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.

ccs wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I don't recall my Necron lists ever being invalidated. Some rules shifted, pts changed, some things got better/some things got worse.... You know, normal crap edition to edition.

The Necrons were originally playable in 2nd edition, but Games Workshop discontinued the line of miniatures and did not print updated rules when the game went to 3rd edition (and remember, that was an edition change that invalidated all older codexes, so without a rules update, they were straight up unplayable).

That is the same edition switch that finally made Squats, Genestealer Cults, Demon World Armies, Eldar Harlequins and Chaos Cults unplayable.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
There has never been a model in 40k made for the purpose of "Attracting female sexual interest". Anyone who argues otherwise is being at best severely deluded, and at worst, purposefully misogynistic in nature.

Perhaps Sigvald from AoS.

And I don't think he was made to be attractive specifically to women- I think he was designed to be attractive to EVERYONE cuz Slaanesh.

Still not 40k though, so point taken. Maybe when the EC drop we'll get some androgenous sexy dudes.

I don’t know how you can all deny the raw sex appeal of Inquistor Coteaz.

He knows how to dress, he’s handy with a hammer, and he’s good with animals. He’s the total package.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

ccs wrote:

I don't recall my Necron lists ever being invalidated. Some rules shifted, pts changed, some things got better/some things got worse.... You know, normal crap edition to edition.

The Necrons were originally playable in 2nd edition, but Games Workshop discontinued the line of miniatures and did not print updated rules when the game went to 3rd edition (and remember, that was an edition change that invalidated all older codexes, so without a rules update, they were straight up unplayable).

That is the same edition switch that finally made Squats, Genestealer Cults, Demon World Armies, Eldar Harlequins and Chaos Cults unplayable.

They did add experimental rules for Harlequins and GSCs in Citadel Journal. Chaos cults got one Chapter Approved unit for CSM armies and it could be argued Lost and the Damned captured a lot of the human mortal aspect (I'm discounting the Chaos cultist unit unique to Alpha Legion lists in the 3.5th Chaos codex, as those are more akin to Legion sleeper operatives). Squats were overtly told to "counts as" in Citadel Journal.

 Haighus wrote:

hold on, its like Escher and Goliaths were made in concert to mirror each other aesthetically.... kind of like Sisters and Space marines

The primary difference is that Goliaths and Eschers have equal prominence in the marketing of Necromunda. They literally shared the initial boxset of the revamp. This is not the case for marines and sisters.

There's more to be lost in the comparison.

Sisters of Battle can be aesthetically compared to Black Templars, not Space Marines as a whole.



Marines might mean Space Wolves and have an army with crazy hair and tattoos wearing wolf pelts and bringing mutant wolves into battle.

- Marines also means White Scars and have curved swords and Mongolian inspired names
- Marines also means Salamanders and be all about the fire and the dragon pelts.
- Marines means Iron Hands, Bood Angels, Blood Drinkers, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Imperial Fists, Grey Knights, Raven Guard, Space Sharks, Rainbow Warriors, Storm Lords or Legion of the Damned.

The Sisters of Battle really have no answer to this variety (they lack both the aesthetic variety and the variety of characterization in the lore).

- And to some extent, Space Marine also means Iron Warriors, Thousand Sons, World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Death Guard, etc. Sisters just plain don't have anything like that going on.

(I do not want to detract from previous statements about why Marines and Goliaths aren't sexualized in the same ways as Sisters and Escher).

The term female gaze is used sometimes. When it's used most extensively it means things like a woman character who is dressed to show her social status to other women. It means a character who is treating the viewer as a source of emotional labor, or showing whether they are available as a source of social capital, or treating the viewer as someone to be possessed.

Old Goliath sculpts are constructed completely in the male gaze.

I think if there were 40k with sex appeal for women it would look like the Omegaverse.

Quick example of male vs female gaze?

Just Google “Hugh Jackman Wolverine male and female gaze”, then go images. Not a prank, I swear.

Behold. Men’s mag? Ripped and snarly Wolverine. Women’s mag? Lovely smile, open body posture, comfortable light blue jumper.

I'm sorry, when did this become a reddit post about kinks involving 40k? First off, you should go on some sort of list of the out right disgusting nature of anything resembling a human in 40k is what gets you going. It's literal fetishized nazis dialed up to 11. The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don’t know how you can all deny the raw sex appeal of Inquistor Coteaz.

