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.

Panzeh wrote:

 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.

Except
a) that isn't what I said, and
b) wasn't what I was referring to

But good try!

 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?

Except if the point is that there are no exceptions .
Now, yeah, most men find some women attractive. Doesn't mean in any way that the female body is inherently more beautiful.

And actually, I would like GW's version of Dr Manhattan way better if they made him as whole as the actual blue superpower, rather than some kind of Barbie-anatomy puppet . Not because I like penises, but because I don't like that kind of hypocrite prudishness.
See ? It's my turn to call other prudes ! That, and the total disregard from the original for normal human social conventions was an awesome element of the plot very well conveyed by his lack of clothes ! Here, nudity actually serves the (over-the-top and unrealistic) plot, and is awesome.
In case someone plan to accuse me of double standard between male and female miniatures, I'm going to mention that I'd love the repentia models to look more like the illustration I posted some message ago. And that means, along with a lot of really disturbing and disgusting things, naked . Same reason as above, it would actually serves the (over-the-top and unrealistic) setting (those girls also totally disregard normal human social conventions, but for totally different and also awesome reasons) !
In the case of this Inquisitor, I find it doesn't serve the setting the slightest bit, and looks bad .

 mattyrm wrote:
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.
[…]
so what is the point in this conversation?

It has no point, like most discussions . Don't need one. The point is in discussing. Writing, reading, having fun while doing it, putting your thought into words, exchanging idea !

Khan Raider wrote:
Instead of whining about a miniature, how about we deal with actual issues?

Because there are so few girls playing that I almost never witnessed any actual issue. Actually, I think the most frequent issue I can think of is people using sexual insults on my Sisters of Battle army (and I don't like it when they do that ).
I had no more luck when trying to get girls into the hobby than I had getting boys into the hobby : none was actually interested enough to actually start it.

Alpha 1 wrote:
and is in fact a Male dominated society since most positions of power are held by men

Well, apart from the Emperor and stupid marines nobody cares about, most organizations are mixed-gender. I'm not sure we would be able to tell the difference, but I would be surprised if all the Fabricator-General from Mars were males. Actually, I guess the only place amongst the High Lord that is explicitly restricted in gender is… Abbess of the Sororitas. Its name seems to imply that the Paternova is always male, but I wouldn't bet on it given there are female Navigators.


Also, Privateer Press makes some clearly male horse, GW do not .

Graphite wrote:
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?

Right, it's about sneaking around and getting into scraps when they arise or on a smaller scale. And the chainsword says "expecting trouble", but the exposed armour says "social event".

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

Hm, debatable. Unknown at best. Maybe on some planets, but on others I'm sure that wearing a chainsword to an evening ball would go down about as well as it would in our world.

 gossipmeng wrote:
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.

Hm, not sure I quite agree. Sure, it's not always a bad thing to have a skimpy female mini, buit I think that doing it just to sell models isn't exactly a good thing. It adds to the problem of women being portrayed in a mainy sexual way too often. Increased profits does not make right.

Khan Raider wrote:
Instead of whining about a miniature

It's not a miniature, it's a piece of artwork from Dark Heresy that got put into the new Inquisition codex.

Khan Raider wrote:
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.

Easier said than done, sadly. Wargaming culture, as well as "nerd culture" overall, still has some pretty shameful issues with letting women in, so there's a lot of gakkers out there giving women a hard time just for trying to enjoy something, Though I'm optimistic that this is steadily improving.

And yes, we can all work towards betterment here, just by making sure that we treat any women we come across in this hobby decently.

Alpha 1 wrote:
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

I addressed this earlier on. I don't see the Repentia as too problematic, as they have a very good fluff reason for looking like that. The SoB are the Imperium's most hardcore zealots, and the Repentia are SoB who feel that they have failed their god in some way. To put it lightly, this is a big deal to them, so becomig a Repentia is a way work to absolve these apparent sins, be it through pained, brutal fighting of the enemy or a death fighting in Big E's name.

Yes, there is also the BDSM undertone, but that too has a good explantion. The Mistress is there to punish the Repentia constantly to help them work harder to forgiveness, as well as driving them on in the fight. Neither party actually derives any sexual pleasure from the whipping.. I'll admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the look and "BDSM" elements of the Repentia, but I've come to be more accepting of it in light of their fluff. They're meant to be competely over the top religious nutters desperately seeking forgiveness or death, so it fits.

 Troike wrote:
Yes, there is also the BDSM undertone, but that too has a good explantion. The Mistress is there to punish the Repentia constantly to help them work harder to forgiveness, as well as driving them on in the fight. Neither party actually derives any sexual pleasure from the whipping.. I'll admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the look and "BDSM" elements of the Repentia, but I've come to be more accepting of it in light of their fluff. They're meant to be competely over the top religious nutters desperately seeking forgiveness or death, so it fits.

