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.

Those companies that sell those female miniatures in scantily clad sexy poses are abusing the weakness in the male genom!

I find the infinity example quite good, they have a selection for those who like cheesecake and for those who don't like it.

 Crimson wrote:
A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?

Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.

So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?

The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.

 Seaward wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?

Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.

So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?

The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.

Yeah this whole threads just got proper daft now.

There's all kinds of gak that we can sit here and say sucks, we don't live in a utopia. I could sit and type all kinds of things that the vast majority of people would agree with, its hardly a difficult task, but what is the point?

The fact that companies report that scantily clad minis sell much better, is enough to end the argument. Its perfectly logical why it happens, sure it might be a little bit of a problem for the world, but ho-hum, there are plenty of worse things we could talk about. The issue is a non issue, it happens for no reason other than sales, it isn't a conspiracy, it isn't because men are seeking to covertly impose their will on women via the medium of miniatures, its simply because they sell more, so who cares?

It is an entirely non malevolent, natural occurrence, because of sales figures, there is no grand conspiracy.

Would the world be a better place if human beings weren't so shallow? Probably, but it manifests in countless thousands of ways. If you want to do your bit for equality, there are way better ways of doing it than seeking to have miniature companies put more clothes on tiny plastic models of females.

The other arguments (see above) are even sillier, because they start to suggest that the world would be a better place if we were all robots. I wouldn't feel comfortable with going to an aerobics class, perhaps that is foolish because it is all due to a pervasive cultural zeitgeist that just happens to be harful in some manner?

Well so what. I like being me, and the slight discomfort that I would feel in an aerobics class is easily offset, because I dont and wont go to an aerobics class. You cant sit here and make claims that the world is somehow wrong because we don't spend all of our time trying to make absolutely everything palatable to absolutely everyone, the very idea is preposterous.

And feth me, are we not already politically correct enough?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
New pic from the inquisitor codex

She's not wearing a Burqa... OMG what a whore!

You've been reading this whole thread and you still think that's what this is about? Really?

While it might not be in the simplest of terms - it does sort of boil down to that. 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) and the other side who really doesn't care too much. In the middle you have manufacturers who really don't care what they produce provided that it sells..

So, you think the side that objects to objectification of women is the side that calls women whores? THAT'S what Paulson suggested.

Here's a hint: when we object to what a woman is wearing, the reaction does not happen in the part of the brain that freaks out over twerking Miley Cyrus--it happens in the part that hates the scientists in Prometheus for taking off their helmets in an alien tomb. Not "whore!" but "whoever made this must think the audience is stupid."

And for the record, I don't object to the Incleavitor picture because...Inquisitors can have force fields and gak. If she's got a force field, she can go into battle wearing a throne-damned Starfleet red shirt and it would still be practical.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
New pic from the inquisitor codex

She's not wearing a Burqa... OMG what a whore!

You've been reading this whole thread and you still think that's what this is about? Really?

While it might not be in the simplest of terms - it does sort of boil down to that. 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) and the other side who really doesn't care too much. In the middle you have manufacturers who really don't care what they produce provided that it sells..

So, you think the side that objects to objectification of women is the side that calls women whores? THAT'S what Paulson suggested.

Here's a hint: when we object to what a woman is wearing, the reaction does not happen in the part of the brain that freaks out over twerking Miley Cyrus--it happens in the part that hates the scientists in Prometheus for taking off their helmets in an alien tomb. Not "whore!" but "whoever made this must think the audience is stupid."

And for the record, I don't object to the Incleavitor picture because...Inquisitors can have force fields and gak. If she's got a force field, she can go into battle wearing a throne-damned Starfleet red shirt and it would still be practical.

You are clearly missing the sarcasm in that post.

That post was in reference to the second picture where every bit of the Inquisitor is covered from head to toe. What I was pointing out in a humorous fashion clearly went over your head. No matter how sensible that somebody thinks the female is being depicted there's always somebody else out there who's going to think they should be a bit less revealing.

