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.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.

The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.

It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.

So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:
It's the combination that makes this unit awful (half-naked slim girls - giant swords - masked Dominatrix - whips). It also doesn't make sense fluff-wise: these sisiers actively seek death/absolution and are regarded as an example - why should they need the BDSM lady?

The Repentia Mistress is an Overseer of the squad - she is there to remind them of their duty, and to deal with anyone who forgets their failings of the code of the Sisters, similar to a Penal Legion Officer.

Penal legionaries are a different breed - if any sister committed something like a lot these guys did, she would be executed immediately. And if the Sisters Repentia need a Mistress, every other squad should have one, too.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I don't see how this unit is "awful" - it only seems to be one's interpretation that makes them undesirable. Somehow the presence of the whip or a mask immediately yields something sexual or "BDSM" in nature. Even if that were the case, why does that make it the intention of something for a curious 12 year old to enjoy?

There are not much examples in real life or even history that would serve as a paragon for the Repentia squad. It's far from being that bad like this gem but it still fulfills too many stereotypes in my opinion.

Davor wrote:

It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.

So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.

Game of Thrones is quite different to 40k - but well, you should know. I mentioned the orign of the armour design and other examples of things not really appropriate for a hard-headed SF setting - there're (much) more. So the Sisters wear (feminine) ceremonial armour. Blood Angels show their sixpacks. Dark Eldar... Sorry, but what's your point?

Davor wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:
The Sororitas torso armour is a dress of noble women worn in the medieval times (and later) and hardly over-sexualized. Such things are some of the things that define 40k, like MK II/III knight armour, Roman breastplates on Blood Angels, power swords and axes instead of just power rods and gothic architecture all over the place.

The half-naked Sisters Repentia with their whip-swinging Dominatrix are more of a subject for debate.

It's sexualized. Yes it's not overly sexualized but it's sexualized non the less. Look if Game of Thrones on TV can have proper women in armour then how is this not being sexualized at all by GW? Game of Thrones. GAME OF FREAKING THRONES. They sexualize their movies, but funny how it's not done when a woman wears armour.

So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.

As has been mentioned several times, it isn't because at this scale you need to exaggerate the secondary sexual characteristics to make it worth doing. It isn't to titilate, it's to give a clue on a 2" model from 3ft away that it's not a man.

As for GoT, I assume you're referring to Brienne? If so, that's a poor example as that's a character that being highly defeminised is key to who she is and how she's portrayed.

Asterios wrote:
wheres my Moob armor ?

I approve of this message.

...

In regards to boob armor...
I prefer more practical looking stuff now a days.

There's some good mancake out there, but often not as well rendered as the women.

I think it's valuable to have discussions like these, because no one is actually saying remove it all. What we're all saying is be more original.

Boob Armor is, of course, totally unrealistic. If you want realistic miniatures, it has no place on the field.

That being said, you don't always want realistic miniatures. I personally think certain aspects of realism have to be sacrificed to make models look better at arm's length tabletop range. (Heroic scale looks better than truescale, imo) To that end, if you want a miniature to be recognizably female at a distance, you have to be able to distinguish secondary sex characteristics, which means facial features or body shape.

So in most of the cases where it shows up in 40k, I don't mind so much.

I love it. I like my female models to look attractive and I find GW get this right without falling into cheesecake territory.

I'm pretty indifferent towards it, if its done well and tastefully then by all means why not.

More importantly, if the presence of boob-armour bothers you so much in a setting where you have wolf marines riding bigger wolves and guys with vacuum cleaner guns that shoot green midgets as weapons then maybe you want to re-evaluate where your priorities are.

Davor wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
but why do you think it makes 40k less grim?

What does having exaggerated armor do to change a setting which features species-wide genocide, daemonic possession,gateways to hell and all the other trappings that make the 40k universe such a happy place to be?

When I see Sisters of Battle, and I see boobs it has become sexualized. So instead of grim mark, I see sex. Funny thing is, for Slannesh models, and the old ones, I don't see sex at all. I don't see not titilation at all because it looks something "real" that would happen if real, but when it comes to boob armour the realism is taken away and looks less grim mark. When I see nipples on Blood Angels Space Marines, it looks less grim mark. Why? It looks like a joke for me. Yes I know, Romans had nipples and six packs on their armour, but still just looks silly. If it looks silly it doesn't look grim mark then. So when I see boobs on Sisters of Battle while it does't look silly, it just looks more sexualized and so there fore less grim mark.

