As I've said numerous times, that's completely irrelevant. A magic system does not discount any sense of reality.
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
In the real world people need that protection because injuries have more diverse consequences than a little red bar shrinking, and in the real world, drinking a mystery red liquid doesn't make boo-boo's all better.
In a game, though, the protective value of armour is dependent on the little number attached to it in the inventory screen, not the materials it's made of or the area it covers. Falling back on "it's not realistic" seems to be missing the point of the question Larian posed, and it's also ignoring the style of the game.
The argument about whether armour should be less sexualized is a great argument and one well worth having, but I think it's a separate one from whether armour should be modeled for real-world protection.
The key difference is that implementing "armour should be real-world protective" has a greater effect on the style of the game than implementing "armour should be less sexualized".
The rules for the game world are interpreted through the game's style. There's nothing wrong with games that go for realism above all, but the talking skeleton bombs tell me that the style of this game world is not a gritty hardcore realism. Under those rules, I can understand that the game world is not realistic, so non-realistic armours are okay.
