Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: On female fantasy armour

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

  2. #2

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Yeah, this always bothered me as well. Apparently "fantasy" in this case means something entirely different than what one would believe.

    I lost it when Chris Metzen, the Blizzard fluff guru, publicly shared the story how his little daughter innocently asked him why all females in WoW are running around in bikinis. Shows that even a small child is capable of catching on to the fact that their games are sexist bs. I hope he is proud of himself.
    Last edited by Ultimate Life Form; 30-03-2018 at 00:37.

  3. #3

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Life Form View Post
    I lost it when Chris Metzen, the Blizzard fluff guru, publicly shared the story how his little daughter innocently asked him why all females in WoW are running around in bikinis. Shows that even a small child is capable of catching on to the fact that their games are sexist bs. I hope he is proud of himself.
    LOL. Have you ever seen the covers of magazines geared to women? Or romance novels?

    It isn't sexist, it's human nature.

    Besides, if we're talking about "realism," that slender female shown above is actually smart to wear next to nothing. If you wrapped her in 60+ pounds of full plate, she wouldn't be able to move.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  4. #4

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    Besides, if we're talking about "realism," that slender female shown above is actually smart to wear next to nothing. If you wrapped her in 60+ pounds of full plate, she wouldn't be able to move.
    The reason she isn't able to move is because she is wearing 10'' high heels. Perfect for breaking her legs and getting herself killed.

    Also I need to point out we're talking about fantasy (games) here, not softporn. I would like to think that the principles that apply would be rather different.
    Last edited by Ultimate Life Form; 06-04-2018 at 14:35.

  5. #5

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Life Form View Post
    The reason she isn't able to move is because she is wearing 10'' high heels. Perfect for breaking her legs and getting herself killed.
    No, perfect for lethal brain-piercing head kicks. I find it interesting that you've decided that your fantasy is somehow more valid than someone else's. My wife would love to be able to slaughter her way through the City Guard in four-inch spikes while looking absolutely fabulous.

    Also I need to point out we're talking about fantasy (games) here, not softporn. I would like to think that the principles that apply would be rather different.
    So you're saying that women shouldn't be allowed to fantasize that they can show off their bods while kicking butt? Are you saying only mostly naked men are acceptable of objects of fantasy art?

    I for one celebrate body-positive artwork that empowers women.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  6. #6

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    No, perfect for lethal brain-piercing head kicks. I find it interesting that you've decided that your fantasy is somehow more valid than someone else's. My wife would love to be able to slaughter her way through the City Guard in four-inch spikes while looking absolutely fabulous.
    And I would love to soar above the clouds like a bird. Doesn't mean it's feasible. The normal rule for fantasy is: Unless it's magic, it works the same way as in our world. It's simply an assumption based on the fact that you can't come up with/explain a world that works fundamentally different from ours without confusing the audience. People need something they can relate to, and a story about multidimensional, omnipotent beings whose appearance can not be described in words who duke it out in some indescribable void outside the known universe for inscrutable reasonsons isn't very interesting for the common reader.

    In short, yes, fantasy that deviates from the norm too much is less valid for the simple reason that it doesn't sell.



    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post

    Are you saying only mostly naked men are acceptable of objects of fantasy art?

    I for one celebrate body-positive artwork that empowers women.
    I'm saying that any setting where one gender is depicted in clearly sexualized ways while the other is not is inherently sexist. That is all. Like when the same piece of equipment manifests itself as full plate on a male avatar while it takes on the shape of a mini skirt on a female avatar. It's simply dumb.

    That's while I generally prefer Japanese fantasy. There is generally ample fanservice for both genders. It's more equal that way. Also I would prefer that women distinguish themselves through their deeds and character and not through their ability to wear as little clothing as possible.

  7. #7
    Defender of teh Wastes DarthSte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,625

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    So why aren't males clad in heavy armour like that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hypaspist View Post
    The Evil Darth Ste (or TEDS as all shall now call him!)

