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.

Frazzled: The original topic wasn't merely about breastplates, but about the sexualization of Sisters of Battle models in general and whether or not it should be this way.

The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. I would not accuse him of being incapable of understanding this, so I assume he is simply unwilling to and instead decides to quote out of context and respond to a point which I never made.

A great number of posts in this thread have been like this. Thus my reaction.

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

I am neither a woman nor female.

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

Melissia wrote:I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details.

Even more classic! Come on, M, even you have to see the humor here.

[delete: off topic]

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:
A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

I think within the context of the environment the Garter is not intended. It is as said before, symbolizing the celice and its zealous connotations. This happily fits in to the Sisters over-arching theme.

That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

I'll just assume we don't much common ground to discuss things on then.

EDIT: And that's fine. It isn't necessarily important we see eye-to-eye.

Melissia wrote:I have no intent of responding to most of this, as it appears people are (as usual) more interested in taking things out of context and focusing on very specific details. See BearersOfSalvation's post for an excellent example of why I'm ignoring most of you.

Yeah, I'll take that as an admission that you can't actually explain how to show intellectual qualities in a 28mm miniature, same for male or female minis.

Melissia wrote:The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. I would not accuse him of being incapable of understanding this, so I assume he is simply unwilling to and instead decides to quote out of context and respond to a point which I never made.

It could also be that I'm following the second part of the thread title and poking fun at someone who gets really riled up about SOBs all the time. It's not like I'd try to hold a serious discussion when this thread includes people seriously arguing the silly 'male gaze' theory, someone insisting that the exact same object on a SOBs leg is completely different than on a chaplain's leg, or are going off on a discussion of women in literature when talking about whether a set of models should change.

I admit did have kind of a sexist through there, I wished that you were a guy so I could say 'at an SOB who gets really riled up about SOBs'. Damn your gender for ruining my wordplay!

Melissia wrote:Frazzled: The original topic wasn't merely about breastplates, but about the sexualization of Sisters of Battle models in general and whether or not it should be this way.

The post that BearersOfSalvation attempted and failed to respond to was referring to fiction in general and I think made that quite clear, that it was not specifically talking about models but about women/females in fiction in general. .

Thats my point. You went off the reservation taking the thread seriously OT and dare I say...ranty, when we're talking about a specific miniature line and not the status of women in the world. Then you went off about garters and high heels which no one else is seeing.

Except for those that see it. It was pointed out to me by a few other posters a while back, which only added to my annoyance at the lack of thought put into the models.

Also, I don't believe I said the models had high heels, only the artwork...

To be fair, it wasn't Melissia that did it first, she just bit into the topic hardest with her self-admitted rant.

Chongara wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

Chongara wrote:
A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

I think within the context of the environment the Garter is not intended. It is as said before, symbolizing the celice and its zealous connotations. This happily fits in to the Sisters over-arching theme.

That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_(stockings)

Wikipedia wrote:It is the groom's privilege to remove the garter and toss it to the male guests.

Perhaps the Brides of the Emperor are just waiting for smooth E to remove it for them...

Yes I did google Garter... several times... (rubs knees)

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:Wait, those are the "garters" people are complaining about?

We better stop objectifying the IG too, in that case. Several of them wear thigh holsters for autopistols, and as long as we're declaring anything wrapped around a leg to be a garter, they count.

Context.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing a skull mask and bulky armor doesn't give the appearance of a garter.

A loop around the thigh of someone wearing makeup and chest piece stylized to look like a corset can (and in my opinion does) give the appearance of a garter.

A thigh holster, is a thigh holster and his a thigh holster (obviously different thing is obviously different). Though in certain specific contexts a thigh holster itself could be fetishized, but that isn't an issue here.

I'm actually glad you brought up context, because context works against your apparent point that they're intended to be a sly wink towards garters. We're talking about models of women wearing power armor from at least neck to toe, carrying big guns, and quite clearly dressed for fightin'. There's not a high heel in sight, despite claims to the contrary; there are no stockings, there are no actual corsets, there is no underwear. To claim that a metal band around a leg that appears on a few models - not all, mind you, but a few - is grounds for going, "I see what you did there, you sly, sexist dog!" is absurd, especially given the examples of males wearing the exact same thing.

But let's for a moment grant the false premise that they're intended to be garters, just for the sake of argument. My response would be to applaud GW for playing up to SoB fluff. Isn't the organization evolved from the Brides of the Emperor predecessor? In western culture, the bride having a garter removed by her new husband is still a pretty common occurrence at weddings - I know one I just went to a couple months ago had it occur. Perhaps it's symbolic?

Edit: Medium of Death beat me to that point.

Chongara wrote:That's certainly a valid viewpoint to take. That may very well be the intent but I haven't see any strong evidence of it. Even assuming that was the intent, in the context of the other fetish elements the "Celice" as it were comes off as too much like a garter to be in good taste. Well, at least in my opinion of what good taste is.

So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

Manchu wrote:

pretre wrote:I think the earlier poster is correct. These are probably Cilice's. As a comparison, here is a SM Chaplain wearing one vs a Canoness wearing one:

Awesome find, pretre! Here is your medal for winning this thread:

So I guess what we have here is a blatant example of "female gaze"? Classic.

Wow, I've painted about four of those in the last few weeks. On Space Wolves no less. one of the leg parts has that tied around his left leg, it even has a dangly strap. Yeah, soooooooo not garters.

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it. It was pointed out to me by a few other posters a while back, which only added to my annoyance at the lack of thought put into the models.

Also, I don't believe I said the models had high heels, only the artwork...

Alright, so the models themselves don't have high heels nor underwear worn outside their armor, but need to be redesigned anyway because some artwork has a chick in stiletto boots? I'm not sure I see the logic there.

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it.

People also see Elvis and Bigfoot.

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

1: ... except that the models are already wearing bras and corsets outside their armor, leading to a different conclusion than if this stuff was absent.

2: I have already answered that. If you do not desire to read my posts, then simply do not respond to them.

Chongara wrote:

If I read the disjointed, fallacious heap of nonsense produced by your suggested google search on "male gaze" correctly, you don't need to be.

I'll just assume we don't much common ground to discuss things on then.

EDIT: And that's fine. It isn't necessarily important we see eye-to-eye.

I don't know if there isn't enough common ground to discuss but I doubt we would end up agreeing on the point at issue. I did take the time to read a couple of the more legitimate looking hits that came up for the search you suggested and the above is my honest appraisal of what I read.

Anyway, some aspects of this issue are starting to feel a bit too aggressive for me to want to continue arguing them. My opinion is what it is and if you don't agree that's fine.

So I'm just going to rewind a bit and go back to something from earlier:

I think it would be a good things to see some variety. Space Marine armor for example comes in a lot of different styles, with various different types of torso. Having a few more makes of Sister Armor would be nice, those of us with a dislike for boob-cups could choose to use them and people who like them could choose to use the new options or not use them.

I did take the time to read a couple of the more legitimate looking hits that came up for the search you suggested and the above is my honest appraisal of what I read.

That's fine. However when your appraisal of a concept I've accepted, and use as a key part of how judge depictions of women comes out as "Fallacious heap of nonsense" it probably means we're going to have a hard time discussing depictions of women in a productive manner.

Melissia wrote:

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

(To bring this to a lighter note)

Chongara: But that would require GW to put effort into it, and possibly create a Sisters variant army. Which would probably cause certain posters to have heart attacks. And I can't condone murder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Does that necessarily matter? I mean they can always change fluff. They've already given Sisters two major fluff changes (from RT to 2nd, from 2nd to 3rd).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I already did, numerous times in fact, and I have no desire to repeat myself for a dozenth time.

Melissia wrote:

Seaward wrote:If you disagree, you'll have to provide some examples of SoBs wearing underwear outside their armor.

I already did, numerous times in fact, and I have no desire to repeat myself for a dozenth time.

You've certainly provided pictures of SoB models, but not a one of them is wearing anything that could be construed as underwear on top of their power armor. They are, in fact, simply wearing power armor. I've yet to see a bra, as you claimed a couple posts ago, for example.

As I said, I am not repeating myself yet again. If you are unwilling to go and actually read my posts-- and I mean actually read them, not selectively read them-- then I have no desire to continue this line of conversation.

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Fluff is fairly mutable. That a forge world or two is using a slightly different patterns for certain orders is hardly going to shatter the continuity.

Seaward wrote:Alright, so the models themselves don't have [...] underwear worn outside their armor,

I never said that, therefor this post must not be responding to me.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So if they copy-paste armor stuff from marines to SOBs, it becomes sexist external underwear? I don't see how that happens unless you're just trying to be offended.

And you still haven't answered for the purity seal pasty on that chaplain, do you believe that it's good taste to portray all men as just strippers parading around for the benefit of female gaze, or are you going to object to that one equally as strongly?

1: ... except that the models are already wearing bras and corsets outside their armor, leading to a different conclusion than if this stuff was absent.

2: I have already answered that. If you do not desire to read my posts, then simply do not respond to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/20 17:12:01

Melissia, seriously? You object to the claim that you've said that SoB wear underwear outside their armour. And in the next sentence you say "except that the models are already wearing bras"? Since when are bras not considered underwear?!

Melissia wrote:As I said, I am not repeating myself yet again. If you are unwilling to go and actually read my posts-- and I mean actually read them, not selectively read them-- then I have no desire to continue this line of conversation.

That's fine. However, if I claim that I'm sick of Space Marines wearing daisy dukes, provide pictures of Space Marines not wearing daisy dukes, and then continue to insist that I've already proven they have and am quitting the discussion because no one believes me, you probably wouldn't take my claims very seriously.

Witzkatz wrote:Melissia, seriously? You object to the claim that you've said that SoB wear underwear outside their armour. And in the next sentence you say "except that the models are already wearing bras"? Since when are bras not considered underwear?!

No, I object to the claim that I agreed that Sisters don't wear underwear outside their armor. Just because Seaward does not read my posts doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself

Let's get back on topic... I'm going to go find some examples of breastplates I think would be more appropriate.

Darn, and I misread Seaward's post. But I agree, let's get back a bit more to the modeling and sculpting idea part of the thread.

Monster Rain wrote:

Melissia wrote:Except for those that see it.

People also see Elvis and Bigfoot.

Only when I am not wearing a disguise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:Anyway, some aspects of this issue are starting to feel a bit too aggressive for me to want to continue arguing them. My opinion is what it is and if you don't agree that's fine.

So I'm just going to rewind a bit and go back to something from earlier:

I think it would be a good things to see some variety. Space Marine armor for example comes in a lot of different styles, with various different types of torso. Having a few more makes of Sister Armor would be nice, those of us with a dislike for boob-cups could choose to use them and people who like them could choose to use the new options or not use them.

I would be down with that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't know that there is any fluff to support different "marks" of SoB power armor. The HQ choices even have very similar armor to the troops.

Fluff is fairly mutable. That a forge world or two is using a slightly different patterns for certain orders is hardly going to shatter the continuity.

Indeed.

Because of the various sizes of the images and to prevent them from clogging up the thread, all of them are being put into thumbnail format. Click for the full image. Note that I am only looking at the chest/abdomen region of these images, as I do not claim that other areas don't have their own issues (They do).

Here are the most simple examples of how to solve this issue: putting a tabard/tunic in front of the armor. These tabards/tunics are over chain and scale mail, mind you, but adding them in would allow for more colorful armor and allow for iconography over the front of the model, while looking different from the usual power armor models. Dark Angels are the only ones that have anything similar, but I think Sisters armor and vestments look different enough to be distinct from DA's robes, especially as no Sisters wear hoods. The tabards/tunics present the bulge of the secondary sexual characteristics without emphasizing them too much, and cover up the design of the armor meaning that it doesn't mean the armor's design itself necessarily has to change.


A single curved bulge in the chest region could very well accentuate the secondary sexual characteristics (as compared to the flat curve on Astartes and Guard armor) while not looking as ridiculous as Sororitas armor currently does in that region. It also offers a lot of surface area for decoration in order to give it a more detailed gothic appearance. The addition of a "scalemail" looking abdomen could match the medieval look while maintaining the idea that it is indeed power armor by giving it the appearance of being more flexible while still being armored.

I see what you mean with the anime pics, but with those faces and the body/head proportions of the right one...they look like they're 12 or so. Therefore I'm having a hard time thinking about how the rest of the body might work for sisters. The tabard Idea might be nice, though.

The two last pictures are fairly nice. I'd be fine with sisters wearing armor more in that direction...however, with the abdominals on Titania only protected by soft cloth, she would get a 5+ armor save at best. That would need a change for SoB.