Female armor

12 Jun

Sexy female armor is ridiculous. Plain and simple. To quote Savage Garden, it’s like swimming in a raincoat.

armorThe whole point of wearing armor is to protect your body, especially vital organs. As you can see, all three women have their sexy stomachs exposed. Often sexy armor covers even less.

can pwnsAs sexy as this armor is, It offers you almost no protection from weapons. It’s like the idea is that a force field of sexyness is supposed to protect the wearer from harm.

sexy sheildBut on second thought, maybe the strength in sexy armor is not physical, perhaps it’s mental. Maybe the idea behind it is to make a male opponent falter, if only for a split second. If I turned around in a fight and was confronted by a woman wearing this, I would surely stop to admire. Every guy would, it’s automatic and we can’t help it. It would only take a second, but anyone who spars knows that a second is all that’s needed. On the bright side, I’m sure plenty of guys would love to die at the hands of such a beautiful enemy… ^_^

19 Responses to “Female armor”

  1. Brian June 12, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    Besides, people’s TVs would start to melt down if they showed ladies in the traditional combat gear of the ancient hoplites and Gauls. 😉

  2. Oddysey June 12, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    I like to think that guys aren’t quite that stupid. Maybe I’m wrong, but clinging to illusions like that is the only way I can keep dating them. 😉

  3. Rae7910819 June 12, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    When I was growing up, I realized that female armor does suck at physical protection. But you bring up a good point, a male combatant would hesitate looking at that.

    Not a female one though. And they would both have to be rather quick.. oO

  4. gareth June 28, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    I see your point about these costumes being for the male gaze. However, consider this. The Celts went into battle naked. Films like 300 and Jason and the Argenauts are inaccurate as ancient greeks fought naked apart from helmet and metal chin pads. The Romans wore mini skirts alot shorter than those depicted in films. Taking this into account, these costumes are not beyond the realm of reason.

  5. Thierry Fournier October 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    I believe the reason women’s armor are so less protective is to keep there flexibility to their maximum. Women are more flexible, so they can dodge attack more easily then men and, on top of that, bend there body so they can reach a weak spot in the armor of their opponant that would be, otherwise, well protected.

    The other reason is that, have you ever put on a full armor set, I have. They’re freakingly heavy. Just my chain mail is 20 pounds (it’s made of stainless still wire, not alluminium). A normal armor set could reache the near 100 pounds minimum, easy. Add 20 pounds and you have the weight of a 5′ 8” athletic women. She would fall on her back with a flick of a finger.

  6. godlesspaladin October 22, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    Actually Thierry Fournier, I have put on an entire suit of plate armor, many times. The full suit of plate armor that I own is all 16 and 14 gauge steel, same with my other medieval living history friends. My suit weighs about 80 lbs which is a little on the heavy side, my friend’s weighs 70, but his is of a slightly later period. (His is still all heavy duty steel mind you)

    With this experience I can say that you are very flexible in full plate, and there is no need to leave your midriff exposed. A woman would be able to move just as fast as a man in the suit. Accentuating your breasts also have no bearing on flexibility.

    If you actually study martial arts, and not just get all your information from video games, you’ll realize that “dodging” is very hard to do, and that fights are not about just “weak spots” you can wail on until your opponent falls.

    Leaving giant holes in female armor has nothing to do with actual fighting, it’s all about showing off the woman’s body, regardless of how ineffective the “armor” becomes.

  7. That Guy September 12, 2010 at 5:55 am #


    While you’re correct in regards to Gallic warriors, Greek hoplites actually did NOT fight naked and the belief that they did is a myth.

  8. Sara September 23, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    One of the most morale damning sights for the Roman legions to witness was the bare-breasted Gauls who fought amongst their husbands and clansmen. Even if the Romans won, the sight of broken female bodies on the battlefield crippled their morale.

    So I’d say… yes, yes, the sexiness does work.

