Female armour in fantasy books/games

[Ankari]

@FatCat: I don't think the real issue with mailkinis is that they offend women, even though the thread has deviated to that point, the real issue is that "impractical" doesn't begin to cover it, why call it armor if it really doesn't protect you, like someone said, mailkini puts the "cleave" in "cleavage". However, if you take the time to explain that the protection doesn't depends on the actual armor but on some kind of spell it has or an amulet, well, then it isn't much of an issue.

I have to disagree on this point. If a woman is dressed in a mailkini but the protection comes from some magical ring, why is she wearing a mailkini? Why not something lighter and more practical like a linen shirt and pants? The mailkini, even though it isn't a complete armor set, weighs a lot more than a shirt and pants. For ease of movement, a warrior would go for the lighter option (with protection being equal as provided by the ring).

In my novel, I apply practical armor to all genders. This is not to say that some of my characters won't use their sexuality as a weapon itself, but not every woman is there for eye candy.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think there is any way to argue that men get the same treatment on the same level. The truth is, media is grossly skewed in favor of sexualized depictions of women. I don't think the point is arguable, personally.

There may be reasons for this, in the minds of the creators of media, in terms of what is effective. I remember learning in a college class on sexuality that men are much more visually stimulated than women. While I can't say whether it is true, scientifically, it certainly seems to be true and it isn't the only time I've heard or read it. That doesn't mean some women aren't also highly visually stimulated, it just speaks to a general situation. If that's the case, then the easiest explanation for sexualization of women is that it works, whereas if you expend the same time and resources sexualizing men, then return is much smaller.

How many guys did I know in college who sat through Species a few times just to see Natasha Henstridge walking around stark naked? (This was before the internet, where it is all just a click away). If Species had been about a male alien regularly naked on-camera, would you have had as many women sitting through the film to see it? I doubt it.

 

[Steerpike]

I have to disagree on this point. If a woman is dressed in a mailkini but the protection comes from some magical ring, why is she wearing a mailkini? Why not something lighter and more practical like a linen shirt and pants? The mailkini, even though it isn't a complete armor set, weighs a lot more than a shirt and pants. For ease of movement, a warrior would go for the lighter option (with protection being equal as provided by the ring).

Just place the magical protection within the mailkini itself. Then she HAS to wear it. Self-serving, sure...

 

[saellys]

I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it myself, though this is probably more prominent in latin america or other third world countries

I'm still curious about the specifics.

Just place the magical protection within the mailkini itself. Then she HAS to wear it. Self-serving, sure...

Then she can put something on over it. Call it a mithrilkini. Actually, on a serious note, the blog post linked at the very beginning of this thread pointed out that concealment can be way sexier than just putting it all out there. I have read and seen on television on numerous occasions that men, er, "perk up" just from knowing that a woman has a garter belt beneath her clothing. How much more potentially arousing would it be to think that under some leathers and linens, a woman has a magical mailkini on? (Which, by the way, is probably pinching her in some really awkward places, but that's a whole different discussion of practicality and comfort.)

 

[Jabrosky]

Fantasy as a genre is, like all other forms of media we consume, a reflection of attitudes real people have in the real world. Oversexualizing the female body in any context is a symptom of problematic attitudes toward women in general. When it happens in the fantasy genre, it's usually at the expense of character development, and poor character developments makes for a poor reader experience that isn't balanced out by a nice pair of boobies in a mailkini.

I am curious, are you opposed to heterosexual men drawing sexy images of women per se? I've received a good deal of flak from some other "feminist" types for my drawings of beautiful female subjects (often coupling the charges of sexism and racism). It's one thing to argue against a common double standard in the sexualization of men and women, but I have received this perception that certain "feminists" (note my quote marks) oppose any man drawing what he finds sexually attractive on principle.

I don't agree that sexy, scantily clad female characters necessarily come with bad characterization. Sure, a lot of male writers may not write their female characters competently, but in the end the bikinis are a cosmetic choice that don't always bear on a character's behavior or personality.

 

[Reaver]

This thread has gotten way off topic and become a sociology debate. I'm locking the thread.