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.

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

I don't get why you guys care about miniatures at all. Or possessions at all. Or culture. Or anything. It is all a lie. True meaning comes only from within.


Therefore stop making me feel bad for buying tasteless crap.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Dentry wrote:

Nothing has been lost and more has been gained. I'd call it a win for the majority.

It will be if the sales for PG13 justify the extra cost of their creation, stocking, distributing ectr. if they sell better or worse than the originals it will be an interesting market research, I wonder if they will release such data.

True. Prodos could certainly suffer for it if sales don't pull through.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I don't get why you guys care about miniatures at all. Or possessions at all. Or culture. Or anything. It is all a lie. True meaning comes only from within.


Therefore stop making me feel bad for buying tasteless crap.

Happiness is zero sum.

The videos linked may explain some reasons, bias and misconceptions, about what the target audience is int he heads of the executives and the fear of not identifying with the female representations and other such stupidity.

I do not think one should see GW as the main representative, they are huge, but not the only visible thing anymore.

I still am not convinced that "realistically depicted" female models is the thing that prevented female gamers to play, or that it will attract them, in large numbers, I am also skeptical on the market force, reaper has already admitted less cloth more sales, CB has mentioned several times that the cheesecake models sell tremendously good.

Should we have both? duh of course, choice never hurted anybody, but who will take the market risk in daring it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

So, you guys are displeased about scantily clad models. Okay, getting upset over models that have revealing clothing is kinda weird. Their plastic boobs and butts. Plus their not real.

You have 29 posts on this forum. You've used three of them within a few hours of each other in this calm and mature thread - trolling it - clearly without having bothered to read any of it, let alone the thread that spawned it. You also spelled "they're" incorrectly. Twice. Welcome to ignore, kiddo.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

I would say your entire post says one thing, "I have not read the thread and assume what it is about from the title" go read it, see were each poster stands what this thread is really all about and then come and comment.

You want an answer to the question, I am not, what made you think so? not reading the thread perhaps?

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

This post is really good! Thanks.

It's a weird discussion, right, because the Prodos miniatures are sort of... irrelevant? If I was playing 40k or something and a male opponent was using those miniatures as their army then I'd probably be really uncomfortable unless I knew them very well. As a niche game, though, I don't really have a problem with it? It might weird me out if a bunch of guys I didn't know well were playing it at a store or club or something, but its existence doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is when female models are badly represented in games that I do want to play, like Warmachine or Infinity, or don't exist at all, like in GW's games.

And hey, maybe I'd even have fun with the Prodos miniatures myself in the right context. I guess that's part of it - I feel like the Prodos miniatures understand what context they're going for, and that's easy to respect. Some other games seem to think the time to sexualise female characters is "always," not thinking that maybe when you are making a game that has male characters who are modeled to be powerful and cool then maybe you should make the female ones powerful and cool too rather than "sexy."

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Like it or not GW is, in many, if not most places, the face of miniature gaming. From the point of view of a new gamer walking into a games workshop, you'll be hard pressed to find even one female model, let alone have the luxury of engaging in the cheesecake/realistic debate. The worst part is, it's there but they're so inconsistent you can hardly tell. A great deal of their factions are all-male fighting forces (SM, CSM, Orks (though you could argue Orks are really genderless)), but even in cases where it would make sense to have female models(IG/AM, Tau, Mechanicus) they often just don't bother, even when 50% of all Fire Warriors or Cadian Guardsmen should be female since basically everyone is born a soldier in those cultures. I wonder in cases like those, is it laziness? or do miniatures companies have the same issue that video games often do, where execs vote down female characters because they "don't sell" creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think there would be nearly as much complaints about sexualized models, if there were a few ranges of commonly available, tastefully dressed and sufficiently armored out in the market (and by that I mean, out in the stores where people are playing). I think it would also go a long way towards lessening the notion that wargaming is a male-exclusive hobby. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the market and draw in a new demographic of people, and in the current nothing-matters-but-the-next-quarter economy, few want to take the risks that would require.

Though it's probably worth keeping in mind that if you walk in on a random WHFB or 40k game you're more likely to see female models on the table than if you walked in on your average historic wargame.

Also don't female Tau Fire Warriors just look exactly the same as male Tau Fire Warriors? I thought it was only those weirdo fans that drew pictures of female Tau with big boobs and bums Aren't the actual female Tau very similar in appearance to male Tau?

Cadians are probably the big discrepancy, in the fluff they should have females but the physical models don't. But that said, the Cadian models in general are pretty crap. They're so bulky that a female Cadian would either look like a male Cadian to match the bulkiness of the existing models, or you'd have to make them rather svelte in which case they'd clash with the existing models. I think if you made female Cadians you'd have to redo the entire line of Cadians if you didn't want them looking silly, which I don't see GW doing.

Personally I don't really care that females are under represented in war games because females have always been under represented in war historically and I'm not really convinced that having better female representation in models would result in a more diverse group of gamers anyway.

