Female plate armor with or without breast cups.

[ginnyfizz]

Uh-oh...keep the "R" word out please....

 

Having actually visited the Royal Armouries in Leeds and also when they were at the Tower of London, on several occasions, and had the opportunity to physically try a typical chest piece of the 16th/17th century whilst on a visit to a castle in Devon, I can confirm that (a) A cuirass did not have boobie cups as they were made with males in mind (b) it was however curved outwards so was not completely flat chested. I was thinner then, but believe me people were much tinier in build at the point in history in question, nevertheless, I have to say that had I been scaled down to the sort of size I would likely have achieved in the 16th/17th century, there would have been little difficulty in accommodating the boobs inside the male cuirass. Even as it was, it could be buckled up, but the old embonpoint was very squished.

 

It has been referred to in Debates I think, that women even in the present day wear body armour under certain circumstances - police officers and armed service personnel most readily spring to mind, but it is also compulsory for equestrians to wear body protectors for certain competitions. I've got my body protector sat at the side of me right now. It, like the sort of thing worn by police and services, is identical to the male version. No boobie bumps.

[JenLit]

Well, the Church was run entirely by men in those days, so it amounts to the same thing.

Just an afterthought on my way out: I wouldn't equate a bunch of elitist, dogmatic, power-preserving politicians with '(all) men'. Not in any time. And following your own reasoning. ;)

[cooltrickle]

nivea:

 

Do you not think that any world that would treat women badly, would also treat men badly? I'm just saying, I think people have such little compassion toward men that they don't acknowledge that men suffer too. This causes them to wrongly believe that only women suffer, and that it is only men that cause women to suffer.

 

Could you tell me what rights a man has that women don't have? I think if you're going to make such a powerful indictment you should be more specific.

 

Can you also explain why my above comments have insulted people on the grounds of race and religion?

 

 

Of course men where treated badly, anyone not of rich means or the "correct" race in a area would not have the same choices that someone of well off means would have.

But the issue is that women where considered even farther beneath those men, men suffered but not as much as women in history. Does that mean I hold the past against men now, or do not acknowledge the plight of men forced into slavery and worked to death? Of course not, it happened it was bad for everyone... but it was worse for some then others.

 

How about the right to vote? The right to say no to men who want sex? The right to say no to forced virginity checks? The right to drive a car? The right to have a education? The right to do more then have a baby? The right to not have said baby?

 

With all the troubles lately and the sheer amount of coverage in the News lately I am shocked you have herd of none of those issues?

 

ANYWAYS, this is about if a women would have Breast on their plate armor, not a contest on who is oppressing who.

I stand by my thoughts on it, women would not have had armor made for them because they where not allowed to fight.

 

Suffering is suffering. I think it's wrong to measure suffering. You're emphasizing the suffering of women and minimizing the suffering of men. I can't do that. Men and women are both human. And they are both just as likely to be treated badly by bad people.

 

Only men with property could vote. Most men didn't have any property, and were just as ignored as women. After WWI, more men could vote, and eventually women had the same voting rights as men. It's misleading to say that only men could vote and women couldn't. The truth is, only rich men could vote.

 

I don't think virginity tests occur in the West, do they? If not, it's unfair to talk about it.

 

The white birth rate in most countries is below 2.11. This number is the minimum required to keep the numbers of white people in the world constant. It's actually at 1.6 in most countries. So, I would say women are not being forced to have children. In fact they are having fewer children than is safe for any population that wants to continue to exist.

 

Women can drive cars in the West. I don't think it's fair to treat all men as sexist just because some countries prevent women from driving a car.

 

BTW, I am aware of "issues". I just think you should spend some time reading about the issues facing men, just to get some healthy balance.

 

Can you tell me what I said to offend people on the grounds of religion and race? You didn't answer that part.

[csgators]

Women can drive cars in the West. I don't think it's fair to treat all men as sexist just because some countries prevent women from driving a car.

 

You mean one country.

[nivea]

I suppose I was not just speaking of the west, I think its unfair to simply look away from other places where these issues are all occurring its not morally right to do so and say its not happening if its not in front of you.

As for the religion and race I was simply saying that it was offending to anyone who has been oppressed to say that it did not happen or still is happening.

 

 

But this is Skyrim and the question was do women have breast slots in plate armor and I think we are all getting off subject and I am going to let it go, because really would anything I say change anyone else mind on any matter? No more then likely not lol.

[Khorak]

Female armour would never have boob shapes in it even if women were a common sight on the battlefield, unless it was purely ceremonial armour. For starters, any woman who required such modification to her armour would have breasts of mind boggling magnitude. So even the mere idea of such a thing being required on a womans armour plate is crafted entirely out of ridiculous and childish masculine fantasies regarding boobs. No woman with breasts like that is likely to be seeing the battlefield....or will be dead on it very soon. That leads into the second strike, which is that any woman capable of standing up on the battlefield with the men isn't going to look too womanly anyway. Breasts are delightfully squishy mounds of fat, and they disappear damn quick when a woman starts losing fat and packing on muscle; or basically when a woman gets into the kind of shape required to fight a brutal melee for hours. There's a reason the ex-WWE bodybuilding wrestler Chyna had breast implants so big they ended up being brand named after her and marketed to other female bodybuilders and similar athletes - because there's practically no boob left to add to and the size required to look that way is ridiculous. Now if a woman theoretically did have massive boobs and could cheerfully gird herself for war....she'd wrap her chest up so tight it'd be practically flat. Because your boobs being able to move at all when you're engaging in relentless battlefield carnage just isn't happening.

