On sex appeal in 40K, how much is too much, and "sexy" miniatures.

[AutumnEffect]

7 hours ago, grailkeeper said:

Sexy minis are cringe, although I havent come across them much in real life.  

 

A lot of the 40k comics on reddit are similarly cringe. They cover everything from "What if Tau had big tits" to "What if Primarchs had big tits".  They dont do the warhammer fan stereotype of being a virgin much good. 

 

This.

I can understand pinup models and having them for display. Pinup posters and such exist and I get it even if it's not my cup of tea.
But using them for a game at your local place is pretty cringe.

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

"Sexy" minis are cringe. My mate has a T'au firewarrior he got as a freebie when he bought some stuff on eBay. It's in the classic Fire Warrior game pose on a pile of skulls with what I can only assume are two ball bearings stuck to the chest. It was funny to look at once and that's about it. He doesn't use it games, thankfully. 

 

I think for me if someone used a "sexy" model in a game it would break my immersion. I am a big theatre of the mind guy while playing and yeah some random scantily clad alien would pull me out of that. For the same reason I think we'd all find it odd if there were people in bikinis and budgie smugglers on the beach during the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.

[Domhnall]

For me, "sexy" in the pursest sense just doesn't fit in with the whole 40k aesthetic. 

Everything in 40k is exaggerated and/or twisted to various degrees, whether it's the guard being the standard army 'but MORE'! through hulking genetically modified man beef, to super bugs that just want to eat everything. There is no time for sexy good times. 

Any figures that are "sexy" such as your daemonettes or dark eldar etc, are in some form twisted, corrupted versions of sexiness that really isn't sexy anymore be it with claws, spikes, or what have you. 

 

Figures can still be "attractive" or have appeal, but I think stepping into "sexy" territory is just not in keeping with the brand.

 

Away from 40k, then yeah I can see the appeal from an artistic perspective: skin tones, attractive posing, etc,* even if you really wanted a half naked tau draped suggestively over the downed body of a mega-ripped Ork then you do you, but just not on the tabletop.

 

As for anybody that does get their jollies from their little plastic dudettes (and dudes, let's not be judgemental), seriously, the internet is a thing! 

 

however I do find some (a lot) out there to be cringey and just tackily over the top.

Edited February 7 by Domhnall

[sairence]

I consider myself fairly open minded, but for me personally 40k has never been much about sexuality. Even Slaanesh models have always looked weird and disturbing enough that thinking "those are sexy" has been pretty far from my mind. 

 

And tbh, I always found that kind of nice, considering how much fan and pop culture gets sexualised. (Yes, I know it exists for 40k, but it's fringe enough that I rarely stumble on it by accident)

 

So this type of model has just always felt cheap and cringe to me. If people want to spend money on it and feel this represents their hobby that's great for them.

 

But it doesn't fit into the 40k that I enjoy, so I'm happy I never actually had any models like that set up in front of me. 

Edited February 7 by sairence

[gideon stargreave]

I'm all for Nymphoid Barbarians in Dinosaur Hell(tm) in my warhammers, but the thing I have noticed is that usually (but not always) 'sexy' minis are usually very far from deserving the name. Just a "put some massive boobs on the tech priest".  They are also, usually bad sculpts with unusual aesthetics, with cartoon facial features etc. 
I have seen some pretty good naked miniatures (male and female) that are not sexy at all, just unclothed, and I have seen one or two 'sensual' minis that are also good. I'd have no problem playing with any of those. But putting a 18 inch boncusser or tripple Zs falling out of a tank top is probably going to ruin the game experience for me unless I know you very well indeed.

