Asterios wrote: and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.
As the Official Designated Female™ for this thread I will offer my opinion: boobplate armor is The Worst, and you should be ashamed of yourself for liking it.
Jayden63 wrote: Its been a crazy long time since any model line that was released was univerally praised as being great looking, or just what everyone wanted.
I think the last once that came close was when the DE were reimagined.
No, I think it was the Imperial Knights line. Great models *and* exactly what everyone wanted!
Except the stupid legs. Forge World Knights are fine though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.
Surprisingly, not all females think the same way. Some aren't going to like boob plate, some aren't going to care, some are going to like it. Some might feel objectified by it, some won't. What's the proportion? Feth knows.
personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
For Sisters of Battle I'm not specifically opposed to the boob plate, but I'm not overly fond of the naughty nun/corset/S&M theme on some models, mainly the Repentia. Compare them to the Empire Flagellants.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Cadian females have masculine facial features, duh.
And that is why people are complaining. They are not "feminine" enough OR "sexy" enough. I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.
I find it funny a lot of people will say its "ceremonial" but if it's ceremonial and Sisters of Battles have money for it, why are they wearing it into battle though?
Yodhrin wrote:
I think it's pretty unfair to go after SoB for having large breasts on the models, considering the models are hilariously old at this stage -
It's the Sisters of Battles who have the "Look it's boobs" on their armour. Ceremonial or not, that is something you don't wear in battle unless it's magic armour. Then fine, ceremonial armour it is.
Again either way I don't care. I thought it would be a good topic. Funny two or three posters come in and say "this again?". Well why are you commenting and keeping the thread going if you want it to die? I can never understand the people who don't want a thread going keep reading it, and posting it to keep it going and on top.
Peregrine wrote: IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:
1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.
2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.
As usual, Peregrine hits the nail on the head.
I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.
I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.
I too would like some more prominent alternatives, such as Guard females. However, I would personally say that Eldar Guardians, Howling Banshees and Harlequins have more reasonable armour for representing females who wear helmets/masks. The fact that they haven't been mentioned 11 pages in is a little weird really; I don't think those models constitute as having Boob Armour.
I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.
I too would like some more prominent alternatives, such as Guard females. However, I would personally say that Eldar Guardians, Howling Banshees and Harlequins have more reasonable armour for representing females who wear helmets/masks. The fact that they haven't been mentioned 11 pages in is a little weird really; I don't think those models constitute as having Boob Armour.
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.
I actually think the whole thing is overblown because they're 28mm models and at that scale it's not really as noticeable as it is in the ginormous pictures people post on the interwebs.
EDIT: This thread has made me look at the Sisters range more and realise that, although I like them, they are a bit dated. They really look like models from the 90's. If Warhammer TV wasn't pulling our legs and Sisters are getting plastics it'll be interesting to see what they do with them, though Sisters are one of those models I personally think are better suited to metal anyway.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
I think it's pretty unfair to go after SoB for having large breasts on the models, considering the models are hilariously old at this stage -
It's the Sisters of Battles who have the "Look it's boobs" on their armour. Ceremonial or not, that is something you don't wear in battle unless it's magic armour. Then fine, ceremonial armour it is.
*sigh*
This is what happens when you cut out and ignore most of a post to respond to what you think someone has said - you don't respond to what they actually said. The point of comparing the SoB metals with other contemporaneous sculpts is to note that all physical features on almost all sculpts of that same era are extremely exaggerated, which suggest that the most rational assumption to make regarding the creation of the SoB models was that the sculptor created a female form with exhaggerated physical features, breasts included, not that they were a giggling wee manchild thinking "hurrhurrhurr big bewbeezz make bewbeezz bigger durr!". And hence, that any modern SoB models will likely be far better proportioned, including in terms of their chest, even if they still have the same overall aesthetic.
SoB models having a defined, ornamented breastplate is an aesthetic choice, it's part of their core "look". In exactly the same way that a defined, ornamented breastplate is now part of the Blood Angels "look"(and don't anybody start with this arbitrary "sexual objectification vs power fantasy" nonsense, because anyone arguing that well-defned male torso musculature combined with emo vampire and tortured artist themes isn't a wildly popular fantasy with a sexual component among women in this day & age is just making a fool of themselves, and it's no more of a stretch to connect that fantasy to Blood Angels than it is to connect SoB to S&M/leather nun fetishism as many seem determined to). The fact the existing SoB metal models appear to have unfeasibly large boobs under their ornamented breastplates is most likely not a deliberate aesthetic choice specifically about the SoB, it's a result of the intersection between the actual aesthetic choice with whatever sensibilities(whether aesthetic or technical) were informing the sculpting of all GW's models at that time.
Asterios wrote: I'm curious are there any females here on the DakkaDakka board? if so can we get their input regarding the expected SoB sculpts?
and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.
There are a couple threads about sexualization of miniatures already on here. I originally posted some varied opinions from various women in our game group (although technically speaking even if someone spoke up, the sample size is too small). I'm not going to dig it up but you are welcome to search for it. Overall no one cared. My wife for example doesn't care about boob plate, mainly because she never gets that far. She thinks the sculpts are dated, horrible looking and ugly. She does like some of the Raging Heroes stuff, isn't a fan of the breasts exposed ones but it doesn't bother her. However she doesn't need female miniatures to identify with, she'd rather have good looking male miniatures which they aren't because they tend to be WWF wrestlers or grizzled veterans with beards. She plays men in video games because she wants something nice to look at, not something to poorly represent her.
But this is why sexualization is subjective. There is no 80% of a race or even a particular sex is going to say "yes" or "no" in agreement. They all have varied opinions which subjective doesn't always effect if they are actually buying it or not. Also as pointed out her opinion doesn't represent all of women, just as some women point of views don't represent hers.
I'll bring up the latest Iron Man variant cover which Scott Cambell is under fire for being over-sexualization of a 15 year old. There are various posts saying this is what an average 15 year old looks and this is what his looks like, etc. But again sexualization is a hard topic because it is subjective. It is subjective based on the viewer of the art getting an response as they look at it and often overlaid with their own perspectives, opinions and experiences. For example what is considered sexualized about the cover? The fact she has a skin tight top, she has a larger than average cup size or that she is wearing low cut pants?
Spoiler:
What one person views as sexualized another person doesn't because I wouldn't of even thought of it as sexualization until someone pointed it out. Although I can see and understand their point of view... but like the children that are at my daughters middle school. I sure don't sexualize them nor do I think they are sexualized. They unfortunately do have skin tight tops, low cut yoga pants or whatever tight fitting material you want to call it, bare midriffs, etc. Now granted that isn't the majority of the school, it is probably a fairly good percentage. Using the rule of 80/20 I'll say 20% although it is more. Are there people that would sexualize them... unfortunately yes. The average person doesn't and probably won't even give them a second glance. But I don't go around telling them how they should dress their children or point out the misjustices they are contributing too.
Mymearan wrote: For Sisters of Battle I'm not specifically opposed to the boob plate, but I'm not overly fond of the naughty nun/corset/S&M theme on some models, mainly the Repentia. Compare them to the Empire Flagellants.
I can agree with that. It is probably the one thing that has stopped me from actually playing SoB.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
Davor wrote: I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.
You've never played SWtoR then I take it? It isn't so much that no one plays them, there are only a few games that actually allow that body type. Quite a few people played large women in SWtOR. There was a big issue when they made adjustments to the body types awhile back. City of Heroes people played bulky types as well. Both SWtOR and CoH/CoV had a larger female player base that we played with. CoH/CoV people tend to play ones that represent them (ie: more men playing males, females playing females). In SWtoR or even WoW, it tends to be more people playing what they like to look at (ie: my wife plays men and I play females).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Annoyance wrote: You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
The look is more subtle because of the waist sizes. They all have the same legs, hips, waist size. The only thing making them female is the "boob armor", which also has a 6-pack like the male counterparts. Also the boob-plate is roughly similar is size to the male counterpart pec-plate. When you put them on a table most people wouldn't be able to tell they were females unless you are looking for it... which honestly is fine with me.
My only real complaint is that their waist sizes are the same... but you know, elves and stuff.
terry wrote: personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".
jhe90 wrote: The original SOB models are older that there players at times.
Aye some ain't perfect but the blame is on decisions made many years ago, not current management.
But that is Obviously TBD until new models are seen.
And to add to this, new art work has been produced all a long since those old models and the cross hairs on the boob plate has not disappeared from the art. It has not diminished a single iota that we have seen.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
But the actual model size is closer to this...
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
terry wrote: personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
-image snip-
It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".
AllSeeingSkink wrote:To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yes, the ornamentation to my eye is probably the reason it looks more protruding. The Eldar bodysuits are much more skintight than the SoB Power Armour, however, which, as discussed earlier, most likely has the breast shapes added on for style rather than practicality. Perhaps the Eldar examples are also more about style, but outside of the Banshee's Aspect Armour, Guardians and Harlequins wear what can be equated to a wetsuit that can stop bullets; the Guardian's Mesh Armour in particular "maintains a glove tight fit", so perhaps this is why you get the breast definition.
Ashiraya wrote:
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
I can see that working for the most part on a Power Armoured model such as a Sister. However, if I could go back to my example I used earlier with Victoria Miniatures...
Spoiler:
While the sculpt can be defined as a female by looking at the legs and the arms, the effect is a very subtle one. Even the helmeted models have little distinction between the male models.
