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.

Ok. I'll bite.

Since the shift in modern man's diet to a much more protein rich diet, the relative size of gender has shifted drastically.
Using males as combatants is a genetically wise decision, seeing as one male can lead to several females being fertilized. Anything but a catastrophic drop in the male/female ratios becomes a non threat to survival.

The presumption that there is a gender inherent combat bias fails to take this into consideration. This also perpetuates itself by creating a gender role that distances females from being socially indoctrinated into combat as an acceptable profession. the gender role itself created what is effectively a Eugenic effect allowing females to be effectively bred for beauty rather than other traits like reach and muscle mass.

Current American military doctrine expects certain levels of performance out of combatants. Athletic necessities that the human body can achieve. Unless of course a female professional athlete can't perform to the same standards as an American soldier (Clue: there are many that exceed male PT requirements). Therefore we get back to a question of training to do so, and willingness.

From there we look at artifices of law suggesting that gender roles play significant impact in the minds of combatants. However we fail to take into account Law Enforcement. Since females are allowed to perform armed law enforcement duties, and expected to maintain the same levels of marksmanship as their male counterparts, endure the same environmental burdens, and same combat load (armor, weapon, ammunition).

So what we have is an artifice of cultural bias.

We know that combat has the same physiological toll in combatants of both gender leading back to social driven responses that need further clinical research.

Since the ability to deploy a firearm is delineated by role USMC MOS 0311 which has no mass requirements. So, we return to a social artifice rather than a minimum athletic requirement.

Therefore, I propose that the gender requirements of female combatants are effectively hogwash.

Quick edit:
Please note: Just because i have certain plumbing outside my body does *not* mean I want to get shot at, and my preferred combat role: 'Push button, watch rocket fly, go home for beer' is most definitely something children of any gender can do!

I figure it's just because it's harder to "read" the difference between male and female on the tabletop. Many sculptors simply aren't good enough to convey some of the more subtle differences between males and females. For instance, a flat chested and fairly broad shouldered woman is easy to read in the real world, but in 25 millimeters of metal, she'll look an awful lot like a man. Having gravity defying busty women makes it really obvious which figures represent males, and which represent females. I've seen some far more realistic work (some posted on the first page) but the large majority is pretty over the top.

No idea if anyone else posted this idea, just pitching in my 2 cents.

Its the same reason all the men have huge muscles and are in impossibly good shape.

Polonius wrote:
there are many reason women aren't used in combat (well, at least officially not used), and it's a complex mixture of physical attributes, latent sexism, unit morale, fears of rape if captured, etc. To over simplify it so simply their strength is shortsighted.

shortsighted doesn't make sense in that context! In any case I specifically was referencing combat without significantly accurate firearms. Also I am mostly concerned with countering the blatantly false argument that women were not used in war due to reproductive necessity. Sure women can fight, and I bet some of them would beat some men, there is not black and white!

Sculpting in minature to show gender necesitates the need for large breasts, but does not mean they need to be half naked in armor that wouldn't protect a gnat while their male counterparts are walking tin cans.

SoB are a good example of functional but still obviously female warriors. While the repentia might be nearly naked, there is an actual reason for them to be so and the lack of armor duly noted.

This theory of "the female armor sets need to have drastically less covering them" has basically been around since the concept of visual gaming.

Take for instance most female armor set graphics vs the exact same armor on a male character in certain online fantasy RPGs. Metal bikini for the ladies, full plate chest piece for the guys. And we are supposed to believe that a small bit of metal to cover the nips is as effective in damage reduction as the exact same piece on a man? *insert rolleyes and deep sighing head shake here*

Neferteila wrote:Sculpting in minature to show gender necesitates the need for large breasts, but does not mean they need to be half naked in armor that wouldn't protect a gnat while their male counterparts are walking tin cans.

SoB are a good example of functional but still obviously female warriors. While the repentia might be nearly naked, there is an actual reason for them to be so and the lack of armor duly noted.

