That's the argument that I hate. I know too many women who are well over a D-cup for whom "flat" or "shelf" style of breastplates are what are uncomfortable and impractical. They fight with fairly pronounced formed breasts on their breastplates and prefer the support that gives while being closely fitted everywhere. Several even joust in such armor and their take is pretty much that if you get hit in the boob you're doing it wrong.
Here's the original article, written by a woman who self-admittedly has "tried on a chainmail shirt once" as her armor expertise. She also uses science-y sounding stuff that actually has no bearing in reality.
This is a decent rebuttle (NSFW language and iffy spelling/grammar aside), and
here's the best refutation I've run across. Short version: Your armor shouldn't be hanging off you. Warriors, soldiers, knights, and armorers have known this since antiquity. The armor side of the arms race has been thousands of years of finding the best protection with the most comfort. We have a bizarre notion these days that armor was hot and restrictive and uncomfortable and heavy, while the truth of it is that if it
were 1) those warriors/soldiers/knights would be dead very quickly and 2) those armorers would be out of work. It did not take them long to figure out how to make lightweight, conformal, individually-fitted, padded armor pieces that didn't hinder movement much, if at all.
Also back in those days, women who fought probably didn't have anything much larger than a B-cup to worry about. Loose binding, early versions of sports bras, and well-distributed padding would easily let them be accommodated by "male" pattern breastplates. Such is very much not guaranteed today. All the rest of the original article-writer's "points" don't hold up. If you fall on your face, either gender in any armor, you're doing something seriously wrong. If you're fighting an opponent facing them square-on, you're doing something seriously wrong. If they're trying to stab you with a primarily-slashing weapon, they're doing something seriously wrong. If you're jousting without a shield, you're doing something seriously wrong. Et cetera.
I have no problem with the armor either of Gwendoline's characters wears, as it fits her well and she's comfortable in it. I would not have a problem if she had a breastplate shaped to better accommodate a more-generously-endowed female form, as long as it was done well. I
do agree that "battle bikinis" and full-coverage armor with a plunging neckline are ridiculous. But that's not what we're talking about here. It
can be done well, and it
has been done well. And in Phasma's case, it's not necessary, so it makes sense to not bother. One of my favorite quotes of all time is from Ferdinand Porsche. It guides much of my design work. "Perfection is achieved neither through function alone, nor form alone, but the aesthetic synthesis of the two." "Boob armor" can be practical and non-sexified. Observation and practical experience have proved it. Don't let game companies who bank on titillation convince you otherwise.
--Jonah