There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

 Rainyday wrote:
I believe there's room for both "cheesecake" and realistic figures, but only if you have the choice. One problem is, though there may be options out there (like the oft-mentioned Victoria miniatures), your average casual player won't see them. All the conversion bits and counts-as in the world won't help if someone walking into the game store to learn about the game doesn't have such an option. In fact, for most games, you'd be hard-pressed to find any female fighters at all, aside from maybe a token all-female unit or a boobplate-sporting leader, and GW is one of the worst offenders.

Actually, I think if anyone walks into a standard gaming shop (especially a GW shop since they discourage using non-GW products) they wouldn't see any of the alternative cheese cake models from these other companies. I personally have never seen an alternative party figure outside of a private collection or garage game. Most don't actually make it to a public gaming store. So your pretty much stuck seeing the basic gaming lines and the models that they come with. Yes they are for sale, yes people buy them, some people may actually buy a lot of them, but how many actually make it into forces that get brought to a public place?


I'd also like to take a moment to bitch slap whomever first said this (I noticed the poster was quoting someone else, but failed to say who said the following, so this isn't against the dakka member)

More naked figures are seen as little more than teenage masturbatory items and make painters / modeller/ players who use them will see any female person as little more than an object because of this. In the words of probably the most visible feminist of recent times who spoke at the UN

" The more you think you aren't affected. The more you are actually affected"

The naked form is beautiful and should be celebrated not hidden or shamed. Maybe, just maybe with greater exposure, better appreciation for what it represents, and above all remove the taboo factor of natures most natural state, then it wouldn't be an issue anywhere in the first place.

As an adult the tantalizing allure of alcohol completely disappeared once I actually had access to it. I probably have $200 dollars worth of liquor in my cabinet and that will probably last me a year given how often I actually make a drink. I can pretty much say the same thing about nudity.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

The problem is that she actually likely doesn't have as much a choice to look at them, or rather in this hobby, to be constantly bombarded by imagery of oversexualized females.

Do a thought experiment for me and in your mind replace every instance where you see a sexualized female miniature, or overly buff male miniature, with an image of a sexy effeminate male, or some other form of very uncomfortable sexual imagery. You can probably handle imagining it a few times, but now imagine it being absolutely everywhere. Imagine not being able to walk down the street, or go to your favorite internet forum without being bombarded with it. Imagine GW replacing all IG males with males in panties posed not like they were going to fight, but were readying themselves to be ravaged by the enemy, and that imagery is everywhere you go.

At that point, you don't have as much choice as you think. Likewise, you might try to say that she can just choose not to buy instead, but what if you love the hobby in the same way that you love playing IG? You certainly complain about losing your army to anti-consumer practices, so why don't you quit IG and quit GW games entirely? Why don't you?

And there is the issue. It's because if you thought about it, you don't have as much choice as you'd think. Or rather, the other choice would be to abandon something you love. In your case it's your Imperial Guard--oh sorry, I mean Astra Millitarum. In her case, and for other women gamers, its a choice between putting up with these depictions or abandoning a hobby they love.

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

 Vertrucio wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
What is all this about? Some female miniatures?
Really people, if you do not like them then do not use them. Simple.

I will keep this quote handy for every damn time you say IG are in a bad spot or something.

Because for myself at least, it's not that I dislike female models, I just consider them to be 'in a bad spot.'

Two different things:

Number 1 is a massive collection of models which the owner of has spent a small fortune on, collected and lovingly painted and themed their force only to have the developers and rules writers of the game said miniatures are for essentially invalidate them.

Number 2 is a single model. Or style of model. Anyone has the choice to buy it or not. Anyone has the choice to look at it or not.

See the difference? One is the screwing over of a massive collection that a person has spent years and vast amounts collecting, the other is a miniature that one can choose to own and/or look at or not.

They are not immune to criticism just because they are liked.

....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

The problem is that she actually likely doesn't have as much a choice to look at them, or rather in this hobby, to be constantly bombarded by imagery of oversexualized females.

Do a thought experiment for me and in your mind replace every instance where you see a sexualized female miniature, or overly buff male miniature, with an image of a sexy effeminate male, or some other form of very uncomfortable sexual imagery. You can probably handle imagining it a few times, but now imagine it being absolutely everywhere. Imagine not being able to walk down the street, or go to your favorite internet forum without being bombarded with it. Imagine GW replacing all IG males with males in panties posed not like they were going to fight, but were readying themselves to be ravaged by the enemy, and that imagery is everywhere you go.

At that point, you don't have as much choice as you think. Likewise, you might try to say that she can just choose not to buy instead, but what if you love the hobby in the same way that you love playing IG? You certainly complain about losing your army to anti-consumer practices, so why don't you quit IG and quit GW games entirely? Why don't you?

