35046
Post by: Perkustin
I was reading Melissia's Thread about the codexes and noticed a debate starting about whether or not the Sisters of Battle depictions/miniatures were sexist fantasies or perhaps neccessary for fluff/Artistic reasons. I think there is room for a hearty debate on this subject. Discuss...
18698
Post by: kronk
I don't find any of these sexy. The breastplate with actual breasts designed in is silly.
The Madonna "Vogue" video inspired pointies on the following is also silly.
A cosplayer wearing this would be Hot. If it's not a dude.
This is Aunt Bea from Mayberry. She is not hot.
Honestly, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some people find certain things attractive, while others are repulsed by it. Also, certain things are unintentionally "sexy", for lack of a better term. Again, it takes all kinds, right?
The following is an example of unintentionally sexy armor:
The following is an example of intentionally sexy armor:
34420
Post by: PraetorDave
I think its a double edged sword. I agree with Kronk that the current SOB models look like anus. However, what would a hot model look like? How does one sculpt that? Additionally, I think when you NEED your models to be attractive, you need to take a step back and seriously look at your life.
So I would really like to see more "attractive" SOB models (seriously bobcuts and white hair?), however I don't know how to even begin to go about doing this, and don't know if I would enjoy the results.
20662
Post by: Hawkins
In all honesty, if GW can make the models awesome without a 'sex sells' gimic, i see no reason why they need to be bikini babes with bolters . On the other hand making the models for the majority demographic (men, boys, what ever) would probably be a case of money in the bank, if female models did turn out to be so top heavy that the power armour was more for back support than protection.
Either way the lil kid inside me wants the Boobies..... lots and lots o Boobies. While the growup wants a good Codex, awesome sculpts, and cool kick arse rules that will lay waste to all comers.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
GW need to make them...
Arrgh I dunno. They need to make them Female but not OMGTITTEHS Female.
Sadly, it will never happen. D:
18698
Post by: kronk
For the record, I don't own any SOB's, nor would I. The booby breast plates are dumb, IMHO.
34456
Post by: ColdSadHungry
If it's possible to make something look sexy, then I'm all for it. And the sexier the better, imo.
That being said, I don't find the sisters models sexy at all. There's nothing sexy about the 40k universe either so that kind of adds to how unsexy the sisters models are too.
If the next generation of sisters models are made to look sexier (including the obvious revamp on their faces that would be needed to do this) then I will have no problem with that.
I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Hmm it appears the mighty Melissia now has her own thread on the subject, oh dear.. Thanks for the contributions so far. In my eyes the Karl Kopinski SoB in the witchunters codex (She has the 'white bobcut') is the best example. She is very 'Pretty' but not sexualised. I am not sure if the SoB are gene stabilised or whatever but i think it is a good idea that as well as being the best fighters amongst women they also are amongst the most beautiful....
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, I believe they should look like actual paladins/knights.
The Knights Hospitalier, Knights of Santiago, Knights Templar, and so on to be precise-- the various orders of holy Christian knights from the medieval period off of whom the Sisters are based. Hell, an entire section of Sisters is named after the Knights Hospitalier. Automatically Appended Next Post: ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
5394
Post by: reds8n
There's another thread covering, pretty much, this same topic, so I'm going to lock this one, feel free to C & P any relevant points across.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Sorry to overrule you, reds8n, but I have to stress examples of my own idiocy. I posted the other thread on this topic after this one so I'm the offender here. This thread should remain unlocked (or at least not be locked for beinga duplicate).
20662
Post by: Hawkins
but this one has the better pics.....
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
Peggle and Bejeweled don't count! 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Gwar! wrote:Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
Peggle and Bejeweled don't count!
I was actually referring to online gaming, not "casual" gaming.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Compared to 40k, online gaming is casual gaming. Note that I'm not talking about time investment alone here. But I seriously doubt 40% of 40k players are female.
20774
Post by: pretre
I will post quickly here before it devolves into the standard SoB thread to voice my support for the existing SoB aesthetic.
I guess maybe I'm not as prudish as the rest; SoB aren't 'Sexy'. They are just female minis in a fantasy game. I guess people haven't seen the last 60-100 years of fantasy pictures if they think SoB are sexy or overly sexualized.
Do they have boob cups, corsets and high boots? Sure. Do they also have guns that shoot rockets and focused beams of radiation that melt metal? Yep. Are we overly concerned with how realistic the depiction of nuns who carry rocket guns and fight battles for the Space Emperor? Yeah, probably.
Most SoB models* were made back in the depths of 2nd edition and have stood up to the test of time. Do we need new plastics? Sure. Are the old metals a horrible offense to womyn kind? Not for me.
* I'm not defending repentia in any way. 
18698
Post by: kronk
Manchu wrote:Compared to 40k, online gaming is casual gaming. Note that I'm not talking about time investment alone here. But I seriously doubt 40% of 40k players are female.
Not that I think it should matter in the grand scheme of designing models for wargaming, but I also would have a hard time accepting that figure. No way.
20662
Post by: Hawkins
Manchu wrote:Compared to 40k, online gaming is casual gaming. Note that I'm not talking about time investment alone here. But I seriously doubt 40% of 40k players are female.
agreed.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
All my awesome points are in the awesome thread. I can't quote them 'cause the thread is locked. But go look over there for all of my irrefutable arguments that are irrefutable.
Also, this entire debate has exactly nothing to do with sexism - let that be clear. Nobody in the "SoB armor is stupid" camp is using the term "sexist" or anything related to or of it.
Knights Hospitaller with ginormous titties are stupid. 'Kay? Stupid. Not sexist. Not misogynistic (though arguments could be made for this one). Stupid.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
The only problem I have is if ask any moderaly gifted young woman to go to battle in a corset, your going to get slapped in the face twice. First for being a pig, which most men are and lets face it, SOB are hot in their armor, and secondly because it's highly impractical. Now if the armor actually does have something akin to a sports bra underneath and the design is just that way to make them look appropriate at the "brides of the emperor" thats one thing, thinking it's a good idea to go battle like that, isn't.
and heres my real reason I hate the SOB being so Raunchy:
Form fitting the armor to the exact shape of the womans busom presents the need for exact fitting for each one adding needless complexity, even if it was a one size fits all it's a harder design to build and presents problems for women of different sizes. A much better design would be a slat armor design that can be made to accomodate everyone is cheaper and more simple to make and offers just as much if no more protection.
Right, boob-cup armor actually decreases the level of protection.
well it's not really THAT much less protection but it adds needless complexity, that's a negative design cost efficiency over a non "form fitting" design, which is an automatic no brainer for an engineer. I guess it just bothers me because it's my job to design weapons and armor. and as an engineer negative efficiency factors make me ill.
All my awesome points are in the awesome thread. I can't quote them 'cause the thread is locked. But go look over there for all of my irrefutable arguments that are irrefutable.
Also, this entire debate has exactly nothing to do with sexism - let that be clear. Nobody in the "SoB armor is stupid" camp is using the term "sexist" or anything related to or of it.
Knights Hospitaller with ginormous titties are stupid. 'Kay? Stupid. Not sexist. Not misogynistic (though arguments could be made for this one). Stupid.
well the thing that's sexist is that they only do that sort of thing for the females, you don't see many scantily clad men, but lets face facts, sex sells and most, not all, but most wargamers are men.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Maybe they should introduce practical female characters to online Shooters that way teenage male's attitudesd would slowly change.. I think the point made regarding BEWB ARMORR for SoB is valid as i am sure any 'support' could be internalised in a heavy duty ablative breastplate....
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Absolutely not. The Sisters of Battle are supposed to be pure, righteous individuals. Chest armour needs to be as subtle as possible-having it look as though it is designed to accomodate their...umm.....womanly components is fine, but not outrageously bulbous chestplates.
If anything needs making sexier, it's the Daemons of Slaanesh. The Daemonettes look too much like frustrated teenage girls (and exactly why are Daemonettes, the embodiments of excess and secret desire, the only Lesser Daemons to keep themselves modest?) and as for the Keeper of Secrets......ARGH> You get 2 head choices: "Squidhead" which seems to be going "BLEGHBLEGHBLEGHBLEGH!" and the "Bewildered Chaos Cow" which appears to be making a confused "Moo?".
221
Post by: Frazzled
The heads/helmets (especially the helmets) do nothing for me. I actively hate the helmets. Its like someone took the Fleur de Lis and stapled it to a bucket, a bucket of FAIL. Plus they missed the opportunity to make them different-hold the bolters in an actual combat fashion, kneely in a good firing stance that sort of thing.
EDIT: Inversely, I really like the leg and arm armor as being much more size appropriate. Marine leg armor is just stupid.
25475
Post by: Devastator
SaintHazard wrote:All my awesome points are in the awesome thread.
link 
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
@Melissia: While I fully understany and respect your position of thinking what the SoB should look like...how can you be so sure that your interpretation is necessarily the "right" one that GW obviously had in mind, but that was screwed up by the sculptors? I mean, I could start demanding a resculpt of the basic Marine armor, because those 70-style flarepants boots are a TOTALLY useless accumulation of mass far away from the center of body mass, making much more energy necessary to move those legs. I could say I THINK the Marines should look totally different, because they are the Emperor's finest soldiers and not disco pogo partygoers.
But obivously GW has decided to make and keep SM looking like they do - and there might even fluff reasons behind it. Who knows what kind of tech they store in those flarepants! And if the SoB are wearing "sexy" armor, GW probably wants them to look like this, maybe even for fluff reasons.
One example for an argument FOR sexy armour was already mentioned, the holyness of the human form to the Imperial Cult. Another thing could be that the Imperium, being big on propaganda and manipulation anyway, wants its Sisters to look beautiful and like perfect (warrior-)women to impress and inspire the civilian populace. I guess there could be a few more exotic fluff reasons.
As a personal statement, I, too, think the boob armor is over-exaggerated. Especially the pointy boob armor on some models, that just looks ridiculous (like SM flarepants armor ). However, I'd be fine if the next range of SoB minis keep some of this feminine, sexy design - just make it more reasonable, like it happened with the Dark Eldar.
16387
Post by: Manchu
SaintHazard wrote:All my awesome points are in the awesome thread. I can't quote them 'cause the thread is locked. But go look over there for all of my irrefutable arguments that are irrefutable.
Here you go: Saint Hazard wrote:I'll just go ahead and get my posts in the other thread in here via quote, so I don't have to retype anything.
SaintHazard wrote:Melissia wrote:Given that, when they DID make an all-female army (which was supposed to be an army of pure and saintly religious warriors to boot), they just HAD to toss in garter belts and corsets over the armor, because Emperor forbid female models not show their underwear.
I had the exact same thought when I saw Sisters for the first time. Years ago, in Dawn of War (before I played the tabletop game). Couldn't help but think, "These are basically militant nuns, right? So what's with the boob-armor?"
I'd personally envision space battle nuns as more Joan d'Arc and less Pinup Girl.
Hopefully, given the excellent job they did with Lelith Hesperax, the Sisters' next model line will rectify this - though, obviously more modestly clothed than Lelith.
SaintHazard wrote:Manchu wrote:When you're only dealing with a 28mm canvas, some exageration becomes necesary to convey and distinguish character.
Lelith Hesperax, with her taped-down breasts, begs to differ.
SaintHazard wrote:But it IS both unrealistic and unnecessary. Nuns do not look like that. Warrior nuns who spend every minute of their free time practicing killing people, even less so. They'd be thoroughly ripped, scarred up and rather ugly, and have fairly small breasts, like most fit, muscular women. What they DID have would likely be taped down, and would be even less apparent. The booby armor just smacks of the ridiculous Fantasy Breasts that every single female character in every single science fiction and fantasy setting has suffered from for the last fifty years.
But again, Lelith Hesperax's new model is a spectacular example of a departure from the need for pubescent boys to fondle their miniatures while "fondling their miniatures." I hope the new Sisters models emulate a similar attitude.
SaintHazard wrote:Perkustin wrote:The 'fondling miniatures' comment was pretty ROFL, bon mot sir! I put it to you that the sisters may well be scarred unfeminine lumps underneath their armour, but their aforementioned stigma of being the Brides of the Emperor and the intention of beguiling their foes means their armour depicts a raunchy (i think i may have created this forum's buzzword haha) exaggerated form.
And that's a fair point, but I'd rather see boobless battle-scarred Sisters than buxom pinup-girl Sisters. The former just feels more 40k to me.
SaintHazard wrote:Manchu wrote:Furthermore, the argument that "real nuns don't dress like that" is absurd.
You're right, these ladies are dressed like total sluts.
Manchu wrote:Reading this, it's hard to believe that you've ever seen licensed SoB artwork or the actuals minis.
How is this not the very definition of form-fitting?
Allow me to spoil it for you: "form-fitting" means it fits her form. Oh look, there's the armor, doing exactly that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:What do IRL nuns have to do with Sisters of Battle? I'll save you some time: NOTHING AT ALL. And here's another spoiler for you: form-fitting does not mean sexually explicit.
They have everything to do with Sisters, in that Sisters are effectively the Ecclesiarchy's version of modern nuns. "Convent," "Order," "Sororitas." All terms used by or referring to the Sisters - they're obviously designed as a parallel to modern convents militant. They have the same attitude towards martyrdom, the same unfaltering religious zealotry that makes them so dangerous, and they even have the other orders devoted to healing and such, for those Sisters whose place is not on the battlefield.
Basically, the Sisters are nuns in space. With guns. Space gun nuns. Spuns. Spuguns. Spugununs.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Squigsquasher wrote:Absolutely not. The Sisters of Battle are supposed to be pure, righteous individuals. Chest armour needs to be as subtle as possible-having it look as though it is designed to accomodate their...umm.....womanly components is fine, but not outrageously bulbous chestplates.
If anything needs making sexier, it's the Daemons of Slaanesh. The Daemonettes look too much like frustrated teenage girls (and exactly why are Daemonettes, the embodiments of excess and secret desire, the only Lesser Daemons to keep themselves modest?) and as for the Keeper of Secrets......ARGH> You get 2 head choices: "Squidhead" which seems to be going "BLEGHBLEGHBLEGHBLEGH!" and the "Bewildered Chaos Cow" which appears to be making a confused "Moo?".
yeah, if scantily clad women belong anywhere in 40k its in slannesh, and even slannesh doesn't have much in the way of looks like he COULD and get away with. the FW keeper of secrets is what most slanneshi stuff should be like.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Saint Hazard: Oh, and what are "modern convents militant"? 
20662
Post by: Hawkins
gendoikari87 wrote:The only problem I have is if ask any moderaly gifted young woman to go to battle in a corset, your going to get slapped in the face twice. First for being a pig, which most men are and lets face it, SOB are hot in their armor, and secondly because it's highly impractical. Now if the armor actually does have something akin to a sports bra underneath and the design is just that way to make them look appropriate at the "brides of the emperor" thats one thing, thinking it's a good idea to go battle like that, isn't.
and heres my real reason I hate the SOB being so Raunchy:
Form fitting the armor to the exact shape of the womans busom presents the need for exact fitting for each one adding needless complexity, even if it was a one size fits all it's a harder design to build and presents problems for women of different sizes. A much better design would be a slat armor design that can be made to accomodate everyone is cheaper and more simple to make and offers just as much if no more protection.
ummm there all pretty much the same to the point of being cloned or so gene fed that there arent any real differences in measurements...., one size fits all i dont think would be a problem.....
cousre there is always the mini of a SOB out of armoour to compare to from that character model/barge from the old DarkEldar....
29408
Post by: Melissia
Perkustin wrote:Maybe they should introduce practical female characters to online Shooters that way teenage male's attitudesd would slowly change.. I think the point made regarding BEWB ARMORR for SoB is valid as i am sure any 'support' could be internalised in a heavy duty ablative breastplate....
Or just, like any woman participating in strenuous physical activity (no, that doesn't count), using wrapping or a sports bra to keep the breasts flat to the chest. Having breasts loose while doing activities such as running, boxing, fencing, etc, actually invites injuries such as torn ligaments.
It is quite painful. This potential for injury is reduced to the point of nonexistence by a properly fitted sports bra or by proper chest wrapping.
28937
Post by: Lucid
Lucid wrote:
If the didn't have boob armor how would we even know that they're female, except maybe when the helmet is off (and even then it could be a toss up). I'm not arguing the practicality of it, but that is probably the reason for that particular choice. . . and I see more offensive stuff irl worn by girls who shouldn't even know about the birds and the bees yet.
My brothers Girlfriend actually picked up some of these models because she liked that they weren't dressed in the traditional skimpy anime heroine suits (and she doesn't even play)
Sainthazard Wrote:
Gee, I don't know, maybe because they're called Sisters of Battle? That's not indication enough that they're female?
And I'm not saying the breasts have to go away altogether, just that they need to be toned down a bit. Okay, more than a bit.
^from the previous thread that was locked^
I agree, the Boobs look like rediculous extra apendages on the models, but not sexy/raunchy. Having them toned down wouldn't bother me, but I don't want to have another model that looks just like a marine.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
Quote your source I spent ten years looking for one
as for videogames, yeah we really do need to tone it down, as games get more and more prevalent we're being taught more and more the super model image that's so unrealistic and generally unattainable. And as more females become gamers THEY are being taught the image which is damaging to them, especially as the video game girls image is even more unrealistic and unreachable and even unhealthy than the traditional super model. (which by the way the traditional super model doesn't even look like a super model, they're digitally altered. and Video game girls generally would snap in half if they were ever real.)
