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.

 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.

But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.

I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?

 Troike wrote:
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.

Than make one up!!!

Most "real" jungle-fighters don't seem to wear notably less armour than non-jungle fighters. I know I've done some jungle trecking, and I've certainly covered ever piece of open skin against leeches, mosquitos, etc..

What came first? Showing buff Rambo knock-offs (miniatures of Rambo knock-offs) with bulging muscles, and than throwing in a flimsy "Jungle-fighter"-excuse, or the need to have Jungle-fighters in Spaaaceeee, which logic dictates should be skimpily clad no matter where they go in Spaaacee?

Frankly, the "excuse" as you call it came after the fact, just as the "excuse" for Space Marines wearing Power Armour, spitting acid, etc.. all came after the fact. First was always the "cool", later some justification was added for the people who needed some justification to play with Space-Knight-Vampire-Vikings and Buff Toy-Men in Space.. God knows why.

The very reason there is such a thing as Rogue-trader early edition weirdness is (!) the fact that they had all those silly concepts they wanted in there, but were fidgeting and changing the fluff around for quite some time.

If you really need just such an "excuse" for that cleavage, several have been provided in the discussions on this picture already.

You cannot tell, just from one picture, that it is indeed out of character or not.

 azreal13 wrote:
But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.

Right, and you care enough to participate in this debate, just as much as I do. You feel that your opinion on the image is more correct than mine, so you argue in favour of it. In light of this, it seems odd for you to criticise others for replying or reacting too much.

And, in fairness, I think just the fact that two parties had differing opinions and weren't willing to back down from them is what's generating so many replies. If that pic had been posted and people made their criticisms of it, and everybody else had not reacted, it would have gone no further. But since we have two opposing viewpoints being vocal about their views, lots of replies are made on the issue.

 azreal13 wrote:
I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?

It demonstrates that you cared about it, enough to make a fairly long post laying out your thoughts on the issue.

 Rayvon wrote:
You cannot tell, just from one picture, that it is indeed out of character or not.

I would argue that it is, for a "genetic" Inquisitor. If that pic had accompanying fluff saying that this Inquisitor's dress preference was a quirk or preference of hers, I'd be pretty much fine with it. But we don't have any context, so we're left to assume that this is an "average" Inquisitor, who decides to go into combat in skimpy clothing. When looked at it from that angle, it seems odd, to me.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If you really need just such an "excuse" for that cleavage, several have been provided in the discussions on this picture already.

Eh, but they were basically just "because she wants to", IIRC, which I don't really find satisfying.

 Zweischneid wrote:
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!

Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?

Why are the women often sexualized and the men power fantasies directed at men too? Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a product that is possibly aimed at 100% of the possible target market and not just roughly 50%, especially when the pool of possible buyer is already small enough in a certain niche (in addition GW seems to sell fewer boxes every year).

Who would rather sell a relatively profitable product to less people? That just sounds shortsighted in my opinion.

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But I'm not reacting to the image, I'm reacting to other people's apparent overreaction to that image. I'm then further interacting with those people who respond to me. It's how a debate/discussion/argument/conversation works.

Right, and you care enough to participate in this debate, just as much as I do. You feel that your opinion on the image is more correct than mine, so you argue in favour of it. In light of this, it seems odd for you to criticise others for replying or reacting too much.

And, in fairness, I think just the fact that two parties had differing opinions and weren't willing to back down from them is what's generating so many replies. If that pic had been posted and people made their criticisms of it, and everybody else had not reacted, it would have gone no further. But since we have two opposing viewpoints being vocal about their views, lots of replies are made on the issue.

 azreal13 wrote:
I still don't see the relevance my quantity of reaction is in any way relevant to anyone's severity of reaction though?

It demonstrates that you cared about it, enough to make a fairly long post laying out your thoughts on the issue.

I'm still not seeing your point?

 Troike wrote:

Eh, but they were basically just "because she wants to", IIRC, which I don't really find satisfying.