This theory of "the female armor sets need to have drastically less covering them" has basically been around since the concept of visual gaming.

Take for instance most female armor set graphics vs the exact same armor on a male character in certain online fantasy RPGs. Metal bikini for the ladies, full plate chest piece for the guys. And we are supposed to believe that a small bit of metal to cover the nips is as effective in damage reduction as the exact same piece on a man? *insert rolleyes and deep sighing head shake here*

100% on point.

The guardian kit also has full armor cover and a female guardian torso in there.

But apart from the IG, SOB, and Eldar, what races are there... there's CSM, DE, Orks, Nids, Tau, and Necrons.

Seeing as though there is only 1 tau female model that is covered in armor they are also safe. Necrons have no gender and you do not want to see a Nids gender.

That leaves CSM and DE, both are Sex craving, drug taking, torture loving, and horny groups so they like the models for their armies to be well scantily clad.

The female Knight of the Blazing Sun in WAR wears almost exactly the same armor as the male counterpart.



Same goes for the Warrior Priest.

In the realm of geeks and nerds just about all women have big boobs and curves to die for. Tabletop mini's are far from the exception and you just have to check out comic books, video games, movies etc. to see what I mean.

Nerdy, horny artists make stuff for their nerdy, horny market. As for GW mini's; the human anatomy is caricatured- just look at Catachans; no one can get as ripped and big as that IRL.

Ever hear of the guy that blew his bicep?

Ahtman wrote:The female Knight of the Blazing Sun in WAR wears almost exactly the same armor as the male counterpart.



Same goes for the Warrior Priest.

Excellent examples of decent armor on a female while still being able to tell they are female.
I think this is what the OP was speaking of. The rarity of this phenomenon.

Its simple marketing. It sells.

If busty curvy female minis offend anyone, feel free not to buy them. Or look at them. Or lick them. Or erect shrines in their honor.

To put some things in perspective, people talk about how unrealistic chainmail bikinis and corset power armor are. When in the same conversation you could mention warp demons, power fists, floating tanks, dragons, magic fireballs and psychic powers just to name a few.

Get a grip, and some perspective.

Mistress of minis wrote:Its simple marketing. It sells.

If busty curvy female minis offend anyone, feel free not to buy them. Or look at them. Or lick them. Or erect shrines in their honor.

To put some things in perspective, people talk about how unrealistic chainmail bikinis and corset power armor are. When in the same conversation you could mention warp demons, power fists, floating tanks, dragons, magic fireballs and psychic powers just to name a few.

Get a grip, and some perspective.

I think all they would need to do, is put some sort of blurb out that the chainmail bikini is imbued with whatever super power so that it works as good as equivilent armor for male counterparts and it would blow the bitching right out of the water. Until the men start to complain about their armor rusting because walking around in a metal can produces more sweat than a racehorse.

While I think there is truth to that, I'm not sure it is completely true. The marketing is toward younger males which tend to make up the demographic and see females more in this way. As a slightly older (though young at heart!) gamer I find the examples from WAR I posted much more interesting than some comic book wet-dream with a 55F's and a 0 waist. Of course I am slightly outside of the demographic curve and it isn't as if I hate the female figure so I will somehow learn to manage to deal with the representations.

Army Brat on c'mon is great, but not as great as Jessica Rabbit.....mmmmmmmmm...Jessica Rabbitttt....mmmmmm....

And I thought that everyone knows, Chainmail Bikinis are imbued with the most common superpower.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostCommonSuperPower

sex sells

there's nothing else to it. Mini producers know their target demographics, and so do video game designers, comic artists, and movie producers.

btw, Hasslefree are just as guilty for producing scantily clad/unclad babes.

Boobies and one half of a necro... but hey, who cares the OT forum makes the rules here .

Just kidding, but this whole thread has a pretty funny history... to me at least.