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.

Yeah to see new rules come out with the models would be great. I'm more or less ok with them having bolters, I like the holy trinity concept but having some unique weapons would be fun too. I think a unique melta variant, bolter variant (kind of have that in the condemner I suppose) and flamer variant that have special rules would be fun.

I'd also like to see the AoF rule changed. Perhaps instead of a once per game per unti rule maybe run it more like the khorne daemonkin blood tithe system? A set of conditions that increases your faith points and a set of bonuses or abilities you can "purchase" at the beginning of a round using your faith points. I really like the formation in daemonkin that allows you to use blood tithe to get one bonus and get a lower tier bonus for free as well. This would open up some fun options for formation and how they interact with faith generation.

Another idea is instead of the psyker phase we could have something called a "communion" phase or something like that. We can use faith powers in the psyker phase using our own variant rules. Just a thought anyways.

So with a plastic sisters release would you kind folks like to see another digital codex or have GW release a hardcover book? Personally I prefer to have a book. I'm not as worried about it as I am with my ipad and it may sound weird but there's just no replacement for manually flipping through pages with your fingers and using three fingers to bookmark pages as you search up rules and stats.

What was the sororitas helmet called again? Sabbat pattern? It reminds me a lot of the old Sallet helmets of which I am also a fan. I like the hard gorget guard that many sallet helmets had to protect the lower portion of the wearers neck and chin as a Sallet helmet only covered you to your lips. It's an interesting design as it gives you freedom of speech, movement and breathing with just the helmet or you can wear the gorget too for added protection. That design would be fun to model and give extra head options for the SoB models.

 Melissia wrote:

Females, meanwhile, are deemed an exception to the male norm.

Well, that's kinda funny because genetically it's the complete opposite.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
One thing that I think is worth considering is that people will be much quicker to label an image of a woman as "sexualised" if she's seen as being impractically dressed, striking a certain pose, etc, whereas an image of a man needs to go to real extremes to get the same label.

I do not agree. I think women are much more often sexualized, because they are much more often impractically dressed in ways that put a deliberate emphasis on body part is conventionally considered sexually attractive, striking poses that do the same, than men. Especially true if we look at ratio of images doing so rather than sheer number…

But is it the case that such images of men don't exist, or that they do exist, and I just instinctively reject the "sexualised" label when looking at them, in favour of "impressive"? Again, I run into my feeling that my standards are just common sense, and anyone who disagrees with them is prudish / objectifying. I can readily think of images of men where they're nearly naked and in a showcasing pose, with loving detail drawn to each detail of their body and the way that each leather strap cleaves to their skin....but interestingly, I don't instinctively think "sexualised", like I would with a woman depicted in the same manner. So that says to me that either my standards for a sexualised woman are too low, or my standards for a sexualised male are too high. Possibly linked to the values I've inherited that place taboos on either women or men openly admiring male beauty, for fear of being thought of as promiscuous or homosexual.

 Melissia wrote:
For my part, I propose that it's not noticed as often when men are sexualized, because male is considered to be default, and men are in western society usually supposed to be defined by what they do (or don't do). Thus, men are sexualized to be sure, but because things are assumed to be default to begin with, it's usually quite tame.

Being "manly" is all well and good until you become too manly, as in you like men instead of women. Then it's suddenly no longer fun and games, it's a serious attack on the real true male masculinity of all real men. ;-)

A man's man is more manly than any other man on the planet. That's why they are manly men, with beards that put all other men's beards to shame, and enjoy wrestling with bears and eating twink... ees.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The problem is that sexualising a guy is pretty difficult

http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/134970898893/elf-warrior-by-zeilyan-truly-everything-about
https://youtu.be/lGXT_icWZok?t=38m45s
You welcome.

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree entirely. The Ecclesiarchy went from enlisting millions of men to enlisting none.

Yeah, but I am not sure they cared to explain why to people.

 Manchu wrote:
Plus, the decree was part of Thor's reform package.

Do you mean to say it was imposed on him? Just like he was forced to accept the title despite his will?

 Manchu wrote:
It would not have been poorly received and there is no reason for it to be a secret.

It's not a secret. That does not mean average people know about it. Many people in the Imperium do not even know that interstellar travel is possible… Planetary governor? Sure, their ancestors back then should have heard of it at some point. Anyone belonging to the Ecclesiarchy? Should have heard of it too. Arbites? They know about it. Random Imperial Guard #156465134? She's here to follow order, nothing more. Hive workers? Even more so.