What I'm trying to say is that I'd be worried if the sculpting you can do on the legs and arms would not be enough to define the miniature as female easily. I know we've done this whole "defining from a distance" talk a lot, but I would feel that some models would need a defining chest plate more than others. Sisters may be able to get away with having a flatter chest, but again I reckon their armour is done more for style than any attempt at being practical.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
I may as well add a disclaimer for the sake of a disclaimer: I don't care either way if "Boobplate" is to stay or go, and personally I've never thought about it when I see a Sister model. I certainly take no sexual gratification from having them on models, and typically don't agree with the sexualisation of miniatures unless it is for some aesthetic or comedic purpose, such as with Infinity models. I certainly wouldn't accept models like this entering 40k:
Spoiler:
Now that is Boob Armour, and sexualisation of a miniature for no good reason. Sisters are neither of those things in my eyes, even if their armour is impractical.
Dark Severance wrote:
Davor wrote: I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.
You've never played SWtoR then I take it? It isn't so much that no one plays them, there are only a few games that actually allow that body type. Quite a few people played large women in SWtOR. There was a big issue when they made adjustments to the body types awhile back. City of Heroes people played bulky types as well. Both SWtOR and CoH/CoV had a larger female player base that we played with. CoH/CoV people tend to play ones that represent them (ie: more men playing males, females playing females). In SWtoR or even WoW, it tends to be more people playing what they like to look at (ie: my wife plays men and I play females).
I've played as females in my Fallout and ES playthroughs, as well as playing a female soldier in Advanced Warfare one time. Funnily enough in that game (which is mostly played by pre-teens - young teens) my soldier was often the only female in the lobby. To me, the demographic that people think companies are appealing to with things like Boob Armour are more likely to play as males if given a choice because "ewww, girls!".
And no, AW females didn't have Boob Armour. I had less control of that in Fallout:NV, but part of that was my fault for wearing Leather Armour/Assassin Suit most of the time. Not for sexual purposes, promise
The look is more subtle because of the waist sizes. They all have the same legs, hips, waist size. The only thing making them female is the "boob armor", which also has a 6-pack like the male counterparts. Also the boob-plate is roughly similar is size to the male counterpart pec-plate. When you put them on a table most people wouldn't be able to tell they were females unless you are looking for it... which honestly is fine with me.
My only real complaint is that their waist sizes are the same... but you know, elves and stuff.
Perhaps that is why they have the plates then. The Banshees look suitably slender enough to see as females before you see their chest plates, but I find that female Harlequins and Guardians get lost in their squads quite easily.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
Spoiler:
But the actual model size is closer to this...
Spoiler:
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
Spoiler:
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?
I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
Spoiler:
But the actual model size is closer to this...
Spoiler:
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
Spoiler:
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?
I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.
Because not everyone buys models for the same reason as you, and some may feel how they look on the table is more important? Devil's advocacy aside I actually don't buy the "at a distance" argument myself, I defend the SoB aesthetic because it's an interesting and unique one and I don't accept that it's sexist, any more than a nude art study is sexist or a fertility goddess statue is sexist - intent and proportionality(in the sense of this and this are both an example of that, but one is a serious problem and the other probably isn't, or at least shouldn't be a priority for any rational person - and no, that is not "code" to intimate that men are rational and women are not) are two things that certain people are apparently unable to grasp.
Simply exhibiting female physical characteristics, even in an exaggerated way, does not mean the intent of the depiction is to titilate(have a look at the Raging Heroes models posing legs-akimbo with pidgeon-foot posing suggestively licking their lips in a low-cut corset if you want to know what that looks like), and without that intent it's ludicrous to place the burden of all our social problems with sexism on ths one thing.
Games Workshop do, I feel, have a responsibility as the market leader towards diversity, but that is best expressed through radically expanding the quantity, quality, and variety of female miniatures and characters they make and write about, not by them removing existing depictions because sex-negative neopuritans are incapable of distinguishing between depicting an obviously feminine form and depicting an obviously feminine form in order to titilate the viewer.
As an aside, has it not occurred to anyone who brands the Sisters as sexist that their depiction as obviously female, aggressively militant "nuns with guns" is a deliberate middle-finger to the very patriarchal idea that women should be quiet, demure, and chaste? I don't claim to know the mind of John Blanche as he was designing them but considering the obvious Punk sensibilities in a lot of his art, that expanation is at least as likely as the idea some mouthbreathing neckbeard wanted to make sexy lady-dollies to play with.
Don't you worry, there are a few females on this thread how your gender exactly makes a difference in most discussions is still something that baffles me
General Annoyance wrote: Don't you worry, there are a few females on this thread how your gender exactly makes a difference in most discussions is still something that baffles me
Lance845 wrote: [Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
By that 'logic', they're also drawing the (dirty dirty male) gaze to the knees.
Just because you've got a pair of knockers doesn't mean you have some kind of higher ground to support whichever "side" you're on, especially when talking about a fantasy universe. The best you could provide is some anecdotal information or support, whatever good that will do for a mostly over the top, fantasy setting. Whoever's behind the screen is not relevant - they could be lying about their identity for all you know. It's all about what they say.
JohnHwangDD wrote: What makes you think in 10 pages of comments, none of the posters have been female?
that is why i'm asking. I don't know who is female or not.
that and if any females they are probably looking at us making judgment calls and sexualization decisions over little barely over an inch miniatures.
Doesn't really matter I guess, they're models and the only really troubling ones are the really inappropriate ones anyway cause it's just kind of uncomfortable to see them at somewhere like a GW or such. I don't think anyone is making judgement calls either.
@Yodhrin You seem to assume a level of integrity in intent that frankly there is no evidence for. GW has never produced models or fluff for any other reason then to appeal to 13 year old male power fantasy.
Which is not, in and of itself, a problem. That immature ridiculous over the top grim dark insanity is most of the appeal of 40ks fluff.
When they got started the idea that what they were creating when they made their female models was damaging or offensive was not even a discussion. It's only been in the last 20... 25ish years that the discussion has gained any real traction at all and only in the last 16ish that companys have started to acknowledge it with their promotional material and products.
The idea that the sisters are the same as a nude art study is just plain wrong. The point of the vast majority of nude art created from a life model is to study the human form. To understand how it moves, how light and shadow acts on it etc etc...
The sisters are not modeled to study the human form. They were not designed to show an expression of the female form. They are battle nuns in a ridiculous setting designed to appeal to their primary market in an industry dominated by men and traditionally mostly supported by men. Think that is ridiculous? Lets look at one of the very first books that codified rules for minature war gaming and got this hobby started.
Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books, by H.G. Wells.
The fact is GW has never been a particularly great company in a lot of ways. But they most definitely have done a piss poor job of diversity and respectful representation of minorities in their miniature lines. Coupled with their target audience and the time these models were created it is a sure thing that the guy who made these models was not attempting to create a classy representation of females in the 40k universe that challenged "the patriarchal idea that women should be quiet".
This goes doubly when you account for the fact that their fluff is they are called the "brides of the emperor" and are all blindly evangelical cultists that worship a patriarchal figure in a patriarchal society dominated by patriarchal figures and whos poster boys and greatest heroes are patriarchal super men in power armor that very specifically cannot be women.
As an aside, has it not occurred to anyone who brands the Sisters as sexist that their depiction as obviously female, aggressively militant "nuns with guns" is a deliberate middle-finger to the very patriarchal idea that women should be quiet, demure, and chaste? I don't claim to know the mind of John Blanche as he was designing them but considering the obvious Punk sensibilities in a lot of his art, that expanation is at least as likely as the idea some mouthbreathing neckbeard wanted to make sexy lady-dollies to play with.
That explanation is not "at least as likely". Taking the entire situation into account at the time the sisters were invented and those models were made it is actually incredibly UNLIKELY that any thought about respectful representation of women or the models ability to act as a figure of empowerment against a negative world view of women was done at all.
This is not a 50/50 chance that the team behind their design was trying to be respectful or not. It's like like a 99.99999% certainty that they were not.
Sure, there is a 0.00001% chance that the entire team decided to account for ideology's that for all intents and purposes didn't exist at the time AND convinced their superiors to let them do it. I will agree there is a chance. I might also get struck by a meteorite when I walk outside my door. The probability is so low as to be meaningless.
terry wrote: personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
-image snip-
It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".
What tremendous nonsense.
Ah I see now. Someone who has a differing opinion than you is nonsense. His opinion is perfectly valid just like yours. Do I agree with him? No but I respect his opinion.
Now I see your point now. Here I thought you were correct but now, if nobody thinks like you they are wrong. Got it.
Just remember back in the day, a dress over the ankles was sexualizing. So everyone has a different opinion and their opinions are valid, not nonsense. Do I agree? No. Who am I to say they are wrong or not in what they think.
Just because you've got a pair of knockers doesn't mean you have some kind of higher ground to support whichever "side" you're on, especially when talking about a fantasy universe. The best you could provide is some anecdotal information or support, whatever good that will do for a mostly over the top, fantasy setting. Whoever's behind the screen is not relevant - they could be lying about their identity for all you know. It's all about what they say.
oh I don't know maybe them being female they might have an input on how women feel about how women are represented in the SoB miniatures, just my 2-cents.
JohnHwangDD wrote: What makes you think in 10 pages of comments, none of the posters have been female?
that is why i'm asking. I don't know who is female or not.
that and if any females they are probably looking at us making judgment calls and sexualization decisions over little barely over an inch miniatures.
I barely care about anyone's opinions, anyway. Be they man, woman, or household pet. "Shut up, cat! You can't have my tuna!"
I will tell you my wife's opinion anyway as she shared it with me. For what it's worth....
