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

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Domhnall said:

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.

In terms of Slaanesh sexy very much has a place in the setting.

 

iirc there’s a gaunt’s ghost book where gaunt hooks up with curth. Seemed unnecessary and out of place to me. There was another that had something to do with warp craft making him think ‘feth’ meant to boink, and he imagined himself boinking a female trooper. That was very on brand for 40K and the series.

its all just about context and how it’s handled.

 

i would find it cringey if someone went out of their way to buy a 3rd party cult of slaanesh leader model and it’s a naked or mostly naked woman, but as long as things weren’t comically exaggerated, it would at least make sense and wouldn’t necessarily come off as super neckbeardy, and I could probably abstain from judging them.

conversly a whole army of naked or bikini clad female guard I’d judge HARD, and be weirded out and probably not talk to that person.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Marshal Valkenhayn said:

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. 

 

 

No one is saying women liking ripped men don’t exist.

but have you ever asked a woman that reads romance novels why they read them? 
just like a lot of prawn that’s ‘made for women’ is more than just in shape dudes with big dongs. You can google the typical differences between adult content aimed at men and adult content aimed at women.

[Lupercals chosen]

Not to derail things and I might be mis-remembering, but isn't the oversized musclularty of the Catachans due to the gravity on Catachan? Or has that been retconned?

[MechaMan]

1 minute ago, Lupercals chosen said:

Not to derail things and I might be mis-remembering, but isn't the oversized musclularty of the Catachans due to the gravity on Catachan? Or has that been retconned?

I’ve never encountered this lore before. But the idea of Catachan’s being mini ogryns is great. Really putting the abs in abhuman haha. 

[grailkeeper]

Might be handy to have images that people feel are on the ok side and comparable images that cross the line.

[MechaMan]

1 minute ago, grailkeeper said:

Might be handy to have images that people feel are on the ok side and comparable images that cross the line.

 

[Lupercals chosen]

3 minutes ago, MechaMan said:

I’ve never encountered this lore before. But the idea of Catachan’s being mini ogryns is great. Really putting the abs in abhuman haha. 

I think it may have been in the white dwarf article covering the release of the orginal metal squad back in 3rd ed but I could be wrong. The sergeant was pretty ninja though with an eye patch and chainsword. The good old days...

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Lupercals chosen said:

I think it may have been in the white dwarf article covering the release of the orginal metal squad back in 3rd ed but I could be wrong. The sergeant was pretty ninja though with an eye patch and chainsword. The good old days...

I’ll double check my 3rd ed codex because I clearly remember that as well, and I never had the dedicated Catachan codex, and only ever read 1 WD 

Edited Friday at 08:32 PM by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Tawnis]

1 hour ago, grailkeeper said:

Might be handy to have images that people feel are on the ok side and comparable images that cross the line.

Assuming for a moment that you are being legitimate and not just looking for pics...

There's actually an easy place to find exactly comparable models for this comparison. Wargame Exclusive makes a lot of really cool models, I own a few of them, they also make another range of really thirsty naked models too that are well into the realm of uncomfortableness that is discussed here. 

What makes them unique for this point of comparison though, is that they have several that are swappable between the two. You can order your badass female "commissar" with thick chest armour as would be appropriate, or with no chest plate and everything flying free. Using the same pose and set up, it's a simple chest swap that can turn a model from bad-ass, to just bad. 

It's about the point of it all to me (and it seems most of us) at the end of the day. Does this make sense in the situation provided. If yes, it usually gets a pass, but when it's obviously just over sexualization for the sake of it, that gets real uncomfortable real fast. 

[One Paul Murray]

7 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

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

I think lots of people in here have echoed my opinions generally, but I couldn't specifically express it any better than this.

 

The only thing I would add to this is that I personally also have an issue with some of the depictions of female body horror in the Sororitas range, specifically the Penitent Engines. Repentia maybe in the past, but I don't mind the current stuff.

 

You'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of the challenges and abuse facing women the world over, and so some of models with, effectively, crucified and blind-folded women are unpalatable to me. And they don't need to be because the Mortifiers haven't ever been as bad.

