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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
The whole Catachan "beefcake" bulging biceps things is rather offensive and objectifying too.

Let's lose our collective minds over it too...

It is a different kind of objectification. One is typically a sexual fantasy (sexy ass-kicking nuns who all have F cup breasts, tiny waists and a thigh gap you can drive a rhino through), the other a power fantasy (big manly rambonegger men kill all the bad guys in the jungle with our huge muscles rargh).

If the catachans all ran around with cod-pieces borrowed from Henry VIII then you may have a point. But they don't.

The flipside can be equally true as it can be a power fantasy playing as these mortal human women in power armor that are kicking ass and purging heretics as some of the best warriors the IoM has to offer. It can also be a sexual fantasy to be playing these muscle bound beef cakes as they run around with unbuttoned shirts showing their sweaty muscles and possibly oiled abs. Then again you could be turned on by a facehugger from aliens or be empowered by playing as Isaac from Binding of Isaac as you cry yourself to victory.

Don't make comments like this on Dakka.

Thanks.

Reds8n

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.

I can see that someone needs to go back and watch more eighties rock music videos

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When you exaggerate a man, his junk doesn't get bigger because you normally don't see a dude's junk through clothing anyway.

I can see that someone needs to go back and watch more eighties rock music videos

True

IacobusIgnavus wrote:
Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.

I don't really think that would be the case because

1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.

2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.

Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....

When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.

Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Cool miniature, but I feel especially the “pants” looks way too Space-Mariny.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I love boob armour. […]
If it doesn't look like it stepped out of the vatican, it doesn't belong in 40K.

I am confused. I am pretty sure that boob armor doesn't look like it stepped out of the Vatican. I mean, the Pontifical Guards are all Swiss men, no women, and I don't expect any armor-wearing female statue would have a boob-plate…

If you cannot post without being grossly rude to others/minorities then it's really better that you don't post at all.

Thank you.

Wrong The Vatican. He's talking about that club down on Pico. They don't just let anybody in there.

 reds8n wrote:
If you cannot post without being grossly rude to others/minorities then it's really better that you don't post at all.

Thank you.

I… hope it is not an answer to my message but rather to some message that was removed and/or previous posters? Because I really don't see how my message would be grossly rude to anyone?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I… hope it is not an answer to my message but rather to some message that was removed and/or previous posters? Because I really don't see how my message would be grossly rude to anyone?

Pretty sure it was Hydra's post - don't worry about it

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

IacobusIgnavus wrote:
Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.

I don't really think that would be the case because

1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.

2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.

Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....

When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.

Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.

I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).

A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).

Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.

Here's an example from the site itself: https://www.absolutefencinggear.com/shopping/product_info.php/products_id/74/cPath/

And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:

My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?

And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).

A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).

Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.

Here's an example from the site itself: https://www.absolutefencinggear.com/shopping/product_info.php/products_id/74/cPath/

And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:

My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?

And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.

Very great point. GW didn't go this way though. Now here is a question. Has that been made by a man or woman? If by a man how do women feel about it when they wear it?


That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?

Davor wrote:
That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?

Anyone can wear Power Armour - it's just rare & expensive so very few people outside of Space Marine Chapters have access to it. It's also difficult to use without implants - Marines have the Black Carapace & AdMech have something similar but I think Sisters go without.

beast_gts wrote:

Davor wrote:
That said a few posters of commented that the Sisters of Battle are wearing Power Armour. I thought only Space Marines can wear power armour because to become a space marine, 1) you had to be male, 2) you needed implants and what not and that is why Space Marines Scouts don't wear power armour because they are not ready for it yet. So how come females can wear power armour then fluff wise?

Anyone can wear Power Armour - it's just rare & expensive so very few people outside of Space Marine Chapters have access to it. It's also difficult to use without implants - Marines have the Black Carapace & AdMech have something similar but I think Sisters go without.

Thank you very much. I thought from reading numerous posts only Space Marines could wear power armour and is a reason why females can't be space marines. Guess they were wrong.

Davor wrote:
Very great point. GW didn't go this way though. Now here is a question. Has that been made by a man or woman? If by a man how do women feel about it when they wear it?

Looking at the GW models for sisters (barring repentia...yikes), it is feasible to me that something resembling a "chest primary" could have been used as the base for their armor - the decorative bits being layered on top to create a decorated appearance. After all, wearing a corset into battle would be a bit constricting, and if we can make any assumption about power armor, we can assume it is neither super thin nor horribly form fitting.

Chest primaries are made by a number of different companies that are actually rather large. AF is one of the biggest fencing equipment suppliers I know of, so I can only assume you want me to rattle off the name/gender of exactly who invented such a thing. There is no documented inventor - it's a peice of molded plastic, good luck getting a pattent - but from what else is available, it was a logical change to the plastic protector some instructors wear in their jacket (they get struck more often and harder, and I sure as hell would not want to come home with fresh bruises after every practice). There is also a secondary type of chest primary affectionately nicknamed "salad bowls" (two round dishes of plastic) that fit within pockets in your jacket. Why are they not the first choice? I would imagine because getting struck while wearing that type of chest protector probably leads to the edges digging into your skin and because they do not actually avoid the "I got hit in the boob" feeling.