Sorry, but no, that “Mistress” idea was just plain stupid. I don't like it at all. I wish they removed it. It brings nothing good or cool.

xruslanx wrote:

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.

I think bringing things back around to an example from a fictional universe might help keep this civil, so let me ask you a question; do you think Space Marines would conceive of the female form as an ideal of beauty?

Personally, I can't imagine it appearing very consistently in their art (even if we're talking about the Marines who have the most "human" attitudes towards sex , like the Space Wolves). That's because the culture they're a part of places a higher value on images of masculinity, religiousity, and even a kind of tech-porn slant.

I know it's a pat example, but that's kind of intentional. I just want to point out that the idea of inherent/objective beauty is pretty flimsy, and that art is a product of culture, not our genetic predispositions.

Cheers to Bull0 and Peregrine for understanding what I was trying to say.

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.

Catachan aren't sexualized at all. Those guys are :

Rostere wrote:

Notice how they share with the Inquisitor the whole idea of a collar over naked flesh .

Except the inquisitor doesn't have a collar at all? She has a cape over a dress, which we've already discussed directly.

 azreal13 wrote:
Except the inquisitor doesn't have a collar at all?

There is a small metal chain that is clearly used to fasten her cape. And then, above it, there is a huge purple collar, the same color as her dress. While her cap is brown.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Except the inquisitor doesn't have a collar at all?

There is a small metal chain that is clearly used to fasten her cape. And then, above it, there is a huge purple collar, the same color as her dress. While her cap is brown.

To say the collar is part of the dress and not attached to the cape is pure supposition on your part, and not how I interpreted it at all, which is not to say either of us is right or wrong.

The skirts also appear to be a different colour, but that could be shadow as much as a different colour.

People select items with details that complement other parts of their outfits all the time, just because things are the same colour, doesn't mean they're attached.

There could even be a fashion for Imperials to wear separate collars a la the Elizabethans for all we know, I believe 41st millennium civilian fashions are fairly sparsely catered for in the fluff!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Probably worth reposting the image as we are some pages on, just to keep it fresh in people's minds.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Now, yeah, most men find some women attractive. Doesn't mean in any way that the female body is inherently more beautiful.

I would just like to throw in there that I think this is 'wrong' (probably not the right word but hopefully you'll get my meaning) in so much as female beauty is more highly valued by men and women than male beauty. A beautiful woman will generally 'profit' more in life from that beauty than an equivalent male will (though he will also benefit).

 azreal13 wrote:
To say the collar is part of the dress and not attached to the cape is pure supposition on your part, and not how I interpreted it at all, which is not to say either of us is right or wrong.

It's still a collar, isn't it ? Looks very much like a collar to me.

 azreal13 wrote:
just because things are the same colour, doesn't mean they're attached.

Just like the collar on those guys is not attached to their collar .

Am I the only one to see a similarity here ? Really ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
female beauty is more highly valued by men and women than male beauty.

Not sure, because I rarely ask women what they think of other women's bodies. Or men what they think about other men's bodies. Or, actually, really, anyone what they think about anyone else body. Maybe someone who is very used to ask those kind of questions could help us.

That picture is the one that caused this!? A little cleavage?

Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.

As such, I don't get it. My missus has wore sluttier looking dresses than that to dinner parties!

The issue is not about whether or not it's slutty. It's about whether or not it's out-of-character and/or cool.
For me it's neither.

 mattyrm wrote:
Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.

The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.

Exactly!

Like the Catachans!

Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :

Rostere wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sorry, but no, that “Mistress” idea was just plain stupid. I don't like it at all. I wish they removed it. It brings nothing good or cool.

Yeah, it's certainly controversial. If the SoB had been made by the GW of the present, she might have been different. But as I said, her fluff is solid. The BDSM vibe is quite unfortunate, and I do find it unfortunate that certain people will get certain impressions of the Sisters from her.

But she also fits very will with the relgious nutter theme. Flagellation and extreme pennance is something that extremists like the Sisters do, so she has a good basis for being there, at least. One needn't look at her in terms of BDSM only, and to do so would be a misrepresentation of her fluff.

Peregrine wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.

The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.

azreal13 wrote:Exactly!

Like the Catachans!

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Catachan aren't attempting to look sexy. Those guys are :

Rostere wrote:

You're not even trying to follow the conversation now are you?

Aaand...surprise of all surprises, Hybrid Son of Something I can't Pronounce and Troike appeared to take what they wanted out of my diatribe, to enforce their own position.