And there is the issue. It's because if you thought about it, you don't have as much choice as you'd think. Or rather, the other choice would be to abandon something you love. In your case it's your Imperial Guard--oh sorry, I mean Astra Millitarum. In her case, and for other women gamers, its a choice between putting up with these depictions or abandoning a hobby they love.

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

I'm not entirely sure why you're replying to my post?

Is this just a string of of "quote person but don't actually respond to what they've said and instead bring up something completely unrelated"? It sure feels like it... I reply to someone saying what they said doesn't follow from what they quoted.... then someone quotes me with a wall of text that has nothing to do with what I said.

It's a big thread, misquoting happens. But it also doesn't help to reply quote again with even less to add to the discussion.

If you do the easy math and look up 1-2 quotes, my statements make more sense, and I stand by them.

 Abanshee wrote:

Correcting muh spelling. God, your insufferable. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin (which I have frigging slow). Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

You don't get to demand anything. Now go away.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

That's good, actually. But I'm curious what you mean when you say the female soldiers wont be "obvious and cliched." What will be the difference? I'm assuming the most telling thing will probably be a slight size reduction (maybe a variation on armor plating) and the models will be sold in mixed units, no purely female / male packs.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's a big thread, misquoting happens. But it also doesn't help to reply quote again with even less to add to the discussion.

If you do the easy math and look up 1-2 quotes, my statements make more sense, and I stand by them.

So who were you replying to? My previous post? Or someone else?

It's just when someone replies to me directly I usually like to try and reply, and if it's a misquote I try and correct so it doesn't cause confusion and/or people don't think I've said things I didn't.

 Vertrucio wrote:

It's one of the reasons why I took the time and money to commission decent female soldiers, and am actually taking the time to sculpt those female soldiers in such a way where I don't need to make it obvious and cliched that they're female. It's because I like choice. While I enjoy T&A as much as any other male, I don't need it in my life 24/7, I've got a variety of interests so I find it annoying that my most beloved hobby is so fixated on it. I can barely imagine what it's like to be a woman in this hobby having to deal with it.

That is all nice and interesting in an artwork, I will be interested to see how you will realize it in a miniatures form and manage to deliver something that looks like a female from a meter away.

Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
....maybe you quoted the wrong post, I'm not seeing how your statement follows in any way from what you quoted

See this:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

Why yes, of course it does, the whole point of making female models if to have a representation of female characters in a setting, if they do not look like it then why bother, they may all be male for what it is worth (the default assumption for a combat environment).

And this is a thing discussed on many of the pages that have passed, if you want to make a representation of something, it must look like the thing you intent to represent under the conditions it is indented to be used.

A "realistically depicted" female warrior in 28-32mm scale is almost identical to the male one some differentiation must happen for the sculpt to look what it is supposed to represent, even Victoria's female guards have elements that are not "realistic depictions" of female warriors to differentiate them from the male counterparts and I am sure nobody has (or should have) anything bad to say about them.

I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

It's a real-life hobby!

We should totally move away from the defacto all-male fighting forces since, as you point out, this is not real life. By that same token, models not being realistic shouldn't be that big of an issue, right?

I would love Games Workshop to make all Astra Militarum, Eldar, Dark Eldar, etc kits to be of mixed gender units. With the exception of Space Marines, Orks, Sisters, Tyranids, and Necrons which have lore or are genderless.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

I don't understand your point.

IRL it's difficult to tell male from female soldiers because the bulk of armour and equipment covers up the sexual dimorphism and secondary sex
characteristics. Unless you are pretty close to them.

However in a game, if you make all the soldiers look the same, they will be assumed to be men because historically, warfare is almost exclusively the province of men.

This means that if you want to include female soldier figures they need to be differentiated from the male soldier figures. This can be done by exaggerating various aspects of body form and pose without turning them into miniature porn dolls.

Statuesue Miniature's female resistance fighters do a good job of this.

All this isn't really a point at issue. The real question is to what degree the mass of female figures used in games should be made to look like porn dolls (the chainmail bikini, etc.) because some people like that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The real question is to what degree the mass of female figures used in games should be made to look like porn dolls (the chainmail bikini, etc.) because some people like that.

As much the designers want them to look like porn dolls and people want to buy models that look like porn dolls. If there's an excess of them I think there's more benefit looking outwardly at society in general to find answers and solutions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I don't understand your point.

I assert that we shouldn't need to go in with the assumption that an androgynous soldier is male, because this is fiction, not real life.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I don't understand your point.

I assert that we shouldn't need to go in with the assumption that an androgynous soldier is male, because this is fiction, not real life.

Shouldn't "need" to, but do for many rather obvious reasons.

Only a fraction of all CEOs are female, but when I hear 'CEO' I do not think 'male'.

What about when you look at pictures of CEOs?

If I see a picture of a CEO androgynous enough to leave the answer in doubt, I'll ask or make a guess.

Luckily CEOs rarely wear power armor.