He knows how to dress, he’s handy with a hammer, and he’s good with animals. He’s the total package.

I'm with you there. He's a man for any occasion or season.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

ccs wrote:

I don't recall my Necron lists ever being invalidated. Some rules shifted, pts changed, some things got better/some things got worse.... You know, normal crap edition to edition.

The Necrons were originally playable in 2nd edition, but Games Workshop discontinued the line of miniatures and did not print updated rules when the game went to 3rd edition (and remember, that was an edition change that invalidated all older codexes, so without a rules update, they were straight up unplayable).

That is the same edition switch that finally made Squats, Genestealer Cults, Demon World Armies, Eldar Harlequins and Chaos Cults unplayable.

Huh? Necrons didn't get a list in the 3rd ed rulebook, but they got a White Dwarf Chapter Approved list (230) within six months, plus a further update, and then a list in Chapter Approved 2001.

The 2nd ed models (plus 3rd ed Immortals) were available up to the morning of the release of the 3rd ed Codex. (and via mail order thereafter).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, when did this become a reddit post about kinks involving 40k? First off, you should go on some sort of list of the out right disgusting nature of anything resembling a human in 40k is what gets you going. It's literal fetishized nazis dialed up to 11. The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

Stop being so pissy

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, when did this become a reddit post about kinks involving 40k? First off, you should go on some sort of list of the out right disgusting nature of anything resembling a human in 40k is what gets you going. It's literal fetishized nazis dialed up to 11. The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

This post is satire, right?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
.

I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.

Did you forget the time GW completely changed the Necrons, invalidating every Necron player’s list, some of their units, and any background they cared about for their Necrons, all to make the Necrons less niche and more commercial to a wider market?

GE is *constantly* changing the lore for reasons exterior to the lore. The Tau aren’t a reaction to the exterior climate embracing anime? The Voltann and Genestealers aren’t embracing the exterior trans or nostalgia bait? Come on, man.


I repeat my refrain from earlier: it’s not that you have a problem with retcons, is that you have a uniquely outsized problem with *this* retcon that’s the red flag.

Your accusation is again misplaced. I hated the Necron retcon, and I loathe Primaris, returning Primarchs etc. And I was certainly vocal about it here, if you want to go digging for it. For Centurions and the various flyers I was vocal about those too, though orobably on Warseer before I migrated here.

I don't accept your accusation.

Was your reaction to this retcon “uniquely outsized” as Inout it compared to your reaction to the Necron retcon?

Nope.

In case you missed another detail I've posted several time now, I've advocated for the inclusion of female Custodes. It's annoying to me that it's a retcon, Imo they should have been there from the start.

I'm primarily here in defense of those who get slathered with the term 'bigot' when they're trying to tell you that they don't like representation/inclusion changes out of lore consistency or thematic reasons, because I believe those are valid opinions to hold.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Quick example of male vs female gaze?

Just Google “Hugh Jackman Wolverine male and female gaze”, then go images. Not a prank, I swear.

Behold. Men’s mag? Ripped and snarly Wolverine. Women’s mag? Lovely smile, open body posture, comfortable light blue jumper.

That is absolutely not gaze theory, because its about real life people. That is, its true, a popular meme image explaining what some people are more attracted to. Gaze theory describes characters in films, fictional constructs, and its not about what's attractive to men vs women. You made the same mental shortcut as Formosa that gaze must refer to what turns someone on

You also could have at least used the image that you were referring to. It's this <link>. Still nothing to do with gaze

 JamesY wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don’t know how you can all deny the raw sex appeal of Inquistor Coteaz.

He knows how to dress, he’s handy with a hammer, and he’s good with animals. He’s the total package.

I'm with you there. He's a man for any occasion or season.

And if rumours are correct, he's getting a glow up.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

So, feet and nothing but feet?

If you didn’t fit the criteria, then my comment was aimed at someone else.

While I sympathize with people who dislike any and all retcons, I don’t see how people who get more upset about this minor retcon than they have been for many major retcons can be seen as anything but sensitive to the existence of women.

The people who are just as upset about this retcon as they are for the Primaris gene flawless/gene flaw retcon are not the ones who posted in this thread that the “violent backlash to Weimar Germany was justified”. There have been lots of similar posts deleted from here, so perhaps it’s easy to ignore that those posters exist and did in fact post lots of bigotry in this thread and the Background thread, but they do exist and they did make their bigotry clear. There are posters who post from the same positions but remember to keep the quiet part quiet, and they are not the same as posters who feel fairly miffed by all retcons just because they’re retcons.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

ccs wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I don't recall my Necron lists ever being invalidated. Some rules shifted, pts changed, some things got better/some things got worse.... You know, normal crap edition to edition.

The Necrons were originally playable in 2nd edition, but Games Workshop discontinued the line of miniatures and did not print updated rules when the game went to 3rd edition (and remember, that was an edition change that invalidated all older codexes, so without a rules update, they were straight up unplayable).

And then they got a 3e codex.
None of my existing 2e Necron models were invalidated - unless I chose to replace something with a better looking sculpt (wich I did with my Destroyers) I could field the exact same list....
Lore? Like I said, "eh". Cappy fluff vs different crappy fluff is still crappy fluff.

Re: Necrons: "None of your models are invalidated, they just suck now. . . oh hey here's some new models you can buy to help!"

The lore change was annoying, and the effect on how the army played was annoying.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, when did this become a reddit post about kinks involving 40k? First off, you should go on some sort of list of the out right disgusting nature of anything resembling a human in 40k is what gets you going. It's literal fetishized nazis dialed up to 11. The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

when did anyone bring up kink? is it because i was talking about butches and femmes??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Quick example of male vs female gaze?

Just Google “Hugh Jackman Wolverine male and female gaze”, then go images. Not a prank, I swear.

Behold. Men’s mag? Ripped and snarly Wolverine. Women’s mag? Lovely smile, open body posture, comfortable light blue jumper.

That is absolutely not gaze theory, because its about real life people. That is, its true, a popular meme image explaining what some people are more attracted to. Gaze theory describes characters in films, fictional constructs, and its not about what's attractive to men vs women. You made the same mental shortcut as Formosa that gaze must refer to what turns someone on

You also could have at least used the image that you were referring to. It's this <link>. Still nothing to do with gaze

male gaze is the most widely misunderstood academic term, right next to "death of the author". male gaze is an aspect of film theory, but it extends beyond that to include culture as a whole. importantly, as i said, it pertains to the patriarchal control that masculinity has over our society. "female gaze" cannot exist in a patriarchy because the institutional power does not support women in the same way it does for men

 Insectum7 wrote:
Re: Necrons: "None of your models are invalidated,

Pariahs continue to cry in a corner, forever neglected.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry, when did this become a reddit post about kinks involving 40k? First off, you should go on some sort of list of the out right disgusting nature of anything resembling a human in 40k is what gets you going. It's literal fetishized nazis dialed up to 11. The only thing that describes itself as "beautiful" is a cult of deamon worshipers following a god who delights in stuff that would make Quentin Tarentino blush.

when did anyone bring up kink? is it because i was talking about butches and femmes??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Quick example of male vs female gaze?

Just Google “Hugh Jackman Wolverine male and female gaze”, then go images. Not a prank, I swear.

Behold. Men’s mag? Ripped and snarly Wolverine. Women’s mag? Lovely smile, open body posture, comfortable light blue jumper.

That is absolutely not gaze theory, because its about real life people. That is, its true, a popular meme image explaining what some people are more attracted to. Gaze theory describes characters in films, fictional constructs, and its not about what's attractive to men vs women. You made the same mental shortcut as Formosa that gaze must refer to what turns someone on

You also could have at least used the image that you were referring to. It's this <link>. Still nothing to do with gaze

male gaze is the most widely misunderstood academic term, right next to "death of the author". male gaze is an aspect of film theory, but it extends beyond that to include culture as a whole. importantly, as i said, it pertains to the patriarchal control that masculinity has over our society. "female gaze" cannot exist in a patriarchy because the institutional power does not support women in the same way it does for men

Louder for the people in back. How do people both sides this issue? As if there exists a culture in the world where women are somehow treated as equal, but yet at the same time, have to be "explained" to about their physical inferiority? This forum thread is a perfect example.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Re: Necrons: "None of your models are invalidated,

Pariahs continue to cry in a corner, forever neglected.

Yeah I know, but the response was always to use them as the new Lychguard. Not "invalidated" just a totally different unit!

