Switch Theme:

So. Boob Armour. What do you think?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Outer Space, Apparently

Asterios wrote:


but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?


 General Annoyance wrote:


In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.


I assume you mean this statement. Who's to say a pervert wouldn't buy SoB? Anyone can buy anything, the point of that statement was regarding the whole point of how your identify and traits can and cannot affect the validity of your statements. I fail to see how that is meant to contradict my rebuttals, or how that comparison is in the same league as a child inevitably being born without clothing, who has no concept of the values of society, in an environment where any sane person would accept the child's nudity, and a girl who takes her top off in public, who will typically be fully aware of what society thinks of that on both sides.

also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.


Sounds interesting, but I think I'll stick to my jeans and my very fluffy jumper to ward off the cold I'm not used to, just like how most of the population wears clothes. Sometimes hiding things is for the betterment of mankind and our morbid curiosities.

Now, if we're done being off topic...

G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark

Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Asterios wrote:
 General Annoyance wrote:
Asterios wrote:


out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.


You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off


but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?

also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.


The point they are making Asterios is the only thing you are bringing to the table right now is a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That there is for you in case you don't actually understand what you are doing.

Your argument doesn't actually prove your point because breast feeding has nothing to do with immature armor designs. Even if you were to accomplish your supposed goal of winning the argument that people feel differently about breast feeding then they do about armor design the two things actually have no correlation to each other and you haven't actually made any head way on the topic of the thread.

How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.

I would encourage everyone else to stop trying to knock down the straw man. It's pointless.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 General Annoyance wrote:
Asterios wrote:


but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?


 General Annoyance wrote:


In this circumstance, they shouldn't. If a confessed pervert enjoys Boob Armour, the validity of his opinion may come into question (although it still holds validity to a degree). Being a man or woman is not nearly enough to increase or decrease the validity of your opinion.


I assume you mean this statement. Who's to say a pervert wouldn't buy SoB? Anyone can buy anything, the point of that statement was regarding the whole point of how your identify and traits can and cannot affect the validity of your statements. I fail to see how that is meant to contradict my rebuttals, or how that comparison is in the same league as a child inevitably being born without clothing, who has no concept of the values of society, in an environment where any sane person would accept the child's nudity, and a girl who takes her top off in public, who will typically be fully aware of what society thinks of that on both sides.

also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.


Sounds interesting, but I think I'll stick to my jeans and my very fluffy jumper to ward off the cold I'm not used to, just like how most of the population wears clothes. Sometimes hiding things is for the betterment of mankind and our morbid curiosities.

Now, if we're done being off topic...


perverts are more apt to buy things other then small 1 and a quarter inch high miniatures, nothing shows and the boob armor is like a little pimple or bug bite, and yet people have to make it sexualized like it really can be sexualized at that small of a size, seriously? its a freaking toy for adults but not an adult toy, get over it, answer this why does it bother you so much?

 Lance845 wrote:

Your argument doesn't actually prove your point because breast feeding has nothing to do with immature armor designs. Even if you were to accomplish your supposed goal of winning the argument that people feel differently about breast feeding then they do about armor design the two things actually have no correlation to each other and you haven't actually made any head way on the topic of the thread.

How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.


my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 21:30:49


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Outer Space, Apparently

Asterios wrote:
answer this why does it bother you so much?


Boob Armour doesn't bother me, and nor does public nudity, as I have said before (it may bother others is what I was saying) - you're the only one making the fuss here.

And we're done, unless you want to contribute to the thread topic.

G.A

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 21:43:31


G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark

Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Asterios wrote:

my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question,


It bothers me because it encourages an atmosphere that objectifies women and can be discouraging to a full half of the population (minimum) from participating in a game that should be as welcoming to all peoples as possible since the main rule in the main rule book is to have fun. And generally speaking when it comes to games, the more people playing games the more fun is to be had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:

you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.


The answers are NOT the same. How a person feels about potential public nudity is not the same thing as how someone feels about plastic statues that feature no nudity. Saying the answers are the same does not make the answers the same.