 

[Evil Eye]

28 minutes ago, gideon stargreave said:

I'm all for Nymphoid Barbarians in Dinosaur Hell(tm) in my warhammers, but the thing I have noticed is that usually (but not always) 'sexy' minis are usually very far from deserving the name. Just a "put some massive boobs on the tech priest".  They are also, usually bad sculpts with unusual aesthetics, with cartoon facial features etc. 
I have seen some pretty good naked miniatures (male and female) that are not sexy at all, just unclothed, and I have seen one or two 'sensual' minis that are also good. I'd have no problem playing with any of those. But putting a 18 inch boncusser or tripple Zs falling out of a tank top is probably going to ruin the game experience for me unless I know you very well indeed.

 

This was kind of what I was talking about with the "crap sexy minis" point in the OP. A lot of "sexy" minis fail spectacularly at being visually appealing in any sense at all, let alone being attractive.

[DuskRaider]

Purchasing, painting and then fielding and thus subjecting everyone else to oversexualized models is cringe neckbeard behavior. If you jump over to Etsy or whatnot and look at third party models, it’s infested with this garbage. 

[TheArtilleryman]

Preface

 

Been seriously debating whether to wade into this thread as I joined the other one and I do have strong views on the topic. Hard to decide if I’ve got the energy though. Let’s see if I finish the post.

 

My personal view is that I don’t like “hot” minis. So much of what we see in the media is over sexualised and pushes it in your face that it is really hard to avoid and gets old, fast. The market is saturated with it. Try finding a fantasy MMORPG video game that’s actually good and doesn’t include over-sexualised female characters or dumb cosmetic outfits. It’s not easy. 

“You’re just prudish” (rolls eyes)

 

There are far more reasons for this view than just being “prudish” about the content. Whenever this topic comes up, that word is one of the first arguments given, and the first thing someone on this side of the debate has to say to qualify themselves, because if you are, that’s somehow a bad thing.

 

Thing is, even if someone is, then so what? If anything, the western world has gone way too far in the opposite direction. We’ve moved over a century beyond Victorian ideals of appearance and through the free love movement and to a point where the sexualised female form is not just accepted but actually over-used. To the point where it makes lots of women and girls feel awful and even get mentally ill. Not because they think “oh that’s so rude,” but because they are made to feel inferior. Same reason I don’t like Barbie dolls or the Disney Princess dolls of Barbie proportions. It’s a figure that’s impossible to attain. Now Disney Princess dolls aren’t over-sexualised but they do put this image in the heads of young girls that says: “this is what pretty is.” That’s not healthy for them and they shouldn’t have to put up with it all the time.

 

Realism

 

Now that the prudish bit is out of the way, we have the idea of realism. For many women, breasts that size on a frame that small cause actual medical problems, like back pain. Running around a battlefield carrying all your kit as well as that additional chest weight just isn’t gonna be practical. 
 

The male body-builder form is also over the top, and there have been lots of stories about young boys and men feeling similar body issues for similar reasons. However, there is more logic in-universe for wanting to pump muscle, to be stronger, to be able to carry gear for longer, to be able to overpower an opponent. Maybe the Catachan ration packs are full of protein and steroids to artificially boost this. It definitely wouldn’t be the craziest idea in 40K. It makes sense also that Catachan females would look like female bodybuilders as they are strong and tough enough to keep up with the men. 

 

There isn’t a logical in-universe reason for a regiment of guardsmen and guardswomen to dress provocatively. On the battlefield, it makes zero sense to expose that much flesh. Having your chest cavity wide open and unarmoured is just totally bonkers. For this reason, I would also love to see the Catachan refresh give the male minis a flak vest. Keep the bare arms but at least protect the chest. I’m not prudish about a man in a vest; I’m just realistic and care about his survival :)

 

While I might not like the models much, exposing flesh does make sense on Wyches and Slaaneshi models, because these guys are freaking nuts. This reinforces my point about the above. The imperial troops may be fanatical, but they are not so dumb as to actually want to die. Their commanders would presumably also like them to have some battlefield effectiveness.