This is cool:
Spoiler:
This is stupid:
Spoiler:
thats pretty much how I see it, I see people getting in a twist about SoB miniatures when there is so much wrong with other miniature companies it boggles the mind. also you know the Cat has control over you? they are using their powers on you man.
Lance845 wrote: This goes doubly when you account for the fact that their fluff is they are called the "brides of the emperor" and are all blindly evangelical cultists that worship a patriarchal figure in a patriarchal society dominated by patriarchal figures and whos poster boys and greatest heroes are patriarchal super men in power armor that very specifically cannot be women.
That explanation is not "at least as likely". Taking the entire situation into account at the time the sisters were invented and those models were made it is actually incredibly UNLIKELY that any thought about respectful representation of women or the models ability to act as a figure of empowerment against a negative world view of women was done at all.
This is not a 50/50 chance that the team behind their design was trying to be respectful or not. It's like like a 99.99999% certainty that they were not.
Sure, there is a 0.00001% chance that the entire team decided to account for ideology's that for all intents and purposes didn't exist at the time AND convinced their superiors to let them do it. I will agree there is a chance. I might also get struck by a meteorite when I walk outside my door. The probability is so low as to be meaningless.
They're the Daughters of the Emperor, not the brides. As the Space Marines are also the sons of the Emperor. The brides were a kind of heretical cult of groupies following Vandire during that whole age of apostasy thing which led to the Decree Passive preventing the church from maintaining "Men under arms" thus the style is likely intentional as they exist as a loophole. They started as the daughters of the Emperor as well, just that cult that decided to be super loyal to Vandire that changed.
It's very likely when they were designed at first that GW didn't even think of that ideology stuff because it wasn't such a huge topic as it is now, it was still relevant but it goes to show the stagnation in the overall development of the SoB. So I wouldn't really put any thoughts of what their intentions were regarding this sort of stuff other than there was likely some sort of background reason for their decisions and due to the technology they were working with at the time if they hadn't gone the boobplate route the models would have likely not have stood out as female so much. Just as the bobcut was a decision made because of their casting methods.
oh I don't know maybe them being female they might have an input on how women feel about how women are represented in the SoB miniatures, just my 2-cents.
Just because they are part of a demographic does not mean they can speak for all of that demographic. I may be an 18 year old male, but just because I say I don't see SoB miniatures as sexualised or sexy, doesn't mean other males my age don't weirdly dribble over such models and their "Boob Armour". There are usually other people who agree with you from the same demographic, but I would recommend people only speak for themselves, and possibly anyone they know who they know agrees with them, without caring for who and how many people agree with your statements on a network where you mostly remain anonymous.
Saying you're female adds just as much usefulness to your point as those kids on YouTube comment feeds who say "I'm 14 by the way" for no apparent reason. While anecdotal information can be helpful, it's not going to contribute in this discussion unless you have a profession or hobby along the lines of a sculptor or similar, and by that point, nobody should give a damn whether you're male or female.
oh I don't know maybe them being female they might have an input on how women feel about how women are represented in the SoB miniatures, just my 2-cents.
Just because they are part of a demographic does not mean they can speak for all of that demographic. I may be an 18 year old male, but just because I say I don't see SoB miniatures as sexualised or sexy, doesn't mean other males my age don't weirdly dribble over such models and their "Boob Armour". There are usually other people who agree with you from the same demographic, but I would recommend people only speak for themselves, and possibly anyone they know who they know agrees with them, without caring for who and how many people agree with your statements on a network where you mostly remain anonymous.
Saying you're female adds just as much usefulness to your point as those kids on YouTube comment feeds who say "I'm 14 by the way" for no apparent reason. While anecdotal information can be helpful, it's not going to contribute in this discussion unless you have a profession or hobby along the lines of a sculptor or similar, and by that point, nobody should give a damn whether you're male or female.
G.A
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
terry wrote: personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
-image snip-
It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".
What tremendous nonsense.
Ah I see now. Someone who has a differing opinion than you is nonsense. His opinion is perfectly valid just like yours. Do I agree with him? No but I respect his opinion.
Now I see your point now. Here I thought you were correct but now, if nobody thinks like you they are wrong. Got it.
Just remember back in the day, a dress over the ankles was sexualizing. So everyone has a different opinion and their opinions are valid, not nonsense. Do I agree? No. Who am I to say they are wrong or not in what they think.
Professor Brian Cox wrote:The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
JohnHwangDD wrote: What makes you think in 10 pages of comments, none of the posters have been female?
that is why i'm asking. I don't know who is female or not.
that and if any females they are probably looking at us making judgment calls and sexualization decisions over little barely over an inch miniatures.
I'm not even sure why they would have to identify themselves as such to you. What makes you think that you are entitled to knowing whether someone is female or not? ____
kronk wrote: I will tell you my wife's opinion anyway as she shared it with me. For what it's worth....
This is stupid:
Spoiler:
I see someone watched Equilibrium. Which was unbelievably stupid and stupidly unbelievable from the very first scenes.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
That's not it all. Their opinion matters, their gender does not.
Asterios wrote: actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
I said that their supposed gender doesn't matter, not their opinion. So yes, you have painted me as the villain due to your misinterpretation of what I said.
If you think I did say their opinions don't matter, go and find it for me. I shall wait here, like I did the last time this happened.
Azreal13 wrote: That's not it all. Their opinion matters, their gender does not.
I would disagree. The fact that the sexualization/objectification of them for a long time in Sci-Fi/Fantasy gives their say a bit more weight.
Extra weight on what, exactly? Somebody's opinion is not stronger than another's simply because their demographic is of concern, at least not in this circumstance. However, they can potentially provide useful anecdotal information, although this information should always be taken with a grain of salt - it may strengthen their argument, but it doesn't change the validity of their opinion, which is always valid, unless it is mindless or deliberately outrageous.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
That's not it all. Their opinion matters, their gender does not.
This. The point of feminism and all the studies associated with it is not that women want equality. It's that people want equality. They study that through various different lenses including women, minorities, etc etc...
Every person is deserving of the basic respect that all people deserve. Nothing more or less. In this discussion all peoples opinions matter. But those opinions are not less or more because they come from a woman or a man. They are less or more by the validity of the points they make. If you disregard a persons opinion because of what they have in between their legs your wrong and part of the problem. If you give a persons opinion undue consideration and validity based on what they have between their legs you're probably an idiot. Also, part of the problem.
Lance845 wrote:Every person is deserving of the basic respect that all people deserve. Nothing more or less. In this discussion all peoples opinions matter. But those opinions are not less or more because they come from a woman or a man. They are less or more by the validity of the points they make.
Exalted
kronk wrote:My opinion is most important, in my important opinion.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
That's not it all. Their opinion matters, their gender does not.
This. The point of feminism and all the studies associated with it is not that women want equality. It's that people want equality. They study that through various different lenses including women, minorities, etc etc...
Every person is deserving of the basic respect that all people deserve. Nothing more or less. In this discussion all peoples opinions matter. But those opinions are not less or more because they come from a woman or a man. They are less or more by the validity of the points they make. If you disregard a persons opinion because of what they have in between their legs your wrong and part of the problem. If you give a persons opinion undue consideration and validity based on what they have between their legs your probably an idiot. Also, part of the problem.
Are you saying the differences between 2 people shouldn't make anyones opinion matter more or less? Because I can think of several historical instances where that is not the case.
Are you saying the differences between 2 people shouldn't make anyones opinion matter more or less?
In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.
Are you saying the differences between 2 people shouldn't make anyones opinion matter more or less? Because I can think of several historical instances where that is not the case.
Are you asking a sarcastic question? A persons opinion is not inherently more valid for any reason other than the validity of their opinion. There are idiots and bigots in all communities, from every walk of life, and with intimate knowledge of every subject matter. Just because somebody grew up in a specific area doesn't mean their opinion on that area should automatically carry more weight then somebody who did not. That person could easily be a racist bigot moron with no concept of greater societal structure and trends and their "opinion" on "how to make it better" could very easily be the most destructive outlook in existence. Peoples differences do not make their opinion matter more or less.
All people are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of the person. All peoples opinions are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of their argument.
A different person might have a different perspective to bring to the table due to their differences. In fact, it's basically guaranteed that that will be the case with every single person you ever meet. Their different perspective doesn't make their opinion more valid, it just means they might be bringing something new you might not have thought of because they are them and you are you. Weigh it intelligently.
Are you saying the differences between 2 people shouldn't make anyones opinion matter more or less?
In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question. Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.
Just to be clear, not even here! A confessed or closeted pervert is going to have pretty crappy arguments to support his enjoyment of boob armor. The validity of his arguments will show in his statements. You will probably be able to figure out this person is a pervert before to long.
All people are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of the person. All peoples opinions are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of their argument.
A different person might have a different perspective to bring to the table due to their differences. In fact, it's basically guaranteed that that will be the case with every single person you ever meet. Their different perspective doesn't make their opinion more valid, it just means they might be bringing something new you might not have thought of because they are them and you are you. Weigh it intelligently.
I agree with this statement; however, there is a difference between an informed and uninformed opinion. I wouldn't discount someone's interest in what a person of the opposite sex thinks about this topic as they are likely looking to create a more informed opinion. If you approach it from a more positive standpoint, you could infer that the person asking is showing sensitivity for whether a woman might find something offensive. I, personally, may be ambivalent about "boob armor" but if several women were to step forward and present an opinion, as the subject matter is women, not men, I could develop a better informed opinion for myself regarding whether the subject is offensive or not. I'm not asking someone to make my mind up for me but I would be asking them to help me come to a conclusion.