Answer this question, can you think of a single logical argument that supports boob armor as a better design choice?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/20 21:42:13



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 Lance845 wrote:

How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.


The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.

But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
Asterios wrote:

my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.


It bothers me because it encourages an atmosphere that objectifies women and can be discouraging to a full half of the population (minimum) from participating in a game that should be as welcoming to all peoples as possible since the main rule in the main rule book is to have fun. And generally speaking when it comes to games, the more people playing games the more fun is to be had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:

my point is why does it bother them so much? just answer that question, you say my question had nothing to do with the point and yet the answers are the same, so please answer that.


The answers are NOT the same. How a person feels about potential public nudity is not the same thing as how someone feels about plastic statues that feature no nudity. Saying the answers are the same does not make the answers the same.

Answer this question, can you think of a single logical argument that supports boob armor as a better design choice?


and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?

as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.



Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.


The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.

But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?


The topic is in general but the sister seem to be the major offender that everyone hones in on. It's like the Nazi argument. Everything eventually gets compared to nazis. Well, you cannot talk boob plate without it eventually being about sisters.

To your point. I agree! a distinct silhouette is definitely needed to make the sisters stand out as something different on the table. A distinct silhouette is excellent design. Are you proposing that it is impossible for GW to give the sisters a distinct silhouette without boob armor? Or that the sisters distinct silhouette could not be improved without the inclusion of the boob plate? Or that boob plate is so inherently tied to their design that were they to loose it the entire force would become unrecognizable?


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 Lance845 wrote:
@Yodhrin You seem to assume a level of integrity in intent that frankly there is no evidence for. GW has never produced models or fluff for any other reason then to appeal to 13 year old male power fantasy.

Which is not, in and of itself, a problem. That immature ridiculous over the top grim dark insanity is most of the appeal of 40ks fluff.

When they got started the idea that what they were creating when they made their female models was damaging or offensive was not even a discussion. It's only been in the last 20... 25ish years that the discussion has gained any real traction at all and only in the last 16ish that companys have started to acknowledge it with their promotional material and products.

The idea that the sisters are the same as a nude art study is just plain wrong. The point of the vast majority of nude art created from a life model is to study the human form. To understand how it moves, how light and shadow acts on it etc etc...

The sisters are not modeled to study the human form. They were not designed to show an expression of the female form. They are battle nuns in a ridiculous setting designed to appeal to their primary market in an industry dominated by men and traditionally mostly supported by men. Think that is ridiculous? Lets look at one of the very first books that codified rules for minature war gaming and got this hobby started.

Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books, by H.G. Wells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Wars


The fact is GW has never been a particularly great company in a lot of ways. But they most definitely have done a piss poor job of diversity and respectful representation of minorities in their miniature lines. Coupled with their target audience and the time these models were created it is a sure thing that the guy who made these models was not attempting to create a classy representation of females in the 40k universe that challenged "the patriarchal idea that women should be quiet".

This goes doubly when you account for the fact that their fluff is they are called the "brides of the emperor" and are all blindly evangelical cultists that worship a patriarchal figure in a patriarchal society dominated by patriarchal figures and whos poster boys and greatest heroes are patriarchal super men in power armor that very specifically cannot be women.
 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

That explanation is not "at least as likely". Taking the entire situation into account at the time the sisters were invented and those models were made it is actually incredibly UNLIKELY that any thought about respectful representation of women or the models ability to act as a figure of empowerment against a negative world view of women was done at all.

This is not a 50/50 chance that the team behind their design was trying to be respectful or not. It's like like a 99.99999% certainty that they were not.

Sure, there is a 0.00001% chance that the entire team decided to account for ideology's that for all intents and purposes didn't exist at the time AND convinced their superiors to let them do it. I will agree there is a chance. I might also get struck by a meteorite when I walk outside my door. The probability is so low as to be meaningless.


I'm not going to do the usual thing where I break this down and address each point because you're a bit all over the place, so I'll just make a few points and corrections.

First up, unlike yourself I'm not making any assumptions, nor claiming to know anyone's mind. I simply choose not to condemn things based on speculation and my own preconceptions.