 

Change in environment/audience over time

 

In the 80s many Warhammer/Citadel miniatures were much more lewd than they are now and the change for me has been a positive one. 40 years(!) ago, the stereotype of a wargames or RPG player really was the overweight virgin guy still living in his parents’ house, with no dress sense and no social skills. The tendency of fantasy characters to look like this extreme version of female sexuality then compounded this stereotype, of guys (and yes, pretty much always guys) creating these kinky fantasy type characters because they couldn’t get laid IRL (This is not what I think, but it is the vision many people have in mind).

 

Perception of this stereotype still does perpetuate occasionally but it is much diminished from what it was. When you have people like Bruce Willis or Henry Cavill publicly admitting to being Warhammer fans, and much greater representation in the hobby from women, both in the offices of GW and in the consumer base, that’s gone a long way to smashing some of that. Liking Warhammer is no longer something you go out of your way to hide at school, because society is more accepting of those sorts of things. Reducing the level of overt sexualisation (i.e. cringe factor) is I believe part of this, and has helped to temper the style into something more people can connect with.

 

In the post “me too” world, also, the cringe factor becomes even more obvious. We are ever more aware of how negatively the world treats women and it’s just another example of how negative/one-faceted female stereotypes are presented that just doesn’t help the cause of feminism.

 

Over time, being a dad has made a big difference to how I see things. I’ve got a teenage daughter and I wouldn’t want her to see her dad, the primary male role model in her life, getting a kick out of fake inflated pin-ups. I don’t want the boys in her life to have these unrealistic expectations of women, and for to her feel bad because she doesn’t feel like she matches up. I want to show her how a decent guy should be and how women should be treated and viewed. That’s before I get to being respectful to my wife as well. Some people don’t care, and everyone is different, but I feel it would be disrespectful for me to get a kick out of sexualised representations of other women, whether real or imagined.

 

GW now

 

Personally, although we still get models in GW’s various ranges that show lots of skin, I think we are at more of a point where they are done more tastefully, and more realistically, in ways that fit the setting. It isn’t just about showing skin, it’s about the whole thing. Is the clothing or lack thereof for a reason other than titillation? I think in most cases with GW minis this is now true. 

 

The Escher models show skin, but they look like badass criminals who don’t give a :cuss. They aren’t over the top in proportions or in purely sexy poses. They also aren’t a military outfit issued with flak vests and a uniform. They are also freaking nuts.

 

The Wyches show skin but they are more athletic and in dramatic action poses, not sticking their balloons out for a photo. They are also freaking nuts.

 

Battle sisters are fully armoured and tough, with no-nonsense style reflecting the battle-nuns that they are. Still not convinced about the high heels though and there will always be debate about “boob plate” which I’m not opening up.

 

Repentia in the modern style now lean more into the torn to shreds, “I am nothing until I have redeemed myself in battle” thing rather than being sexy, which is great because these guys aren’t aiming to be sexy at all. I think it’s the last thing on the agenda. They are also freaking nuts (there’s a theme developing here).

 

Minka Lesk is a great example of a strong convincing female character equal to a man, that hasn’t had to look like a bodybuilder or Trunchbull to achieve this. We should have more options for female heads in guard kits so there can be more variety, as what we are missing from 40K is integration of male and female in the same unit/role. We still have a lot of “this unit/army is female and this unit/army is male” rather than proper equal representation.

 

Stormcast in AoS are the exception. They have done a great job of creating equally cool female characters and line troops without needing to go down the sexy route. Here I actually think we have the perfect balance.

 

To finish

 

I’m gonna have to wrap this very long post up at some point, but I guess my main point is that it’s easy to tell where the cringe line is, and I think everyone knows where that is, even if they like their sexy minis. Yes of course the 40K universe will have sexy things in it, as it’s a human universe. As others have said, if you enjoy stuff like that and want to make display pieces that’s up to you. But where we play our games, which is in battle, I don’t personally believe that it makes sense or has a logical place.