 Melissia wrote:
There's been legions of books written on this topic of the sexualization of women, but I could name the number of people on Dakka that I suspect might have honestly and deliberately (without it being required as reading material by a college class) read even one or two of them on a single hand

Oooooh who ?

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
Consider what some people find attractive amongst cultures that have more conservative clothing for the women amongst them. You could even look at it chronologically, what was considered sexy in the 1950's is now far too tame for todays standards, bathing suits come to mind for this, every year they get smaller and smaller in order to maintain their sexiness.

And yet, when watching Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, the sexualization (of basically the whole women cast and of Vegetable (yes, that's the name of one of the male characters)) is pretty goddamn obvious (it's pretty refreshing to see they did it to Vegetable too btw). Similarly, if I see this nose art done in 1944, it's pretty obvious sexualization. Yet, when I watch Kirikou, no amount of naked breast is going to convince anyone but the most bigot that there is any sexualization going on. Or, say, this music video. The amount of flesh that is socially acceptable to show vary, but that's irrelevant to spotting sexualization…

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
I also don't think looking at the ratio of male to female sexualized content is fair either as it seems to me (my opinion based on personal observations mind you) that the demand to see sexualised women is greater than the demand to see sexualised men. Simple supply and demand would tell us that we should expect these ratios to exist.

And do you just stop at this? You do not feel like trying to understand why the demand is different, you leave it as “It's only natural”?

It seems to me that society focuses a lot more on women's appearance than men's appearance. For instance, why is it socially expected for women to put on make-up, but not for men? Is there not many more stories where the female love interest's desirability is basically all contained in her being beautiful and not a total jerk, while the male protagonist has to demonstrate his own desirability by his actions, than the other way around? Or is it just my bias speaking here?
More specifically about sex, when and how is the male body used to advertise sex? The female body is used to advertise sex in tons of place. From daemonettes being the only daemons with a clear gender indicator, to the totally-idiotic assumptions that goddesses are inherently sexually attractive and linked to sex (Yeah, Kali is NOT linked in any way to sex, and that guy is a goddamn idiot for not fact-checking his assumptions when the internet exist. Also neither is Nemesis, but on the other hand Zeus is a goddamn sex machine, and not exactly a monogamous or consensual one at that, but you would not tell from his in-game appearance…).
“Women's magazine” very often have pictures of naked women on them because they have articles inside telling them how they could look like that. “Men's magazine” tend to have pictures of naked women for the guys to ogle at (though, it's true, there are also men's magazine that do the same a women's magazine now, like Men's health).
Would you disagree that our society pushes men to make advances to women rather than the other way around too?
Do you think all this is due to “biological differences” rather than the influence of societal norms we are exposed to all our lives?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The problem is that sexualising a guy is pretty difficult

http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/post/134970898893/elf-warrior-by-zeilyan-truly-everything-about
https://youtu.be/lGXT_icWZok?t=38m45s
You welcome.

Really, Oxy?

The rest of my sentence reads "because sexualised men are the standard".

Read the rest of my damn post rather than trying to paint me as some kind of apologist, will you?

 Melissia wrote:
I, too, adore the Sororitas helmet.

We all do!

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
So with a plastic sisters release would you kind folks like to see another digital codex or have GW release a hardcover book?

A printed book. 100%. Digital is a pita.

 Elemental wrote:
But is it the case that such images of men don't exist, or that they do exist, and I just instinctively reject the "sexualised" label when looking at them, in favour of "impressive"?

If you are able to reject the level, the sexualization is tame compared to heroic fantasy standards, I guess. If you see an image of a guy with a lot of armor on irrelevant body parts, but strategically placed holes, with pierced nipples, and camera angles that cannot stop to linger on his ass, his pecs, … I think you'll notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The rest of my sentence reads "because sexualised men are the standard".

Those seems quite a lot more sexualized than the standard…

 Melissia wrote:
I, too, adore the Sororitas helmet. It's probably the best looking helmet design in 40k, really..

Most definitely. The Soritas helmet has that coll medieval look whilst at the same time being science fiction with a bit of win thrown in there. I love it and only wish that the Guard came with it.

Sororitas: join us, we have the best hats!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Those seems quite a lot more sexualized than the standard…

Really? Looks pretty standard to me. I guess we move in different artistic circles.

As for hats... I have this to say*;



*Note that this was pre-firing. I don't have a photo of it post-firing - the extra-pale blue is gloss white, and the pink is actually a very dark red.