Perhaps. But than 99% of the 40K background shouldn't really be satisfying to you. "Because why not?" Is pretty much the basic principle the entire setting operates on. It's the 40K-verses first, second, third and fourth law of thermodynamics.

Apple fox wrote:

 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.

He understands just fine.

Why is it a "male power fantasy" for men to be scantily clad and in shape but for women it's a "big problem"

because your double standards dictate so? Oh i see, you want to get rid of most double standards except keep all the ones that benefit women.
excuse me if i'm not sympathetic to your cause.

Mario wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
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!

Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?

Kinda, It was said that it is sexualized because it is not appropriate for an Inquisitor going into battle, whereas it might be appropriate for.. dunno.. and Inquisitor at a social event. So if people would truly object to this depiction in the circumstances only, the white-haired inquisitor should irritate just as much.

If he doesn't, the whole "it's all about because she's about to go into battle" is clearly revealed as a flimsy front that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

If you object to a minor showing of skin on principle (independent of context), we're back to square one.

Because I would strongly object to a rigorously prude world where depiction of bosom and/or minor erotic images in gaming would be questionable on principle, because THAT would be the ultimate expression of stifled sexual maturity and gendered power-fantasies.

Again the reference...

Mario wrote:

Because the guy's outfit is not sexualized at all (not intentionally at least, it might apply for some hobo fetish). And that's the topic here, isn't it?

Why are the women often sexualized and the men power fantasies directed at men too? .

To be fair calling it sexualised is pushing it, if you ask me, she's got a low cut top, and I'll be honest with you, that's hardly wrong, strange or over the top by any definition - I see more flesh revealed by girls on a more regular basis, and I live in Scotland. Low cut tops hardly get me sweating under the collar.

On topic, I think she looks pretty damn cool, and empowering.

Mario wrote:

Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a product that is possibly aimed at 100% of the possible target market and not just roughly 50%, especially when the pool of possible buyer is already small enough in a certain niche (in addition GW seems to sell fewer boxes every year).

Who would rather sell a relatively profitable product to less people? That just sounds shortsighted in my opinion.

If you say so bud. Personally, I don't ever see equal amounts of girls getting into this hobby as guys, regardless of what gets done. So I'll just disagree with you.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Perhaps. But than 99% of the 40K background shouldn't really be satisfying to you. "Because why not?" Is pretty much the basic principle the entire setting operates on. It's the 40K-verses first, second, third and fourth law of thermodynamics.

I suppose the problem is that we all "draw the line" somewhere different. I can accept acid-spitting supermen and pipe organ tanks, because, for me, it doesn't cross from "rule of cool" over to "unrealistic". For some, that artwork did edge over to "unrealisitc" or "objectionable". But for others, it was still well within the "rule of cool" zone.

I doubt that either of us can really change this standard in the other, so it's probably best we end it here.This debate is likely to drift around in circles, at this point.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm still not seeing your point?

Well, you said that the people against it were reacting too much, yet you seem perfectly willing to debate the issue too.

Mario wrote:

Who would rather sell a relatively profitable product to less people? That just sounds shortsighted in my opinion.

Some of us would say that is GW's business plan in a nut shell!

New comer to this argument but after viewing that pic I see nothing wrong with her outfit in the 40K setting, (or really any sci- fi setting)

Yes she is pretty, but as a professional artist myself I like drawing sexy/pretty more then ugly. She isn't even THAT exposed. Yes she shows some cleavage, did you ever think this might be regular attire for her and not her battle uniform? Chainswords and such for figures of her standing is a common side arm at best, like today's police officer having a nightstick and mace common.

And also can we STOP with the liberal comments? I'm a liberal, and I'm fine with sex and nudity (I'm in favor of abolishing the FCC after all.) It's the right wingers that want women covered up like mummies and our children force fed a culture of "Nothing worse then Pg-13 allowed" BS.

kb305 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 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.