  8. #8
    Chapter Master theunwantedbeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Preston,in my house.
    Posts
    13,199

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthSte View Post
    So why aren't males clad in heavy armour like that?
    Some of them are, Conan the Barbarian wears even less.
    Plan B kill it with fire
    Meat is Murder tasty, tasty murder
    Quote Originally Posted by RanaldLoec View Post
    I would have to agree with The Unwantedbeing as he is a paragon of sense and reason in an unreasonable environment.

  9. #9

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    I think the difference is that Conan doesn't pretend to be wearing armor. He just chooses to wear a loincloth and that's his right to do.

    The "female fantasy armor" on the other hand usually has all the characteristics of protective gear, being made of metal and so on while at the same time featuring huge gaps exposing pretty much all vital organs, rendering the hole attire useless. In fact it's counterproductive since they come with all the disadvantages (weight, movement restrictions) while offering none of the advantages (protection).

    The only reason to design it like that would be in ceremonial armor, but you don't really use that for war.

  10. #10
    Chapter Master theunwantedbeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Preston,in my house.
    Posts
    13,199

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    I don't see a difference between Conans lack of armour and a fantasy female's lack of armour.
    If Conan is fine in basically nothing, there's no reason the woman can't also be fine in whatever area's her own armour is lacking up to and including it not being there completely.

    The exception is when armour actually functions in that fantasy world in a realistic way, where not being covered is what gets you killed and even then you can still have instances of silly armour due to personal beliefs, overconfidence, ceremonial reasons, etc and then they're stuck fighting in that due to not having time to change into something better.
    Plan B kill it with fire
    Meat is Murder tasty, tasty murder
    Quote Originally Posted by RanaldLoec View Post
    I would have to agree with The Unwantedbeing as he is a paragon of sense and reason in an unreasonable environment.

  11. #11
    Chapter Master Urgat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    19,342

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    To be fair, he doesn't seem to think full plate protects that much either
    https://orig00.deviantart.net/9c62/f...ed-d988hcv.jpg

    Anyway, that's called fan service. Some like it, some don't. I know females who think it's cool and not sexist, and guys who think the opposite. It's purely an aesthetic thing, you won't federate everybody no matter what you do.

  12. #12
    Chapter Master Bloodknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    11,636

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    So why aren't males clad in heavy armour like that?
    I think they would be lambasted for cultural appropriation or racism. That outfit - while obviously a design study - isn't too far removed from some African war panoplies with the ostrich feathers and stuff.
    http://www.mekwars.org Play Battletech online in the MegamekNet 3025 campaign environment with people from around the world. New players welcome. Join a noble house and fight for supremacy in the Inner Sphere. Non-commercial community project, no cost.
    My random Sci-Fi Plog, mostly Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and CSM Current Project: Bad Moons.

  13. #13

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    If you think I'm a prudish, uptight geek I'm glad to inform you that nothing could be farther from the truth. Women can wear what they want. In fact I'm from a country where a huge nudist culture exists. What I find offensive is that in the year 2018 women are still clearly objectified in obvious ways and everyone seems okay with that. For example we used to have a TV paper that featured an article concerning some medical issue most of the time which unfailingly managed to feature a half-nude woman in some way. Never once it showed a half-nude man. Gosh, I wonder why that may be? Now in a game like WoW you're simply not given any choice, the female models are programmed to look like Barbie dolls and if you want them to wear something decent then tough luck.

    What I find disconcerting is that you seem needlessly antagonistic simply for the sake of it, you make up arguments and change the rules as you go to support your view, you seem to purposely misinterpret what I say and your chain of arguments has so many glaring and obvious holes that I can't even tell if you're being serious. Well maybe you're right, I'm taking this whole thing too seriouly.
    Last edited by Ultimate Life Form; 08-04-2018 at 08:51.

