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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 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.

Wasn't really talking to you with that one, you backed up your position with some examples and explanation. I was responding to this, which didn't understand or add anything to the discussion at all but did ask the dissenters to "get over it":

xruslanx wrote:
it's a bit of booby guys...get over it. The dark elf army book was covered in them (at least when i had it around ten years ago).

That said I'm not convinced you can call someone's opinion "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" without simultaneously implying they shouldn't have said it. You might well disagree.

 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!

I actually mentioned the same thing in the original thread.............but no one noticed :(
Plus I think he likely accidently summoned the daemon............

It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.

Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.

Panzeh wrote:
It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.

Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

 azreal13 wrote:

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

Don't be making sweeping statements like that. I can assure you there are people who like seeing penises.

 azreal13 wrote:

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

You've obviously never waded through the horror that is /tg/.

Panzeh wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

Don't be making sweeping statements like that. I can assure you there are people who like seeing penises.

I think you'll find, and again, I really don't believe I'm having this conversation, that, especially in comparison to breasts, the male lunchbox is not exactly appreciated for it's aesthetic qualities. Speak to some of your female friends, I'm sure most will tell you they aren't spending hours staring at them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

You've obviously never waded through the horror that is /tg/.

I didn't say nobody looks at them, just nobody likes looking at them.

But more fool me for making a statement that is mostly true without qualifying it as such.

 azreal13 wrote:

Panzeh wrote:
It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.

Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

Ah, the old problem. Making your personal issues a general rule...

I am totally OK with mine, you know? So is my wife. We regularly have a look & laugh, thank you very much.

treslibras wrote:
We regularly have a look & laugh, thank you very much.

Why is she laughing?

Panzeh wrote:
It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.

Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.

Have you looked at some of the Foundry historic German and Greek warriors - bit of a sausage fest - but I believe accurate in terms of people fighting "sky clad".

Also the image being discussed is not bare breasted - as indeed are other "sky clad" historic female warriors

 Troike wrote:

 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.

Seriously?

And a woman in a low-cut top who may or may not be preparing for some sort of conflict does cross over to unrealistic?

Sausage fest German warriors for balance

NSFW - probably

treslibras wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Panzeh wrote:
It all seems very pander-y. I mean, if they were just trying to show off sexiness and stuff then they wouldn't be afraid to show off penises, but it's all the same bare-breasted stuff.

Honestly though all of it would be really embarrassing to put on the table painted up.

I can't believe I'm saying this in a wargaming forum, but...

Nobody likes looking at penises.

Ah, the old problem. Making your personal issues a general rule...

I am totally OK with mine, you know? So is my wife. We regularly have a look & laugh, thank you very much.

I like looking at them and at men, but a lot of men realy don't keep themselves in shape , and I find my female friends are the same. Just don't talk about it with men much.

 marcus.iscariat wrote:
I have more of a problem with The Adepta Sororitas cover as her posing seems more offensive while in full armour

Oh? I thought it was a very good cover, myself. And their poses seem fine, all are holding their weapons at the ready.

 Steve steveson wrote:
The problem is, however, that there is an assumption by the OP that she IS going in to battle.

It certainly seems like it. She's got her chainsword up, and seems to be eying something. And her friend looks like he's got some pretty potent magic at the ready.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Inquisitors are not front line troops.

Not always, but a fight's a fight.

 azreal13 wrote:
Nobody likes looking at penises.

Heterosexual women, homosexual men and bisexuals might disagree!

 azreal13 wrote:
=the male lunchbox is not exactly appreciated for it's aesthetic qualities. Speak to some of your female friends, I'm sure most will tell you they aren't spending hours staring at them.

I wasn't sure that this was actually true, I did a google search. Apparently, there is some science that disagrees.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/09/size-does-matter-study-shows-women-judge-male-attractiveness-by-penis-size/
This study seems to suggest that it has some visual appeal.

Oh wow, I'm in a conversation about the attractiveness of penises. It's like I never left the chans!

Saldiven wrote:
And a woman in a low-cut top who may or may not be preparing for some sort of conflict does cross over to unrealistic?

Considering that bare skin is just such a bad idea in combart, and this person is supposedly one of humanity's best and most well-equipped, yes.

As for the bloke, sure, he's made some poor decision too, apparently. Though being a psyker, he could be a bit odd like that.

