Are dark eldar the fetishist's army?

When I first got into 40k and deciding which army to play as, I was immediately drawn to the dark eldar. I read about how they torture lesser sentient species and raid planets to take slaves and put them to use in pleasure palaces. Being into BDSM, I was digging it. It also helped that wyches had tight, form fitting armor, which reminded me of latex.

I have heard people say that those who play dark eldar are all fetishists. In my case, it is true. But I wonder, what about the rest of you? Did you feel a connection with them based on your kinks?

Sad to inform you we are not all so.  Although I've had women really try to get me in to all that stuff I've never been terribly fond of any flavor but vanilla.  That said, I've always leaned towards things which I am distinctly not while gaming.

Example:  IRL - I'm 6' and was a wrestler through high school - somewhat famous for my ability to dislocate other peoples' bones while grappling.  In games though, I'm always the smallest available race, and rely almost entirely on ranged combat.  Even one of my first 40k armies was a ratling-heavy imperial guard list, and I played a goblins list for years back when fantasy was a thing.

Then again the two other armies I regularly play are Renegades and Heretics and Mono-slaanesh Chaos daemons, so I currently seem to prefer just being the "bad guy" in 40k (not to start the inevitable conversation about who the "good guys" are).

The dark kin might just be the cross between slight/nimble and sadistic, which is furthest from who I actually am in my boring day to day life.

No, I'm sure that people choose their models for all kinds of reasons. Also, any fetishism connected to the dark eldar is largely in people's minds. Space Marines are *much* more fetishistic, even appallingly so. Other than 'borrowing' much of their imagery from 90s era Clive Barker, the Dark Eldar are really pretty mild 'naughty' villains, like the Drow in D&D or that succubus in World of Warcraft who slaps her own bottom and goes, 'oooh!' *snap*!

Being GW, they always write it up completely over the top, and they don't mind a bit of blood, but they completely wimp out on sex. 'Pray we don't take you alive, wretched mortal, for we shall torment your body and soul in ways that your mind could never even conceive, forcing upon you the utmost extremes of agony and ecstasy by doing to you all kinds of scary sexy things.'

'Ooh, what sort of things?'

'Well, like this one time we stripped a guy naked, like bare naked... well, he had a loincloth on, obviously, and we slapped his bottom like really, really hard!'

Venus in Furs it's not, is what I'm saying.

I'm personally not into any kind of fetishism myself, although I do like that thing that guys do with the mop and the custard and the Miss Piggy costume, but who doesn't, right?

Barking Agatha wrote:

I'm personally not into any kind of fetishism myself, although I do like that thing that guys do with the mop and the custard and the Miss Piggy costume, but who doesn't, right?

Ya - As long as it's vanilla custard anyway. Vanilla = Boring.

I'm curious what you mean though about marines being fetishistic, unless of course you mean in the literal (and non-sexual) definition - in which it's pretty hard to argue against.

Edit: Upon further thought, I think I just had a couple epiphanies about what you mean.  My relatively innocent mind really had not thought to apply that concept to armies like the blood angels before. So... thanks?

I have fetishes - but anything beyond basic handcuffs doesn't really excite me as far as BDSM goes. Really the question appears to be "do BDSM enthusiasts play DE over other armies"? And to answer that question, really, we would need to try to get a baseline for how many *didn't* play DE, not how many did, even if 100% of us were into BDSM it wouldn't mean anything without the other side of the coin, maybe 100% of WH40k players are into BDSM

I feel that I should add to this, I myself do not really think about such things. But people are weird, anyone could have an anything fetish. We all have our kinky streaks, some are just more open about it.
I wanted to make the point that Dark Eldar do not really have fetishes as such in the lore, as a fetish defines as:
"a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc."
In Dark Eldar society, things like this are seen as normal, so it's not a fetish.

Interesting topic, to be sure.

I certainly can't speak broadly, and in fact I'm not sure anyone can, as there's a thousand and one fetishes, but for the one you cited in particular; BDSM.

In most BDSM interactions, there's a party in control, or the master, and there's a follower/slave. So on the surface, Dark Eldar and their society at large do share many traits with this. They certainly feel like they're the masters of the galaxy, and most other species are at their mercy/are actively slaves to them.

The biggest difference, is that in most real life, willing, BDSM relations there's at least some level of respect and trust between participants, even if its subconscious. Dark Eldar will never place any trust or respect in any living individual, and willing participation is not always required.

Utter disdain is likely to be the only thing they ever feel towards their playthings. I guess you could say Dark Eldar probably take it up to 11. Thus, yes, I think a lot of people do share this kink with the faction.

For me though, I was not drawn to them because of this, and I don't think this is their biggest selling point.

The widespread, acceptable social corruption, decadence, and warped culture did it for me, as I'm sure it does for others. Any faction that has individuals that literally collect, distill and drink the tears of their enemies, is twisted beyond saving. Normally, power corrupts, but in their case its the inverse, as the most corrupt become powerful. The most potent individuals don't suffer the weak to rise in their ambitions, and they rule over a society where controlled murder is acceptable, and even encouraged.