  14. #14

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Life Form View Post
    If you think I'm a prudish, uptight geek I'm glad to inform you that nothing could be farther from the truth. Women can wear what they want. In fact I'm from a country where a huge nudist culture exists. What I find offensive is that in the year 2018 women are still clearly objectified in obvious ways and everyone seems okay with that,
    I hate to burst your bubble, but both sexes are objectified, it simply takes different forms.

    For example we used to have a TV paper that featured an article concerning some medical issue most of the time which unfailingly managed to feature a half-nude woman in some way. Never once it showed a half-nude man. Gosh, I wonder why that may be?
    The obvious answer was that it boosted readership. Oh, and it isn't patriarchal, as I noted above. Magazines run by and for women obsess with the female form. It's hard-wired into us - an evolutionary adaptation. We can discuss that if you like, but it's been exhaustively documented.

    Now in a game like WoW you're simply not given any choice, the female models are programmed to look like Barbie dolls and if you want them to wear something decent then tough luck.
    AHA! Now we have the core of the problem!

    If you had said this from the get-go there would have been a much shorter discussion. I don't play the game, so I am at a disadvantage. I will say that it's clearly a problem for designers when a game that's supposed to let you customize your appearance limits you.

    It would be annoying if you want your character to look like Joan of Arc and your only option is Barbarella.

    What I find disconcerting is that you seem needlessly antagonistic simply for the sake of it, you make up arguments and change the rules as you go to support your view, you seem to purposely misinterpret what I say and your chain of arguments has so many glaring and obvious holes that I can't even tell if you're being serious. Well maybe you're right, I'm taking this whole thing too seriouly.
    The problem was we were talking past one another. You seemed to be objecting to scantily clad females on principle, which I think is silly. I also (correctly) noted that a great many women like showing off their bodies (or those of their characters) - even those who play RPGs.

    If a guy can fantasize that he can carry 60 pounds of plate and be seven feet tall, why can't a woman imagine that she's a stunning amazon who fights in stiletto heels? They are both equally valid because our fantasies often rest on exaggerated versions of who we are in real life. I imagine there's a lot of flirting out there and women may enjoy having an avatar that gets extra male attention.

    Now what would be interesting is to see how popular the new avatars turn out to be. WoW has a pretty big membership. Would there be a flight to the "Joan" look, or would things stay as they are?
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  15. #15
    Chapter Master C-Coen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    1,324

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Can't say I feel too strongly about this issue in as far as it concerns the wargaming industry - if I like a miniature, I'll buy it, of not, then not. Whether the typical depictions are merely a result of, or also shape our societal norms would perhaps be an interesting conversation.

    However, I do feel the need to comment on some other points raised in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    You get that the sexes perceive sexuality in different ways, right?

    I'll give you a hint: women find well-dressed men more attractive than undressed ones. There's a reason why James Bond always, always wears a tux at some point.

    [...]

    That's far from unique because (to repeat) men and women see things differently. Male formal wear covers up while female reveals because that's what each wants to see from the other. It isn't sexist, it's biology.
    Firstly, naked men can be considered quite attractive by women. While I do not have the sales numbers for the two sexes, there are also ample calendars and posters available with oiled-up muscled men. Assuming these are not only for the consumption of homosexual men, I would have to conclude women can have some interest in naked or near-naked men (now that really could have something to do with biology). Besides, I do not think James Bond gives us much of a reasonable insight into the realistic preferences or actions of any people, be they men or women.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    It's hard-wired into us - an evolutionary adaptation. We can discuss that if you like, but it's been exhaustively documented.
    Please do share your exhaustive source material.

