Does this bother anyone else?

[VoxRationis]

The chainmail bikini and its various equivalents are one of the most notorious scourges of fantasy art. They're impractical, they're objectifying, and they're an insult to the viewer, since the artist apparently thinks we can't think positively of a work without seeing a half-naked woman somewhere in it. It bugs me when I see this sort of thing, and I've resolved never to draw them (although that's probably made somewhat cheaply easy by the fact that I don't draw people all that much). I am far from the first person to espouse this kind of thought on the matter; goto124 has an entire thread about fixing them (in the "Arts and Crafts" section).
However, I hear a lot less about the other end of the spectrum in fantasy armor and equipment: ridiculous plate armor. Pauldrons that go higher than the head, three-inch-thick plates in awkward positions (like on the forearm, weighing down the arm for no reason), designs that clearly can't articulate outside of the position we currently see them in, and that weird thing Pathfinder art has with the sort of plate armor obi strapped on everyone's midriff, so they can't bend over even a little... The list goes on. I don't hear as much about this, probably because it's not blatantly misogynist like the chainmail bikini, but in its own way, impractical plate is almost as bad as the bikini mail; it makes the armor impractical for the sake of looking better, of exemplifying machismo (in most cases). In many cases, the wearer would be better off with a chainmail bikini, because at least they could then lift their arms above their shoulders, or look to the side without turning their whole body around.
So what I'm getting at is this: Does this bother anyone else like it bothers me?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Honestly? No, it doesn't bother me as much. Partly because it doesn't seem to be as pervasive (that or it's just harder to spot so it goes under the radar), partly because it's less problematic from a sexual objectification angle (I get that "masculinity=muscles=intimidating" is bad, but it's clearly not as bad as "women exist only as accessories to male fantasy") and partly because a warrior with (in D&D terms) a Strength of 18 or 20 is so incredibly strong that a few oversized armguards aren't really going to be an issue.

[TheIronGolem]

I acknowledge its silliness, but it doesn't bother me. I consider it the fantasy equivalent of a modern superhero's outfit - impractical and wouldn't work in real life, but acceptable in a genre where realistic physics are unnecessary or even detrimental to the story and action.

[Regitnui]

That's one of my primary objections to Warhammer/40K and WoW, along with the games and designs that take inspiration from them. StarCraft, by contrast, gives us a good reason for the space marines having bulky armour; it's a spacesuit as well as a suit of armour. Warcraft has no similar justification; an orc does not need pauldrons twice the size of his head.

[VoxRationis]

That's one of my primary objections to Warhammer/40K and WoW, along with the games and designs that take inspiration from them. StarCraft, by contrast, gives us a good reason for the space marines having bulky armour; it's a spacesuit as well as a suit of armour. Warcraft has no similar justification; an orc does not need pauldrons twice the size of his head.

Actually, StarCraft's armor is one of the worst. Aside from the fact that space suits don't need enormous ball-shaped pauldrons, the suit is so ridiculously bulky that the individual inside can't actually articulate properly within it. In one of the cinematics for StarCraft II, we see that the hand of the individual inside the armor is halfway inside the forearm of the armor, which does mean you don't need to have gorilla-length arms to use it, but also means that the elbow joint of the armor is either midway through the forearm of the wearer, and thus the only way to bend the armor's arm is to snap one's own, or the armor physically removes one's arms from their sockets and puts them further down to match up the joint locations.

[Flickerdart]

Fantasy has nothing on sci-fi games.

[CoggieRagabash]

If armor is a special interest of yours then I can see why this would be a bother, but I don't consider the two problems to be entirely comparable. They both involve inaccuracy and impractical armor, but chainmail bikini syndrome is part of an overall issue where women aren't simply being depicted as cool and powerful in the same way that male figures are in D&D but routinely as sexualized objects.

That said I do sympathize. Interests of mine include zoology and anthropology and many fantasy settings handle animals, ecology and cultures rather clumsily. Kvetch a little, it's all in good fun, and commend examples of things being done right, but it's best not to let clumsily handled parts of your hobby get too deep under your skin. A little MST3K Mantra goes a long way, imho!

[Amphetryon]

If armor is a special interest of yours then I can see why this would be a bother, but I don't consider the two problems to be entirely comparable. They both involve inaccuracy and impractical armor, but chainmail bikini syndrome is part of an overall issue where women aren't simply being depicted as cool and powerful in the same way that male figures are in D&D but routinely as sexualized objects.

