I'm just saying this. I do not mean the following as an attack or unfair criticism.
It seems more appropriate that she would wear a sport bra, muscle shirt, or halter top/neck, than a bikini top. Given her pecs so big and developed and she is so lean she does not have tits, per say, something "a bit more there" would have been a better choice.
Otherwise, it would not be so strange if she were topless. Either way, I'm not complaining, but the more I think about, it the more it seems likely she'd actually wear a more appropriate top... or none at all.
I'm not sure you are being flippant or serious. I pretty well explained myself. I needn't repeat myself to validate your knee-jerk objection to my very fair comment by arguing about it.
But I will ask you this: Why do muscular characters, male or female, hyper-muscled or not, have to be nearly naked?
If they are going to wear clothes as if they are "normal" people, why not have them wear clothing normal people will wear. Seeing videos and picture of FBB, I have to say, remarkably few of them wear bikinis to the gym and even then usually under actually clothing. Most wear workout clothes, tight shorts and sports tops. Sometimes regular shorts and a t-shirt. I have to say those outfits look a lot more agreeable than a string bikini.
You did read the last sentence in my original comment and ran with that as the underlying premise for your response. Your first response was clearly about the last sentence of my original comment. No where else did I make any remark that could construed as her needing to be topless except there.
The one sentence, you want to point to, has nothing to do with the notion of "Why wear anything over the chest when there [are] no boobs". I did, in fact, suggest that it would have been better for the character to wear more.
The whole comment is a complete idea. Not several disparate ideas. Every sentence needs each other for the whole thing to be understood. That is where I am certain your error lies.