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.

So, since I unexpectedly started some big off-topic discussion about some female Inquisitor's illustration on a Rumor topic, and I guess that's certainly not the last time we'll end up discussing some similar issues. So, I thought we ought to have a dedicated thread instead of hijacking other threads.
So, discussion started here :
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/560383.page#6209934
I didn't had the occasion to respond to many messages, and especially to Zweischneid, but I think what a lot of people overlooked is that the problem is not about things being logic, but about things being very very much out-of-character. That's why the fact she is holding a big chainsword matters. It is perfectly in-character for many Inquisitor to be able to use very various clothes during their investigations, as a manipulative tool, or even as straight out infiltration, posing as someone else completely. Amberley Veil does it in Ciaphias Cain's book. However, the chainsword here is clearly very strongly arguing against those quite specific situations. And going in those outfits in battle is terribly out of character. Some people have been argued that this outfit is not practical, but really, I think some even less practical clothes that REALLY felt eccentric and outlandish would have been way better, because way less out of character. This dress doesn't feel eccentric in the slightest. On the contrary, it reeks of bad cliche. Seriously, metal bra in a scy-fy universe is unusual ? Gee, even Star Wars feature some.

Some people invoked “rule of cool” as a defense to this cleavage. I say rule of cool only justifies stuff that is cool, and only rule of lame cool potentially defend it. But rule of lame is not that popular, is it ?

Oh, and I don't know where Zweischneid lives, but that's definitely much more cleavage than what I see every day. And way way more than what I'm likely to see in any battlefield .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


Oh, and I don't know where Zweischneid lives, but that's definitely much more cleavage than what I see every day. And way way more than what I'm likely to see in any battlefield .

In the UK.

And as said, you're indefinitely more likely to see that much cleavage, even full-on nude ladies, on any battlefield, than Chainsaws or .. ya know... Inquisitors.

Do you want to invoke the rationalization of "what wars/battlefields would look like" for 40K or not? This sure isn't Flames of War, ya know, so better make that argument carefully.

My stance is simple, if its appropriate then sexualised poses and artwork is completely fine, for example a slaanesh cultist should be nearly naked. Otherwise I want female miniatures to be treated exactly the same as male miniatures, in other words wearing realistc armour and realistically proportioned. In the real world a man wearing armour is nearly indistinguishable from a woman wearing armour so I see no reason why this should be any different when it comes to wargaming.

The fixation that geek culture has with semi naked women cheapens us all.

 Palindrome wrote:
My stance is simple, if its appropriate then sexualised poses and artwork is completely fine, for example a slaanesh cultist should be nearly naked. Otherwise I want female miniatures to be treated exactly the same as male miniatures with realistc armour.

The fixation that geek culture has with semi naked women cheapens us all.

My stance is simple. There isn't a single miniature or character in 25 years of 40K history who ever had a realistic armour. Male, Female or Alien.

To demand it now seems blithely ignorant of ... well ... everything ever written, said, painted or drawn about Warhammer 40K.

And that picture is not "semi-naked". Stop exaggerating!

 Zweischneid wrote:
There isn't a single miniature or character in 25 years of 40K history who ever had a realistic armour. Male, Female or Alien.

Most IG sculpts have realistic armor, even powerarmour isn't particularly unrealistic. In fact the only really unrealistic armour are terminators and the like due to inconsistencies of scale.

Perhaps you would like to try and be a little more hostile? You may also want to have a look at the title of this thread.

It's just cleavage. If I went out shopping on a Saturday afternoon I'd see much the same (with slightly less grim dark and no swords, admittedly) let alone if I went out that evening for a few drinks.

People getting offended on other people's behalf is stupid, unless those people are not in a position to fight their own battles, a position the female gender is absolutely not in.

Both genders like seeing the other (or their own, whatevs) in good physical condition with not many clothes on, it is how we're designed.

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

It really is time to stop arguing what should be and accepting what is. Men like boobs, are physically stronger on average and biologically or culturally better suited to certain things. Women are not, but have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Equality is a myth, embrace gender differences and accept that men and women are better suited to different things and everything would be much simpler.

Also, I repeat again, all this over some bastard cleavage in a pencil sketch is neither relevant or proportional.

 azreal13 wrote:

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

That's not what annoys me, its the sheer childishness of women almost always being portrayed as little more than sexual objects.

 azreal13 wrote:
It's just cleavage. If I went out shopping on a Saturday afternoon I'd see much the same (with slightly less grim dark and no swords, admittedly) let alone if I went out that evening for a few drinks.

People getting offended on other people's behalf is stupid, unless those people are not in a position to fight their own battles, a position the female gender is absolutely not in.

Both genders like seeing the other (or their own, whatevs) in good physical condition with not many clothes on, it is how we're designed.

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

It really is time to stop arguing what should be and accepting what is. Men like boobs, are physically stronger on average and biologically or culturally better suited to certain things. Women are not, but have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Equality is a myth, embrace gender differences and accept that men and women are better suited to different things and everything would be much simpler.

Also, I repeat again, all this over some bastard cleavage in a pencil sketch is neither relevant or proportional.

Obviously, I agree with this.

I'm no expert on the subject but if people voice a negative response to an image, given that the individual's response to a piece of media is BY DEFINITION subjective, the least mature possible response is probably to tell that person that they are wrong for reacting that way and should stop, stop posting, grow up, get over themselves, not bring that talk where it isn't wanted, etc.

The reaction *to* the reaction was the problematic part of that thread.

 Palindrome wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

That's not what annoys me, its the sheer childishness of women almost always being portrayed as little more than sexual objects.

But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way. The only time this is ever genuinely an issue is when prejudice and exploitation enter the equation.

As the producers and consumers are overwhelmingly male in this sector, that women are highly sexualised shouldn't be a surprise, neither should the fact it isn't going to change soon. If you can, try and deploy your annoyance elsewhere, as this issue is going to be a long term source of frustration for you!

 azreal13 wrote:

But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.

This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm no expert on the subject but if people voice a negative response to an image, given that the individual's response to a piece of media is BY DEFINITION subjective, the least mature possible response is probably to tell that person that they are wrong for reacting that way and should stop, stop posting, grow up, get over themselves, not bring that talk where it isn't wanted, etc.

The reaction *to* the reaction was the problematic part of that thread.

I think that this is a good point. I saw a few accusations like "prude" and "wannabe feminist" in that thread, which really wasn't necessary, or justified. I certainly didn't try to accuse anybody of being a perv or anything.

 Palindrome wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.

This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.

I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?

Men find women physically attractive and want to have sex with them. I always held that truth to be universal? It's one of nature's little tricks to ensure we make more humans.

 azreal13 wrote:

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

Not quite what's being said. Those people aren't objecting to viewing women in sexual terms altogether, rather viewing them in such a way excessively or even totally.

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

All these right on, ultra liberals with their "hey man, its, like, totally not cool to view the other gender as sexual objects" are arguing against literally millions of years of evolution to the contrary.

Not quite what's being said. Those people aren't objecting to viewing women in sexual terms altogether, rather viewing them in such a way excessively or even totally.

But in reaction to a pencil sketch of a woman in a bustier. Not exactly proportional is it?

EDIT
Let us also not forget that the woman in the picture, while showing a bit of cleavage, is also apparently one of the highest authorities in the Imperium. So, as far as equality goes, perhaps we can call that image a wash?

 azreal13 wrote:

I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?

Only if you provide evidence to support your assertion.

Of course sex, and all that it entails, is an important component of human behaviour and psychology but its far from the only part. Women are far more than sexual objects for me, I find it quite depressing that I have to actually say that.

I would suggest that the desire to have half naked toy soldiers indicates a lack of sexual maturity.

Cool pic.

She looks badass.

 Palindrome wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

But (heterosexual) men, by their very nature, are biologically and culturally predisposed to think of women in that way.

This is certainly not universal, in fact I would like to think that only a minority of men think in such a fashion.

True. Though it is important to note that there is an extremism as dangerous, if not more so, on the other end of the spectrum of objecting to even the slightest hint of erotica, and of condemning even small and harmless displays of skin and a bit of bosom as "overtly sexual", which is as despicable and even more so an instrument of masculine subjugation of women in society and of individual women (and a symptom of sexual immaturity without equal).



A liberal society must be tolerant of many things, including a bit of "sexy art" (which this particular picture isn't).

 Palindrome wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

I'd really like to see you support that assertion with some evidence?

Only if you provide evidence to support your assertion.

Of course sex, and all that it entails, is an important component of human behaviour and psychology but its far from the only part. Women are far more than sexual objects for me, I find it quite depressing that I have to actually say that.

I would suggest that the desire to have half naked toy soldiers indicates a lack of sexual maturity.

I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.

I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.

In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.

I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.

i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.

I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.

xruslanx wrote:
i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.

I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.

Christ, if I'm (broadly) in agreement with you, something's fethed up.

 azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
i'm actually in favour of a little nudity, as long as it's contextually appropriate. It's one thing for a servo-warrior to have a nice big cleavage, quite another thing entirely if it's a 200 year old inquisitor lord.

I think it's honestly down to personal taste. Some people like a bit of boob, some don't.

Christ, if I'm (broadly) in agreement with you, something's fethed up.

Yes, people who get offended by cleavage in art are.

 azreal13 wrote:


I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.

I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.

In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.

I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.

No, you need to provide evidence that hetrosexual men are predisposed to treat women as sexual objects. Frankly You are doing more than enough to portray yourself as a mysogist without my help.

This thread is not about a single drawing but female miniatures throughout wargaming. In that context a drawing showing too much skin is not much to speak about.

As I have already stated I don't mind a bit of skin provided that it is in context and is the exception rather than the rule. As it is for ever 'realistic' female miniature there are 10 that are aimed squarely at the teenage libido.

 azreal13 wrote:
But in reaction to a pencil sketch of a woman in a bustier. Not exactly proportional is it?

We're just debating on a web forum, though. Not a lot of effort required to do that I don't think that anybody is going out and protesting, or trying to get legislation changed. It's just an interesting issue that we can debate on the internet.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, as far as equality goes, perhaps we can call that image a wash?

Hmm, but my issue was that her status itself should well have gotten her good battlefield protection.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Spoiler:

True. Though it is important to note that there is an extremism as dangerous, if not more so, on the other end of the spectrum of objecting to even the slightest hint of erotica, and of condemning even small and harmless displays of skin and a bit of bosom as "overtly sexual", which is as despicable and even more so an instrument of masculine subjugation of women in society and of individual women (and a symptom of sexual immaturity without equal).

I don't think that this was necessary. Nobody is advocating an unreasonable extreme like that. As far as I understand, most took issue with the context of the picture, rather than the sole fact that it was a woman with exposed skin.

 Zweischneid wrote:
A liberal society must be tolerant of many things, including a bit of "sexy art" (which this particular picture isn't).

Of course, I think that we can all agree with this. But we can also say "oh, this person probably shouldn't be dressed like that based on their profession and situation" without it being an objection to sexual images full stop.

I like how we've just quietly established that if you don't like the illustration of a female inquisitor with exposed cleavage and leg, it's because you're offended by it or find it "uncomfortable".

How much easier to demonize those people it is when you ascribe outrage to them in place of their actual position!

Find me one person in that thread who actually called it offensive and I'll concede the point.

 Palindrome wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


I need to provide evidence to support my argument that most men are sexually attracted to women? Really? Come on, you're better than that.

I have many female friends, in fact, my best friend is female, so trying to imply I'm some sort of misogynist (which it reads like you're trying to) who views women as warm meat is going to put you on a hiding to nothing I'm afraid.

In terms of lacking sexual maturity? Ha! Nice one, but my sex is quite mature enough thanks.

I'd say the somewhat strong negative reactions to a mild image of some barely partial nudity is an even better indicator of lack of maturity, as people tend to react negatively to things that make them feel awkward or uncomfortable.

No, you need to provide evidence that hetrosexual men are predisposed to treat women as sexual objects. Frankly You are doing more than enough to portray yourself as a mysogist without my help.

This thread is not about a single drawing but female miniatures throughout wargaming. In that context a drawing showing too much skin is not much to speak about.

Yet it has generated so many pages of OT conversation that it spawned its own thread!

Exactly may point, waay disproportionate a reaction to a very mild image.

Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?

You can dress it up any way you like, but that is still our primary function as a species. Trying to make out that isn't the case is just disingenuous, I certainly haven't embarked on relationships with women I wasn't attracted to because they're "good people" any more than I would with a supermodel that I thought was a gakker.

Please stop trying to make out I'm some sort of bad guy for admitting that one of my priorities when looking for a girlfriend is that I find them attractive. It isn't the sole aspect, but it is very near the top of the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bull0 wrote:
I like how we've just quietly established that if you don't like the illustration of a female inquisitor with exposed cleavage and leg, it's because you're offended by it or find it "uncomfortable".

How much easier to demonize those people it is when you ascribe outrage to them in place of their actual position!

Find me one person in that thread who actually called it offensive and I'll concede the point.

Why else would people have an issue with it other than to be offended by it on some level?

I certainly haven't seen anyone criticising the artist's technique or composition.

 Troike wrote:
Of course, I think that we can all agree with this. But we can also say "oh, this person probably shouldn't be dressed like that based on their profession and situation" without it being an objection to sexual images full stop.

Sure. But than we should also be allowed to object that this specific context and situation happens to be Warhammer 40K - a fictional franchise defined by over-the-top camp and ridiculous "rule-of-cool-above-all" - and so is very much an appropriate context for bit of young-teenage-boy-escapist pandering even if the picture in question were just that (which, arguably, this pic even isn't IMO... Banelords this is not).

So unless you object to exposed skin on principle, there shouldn't be an issue in the first place, because the context fits it to a T.

The same piece of art in a rulebook for Bolt Action? Perhaps less so.

 azreal13 wrote:
So, as far as equality goes, perhaps we can call that image a wash?

Hmm, but my issue was that her status itself should well have gotten her good battlefield protection.

Or her position means that she is dressed exactly as she choose to be.

 azreal13 wrote:

Now, to address your other point, how, exactly, does my being frank about the primary function of the majority of mixed gender relationships being to breed make me a misogynist?

Because you explicitly said that heterosexual men are predisposed to look upon women as sexual objects?

Additionally this whole discussion isn't about sexual attraction (although you rarely see a half naked ugly miniature) but the simple fact that the majority of female miniatures are obviously sexualised, which is what I find childish.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the picture. While it will offend a minority, the majority wouldn't even have thought twice about it. Heck, when I first looked at it, I didn't even look at the artwork, I was busy reading the warlord traits.. because that was what I was after.

I wouldn't even have thought about the picture twice; although it was cool art, if it weren't for this having been brought up. You see I've seen it so much that by this point I'm just numb to it. But that's society I suppose.