Second, if you're going to criticise something it's usually best to actually study it first so you don't stick your foot in your mouth like that; the SoB were the Brides of the Emperor...Vandire, the patriarchal tyrant, renamed them - they discarded that name when they recognised Vandire's treason and his perversion of their order, right before they saved the Imperium by chopping his head off.

Third, the point of bringing up nude studies and fertility sculptures was not to claim SoB and nude studies are the same or have the same purpose, but that there are reasons to depict the female form other than exploitative titilation.

Fourth, I get the feeling either you didn't quite get what I meant about JB's punk sensibilities, or you're very firmly on the sex-negative end of the feminist spectrum and simply don't believe aggressively sex-positive feminism is real. I'm sure you'll correct me if there some other explanation for why you apparently know exactly what the people designing SoB were thinking with only a 0,00001% margin of error...

Davor wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
 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.


Ah I see now. Someone who has a differing opinion than you is nonsense. His opinion is perfectly valid just like yours. Do I agree with him? No but I respect his opinion.

Now I see your point now. Here I thought you were correct but now, if nobody thinks like you they are wrong. Got it.

Just remember back in the day, a dress over the ankles was sexualizing. So everyone has a different opinion and their opinions are valid, not nonsense. Do I agree? No. Who am I to say they are wrong or not in what they think.


He can have any opinion he likes, even utterly wrong ones. Those were not, however, opinions presented as such, they were opinions presented as indisputable fact. IE, tremendous nonsense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 21:53:33


I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW


The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.


"Other features" such as 2-foot-long pistols, 4-foot-long carbines, and 8-foot-long "sniper" rifles, perhaps? Or Power Fists the size of a man's ribcage? For Imperial Guard.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Asterios wrote:


and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?

as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.




I asked for a logical answer to a simple question and you answered with an emotional backlash that starts with in insult in the form of a question, moved on to a reductive statement that says you know, fact, that women think a certain way. You fail to take into account that this hobby and most games like it have never been marketed towards women and that the people who play them have not been the most welcoming people pretty much since miniature war gaming began in the 1910s. I would argue that women mostly don't get into these kinds of games because they are born and raised in a society that tells them what they like and don't like and why and has been doing so for hundreds of years.

Finally, you assert that a design that is "not objectifying women" is being used to flaunt their sexuality to xenos species that they despise in order to distract them and gain an upper hand.

I ask you to try again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/20 22:02:17



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Lance845 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
[nonsense]
I ask you to try again.


This thread, as the cherry on top of the recasting thread, finally saw him plonked to save myself the aggravation. I find his posts far more sexist and offensive than any of GW's boob armor designs.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:
Asterios wrote:


and there you go thinking tiny boob armors on tiny plastic women will turn women off from the game, seriously are you that deluded? its not the tiny plastic boob armors on tiny plastic boob women that turn women off of the game, its mostly because women think of it as a toy a game for little boys to play, hell before even tiny boobs existed on tiny miniatures women didn't really play the game, as to how someone thinks of public nudity they are against it since it is objectifying women, why is a male upper torso more accepted then a female upper torso?

as to a good valid reason, maybe they are saying we are women hear us roar, or maybe they are thinking that they will be facing people like you and it will distract them so then they can kill the devient (you know part of their manta), or maybe they could be thinking of something like this scene from the recent Dead Pool movie where a flaunted boob gave her the edge.




I asked for a logical answer to a simple question and you answered with an emotional backlash that starts with in insult in the form of a question, moved on to a reductive statement that says you know, fact, that women think a certain way. You fail to take into account that this hobby and most games like it have never been marketed towards women and that the people who play them have not been the most welcoming people pretty much since miniature war gaming began in the 1910s. I would argue that women mostly don't get into these kinds of games because they are born and raised in a society that tells them what they like and don't like and why and has been doing so for hundreds of years.

Finally, you assert that a design that is "not objectifying women" is being used to flaunt their sexuality to xenos species that they despise in order to distract them and gain an upper hand.

