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.

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

Infinity has a pretty even mix of male and female for almost every human unit type, especially basic infantry, and one of the alien factions, Tohaa, who mirror human anatomy are the same.

 Kojiro wrote:
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.

With servitors I agree, however I can't recall of pictures of females being servitors. Not saying there aren't any but all the servitors models and sketches I recall seeing are generally male. (and this thread is about females)



The Sisters Repentia aren't servitors but are themed after the religious practice of self-mortification. (ie flagellants)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification_of_the_flesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant

I think there is a female servitor in the original RT book - not sure but I recall seeing it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

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.

You talking about difference for the victims or some sort of objective morality?

Because it feels VERY different for the victims of said oppression. You might want to educate a bit on victims' accounts before talking about such things.

But if you are just talking about vague morals (like most "couch philosophers"): I am happy that we at least agree that "moral wrongness" doesn't become wronger with different numbers (and so your "twice as bad" was utter nonsense from that perspective).

 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.

 Talizvar wrote:

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

Not trying to single either of you out -- your posts were on the same page, so it's easy to quote 'em both to make my point -- but I think you ought to realize the preferences you're describing are culturally-inherited effects of socialization.

There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.

If you agree with the general idea that women have been consistently oppressed (to differing degrees at different times in different places) then it follows that the oppressors were the ones privileged with making determinations about the aesthetic value of various forms, images, representations, etc. If men are the ones making these determinations, and men are predisposed to wanting to see naked women or have something to gain from fostering a culture in which these depictions are widespread, then it's logical that depictions of naked women would gradually become defined as acceptable/beautiful/whatever.

One weird artifact/example of this kind of thing that every North American is likely familiar with would be the depiction of nudity/genitalia in movies. There's a bizarre scale of what is acceptable and what is taboo. Boobs and butt all day long, distant vagina is pretty common, a flaccid penis is ok from time-to-time, a bared vulva is a rare bird, and an erect penis is an anathema.

 Troike wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Inquisitors are not front line troops.

Not always, but a fight's a fight.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.

This is not a comment on 40k and the genre in general. Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.

I did not ignore your point, I counter-pointed based on what you said at the time. To use your analogy of a plain clothes cop, the thing is that he can conceal his weapon. A chainsword, however, rather hard to hide. So I don't think that we can assume that she was undercover, given that a chainsword would have been pretty noticeable.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.

I should clarify, again, that I'm not actually"outraged" by this, just sticking to my viewpoint. It's just a piece of art that an artist drew for a book. The rest of it is actually pretty nice, and up to the usual good standard of FFG stuff. I just find the Inquisitor's choice of clothing odd.

And, of course, I'm still very tempted to buy the Inquisition codex that this picture appears in. But, sadly, I must restrain myself whilst I'm still getting my Gun Nuns army up to scratch.

Altruizine wrote:
There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.

That's debatable. One could also argue, from an evolutionary standpoint, that we're programmed to be attracted to certain features in the opposite sex so that we choose more desirable mates to produce healthier offspring with.

 Troike wrote:
That's debatable. One could also argue, from an evolutionary standpoint, that we're programmed to be attracted to certain features in the opposite sex so that we choose more desirable mates to produce healthier offspring with.

But that works both ways. Men are programmed to be attracted to certain features in women, and women are programmed to be attracted to certain features in men. The only reason women are held up as "inherently more beautiful" is because our culture is dominated by the male perspective. So what men (on average) are attracted to is treated as equivalent to being what everyone wants to see, while the idea that women even care at all about physical attraction is dismissed and/or shamed.

Of course it goes both ways, I was contesting the point that there is nothing inherently attractive about a female's body.

But yes, cultural views do very much have an influence in shaping these things.

 Troike wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You both chose to willfully ignore my point by quoting what I said out of context. There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight. Ask any plane clothes cop or federal agent why they always carry a gun but don't always ware body armor.