If I ask a carpenter (with no background in the subject) about astrophysics, he/she might have an opinion on the subject but I'd be more apt to let the comments of an astrophysicist weigh on the development of my opinion than that of the carpenter with no background in astrophysics. My asking the astrophysicist for their opinion on astrophysics does not detract from the opinion of the carpenter, who may have a unique perspective on the subject, but it does add to the discussion and helps me to formulate my own opinion.
Just to be clear, not even here! A confessed or closeted pervert is going to have pretty crappy arguments to support his enjoyment of boob armor. The validity of his arguments will show in his statements. You will probably be able to figure out this person is a pervert before to long.
All people are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of the person. All peoples opinions are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of their argument.
A different person might have a different perspective to bring to the table due to their differences. In fact, it's basically guaranteed that that will be the case with every single person you ever meet. Their different perspective doesn't make their opinion more valid, it just means they might be bringing something new you might not have thought of because they are them and you are you. Weigh it intelligently.
I agree with this statement; however, there is a difference between an informed and uninformed opinion. I wouldn't discount someone's interest in what a person of the opposite sex thinks about this topic as they are likely looking to create a more informed opinion. If you approach it from a more positive standpoint, you could infer that the person asking is showing sensitivity for whether a woman might find something offensive. I, personally, may be ambivalent about "boob armor" but if several women were to step forward and present an opinion, as the subject matter is women, not men, I could develop a better informed opinion for myself regarding whether the subject is offensive or not. I'm not asking someone to make my mind up for me but I would be asking them to help me come to a conclusion.
If I ask a carpenter (with no background in the subject) about astrophysics, he/she might have an opinion on the subject but I'd be more apt to let the comments of an astrophysicist weigh on the development of my opinion than that of the carpenter with no background in astrophysics. My asking the astrophysicist for their opinion on astrophysics does not detract from the opinion of the carpenter, who may have a unique perspective on the subject, but it does add to the discussion and helps me to formulate my own opinion.
I get what your saying, but what you are saying is the same thing as me in a more specific way without taking some factors into account.
A man can come to you and present the same arguments that 5 women do against boob armor. That mans opinion is the same as those women. His arguments carry the same logical weight. If the only thing that prevented you from hearing what that guy had to say is the fact that he has a penis then you are corrupting the conversation. The fact that it is a man does not mean he has not put his nose in the books and studied the issues of inequality and the way gender issues are presented in media effects the way people treat the genders. That man could be your astrophysicist.
By the same token those 5 women may have never given equality issues a second thought and they may be your carpenter.
Treating a woman's opinion as more valid simply because she is a woman is JUST AS destructive as treating it as less. A persons differences do not matter.
The only valid way to weigh their opinions, and thus their "professional opinion" is by the quality of their argument.
Just to be clear, not even here! A confessed or closeted pervert is going to have pretty crappy arguments to support his enjoyment of boob armor. The validity of his arguments will show in his statements. You will probably be able to figure out this person is a pervert before to long.
You never know, he may be a well versed pervert
By all accounts, Hitler had excellent taste in wine!*
Just to be clear, not even here! A confessed or closeted pervert is going to have pretty crappy arguments to support his enjoyment of boob armor. The validity of his arguments will show in his statements. You will probably be able to figure out this person is a pervert before to long.
You never know, he may be a well versed pervert
By all accounts, Hitler had excellent taste in wine!*
*I just made that up.
Wait, did you just out yourself as a boob-loving pervert?
Lance845 wrote: The point of feminism and all the studies associated with it is not that women want equality. It's that people want equality.
Just as a point of quibble. People do not actually want equality... this is the wrong term. They really want equity. When someone says they want equality they are usually asking for the wrong thing.
All people are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of the person. All peoples opinions are weighed exactly the same. By the quality of their argument.
A different person might have a different perspective to bring to the table due to their differences. In fact, it's basically guaranteed that that will be the case with every single person you ever meet. Their different perspective doesn't make their opinion more valid, it just means they might be bringing something new you might not have thought of because they are them and you are you. Weigh it intelligently.
I agree with this statement; however, there is a difference between an informed and uninformed opinion. I wouldn't discount someone's interest in what a person of the opposite sex thinks about this topic as they are likely looking to create a more informed opinion. If you approach it from a more positive standpoint, you could infer that the person asking is showing sensitivity for whether a woman might find something offensive. I, personally, may be ambivalent about "boob armor" but if several women were to step forward and present an opinion, as the subject matter is women, not men, I could develop a better informed opinion for myself regarding whether the subject is offensive or not. I'm not asking someone to make my mind up for me but I would be asking them to help me come to a conclusion.
If I ask a carpenter (with no background in the subject) about astrophysics, he/she might have an opinion on the subject but I'd be more apt to let the comments of an astrophysicist weigh on the development of my opinion than that of the carpenter with no background in astrophysics. My asking the astrophysicist for their opinion on astrophysics does not detract from the opinion of the carpenter, who may have a unique perspective on the subject, but it does add to the discussion and helps me to formulate my own opinion.
I get what your saying, but what you are saying is the same thing as me in a more specific way without taking some factors into account.
A man can come to you and present the same arguments that 5 women do against boob armor. That mans opinion is the same as those women. His arguments carry the same logical weight. If the only thing that prevented you from hearing what that guy had to say is the fact that he has a penis then you are corrupting the conversation. The fact that it is a man does not mean he has not put his nose in the books and studied the issues of inequality and the way gender issues are presented in media effects the way people treat the genders. That man could be your astrophysicist.
By the same token those 5 women may have never given equality issues a second thought and they may be your carpenter.
Treating a woman's opinion as more valid simply because she is a woman is JUST AS destructive as treating it as less. A persons differences do not matter.
The only valid way to weigh their opinions, and thus their "professional opinion" is by the quality of their argument.
A most excellent point, perhaps put most succinctly by Maimonides;
-"The Truth is the Truth, no matter the source."
Or to reference an earlier aside, in some instances Hitler is correct and Gandhi is wrong: the content of an argument is independent of the moral character of the advocate.
Lance845 wrote: The point of feminism and all the studies associated with it is not that women want equality. It's that people want equality.
Just as a point of quibble. People do not actually want equality... this is the wrong term. They really want equity. When someone says they want equality they are usually asking for the wrong thing.
No. You are wrong.
Feminism does not want to be given things to make up for short comings to create a universally balanced playing field for all involved. Feminism understands that 2 different people are 2 different people and should be weighed by the merits of the person.
What feminism and the equality movements are asking for is to NOT be judged based on irrelevant factors.
I understand that there are people who want equity. Equity is a inherently flawed concept. Equality is the idea that when you do interviews for a job posting you only take into account whether or not they are the best fit for the job. Not if they are black. Not if they are a woman. Not if they are gay. Just whether or not that person is the best fit for the position.
You don't treat this person different because she is a woman (be that better or worse). You treat this person like you would treat anyone else because they are a person.
The idea is not that a man should not hit a woman. That is not some bigger and worse crime because he is a he and she is a she. A person shouldn't be hitting anybody. If you cannot live with someone without resorting to violence then you are a monster. It doesn't mater who the person you're hitting is.
Lance845 wrote: The point of feminism and all the studies associated with it is not that women want equality. It's that people want equality.
Just as a point of quibble. People do not actually want equality... this is the wrong term. They really want equity. When someone says they want equality they are usually asking for the wrong thing.
No. You are wrong.
Feminism does not want to be given things to make up for short comings to create a universally balanced playing field for all involved. Feminism understands that 2 different people are 2 different people and should be weighed by the merits of the person.
What feminism and the equality movements are asking for is to NOT be judged based on irrelevant factors.
I understand that there are people who want equity. Equity is a inherently flawed concept. Equality is the idea that when you do interviews for a job posting you only take into account whether or not they are the best fit for the job. Not if they are black. Not if they are a woman. Not if they are gay. Just whether or not that person is the best fit for the position.
You don't treat this person different because she is a woman (be that better or worse). You treat this person like you would treat anyone else because they are a person.
The idea is not that a man should not hit a woman. That is not some bigger and worse crime because he is a he and she is a she. A person shouldn't be hitting anybody. If you cannot live with someone without resorting to violence then you are a monster. It doesn't mater who the person you're hitting is.
Thank you, that was well-put.
Note that equity says that the person's ability to do a job is irrelevant - you just give them boxes to stand on even if they're not competent.
Are you saying the differences between 2 people shouldn't make anyones opinion matter more or less?
In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.
well then answer this, what do you think of women breast feeding in public? or women going topless? considering the items in question also refer to what you call being apparent on miniatures, too be honest I see no problem but then again the only female miniatures I have are the ones that came in my Sedition wars games, I have no SoB's or even fluffy eye candy miniatures.
I get what your saying, but what you are saying is the same thing as me in a more specific way without taking some factors into account.
A man can come to you and present the same arguments that 5 women do against boob armor. That mans opinion is the same as those women. His arguments carry the same logical weight. If the only thing that prevented you from hearing what that guy had to say is the fact that he has a penis then you are corrupting the conversation. The fact that it is a man does not mean he has not put his nose in the books and studied the issues of inequality and the way gender issues are presented in media effects the way people treat the genders. That man could be your astrophysicist.
By the same token those 5 women may have never given equality issues a second thought and they may be your carpenter.
Treating a woman's opinion as more valid simply because she is a woman is JUST AS destructive as treating it as less. A persons differences do not matter.
The only valid way to weigh their opinions, and thus their "professional opinion" is by the quality of their argument.
Interesting. We agree in general but seem to differ on a fairly minor point. Thanks for your perspective!