I ask you to try again.



ok then this, it isn't supposed to have a rhyme or reason and it is not to make any sense, seriously if you look at a lot of the various things added to say Space Marine armor, what function does it have? say like the banner Sgt.s carry on their back pack, what is its function other then to say to the enemy hey here is the leader shoot him.

like I said what it comes down to is its GW's game if you don't like it don't play it, if you want to make a game with more realistic non-bumpy armor then go for it, you let me know how well it sells and how many women are playing it then.

miniature games have never been geared towards women because women have never been attracted to the game thru the ages generations went from dolls to careers to wanting to be singers and or actors but as a whole never had a generation that said hey lets play with some miniature toys as adults. look at the board game industry, never did well with adult women, same with the video game crowd, very few women get into that, so what is your basis that women are turned off of miniature gaming because of tiny boob armor on tiny miniatures, not counting all those miniature games which do not have those and yet do not have women running to play them in any decent number.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Outer Space, Apparently

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

This thread, as the cherry on top of the recasting thread, finally saw him plonked to save myself the aggravation. I find his posts far more sexist and offensive than any of GW's boob armor designs.


And Exalted! Have a good evening folks

G.A - Should've called myself Ghost Ark

Makeup Whiskers? This is War Paint! 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Lance845 wrote:
Spoiler:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW then to move into the current decade and up their game in producing quality miniatures with top shelf designs. Maybe then you might have some semblance of an actual argument related to the topic.


The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.

But are we discussing boob armour for sisters only, for GW universe only or in general?


The topic is in general but the sister seem to be the major offender that everyone hones in on. It's like the Nazi argument. Everything eventually gets compared to nazis. Well, you cannot talk boob plate without it eventually being about sisters.

To your point. I agree! a distinct silhouette is definitely needed to make the sisters stand out as something different on the table. A distinct silhouette is excellent design. Are you proposing that it is impossible for GW to give the sisters a distinct silhouette without boob armor? Or that the sisters distinct silhouette could not be improved without the inclusion of the boob plate? Or that boob plate is so inherently tied to their design that were they to loose it the entire force would become unrecognizable?


I am proposing that GW is unwilling to change their design choice and under their design choice and style sisters without boob plate do not fit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Spoiler:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
How about instead you bring up some valid points as to why boob armor is a better design choice for GW


The valid point is that "boobplate" along with other features makes the silhouette distinctive and recognisable not having one would be out of place in the GW catalogue, that brings me to the point of why I quoted you and replied, in no sculpts GW has moved to the "current decade" their design choice is a stylistic approach that emphasises on form over function discarding modern influence and aesthetics, if they redesigned the sisters to be more realistic they would look to be from another line altogether.


"Other features" such as 2-foot-long pistols, 4-foot-long carbines, and 8-foot-long "sniper" rifles, perhaps? Or Power Fists the size of a man's ribcage? For Imperial Guard.


Among other things, GW has gone a long way to have their style be characteristic of their range selecting over-detailed and impractical as long as the silhouette is promoted.
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Asterios wrote:
 General Annoyance wrote:
Asterios wrote:


out of decency you say? so when you were born you were born fully clothed? decency is just a moniker placed by people, we had to invent clothing we were not born with it.


You should stop before you embarrass yourself any further. By your logic everyone should run about naked in public all the time. You can't compare childbirth to a girl who wants to take her top off


but you can compare a boob armor on a small miniature to things a sexual deviant or pervert would buy?

also if people did go around nude they would have nothing to hide Piers Anthony wrote an interesting book series called Apprentice Adept, you should read it. its about a world were 99% of the people walk around nude, men, women and children and that the wearing of clothing is forbidden except to the higher class and certain situations and where wearing clothes is a sexual stimulation for people.


Did Piers Anthony happen to write any good books on punctiation? If so, I'd strongly recommend you read them. I'll add maybe looking up "run-ons" and "Our friend, the article".

To actually get to the meat of my post: you come in here with deplorable grammatical structure, argue both sides of the coin (mysteriously), and twist people's arguments to the opposite of what they are saying to gain... I have no idea, anymore. If you have some sort of communication disorder, then I at least understand. If not, then you come off as a 13 year old arguing just to argue.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/21 00:20:50


www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 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.

