>>17445000
as long as it helps me goon its fine

My take is that form emphasizing female plate armor makes perfect sense in some sort of counterfactual world with 15th century tech but 21st century sexual norms, but only for ceremonial purposes. Unlike the codpiece, it's not only useless for defense but actively undermines it.

But also 99% these armors show up in contexts alongside magic and dragons, so nitpicking and crying about them is fucking stupid because they look really good and the whole appeal of fantasy is that it's allowed to ditch the boring limitations constraining our reality for the sake of being more interesting and exciting.

>>17445000
Booba...

>>17445114
This
>>17445130
Also this

>>17445000
This is a /tg/ thread.

>>17445000
The only accurate armor set for a medieval lady was no armor at all. When Joan of Arc was on trial, she was accused of cross dressing for wearing armor.

>>17445394
>When Joan of Arc was on trial, she was accused of cross dressing for wearing armor.
Which was refuted in the same trial. She was never convicted of anything for wearing armor.

>>17445000
top is real, bottom is fake.

>>17445114
>they look really good
Tits a shit.

>>17445418
The refutation was based on the premise that she cross dressed for her own safety in warzones. My point is that women did not wear armor

>>17445556
>she cross dressed for her own safety in warzones.
Yeah, that's the reason why anyone wears armor.

>My point is that women did not wear armor
Unless they needed protection in battle, which was rare, but still happened.

>>17445562
The exception proves the rule

>>17445662
giga cope

>>17446105
Are you missing the point where she dressed like a man?

>>17445114
>they look really good and the whole appeal of fantasy is that it's allowed to ditch the boring limitations constraining our reality for the sake of being more interesting and exciting
The issue is that what looks good and what limitations can be broken without harming suspension of disbelief is completely subjective.
You may see boob plate and think "hot", but I see it and I think "lazy", since you could have a more realistic form-fitting armor just by using a different type.

>>17445418
The actual details of it were as follows.
The accusation was about cross dressing in armour. It was thrown out because cross dressing was only illegal when it was unasked for, since it was perfectly reasonable to wear armour on the battlefield she was ok.
Then they just dressed her up in male clothes and said look she's doing it again.

>>17445000
One was extremely common IRL and the other (to my knowledge) never was, at least not in the European and Mediterranean armor traditions.

>>17445562
Normal women dont have tits so large they need custom shapes to fit under armor.

>>17447397
In an ideal world, they all would.

>>17445114
>But also 99% these armors show up in contexts alongside magic and dragons, so nitpicking and crying about them is fucking stupid
no it's not. Versimilitude in storytelling is super important, dummy.

What about this armor?

>>17447160
>The issue is that what looks good and what limitations can be broken without harming suspension of disbelief is completely subjective.
Only to a degree, but do you think most of the criticism of boob armor is due to its ineffectiveness as a means of physical protection against melee weapons? Outside of congregations of nerds on sites like this, if anything the most common complaint is that they're sexualizing. If it's your personal peeve, that's fine. But recognize that you're an outlier and the line you drew for what passes in fiction isn't any less arbitrary than the next guy. And I'm curious about the type of mind that finds armor like in the OP too immersion breaking while being fine with portraying women -- who possess a huge disadvantage in muscle strength and endurance relative to men -- being equally combat effective while hauling around a full suit of steel armor + weapons in protracted melee combat where deficiencies in armor design would actually make a difference? Even Joan of Arc is acknowledged to have not actually played a part in any hand-to-hand fighting herself. At that level of attentiveness to realism, you might as well do away with females wearing heavy armor altogether.
>>17447466
>Versimilitude in storytelling is super important
*Verisimilitude
That's correct, yes. Now explain your case for why the armor pictured in the OP crosses a line while e.g. massive fire breathing flying lizards don't. One depends me on believing a person will sacrifice survivability for aesthetics; the other depends on me suspending belief in physics and biology.

>>17448193
>If it's your personal peeve, that's fine. But recognize that you're an outlier and the line you drew for what passes in fiction isn't any less arbitrary than the next guy.
Well of course I recognize the line I drew is arbitrary, that's literally my whole point.
>And I'm curious about the type of mind that finds armor like in the OP too immersion breaking while being fine with portraying women being equally combat effective
I dunno what you expect me to tell you, I just find physically impossible movements disturbing. How am I supposed to explain that? I just hate it when I see models clip into themselves and bodies deform because the artists were too dumb to realize the implications of the designs and movements they came up with.
>who possess a huge disadvantage in muscle strength and endurance relative to men
Yes see this is a big issue I have with drawing lines about suspension of disbelief: when you write fantasy you're gonna break a lot of shit for the sake of creating characters the way you want them, HOWEVER you have to sell me on the break having a purpose.
I can buy the setting having dragons because you want to give the characters something cool to fight.
I can buy the setting having biologically equal women because you want to have female characters in action scenes.
I can buy sexualized armor because I have a sex drive too.
I'm not however going to buy a non-sexual, non-functional armor. Because what's the narrative reason for undermining realism there? If I can't see one, I absolutely will criticize your work.
If you want formfitting armor, use formfitting armor types. If you want sexual armor, go all out or don't bother. If you absolutely need to have boob plate because it's your fetish, go full fantasy. Don't try to sell me the idea it's "realistic".
And for the love of god please keep in mind how human bodies bend when you draw shit.