    How exactly do you reckon that the extent of clothing is evolutionarily adapted? Until very recently (the last decades, perhaps a few centuries in more fashionable higher society), clothing would be aimed at being functional (as would armour be, to keep somewhat on topic). If the aim is to keep warm, it covers up much of the body. If decency was the goal, it would cover up at least some of it - and such notions of more or less prudish behaviour are of course entirely cultural. In the present day, different societal norms will ask you to cover up your head, or your shoulders, or upper arms, or torso, or genitalia, or maybe nothing at all. The same norms would have been entirely different in the same area a few hundred years ago, and again a few thousand years ago. For the vast proporiton of human existence, dressing in a manner considered to be attractive by the opposite sex would either be subject to too much change to have any evolutionary basis, or simply be completely irrelevant in the first place. All of this is of course also related to the field of changing beauty norms. Overall, those are seemingly relatively consistent for males in terms of limited body fat and some degree of musculature; rather more diverse for women, being more functional in some cases, while related to a life of luxury in others. The latter part will have an influence on clothing too - for centuries, paleness was a norm in beauty (in higher society) as it showed one did not have to venture outside, while only recently did a tan become fashionable. Until then, covering up was of course the preferred option when outdoors. In that sense, the amount of skin on display in the discussed fantasy aesthetic is of course a very modern idea, although it also only works in a culture where e.g. breasts are strongly sexually associated (which is neither the case in all societies these days, let alone in history). All the above is written largely for a European context by the way.

    Long story short, this really has very little to do with evolution. Sexualisation of particular body parts is largely cultural, and not remotely constant throughout history, or geography for that matter. And by the very notions of what armour is supposed to accomplish, chainmail bikinis are stupid. Whether objectifying both or neither gender is the solution depends entirely on both your personal preferences and the setting. But chainmail bikinis really are stupid. (As is wearing very pointy armour "because you're evil", or not wearing a helmet because "you have to be a recognizable 'hero' character". Or being dressed in thick layers of furs even in summer in temperate climates "because you're some sort of barbarian". And don't even get me started on back-scabbards...)
    Last edited by C-Coen; 08-04-2018 at 15:37.

    \m/ Metalhead of Warseer \m/

    "War is not about who is right, but who is left"
    - Ad finem temporum -

  16. #16

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by C-Coen View Post
    Firstly, naked men can be considered quite attractive by women. While I do not have the sales numbers for the two sexes, there are also ample calendars and posters available with oiled-up muscled men.
    Of course there are, but what sells more?

    Assuming these are not only for the consumption of homosexual men, I would have to conclude women can have some interest in naked or near-naked men (now that really could have something to do with biology). Besides, I do not think James Bond gives us much of a reasonable insight into the realistic preferences or actions of any people, be they men or women.
    Folks of a certain age will remember "Playgirl" magazine, the distaff version of "Playboy." It did not perform particularly well.

    I was going to get into a deeper discussion of evolution, but it's really beside the point. The center of the complaint lies here:

    And by the very notions of what armour is supposed to accomplish, chainmail bikinis are stupid. Whether objectifying both or neither gender is the solution depends entirely on both your personal preferences and the setting. But chainmail bikinis really are stupid. (As is wearing very pointy armour "because you're evil", or not wearing a helmet because "you have to be a recognizable 'hero' character". Or being dressed in thick layers of furs even in summer in temperate climates "because you're some sort of barbarian". And don't even get me started on back-scabbards...)
    Look, you can't argue taste.

    Guess what, I don't care for chain mail bikinis, but I also don't have a problem with other people buying and wearing them.

    What I do object to is your attempt to make your preference morally superior to someone else's. That's a total crock. You don't like the aesthetic. We get it.

    I don't like it, either, but that doesn't make it evil.
    Want a better way to fight fantasy battles? Try the revised and expanded Conqueror: Fields of Victory!

    Do you like Star Wars but hate the prequels? Ever wish someone came up with a decent story about how a decadent galactic commonwealth descended into chaos and civil war? Look no further.
    A proud player of 2nd edition 40k.

  17. #17
    Chapter Master C-Coen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    1,324

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar von Toussaint View Post
    I was going to get into a deeper discussion of evolution, but it's really beside the point.
    You brought it up, I questioned it. If you have arguments to give, feel free to do so.