I found no offense to the first inquisitor that started off the whole thread yet obviously that generated a negative reaction with at least one person. The second picture I find entirely tame as there's absolutely nothing that sexualized in that image IMO, but there's always going to be somebody else with a more radical view somewhere in the world who'd find her face being exposed to be considered offensive. (certain cultures even object to the wearing of make up or any sort of adornment being worn) We all have greatly differing views on how we see women (or men) as being sexy and no matter what you do to please the majority of people there will be individuals that are going to object as there's no universal standard that can be applied.

I tossed in the Burqa line because it's one of the most extreme examples of what people will resort to in order to contain sexual images. In parts of the world women risk being killed by stoning if they go out in public without an extremely concealing outfit. It's not a practice that was confined to dark ages, it's still occurring even today.

This is the picture that I was referring to in jest and I hope that nobody on here would seriously be offended by it, which was the point of the humor.

I think you all need to be less picky. Not everything has to be a political statement just so somebody can come along and pat you on the head and tell you your being a good drone.

And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.

@Bob you may object because of logic, however many do not care about logic. It is the same group who freaked out about Reapers female giant last year. There is nothing illogical about that figure, but they object that she is a female looking female.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Nothing ever changes from these sorts of things, other than occiasional financial losses when a company decides to try to appease the gnashing and wailing of teeth. For as long as I can remember, this topic has come up (used to be in the letters column of Dragon Magazine and occaisional noise at conventions). Those who seek sensible looking femailes though never want to put forth the capital to fix their percieved problems (something that with KS now, they would be able to do much more readily).

Speaking of Kickstarters, a few of the miniatures in this year's Empire of the Dead kickstarter turned out pretty well. I didn't pledge for any specifically, but women were represented in some of the freebies. A few met my requirements. The others... met the hammer. I would argue that some of the otherwise uninteresting Raging Heroes all-women campaign also broadened the horizons of representation in this regard.

I find it curious that the words used to describe people unhappy with the current state of affairs often emphasize the shrillness of their tone, the emotional nature of their argument, and often contain expressions of crying or otherwise "making a scene". There is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.

Those are rather lamentable design elements, especially the, as you so rightly, "nuts". Her torso armor ensemble just looks rather strange, possibly they were going for a "40k-gothic bulletproof vest" kind of thing with the coat thrown on top of that, but they still wanted to maintain her silhouette, which modern protective gear does not do. The bottom of her outfit is likewise a bit odd. Is she wearing green chaps, or a black leather crotch-guard over green pants? These are not gendered observations, just a slight digression. If anyone cares to post a picture of an inquisitorial dudebro, I will gladly nitpick the clothing on one of those as well.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
And just to be clear, that second image will have plenty of people who object to the boob plate and nipple nuts.

@Bob you may object because of logic, however many do not care about logic. It is the same group who freaked out about Reapers female giant last year. There is nothing illogical about that figure, but they object that she is a female looking female.

That's not true, or at least not entirely true. I know a few of us were upset because all of the female giants are standing in passive poses, like they are at a photo shoot, while the male giants are in action poses. I have no problem with her appearance or attire, but I would have been much happier if she was threatening the PC minis with her club or...screaming and shaking a fist... or something. Instead it looks like she's supposed to be chatting. Ooooooh, threatening!

It's OK, though. Bones is fairly easy to chop and fix.

But I can see how you got the misconception about why most of us weren't happy with the female giant's pose. Lady Storm (or whatever the StandartenMod is named) deleted every post on the subject except for Buglips and similar necknards reacting as if we had said we don't like women because he somehow felt that women with agency can't also be his precious cheesecake.

I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.


There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with. The game features 9ft tall, incredibly violent, armored caricatures of masculinity, complaining about some art showing impractical female clothing seems kind of absurd.

If you were to crusade against the hurtful portrayals of both genders in tabletop games, I could understand. But to single out women as getting the short end of the stick is laughable.

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:
I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.

They're hyper masculine, but usually not sexualised.



THIS would be sexualised male art!

dunno, i think many women and gay men prefer to see a man being gritty and tough rather than posing around...so i probably wouldn't say they were very sexualised.