I wouldn't say that I would treat the woman's opinion as more valid but I would say that it carries more credibility on certain matters than a typical male's. I don't have breasts and most men don't have breasts so if I have questions about breasts, I'll ask a woman rather than a man (unless the man happens to be a doctor). In the same vein, the common perception of society is that women deal more regularly with the consequences of sexist behavior so would be more apt to a) have experienced it personally b) be more familiar with related feelings on the topic and therefor potentially have a more informed opinion on the subject. I can be uncomfortable with imagery for a number of reasons so a perspective from women might help me to separate where my feelings are coming from (religious, cultural, etc).
I would be interested in something like a poll that resulted in a comparison of perspective based upon gender, just to see if there was a difference between male and female perspective.
A bit off topic, sorry, just interesting conversation.
The whole concept is stupid and immature. Yes it is AN aesthetic. It is certainly a choice. But it's not a good one and it doesn't have any particular benefits that make it outweigh a design choice that is actually respectful, tasteful, carrys some class, and does the fluff some justice.
If you could make this
then what good reason could you possibly have to make this
Asterios wrote: well then answer this, what do you think of women breast feeding in public? or women going topless?
Seriously? That's where you're going with the discussion?
And for the record, both of those are totally OK. New York City supports such equality, for example.
and yet having armor in the shape of boobs over their chests is offensive? oooh the irony.
people keep pouncing on well boob armor doesn't work, who the feth cares? seriously, most things in 40K do not work in real life, the game is not real life it is science fiction fantasy, plain and simple, and if you don't like it, don't play it plain and simple what it comes down to is if you don't like Boob Armor on SoB's then don't play them, seriously, too argue about something you can so easily ignore is a fething joke, its just your way of saying "hey look at me I have high morale standards and how dare this company or people who use said miniatures don't, shame on them they should be disgusted they are perverts and so forth".
Or you could make this costume (sisters as they should be)
I am not saying to get rid of the Grim Dark. I am saying that if you can have the core elements of batgirls costume without shoving each of her tits into a rubber bowl then you can probably do the same with the sisters.
Lance845 wrote: You could make this costume (sister as they are)
Spoiler:
Or you could make this costume (sisters as they should be)
I am not saying to get rid of the Grim Dark. I am saying that if you can have the core elements of batgirls costume without shoving each of her tits into a rubber bowl then you can probably do the same with the sisters.
yeah but if you take Batgirl's spandex costume and compare it with her cohorts Batman and Robin in the same movie, which ones are more sexually prevalent? (face it all the good guys costumes in that movie were just plain wrong).
well then answer this, what do you think of women breast feeding in public?
Couldn't find where I said women's opinions don't matter? Thought so.
In my opinion, a women has the right to breast feed in public. However, out of decency, I would say they should try going somewhere more private to feed their child, since it can make paedophobics like me very uncomfortable if I happen to be passing by (wouldn't be just paedophobes who might feel uncomfortable, too). I would accept the need to do it in busy areas out of urgency, however, or if a more private location is not immediately present.
Just don't do it while you're sitting having a meal or a drink at a cafe or restaurant. That's being pretty rude to other patrons who want to enjoy their morning coffee or their evening dinner.
If a woman wants to go topless, that's fine and legal too, just please don't do it around or in a place where children might go. Whether you think children should be allowed see your charlies is totally irrelevant in the face of common decency.
considering the items in question also refer to what you call being apparent on miniatures
Now who would want a Battle Sister breast feeding her child? That'd be a hoot!
But seriously, that's a ridiculous statement to make.
to be honest I see no problem but then again the only female miniatures I have are the ones that came in my Sedition wars games, I have no SoB's or even fluffy eye candy miniatures.
I don't own any female miniatures, although I'll probably be getting Eldar soon. Regardless, I'm pretty certain the themes of breastfeeding and going commando for females will not be present in any models I buy. What a shame.
well then answer this, what do you think of women breast feeding in public?
Couldn't find where I said women's opinions don't matter? Thought so.
In my opinion, a women has the right to breast feed in public. However, out of decency, I would say they should try going somewhere more private to feed their child, since it can make paedophobics like me very uncomfortable if I happen to be passing by (wouldn't be just paedophobes who might feel uncomfortable, too). I would accept the need to do it in busy areas out of urgency, however, or if a more private location is not immediately present.
Just don't do it while you're sitting having a meal or a drink at a cafe or restaurant. That's being pretty rude to other patrons who want to enjoy their morning coffee or their evening dinner.
If a woman wants to go topless, that's fine and legal too, just please don't do it around or in a place where children might go. Whether you think children should be allowed see your charlies is totally irrelevant in the face of common decency.
considering the items in question also refer to what you call being apparent on miniatures
Now who would want a Battle Sister breast feeding her child? That'd be a hoot!
But seriously, that's a ridiculous statement to make.
to be honest I see no problem but then again the only female miniatures I have are the ones that came in my Sedition wars games, I have no SoB's or even fluffy eye candy miniatures.
I don't own any female miniatures, although I'll probably be getting Eldar soon. Regardless, I'm pretty certain the themes of breastfeeding and going commando for females will not be present in any models I buy. What a shame.
so in other words you are a prude and women shouldn't have equal rights as men just like all the women out their protesting that they should have the right to breast feed in public or go around topless where men are aloud to go topless.
got news for you miniature gaming is not for you, you should find a more appropriate game like go fish, or battleship.
also as shown in my closeup picture of my sedition war female in Boob plate armor, that didn't bother me, what bothered me were the 6 pack abs she was spouting, they made me jealous, mine haven't been like that in a few decades at least.
Asterios wrote: so in other words you are a prude and women shouldn't have equal rights as men just like all the women out [there] protesting that they should have the right to breast feed in public or go around topless where men are [allowed] to go topless.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No
got news for you miniature gaming is not for you, you should find a more appropriate game like go fish, or battleship.
Somehow my thoughts on common decency mean I can't enjoy painting, collecting, and gaming with models I buy with my own hard earned money?
My friend, I don't think Dakka Discussions are for you.
Lance845 wrote: You could make this costume (sister as they are)
Spoiler:
Or you could make this costume (sisters as they should be)
I am not saying to get rid of the Grim Dark. I am saying that if you can have the core elements of batgirls costume without shoving each of her tits into a rubber bowl then you can probably do the same with the sisters.
yeah but if you take Batgirl's spandex costume and compare it with her cohorts Batman and Robin in the same movie, which ones are more sexually prevalent? (face it all the good guys costumes in that movie were just plain wrong).
Irrelevant!
Too much of this conversation is tied up in the idea that an individuals perspective on whether the gear is sexualized or not is good or bad. Doesn't mater.
Batman's bat nipples have been a turn on for exactly 0 people. That is not the point.
The point is you are doing the design no favors by building the armor to look like something a child came up with when he started having health class and learned about puberty. You don't need tits cups to make sisters of battle. There is no argument in favor of tit cups that says it's in any way a good design choice. Stronger designs feature more respectful choices that put the focus of the design on their bad ass aspects instead of the immature nonsense that goes into the design they have now.
so in other words you are a prude and women shouldn't have equal rights as men just like all the women out their protesting that they should have the right to breast feed in public or go around topless where men are aloud to go topless.
got news for you miniature gaming is not for you, you should find a more appropriate game like go fish, or battleship.
also as shown in my closeup picture of my sedition war female in Boob plate armor, that didn't bother me, what bothered me were the 6 pack abs she was spouting, they made me jealous, mine haven't been like that in a few decades at least.
Personally I think guys who walk around outside shirtless look like idiots and they should put on a shirt because the general public doesn't want to see that gak. The same goes for women. Keep it classy people.
The point is you are doing the design no favors by building the armor to look like something a child came up with when he started having health class and learned about puberty. You don't need tits cups to make sisters of battle. There is no argument in favor of tit cups that says it's in any way a good design choice.
What about style? I don't think the extras on their armour are a turn on for most people, but they do lend well to the 40k over the top style, as well as reinforcing that Sisters are not Space Marines.
The point is you are doing the design no favors by building the armor to look like something a child came up with when he started having health class and learned about puberty. You don't need tits cups to make sisters of battle. There is no argument in favor of tit cups that says it's in any way a good design choice.
What about style? I don't think the extras on their armour are a turn on for most people, but they do lend well to the 40k over the top style, as well as reinforcing that Sisters are not Space Marines.
Which extras are we talking? The Fleur-de-lis and I's? Because you could have a big Fleur-de-lis engraved on the front of their breastplate without giant boob cups and would do enough to separate them from Space Marine armour. I mean, Inquisitors in power armour look different enough to Space Marines due to their iconography and how it is incorporated into their armour.
Have the Sisters armour feature more embellishment and symbols, make it a piece of art as opposed to the more utilitarian look of the space marines.
The point is you are doing the design no favors by building the armor to look like something a child came up with when he started having health class and learned about puberty. You don't need tits cups to make sisters of battle. There is no argument in favor of tit cups that says it's in any way a good design choice.
What about style? I don't think the extras on their armour are a turn on for most people, but they do lend well to the 40k over the top style, as well as reinforcing that Sisters are not Space Marines.
Adorn the gak out of their armor. Details everywhere. Purity seals hanging off of purity seals. Their iconography is iconic. Incorporate it. That doesn't mean slap one in the middle of each tit.
Asterios wrote: so in other words you are a prude and women shouldn't have equal rights as men just like all the women out [there] protesting that they should have the right to breast feed in public or go around topless where men are [allowed] to go topless.
(also stupid auto-correct is a pain in the rear.)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No
got news for you miniature gaming is not for you, you should find a more appropriate game like go fish, or battleship.
