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.

Asterios wrote:
and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.

As the Official Designated Female™ for this thread I will offer my opinion: boobplate armor is The Worst, and you should be ashamed of yourself for liking it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
Its been a crazy long time since any model line that was released was univerally praised as being great looking, or just what everyone wanted.

I think the last once that came close was when the DE were reimagined.

No, I think it was the Imperial Knights line. Great models *and* exactly what everyone wanted!

Except the stupid legs. Forge World Knights are fine though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.

Surprisingly, not all females think the same way. Some aren't going to like boob plate, some aren't going to care, some are going to like it. Some might feel objectified by it, some won't. What's the proportion? Feth knows.

personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour

For Sisters of Battle I'm not specifically opposed to the boob plate, but I'm not overly fond of the naughty nun/corset/S&M theme on some models, mainly the Repentia. Compare them to the Empire Flagellants.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Cadian females have masculine facial features, duh.

And that is why people are complaining. They are not "feminine" enough OR "sexy" enough. I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.

I find it funny a lot of people will say its "ceremonial" but if it's ceremonial and Sisters of Battles have money for it, why are they wearing it into battle though?

Yodhrin wrote:

I think it's pretty unfair to go after SoB for having large breasts on the models, considering the models are hilariously old at this stage -

It's the Sisters of Battles who have the "Look it's boobs" on their armour. Ceremonial or not, that is something you don't wear in battle unless it's magic armour. Then fine, ceremonial armour it is.

Again either way I don't care. I thought it would be a good topic. Funny two or three posters come in and say "this again?". Well why are you commenting and keeping the thread going if you want it to die? I can never understand the people who don't want a thread going keep reading it, and posting it to keep it going and on top.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the problems with boobplate armor are when:

1) People try to justify it as a reasonable thing to have. No, "but she can be more agile with less armor on" is not a reasonable thing to say. Boobplate armor is really stupid from a practical point of view, at best it would be ineffective compared to reasonable armor. At worst it focuses the energy of a hit directly into your vital organs. But in 40k there's plenty of precedent for "this is stupid, but we do it because god told us to" designs. SoB armor goes in the same category as giant space marine shoulder pads from a realism point of view, it's just part of the aesthetic of the Imperium.

2) It's the only representation of women in the setting. There would be a lot fewer complaints if 40k had female IG in reasonable armor, more female Tau options, prominent female characters in the fluff, etc. But when the primary (or even only) example of women in the entire setting is "look, boobs" it's hard to avoid taking it as a message that 40k is a thing for men and women are only welcome as sex objects.

As usual, Peregrine hits the nail on the head.

I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.

 Ashiraya wrote:


As usual, Peregrine hits the nail on the head.

I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.

I too would like some more prominent alternatives, such as Guard females. However, I would personally say that Eldar Guardians, Howling Banshees and Harlequins have more reasonable armour for representing females who wear helmets/masks. The fact that they haven't been mentioned 11 pages in is a little weird really; I don't think those models constitute as having Boob Armour.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


As usual, Peregrine hits the nail on the head.

I would have a lot less beef with the boobplate models if there had been alternatives.

I too would like some more prominent alternatives, such as Guard females. However, I would personally say that Eldar Guardians, Howling Banshees and Harlequins have more reasonable armour for representing females who wear helmets/masks. The fact that they haven't been mentioned 11 pages in is a little weird really; I don't think those models constitute as having Boob Armour.

Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

I actually think the whole thing is overblown because they're 28mm models and at that scale it's not really as noticeable as it is in the ginormous pictures people post on the interwebs.

EDIT: This thread has made me look at the Sisters range more and realise that, although I like them, they are a bit dated. They really look like models from the 90's. If Warhammer TV wasn't pulling our legs and Sisters are getting plastics it'll be interesting to see what they do with them, though Sisters are one of those models I personally think are better suited to metal anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

 General Annoyance wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Davor wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:

I think it's pretty unfair to go after SoB for having large breasts on the models, considering the models are hilariously old at this stage -

It's the Sisters of Battles who have the "Look it's boobs" on their armour. Ceremonial or not, that is something you don't wear in battle unless it's magic armour. Then fine, ceremonial armour it is.

