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:

Believe it or not, your choice, I lived it, so I know.

I worked for 5 years as a bouncer at a couple of major niteclubs and a strip club, not much phases me anymore. The things women will offer just to avoid paying a $3 cover fee or get a string of mardi gras beads has never ceased to amaze me. The simplest pick up device ever invented is the clip board and earphone.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But why seize on this model, with no real nudity and reasons to explain it, to object to? Other than "you would have preferred some thing different "

It's not even a model, it's an illustration. It's because I really thinks here it breaks the harmony of the rest of the picture, feels very unnatural, and because Inquisitors are supposed to be awesome in a certain specific way that doesn't mix at all with this.
There is just cloth all around it, with the collar and the cape !

It's also because there are very very few female models and illustrations in 40k, and most of them are ok (like the eldars, both craftworld and dark). There's way worse stuff in the rest of the industry, in video games and even in WFB I guess. So since it's a rare occurrence, I reacted to it. If Blizzard made some boob-hole in some armor… well, business as usual, right ?

Yeah, ok, pic, not model, my bad.

It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me. But I think this boils down to the fact you'd like to have seen something different, which is fair enough, but it certainly isn't excessively sexualised, objectified or anything along those lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just searched Google Images for gothic dress, this came up on the first page (and isn't cherry picked, just one of the first that isn't just pictured on the hanger)



Looks quite similar, add a cape and you're right on the money. So in fact the image is actually fairly true to the imagery that 40K draws on.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

How and where did you found this ?

This one came to us from 'TheArtificer' on Deviant Art. (Most of his stuff is NSFW and contains 'promotions' of dubious size, but tend to be funny) This particular one turned up in a 40k humor thread elsewhere and I tracked down the original to see if there were any more like it. (ATM there are not but supposedly the series with Jane the Succubus [blond on sofa] and her hobbies is ongoing, so I check back every now and then. So far there's been a World of Tanks one, a 40k one, and a [again NSFW] one of her and an aquarium).


Also, note: this guy primarily caters to the fetish crowd. You may need brain bleach for the one's that are 'adult'.

 azreal13 wrote:
It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me.

It looks like a boob hole because it's surrounded by cloth, and it looks like armor because the part on the breast really looks like metal to me.
It shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted. And gothic is some very vague word. This is considered a gothic look :

I'm a fan of “gothic” music (coldwave, deathrock, batcave, all that kind of stuff) and I'm used to metal fans having a completely different concept of what gothic is supposed to mean, with a bunch of heated discussions on the subject .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It is a bustier and a cape, not boob hole armour, which seems pretty gothic to me.

It looks like a boob hole because it's surrounded by cloth, and it looks like armor because the part on the breast really looks like metal to me.
It shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted. And gothic is some very vague word. This is considered a gothic look :

I'm a fan of “gothic” music (coldwave, deathrock, batcave, all that kind of stuff) and I'm used to metal fans having a completely different concept of what gothic is supposed to mean, with a bunch of heated discussions on the subject .

Uh.... not to point out a failure of your English language comprehension, but that picture is "Goth", not "Gothic".

This discussion would probably be a bit more fruitful if there weren't quite so many parts of it predicated on misunderstandings...

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that the woman in the illustration "shows much much more of the breast than the picture you posted" because the woman in the illustration is very well endowed, but Az's picture much more modestly apportioned.

EDIT2: I suppose it's worth pointing out that "Goth" versus "Gothic" is probably quite confused with regards to music... which would be very important were we talking about music rather then a genre/company with a very well established context that precludes such confusion.

As is "amply" demonstrated by the ever lovely Miss Simpson in this medieval "wench" Halloween costume (same era as my earlier dress pic is from, admittedly less gothic in tone)



Or perhaps closer to the image in question, as it appears to be armoured and would perhaps squeeze and push a bit more

So authentic.

 Las wrote:
So authentic.

Well, if you could furnish us with an image of what a female imperial agent with near limitless power and resources from 40 000 years in the future actually looks like, we could all do with the point of reference.