This is why Conan was always portrayed as wearing practical armor for combat; unlike the women in his world, he was never presented as some sort of idealized, sexualized object in the cover art.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I guess the sci-fi examples get a little better when a work makes these things explicitly power armor/tiny mecha. This doesn't fix if there is no room for the drivers arm moving inside the suit's arm, but at least it helps with the "this armor is too thick" part. They're wearing that much armor because they want to be a tank and they can wear it because the inner part of the suit has the strength to carry that armor. (Sure, mecha and power armor have plenty of their own problems, especially at the point where they start getting into the territory of traditional armored vehicles, but that's an other can of worms altogether.)

[NRSASD]

Horrendously implausible male armor does bother me a bit, but not as much as the aforementioned chainmail bikini. I sometimes jokingly use it as an example of "male objectification in fantasy/sci-fi" but the truth of the matter is that it really isn't comparable to how insulting and degrading many female fantasy armors are. A space marine with pauldrons the size of a cow on each shoulder is, at worst, crushed to death by his implausible armor, but it just reflects how little the artist who drew him knows about actual armor. A female "soldier" in a bikini manages to convey all sorts of unsavory undertones about misogyny, objectification, victimization (look how vulnerable she is!), and other unsettling concepts that are best left unmentioned. That is why I have to agree with the rest of the posters here: male fantasy armor is bad, but female armor is far worse.

[LibraryOgre]

Horrendously implausible male armor does bother me a bit, but not as much as the aforementioned chainmail bikini. I sometimes jokingly use it as an example of "male objectification in fantasy/sci-fi" but the truth of the matter is that it really isn't comparable to how insulting and degrading many female fantasy armors are. A space marine with pauldrons the size of a cow on each shoulder is, at worst, crushed to death by his implausible armor, but it just reflects how little the artist who drew him knows about actual armor. A female "soldier" in a bikini manages to convey all sorts of unsavory undertones about misogyny, objectification, victimization (look how vulnerable she is!), and other unsettling concepts that are best left unmentioned. That is why I have to agree with the rest of the posters here: male fantasy armor is bad, but female armor is far worse.

This tends to be my position. The overworked armors (or the ridiculous weapons, apparently made out of jagged tin foil) annoy me, but the barely-there chainmail bikini tends to be worse.

'Course, I also love Gail Simone's Red Sonja, so I'm not completely consistent.

[Mr.Moron]

This tends to be my position. The overworked armors (or the ridiculous weapons, apparently made out of jagged tin foil) annoy me, but the barely-there chainmail bikini tends to be worse.

'Course, I also love Gail Simone's Red Sonja, so I'm not completely consistent.

Well, The chainmail Bikini is really rather fine on it's own in a vacuum. Sexy is fine, improbably outfits are fine, outfits that are improbable for sake of being sexy are also fine. They're only put a problem when put into a broader context that lacks alternatives and is part of historical trend of women as sexual objects. So liking a single work that uses the trope, or even liking a particular instance of the trope for what it is isn't at odds with also recognizing that the proliferation of it is a problem and that on average things are better off without chainmail bikinis than without them.

You can enjoy a greasy Cheeseburger and Fries without thinking that food is healthy, without thinking it's what you should eat at all the time, and while also recognizing that too many people eat too much of it, and that the amount of greasy cheeseburgers being eaten is a real problem in the world today.

Since the dudes-with-giant pauldrons things has plenty of alternatives and isn't part of any troubling historical trends, it's a bit different. It's more like eating cake batter. Sure it's still junk food, but it's probably not contributing to the obesity epidemic the way fast food is.

[Eugoraton Feiht]

Actually, StarCraft's armor is one of the worst. Aside from the fact that space suits don't need enormous ball-shaped pauldrons, the suit is so ridiculously bulky that the individual inside can't actually articulate properly within it. In one of the cinematics for StarCraft II, we see that the hand of the individual inside the armor is halfway inside the forearm of the armor, which does mean you don't need to have gorilla-length arms to use it, but also means that the elbow joint of the armor is either midway through the forearm of the wearer, and thus the only way to bend the armor's arm is to snap one's own, or the armor physically removes one's arms from their sockets and puts them further down to match up the joint locations.

If you read the books they explain it as being power armor. A majority of the suit has machinery in it which then responds to the human inside the suit. Think along the lines of MechWarrior. The mech isn't armor, it's a giant robotic suit for you to sit in.

[CoggieRagabash]

You can enjoy a greasy Cheeseburger and Fries without thinking that food is healthy, without thinking it's what you should eat at the time, while also recognizing that too many people eat too much of it, and that the amount of greasy cheeseburgers being eaten is a real problem.