*sigh*

This is what happens when you cut out and ignore most of a post to respond to what you think someone has said - you don't respond to what they actually said. The point of comparing the SoB metals with other contemporaneous sculpts is to note that all physical features on almost all sculpts of that same era are extremely exaggerated, which suggest that the most rational assumption to make regarding the creation of the SoB models was that the sculptor created a female form with exhaggerated physical features, breasts included, not that they were a giggling wee manchild thinking "hurrhurrhurr big bewbeezz make bewbeezz bigger durr!". And hence, that any modern SoB models will likely be far better proportioned, including in terms of their chest, even if they still have the same overall aesthetic.

SoB models having a defined, ornamented breastplate is an aesthetic choice, it's part of their core "look". In exactly the same way that a defined, ornamented breastplate is now part of the Blood Angels "look"(and don't anybody start with this arbitrary "sexual objectification vs power fantasy" nonsense, because anyone arguing that well-defned male torso musculature combined with emo vampire and tortured artist themes isn't a wildly popular fantasy with a sexual component among women in this day & age is just making a fool of themselves, and it's no more of a stretch to connect that fantasy to Blood Angels than it is to connect SoB to S&M/leather nun fetishism as many seem determined to). The fact the existing SoB metal models appear to have unfeasibly large boobs under their ornamented breastplates is most likely not a deliberate aesthetic choice specifically about the SoB, it's a result of the intersection between the actual aesthetic choice with whatever sensibilities(whether aesthetic or technical) were informing the sculpting of all GW's models at that time.

This entire thread is the result of cutting out and ignoring most of a post to respond to what he thinks someone has said though.

Asterios wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I'm curious are there any females here on the DakkaDakka board? if so can we get their input regarding the expected SoB sculpts?

and yet I still would like a female perspective since god forbid we ask a female what she thinks about female armor.

There are a couple threads about sexualization of miniatures already on here. I originally posted some varied opinions from various women in our game group (although technically speaking even if someone spoke up, the sample size is too small). I'm not going to dig it up but you are welcome to search for it. Overall no one cared. My wife for example doesn't care about boob plate, mainly because she never gets that far. She thinks the sculpts are dated, horrible looking and ugly. She does like some of the Raging Heroes stuff, isn't a fan of the breasts exposed ones but it doesn't bother her. However she doesn't need female miniatures to identify with, she'd rather have good looking male miniatures which they aren't because they tend to be WWF wrestlers or grizzled veterans with beards. She plays men in video games because she wants something nice to look at, not something to poorly represent her.

But this is why sexualization is subjective. There is no 80% of a race or even a particular sex is going to say "yes" or "no" in agreement. They all have varied opinions which subjective doesn't always effect if they are actually buying it or not. Also as pointed out her opinion doesn't represent all of women, just as some women point of views don't represent hers.

I'll bring up the latest Iron Man variant cover which Scott Cambell is under fire for being over-sexualization of a 15 year old. There are various posts saying this is what an average 15 year old looks and this is what his looks like, etc. But again sexualization is a hard topic because it is subjective. It is subjective based on the viewer of the art getting an response as they look at it and often overlaid with their own perspectives, opinions and experiences. For example what is considered sexualized about the cover? The fact she has a skin tight top, she has a larger than average cup size or that she is wearing low cut pants?
What one person views as sexualized another person doesn't because I wouldn't of even thought of it as sexualization until someone pointed it out. Although I can see and understand their point of view... but like the children that are at my daughters middle school. I sure don't sexualize them nor do I think they are sexualized. They unfortunately do have skin tight tops, low cut yoga pants or whatever tight fitting material you want to call it, bare midriffs, etc. Now granted that isn't the majority of the school, it is probably a fairly good percentage. Using the rule of 80/20 I'll say 20% although it is more. Are there people that would sexualize them... unfortunately yes. The average person doesn't and probably won't even give them a second glance. But I don't go around telling them how they should dress their children or point out the misjustices they are contributing too.