 

That said, I think the sculpts have toned that down a touch too, so maybe I'm talking unfairly.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I think lots of people in here have echoed my opinions generally, but I couldn't specifically express it any better than this.

 

The only thing I would add to this is that I personally also have an issue with some of the depictions of female body horror in the Sororitas range, specifically the Penitent Engines. Repentia maybe in the past, but I don't mind the current stuff.

 

You'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of the challenges and abuse facing women the world over, and so some of models with, effectively, crucified and blind-folded women are unpalatable to me. And they don't need to be because the Mortifiers haven't ever been as bad.

 

That said, I think the sculpts have toned that down a touch too, so maybe I'm talking unfairly.

I agree about the penitent engine now you mention it.

there wasn’t much reason for a mostly naked woman to be depicted openly chained and crucified as a form of torture when they could have aways just put them in an iron coffin thing as well.

[Grotsmasha]

Everyone, the topic is "Sex Appeal in 40k" not caloric intake?!?!?! Stick to the Topic.

[Antarius]

Just a quick post to say that I appreciate all the thought and effort that's going into people's posts.

I don't know whether this has been talked about so far (but I think it has at least been indirectly touched upon with the whole "does it fit the setting/concept" angle), but for me personally, I am okay with some pretty extreme things in fiction that would absolutely freak me out in real life. The body horror angle mentioned above is a perfect example; I have absolutely no problem with the Warhammer 40.000 setting being a place where people are crucified, tortured etc. regardless of gender, because to me that just underscores what the setting is "about" and I don't find that that has any bearing on real life or indeed any relation to what goes on in the real world. However, if it is actively presented in a way intended to make me think "wow, crucified women are kinda hot", then yeah, I think that's well beyond the realm of what's acceptable for a social activity such as playing a wargame (again; people can have whatever kinks they want, but pushing it on other people is another matter entirely).

I also tend to think that there is an (perhaps) interesting angle regarding the nature of fiction here; namely that something that is very clearly fiction (and possibly even more so for things that are also quite "niche" and deliberately extreme) is way less likely to be "absorbed" as "real" by the consumer, whether consciously or subconsciously. I know this is a pretty big subject, but the tl;dr version is that I don't think anybody' view of women is really influenced by (for example) Cannibal Corpse lyrics, precisely because they are very obviously fictional, deliberately over the top and in no way presented as aspirational. In that sense, I actually think mainstream media is much more "damaging" to people's sense of reality/expectations of themselves and others (with the slight caveat that there are apparently a couple of weirdos out there who somehow think the Imperium is supposed to be aspirational rather than an exaggerated dystopia  ).

So what does that mean for "sexy" minis? Well, to me it means that I don't really see this as a question of morality or whether it's somehow "damaging" to people's views on real life and sex. I tend to see it more as a matter of what's fitting for the setting, disruptive to my immersion and, in some cases, good manners. I tend to be okay with rather extreme stuff when it comes to e.g. Daemons (I once made a rather explicit Slaaneshi Soul Grinder that I would argue wasn't "sexy" or cheesecakey in any way although it had, shall we say, some Gigeresque elements and I wouldn't show it to minors or people I thought might be uncomfortable with that sort of thing), but I still think there's a clear difference between something that is intended to underscore the atmosphere of the setting and something that is intended as mere titillation. The former is cool with me, whereas I find the latter cringe-inducing and, depending on the degree, so off-putting that I'd consider it bad manners.

Edited Saturday at 09:08 AM by Antarius

[TheArtilleryman]

11 hours ago, One Paul Murray said:

I think lots of people in here have echoed my opinions generally, but I couldn't specifically express it any better than this.

 

The only thing I would add to this is that I personally also have an issue with some of the depictions of female body horror in the Sororitas range, specifically the Penitent Engines. Repentia maybe in the past, but I don't mind the current stuff.

