Representation of women in miniature games (go-to thread to prevent off-topic on other threads)

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.

**Peregrine**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)

No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too. But instead women are far more often portrayed as sex objects.

**Sean_OBrien**

Peregrine wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)

No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too. But instead women are far more often portrayed as sex objects.

But they don't sell...period.

Nothing else matters - the practical miniatures do not sell. Chain Mail bikinis (or which ever cheese cake you would rather point at) sell like mad. How you feel about it, or what you think it should be is really irrelevant. This isn't a question of hypothetical sociology, it is an actual business with significant upfront costs that need to be justified in order to create the products. Making the ratio more balanced would not change the number of cheese cake miniatures that you see as the non-cheese cake miniatures will get canceled and tossed in the bins before they have a chance to change the apparent ratio on tables.

**Troike**

Something selling well doesn't automatically make it a good thing, you know.

**Dysartes**

Troike wrote:
Something selling well doesn't automatically make it a good thing, you know.

Maybe not from a idealised social perspective, but it does from a business perspective.

**Seaward**

Peregrine wrote:
No, it's not that at all. The problem is the ratio between "sex object" and "practical/awesome/etc" is skewed. Women should be portrayed just like men. If the men are sexy, the women should be sexy. If the men are wearing practical clothes the women should be too. If the men are wearing stupid impractical but not sexy outfits the women should be too.

Why?

**Sidstyler**

Because equality?

**Seaward**

Sidstyler wrote:
Because equality?

Equality in fiction?

**Crimson**

Seaward wrote:

Why?

Why you want to see sexy ladies and practically dressed men in your game art? For similar reasons some other people might want to see sexy men and practically dressed women.

**Sidstyler**

Seaward wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Because equality?

Equality in fiction?

Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.

The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.

**Sean_OBrien**

Sidstyler wrote:

The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.

For a business that is about the best reason to do anything...or rather the counter to it. Doing what you want will cost them lots of money and quite possibly put them out of business.

Most gaming companies are running on paper thin margins already and the prospect of loosing 50% of their sales for the sake of equality for a market which doesn't exist (in any significant manner) is ludicrous. It also has been done in the past, and those companies who try it end up closing up show within a year because the losses are just so great that they can not keep pushing their agenda (or it is a niche, within a niche that is so insignificant as to have fewer copies sold than say...a copy of a college term paper).

However, as I have said before, if it is something that you think is viable now - go ahead and do it. Hire artists, write the rules, have miniatures sculpted, attend the gaming conventions to pimp your wares (though I guess that phrase is insensitive too...)... See how it goes, but be prepared to loose your entire investment. However, if you are not prepared to loose your own shirt - don't expect others to risk their own businesses for the sake of an idealistic equality.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

fishy bob wrote:
That's how they see all women? Grey and ugly?

Do you really find her ugly ? I mean, either you only saw women in magazines, or I want to know where you live !
Maybe Saudi Arabia, would explain a lot

.

Sean_OBrien wrote:
You have one side which believes that females should only be portrayed in sensible clothes (with varying degrees of what is considered sensible - a moving goal post to be certain)

Depends way more on the story/settings than anything else.

Sean_OBrien wrote:
the ones who want them to make only sensible females say they are pandering and reinforcing negative stereotypes (or which ever mantra you would like to hang your hat on).

That they are breaking immersion.

Sean_OBrien wrote:
No matter what is done, if there is a female in miniature - who is obviously a female, you will still have those who get out the soap box and freak out a good bit.

Not true. Never seen anyone freaking about these Inquisitor models.

Sidstyler wrote:
The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money.

**Sean_OBrien**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

(I guess those models were all made by people that had not talked to Sean OBrien before and therefore didn't knew they were going to loose their shirt if they sculpted female models without cleavage)

Actually, Reaper is probably the perfect example to look to. They have a full line of miniatures and include plenty within their 4000 some odd SKUs who are not cheese cake. However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).

Reaper does do some "sensible" figures, but no where near the "equal" representation that is called for. High profile releases (like last year's KS Storm Giant female and this year's female barbarian) cause a storm of complaints even though there are plenty of options to choose from from them. Most of those are financial loosers though. They sell more of anyone of these:

Spoiler:

Than they do of almost all the sensible female figures combined. More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...). Reaper has addressed this issue on dozens of occasions and they have said that they quite often it takes several years to recoup their investment on those figures - compared to a month or so for the cheese cake figures.

Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...so for simplicities sake, I will even keep things right here on Dakka:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/323197.page

Lots of people think the regular SoB are hyper sexualized (not to get into the BDSM nun brigade).

**Seaward**

Sidstyler wrote:
Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.

The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.

If you're genuinely arguing that there are no representations of heroic females in literature, I honestly don't know how to reply to that.

My girlfriend reads a lot of romance novels. I think we can all agree the mainstream ones are targeted at a female audience. Pretty odd that so much of the artwork on the covers features heroic gentlemen sweeping Boobs McCleavage off her feet, huh?

**Sean_OBrien**

Seaward wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Well, yeah. Why not? There's plenty of good reasons to champion equal representation in games or fiction in general, most of which should be fairly obvious if they haven't already been argued into the dirt by now (like the fact that women are people too and are probably just as interested in reading about notable female characters and their heroic deeds instead of always being the trophy for the male hero that's only valued for their pretty face and nice rack, or that children consume all this media as well as adults and may grow up with the notion that women are inferior/incapable of being heroic or inspiring because that's been reserved strictly for the men in everything they've ever known), but I can't really think of any really good reason to argue that women shouldn't be treated equally. The only explanations I've seen so far were either blatantly sexist or from people who just don't want things to change for whatever reason...probably because they think they won't be able to buy cheesecake minis anymore, I dunno.

The only real justification for keeping things as they are is because it makes companies like Reaper, CB, etc. lots of money. And in my opinion that's not a very good justification for it.

If you're genuinely arguing that there are no representations of heroic females in literature, I honestly don't know how to reply to that.

My girlfriend reads a lot of romance novels. I think we can all agree the mainstream ones are targeted at a female audience. Pretty odd that so much of the artwork on the covers features heroic gentlemen sweeping Boobs McCleavage off her feat, huh?

The follow up argument to that is that women have been brainwashed into wanting to look good and be swept off their feet by Fabio.

**Khan Raider**

Troike,

I can see what you are saying about "with force" getting you in trouble. Yet force takes many forms, and physical force should always be the last resort. the store manager/owner should always have the power to eject people that are causing disturbances. if that does not work, he should summon the Law enforcement professionals. If things get out of hand too quickly, self defense and defense of others is a universal human right, or is here in most parts of the US.

**Deadnight**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Though Reaper also propose some very nice count-as models for a Sister/Inquisition army.
Death Cult Assasins :
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/06173
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20armor/sku-down/14311#detail/14311_kassandra_jb_f
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20human%20cape/sku-down/02423
or even DCA nuns !
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20human%20armor/sku-down/06101#detail/06101_G
Crusaders :
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/14070
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20armor/sku-down/06123
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/03364
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20human%20cape/sku-down/02459
Or even Chaos crusader :
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female%20human%20cape/sku-down/03206
Some very cool priest/Canoness with Condemnor bolter :
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/03203
(Hears look a bit elvish, though, but a very good base to work on)
Certainly not the worst model provider out there !
(I guess those models were all made by people that had not talked to Sean OBrien before and therefore didn't knew they were going to loose their shirt if they sculpted female models without cleavage)

I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.

My position? People are over sensitive and get upset over anything. I think sometimes folks go out of their way to feel offended half the time. Folks in the war gaming hobby are no different.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).

So, they did publish their sales figures ?
Also, none of those seems to have skin-tight clothes

. Most have plate armor, which isn't exactly skintight. I don't see the problem with the posing either. Would you give an example ? I'm especially found of Nicole's “bracing for impact” pose, my favorite crusader

. I usually switch models so that she dies last.

Sean_OBrien wrote:
More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...).

Really ? Which one ?
Just found out a cool one :
http://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/chronoscope/latest/50159
Too ad it doesn't integrate at all with 40k's general aesthetic, else I guess I would have been very tempted to use her as a Canoness or something

.
Canoness Maria with a power ruler !

Sean_OBrien wrote:
Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...

Well, no. It's close, but there are very clear differences that keeps her apart. Not the same shoulderpad, not the same corset-like torso, no cloth sleeves, …
Actually, every part of it is close, but different. Except for the loincloth.

But yeah, I get what you are saying : the problem is not in the manufacturer, it's more in the community. I.e. us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.

Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
As for the crusaders:
Nicole obviously doesn't, see the official painted picture :

The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.
Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :

And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.

**Durandal**

I have a Catachan army where all the female models have shirts and jackets, but half the guys are only wearing tight pants. Yet no one complains.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Thank you, Durandal, for repeating an argument that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I just noticed : DakkaDakka is spying on me and exposing my private life. Now everyone know I went in Switzerland to put dirty money on my secret bank account !