 Mymearan wrote:
For Sisters of Battle I'm not specifically opposed to the boob plate, but I'm not overly fond of the naughty nun/corset/S&M theme on some models, mainly the Repentia. Compare them to the Empire Flagellants.

I can agree with that. It is probably the one thing that has stopped me from actually playing SoB.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.

This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.



Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.

And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.

One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.

Davor wrote:
I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.

You've never played SWtoR then I take it? It isn't so much that no one plays them, there are only a few games that actually allow that body type. Quite a few people played large women in SWtOR. There was a big issue when they made adjustments to the body types awhile back. City of Heroes people played bulky types as well. Both SWtOR and CoH/CoV had a larger female player base that we played with. CoH/CoV people tend to play ones that represent them (ie: more men playing males, females playing females). In SWtoR or even WoW, it tends to be more people playing what they like to look at (ie: my wife plays men and I play females).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

The look is more subtle because of the waist sizes. They all have the same legs, hips, waist size. The only thing making them female is the "boob armor", which also has a 6-pack like the male counterparts. Also the boob-plate is roughly similar is size to the male counterpart pec-plate. When you put them on a table most people wouldn't be able to tell they were females unless you are looking for it... which honestly is fine with me.

My only real complaint is that their waist sizes are the same... but you know, elves and stuff.

terry wrote:
personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour

Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.







It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".

The original SOB models are older that there players at times.

Aye some ain't perfect but the blame is on decisions made many years ago, not current management.

 jhe90 wrote:
The original SOB models are older that there players at times.

Aye some ain't perfect but the blame is on decisions made many years ago, not current management.

But that is Obviously TBD until new models are seen.

 Vash108 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
The original SOB models are older that there players at times.

Aye some ain't perfect but the blame is on decisions made many years ago, not current management.

But that is Obviously TBD until new models are seen.

And to add to this, new art work has been produced all a long since those old models and the cross hairs on the boob plate has not disappeared from the art. It has not diminished a single iota that we have seen.

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.

This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.

Spoiler:

Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.

And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.

One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.

But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.

We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"



But the actual model size is closer to this...



And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...



I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.

 Lance845 wrote:

terry wrote:
personaly I like the way GW has done it with the current sisters of battle, yes you can see them, but I don't think its done distasteful. I realy hope GW will keep this style for the sisters of battle, if they would remove the boob armour

Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.

-image snip-

It's actually the most sexualized and least tasteful way they could have done "boob plate".

What tremendous nonsense.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Yes, the ornamentation to my eye is probably the reason it looks more protruding. The Eldar bodysuits are much more skintight than the SoB Power Armour, however, which, as discussed earlier, most likely has the breast shapes added on for style rather than practicality. Perhaps the Eldar examples are also more about style, but outside of the Banshee's Aspect Armour, Guardians and Harlequins wear what can be equated to a wetsuit that can stop bullets; the Guardian's Mesh Armour in particular "maintains a glove tight fit", so perhaps this is why you get the breast definition.

Ashiraya wrote:

Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.

This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.

Spoiler:

Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.

And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.

I can see that working for the most part on a Power Armoured model such as a Sister. However, if I could go back to my example I used earlier with Victoria Miniatures...



While the sculpt can be defined as a female by looking at the legs and the arms, the effect is a very subtle one. Even the helmeted models have little distinction between the male models.

What I'm trying to say is that I'd be worried if the sculpting you can do on the legs and arms would not be enough to define the miniature as female easily. I know we've done this whole "defining from a distance" talk a lot, but I would feel that some models would need a defining chest plate more than others. Sisters may be able to get away with having a flatter chest, but again I reckon their armour is done more for style than any attempt at being practical.