I did not ignore your point, I counter-pointed based on what you said at the time. To use your analogy of a plain clothes cop, the thing is that he can conceal his weapon. A chainsword, however, rather hard to hide. So I don't think that we can assume that she was undercover, given that a chainsword would have been pretty noticeable.

You did. You chose to quote what I was saying without context, ignoring what I was saying about it not necessarily being the intention that there is combat. You did it again picking up specifically on the example of a plain clothes cop ignoring the example of a federal agent. A plain clothes cop can conceal his weapon however Federal agents do not necessarily. An inquisitor carrying of weapons in most places in the 40k universe would not raise an eyebrow. In fact most people carrying weapons would not raise an eyebrow. There is nothing to say that the inquisitor in question has to have been expecting to get in to trouble. 40k background is repleat with images and examples of people carrying weapons as part of normal every day dress. She could have been undercover, she could have been quite open but not expecting combat. Many police carry guns but do not ware body armor, or just ware a stab proof vest. US state troopers for example.

I'm not saying the clothes would not be inappropriate for combat, all I am saying is that there are many reasons, and real life examples, of law enforcement openly carrying weapons but not wearing armor.

She could have been driving along with her retinue, on the way to a meeting, only to be ambushed by enemy agents. Carrying weapons because that is the norm on the planet in question, but dressed how she feels comfortable or appropriate for a meeting. There are many reasons she could be dressed in that way. I think people are reading far to much in to it by saying "She is badly dressed for combat!"

 Steve steveson wrote:
You did. You chose to quote what I was saying without context, ignoring what I was saying about it not necessarily being the intention that there is combat.

No, I'm pretty sure that I addressed that. I talked about how her raised chainsword and her friend's magic indicating a combat situation.

 Steve steveson wrote:
You did it again picking up specifically on the example of a plain clothes cop ignoring the example of a federal agent. A plain clothes cop can conceal his weapon however Federal agents do not necessarily. An inquisitor carrying of weapons in most places in the 40k universe would not raise an eyebrow.

Sure, but considering that possession of the weapon does imply an some expectation of trouble, and the life of an Inquisitor and the 40K universe is bloody dangerous, it still seems odd to me that she dressed like that.

 Steve steveson wrote:
She could have been waling down the normal street with her retinue, on the way to a meeting, only to be ambushed by enemy agents. Carrying weapons because that is the norm on the planet in question, but dressed how she feels comfortable.

Yes, but without any context, this is all just speculation. In this absence of context, I myself view it as an "average representation" of an Inquisitor. And we see one with a melee weapon yet dressed pretty oddly for combat.

I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I will say that Catachans portray men in the same sexualised way. It's just that men don't really care.

Daemonettes are also the only basic Daemons to be given any kind of covering up as well, which indicates to me that GW is trying to appease today's modern feminist.

I must say that the image really doesn't warrant what I would call an over-the-top reaction though. It's just cleavage. It's not going to hurt anyone.

And I read somewhere in this topic that there was some form of reaction to people's reactions to the image? Could someone summarise that for me?

Surely the context is that this piece of art is originally from a "sneaking around investigating things" RPG rather than a "let's tool up and hit the battlefield" wargame?

And in 40k, taking a chainsword to a social engagement is probably part of standard evening dress.

Going armed day to day has been common in plenty of human societies throughout history, and has always been portrayed as common in the 40k universe.

Imperial society is militant in outlook. Their God Emperor is a supreme warrior, who is almost always depicted with sword in hand. Virtually every imperial saint was a soldier of some sort. Modern ideals of aversion to violence have no place in 40k. Indeed pacifism could be seen as Heresy - a failure on the part of the pacifist to do their duty in opposing the enemies of humanity at every turn.

I remember reading years ago that even administratum scribes have a dagger as part of their uniform. I imagine that almost everyone in Imperial service is armed nearly all the time, whether on duty or off.