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:
I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.


There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with.

Because the men are depicted as a male power fantasy and not as pin up bait for women.
Also there is a much bigger diversity in types of male miniatures (age, ethnicity, weight) while the female miniatures are mostly sexualized.

And while the image in the original post started this discussion it is not really problematic for the most part (and the follow up inquisitor is rather okay too). There is much worse.


A bit more diversity would be really nice.

Does nobody think that even if some women do claim to get offended, they are just being dippy and getting needlessly offended in the first place?

The vast majority of ordinary women wouldn't bother batting an eyelid at that picture of an inquisitor, so who cares what the militant feminist "wimmin" think?

Remember those Feminista UK chicks who wanted to ban any magazines which had partially disrobed women on? They hated things like Stuff and FHM, even if it was only partial nudity. Do most women find the cover of Stuff offensive? Would we listen to the calls from an ultra conservative group who said they found the cover of gay times offensive?

No.

Ergo, I care as much about extremist feminists as I do about extremist Muslims, extremist animal rights activists, racial extremists like the KKK and the Black Panthers, basically anyone with the word extremist in front of their name don't deserve to be listened to.

feth em.

People that get enraged about this weak ass gak deserve to be ignored.

Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.

As for overly sexual female characters, it really depends on the context and the sculptural style, for example if the miniature was based on Greek mythology it would be more idealised to fit in to the sculptural style of that period, if the miniature was a female in a sexualised allied weird WW2 uniform, I wouldn't have a problem with it as it could of been based on the pin up art on the allied aircraft in the 1940's.

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:
I think the discussion of women in miniature games getting over sexualized doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Most female miniatures are hyper feminine, but male miniatures are hyper masculine as well.


There aren't allot of people up in arms about how much cleavage the standard catachan comes with. The game features 9ft tall, incredibly violent, armored caricatures of masculinity, complaining about some art showing impractical female clothing seems kind of absurd.

If you were to crusade against the hurtful portrayals of both genders in tabletop games, I could understand. But to single out women as getting the short end of the stick is laughable.

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

 mattyrm wrote:
Does nobody think that even if some women do claim to get offended, they are just being dippy and getting needlessly offended in the first place?

There is certainly an over sensitivity to it in my opinion. Why the depiction may clearly be sexualised I don't think you can in and of itself claim that as a negative.Women are- to straight men at least- sexual things and there is just no way around that. What I find onerous is that you can depict a woman as a fanatical zealot, willing to murder people with a chainsaw for as little as free speech (did I hear you call the Emperor a dictator?), genocidal, racist, fascist and xenophobe, but don't you dare display her as something sexually appealing to men.

Don't get me wrong, women are over sexualised in gaming but I don't believe that it causes males to view them as less human or property. That inquisitor to me looks like a bad ass I don't want to be opposing, not an object to acquire for pleasure.

 mattyrm wrote:
Ergo, I care as much about extremist feminists as I do about extremist Muslims, extremist animal rights activists, racial extremists like the KKK and the Black Panthers, basically anyone with the word extremist in front of their name don't deserve to be listened to. People that get enraged about this weak ass gak deserve to be ignored.

I care about them in so much as they affect me directly or truly affect the world at large. I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge so when I find out that EA is nerfing the controls in ME2 because a feminist video game critic said 'they're too hard for girls' I get annoyed, for example. Not burning effigies or anything but it is annoying.

 MetalOxide wrote:
Men being constantly portrayed as misogynistic macho shoot first ask questions later has it's negative side effects as well. So quit making it look like women constantly have the short straw, gender stereotyping goes both ways.

How is that negative? Isn't it a good thing that we should expect young men to fight for their country and disregard their own safety for the liberty of others? I don't see why gender stereotyping is wrong when without it, millions of men in 1944 would have just gone "lol cba don't stereotype me" and we'd have got nothing done.

Coming from a publishing back ground I have to add that books with sexy covers sell more than books with un-sexy covers. Showing a little leg or side boob goes a long way. Is it right? I dunno, probably not, but its what sells.