  9. Puddingpie November 20, 2010 at 3:56 am #

    Good post. I too hate the “women aren’t strong enough to wear armor” or “women are agile, not strong” argument. Besides all your excellent rebuttals on armor’s weight and maneuverability, female armor usually only shows up in fantasy anyway. A man can cleave his foe in twain in slow-mo, but a woman with good upper body strength breaks suspension of disbelief? Wut? Besides, fantasy isn’t about what people “should” do. If you think about it, an illiterate, but pure-hearted peasant really *shouldn’t* become the king. Maybe the heroine *should* have learned a more agility-based fighting art. But she didn’t, because she must be a knight, like her father before her!!!111 Well, why not? If you can use “it’s not real life” to justify skimpy armor, you can use “it’s not real life” to justify a 16 year-old anorexic elf girl in full plate one-handing a zweihander.

    On the “dodge” note, real life sometimes imitates art. There’s an Indian martial art called Kalaripayattu that emphasizes flexibility and flying leaps. It’s amazing to watch. Weapons include swords with shields, daggers, and a whirling, whip-like sword. The male practitioners fight in thongs or loincloths, and give each other therapeutic oil massages! If these were ladies in D&D, people would be screaming “sexist”. Ironically, the women practitioners IRL are more modestly dressed. Teehee. Fighting naked or in little clothing is perfectly feasible. But I’d rather a woman be unarmored than stupidly armored.

    I personally dislike the idea that skimpy female armor is to distract men. Not from a realism perspective but from an artistic one. A good action hero has agency. His badassery stems from doing things, not in the influencing of other people to do things. If a lady warrior wears impractical armor to mess with men, it’s like that anti-feminist bingo you once posted: “Women have all the power over men- you can reduce us to an uncontrollable jelly of lust!” I’m not like, outraged that a woman warrior is sexy- that’s appealing also- but I like to see a female warrior, when she’s on the field, rely more on her skills than on head-gaming men.

    In a non-sex-related example, sensitivity is important in a female surgeon, both as a doctor and as a woman. But in her professional life, more emphasis should be placed on the job’s primary medical skills, not secondary social skills. If some medical drama about her only showed how damn NICE she was and didn’t show much actual surgery, I’d be pissed.

    An anthropologist once noted that in all societies she’s observed, little girls aimed to please. Little boys aimed to excel. I want my women heroes to excel.

    • godlesspaladin November 20, 2010 at 5:37 am #

      Hey Pudding, great points as always. Please don’t think I take seriously the notion that female armor is meant to mess with men’s heads, that was a stupid after-thought I had when ranting about it’s impracticality.

      I also agree with you that I prefer my heroines to have agency. I wrote a post about it a while ago that has garnered a lot of comments. A bunch of them have been from irate misogynists so I’ve stopped paying attention to it.

  10. Puddingpie November 22, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    I liked that post a lot, actually! I didn’t comment though, because I figured with like, 50 comments, most of them asinine, you didn’t really need another one.

    People seem to think that feminists are OFFENDED by attractive women. Yeah, there are plenty of attractive men in games too. That’s not the point. The point is that men are usually the subjects of games, while women are the objects. Simple test: “Do I see myself as this character, or do I see myself fucking this character?” (Roughly. Wish-fulfillment author avatars are stupid in themselves for non-sexism related reasons.) It cuts both ways: Bishonen guys in anime or Japanese RPGs are just as bad.

    Rule 1 of gendered gaming: Men are powerful, women are attractive. Powerful men can also be attractive, and beautiful women can also be powerful, but no one breaks the core rule. (Think, if a woman as friggin’ ugly as Tychus, but equally badass, showed up chewin’ a cigar and cussin’ in the Starcraft 2 trailer, no one would’ve bought that game.) To be frank, it may be based in gendered stereotypes, but I like it. Unless they’re extraordinary compelling, in fiction I’m put off by weak men and ugly women. I want to push the envelope, not break the mold altogether. In that regard, I’m old-fashioned and sexist. Ah well. That won’t change, but realistic, complex, and nuanced people of both genders I’d pay to see.

