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.

 Palindrome wrote:


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

Um. Because men are predisposed to do that. . If you're going to claim that one of the first thoughts through your head, even subconsciously, upon seeing a new woman is whether or not you'd feth her, you're either lying or you're not attracted to women in the first place. It's how we're wired.

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.

There's nothing childish about it. It's about salesmanship, marketing, and knowing your demographic. In short, it's smart business.

 Palindrome wrote:

 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?

Which is perfectly true, where you're coming unstuck is assuming that my argument is that all men see women solely as sexual objects, which is patently untrue.

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.

As I've mentioned in the previous thread, when working at this scale (and, I guess, with associated artworks to maintain a visual coherency across media) you must exaggerate, otherwise everything looks indistinguishable from more than a foot or two away.

 Palindrome wrote:

 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.

there's nothing childish about it. it doesn't change unless you're too old to care anymore, or gay, or brainwashed by your mother or something.

and besides. dont even call anything childish when youre playing with toy soldiers. sheesh.

Given the context of the picture, flashing a little boob does not really demean her. She is an inquisitor which usually means intelligent and politically powerful. She's wielding a weapon indicating martial prowess. These are all traits that indicate a "strong woman." Showing top boob does not necessarily demean these but could indicate that she is in charge of her sexuality which only further propagates the "strong woman" image. Saying that she should cover up could be construed as "slut shaming" or trying to assert control over her sexuality. In the end, we're talking about a picture that shows very little and we all can bring our own assumptions into play as to what is going on and justify it as we please. There are more serious breaches of representation of women, that are more clear cut as to their intentions, in wargaming and I would suggest starting there than getting riled up on a little top boob.

Not to mention Inquisitors are haughty at the core, many feel that what they do is something they can do within. Many fall to chaos because they have that arrogant belief that 'Chaos can beat Chaos because =I= hold it'

If one of the groups that would be expected to come into battle like this because they are arrogant enough to believe nothing could happen to them because of their political power, their almighty funding for powerful weapons and archeotech that most could never dream of even knowing of, It would be Inquisitors coming in with such flashy gear.

Not to mention you have those who don't even come to battle in actual armor in SC's, like Lord Karamazov and his judges robe.

Am I the only person who finds it a bit silly that we're arguing about fake cleavage?

Seriously though, Warhammer is far from reality, and saying that the armor designs are realistic makes no-sense. Look at the Catachans, their armor is literally a t-shirt and their muscles. Some don't even wear shirts, yet we complain about the fact that some armor for females shows cleavage.

 The Masked One wrote:
Am I the only person who finds it a bit silly that we're arguing about fake cleavage?

Seriously though, Warhammer is far from reality, and saying that the armor designs are realistic makes no-sense. Look at the Catachans, their armor is literally a t-shirt and their muscles. Some don't even wear shirts, yet we complain about the fact that some armor for females shows cleavage.

To be entirely fair, plenty of people complain about the Catachans. But I get your point

I don't think that specific picture is bad, but it's not realy a good representation eather. But withing 40k I guess it's good see more representation at all.
Unless we get more female minis to offer more varied representation GW will remain fairly meh at its representation of women.. As for miniture games I think a lot of games try and represent women well and some do it very well.

If GW release a model of that inquisitor I would be happy enough, if they did a female inquisitor charecter in full power armor or ful, terminator armor without sexy just cos I would be jumping for joy.
Or just a female Farseer at this point.

Huh. So this is why a lot of people in the OT forum have such high post counts. Welp, if nothing else, this thread shall expediate my ascension from being a Missionary on a Mission, I guess.

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

Ah, but aren't you also being quite dedicated in replying to the opposing point of view? You debated it a lot in the original thread, and came here entirely of your own free will to debate it some more. I don't think that any of us can accuse the others of being "too talkative".

 Zweischneid wrote:
and so is very much an appropriate context for bit of young-teenage-boy-escapist pandering

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily make it right or good.

 Zweischneid wrote:
the context fits it to a T.

That's debatable. I'm opposed to the idea of a supposedly generic Inquisitor being depicted as going into a hostle situation wearing such skimpy clothes. You might see it as "rule of cool", but I see it as an odd depiction of somebody going into combat, especially when they can get their hands on stuff as good as power armour.