Hope this makes sense.

You sexualize boob plate armor, just like you finding roman nipples and six ab armor silly looking. The models themselves aren't a problem

 Dryaktylus wrote:
Penal legionaries are a different breed - if any sister committed something like a lot these guys did, she would be executed immediately. And if the Sisters Repentia need a Mistress, every other squad should have one, too.

The comparison to Penal Legionnaires was down to the need for an Overseer type character to deal with any problematic members of the squad. And why on earth should every SoB squad have a Mistress now? The Sisters Repentia are essentially criminals to the Sisters, and function as a suicide squad - normal Sisters don't need a Mistress to lash them according to any desire for self mutilation or because they stepped out of line.

There are not much examples in real life or even history that would serve as a paragon for the Repentia squad. It's far from being that bad like this gem but it still fulfills too many stereotypes in my opinion.

A comparison to a model piece that has an actual intention of being sexy or conveying the theme of sex acts to models with a lack of armour seems like a bad comparison, as is comparing real life or historical examples to a fantasy universe. And what stereotypes are they exactly fulfilling? Again, it seems any issue with these models is down to a person's interpretation and schema.

Davor wrote:
So instead of changing the goal posts and saying "over-sexualized" so a little bit is ok, let's just stick with how it is sexualization no matter how small or large it is. Even a little bit is still sexualization. What is the purpose of GW adding boob armour if it's not for sexualization or the least titilation? No pun intended there.

Giving a model a defining breastplate is sexualisation, as in it has been added to attribute the model to a sex theme? That's new to me.

As others have said already, the point is to define the models as female, while also being a highly stylised piece of armour in the case of the SoB. An example of a more subtle piece of armour can be found in the same universe with the Eldar Guardians, but from a distance you'll struggle to define those models as female since they are helmeted.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
Game of Thrones is quite different to 40k - but well, you should know. I mentioned the orign of the armour design and other examples of things not really appropriate for a hard-headed SF setting - there're (much) more. So the Sisters wear (feminine) ceremonial armour. Blood Angels show their sixpacks. Dark Eldar... Sorry, but what's your point?

The funny thing is that DE are revealing with the intention of being sexualised, since they are overindulgent to say the least, and are sole minded in finding ecstasy.

I am happy with it.

As otehrs have said it is primarily (likely in universe as well) to define the wearer as female.

Also the original SOB armour was IIRC ordered by Vandire and he liked that sort of thing.....

Azreal13 wrote:[ it's to give a clue on a 2" model from 3ft away that it's not a man.

Thank you very much. You have just proved my point I made when I made my joke in the other thread.

Davor wrote:
I made a little joke about Sisters of Silence on Boob Armour and someone comes along and berates me saying if I don't like it, I shouldn't make any comments on it. As I said it was a little joke and said no more but this person had to call me out on it and demanded I can't talk about it. After all this is a discussion forum and if we can talk about it we can. So it seems this person wants boob armour and is passionate about it. Well I shouldn't say he is passionate about having boob armour, he seems passionate about his female miniatures but it also seems he wants to have boob armour or he wouldn't call me out when I made the joke.

My stance is I don't care either way. As a boy who loved these childish things in my younger days I agree it can stay, after all Rule of Cool and all that. Now that I have grown up I can see why people don't like having boob armour and can see their view as well.

I for one now would like to See Sisters of Battle without boob armour. I would like to see a bit more realistic approach as we have the fine women who serve the forces of today and we can't really tell if they are male or female. Seeing boob armour on Sisters of Battle will just make that army a bit more sexual now. I thought GW was trying to get away from sexualizing their minis, so I am surprised at this. If I want to have sexual in my minis I would by Kingdom Death. I would like a nice army, and I think it would be a good idea of not having boob armour on Sisters of Battles and make it a really serious grim dark army, not just an almost power armour army with boobs.

What do you think? What are your opinions of boob armour?

I think that you are overthinking it. This initial salvo, and your subsequent answers show that your entirely too invested in your own bias opinion. As puritanical as you think you are, Sci Fi and Fantasy are entertainment. Your blasting away at this subject like you are protecting your sisters cherry. I am looking at them, even right here on my desk, and I'm honestly not seeing how you see them as, in your term- "Oversexualized." (I don't even think you know what that word means.)