 Las wrote:
So authentic.

Hah. You're right. Authentic would be no women fighting at all. Good call there.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Las wrote:
So authentic.

Hah. You're right. Authentic would be no women fighting at all. Good call there.

Minor detail: not true. Weirdly enough militant orders for women did exist, they were highly unusual, but did exist. The Order of the Hatchet, which raised the siege of Tortosa by sallying against the Moors, is an example of one.

The Knights of Santiago were also, IIRC, not shy about women under arms in actual warzones at the time, either, IIRC. The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary in Italy (which allowed women under arms and granted them knighthood) was suppressed by Sixtus V in 1558 in Italy. They were founded in 1233, so that was a fair run as well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 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).

Spoiler:

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

Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Las wrote:
So authentic.

Hah. You're right. Authentic would be no women fighting at all. Good call there.

Minor detail: not true. Weirdly enough militant orders for women did exist, they were highly unusual, but did exist. The Order of the Hatchet, which raised the siege of Tortosa by sallying against the Moors, is an example of one.

The Knights of Santiago were also, IIRC, not shy about women under arms in actual warzones at the time, either, IIRC. The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary in Italy (which allowed women under arms and granted them knighthood) was suppressed by Sixtus V in 1558 in Italy. They were founded in 1233, so that was a fair run as well.

Isn't most of the clothing we see female inquisitors in reflective of more baroque and would have been seen during the gothic revival as opposed to the original time frame that birthed gothic architecture?

I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!

 cincydooley wrote:

Isn't most of the clothing we see female inquisitors in reflective of more baroque and would have been seen during the gothic revival as opposed to the original time frame that birthed gothic architecture?

Ok, yes, that's true. It has much more to do with what the Victorians THOUGHT that time period was like than the reality. And is also one of the reasons that 'Goth' and 'steam punk' have so much bleed between them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!

Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).

I actually appreciate the bit of Info though, baron. I just read a few articles about those female orders thanks to you! Really really interesting stuff.

Cheers.

Not sure why a fully clothed woman with a touch of cleavage is so objectionable.


This nationally treasured work of art work is considered to be a French masterpiece as well as a masterwork of feminisitic ideals.




Which depicts an even less clothed version of woman assuming leadership of a heroic and inspiring charge made up of fully clothed men. Traditionally strong female characters are often shown with elements of nudity to project symbols of grace and purity. It's a very common thread in art and considered to be progressively feminist expression. Not all nudity means an overtly sexualized "hey I'm a hooker" statement. Nudity in art is often a direct expression of the edowment of power. (go ask an art history teacher).

A nude or partially nude female form suggests that she has a significant level of power or station Lesser females would be subject to the confines of male society and be required to be clothed. Her nudity directly challenges the establish norms of the male driven hierachy. Maybe the artist just wanted to show some cleavage, or maybe there's some deeper thought behind the piece. College educated artists afterall have to sit through art history and humanities classes (which explains all this stuff).

The 40k setting emulates the old world dark age culture that focuses on oppression of spirit and blind conformance to doctrine and tradition. A female character showing some of her breast (ie her femininity) is in fact showing her refusal to submit to that order which is an empowering element in that piece. Both 40k and the Star Wars settings purposefully remove the feminine elements to show a cold detached nature of their empires.

(artistically it implies infertility and the inability to sustain itself except through war, as men are represented as destroyers while women are life givers)


Under the gothic framework the Iquisitors are the most devote elements of the empire tasked with enforcing the imperial doctrine. If you mix in elements of the feminine you have a clash of principles which indicates the character has an impressive level of power behind her, or might indicate that she is a radical as the udnerlying elements hint at progressive ideals. Either of which would be very apt for somebody the level of an inqusitor.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!

Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).

Oh, for the Imperium, that is undoubtedly the overarching influence, I was talking more in a broader sense as well as having a dig at GW's habit of pinching ideas from everywhere, then litigating the feth out of everyone who dares contemplate doing similar to them.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I think trying to pin the influences that inform 40K down to a specific period or style is the route to madness!