I honestly feel that the picture being discussed is very fitting for 40k. I think there is a wider problem of female portrayal in gaming, but I don't think this picture is a particularly good example of it.

a fat guy wrote:
I'm not going to read through this entire topic, but I will say that Catachans portray men in the same sexualised way. It's just that men don't really care.

That's a false equivalency, because men are/have been the traditionally privileged group, so those portrayals don't have any teeth because they're not underpinned by the sheer weight of history tilted towards one group's advantage.

It's the same reason that me hurling certain racial epithets at people of certain ethnicities would cause them actual, felt, experienced distress, whereas someone calling me any of the common epithets for a white person wouldn't make me feel much of anything at all. I haven't suffered from experienced racism, so someone deploying racist insults towards me wouldn't hurt. It doesn't matter that the words fulfill the same grammatical function and category, they're not the same.

I would also disagree that the Catechans are "sexualized" in any way -- there may be similar elements of superficiality and the idealization of certain physical traits, but they aren't sexual in nature. Catachans were designed by heterosexual male artists/writers for consumption by heterosexual male consumers.

Altruizine wrote:

There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.

This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?

xruslanx wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.

This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?

Beauty isn't objective. He isn't offended by female beauty, he placidly made a logical point about the socializing effect of culture. I know there are some bad examples being set here by longtime posters but you simply don't win by calling the other guy "offended" or "outraged" any more than you do by telling him to "stop crying, lol" or "get over it".

If your bs alarm is going off it's probably because you wore it out with your posts. It's stuck; it's drowning in bs. It can no longer tell bs from salient thoughts. I'd say get a new one but it'd only suffer the same fate, sadly

 Bull0 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Altruizine wrote:

There's nothing inherently more beautiful about "the female form" than anything else, but centuries of Western art (and, well, pornography) have conditioned people to believe that there is.

This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?

Beauty isn't objective. He isn't offended by female beauty, he placidly made a logical point about the socializing effect of culture. I know there are some bad examples being set here by longtime posters but you simply don't win by calling the other guy "offended" or "outraged" any more than you do by telling him to "stop crying, lol" or "get over it".

If your bs alarm is going off it's probably because you wore it out with your posts. It's stuck; it's drowning in bs. It can no longer tell bs from salient thoughts. I'd say get a new one but it'd only suffer the same fate, sadly

ignoring your pointless personal attack, i am merely surprised that an attraction to the female form - something that all non-homosexual men have - should be treated with such distain.

Hell the very first example of shared culture in europe was the venus women - carvings of sexually fertile women in wood or clay. There is no reason for a wargame aimed at men not to have such images, any more than a wargame aimed at women and homosexual men would have images of topless, muscular men.

So, is it all sexual attraction that you're averse to? In which case, be greatful you're here in the first place.

Or is it only a sexual attraction to women you're averse to? In which case that is discrimination.

You could be opposed to any depiction of sexual lust at all, but then 40k is aimed at teenagers/young adults, and they have every right to enjoy a game with images that they find attractive.

Nobody's "treating sexual attraction with disdain". You can file that alongside telling people they're outraged, offended, etc. "Averse to" is just a rewording of "offended by", and we've dealt with that.

You felt it was pointless, but you called a very good rational point "bs" before pouring out the same yourself. I just wanted to make you aware of that. It's a shame you opted to ignore it really but I didn't expect much better if I'm being totally honest

I'm a bit late to this party and trying to decipher all the different view points that have been shared.

I think women being depicted "in miniature games" as beautiful/curvy is a good thing. The sexual appeal sells and if it helps move product then good for the companies who cash in on market trends.

Kingdom death is a good example - that game has its miniature waves sell out overnight because they have embrace the stereotypical female depictions. For those who are upset over these miniatures and ones like them, well its just too bad - we can't please everyone, so we may as well try to please the majority.