He understands just fine.

Why is it a "male power fantasy" for men to be scantily clad and in shape but for women it's a "big problem"

because your double standards dictate so? Oh i see, you want to get rid of most double standards except keep all the ones that benefit women.
excuse me if i'm not sympathetic to your cause.

Oh yes that's exactly not what I am even saying and meaning. But that's it isn't it, male power fantasy, but boobs to look at. The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.
Also to say that something is totely ok since I think this is just as not ok is rather bad argument isn't it.
Also what benifits me ? Catachan look stupid and anything but sexy or sexualised to me. The guy next to the inquisitor Is more sexy than the catachan picture is to me.

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm still not seeing your point?

Well, you said that the people against it were reacting too much, yet you seem perfectly willing to debate the issue too.

No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.

I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.

Apple fox wrote:


The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.

Well, the issue is that THIS picture was a catalyst for a thread that may have been appropriate for games like Tentacle Bento that objectify women as a central element of the game play or rather tasteless miniature sculpts like banelords melusine.

But, if this particular picture, which is a very minor display of bosom, can be the catalyst of such a thread, than any picture of a women not wearing a full-on Burka can be a catalyst for this kind of thread, and that is a very different, far more worrisome problem in itself. It's a different form of extremism.

 Zweischneid wrote:
In the UK.

Yeah, that's written next to your pseudonym. And I'm living in France ! I was expecting something a little bit more specific.

 Zweischneid wrote:
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.

I'm saddened by this. I thought I made it pretty clear I had no wish for realism. I'm all for over-the-top mad stuff like chainsword, when they are used to build some character. Chainsword are here to show how madly violent the universe has become. And it is pretty damn violent. But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.

Please, peoples, just take a little time to think about this : I went to see “Machete” and “Machete Kills”, which both include A LOT MORE sexy girls in very small and titillating outfits, and I had absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. However, I do have a problem with this cleavage on the Inquisitor. So, how does that goes well with your ideas of why I dislike this illustration ?
If not, then read again my original message, and maybe you'll understand that I don't want to “ban cleavage”. I want to ban “out-of-character cleavage on just everything with a vagina”. I find it stupid, and harmful to the atmosphere of the setting. We have awesome, over-the-top stories with lots of sexy women (Machete <3), what is so bad with having awesome, over-the-top stories without sexy women because they don't fit in this kind of awesome over-the-topness ?
For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.

Apple fox wrote:
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.

They did, I have one in my army. It's wearing extremely unpractical, ridiculous outfit than looks very eccentric and therefore is way less out-of-character. I used her as a Jacobus stand-in, but now she is a priest.
They made three different models, but it's just basically a weapon swap, and I sadly have the least characterful one, the one in the middle.



OT :

 cincydooley wrote:
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.

Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care

You guys it isn't like 40k invented the partially clad boob. I find it pretty tame to a lot of stuff that's much older.





Conan for instance is rife with bulging muscles and jiggly boobs which appeals to both male and female audiences.

My girlfriend and I always have had tons of conversations over which actor/actress was hot or who's body we think is the best etc. She loves boobs just about as much as any guy I can't count the numer of times she pointed out some woman that just walked into the room and said hey what do you think about those? Just like guys one of the first things a women notices about other women are their boobs which also prompts an amusing reaction. If the woman has smaller pair they'll comment on how pretty she is or some other feature like her hair, but if she has bigger boobs the response is more like ooh that skank bitch. Women judge each other every bit as much as men judge women, you just may not have been privy to it.

Lots of women like to dress so that they can show their bodies off and all want to be the most beautiful and sexiest woman in the room, they do it to appeal to other women in addition to men. Watch a few wedding dress shows and you'll see so many brides that dress their bridesmaids in the worst gak possible as they don't want their hot friends having any chance at looking better than they do.




Space marine scouts are either a carrying a grapefruit in their pants or they've been harvested from John Holmes's geeneseed.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.