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
As I said just above, though, it's an unattainable goal, it's one thing for mature adult like us who know this, it's another for younger minds that are still developing their world image.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Manchu wrote:@Saint Hazard: Oh, and what are "modern convents militant"?
A fancy word I use for modern nuns with guns.
Which do exist. They're rare, and often the Catholic church will claim to have no association whatsoever with them, but I personally witnessed a group of half a dozen angry nuns attack a Gay Pride rally outside my apartment a few years ago with baseball bats. Scary stuff.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Witzkatz wrote:@Melissia: While I fully understany and respect your position of thinking what the SoB should look like...how can you be so sure that your interpretation is necessarily the "right" one that GW obviously had in mind, but that was screwed up by the sculptors
The fact that "Sisters Hospitalier" exist makes me sure.
Similarly, their position as the official army of the Ecclesiarchy-- you know, basically a grimdark mock-up of the Catholic Church complete with its own space pope, the Ecclesiarch?-- its guardians, its soldiers, and its regulators reinforces this interpretation. Their setup, all of their unit names, their organizational names, and so on all indicate an extremely heavy religious bent, and their supreme discipline and skill compared to the Guard as well as their vastly improved armor lends them to image of the holy knight of the church. They go on "Wars of Faith", IE, holy wars, to cleanse out heretics and xenos from worlds declared to be holy lands. They ARE the crusading knights of the Imperium. They even assist the Inquisition in hunting down heretics, destroying those who blaspheme the name of the Emperor and His holy words.
I think there's no other interpretation even possible given the fluff.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Reasonable Marine approves of this thead.
29408
Post by: Melissia
gendoikari87 wrote:[snip]
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/esa-study-40-percent-of-us-gamers-are-women.ars
This was two years ago. The amount of women in gaming has increases since then.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Manchu wrote:
Reasonable Marine approves of this thead.
OMG epic win, you've made half of my argument against SOB for me! I had to pic myself up off the ground after laughing so hard. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:gendoikari87 wrote:[snip]
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/esa-study-40-percent-of-us-gamers-are-women.ars
This was two years ago. The amount of women in gaming has increases since then.
where were all these girls when I was in high school? There was one that I remember and she was taken.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
I think they should look at the female spartan from Halo Reach for inspiration she has no discernable 'abutments' on her chest plate but still retains a feminine waist, hips and bum, with longer legs and shorter arms for the body. Messing with these ratios abit could create a pleasingly female form without silly BEWB ARMORR...
27582
Post by: Smarteye
They follow the rule for all fantasy females:
Good females wear form-fitting clothing that reveals little to no skin.
Evil females wear form-fitting clothing that reveals alot of skin.
1
| Filename |
untitled.bmp |
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif)
Download
|
| Description |
|
| File size |
82 Kbytes
|
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
There is also a portion of the male population that finds certain trends in female character design to be silly. I like sisters conceptually fluff-wise and their rules are cool if outdated. It's an army I'd probably play if I wasn't convinced that every one of the infantry models should should count as having a twin-linked Missile Launcher.
You can certainly have a character design that feels "Feminine" while still seeming sensible and not overly sexualized. Hell it doesn't even have to be strictly "Practical" looking, plenty of cool characters both male and female would be incredibly silly in the real world. It's just a matter of A) The aesthetic actually matching the feel of the characters it's supposed ot represent and B) Not being blatantly designed for titillation.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
If the Sisters of Battle ever get a multi-part plastic Battle Sister squad (which is unlikely) I certainly hope they don't make them so outrageously provocative that you feel guilty assembling and painting them, like people probably would with Witch Elves.
And one thing I'd really like to see is a Sisters of Battle Dreadnought, with a Veteran Sister Superior helmet and (if it was an option in a hugely unlikely 5th Edition Codex) the option of an Inferno Cannon-putting a whole new spin on the phrase "She's HOT!".
29408
Post by: Melissia
gendoikari87 wrote:where were all these girls when I was in high school? There was one that I remember and she was taken.
Probably trying to avoid the desperate young men looking for women like them.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Chongara wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
There is also a portion of the male population that finds certain trends in female character design to be silly.
Which is fine.
But you don't speak for male gamers as a monolithic entity, and neither do those female gamers that are offended by breasts on armor speak for all other female gamers. Sci-Fi and fantasy have always had a bit of a "cheesecake" quality to it, if you're offended by that you might consider another hobby.
Melissia wrote:gendoikari87 wrote:where were all these girls when I was in high school? There was one that I remember and she was taken.
Probably trying to avoid the desperate young men looking for women like them.
Indeed.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
I don't see the other marine lol... Plus, obviously, i don't get it...
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
Manchu wrote:
Reasonable Marine approves of this thead.
Thats actually a crimson fist *runs away*
Personally i like the current sisters of battle models, i just hate the fact they're metal and only have a handful of poses.
BUT i also wouldn't mind if they ended up looking like a female warrior in dragon age, where the only difference between the heaviest armor appearance between the sexes is just shoulder width. I'll go and look for a pic now
16387
Post by: Manchu
@gendoikar: ACTUALLY I think Reasonable Marine is a great argument in favor of current Sisters. Similarly, the Batmobile should not look like this:
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Melissia wrote:gendoikari87 wrote:where were all these girls when I was in high school? There was one that I remember and she was taken.
Probably trying to avoid the desperate young men looking for women like them.
Touche'
As for the SOB dred, tell FW first, GW would probably find a way to put boobs on it
20662
Post by: Hawkins
well it comes down to 2 things on weather they should be sexy or not..... camp a or camp b thinking.....
A. Its alla plot. the Emperer isnt dead he's kickin back in his bordello of goodness playin smack puppy with his harem o the bob cut babes. its only taken him till the year 40k to get the babe that flips his switch up to the proper numbers of clones. that dude in the golden throne? a mock up from Horrorclix. (in other words horray for Beasticles!!!!!)
B. its all a plot of slanessh.
(this is the camp for Boobs R bad)
either way im bowing out to watch a Leone Saint vid..
Ta.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Differentiating Ladies and Gents on a 28mm scale isn't probably the easiest thing to do. If GW want to make 'S&M Space Nuns' then they can do that, it's not that big of a deal. It's all just Metal and Plastic, and hasn't increased any level of misogynistic thoughts or feeling in me or anyone else I should imagine.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:Chongara wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
There is also a portion of the male population that finds certain trends in female character design to be silly.
Which is fine.
But you don't speak for male gamers as a monolithic entity, and neither do those female gamers that are offended by breasts on armor speak for all other female gamers. Sci-Fi and fantasy have always had a bit of a "cheesecake" quality to it, if you're offended by that you might consider another hobby.
It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being annoyed. It's true that there are more female designs I dislike than ones I like. However that doesn't meant I want to throw away something I like as a whole. It simply means I'd be happy to see the elements of it I don't like move in a direction I'd like more (or at least have options for it present).
There are female designs I like out there in the world of gaming. A quick example:
Above are the "Judges" from the PS2 game Final Fantasy XII. It is obvious which one them is female. Without the need for giant breast-cups, or tons of skin bared. She doesn't look out of place with of her fellow judges. At the same time her design (as well as the designs of the males) aren't exactly super utilitarian, they're still fairly stylized. It isn't my favorite design but its a good example of something that I think is done "Right" I could find off hand.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Only one of these is female? The last three look pretty feminine to me, might be wrong on this one but the first two seem to have broader shoulders, and one has a codpiece. Which is a bit of a giveaway.
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
erm, i can't tell witch one is female, but I'm thinking the one on the far right?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
In Final Fantasy terms, I'd much rather see:
 etc...
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Lord Harrab wrote:erm, i can't tell witch one is female, but I'm thinking the one on the far right?
Second from the right, a.k.a. "the one with the breasts." No need for personal attacks.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ihave to agree that spotting the female judge isn't that obvious. Clearly I have been trained by GW to look for oversized breasts.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:Chongara wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Chongara wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Melissia wrote:ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
There's a sizable faction of female gamers that don't mind the sexy aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy art though. Believe it or not, some of them actually like the idea of dressing somewhat provocatively, or at the very least in a way that accentuates their femininity.
There is also a portion of the male population that finds certain trends in female character design to be silly.
Which is fine.
But you don't speak for male gamers as a monolithic entity, and neither do those female gamers that are offended by breasts on armor speak for all other female gamers. Sci-Fi and fantasy have always had a bit of a "cheesecake" quality to it, if you're offended by that you might consider another hobby.
It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being annoyed. It's true that there are more female designs I dislike than ones I like. However that doesn't meant I want to throw away something I like as a whole. It simply means I'd be happy to see the elements of it I don't like move in a direction I'd like more (or at least have options for it present).
There are female designs I like out there in the world of gaming. A quick example:
Above are the "Judges" from the PS2 game Final Fantasy XII. It is obvious which one them is female. Without the need for giant breast-cups, or tons of skin bared. She doesn't look out of place with of her fellow judges. At the same time her design (as well as the designs of the males) aren't exactly super utilitarian, they're still fairly stylized. It isn't my favorite design but its a good example of something that I think is done "Right" I could find off hand.
I'd rather look at that.
What can I say? We have different taste. I'm just saying I'd like a bit more that catered to mine, not only in 40k but in other areas of gaming and general "Nerd" stuff as well. I know for a fact your crowd certainly isn't lacking in offerings. I've certainly got money I'd be willing to spend on it, that I wouldn't on boob cup figures.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Compared to the rest of the female model range the sisters are quite sober and even manly (though some GW females models which were meant to look sexy look unintentionally manly too). I think the fact that they´re chaste holy warriors is well represented in that regard.
I support realism over nerdy sexist fetish anyday, but honestly I would be angry if someday they redo the eldar bandhees or any other eldar chick apart from Lelith without the boob armor. That would be just tasteless.
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Actually, this is a prime example of plate armor done right, and I'm glad Melissia posted it. Allow me to educate you folks on how armor works. If you think a sharp object (e.g. a sword) cannot pierce armor because armor is hard, you are incorrect. Armor is designed with a visible flow from the center to the sides. Its entire purpose is not to "be hard." It's entire purpose is to redirect the incoming blade away from the body of the wearer, redirecting its momentum and causing it to "miss" its target. This is why maces and flails were so dangerous - they overcame this by delivering a blunt blow (often with armor-piercing flanges) to the flat surface of the armor, buckling it inward - they turned the armor itself into a weapon to harm the wearer.
Now take a look at the average Sister's boob-armor. Note how it actually flows not towards the edges of the wearer's profile, but instead towards the center.
If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Well, I'd want to keep the shoulders, helmet, legs (minus garters), and arms/gauntlets of the Sisters as they are right now. The "robes" similarly fit in with their holy warrior / sisters militant theme. It's just the chest and abdomen that I have issues with. Every other part of the armor is superbly designed and interesting.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Wiglaf wrote:I support realism over nerdy sexist fetish anyday
Then play FoW.
You say "sexist fetish" for people that like the female aspect of Sci-Fi/Fantasy genres, but it could just as easily be said that those who don't are repressed prudes. That would be a hypothetical scenario, of course, but we shouldn't have to go there. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
You know, I resent the idea that just because one thinks that a properly designed piece of armor looks better that they're somehow prudish. That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Melissa: Monster Rain's point was that such a connection would be absurd. Just like how calling someone who liked SoB models as-are a nerdy sexist fetishist is also absurd.
20774
Post by: pretre
SaintHazard wrote:If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.
Reality =/ fantasy. Arguments based around how things 'really work' don't really apply. For all you know, there is a 'cleave field' which not only supports and defines, but also deflects.
Sisters boob armor makes them no easier to kill than the prevalence of everyone in 40k to leave their helmet at home. Would any sane marine remove their helmet? No. Do they all take them off and leave them on the battle barge? Yep.
Guess what? Fantasy game.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:You know, I resent the idea that just because one thinks that a properly designed piece of armor looks better that they're somehow prudish. That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.
Who said that?
I was just showing an example of how throwing around terms like "sexist" and "fetish" isn't constructive. Let's all calm down.
Manchu wrote:@Melissa: Monster Rain's point was that such a connection would be absurd. Just like how calling someone who liked SoB models as-are a nerdy sexist fetishist is also absurd.
Manchu got it.
5511
Post by: HERO
They're Space Nuns. What part of this don't you people understand?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Lord Harrab wrote:Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.
HERETIC!
The Pauldrons are far too small!
35046
Post by: Perkustin
@ Melissia i was not aware Prostitute required breastplates.
I am currently doodling some tastefully armoured females and i think that the tapering in the hip/waist area is where the attention should be focused as well as a more pronounced thinner neck. Mounting an armoured head in a heavy gorget is always gonna look masculine. the FF12 characters i'm afraid are incredibly androgynous to my eyes..
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.
A new challenger has entered the ring...
29408
Post by: Melissia
I know full well what he was attempting to say. His "point", as it were, was poorly made, and once again brings up the issue of sexism which so far has evaded this thread. And furthermore is a subject that I refuse to talk about because I do not believe it is possible for certain posters on here to talk about sexism in any situation without blatantly flaming and trolling-- suffice it to say it is a subject which is best avoided in order to keep the thread from becoming uncivilized.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Perkustin wrote:@ Melissia i was not aware Prostitute required breastplates.
They do in my neighborhood.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu got it.
Actually, I'd be willing to bet the portion of the population that prefers seuxalized designs that is sexist, is larger than portion of the population that likes less sexualized is "prudish". That's really neither her nor there though.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:I know full well what he was attempting to say. His "point", as it were, was poorly made, and once again brings up the issue of sexism which so far has evaded this thread.
Interesting.
Wiglaf wrote:I support realism over nerdy sexist fetish anyday, but honestly I would be angry if someday they redo the eldar bandhees or any other eldar chick apart from Lelith without the boob armor. That would be just tasteless.
First mention of sexism in the thread, and it wasn't yours truly who made it.
I'd say something about reading threads and the comprehension of said reading, but I feel like it would make matters worse.
Chongara wrote:Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu got it.
Actually, I'd be willing to bet the portion of the population that prefers seuxalized designs that is sexist, is larger than portion of the population that likes less sexualized is "prudish". That's really neither her nor there though.
Since you have no basis for that, my point stands that throwing around such charged terms isn't constructive.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Well, I'd want to keep the shoulders, helmet, legs (minus garters), and arms/gauntlets of the Sisters as they are right now. The "robes" similarly fit in with their holy warrior / sisters militant theme. It's just the chest and abdomen that I have issues with. Every other part of the armor is superbly designed and interesting.
Except the helmet. Its just fail. not seeing the garters people are talking about but my eyesight is not so hot.
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
Gwar! wrote:Lord Harrab wrote:Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.
HERETIC!
The Pauldrons are far too small!
Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*
29408
Post by: Melissia
Did I say I supported that? No? Then drop it. I don't want to get dragged into that discussion AGAIN....
Last time it happened, the thread was closed and half a dozen people were warned.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Lord Harrab wrote:Gwar! wrote:Lord Harrab wrote:Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.
HERETIC!
The Pauldrons are far too small!
Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*
Nah, a real female elf warrior from magical-land would keep her hair short, so that Bad Guys( TM) couldn't grab it.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Medium of Death wrote:Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.
(stylistic vomit)
A new challenger has entered the ring...
And it looks horrible. What's your point? Automatically Appended Next Post: pretre wrote:SaintHazard wrote:If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.
Reality =/ fantasy. Arguments based around how things 'really work' don't really apply. For all you know, there is a 'cleave field' which not only supports and defines, but also deflects.
Sisters boob armor makes them no easier to kill than the prevalence of everyone in 40k to leave their helmet at home. Would any sane marine remove their helmet? No. Do they all take them off and leave them on the battle barge? Yep.
Guess what? Fantasy game.
Do you see any of my Marines missing their helmets? Since you can't actually answer that, never having seen my Marines, I'll answer it for you: no.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
SaintHazard wrote:Medium of Death wrote:Melissia wrote:That's as stupid as John Blanche's artwork.
(stylistic vomit)
A new challenger has entered the ring...
And it looks horrible. What's your point?
Is there a point? It's a depection that influenced the design.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:Lord Harrab wrote:Gwar! wrote:Lord Harrab wrote:Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Thats actually pretty good. Grimdarkify it and i'd have no problems with that being the new sisters of battle look.
HERETIC!
The Pauldrons are far too small!
Thats what i meant by grimdarkify *blam*
Nah, a real female elf warrior from magical-land would keep her hair short, so that Bad Guys( TM) couldn't grab it.
I at least, don't think designs have be practical they just have look cool without being sexualized. Both male and female characters are often depicted as having hair than is longer ideal to have in the fight but in neither case is it generally there solely for sexualizaiton. Hair provides a way to provide interesting and distinct elements to a character, so it isn't really problematic.
16387
Post by: Manchu
John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.
@Frazzled:
I really like their helmets. The execution on the miniatures, however, could use some work.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Are there any unofficial sister models/conversions anyone can bring to the table? Good and Bad examples...