  11. Phyxelle November 24, 2010 at 2:03 am #

    I am a Kali (arnis, eskrima) student – search if you don’t know it – that happens to bump into this thread. I can’t help to notice how people commented here, one-sidedly.

    The real deal about wearing an armor is for protection.. True. But because you wear a very sexy, revealing armor doesn’t mean you are totally unprotected. In our discipline, you don’t need to have an armor to have a protection. Blocking and dodging is the real protection you can have.

    In history, the native fore fathers of Kali happen to defeat the invasion of the Spanish Conquistadors with nothing but their rattan (type of bamboo) sticks. Of course, those conquistadors wear the most advanced armor of the time but that didn’t gave them the advantage. The natives manage to exploit the weaknesses of the conquistadors’ armor and slip their victory.

    Further study revealed that the Cali style is so deadly with its speed and accuracy that the slow-moving, armor-wearing conquistadors, doesn’t stand a chance. Imagine the natives wear armors too. Do they still have the speed to do their biddings? I don’t think so.

    If that was not convincing enough, then how about the ninjas (yes they exist until our present time and practices the forbidden art of Ninjutsu). They don’t wear armor but how come they are the deadliest in combat? Damn, they wear practically the skimpiest outfit of all.

    Point is, wearing armor is practically depends to the practice or discipline a person have. Armor does give you extra protection but it lessens your movement, speed, stamina, sight and reflexes. Wow, that’s a lot of trade for an extra protection!

    So next time you see a female wearing a sexy, revealing armor, think of what does she do before judging her outfit, unpractical. Maybe she is a Kali, a Wushu, a Kalari Payattu or even a Ninjutsu practitioner. Sure, she doesn’t want to wear bulky armor for protection when she is quietly crawling to the roof, does she?

  12. godlesspaladin November 24, 2010 at 2:24 am #

    Hey Phyxelle, thank you for the comment! It’s great to get other perspectives. I had not heard that story before, sounds impressive. (Are you talking about Lapu-Lapu and Ferdinand Magellan?)

  13. Phyxelle November 24, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    I know Ferdinand Magellan but I never heard of Lapu-Lapu (perhaps you know more than I do). But to what they thought us, that is the birth – or should I say, the founding of Kali. Since the natives are practicing Kali long before the conquistadors came, it is only on that time it was introduce to the world.

    Back to the topic…
    Let the woman wears what they want to. If they feel wearing skimpy, revealing armor, then let them be. Maybe, that’s the only protection they needed to what they do best. Not only it’s sexy, hot and stylish, but it’s a feast for the eyes – OUR EYES!

  14. Andre April 27, 2011 at 7:12 am #

    I know this is old but the point of that armor is not protection, the point of the armor is that it looks cool.
    It is easy to forget or not even consider that many women would rather look at sexy but impractical women in armor then boring but more realistic.
    Don’t forget that sexy = power in the eyes of many many people.

  15. TheSecretAtheist September 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    *Gravedigging* Actually, someone clicked through to my site from this page, I’m guessing from the blogroll. Anyway, I saw a Youtube video the other day and it goes so well with this post I thought I’d leave it here for whomever happens to wander through this post again. 🙂 http://youtu.be/OTGh0EMmMC8

  16. https://medium.com September 20, 2014 at 10:43 am #

    I just started reading and I’m glad I did.
    You’re an incredible blogger, among the very best
    that I’ve seen. This weblog unquestionably has some facts on topic that I just wasn’t mindful of.
    Thank you for bringing this stuff to light.

  17. Christy November 2, 2014 at 11:25 pm #

    Your style is really unique in comparison to other folks I have
    read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just
    bookmark this site.


  1. Medieval armor: A few different perspectives | modernmedievalist.com - December 13, 2010

    […]                 Anyway, point is that this armor isn’t anything close to that word actually means. When you mix this style with say, points or spikes,  and she’s supposed to be the evil dominatrix of the planet of intoxicated medieval nurses, then you have just pure silliness (and maybe some good fetish gear). Another good bit on this phenomena is here. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: