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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When I was a 12-30 male I didn't lust after big breasted wargame figures, perhaps because I was busy pinching copies of Men Only from the newsagent (or buying them when I got old enough).

I hope you placed them in the correct location of under a shrub near a railway bridge when you were finished. I found a mostly unused Razzle in such a location once and have since learned that most others of the pre-internet times found gentlemen's literature in similar locations at an impressionable age.

If there's one thing that the digital age has helped usher in, it's the death of good quality hedge grumble....

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

Well, aren't we the prickly one.

 filbert wrote:
If there's one thing that the digital age has helped usher in, it's the death of good quality hedge grumble....

Reassuringly, on a train to London shortly before leaving the Isles, I spied a copy of some glossy rag beneath a buddleia bush, just outside Reading, open to a full spread image of a young lady on a piece of exercise equipment. It made me quite nostalgic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

Well, aren't we the prickly one.

Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

That reminds me of a story I was sent today....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-called-ex-marines-home-gym-1942834

Former Royal Marine in hot water with his neighbours after naming home gym the 'Choir Boy Grooming Room'

10 Jun 2013 09:10
NEIGHBOURS' fears are allayed after owner explains the reasoning behind the unusual choice of title for his workout area.

Seriously though, while there are not many people who think that FHM should be banned because it mentally warps people, there are not many people who don't think that mental rape demon porn is entirely acceptable either, and if you try to claim otherwise you are living in wackyland, I find that the "would my granny kick off if she saw it" test works, and a model with its tits out wouldn't even get a tut, a giant spiky rape demon would get me covered in scalding tea and brayed with a walking stick.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:



Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.

Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

Well, aren't we the prickly one.

Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

Ah, the virtue of time. Here I was all set to point out the logic holes, poor thinking, close-mindedness and other elements of your reply to me, all in an effort to point out that your line of thinking was not worth taking seriously...

Then you do it all for me!

A happy division of labor.

Don't mistake me, what you've said is clearly the only objective view of things. In fact, your statement above is verily steeped in inescapable logic, so pointed and strong surely only a creature of stone could remain un-penetrated. Why you're turgid with (rhetorical) force. I'm all aquiver.

Hoooh, I think I should need a cigarette...

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.

Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.

It's almost as if the argument hinged on emotional intensity rather then logic. Almost...

shade1313 wrote:

I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.

Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.

My classy argument, your reluctance to label the model for what it is, tomayto, tomarto...

So, for me, a giant monster covered in genitals with a big cock about to be pushed into a sleeping, prone and vulnerable woman and with tendrils milking another woman's breasts whilst a third woman kneels before it, also nude, in supplication, is a big rapey monster in poor taste and it as a whole, portrays women as dull eyed victims of this monster, instead of chirpy armored women, with or without big boobs, who could claim to be 'a bit of fun'.



Tell your missus that you'd like her to consider getting into wargaming, or your mum or sister, and show her that picture and see what she thinks of you. Unless you're a Lannister, it's unlikely to be a favorable outcome I think.

Further, I was making the point that lots of (primarily, I'd bet a few million pounds) men bought that mini, men that would likely not have bought it if it was the boy buggering newt I mentioned... because it is a sexualized image and titillates with imagery of vulnerable women being used/raped by a monster.

These things reinforce old stereotypes, these things denigrate women and these things should be left to gather dust by an informed and aware community instead of being quietly fawned over as 'art' by people who should know better.



And again, because this is diverting from the source, I do not label the bubblegum/boob armor/cute female mini in this way, the Raging Heroes stuff looks good and I don't have issue with it, only this unpalatable side of things, when it surfaces and sets our image back 20 bloody years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Personally, with respect to the Kingdom Death aesthetic, what caught my eye when I was reading the description of the setting is "nightmare" horror, and I find that the unreal and surreal qualities of many of the miniatures fit in that idea, where they wouldn't as a more tangible kind of horror or fantasy.

As a being of nightmare, the Wet Nurse fits.

So would a giant, child-sodomizing, skinless newt covered in toothed cocks, along with a slew of bare bottomed little boys. Should they make one? Would you buy it? Cos it's 'art' right?

Well, aren't we the prickly one.

Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

Ah, the virtue of time. Here I was all set to point out the logic holes, poor thinking, close-mindedness and other elements of your reply to me, all in an effort to point out that your line of thinking was not worth taking seriously...

Then you do it all for me!

A happy division of labor.

Don't mistake me, what you've said is clearly the only objective view of things. In fact, your statement above is verily steeped in inescapable logic, so pointed and strong surely only a creature of stone could remain un-penetrated. Why you're turgid with (rhetorical) force. I'm all aquiver.

Hoooh, I think I should need a cigarette...

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Not really, would you buy it?

Take a while to paint the little boys with their bleeding arses? Mix some glossy red and brown to paint the giant newt's hook covered member?

Or would you blanche at that? Is it still 'art', if KD made it, it would likely be a great sculpt.

I'm demonstrating 'the line', they crossed it for me when they made a giant rape monster, perhaps they only cross it for you when they make a giant rape monster of kids, or men but for some reason a giant rape monster of women is ok with some of us?

I wouldn't, and I'm not likely to get the Wet Nurse either. It's a nightmare, but not to my particular tastes. I didn't keep up with the KS, and if it was confirmed in there that it's a "rape monster", then I'd have a problem with it. But I don't recall reading that bit in the very little amount of fluff on the piece that I saw on KD's site. It nurses the creatures of the Holy Lands, and takes the children of human women upon birth. It's a nightmare, and a horrifying visual in a surreal way, and all the tits and dicks aren't titillating to see, nor does that seem to be the intent of them.

Oh, by the way, that's a heck of a conclusion you jumped to, taking my opinion all the way from a comment about how the Wet Nurse fits the aesthetic of nightmare horror to being okay with women being raped by monsters. Classy type of arguing there.

It's almost as if the argument hinged on emotional intensity rather then logic. Almost...

You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.

Try again.

The points you're making are to hold up a miniature that's labeled, right from the start, as from a line of mature, nightmare themed horror, proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?), and this is horrible for mainstream gaming, when in fact it's NOT a mainstream gaming piece. It's a niche game, specified as being mature themed nightmare horror, made in quite small runs.

I know, I know, you'll say that I'm blinding myself to the obvious rape occurring, or somesuch tripe that assumes you have the slightest clue about me. I say, in counter, that you're engaging in Reductio ad absurdum, at best.

shade1313 wrote:
proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),

You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?

edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.

 pretre wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),

You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?

edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.

Haha..

You can consent while you're curled up in a ball sobbing/asleep/unconscious can't you?

Or have I been doing it wrong all this time?

 pretre wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
proclaiming that because it has dick-shaped tentacles that surely there must be rape going on (little bit of psychological male-guilt going on?),

You did see the picture of imminent rape that was just posted... right?

edit: To be fair, I suppose that could be consensual sex with a giant titty monster with penis tentacles. Totally.

Don't be asinine with your lovely little sarcastic edit. I absolutely see what MIGHT be an imminent rape. You're the ones who are assuming that penetration is even going to occur. You're also the ones who seem to believe that penis-shaped things rape, as a matter of their basic characteristics. More of that ingrained guilt over being male?

shade1313 wrote:
Don't be asinine with your lovely little sarcastic edit. I absolutely see what MIGHT be an imminent rape. You're the ones who are assuming that penetration is even going to occur. You're also the ones who seem to believe that penis-shaped things rape, as a matter of their basic characteristics. More of that ingrained guilt over being male?

I lol'd.

Okay, so you totally don't think giant penis tentacles pointed right at the vagina of a curled up naked woman means anything more than the giant penis tentacle is just enjoying the view. Gotcha.

Sarcastic edit: You know giant penis tentacles don't have eyes, right?

Okay, haven't seen anything since my last post, but I was thinking about the subject, and realized that I've been fixating on the fluff "provides nourishment for monsters and takes children as soon as born" aspect, and whether any penetration by the tentacle takes place, the women included in the piece are vulnerable, naked, violated in terms of their very humanity, even if not actually raped, so I'm looking at the miniature a bit differently.

I think, without the included women, treated no better than livestock, it'd be a better piece. It'd be more in line with what I got from reading the fluff, which did not suggest rape, to me. I think there's room for mature-themed nightmares, but as much as humanity seems to be such a downtrodden group in the KD world, there is just a bit too much of treating people as if they're things in that mini.

I hope that, as I've reexamined it from another aspect than the one I was focused on, and seen other sides of it, that others will do the same.

That's probably too much to hope for, though.

So, is it a miniature depicting rape or not?

Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.

shade1313 wrote:
Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.

So, even when presented with the image, when everyone else sees something immediately, you won't concede. Instead we are treated to you wriggling.

Have you considered a career in congress?

As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.

So, even when presented with the image, when everyone else sees something immediately, you won't concede. Instead we are treated to you wriggling.

Have you considered a career in congress?

I'll concede that, yes, there's a good chance that the woman is going to be penetrated. Yes, for whatever purpose, if that occurred, she'd be raped. I don't concede that the presence and appearance of the tentacle automatically means that she WILL be penetrated.

Oh, good. You think you won an argument on the internet. I'm so glad for your e-ego.

That is downright insulting, and if you'd said that to me in person, that would be fighting words.

The key point from shade131 is that the Ragging Knightmares or whatever is very much a niche product for a shadowy corner of a particular genre of overall wargaming. Or you might call it a "boutique" product.

You never see such models in Napoleonics and so on.

Strangely, women are not attracted to Napoleonics anyway, despite the astonishing range of hats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Strangely, women are not attracted to Napoleonics anyway, despite the astonishing range of hats.

I love Napoleonics, I just hate Historical rulesets.

shade1313 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Yep, too much to hope for, from this group of keen wits.

So, even when presented with the image, when everyone else sees something immediately, you won't concede. Instead we are treated to you wriggling.

Have you considered a career in congress?

I'll concede that, yes, there's a good chance that the woman is going to be penetrated. Yes, for whatever purpose, if that occurred, she'd be raped. I don't concede that the presence and appearance of the tentacle automatically means that she WILL be penetrated.

Oh, good. You think you won an argument on the internet. I'm so glad for your e-ego.

That is downright insulting, and if you'd said that to me in person, that would be fighting words.

shade1313 wrote:
Well, aren't we the prickly one.

I am not alone, so it would seem...

But I am glad you finally conceded, mostly.

 Ouze wrote:
As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?

What's really great about the project is the continuum presented. From a marketing standpoint it begs the question of what faction will actually sell, since each represents a distinct aesthetic and attitude towards the concept of a female soldier.

The interesting thing is the way that many people have claimed, based on this campaign and perhaps others such as Relic Knights, KD:M and so on, that there is a vast untapped market for female miniatures. While the data is far too small a set for definitive analysis, it is intriguing, because it really seems to suggest both that there is, and there isn't.

Throw in Bombshell Babes, KD:M, RK, and assume this gets to a nice number such as, say, 1.5 million. Seems like quite a lot in aggregate, 10-12k people paying like $4 million overall.

But does it actually show the opposite? Is a market of 10-12k buyers (which is almost certainly overstating it dramatically, given the overlap in people pledging all of the above) really something that GW would put in the effort to chase, given the amount of work they would need to do? Relaunching something like SoB wouldn't be quite as huge an effort as the Dark Eldar relaunch (since SoB would be able to use vehicle kits from other lines, presumably), but it would be more intensive then, say, Tau (who kept many kits and molds).

If we imagine the market for plastic female figures is around 5k people spread across the world... is it a market GW doesn't care to try and capture?




_______________________________________________________________________________

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
...

You flutter your fan and adjust your periwig all you want, but until you present something substantive to support you, it's just bitching and claiming some elitist intellectual high ground you've no real claim on.

Try again.

Yes, this conversation is positively redolent with substance. Because truly, the real heart of intellectual rigor is a variant of the No-true Scotsman that goes "when everyone else sees something immediately"...because it is, of course, impossibly for people to see items and events differently. It's especially impossible when multiple people are actively claiming not to interpret the same thing in the same way.

Clearly, the only possible explanation for these differing opinions is witchcraft. Possibly your opponents are afflicted with a small toad on their stomach, or perhaps the vapors. It might be the vapors, have you checked the vapors?

Vapors!

That problem is why you do market research.

I would have guessed the market for whole armies of female future soldiers is largely expressed by Sisters of Battle, some Imperial Guard and a few Femarines fans.

There are probably a fair number of people who would buy some figures or some small units of female future soldiers for general use in SF RPGs, as squads in IG armies, and the like. My gut tells me the market for 28mm SF wargames is getting over-saturated, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.

How big of an audience does there have to be to make something 'commercially viable?' I've been a big fan of the theory that the Sisters of Battle get the shaft (infrequent updates to minis, a mockery of a Codex) because their fans represent too small a market for it to be worth GW's time, because that makes sense, even if it's frustrating for the fans of the army.

But how many people do you need to make a living, or a substantial portion of one, off of making female soldiers for wargaming? Raging Heroes seems to do alright, from what I can tell, but I'm just a simple lumberjack, so I don't know all these fancy business concepts some people seem to have such a keen grasp of. Is the number of people interested in their stuff a large enough market that GW should pay attention, or is it still too small?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
____

Yes, this conversation is positively redolent with substance. Because truly, the real heart of intellectual rigor is a variant of the No-true Scotsman that goes "when everyone else sees something immediately"...because it is, of course, impossibly for people to see items and events differently. It's especially impossible when multiple people are actively claiming not to interpret the same thing in the same way.
Clearly, the only possible explanation for these differing opinions is witchcraft. Possibly your opponents are afflicted with a small toad on their stomach, or perhaps the vapors. It might be the vapors, have you checked the vapors?
Vapors!

I like it when you babble, ridicule and scoff without presenting a solid opposing answer, and I'll take your prancing and capering, without stance or response, as a victory.

Good night Vienna.

What was the topic again?

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That said, the idea of Kickstarters is to try and sponsor projects which are not clearly commercially viable.

How big of an audience does there have to be to make something 'commercially viable?' I've been a big fan of the theory that the Sisters of Battle get the shaft (infrequent updates to minis, a mockery of a Codex) because their fans represent too small a market for it to be worth GW's time, because that makes sense, even if it's frustrating for the fans of the army.

This is a similar argument to why no redo for Dark Eldar for fething years and why the constant upgrading and such for Marines. It seems a self fulfilling prophecy of GW's to say 'we must just make marines because marines sell', well yes they do when they are on the cover of every boxed set, book and poster, kicking ass, their model line constantly upgraded and well tended with many variants to choose and constant encouragement via books and GW staff that they are the mightiest shitkickers in town.

When they finally brainfarted and produced a redo of the Dark Eldar, they sold like hotcakes, because they had been redone well, with attractive mini range and comprehensive release waves. Same with Necrons and we saw similar success with Tau.

If GW did a female army, did one well and promoted it effectively then I have little doubt the release would put RH's project to shame in terms of sales. Just by dint of GW's size and distribution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
As the Raging Heroes kickstarter, I'd again ask that people not conflate the Jailbirds faction to the entire project. Do you consider the other 2 factions to be cheesecake as well?

If we're considering Cheesecake as Pin-Up, as the sort of artwork you might see on the side of a ww2 bomber, then perhaps? I think the Iron Faction ladies, whilst seeming the least likely, could be seen painted onto a DKoK tank or something.

I don't think either are as cheesecake as the jailbirds and even then, the jailbirds, as I said before, are based fairly strongly off Tank Girl, who's not really cheesecake, but portrayed as a strong female character and icon (ignoring the utterly terrible movie).

edit. nevermind