Nice but… how are you going to see anything ^^?

 Melissia wrote:
I, too, adore the Sororitas helmet. It's probably the best looking helmet design in 40k, really.

Totally agree. They really struck on something cool by using the sallet.

Those seems quite a lot more sexualized than the standard…

Have you... not seen a men's underwear advertisement lately? An ad for men's deodorant? An ad for a pick-up truck?

These all depict big, brawny dudes doing big, brawny dude things, often in some state of undress (more or less, depending on the specific product), telling the people watching the ad that if you want to be a man, you have to look like this and buy this thing, or that if your man doesn't and isn't, then he isn't a real man. The Old Spice commercials that came out a few years ago were rather blatant about it, but they leavened it with humor... and quite effectively so.

Advertisement has always used sex and sex-appeal to sell products, it's basically the defining feature of the industry, and its sole means and purpose of existing. This is Marketing in its entirety, the end-all and be-all of the art.

I mean, hell, the Rolling Stones had a song about this fifty years ago!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sororitas: join us, we have the best hats!

Pretty good motto for the Sisters to draw players to the army.

"Join the Sisters of Battle, we have the best hats!"

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Nice but… how are you going to see anything ^^?

It's a decoration, don't be obtuse :p

In true GW fashion, the whole helmet is the same size as my actual head, lol.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
Consider what some people find attractive amongst cultures that have more conservative clothing for the women amongst them. You could even look at it chronologically, what was considered sexy in the 1950's is now far too tame for todays standards, bathing suits come to mind for this, every year they get smaller and smaller in order to maintain their sexiness.

And yet, when watching Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, the sexualization (of basically the whole women cast and of Vegetable (yes, that's the name of one of the male characters)) is pretty goddamn obvious (it's pretty refreshing to see they did it to Vegetable too btw). Similarly, if I see this nose art done in 1944, it's pretty obvious sexualization. Yet, when I watch Kirikou, no amount of naked breast is going to convince anyone but the most bigot that there is any sexualization going on. Or, say, this music video. The amount of flesh that is socially acceptable to show vary, but that's irrelevant to spotting sexualization…

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
I also don't think looking at the ratio of male to female sexualized content is fair either as it seems to me (my opinion based on personal observations mind you) that the demand to see sexualised women is greater than the demand to see sexualised men. Simple supply and demand would tell us that we should expect these ratios to exist.

And do you just stop at this? You do not feel like trying to understand why the demand is different, you leave it as “It's only natural”?

It seems to me that society focuses a lot more on women's appearance than men's appearance. For instance, why is it socially expected for women to put on make-up, but not for men? Is there not many more stories where the female love interest's desirability is basically all contained in her being beautiful and not a total jerk, while the male protagonist has to demonstrate his own desirability by his actions, than the other way around? Or is it just my bias speaking here?
More specifically about sex, when and how is the male body used to advertise sex? The female body is used to advertise sex in tons of place. From daemonettes being the only daemons with a clear gender indicator, to the totally-idiotic assumptions that goddesses are inherently sexually attractive and linked to sex (Yeah, Kali is NOT linked in any way to sex, and that guy is a goddamn idiot for not fact-checking his assumptions when the internet exist. Also neither is Nemesis, but on the other hand Zeus is a goddamn sex machine, and not exactly a monogamous or consensual one at that, but you would not tell from his in-game appearance…).
“Women's magazine” very often have pictures of naked women on them because they have articles inside telling them how they could look like that. “Men's magazine” tend to have pictures of naked women for the guys to ogle at (though, it's true, there are also men's magazine that do the same a women's magazine now, like Men's health).
Would you disagree that our society pushes men to make advances to women rather than the other way around too?
Do you think all this is due to “biological differences” rather than the influence of societal norms we are exposed to all our lives?

I see what you're saying about Faster pussycat but my point was simply that depending on who/where/when you are your predispositions about what is sexualisation and what is not will wildly differ. Some things are so far overboard on it that almost universally (note I said almost because there are always exceptions) people can agree that it is sexualisation but then there are other instances where it is much more subtle and some will think it is while others won't. My point stands that sexualisation is a big grey area and depending on the individual they will perceive it as such, there isn't a clear line in the sand that separates sexualized things from those that are not. For the nose art on warplanes I think it would be prudent to ask those involved what they think about it. The artists, the pilots, gunners, those dogfighting with them. Their perceptions on whether they believe it to be sexualisation may differ from yours now, but most importantly it's what you think of it, if you think it is sexualisation then to you it is, if they don't think it is then to them it isn't. I'm not trying to tell you what to think is sexualisation but merely trying to say that it's up to YOU whether you believe it to be and to make decisions based on that. same goes for Kirikou and that music video, I don't perceive any sexualisation out of them because for Kirikou I know enough about African cultures to know that nudity is a norm there and so I try to see it emphatically as they do. The music video is depicting some tribal motif, again where nudity is a norm and so I see it through that lens and don't see it as sexualisation. that's MY interpretation and it may differ from the opinion of another individual. Their view is no less valid than mine and I would respect it even if I don't agree with it.

