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.

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The easiest and most logical way to handle this is to sculpt them without breasts. Reason? They cut that gak off, son.

M.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Even the Imperium should be sexy.

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?

Assuming they go with a much sexier look, I'm pretty excited about the release of Codex: Space Hookers.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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!"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.