As for me, I think it needs to depend on the character. For example, a Sister of battle in high heels and bra? No, I wouldn't buy that at all. (both senses of the phrase.)
A Slaanesh demonette? It'd be weird if she wasn't showing skin.
An inquisitor can go either way, or any way they want. So if this inquisitor comes from a noble upbringing where sexuality is a tool, then sure, she'd show a little cleavage. Another female inquisitor might balk at showing too much neck. (like that female inquisitor mini. She's very covered up but also flamboyant.)

I have no problem with it either way as long as it fits the character. This is a fantasy game after all and everything is exaggerated for stylistic effect...including boobs.

 Seaward wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
A person strong enough to do this, regardless of the gender?

Sounds like you're making a great argument for doing away with gender-specific standards. I'd agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, you wouldn't like the result, if you've got an agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
It's not a good argument, lack of interest or awquardness doesn't mean the hobby is exclusive for one gender. It's realy the same argument that was gaming is for boys and girls have no interest.
What about board games or art ?
Or even TCG all things girls are getting into. Aerobics has men into it, fashion has men into it.
Why would you be awquard in a aerobics class full of women ? Women put up with it in many Hobby they enjoy.

So I guess you're basically saying that mainstream trashy romance novels just need to work harder to market to men?

The notion that we're all equally interested in everything doesn't strike me as being particularly true.

Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?

Not everyone is interested in the same things, it's fairly obvious reading this thread isn't it, that the status isn't universally liked.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.

But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.

Apple fox wrote:
But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is really sexist.

What happens if a statistic backs up that claim?

Apple fox wrote:

Eh what ? Do you think women wouldn't be interested in wargaming ?
Do you think there are not men into trashy romance novels ?

Not everyone is interested in the same things, it's fairly obvious reading this thread isn't it, that the status isn't universally liked.
But if you compare it to romance novels well you have plenty of choice for books and literature.

But at end to attribute a gender to that lack of interest is realy sexist.

Apple, I don't think it is sexist if it is obviously true. Think about it, sure some women like playing wargames, but it is far more male orientated. And of course, some men like reading trashy romance novels, but really, how many? My missus has 3 or 4 friends who read them, they giggle about it and I take the piss out of them because I wouldn't dream of reading one! So, maybe for every 20 women, there is 1 man. Its perhaps slightly more for women in wargaming, maybe 1 in 10, but that is the facts, so it isn't really sexism, its marketing.

Can you not understand that? Companies want to sell things, so they do what best achieves that aim. If Reaper have said that their models sell way better with legs and cleavage on show, can you not understand that they aren't doing it for any other reason than sales? It might be "inadvertently" sexist, but it isn't overtly sexist, because the marketing guys at Reaper don't do it because they want to drag women down, or stamp on peoples rights, they are just doing it because it sells. The same for trashy romance novels, they always have some strapping man cuddling up to some chick, do you think that the tiny minority of men that read them would be justified in going crazy about it and demanding that the cover is gender neutral?

Of course not!

In any industry, the minority has their wishes ignored so the product can be better sold to the masses, such is life, is it really something to get offended by? The minority can never make the big decisions in business, companies have to market to their biggest buyers. Remember that super famous Diet Coke advert where the girls watch the guy get undressed?

I read about that, it was because way more women buy Diet Coke, men don't like to buy things with the words Diet in because we are silly and like to pretend we don't care, and they is why they invented Pepsi Max, Coke Zero.. gak like that. Its crazy, but its true, and thats the world of marketing. You really cant expect to be able to have your views addressed in an industry where you are a small minority, surely you can see that?

Just ignore the female minis you don't like, and buy the ones you do. And if it really offends you, tell your opponent and I'm sure they will oblige, if we ever have a game I will put a paper cup over any female models you don't like ok?

When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.

People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.

In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

Apple fox wrote:
When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.

People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.

In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.

In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.

 azreal13 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.

People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.

In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.

In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.