 

Disclaimer: nowhere in this post have I told anyone their view is trash or that they aren’t entitled to it. Just compiling my own brain splurge on the matter. Peace

Edited February 7 by TheArtilleryman

[TheMawr]

13 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

This was kind of what I was talking about with the "crap sexy minis" point in the OP. A lot of "sexy" minis fail spectacularly at being visually appealing in any sense at all, let alone being attractive.

 

While seemingly one topic I think these kind of subjects are usually several fairly different topics at once.

 

With each opinion/response not necessarily touching on everything, and sometimes the meanings getting crossed/lost.. I sometimes see heavy discussions between people that from an outsider looking in dont even seem to really disagree with one another. 

 

A lot of the conversation references third party products.. some of wich biggest offense isnt that they are sexy, but that they are just ugly. And when its about GW minis its only very old ones that are discussed.

 

Personally I think sensualization and sexualisation are not necessarily the same thing and often only become troublesome when combined, often in combination with ridiculous proportions and bad sculpting.

 

Yvraine is a sensualised miniature, but definitely not sexualised.. While both slaanesh fiends and catachans ( conceptually) are sexualisations in different ways, but not sensualised ( none of the catachans stand there in chip n dale poses or oiling their abs)  then there is nudity wich is neither sexualised or sensualised ( in sylvaneth for example, or in fact orks.) 

 

Wich makes me curious, is GW themselves actually doing it right ? Since there is less controverse ?

[Tawnis]

21 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

  then there is nudity wich is neither sexualised or sensualised ( in sylvaneth for example, or in fact orks.) 

 

 You could add Kroot to that list too. Most of the models are essentially naked, they just don't have human parts to show, so nobody bats a eyelash. 

[Lay]

Non-issue. I'll judge a player by his behavior, not by his taste (or lack thereof) in miniatures.

[DemonGSides]

9 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

 You could add Kroot to that list too. Most of the models are essentially naked, they just don't have human parts to show, so nobody bats a eyelash. 

 

Right, because it's not sexualized.  I think that's where most people are drawing the "in public" line, at least.

 

You can have a woman who has been quite blessed and it still not be a sexualized miniature.  The problem arises when boob plate is taken to it's ridiculous end.

 

I think GW normally threads the needle quite adeptly.  It's okay to have some titty, it's not okay when the titty is the main point of the model.

[TheArtilleryman]

10 minutes ago, Lay said:

Non-issue. I'll judge a player by his behavior, not by his taste (or lack thereof) in miniatures.

I wouldn’t argue with this at all. For me the discussion is all about the miniatures and nothing to do with the individual. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

26 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

While seemingly one topic I think these kind of subjects are usually several fairly different topics at once.

 

With each opinion/response not necessarily touching on everything, and sometimes the meanings getting crossed/lost.. I sometimes see heavy discussions between people that from an outsider looking in dont even seem to really disagree with one another. 

 

A lot of the conversation references third party products.. some of wich biggest offense isnt that they are sexy, but that they are just ugly. And when its about GW minis its only very old ones that are discussed.

 

Personally I think sensualization and sexualisation are not necessarily the same thing and often only become troublesome when combined, often in combination with ridiculous proportions and bad sculpting.

 

Yvraine is a sensualised miniature, but definitely not sexualised.. While both slaanesh fiends and catachans ( conceptually) are sexualisations in different ways, but not sensualised ( none of the catachans stand there in chip n dale poses or oiling their abs)  then there is nudity wich is neither sexualised or sensualised ( in sylvaneth for example, or in fact orks.) 

 

Wich makes me curious, is GW themselves actually doing it right ? Since there is less controverse ?

Catachans are a power fantasy not a sexual fantasy.

 

its the difference between superman and power girl.

its a dude drawing both, with differing reasons for accentuating various parts of both characters. 
superman is muscular to indulge men in a fantasy of strength(many depictions show him emaciated from being locked up underground, and he gets his powers when he is exposed to the yellow sun including super strength, so the muscles aren’t even necessary for his strength, it’s just because most dudes can’t fathom scrawny people being strong.)