 

You'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of the challenges and abuse facing women the world over, and so some of models with, effectively, crucified and blind-folded women are unpalatable to me. And they don't need to be because the Mortifiers haven't ever been as bad.

 

That said, I think the sculpts have toned that down a touch too, so maybe I'm talking unfairly.

This is a really good point and a model I’d missed. Yeah I’d agree with you on this one. 

[Jukkiz]

The daemonettes situation is quite intresting one to point out in Sexy department in warhammer.

Almost everyone can agree that Juan diaz daemonettes are in quite special place in this argument. With their more exposed skin and more human like looks with normal hands more then just weird claws and alien looking fingers on the new ones.

On other hand, it´s quite fun to think that, in quick glance against these two, you would take the Slaanesh way of seduction look and how they´re supposed to work in the lore.

While, from the distance, the daemonettes are supposed to be pretty and alluring, whispering sweet nothings and causing mortals and weak minded to come to them, freeze in place or just get charmed by them. On other hand, when you get closer, their true nature is revealed to be something.... "ugly" to us, mortals. THAT´S when they got you, it was an illusion, a trick, play of your senses to get you relaxed, charmed and easy to take out.



 

[TheArtilleryman]

12 minutes ago, Jukkiz said:

The daemonettes situation is quite intresting one to point out in Sexy department in warhammer.

Almost everyone can agree that Juan diaz daemonettes are in quite special place in this argument. With their more exposed skin and more human like looks with normal hands more then just weird claws and alien looking fingers on the new ones.

On other hand, it´s quite fun to think that, in quick glance against these two, you would take the Slaanesh way of seduction look and how they´re supposed to work in the lore.

While, from the distance, the daemonettes are supposed to be pretty and alluring, whispering sweet nothings and causing mortals and weak minded to come to them, freeze in place or just get charmed by them. On other hand, when you get closer, their true nature is revealed to be something.... "ugly" to us, mortals. THAT´S when they got you, it was an illusion, a trick, play of your senses to get you relaxed, charmed and easy to take out.



 

You know what, I didn’t even remember them looking like that. For me the ones on the right are total cringe factor and I’d be embarrassed to collect an army of them. My kids would honestly just think I was weird and creepy.
 

I’m not a huge fan of the Slaanesh faction anyway but the newer ones are definitely a step in the right direction for he hobby and also have a more androgynous look that takes into account that Slaanesh is trying to allure men and women in equal measure. It can’t just all be about enticing straight men or Slaanesh is missing out 50% of potential victims/servants/whatever.

 

Seriously, kids change your view of the hobby entirely. I know it’s intended for 12 and up but kids are the future of the hobby and I feel it’s important that it doesn’t go so far as to make it inappropriate for them. Yes the setting is violent and grimdark but to the casual observer models like this are much more “in your face” wrong and are more likely to put off parents from letting their kids play.

Edited Saturday at 09:38 AM by TheArtilleryman

[Antarius]

I'll just chime in and say that I think the Diaz Daemonettes are far from the perfection they're sometimes cranked up to be (and honestly, I think nostalgia is usually a huge factor here). I'll also say, though, that they're an example of something I'm quite ok with - to me the merging of traditionally "sexy" features with grotesque and alien traits achieve an effect that is both very, very different from "sexy babe" type minis and also quite difficult to achieve without using some traditionally "sexy" elements.
Whether they're appropriate for all ages is another matter, of course, but I think the juxtaposition of attractive and repulsive elements is central to the Slaaneshi theme and, while almost every Slaanesh knockoff-mini is super cringe, precisely because they tend to leave out the repulsive part, the effect would also be lessened by leaving out the attractive part (for the record, I do not find rows of breasts attractive, but I hope you see what I mean). 

I'll also say that I think the newer Slaaneshi models actually tend to achieve this in a way that I, subjectively, prefer because I feel their weirdness is accentuated more. But I do think it would be a bit reductive to put the old Daemonettes on the same level as, say, the RH "lust elves" (I mean, just the name alone is astronomic levels of cringeitude) because I think they're going for a fundamentally different effect.