Not really. It's pretty solidly Victorian, and neatly reflects the Victorian's preconceived notions of what other periods of history were like. Amusingly enough, there are rather blatant traces of it. The bolter being .75 cal being a good example of it. (Reference to the British Brown Bess musket).

Oh, for the Imperium, that is undoubtedly the overarching influence, I was talking more in a broader sense as well as having a dig at GW's habit of pinching ideas from everywhere, then litigating the feth out of everyone who dares contemplate doing similar to them.

It's not hard:

We've covered the Imp so...


Tyranids are the Xenomorphs from Alien taken nearly whole cloth
Tau come from a Rodger Dean album cover for Uriah Heep with a helping of anime inspired mecha and some serious 1960's touchy feely 'let's all get along'.
The Eldar as a mashup between Tolkein's elves and Moorcock's Melinboneans, some of them quite literally as GW had the rights to both of them at one point or another and just did some headswaps when they lost the rights and added guns.

Chaos was again lifted largely intact from Moorcock, though individual Chaos powers may vary.
The Orks are a little harder to pin down. They seem to be a mashup of modern British hooligan cultural memes.
Necrons are tomb kings in space. Tomb kings themselves were lifted from Universal's The Mummy franchise.

Necrons predate Tomb Kings, and possibly even the Mummy movie, I think they're just "Undead in Space" as the army book in WHFB hadn't split into two yet.

With the obvious Ancient Egyptian influence too, perhaps some Mayan, Inca or Aztec too, I don't have the memory or knowledge to call that.

EDIT yep, 3rd was 98, Necrons existed in 2nd (barely) and the first Mummy movie was 99, so while they may have pinched from it as time went on, it wasn't an initial influence.

Orks undoubtedly draw heavily from British hooliganism, but I think there is some ancient European tribal influence I there somewhere too (Vandals, Visigoths etc) and perhaps a dash of the Mongol hordes.

I'm just going to cut&paste my response from the other thread, because frankly if I have to read any more moebius strip-level logical twisting to justify people's reactionary prudishness, I think I might have to start drinking again.

...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
showing an Inquisitor wearing an elegant baroque dress with a décolletage entirely in keeping with the style is tasteless and borderline sexist.

So, metal bra is part of an “elegant baroque dress” ? Are those big metal ]I[ on her hands and arms also part of an elegant baroque dress ? Is that brown and plain cape also part of it ?
Also, saying cleavage with a pidgin French word may make it look better to English speakers, but for French-speaker it just makes it silly.

 Yodhrin wrote:
but this bizarre prudishness that seems to have arisen of late which can equate a woman in a dress with those previous things is what I myself find ridiculous.

Of course, it's not the same. It's a question of degree !

Mr Morden wrote:They might even be attending an event at the Govenors palace - hence their dress. Then the usual bad things happen.

I think some type of Inquisitors attend events at the Governor palace by trying to fit in, bringing only easily concealable weapon like digital weaponry, while other don't give a damn, and those kind can attend with a huge chainsword… but won't change their clothing either.

Haight wrote:Other than that.... yeah, sorry, complaining that a game company is stooping to the level of putting tits or armor of questionable tactical viability is pretty futile. They all do it.

So what ? Shouldn't stop us from complaining !
Also, concept art for Lord of the Ring Online

Loan words are a thing, of course I'm sure the superior French language is pure and unsullied by dirty foreign words, but some of us were just in such awe at the sheer majesty of your wondrous tongue that we couldn't help but borrow terms from it

 Bull0 wrote:
Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please

Pointing out that someone's opinion is ludicrous is not the same as claiming they have no right to express it.

 Troike wrote:

Sources on those? I'm interested to see the exact nature of this fluff.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You need to expand your viewpoint a bit on why someone could be on the battlefield.

So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.

You are completely unable to think of any scenario at all in which an Inquisitor would be in a combat scenario without armour? Quick, someone call Sandy Mitchell and tell him he's doing it wrong when that happens in his books. Dan Abnett as well.