I will applaud Troike's Effort in trying to do things my way. Nothing ever comes easy man, except surrendering, and that gets you nowhere. what needs to happen is those that are giving ladies a hard time need to be told "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" in no uncertain terms and backed up with force, if necessary. I go 45 mins one way to a paint night with friends (I haven't been to their events), and while we're fairly rough and tumble, we have ladies who play: Specifically Tyranids, Dark Eldar, and Slaanesh Daemons. Myself and a buddy who is a navy vet pretty much guard dog for everyone. We've had some sleazy types come up and usually the off putting ones are scared off pretty quick by us paying attention to their interactions or the situation gets ironed out. It all comes down to having a combination of a "Club Mom" who puts people in line and a couple guys who are willing to put their foot down and say "Oh. Hell. No." when the sleazeballs are trying their crap.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Women and men like to look attractive to others, it seems entirely acceptable that a woman actually would wear a dress like that out of choice.

The issue isn't people wearing attractive clothing in social situations where nice clothes are important, it's that women are portrayed in attractive clothing even in situations (a battle, for example) where attractive clothing is irrelevant at best, while men just wear practical stuff with no attempt to be sexy.

men enjoy the aesthetics of the female body, hence its appearence in art. Clearly if you are not such a person all you need to do is not buy it.

There is no valid reason to have a problem with this. It is not offensive, it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic...and yeah, boobs just look good. 40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.

Khan Raider wrote:
Aaand...surprise of all surprises, Hybrid Son of Something I can't Pronounce and Troike appeared to take what they wanted out of my diatribe, to enforce their own position.

I didn't cherrypick, I just didn't really have anything to say to the rest of your post. I already clarified that I'm not "up in arms" about this (just rather stubborn), and my later post about treating women decently basically agrees with your point about dealing with the IRL issue anyway. That's something that we should all be doing anyway.

Khan Raider wrote:
Nothing ever comes easy man, except surrendering, and that gets you nowhere.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the problem was unfixable, just that it it, sadly, presently very prevelant in this subculture. Though I did add that it seems to be improving with time, with more women feeling comfortable participating in nerdy hobbies and more people advocating tolerance.

Khan Raider wrote:
what needs to happen is those that are giving ladies a hard time need to be told "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" in no uncertain terms and backed up with force, if necessary.

Yes, ideally (though the "with force" part might get you into trouble ).

xruslanx wrote:
men enjoy the aesthetics of the female body, hence its appearence in art. Clearly if you are not such a person all you need to do is not buy it.

This only makes sense if you assume that men are the primary consumers of art, and women don't really matter. Otherwise you notice the obvious fact that women enjoy the aesthetics of the male body and so art should also have similar men for the women to enjoy.

It is not offensive, it does not break the willing suspension of disbelief, it is in keeping with the aesthetic

It might not be offensive to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive to anyone else. Put yourself in the position of a potential female customer who is essentially being told that they're only welcome in the game as something for the men to enjoy looking at.

And yes, it does break suspension of disbelief. Put men in similar outfits and poses and it would look absurd. It only looks "reasonable" for women to do it because you're starting from the assumption that the game needs to provide you with porn.

...and yeah, boobs just look good. 40k is squarely aimed at males and realistically most of us are straight, therefore we want to see some tits every now and then.

Yes, straight men want to see sexy women. That's what porn is for. But that doesn't mean that all of us need to have porn in our wargames to enjoy them.

Though this would explain your absurd idea that playing a non-GW game is like having sex with your dog. After all, if 40k is a sexual experience for you then it's only natural that other potential sexual partners might be outside of your comfort zone. So maybe you need to lust after your space marines, and trying to transfer that lust to, say, an x-wing would be like sex with an animal.

i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits. 40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market. Pokemon doesn't market to the elderly, saga don't market to young singletons...why should 40k be appealing to women?

And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.

xruslanx wrote:
why should 40k be appealing to women?

Why should it not? It can appeal to men whilst appealing to women too, it's not some weird cleavage-based tradeoff.

xruslanx wrote:
i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits.

Have you ever looked at pictures of real female soldiers?

40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market.

Do you understand the concept of marketing to people outside your main target market? It's one of the differences between successful companies and incompetent idiots like GW. Good companies understand that broadening their customer base means more profit. Idiots just narrowly define their target market and throw away all that profit.

why should 40k be appealing to women?

Why shouldn't it be? It's a game about killing stuff on a battlefield, what should "which sexy people to look at" have to do with anything?

And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.