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Chongara wrote:I at least, don't think designs have be practical they just have look cool without being sexualized. Both male and female characters are often depicted as having hair than is longer ideal to have in the fight but in neither case is it generally there solely for sexualizaiton. Hair provides a way to provide interesting and distinct elements to a character, so it isn't really problematic.
So the question now is what defines sexualized? An attractive female face with long hair could be considered sexually attractive by someone. Where do you draw the line?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Funny, I find John Blanche's artwork to be completely alien to 40k. They are so hideously incompatible that I find a hard time believing the accusations that he is somehow responsible for anything good, nevermind good with 40k.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Manchu wrote:John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.
This statement is what truth is made of
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
Medium of Death wrote:Manchu wrote:John Blanche is one of the "framers" of 40k. If you don't like his artwork, it's no wonder you have trouble with many other aspects of the world's design.
This statement is what truth is made of
Maybe his work was back in 3rd edition, but i feel that 4ok has moved away from the style he "Framed", perhaps it's because i don't see much of his work around the setting anymore.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Manchu wrote:@gendoikar: ACTUALLY I think Reasonable Marine is a great argument in favor of current Sisters. Similarly, the Batmobile should not look like this:
I like the new batmobile... its ... More? realistic. kind of... relatively
29408
Post by: Melissia
The new batmobile looks... 90s. And definitely not in a good way.
Regardless, I think this conversation is about as far as it can go with me. I wouldn't say the models are sexy... just dumb looking, and not matching their concept. They do appear to be ATTEMPTING to be sexy, what with garter belts, bras, and corsets worn OVER the armor, but they fail at being sexy just like they fail at matching their concept.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Exactly, it's reasonable, and even still has a sense of femininity and sensuality about it... that being said riku is really hot, but no one looks like that.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Monster Rain wrote:Chongara wrote:I at least, don't think designs have be practical they just have look cool without being sexualized. Both male and female characters are often depicted as having hair than is longer ideal to have in the fight but in neither case is it generally there solely for sexualizaiton. Hair provides a way to provide interesting and distinct elements to a character, so it isn't really problematic.
So the question now is what defines sexualized? An attractive female face with long hair could be considered sexually attractive by someone. Where do you draw the line?
This is a complex question that is hard to answer in the scope of a single post. Simply put "Sexulization" does not equate to "Pretty", "Having a Sexuality Identity", "Sexually Attractive" or heck even in the extreme "Having Sex".
What it does mean (and this is a gross simplification), is incorporating elements, adding context, or framing something in such a way as to increase, create or focus on the sexual appeal that the subject may (or may not) have otherwise to a certain audience or audiences, for the purpose of doing so.
EDIT: An example of this can be shown with two depictions of a character from Magic: the Gathering.
http://www.wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/wallpapers/WP_Elspeth_1024.jpg
http://www.giftsungiven.com/ElspethTirelfullartl.jpgg
You'll note that there isn't too big a difference in her overall design between the two different version. However the second version is much more sexualized (though it's still well above average for magic and really gaming as a whole).
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Sexualized? You betcha. The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
SaintHazard wrote:Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
Actually, this is a prime example of plate armor done right, and I'm glad Melissia posted it. Allow me to educate you folks on how armor works. If you think a sharp object (e.g. a sword) cannot pierce armor because armor is hard, you are incorrect. Armor is designed with a visible flow from the center to the sides. Its entire purpose is not to "be hard." It's entire purpose is to redirect the incoming blade away from the body of the wearer, redirecting its momentum and causing it to "miss" its target. This is why maces and flails were so dangerous - they overcame this by delivering a blunt blow (often with armor-piercing flanges) to the flat surface of the armor, buckling it inward - they turned the armor itself into a weapon to harm the wearer.
Now take a look at the average Sister's boob-armor. Note how it actually flows not towards the edges of the wearer's profile, but instead towards the center.
If your armor's entire purpose is to redirect incoming blades and blows, do you really want those blades being directed towards your vital organs? Sisters' current armor makes them easier to kill, not harder.
Well that's only partly right, if your armor is hard enough to withstand the attack without bending it's still going to stop the attack but being slanted helps so being harder does actually help, but back in the middle ages, steel was good enough, now the opposite is true, you only get marginal returns from the angle of armor unless you are making it true sloped armor (which is a tale for another time) because projectiles tend to move fast enough to not be deflected a lot, unless you have a really hard armor, so you really do need a strong hard armor to deflect, sloping just helps, and also makes it rigid. Design/sloping is really only half the story, granted it is a big part but you do need strong materials to back that design up.
Maces were able to grip the armor and had the mass to do damage, The slant of medival armor was there to deflect thrusts, not sideways swings. A good battle axe would still fell you though, even if it didn't make it through the armor, youd still be on the ground.
as to keeping the SOBs legs I'd think you'd need a thicker armor there to hold the weight, anyway I've found another good power armor
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.
I don't know i think she's kinda cute but then again I do like the strong independant types with brains. I.E. that don't go off to battle in bare midriffs
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:
The point is, fantasy works better than reality in a fantasy game. And, honestly, take the long-hair off of that anime lady knight and you've got a totally androgynous look.
Not at all. The overall look of the armor seems distinctly feminine to me, especially where the upper arm meets the lower portion of the shoulder. You could stick just about any helmet on her (provided it wasn't extremely boxy) and still be obviously female.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I see a slight swell at best. The rest would be perfectly suitable for an anime male.
29408
Post by: Melissia
40k power armor isn't steel armor, however. It's primarily "ceramite".
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:I see a slight swell at best. The rest would be perfectly suitable for an anime male.
"Anime Male" is a bit too wide a category to deal with. I have to wonder, is that picture from one of the Fire Emblem games maybe? It looks a lot like that style. It'd be easier to bring up examples if I had a smaller set draw comparisons from.
26531
Post by: VikingScott
Melissia wrote:
Here's another example of a breastplate on a female knight which looks actually appropriate for a female knight instead of a prostitute.
I am fine with this. But if the face sculpts don't get better I wouldn't be able to tell that they're female.
as long as it's possible to tell that they're chicks it's fine with me.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I don't know, but it does look like an appropriate source for it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.
Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.
26531
Post by: VikingScott
@KillKrazy
If i was able to sig that. I would.
Screw this banner, I'm getting a proper sig.
It shal be sigged
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.
Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.
Exactly, super hot for the gay community.
Seriously, they are hyper-masculinized, why else do you think they appeal to teenage boys so much. Talk about sub-text!
Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
SMs are the exact opposite of sexy.
Huge old bald muscle-builders with scars, wrinkles, and warts everywhere? Yuck.
I'm almost certain he was being glib. And a troll. With an ounce or so of class.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly, super hot for the gay community.
Oh, well that explains why they reproduce by planting their [gene]seed in young boys.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I know.
In case you haven't noticed, I occasionally intentionally answer things like that with a completely serious face because it is more interesting than simply saying "lol".
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Melissia wrote:I know.
In case you haven't noticed, I occasionally intentionally answer things like that with a completely serious face because it is more interesting than simply saying "lol".
Put that bag of troll food away.
You'll attract more. Then they'll become dependent upon us for their food, and you'll ruin the local ecosystem. Do you want that?
18698
Post by: kronk
Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.
...says the captain of Hive Fleet Kielbasa... 
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Medium of Death wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...
I loose nights sleep thinking about the armor itself... is that normal? even though power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.
29408
Post by: Melissia
gendoikari87 wrote:power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.
Explain why you believe so?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
gendoikari87 wrote:Medium of Death wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I just wish they would tone down the sexiness of SMs.
I too loose many a nights sleep to those armoured dreamboats...
I loose nights sleep thinking about the armor itself... is that normal? even though power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.
Not necessarily. From an "armor" standpoint, possibly, but from a "suit that basically triples your strength and allows you to perform feats of strength, agility, and endurance that would give a world-class athlete a hernia in five seconds flat," it's got lots of excellent applications.
Hell, even as armor, think about many of the enemies the U.S. Army faces - lots and lots and lots of massed small-arms fire is the norm, be it Iraq, Somalia, or Bosnia. Any suit of armor that can withstand mass small-arms fire is an asset, not a liability.
Now against anything with armor-piercing capabilities, you'd turning that suit of armor into a deathtrap.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Melissia wrote:gendoikari87 wrote:power armor in any real military is about the dumbest thing you can have.
Explain why you believe so?
On it's face, power armor seems to be the pinnacle of battlefield technology but under any real world timelines, by the time you can use power armor you are fully capable of mass producing both air and ground drones which are far more effective and efficient, and don't require that you loose a valuble soldier should they die. They can be controlled from laptops miles away from the battle and easily shielded from harm both physical and EMP. And their human counterparts can be kept safe in armored fighting vehicles. The army has already started to realize this and the simple fact that power armor is at best a logistics nightmare without some super advanced power generator and fuel, and even then you can mass produce drones in the thousands, make them small enough to clear buildings and if you really want to you could make them solar powered with an electricly powered weapon like a laser once the tech becomes good enough, it won't be as good as a combat rifle but it's a near zero logistics supply train, and you win wars by going after the supply trains, not the soldiers and tanks. Now a power armored trooper would be a god on the battlefield, and you might still need them to hold ground, but loosing one is a bad thing when you can have wave after wave of drones to follow up, essentially and endless supply of soldiers.
Not necessarily. From an "armor" standpoint, possibly, but from a "suit that basically triples your strength and allows you to perform feats of strength, agility, and endurance that would give a world-class athlete a hernia in five seconds flat," it's got lots of excellent applications.
oh theres no arguing that the current prototypes are going to be a god send for logistics and combat engineers, but as a weapon, probably not.... unless you start putting big heavy weapons on them and sending those into battle in the mean time untill we devolope true drones.
*by drones I don't mean self aware and autonomous, I mean ROV's with guns.
basically these
They aren't pretty or coo, but they are cheap hard to kill, powerful and infinitely renewable. Basically the ultimate soldier.. or in 40k terms guardsmen in power armor for 3 points... except the current versions can't climb stairs.... soooooo, we still need soldiers to go into harms way and clear houses and hold ground....
Power armor is basically for the guy who wants to go out in a blaze of glory and actually have that blaze matter. Your going to be taken down eventually by something but your going to get far before you do. There's a glory associated with knights in armor, an honor associated with valor and justice, thats why we keep trying to bring back plate armor. I can definately see top important generals in the stuff but ground troops? no, distance is a better armor than two inches of adamantium.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I've actually taken the proactive step of greenstuffing curlers and chastity belts on all of my harlot SoBs.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
kronk wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic and seriously, SoBs have always been depicted as Domina Queens. It's ridiculous and disgusting, and one of the reasons I stopped playing 40K in the early 90s.
...says the captain of Hive Fleet Kielbasa...
I see you understand some Polish.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .
No , seriously (and I didn´t mean to be derogatory with the "sexist fetish" comment, is just how it is), I just think its quite obvious what GW (and other fantasy/Sci Fi designers) are pursuing by focusing in that kind of aesthetic. Since they seem to spend some time lurking in forums like this they might be aware of what most of the youngest fanbase are looking for: a dark fictional world when men are über men and women are pleasing looking goths with big swords. Just the opposite of what they get on real life. Unfortunately that is what he have inherited from the awesome 80´s setting.
On the other hand I´m sorry to differ with those who don´t like John Blanche. His drawings are the essence of 40k universe wickedness; without it that very universe just wouldn´t exist or wouldn´t be the same we all know, IMO..
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Wiglaf wrote:Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .
I didn't call you anything, I think you misunderstood my post.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I'm just wondering if I should complain about Catachan Guardsmen being overly sexualized. I mean, those are definitely worse than SoB on that standpoint, aren't they? Not wearing any armor for the sake of showing off huge ripped torsos and gigantic biceps! But you know what? I'm actually fond of my army looking like a bunch of "hurrr! I'm Ramboo!" bodybuilders. I like the reference to movies like Predator and, well Rambo and so on. It's a game, after all. From that standpoint, I'm not sure I can completely understand being actually really annoyed by SoB models.
And one thing about the SoB being based on Templar knights and therefore not living up to their role model...so, okay, they don't wear armor like Knights Templar did. But they also strap girls to huge hissing walking engine thingies. Is that annoying, too, because those aren't based on the Templars? What I'm saying is, the Sisters of Battle are, of course, diverging in one way or another from the role model of Knights Templar, why is it so bad when they do so when it comes to body armor?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Witzkatz wrote:And one thing about the SoB being based on Templar knights and therefore not living up to their role model...so, okay, they don't wear armor like Knights Templar did. But they also strap girls to huge hissing walking engine thingies. Is that annoying, too, because those aren't based on the Templars? What I'm saying is, the Sisters of Battle are, of course, diverging in one way or another from the role model of Knights Templar, why is it so bad when they do so when it comes to body armor?
Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Monster Rain wrote:Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
What part of "based on" is unclear?
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
Duh, of course they did!
This is completely accurate reenactment!
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Monster Rain wrote:Wiglaf wrote:Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .
I didn't call you anything, I think you misunderstood my post.
I know mate, just trying to reduce tension.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Witzkatz wrote:I'm just wondering if I should complain about Catachan Guardsmen being overly sexualized. I mean, those are definitely worse than SoB on that standpoint, aren't they? Not wearing any armor for the sake of showing off huge ripped torsos and gigantic biceps! But you know what? I'm actually fond of my army looking like a bunch of "hurrr! I'm Ramboo!" bodybuilders. I like the reference to movies like Predator and, well Rambo and so on. It's a game, after all. From that standpoint, I'm not sure I can completely understand being actually really annoyed by SoB models.
And one thing about the SoB being based on Templar knights and therefore not living up to their role model...so, okay, they don't wear armor like Knights Templar did. But they also strap girls to huge hissing walking engine thingies. Is that annoying, too, because those aren't based on the Templars? What I'm saying is, the Sisters of Battle are, of course, diverging in one way or another from the role model of Knights Templar, why is it so bad when they do so when it comes to body armor?
Catachans not having armor? what are you talking about they have T-shirts, That's better than flak armor isn't it? jk lol
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
According to the most recent research, they didn't even have girls!
28937
Post by: Lucid
I wonder how many people here have ever seen the lingerie football league . . .
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
SaintHazard wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
What part of "based on" is unclear?
The part where you arbitrarily decide what is fitting to be included in that basis and what is not.
Wiglaf wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Wiglaf wrote:Now that was funny, an american guy calling an eurofag "prude" .
I didn't call you anything, I think you misunderstood my post.
I know mate, just trying to reduce tension.
Ah. Sorry. But as you know...
Kilkrazy wrote:Hold on...
The Knights Templar didn't have flamethrowers and giant Chainsaws?
According to the most recent research, they didn't even have girls!
Lies! Next thing you'll be telling me that they didn't fight Orks or use magical powers to become invulnerable. 
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
gendoikari87 wrote:They aren't pretty or coo, but they are cheap hard to kill, powerful and infinitely renewable. Basically the ultimate soldier.. or in 40k terms guardsmen in power armor for 3 points... except the current versions can't climb stairs.... soooooo, we still need soldiers to go into harms way and clear houses and hold ground....
I think you're showing insufficient faith in the power of high explosives. Who needs to climb stairs when you can just level the building?
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
I don't mean to derail the thread but this is kind of what I think is going to happen to warhammer:
*begin Rant*
has anyone noticed lately how in anime the current trend has gone over, way over, to the big boobs, OMG I want to *** up the main character? I mean I don't see anything wrong with accentuating certain aspects to draw in attention but it seems that's all that anime has with it now. They are all focusing on the sexual aspect and have nearly abandoned the story line. I remember a time when story mattered, back in the 80's and 90's when Gundam and eva came out, the story lines were rich and meaningful with sprinkles of real tech in them as well as philisophical debate. Games were made with insight and took brains to play(IM LOOKING AT YOU SQUARE< YOU F"ED UP MY FRONT MISSION!!!!!!), today it's just boobs in your face and button mashing. Games, movies and shows... They meant something back then, but now it's just to quote Lewis Black "T! tt!3s T! tt!3s @$$ @$$ T! tt!3s T! tt!3s @$$ @$$ @$$" I mean really people can we keep the porn in the porn, and put some thought back into our D@mn games (both virtual and table top), movies and shows.
I can't belive as a male I'm saying this, but I'm tired of having boobs shoved in my face.
*end Rant*
I will give credit to spice and wolf though, yes there is nudity in it unlike 99% of anime that just teases you got hook you in, but it's actually done tastefully and it's not in your face or 24/7 its a light sprinkling and the rest of the time she's fully clothed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:gendoikari87 wrote:They aren't pretty or coo, but they are cheap hard to kill, powerful and infinitely renewable. Basically the ultimate soldier.. or in 40k terms guardsmen in power armor for 3 points... except the current versions can't climb stairs.... soooooo, we still need soldiers to go into harms way and clear houses and hold ground....
I think you're showing insufficient faith in the power of high explosives. Who needs to climb stairs when you can just level the building?