Somehow my thoughts on common decency mean I can't enjoy painting, collecting, and gaming with models I buy with my own hard earned money?
My friend, I don't think Dakka Discussions are for you.
G.A
well lets start with your statement you contradicted yourself so much it was not funny, you say you are fine with women breast feeding in public, as long as they do it in private? which is it public or private?
as to the game if you have an issue with something you claimed you do not buy then why bother having an issue with it ? I don't think Dakka discussions are for you.
so in other words you are a prude and women shouldn't have equal rights as men just like all the women out their protesting that they should have the right to breast feed in public or go around topless where men are aloud to go topless.
got news for you miniature gaming is not for you, you should find a more appropriate game like go fish, or battleship.
also as shown in my closeup picture of my sedition war female in Boob plate armor, that didn't bother me, what bothered me were the 6 pack abs she was spouting, they made me jealous, mine haven't been like that in a few decades at least.
Personally I think guys who walk around outside shirtless look like idiots and they should put on a shirt because the general public doesn't want to see that gak. The same goes for women. Keep it classy people.
so you think guys should wear shirts at the pool and at the beach then ? you know while tanning and sun bathing?
Which extras are we talking? The Fleur-de-lis and I's? Because you could have a big Fleur-de-lis engraved on the front of their breastplate without giant boob cups and would do enough to separate them from Space Marine armour. I mean, Inquisitors in power armour look different enough to Space Marines due to their iconography and how it is incorporated into their armour.
Have the Sisters armour feature more embellishment and symbols, make it a piece of art as opposed to the more utilitarian look of the space marines.
Lance845 wrote:
Adorn the gak out of their armor. Details everywhere. Purity seals hanging off of purity seals. Their iconography is iconic. Incorporate it. That doesn't mean slap one in the middle of each tit.
These are two very good points. I was trying to get more at the breastplate size rather than the decoration, but now that I think about it, that could work quite well in making a new sculpt of Sisters.
Asterios wrote:
well lets start with your statement you contradicted yourself so much it was not funny, you say you are fine with women breast feeding in public, as long as they do it in private? which is it public or private?
General Annoyance wrote: a woman has the right to breast feed in public. However, out of decency, I would say they should try going somewhere more private to feed their child, since it can make paedophobics like me very uncomfortable if I happen to be passing by (wouldn't be just paedophobes who might feel uncomfortable, too). I would accept the need to do it in busy areas out of urgency, however, or if a more private location is not immediately present.
Again proving you didn't bother to read before you started typing.
as to the game if you have an issue with something you claimed you do not buy then why bother having an issue with it ? I don't think Dakka discussions are for you.
You don't own any SoB either. Way to go for shooting yourself in the foot with that one
I don't have an issue with SoB armour either, as I said previously:
General Annoyance wrote: I don't care either way if "Boobplate" is to stay or go, and personally I've never thought about it when I see a Sister model.
General Annoyance wrote: In my opinion, a women has the right to breast feed in public. However, out of decency, I would say they should try going somewhere more private to feed their child, since it can make paedophobics like me very uncomfortable if I happen to be passing by (wouldn't be just paedophobes who might feel uncomfortable, too). I would accept the need to do it in busy areas out of urgency, however, or if a more private location is not immediately present.
Just don't do it while you're sitting having a meal or a drink at a cafe or restaurant. That's being pretty rude to other patrons who want to enjoy their morning coffee or their evening dinner.
If a woman wants to go topless, that's fine and legal too, just please don't do it around or in a place where children might go.
Now who would want a Battle Sister breast feeding her child?
Anywhere someone can drink a coffee or soda, a child should be able to breastfeed. That means, at any cafe, any restaurant. It's not rude at all. It's just someone having a drink. It's totally natural. They should have their faces in their mother's pair for the first year of life. Preferably 2 years. http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/
There is nothing wrong with children seeing breasts.
Anywhere someone can drink a coffee or soda, a child should be able to breastfeed. That means, at any cafe, any restaurant. It's not rude at all. It's just someone having a drink. It's totally natural. They should have their faces in their mother's pair for the first year of life. Preferably 2 years. http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/
There is nothing wrong with children seeing breasts.
I'm sure someone would...
They have the right to both, absolutely, but if it were me, I'd try and be more discreet out of decency to others; while I might personally be okay with someone breastfeeding in a cafe or walking about with their top off, others may be put off their afternoon tea, or be upset that their child is seeing some girl "naked".
They both are and should be legal anywhere, but be aware of others when you're out in public, in the same way you're aware of others when you deal with any dirt your dog left behind on the pavement.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, I'm saying that it's incredibly dumb and unrelated of you to raise breastfeeding as part of this discussion.
so you are saying it is better to see bare breasts in public then breasts covered by boob armor on miniatures?
I already stated, which you ignored, that I have no problem with bare breasts.
I am also OK with boob armor.
I am not OK with you trying to conflate the two, as I see them as unrelated.
but the question wasn't directed at you but another which it ended up proving their contrary nature where they even showed conflict within one sentence.
but the question wasn't directed at you but another which it ended up proving their contrary nature where they even showed conflict within one sentence.
Anywhere someone can drink a coffee or soda, a child should be able to breastfeed. That means, at any cafe, any restaurant. It's not rude at all. It's just someone having a drink. It's totally natural. They should have their faces in their mother's pair for the first year of life. Preferably 2 years. http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/
There is nothing wrong with children seeing breasts.
I'm sure someone would...
They have the right to both, absolutely, but if it were me, I'd try and be more discreet out of decency to others; while I might personally be okay with someone breastfeeding in a cafe or walking about with their top off, others may be put off their afternoon tea, or be upset that their child is seeing some girl "naked".
They both are and should be legal anywhere, but be aware of others when you're out in public, in the same way you're aware of others when you deal with any dirt your dog left behind on the pavement.
out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.
out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.
You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off
out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.
You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off
but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?
also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.
In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.
I assume you mean this statement. Who's to say a pervert wouldn't buy SoB? Anyone can buy anything, the point of that statement was regarding the whole point of how your identify and traits can and cannot affect the validity of your statements. I fail to see how that is meant to contradict my rebuttals, or how that comparison is in the same league as a child inevitably being born without clothing, who has no concept of the values of society, in an environment where any sane person would accept the child's nudity, and a girl who takes her top off in public, who will typically be fully aware of what society thinks of that on both sides.
also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.
Sounds interesting, but I think I'll stick to my jeans and my very fluffy jumper to ward off the cold I'm not used to, just like how most of the population wears clothes. Sometimes hiding things is for the betterment of mankind and our morbid curiosities.
out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.
You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off
but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?
also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.
The point they are making Asterios is the only thing you are bringing to the table right now is a straw man argument.
That there is for you in case you don't actually understand what you are doing.
Your argument doesn't actually prove your point because breast feeding has nothing to do with immature armor designs. Even if you were to accomplish your supposed goal of winning the argument that people feel differently about breast feeding then they do about armor design the two things actually have no correlation to each other and you haven't actually made any head way on the topic of the thread.
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.
I would encourage everyone else to stop trying to knock down the straw man. It's pointless.
In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.
I assume you mean this statement. Who's to say a pervert wouldn't buy SoB? Anyone can buy anything, the point of that statement was regarding the whole point of how your identify and traits can and cannot affect the validity of your statements. I fail to see how that is meant to contradict my rebuttals, or how that comparison is in the same league as a child inevitably being born without clothing, who has no concept of the values of society, in an environment where any sane person would accept the child's nudity, and a girl who takes her top off in public, who will typically be fully aware of what society thinks of that on both sides.
also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.
Sounds interesting, but I think I'll stick to my jeans and my very fluffy jumper to ward off the cold I'm not used to, just like how most of the population wears clothes. Sometimes hiding things is for the betterment of mankind and our morbid curiosities.
Now, if we're done being off topic...
perverts are more apt to buy things other then small 1 and a quarter inch high miniatures, nothing shows and the boob armor is like a little pimple or bug bite, and yet people have to make it sexualized like it really can be sexualized at that small of a size, seriously? its a freaking toy for adults but not an adult toy, get over it, answer this why does it bother you so much?
Your argument doesn't actually prove your point because breast feeding has nothing to do with immature armor designs. Even if you were to accomplish your supposed goal of winning the argument that people feel differently about breast feeding then they do about armor design the two things actually have no correlation to each other and you haven't actually made any head way on the topic of the thread.
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.
my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.
Boob Armour doesn't bother me, and nor does public nudity, as I have said before (it may bother others is what I was saying) - you're the only one making the fuss here.
And we're done, unless you want to contribute to the thread topic.
my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question,
It bothers me because it encourages an atmosphere that objectifies women and can be discouraging to a full half of the population (minimum) from participating in a game that should be as welcoming to all peoples as possible since the main rule in the main rule book is to have fun. And generally speaking when it comes to games, the more people playing games the more fun is to be had.
you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.
The answers are NOT the same. How a person feels about potential public nudity is not the same thing as how someone feels about plastic statues that feature no nudity. Saying the answers are the same does not make the answers the same.
Answer this question, can you think of a single logical argument that supports boob armor as a better design choice?
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.
The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.
But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?
my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.
It bothers me because it encourages an atmosphere that objectifies women and can be discouraging to a full half of the population (minimum) from participating in a game that should be as welcoming to all peoples as possible since the main rule in the main rule book is to have fun. And generally speaking when it comes to games, the more people playing games the more fun is to be had.
my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.
The answers are NOT the same. How a person feels about potential public nudity is not the same thing as how someone feels about plastic statues that feature no nudity. Saying the answers are the same does not make the answers the same.