**Azreal13**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Thank you, Durandal, for repeating an argument that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I just noticed : DakkaDakka is spying on me and exposing my private life. Now everyone know I went in Switzerland to put dirty money on my secret bank account !

Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.

I will say again, pointing out exceptions to a point doesn't invalidate it, neither does the point in time when they are made.

**Grot 6**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
However, those ones which you linked to do not sell as well as the cheese cake miniatures (and most of those actually get complaints as well - from the skin tight clothes to the posing of them).

So, they did publish their sales figures ?
Also, none of those seems to have skin-tight clothes . Most have plate armor, which isn't exactly skintight. I don't see the problem with the posing either. Would you give an example ? I'm especially found of Nicole's “bracing for impact” pose, my favorite crusader . I usually switch models so that she dies last.

Sean_OBrien wrote:
More so when you consider that about half of the figures you linked to would not qualify as sensible by a lot of the people who are calling for them (too much hip action, too much cleavage, too feminine...).

Really ? Which one ?
Just found out a cool one :
http://www.reapermini.com/miniatures/chronoscope/latest/50159
Too ad it doesn't integrate at all with 40k's general aesthetic, else I guess I would have been very tempted to use her as a Canoness or something .
Canoness Maria with a power ruler !

Sean_OBrien wrote:
Regarding the inquisitor - she is basically wearing the exact same armor as the SoB...

Well, no. It's close, but there are very clear differences that keeps her apart. Not the same shoulderpad, not the same corset-like torso, no cloth sleeves, …
Actually, every part of it is close, but different. Except for the loincloth.

But yeah, I get what you are saying : the problem is not in the manufacturer, it's more in the community. I.e. us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
I dunno mate - I see plenty cleavage on show with some of those models. The canines with a Bolter is quite obvious as are quite a few if the crusaders. Ironic really, as an inquisitor showing a bit of cleavage started this whole mess, and here you are pointing to other acceptable models, this time with cleavage.

Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
As for the crusaders:
Nicole obviously doesn't, see the official painted picture :

The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.
Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :

And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.

You have to much skin in there showing, cover her head with a berka.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Durandal wrote:
I have a Catachan army where all the female models have shirts and jackets, but half the guys are only wearing tight pants. Yet no one complains.

What models do you use for the females?

I need some suggestions.

I have a whole regiment, and 1 female model.

Figure that one out.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

azreal13 wrote:
Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.

I'm sorry, what would you have me do ? Type again what I already answered to this argument ? What would be the point of doing that ?
If you want to see me write new interesting things on the subject, maybe bringing new arguments and new ideas to the discussion would be a good idea.
Here is what I said on page 3 of this discussion about the Catachan :

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
For instance, someone pointed out the fact that Catachan are wearing nothing but a shirt. Yeah, they do. Yeah, that's maybe not the most convenient or efficient. But that does definitely emphasize their role as jungle-fighter rambo-like super tough guy. Having a huge cleavage doesn't emphasize the Inquisitor being some ruthless, extremely independent ruthless investigator with an enormous amount of authority, does it ? At least to me, it doesn't, and that's why I have issue with it.

You had 9 pages to answer that. You never saw fit to do it. Neither did anyone else. Maybe that's why I don't think “Hey, very new and very interesting argument, let me think of an answer” when I see the same thing repeated ad nauseam, don't you think ?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grot 6 wrote:
You have to much skin in there showing, cover her head with a berka.

Thank you, Grot 6, for repeating a joke that has already been writen in this very topic. I offer you a Redundant Badge Redundancy. Wear it proudly !

**Azreal13**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Mate, your posts in this thread are increasingly becoming less about you own argument, and more nitpicking other people's.

I'm sorry, what would you have me do ? Type again what I already answered to this argument ? What would be the point of doing that ?
If you want to see me write new interesting things on the subject, maybe bringing new arguments and new ideas to the discussion would be a good idea.

The old adage of "if you can't say something nice, say nothing" would apply here.

You are not obliged to personally reply to every single poster, even if they are responding to you.

Anyway, let that be an end to it, this is OT, and I simply wanted to make an observation to try and stop the thread devolving into a mud slinging match and getting locked, which I felt might happen.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

What about “If you can't say something that hasn't already been said multiple times on the very same thread, and answered as many times, say nothing” ?
Beside, I don't feel like I've been overly aggressive, was I ?

