Well?
>>17445000as 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.
>>17445000Booba...
>>17445114This>>17445130Also this
>>17445000This is a /tg/ thread.
>>17445000The 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.
>>17445000top is real, bottom is fake.
>>17445114>they look really goodTits a shit.
>>17445418The 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 armorUnless they needed protection in battle, which was rare, but still happened.
>>17445562The exception proves the rule
>>17445662giga cope
