Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.

Women are incapable of fighting anyways so might as well make them look good

Does titfucking a woman from the top down while she's still wearing a bra feel good?

>>33442103
>Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.
How about this part:
>MOBILITY >>>> PROTECTION

>>33442164

But thats true.

>>33442112
Depends on the size of the tits, the size of your dick and the amount of lube.

>>33442103
It leaves unaddressed why one would desire the "armored" bit at all. That is a flaw. It also completely ignores the proliferation of firearms, which is the actual reason for the general move away from metallic armor.

>>33442275
so you've never done it before

>>33442279
No, the chick that I tit fucked had too small tits for that.

>>33442103
Im going to fap to this later

>>33442103
The reason why people stopped wearing armor is because guns became a common use for soldiers.
Why waste metal on armor for one guy when you can just use the same metal to make guns on mass.

I'm fine with boobplate since metal armor basically cant be cut through. But bikini mail is just retarded overall.
Mail is very light and hinders your mobility only slightly.
Autism take me

File: 1424650059629.jpg (445KB, 850x1000px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 850x1000px

>>33442103
Poor justification for bikini armor and faulty.

This is how it should be done.

>>33442103
Because once plate was widely affordable, so were firearms.

Armor was only properly abandoned after the development and proliferation of firearms.

Even someone in full Gothic plate is far more mobile than the author seems to think.

>>33442103
So why wear metal? Just be naked instead. I bet that would be really popular because its light and aesthetically pleasing.

>>33442603
Berserkers often fought naked

>>33442103
>Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this logic.

the entire concept is fundamentally flawed.

Development of more advanced metallurgy has nothing whatsoever to do with the abandoning of armour.

That is entirely down to the development of more efficient corned gunpowder that produced sufficient energy to punch through armour, irrespective of its thickness. late medieval armour was bullet-resistant - many harnesses have a dent mark showing they can stop a bullet - the "proof" mark that is the origin of the word "bulletproof".

17th century siege armour, used in the 30 years' war and English Civil war was, bulletproof. But to be so, it was also so thick that it made the wearer severely encumbered - 70+lbs of plate, compared to the 40lbs of a 15th century harness which was not restricting in mobility or agility. It reached the point where the human skeleton was unable to support the extra weight and still fight effectively.

As such, the harness was abandoned, not despite metallurgical advancement, but because metallurgical advancement was insufficient to allow effective protection against the weapons in common use - therefore meaning it was more effective to abandon it entirely, than be completely impaired by its use for no gain.

>>33442112
>some woman is going to want your asshole in her face as you attempt this

Take a shower first mate, and give your cock forge a good scrub down

File: 1464883039780.jpg (336KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1920x1080px

>>33442103
>Why from 17 century blah blah warriors preferred to fight without armor at all?

I'm pretty sure that armor saw some use even into the early 1800s.

I'm also pretty sure that the reason armor meant to protect against blades fell into disuse is because guns became widespread and then you had lots of efforts to make armor that would protect against bullets.

I mean FFS if he wants to stare at tits in his game then that's fine but he shouldn't try to rationalize it like this. Nobody can tell you that you're wrong for liking something (most things) but as soon as you try to come up with reasons as to why your opinion is superior you open yourself up to being wrong and I'm pretty sure this guy is wrong.

By this logic you might as well run into battle naked. There comes a point where sacrificing protection for mobility becomes unviable.
The best thing to do, however is to offer protection, while mitigating mobility loss. This has been the philosophy for armour since the beginning, which peaked with plate armour.

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-03-27 12:34:24 Post No.33442908
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-03-27 12:34:24 Post No.33442908 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/tg/52391974