**Azreal13**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What about “If you can't say something that hasn't already been said multiple times on the very same thread, and answered as many times, say nothing” ?
Beside, I don't feel like I've been overly aggressive, was I ?

Not at all no. (At least, I didn't think so)

More denigrating a counter argument doesn't move things forward, doesn't paint you in the best light and can quickly degenerate into name calling and pooh flinging.

You'll just have to be patient with repeat arguments, once a thread gets to a certain length people do not want, or are unable to read the whole thing. It doesn't make their point less valid though, in fact it adds weight to it if multiple individuals are making the same argument separately, it is just sometimes a little wearing for anyone who has followed the thread for a long time.

**Deadnight**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Canines with a bolter ? Do you mean “Bolter Bitches”/Sisters of Battle ? They don't show any cleavage, no. That's not how power armor works.
The Bladesisters shares Nicole's armor.Isabeau Laroche doesn't either, one of the official painted pictures :

And Janan wears a big metal breastplate with, you know, metal that doesn't expose any kind of skin.

apologies on my ipads behalf - the damn thing never types what i want it to do.

what i intended to say was "canonness with a bolter". nothing to do with the nuns with guns.
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Sisters%20of%20the%20Blade/latest/03203

quite a bit of cleavage on show.

as to that laroche - that simply boils down to your paintscheme.whilst the one you linked shows cloth, the model is ambiguous. its just as easy to paint her skin "nude" as with "cloth".

Honestly, the best femaile model i've seen: http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/5th-minutemen/

Personally though, the whole issue doesnt really arouse much sympathy from me. Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

**alanmckenzie**

Deadnight wrote:
Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.

**Deadnight**

alanmckenzie wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.

indeed. my girlfriend isnt gonna care one way or the other. although to be fair to her, she finds the caledonians from infinity with the skimpy dresses quite amusing. as do i.

some folks to see it as a "cause" to stand for though. And i've seen enough posts on the topic in general (not necessarily on dakka, mind) to feel its done to somehow make the posters feel it makes them more valid (in theory though!) to the females of the species. or that somehow, it will allow for more girls to get involved in the hobby. personally, i dont really think it works that way, but there you go.

as to "objectifying" women, i find even though i can think a girl looks stunning, or has a really nice body, i'm still perfectly capable of also seeing her as more than a pair of mamarry glands, and actually being able to treat her as an equal in all ways whilst simultaneously not having sex on my mind whilst im treating her as an equal.

life is mysterious, and quite complicated.

**Agamemnon2**

Grot 6 wrote:
You have to much skin in there showing, cover her head with a berka.

Nice strawman, only slightly marred by the lamentable misspelling of "burqa". Better luck next time, friend.

alanmckenzie wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.

The accusation is standard MRA fare, at least, the premise being that no man could possibly object to the imagery in question without an ulterior motive. It's rather sexist, and in a rare double-whammy, insults men as well as women, since they, the argument argues, have to relate everything in their lives to the pursuit of sex like some kind of troglodytes.

**alanmckenzie**

Deadnight wrote:
alanmckenzie wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Preferring little models with less skin showing isnt going to make the female population like you or me any more than they already do.

Really. Preferring miniatures that don't, or rather disliking miniatures that do, sexualise and objectify woman is not about getting girls to like you.

indeed. my girlfriend isnt gonna care one way or the other. although to be fair to her, she finds the caledonians from infinity with the skimpy dresses quite amusing. as do i.

some folks to see it as a "cause" to stand for though. And i've seen enough posts on the topic in general (not necessarily on dakka, mind) to feel its done to somehow make the posters feel it makes them more valid (in theory though!) to the females of the species. or that somehow, it will allow for more girls to get involved in the hobby. personally, i dont really think it works that way, but there you go.

as to "objectifying" women, i find even though i can think a girl looks stunning, or has a really nice body, i'm still perfectly capable of also seeing her as more than a pair of mamarry glands, and actually being able to treat her as an equal in all ways whilst simultaneously not having sex on my mind whilst im treating her as an equal.

life is mysterious, and quite complicated.

It is indeed. I didn't really want involved in this thread, just wanted to make that one point after reading your post. You are right though, it is complicated though and it's very hard to have the discussion and keep it isolated to the rather narrow context of the miniature wargaming community/culture. For me, the discussion always has to go all the way back to the problems and the inequality that exist in the patriarchal society in which we live. A society which uses, and has always used, the objectification and sexualisation of women to maintain its position of dominance. But that's a loooong discussion, so I'll bow out again.

Cheers though. Peace.

Alan