So, as much as the faction might appeal to one's kinks, it could equally appeal to someone who worships power above all else, ruthlessly so.

hydranixx wrote:

In most BDSM interactions, there's a party in control, or the master, and there's a follower/slave.

Actually it's the other way around. The submissive party is the master, and in control, and the dominating party is the server (I wouldn't say slave). That is why, when it involves prostitution, the dominators / dominatrixes are the ones who are paid, and the dominees are the ones who pay them.

stilgar27 wrote:

Edit: Upon further thought, I think I just had a couple epiphanies about what you mean. My relatively innocent mind really had not thought to apply that concept to armies like the blood angels before. So... thanks?

You're welcome!

Ooo! How did I miss this topic til now?

I'm kinky, including BDSM. Exactly how kinky varies depending on both my partner and where I'm at emotionally, because sexuality is fluid, not static. It's not a huge part of either my sexuality or my identity, but I do occasionally turn up at fetish nights, sex parties, the local Fetish Flea, etc.

As for the local 40k players, I have no idea. They appear to be a fairly normative bunch (unlike me), with a smattering of stereotypical nerd social issues here and there, but that doesn't mean anything regarding kinks. When I mention my non-normative lifestyle (circus, goth clubs, burning man, etc) it doesn't seem like they relate, but again, that doesn't mean anything. Also, because there's a couple of local stores here where people play at, there are certainly a number of local 40k players who I haven't met.

Regarding other circus performers, in my experience a lot of them tend to be kinky (I won't go as far as "most," but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case), and a lot of them are giant nerds. It's not surprising; there are pretty clear correlations there. I don't know any other performers who are into wargaming.

I agree with Thor. I think that the best approach would be determining what percentage of 40k players in general are kinksters, what percentage of Dark Eldar players are kinksters, and then compare the numbers. I suppose you could set up a poll here and one on Warseer or Dakka if you're sufficiently motivated, and willing to potentially deal with some people on the internet being tools.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Actually it's the other way around. The submissive party is the master, and in control, and the dominating party is the server (I wouldn't say slave). That is why, when it involves prostitution, the dominators / dominatrixes are the ones who are paid, and the dominees are the ones who pay them.

This 1000%.  As someone who played the master role for the sake of a partner in a long term relationship, I can tell you (for me anyway) it was nothing but work.  Weirdly it felt more like I was a babysitter, or there for the other person's entertainment and "security?"... and while I'm sure someone out there probably would enjoy that idea immensely - I did not.

It's a bit of a shame that the relationship between wracks and their masters hasn't been fleshed out (no pun intended) more in this direction, as it could easily demonstrate this inversion.  There are even hints that human slaves can be taken on as wracks, which I'm sure would be considered quite the perversion.

Barking Agatha wrote:

hydranixx wrote:

In most BDSM interactions, there's a party in control, or the master, and there's a follower/slave.

Actually it's the other way around. The submissive party is the master, and in control, and the dominating party is the server (I wouldn't say slave). That is why, when it involves prostitution, the dominators / dominatrixes are the ones who are paid, and the dominees are the ones who pay them.

I learn something new every day, thanks for that. There's certainly more to it than meets the eye, and I hadn't realised how intricate it goes.

stilgar27 wrote:

There are even hints that human slaves can be taken on as wracks, which I'm sure would be considered quite the perversion

I had thought that the vast majority of Wracks become who(what) they are because they're Eldar who either seek new experiences in servitude, or want to learn from (and eventually become) a Haemonculus. Human Wracks on the other hand... Well I suppose when old Fabulous Bile departed from Commoragh, he might have left the Haemoculus eager for more human apprentices.

As far as GW is concerned, they are the edgelord's army: If even Chaos isn't twisted and grimdark enough, try Dark Eldar.

Now, I'm neither crazy for extreme grimdarkness nor BDSM, but I still love Dark Eldar for their design: Menacing, elegant and with a hint of cyberpunk. I'm a nerd with a heart of goth.

hydranixx wrote:

I had thought that the vast majority of Wracks become who(what) they are because they're Eldar who either seek new experiences in servitude, or want to learn from (and eventually become) a Haemonculus. Human Wracks on the other hand... Well I suppose when old Fabulous Bile departed from Commoragh, he might have left the Haemoculus eager for more human apprentices.

I might be reading too much in to them but there are definite hints of wracks which are not of dark eldar origin, such as within the Coven of the Black Descent.  This coven tests "promising captives" by having them navigate a pitch black labyrinth full of death traps.  If these unwilling contestants survive "through touch and instinct", they are forcibly initiated in to the coven as a wrack.

Since dark eldar have perfect night vision... I have to ask who these captives, blindly groping their way through this test are?  The very same coven is also famous for (partially) mutating dark eldar into other races with genetic poisons so I imagine the idea of race is somewhat malleable to them and haemonculi in general.