On the real-life practicality of boobplate-type Chainmail Bikini

I've just watched this Youtube video, and... well, it seems to preventing a convincing argument that "boobplate"-style armor is far less impractical than most people think, even citing the argument that Chainmail Bikini's section on boobplates uses to cast doubt on their practicality. What do you guys think?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I've never been convinced by the complaints about boobplate chest armor. I'm just saying, female fencers wear "boobplate"-type chest protectors.

Edited by Larkmarn on Jan 15th 2019 at 4:56:08 AM

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

It depends. If the cleavage is a sharp edge, it might be dangerous. If it isn't (like the most common used pic in that video), then there's very little problem.

But the thing about a lot of armour in games is that it's not practical for male characters either. It's usually too bulky and with two many and impractical ornamental details or simply doesn't protect what it needs to protect (for the armour's supposed purpose, as not all armour is supposed to be all-covering, something a lot of people forget).

That kind of impracticality isn't intrinsic to the Chainmail Bikini trope, so whether a boob plate is practical or not has more to do with the overall design than with the sexualisation aspect of it (which is what the trope is about). Naturally, that's disregarding boob armour with gaps between or above the breasts.

In other words, I'm fine with removing that part of the description. It's too long anyway.

Fencers don't get hit by hard enough blows for it to matter.

Check out my fanfiction!

Some of Shadiversity's other videos concerning fantasy armor (like this one, though it's technically about barbarian characters who eschew armor) do showcase male examples that he deems to be generally practical, if obviously designed based on modern aesthetics rather than medieval ones (biggest point: wasp-waisted armor was manly in the Middle Ages).

By "gaps", do you mean an actual lack of armor (e.g. a Cleavage Window), or something else? The former I am familiar with and do criticize as well (barring the possible cases where there's some extenuating factor, e.g. the "gap" is actually covered with a small force field of some sort, a la Dirty Pair^note which, of course, raises the question of why it's not used in lieu of physical armor in the first place.).

Actually, rather than axing it outright... How much of the description as a whole ought to be on an Analysis subpage? We could put it there and rework the sentences to incorporate the info from that video.

Edited by MarqFJA on Jan 15th 2019 at 1:34:12 PM

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Agree about making analysis page.

And I wish it isn't "subverted" when "the breast plate actually looks practical". Practicality shouldn't be part of the "playing with" of this trope.

We can never truly eradicate the coronavirus, but we can suppress its threat like influenza

Why? The trope is rooted in Rule of Sexy being chosen as the driving principle of female armor's design, as well as the evident fact that your average example of this trope fails the practicality criterion of good armor design ^note not all Chainmail Bikini is boobplate, and not all boobplates are as "mild" as the ones that Shadiversity defended., thus showing that a lot if not most artists who try their hand at female armor design take the functionality aspect for granted in the course of emphasizing the form aspect.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

A practical boob plate is still Rule of Sexy, and it does not, by itself, subvert the expectation of females wearing skimpy armour-like outfits. It's only subverted if the work actively tries to present the expectation that characters will wear Chainmail Bikini. It's not subverted just because the armour they're wearing happens to be practical. That's either an aversion or a downplayed example, depending on how it looks. Boob plates, practical or not, seem to be part of the trope.

Some are practical, some are not. Like one of Shad's friends would say, it depends on context, as well as on the actual design, obviously.

Characters who eschew armour, which may or may not follow Rule of Sexy, shouldn't really be part of the trope, but it is, probably because people can't see the difference between deliberately not wearing armour and wearing something that's supposed to represent armour but looks sexy. And as I've implied before, a lot of people think that characters should always wear maximum possible protection, or it's not "realistic".

Yes, gaps in the armour without protection, like a Cleavage Window.

This doesn't cover instances where the character isn't supposed to wear full armour. Many real solders didn't wear full protection, such as low class soldiers and archers. We also have 24-Hour Armor, where if someone wears armour throughout the day, they would likely want to wear something a little less heavy than a full plate armour.

I would count that into magically protective armour, which is an In-Universe justification for the trope (the practical aspect of it).

Check out my fanfiction!

Modern body armor is pretty amorphous in design, not a whole lot different than a flat steel plate. Full body armor is also rarely used due to simple impracticality, Kevlar is durable and flexible but requires the heavy trauma plate to absorb direct impacts and you can't just wrap yourself in that without adding 100 pounds and look like the Michelin Man. If there is any semblance of biology involved in the armor design it would be useless, like painting a shark face on a plane it doesn't improve performance. Real armor just needs to be capable of bending at the joints and other flex points of the body. Pectorals, abs and other muscular representations are just cosmetic.

In many cases the only difference between male and female armor is that men's chests have squarer shapes while women's chest are rounded. I guess the complaint is that specifically breast shaped armor with deep cleavage could potentially catch weapons instead of deflect, and possibly create new pressure points due to design. Individual examples, maybe, it would depend on how exaggerated the design was and other factors like exposed skin and complimentary gear. Any sort of grooves or unnecessary biology replications could result in the same issue, male or female.

One assumption made is that futuristic technology may allow for a second-skin type armor, as an issue with any modern gear is a balance between distribution of weight and comfort (imagine a heavy backpack, with loose straps it would bounce around, you tighten the straps it would bounce less but possibly impact the user in other ways like chaffing or cutting off blood flow). So something like Mass Effect with very form fitting suits is suggesting the armor is formed directly to the users body, which is why it carries some organic qualities and is not strictly a mass produced male/female design.