Answer this question, can you think of a single logical argument that supports boob armor as a better design choice?
and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?
as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.
The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.
But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?
The topic is in general but the sister seem to be the major offender that everyone hones in on. It's like the Nazi argument. Everything eventually gets compared to nazis. Well, you cannot talk boob plate without it eventually being about sisters.
To your point. I agree! a distinct silhouette is definitely needed to make the sisters stand out as something different on the table. A distinct silhouette is excellent design. Are you proposing that it is impossible for GW to give the sisters a distinct silhouette without boob armor? Or that the sisters distinct silhouette could not be improved without the inclusion of the boob plate? Or that boob plate is so inherently tied to their design that were they to loose it the entire force would become unrecognizable?
Lance845 wrote: @Yodhrin You seem to assume a level of integrity in intent that frankly there is no evidence for. GW has never produced models or fluff for any other reason then to appeal to 13 year old male power fantasy.
Which is not, in and of itself, a problem. That immature ridiculous over the top grim dark insanity is most of the appeal of 40ks fluff.
When they got started the idea that what they were creating when they made their female models was damaging or offensive was not even a discussion. It's only been in the last 20... 25ish years that the discussion has gained any real traction at all and only in the last 16ish that companys have started to acknowledge it with their promotional material and products.
The idea that the sisters are the same as a nude art study is just plain wrong. The point of the vast majority of nude art created from a life model is to study the human form. To understand how it moves, how light and shadow acts on it etc etc...
The sisters are not modeled to study the human form. They were not designed to show an expression of the female form. They are battle nuns in a ridiculous setting designed to appeal to their primary market in an industry dominated by men and traditionally mostly supported by men. Think that is ridiculous? Lets look at one of the very first books that codified rules for minature war gaming and got this hobby started.
Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books, by H.G. Wells.
The fact is GW has never been a particularly great company in a lot of ways. But they most definitely have done a piss poor job of diversity and respectful representation of minorities in their miniature lines. Coupled with their target audience and the time these models were created it is a sure thing that the guy who made these models was not attempting to create a classy representation of females in the 40k universe that challenged "the patriarchal idea that women should be quiet".
This goes doubly when you account for the fact that their fluff is they are called the "brides of the emperor" and are all blindly evangelical cultists that worship a patriarchal figure in a patriarchal society dominated by patriarchal figures and whos poster boys and greatest heroes are patriarchal super men in power armor that very specifically cannot be women.
As an aside, has it not occurred to anyone who brands the Sisters as sexist that their depiction as obviously female, aggressively militant "nuns with guns" is a deliberate middle-finger to the very patriarchal idea that women should be quiet, demure, and chaste? I don't claim to know the mind of John Blanche as he was designing them but considering the obvious Punk sensibilities in a lot of his art, that expanation is at least as likely as the idea some mouthbreathing neckbeard wanted to make sexy lady-dollies to play with.
That explanation is not "at least as likely". Taking the entire situation into account at the time the sisters were invented and those models were made it is actually incredibly UNLIKELY that any thought about respectful representation of women or the models ability to act as a figure of empowerment against a negative world view of women was done at all.
This is not a 50/50 chance that the team behind their design was trying to be respectful or not. It's like like a 99.99999% certainty that they were not.
Sure, there is a 0.00001% chance that the entire team decided to account for ideology's that for all intents and purposes didn't exist at the time AND convinced their superiors to let them do it. I will agree there is a chance. I might also get struck by a meteorite when I walk outside my door. The probability is so low as to be meaningless.
I'm not going to do the usual thing where I break this down and address each point because you're a bit all over the place, so I'll just make a few points and corrections.
First up, unlike yourself I'm not making any assumptions, nor claiming to know anyone's mind. I simply choose not to condemn things based on speculation and my own preconceptions.
Second, if you're going to criticise something it's usually best to actually study it first so you don't stick your foot in your mouth like that; the SoBwere the Brides of the Emperor...Vandire, the patriarchal tyrant, renamed them - they discarded that name when they recognised Vandire's treason and his perversion of their order, right before they saved the Imperium by chopping his head off.
Third, the point of bringing up nude studies and fertility sculptures was not to claim SoB and nude studies are the same or have the same purpose, but that there are reasons to depict the female form other than exploitative titilation.
Fourth, I get the feeling either you didn't quite get what I meant about JB's punk sensibilities, or you're very firmly on the sex-negative end of the feminist spectrum and simply don't believe aggressively sex-positive feminism is real. I'm sure you'll correct me if there some other explanation for why you apparently know exactly what the people designing SoB were thinking with only a 0,00001% margin of error...
terry wrote: personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour
Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.
-image snip-
It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".
What tremendous nonsense.
Ah I see now. Someone who has a differing opinion than you is nonsense. His opinion is perfectly valid just like yours. Do I agree with him? No but I respect his opinion.
Now I see your point now. Here I thought you were correct but now, if nobody thinks like you they are wrong. Got it.
Just remember back in the day, a dress over the ankles was sexualizing. So everyone has a different opinion and their opinions are valid, not nonsense. Do I agree? No. Who am I to say they are wrong or not in what they think.
He can have any opinion he likes, even utterly wrong ones. Those were not, however, opinions presented as such, they were opinions presented as indisputable fact. IE, tremendous nonsense.
Lance845 wrote: How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW
The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.
"Other features" such as 2-foot-long pistols, 4-foot-long carbines, and 8-foot-long "sniper" rifles, perhaps? Or Power Fists the size of a man's ribcage? For Imperial Guard.
and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?
as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.
I asked for a logical answer to a simple question and you answered with an emotional backlash that starts with in insult in the form of a question, moved on to a reductive statement that says you know, fact, that women think a certain way. You fail to take into account that this hobby and most games like it have never been marketed towards women and that the people who play them have not been the most welcoming people pretty much since miniature war gaming began in the 1910s. I would argue that women mostly don't get into these kinds of games because they are born and raised in a society that tells them what they like and don't like and why and has been doing so for hundreds of years.
Finally, you assert that a design that is "not objectifying women" is being used to flaunt their sexuality to xenos species that they despise in order to distract them and gain an upper hand.
This thread, as the cherry on top of the recasting thread, finally saw him plonked to save myself the aggravation. I find his posts far more sexist and offensive than any of GW's boob armor designs.
and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?
as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.
I asked for a logical answer to a simple question and you answered with an emotional backlash that starts with in insult in the form of a question, moved on to a reductive statement that says you know, fact, that women think a certain way. You fail to take into account that this hobby and most games like it have never been marketed towards women and that the people who play them have not been the most welcoming people pretty much since miniature war gaming began in the 1910s. I would argue that women mostly don't get into these kinds of games because they are born and raised in a society that tells them what they like and don't like and why and has been doing so for hundreds of years.
Finally, you assert that a design that is "not objectifying women" is being used to flaunt their sexuality to xenos species that they despise in order to distract them and gain an upper hand.
I ask you to try again.
ok then this, it isn't supposed to have a rhyme or reason and it is not to make any sense, seriously if you look at a lot of the various things added to say Space Marine armor, what function does it have? say like the banner Sgt.s carry on their back pack, what is its function other then to say to the enemy hey here is the leader shoot him.
like I said what it comes down to is its GW's game if you don't like it don't play it, if you want to make a game with more realistic non-bumpy armor then go for it, you let me know how well it sells and how many women are playing it then.
miniature games have never been geared towards women because women have never been attracted to the game thru the ages generations went from dolls to careers to wanting to be singers and or actors but as a whole never had a generation that said hey lets play with some miniature toys as adults. look at the board game industry, never did well with adult women, same with the video game crowd, very few women get into that, so what is your basis that women are turned off of miniature gaming because of tiny boob armor on tiny miniatures, not counting all those miniature games which do not have those and yet do not have women running to play them in any decent number.
This thread, as the cherry on top of the recasting thread, finally saw him plonked to save myself the aggravation. I find his posts far more sexist and offensive than any of GW's boob armor designs.
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.
The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.
But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?
The topic is in general but the sister seem to be the major offender that everyone hones in on. It's like the Nazi argument. Everything eventually gets compared to nazis. Well, you cannot talk boob plate without it eventually being about sisters.
To your point. I agree! a distinct silhouette is definitely needed to make the sisters stand out as something different on the table. A distinct silhouette is excellent design. Are you proposing that it is impossible for GW to give the sisters a distinct silhouette without boob armor? Or that the sisters distinct silhouette could not be improved without the inclusion of the boob plate? Or that boob plate is so inherently tied to their design that were they to loose it the entire force would become unrecognizable?
I am proposing that GW is unwilling to change their design choice and under their design choice and style sisters without boob plate do not fit.
Lance845 wrote: How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW
The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.
"Other features" such as 2-foot-long pistols, 4-foot-long carbines, and 8-foot-long "sniper" rifles, perhaps? Or Power Fists the size of a man's ribcage? For Imperial Guard.
Among other things, GW has gone a long way to have their style be characteristic of their range selecting over-detailed and impractical as long as the silhouette is promoted.
out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.
You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off
but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?
also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.
Did Piers Anthony happen to write any good books on punctiation? If so, I'd strongly recommend you read them. I'll add maybe looking up "run-ons" and "Our friend, the article".
To actually get to the meat of my post: you come in here with deplorable grammatical structure, argue both sides of the coin (mysteriously), and twist people's arguments to the opposite of what they are saying to gain... I have no idea, anymore. If you have some sort of communication disorder, then I at least understand. If not, then you come off as a 13 year old arguing just to argue.
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.
To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.
Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.
This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.
Spoiler:
Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.
And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.
One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.
But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.
We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"
Spoiler:
But the actual model size is closer to this...