On to the second point: The statement I made about supply and demand I stand by and the reason I did not continue that thought is because as I stated earlier this topic is far too large to cover in this thread. I stopped there because I felt further explanation was unnecessary to make my point about the differing ratios. I'm always open to further discussion and more information concerning the WHY of this topic but I just felt it didn't belong on dakka. I have my views on why the demand for female sexualisation is more common than the demand for male sexualisation but given that this is a tabletop wargaming community I felt those views and the discussion about them is best left to other venues designed more for this conversation. I would like to clear one thing up though: I feel you seem to think that I believe it is only natural that the ratio is skewed one way and that this is ok. In fact I believe it is a combination of many things but very strongly our societal norms play a huge role in this. If our societal norms were to change and the demand for male sexualisation was demanded more then to see the ratio shift would make sense. In fact I think our cultural norms in north America are shifting because movies like Magic Mike are coming out and they even do quite well for themselves and get sequels, this may be the pre-cursor to a shift showing the rise of male sexualisation in the more traditional sense that it has been happening to women and we may see a bridge between the demand ratios. But I digress... Please don't misunderstand me and say that I said "it's only natural" concerning WHY the demand is different, I never said that at all, but what I was trying to say is that if the demand is higher for sexualisation of women then it is natural that the supply would be higher to match it.

To answer a couple of your questions at the end there: I can't speak to your region of the world but I know in my region it is the norm for the male to express interest in the female first when it comes to asking someone on a date and as is traditional I'm sure in many places for the man to ask the girl to marry him. In recent years however I have noticed that more and more girls are asking guys to date them and I even know one couple now where the female proposed to the male. Second question: I don't pretend to know enough about human biology or how our brains work to give a full response other than to say that it is possible that our biological difference may influence our desires for sexualised material, maybe it does but truthfully I don't know. Societal norms are a key player in what is sexualised and informing demand and I think you can objectively look at that by viewing other cultures and seeing how, despite being human like everywhere else, they have different views on sexualisation.

I don't pretend to have all the answers Hybrid, and I don't mean to offend with anything I post and I hope you don't take it that way. I simply shared some of my thoughts on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's an awesome helmet Furyou, you make that yourself? What materials were used?

It's funny how as old as the SoB models are I feel they aged much better than some of the other models of their era. Anyone else feel this way?

 Psienesis wrote:
Have you... not seen a men's underwear advertisement lately? An ad for men's deodorant? An ad for a pick-up truck? These all depict big, brawny dudes doing big, brawny dude things.

Or in some cases they just use something manly and let you understand that this is the manliest manly thing you could have, and without it you're just not a man. Your balls were left somewhere before the real manly advertisement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-gray/bushmaster-rifle-ad-masculinity-gun-violence-newtown-adam-lanza_b_2317924.html

It's debatable whether "sexualization" is really germane to this topic. It is in my judgment certain, however, that the current tangent is off-topic. Anyone wishing to further discuss "sexualization" should do so in the Off-Topic forum. Thanks!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It's a decoration, don't be obtuse :p

I thought it was for cosplay. Hard to tell from a picture, because I have no idea which material is used and I cannot gauge the size of it ^^.

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
For the nose art on warplanes I think it would be prudent to ask those involved what they think about it. The artists, the pilots, gunners, those dogfighting with them.

I am pretty sure they were universally considered pinups…

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
same goes for Kirikou and that music video, I don't perceive any sexualisation out of them because for Kirikou I know enough about African cultures to know that nudity is a norm there and so I try to see it emphatically as they do. The music video is depicting some tribal motif, again where nudity is a norm and so I see it through that lens and don't see it as sexualisation.

Honestly I think it is more about how it is treated by the camera (and the story in Kirikou) than the context. I am pretty sure other music videos with a tribal motif would look very sexualized to you and me ^^.