It isn't at all an accepting hobby, and reading responses in this thread shows that I think.
But things are changing
I also cannot express myself so well in english D: which sucks.

Guess it's better than the fighting game genre :p

Apple fox wrote:
Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

There is at least one person that thinks PP is dragging behind too.

 Kojiro wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

There is at least one person that thinks PP is dragging behind too.

If pp was perfect I would be quite difernt in my thaghts on the subject :p

Apple fox wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.

People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.

In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

It isn't male orientated at the exclusion of women though, it is male focused because women aren't a significant enough sales demographic to be worth catering to.

In addition, in 25 years of involvement in the hobby, with the exception of the odd CCG player, I've never encountered an active female gamer, so to say it is a shared hobby is a bit of a misnomer. That's just IME of course, but that is precisely as valid as yours.

It isn't at all an accepting hobby, and reading responses in this thread shows that I think.
But things are changing
I also cannot express myself so well in english D: which sucks.

Guess it's better than the fighting game genre :p

It is important to remember that the hobby, and associated industry, hasn't just sprung up over night. It has evolved and changed over decades, certainly the genesis of the hobby as we know it probably started in the 70s, but the roots go way further than that.

In the last ten years or so, companies in all sectors have been in a position to communicate, canvas and interact with their customers, and would-be customers, on a never before seen level, thanks to the Internet in general and social media in particular.

In the last few years, the barriers to entry for getting a game or range of miniatures to market have been getting lower and lower, to the point that with the advent of Kickstarter, genuinely all you need is some time, effort and a good idea.

Now, given how easy it is now to assess the desire for a product, and how easy it would be to then produce that product and start selling it (relatively speaking of course, I'm not saying getting a retail ready product to market from scratch is in any way straightforward) why do you think nobody is making wargaming product which is more female focused?

It's kind of a fascinating tautology that we have, isn't it? Women aren't interested in wargaming because nothing is aimed at them, so wargaming makes no effort to cater to women, and the circle spins forever.

Anyway, I think it it would be nice if there were more realistic representations of women in these games. I like some cheesecake, but I also would like an option for female realism. I think GWS has shown it's totally possible, with the Dark Eldar, if an effort was made. We'll see how things evolve in the coming days.

I suppose I'm just shrilling crying with poutrage though. It's also sort of fascinating that on this topic it is no longer sufficient to merely disagree with people, you have to try and totally marginalize their point of views as weird, extreme, and emotional. Not sure how that evolved but here we are.

Apple fox wrote:
When it's male orientated at the exclusion of women, it's very much sexist.
And a target audience doesn't mean much in this context.

People keep saying that it's a male hobby, it's not and its very much shared. When it comes to these threads it's very much about people wanting alternatives.

In the end that is all, I would say even reaper hasn't done enough to say. They in this context has not produced anything I have wanted. Apart from PP and infinty to a point mph as realy break the mold by much. GW allways drag it's self along.

I would not say that it is exclusionary at all. Pointing back at Reaper (yes - I often point to them, because they are one of the more open and public miniature companies out there) more than half of their contract painters are women. They have stated that female customers make up almost 40% of their customers as well. Considering the popularity of Cheesecake figures in general, that would either mean that their male customers are buying them almost to the exclusion of all other figures - or that most women do not take issue with a little T&A.

While you might feel put off by figures that you do not like - that might have more to do with your perspective than reality. Going back up to the Storm Giant from Reaper - the controversial post was started "Does she really need to be in a stripper pose?" However, people who were not looking to be offended did not see a stripper pose - rather a large humanoid bending down to talk to smaller humanoids (as giants would do). This fit with the background more than a screaming, club wielding version of the figure. They are of a good alignment, so would be more likely to act as an ally or NPC agent to a party of gamers as opposed to an enemy to fight.

The point of view of the observer skewed what they saw and how they felt about it.

This isn't to say that there is not a lot of T&A out there. Several companies survive exclusively on miniature boobies. However, it is pretty easy to avoid if you don't want it. Much like any other commercial item - if you don't like it, don't buy it. Problem solved.