Apple fox wrote:
Unless we get more female minis to offer more varied representation GW will remain fairly meh at its representation of women.

To be fair, this was Fantasy Flight that made the picture. Though GW included it in their codex, they didn't make the thing.

Also, check the Australian GW site. There's some, in my opinion, good depictions of female Inquisitiors in there, last I checked. The SoB are also pretty good representations of women, IMO. Fully armoured (Repentia aside, but as I said before they have a good reason for it), no-nonsense soldiers.

 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.

According to research, men look at women that way, and women look at women at the same rate, but for different reasons

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/not-only-men-stare-women-breasts-women-too-202622814.html

Not that its particularly relevant to discussing artwork for a game of fictitious space battles.

 Troike wrote:
Huh. So this is why a lot of people in the OT forum have such high post counts. Welp, if nothing else, this thread shall expediate my ascension from being a Missionary on a Mission, I guess.

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

Ah, but aren't you also being quite dedicated in replying to the opposing point of view? You debated it a lot in the original thread, and came here entirely of your own free will to debate it some more. I don't think that any of us can accuse the others of being "too talkative". .

Sorry to piss on your chips buddy, but I made precisely one comment on this issue in that thread (I just checked, as what you said didn't ring true to me)

Every other post is either about the codex or intimating other people should stop posting off topic.

Oh, and this might not be what you mean, but this isn't the OT forum, that's all the way "down there" near the bottom. This is for discussion that at least makes a nod at being relevant to wargaming.

 Troike wrote:

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily make it right or good.

Perhaps, but neither does it make it wrong, inappropriate or objectionable.

 Troike wrote:

That's debatable. I'm opposed to the idea of a supposedly generic Inquisitor being depicted as going into a hostle situation wearing such skimpy clothes. You might see it as "rule of cool", but I see it as an odd depiction of somebody going into combat, especially when they can get their hands on stuff as good as power armour.

if they wanted to have a picture of somebody in Power Armour, they'd used artwork of a Space Marine (who are iconic for wearing Power Armour).

Also, nobody would reasonably wear a suit of armour like that in a modern (much less future) military setting. It's "knight's armour in spaceeeeeeee!" The idea of Power Armour is as much, if not more so, a product of the "rule of cool" than even the most sexist chainmail-bikini ever designed.

[edit]
Also, according to classic Rogue Trader 40K fluff, she (being an Inquisitor) may have skin-tight power armour!!!: Space Marine-levels of protections and (!) good looks? No reason to not have both!!

Dat name...
Also, crack grenades? And Doomrider was born...

Sweet this discussion again, it's clearly over due as it's been at least a couple weeks since the last one.



Mmmmm space boobs.

 paulson games wrote:
Sweet this discussion again, it's clearly over due as it's been at least a couple weeks since the last one.



Mmmmm space boobs.

The boobs in that artwork are one of the finer man made endeavors since the Hoover Dam.

Is this seriously what started the discussion?

-Shrike- wrote:
Is this seriously what started the discussion?

There are issiues within the hobby, sometimes it doesn't take much for people to put forward thoughts.

Yes, yes that is the hugely controversial image that lit the blue touch paper!

The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.

When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?

Image is pure filth, the man has exposed lower knuckles, they should be covered up like the females.

The picture is basically feeding time at the zoo for all those deviant lower knuckle fetishists you read about in the newspapers.

Funny how nobody objected to the white-haired Inquisitor being so obviously ill-dressed for battle.

- All that hair seems really inconvenient, hampering peripheral vision, etc..
- That cloak doesn't seem to offer much if a stray Lascannon should hit him.
- Clutters of paper everywhere that could singe and even burn, causing extra damage.
- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.

Somebody clearly didn't do their military research when they drew that guy!

Now that you mention it, he really can't see anything.

 Zweischneid wrote:

- He doesn't even have a totally unwieldy, loud and impractical weapon.

What's the mirror thing full of souls then? That fills the unwieldy and impractical weapon criteria for me.

Yeah, that magic tambourine he's carrying looks pretty deadly to me.

-Shrike- wrote:
The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.

When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?

It is a very difernt thing..

But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.

Apple fox wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.

When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?

It is a very difernt thing..

But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.

What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.

But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.