And if you are trying to ask if chest protectors were made by a man to make women fencers more sexy...? No. Fencing jackets are about the least form fitting garments I can think of because they are incredibly thick (collegiate fencing swords break, a lot) and you need extra space in there so it does not hinder your movement. Even my group wore glorified sacks for shirts.

Here's the US Olympic Fencing Team from London:
Not exactly a flattering uniform. And besides the color, that's pretty much what all collegiate/olympic fencers wear.

And honestly, I know plenty of people who joke or laugh when a girl in tv or movie gets struck and shouts accusingly "you hit me in the boob!" So, why would you automatically think a guy invented some plastic protective cover that specifically stops a lady's bits from jiggling about when she's fencing?

If you're still not convinced, there were maybe 3 ladies in my previous group. One of them was looking at getting a custom fitted chest primary from a smaller site, and the contact was a lady. The big places make things the way everything else is made - conveyer line.

How did everybody feel about them? About the same way guys feel about primaries. Honestly, if you are going to imply someone's primary is made as eye-candy, it's definately the male one. Female primaries do not do anything to make your boobs look bigger (which would be actually really counter-productive since the chest is the primary target in fencing).

Davor wrote:


Thank you very much. I thought from reading numerous posts only Space Marines could wear power armour and is a reason why females can't be space marines. Guess they were wrong.

Females can't be space marines due to the numerous implants and genetic modifications that space marines undergo. They only work on males.

Un-modified humans (male and female) can wear power armor, but they are generally limited to Sisters of Battle or Inquisitors. Perhaps very wealthy Rogue Traders and/or their command staff and/or body guards. But that's about it from the fluff/stories.

I'm thinking of the armour in Skyrim, and how that's modelled for women;
Steel just has a bulge at the front to accomodate the breasts. Nothing there to betray their shape or anything; just the fact there's a large protrusion at that point on the chest.
Then there's the sculpting on Glass armour, which isn't outrageous, but definitely shows a pair of breasts. I wouldn't call the sculpting a detriment to the functionality of the armour.

As long as the boob armour isn't ridiculous and ineffectual/negatively effectual, I'm fine. It's just an aesthetic, carry on.
Keep to function over form.
-----

And I might add, seeing as "why there aren't any female spehs merheens" keeps popping up:
"It only works on Males" because the mature male forme is physically robust and strong enough to have a meaningful chance of surviving the procedure. (Some still fail).
The mature female forme is not as robust and strong as the male forme, and thus has a much lower chance of surviving the procedure, to the point where there's no point even bothering when there's male stock available.

(Not assuming you guys don't know; it's just that I think the reason needs to be there, answers any questions of "but why?")

Boob and Corset armour should stay....

Boob armour does not make for a perfect fit for every situation, but it does fit 40K's Sisters of Battle/Silence.

It is all about context.

I think if I had to wear the Sisters of Silence Armour, the Shoulder Pads would come off before the Boob plates. Those things look cumbersome as .

 DarkBlack wrote:

Davor wrote:
After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...

Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.

For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.

I could see where it is an issue. In the context of nuns with guns I don't see it as an issue as the minis are well done, not sexualized in that manner, and kind of go a bit with a Valkyrie style.

 Frazzled wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Davor wrote:
After all on one side it's nice to have realism and not treat women as sexual objects...

Making it obvious that models are female is NOT objectifying them, any more (less if anything) than having women wear dresses while men wear suits. Teenage boys might think of "that" when they see "boobplate" but teenage boy think of "that" because of anything that vaguely resembles certain shapes.

For Slaanesh models I could see your point, but those should be sexualized (to some extent at least), because that's the theme.
If you don't think 40k should contain anything mature, that's another discussion.

I could see where it is an issue. In the context of nuns with guns I don't see it as an issue as the minis are well done, not sexualized in that manner, and kind of go a bit with a Valkyrie style.

They wear far more than some female models.
I want to collect plastic sisters but not because they have boobs...
More for fun, and there something of a new challenge.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

IacobusIgnavus wrote:
Boob armor is inconvenient, you'd break you sternum if you fell forwards, and it would direct glancing blows into you.

I don't really think that would be the case because

1) It should be designed to distribute force the same as non-boob armour, just not on the boobs themselves. So force would be distributed across the lower ribs, upper ribs, around the shoulders and the sternum. The alternative of having a boob-bulge (not individual boobs) would distribute force across even less area while the alternative of no boob-bulge at all would distribute force more evenly but at the cost of squashing the lady's boobs and making it hard to breath.

2) You'd literally have to fall face first with your arms spread open and without any attempt to save yourself. If you fall more gradually so your legs take some impact, you'd be fine, if your arms were in front of you, you'd be fine. If you happened to be wielding a chainsword or powersword I'd be far more worried about slicing yourself open while falling over than anything else.

Regarding the deflection issue, I mentioned on the previous page....

When it comes to human armour you're always going to have spots which are going to take hits squarely. If you have boobs and a buldge moulded in to your armour to account for it (even if it's just a bulge rather than "boob plate") you'll also have areas that direct glancing hits in to your face or in to your stomach.