[Lay]

To be fair, people don't just like the Diaznettes because they show more skin. They have very dynamic, organic looking poses and the "heroic scale" proportions aren't as comically pronounced as those of other minis from the same era. It's the solid craftsmanship behind the sculpts that is part of the appeal.

If, let's say, the plastic 'nettes had he diaz poses and the diaznettes had the poses of the plastic one's, I'd prefer the plastic ones.

[DemonGSides]

Organic poses is hilarious while looking at those flamingo demonettes. 

[Magos Takatus]

I think there's a bit of a Gork/Mork dynamic with those two kinds of Daemonettes. One is alluring yet disturbing and the other is supposed to be disturbing but alluring. I can personally imagine being lured in by the Diaznettes before noticing their grotesque features too late, but with the others I would notice that those grotesque daemons have some alluring features, but I'd already be giving them a wide berth. That is just my personal opinion, though.

[Interrogator Stobz]

 

11 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

You know what, I didn’t even remember them looking like that. For me the ones on the right are total cringe factor and I’d be embarrassed to collect an army of them. My kids would honestly just think I was weird and creepy.

Back in the day, I owned several squads of Juan Daemonettes, seven in each of course. I loved them as a brilliant representation of what Slaanesh minis should be like (at that time).

That was my Subjective opinion. 

But, and this is the important bit... Objectively they were too much for a tabletop game in public. Many Other people, especially those unaware of the lore, find them cringe worthy. 

Ask the question, would I proudly show my Grandma?

That's when Art becomes Pornish/Cringey, both can be brilliant, but what is it's affect on an Objective observer.

 

Back to Subjectivity, and to the humans of 40k, those engaged in conventional and unconventional Warfare, absolutely Nothing says sexy like a pair of combat boots and sensible attire.

I grew up with 2000AD, to me that's the standard.

[Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Ask the question, would I proudly show my Grandma?

 

My father in law, overheard whispering to my wife after looking over my old (old!) Warriors of Chaos army.

 

"...these aren't Satanic are they?"

 

We play a game of horrific extremes. It's quite literally the point.

 

Sisters have unsettling minis? Good. They are one of the most horrific factions in the setting.

 

At least Nids just want to eat you.

 

I cannot wait to see the backlash once the setting really hits mainstream. /s

[Interrogator Stobz]

Yeah, I  agree with that, the 40k ooniverse is an extreme setting.

That doesn't mean when it's portrayed in public it needs shock value.

My Grandfather was a little put out at the Fascist nature of space marines when he was alive back in RT days, he was unaware of the satire and took them at face value. Just like the "is it satanical" query. In that environment, the Objective viewer wasn't certain. 

 

40k began as a very satirical styled setting, and I acknowledge it has developed a lot since then, but keeping a measure of satire helps keep it family friendly.

The hyper aggressive war themes, and any sexual themes shouldn't make the viewer feel uncomfortable.  The vast majority of people can laugh at a dirty joke in public, but most would be upset with lewd comments done seriously.

 

Same as on the tabletop. You can get away with more aggression and more sexuality when it's Obviously satirical, the more seriously it's portrayed, the less you can push the limits of Objective tolerance. 

[Lay]

I wouldn't call them objective viewers, but rather casual ones. One of the most common and popular armies in tabletop are WW2 germans and there's no satire to what these miniatures represent.  IMO wargaming simply comes with a certain degree of baggage and edge, and that can make it difficult for people to casually approach it.

[Indy Techwisp]

I know this thread is about the general topic as a whole, but touching on the initial inciting incident for it's creation I do note that it is nearly always Catachan that gets used for this.

Or Felinids, but that's a slightly different demographic.

 

That said, Catachan does have a specific vibe for it's female soldiers as depicted in the official art.

And that's apparently also Action Movie Heroes, just like the for the Men.

I mean we literally have Ellen Ripley here:

 

I just feel it's a shame that we don't get that many custom Catchan minis using the style tho.

Edited yesterday at 02:43 PM by Indy Techwisp
Image died for some reason, fixed.