Skin Is Not Necessary for Sex Appeal: Â The Scarlet Librarian Weighs In On Functional, Yet Attractive Armor
First of all, this is not an argument that womenâs armor in media should be the same as dudesâ armor. Â Most main characters are supposed to look attractive most of the time theyâre on screen; whether because of social or biological conditioning, the bulk added by armor on dudesâ chests and shoulders hottens them up. Â Dudes in practical armor still meet the hotness standards theyâre held to. Â Women, however, genuinely are trickier to armor up without losing the hourglass figure or lean lines expected by their hotness standards. Â Thatâs a thing. Â Whatever you may think of it, itâs a thing. Â And itâs not like anybody ever gets a closed-face helmet.
TRICKIER. Â Not impossible, and Iâm looking at you, director Patty Jenkins and costume designer Lindy Hemmings of Wonder Woman.
Honestly, I would have just let this bullshit armor go as typical Hollywood bullshit armyr, but Jenkins made the mistake of arguing, âTo me, they shouldnât be dressed in armor like men [âŠ]It should be different. It should be authentic and real â and appealing to women.âÂ
Authentic and real, my functional-armored ass, and yes, I have armor for swordfighting, and yes, itâs damn well functional because I have a thing about avoiding cracked ribs and collarbones. Â They hurt. Â
Jenkins is open about the heels and leg exposure being wish-fulfillment, which is stupid, because you can show off muscle without showing flesh (*cough* Superman *cough* Batman *cough* every Superdude costume ever), but fine, weâll let it go. Â What I will NOT let go is the belief that this armor is functional, or that you canât have sexy AF armor that shows no skin whatsoever, AND is entirely functional.
But, Scarlet Librarian, What Exactly is âFunctional?â
Letâs be clear on this before we jump in.  Thereâs a lot of bits armor needs to protect, but for the purposes of this discussion, weâll mostly be talking about breastplates, the biggest offender of Stupid Armyr Bullshit.  The point of a breastplate is to protect the squishy bits like the heart, liver, lungsâŠdo you know how high up in the torso lungs go?Â
THAT HIGH. Â The lungs are higher up than the bust stops, which is why a functional breastplate does not STOP at the breasts, it needs to cover the full torso in order to prevent getting stabbed or shot in the lung, which is frequently lethal, by the way, almost certainly in a premodern context. Â Mail usually doesnât stop an arrow, although it can reduce the damage done. Â Thatâs what plate is for.
Any breastplate that does not protect the lungs is completely non-functional, and will not be discussed here. Â We shall pretend these abominations simply do not exist. Â
Also important, although less vital, are the collarbones, which I trust you can find yourself. Â Theyâre right where many a sword swing tends to go, and yes, a piece of rebar swung at full-strength into your collarbone is going to crack if not snap it, and even mail is only going to help so much. Â If you are very, very lucky, you will be so hopped up on adrenaline you wonât register the pain until after itâs no longer necessary to use both your arms to protect yourself. Â Youâll still lose strength and mobility in that arm, and if youâre very, very unlucky, there will be nerve damage rendering it useless. Â
Stupid Hollywood Bullshit, But Demonstrates That a Completely Armored Woman Can Still Be Sexy AF
As many people have pointed out already, cleavaged breastplates (as seen on Gal Gadot and co. as Wondwoman), which make a dip or crease in between the boobs, are not actually functional. Â Theyâll direct a strike, and all the force behind it, directly into the sternum, rather than deflecting it like an outwardly curved shape. Â As such, the following are not entirely functional, but still cover everything without rendering the wearer a shapeless hag.
Sonja (Rhona Mitra), Underworld: Â Rise of the Lycans. Â She is awarded compensation points for her excellent gauntlets, and especially for the heavy gorget protecting her neck.
Lady Sif (Jaime Alexander) from Thor. I donât like this aesthetically, personally, and the whole âoh, weâll just put some stupidly-light mail over her upper chest and that will take care of the GAPING OPENING at her upper chestâ is bullshit, as is having mail directly over skin with no fabric or leather beneath (youâll have mail shaped bruises and abrasions if you take a hit there, and itâs just uncomfortable even if you donât). Â However, once more, completely covered (the mail at least covers the skin), still shapely. Â
Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) in Jack and the Giant Slayer. Â The cleavage here isnât excessive (especially in comparison to Gadot and co., whose boobs are damn near mummified), but itâs enough I canât put it in the other categories. Â I also have maneuverability concernsâthe pauldrons are attached at the shoulder weirdly, and the integrated turtleneck, as opposed to a separate gorget, could be problems. Â How the hell do you get into this thing, anyway? Â Body armor is typically a breastplate, which is attached to a matching backplate if you can afford it, not a bronze tunic thing. Â Seriously, where are the openings?