This is a good analogy. As much as I definitely don't want to see them in most books, I also don't think there's a problem with enjoying an occasional chainmail bikini (or, for equality's sake, some sultry banana-hammock action), so long as you were aware it shouldn't be your usual, and know what it is you're consuming. You shouldn't feel guilty for an occasional indulgence, but also don't take it personally when people criticize your unhealthy treat.

[Mr.Moron]

This is a good analogy. As much as I definitely don't want to see them in most books, I also don't think there's a problem with enjoying an occasional chainmail bikini (or, for equality's sake, some sultry banana-hammock action), so long as you were aware it shouldn't be your usual, and know what it is you're consuming. You shouldn't feel guilty for an occasional indulgence, but also don't take it personally when people criticize your unhealthy treat.

Well to continue further it's kind of a **** move to go up to someone eating a greasy cheeseburger, pointing at them and telling them they should be chomping into a nice garden salad. If you want to do anything but waste your breath it's very hard to approach as criticisms of individual "treats" as it were.

Given:
A) "OK. You have the right to eat that cheeseburger but it's full of fat, you shouldn't eat it, kids shouldn't eat, burgers are killing people!"
and
B) "Hey, yeah that cheeseburger looks pretty tasty and it's cool you're enjoying it. Have you ever tried a Lentil Soup? It's something I'm trying to get on more menus, a lot of us like it and we have darned time finding it anywhere".

A) is great for feeling self-righteous, and maybe rallying people who agree with you to be louder but it probably doesn't do much genuinely productive unless most people are already behind you.

[Honest Tiefling]

Not really. Is it silly? Yes, yes it is. But I imagine it more appropriate for when 'rule of cool' trumps 'rule of making any dang sense'. As for exemplifying machismo...Is this a bad thing? Sometimes people just want to be invincible juggernauts and mow down plenty of baddies with questionable levels of reasoning. It's probably not terribly deep, but can be fun. And nothing says a lady cannot enjoy nor don her own ridiculously heavy armor. If women enjoy it too, is it exemplifying machismo, or power? Is assuming only men would derive fun from it or that it exemplifies manliness marginalizing their own enjoyment from the style of art and game play associated with it? I really don't think it is fair to call shooting zombies manly, it's good ol' fun everybody can enjoy!

[TheOOB]

Do I like the overblown WoW style, no, do I have a problem with it existing, no.

Hell, there isn't even an inherent problem with the "chainmail bikini" style art either, there is nothing wrong with titillation and sex appeal, it's a problem when it becomes standard/the only way female characters are portrayed/is hurting an otherwise serious work.

[Honest Tiefling]

Hell, there isn't even an inherent problem with the "chainmail bikini" style art either, there is nothing wrong with titillation and sex appeal, it's a problem when it becomes standard/the only way female characters are portrayed/is hurting an otherwise serious work.

I think there's other issues, like women being the only ones objectified, or when they start bleeding. Just...No. Stop that.

[CoggieRagabash]

Well to continue further it's kind of a **** move to go up to someone eating a greasy cheeseburger, pointing at them and telling them they should be chomping into a nice garden salad. If you want to do anything but waste your breath it's very hard to approach as criticisms of individual "treats" as it were.

I agree on this regard. Unsolicited criticism of a specific person's consumption of an individual treat isn't going to do anyone any good; they will feel targeted and attacked, so nothing positive will be accomplished. The person consuming is unlikely to receive it well or learn anything if they aren't already aware of its issues, so the only real motivator is if you want to feel smug and superior or preach to the choir.

My point was more that if you're an occasional consumer of that proverbial greasy cheeseburger and there's an open discussion about greasy cheeseburgers and you see people criticizing them, that's when you shouldn't be taking it personally. People often do, as though a public discussion that chainmail bikinis are bad will have someone barrel down their door and rip Red Sonja from their hands.

[Morty]

"Bother" is a strong word here. I don't like it, certainly. I'll pick sleek, realistic designs any day, both for weapons and armour. Contrary to popular opinion, they're not mutually exclusive with magic, epic heroism and thoroughly unrealistic action scenes. But it's not like it affects me personally, since I can ignore it.

It crosses the line into "bothering" in video games - since while in a tabletop game, I can just ignore the ridiculously impractical art and describe my characters at wearing something reasonable, video games tend to foist the former on you, unless you use mods.

[Mr.Moron]

I agree on this regard. Unsolicited criticism of a specific person's consumption of an individual treat isn't going to do anyone any good; they will feel targeted and attacked, so nothing positive will be accomplished. The person consuming is unlikely to receive it well or learn anything if they aren't already aware of its issues, so the only real motivator is if you want to feel smug and superior or preach to the choir.