 

And the sad fact is, which few people really want to talk about in a modern world of equality, that combat before the age of guns is very, very heavily weighed in favour of men in terms of sheer biology. Men are naturally much bigger, much stronger, much more aggressive and have more endurance. These differences can be overcome with hard work and practical knowledge, but the effort required to get a woman to the same point as the rest of the men on an ancient battlefield, and keep her in that condition, is greater to the point of not really being worth it under pre-modern conditions; if it's possible at all since the prospective woman might be too naturally diminutive to hope to take on professional male soldiers. Alas, because sniggering buffoons will trumpet their 50/50 chance to be born male like some sort of victory, it remains currently impossible for people to come to terms with the unpleasant fact that an army of men is incredibly likely to march straight over an army of women when it comes to any sort of fair or straight fight in pre-modern combat. Joan of Arc was hardly a towering battlefield presence. She was courageous and led from the front as an inspirational figurehead, but her battlefield exploits generally amounted to getting shot and wounded. Shot and wounded by English longbowmen, who were guys who got so absolutely huge to even manage the draw weight on their bows that their lifetime of training would leave even their skeletons noticably physically deformed. One can dispute this of course; my response would be to place the male heavyweight boxing champion in the ring against his female counterpart.

 

Women were very much second class citizens. They were often second class citizens because men were more physically powerful, and that let men call all the shots until civilisation started developing technologically and socially beyond that. Or they were lucky and their society gave them some sort of revered priestly or motherly significance that made it some sort of dishonourable or culturally wrong to....well....beat them down to the point of being barely better than property like everywhere else.

 

History sucks if you're a woman.

[cooltrickle]

the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight.

 

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

 

People are talking about medieval times, not the 21st century. Back then women didn't fight, not because they didn't want to but because they weren't allowed to. Women back then weren't really people in their own right, once married they were the property of their husbands, equality is a very recent thing, go back a hundred years and women couldn't even vote in the UK. As for the modern army, women are still banned from serving on the front line, that explains why less of them get killed.

 

I'm aware of this. Feminist organisations have a lot of political power and if they really wanted women on the frontline, they could get women on the frontline. In the US Army, a lot of women get pregnant shortly before combat duty. That makes me think women don't really want to fight on the frontline.

 

You're right, women couldn't vote a hundred years ago. Neither could most men, unless they had property. Men got the vote after fighting in WWI, as did the women who worked in the factories. Shortly after, the women that didn't have the vote yet, were given it. People always point out that women couldn't vote, but they don't seem to know that most men couldn't either. This leads to people thinking that all men are sexist, which is unfair and ignorant.

[cooltrickle]

Women were very much second class citizens. They were often second class citizens because men were more physically powerful, and that let men call all the shots until civilisation started developing technologically and socially beyond that. Or they were lucky and their society gave them some sort of revered priestly or motherly significance that made it some sort of dishonourable or culturally wrong to....well....beat them down to the point of being barely better than property like everywhere else.

 

History sucks if you're a woman.

 

Poor people were second class citizens. Male and female. Most men are stronger than women, that's true. Women like strong men. Most men, use their physical strength to help the woman they love feel safe, and not to hurt them. Some men hurt women, and some women hurt men. Bad people hurt people. It would be nice if we could just know who the bad people are, but we can't.

 

History is written by the winners. Who are the losers? The men and women that were on the losing side. History sucks if you're the loser.

[Araxiel1911]

I knew the plate armor boobs were ridiculous fantasy...fantasies.

Real women would have fought in chainmail bikins...

 

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4796/lukerossredsonjaissue30.jpg

 

Best armor, ever.

 

For the "oohh poor women" and "oohh, they weren't that much poorer", both sides use extreme generalisation.

Yes, women might still have less rights than men do, but when I turn on the TV I either see an advertisement for some kitchen cleaner and some woman telling how great it is and how she couldn't believe how she was able to clean the kitchen without it before she had it and how faster she's able to clean now and then I change the channel and see some Shakira/Ke$sha/Rihanna/Britney/Mariah Carey presenting their ass like horny bonobo to push record sales. Hard to feel sorry for a group when at the same time their poster child is whoring herself out. At the same time, those ones who can't recognise this shallow sham are just as guilty.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Araxiel1911

[DeadSpace]

'there were arguments about that? O.O the age of plate armor was dominated by males...women were 2nd, 3rd class citizens. they didn't fight, were told not to fight, and only in rare verging on unique instance did they fight. a little history should have stuffed any argument before it started. and if plate had been made for women, it would have done it as simply as possible. larger chest but no individual cups. basically male versions beaten out in the chest to provide a bit more room.

In the 21st century, women have more opportunity than ever to take part in war. The British military personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 is 391. How is it that only two of those casualties are women? Bullets and bombs don't discriminate, so the only possible explanation is that female soldiers don't want to be on the front line near the danger. Neither do men, but they do it anyway, because it's their duty. So, please have some more respect for the men that have given up their lives in defence of our countries. Don't make any more remarks implying that men are sexist or oppressive for trying to shield women from the barbarity of war, now or at any time in history.

 

1) read the blue, since you obviously skipped that

2)don't tell me what to do, how to think, or how to act over your misperceptions or over sensitivity to things i did not say nor even imply concerning a timeframe i never even hinted at (21st century)

3)in case you still don't get it i was referring to the dark/middle ages the age of plate armor bullets and bombs don't apply

 

women were treated as 2nd or 3rd class citizens back then, even as property. they did not fight, had little to no input in what men did. times have changed thankfully and that's no longer the case. but you getting all bent over something you didn't read properly in the first place doesn't help anything. fyi, had a couple of girlfriends that were in the military, respected them as i respect all other women...you really effing jumped and started barking up the wrong tree. and that ticks me off. you should get your prejudice under control, save you from making similar mistakes in the future.

Edited December 19, 2011 by DeadSpace