One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.

I may as well add a disclaimer for the sake of a disclaimer: I don't care either way if "Boobplate" is to stay or go, and personally I've never thought about it when I see a Sister model. I certainly take no sexual gratification from having them on models, and typically don't agree with the sexualisation of miniatures unless it is for some aesthetic or comedic purpose, such as with Infinity models. I certainly wouldn't accept models like this entering 40k:



Now that is Boob Armour, and sexualisation of a miniature for no good reason. Sisters are neither of those things in my eyes, even if their armour is impractical.

Dark Severance wrote:

Davor wrote:
I find it funny a lot of MALES in MMOs play females. Funny a lot of these females are sexy and nobody plays fat or BBW or large women but skinny women. Funny how a lot of these minis they are skinny with big boobs.

You've never played SWtoR then I take it? It isn't so much that no one plays them, there are only a few games that actually allow that body type. Quite a few people played large women in SWtOR. There was a big issue when they made adjustments to the body types awhile back. City of Heroes people played bulky types as well. Both SWtOR and CoH/CoV had a larger female player base that we played with. CoH/CoV people tend to play ones that represent them (ie: more men playing males, females playing females). In SWtoR or even WoW, it tends to be more people playing what they like to look at (ie: my wife plays men and I play females).

I've played as females in my Fallout and ES playthroughs, as well as playing a female soldier in Advanced Warfare one time. Funnily enough in that game (which is mostly played by pre-teens - young teens) my soldier was often the only female in the lobby. To me, the demographic that people think companies are appealing to with things like Boob Armour are more likely to play as males if given a choice because "ewww, girls!".

And no, AW females didn't have Boob Armour. I had less control of that in Fallout:NV, but part of that was my fault for wearing Leather Armour/Assassin Suit most of the time. Not for sexual purposes, promise

The look is more subtle because of the waist sizes. They all have the same legs, hips, waist size. The only thing making them female is the "boob armor", which also has a 6-pack like the male counterparts. Also the boob-plate is roughly similar is size to the male counterpart pec-plate. When you put them on a table most people wouldn't be able to tell they were females unless you are looking for it... which honestly is fine with me.

My only real complaint is that their waist sizes are the same... but you know, elves and stuff.

Perhaps that is why they have the plates then. The Banshees look suitably slender enough to see as females before you see their chest plates, but I find that female Harlequins and Guardians get lost in their squads quite easily.

G.A

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.

This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.

Spoiler:

Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.

And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.

One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.

But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.

We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"

Spoiler:

But the actual model size is closer to this...

Spoiler:

And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...

Spoiler:

I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.

So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?

I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Those things all have similar boob armour to Sisters.

You think so? Perhaps my eyes need testing, but the effect looks a lot more subtle on those models. This might be me disagreeing that any of the models really have "Boob Armour" though, since I have a different view on what Boob Armour really is.

To my eye, Guardians are probably a bit more subdued but they still have individual breasts moulded in to their chest plate, but to my eye the Harlies and Banshees look similar to Sisters. Maybe because some of the Sisters models actually have ornamentation on them (like the Canoness) they look worse.

Yeah, guardians are really glaring to me.

This is subdued. There is obviously some extra mass at the chest, but it is not as dominating.

Spoiler:

Something like that ^ but obviously sci-fi instead of fantasy would be ideal. You can tell the proportions are clearly feminine (look at hip-waist-shoulder ratio, leg-body ratio...) while still not being too exaggerated.

And yes, that is a favourite example picture of mine.

One concern of mine is that people are getting so used to the boobplate that they are taking its absence as evidence that the subject is male, which is problematic on more than one level.

But again that picture is huge compared to a 28mm model. The subtle hip-waist-bust-shoulder ratio gets lost on smaller models. Even GW's male models are crazy bulky compared to an actual man.