My point was more that if you're an occasional consumer of that proverbial greasy cheeseburger and there's an open discussion about greasy cheeseburgers and you see people criticizing them, that's when you shouldn't be taking it personally. People often do, as though a public discussion that chainmail bikinis being bad will barrel down your door and rip Red Sonja from their hands.

Well it is what it is, and their reactions are what they are. When encountering them your options are basically:

1. Ignore them in some fashion.
2. Argue with the usual terms until you're blue in the face.
3. Move your discussion to a space where such reactions aren't tolerated.
4. Find some way to frame your position in a way that's more palatable to them.

Where saying "You shouldn't take it so personally" as true as the statement may be, probably falls under #2 since that just isn't the kind of advice people take as anything but further attack. I can't speak to which one is the correct choice really, I personally tend to leans towards #1 though that isn't terribly effective in changing any minds. Though perhaps in all their indignant whining they'll make fools enough of themselves it'll convince other people. I guess it's just a matter of how much energy one is willing to invest towards what ends.

EDIT: This post isn't meant to disagree with anything you said really. I think what you're saying is correct. At this point I'm just kind of rambling on about it.

[TheIronGolem]

I don't like it, certainly. I'll pick sleek, realistic designs any day, both for weapons and armour. Contrary to popular opinion, they're not mutually exclusive with magic, epic heroism and thoroughly unrealistic action scenes.

I don't think popular opinion holds that they are; it's not like Mass Effect forums are flooded with complaints that Commander Shepard needs bigger pauldrons. It's just that in some cases, the designers are aiming for a particular aesthetic, and the fact that the aesthetic clashes with real-world practicality isn't considered to be a problem because realism isn't a major goal of the setting.

[ImNotTrevor]

That's one of my primary objections to Warhammer/40K and WoW, along with the games and designs that take inspiration from them. StarCraft, by contrast, gives us a good reason for the space marines having bulky armour; it's a spacesuit as well as a suit of armour. Warcraft has no similar justification; an orc does not need pauldrons twice the size of his head.

I would say that with WH40k, I actually don't mind it at all since it fits in with the lore as established.

the technology of WH40k's humanity is stagnant. So stagnant that innovation is actually FORBIDDEN and considered heresy.
So when you cant make something more advanced, where does the energy go? On making it more embellished. That's one of the reasons why gothic art from the middle ages looked like it did. Progress was pretty stagnant during those days, and so things were just embellished more. Made less practical and more fantastical.

There is absolutely no reason for a space marine's shoulders to be that huge. But they didn't design the armor to be practical. They designed it to be intimidating, powerful-looking, and ridiculously embellished.

Orks want to look intimidating and scary, too, so that's why they wear ridiculous shoulder armor. Practically nothing Orks do is meant to be done for the purpose of being efficient. Look at their mechs, vehicles, and weapons. "efficiency" and "practicality" are not words in the Ork language.

The other races, in comparison, tend to have fewer of these weirdnesses.

The Tau are pretty practical in terms of individual soldier armor. (They do have mechs, but given 40K's world, this isn't a horrible sin.)They do tend to have one shoulder that is equipped with a pseudo-shield, but it is on their non-firing arm and is positioned such that it wouldn't actually get in the way too badly, and the extra protection is likely worth it.
The Eldar have the sin of the overly huge cone-head thing, but for the most part the armor isn't too bad. (lots of capes, though. But how would we know they were space-elves without capes and such?)
The Dark Eldar, no one cares about.
The Necron are robots. Their armor isn't worn, but just a part of their body. And even then, isn't nearly so overly huge in the shoulder areas. For the most part, they have big round things around their necks and behind their heads, but this won't adversely affect most of their movement, especially if they're built to compensate for that part of their design. Robots. (and we can infer that their heads are vunerable to being cut off, so they don't want that. Hence the armor)
The forces of chaos are, for the most part, evil humans. Lots of the same design qualities. The demons themselves, well, we would be hard-pressed to call Chaos Gods masters of practical design.

So yeah, 40k actually manages to have something similar to a good reason why they make the choices they do.

[CoggieRagabash]

EDIT: This post isn't meant to disagree with anything you said really. I think what you're saying is correct. At this point I'm just kind of rambling on about it.

Oh it's no problem, I figured we were both ultimately in agreement, just hashing out details.

I would not generally say "you shouldn't take it personally", at least not without an awful lot of caveats, but it's probably advice I would offer to a friend. It's advice I've taken myself, certainly. In my youth, like many people, I identified too much with things I enjoyed and considered an attack on them an attack on me.