 

meanwhile power girl is drawn the way she is as a sexual fantasy. Sure she’s busty and busty women exist, but the female characters are drawn that way intentionally as a thirst trap. 
now in the modern era there’s been some change in how female characters are depicted…and look at the absolute outrage from so many dudes.

[TheMawr]

17 hours ago, Tawnis said:

I see where you're coming from, and it is very subjective. I do agree with you on a technical level with the lore bit. However, I remember seeing those models for the first time back in the day, and I instantly knew what they were and what their deal was. Yeah the specific details of the how in the lore were lost to me because I haven't read that yet, but the newer ones that are just full repulsive, while more true to what they are, just don't feel like the correct expression of the unit is to 

 

I think while 40k has a relatively non progressing setting over the decades of its excistence identities of certain elements went back and forth. Creating different people coming in from different eras to have different "what makes X really X" wich is ofcourse ok, and always feels very fitting for the galactic scale in general.

 

I guess especially with daemons there should not be one correct "answer"

 

I do agree btw that current daemonettes do not properly express the unit, even if not in motion ( Wich they should be )  they all just stand there showing their claws, its weird, not menacing or alluring or anything in between .

People assume when i have my opinion on diazettes i think the current ones are good, I dont.. the old bald crab claws are  ok for their time but not for now.

 

 

[TheMawr]

7 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Catachans are a power fantasy not a sexual fantasy.

 

I looked it up and i have been using the word wrong apparently... for years 

 

I thought the word sexualisation referenced the exagerated stereotypical representation of sex as in gender.. not the "activity", altough there is some overlap when using it, wich is probably why i didnt realise before.

 

For example I assume for you a shirtless Chris hemsworth isnt a sexual fantasy, but for sooo many it is.. on the other hand sexually represented women is not something only men find attractive. so in art and miniatures we also need to look at the creator and their intent more than the subject matter. Wich makes it all even more subjective.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, TheMawr said:

 

I looked it up and i have been using the word wrong apparently... for years 

 

I thought the word sexualisation referenced the exagerated stereotypical representation of sex as in gender.. not the "activity", altough there is some overlap when using it, wich is probably why i didnt realise before.

 

For example I assume for you a shirtless Chris hemsworth isnt a sexual fantasy, but for sooo many it is.. on the other hand sexually represented women is not something only men find attractive. so in art and miniatures we also need to look at the creator and their intent more than the subject matter. Wich makes it all even more subjective.

The difference is while I know plenty of chicks and gay dudes who will talk about how hot or sexy X male celebrity is, I’ve never met a chick or a gay man that went to see thor just because Chris hemsworth would be shirtless. 
chris hemsworth being shirtless might be attractive to some people who see the movies he’s in but the movies aren’t marketed to them on that basis. Comic book/superhero stuff (40K included) is primarily created by men, for a male audience. Men with big muscles in these forms of media is not created or marketed to ruffle anyone’s feathers so to speak.

 

thats the real difference. Do we think the models that spawned this discussion were designed by women intended to be marketed to straight women for empowerment, or do we think they were designed by men and marketed to men hoping to make their pants get tighter?

 

there was a reality show that featured a woman who believes she’s in a relationship with a picket fence…she’d grind on it…it was weird, but no one believes that picket fences are created or marketed to turn any one on. So sure someone might find shirtless Chris hemsworth attractive or sexually appealing but that is not the point of having him with a 6 pack and big arms and pecs.

[TheNicronomicon]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Catachans are a power fantasy not a sexual fantasy.

 

its the difference between superman and power girl.

its a dude drawing both, with differing reasons for accentuating various parts of both characters. 
superman is muscular to indulge men in a fantasy of strength(many depictions show him emaciated from being locked up underground, and he gets his powers when he is exposed to the yellow sun including super strength, so the muscles aren’t even necessary for his strength, it’s just because most dudes can’t fathom scrawny people being strong.)