Firstly a model devoid of detail will look devoid of detail even at a distance. But you can tweak the detail to look better at distance. I'm sure this is at least part of the reason GW makes such cartoonish proportions (though not the only part, the fact 40k started off as somewhat satirical probably plays in to it as well).

Secondly, it's obviously a balance... a subjective balance at that. As I said GW do seem to be gradually changing their aesthetic to one that looks better in extreme close ups. When the Sister's of Battle models were originally released in the 90's you'd rarely ever see a picture zoomed in that closely. White Dwarf images were typically scaled to approximately the size of the actual model, so if a model was ~1" tall in real life, the picture would also be ~1" tall. I fully expect a modern Sisters release to be better scaled, even if they still have boob armour I'm sure they'll be scaled better as the SoS are.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/21 01:02:02


 
   
Made in us
Mutating Changebringer





Pennsylvania

Let me first say that what follows is not intended to mock Iron Captain, but to use his comment as an example of a common theme in these sorts of discussions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics.
It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.


One of the recurring features of these discussions is (IMO), unexamined standards and questionable assumptions. Here, specifically, this line: "I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic."

Why?

I don't mean that as a rhetorical but rather a Socratic question: why do you think it is a "problem" that breasts are viewed as the defining (visual) characteristic of women?

Allow me to propose that, as a biological reality, development of breasts is extremely important both as a sign of sex/gender but as a signal of femininity. So let's take a look at two people in their skivvies, then ask two simple questions;
Spoiler:


The two simple questions are;
-Who is the more Feminine? And,
-Who has the larger penis?

That last one is a trick question of course, only one of those people has a penis...

Which would be the white woman. Who happens to be Bailey Jay, noted M2F transsexual adult performer (don't google her at work!). It's a trick question because she is the only one with a penis; the black guy is Tommy J Murrell, F2M amateur bodybuilder (you can google him, there isn't much to find).

My point here isn't 'haha, it's a trap!', but that breasts are more then simply fleshy protuberances on the front of a woman's chest: they are intimately connected to gender identity and the perceptions of femininity. Deep in the recesses of the brain, far below the conscious, breasts have a significance that evolved over eons. A significance that can be clearly exemplified by examining the group of people perhaps most concerned with the reality of sex/gender on a personal level: the trans community.

That breasts are psychologically important to M2F transsexuals is fairly well established. Less well known is the importance of breasts to M2F individuals, albeit here 'importance' in the exact opposite way: because breasts signify the feminine, F2M individuals frequently engage in the practice of 'chest binding' before moving on to 'top surgery' (bilateral mastectomy). From an article on the subject of chest binding;

Chest binding is a fact of life for many people, including trans men, some gay women, intersex people, and gender non-conforming individuals like Naomhan. Flattening the appearance of one's breasts—whether that's through Ace bandages, compression undergarments, layered T-shirts, sports bras, or commercial binders—doesn't just make it easier to pass in public as the correct gender or wear masculine clothes. For many, it's a matter of psychological well-being.
...
A qualitative report from the five-person strong research project goes into more detail about the benefits of binding for those they surveyed: "Based on our preliminary analysis, for most participants, binding was a positive experience and led to improvements in mood and self-esteem, minimized gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression, and helped them to feel in control of their bodies," a report they published on the study reads. "In fact, some reported that a positive impact on emotional and behavioral health makes the physical discomfort of binding worth it."


Of course this isn't simply a phenomenon of transgender individuals: the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';

Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs. It is a common upset amongst women who train hard, that their chest size quickly shrinks due to their body fat percentage getting lower and lower. For many women who choose to get breast implants, it is a mere way to either get back what they might have lost or to maintain their aesthetic femininity.


While there are doubtless many possible (if rather less plausible) explanations for the above, it seems straightforward that there is a simple possibility: breasts (along with waist-to-hip ratio) are not arbitrary, capricious or artificial constructs but deeply ingrained biologically significant markers of sexually mature human females.