Are Sisters of Battle oversexualized?
That is your opinion. As a miniatures army and the attached fluff, when they started out, I thought that they were pretty cool. In their upcoming plastics, We hope that they are worth the 500.00 + that they are going to cost to actually buy a few and add to the ones I already have. You keep shooting boobs as a term, so that as well shows that your pretty entrenched in your thought process. I've seen armies such as Slannish, and some chaos stuff out there that you, honestly, won't handle. That you have the idea that, because there is something on a 1-2" model that shows they are female, shows you a bit immature, regardless of your age. If you are speaking of the same sisters of battle that I am, I see a bunch of pretty much static armored women, in armor that is along the same lines as the rest of the 40K style... If you can't handle that, there is always checkers.

Alternativly, GW does indeed have a puritanical Inquisitor model, and you can find plenty of models out there that you can add to the retnue that would fit the bill for your Inquisition. Seeing as there is no real Sisters of Battle army list...

Davor wrote:
Thank you very much. You have just proved my point I made when I made my joke in the other thread.

I don't understand what point you were making; care to elaborate?

 Vertrucio wrote:
I think it's valuable to have discussions like these, because no one is actually saying remove it all. What we're all saying is be more original.

Nope, Nope. The problem is that every time an Adepta Sororitas thread comes up there is the same half dozen posters that want to remove the boob armor. Then the argument eventually degenerates into the thinly veiled implications that anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot, for not agreeing that it's impractical, or a pervert, for not agreeing with them that's it's oversexualised.

Someone will eventually take it personally, insults will be exchanged, and the thread will be will locked.

no Booby armor? then why bother having SoB ? you can take any old model and say its a SoB so why bother then? but then again why bother painting your space marines in the first place? this way they can be whatever you want them to be, hell you can even say they are orcs, oh wait that is right we want uniqueness we want people to be able to take a quick look at the minis and know right off the back what they are, if you don't like women with boobs or boob armor then don't play, go read the Bible, oh wait that is more X-Rated then this game ever gets.

Asterios wrote:
wheres my Moob armor ?

Grandfather nurgle called dibs on all moobs.

I don't have any problem with or without boob plate.

Specifically in the context of GW miniatures, I think they're fitting. GW exaggerate everything, guns are huge, heads are huge, hands are huge, embossed or engraved details are huge, rivets are huge, panel lines are huge, often the random details hanging off the model are huge. The only thing that maybe squeezes by not being huge are skulls, simply so the model can be adorned with more of them

If I were trying to sum up GW's aesthetic in a few words it'd probably be big chunky details, exaggerated proportions and excessive detail.

So given that, boob plate is very fitting for GW models.

I love boob armor. I think it is a great way to show representation of the female on a 1" tall minature. What I don't like and find even more disturbing is the footware. High Heals on the battlefield. Yeah right. The soldier would break their ankles long before they would need to worry about bullet catchers in the chest region.

Also the heals are just not necessary to show femininity on the figure, not when you have the boob plate to do that.

 Jayden63 wrote:
I love boob armor. I think it is a great way to show representation of the female on a 1" tall minature. What I don't like and find even more disturbing is the footware. High Heals on the battlefield. Yeah right. The soldier would break their ankles long before they would need to worry about bullet catchers in the chest region.

Also the heals are just not necessary to show femininity on the figure, not when you have the boob plate to do that.

Maybe you need to actually look at the miniatures instead of repeating internet myths.

Only in one or two codex illustrations are SoBs portrayed with heels, and those are only stylistic representations.

Think it's pretty stupid, impractical, at least a bit objectifying, would be happy to see it go, but also think there are much bigger fights than it, so don't really care. Also, sometimes rule of cool, and in the case of miniatures it's easier to ID sex as shorthand.

But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.

Well it rather depends what you mean by "boob armour".

Are we talking about some ridiculous chainmail bikini/steel plate croptop-lookin' thing, or stylised armour plating? If it's the former, blergh, no ta. If it's the latter, which in this case it is, then for anyone who doesn't adhere to one of the fundamentalist sex-negative strains of feminism, there's nothing wrong with it except as Peregrine says contextually.

By which I mean, objectively, when considered on their own armour plate with sculpted female characteristics is no different than armour plate with sculpted male characteristics. It's only once you put the armour with female styling in the context of something like GW's model range, which is seriously lacking in other styles of female miniatures, that it can seem a bit off.

Now, for my money, the solution to that is to substantially increase the number of female models in other styles, not to demand existing styles be changed.

