the realm of what the forum rules call "inappropriate topics" as we keep talking about this.. I should probably shut up now.

Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.

Please stop confusing things by using common sense like that.

[scalyfreak]

Hawkeye (lean [pouty lips? maybe. could one of our women commenters weigh in on this],

Hawkeye doesn't have superpowers like the other Avengers do. He has an outdated weapon and a good grasp tactics - skill and confidence are a turn-on for a lot of women, regardless of what his face looks like. (The fact it does look quite nice is a pleasant bonus though.)

[Satinavian]

Yet as I pointed out, even D&D wasn't an outlier. What you saw on those covers is largely what early D&D art looks like too.

I admit that i don't know early D&D.

When i started D&D mid/end 90s, i noticed that the illustrations were far less realistic and that women usually got more sexualized/less functional armor compared to males and were more often depicted as damsels to be rescued by male heroes than in illustrations of other RPGs i played. This impression didn't change when 3rd and 4th edition came (not that i actually played a lot of 4E). The damsels vanished, but the stupid armor/attire stayed or got even worse.

No, i am not saying that D&D never had resonable pictures of women or what the percentage of good/bad was. Only that it was significantly worse than competitors (excluding D&D clones and Pulp RPGs )

5E just shouldn't get credit for being "progressive" by immitating art styles that are standard fare elsewhere. Sure, if you want to say, 5E art is not actually different to earlier art regarding female armor/closthing, go ahead. But that would be a quite difficult sale.

[Anonymouswizard]

Are you all saying I'm weird for finding small, geeky women with flat chests and relatively masculine faces incredibly sexy? Because you wouldn't be the first, I'm just trying to be clear about all this.

On the record for the bra discussion, I'll concede to the experts in this field, but I don't see warrior women wearing a faux sports bra as stupid or anyway. I just think they want support and to be cool (as in not overheating).