 

meanwhile power girl is drawn the way she is as a sexual fantasy. Sure she’s busty and busty women exist, but the female characters are drawn that way intentionally as a thirst trap. 
now in the modern era there’s been some change in how female characters are depicted…and look at the absolute outrage from so many dudes.

To the good Inquisitor's point, the fantasy of being a Catachan or Space Marine etc is that you get to be strong and tough and do cool action-movie stuff. People find competence and ability attractive, yes, and some may be attracted to the big muscles etc but it's an empowering fantasy and the sexy stuff is a second-order effect. For an exaggerated hourglass-shaped Tau sniper, the fantasy being indulged is that she's.....an exaggerated hourglass shape. The whole job is looking pretty, and the sniper rifle is just an accessory. (Interestingly, if you look at what women say they're attracted to, it's much more Andrew Garfield than The Rock. The average American woman would rather hook up with a guy built like Spider-Man than with a dude built like Bane.)

1 hour ago, Lay said:

Non-issue. I'll judge a player by his behavior, not by his taste (or lack thereof) in miniatures.

Is choosing which minis to bring to a store/tournament not an expression of their character? 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

36 minutes ago, TheNicronomicon said:

To the good Inquisitor's point, the fantasy of being a Catachan or Space Marine etc is that you get to be strong and tough and do cool action-movie stuff. People find competence and ability attractive, yes, and some may be attracted to the big muscles etc but it's an empowering fantasy and the sexy stuff is a second-order effect. For an exaggerated hourglass-shaped Tau sniper, the fantasy being indulged is that she's.....an exaggerated hourglass shape. The whole job is looking pretty, and the sniper rifle is just an accessory. (Interestingly, if you look at what women say they're attracted to, it's much more Andrew Garfield than The Rock. The average American woman would rather hook up with a guy built like Spider-Man than with a dude built like Bane.)

Is choosing which minis to bring to a store/tournament not an expression of their character? 

Tbf it depends on who.

A lot of women will say they like ‘dad bods’ but then when shown like 3 pictures of celebrities I think it was Daniel Craig as James Bond, Seth Rohan, and someone else, the women identified James Bond as ‘dad body’ lol.

 

but in general I dudes really don’t know what a lot of women actually want lol. When I had a 6 pack I did much worse with women than I did after losing it lol.

Edited February 7 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Wait. Are we straight up ignoring that the entire market of Romance novels with cheesy bare-chested men on the covers is propped up by the fantasies of women that people in this thread are claiming don't exist? The female version of the neck beard is the lonely house mom, and I am absolutely boggling. 

 

This isn't some crazy issue of one sided thirst trapping that is poisoning society. Women have sexual fantasies, men have sexual fantasies, they are played with by marketing in exactly the same ways. This is a discussion on whether or not there's a line when you're bringing sexy models into the hobby, and where people think that line is. 

 

 

[phandaal]

39 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

So sure someone might find shirtless Chris hemsworth attractive or sexually appealing but that is not the point of having him with a 6 pack and big arms and pecs.

 

Being sexually appealing actually is part of the reason why Chris Hemsworth is shown either shirtless or completely naked in movies. Mainly straight women are looking at that and finding it attractive, and Disney wants the dollar they will dole out to see it. The other reason for him having big muscles is so that men can have a vicarious power fantasy watching him do awesome things. It is both.

 

Not long ago, I watched the latest Aquaman movie with my wife (don't judge me OK). I thought it was cool to see Arthur and Orm doing cool bro stuff (honestly that should have just been the whole movie), and my wife thought both of them were good-looking. Both of us had different reasons for liking the two of them on screen.

 

That is veering off topic though. This is obviously not an area where people are going to come to an agreement and it getting pretty far away from tabletop minis.

 

Edited February 7 by phandaal

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Being sexually appealing actually is part of the reason why Chris Hemsworth is shown either shirtless or completely naked in movies. Mainly straight women are looking at that and finding it attractive, and Disney wants the dollar they will dole out to see it. The other reason for him having big muscles is so that men can have a vicarious power fantasy watching him do awesome things. It is both.