My girlfriend actually loves the kingdom death miniatures (she made me order the most scantily clad ones that were in stock lol). If you think guys are obsessed with boobs, women are just as bad.

 paulson games wrote:

With servitors I agree, however I can't recall of pictures of females being servitors. Not saying there aren't any but all the servitors models and sketches I recall seeing are generally male. (and this thread is about females)

Yes, there were, and even a mini of one.

This thread has come up numeous times, and I always shake my head in disbelief at how much fake outrage the issue generates.

Personally, I find the whole KDM style minis to be ridiculous, and I like my sisters to look gritty and tough, but regardless, its such a tiny issue I dont understand the discussion, and I find the attitude of people like Palindrone in his back and forth with Az to be frankly, a little bit sad.

If you want to get outraged on other peoples behalf, then go on a crusade, critique womens unequal pay, slate the Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women, campaign for marriage equality for women across the U.S. whatever floats your boat.

But dripping about minis being dressed a bit skimpy is just, pointless. How about you do what everyone else does and simply not buy the ones you think suck?

Its a non issue to all but the most brash and militant feminist, and nobody likes them anyway, because they ignore obviously abhorrent things like rape and genital mutilation because they are too busy haranguing pleasant, working class family men who happen to be great dads and excellent loving husbands, for the awful crime of reading FHM on the bus home from work.

Not that I want to stick up for FHM, but... priorities?

 mattyrm wrote:
This thread has come up numeous times, and I always shake my head in disbelief at how much fake outrage the issue generates.

Personally, I find the whole KDM style minis to be ridiculous, and I like my sisters to look gritty and tough, but regardless, its such a tiny issue I dont understand the discussion, and I find the attitude of people like Palindrone in his back and forth with Az to be frankly, a little bit sad.

If you want to get outraged on other peoples behalf, then go on a crusade, critique womens unequal pay, slate the Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women, campaign for marriage equality for women across the U.S. whatever floats your boat.

But dripping about minis being dressed a bit skimpy is just, pointless. How about you do what everyone else does and simply not buy the ones you think suck?

Its a non issue to all but the most brash and militant feminist, and nobody likes them anyway, because they ignore obviously abhorrent things like rape and genital mutilation because they are too busy haranguing pleasant, working class family men who happen to be great dads and excellent loving husbands, for the awful crime of reading FHM on the bus home from work.

Not that I want to stick up for FHM, but... priorities?

no just no. You think people don't cretique women's unequal pay, state of Islamic worlds awful treatment of girls and women.
I support campaigns for all of that, and I am part of this hobby dealing with reading such BS like this in support of a rather sexist hobby at times.

There is no issue with how much skin is shown, it's that is all we get a lot of the time.
It's a non issue to men since they don't have to deal with it constantly.
When I post in these threads it's not about what is avalible, it's that I want things for me in this hobby also. I want a variety in the hobby, and I want to see it grow.
Things like KD would be a none issue if it wasn't the norm so often, and I did support it, and getting no pin ups.. But could you imagine KD in a store. It would probably be like the porn at Video stores :p just imagine trying to sell it next to the warhammer when a mother walks in.

I will say, when these company's put there mind to it they can make some sexy stuff that's great.

I wish I could find an article with an interview with an artist for a female gamers site, but he said he never got to do females often so he went for more sexy. Never able to experiment with more charecteristics.
Maybe that's an issue in itself.

Meh bad english rant for the week.

Hey, it's quite funny, mattyrm : I recently heard about you in a thread called “7 ridiculous restrictions on women’s rights around the world”. Seems like those post were removed though.
I actually agree with you. Yeah, there are a lot of way worse issues. No doubt if I ever wanted to launch a crusade for women's right I wouldn't start it by posting here ! That would be pretty stupid.
I'm not really in a crusade, but still, I do rant a lot about the treatment of women in Islamic jurisdiction, among other problems I have with Sharia and those that wish to apply it.