But there's nothing wrong with saying 'I enjoy something that has problems'. If someone says you're a bad person for consuming something just because it has some unhealthy attitudes or ideas presented within, they shouldn't be taken too seriously. Literally no work is perfect, nearly every one betrays some unconscious prejudice or bigotry. Accept it for what it is rather than making excuses for why greasy food isn't greasy, seek out and praise good works for what they do well and be at peace with the troubled works you like is my advice.

[warty goblin]

To be frank, I more or less prefer the chainmail bikini. The first necessity for anybody in a sword fight is to be able to move. An outfit consisting solely of steel mesh foundation garments offers close to zero protection, but does not interfere particularly with the prime directive of actually, you know, fighting. Strapping a couple of manhole covers to your shoulders and calling 'em pauldrons however does; so I conclude the lady in iron underpants is actually more sensibly attired than the guy in the 'practical and protective' armor that's 'appropriate for his job'.

I mean, both are dressed like idiots, but one of them is less so. Ms. Iron Underpants would totally cut Mr. Protective Armor's throat any day of the week. Or walk at a moderate pace in the other direction until he keels over from exhaustion.

[Strigon]

I'd say yes, it bothers me, but not in the way you'd think.
Honestly, I don't care much for the argument of objectifying women/men, or how they're not treated equally; in part, this is because I find the argument of how people are drawn in art for a fantasy game more than a bit frivolous, and in part because I've spent too much time on the internet and I'm just sick of these arguments, whether right or wrong. There's only so many times you can listen to the same rant, after all.

The reason it bothers me is that I just don't want to see it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a straight guy; girls are as attractive to me as anyone else in the world, but seeing that puts me right off a game; not because it's the symbol of patriarchical bigotry and everything wrong with the world, but because it's just not the sort of game I'd like to play, and when I'm playing a game, I want to play a game. It's distracting, it makes me feel uncomfortable, and it looks sleazy and cheap.

To put it another way, imagine your favourite song. Nice to listen to when you feel like listening to music, right?
Now imagine you're watching a movie in the theatre and someone starts blaring that song. I don't care how much you love that song, you're there to watch the movie, and you will not be happy to hear that song.
If it came from the theatre's speaker system, you'll probably not go back to that theatre again.

That's exactly how I feel about chainmail bikinis; they're just annoying.

[BWR]

Eh, it depends. I'm totally fine with this sort of stuff in itself but it is not appropriate for all games. No one would get away with bikinimail or fur loincloths or two ton plate with pauldrons larger than your chest and a hammer heavier than an anvil in a game like Ars Magica or L5R (in spite of some of the card art) and most variants of D&D.
In some games it's fine (Bikini Warriors, anyone?), and the current Paths to Immortality PF game I'm running for my players sees two of the players running what amounts to support/cohort/companion characters to the Questing PCs so I give them some leeway in how serious the characters need to be, what with them being rather disposable and all. So far we've had, among more serious characters, Didi the Paladin, Scarlet the Oracle and Lollypop The Paladin (whose smites cause the sword to get glowing whirling teeth of holy power and make a loud whirring, grinding noise).

Impractical, impossible and possibly objectifying? Sure, but at this point in time it has been part of the genre of fantasy art for so long it's part and parcel of visual language. Getting rid of bad armor or not!armor altogether would be losing a fun and historic aspect of the medium. I will happily spend my time griping at badly designed armor if it's meant to be taken seriously but so long as there is art with proper armor and the not!armor is used appropriately (in a generally humorous or genre-specific manner), I'm fine with it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The Dark Eldar, no one cares about.

...I was a dedicated dark eldar player for 17 years. Clearly the extravagant shoulder spikes are a deliberate statement about how, when you reach a certain level of societal evolution, style is substance.

There is absolutely no reason for a space marine's shoulders to be that huge.

Well, no in-universe reason. They're incredibly convenient for novice painters to practice on, and great for displaying squad markings on a 2-inch miniature.

[Keltest]

Honestly, im bothered by it more than the chainmail bikini trope. The only reason you would have giant pauldrons is if you were in a video game like StarCraft where the sprites are so small theyre one of the only distinguishing characteristics of the unit. And starcraft further justifies it by containing equipment like ammo in the shoulder pieces (of course, they still couldn't actually fit in the armor, but eh). But Warcraft is just absurd. Nobody would actually intentionally create something like that to block your vision and weigh you down. Even with magic, its pointless and downright silly looking.

[Arbane]

This is why Conan was always portrayed as wearing practical armor for combat; unlike the women in his world, he was never presented as some sort of idealized, sexualized object in the cover art.

If you seriously (or sarcastically, whatever) want to argue that Conan and Slave Girl #47 are being presented the same way on comic book/novel cover art, I have no adequate response except incredulous laughter.