>>17448233
>I just hate it when I see models clip into themselves and bodies deform because the artists were too dumb to realize the implications of the designs and movements they came up with.
But then that's an issue with implementation, not the concept itself.
Everything else I agree with.

>>17448251
>that's an issue with implementation
Good fucking luck designing form fitting plate armor that can actually be used by either gender.
There's a reason historical gear retains that wasp-like look from the upper pic: it's the only way to make plate armor that lets you bend at the waist.
The lower pic has a straight piece of steel that prevents your abdominals from contracting and would make sitting a nightmare.
That's not a boobplate specific issue either, it's extremely common to see males wearing cuiraisses that are just too "long" for use, as they're being fitted on the body like they were flexible clothes rather than rigid metal plates.

>>17445000
kek

>>17445114
>Unlike the codpiece, it's not only useless for defense but actively undermines it.

The point of a codpiece is not protection, a simple cup does that better, the point is to emphasize the weareres manlyhood and sexual prowess. Litetally signifying "muh dick".

>>17449367
I know that. My point was that while a codpiece might be useless as protection compared to a cup, it doesn't compromise the armor's entire purpose. Because of that, a man could afford to feature it in his armor. He could still count on it doing its job. On the other hand, a woman wearing a chest plate that is individually shaped around each of her breasts ends up having weapon blows channeled into the depression between them instead of deflecting them away, ensuring that her sternum receives their full might. It's one thing to saddle yourself with useless ornamentation, and another to wear something that lets the enemy inflict lethal strikes more easily by helping them pulverize your chest cavity and the vital organs therein.

>>17445114
>>17447160
>>17447216
It doesn't exist because women can't fight. Decent archers (when armor is absent), a SMALL minority of them could be good duelists (again, without armor because of the strength disadvantage), but otherwise shit. In duels between women and men, to make it fair, men would literally be shoved in a hole so they couldn't fight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMtq-hWT8zY

>>17448233
>Don't try to sell me the idea it's "realistic".
It's realistic unless the cleavage is very deep. NO WORSE than exaggerated codpieces.

Quality boobplate would be able to resist as much force as normal breastplate, EXCEPTING lances.

>>17449610
>It's one thing to saddle yourself with useless ornamentation, and another to wear something that lets the enemy inflict lethal strikes more easily by helping them pulverize your chest cavity and the vital organs therein.
IF the boob plate isn't incredibly deep like a cone or a codpiece, and it's more shallow like a burger bun—then it's a negligible effect. The amount of assistance and momentum it would give is less than a lorica musculature, WHICH DOES NOT DEFLECT THE FORCE WHATSOEVER.

Granted, the lorica musculata is from a bygone age, and the armor from then is far less advanced than codpieces.
Lastly, boobplate that has no cleavage is 100% practical. Might be 5-6% less effective than normal plate, at worst.

>>17449663
As an addendum to the "women can't fight" part: A woman that trained from childhood as a warrior, vs. a peasant that gets drafted with 3 weeks training, the woman is winning 90% of the time.
However, when it comes to TRAINED men vs TRAINED women, it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY:
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/penn-swim-team-members-ask-school-ivy-league-to-refrain-from-litigation-to-allow-lia-thomas-to-race-at-ncaas/
>Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female. If she were to be eligible to compete against us, she could now break Penn, Ivy, and NCAA Women’s Swimming records; feats she could never have done as a male athlete.

>>17449663
>Granted, the lorica musculata is from a bygone age
And the literal first improvement made upon it was to shorten it to allow for more mobility.
If you actually read the posts you quoted you'd have seen that I was complaining about the form fitting factor, not the boobs.

>>17449663
>>17449689
Even when they retained the whole abdomen length they still flared it out rather than keeping it close to the body, because you kinda need to be able to move when you fight, you know?

>>17448233
>>17447160
>>17445114
Honestly for the most part what you're saying is logical. Not false.