We look at a picture like this and think "huge obvious boobs"

Spoiler:

But the actual model size is closer to this...

Spoiler:

And from across a wargaming table they probably look more like this...

Spoiler:

I think GW are gradually going to a style which stands up better to close scrutiny in photographs, but a lot of the 90's and early 2000's stuff is squarely aimed at looking good (whatever "good" may be) on the table top.

So why bother with so much detail on a model at all if most of it will be lost in tabletop view?

I usually play smaller games where I am looking closer and individual models are very relevant. A significant percentage of the time I spend looking at any particular model is also when I paint the model in question, or show it to someone else, at which point even the smallest details become clear. How a model looks up close is by far more relevant than how it looks at distances where you can barely make out what the model is at all.

Because not everyone buys models for the same reason as you, and some may feel how they look on the table is more important? Devil's advocacy aside I actually don't buy the "at a distance" argument myself, I defend the SoB aesthetic because it's an interesting and unique one and I don't accept that it's sexist, any more than a nude art study is sexist or a fertility goddess statue is sexist - intent and proportionality(in the sense of this and this are both an example of that, but one is a serious problem and the other probably isn't, or at least shouldn't be a priority for any rational person - and no, that is not "code" to intimate that men are rational and women are not) are two things that certain people are apparently unable to grasp.

Simply exhibiting female physical characteristics, even in an exaggerated way, does not mean the intent of the depiction is to titilate(have a look at the Raging Heroes models posing legs-akimbo with pidgeon-foot posing suggestively licking their lips in a low-cut corset if you want to know what that looks like), and without that intent it's ludicrous to place the burden of all our social problems with sexism on ths one thing.

Games Workshop do, I feel, have a responsibility as the market leader towards diversity, but that is best expressed through radically expanding the quantity, quality, and variety of female miniatures and characters they make and write about, not by them removing existing depictions because sex-negative neopuritans are incapable of distinguishing between depicting an obviously feminine form and depicting an obviously feminine form in order to titilate the viewer.

As an aside, has it not occurred to anyone who brands the Sisters as sexist that their depiction as obviously female, aggressively militant "nuns with guns" is a deliberate middle-finger to the very patriarchal idea that women should be quiet, demure, and chaste? I don't claim to know the mind of John Blanche as he was designing them but considering the obvious Punk sensibilities in a lot of his art, that expanation is at least as likely as the idea some mouthbreathing neckbeard wanted to make sexy lady-dollies to play with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What makes you think in 10 pages of comments, none of the posters have been female?

that is why i'm asking. I don't know who is female or not.

that and if any females they are probably looking at us making judgment calls and sexualization decisions over little barely over an inch miniatures.

Don't you worry, there are a few females on this thread how your gender exactly makes a difference in most discussions is still something that baffles me

 General Annoyance wrote:
Don't you worry, there are a few females on this thread how your gender exactly makes a difference in most discussions is still something that baffles me

Why wouldn't it?

 Lance845 wrote:
[Many of the SoB not only have boob plate, they have a big cross on them or some other marking whos only purpose is to draw the eye to exactly on what i assume they want to be the nipple. It's not just that they have boob armor. They literally have a cross-hairs target molded onto each of their tits.

By that 'logic', they're also drawing the (dirty dirty male) gaze to the knees.

Phwoar. Knees.

 Vash108 wrote:


Why wouldn't it?

Just because you've got a pair of knockers doesn't mean you have some kind of higher ground to support whichever "side" you're on, especially when talking about a fantasy universe. The best you could provide is some anecdotal information or support, whatever good that will do for a mostly over the top, fantasy setting. Whoever's behind the screen is not relevant - they could be lying about their identity for all you know. It's all about what they say.

 Yodhrin wrote:

*sigh*

This is what happens when you cut out and ignore most of a post to respond to what you think someone has said -

Something screwed up there. I was cutting and pasting, had to stop and do something, and I mixed up who I wanted to quote. Sorry about that.