Humans aren't tanks where you can just throw a piece of sloping armour on the front to redirect hits away safely.

I just want to add something to this beautifully orchestrated point here - I used to participate in historical fencing (think collegiate/olympic fencing with swords except our swords were much heavier and less bendy), and it was recommended (but not required) that ladies wear a "chest primary" to protect their breasts from being stabbed too hard (never participated in collegiate, but I think the chest primary was required there).

A protective rubber tip the size of a quarter still really hurts when there's a 6+ pound sword behind it and the bodyweight of a noob/rube that has not learned proper calibration yet, and ask pretty much any woman, it's incredibly painful to be struck in the boob. Being repeatedly struck in our hobby was supposed to create internal scar tissue that looked like cancer lumps and could screw up the non-fat tissues in there (thank you overly candid old lady that had been fencing since she was a teen). And other women often needed a breather after they were struck too hard in the chest (few, if any, of the ladies in my group wore these protectors).

Anyway, the "chest primary" is pretty much a boob plate.

Here's an example from the site itself: https://www.absolutefencinggear.com/shopping/product_info.php/products_id/74/cPath/

And a pic for those of you who cannot be bothered:

My point? It's a perfectly valid armor type. This example may be plain and worn under the clothes, but in the far future of 40k, who hasn't gone and added shineys and baubles to their armor?

And the area in the center is supposed to help with the force distribution. Your sternum is stronger than your ribs and collarbone, so adding its strength would greatly reduce the chance of suffering injury when being struck in the chest.

Interesting! Thanks for posting, I know nothing about fencing, my post was just based off thinking about load paths from a basic engineering stand point, it's good to know I wasn't wildly off in my guesses

 DarkBlack wrote:
It is not realistic and is rather silly, but the aesthetic looks good and fits the theme (SoB should be distinctly female). It would be next to impossible to tell if armoured people were female without it.

Agreed. Grimdark females wear boobplates. I don't understand why this is even a question.

Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.

Well, I like sisters more as a “Throw money at it until it work while looking stupidly ostentatious and unpractical - Catholic baroque church” joke than as a “space dominatrix joke”.

MadMarkMagee wrote:
Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.

I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.

 Vankraken wrote:

MadMarkMagee wrote:
Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.

I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.

Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.

Davor wrote:


Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.

I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.

However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Davor wrote:


Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.

I believe that viewpoint to be entirely down to interpretation, as I have never seen Sisters fitting in with that theme; outside of the Sisters Repentia, the theme of dominance in the SoB is lacking.

However, I would say the theme of punishment is strong with SoB, since they're all about bringing a painful and terrifying death to the enemies of the Emperor. How you interpret that theme is down to you.

Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all. So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.

Davor wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

MadMarkMagee wrote:
Sisters of battle (like a lot of 40k) are tongue in cheek. So boob armour is part of the space dominatrix 'joke' I suppose. I personally like the Kitch. I'd be opposed to this kind of thing in a more serious 'cannon' but 40k has orks. I rest my case.

I personally think the design of the armor is more in line with a mix of ornate gothic plate armor and women's victorian/gothic style clothing which is why they have a plate armor corset. I don't think it directly is trying to play up a space dominatrix theme which is more a Slaaneshi theme.

Not at all. I see Sisters of Battles as dominatrix theme. The acrofallegents. (spelling?), the other names that elude me at the moment (damn hate having a bad memory) just screams domination. Nothing wrong with that at all. That is just how I see it.

Some of the themes with the Sisters and the Ecclesiarchy in general have to do with redemption, purity, penitence, and martyrdom. A lot of the things like the Repentia and the Arco-flagellant are about seeking redemption on the battlefield and penitence for past misdeeds. Pain and suffering is a trope (both real life and fiction) used in cleansing a person's soul, to pay atonement for past sins, and reach a state of purity or enlightenment. Dominatrix like domination has to do with sexual satisfaction, control/submission, and sometimes the pain/pleasure interaction which again is more of a Slaaneshi theme. Now I can fully see how people might joke that sisters are into that sort of thing (along with having pyromania and having the hots for Big E) but I still don't think that is the intended design for the sisters. That said if BDSM was the inspiration for some of their design then it wouldn't really be surprising but I don't think its what the theme of the Sisters is about.

Davor wrote:


Thank you Sister Repentia. I agree it all comes down to viewpoint. Then again, some people view domination with sexualization while others don't and view it as a life style with no sex in it at all.

Sexual dominance is, well, sexual. There's no way to avoid that. If domination and dominatrix is your thing, that's a sex lifestyle. However I think it's important to note that there are obviously other meanings to the term "domination" outside of sex acts.

So now we are back to square one. Boobs like how GW puts on their minis is sexualising the minis and others don't see it like that.

I still struggle to see how this is sexualisation based on the definition of sexualisation - to make something sexual in character or quality, or when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness".

Perhaps girls in Power Armour with protruding (but fully covered) chest plates are your thing. For everyone else, Sisters would barely register as being sexualised.

G.A

There is a huge difference between the protection some women wear then the over exaggerated breasts the sisters have.