Thus, considering it "a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic" seems entirely misplaced, certainly in a primarily visual medium. That's not to say that every miniature with a pair of boobs is beyond reproach: far from it (I'm certainly not all that fond of many of the SoB line for exactly this reason). But an aesthetic critique, one based on taste, style or execution, is one that is very different from one that posits there is something wrong or invidious at play.

   
Made in au
Lady of the Lake






Asterios wrote:
 General Annoyance wrote:
Asterios wrote:

except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.


Congratulations, you missed the point.

Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).

Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.

Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.

But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!

 n0t_u wrote:
It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.


At least one person gets it. Thank you


actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.


Nope, he said there are too few opinions to paint a proper picture. It's my opinion that I agree with that and also that SoB are alright. I feel that their look suits their background; I think of it as a feth you to the high lords.

The rest of the opinions you're looking for are probably through the rest of this thread already anyway.

   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 n0t_u wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 General Annoyance wrote:
Asterios wrote:

except a woman will have a better clue about women then a man would, seriously do you see what you are typing? people are here saying the SoB models would offend women, so i'm saying why not ask them, instead of putting those suppositions into their mouth, or would you rather women stay in the kitchen where you think they should be? or that women should remain quiet and let the men talk since women obviously know nothing about women, congrats you just went back to the 50's.


Congratulations, you missed the point.

Firstly, I'm not speaking for anyone else here, unlike you are (ironically, considering you and others are claiming people other than yourself have the opinion you think they do).

Secondly, I'm not trying to silence anyone else.

Thirdly, you are the only one who has suggested anything about women "belonging in kitchens" or that I have somehow "returned to the 50's" for saying that it makes no difference whether you are a male or female commenting on this thread, just because the subject matter revolves around females. you don't speak for everyone of your sex, especially regarding how your sex is perceived in various mediums.

But yeah, I'm obviously a misogynistic, sexist little boy who doesn't care about women. Thanks for making me the villain of the thread - boy is this familiar!

 n0t_u wrote:
It'd help to form a poll to get a general idea of the opinion of each group and that's really the only time such a thing would be relevant. Even then the sample size here would probably be way too small to get a good idea of it.


At least one person gets it. Thank you


actually I asked for their opinion, you are the one who said their opinion does not matter, you made yourself the villain of this thread so congratulations belong to only you.


Nope, he said there are too few opinions to paint a proper picture. It's my opinion that I agree with that and also that SoB are alright. I feel that their look suits their background; I think of it as a feth you to the high lords.

The rest of the opinions you're looking for are probably through the rest of this thread already anyway.
I facepalmed so hard when I read Ast's post there

Even if you are a horrible sexist who thinks a woman's opinion is worth more than a man's, no one said female opinions don't matter.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Buzzsaw wrote:
Spoiler:
[spoiler]Let me first say that what follows is not intended to mock Iron Captain, but to use his comment as an example of a common theme in these sorts of discussions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
While normally I do not have so much problems with female armour having boobs (apart from thinking it looks ugly), I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic. It means that women are essentially reduced to just being a pair of boobs.
GW could do a lot to improve the representation of women in 40k and to also show them in normal, non-sexualised roles rather than only in special all-female units with boob armour and other such overly feminine characteristics.
It is not a big issue for me, but it'd be nice to see it. Maybe that would also help to make girls feel more welcome in 40k, altough I have no idea how girls actually think about this issue.


One of the recurring features of these discussions is (IMO), unexamined standards and questionable assumptions. Here, specifically, this line: "I do view it as a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic."

Why?

I don't mean that as a rhetorical but rather a Socratic question: why do you think it is a "problem" that breasts are viewed as the defining (visual) characteristic of women?

Allow me to propose that, as a biological reality, development of breasts is extremely important both as a sign of sex/gender but as a signal of femininity. So let's take a look at two people in their skivvies, then ask two simple questions;
[spoiler]


The two simple questions are;
-Who is the more Feminine? And,
-Who has the larger penis?

That last one is a trick question of course, only one of those people has a penis...