However, I don't come to DakkaDakka to crusade about women's right. I come here to speak about one of my hobby. What I'm excited about, what I'm disappointed about. I can praise or denigrate new rules, new models… And I something like to explain why. I didn't like that picture, I mentioned it, and it started a storm of heated off-topic argument, so I thought to create a new thread to allow all those people that seems very opinionated about this to talk about it.
The price of new models is totally insignificant to the global economy, and to most people's purchasing power actually. Yet some people that comes here like to talk and rant about it, because it's something that is part of one of their favorite hobby, and therefore something they feel concerned about. Would you want them not to discuss it because there are way more worrying economic matters to discuss ?
It's the same about this issue. I don't even approach it from a “women's right” angle, just from a “cool-looking vs lame-looking” angle, but if I did want to speak about women's right on dakkadakka, it would be a much more appropriate subject than, say, women's right violation in Saudi Arabia. (And beside that, not only the conversation would dry up very quickly since nobody would want to defend the Saudi way, but also if I spoke my mind too much on the subject, I may end up like you, banned from DakkaDakka Off-Topic forum ).

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

Well, this illustration is definitely not in Blanche's style. Neither does it look in any way like the blindfolded, sword-bearing classic personification of Justice I know.

 Steve steveson wrote:
There is nothing to show the image in question is someone who chose to dress in an inappropriate fashion knowing they were going to be in a fight. Having a weapon is not evidence of knowing they were going to be in a fight.

My point was that the weapon don't go well with “an special, more elegant dress worn to go to the governor's palace”. And even if it did, I still call that attire horribly bad taste.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just that people are making up outrage about this image. I see no reason to be upset.

I just don't like it, and explain why. No outrage.

pgmason wrote:
Virtually every imperial saint was a soldier of some sort.

Except for, you know, Sebastian Thor.

xruslanx wrote:
an attraction to the female form - something that all non-homosexual men have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
.
(Could have been creepy and talked about pedophiles that like girls too you to have female forms, too )

 gossipmeng wrote:
we can't please everyone, so we may as well try to please the majority.

And that's why there are new marines model every month, and not a single new sister model for the last 9 years !

Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?

While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.

Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.

TLDR
Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hey, it's quite funny, mattyrm : I recently heard about you in a thread called “7 ridiculous restrictions on women’s rights around the world”. Seems like those post were removed though.

I can guess what you were talking about

Posting things about Islam, even demonstrably true things, true things that appear in mainstream left leaning publications like The Guardian, is not allowed on dakka in any form, because a small number of the moderators censor such things with an aggression that would make the dearly departed Kim Jong blush, and they don't even like other people mentioning me either for that same reason. I presume it is because they also follow an abrahamic faith, and as such feel threatened by such a debate, so you just can't talk about it. Such is life, its not a democracy on here, so thats the end of it, but don't keep beating the drum on the subject, or you will wind up with a perpetual banning order like me.

Regards the topic, I struggle to understand exactly what Apple Fox was saying, and I was actually pointing out that I heartily dislike all of the models that were made by KDM, I mean I've only seen them on here so Im hardly an expert, but they look a bit pervy and I've got no interest in seeing them, my point was simply that, at the end of the day, its a pointless discussion because its called freedom, and we have to suck on it.

If some bloke wants to buy kinky models, thats his business, I don't think they really do any harm in the grand scheme of things, so what is the point in this conversation? Nobody is saying that they should be banned right? And most people are saying that there should be more ordinary looking female models for use as guardsmen, I entirely agree with that premise too, so exactly what is the debate? That we think they are silly, but we don't actually think they should be removed?

Thats what I am talking about. I understand peoples criticisms because I wouldnt buy them either and I like heavily armoured female soldiers because it makes sense, but its a free country, and a free market, as long as nobody is actually saying "kinky looking models should be banned" and Im pretty sure nobody actually is, then exactly what are we supposed to be debating?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

TLDR
Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.