Spoiler:
And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...
Spoiler:
I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.
So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?
I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.
Firstly a model devoid of detail will look devoid of detail even at a distance. But you can tweak the detail to look better at distance. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason GW makes such cartoonish proportions (though not the only part, the fact 40k started off as somewhat satirical probably plays in to it as well).
Secondly, it's obviously a balance... a subjective balance at that. As I said GW do seem to be gradually changing their aesthetic to one that looks better in extreme close ups. When the Sister's of Battle models were originally released in the 90's you'd rarely ever see a picture zoomed in that closely. White Dwarf images were typically scaled to approximately the size of the actual model, so if a model was ~1" tall in real life, the picture would also be ~1" tall. I fully expect a modern Sisters release to be better scaled, even if they still have boob armour I'm sure they'll be scaled better as the SoS are.
Let me first say that what follows is not intended to mock Iron Captain, but to use his comment as an example of a common theme in these sorts of discussions.
Iron_Captain wrote: While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics.
It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.
One of the recurring features of these discussions is (IMO), unexamined standards and questionable assumptions. Here, specifically, this line: "I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic."
Why?
I don't mean that as a rhetorical but rather a Socratic question: why do you think it is a "problem" that breasts are viewed as the defining (visual) characteristic of women?
Allow me to propose that, as a biological reality, development of breasts is extremely important both as a sign of sex/gender but as a signal of femininity. So let's take a look at two people in their skivvies, then ask two simple questions;
Spoiler:
The two simple questions are;
-Who is the more Feminine? And,
-Who has the larger penis?
That last one is a trick question of course, only one of those people has a penis...
Which would be the white woman. Who happens to be Bailey Jay, noted M2F transsexual adult performer (don't google her at work!). It's a trick question because she is the only one with a penis; the black guy is Tommy J Murrell, F2M amateur bodybuilder (you can google him, there isn't much to find).
My point here isn't 'haha, it's a trap!', but that breasts are more then simply fleshy protuberances on the front of a woman's chest: they are intimately connected to gender identity and the perceptions of femininity. Deep in the recesses of the brain, far below the conscious, breasts have a significance that evolved over eons. A significance that can be clearly exemplified by examining the group of people perhaps most concerned with the reality of sex/gender on a personal level: the trans community.
That breasts are psychologically important to M2F transsexuals is fairly well established. Less well known is the importance of breasts to M2F individuals, albeit here 'importance' in the exact opposite way: because breasts signify the feminine, F2M individuals frequently engage in the practice of 'chest binding' before moving on to 'top surgery' (bilateral mastectomy). From an article on the subject of chest binding;
Chest binding is a fact of life for many people, including trans men, some gay women, intersex people, and gender non-conforming individuals like Naomhan. Flattening the appearance of one's breasts—whether that's through Ace bandages, compression undergarments, layered T-shirts, sports bras, or commercial binders—doesn't just make it easier to pass in public as the correct gender or wear masculine clothes. For many, it's a matter of psychological well-being. ...
A qualitative report from the five-person strong research project goes into more detail about the benefits of binding for those they surveyed: "Based on our preliminary analysis, for most participants, binding was a positive experience and led to improvements in mood and self-esteem, minimized gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression, and helped them to feel in control of their bodies," a report they published on the study reads. "In fact, some reported that a positive impact on emotional and behavioral health makes the physical discomfort of binding worth it."
Of course this isn't simply a phenomenon of transgender individuals: the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';
Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs. It is a common upset amongst women who train hard, that their chest size quickly shrinks due to their body fat percentage getting lower and lower. For many women who choose to get breast implants, it is a mere way to either get back what they might have lost or to maintain their aesthetic femininity.
While there are doubtless many possible (if rather less plausible) explanations for the above, it seems straightforward that there is a simple possibility: breasts (along with waist-to-hip ratio) are not arbitrary, capricious or artificial constructs but deeply ingrained biologically significant markers of sexually mature human females.
Thus, considering it "a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic" seems entirely misplaced, certainly in a primarily visual medium. That's not to say that every miniature with a pair of boobs is beyond reproach: far from it (I'm certainly not all that fond of many of the SoB line for exactly this reason). But an aesthetic critique, one based on taste, style or execution, is one that is very different from one that posits there is something wrong or invidious at play.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
Nope, he said there are too few opinions to paint a proper picture. It's my opinion that I agree with that and also that SoB are alright. I feel that their look suits their background; I think of it as a feth you to the high lords.
The rest of the opinions you're looking for are probably through the rest of this thread already anyway.
except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.
Congratulations, you missed the point.
Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).
Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.
Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.
But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!
n0t_u wrote: It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.
At least one person gets it. Thank you
actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.
Nope, he said there are too few opinions to paint a proper picture. It's my opinion that I agree with that and also that SoB are alright. I feel that their look suits their background; I think of it as a feth you to the high lords.
The rest of the opinions you're looking for are probably through the rest of this thread already anyway.
I facepalmed so hard when I read Ast's post there
Even if you are a horrible sexist who thinks a woman's opinion is worth more than a man's, no one said female opinions don't matter.
[spoiler]Let me first say that what follows is not intended to mock Iron Captain, but to use his comment as an example of a common theme in these sorts of discussions.
Iron_Captain wrote: While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs. GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics. It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.
One of the recurring features of these discussions is (IMO), unexamined standards and questionable assumptions. Here, specifically, this line: "I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic."
Why?
I don't mean that as a rhetorical but rather a Socratic question: why do you think it is a "problem" that breasts are viewed as the defining (visual) characteristic of women?
Allow me to propose that, as a biological reality, development of breasts is extremely important both as a sign of sex/gender but as a signal of femininity. So let's take a look at two people in their skivvies, then ask two simple questions; [spoiler]
The two simple questions are; -Who is the more Feminine? And, -Who has the larger penis?
That last one is a trick question of course, only one of those people has a penis...
Which would be the white woman. Who happens to be Bailey Jay, noted M2F transsexual adult performer (don't google her at work!). It's a trick question because she is the only one with a penis; the black guy is Tommy J Murrell, F2M amateur bodybuilder (you can google him, there isn't much to find).
My point here isn't 'haha, it's a trap!', but that breasts are more then simply fleshy protuberances on the front of a woman's chest: they are intimately connected to gender identity and the perceptions of femininity. Deep in the recesses of the brain, far below the conscious, breasts have a significance that evolved over eons. A significance that can be clearly exemplified by examining the group of people perhaps most concerned with the reality of sex/gender on a personal level: the trans community.
That breasts are psychologically important to M2F transsexuals is fairly well established. Less well known is the importance of breasts to M2F individuals, albeit here 'importance' in the exact opposite way: because breasts signify the feminine, F2M individuals frequently engage in the practice of 'chest binding' before moving on to 'top surgery' (bilateral mastectomy). From an article on the subject of chest binding;
Chest binding is a fact of life for many people, including trans men, some gay women, intersex people, and gender non-conforming individuals like Naomhan. Flattening the appearance of one's breasts—whether that's through Ace bandages, compression undergarments, layered T-shirts, sports bras, or commercial binders—doesn't just make it easier to pass in public as the correct gender or wear masculine clothes. For many, it's a matter of psychological well-being. ... A qualitative report from the five-person strong research project goes into more detail about the benefits of binding for those they surveyed: "Based on our preliminary analysis, for most participants, binding was a positive experience and led to improvements in mood and self-esteem, minimized gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression, and helped them to feel in control of their bodies," a report they published on the study reads. "In fact, some reported that a positive impact on emotional and behavioral health makes the physical discomfort of binding worth it."
Of course this isn't simply a phenomenon of transgender individuals: the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';
Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs. It is a common upset amongst women who train hard, that their chest size quickly shrinks due to their body fat percentage getting lower and lower. For many women who choose to get breast implants, it is a mere way to either get back what they might have lost or to maintain their aesthetic femininity.
While there are doubtless many possible (if rather less plausible) explanations for the above, it seems straightforward that there is a simple possibility: breasts (along with waist-to-hip ratio) are not arbitrary, capricious or artificial constructs but deeply ingrained biologically significant markers of sexually mature human females.
Thus, considering it "a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic" seems entirely misplaced, certainly in a primarily visual medium. That's not to say that every miniature with a pair of boobs is beyond reproach: far from it (I'm certainly not all that fond of many of the SoB line for exactly this reason). But an aesthetic critique, one based on taste, style or execution, is one that is very different from one that posits there is something wrong or invidious at play.[/spoiler]
I sort of alluded to this earlier in the thread but I didn't really articulate it well, I've find it odd how exaggerated breasts are a bad way to identify females, but exaggerated glass jaws and feminine hair styles are totally fine. It's not that I don't understand *why*, but rather I find it odd and amusing.
Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs.
Yes, this is a thing after the initial happiness when the belly shrinks and the body gets more of a lean hourglass figure. It's also a thing when they wear compressive competition suits that further flatten things down. It's very particular among female swimmers, who tend to have heavily-developed upper bodies and get quite lean from the endurance conditioning. You can ask little kids about this when they women are in full race gear, with their caps & goggles, and they can be confused due to the lack of obvious female body characteristics.
The best thing about this thread is that its a laughing stock on social media and in real life. So keep it coming. You SJW types sure make yourselves look silly.
At the local GW here, all the guys that were going to buy the burning of prospero are now buying 2 in support of boobplate, Thanks for F-ing up the good fight.
Boobplate forever in the fictional universe of giant space men with large hands, killer fungus and daemons!
*sigh*
how your gender exactly makes a difference in most discussions is still something that baffles me
