Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

In Final Fantasy terms, I'd much rather see:





etc...

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.

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.

Perkustin wrote:@ Melissia i was not aware Prostitute required breastplates.

They do in my neighborhood.

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.

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.

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?

I've actually taken the proactive step of greenstuffing curlers and chastity belts on all of my harlot SoBs.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

You keep making remarks like this, and its a fallacy. He didnt say that they don't exist, he disagreed with your statement that 40% of gamers are female.

As do I. If the number was even close to that, the programming on G4 would be a lot less man-centric at the very least.

Also, you may just not be able to spot the female gamers when she is among male gamers. Protip: look for barettes in her beard.

Oh boy. I'm not getting into a semantic debate as to what constitutes a gamers, but being a nintendogs enthusiast doesn't fit the bill.

Those articles mean nothing, the games they talk about range from WoW to Farmville with no Indictation as to how many women are playing what.

Melissia wrote:And yet, my point still stands because they are the only evidence thus far posted on the subject. You merely make assertions without providing facts to back them up. Thus lacking in substance with which to hold themselves up, the assertions fall down, like grot at an Eldar shooting range.

Lollerskates!

Where do you think we got the Farmville and Nintendogs notions? From your articles. Unless you're trying to make the point that somehow the Cafe City playing housewife has some bearing on whether or not SoBs in corsets are whores.

Tell you what, post a link to something that shows it's sources and doesn't make such vague statements as "online gaming" and you'll have provided something along the lines of evidence for your claim. Otherwise we're back in fallacy land.

Melissia wrote:And I got the exact opposite information from the articles.

As for the last statement, because it intentionally misinterprets what was said before I have no intention of giving it a serious response. So joogity boogity woo. I'm going to go pass out.

That's fine. This is a total shoot: I think what I said is a perfect interpretation of what you've been saying.

Those articles were some flimsy evidence to base your 40% of gamers are female statements on, especially in this context. You act as though I don't know how many women play Farkle, Bejeweled Farmville, Zooville etc... If you had an article that cited sources and gave a breakdown of who was playing what, you'd have an argument. Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

Women are out there in significant numbers playing MMOs, action games, first-person shooters.

Wow what a vague, unsupported statement! That settles it for me!

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Until then it seems like your wishful thinking has clouded your comprehension of those articles you cited.

And I would propose that it is male chauvinism that has clouded your comprehension of the innumerable articles. You make assumptions on what kinds of games women play without providing any proof of your assumptions. I made no such assertion of what KINDS of games are played, and would not do so (as you have done) without seeing proof

http://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman/

I can pull links out of my behind as well. This one actually talks about what games this female demographic plays. Guess what? My instinct was correct; social games aka Farmville, Bejeweled etc. So, I guess... face.

Anyways.

If Celestine is wearing "garter belts(lolwhut?)" then so are several Grey Knights models. Seriously, compare them. This entire idea is silly.