 Troike wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
And a woman in a low-cut top who may or may not be preparing for some sort of conflict does cross over to unrealistic?

Considering that bare skin is just such a bad idea in combart, and this person is supposedly one of humanity's best and most well-equipped, yes.

As for the bloke, sure, he's made some poor decision too, apparently. Though being a psyker, he could be a bit odd like that.

Here's the deal, though. Inquisitors are not always dressed up to go to war. Sometimes, conflicts happen when they're inconvenient. An Inquisitor investigating things in a Hive City isn't likely to be doing so in full Power Armor. There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war. Heck, the lack fo stuff going on in the background indicates the exact opposite.

 azreal13 wrote:

Nobody likes looking at penises.

No, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who like looking at penises.

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

I'm sorry, do you mean it's Goth rather than Gothic ?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
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.

Yeah, so ? What's your point here ?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
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.

My point was gothic being something very vague and ill-defined. It spawned off some people/tribe/ethnic group/whatever in Europe, started as a derogatory term against older architecture, was also used to describe some specific script, used mainly in Germany, became somehow popular with the Gothic fiction literary genre, was used again in a derogatory manner to describe some musical off-shot of punk music, and finally became popular again to described “dark fairy princess” and other avatar of teen angst in metal .

Let's take the example of the dress Azreal posted. Does it look similar to any pictures on the Wikipedia page you linked to ? Not really. It's much more likely called Gothic because of the “dark fairy princess”-thing going on with metal bands. Now, more to the point. Does that dress feels 40k to you ? To me, absolutely not.
- It's definitely not fitting for low-class hive scum, which should either reeks of poverty and misery, or feel more like a ganger. The few example we have of hive women seem to look like that, and are actually closer to punk and batcave-goth. They have a special background, though, they are not supposed to be representative of the average hive woman.
- It's definitely not fitting for high-class imperial aristocracy. Because it seems way too plain ! 40k has always had extremely ostentatious elite with huge display of wealth and power. Which is why I would rather use the term baroque than gothic for the Imperium. But baroque is not as popular a buzzword as gothic, these days.

 azreal13 wrote:
Or perhaps closer to the image in question, as it appears to be armoured and would perhaps squeeze and push a bit more

Yeah, it's clearly the closest to the illustration. But still feels way less strange because of no collar and cape. Are you trying to make a point by posting this picture ? I'm a bit lost on why, here.

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

A masterwork of feminist ideals ? Not in France, then. And why should it be ? It's usually a symbol of the French revolution. The first one which happened in 1789, for most people. It's actually representing some completely different one from that time period during which we kept switching political system between republic, monarchy, and empire.
This painting is from 1883. Women were allowed to vote in France just after WWII. So… no the best symbol of feminism imho.
It's pretty much like Athenians, in ancient Greece, raised statues to Athena, but were far, very very far from feminists.

 Yodhrin wrote:
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

It's quite sad that this the only part of my message which you found worthy of answering to.
Is this sentence weird in English ?)
Also, it's a thing to include words of foreign origin, it's another to even keep the accent even though they don't really exist in the English language, while changing the sense…

 Yodhrin wrote:






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

Where are the metal bras ?
Seriously, you are comparing apples and oranges here.

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

He has expressed views against same-sex marriage.

Thanks. It's okay, then, it's not like he had tortured and killed his own children! I'm relieved.

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

Problem is, this chainsword isn't ornate or elegant . And she's wearing too much bare metal for her attire to look like she's dressed for a party with the planetary governor.

treslibras wrote:
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?"

The white part is in no way restricted to female models !

treslibras wrote:
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).

I am an heterosexual male that came into the hobby in puberty. Didn't made me like this.

 marcus.iscariat wrote:
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 don't find the posing on the Adepta Sororitas cover offensive actually. I find it odd and unnatural. But not offensive.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I know at least one of the them is in favour of the sexy combat look as she thinks it distracts your opponent.

And make sure those people you just tried to kill won't rape you if given the slightest chance. Oh, wait…

Saldiven wrote:
An Inquisitor investigating things in a Hive City isn't likely to be doing so in full Power Armor.

Some of them, the most in-your-face style, would be. Well, they'll do what passes as investigation to them, and mindless massacre to other. But I'm pretty sure no Inquisitor would investigate things in a Hive City dressed as the woman on this illustration .


