Ever since I saw an illustration of a chainmail bikini for the very first time, I knew something was amiss. Later in life, when I picked up a pencil with a conscious decision I would become an illustrator, I knew that one day I might be called upon to paint a breastplate with a cleavage cut out. So far I was able to avoid painting any of that “sexy female armour” crap. Today I am conscious of the fact, that if a decent paying client comes along and my schedule happens to be clear, I will probably not be able to say no. But as any self respecting little whore, I do have one very important rule…
The first time will be on my terms.
Here's a little quiz for your consideration:
1. A female warrior's main concern is to stay:
2. The main purpose of a man's armour is to:
a) look fierce
b) protect vital organs
3. The main purpose of a woman's armour is to:
a) protect vital organs
b) accentuate cleavage, waistline, hips and legs
4. To blow a runny nose, a man uses:
a) a MAN-SIZED tissue
b) a tissue
5. To carry personal items, a man can use:
a) a man-bag
b) a bag
6. To protect her vital organs, a female warrior uses
b) female armour
7. Form follows:
b) the 90-60-90 ratio
Thank you kindly for your participation. Please send your answers to email@example.com
The warrior in full armor is also a woman, it seems? Great job with the details, as always!
2. B, but if I can look fierce while doing it, even better. Demoralizing your opponent can go a long way.
3. A, though to be fair, Batman's, Robin's, and Batgirl's armor in batman forever did both. BATNIPS!!!
4. A. If anything is mansized, you use it instead, even if you're a woman. (Who turns own more for free?)
5. A. Only because a man bag comes equipped with 3 extra pouches and a 3 year warranty.
6. B. But only if the armor is made for that female or if it is close to her body type. She doesn't need to be just putting on an old (A.) armor.
7. A. unless it is fitted perfectly to your tits, hips, and ass, then use the fitted armor and be happy that you're not rolling for penalties.
You would be welcome, buy the E-mail you provide doesn't work. The only reply I get is from an African Prince who need my bank account info to store money he got from his father.
But if she was a trained/skilled fighter and they were just "Women in sexy pointless armor holding swords"...but then they'd run like bunnies.
Of course, if we are trying to add "Realism" here, how in the world is the setup to this scene possible?
I mean, are these "Harem Guards" who function to 1. look pretty 2. keep in the harem, perhaps tie up and punish, cute younger girls 3. overwhelm and castrate naked men who aren't the king/king's friends who sneak in...?
They'd be desperate enough to fight then - "King Caligula is paying us 10x a month earning what we would in a year at a tavern, even way more than a brothel would earn... If he falls our families are destitute!" But again they'd all rush her and go for the eyes.
Also, how can a woman who isn't a cliche "Soviet Wife" move in such armor for a while, much less fight even that one sided battle?
Just my thoughts. Awesome drawing, and is that armor a tribute to "The Mercenary"?
IMO the "Chainmail Bikini" was put in by the industry to try to discredit/destroy scifi/fantasy as they butchered it by turning the "New Wave" into P.C. chowder. More or less it came with Marvel's "Red Sonja" more or less "Put a woman in coz...Women's Lib/Equality laws..." Really, she was magically as strong as Conan -but- her magic was a "Chastity Belt" to keep her from just turning the comic into an XXXtravaganza that would make Dr. Wertham rise from his grave. If she let a man bed her without defeating her in combat first she'd become "Just another woman" and the ONLY man who could maybe beat her was Conan who then was too distracted by her to do it - seriously, they made a special ep about that... So it was the 70s with a woman being forced by law/tax break loss threat in the workforce but then quick rules to prevent 'fraternization'...
Myself I'm for "Old school" but the women are buxom barmaids, princesses, harem girls, sexy sorceresses, etc. Sorry but the MEN are the ones wearing armor and fighting.
Well, for starters, real plate armor is nowhere near as heavy as it is often portrayed in schlocky fantasy art. A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds), which isn't very much! It's actually significantly less weight than the full equipment a modern soldier is expected to carry into battle. Plus, it is spread evenly across the body, instead of awkwardly focused on certain parts of the body(like, for example, a backpack full of gear), which makes movement more easy. Remember, the people who actually historically fought in plate armor would require a great deal of mobility compared to the modern day wherein virtually all combat is done at range-it doesn't make sense to assume that armor would heavily restrict movement.