Seriously though, we're talking about a universe where entire military formations go into battle in full-dress uniform, where naval officers wear uniforms right out of the Napoleonic-era and fight hand-to-hand boarding actions on enemy ships in them, and where Inquisitors wear whatever they damn well please and rely on a combination of displacer/force fields and the sheer terror most people feel at the sight of them to protect themselves in any situation where they don't categorically know they're going into a literal battlefield(as in, armies clashing, not a gang fight in the middle of an investigation, or an ambush at their residence or what have you).

 Badablack wrote:
you ungrateful prude.

We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find fault with this.

No, you and others have asserted that, but I'm still fairly well convinced one must proceed from an initial standpoint of "sexy = bad" in order to ignore the sheer mountain of scenarios which could justify the inclusion of evening attire and a chainsword in the same image.

Rostere wrote:
The fact remains that the kind of clothing we saw in that picture is bordering on the ridiculous considering the context. Why would a serious person like an Inquisitor dress up like a tart? Yes, I understand male fanservice is generally much accepted in many subcultures, but I'd rather have none of it in WH40K.

How would people react if this was the basis for GWs future male inquisitors:



Yes, an Inquisitor could technically wear any type of clothing. Yes, that means they could wear unprotective clothing (even if this is probably more rare than having you know, actual protective armor for combat missions). But why would they wear skimpy clothing? That's a type of clothing which signals submission, or desperation out of having no alternatives to attract attention/gain favours from the opposite sex. Wearing that type of clothing is very denigrating for a person. This or this type of clothing signals authority. This (or this) type of clothing comes off as unserious and as mostly meant to trigger sexual behaviour. If you view of female Inquisitors is that they are supposed to be some kind of space strippers who trigger sexual behaviour in male troops, I believe you are direly mistaken, both from a lore POV and from common sense. Now it's not my personal "prudeness" - or course I wouldn't mind if Slaaneshi cultists wore skimpy clothing or even ran around naked, but Inquisitors (or Commissars, as mentioned) are people of a quite different ideology (and in a different society) whom I'd like be given a serious treatment and not be subjected to cheesy fanservice.

And thus, my point is proved, because equating an evening dress with male strippers is pretty much the perfect example of how completely daft the argument against this artwork is.







Damn, those old-timey painters are awful! Just blatant "fan service"

I'm done with this, if you're seriously out-there enough to buy into the idea that this bit of artwork is equivalent to male strippers, there's no discussion left to have at that point because we're not even living on the same planet any more.

 azreal13 wrote:
and the first Mummy movie was 99, so while they may have pinched from it as time went on, it wasn't an initial influence.

1932. The first The Mummy was in 1932. The 1999 was a reboot. 1999 was also the year of the 3rd Ed Necron release. Chambers originally desinged them as a rip off of the Terminator's T800 (as for 2n d ed they were only Warriors and Scarabs) but GW threw out Chambers WD version with the end of 2nd ed.

Not really a lot to plunder from the 1932 movie though huh?

I remember clearly the terminator-esque first iteration, I remember receiving my free Warrior on the front of WD.

Of course, they themselves borrowed heavily from the androids in Space Crusade, which also leaned heavily on Terminator, so I guess that is the genesis, with Undead in Spaaace coming later, then Tomb Kings in Spaaace later still.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Damn, those old-timey painters are awful! Just blatant "fan service"

There was a time when showing too much ankle could get you hung or stoned to death. (which may even still go on in some arabic countries)

Under those guidelines these old timey pics are like the equivilant of hard core internet porn.

cadbren wrote:


Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.

And?

Because Amish oppress men as well with their prudish bs, it is suddenly less oppressive? Doesn't make sense. Oppressing twice the population is twice as bad in my book. No choice is no choice, whether its women, men, or both.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I'm very confused by
“Fortunately, I'm very good at separating work from their creators, it'd be very hard to be an Earthworm Jim fan otherwise.”
I like the Earthworm Jim video games, especially the second one. What horrible things did the Earthworm Jim creators do ?

Probably this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_TenNapel

He has expressed views against same-sex marriage.