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
male gaze is an aspect of film theory, but it extends beyond that to include culture as a whole. importantly, as i said, it pertains to the patriarchal control that masculinity has over our society. "female gaze" cannot exist in a patriarchy because the institutional power does not support women in the same way it does for men

female gaze absolutely exists in the gender studies literature. it's even discussed in the ISA article you posted.

 catbarf wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I think a part of the reason I feel this way is that I'm not good at telling the difference between male and female faces. I've known so many square jawed women and elfish men with cheekbones that I'm not sure I believe there's such a thing as a male face and a female face. And even if there is, I'm certainly not a good enough painter that the difference is going to shine through once I've done the deed.

Respectfully: does it matter? Is there a reason you need to be able to instantly tell from six feet away that a model is meant to represent a woman?

Inclusivity is representing historically marginalized groups as equals, not as something 'exotic' that needs to be specially called out. The new Astra Militarum models show how to do it right; under all that armor it's hard to tell the gender or ethnicity of a trooper but that's fine because it doesn't matter. They don't need to call attention to the presence of women and minorities in the Guard. They're an established part of the lore and they're there if you look for them. They simply exist.

Boobplate is a perfect example of why I think this focus on representation is misplaced, or at least incomplete. Representation is only one small part of inclusivity, and it matters a lot how you choose to represent someone. When marginalized groups are depicted as token characters, 'positive stereotypes', or eye candy with exaggerated sexual characteristics, it can be more off-putting than not being represented at all. It's being called out as different, and in a manner that many people find uncomfortable.

I'm not saying sexualization is inherently bad or always inappropriate, just that sexualized character design is not necessary to representation and can be outright counterproductive. Anecdotally I see more women playing as the genderless alien bugs or equal-opportunity murder twinks than the latex fetish nuns, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Sorry it took a while to get back to you CB.

It matters in some units more than others- you've gotta remember, I play 40k almost like Inquisitor 28- I haven't fought with more than 500 points since 2008, and I'm a total Crusader- I'm that weird guy who tries to update models from battle to battle as the narrative evolves. They all have names, and the ones that can be used in KT have gestalt profiles. The challenge I most recently entered over at B&C is going to involve a character who will be represented by 6 different models over the course of her career- she'll grow from progena to novitiate to dominion, to dominion superior, to Palatine to Cannoness. By the time she ends her story, she'll have a skull on her base for every species she's killed in battle.

When you're that focused on narrative, and your forces are that small you invest a lot in the characters you create. For some of my characters, I may even end up generating Dark Heresy characters to help me fill in narrative blanks; I'm not sure I will need to- I think between Crusade and Spec Ops, I should have enough to work with. So yeah, to invest that kind of time in character building, I do want to see some differences on the table to anchor the characters to the model. I'm not a good painter, but I like to think I'm a thoughtful modeler. I try to represent enhancements on models, and I've been known to add purity seals to a model for a job well done.

Anyway, in a 2k standalone battle on a pickup night at the FLGS? Yeah, probably doesn't matter much.
The same 50 Infantry characters progressing in rank, getting caught up in side quests and other narrative events- each with unique profiles, backstories and narrative goals? It seems kinda weird to go to the trouble of augmenting a model's base between games to represent narrative progression when your models aren't distinctive enough to communicate character details as significant as gender.

Let me put it another way: GW makes bionic limb options for some power armoured models, and people like to use them to distinguish between models. Sometimes it's linked to their narrative; sometimes it reflects an equipment choice, and sometimes it's just an aesthetic choice. Now, I can say to that guy, "Why does it matter? Your dude could have a bionic limb inside the armour, you don't have to model it. Heck, it even makes more sense to keep your bionic inside armour."

But would you? I mean, most folks would assert that player's right to field "his dudes."

So with my dudes, you can tell the difference between the male and female models. That doesn't mean sexier, or smaller, or less badass, and it it also doesn't have to be super obvious- subtle is fine.

And taking a step back? A plea for mutual understanding.

I used the Wolverine thing as an example of what I understand male gaze and female gaze to mean, as a layman. As in both can agree a given human being is attractive. But what makes them attractive is by no means the same thing.

I am not, and have never claimed nor pretended to be a graduate of related studies.

I’m a mook. A smelly hooman. An average Joe.