    Look, you can't argue taste.
    Of course you can. Has kept people occupied for centuries. Nothing wrong with discussing personal preferences. But if you bring objective points like evolution into it, built an actual case that stands up to scrutiny.

    Guess what, I don't care for chain mail bikinis, but I also don't have a problem with other people buying and wearing them.

    What I do object to is your attempt to make your preference morally superior to someone else's. That's a total crock. You don't like the aesthetic. We get it.

    I don't like it, either, but that doesn't make it evil.
    I have only stated that, given the very definitions of what armour is supposed to accomplish, chainmail bikinis are stupid. I don't have a problem with people sculpting or buying sculpts depdicting anything of the sort. (It's a pity when it's the only option available, but I never said there's something wrong with it in general.) Arguments regarding moral superiority are indeed total crock, as is your statement that I somehow posted those arguments. Nobody said the very existence of such little figures is somehow evil. And if they did, once more, do provide some evidence. This is a complete straw man.

    \m/ Metalhead of Warseer \m/

    "War is not about who is right, but who is left"
    - Ad finem temporum -

  18. #18
    Chapter Master Little Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,258

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Haha, what a discussion. Not the first time it has come up and it won't be the last.

    I could not care less if many players want to paint up pin up girls for combat. Personally it is a no go for me, function over form in combat gear.

    Just an example of late: Khalida for the tomb kings, basically a very nice miniature. Then someone had to add combat heels and a boob plate. Chances are high that I will remove/fix the boob plate. I can't remove the heels without changing the posture of the whole mini and it does not matter the way I want to use her (she does not need to walk). The boob plate I have painting issues with, the mask should be the focus, but on a body of wrapped cloth and a subdued mask, the boob plate will stand out too much as shiny metal. So it has to go.
    my general project thread

    [2018] painted: 121, added to my collection: -89

  19. #19
    Chapter Master theunwantedbeing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Preston,in my house.
    Posts
    13,199

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Joe View Post
    Just an example of late: Khalida for the tomb kings, basically a very nice miniature. Then someone had to add combat heels and a boob plate. Chances are high that I will remove/fix the boob plate. I can't remove the heels without changing the posture of the whole mini and it does not matter the way I want to use her (she does not need to walk). The boob plate I have painting issues with, the mask should be the focus, but on a body of wrapped cloth and a subdued mask, the boob plate will stand out too much as shiny metal. So it has to go.
    Didn't the original one have a boob-plate?
    Painted rather nicely as well
    Looks fine in my opinion, but then she is a Pharoah and they're known for ceremonial looking stuff like that

    I think it was just the one bit of artwork where she didn't have the boob-plate
    just an extra big headdress-shoulder-thingy, ignore the crotch skull
    Plan B kill it with fire
    Meat is Murder tasty, tasty murder
    Quote Originally Posted by RanaldLoec View Post
    I would have to agree with The Unwantedbeing as he is a paragon of sense and reason in an unreasonable environment.

  20. #20
    Chapter Master Little Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,258

    Re: On female fantasy armour

    Quote Originally Posted by theunwantedbeing View Post
    Didn't the original one have a boob-plate?
    Painted rather nicely as well
    Looks fine in my opinion, but then she is a Pharoah and they're known for ceremonial looking stuff like that

    I think it was just the one bit of artwork where she didn't have the boob-plate
    just an extra big headdress-shoulder-thingy, ignore the crotch skull
    From the image you linked you can already see my problem, the boob plate creates the wrong optics. Use a finger to blend it out. Now the head dress and collar frame the head. The head is the focus.
    then put a finger just under the boob plate, focus is lost and the scarab on her chest is more prominent. In my paint scheme it would be even worse.

    On the sculpt it rather stands out as well, it does not blend in. So this must be by design.

    Of course all of this is personal opinion, but I think the sculptor made some bad choices. He added "safe" elements and ruined the composition of elements.
    my general project thread

    [2018] painted: 121, added to my collection: -89

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •