Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6290785" data-attributes="member: 40233">&quot;People&quot; don't.&nbsp; &quot;You&quot; do.&nbsp; If I ask where the chain mail bikinis are, I'm asking where the chain mail bikinis are.&nbsp; Now, I agree it might be appropriate to stretch the point and include any armor or clothing that covers roughly the same amount of territory as a bikini...or even a swimsuit.&nbsp; In the examples you gave, not a single character was dressed in an outfit whose coverage would draw a single upraised eye walking down the street.&nbsp; Perhaps the low cut gown the sorceress is wearing would, because it wouldn't be appropriate on the street-not for decency reasons but because it looks too formal.&nbsp; But at a formal ball, she would turn heads, but more because she'd be an eyecatching woman in a very flattering dress than because she's wearing less than other people at the same function.&nbsp; The closest to a &quot;chain mail bikini&quot; in that whole collection is the unused Player's Handbook cover, and she's still wearing more than the panoply a Greek Hoplite would sport.&nbsp; The most racy pic in the bunch is wearing more armor than literally millions of combatants down through history.&nbsp; And notice that the Tiefling is sporting a particularly large expanse of chest in that picture.Now, if you want to say that women are still too sexualized in the illustrations included in D&amp;D and Pathfinder, feel free.&nbsp; The illustrations you provided aren't particularly good examples, but I can recall a few that were kind of mildley cheesecakey.&nbsp; But for precision of language's sake, if for no other reason, let's acknowledge that progress has been made on that front, and that true &quot;chain mail bikinis&quot; aren't really an issue any longer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6290785, member: 40233"] "People" don't. "You" do. If I ask where the chain mail bikinis are, I'm asking where the chain mail bikinis are. Now, I agree it might be appropriate to stretch the point and include any armor or clothing that covers roughly the same amount of territory as a bikini...or even a swimsuit. In the examples you gave, not a single character was dressed in an outfit whose coverage would draw a single upraised eye walking down the street. Perhaps the low cut gown the sorceress is wearing would, because it wouldn't be appropriate on the street-not for decency reasons but because it looks too formal. But at a formal ball, she would turn heads, but more because she'd be an eyecatching woman in a very flattering dress than because she's wearing less than other people at the same function. The closest to a "chain mail bikini" in that whole collection is the unused Player's Handbook cover, and she's [I]still[/I] wearing more than the panoply a Greek Hoplite would sport. The most racy pic in the bunch is wearing more armor than literally millions of combatants down through history. And notice that the Tiefling is sporting a particularly large expanse of chest in that picture. Now, if you want to say that women are still too sexualized in the illustrations included in [I]D&D[/I] and [I]Pathfinder[/I], feel free. The illustrations you provided aren't particularly good examples, but I can recall a few that were kind of mildley cheesecakey. But for precision of language's sake, if for no other reason, let's acknowledge that progress has been made on that front, and that true "chain mail bikinis" aren't really an issue any longer. [/QUOTE]

Verification