And one thing - I don't buy this whole "it puts off women to see 'sexy' models" line, I suspect what puts women off are the sadly not uncommon breed of slavering manchildren who seem to infest many nerd subcultures and take the mere presence of a woman as license to be a leering, innuendo-spouting, even gropey trog. Now obviously #notallgamers blah blah, but these guys exist and they rarely get pulled up on their gak. Maybe part of that is due to nerds often having sub-par social skills and not really being sure how to challenge it, but regardless it largely goes unchallenged.

Perhaps devoting all that annoyance some folk evidently feel when they see a gothic boob plate on a model into raising awareness of and maybe even proposing some solutions to that problem might be a more productive(and substantially less annoying) use of time.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.

and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.

Asterios wrote:
and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.

And nobody is holding a gun to your head preventing you from buying the models you want. Criticizing something you like is not the same thing as oppressing you.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and as I said before if you do not like it, don't get it, nobody is forcing you with a gun to your head to buy such things too anybody who doesn't like boob armor with 6" stilleto boots that is fine, don't buy it, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they can or cannot buy either. you are not their mommy or daddy nor their god or whatever. sadly the more the world evolves the less liberties we have.

And nobody is holding a gun to your head preventing you from buying the models you want. Criticizing something you like is not the same thing as oppressing you.

except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Asterios wrote:
except when it becomes a rant of i'm better then you and you are sexist and so forth.

Criticizing you is not the same thing as taking away your liberties.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But there are representations... as such my observation is valid. There is also the possibility I wasn't talking just about SOB models. Lots and lots of sci-fi / fantasy minis with boob plate that are also rocking 6" stelletos.

That's fine, however this thread is about SoBs and their armor, not all the other representations by other companies.

I think stilettos on a fighting woman is a bit silly too, but I don't have to rail against it on the internet.

I would also argue that the miniatures are more important than a couple of John Blanche illustrations that are meant to be evocative but not representational of the Grimdark universe. The preponderance in this case belongs to the actual, physical objects.

No the armor does not sexualize or sexually objectify SoBs. They are in fighting poses and are sensibly covered up (except for Repentia, and there is a reason for that, also not due to sexuality; for them it is a punishment of near certain death (or their armor is their faith, perhaps imho))

Sisters are not "cheesecake" while there are manufacturers that produce CFW's (Cheesecake Fighting Women) SoBs are not them.

Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".

We do not need to be ashamed of these miniatures, we do not need to change these miniatures, we do not need to criticize or act as though they are an affront to decent women everywhere. They are not hurting anyone and they represent strong women doing great things.

xraytango wrote:

Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".

The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB. Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.

GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct? What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women.

I feel like this thread has potential to be a salt mine. Any topic dealing with sexuality or the female body is going to attract the wrong crowd.

Does not mean we cant stand back and watch it hit the fan though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

xraytango wrote:

Sisters' "boob armor" does not: have nipples, expose clevage, or hide the fact that they are women while still being far more practical than the chain-mail bikinis so prevalent on other miniatures purportedly representing fighting women. The emphasis of the armor design is to clearly and visibly show that they are women as an aesthetic device signifying to all that the Ecclesiarchal branch no longer has "men under arms".

The Sisters' power armour is already aesthetically different from Space Marine power armour (and from most other types of power armour). Even if they had a SoB icon (instead of the distinct boob plate) on the breastplate (or other related iconography) like Marines have they would still be easily identifiable as SoB. Or do all of your SM miniatures need extra huge codpiece so you can identify them as male when you use helmets and not bare heads? Why would you need boob armour to further differentiate them? SoB armour is already so unique that GW apparently can't manage to make a viable plastic moulds for the faction.

GW have multiple visually distinct SM power armour styles (from Thunder armour to Mk.8, artificer armour,…) and you can even visually identify some specific chapters (for example the Space Wolves) from others due to different greeble. They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct? What about the other parts of the SoB design language? Would you really not be able to identify the miniatures as belonging to the Ecclesiarchy if they had a more practical breastplate? If you know that the Ecclesiarchy has no "men under arms" then having distinctly gendered armour variants is not even needed as you know that they are women.

I think you are completely missing what he is saying. The armor they wear is not sexual, if they were in a sexy position or showing cleavage, then we could talk.
As for your whole rant on making a new armor set just for the sisters, you went a bit far and jumped into gender politics territory with "They can create many different styles for an all-male faction but when it comes to the one all-female faction a boob plate is what makes them distinct?"

Yes, it does make them distinct. Otherwise they would look like Eldar.
I like the Sisters of Battle's aesthetic, and cant wait to see it in plastic.