People complaining that it's unrealistic that female body armor accentuates breasts (this is true, the saddle point between the breasts is a weakness).

But historically females wearing armor was unrealistic; females are systematically weaker than males, especially upper body. https://twitter.com/EverRotatingSky/status/1327900833325965318

So the modern feminists want unrealistic warrior women but not unrealistic saddle points in armor?

Historically women's breasts were weapons of war, but indirectly; nourishing the next generation of MALE warriors.

The male body is a weapon, the female body is a weapon factory. A good weapon factory isn't optimized for direct combat.

A woman without visible breasts isn't signalling good combat ability so much as bad person-building ability.

Female Commander Shepard here is sending multiple different positive signals, but one of them is "I will make strong babies for you".

If you take the breasts and the hips away it will look worse because it will essentially look like a small, weak man.

tl;dr: your own subconscious is smarter than modern fashionable #Feminism which is a confused mess of virtue signalling that's ungrounded in reality.

I should disclaim that men/women don't have to only do the things that they're evolutionarily adapted for. There's a billion fun things that a man or a woman can do that aren't fighting or birthing.

But you have to wipe away the virtue signalling and wishful thinking.

Addendum: a #FactCheck on warrior women: men are almost twice as strong as women and almost all men are stronger than almost all women.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17186303/ 

"Though female athletes were significantly stronger (444 N) than their untrained female counterparts, this value corresponded to only the 25th percentile of the male subjects."