Pics are way too honking big, just fyi.

Larian: All but one of the pics you posted actually supports the point that the others are making--really, there's no need for a distinction between men's and women's armors. When taken off, you couldn't tell whether the person wearing the armor was a dude or a chick by looking at it on the rack.

Mersozz: The issue is that the armors that we're complaining about actually are being produced by modern sexism--'period-appropriate' sexism didn't allow for warrior women at all, as Larian argued. The issue is that all too often, "women can be warriors in RPGs, but only if they also are willing to be eye-candy, too". This makes no sense, and is the insulting bit.

Two of the links has mixed up IMG tags.
--
TAZ

Definitely a valid point. And to be clear, I'm not endorsing that sort of approach.

My points were limited to the following:

Both male and female armor can combine function, and allow for ornamentation/customization.

If that ornamentation/customization fits the mores of the (scifi/fantasy) setting, then one might pause before applying 21st century American standards. This should cut both ways....some sci-fi fantasy settings might treat sexuality and male/female relationships much differently than others....taken in contrast, 21st Century America could be viewed as promiscuous or prudish, depending on the setting in question.

Some different examples....

#1....If your fantasy setting is a post-apocalyptic world, it would be patently sexist for the female heroine character to be running around in a bikini while the male characters are decked out 24/7 in hazmat gear. It simply wouldn't make any sense. This would be an example of pure eye candy.

#2....In a tropical or sub-sahara setting, armor might be very light, and might be decorated to distinguish tribes, ranks, trophies, etc. The society could be based on a meritocracy (the best hunters rise in rank, for example), allowing both sexes to rise in status accordingly. Both men and women might wear armor that "gets the job done", but still elect to embellish their armor as peacocks might, as a way of showcasing their achievements. Such embellishments/customization might include tailoring to accent the curves and muscles of their bodies, among other things. Such an approach could be highly sexual without being sexist.

#3....Conversely, in a fantasy setting that centers upon a monastic matriarchy, a female character time-warped in from a business conference in New York might be judged as a floozy for wearing a skirt cut above the ankle. Such a setting would be considered sexually repressed by our standards.

#4.....Drow society, where sexist notions are gender-reversed.

Um actually if you follow the link i sent before the pictures, the web sight is a good one, and here and there in the text, it explains some of the various anatomical issues with making armor for women.. they may not look that different, but there are defiantly structural differences involved in construction. chain mail is the only true "one size fits all" armor, but its damned expensive.

Nerds will wank about anything.

I'm wanking right now!

Which, again, supports the position being presented here--despite the differences in construction/design, the final product looks remarkably similar at the end to the men's armor. Unless the artist is drawing technical specs for the armor, then, the women being portrayed should, by and large, look like the men, with a few smaller differences (specifically, the hips will probably be cut differently, and possibly the shoulders). If there's a visible bulging in the chest at all, it should be a single, simple curve to help deflect heart-shots, not a closely sculpted boobplate (which would actually push shots inward towards the sternum).

Chad: Read my sig.

Or upward toward the neck... which is as bad or worse. And you like many others "seem" to have assumed i like the entire chain mail bikini idea. I don't (other than as fetish wear.. but that's a whole other issue )

I have never, in any of this, supported the idea of ... what was the term.. oh yea.. lingerie armor.
I was just pointing out the fact that there are almost no real "period" examples of female armor, and that the entire issue is not just some direct intentional attack on women...
It's based on a lot of different factors and none of them are really intentionally hostile.
It's mostly just based on sex fantasies of repressed guys who have mostly never gotten layed, and changing slowly because the hobby is still MOSTLY one practiced by those same guys.

As for looking the same on the outside... we are talking art here for the most part, so some
(and i have no idea exactly how much, but some...)
Is based on artistic interpretation.
And BTW not all the artists are guys... ever hear of Julie Bell? the wife or Boris Vallejo... most of her female warriors tend to fall into the "lingerie armor" category

so if you want to point out how wrong i am, at least address my actual comments please.