Let me give you naked women, 40k-style (NSFW, official artwork) :

If you find that sexy… you're a creep .

treslibras wrote:


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.

"Fairness" does not diminish the wrongness of a particular act. Theft isn't any less wrong, if you steal from many persons equally, rather than from just a few. Oppression is not any less wrong, if you oppress all people, rather than a selected few.

I feel very sorry for you if these very basic concepts of morality strike you as half-assed.

Representation of women in miniature games.

First off: I had seen so little of it that I was initially grateful there was some.

Second: I must admit I am a little prejudiced: the female form just looks better: with no nasty dangly bits.

Third: My eye is always drawn to the most mean and nasty models and a great many of them are female.

Fourth: There is a decided lack of the "joe model" in any given army containing a normal mix of women.

Fifth: We are still fighting a long history of women not being included in warfare so time of change come slow...

Sixth: There is still that rule of "women and children first!" as a phrase for continuing the species: you only need a couple men while at 9 months per pregnancy women are rather a precious element of the species while men are somewhat expendable.

If we look back at WW2 the majority of women made all the equipment for their men off to war, so I expect to see a lot more female engineers in miniature games.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
A masterwork of feminist ideals ? Not in France, then. And why should it be ? It's usually a symbol of the French revolution.

Funny that I need to tell somebody from France that their own revolution was represented by lady liberty and that both the revolutionary movement and national identity is refered to in a female context. Yes women may not have had the right to vote until later but it does not mean the ideals were not put into place much earlier. Is the US blacks didn't have the right to vote until nearly 20 years after france adopted a womens vote, but for 200 years we supposedly had the creed all men are created equal. (Governments can be very contray to the idels expressed by the people). Women gained rights in France far ahead of many other countries, french culture through writing and art helped inspire the feminist movements not the actual law, so yes they were considered to be progressive for the time.

(Want to go back a bit further? Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader several hundred years before the feminist movement? Many also feel she was an apt symbol of justice and liberation)


France gifted the US the statue of liberty, which is ideals of democracy and progressive culture personified in a female form. The US symbol of law and justice is the blind maiden which again ties into a classic view of how symbolic concepts feminity are held in art. Which have their source with Athena and Nike.

(However the US expresses their national idenity largely as a male entity embodied by Uncle Sam, which is largely a result of us being a repulbic more than a true democracy)

Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.

 paulson games wrote:
Funny that I need to tell somebody from France that their own revolution was represented by lady liberty

Marianne. The title of this painting may be “La liberté guidant le peuple”, but I'm pretty sure most people would be convinced it's Marianne anyway.

 paulson games wrote:
Is the US blacks didn't have the right to vote until nearly 20 years after france adopted a womens vote, but for 200 years we supposedly had the creed all men are created equal. (Governments can be very contray to the idels expressed by the people).

I'm pretty sure the people actually believed not all men were equal, and worth was dependent on skin color. Don't worry, we have the same kind of history over here. And most other countries have something similar.

 paulson games wrote:
Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader that far back?

Two thousand years before, Deborah .

 paulson games wrote:
France gifted the US the statue of liberty, which is ideals of democracy and progressive culture personified in a female form. The US symbol of law and justice is the blind maiden which again ties into a classic view of how symbolic concepts feminity are held in art. Which have their source with Athena and Nike.

Yeah. Exactly my point. Did you read what I wrote about Athenians ? Compare the way they treated their women to how Lacedemonians treated theirs. Clearly the Athenians were not the feminists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 paulson games wrote:
Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.

Maybe you missed it :
BOOBIES !

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 paulson games wrote:
Funny that I need to tell somebody from France that their own revolution was represented by lady liberty

Marianne. The title of this painting may be “La liberté guidant le peuple”, but I'm pretty sure most people would be convinced it's Marianne anyway.

Yes and Marianne is considered to be a progressive symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne

I voiced that connection earlier here:

 paulson games wrote:
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 underlying elements hint at progressive ideals. Either of which would be very apt for somebody the level of an inqusitor.

The exposed breasts is a depiction often associated with Marianne (or Nike in a more classic form) which is depicted with a spear or other weapon. Since the inquisitor is a figure that represent the face of imperial law in 40k, mabye there's a bit deeper of a meaning behind the cleavage then just boobies/objectification.

 paulson games wrote:

(Want to go back a bit further? Joan of Arc what other country had a female wartime leader several hundred years before the feminist movement? Many also feel she was an apt symbol of justice and liberation)

Boudicca etc

 paulson games wrote:

Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.

You're so funny, man

 Bull0 wrote:

Boudicca etc

Yes, there are other female leaders in history, but not all of them were venerated and intertwined with the national identity in quite the same manner as Joan of Arc. Most other countries have a masculine association with their national identity. France's association with the feminine identity is very deep and long running.

 Bull0 wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

Fortunately not every Frenchman is a woman hater and afraid of boobs.

You're so funny, man

Unfortunately there's no ta-boom-tish drum roll icon for bad humor so the wink will have to do.

 paulson games wrote:
Yes and Marianne is considered to be a progressive symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne

It represent France, and the French republic. It's as progressive and as conservative as French people get.
Funny how you just mentioned Joan of Arc as a progressive and feminist symbol, because she is a very popular figure amongst French hardline right-wingers that are definitely not feminist or progressive at all. She is popular because, you know, the idea of fighting back invaders out of France appeal to them . The main reason why Marianne is not as popular among them is that not all of them love the republic as a political system .
Symbols will only mean what people will project on them. Marianne will almost always be a symbol of the values of the French guy you are talking with, by a surprising coincidence. That can mean very progressive, or very conservative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funny pictures of royalists making their devotions to Joan of Arc : http://actionroyaliste.com/nos-activites/rendez-vous-camelots/986-defile-jeanne-darc-2012--compte-rendu-

Saldiven wrote:
There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war.

Sure there is. Her chainsword is up and at the ready, whilst her pal seems to have some pretty serious magic at the ready. This would suggest some sort of combat situation.

Saldiven wrote:
Heck, the lack fo stuff going on in the background indicates the exact opposite.

To be fair, we see very little of the background. They could be looking towards whatever the threat is.

 Troike wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
There is absolutely NOTHING in that picture that indicates that the pair are about to step into an ongoing war.

Sure there is. Her chainsword is up and at the ready, whilst her pal seems to have some pretty serious magic at the ready. This would suggest some sort of combat situation.

Or if could be a symbol paraphrasing imperial law and justice. The woman is the depiction of justice who's sword is used to strike down those that would violate the law. The blind seer is the follower of law who judges not by sight but by faith (which would also be why he's weilding sanctified magic). The figureheads of law and justice are common themes in art, they usually have a weapon but are not actively smiting their oppoenents or wearing armor as they are not pressing into battle in a warriors sense, but they are shown prepared/armed for it as they are the defenders of law.


Long flowing robes and a sword at ready...





The Inquisitor would be shown minus the scales as Imperial Justice flows from the Emperor and is delt by his judgement alone. (Imperial authority is often symbolized by keys or a seal)

 paulson games wrote:
Or if could be a symbol paraphrasing imperial law and justice. The woman is the depiction of justice who's sword is used to strike down those that would violate the law. The blind seer is the follower of law who judges not by sight but by faith (which would also be why he's weilding sanctified magic).

You do have a lot of imagination !
Justice with a chainsword must be pretty messy.
Also, more Joan of Arch .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
[You do have a lot of imagination !
Justice with a chainsword must be pretty messy.

No, I just have an understanding of the classic art symbols that Blanche and crew took from actual history and worked into their setting.

Anyone who paid attention while sitting through an art history class can point these things out. Sorry if you thought all of 40k visuals were made up on the spot from nothing.

 paulson games wrote:
Anyone who paid attention while sitting through an art history class can point these things out. Sorry if you thought all of 40k visuals were made up on the spot from nothing.

I'm pretty sure there's testimony to the contrary. And I'm sure it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

40K contains servitors, which so far as I'm concerned are the ultimate depiction of objectification. Literally turning someone into a machine for your use.

I should note though I see nothing wrong with recognising and appreciating the value of a woman as a prospective sexual partner (even if only for the purpose of sex). Only when you forcibly reduce her and constrain her to this role alone does it become harmful. The fact that such information is so incredibly easy to obtain (and often pleasurable to do so) should not be held against us.