I don't think those sorts of things are particularly sexy myself (a sexy woman is still sexy in a normal breastplate, or with full body coverage, and the inverse for an unsexy woman), and it's fairly obvious why some people get all het up and bothered about them, especially at the wrong time of the month, but why do these shrill critics with a total lack of both historical knowledge and common sense go around telling everyone it's unrealistic?

Sure, it's impractical and probably uncomfortable, but women routinely sacrifice comfort and practicality to wear garments that emphasize the body parts whose existence feminist comic book pseudofans appear to deplore. You might contend that wearing such garb on the battlefield is dangerous, but so is a lot of the walking that women actually do in high heels. Your smaller swimsuits seem very counter-indicated for the first syllable of their name, given how many women and girls I saw adjusting their upper halves after every wave during my last two weeks down the shore. If you're going to go around huffing about armor that isn't protecting the wearer out of vanity, fantasy art has been depicting bare-headed men in armor at least as long as it has been showing chain-mail bikinis and protruding breastplates. A woman in the latter could arguably still be protected. A man without a helmet in the thick of a battle is armoring all but the most important body parts, even if it's not sexual. If they are contending there is a difference between the sexuality implicit in the two genders' portrayals, well that really only reflects how men and women dress in real life.

Is there something I'm missing here?