Because it's just a cleavage. Like a Catachan fighter wearing, for varieties sake, a mustache perhaps. A cleavage is something you happen to find occasionally on female characters, as you'd occasionally might find a mustache on a male character.

Interpreting excessive sexual meaning into it as you just did again is your obsessively prudish bias, not the artist's fault as such.

And if the female inquisitor's cleavage is off "in the context", than so is the male inquisitor's impractical hair "in the (same) context". Yet nobody talks about it. So the "in-the-context" argument is largely bull.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Yeah, that's written next to your pseudonym. And I'm living in France ! I was expecting something a little bit more specific.

Well. Nottingham (not associated with GW though)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Spoiler:

 Zweischneid wrote:
In the UK.

Yeah, that's written next to your pseudonym. And I'm living in France ! I was expecting something a little bit more specific.

 Zweischneid wrote:
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.

I'm saddened by this. I thought I made it pretty clear I had no wish for realism. I'm all for over-the-top mad stuff like chainsword, when they are used to build some character. Chainsword are here to show how madly violent the universe has become. And it is pretty damn violent. But here, are Inquisitor supposed to be sexy ? And even if it was the case, would this be over-the-top sexy ? No, and no. So, this cleavage is neither something totally casual that we expect to see in everyday life, especially not given the context, nor some over-the-top emphasis on a trait of Inquisitors. Since I thought the rest of my message, which you didn't quote, clearly ruled out the latter, I also mentioned the former wasn't an explanation for this cleavage either.

Please, peoples, just take a little time to think about this : I went to see “Machete” and “Machete Kills”, which both include A LOT MORE sexy girls in very small and titillating outfits, and I had absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. However, I do have a problem with this cleavage on the Inquisitor. So, how does that goes well with your ideas of why I dislike this illustration ?
If not, then read again my original message, and maybe you'll understand that I don't want to “ban cleavage”. I want to ban “out-of-character cleavage on just everything with a vagina”. I find it stupid, and harmful to the atmosphere of the setting. We have awesome, over-the-top stories with lots of sexy women (Machete <3), what is so bad with having awesome, over-the-top stories without sexy women because they don't fit in this kind of awesome over-the-topness ?
For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.

Apple fox wrote:
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.

They did, I have one in my army. It's wearing extremely unpractical, ridiculous outfit than looks very eccentric and therefore is way less out-of-character. I used her as a Jacobus stand-in, but now she is a priest.
They made three different models, but it's just basically a weapon swap, and I sadly have the least characterful one, the one in the middle.



OT :

 cincydooley wrote:
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.

Well, there is this girl I met at work. Well, I first noticed how she was cool, and how we had lots of common interests. And then, some time later, that she wasn't very physically attractive to me.
Arguably, the first times I saw her was during very short time periods during which I noticed her XKCD (or other geekeries) T-shirt more than anything else, but still !
On a totally unrelated note, I'm 26 and still a virgin. Feel free to use that to “explain” everything or anything I write here, I don't care

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.

I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.

Your complaint basically seemed to be "the people critcising this image are talking too much". Whay I'm saying is that, in being so willing to participate in this debate, you're as much a part of the "problem" as those criticising it, in that your further fuel and extend the disagreements over it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


The issue isn't that picture, it just a catylist for this thread.

Well, the issue is that THIS picture was a catalyst for a thread that may have been appropriate for games like Tentacle Bento that objectify women as a central element of the game play or rather tasteless miniature sculpts like banelords melusine.

But, if this particular picture, which is a very minor display of bosom, can be the catalyst of such a thread, than any picture of a women not wearing a full-on Burka can be a catalyst for this kind of thread, and that is a very different, far more worrisome problem in itself. It's a different form of extremism.

Oh yes, tentacle bento is rather worrying. But I myself have seen basically nothing on that itself, and I ain't game to look it up. I think the miniture issue from this is rather important though, and I think 40k is realy bad on this subject and think its important.

