Discussion Main / ChainmailBikini

I figure that people like to watch cool fights, and they also like to look at sexy people. You could have both of those in a work of fiction by keeping the nudity or revealing outfits confined to the non-combat scenes, but who knows? Maybe the creators find it more efficient to just combine those aspects of entertainment regardless of whether it makes practical sense.

The funny thing is that I have never seen comments from the public about how they like the revealing armors, but I've seen plenty of videos or comments from people who are annoyed at it being sexist/distracting/impractical. Is it just that the creators think Viewers Are Morons, or is there actually a silent majority who likes the sexy armors yet keeps their thoughts to themselves, while the complainers like you and me only hear each other's shared opinion in our internet echo chamber?

On the other hand I cannot rule out the possibility that some people have a specific fetish for sexualized armor, just like there are people who have fetishes towards certain kinds of underwear or swimsuits. Maybe it's something about the contrast between cold steel and warm flesh? The fact that hentai websites sometimes have a "metal armor" tag could be evidence for that hypothesis. I don't know if this fetish is common enough to affect the marketing of more mainstream productions, but what if it's more common than I thought?

I think the idea is that it would cave in the sternum if the thrust of blow went right between the breasts and into the cleavage (as opposed to hitting either one of the protuberances), but I too watched the Shadiversity video where he pointed out that the wasp waist of a medieval cuirass is similarly shaped without having been considered a weak spot, and I agree that the danger of boob plate armor has gotten overblown into a meme. A devil's advocate might say that's not a fair comparison because the wasp waist of a cuirass goes into the natural waist between the rib cage and pelvis where there’s only muscle and soft tissue—unlike an exaggerated boob plate where the concave shape might sit directly on the sternum—and that even if the wasp waist is concave in the vertical plane there is still a convex shape in the horizontal plane as it wraps around the waist, which would distribute the force of a blow to the whole waist instead of just concentrating it on one point. In addition to looks, the wasp waist also has the functional purpose of transferring the weight of the cuirass onto the hips instead of the shoulders, while boob cleavage is a purely cosmetic feature. Even having said that, it’s quite a stretch. I find it hard to imagine anything short of a couched lance with a lance arrest delivering enough force to drive a cleavage point into the sternum, and the breastplate would have to be more poorly designed than most fictional examples in order for that to happen. I think that what happened is I I tried to remove or downplay the dangers of boob plate statement, and someone else put it back. In order to avoid an edit war, I settled for just putting in more caveats.

Its the first time I hear about this shadiversity channel,my knowledge came more from spanish and roman history that I studied on college and some mythbusters episodes

It's a fun Youtube channel - guy likes to talk about Medieval stuff, and tries to realistically apply this information to the Fantasy genre - for instance, "What weapons would a Centaur really use?" Then there's the discussions he has on weapons that are under-represented in Fiction, like the Mancatcher - which was an effective way to take armored opponents prisoner, so that they could be held for ransom, and how they could be utilized by a slaver-type character.... lots of fun.

"It could be argued that flat armor woould be actually more dangerous and unrealistic than the so called "boobplate".

For me to buy this argument, you'd have to show that most male knights/warriors used boobs (no, not sculpted pecs or abs—actual round boobs) on their armor for the better protection. Otherwise, the argument holds no weight. If flat armor was worse, then male soldiers would have added boobs on their armor to have an advantage.

Beyond that, I'd need to see a source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidencem, after all.

Its the same principle as the waist of this armor ,also search for "maximilian cuirass", about the flat armor see the myth busters episodes about ballistic survival. It also is aplied for shoulder pauldrons that protect the neck, under the premise of the article it would postulate that all shoulder armor like this one https://www.sword-wholesale.com/v/vspfiles/photos/MI51-1-2.jpg?v-cache=1441960516 would had resulted on diagonal cuts from the clavicle.

The real-life physics behind this is well-known since the Middle Ages. Any strong hit on a convex surface of rigid armour, say the outside of a big bowl of tempered steel (abstracting a regular breastplate), absorbs the force of the hit by compressing the bowl in concentric rings, distributing the force to every part of the bowl and prevents deformation of the bowl. Any hit nearer the rim is deflected and reduces the force the bowl has to handle. A small remainder of the force goes to press the armour piece against the user's upper body, usually not a problem if the user has padding beneath.