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
I'm always open to further discussion and more information concerning the WHY of this topic but I just felt it didn't belong on dakka.

I don't know, how do the mods feel about it?

 Inevitable_Faith wrote:
It's funny how as old as the SoB models are I feel they aged much better than some of the other models of their era. Anyone else feel this way?

Yes . Especially
, best mini evar!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I don't know, how do the mods feel about it?

See above.

 Manchu wrote:
It's debatable whether "sexualization" is really germane to this topic.

Germane? What does Germany has to do with it ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's debatable whether "sexualization" is really germane to this topic.

Germane? What does Germany has to do with it ?

Full Definition of germane
1
obsolete : closely akin
2
: being at once relevant and appropriate : fitting <omit details that are not germane to the discussion>
ger·mane·ly adverb

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's debatable whether "sexualization" is really germane to this topic.

Germane? What does Germany has to do with it ?

germane
adjective
relevant to a subject under consideration.

 Melissia wrote:
And what do they suggest to emphasize the feminine characteristics? Giant boobs, fetishwear, and sultry poses-- traits and fashions which titillate and draw attention to how sexually desirable the person or miniature is.

And those of us who point out that it's possible to feminize a mini without those things by focusing on the more subtle cues that a figure is not male get more or less ignored or shouted down. Being able to tell someone is female in armor =/= boob plate. But instead we get people demanding either no difference at all (not realistic [remember folks, they took some effort to get the actress into that outfit for Brienne of Tarth and felt she was still 'too pretty' even with all they did] + not interesting) or 'huge tracts of land' and high heels. (Over sexualized + over done)

It's highly annoying..


edit: sorry, posted from a page back, this thread moves too fast. Apologies Manchu.

NP, just trying to get the conversation moving past this intractable issue.

Hybrid, we will leave this topic discussion alone then, suffice to say I feel we got a good discussion and it was, to my perceptions, handled fairly maturely especially given the subject matter. Thank you kind Sir or Madam for an enjoyable internet discussion with me that didn't devolve horrendously, those seem rare nowadays looking at many comments sections on the internet. I tip my hat to you. Also is that one of your models that you painted? It looks good, I used that model as my sister superior for my retributor squad, minus the flames on her power pack of course.


Manchu, I apologize for the OT discussion and thank you for your patience. I'm sure as a mod you cringed as this topic came up fearing what it may become. Thank you as well Sir or Madam.

BaronIveagh, I completely agree with you, the two extremes tend to be the loudest and the people with very valid, very sane ideas get lost in the middle. I feel a plastic re-design done somewhere in the middle as you suggest could work very well and keep many people happy.

So if they do re-release plastic sisters how do you guys feel about tanks like the exorcist? Would you want them to make a plastic pipe organ top piece or re-design the tank to perhaps look more like a missile platform?

Came here to read about people thoughts on why GW too slowed to remake SoB and it now became :

10% people actually discussing ops question
25% SoB have sweg hats
65% sexualisation thingny thing.

this ain't reddit, wtf going on here.


to respond to the real question :

its obvious gw doesnt care about sob and would rather expand on the armies that work already rather then revamping an old army in the hopes they might get sales of of it. i dont think gw thinks of making a big money hit with the sob line so they dont bother with it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It's a decoration, don't be obtuse :p

I thought it was for cosplay. Hard to tell from a picture, because I have no idea which material is used and I cannot gauge the size of it ^^.

Oh, lol. I thought it was pretty obvious from the stuff on the table around it and the comment about firing that it was clay. ^^; Sorry.

 Melissia wrote:
....people in this very thread have expressed the fear that if they don't emphasize and sexualize female miniatures.....

For someone who took exception to the idea that people were "bothered" by boob plate, I would have thought you would be more careful using a term like "fear".

People aren't "afraid" their models will be mistaken for males, they simply think it'd be better if their female models were visually distinctive. And visually distinctive doesn't have to mean fetishwear and sultry poses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 drunken0elf wrote:
Came here to read about people thoughts on why GW too slowed to remake SoB and it now became :

10% people actually discussing ops question
25% SoB have sweg hats
65% sexualisation thingny thing.

this ain't reddit, wtf going on here.


to respond to the real question :

its obvious gw doesnt care about sob and would rather expand on the armies that work already rather then revamping an old army in the hopes they might get sales of of it. i dont think gw thinks of making a big money hit with the sob line so they dont bother with it.

Welcome to every SoB thread ever Actually the hat thing is new, lol.