Because some times you want to keep that building and use it yourself. I mean hell if that was what the military really thought we'd have just nuked iraq and afganistan. It's the PROPER application of high explosives that can solve any problem, not the gratuitous use of them.
as a side note this is also why the imperium does not just blast planets from orbit. Some things have to be done with finesse.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Wow, this conversation has gone over everywhere and back again without actually getting any mileage on the odometer.
Personally I think the SOB range needs to be made more female. I hate the current SOB models because with the exception of two bumps on the chest, they do not look like girls. Any definition in the hips is covered by the bolter/flamer. Any definition in the shoulders/neck is hidden by the collar and shoulder pads. Even the piss boy hair cuts and manly jaw lines don't help their situation any. The only other female definition is in the legs with slender calves. But is that really sexist? Do you really want them wearing marine armor with "girl power" written on the front instead of the eagle thingy.
At some point artistic license must be used to denote gender. You almost have to exaggerate those aspects of the body that denote the difference between male and female if anyone is to tell what is actually what.
Also another +1 on the totally hate SOB helmet design opinion.
34644
Post by: Mr Nobody
I could imagine the mechanicum always having a temper tantrum having to make boob armor, knowing it's completely impractical yet all the young neophytes argue it is.
30356
Post by: Jaon
Without breasts, 40k becomes a sausage fest.
Personally, think of a bikini. Now armour all the places the bikini does not cover.
Now remove the bikini. Thats how SoB should look like.
HAHHAHALOLJOKES
I think the way they are now is feminine and realistic enough. Theres nothing wrong with the boob plates, we dont want them looking like female gears now (no boobs)
123
Post by: Alpharius
Jayden63 wrote:Wow, this conversation has gone over everywhere and back again without actually getting any mileage on the odometer.
Personally I think the SOB range needs to be made more female. I hate the current SOB models because with the exception of two bumps on the chest, they do not look like girls. Any definition in the hips is covered by the bolter/flamer. Any definition in the shoulders/neck is hidden by the collar and shoulder pads. Even the piss boy hair cuts and manly jaw lines don't help their situation any. The only other female definition is in the legs with slender calves. But is that really sexist? Do you really want them wearing marine armor with "girl power" written on the front instead of the eagle thingy.
At some point artistic license must be used to denote gender. You almost have to exaggerate those aspects of the body that denote the difference between male and female if anyone is to tell what is actually what.
Also another +1 on the totally hate SOB helmet design opinion.
Agreed!
And if they can't do it in like this, in a non-comical, in scale and non-hyper-sexualized way, they should just relegate them into the background.
Have the Emperor die, get reborn, show up and tell them to "Knock it off."
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
19965
Post by: Lord Harrab
SaintHazard wrote:I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
Less "Breast" More "Plate"?
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
gendoikari87 wrote:has anyone noticed lately how in anime the current trend has gone over, way over, to the big boobs, OMG I want to *** up the main character? I mean I don't see anything wrong with accentuating certain aspects to draw in attention but it seems that's all that anime has with it now. They are all focusing on the sexual aspect and have nearly abandoned the story line. I remember a time when story mattered, back in the 80's and 90's when Gundam and eva came out, the story lines were rich and meaningful with sprinkles of real tech in them as well as philisophical debate.
I remember back in the 80s and 90s when I saw my first anime tentacle porn, it translates as "Day of the Demon" IIRC. There was a guy in my gaming crew who really liked that stuff, and now that I think of it he was actually extremely creepy though he seemed OK at the time. I have a hard time hearing you talk about "deep" story lines when the first old anime that comes to mind involves a slightly different kind of 'deep'.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:I think you're showing insufficient faith in the power of high explosives.
Because some times you want to keep that building and use it yourself... Some things have to be done with finesse.
Yes, a clear case of insufficient faith, "finesse" is just a fancy way of saying "you didn't blow up enough the first time".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Lord Harrab wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
Less "Breast" More "Plate"?
Just when you thought this faction couldn't sell any less models . . .
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
Monster Rain wrote:Lies! Next thing you'll be telling me that they didn't fight Orks or use magical powers to become invulnerable.
WTF, my high school history teacher has a lot to answer for if this is true. Do you have a source proving that they didn't?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Yes. Heres why!
Because of all the Sexy Slaaneesh Models the Imperium needs some cheerleaders! Thats where the Sisters of battle come in.
They were great for their age! But now they are showing their age completely. That is why I believe they should make better looking models. And they should really look kinda of like how our women look today. Not like 20's women.
33279
Post by: BearersOfSalvation
Lucid wrote:I wonder how many people here have ever seen the lingerie football league . . .
I remember secretly watching the GLOW on TV in my teen years and switching the channel whenever my mom came near the room. While I haven't seen the lingerie football league, I imagine the outfits had a lot in common with what the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling wore back then.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:Lord Harrab wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
Less "Breast" More "Plate"?
Just when you thought this faction couldn't sell any less models . . .
Are you kidding? I have a sneak peak of the new SoB model range!
Now that's more like it!
33125
Post by: Seaward
SaintHazard wrote:I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
Probably because the pictorial examples of what you're looking for that have been provided so far do just that. I honestly couldn't pick the female judge, and I agree that if the elf anime character or whatever that is had a butch haircut, I'd think it was just an anime dude.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other what GW does with the new Sisters line, as I don't play them and don't know anyone who does, so it's not going to affect me. However, I certainly do buy the argument that it takes some emphasis on the feminine to make 28mm models clearly female when you're looking at them from a couple feet up. And I'm fine with that. They're nowhere near the usual female fantasy armor, and kvetching about corsets seems a little odd.
33550
Post by: Jubear
The female form is a miracle of nature and besides all GWs models are scuplted in 28mm "heroic" proportions that means heroic bewbs too =)
28235
Post by: Necroman
Question: What if they just had the corset removed and replaced with armor similar to the rest of the Sister's?
That way, they'd still be identifiably female while not looking as much like whores.
16387
Post by: Manchu
They really don't look at all like whores. I don't know where people even get this idea.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Manchu wrote:They really don't look at all like whores. I don't know where people even get this idea.
I think it might say more about the viewer's hangups than about the model.
Corset style clothing is actually rather popular, if the catalogs that I used to deliver are any indication...
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Lol. Sisters of Battles Look Like nuns thats about it.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Seaward wrote:Probably because the pictorial examples of what you're looking for that have been provided so far do just that. I honestly couldn't pick the female judge, and I agree that if the elf anime character or whatever that is had a butch haircut, I'd think it was just an anime dude.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other what GW does with the new Sisters line, as I don't play them and don't know anyone who does, so it's not going to affect me. However, I certainly do buy the argument that it takes some emphasis on the feminine to make 28mm models clearly female when you're looking at them from a couple feet up. And I'm fine with that. They're nowhere near the usual female fantasy armor, and kvetching about corsets seems a little odd.
The female judge was the second one from the right. I picked her out in a matter of seconds. Clue: she had breasts, none of the others did. It honestly couldn't have been more obvious. I suppose they could have hung a sign over her head saying, "LOOK! TITTIES!" but it'd be far from necessary.
As for the anime chick, that's an example of armor that looks good and functional at the same time. Do you seriously need a pair of boobs to tell if someone's a chick or not? Is it that hard for you? If so, I recommend getting out more.
The female body differs from the male body in more ways than just breasts. Wider hips, slimmer waist, narrower shoulders, legs that taper more definitely as they descend, a slighter frame overall, a thinner less muscled neck, less defined arms, a narrower face, more delicate hands and feet - need I go on? There are fifty billion ways to tell if a chick is a chick. If a dude looks like a chick, that's not my fault, but it shouldn't confuse you THAT much. If it does, you've got bigger problems than we can address in this thread.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Manchu wrote:They really don't look at all like whores. I don't know where people even get this idea.
"Corset = Whore" appears to be hard-wired in to some folks' brains.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Seaward wrote:Manchu wrote:They really don't look at all like whores. I don't know where people even get this idea.
"Corset = Whore" appears to be hard-wired in to some folks' brains.
Take this strumpet for an example. Wait a minute...
102
Post by: Jayden63
Seaward wrote:SaintHazard wrote:I'm slightly confused as to why some people are under the impression that the "tone-down-the-Sisters-models" camp wants to perform a double mastectomy on every Sisters model ever.
We don't want to remove the breasts, we want to tone down the breast armor.
Probably because the pictorial examples of what you're looking for that have been provided so far do just that. I honestly couldn't pick the female judge, and I agree that if the elf anime character or whatever that is had a butch haircut, I'd think it was just an anime dude.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other what GW does with the new Sisters line, as I don't play them and don't know anyone who does, so it's not going to affect me. However, I certainly do buy the argument that it takes some emphasis on the feminine to make 28mm models clearly female when you're looking at them from a couple feet up. And I'm fine with that. They're nowhere near the usual female fantasy armor, and kvetching about corsets seems a little odd.
This is very true. You can show all the pics you want of females in flat armor that look female. But show me just one 28mm model. When dealing with that scale, the small hints of femininity here and there just disappear. You need to exaggerate them just a bit so that they actually do show up.
Reaper has done wonderful work on 28mm females, but even their females in plate armor have breast bumps because they are just necessary to show that its female. Make them flat, and take away the flowing hair and the girl turns into a dude because there just is not enough material space to show that it is a girl with subtly.
33125
Post by: Seaward
SaintHazard wrote:
The female judge was the second one from the right. I picked her out in a matter of seconds. Clue: she had breasts, none of the others did.
No, she didn't.
It honestly couldn't have been more obvious.
It honestly could.
As for the anime chick, that's an example of armor that looks good and functional at the same time.
Well, as long as we're stating personal opinions as absolute truths, it was clearly an example of armor that looked boring and masculine.
Do you seriously need a pair of boobs to tell if someone's a chick or not? Is it that hard for you? If so, I recommend getting out more.
It helps, though to be fair, I've discovered I'm far more likely to encounter boobs on men in 40K circles.
The female body differs from the male body in more ways than just breasts. Wider hips, slimmer waist, narrower shoulders, legs that taper more definitely as they descend, a slighter frame overall, a thinner less muscled neck, less defined arms, a narrower face, more delicate hands and feet - need I go on?
You forgot the reproductive organs.
There are fifty billion ways to tell if a chick is a chick.
Please to list them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jayden63 wrote:
Reaper has done wonderful work on 28mm females, but even their females in plate armor have breast bumps because they are just necessary to show that its female. Make them flat, and take away the flowing hair and the girl turns into a dude.
Lecture on the difference between males and females from close scientific observation coming in 3...2...1...
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Jayden63 wrote:But show me just one 28mm model.
How many times do I have to say this?
What are those, A cups? Is there a cup size lower than "A"?
Can you not tell she's female? It's fairly obvious from over here.
16387
Post by: Manchu
And how many times do I have to say this?
The major reason I know Lelith is a lady is because people have told me so.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
SaintHazard wrote:Jayden63 wrote:But show me just one 28mm model.
How many times do I have to say this?
What are those, A cups? Is there a cup size lower than "A"?
Can you not tell she's female? It's fairly obvious from over here.
If this is your example of a "realistic" warrior woman you have made yourself look awfully silly, just now.
FFS, yeah, she's got tiny boobs. She's also not wearing shoes.
Oh, that's rich. And the hair isn't OTT? So you're telling me that in the Gladiatorial fights none of the other Wyches would be holding that mop while they sawed her noggin off? Oh my...
And the Thong is very modest, I might add.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Monster Rain wrote:
If this is your example of a "realistic" warrior woman you have made yourself look awfully silly, just now.
FFS, yeah, she's got tiny boobs. She's also not wearing shoes.
Oh, that's rich.
You don't think so? Toned muscles, sinewy limbs, small breasts, athletic build, slightly mannish - just like every single warrior woman in history. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty realistic. I mean, have you seen engravings of Joan D'arc?
Seaward wrote:No, she didn't.
Oh?
Please explain what these are, then. Thanks. (And if the breasts didn't give it away, how about the skinny waist and wide hips?)
1
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
SaintHazard wrote:Seaward wrote:No, she didn't.
Oh?
Please explain what these are, then. Thanks. (And if the breasts didn't give it away, how about the skinny waist and wide hips?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
If this is your example of a "realistic" warrior woman you have made yourself look awfully silly, just now.
FFS, yeah, she's got tiny boobs. She's also not wearing shoes.
Oh, that's rich.
You don't think so? Toned muscles, sinewy limbs, small breasts, athletic build, slightly mannish - just like every single warrior woman in history. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty realistic. I mean, have you seen engravings of Joan D'arc?
Yeah totally. Joan D'arc fought in a g-string with no shoes on. You're out of your mind, bro.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Joan deliberately dressed like a man. And I don't know that there were even sets of armor specifically made up for ladies in any case . . .
33125
Post by: Seaward
SaintHazard wrote:Seaward wrote:No, she didn't.
Oh?
Please explain what these are, then. Thanks. (And if the breasts didn't give it away, how about the skinny waist and wide hips?)
Ah, you're correct. There's a very slight indentation that's completely visible if you isolate and circle the area in question. That'll work great on a 28mm model.
You don't think so? Toned muscles, sinewy limbs, small breasts, athletic build, slightly mannish - just like every single warrior woman in history. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty realistic. I mean, have you seen engravings of Joan D'arc?
I think the fact that she's wearing a bra and panties is the main indicator, myself.
102
Post by: Jayden63
SaintHazard wrote:Jayden63 wrote:But show me just one 28mm model.
How many times do I have to say this?
What are those, A cups? Is there a cup size lower than "A"?
Can you not tell she's female? It's fairly obvious from over here.
Ohh bad example. Yeah she looks female, not because of what she is wearing, but because of what she isn't. She has slender arms and legs, she has a thinner waist and a long neck. Now lets wrap up those arms in shoulder pads and gauntlets. Lets put armor around her hips and bulk out her stomach a bit because well, its supposed to be armored. Hide her neck with a high collar (distinctive of the SOB design) and suddenly the only thing she has going for her being female is long flowing hair.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
If they got something akin to this I'd be really happy. Looks feminine without having bulging tits. I know it's actually a Space Marine, but something similar to that would be nice. Not something like this.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah totally. Joan D'arc fought in a g-string with no shoes on. You're out of your mind, bro.
Did I say she did? Did I say word one about what Joan D'arc wore? No, I'm talking about body type. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make you right. In fact, it tells me that you're deflecting, which means you know you're wrong.
Well done you.
The whole point of this thread is that warrior women don't have double-Ds, and their armor should not give the illusion that they do.
As soon as you come up with an argument to refute that simple fact, you're talking out your ass. So far I haven't seen one.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Seaward wrote:I think the fact that she's wearing a bra and panties is the main indicator, myself.
Could just as easily be a " DE assassin-tranny."
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
SaintHazard wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Yeah totally. Joan D'arc fought in a g-string with no shoes on. You're out of your mind, bro.
Did I say she did? Did I say word one about what Joan D'arc wore? No, I'm talking about body type. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make you right. In fact, it tells me that you're deflecting, which means you know you're wrong.
Well done you.
Whatever you need to sleep at night, buddy. You compared Lelith to Joan D'arc. Maybe you should be more clear in what you're saying.
SaintHazard wrote:The whole point of this thread is that warrior women don't have double-Ds, and their armor should not give the illusion that they do.
Surely some of them might. How many warrior women do you know? You're making a lot of absolute statements on a subject that is 100% fictional.
SaintHazard wrote:As soon as you come up with an argument to refute that simple fact, you're talking out your ass. So far I haven't seen one.
Hang on, what? If I refute the fact with a valid argument I will then be talking out of my ass? I'm confused.
Speaking of Warrior Women, if the USMC counts I've known several. And some of them had some deliciously shapely chests.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I also think a better example is O'Shaserra:  Although we don't know if Tau have boobies . . .
102
Post by: Jayden63
Monster Rain wrote:SaintHazard wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Yeah totally. Joan D'arc fought in a g-string with no shoes on. You're out of your mind, bro.
Did I say she did? Did I say word one about what Joan D'arc wore? No, I'm talking about body type. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make you right. In fact, it tells me that you're deflecting, which means you know you're wrong.
Well done you.
Whatever you need to sleep at night, buddy. You compared Lelith to Joan D'arc. Maybe you should be more clear in what you're saying.
SaintHazard wrote:The whole point of this thread is that warrior women don't have double-Ds, and their armor should not give the illusion that they do.
Surely some of them might. How many warrior women do you know? You're making a lot of absolute statements on a subject that is 100% fictional.
As someone who spent 10 years in the martial arts I can tell you women who fight come in all shapes and sizes. No matter what their skill level you will find some have large boobs, some small. The one universal truth is that all get pissed when you punch them in the chest.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
I'm not sure how "I can tell she's female despite not having enormous breasts, can you?" could possibly be more clear.
That said, I know three female soldiers (two US Army, one Air Force MP) and two female athletes. The athletic ones (and the Chair Force MP, to be honest ) may not qualify, but all of them work out on a regular basis (as in, seven days a week), are in top shape, and all have roughly the same body type. You can still tell they're female.
Add them all together and you might get a C cup.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I also think a better example is O'Shaserra:
Although we don't know if Tau have boobies . . .
No fluff examples either way, but chances are, since they're descended from avian creatures, not mammals like humans, they have none.
16387
Post by: Manchu
First off, let's all simmer down.
Second, we're not talking about identifying flat-chested IRL human being as female. We're talking about 28mm miniatures. I think the point about some exaggeration being necessary still stands.
33125
Post by: Seaward
SaintHazard wrote:That said, I know three female soldiers (two US Army, one Air Force MP) and two female athletes. The athletic ones (and the Chair Force MP, to be honest ) may not qualify, but all of them work out on a regular basis (as in, seven days a week), are in top shape, and all have roughly the same body type. You can still tell they're female.
Add them all together and you might get a C cup.
Well, that anecdotal evidence clearly proves it, as I can only provide a Marine with Cs.
Incidentally, what branch were you in that you're comfortable calling it the Chair Force?
16387
Post by: Manchu
SaintHazard wrote:No fluff examples either way, but chances are, since they're descended from avian creatures, not mammals like humans, they have none.
Whoa, never heard that before. From Xenology is it? Too bad . . . Always though this one was a cutie.  So hooves and no breasts. Faptau has his work cut out for him. I will admit, a miniature of this would be OTT:  To wit: 
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Would.
Don't tell the Inquisition though.
As to the topic though, I think that if the SoB looked like our blue-skinned friend here the folks that think their breast armor is OTT would have a point.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:Joan deliberately dressed like a man. And I don't know that there were even sets of armor specifically made up for ladies in any case . . .
Jeanne d'Arc dressed like a man because men's clothing and armor was more appropriate for battle.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Actually, according to Joan herself it had more to do with safeguarding her chastity. (Transcriptions of her trial and interrogations are readily available.) As to men's armor being more appropriate for battle, once can hardly argue--as there was likely no women's armor on hand.
33454
Post by: Renbags
Can we get back to the subject now please... I'm not really too interested in arguments over a new DE model or Joan d'arc's armour and whether or not it suited her, this is about SOB and what GW should do with them to tone them down or make them sexier
P.S. I am not a pervert
34249
Post by: Igenstilch
I think the current model range needs to be reworked. Possibly in line with some of their other works.
While sculpting females in the 28mm scale probably isnt easy, but most of their design sculpts are much larger, so they do have room to work with the models before there shrunk to scale.
IMO the way to success with armored female models will be in the way the armor protects the form underneath. The way it curves and folds in and out. It shouldnt be form fitting either. As form fitting armor has very limited applications. One would hope after 40,000 years of war they would have a practical yet elegant design. The sisters can look attractive (and should to a degree) without losing combat potency (there should still be a intimidation factor, designed in a way that you would be cautious fighting, in fantasy or realistically). I hope GW's design teams can come up with something other then battle corsets and awful hair cuts.
side note... how do i make this pic smaller on the forums... its a little big
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Isn´t she (the girl of the pic) an arbites?
That armor seem a bit too cool for an average woman cop, but yes, is a good model for a theoretical re-imagining of the new SoB. Boobless, but still femenine.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Manchu wrote:They really don't look at all like whores. I don't know where people even get this idea.
No they look like hot goth chicks, I mean they really are beautiful models it's just as an engineer I can't get past horrible weapons design, its like orks it just won't work. Granted orks have psychic abilities that make their stuff work... who knows maybe SOB boob armor grants them a 5+ ward save... I mean most other armies are a sausage fest right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Igenstilch wrote:I think the current model range needs to be reworked. Possibly in line with some of their other works.
While sculpting females in the 28mm scale probably isnt easy, but most of their design sculpts are much larger, so they do have room to work with the models before there shrunk to scale.
IMO the way to success with armored female models will be in the way the armor protects the form underneath. The way it curves and folds in and out. It shouldnt be form fitting either. As form fitting armor has very limited applications. One would hope after 40,000 years of war they would have a practical yet elegant design. The sisters can look attractive (and should to a degree) without losing combat potency (there should still be a intimidation factor, designed in a way that you would be cautious fighting, in fantasy or realistically). I hope GW's design teams can come up with something other then battle corsets and awful hair cuts.
side note... how do i make this pic smaller on the forums... its a little big
where did that come from, that would be an amazing sister!!!!!!!!! it's still sexy and alluring, yet practical and not over the top, I think that should have been the original starting point!!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SaintHazard wrote:Jayden63 wrote:But show me just one 28mm model.
How many times do I have to say this?
What are those, A cups? Is there a cup size lower than "A"?
Can you not tell she's female? It's fairly obvious from over here.
Setting aside that theres no armor, Here Hair would get in the way and you'd get killed trying to do what she's doing, that does seem like a reasonable battlefield attire compared to sisters. She is at least free to move unhindered.
FFS, yeah, she's got tiny boobs. She's also not wearing shoes.
at least she's not wearing high heels.
As someone who spent 10 years in the martial arts I can tell you women who fight come in all shapes and sizes. No matter what their skill level you will find some have large boobs, some small. The one universal truth is that all get pissed when you punch them in the chest.
Yeah but generally the athletic women that I know with large breasts either wear sports bras or wrap them up. It gets kinda painful after a while, even for men with oversized boobs to run with out locking them down.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
kronk wrote:
The following is an example of unintentionally sexy armor:
The following is an example of intentionally sexy armor:
Disagree on both accounts.
That SOB girl's boyfriend designed that armor to satisfy his own particular fetish (lets be honest) and any sexiness is NOT accidental.
As for the second example: The intention might have been for it to be sexy ( assuming a fourteen year old target audience). but it is so stupid and forced that any sexiness is utterly lost... Automatically Appended Next Post: Igenstilch wrote:One would hope after 40,000 years of war they would have a practical yet elegant design.
I suggets reading up on the Imperium a little more: They rarely innovate or redesign anything.
The fact that they religiously do whatever a corpse on a throne wrote in a book many thousands of years ago or a talking skull tells them to regardless of the practicality/efficiency of doing such is the hallmark of the Imperium and defines them in the 40K universe.
This almost backwards devotion to old designs is intentional in the fluff and aesthetics of 40K. The "ugliness" of Leman Russ tanks and various other items of war in 40K is what gives it it's unique look and identity.
IF you want high-tech and sleek go play Infinity...
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
IF you want high-tech and sleek go play Infinity...
.... or tau. They seem to have it right, drones and stealth suits.
32940
Post by: Araenion
I'm suprised no one brought Howling Banshees into the discussion yet.
Talking about toning down sex appeal and realism while posting a picture of a girl in a bikini with massive hair that she'd stab herself with sooner than she'd stab the enemy and while wearing no shoes is contra productive to one's argument, I think.
Or did you post that as an argument for representing female models the way they should be represented? (so Lelith, nevermind the lack of realism on her model, actually looks exactly like a gladiatorial champion should, with added artistic license) In which case it's a good argument, but you weren't clear enough in the way you presented it.
New SoB models/depictions should not be sexy, they should be feminine and everyone should decide for themselves whether they find them appealing or no. What's the use for having a female faction if you can't tell they're female? But the realism should be there either way, as much as it can be, given the size and scale of the miniatures("female" lego-miniatures with painted on lip-gloss as their only distinguishing feature comes to mind as an example when exaggeration is purposefully not used).
I'm just curious how you'd design a distinctly female armor(as we agree, I hope, that SoB should, in fact, look like Sisters) on a 28 mm model without fitting it to the female form.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
So what do people think of the way Banshees are sculpted?
Interesting that the helmet design for the sisters is so polarizing. It's modeled after the Sallet. I like it. If I collected sisters I'd try to get them all with helmets.
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Igenstilch wrote:I think the current model range needs to be reworked. Possibly in line with some of their other works.
While sculpting females in the 28mm scale probably isnt easy, but most of their design sculpts are much larger, so they do have room to work with the models before there shrunk to scale.
IMO the way to success with armored female models will be in the way the armor protects the form underneath. The way it curves and folds in and out. It shouldnt be form fitting either. As form fitting armor has very limited applications. One would hope after 40,000 years of war they would have a practical yet elegant design. The sisters can look attractive (and should to a degree) without losing combat potency (there should still be a intimidation factor, designed in a way that you would be cautious fighting, in fantasy or realistically). I hope GW's design teams can come up with something other then battle corsets and awful hair cuts.
side note... how do i make this pic smaller on the forums... its a little big
This, right here. The sexuality isn't overt or shoved in your face. It's there, but it's in the background - what you see first is a total badass performing total badassery. The armor isn't over the top, but she still looks clearly feminine, despite small breasts and short hair. Stylize the armor a bit more, throw on some fleur- de-lis, cover enough nooks and crannies to be able to call it power armor, and you've got yourself a decent set of Sororitas armor.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
And don't forget Pauldrons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Multilazors! (C.S. Goto is writing the new SoB codex! )
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Araenion wrote:Or did you post that as an argument for representing female models the way they should be represented? (so Lelith, nevermind the lack of realism on her model, actually looks exactly like a gladiatorial champion should, with added artistic license) In which case it's a good argument, but you weren't clear enough in the way you presented it.
That's exactly what I was talking about. I even clarified it in a subsequent post. Twice. Automatically Appended Next Post: Gwar! wrote:And don't forget Pauldrons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Multilazors! (C.S. Goto is writing the new SoB codex! )
Departmento Sororistartes?
32940
Post by: Araenion
That picture above seems great, but again, that's a big picture. Transfer it to a miniature model and you don't exactly have your work cut out for you. Breast armor? Silly. A clearly defined hourglass figure? Much less so.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Araenion wrote:I'm suprised no one brought Howling Banshees into the discussion yet.
That´s because they´re ok. Eldar chicks are allowed to look however they want, since their epic dodging skills ignore the most silly and counterproductive cloth design you could ever bring out.
34249
Post by: Igenstilch
CT GAMER wrote:
Igenstilch wrote:One would hope after 40,000 years of war they would have a practical yet elegant design.
I suggets reading up on the Imperium a little more: They rarely innovate or redesign anything.
The fact that they religiously do whatever a corpse on a throne wrote in a book many thousands of years ago or a talking skull tells them to regardless of the practicality/efficiency of doing such is the hallmark of the Imperium and defines them in the 40K universe.
This almost backwards devotion to old designs is intentional in the fluff and aesthetics of 40K. The "ugliness" of Leman Russ tanks and various other items of war in 40K is what gives it it's unique look and identity.
IF you want high-tech and sleek go play Infinity...
I wont argue 40k lore with you (I'm really bad at it). As far as I know the Leman Russ is one of the Imperiums most successful tank designs. for its ease of mass production and battle field performance. The (False) Emperor was supposed to be a deity of technology as well, so even if the designs havent been updated since his demise, they should still be relevant and practical, not power armored corsets. But thats my thoughts.
I would like to see some beautiful female fighters, instead of these circus freak goths. yes I know the 40k universe is very gothic, but leave that to their icons and some of thier weapons, with hints in their armor. If it is designed into their armor, make it cosmetic to the power armor, not the focus before protection is designed. Space marines are very much sci fi super soldiers, that have hints of gothic tossed around, cant we do roughly the same with the sisters?
I probably wont ever play Infinity, its to sleek and clean, and I love me some dark Gods of Chaos.
SaintHazard wrote:
This, right here. The sexuality isn't overt or shoved in your face. It's there, but it's in the background - what you see first is a total badass performing total badassery. The armor isn't over the top, but she still looks clearly feminine, despite small breasts and short hair. Stylize the armor a bit more, throw on some fleur- de-lis, cover enough nooks and crannies to be able to call it power armor, and you've got yourself a decent set of Sororitas armor.
I really need to get the Shira Calpurnia Omnibus. Melissia mentioned binding earlier. So Shira could have a good sized pair of breasts, and the armor keeps them pressed back as comfortably possible. But yea, GW should base a new set of sister figures off this design. possibly beefed up a bit for the kind of battles and opponents they face.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This is the classic female marine figure, obviously depicts a Space Marine rather than a Sister, however it provides some concept of how a feminine armoured figure can be designed without making it all "tits oot fer the lads".
 Automatically Appended Next Post: I would recommenda also looking at some of the concept sketches of female Tau in armour.
There are certainly plenty of T&A designs but there are some good, properly armoured figures too.
Tau armour is mid-way between Guard and SM in terms of coverage, and may give some idea of how to do a 3+ Sv figure without it being plain SM power armour.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Cor! Dem Legz is Well nice! ;P
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
Kilkrazy wrote:This is the classic female marine figure, obviously depicts a Space Marine rather than a Sister, however it provides some concept of how a feminine armoured figure can be designed without making it all "tits oot fer the lads".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would recommenda also looking at some of the concept sketches of female Tau in armour.
There are certainly plenty of T&A designs but there are some good, properly armoured figures too.
Tau armour is mid-way between Guard and SM in terms of coverage, and may give some idea of how to do a 3+ Sv figure without it being plain SM power armour.
Isnt that just a BCG figure adapted to represent a fem-marine?
32940
Post by: Araenion
Kilkrazy wrote:This is the classic female marine figure, obviously depicts a Space Marine rather than a Sister, however it provides some concept of how a feminine armoured figure can be designed without making it all "tits oot fer the lads".
That is what a clearly defined hourglass figure is. If you shift focus away from the breasts when sculpting female miniatures, there has to be a focus someplace else(in this case the thigs and legs) otherwise the model simply doesn't look distinct enough for those that want to collect an army of warrior women. Oh and someone should tell Lucy Lawless that warrior women can't have shapely figure. Because Xena's role is obviously a better fit for Mila Jovovich(which also makes a pretty good warrior woman in "Fifth element" and "Joan of Arc").
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
If "shapely figure" specifically means nothing more than "HUGE TITTIES" to you, you're probably doing it wrong. Both Milla Jovovich and Lucy Lawless have shapely figures, but Lucy happens to have larger breasts than Milla. They both have pretty well defined hips and slim waists that really make a "shapely figure" "shapely."
29408
Post by: Melissia
Personally I htink the miniature is way too thin for an Astartes, female or no (they're going to be musclebound superfreaks regardless of supposed gender), so it'd fit a Sister better (if it had Sisters style armor).
29680
Post by: SaintHazard
Melissia wrote:Personally I htink the miniature is way too thin for an Astartes, female or no (they're going to be musclebound superfreaks regardless of supposed gender), so it'd fit a Sister better (if it had Sisters style armor).
I think that was the point.
And I agree.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Modquisition on. This thread has been reported and private warnings given. Everyone is to remember Dakka Rule #1: Be polite. We can discuss this rationally and with courtesy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I liek the Sabbat helmets noted earlier, and believe they have something similar in the WFB range. However, the executed SOB helmets are poorly done in that regard. Leaving the face open would have been an excellent version, or perhaps with a visor that is up in some, down in others, giving it more the Joan of Arc 13th century feel.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Arschbombe wrote:So what do people think of the way Banshees are sculpted?
Interesting that the helmet design for the sisters is so polarizing. It's modeled after the Sallet. I like it. If I collected sisters I'd try to get them all with helmets.
anybody else getting a darth vader feel from that?
18698
Post by: kronk
Gwar! wrote:And don't forget Pauldrons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Multilazors! (C.S. Goto is writing the new SoB codex! )
Those shoulder pads are WAY too small. They must be 1.25 times the size of your head. That's cannon, that is.
29408
Post by: Melissia
But not canon.
I saw this pic and it made me facepalm.
32940
Post by: Araenion
SaintHazard wrote:If "shapely figure" specifically means nothing more than "HUGE TITTIES" to you, you're probably doing it wrong. Both Milla Jovovich and Lucy Lawless have shapely figures, but Lucy happens to have larger breasts than Milla. They both have pretty well defined hips and slim waists that really make a "shapely figure" "shapely."
I wasn't the one that connected large breasts with shapely figures. My comment was simply designed to refute that opinion, because it was stated earlier by people in your camp(and you yourself) that fit women must have small breasts. Which is blatantly false. If anything in my comment about the picture Killkrazy posted it's quite clear I think woman's feminine appeal is defined by more than her cup size. I'm thinking you're prejudiced against people in this thread being lusty teenagers with no eye for graceful sensuality. Can't speak for the rest, but I assure you, I certainly do not fit that bill.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lets get this thread back on track or its closed.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I think that female Marine posted further up might be a good start for SoBs, but in this case the waist/mid-torso is WAY too slim. Considering a certain thickness in power armour, this girl would probably sport a wasp waist like in many exaggerated cartoons/animes. Or look anorexic. If we want Sisters of Battle to wear more "realistic" armour, I think toning down the cleavage-armor and then reducing the waistline even MORE is not really...well, honest. Because the waist/bust ratio is close to the same as before then, only thinner all in all, too thin for power armour for my taste.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Kilkrazy wrote:This is the classic female marine figure, obviously depicts a Space Marine rather than a Sister, however it provides some concept of how a feminine armoured figure can be designed without making it all "tits oot fer the lads".
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/5298/femalemini.jpg
I don't find that version to be all that much better. The shape of the waist, hips and legs is so overstated and extreme it feels less like I'm looking at armor than say, the legs of a mannequin with little knee pads stuck on. Instead of bludgeoning you over the head with T it's bludgeoning you over the head with A. There is still just a bit too much, Male Gaze (For Lack of a better term, I know it doesn't really apply in this context) going on there.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Some of you guys must really hate comic books . . .
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I don't hate comic books, I just dont get why big boob (armor) is bad and unrealistic and sexualized but wasp waist (armor!!) should be considered completely normal for "warrior women".
...I mean, if we're arguing with "realism" and bad boob-armor shot-deflection angles, why do both the Arbites woman and the female Marine have the thinnest/smallest armor parts around their abdominal region? The most important organs are protected by the thinnest parts of armor, only to keep they female looking? That's not much better than complaining about boob armor, in my opinion.
The arbites is actually still my favourite look, because I agree that SoB boob armor is too much. The armor proportions of the Arbites are definitely better for SoB, but to be honest, realism was made as a point and her armor isn't that "great" in that department either.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I certainly wasn't aiming that at you, Witzkatz, as I feel exactly the same way.
32940
Post by: Araenion
What I don't understand is why some people go on about how unrealistic a female combatant's figure is and ignore the fact Chaos marines have horns...in real life, horned helmets were impractical to the point of being dangerous to the wearer. And then there are the spikes...
But at any rate, to get back on topic, warrior women models should look like warrior women. Alas, that doesn't mean tomboys, because this is sci-fi meeting fantasy and warrior women of fiction are anything but tomboys, unless the character is meant to be as such and in those cases the writer usually goes out of his way to describe just how unwomanly the character looks.
Of course, there is the "space nuns" aspect to the SoB and that's what should define their looks. They might be very beautiful, but they'd keep their attire chaste, as far as I can tell. And in the spirit of their fluff, their armor should reflect this. If the model designers are really good, they'd be able to achieve a graceful, unmistakably female figure on their models while keeping the image of chasteness. It's all in the eye for detail.
33125
Post by: Seaward
I have to agree that the tiny-waisted female Marine is way worse than the standard SoB sculpt. If that's what the anti-bewb brigade is arguing for, their argument is ironic.
As far as the Arbites go, that's perfectly fine - for a picture. As others have said, on a 28mm model, sculpting it that exact way would just leave you with a dude. And no, "smaller hands" and other feminine attributes don't really show up all that well at that scale.
Also, as far as I can tell, there is no modern day analogue for a futuristic non-Christian battle nun devoted to a corpse god who wants to take over the galaxy. In other words? I'm pretty sure GW is the only one who can tell us how Sororitas dress.
32940
Post by: Araenion
That's somewhat naive...as GW surely knows what kind of image their fluff will give on their models. I'm not saying the current SoB aren't fine as is(in fact, I never noticed this corset thing everyone is talking about), but if and when their new codex arrives, they'll need to think through what they intend to do with them girls. I for one would rather see something with taste and grace than something like that image Melissia linked.
I don't cater to the extreme realism crowd though. In my opinion, extreme realism has little place in an alternate-universe fiction. Why is why I understand the necessity for spikes on Chaos marines and for recognizable breasts on female models. It's all just eyecandy.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Seaward wrote:
As far as the Arbites go, that's perfectly fine - for a picture. As others have said, on a 28mm model, sculpting it that exact way would just leave you with a dude. And no, "smaller hands" and other feminine attributes don't really show up all that well at that scale.
Would it leave with you dude? Or just with something less than blatantly "Female". The idea of male as default where everything is a "A dude until proven otherwise" is a contributing factor to extremes in design some of us find to be less than ideal. I realize that is really more about huge cultural issues than tabletop games, but it's certainly worth noting.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Would it leave with you dude? Or just with something less than blatantly "Female". The idea of male as default where everything is a "A dude until proven otherwise" is a contributing factor to extremes in design some of us find to be less than ideal. I realize that is really more about huge cultural issues than tabletop games, but it's certainly worth noting.
Well, I don't know about the rest of the world, but a person clad in heavy plate armor blasting away with automatic grenade launchers and flamethrowers is male as a default, yes. Am I prejudiced now?
What I'm saying is, the context in which Sisters of Battle operate makes it necessary to emphasize their female form a liiitle bit, you know? In a way that is visible on 28m models? Hell, they're basically the only human female miniatures in 40k! Of course everbody's going to think they're dudes if there's not at least a small hint!
25990
Post by: Chongara
Witzkatz wrote:
Well, I don't know about the rest of the world, but a person clad in heavy plate armor blasting away with automatic grenade launchers and flamethrowers is male as a default, yes. Am I prejudiced now?
!
The answer to this question is far beyond the scope of this thread. Simply put, there are very strong arguments for why that perception is problematic. Simply Google "Male as Default" if you want to get started on exploring the issue.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Their armor is unrealistic.
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
But it wouldn't stand up to actual combat.
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
She'd sprain a boobie trying to fight in that!
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
Well, you're a skeevy perv then.
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
Also, it's totally sexist.
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
These models promote unhealthy body image to young girls everywhere.
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
This is why there's still a glass ceiling in America!!!
It's 28mm; exaggeration is necessary.
You see, we can dispense with all of the agruments above EXCEPT the one about the scale. This is not about designing armor for an actual woman to wear into an actual battle. This is not about womyn's liberation, either. This is about a product range of scifi miniature toys for a setting that intentionally eschews realism and political correctness in favor of gothic horror and black humor.
And let me go ahead and say it: The new Lelith Hesperax model is HORRENDOUS. It looks feminine in the same way that a slightly pretty tranny looks feminine. In fact, it's even worse than the last Lelith model. If old Lelith was wearing sexy but impractical metal underwear, new Lelith is wearing frumpy, impractical pajamas. That's NOT an improvement. Modeling the SoB after this failure would be a huge mistake on GW's part.
6902
Post by: skrulnik
So it obviously has never entered into any of your minds that the Corset armor is the equivalent of the SM Imperial Eagle?
I'm willing to bet that the SOB are all strapped down under the armor.
I don't think the armor is formed to the individual woman.
I think the Corset look is their identifying feature.
As said, at 28mm, you need an identifier, and across a table, nothing else will tell you that a model is female.
Hair length doesn't do it.
Bodyshape can do it, but any decent armor, at 28mm, will remove that aspect as well.
Some of the better done female armored figures I have seen were in the old VOID line.
Lots of females mixed throughout their armies.
BTW, the jumppack SM Chaplain has garters on his armor as well, so its not a SOB thing, its a 40k thing.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Seaward wrote:I have to agree that the tiny-waisted female Marine is way worse than the standard SoB sculpt. If that's what the anti-bewb brigade is arguing for, their argument is ironic.
As far as the Arbites go, that's perfectly fine - for a picture. As others have said, on a 28mm model, sculpting it that exact way would just leave you with a dude. And no, "smaller hands" and other feminine attributes don't really show up all that well at that scale.
Also, as far as I can tell, there is no modern day analogue for a futuristic non-Christian battle nun devoted to a corpse god who wants to take over the galaxy. In other words? I'm pretty sure GW is the only one who can tell us how Sororitas dress.
Lady Gaga fans?
This thread isn't divided into a bewb brigade and an anti-bewb brigade. By characterising the posters as such you polarise the debate and reduce the chance of people coming up with any reasonable conclusions.
The Marine pic I posted above does have a thin waist, however the overall impression is feminine owing to a combination of factors including the pose and these could easily be carried into a beefier model for a Sister.
33454
Post by: Renbags
I think the miniatures range for SOB is fine as it is. Most women have breasts, who cares about the size and how the armour is adapted to them, Manchu is completely right in saying that the miniature range is meant to be exaggerated because it's never gonna happen!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Example of female Tau armour.
Another example of female Tau armour. This suit needs to do away with the bare midriff to make it "realistic".
A different version of female human armour. It could use less obvious boobage.
However the basics are there.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Melissia wrote:But not canon.
I saw this pic and it made me facepalm.
Sexy but I'm fairly certain that girl does not digest well with her intestinges squeezed like that.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Kilkrazy wrote:The Marine pic I posted above does have a thin waist, however the overall impression is feminine owing to a combination of factors including the pose and these could easily be carried into a beefier model for a Sister.
Her boop-boop-bee-doo pose is very, very cute but I'd guess that would only further displease those who are already displeased. I really like that sculpt but the concept would make more sense on the nose of a thunderhawk than as a model line. Similarly, although SoB may already have unrealitic proportions, making them cuter ("cutsier"?) would not be an improvement IMO.
11511
Post by: theocd
Having read through all 8 pages (and regretted it) it seems that people are almost arguing the same point.
It is Fantasy and 28mm scale so definition is needed for male/female and it doens't need to be practical like real armour. Whilst at the same time remaining modest and focussing on the female form rather than its 'extras'.
Can't everyone sit happy in the mid-boob/shaped hips/waist camp?
The OC-D
P.S. This is the only time I'm posting here.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
As someone who has been a huge SOB fan and who has collected them since 2nd edition these are the things/themes I want emphasized( in no particular order):
1. Fire/flames/braziers
2. relics/religious symbolism/books/icons/regalia
3. zealous/holy warriors
4. robes
5. pageantry
6. martyrs
7. Acts of faith
I want to play zealous flamer-wielding warrior nuns. Period.
I want their rules/codex to embody these themes and their models to exude this vibe.
I don't want cheesecake
I don't want T&A
The last thing i'm looking for is "sexy"...
I want an ultra-gothic, somewhat dark army of religious loonies that take the extremes of the Imperial faith to heart and want to purge things with fire. Period.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I think the volume and shape of cleavage on that left lady might be a good amount to make Sisters of Battle discernable on the table without being overdone. Take that chest armour and build some fulll plate on arms, shoulders, abdomen and legs around it and around the female proportions below that and I think I'd be happy with those new SoB.
I know that those bewbs are still quite large, but again, exaggeration, tabletop, viewing distance, etc. pp.
6902
Post by: skrulnik
ok. say that is the starting size of a SOB.
Now thicken up the torso to rep the Power Armor and see how that grows the size of her chest.
You have to consider the body under the armor, then lay the armor over top.
PA is thick, and contains muscle-bundles and other systems.
Its not just plate armor.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I'm not sure if I get your point. Are you saying the bewbs will be lost under the power armour or that the power armour will exaggerate them even more?
16387
Post by: Manchu
DE on the left looks pretty butch to me. Another dude with boobs, really. (From which fault the Sisters are not totally exepmt.) Eyeshadow on a DE really isn't enough to mark it out as a lady.
My fiancee always says the girls in the videogames I play look like men. Much of the time, I don't see it. Maybe we need a woman sculptor to work on the female model's faces?
@CTGamer: How do the current models stack up (no pun intended) against the list you just made?
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
For GW 28mm miniatures, I think the female DE wyches look quite feminine. They're more brutish than your average girl on the street, but hey, they are alien space gladiator women, so they'll be a bit more butch. (But this would probably also be the case for Sisters of Battle.) Her face is not the epitome of feminininity, I'll agree on that, but it's supposed to look a bit alien anyway, being a Dark Eldar face. I guess for Sisters of Battle, the sculptor should put even more work into the faces to make them look really like women's faces.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Brutish is a good word for it but I'd say masculine-leaning androgyny fits the bill more closely. Looking at the DE above, it seems much easier to make a make male model seem feminine ("Elven") than it is to make a female model feminine. Could the females be intentionally "brutish" to show dominance? Evaluating androgyny in this case is difficult because (1) all elves (even evil space elves) are portrayed as somewhat androgynous and (2) DE are supposed to be super-depraved and gender deviance, whether it's politically correct to say so or not, is still looked on as somehow vile. One also wonder if the current Sisters were made intentionally butch. If anything, I could see complaints that they are not feminine enough but the opposite arguments (as presented ITT) strike me as inappropriate to judging SoB.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kilkrazy wrote:
The Marine pic I posted above does have a thin waist, however the overall impression is feminine owing to a combination of factors including the pose and these could easily be carried into a beefier model for a Sister.
I may be understanding your argument incorrectly, but you seem to be saying that a female model firing a plasma pistol in a hand-on-one-hip Sisters of Coquettishness pose is far less offensive than having power armor with boobs.
If so, we're never going to get together on this.
28937
Post by: Lucid
SaintHazard wrote:Jayden63 wrote:But show me just one 28mm model.
How many times do I have to say this?
What are those, A cups? Is there a cup size lower than "A"?
Can you not tell she's female? It's fairly obvious from over here.
David Bowie could have pulled off that look back in the day . . .
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
I actually think the sculptor of Lelith Hesperax did a very good job. She is - to me - obviously female. Yeah, she is not pretty and she isn't the stereotypical pretty elf woman. But, for feth's sake, she is Lelith Hesperax! She is probably one of the most skilled gladiators in the known galaxy and has probably killed hundreds of beings bare-handed and by blade. Being female isn't the primary aspect of her character, being deadly is. She wouldn't look very convincing to me as a rock-hard stone-cold killer if she had soft skin, C-cups and a nice smile.
12748
Post by: Phloop
Right, from Lexicanum
The Adepta Sororitas date their founding from the 36th millennium, and more specifically from the later events of the Age of Apostasy. The majority of their initial influx was recruited from the pre-existing Brides of the Emperor, the all-female bodyguard force employed by Goge Vandire. Loyal to the Emperor, the Brides (initially called the Daughters of the Emperor, but renamed by Vandire) were misled by the insane Vandire into fulfilling his own designs. When the truth of the matter, and Vandire's corruption, was revealed, the leader of the Daughters executed Vandire in his own audience chamber. The Daughters of the Emperor were at a loss after this event, and so the Ecclesiarchy took the opportunity to recruit and indoctrinate them into the newly formed Adepta Sororitas, the Ecclesiarchy's all-female military, circumventing the Decree Passive's strictures against the Ecclesiarchy possessing an armed force.
The Adepta Sororitas has its origins on the world of San Leor. An order known as the Daughters of the Emperor, an all-female cult dedicated to worship of the Emperor, had been discovered there by members of the Ecclesiarchy. Goge Vandire, the High Lord of the Administratum (and also Ecclesiarch of the Adeptus Ministorum), decided to pay a visit to San Leor and recruit the Daughters into his own private army. The Daughters, at first, refused to accept his authority. Vandire decided to show them that he was blessed by the Emperor - he instructed a soldier in his entourage to shoot him, which after a brief hesitation, he did. However, thanks to the protective field generated by the Rosarius of the Ecclesiarch (which no one but Vandire himself was aware of), Vandire was not harmed. The Daughters took this to be a sign, and swore allegiance to Vandire virtually on the spot. They became the Brides of the Emperor, and were Vandire's most loyal followers.
During the Siege of the Ecclesiarchal Palace, the Adeptus Custodes, the praetorians of the Emperor himself, tried to approach the Brides and convince them of Vandire's treachery. In a last ditch effort to convince them, the Custodes took Alicia Dominica, leader of the Brides, and her chosen bodyguards deep into the Imperial Palace where they stood before the Emperor himself. What happened there remains unknown - Dominica and her companions were sworn to secrecy - but it became clear that the Brides, who reverted to the title of Daughters of the Emperor, had been awakened to the evil that Vandire represented. Marching into his audience chamber, Dominica paused only to condemn Vandire for his crimes before she beheaded the power-crazed dictator. Reportedly, Vandire's final words were "I don't have time to die - I'm too busy!"
After this episode, the Decree Passive was proclaimed by newly appointed Ecclesiarch Sebastian Thor. Under the literal interpretation of the decree however, the Adepta Sororitas were not obligated to disband because the decree made only explicit mention of "men under arms." Thor, recognizing the need for the Ecclesiarchy to have some kind of force and internal regulator, allowed them to remain, even if the spirit of the decree was rather blatantly disregarded.
The female aspects are exaggerated to set them apart from the men in power armor by necessity. Fluff-wise and tabletop-wise. Not to be sexy, or pretty, or ladylike. These are power-feminists to the power of a bazillion.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Very good point, Phloop, I had completely forgotten about that part.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Phloop wrote:Right, from Lexicanum
The Adepta Sororitas date their founding from the 36th millennium, and more specifically from the later events of the Age of Apostasy. The majority of their initial influx was recruited from the pre-existing Brides of the Emperor, the all-female bodyguard force employed by Goge Vandire. Loyal to the Emperor, the Brides (initially called the Daughters of the Emperor, but renamed by Vandire) were misled by the insane Vandire into fulfilling his own designs. When the truth of the matter, and Vandire's corruption, was revealed, the leader of the Daughters executed Vandire in his own audience chamber. The Daughters of the Emperor were at a loss after this event, and so the Ecclesiarchy took the opportunity to recruit and indoctrinate them into the newly formed Adepta Sororitas, the Ecclesiarchy's all-female military, circumventing the Decree Passive's strictures against the Ecclesiarchy possessing an armed force.
The Adepta Sororitas has its origins on the world of San Leor. An order known as the Daughters of the Emperor, an all-female cult dedicated to worship of the Emperor, had been discovered there by members of the Ecclesiarchy. Goge Vandire, the High Lord of the Administratum (and also Ecclesiarch of the Adeptus Ministorum), decided to pay a visit to San Leor and recruit the Daughters into his own private army. The Daughters, at first, refused to accept his authority. Vandire decided to show them that he was blessed by the Emperor - he instructed a soldier in his entourage to shoot him, which after a brief hesitation, he did. However, thanks to the protective field generated by the Rosarius of the Ecclesiarch (which no one but Vandire himself was aware of), Vandire was not harmed. The Daughters took this to be a sign, and swore allegiance to Vandire virtually on the spot. They became the Brides of the Emperor, and were Vandire's most loyal followers.
During the Siege of the Ecclesiarchal Palace, the Adeptus Custodes, the praetorians of the Emperor himself, tried to approach the Brides and convince them of Vandire's treachery. In a last ditch effort to convince them, the Custodes took Alicia Dominica, leader of the Brides, and her chosen bodyguards deep into the Imperial Palace where they stood before the Emperor himself. What happened there remains unknown - Dominica and her companions were sworn to secrecy - but it became clear that the Brides, who reverted to the title of Daughters of the Emperor, had been awakened to the evil that Vandire represented. Marching into his audience chamber, Dominica paused only to condemn Vandire for his crimes before she beheaded the power-crazed dictator. Reportedly, Vandire's final words were "I don't have time to die - I'm too busy!"
After this episode, the Decree Passive was proclaimed by newly appointed Ecclesiarch Sebastian Thor. Under the literal interpretation of the decree however, the Adepta Sororitas were not obligated to disband because the decree made only explicit mention of "men under arms." Thor, recognizing the need for the Ecclesiarchy to have some kind of force and internal regulator, allowed them to remain, even if the spirit of the decree was rather blatantly disregarded.
The female aspects are exaggerated to set them apart from the men in power armor by necessity. Fluff-wise and tabletop-wise. Not to be sexy, or pretty, or ladylike. These are power-feminists to the power of a bazillion.
I really don't see how that makes boob cups a necessity. It's a loophole that says "No Men" not a loophole that says "Madonna Only". It's what inside the armor, not outside what counts. You could easily put a man in the boob-cup armor if it was the deciding factor.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Manchu wrote:
@CTGamer: How do the current models stack up (no pun intended) against the list you just made?
Personally I think the models have aged fairly well considering how long they have been around and that they originated in the Andy Chambers "heavy metal is cool" era of GW/Citadel.
I don't really see them as highly sexualized, especially by today's standards.
Main dislike: I wish they had less of a "cloned" look (the hairstyle being mandatory it seems) though the reason they got this was to play up the Joan of Arc reference.
IF new models come about I would rather see more bling/iconography/relics/regalia/robes be added to them then them becoming more sexualized. I'd also like to see a little physical variety.
I'd also like to see a little more of a mix of these vibes:
 
basically I want them to play up the religious overtones and regalia,( more robes, braziers, bling, etc.) but still pay homage to the classic look that the above pic represents...
I
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Witzkatz wrote:For GW 28mm miniatures, I think the female DE wyches look quite feminine. They're more brutish than your average girl on the street, but hey, they are alien space gladiator women, so they'll be a bit more butch. (But this would probably also be the case for Sisters of Battle.) Her face is not the epitome of feminininity, I'll agree on that, but it's supposed to look a bit alien anyway, being a Dark Eldar face. I guess for Sisters of Battle, the sculptor should put even more work into the faces to make them look really like women's faces.
Fair point. I think we all can recognise that GW aren't very good at sculpting. Maybe they could get someone from Hasslefree to do the heads.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Kilkrazy wrote:
Fair point. I think we all can recognise that GW aren't very good at sculpting. Maybe they could get someone from Hasslefree to do the heads.
Ultimately THIS is probably the only way to go to get 'good' looking models.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Good call on Hasslefree.
Now this looks like a woman.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
ISn't the whole BIGTITTEH! thing what people want to avoid though, Manchu?
I've never noticed the problem on the Sisters until someone pointed it out, but I don't go out of my way looking at the Sister models/Pictures/Ect because they don't intrest me.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Apart from her well-endowed chest... I think her face is sculpted very nicely. Having faces like this on Sisters of Battle would help underline their feminininity greatly without the need for overly exaggerated boob armour! If Hasslefree can do this, I hope GW will be able to do this, too.
16387
Post by: Manchu
That pic could use a caption saying "eyes up here, buddy."
But I was primarily posting because of the face. Clearly, she is all woman but I think if I you just saw the face you'd have no trouble identifying it as a she. This is defnitely NOT the case with the new DE. After painting Sisters, I think I'm too biased to judge them in that light.
That is an awesome model, however. If anyone knows a good way I can get Hasslefree stuff without paying in sterling, please PM me.
17213
Post by: gendoikari87
Manchu wrote:That pic could use a caption saying "eyes up here, buddy."
But I was primarily posting because of the face. Clearly, she is all woman but I think if I you just saw the face you'd have no trouble identifying it as a she. This is defnitely NOT the case with the new DE. After painting Sisters, I think I'm too biased to judge them in that light.
That is an awesome model, however. If anyone knows a good way I can get Hasslefree stuff without paying in sterling, please PM me.
I used good ol american cash... if you use electronic forms they automatically do the conversion.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
I drew this sketch a few minutes ago. Do you think is sexist, realistic or just godawful?
1
16387
Post by: Manchu
I love that. Great job, man!
33075
Post by: Mordoskul
The 41st millenium is no place for sexy! With the exception of Eldar.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Wiglaf wrote:I draw this sketch a few minutes ago. Do you think is sexist, realistic or just godawful?
It isn't quite "Sexist" per se as that's a fairly complicated label to try and use, especially in this context. It is however far, from free of Male Gaze which is a big part of the overall problems with nerd media in general. You could, certainly do worse I suppose but I'd hardly give it any awards for being a particular spectacular portrayal a female character (Combatant or Otherwise).
16387
Post by: Manchu
Chongara, I'm not sure why this "problem" you keep talking about is really such a problem. In all seriousness.
32940
Post by: Araenion
I agree with Manchu wholeheartedly in that I honestly don't see the problem. As I said before...it's all just eyecandy.
And that's how I'd describe your picture, Wiglaf. Very eye-candylish. Well done!
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:Chongara, I'm not sure why this "problem" you keep talking about is really such a problem. In all seriousness.
Here is a little exercise.
First, picture male combatant in your mind. Any will really do, but a more "Finesse" based one might be a bit better. Play out a little fight scene with him against a male combatant in your head, try and think of some moves that would be really cool for him to bust out. Then, in your mind freeze the frame on what might be a really good shot of him in action.
Where is your point of view originating from for this hypothetical pose?
What is your focus on?
What are the important elements that make him "Cool" to you.
Consider why your focus is where it is, in the context of this scene. Why are those elements important in making him "Cool"
Next, do a quick google image search for "Fencing". Check out how people documenting the sport frame the subjects, and what they choose to emphasize with their camera. Make note of what is taking central stage and consider why that might be the case.
Then, take another look at the sketch of the female eldar warrior I criticized. Consider what is in focus, where the viewpoint is and why that might be.
Then google the term "Male Gaze".
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
I mean If you think I have exaggerated the size of the boobs or assz and she looks like "check my butt" more than "I´m going to rip your head off before you would even notice I´m here" .
Glad someone like it, I will finish it later anyway.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
My opinion on this is such:
I have no problem with models being obviously feminine. If a balance can be struck between that and warlike on new SoB models, then they'll have done a good job.
What I don't want to see is "fanservice armour," i.e. a loincloth and some strips of plating. That's clearly not going to do the job of actually protecting the combatant, is it?
So yeah, feminine but not strippalicious or overly designed to be attractive.
33454
Post by: Renbags
good pic. colour that then post it back up
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Chongara: I understand what you're talking about (thanks for the "lesson" though) but you still haven't told me why this is problematic when it comes to fantasy art aesthetics.
25990
Post by: Chongara
Manchu wrote:@Chongara: I understand what you're talking about (thanks for the "lesson" though) but you still haven't told me why this is problematic when it comes to fantasy art aesthetics.
Like I said Google the Term "Male Gaze". Other, more eloquent and better educated people than me have covered more thoroughly in the first few results than I ever could. If you're aware of those points and still don't think it's problematic, we just don't have any common ground to stand on.
(If you really want my one sentence answer: The sheer volume of it present creates an environment that not only situates the female as the lesser, but also is also contributes to a trend of stale visual and narrative elements)
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
To be honest, I have yet to see one comic book where Male gaze isn´t present in some degree. Its part of our culture and even female artists are "victims" of it. And the idealization of the masculine beauty is also quite common.
Araenion wrote:
And that's how I'd describe your picture, Wiglaf. Very eye-candylish. Well done!
Thanks!
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Chongara: I think the body of thought you're referring to speaks less to any objective phenomenon itself than to anecdotal experiences that are played out in an intellectual or pseudo-intellectual fashion to establish and preserve pre-existing biases and self-images, which ironically is exactly what it alleges to oppose. I can understand why you wouldn't want to spend a lot of time laying out what you appear to already consider to be the basic facts of gender dynamics but it certainly doesn't make your attempt to foist those arguments (not facts) on others who don't agree with them--whether or not you suspect they have good reasons to disagree--any more convincing.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Manchu wrote:Some of you guys must really hate comic books . . .
I hate the worst comic books, yes. Some so-called "artists" who work on these books SUCK. Rob Liefeld, I'm looking at you. But this isn't a comic book setting. This is a science fiction setting. Where awesome people with awesome powered armor and awesome explosion-causing guns go around killing berserking green mushroom men and immortal robot zombies.
I want the armor to look a bit more awesome, and a bit less "meh, let's just put boobs on it and call it a day".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissia wrote:Manchu wrote:Some of you guys must really hate comic books . . .
I hate the worst comic books, yes.
I hate the worst comic books, too. And that sums up a big problem in this discussion.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Also, you might think that banshee pic is sexy but there might be a dude inside
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm cool with that.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Wikipedia says something along the lines of "Male Gaze is when stuff like books, comics or movies concentrate their focal point of view too long (who determines what is too long?) on the curves of a female body" or something. And obviously (?), this leads to objectification and all this makes women lesser beings that can't make decisions for themselves.
I'll have to say, I'm thoroughly confused by the line of reasoning and the more I looked into it the less I understood what they were talking about. But I guess we should drop this topic anyway because it attracks threadlocks, methinks.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The reason objectification is much reviled is because in societies where women are thought of as nothing more than sexual playthings, bad things tend to happen to women.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Melissia wrote:Also, you might think that banshee pic is sexy but there might be a dude inside
If I think it's sexy and there's a dude inside...well, then...that dude has a nice bum. Honestly, I think people exaggerate a problem with admiring a female form in art or fiction. What's wrong with that? Melissia here seems to wish for more effort to be made instead of half-arsed corset strapped over the armor to make them look female. To that, I heartily agree. I can only praise how they modeled Eldar Banshees, they actually look quite like the lithe and deadly killers that they're made out to be. To me, a purposeful lack of feminine figure in fiction would stand out more than it does now with clearly exaggerated anime figures. And it'd be unfair to say it only caters to the male audience. When was the last time you saw a fictional hero(especially in Anime) that didn't have impeccable manly figure? There is a balance to be made there, somewhere in between the realism and free-form expression. To me, Lelith Hesperax is a good miniature because it doesn't seem to be trying to look tomboyish, but still fits the image of a brutish gladiator champion and a ruthless killer. Not because she has taped down boobs. Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:Wikipedia says something along the lines of "Male Gaze is when stuff like books, comics or movies concentrate their focal point of view too long (who determines what is too long?) on the curves of a female body" or something.
Too long is when it stops being tasteful. To say a woman character in a novel has a nice figure is an observation of the author that leaves the reader with the obvious image of a pretty woman. That's hardly objectification in the modern sense of the word. Now, when the author starts describing the size of her nipples, that's when it gets creepy. And honestly, it's better to leave certain things to imagination, than bluntly shove it into the reader(or viewer)'s face.
29408
Post by: Melissia
A disclaimer: I'm still recovering from Papa Nurgle's visit. Bear with me as I rant.
There is more to women than TnA, though you couldn't tell from looking at sci-fi sometimes, or fantasy artwork, or miniatures/wargaming. And bringing it up often causes near-violent reactions from some men, because how dare someone desire a female character who isn't there just to titillate the reader/viewer with their sex appeal!
Obviously such a thing does not exist and is not at all interesting. It is quite clear that no man wants a woman whose primary assets are her intelligence and skill rather than her physical appearance, and anyone who says otherwise is completely and utterly wrong. And since female characters can never be interesting and deep characters with a multitude of motivations and complex ideals, there's no point of having them be anything but eye candy.
Apparently, it's a crime to some people for anyone to think that women, too, can be warriors, or soldiers, or philosophers, or leaders, or anything other than someone's ****toy waiting to happen. Hell, sometimes these people think it's a crime for women to be interested in wargaming at all. Suffice it to say that I cannot express my opinion on that belief without violating a few of the forum's rules.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Aren´t you overreacting a bit?
There is no reason to be all that you´re saying AND look good (or atleast care about it) at the same time. That reveals a true complex personality. And the women, both fictional and real, both smart and unintelligent that merely focus their efforts in their sex-appeal to achieve their aims aren´t scarce.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Fantasy you talk about is tacky and watered down with cheap sex appeal. But look at LotR. Tolkien made no excuses for women not being warriors in his world, yet he also made Eowyn, that defies that rule and gets away with it. Tolkien admires her strength of character and her will, even as he tells the readers of her beauty. That, to me, is good writing.
If GW could achieve this with their miniatures, would it still be objectification in your eyes?
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
The reason objectification is much reviled is because in societies where women are thought of as nothing more than sexual playthings, bad things tend to happen to women.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that objectification is okay. It is not. I was only wondering where the direct connection was between films that might look at a woman's curve a bit longer and direct objectification.
Too long is when it stops being tasteful. To say a woman character in a novel has a nice figure is an observation of the author that leaves the reader with the obvious image of a pretty woman. That's hardly objectification in the modern sense of the word. Now, when the author starts describing the size of her nipples, that's when it gets creepy. And honestly, it's better to leave certain things to imagination, than bluntly shove it into the reader(or viewer)'s face.
Chongara said that the nice drawing of the Banshee further up already suffered from male gaze. And I don't know about you people, but having that slight focus on her butt is FAR away from describing the size of her nipples or anything like that. If she'd be in a real sexual pose I'd understand and go conform with the point, but she's just sprinting towards the enemy, not...well, use your own imagination of whatever.
A question to the general female public...are movies like Tomb Raider bad and too male-gazed, too? I mean, obivously there's a lot of eye candy for guys, but it has a female protagonist that the whole story revolves around and that definitely makes decisions and has more aspects to her than just TnA, in my opinion. Or are movies like that still sexist?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Tomb Raider in general is pretty much all about sex appeal to me... they designed the character around it, they focus on it almost exclusively for advertisement, and so on... it's not really a good example, I think. Tomb Raider is basically the Duke Nukem of its genre. And yes, Duke Nukem has the same issue, and the exceptions to his manly power of manliness (he likes to wear bright pink shirts, and he watches Oprah) are done for laughs rather than as serious traits, and are quickly forgotten about afterwards (I doubt many people remember those anyway).
Mind you, I actually enjoyed Duke Nukem (interpreting him as a more comedic character than a serious one), whereas I did not enjoy Tomb Raider. Wiglaf wrote: you´re saying AND look good (or atleast care about it) at the same time.
Who are you responding to anyway? I certainly didn't say that.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
All sisters should look like Frances Bavier did during the 60's. Problem solved.
17692
Post by: Farmer
kronk wrote:I don't find any of these sexy. The breastplate with actual breasts designed in is silly.
The Madonna "Vogue" video inspired pointies on the following is also silly.
A cosplayer wearing this would be Hot. If it's not a dude.
This is Aunt Bea from Mayberry. She is not hot.
Honestly, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some people find certain things attractive, while others are repulsed by it. Also, certain things are unintentionally "sexy", for lack of a better term. Again, it takes all kinds, right?
The following is an example of unintentionally sexy armor:
The following is an example of intentionally sexy armor:
Their boobs need space to breath though. Automatically Appended Next Post: 
This art looks better then the new lelith that is well...a man in a womans body!
2771
Post by: Infantryman
My girlfriend likes the current models, but thinks the new ones should be sexier.
M.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Tomb Raider in general is pretty much all about sex appeal to me... they designed the character around it, they focus on it almost exclusively for advertisement, and so on... it's not really a good example, I think. Tomb Raider is basically the Duke Nukem of its genre. And yes, Duke Nukem has the same issue, and the exceptions to his manly power of manliness (he likes to wear bright pink shirts, and he watches Oprah) are done for laughs rather than as serious traits, and are quickly forgotten about afterwards (I doubt many people remember those anyway).
Mind you, I actually enjoyed Duke Nukem (interpreting him as a more comedic character than a serious one), whereas I did not enjoy Tomb Raider.
Yeah, Duke Nukem is definitely more comedic than serious to me, too. God, I loved those games.
I guess I can understand what you say about Tomb Raider. Her boob size in some of the games was ridiculous anyway. However, let's take another movie, because I just thought of something...what about the Transporter movies? Jason Statham fighting in several stages of being undressed/oiled up? That's definitely eye candy for the girls, if I've ever seen any. So I'm not sure if this "caterign" is so very one-sided. And if it's not completely one-sided, is it still bad?
17692
Post by: Farmer
Infantryman wrote:My girlfriend likes the current models, but thinks the new ones should be sexier.
M.
What happens though if a 12 year old buys the codex with brand new sexy artwork and his mum finds out!!!
32940
Post by: Araenion
Sexism is a real problem, but don't you think a thread about a hobby where people fight with fictional 28 mm miniatures is not the place to be discussing it? A comic book character can't feel particularly objectified. Neither can Sisters of Battle miniatures, or Wiglaf's Howling Banshee. So maybe we should tone down on trying so hard not to hurt the feelings in their plastic little hearts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Witzkatz wrote:I guess I can understand what you say about Tomb Raider. Her boob size in some of the games was ridiculous anyway. However, let's take another movie, because I just thought of something...what about the Transporter movies? Jason Statham fighting in several stages of being undressed/oiled up? That's definitely eye candy for the girls, if I've ever seen any. So I'm not sure if this "caterign" is so very one-sided. And if it's not completely one-sided, is it still bad?
Damn you Matthew! Because of you, women will never again see men as anything other than their sexual playthings! Damn you and all your 8-pack!
Might just be my interpretation, but I don't think Matt here feels particularly worried about being a target for the "female gaze".
/shrug
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
Melissia wrote:Wiglaf wrote: you´re saying AND look good (or atleast care about it) at the same time.
Who are you responding to anyway? I certainly didn't say that.
I just had the impression you were blowing things out of proportion...nah, forget it.
Look, I just drew this to cheer you up.
1
29408
Post by: Melissia
That's a much better portrait than I could have drawn.
Witzkatz: Is being punched in the face bad, even if someone does it indiscriminately?
Araenion wrote:Sexism is a real problem, but don't you think a thread about a hobby where people fight with fictional 28 mm miniatures is not the place to be discussing it?
Read the title of the thread. Your question is answered.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
Melissia: You compare eye candy do physical violence? What I meant was, I don't feel bad the slightest about males running around in movies showing of perfect six-packs and sweat-glistening biceps. I guess few other men feel bad about movies like that, either. While I understand that it's a bit of a different thing on women's side, because how a woman looks was always more important than how a man looks in finding possible partners...and I can understand that women might be fed up about this a bit. But comparing Tomb Raider to being punched in the face? I mean, I know quite some gamer girls who've played Tomb Raider and they didn't look like they felt punched in the face the whole time.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Either you're telling me that the title itself is sexist or you're pointing out that the OP himself said we can be as serious/humorous as we like...
That still doesn't tell me why discussing SoB figurines should in any way be related to sexism.
2771
Post by: Infantryman
The easiest and most logical way to handle this is to sculpt them without breasts. Reason? They cut that gak off, son.
M.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
After all the jokes about Space Marines being...amputated down there because they don't need it anymore, that doesn't sound that unreasonable, actually. However, I'm not that good in the Imperial fluff, don't know if there's really anything like the holy human form to be preserved. Considering all the implants the Mechanicus throws around, that's probably not that prevalent...
PS: Anyway, cutting breasts off would probably be considered even more sexist. Oppression of women by mutilating body parts 'n stuff. That would probably cause much more new trouble.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Araenion wrote:That still doesn't tell me why discussing SoB figurines should in any way be related to sexism.
And I attempted to avoid the subject, but it's been brought up time and time again by people other htan me, so it's somewhat unavoidable in the thread. Regardless, the reason the two are tied together is simple-- the one time that GW creates an all-female army, they decide to make them wear their underwear outside their armor, have them wear corsets and high heels, and give them giant easy to see tits, all in an attempt to fetishise the models. All because they're females.
The topic of sexism is inevitable.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Melissia wrote:And I attempted to avoid the subject, but it's been brought up time and time again by people other htan me, so it's somewhat unavoidable in the thread. Regardless, the reason the two are tied together is simple-- the one time that GW creates an all-female army, they decide to make them wear their underwear outside their armor, have them wear corsets and high heels, and give them giant easy to see tits, all in an attempt to fetishise the models. All because they're females.
I hear you. But they're still plastic figurines, you know? Female or not, they have no sense of modesty to be threatened by their easily seen tits. The better argument against that is simply that it doesn't represent their futuristic warrior-nuns image well on the tabletop. I do wish people could stick to the obvious, instead of looking for some hidden motive to argue about.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Araenion wrote:I hear you. But they're still plastic figurines, you know? Female or not, they have no sense of modesty to be threatened by their easily seen tits. The better argument against that is simply that it doesn't represent their futuristic warrior-nuns image well on the tabletop.
I think that's why sexism came up, because GW can decide what represents their image however they see fit and so that line of reasoning falls apart rather quickly.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Witzkatz wrote:PS: Anyway, cutting breasts off would probably be considered even more sexist. Oppression of women by mutilating body parts 'n stuff. That would probably cause much more new trouble.
You think?
Melissia wrote:the one time that GW creates an all-female army, they... have them wear corsets and high heels...
The models do not have high heels.
I like the 2nd Edition SoB as-is. I'm not a fan of the helmets that, IIRC, were introduced in 3rd, and the pointy breast armour on one of the Canonesses is just embarrassing, but if GW could redo the originals as a multipart plastic kit, I'd be ecstatic.
11892
Post by: Shadowbrand
Even the Imperium should be sexy.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:Araenion wrote:That still doesn't tell me why discussing SoB figurines should in any way be related to sexism.
And I attempted to avoid the subject, but it's been brought up time and time again by people other htan me, so it's somewhat unavoidable in the thread. Regardless, the reason the two are tied together is simple-- the one time that GW creates an all-female army, they decide to make them wear their underwear outside their armor, have them wear corsets and high heels, and give them giant easy to see tits, all in an attempt to fetishise the models. All because they're females.
Do you honestly think that the "maleness" of certain models isn't exaggerated?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Assuming they go with a much sexier look, I'm pretty excited about the release of Codex: Space Hookers.
34515
Post by: Wiglaf
I´m working in a boobless and as realistic as possible redesign of the sisters, to redeem myself.
Here´s the dirty sketch I have so far. Any suggestion?
1
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Ouze wrote:Assuming they go with a much sexier look, I'm pretty excited about the release of Codex: Space Hookers.
Check out the new Eviscerator model.
She's not as realistic as Lelith, but it's progress at least.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Monster Rain wrote:I think that's why sexism came up, because GW can decide what represents their image however they see fit and so that line of reasoning falls apart rather quickly.
True, but what does arguing about GW's sexism accomplish? This thread started by giving examples of what people thought would be fitting portrayal of Sisters and their fluff. That's a healthy debate with no underlining grave motives. And then there's folks that immediately jump on the wagon and start linking wikis for some term I've never heard about, nor would I hear about, if it weren't for them. Like the "male gaze" thing. An innovative discovery, no doubt, that boobs and asses sell fiction because men are pigs(*oink*). Truly, Tesla would be impressed.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Araenion wrote:And then there's folks that immediately jumped on the wagon and start linking wikis for some term I've never heard about nor would hear about if it weren't for them. Like the "male gaze" thing. Ugh...so completely needless. An innovative discovery, no doubt, that boobs and asses sell fiction because men are pigs(*oink*).
Next thing you'll be telling me that kids like toys and candy, and women buy statistically insane amounts of shoes.
32940
Post by: Araenion
Monster Rain wrote: Check out the new Eviscerator model.
Now we're getting somewhere, trading ideas and stuff. I like it, but perhaps taping her boobs and removing the shoes will make her look more the part. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:Next thing you'll be telling me that kids like toys and candy, and women buy statistically insane amounts of shoes.
I won't be telling you that. That's just pure silliness.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Melissa, that's quite soapbox you've mounted. But don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. @everyone: Sanity check, people. Sexiness and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. I have never in my life looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself "she must be stupid as a box of rocks." Nor has a woman's beauty ever inspired me to treat her as an inferior in any other way much less do physical violence to her. I would be very surprised if the same wasn't true for just about every other guy in this thread. And if the reverse was true, the problem would be with the guy in question and not the woman. And it certainly wouldn't be the fault of Ephrael Stern, Sue Storm, or Lara Croft. "Objectification" as used in this thread seems to have become such a buzz word that people don't even question it anymore or the ridiculous semi-logic that supposedly props up this outdated concept. If your first reaction to a picture of a beautiful woman is shame, guilt, anger, or loathing (self or otherwise) there is something wrong with YOU. Don't blame society.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I don’t think Sisters ‘need’ to be sexy, but I don’t see any good reason why they shouldn’t be either. It certainly isn’t required, but why should it not happen at all? Explain that to me.
Let's try to avoid personal remarks, shall we? -The Mgmt.
16335
Post by: Witzkatz
+1 to what Manchu said. 
I really don't get why SoB wearing armor that accentuates their femininity are supposedly looking as hookers as a consequence and a real affront to women. As Manchu said, I'm not thinking derogatory of a woman just because she likes to dress in a sexy way. I don't think she is stupid for doing so. And I certainly don't "objectificate" her for that, nor would I think that she would think she would "objectificate" herself by doing so.
Did anyone else got the idea that the SoB might choose to wear that armour because of pride? Being the best female fighting force in the Imperium and all? "Hell yeah, we're women, and we can kick everybody's asses as good as the Astartes guys!"
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Witzkatz wrote:Did anyone else got the idea that the SoB might choose to wear that armour because of pride? Being the best female fighting force in the Imperium and all? "Hell yeah, we're women, and we can kick everybody's asses as good as the Astartes guys!"
There's also the fact that the armor could be "anatomically correct" so as to better venerate the Sacred Human Form, which the ecclesiarchy seems to make a big deal over if the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer is any indication.
Also, I read up on "male gaze" for the lulz. What a bunch of nonsense that is.
23809
Post by: Gymnogyps
OK, I have been reading this thread and debating jumping in, but I think now it is time. With nods to those who have posted before me, here are some concepts that I think need considering.
 These are heroic 28mm scale models (stated previously).
Per fluff, the Decree Passive requires no men under arms (as stated previously). Therefore, being female is critical to the purpose, and very existence, in the army. The Adeptas Sororitas exist as the military arm of the Ecclesiarchy because they are female.
As a result, being female is a badge of office. The most obvious mark of "female", from across a battlefield (and at 3 feet at the 28mm scale) is breasts. A corset is a great way to accentuate breasts and is also quite comfortable when properly fitted, providing significant back support- which is needed with those enormous things on the front (real or artificial).*
While I would love to see more of it, the subtler indications of "female" are not really visible at the model scale (as discussed previously). Also, things such as hip-waist-shoulder ratio are often much more noticeable when a woman moves. A miniature cannot move like a real woman does, so that visual cue is not available. What is true in a 28mm scale model is also true across a field - it has to be a clear visual indication of gender / sex, not related to movement. Long hair on humans is trouble just day to day, and can be a real liability when fighting. Besides, long hair is not exclusively female- but well developed mammary glands (usually) are.
Therefore I contend that the corset-bewb armor is a badge of office. A-cup Sisters would still get fitted with big bewb armor because it is the uniform, showing clearly that they are female, so affirming that the Ecclesiarchy is adhering to the Decree passive. The armor consists of hyper-feminized bewb-corsets so they are distinguishable from men under arms. It isn't sexist. It is integral to their very existence, and a badge of honor.
*Note: Corsets can be quite comfortable and supportive. Don't believe me? http://www.timeless-trends.com/WSWrapper.jsp?mypage=faq.htm Or just talk to costume shops at Renaissance Faires.
Edit: remove repeated sentence
33125
Post by: Seaward
Manchu wrote:Melissa, that's quite soapbox you've mounted. But don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.
@everyone:
Sanity check, people.
Sexiness and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. I have never in my life looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself "she must be stupid as a box of rocks." Nor has a woman's beauty ever inspired me to treat her as an inferior in any other way much less do physical violence to her. I would be very surprised if the same wasn't true for just about every other guy in this thread. And if the reverse was true, the problem would be with the guy in question and not the woman. And it certainly wouldn't be the fault of Ephrael Stern, Sue Storm, or Lara Croft.
"Objectification" as used in this thread seems to have become such a buzz word that people don't even question it anymore or the ridiculous semi-logic that supposedly props up this outdated concept. If your first reaction to a picture of a beautiful woman is shame, guilt, anger, or loathing (self or otherwise) there is something wrong with YOU. Don't blame society.
This.
Additionally, what annoys me most about this thread is that it grants the premise that the current Sisters models are "sexy'd up" or going too far to accentuate tits or whatever else. It's simply not the case. Even throwing out the perfectly valid 28mm scale argument, the only models that fall into that trap are the chicks with the Eviscerators. Everything else? Not so much.
Also, could someone point me to the underwear and high heels on the models? I'm just not seeing it.
102
Post by: Jayden63
Gymnogyps wrote:OK, I have been reading this thread and debating jumping in, but I think now it is time. With nods to those who have posted before me, here are some concepts that I think need considering.
These are heroic 28mm scale models (stated previously).
Per fluff, the Decree Passive requires no men under arms (as stated previously). Therefore, being female is critical to the purpose, and very existence, in the army. The Adeptas Sororitas exist as the military arm of the Ecclesiarchy because they are female.
As a result, being female is a badge of office. The most obvious mark of "female", from across a battlefield (and at 3 feet at the 28mm scale) is breasts. A corset is a great way to accentuate breasts and is also quite comfortable when properly fitted, providing significant back support- which is needed with those enormous things on the front (real or artificial).*
While I would love to see more of it, the subtler indications of "female" are not really visible at the model scale (as discussed previously). Also, things such as hip-waist-shoulder ratio are often much more noticeable when a woman moves. A miniature cannot move like a real woman does, so that visual cue is not available. What is true in a 28mm scale model is also true across a field - it has to be a clear visual indication of gender / sex, not related to movement. Long hair on humans is trouble just day to day, and can be a real liability when fighting. Besides, long hair is not exclusively female- but well developed mammary glands (usually) are.
Therefore I contend that the corset-bewb armor is a badge of office. A-cup Sisters would still get fitted with big bewb armor because it is the uniform, showing clearly that they are female, so affirming that the Ecclesiarchy is adhering to the Decree passive. The armor consists of hyper-feminized bewb-corsets so they are distinguishable from men under arms. It isn't sexist. It is integral to their very existence, and a badge of honor.
*Note: Corsets can be quite comfortable and supportive. Don't believe me? http://www.timeless-trends.com/WSWrapper.jsp?mypage=faq.htm Or just talk to costume shops at Renaissance Faires.
Edit: remove repeated sentence
I like this post, I really do. Some nice thoughts there. My wife and several of her friends love corcets. They make them feel feminine because they accent what about them is feminine.
As for objectifying women. People need to realize that if men didn't find the female form desirable (accentuated or not) the human species wouldn't have lasted very long. It almost sounds like some people would like us to believe that finding the female form visually appealing is a crime. Yeah, we can be attracted to the female mind, but from across the room, I can guarantee its not your mind that is going to make us walk across the room and say hi.
20662
Post by: Hawkins
Manchu wrote:Melissa, that's quite soapbox you've mounted. But don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.
@everyone:
Sanity check, people.
Sexiness and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. I have never in my life looked at a beautiful woman and thought to myself "she must be stupid as a box of rocks." Nor has a woman's beauty ever inspired me to treat her as an inferior in any other way much less do physical violence to her. I would be very surprised if the same wasn't true for just about every other guy in this thread. And if the reverse was true, the problem would be with the guy in question and not the woman. And it certainly wouldn't be the fault of Ephrael Stern, Sue Storm, or Lara Croft.
"Objectification" as used in this thread seems to have become such a buzz word that people don't even question it anymore or the ridiculous semi-logic that supposedly props up this outdated concept. If your first reaction to a picture of a beautiful woman is shame, guilt, anger, or loathing (self or otherwise) there is something wrong with YOU. Don't blame society.
Yup agreed to all but your last 2 sentances.
how to put this? there is tremendous presure on people to look a certain way, think a certain way, be a certain type. society dictates this in trends of fasion, culture, media, etc. its quite resonable to asume that a individual will either like or dislike a certain trend, (like, thin is beutiful, fat is ugly) if a person cant or wont fit the archtype. so as a whole its not just a person that has something wrong with them, sometimes a society can be the problem as well. im sure we can all think of an example where society is just as to blame as an individual for certain problems with peoples thinking.
i wont argue the point, if you disagree, then you do.
32016
Post by: hemingway
Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
ColdSadHungry wrote:I bet the 40k fanbase is 99% male so whats the harm in trying to cater for their tastes?
People say the same thing about gaming, despite the fact that at least 40% of all gamers are female.
Even if that number is accurate (and my lifetime of experience as a gamer tells me it isn't), that's hardly a rebuttal. Show me a woman gamer who will roll Horde then pick an Orc Female for her warlock toon over a Blood Elf. Women want to play sexed up cartoon chicks just as much as guys do.
That said, I think the Sororitas are great looking models for the most part and a well painted sisters army is absolutely stunning.
29408
Post by: Melissia
hemingway wrote:Even if that number is accurate (and my lifetime of experience as a gamer tells me it isn't)
Just because you're isolated and secluded from female gamers doesn't mean that we don't exist.
Those numbers come from the ESA-- Entertainment Software Association, the trade association of the gaming industry.
|
|
