Comment on Essay - Women Warriors: Fantasy vs Historical by Gambargin
I agree 100% with you. As a warrior-women enthusiast, and a sword-fighter myself, I way prefer realistic and protective armour to depict female warriors. The suggestive, unrealistic, hghly impractical chaimail bikinis, corsets and breastplates with cleavage...I really can't stand those! It's so sad that 90+% of the female warriors are shown in this way, and 90+% of the male warriors are shown realistically and non-objectified, with no suggestive armour or poses or come-hither looks!
You have a fair point regarding breastplates shaped like breasts. I'd never thought of it in that way, but it does make sense. However, in some cases, I've always thought that women with larger breasts might find the standart 'male' breastplates more uncomfortable and might want not to put too much pressure on or smother their breasts...There have been depictions of 'female-shaped' breastplates in history that I do not consider to be objectifying or unrealistic (not taken to the extreme size and over-sexualization of today's depictions, of course! Those ones, even if they protect everything, are way overtight and liable to all sort of danger!). And maybe we should also take into account that in the case of some cultures, such as the Western Middle Ages, most female warriors were not the norm and thus had to wear what was available for them, male-fashioned armour? In many cases, they were forced to masquerade as male warriors, so they also had to further conceal their breasts by binding them...In my view, there isn't anything wrong about fitting the female body for more comfort (in some cases, it might be more comfortable than donning a 'male-shaped' beastplate) - But so long as the breastplate isn't corset-tight in the abdomen area and protects everything, including the clavicle, neck and shoulder regions. True, in some cultures the female warriors did not wear any 'female-shaped' armour, And you do have a point, maybe this female-shaped armour was indeed more hazardous than the standart one, and a female might consider not wearing it, no matter the size of her breasts (the females at our medieval and 17th Century sword-fighting classes wear breast-shaped hard protectors, and so far it is a little bit tight, but not really encumbering or dangerous, but maybe we'd have to go into real battle to see 
).
).
My oh my, sorry for taking my time in replying this. Thanks for the very detail insight!
You are correct, in regards to the female shaped breast plate. This is similar to the "muscle cuirass" worn by the Greeks, Roman and Spartan warriors. But from what i have read, this was made up of 2 layers, the protective Cuirass and then the "muscle shaped" metal/leather layer on top of it. Thus, giving practical protection and look good at the same time
.
I understand that back then, at least to the best of my knowledge, women had to worn the armor which were fashioned for their most active users, men. They were heavy, bulky, most of the times uncomfortable, and finally, very very expensive. It was possible to have a custom-tailored armor made specially for the ladies of war, but they would have been outrageously expensive, which if we take account of the social status of women those days, she would have had to be very rich. So for the more common warriors, they used what was already available, either from the blacksmith or looted from the fallen
I'm thinking of making another drawing about this, as a comparative study, hopefully soon.
You are correct, in regards to the female shaped breast plate. This is similar to the "muscle cuirass" worn by the Greeks, Roman and Spartan warriors. But from what i have read, this was made up of 2 layers, the protective Cuirass and then the "muscle shaped" metal/leather layer on top of it. Thus, giving practical protection and look good at the same time
. I understand that back then, at least to the best of my knowledge, women had to worn the armor which were fashioned for their most active users, men. They were heavy, bulky, most of the times uncomfortable, and finally, very very expensive. It was possible to have a custom-tailored armor made specially for the ladies of war, but they would have been outrageously expensive, which if we take account of the social status of women those days, she would have had to be very rich. So for the more common warriors, they used what was already available, either from the blacksmith or looted from the fallen
I'm thinking of making another drawing about this, as a comparative study, hopefully soon.
"I understand that back then, at least to the best of my knowledge, women had to worn the armor which were fashioned for their most active users, men."
I agree. I suppose that in some societies and cultures where warrior-women were more openly accepted (Celtic sword-women, or shieldmaidens, and the like), women would be able to wear jerkins/leather armour/metal armour that would fit their bodies, if they so wished...But in many cultures where warrior-women were not the actual norm, they would have to use the standart male armour...