 Yodhrin wrote:
if I have to read any more moebius strip-level logical twisting to justify people's reactionary prudishness

We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find issue with this. Criticising one depiction of a skimpily dressed woman (and based on the context of it, not the skimpiness itself) is not the same a prudishness.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You are completely unable to think of any scenario at all in which an Inquisitor would be in a combat scenario without armour?

Not a good one, no. That picture showed us an Inquisitor apparently ready for fight, since she had her chainsword ready, yet wearing clothes not really appropriate for a combat situation. Ergo, I view it as a bad portrayal of an Inquisitor.

 Yodhrin wrote:
and rely on a combination of displacer/force fields

Though displacer fields can fail, or be possibly bypassed. If that happens, why not have a little extra protection underneath?

 Yodhrin wrote:
No, you and others have asserted that, but I'm still fairly well convinced one must proceed from an initial standpoint of "sexy = bad" in order to ignore the sheer mountain of scenarios which could justify the inclusion of evening attire and a chainsword in the same image.

You're ignoring the context of this objection. I'm not even saying "sexy=bad", but that "going into battle dressed in clothes which leave your torso and legs bare=bad". In relation to that, I see no satisfactory explanation for an Inquisitor going into combat in evening attire.

This is not the same as objecting to sexiness itself, so please stop trying to twist the arguments against it into this. I could go around accusing everybody in favour of it of being pervs, but I assume that you all have a better reason for your stance than that.

The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle. It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons. Military people will often carry power weapons and bolt pistols. Inquisitors will carry what they need and dress how they wish. To fit in to the spire of a hive they may well carry dress weapons and wear fine clothes, including a chain sword. There is no evidence this is intended to be an image of someone in front line combat. It could just as easily be an image of an inquisitor who has just uncovered a stealer cult whilst attending a party at the palace of the planetary governor, or attacked by slanesh cultists whilst investigating strange goings on at a drinking den on an agri world.

Your assuming that combat = preparation. Either that or that an inquisitor expecting the possibility of combat will always wear full armor. There are many situations where that would not be appropriate. Inquisitors are not front line troops. The FBI don't ware body armor all of the time, yet carry, and use, guns as a matter of course. Same with plain clothed cops. Same situation with an inquisitor.

 Zweischneid wrote:

cadbren wrote:


Hardly the same to compare muslims in burquas to what I assume are Amish women. Amish men cover up just as much unlike muslim men who'll often wear western fashions like t-shirts and jeans while their wives are dressed in burquas. One is a standard of morality that only applies to females, the other is universally expected.

And?

Because Amish oppress men as well with their prudish bs, it is suddenly less oppressive? Doesn't make sense. Oppressing twice the population is twice as bad in my book. No choice is no choice, whether its women, men, or both.

In a world where equality and fairness had no meaning, your post would actually make sense.
In all others, I have to say: If you are so desperate to repel any criticism directed at your arguments with half-assed counter-arguments you should maybe better exit the discussion.
Either you take it too personal, or you are prone to writing before thinking, and neither is good for you or the discussion.


####################

(sorry if this comes across as too male-oriented but I believe the problem-drivers here to be boys: )

The tabletop hobby - as expressed in its media - is by and large sexist. Probably 7 out of 10 images or sculpts of women are over-sexualized, titillating, or otherwise sexually cliched. There are good counter-examples but the overwhelming majority of depictions of women between 16 and 56 (in standard Earth years) in our hobby is biased towards "Be a good (i.e. beautiful, sexy, big-breasted, half-naked, white) girl, will you?"

Of course that has to do with the target audience. And no, I don't mean "men", I mean "heterosexual males that came/come into the hobby in puberty and got/get socialised in and by the community and said media representations".
There ARE other men. Queers, for example, or mostly-straights that only really got into the hobby in their twenties (like myself).

Pointing that out does not make me prudish. I like sexy sculpts. I like sexy women. I even married one. It's just that I also like a lot of non-sexy, ugly or beautiful but in any case normal women without breast implants and chainmail bikini and super-cleavage galore, and at least in the non-historical parts of the hobby they lead a very marginal life, indeed, unless they are old hags, witches or kids.