And as such? I accept my knowledge and understanding is inherently flawed and incomplete.

By all means offer me pointers, tips and greater education. No problem there.

But please….do so whilst also addressing what I was getting at. Because if all you do is “I am learned a fing wot you not”? I’m afraid, whether you intended to or not, is come across a a bit of a jerk.

Just as I’m perfectly willing to accept that wasn’t your intent, I expect nothing less than the same in return.

Correct and update. Do not belittle. Remember that even the most learned of persons got that way by being wrong a lot of the time, never kind technically wrong.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:


male gaze is the most widely misunderstood academic term, right next to "death of the author". male gaze is an aspect of film theory, but it extends beyond that to include culture as a whole. importantly, as i said, it pertains to the patriarchal control that masculinity has over our society. "female gaze" cannot exist in a patriarchy because the institutional power does not support women in the same way it does for men

Certainly true, however if you restrict the context to film theory only, female gaze absolutely exists.

You've got a robot sitting on one side of the desk; on the other side of the desk, you've got a dude standing up on the left side of the desk and woman sitting on the right hand side. In a typical shot/ reverse shot scenario, an opening shot establishes the space and location of the characters. The a close up on the dude as he speaks, and then a reverse to the robot as it responds. If this second shot is from the eye level of a standing figure looking down at the robot on angle that suggests the robot is on the viewer's right hand side, that's male gaze. If the shot is from a seated eye-level, and looking toward the robot as if it is to the left of the viewer, that's female gaze.

Now what's cool is that gaze acts at the subconscious level. So in our example, the dude spoke to the robot, so when the robot replies, you expect he's talking to the dude, right? But if the camera angle is from the female gaze, depending upon how the shot is framed, it will "feel" like the bot is responding to the woman. You won't necessarily notice it... Unless you're looking for it.

So for years and years, studios would ALWAYS have the camera "looking" at the scene through the man's eyes. Now not only is this being done via angles, it's also what the character chooses to look at; a male gaze will tend to capture the bodies of attractive women in the frame- more close ups of men, because it isn't important to have the chest in the frame. But when you look at women, you zoom out far enough to catch the chest... Because the camera is looking through the eyes of a man.

Dialogue between two women in a room with no men? Close ups work in this context, because their is no male in the scene from whose viewpoint to gaze. And women are less likely to be checking each other out... Unless that's a specific plot point (like a meangirl gaze sizing up a loser-girl looking for weakness).

Now, granted, when we move BEYOND the cinematic context, yes... Female gaze does become more problematic as a concept, and I confess that I'm not really qualified to speak in much depth about that, though you can see elements of patriarchal control at work in the examples I cited above... But fortunately, you can also see the effectiveness of using the same camera tricks to undermine the patriarchy that have been used to reinforce it for most of the history of cinema.

And what's starting to break it, and make it more interesting and varied, is the increasing participation of women in the film industry as directors, producers, writers, cinematographers and auteures rather than being restricted to the other side of the camera for years where their archetypal options were generally restricted to childlike innocence, rampant promiscuity, motherhood or crone.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And taking a step back? A plea for mutual understanding.

I used the Wolverine thing as an example of what I understand male gaze and female gaze to mean, as a layman. As in both can agree a given human being is attractive. But what makes them attractive is by no means the same thing.

I am not, and have never claimed nor pretended to be a graduate of related studies.

I’m a mook. A smelly hooman. An average Joe.

And as such? I accept my knowledge and understanding is inherently flawed and incomplete.

By all means offer me pointers, tips and greater education. No problem there.

But please….do so whilst also addressing what I was getting at. Because if all you do is “I am learned a fing wot you not”? I’m afraid, whether you intended to or not, is come across a a bit of a jerk.

Just as I’m perfectly willing to accept that wasn’t your intent, I expect nothing less than the same in return.

Correct and update. Do not belittle. Remember that even the most learned of persons got that way by being wrong a lot of the time, never kind technically wrong.

dw, any snidiness on my part was aimed at other people. i haven't taken any issue with you in these threads

I'm curious how the male/female gaze applies to the insane instagram model arena, because I'm pretty sure most of that content is primarily aimed at women. By women, for women, and having horrible effects on teenage girls.

Off topic though.

I suspect it’s aimed more at the teen/young adult market. It’s about “influencing” after all. Fashions, music, product etc.