Obviously yeah, your comments about evolution were spot on as well. It is entirely natural to like looking at other humans, or else we would have wound up like those KaKapo Birds.. you know.. almost extinct because shagging is not actually very tempting and we would rather just sit under a tree and look at the sea.

Here is my perspective for what its worth:

Don't like Scantily Clad Miniatures? Don't buy 'em.

Instead of whining about a miniature, how about we deal with actual issues? 90 % of gamers in 40K and elsewhere play something roughly akin to Space Marines. why not start by making them feel welcome to play, by cleaning up our language as much as possible, and dealing with the fools that actually do something to harm women. I get so tired of the attitude of I have to look like I'm doing something to help, so I'm going to CREATE an issue, instead of dealing with an ACTUAL issue. Make the ladies feel more at home when playing, and you'll eventually have enough of a demographic shift to change the scantily clad minis.

I will admit that I have not read through the entire thread so this may have already be said and if so just ignore me.
Many people are gripping over the sexualization of the pictures or cleavage some say it makes sense some say it is stupid. One thing we should look at is the Imperium which is not exactly the model civilization on forward thinking here and is in fact a Male dominated society since most positions of power are held by men and that the greatest warriors are all male space marines. However there has been mention of women serving in potions such as guradsmen inquisitors and planetary governors.

If we look at the Sisters of Battle they are for the most part fully clothes in battle armour except for the sister repentant who are scantily clad and seem to have unhealthy BDSM fetishes
for the most part Sisters of Battle are somewhat front line fighting force it would not make sense for them to be scantly clad and it also seems they have a dress code with in their ranks.
The Inquisition seem to have a more lax dress code with their agents and allow how they seem fit. The Inquisitor is suppose to gather intel and go after traitors and cultists and internal threats. I can see a female Inquisitor using her sexuality to get t what she need or to persuade someone to help her that could not be intimidated by her position of office or who is resistant to their interrogation techniques.

For me it is all about context

xruslanx wrote:
This line set off my bs alarm. What is it about the objective beauty of the female form that you find offensive? Are you offended that men are attracted to women?

This is just as laughably insane as your opinions on non-GW games*. If you pay attention you'll notice that the argument is disputing the claim that women are somehow the ideal of beauty and nobody wants to look at men, not attempting to claim that nobody finds women attractive.

*For those who don't know, xrulslanx thinks that playing non-GW games is like having sex with animals. So you should consider him an intelligent and reasonable poster and value his opinions.

There is no reason for a wargame aimed at men not to have such images, any more than a wargame aimed at women and homosexual men would have images of topless, muscular men.

And this is the problem: why should a wargame be aimed at men specifically?

You could be opposed to any depiction of sexual lust at all, but then 40k is aimed at teenagers/young adults, and they have every right to enjoy a game with images that they find attractive.

Which is why 40k should have lots of images of cool tanks, power armored super-soldiers killing stuff, etc. Throwing in sexy stuff is just a pathetic attempt to get people to buy a mediocre product that can't sell on its own merits as a wargame.

 azreal13 wrote:
Could we have an agreement that when something along the lines of "men find women attractive" that pointing out that a minority of men, for one reason or another don't isn't a valid rebuttal?

While sweeping generalisations should be avoided, and challenged, when something along those lines is put forward, picking out the one or two specific circumstances where it doesn't apply just doesn't really move things forward, and it is fair to assume that most people are aware of those exceptions.

Otherwise we are going to get to a point where each statement is going to need to be qualified so much it will just take forever to write any sort of reply.

TLDR
Pointing out exceptions doesn't invalidate a point.

Saying that "no one likes looking at penises for hours" is a really dumb statement, though because I hope no one stares at breasts for hours, either. The depiction of the male genitalia also has a considerable role in art, and the inability of miniatures makers outside a few historicals to do so tells me where their priorities truly stand. It has nothing to do with sex, but it's just pure pandering.