There is nothin wrong with the depiction of a sexy lady. There is nothing wrong with a nude sculpt.
It is the accumulation and bias towards these images and sculpts that makes it sexist.*

The male strippers actually make a good point. Although women are usually not as aroused by visual stimuli as men, or so I am told, imagine half-naked Stripper boys with 15inch shlongs in their trousers running around for the Inquisition, all the time. As a man, you would find it ridiculous! Maybe not demeaning in the beginning but over time you too might get annoyed at seeing yet another big-penised callboy with a lasgun lying at the feet of the heroine, it always being about sexual attraction in one way or another and not a single normal guy on the horizon.

The example the OP gave might be pretty weak to make the point. (I find it much more revolting to see how antiseptic and polished the Wh40K is becoming than to find the odd cleavage or two).
But I understood that it was more the reaction against the OP that led to this thread, not the discussion of the image itself, so there are my 2cents on the hobby.



*A big caveat to that: There are single depictions of women that are in themselves sexist and don't need a hobby-context. Ass and chainmail bikini tits in one perspective, for example, is always softporn. You might like Kingdom Death Hentai minis - but don't pretend them to be OK from a humanist point of view.

EDITED for spelling. Feel free to correct further.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle. It could just as easily be a ceremonial sword. Just take a look at any of the background on the nobility in much of 40k. They often carry dress weapons, not just swords, but ornate las weapons. Military people will often carry power weapons and bolt pistols. Inquisitors will carry what they need and dress how they wish. To fit in to the spire of a hive they may well carry dress weapons and wear fine clothes, including a chain sword. There is no evidence this is intended to be an image of someone in front line combat. It could just as easily be an image of an inquisitor who has just uncovered a stealer cult whilst attending a party at the palace of the planetary governor, or attacked by slanesh cultists whilst investigating strange goings on at a drinking den on an agri world.

Your assuming that combat = preparation. Either that or that an inquisitor expecting the possibility of combat will always wear full armor. There are many situations where that would not be appropriate. Inquisitors are not front line troops. The FBI don't ware body armor all of the time, yet carry, and use, guns as a matter of course. Same with plain clothed cops. Same situation with an inquisitor.

This is the problem I see with this particular image being used as there is no context on where the Inquisitor is or was and maybe everything just went pairshaped at a high society party and one of her retinue gave her a weapon.

Now I understand that alot of people have a problem with over sexualised pictures in 40k but personally I have more of a problem with The Adepta Sororitas cover as her posing seems more offensive while in full armour than the Inquisitor in a Baroque Dress with Cloak.

I thought the image was good when I first saw it and thought cool - couple of Inquisitors about to Kick Ass.

I assumed she was just a noble born Inquisitor dressing normally for a function - accessorising with I symbols to reinforce her position. She was likely brought up from birth to "command" and carries on that style. Certainly there is nothing submissive about her stance or implying that she is anything other than command of the situation. Unlike her male colleague whose fringe obscures his vision and appears to have just accidently conjured up some Daemons - likely she is just about to take his head

Her chainsword may well have been carried in by one her flunkies as part of a impressive procession on entering.

I will ask some of my female friends as to their opinion on it - I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought the image was good when I first saw it and thought cool - couple of Inquisitors about to Kick Ass.

I assumed she was just a noble born Inquisitor dressing normally for a function - accessorising with I symbols to reinforce her position. She was likely brought up from birth to "command" and carries on that style. Certainly there is nothing submissive about her stance or implying that she is anything other than command of the situation. Unlike her male colleague whose fringe obscures his vision and appears to have just accidently conjured up some Daemons - likely she is just about to take his head

Her chainsword may well have been carried in by one her flunkies as part of a impressive procession on entering.

I will ask some of my female friends as to their opinion on it - I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.

I would think that that image itself won't be seen in to bad a light, I think it was more just a few comments that become a discussion.
Allways good to get more perspective on things :-D
It's a tough discussion and very tough for it to Be understood at times.