>>17445114
>>17447160
But this is retarded.
>You may see boob plate and think "hot", but I see it and I think "lazy",
>since you could have a more realistic form-fitting armor just by using a different type.
>more realistic
Uh-huh.
But we have
>crusader helmet: which CATCH HAMMERS AND AXES with the full force. Worse than boobplate, which still SOMEWHAT deflects the force sideways.
>musculata: Already explained this, but for survival purposes, I'd rather wear boob plate. It has no deflection or curving whatsoever.
>7-inch codpieces: Again, a worse design than mild boobplate like OP posted, but matters less since it covers a small area.
>samurai helmets

All of these existed and they're inferior designs than boobplate.
Yet somehow boobplate is
>harming suspension of disbelief
The shittiness is exaggerated. Yes, it's worse than normal breastplate. It is however, better than many designs however that have been time-tested and used in real battlefields for hundreds of years. It's marginally less efficient than a normal breastplate, but it doesn't reach "harming suspension of disbelief" levels unless you think that same thing about muscular cuirasses and heavily-adorned samurai helmets, which have been used for decades if not centuries in real battlefields.

>>17449689
You complained about the form fitting factor in later posts.
Early posts you complained that the sexualization was harming the design. I agree with you if the boobplate is gigantic, but otherwise I think you oversell how impractical it is. Honestly I agree with you in most respects, I just felt like you undersold *mild* boobplate, which is still very good armor, maybe 5-10% worse than normal, more than that % against lances.

If I'm TRULY misunderstanding, then sorry. I suppose we agree for the most part. Cheers, I liked the fact that you actually explained your opinions.

>>17447216
Because 99% of women can't fight, not because the design is untenable: >>17449671

>>17449734
>>17449734
>You complained about the form fitting factor in later posts.
>Early posts you complained that the sexualization was harming the design.
The only sexualization that bothers me is the kind that fails to turn me on, some of the posts you quoted aren't mine.
If you took >>17447160 to be a post against sexualization I failed to convey my meaning, I meant that the lack of functionality took away from the hotness, not that hotness is bad.
I love tummy and hips as much as any man, but mail and to a lesser degree scale are just much more appropriate if you want armor that closely matches a woman's curves. Female cosplayers go out of their way not to wear a cuirass for a reason lmao.
However upon rereading my posts I think I overused the word boobplate. I meant to use it for op's kind of armor, but you understandably took it to refer to any appearance of boobs on armor.
Mild boobplate like say chris lightfellow's in suikoden is fine. Although the waist section is still too narrow in some official art.

That said I disagree with your examples. Aesthetic additions that undermine defenses on male armor are invariably all about making the wearer look more dangerous and communicate his high status.
There's a clear and undeniable social advantage in adding that shit that is not present in female boobplate. A scary enemy is discouraging, a big tiddy enemy is ENcouraging.

We have bobs and vagene armor, sars.

>>17449896
>>17449897
Why did medieval chuds have such weird taste in women? Obese and stiff tits?

>>17447160
How isn't it realistic? Greeks had sculpted abs and pecs on their cuirassis why is having sculpted breasts meaningfully different?

>>17449907
Armor decoration irl exists for intimidation and to communicate prestige. Armor boobs exist to highlight curves. The difference is very meaningful.
Can you have boobplate in your fantasy work? Sure. Is it the best way to present an armored woman, either to maximize sexiness or realism? Lmao fuck no.

>>17450055
>Armor boobs exist to highlight curves.
Or to avoid having your boobs flattened.

>>17449663
>decent archers
Don’t fall for Hollywood tropes mate. Archery requires a great deal of upper body strength. Archery in medieval warfare and modern Olympic archery are altogether different beasts.

>>17450066
Lmao slight ajustments of the curvature already present on medieval cuirasses would be enough to accomodate 99.99% of boobs for far less effort.
As I already said, do you want boobplate for cooming reasons? Knock yourself out. Just don't try to gaslight me into thinking they're realistic.

>>17445394
>The only accurate armor set for a medieval lady was no armor at all.
Based and Barbarian pilled.

>>17450055
Armor boobs exists for intimidation and to communicate prestige.

Source: it's fucking fiction and big boobs are as prestigious as a big dick

>>17450938
>>17450055
"Prestige and intimidation"
Big codpieces aren't intimidating, they're comical. Prestige could mean a number of things, lots of armor have wacky or useless designs that add a bunch of shit that is impractical but looks good (to the wearer or smith).

>>17451292
That was my point >>17450938

In a society where women have armour there's nothing inherently weird about them showing off their tits just like there's nothing weird about men showing off their dicks in combat. Could be "look at me I'm fertile and powerful" or "men get distracted by the boobs and I kill them" or "you will recognize the elite Valkyrie knights by their boobah" or exaggerated femininity "y-yeah I definitely need my armour to be sculpted just to fit my boobs in it, I'm not compensating."

Ultimately fiction with female warriors can so easily justify why women would want boob armour that they don't even need to explain it just like they don't need to make up some ceremonial importance to a guy having horns or spikes on his armour.