So the answer is 'by being a fighter, male or female, who has any level of training/competency upon the battlefield at all, because moving in plate armor is actually not very physically strenuous in the first place, and a normal person can do it fairly well'.
Your other nitpicks are missing the main point of this piece in a bunch of minutia about a hypothetical that no one but you raised-that main point being, of course, that someone wearing armor is going to be far more effective in combat than someone without. Also, if you had done any research you would know that history is full of women who rode into combat in armor, so your last comment is as inaccurate as it is sexist.
Unless its a magic armor that protects with magic then who knows how it will look.
If you were asked to draw furry porn I could understand your reservations, but c'mon, lad.
Kawał dobrej roboty.
A lot of "female armour" looks pretty dangerous, too - not just because of the lack of protection, or even the lack of padding, but also because the braplate looks like it's going to dig in the chest quite painfully, or even crack the breastbone if one falls forward wearing it.
For me, the problem is that drawing women fighters in sexy costumes (because, let's face it, just because it's made of metal doesn't make it "armor") is not that it privileges sex appeal over protection. There are reasons for not wanting to wear the heaviest armor one can find. Some are good (like climate), and some are head-scratchers (like the idea that the gods protect the naked), but there are reasons. Instead, sexy costuming tends to privilege sex appeal over the appearance of competence. With six-to-one odds, the Red Sonja Fan Club here should have been able to wrestle the armored swordswoman to the floor and stab her in her smirking face - which is what we would expect them to try if they were all dressed in the simple gambesons that common (wo)men-at-arms would have worn - because effective armor is expensive. They're being carved into cold cuts not because they lacked the ability to use their armor to absorb solid hits - but because they lacked the basic competence to avoid being hit in the first place (because armor or not, you want to be where the sword isn't) and use their greater numbers to their advantage. (The high heels aren't helping, but that's it's own issue.)
And so that, for me, is the takeaway - that the "sexy swordswoman" look telegraphs a lack of fighting ability - instead of looking at someone and seeing a skilled combatant, the audience is intended to look at them and see someone sexual. (The fact that most sexyswordswomen have supermodel, rather than athletic, physiques also plays into this.) And a large part of stereotypically feminine sexuality is an appearance of vulnerability. And so, yeah. No one expects a half-dozen harem girls to stand up to an armed opponent - the armored swordswoman in this picture doesn't need to be remotely skilled to manage this result, and if she has real fighting skills, she doesn't need the armor, since it's highly unlikely that any of the dead women could have managed to land a hit on her. And Blondie's biggest problems are 1) the fact that the armored woman's arming sword gives her significant reach, and 2) she can't make a break for it while in those stripperiffic heels without risking a sprained ankle.
To all questions I'd give the more reasonable answer, but 7... 90-60-90 hands down!
Great fan of your work!
* In RPGs a spell-caster's outfit might appropriately be more of a statement than a practical item. So I tend to re-cast all the skimpy females as sorcerers.
* In modern fantasy art, the weapons are worse than the armor, over-sized and more a hazard to the wielder and companions than to the enemy. Even with simple knives people injure themselves doing mundane tasks, so imagine what would really happen with these double swords and such.
* In counterpoint, mobility and speed are more important in general. Ye olde Force = Mass x Speed Squared, meaning speed has vastly more impact on damage than mass, meaning small and fast can beat slow and heavy. Teenage slingers with stones have trumped (annihilated) myrmidons in heavy armor. Archers can destroy knights on horseback.
* In further counterpoint, consider the RPG art as an in-scenario artist's portrayal of a real character. "Hey, I like that!" In other words, the artist is drawing to please a real person who presumably pays for the portrayal, which will then play to the male/female sensibilities of people who might otherwise be identical in the armor they are wearing.
* The skimpies could have just run away.
Unrelated Confession: I thought this fit, but now I can't remember how.
* I never finished the second Lara Croft adventure because I got tired of listening to her screams when she fell into a pit of spikes.