 

Not long ago, I watched the latest Aquaman movie with my wife (don't judge me OK). I thought it was cool to see Arthur and Orm doing cool bro stuff (honestly that should have just been the whole movie), and my wife thought both of them were good-looking. Both of us had different reasons for liking the two of them on screen.

 

That is veering off topic though. This is obviously not an area where people are going to come to an agreement and it getting pretty far away from tabletop minis.

 

It might be used to get women to agree to see a movie otherwise completely geared towards men, but I have never known a girl/woman who went to see a movie marketed to men, solely for the reason that a sexy dude was shirtless…meanwhile the whole point of the movie sucker punch for example was just all about weird control fetish, school girl fetish, etc in an action movie wrapping.

sure magic Mike is an example of selling a movie to women via sex, but it was also a joke at the time 2012 had things backwards, men were going to see a movie about a magic teddy bear while women went to a movie about strippers.

 

in regards to women, sex sells, but not nearly as well as it does for men.

 

ripped shirtless dudes is almost always to sell a power fantasy to men and selling sex to women is a secondary consideration.

[Tawnis]

2 hours ago, TheMawr said:

 

I looked it up and i have been using the word wrong apparently... for years 

 

I thought the word sexualisation referenced the exagerated stereotypical representation of sex as in gender.. not the "activity", altough there is some overlap when using it, wich is probably why i didnt realise before.

 

For example I assume for you a shirtless Chris hemsworth isnt a sexual fantasy, but for sooo many it is.. on the other hand sexually represented women is not something only men find attractive. so in art and miniatures we also need to look at the creator and their intent more than the subject matter. Wich makes it all even more subjective.

I think the reason that this has become as pervasive as it is though is how genders react to it as well. 

What it mean is, there was this study (I wish I could site it but I don't recall off the top of my head, my wife found it, so I'll see if she remembers and source it later) where they had people of all genders and sexual orientations rate photos of people in various levels of provocativeness on how attritive they were on appearance alone. What they found was that on average, women found someone attractive regardless of gender, whereas men only found those of their sexual preference to be attractive. Obviously every person was different, and this is just a general average, but I still found it interesting as another reason why overt female sexuality tends to sell so well, even if women aren't thirsting over it the way some men are, they still find it visually pleasing to some extent, whereas it often makes men uncomfortable to see someone not of their sexual preference in a provocative state. 

If that's a biological response or a culturally ingrained one, the study was not able to say. 

[MechaMan]

I don’t feel like this is the right forum for this subject. Trying to conduct an in-depth discussion on this topic without touching on sociopolitical issues like representation, objectification, the “male gaze” etc etc is practically impossible. 

That said, I personally think sexualising plastic soldiers is painfully cringe. I like my Warhammer 40K models like I like my astartes, asexual and ultraviolent. With the exception of the 1997 commissar and the dark eldar slaves GW have done a great job of avoiding the cringe factor. 

 

 

[phandaal]

25 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

It might be used to get women to agree to see a movie otherwise completely geared towards men, but I have never known a girl/woman who went to see a movie marketed to men, solely for the reason that a sexy dude was shirtless…meanwhile the whole point of the movie sucker punch for example was just all about weird control fetish, school girl fetish, etc in an action movie wrapping.

sure magic Mike is an example of selling a movie to women via sex, but it was also a joke at the time 2012 had things backwards, men were going to see a movie about a magic teddy bear while women went to a movie about strippers.

 

in regards to women, sex sells, but not nearly as well as it does for men.

 

ripped shirtless dudes is almost always to sell a power fantasy to men and selling sex to women is a secondary consideration.

 

Honestly, after reading this and some other comments on this thread, it just seems like you are going to "yes but" anything besides complete agreement. Pretend I said whatever thing about men and women and pinup dolls you think is correct and let's just skip the rest.