Hybrid I had forgotten about those, but I realy mean something like a female charecter in full armor and until the lore is out no one knows its a she just looking at the mini, everything simply defaults to male in this hobby it feals :( unless its showing off breasts.
I also would like those models if not for the hair, it's just agh, I think that alone makes me not like them.

Also I think GW is turning around this issue. So maybe not all is lost for me !

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I get what you're trying to say, I'm just not seeing what point you're trying to establish.

I am willing to debate what I see as a hyper-sensitivity to a barely sexualised image, that isn't the same argument, or somehow an opposite reaction to, those that are reacting to the image itself.

Your complaint basically seemed to be "the people critcising this image are talking too much". Whay I'm saying is that, in being so willing to participate in this debate, you're as much a part of the "problem" as those criticising it, in that your further fuel and extend the disagreements over it.

No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.

 azreal13 wrote:
[No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.

Well, back on page 2 you used the words "disproportionate" and criticised how it took up several pages and spawned its own thread. That sounded like an issue with the amount of reaction to the pic, 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?

God, can we please kill this one before it starts?

You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.

 Las wrote:


God, can we please kill this one before it starts?

You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.

Not really? Pose, fictional role, etc.. that female Inquisitor pic is more likely to be an empowerment fantasy than sexual objectification, cleavage included. As said, it's not a submissive pose. It's not a servile character. It's one of the highest authorities in the fictional game-world. It's the pic next to the goddamn "Warlord Traits" table of the person you ought to envision leading your army.

I fail to see the objectification (again, unless every (!) cleavage ever is a sexual objectification and Amish-style coverage is women empowerment)

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[No, my "complaint" is they are overreacting not that they're using too many posts or them thar words and such.

Well, back on page 2 you used the words "disproportionate" and criticised how it took up several pages and spawned its own thread. That sounded like an issue with the amount of reaction to the pic, to me.

Yeah, so logically you figured I thought "look at all these posts" and adjusted my opinion accordingly? Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?

Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?

 azreal13 wrote:
Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?

Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?

You can react to both content and number. And I viewed disproporionate as meaning "an excessive amount", which matches up with the google definition of "too large or too small in comparison with something else".

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Las wrote:


God, can we please kill this one before it starts?

You need to understand the difference between empowerment fantasy and sexual objectification.

Not really? Pose, fictional role, etc.. that female Inquisitor pic is more likely to be an empowerment fantasy than sexual objectification, cleavage included. As said, it's not a submissive pose. It's not a servile character. It's one of the highest authorities in the fictional game-world. It's the pic next to the goddamn "Warlord Traits" table of the person you ought to envision leading your army.

I fail to see the objectification (again, unless every (!) cleavage ever is a sexual objectification and Amish-style coverage is women empowerment)

I am not talking about that crappy FFS illustration. This thread is about the depiction of women in wargaming as a whole and specifically I am talking now about the difference between empowerment fantasy and objectification.

That Catachan art was created to make people (read; men) think "Wow, look how powerful they are. I want to wield that power on the table top." That's an empowerment fantasy, it has nothing to do with with being sexually appealing to women.

Can we PLEASE pull away from this booby inquisitor for the sake of the thread?

EDIT: and submissiveness does not inherently equate sexual objectification.

 Troike wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Not that it was the content of the posts, and not the number of them, that I would react to?

Also, disproportionate is a perfectly acceptable word for what I was trying to say, I'm not sure how you've interpreted it?

You can react to both content and number. And I viewed disproporionate as meaning "an excessive amount", which matches up with the google definition of "too large or too small in comparison with something else".

Except I used the words "disproportionate" and "reaction" in context of one another.

If you weren't clear on my intent, perhaps you should have asked, rather than drag this, frankly, fething dull conversation out over yet more excessive posts?

But honestly, if you're needing to Google words like disproportionate for translations, we're pretty much at a dead end anyway.