Fantasy, But Included For the Sake of Argument
Stuff that, while not entirely functional, covers everything without making the wearer look a shapeless hag, or whatever these costumers are so afraid of.
Emily Blunt as Freya in The Huntsman:  WInterâs War. Again, no neck armor, and the neckline itself is a little low for my liking, but most of her torso is covered, along with her arms, which have both pauldrons on the shoulders and bazuband-style vambraces protecting her forearms and elbows.  The scales are really small, which wonât protect her as well as more historically-based lamellar (see below) would, but this is is probably as good as mail, and the point remains that sheâs completely covered in metal and still looks damn good.  Itâs also worth mentioning Freya is a scary-ass winter witch with guards around her RIDING A GODDAMN POLAR BEAR, so while this is fantasy armyr, it doesnât have to be functional so much as look badass and sexy, and itâs doing just fine with that.  While still being more functional than a lot of hands-on-Warrior-Chick armor is.
For sale by Armstreet, this isâŠokay, this is a really weird bastard child of late 16th-17th century stays and someoneâs perception of Greek armor.  I wouldnât want to wear this in any actual combat situation, since mobility is pretty restricted, and my god, please wear some pants and something with sleeves or that shit is going to chafe, but againâFemale torso, fully covered, even her neck, still a very feminine look.  (And it comes with a helmet!)
Also from Armstreet. Â She has been granted, of all shocking things, clothing under her armor! Â Heavens to betsy. Â Iâm not a huge fan of those pauldrons and the way they fit, and for this to be a wholly protective kit sheâd need a chainmail coif (like a hood that also pools around the neck and upper shoulders), but weâll roll with it, especially as the coif would cover the armor that itâs advertising here.Â
Virginia Hankins, stuntie and performer at the Southern California Renaissance Pleasure Faire (and who thought that was a good name for it?).  This is clearly costume armor thatâs never been hit in its life (she doesnât joust, as weâll get to later, but rides around hitting targets, which, yes, is very difficult, and how the hell she does it with that hair Iâll never know, because mine would be trying to strangle the horse, but doesnât require impact-resistant armor).  Itâs too tight-fitting to be entirely functional, because the idea here is to look badass and feminine on horseback from a distance.  Fully covered.  Still clearly woman-shaped.Â
Mia Wasikowska as Alice in Alice in Wonderland, really weird pseudo-mail sleeves that the vambrace bits are just sort of riveted to, but whatever, quite reasonable pauldrons, and even gauntlets! Â
Kristen Stewart as Snow White in Snow White and the Huntsman, with surprisingly better-looking mail. Â Itâs less girly, both in the shorter and less fluffalous skirts over the hips and thighs, the embellishments, and the overall design, but SW and the H has a weird attempt to be gritty and realistically semi-medieval thing going on (which is hilarious on multiple levels). Â Honestly, they may have been going for borrowed dude armor here, but, again, completely covered, still looks fine. Â (Okay, except for that hair, nobody ever looks good with their hair scraped back directly from their forehead. Â That has nothing to do with the armor, the armor is fine.)
Gwendoline Christie as Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones, in a padded gambeson, mail (still stupidly light, but mail), and even a helmet!  The lobstered plates coming down over her hips are too short and too narrow, but she does have something.  She canât really be described as âshapely,â but sheâs not supposed to, the point is sheâs mistaken for a guy with her face hidden in the helmet anyway (nor is Gwendoline Christie the most hourglassy lady to begin with).  The design of the breastplate could very easily be altered to taper in more at the waist as well if you really wanted to girl up the look.  (Also included because a number of fighting female friends would beat the crap out of me if I didnât, this armor is BELOVED among them.  And it really is quite schnazzy.)
Miranda Otto as Ăowyn in The Lord of the Rings, also disguised as a dude, and itâs hard to get a cuirass like this to fit really snugly when itâs over accurately-sized mail. Â So while she doesnât look all that girly here, sheâs not supposed to, and again, like Brienneâs, this armor could be feminized without losing functionality. Â (There is, however, NO excuse for this hair being all over the place, NO excuse whatsoever. Â Tolkien SPECIFICALLY refers to her hair being braided, besides the fact that you do not, ever, want long hair around mail, because it WILL get caught and it WILL hurt; long hair worn down on your neck is really hot and sweaty and gross if you stick a metal pot on it and then run about in a very active manner; and two words, ladies and gentleman: Â HELMET HAIR. Â Itâs real. Â Itâs sweaty. Â Itâs gross. Â Itâs at least a little tangly even if you braid your hair, which is what very nearly every long-haired (and by that I mean even to the shoulders) woman I know who sticks her head in a metal pot and then bounces around excitedly while wearing heavy, warm protective clothing does, because HELMET HAIR. Â Would you play hockey, or roller-derby, or any other active sport that requires a helmet, with waist-length hair left to its own devices? Â Iâm not even talking about how it looks when you donât have a professional team making sure you look rugged and a bit tousled but, not, you know, sweaty and gross and afflicted by HELMET HAIR. Â This is just about how nasty it feels.)
Nicole Leigh Verdin in Shroud. While cinched in at the waist to an impractical degree, it still follows the lines of the late-fifteenth-century Gothic armor I promise Iâm getting to, so it still keeps EVERYTHING COVERED.
Valentina Cervi as Caterina Sforza Riario in Borgia, set in the 1490s. Â See what I mean about Brienneâs thigh protection?
Gina McKee as Caterina Sforza Riario in The Borgias, yup, still 1490s. Â Both the pauldrons and helmet are weird, but the breastplate is decent, and thatâs the main culprit in bullshit female armor.
Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I in Elizabeth:  The Golden Age.  This armor is more than a century too early, but put her in period-accurate armor and you getâŠ
Helen Mirren in Elizabeth I, an HBO minseries. The costuming in this miniseries is damn near reproduction quality, and Iâm happy they went with an accurate peascod shaped breastplate because Iâm an accuracy geek, but nobody has ever looked good in either a peascod doublet or a breastplate shaped like one, which is why the costume team on the appealing-to-a-broad-audience-that-just-wants-to-see-Cate-Blanchett-Look-Hot-In-Armor Golden Age went all Gothic instead. Â
So this is actually a gaming mini made by Thunderbolt Mountain, designed to be 12th century Rus, including lamellar (interlocking plates) armor over mail. Â This is actually pretty accurate except for some weird draping in the mail coif over her neck and head (and the fact that thereâs nothing between the mail and her hairâDO NOT LET MAIL TOUCH YOUR HAIR, you will be very, very sad and possibly bald). Â Lamellar, which is I what I wear for several practical reasons not all to do with the Girl Body Thing, is awesome for female armor because of how easy it is to adjust the fit as you make it, and because of its flexibility once itâs made. Â My quibble here is actually that she only has a sword belt, not another belt cinched in snug around the natural waist, because that makes a HUGE difference for both men and women by getting some of the weight to settle on the hips rather than hanging off the shoulders and back. Â
Armorer Jeff Wassonâs wife Stacey, wearing early- to mid-15th century armor.  As armor.  Because sheâs not an actress or performer, sheâs a legit jouster (this is why she has the larger pauldron on the left shoulder, where sheâs most likely to get hit).
Here she lands a hit on her opponent. Â This group used balsa-wood inserts in the lances that are designed to break on impact, the idea being that you get hit but donât, you know, die (this is historically accurate; tournament lances were designed to break themselves, not break people). Â That being said, youâre still being hit with a bigass stick by someone on a galloping horse; I would bet money sheâs not only taken hits in that armor but also fallen off the horse in it.
(Thomas Swynborn Dating 1412 Church of St Peter and St Paul, Little Horkesley, Essex, England.) Â What dude armor from the same period as Wassonâs is based on. Â The hourglass was in for guys as well as women, to the point that menâs clothing heavily padded the shoulders and chest to exaggerate it, which is what makes the 15th century a great period to base feminine-looking female armor on.
Other examples of extant (and thus made for dudes) armor that would make excellent inspiration for functional and feminine armor, JUST SAYING, PROFESSIONAL COSTUMERS, is from the late 15th century, google âgothic armorâ for more:
15th c. German,courtesy of Dr. Andrea Carloni (Rimini, Italy), AAF ID.
1470 Leeds, UK, Royal Armouries, II.168, composite armour âalla tedescaâ, breastplate formerly in Churburg, Milano and Brescia Images courtesy of Igor Zeler*, AAF ID.
1484 - Vienna, Austria, Kunsthistorisches Museum, A 62, armour for Archduke Sigismund von Tirol, by Lorenz Helmschmid, Augsburg Front image courtesy of Blaz Berlec, AAF ID.
No attribution, but typical of late 15th c. and holy shit, gorgeous. Â Look at me, Iâm a pretty, pretty badass!
Armor: Â Can be feminine, functional, and hot at the same damn time, without showing any skin. Â And while Iâm of the opinion that armor needs to look functional for the wearer to be badass, and that wearing a metal swimsuit makes the wearer look ridiculous and neither badass nor sexy, I recognize that when catering to mainstream audience, female characters frequently need to look sexy as well as functionally badass. Â Thatâs the reality in Hollywood right now, like it or not. Â I do NOT recognize that skin is necessary for this, or that bullshit fantasy armyr is, because holy shit, how hot would Lady Badass look in some of that Gothic stuff? Â SMOKING hot. Â All the more so because it would be completely functional.
Just saying, costume designers and denizens of the internet. Â Just saying. Â
janainaart
titsay
gummygunk
snowghoul