So let me get this straight: you think a majority of men require cleavage in their products to enjoy them? A majority of men can't enjoy a game about soldiers killing each other in a hellish wasteland unless there's a sexy woman to admire? I'm really not sure why you insist on insulting men like that.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
i don't know what world you live in where women's cleavage isn't featured prominantly, but it's the same world that gw inhabits.

Have you ever looked at pictures of real female soldiers?

Yeah, apart from this isn't real, and it isn't a soldier, nor is it even clearly a combat situation.

40k has no reason to market to females, since they aren't its target market.

Do you understand the concept of marketing to people outside your main target market? It's one of the differences between successful companies and incompetent idiots like GW. Good companies understand that broadening their customer base means more profit. Idiots just narrowly define their target market and throw away all that profit.

But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.

why should 40k be appealing to women?

Why shouldn't it be? It's a game about killing stuff on a battlefield

At this point, you've answered your own question.

And yeah most straight men prefer cleavage over a lack of cleavage. It's an aesthetic choice and you are clearly in the minority.

So let me get this straight: you think a majority of men require cleavage in their products to enjoy them? A majority of men can't enjoy a game about soldiers killing each other in a hellish wasteland unless there's a sexy woman to admire? I'm really not sure why you insist on insulting men like that.

There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.

 azreal13 wrote:
But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.

You're right, which is why GW should market to people who like wargames. But there's a difference between not abandoning the core idea of your product in a desperate attempt to sell to everyone and throwing in a bunch of sexy women because you can't imagine how to sell your game to anyone other than 15 year old boys.

At this point, you've answered your own question.

Only if you make the sexist assumption that only men can be interested in wargames.

There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.

So your argument is that most men are shallow and childish and need everything to be porn?

Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
But trying to market your product to everybody is a futile waste of time and resources, much better to focus on the definites, probables and maybes, anything else you pick up is gravy.

You're right, which is why GW should market to people who like wargames. But there's a difference between not abandoning the core idea of your product in a desperate attempt to sell to everyone and throwing in a bunch of sexy women because you can't imagine how to sell your game to anyone other than 15 year old boys.

At this point, you've answered your own question.

Only if you make the sexist assumption that only men can be interested in wargames.

There isn't much that can't be improved by the addition of boobs when marketing to the male gender at large.

So your argument is that most men are shallow and childish and need everything to be porn?

At this point, I'm going to repost what I wrote earlier...

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.

I am not saying women cannot like wargames, merely that many aren't interested.

Why have you jumped from titilation, mild at that, straight to porn? Sexing things up a bit is a well known, and effective, technique of marketing to men, this is just an image with a mild bit of cleavage on display, nobody's getting bent over or tied up, or have I completely mis-interpreted the image?

It isn't in the least bit immature to enjoy looking at the female form either, nor is it shallow. That you characterise it in that way probably speaks more to your own personal prejudices and feelings on the matter than the issue at large.

I dont really see why people are railing against Az, I know it goes against the spirit of dakka, but cant we actually agree to disagree just this once?

I say that, because I dont think anyone is hugely disagreeing, I think everything he has said is correct, but I don't feel at odds with Peregrine.

Basically, 95% of hobbyists are blokes, ergo, you cant really blame manufacturers for playing to their market. That is how the world works, its why Chuck E Cheese advertise cheese pizza and not caviar, because you aim at your market.

Is there anything wrong with that? And I don't like sexy models, I don't buy them, because even though I like looking at a set of baps every now and then, I don't feel the urge to look at miniscule plastic ones when I can see proper ones all over the place, its not like we are short of tits here in the West, they even use them to sell burgers over here!

Ergo, I can agree with both of you, and I don't see any reason for an argument.

 azreal13 wrote:
I am not saying women cannot like wargames, merely that many aren't interested.

And many men aren't interested either. Also, the important question is why aren't they interested? Is wargaming inherently unpopular, or is it because the game (along with a certain obnoxious element in the community) works to drive women away and tell them that their only place is looking pretty for the men?

Why have you jumped from titilation, mild at that, straight to porn? Sexing things up a bit is a well known, and effective, technique of marketing to men, this is just an image with a mild bit of cleavage on display, nobody's getting bent over or tied up, or have I completely mis-interpreted the image?

It's not hardcore porn, but the intent is still the same.

And yes, it's common. That doesn't mean we have to like it and encourage it.

It isn't in the least bit immature to enjoy looking at the female form either, nor is it shallow.

Context matters. Looking at women is fine, in a context where the whole point is enjoying the pretty people (porn, etc). It crosses into shallow childishness when you need to have something sexy to look at even in a context where sex is completely irrelevant. And yes, sex is irrelevant in 40k. The only reason to include it is if you believe that your product can't sell on its own merits without including a little sex to keep your customers interested.