I like this mini a lot. what do you guys think?

as for catachans. i guess steroids have come along ways in the future and they were personally trained by a DNA clone of arnold schwarzenegger's.

The Catachan do have a good fluff reason to go with their attire, though. They're jungle fighters. They'd probably feel that flak armour like the Cadians wear would impede them in this role. With their forgoing of such armour, their are lighter, faster and better suited to operating in a jungle enviroment. The Inquisitor, meanwhile, has no such justification to go with her picture. She is, as far as we're shown, just a "generic" Inquisitor.

 azreal13 wrote:
Sorry to piss on your chips buddy, but I made precisely one comment on this issue in that thread (I just checked, as what you said didn't ring true to me)

Whilst you did indeed make only one post on the matter, it was still quite lengthly, and quite strongly worded. And again, you're here, aren't you? Debating the issue further? I don't see how you can accuse just the people who find fault with the image of reacting too much when you're so willing to discuss the matter yourself.

 azreal13 wrote:
Oh, and this might not be what you mean, but this isn't the OT forum, that's all the way "down there" near the bottom. This is for discussion that at least makes a nod at being relevant to wargaming.

I know we're not in the OT forum. What I meant is that rather controversial issues are often lengthily debated in there, as is happening here.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Perhaps, but neither does it make it wrong, inappropriate or objectionable.

Well, this is it, isn't it? That's a pretty subjective thing. As I've said elsewhere, not everybody agrees on where exactly the line is on these things.

 Zweischneid wrote:
if they wanted to have a picture of somebody in Power Armour, they'd used artwork of a Space Marine (who are iconic for wearing Power Armour).

Right, they were after an iconic Inquisitor. Which I don't think such skimpy armour is a good representation of.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Also, nobody would reasonably wear a suit of armour like that in a modern (much less future) military setting. It's "knight's armour in spaceeeeeeee!" The idea of Power Armour is as much, if not more so, a product of the "rule of cool" than even the most sexist chainmail-bikini ever designed.

But power armour has sphess science behind it. Exposed flesh on a combatent who can access some of the best protection around is as odd as it usually is.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Also, according to classic Rogue Trader 40K fluff, she (being an Inquisitor) may have skin-tight power armour!!!: Space Marine-levels of protections and (!) good looks? No reason to not have both!!

Spoiler:

Eh, I'd be hesitant to use Rogue Trader as a reference, though. To use a TV Tropes term, there's a lot of Early Edition Weirdness in there. Look, it even has its own section in the tabletop games page.

Amusing aside, that section also featured a mission where the players have hunt down a person who was essentially Doctor Who. It was a very different time indeed.

Uneven depiction of genders in games is a big problem, though I don't really find that particular picture that problematic. She seems to be wearing some sort of a dress/robe type of a thing, and not a real armour, and that cleavage is not outrageous on a dress. And no, I don't really mind her going into a fight wearing a dress.

Of course we once again have a wizened old man and a young beautiful woman. This is not of course a problem in a single picture, but it is a trend. Women have to be hot, men can be ugly or old. There is nothing wrong with sexy pictures, necessarily not even in gaming material; however, you should really be even handed with it; it is not okay if the man always is the grizzled veteran and woman is the eye-candy for the boys. And no, Catachans are not sexualised, that's just pure male power-fantasy pic.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
The thing is, I would argue that men are sexualised/portrayed unrealistically just as much as women.

When was the last time you saw a soldier in 40k with smaller muscles than Wolverine?

It is a very difernt thing..

But what I mean is sometimes something not to bad can just bring up some thaghts on the issues as a whole. In this case the comment wasn't even that much.
I myself have been jumped on for thaghts similar on this forum. It's very much a issue in the hobby.

What you have just said technically is classed as sexist also. If its not alright for a women to show a hint of chest why is it ok for men to show the whole thing? i mean i dont really care about this but that comment to me screams hypocrasy. its a trend i noticed in feminists haha.

But at the end of the day its the same thing, besides gender whats the difference between the catachans and the female inquisitor? none really.

Actuly I don't have anything against the picture, but this is exactly what I mean with my response..

If you don't know the difference between what the issue is with that, I would worry at this point.
The fact you point to feminist in such a way shows just the color of you, and your entire post has little to do with the issues that this is apart off.