If you hit the inside of the bowl (abstracting a boobplate), all hits will be deflected towards the middle, with the deflection removing some force, but as the hit comes to rest near the bottom, a lot more force remains than with deflection on the outside of the bowl. The remaining energy will partly go to stretch the armour, and mostly to deforming the middle. If the energy is sufficiently high, it will make a dent or a tear in the armour. Even with padding, this will be painful. If the weapon is a combat lance, the armour user will be skewered.

And this isn't even the main reason why boobplate is dangerous.

"The real-life physics behind this is well-known since the Middle Ages" try learn actual physics and history man, for starters armors are designed with cavities between the plate and the body to give movility to the person using it, and many of the plates of armor are diferent pieces of a full set to better absorb the force of impact, there is a huge difference on the mechanics of a round depresion like a bowl and a cavity between two protuberances especially taking in account variables like position, weight and gravity, also in the case of your armor deformation by force argument you seem to think that all force against an armor always concentrates on a single place instead of many diferent places to diminish impact, and most of all you seem to think that armors are always impervious to damage instead of needing constant repair and maintenance like it does on reality so that argument about damage overtime is more a problem of irresponsibility of the user than a practical problem of an armor itself, lastly it seems that my argument argument has been misunderstood the problem with the paragraph isnt "the attack against boobplat huar huar" its the misinformation that is the "obvious common knowledge" that assumes stuff factually wrong about how armour mechanics in general actually work.

Basically, whomever it was that removed it decided to place it under No Real Life Examples.

Funny enough, this actually did exist, only with an obvious gender-flip, for the most part, as it were. Some groups, like the Celts of the Roman Empire-era, and the Zulus of Africa, went into battle wearing little armor, beyond a big shield. Likewise, during the age of plate armor, that are surviving examples that have incorporated armored codpieces into the design.

So can I put it back?

I'd advise against it. I'm just a regular user, so I would't know all the rules about that situation anyways.

On plus side, it's already covered in the information section of the page anyways.

I volunteer to change it this afternoon.

To my knowledge, we don't hold other wikis as a source of information, so you can't demand examples or evidence from there. We can sometimes use information provided there, but we don't hold it as absolute proof.

In any case, the trope is about armor. Not chain armor or plate armor in particular. With that in mind, we have:

• MKX Kitana wears shoulder pauldrons, but no other thick armor anywhere else on her body.
• Nitara has a studded bra or something. I suppose it's debatable if the studs are supposed to be armor or not.
• D'Vorah wears spiked shoulder pads and plated shinguards, but no armor anywhere else.
• Li Mei wears plated armor as an Alternate costume in MK: Deception, but it doesn't cover her cleavage.
• Cassie Cage wears armored shoulder pads and knee pads, but the rest of her costume is just a skintight catsuit.
• Ferra's outfit has heavy arm and leg armor, but is basically leather straps otherwise.
• Kira wears a leather corset which may or may not be armor, except that it leaves her cleavage exposed. She also wears leather bracers on her arms.
• Mileena's alternate costume for MKX has her wearing some type of armor under her clothes, but it doesn't cover her midriff.

I'd argue that the trope is at least used frequently in the game, although it doesn't apply to every female character or every costume they wear.

That makes sense. I never noticed the bits of armor not on their breasts or crotch areas. I did not mean to come off as demanding, just curious about the specifics.

Yes, unless in real life female soldiors have gone into battle wearing more revealing outfits than men (Got any examples, maybe it does apply to real life). I believe the "no real life examples" it is to stop descriptions of outfits that can be bought or whatever, because they're not designed for actual combat and so this trope doesn't apply, and do we really want people to go there?

Gladiators would be a real life example. The armor wasn't practical. It was designed to look cool and leave a lot of flesh exposed for crowd-pleasing bloodletting.

Can we get that restriction changed now?

You have to ask here

Y Ou know you can edit the page, right?