Which would be the white woman. Who happens to be Bailey Jay, noted M2F transsexual adult performer (don't google her at work!). It's a trick question because she is the only one with a penis; the black guy is Tommy J Murrell, F2M amateur bodybuilder (you can google him, there isn't much to find).

My point here isn't 'haha, it's a trap!', but that breasts are more then simply fleshy protuberances on the front of a woman's chest: they are intimately connected to gender identity and the perceptions of femininity. Deep in the recesses of the brain, far below the conscious, breasts have a significance that evolved over eons. A significance that can be clearly exemplified by examining the group of people perhaps most concerned with the reality of sex/gender on a personal level: the trans community.

That breasts are psychologically important to M2F transsexuals is fairly well established. Less well known is the importance of breasts to M2F individuals, albeit here 'importance' in the exact opposite way: because breasts signify the feminine, F2M individuals frequently engage in the practice of 'chest binding' before moving on to 'top surgery' (bilateral mastectomy). From an article on the subject of chest binding;

Chest binding is a fact of life for many people, including trans men, some gay women, intersex people, and gender non-conforming individuals like Naomhan. Flattening the appearance of one's breasts—whether that's through Ace bandages, compression undergarments, layered T-shirts, sports bras, or commercial binders—doesn't just make it easier to pass in public as the correct gender or wear masculine clothes. For many, it's a matter of psychological well-being.
...
A qualitative report from the five-person strong research project goes into more detail about the benefits of binding for those they surveyed: "Based on our preliminary analysis, for most participants, binding was a positive experience and led to improvements in mood and self-esteem, minimized gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression, and helped them to feel in control of their bodies," a report they published on the study reads. "In fact, some reported that a positive impact on emotional and behavioral health makes the physical discomfort of binding worth it."


Of course this isn't simply a phenomenon of transgender individuals: the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';

Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs. It is a common upset amongst women who train hard, that their chest size quickly shrinks due to their body fat percentage getting lower and lower. For many women who choose to get breast implants, it is a mere way to either get back what they might have lost or to maintain their aesthetic femininity.


While there are doubtless many possible (if rather less plausible) explanations for the above, it seems straightforward that there is a simple possibility: breasts (along with waist-to-hip ratio) are not arbitrary, capricious or artificial constructs but deeply ingrained biologically significant markers of sexually mature human females.

Thus, considering it "a problem when boobs are used as the defining female characteristic" seems entirely misplaced, certainly in a primarily visual medium. That's not to say that every miniature with a pair of boobs is beyond reproach: far from it (I'm certainly not all that fond of many of the SoB line for exactly this reason). But an aesthetic critique, one based on taste, style or execution, is one that is very different from one that posits there is something wrong or invidious at play.[/spoiler]
I sort of alluded to this earlier in the thread but I didn't really articulate it well, I've find it odd how exaggerated breasts are a bad way to identify females, but exaggerated glass jaws and feminine hair styles are totally fine. It's not that I don't understand *why*, but rather I find it odd and amusing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/21 04:57:42


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Buzzsaw wrote:
the relief that a F2M transman may feel when minimizing or removing their own breast tissue is the reverse of the disappointment many athletic women feel when their lean physique starts to become less... 'well rounded';

Ask any fitchick out there and they will quickly say that while they love everything about working out, they wish they could keep their boobs.


Yes, this is a thing after the initial happiness when the belly shrinks and the body gets more of a lean hourglass figure. It's also a thing when they wear compressive competition suits that further flatten things down. It's very particular among female swimmers, who tend to have heavily-developed upper bodies and get quite lean from the endurance conditioning. You can ask little kids about this when they women are in full race gear, with their caps & goggles, and they can be confused due to the lack of obvious female body characteristics.

   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block





The best thing about this thread is that its a laughing stock on social media and in real life. So keep it coming. You SJW types sure make yourselves look silly.

At the local GW here, all the guys that were going to buy the burning of prospero are now buying 2 in support of boobplate, Thanks for F-ing up the good fight.

Boobplate forever in the fictional universe of giant space men with large hands, killer fungus and daemons!

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Well, your first every contribution was definitely of stellar quality.

This thread seems to have reached the end of its natural life.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: