A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.
Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?
I had a similar problem; I wanted to use Reaper succubi in the place of Dark Elf harpies (since the harpies are butt-ugly). But many (if not most) of the succubi were butt-naked.
So, a touch of filework to trim off oversized nips and all I had to do was paint on bikinis in the army colors.
For yours, giving them camo bikinis makes them a humorous addition to a collection instead of a perverted one.
Like all humor, context and audience are key here.
If your friends would get a laugh out of them, paint 'em up!
Having said that, the very same models, at a game store, are no longer under your control for context or audience. People may see them in a different context than you intended, or people who are not your intended audience might see them. I'd leave them at home, just like I'd avoid telling jokes that would be perfectly fine in my regular gaming group out in public.
I had painted up the Talisman (I believe, was part of one of those "toy" box deals GW had in the early 2000's) plastic Dark Elf sorceress that my brother purposefully painted up topless and nobody batted an eye. Occasionally someone would pick it up for a closer look, but for the most part people didn't make a big deal of it. There were junior high kids that came in the store all the time as well, so not even the dirty mind of a preteen drew attention too much to the model. I sold it when times were tough, I'm REALLY wishing I hadn't now.
I'd paint them up and keep them on my shelf the nudity was tasteful (or made sense like with daemonettes). If it's just tna for the sake of tna... nah.
I'd paint them up and use them as specialists in a kill team game, as they will stand out nicely.
Most gamers will appreciate a bit of cheesecake, so don't worry about it.
Having said that, I would only use them at a local club.
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.
Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?
Put them women to work. They want equal rights, put them on the table for equal kills. Its all going to depend on you, though. If you paint them up well, people will like them, if you try to splatter paint them, your going to get gaff.
That's how it really works.
One thing about naked minis- they're the best way to start sculpting.
To sculpt minis, the way to start is by sculpting a naked figure, then adding clothing on top of it. But learning from this method is really hard- because the toughest thing to get right is human anatomy (we all know what looks right and what looks wrong).
Kev White's hasslefree nudes are great places to learn sculpting because they tend to not be in cheesecake poses (which never works well on the battlefield).
So, if you'd like to use them in public, take the opportunity to pull out the green stuff and give them some clothing.
Never saw the point myself (wetnurse lol?).
But long ago stopped caring.
Played 2 tourneys VS a guys super daemonnette boob army VS my Eldar.
Took a look (well painted, well played mind). dropped dice and won 2-0.
Had a pint afterwards and he described the background etc.
I thought it was cool then.
#context
But in general, specifically for 40k - not sure I got it......
In a private game, with people I know (who know me), I don't care; I've got some nudie slave-girl objective markers for my DE, and don't see a problem with them.
Out in a public venue, I'm more restrained. If the model is an art piece (generally not the case with game minis, but there are a couple), or if it's some kind of fantasy race that happens to be nude, then I don't see an issue with it.
If it's a human (or mostly human) model that's nude for exploitative reasons (sounds like the case with the OP's question--they're just naked for people to giggle and go 'boobies!') I'll avoid them. Gaming clubs already put out enough of a toxic atmosphere to women, and there's no reason to perpetuate it. It's not that I have a problem with the nudity, but I recognize that it could make people uncomfortable and don't see a reason to do that.
One exception: Torture porn is right out. Miniatures that use female nudity to convey vulnerability and then couple that with sexualized violence or humiliation (see Kingdom Death) perpetuate the normalcy of sexual degradation against women. I won't pay for them, I won't support artists/companies that make this their standard offering, and I won't play against them if I can help it.
People who feel conflict and shame over two inch tall models have always bewildered me.
It's like, I'm not a good person if I approve of this. If you believe that, fine. Throw it away. If you are conflicted at all about whether or not to keep it, you don't get to pretend that you don't approve of it or that you are a good person for disapproving. If you want to take the moral high ground, commit to it. You can't half ass the high ground. And you can't go the ironic route either. I only have these appealing naked models that I enjoy very much and don't want to throw away because it's a joke. Get it? I'm ironically immoral!
But if you are like me, being an adult who is allowed to see boobies - then shrug it off and act with some god damned dignity. If you like it, keep it. Display it. Enjoy it to the extent that you desire without worry or concern for what others think of you. If there is someone who disapproves of you, morally, over a nipples you need a microscope to see, you don't need a shallow, judgmental donkey-cave like that in your life. It says way more about him than it does you - unless you give into such naked and obvious peer pressure and become subservient to someone else's repressed opinions of righteousness. Then it says plenty of things about you, none of them good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: If it's a human (or mostly human) model that's nude for exploitative reasons (sounds like the case with the OP's question--they're just naked for people to giggle and go 'boobies!') I'll avoid them. Gaming clubs already put out enough of a toxic atmosphere to women, and there's no reason to perpetuate it. It's not that I have a problem with the nudity, but I recognize that it could make people uncomfortable and don't see a reason to do that.
Toxic atmosphere, my ass. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman (or man, for that matter) might feel uncomfortable in gaming clubs, and I'm pretty sure that plenty rank a slight bit higher than naked figurines - the majority of which have been designed in accordance to the long and wonderful artistic history of the fantasy genre. I'm frankly not willing to throw away that long and wonderful artistic history (which I hope is not snuffed short by prudes like you) because it could potentially make someone feel a bit icky.
One exception: Torture porn is right out. Miniatures that use female nudity to convey vulnerability and then couple that with sexualized violence or humiliation (see Kingdom Death) perpetuate the normalcy of sexual degradation against women. I won't pay for them, I won't support artists/companies that make this their standard offering, and I won't play against them if I can help it.
How's the view from up there on your high horse? "perpetuate the normalcy of sexual degradation against women"... holy gak. Nobody is looking at anything in Kingdom Death for normalcy. "You know, I wasn't going to rape you, but I saw this monster with like thirty tits on it, and suddenly it just felt totally normal to violate you."
A lot of "indecent" models are ALSO bad models with poor details, etc. If a model is a terrible sculpt then it can be thrown into a fire to be turned into slag just like the others.
Think it depends on the dual context of setting and content:
-gaming store with a bunch of kids, probably easier to just avoid any conflict.
-is it just gratuitous nudity or does it fit? If it's nicely done, yeah, I'd probably be fine with it, across the table or on my side. Boobs because boobs? Probably not.
I mostly agree w/ Jimsolo.
Conflicted over Kingdom Death, because there's a ton of the line and game content I like, but there's a lot of just plain stupid pinups and a few that are distasteful. My personal compromise has been to more selectively buy their minis, and if I paint a pinup, I've generally sculpted/converted it to be a more fully-clothed fighter than some weird, bikini-wearing victim who we're fielding in the game. Also, more skin on guys for balance.
Sqorgar wrote: People who feel conflict and shame over two inch tall models have always bewildered me.
It's like, I'm not a good person if I approve of this. If you believe that, fine. Throw it away. If you are conflicted at all about whether or not to keep it, you don't get to pretend that you don't approve of it or that you are a good person for disapproving. If you want to take the moral high ground, commit to it. You can't half ass the high ground. And you can't go the ironic route either. I only have these appealing naked models that I enjoy very much and don't want to throw away because it's a joke. Get it? I'm ironically immoral!
But if you are like me, being an adult who is allowed to see boobies - then shrug it off and act with some god damned dignity. If you like it, keep it. Display it. Enjoy it to the extent that you desire without worry or concern for what others think of you. If there is someone who disapproves of you, morally, over a nipples you need a microscope to see, you don't need a shallow, judgmental donkey-cave like that in your life. It says way more about him than it does you - unless you give into such naked and obvious peer pressure and become subservient to someone else's repressed opinions of righteousness. Then it says plenty of things about you, none of them good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: If it's a human (or mostly human) model that's nude for exploitative reasons (sounds like the case with the OP's question--they're just naked for people to giggle and go 'boobies!') I'll avoid them. Gaming clubs already put out enough of a toxic atmosphere to women, and there's no reason to perpetuate it. It's not that I have a problem with the nudity, but I recognize that it could make people uncomfortable and don't see a reason to do that.
Toxic atmosphere, my ass. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman (or man, for that matter) might feel uncomfortable in gaming clubs, and I'm pretty sure that plenty rank a slight bit higher than naked figurines - the majority of which have been designed in accordance to the long and wonderful artistic history of the fantasy genre. I'm frankly not willing to throw away that long and wonderful artistic history (which I hope is not snuffed short by prudes like you) because it could potentially make someone feel a bit icky.
One exception: Torture porn is right out. Miniatures that use female nudity to convey vulnerability and then couple that with sexualized violence or humiliation (see Kingdom Death) perpetuate the normalcy of sexual degradation against women. I won't pay for them, I won't support artists/companies that make this their standard offering, and I won't play against them if I can help it.
How's the view from up there on your high horse? "perpetuate the normalcy of sexual degradation against women"... holy gak. Nobody is looking at anything in Kingdom Death for normalcy. "You know, I wasn't going to rape you, but I saw this monster with like thirty tits on it, and suddenly it just felt totally normal to violate you."
Wow. If you really think the world is that black and white, I'd advise you to google rape culture and actually read the result rather than just spout off about it.
Someone above joked about 'SJWs' being triggered. Turns out defensive masculinity can be 'triggered' too.
@OP. Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Cheesecake is fine in moderation (like pinups and whatever). Just annoying that it's the majority of female models. Nothing wrong with nudity in minis, or in real life. But I'm imagining the sort of models you're describing are the ones that are only nude because 'look, boobs!'. Which makes everyone playing with them look like they've got the brain of a 13 year old.
If theyre good sculpts, I'd just paint them in a bodysuit. easy, looks good. Less pervy, more campy
Conflicted over Kingdom Death, because there's a ton of the line and game content I like, but there's a lot of just plain stupid pinups and a few that are distasteful.
Distasteful is... subjective, at best. What makes your definition of distasteful have any value at all to anyone who isn't you? I argue that Kingdom Death doesn't have any "plain stupid pinups" and nothing produced in the line falls within my standard of "distasteful". We can argue about who's opinion comes closest to some sort of objective standard, but the truth is, at the end of the day, not worrying about the shame involved with tiny little naked statues makes my world just a little bit bigger and more interesting than yours.
My personal compromise has been to more selectively buy their minis, and if I paint a pinup, I've generally sculpted/converted it to be a more fully-clothed fighter than some weird, bikini-wearing victim who we're fielding in the game.
You can't compromise on moral superiority. You can't just put bikini briefs on Michelangelo's David and say the problem has been corrected. The artwork, and indeed artist's intent, is still hanging dong. Kingdom Death will continue producing works of tasteless immorality, filling the world with its filth and corruption. Why not just not buy them? Why change them to be more prudish? What have you really accomplished except build a monument to your own sense of moral righteousness?
If anything, you have committed an act of tastelessness yourself, corrupting someone else's artistic vision in an effort to feel superior to them without actually producing anything of worth yourself. You are a blight on artistic expression, unworthy of buying Kingdom Death miniatures in the first place. You should never be in a position to add clothes to a miniature because you should never have been allowed to buy unclothed miniatures to begin with.
Also, more skin on guys for balance.
Personally, I won't attend a wet t-shirt contest unless the participants are both men and women in equal numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbitorIan wrote: Wow. If you really think the world is that black and white, I'd advise you to google rape culture and actually read the result rather than just spout off about it.
I've read plenty about rape culture. So much, in fact, that when I discovered that there has never been any scientific evidence for it at all, in all the hundreds of articles that I read, I started to think that maybe it was a convenient boogeyman for sexually repressed people to force their dangerously backwards opinions of sexuality on others.
I ask you, since the concept of rape culture was popularized in the past three years, do you think rape culture has gotten better or worse or stayed about the same? What objective measure are you basing your response on?
Someone above joked about 'SJWs' being triggered. Turns out defensive masculinity can be 'triggered' too.
It has nothing to do with masculinity. This conversation pops up all the time. Every Sisters of Battle thread eventually turns into this discussion. And it never changes or gets solved because nobody ever calls a stupid comment a stupid comment. If you can attempt to use shame to make me feel bad for liking cheesecake, it's only fair that I use shame to point out what a backwards prude you are being.
Which makes everyone playing with them look like they've got the brain of a 13 year old.
I would like to remind the court that it isn't just 13 year olds or pervs who appreciate a little cheesecake in their art, and attempting to draw comparisons to those things in an attempt to shame others into accepting a sexually backwards opinion only makes you look impotent, sexually and intellectually.
Stormwall wrote:Paint the skin portions in black, that way they are dressed in what could be construed as a black undersuit for normal armour, etc.
You could always greenstuff on armour too.
Or you could, you know, not be a prude.
spiralingcadaver wrote:never said it wasn't.
You said "plain stupid pinups" and that they were "distasteful". That's not saying "these miniatures don't appeal to me". That's a judgment on the miniatures, the people who make the miniatures, and the people who like the miniatures.
Never mentioned shame, said I found it distasteful. And if you're bringing up subjectivity, "my life's better than yours"? Really?
No, I said it was larger and more varied. When you find something commonplace distasteful, you tend to make your world smaller, not larger. I'm of the opinion that you should find less and less things beneath you as you grow older, as wisdom and maturity tends to show you exactly how much moral superiority is worth (spoiler: not a lot).
I like models to look practical- fighting a 2-ton monster in a bikini vs. fighting with protection and a spear is obvious to me.
Are you new to fantasy? No, I mean, seriously. Are you new? The fantasy genre is built upon a great deal of works that involved fighting monsters in bikinis (how they got in my bikinis, I'll never know). Perhaps the most influential fantasy works ever (more so than even Tolkien's works) involved a big naked muscular man fighting eldritch horrors in a loincloth. Conan, as an uncivilized warrior and as a powerful naked man in bikini briefs, is so ingrained into the DNA of fantasy that to argue against it is to argue against fantasy itself.
By the way, here is the cover of a 1934 issue of Weird Tales in which a Robert E. Howard story appeared:
Spoiler:
What you are doing is claiming that dogmatic pragmatism trumps a long and storied history filled with wonderful, amazing, beautiful, and above all else, fething sweet works of fiction and art - and that doesn't fly with me. Fighting in weather appropriate, gender-neutral suits of armor is mundane. It isn't called "Fantasy" because it is filled with pragmatism and realism. It's fantastic, and that's why people like it. To rob fantasy of its sexiness (and I mean its appeal, not just its bikinis) would be to make it boring.
There was an old episode of the Simpsons where Marge complained about the violence on Itchy and Scratchy. After a successful peer pressure campaign, she and the other prudish women of Springfield managed to cleanse the cartoon of violence - with the end result being that the kids stopped watching the cartoon and started playing outside.
wow,aren't you mr. sunshine?
I have little patience for censorship or those who believe the world to be better for it.
Sqorgar wrote: I have little patience for censorship or those who believe the world to be better for it.
Which is interesting, because although you've complained about people attempting to shame others, every time you call someone a prude you're attempting to shame them.
You've denied being on the defensive, but every time people post two lines of text disagreeing with you, you write an essay in response, and (again) label them a prude.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and shouted down in twice as many lines, their every sentence picked apart, and then insulted for disagreeing with models that primarily depict women as sexual objects. To use 'prude' as an argument is to imply that anyone who as a problem with sexualisation must just 'not like sex' - something that's also going to be quite difficult to scientifically prove, right?
And coming into a forum where the OP has an issue with overly sexualised minis and declaring him wrong and attempting to shame him as merely 'a prude' would seem to be to be an attempt at censorship.
What one person gets out of it, another person will miss entirely.
Saying "This art is good; this art is bad" is trying to make objective decisions about a 100% subjective subject... and is therefore not logical, and a suspicious argument.
As far as rape culture goes, it's definitely a thing. One only has to read the headlines and see the stories about these sports stars who get caught up in it and think it's perfectly okay for them to take advantage of a passed-out girl.
BUT. While rape culture is a thing, I don't think it's as widespread as some of the panicmongers would have us believe. The average man is against rape, and would be quite happy to deliver the beating of a lifetime to any rapist they catch - assuming delivering said beating is an option given relative combat skills, available weapons, and mass ratios - and that they can truly recognize what they are seeing, which can be easier said than done.
Yes, there models do seem to be the "boobs for the sake of boobs, and in one case vagina" kind of models. I thought I might convert an officer to look like a pimp, an old convertible Caddy model into a pimp-wagon (AKA Taurox) and have these galls be his "stable", or Command squad.
Could be a good laugh from friends. Probably need to hide it from my wife though, LOL.
I have a fair number of topless models, but I don't bring them to stores generally or post them on facebook. I don't think that makes me a coward or a hypocrite personally. Our society has nudity taboos, and I think they deserve some deference. There would be nothing inherently wrong with the guy you're playing against showing up nude for a game, but most of us would rather he didn't. Some parents don't care if their kids see 28mm boobs, some would. Some women wouldn't care if you ran an army of naked gals in boots, some would find it really creepy and disturbing. Why not err on the side of politeness? Censorship is when somebody makes a law against something. When society generally chooses not to do/say/view something that is a culture setting norms. It is my right to own slaneeshi Daemons, it is other's right to draw whatever conclusions they want to from that.
Sqorgar wrote: I have little patience for censorship or those who believe the world to be better for it.
Which is interesting, because although you've complained about people attempting to shame others, every time you call someone a prude you're attempting to shame them.
So glad you noticed. I was afraid I'd have to point it out again, like I did a few posts back where I said, "If you can attempt to use shame to make me feel bad for liking cheesecake, it's only fair that I use shame to point out what a backwards prude you are being."
You've denied being on the defensive, but every time people post two lines of text disagreeing with you, you write an essay in response, and (again) label them a prude.
Pshaw. That's not defensiveness. I'm verbose. Look at my post history.
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and shouted down in twice as many lines, their every sentence picked apart, and then insulted for disagreeing with models that primarily depict women as sexual objects. To use 'prude' as an argument is to imply that anyone who as a problem with sexualisation must just 'not like sex' - something that's also going to be quite difficult to scientifically prove, right?
Here's what I think is happening. For the past couple years, people have been inundated with this idea that we are treating women unfairly. We don't pay them enough, we don't treat them as equals, we don't let them into STEM programs, we deperson them as we break them down into a collection of individual sexual pieces, and so on. And in an effort to battle back against this perceived injustice, people go so far out of their way to be balanced, that they cease using their brains in an effort to either be, or at least be seen as, a good person.
The problem is, feminism isn't a science. A lot of that stuff you hear about the wage gap or 1 in 4 women are raped in college is based on a misreading of unscientific, biased data. Rape culture isn't a scientific theory. It's an idea, and one with absolutely no basis in reality other than "well, it could be happening". There's no way to prove it exists, no way to measure it, no way to even predict how it will affect things in the future. It fails all standards of scientific inquiry, and yet people tout it as if it were God's Own Truth after them doing nothing more than skimming the feminism wiki entry. And equality? It requires a bit more nuanced understanding than wanting a balance of half naked men with your half naked women. God, that is a really shallow approach to equality.
But that's the problem with social media. We don't do nuance. We can't communicate it - not without being blocked, banned, or unfollowed. And the messages that get responses are the loudest, brashest, and least rational ones. I could write a treatise on how feminism has created the uninformed backlash against sexuality, but you wouldn't read it. You might skim it. But you wouldn't respond to it. But I call you a prude, get your blood boiling a little bit, and bam, now you are in the conversation. Now I write my treatise, and now you have to respond to it. I've impugned your good honor, sir. You can't let that stand.
And I'm not denying feminism or the lofty ideals that feminism works towards. You just can't treat feminism as science. There are no studies. No peer review. No repeatable experiments. It barely works as a philosophy. It's isn't a unified body of work. Feminist don't even agree with other feminists (especially over sex). So you can't just take some concept like the male gaze or rape culture, understand it in the most shallow and uninformed way possible, and use it as a reason for absurd social norms that must be enforced by all good people.
And coming into a forum where the OP has an issue with overly sexualised minis and declaring him wrong and attempting to shame him as merely 'a prude' would seem to be to be an attempt at censorship.
I get what you were going for, but I don't think it works. I am using censorship to... what? Allow for an open exchange of free ideas in the form of less control over artistic expression? Man, I'm devious in how I censor censorship!
Peer pressure isn't, itself, censorship, even if it is often employed towards that purpose.
Vulcan wrote:As far as rape culture goes, it's definitely a thing. One only has to read the headlines and see the stories about these sports stars who get caught up in it and think it's perfectly okay for them to take advantage of a passed-out girl.
Citation needed. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Vulcan wrote: "This art is good; this art is bad" is trying to make objective decisions about a 100% subjective subject...
Have to respond to this... Taste is completely subjective. Taste affects perception, but a reasonable person can separate taste from merit, and know something has merit, without being their taste. And, the merit of a given piece, assuming relevant knowledge and experience, is far from pure subjectivity. Even a lay person can pretty easily tell the difference between a novice and someone with a lot of experience. (Take dakka's own gallery rating system- there are pretty obvious tiers, and while that will be influenced by taste which skews things, the difference between any given 2 and any given 9 will probably be indisputable.) It takes more knowledge in some areas (photography and conceptual art are certainly up there in difficult to recognize, since the easy meter of technique is less obvious), but, there's still a difference.
Arbitorian, oh, thought he was just having a bad day. In that case, well put.
cuda1179 wrote: Yes, there models do seem to be the "boobs for the sake of boobs, and in one case vagina" kind of models. I thought I might convert an officer to look like a pimp, an old convertible Caddy model into a pimp-wagon (AKA Taurox) and have these galls be his "stable", or Command squad.
Could be a good laugh from friends. Probably need to hide it from my wife though, LOL.
Sounds like an entertaining proposition - I say go for it - just don't answer questions when the wife finds out
I think any debate about "taste" can be thrown out the window on this one; you spent the money on them - don't be ashamed to flaunt them in all their painted glory on your miniature's shelf because other people wouldn't buy/hold onto them. A bit of naughty TandA in model form never really hurts anybody, if you ask me, provided they [the people who made the model] are not trying to be serious about the sculpt.
That being said, I would avoid taking them to blind games/games with people you don't know to avoid any unnecessary attention.
-gaming store with a bunch of kids, probably easier to just avoid any conflict.
-is it just gratuitous nudity or does it fit? If it's nicely done, yeah, I'd probably be fine with it, across the table or on my side. Boobs because boobs? Probably not.
I mostly agree w/ Jimsolo.
Conflicted over Kingdom Death, because there's a ton of the line and game content I like, but there's a lot of just plain stupid pinups and a few that are distasteful. My personal compromise has been to more selectively buy their minis, and if I paint a pinup, I've generally sculpted/converted it to be a more fully-clothed fighter than some weird, bikini-wearing victim who we're fielding in the game. Also, more skin on guys for balance.
The pinups are not part of the game, i have the base set, and all the survivors look IMO not titillating (the first survives have almost no clothes but they are trying to survive)
hobojebus wrote: Rapists get sent to jail, if people see someone getting abused they step in to stop it or call the cops.
That's not a rape culture, stop buying into third wave feminist lies.
Dude...just no. Rapists get away with it all the time. People frequently know abuse is happening and justify noninvolvement.
And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.
Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.
Well, in direct response to the OP's question and not going into my thoughts on morality and culture, I would probably paint them in body suits, as previously mentioned, and no need to 'file off' the nips, as it was also said. This would still keep them conventionally safe, but in the seductive, fantasy manner to which they were made and to be enjoyed.
To be fair, I am sure there are people that get offended by big, muscular brutes, simply because they have a right to get offended.
I had got into lively discussions about the merit of painting miniatures and how we may or may-not be artists.
Art typically wants to evoke emotion.
The nude form has been explored for centuries as a muse for art.
The models the OP has may be good, it may be a worthy endeavor to paint them well just for that sake alone.
For the uninitiated, there is a big difference to painting up a "sculpt" and painting a "little toy soldier dolly".
It is painful to paint-up a model you are proud of and it is completely ignored for the subject of the sculpt.
Army gear and nude can only be viewed with humor, so yeah, if the audience is your friends it may be well received.
I am still trying to come to terms with the "zombie prostitutes" in Malifaux.
I figure there is no "shame" to painting and displaying these models, if they become your primary showcase however, you may want to examine your motivations.
Jimsolo wrote:And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.
People are so absolutely sure that rape culture exist - I mean, rapes happen all the time. ALL THE TIME! - but when pushed to actually provide any real evidence for it, they shut up and leave the discussion faster than an anorexic at an all you can eat buffet.
The fact is, there is NO - I repeat NO - scientific evidence that rape culture is "a thing". It can not be measured, it can not be predicted. You can not say for sure that your actions (say, covering a naked miniature) will improve or worsen rape culture (after all, a more repressed society makes it easier to hide misdeeds behind closed doors). So if you can't see it, and nothing you do can change it in any noticeable fashion, does it really exist? No, god dammit, it doesn't.
Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.
Willfully ignorant is spouting rape culture as if it were fact without having done ANY reading on it at all.
Spinner wrote:I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.
Are you kidding? I once saw Showgirls being shown on Logo, a gay and bisexual orientated cable channel. And what they did was have animators go in and draw black bikinis on all the naked girls (poorly). Not only that, but they removed sex scenes and over dubbed cursing (poorly). This is what was shown on American television:
Yeah, that's fething prudish. It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. When I lived in Japan, they showed Showgirls on late night tv almost completely unedited (they did blur genitals in a few scenes). All the boobs, butts, bush, sex scenes, and cursing in the movie, shown subtitled in Japanese. How is it that basic television in Japan has more respect for our art than we do?
Spinner wrote:I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.
Are you kidding? I once saw Showgirls being shown on Logo, a gay and bisexual orientated cable channel. And what they did was have animators go in and draw black bikinis on all the naked girls (poorly). Not only that, but they removed sex scenes and over dubbed cursing (poorly). This is what was shown on American television:
Yeah, that's fething prudish. It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. When I lived in Japan, they showed Showgirls on late night tv almost completely unedited (they did blur genitals in a few scenes). All the boobs, butts, bush, sex scenes, and cursing in the movie, shown subtitled in Japanese. How is it that basic television in Japan has more respect for our art than we do?
I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.
hobojebus wrote: Rapists get sent to jail, if people see someone getting abused they step in to stop it or call the cops.
That's not a rape culture, stop buying into third wave feminist lies.
Dude...just no. Rapists get away with it all the time. People frequently know abuse is happening and justify noninvolvement.
And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.
Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.
Bank robbers get away we don't live in a bank robber culture, or a mugging culture, or a speeding culture, bad things happen but they are not mainstream and are not accepted we convict and imprison criminals.
I have never been told it's okay to treat women as objects, I've been taught to protect them, open doors for them and to never hit them, I'm a child of the eighties and so predate pc culture and never learned this supposed lesson.
Also men get used in the exact same way in advertising ever seen a coke advert where women drool over a topless man, sex sells pretty people of both genders get used in that fashion.
Also the only people to ever call women objects are tumblr feminists, usually out of jealousy.
Spinner wrote: I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.
The point is, it is tacky and prudish, and it takes away from the original intent of the artist (and while Showgirls isn't a great movie, I dare anyone to say that Paul Verhoeven isn't an artist).
Rather than simply not showing Showgirls and instead picking a film more appropriate to the prudish standards of... I'm not sure who. It's on cable so there are no broadcast nudity standards and it is a gay channel, so I doubt a little bit of sexuality is going to offend their advertisers (and other shows on Logo showed nudity), so I have no idea why the film was changed this way - anyway, the point is they wanted something inappropriate (Showgirls is NC-17), and they wanted it to be appropriate (a PG), and they created this tasteless abomination as a result.
So yeah, taking a nude model and painting it in a bodysuit (possibly sanding off the nipples, as mentioned earlier) is prudish, and it puts you in the same puritanical basket as whatever idiot thought of this epic failure in decision making.
Also, I think that's purple, not black.
It's purple in that scene because they are trying to match it up to a bra she wore earlier in the same scene. In most of the other scenes, it is a black bra (and black panties) because it is less obvious that it was done by a kid with a crayon.
Spinner wrote: I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.
The point is, it is tacky and prudish, and it takes away from the original intent of the artist (and while Showgirls isn't a great movie, I dare anyone to say that Paul Verhoeven isn't an artist).
Rather than simply not showing Showgirls and instead picking a film more appropriate to the prudish standards of... I'm not sure who. It's on cable so there are no broadcast nudity standards and it is a gay channel, so I doubt a little bit of sexuality is going to offend their advertisers (and other shows on Logo showed nudity), so I have no idea why the film was changed this way - anyway, the point is they wanted something inappropriate (Showgirls is NC-17), and they wanted it to be appropriate (a PG), and they created this tasteless abomination as a result.
So yeah, taking a nude model and painting it in a bodysuit (possibly sanding off the nipples, as mentioned earlier) is prudish, and it puts you in the same puritanical basket as whatever idiot thought of this epic failure in decision making.
I really, honestly have to disagree with this, for the simple fact that modeling is extremely interactive. People convert things or use different paint schemes all the time; would it go against the 'intent of the artist' to slap some spiky bitz on a Tactical Marine model, paint a Chaos symbol or two on it, and call it a Chaos Space Marine? It's not a question of going into an art gallery and demanding all the naughty bits on the sculptures be chiseled off, it's an alternate paint scheme and tiny conversion for a miniature soldier who has inexplicably shown up to the battlefield without her clothes.
(Incidentally, that's my issue with pinup models - they look absolutely ridiculous. What are you doing bent over like that in a war zone, and where the hell is your flak armor? Get back to basic training, trooper! )
There's nothing wrong with changing something about a model if you don't like it, or think you can make it look cooler; people do that all the time. It's like using a Lego set to build something different than what's shown on the box. Modeling kits and miniatures are a great way to express creativity.
Come to think of it...would someone still be a prude if they sanded the nipples and painted the miniature with a bodysuit because they liked bodysuits?
And with a case like nude (or nearly nude) models, I'd follow my usual standards for comedy and other such potential controversies; know your audience.
Among friends? Not a problem. At a public tournament or game shop? I'd probably leave them at home or tucked in a case.
Sounds like they could make fine/fun alternate figures in the right setting, perhaps a challenge to paint up well, or as suggested here a challenge to ones sculpting skills.
Challenges of how 'prudish' people are being aren't helpful, showing respect for ones fellow gamer isn't a high bar to clear and changing North American views on sex, sexuality, and nudity is a war one doesn't necessarily have to fight out on the miniature battlefields at 28mm scale (or whatever).
Personally, I'd probably paint them up in a theme of some sort that made it less obvious they were nude. The 'skin tight stealth suit' kind of look, perhaps. Something I could put to use in general company without drawing obvious attention to the figure, of course assuming this was remotely feasible (ie: they're just nude, not nude and in obvious cheesecake/pinup poses).
I've seen some impressively painted nude figures for a variety of games. Actual nudity doesn't bother me. But I can also respect that there's broader interests at play than just *my* personal level of comfort, and would either paint them for that baseline 'in the wild' scenario, or go with a less considerate scheme and keep them to home/friendly group games only.
Jimsolo wrote:And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.
People are so absolutely sure that rape culture exist - I mean, rapes happen all the time. ALL THE TIME! - but when pushed to actually provide any real evidence for it, they shut up and leave the discussion faster than an anorexic at an all you can eat buffet.
You apparently missed the whole hullabaloo in California where the dad's public apologism for his son included describing the rape as, 'twenty minutes of action.' Or for another good example, a couple years back when a girl was raped at a party, and the geniuses shared video of it, they had plenty of defenders saying it wasn't their fault, they weren't to blame, it was all on the girl.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?
excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.
You apparently missed the whole hullabaloo in California where the dad's public apologism for his son included describing the rape as, 'twenty minutes of action.' Or for another good example, a couple years back when a girl was raped at a party, and the geniuses shared video of it, they had plenty of defenders saying it wasn't their fault, they weren't to blame, it was all on the girl.
The plural of anecdote is not evidence. You are omitting the other 119.4 million adult men in the country that somehow managed to not rape the other 125.9 million adult women. The reasons why you know about those two cases is precisely because they were noteworthy and not business as usual. Man bites dog and all that. Your "evidence" of rape culture is actually just evidence of selection bias.
And at least in the first case, the Brock Allen Turner was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, given a six month sentence in prison (plus three years probation), and had to register as a sex offender. His Olympic aspirations were also shattered due to the Olympics' zero tolerance policy on sexual misconduct. This guy's entire life was ruined. That hardly sounds like an example where rape is "normalized". Seems like it was punished pretty severely as dangerously abnormal behavior.
In the Steubenville rape case, two minors (football players) were convicted of rape, three adults of obstructing justice, and the Superintendent of schools being charged with hindering the investigation. An actual conspiracy, but the reason for the conspiracy wasn't a normalization of rape. They knew rape was bad (like like the Penn State coaches who covered up their scandal), but they didn't want the fallout of the actions to affect their football team. And covering up for the misdeeds (even stupid things like stealing crab legs) of football players has a long and storied tradition in our society. We don't have a rape culture. We have a football culture. I promise you that nobody would've been defending those rapists if they were on the Chess team, and you'd be seeing the exact same response if they had been video taped beating a homeless man. And the other people at the party weren't helping because rape was normal and that they were implicitly supporting the act, but because of a well documented behavior called the Bystander Effect.
I have one for you. A young woman at the University of Virginia accused several members of a fraternity of raping her. Rolling Stone did an article on it "A Rape on Campus", causing public pressure on the university, leading to the university suspending all Greek organizations. The story of the rape was made up, but because people buy into the stupidity that is rape culture and the idea that all fraternities are just rape factories, the wholly unbelievable story was bought in its entirety with no critical eye to the "victim's" statements. Anyone who dared question the veracity of her claims was said to be blaming the victim and contributing to rape culture - when it was, in fact, the people who believed the victim unconditionally that were doing so.
But like I said, the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. The point is, you have anecdotes. I have anecdotes. You can spin them one way. I can spin them another. There needs to be an objective standard by which you can measure rape culture - by which you can determine whether one's actions or beliefs make it better or worse. There is not an objective standard, so all we are left with is anecdotes and confirmation bias as evidence - and they are anything but trustworthy.
Or maybe just use decency and common sense. If you're gaming with buddies, whatever. If you're going to an LGS or tournament, bring proxies. If there are no kids around, ask the others if they are cool with you using the models. If they are, great. If not, keep them in the box.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?
excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.
The OP's description of the models is sufficient. If you want to see naked ladies there's plenty of places on the Internet for that sort of thing.
I think I would happily submit that something like the ESRB rating may be a good guide for what audience the model may be suitable for:
Spoiler:
It may be worth keeping in mind the blood dripping sword with the decapitated head held aloft may not be suitable in some instances as well.
Note the "Adults Only" applies to 18 years and higher.
I assume we are trying to target "Teen" for public game-play.
Just a thought.
Now showing these models to adults and determining if they are in "good taste" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I promise I will not be holding back much when the scenario calls for the models of a hot princess and the beefcake prince to be saved.
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?
excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.
The OP's description of the models is sufficient. If you want to see naked ladies there's plenty of places on the Internet for that sort of thing.
but his definition is vague, my point is without seeing the actual models I cannot make an opinion one way or the other.
@Spiralingcadaver: That is some impressive painting and I think your conversions improve the original sculpt/ add a sense of agency (refering to the character depicted)..
Talizvar wrote: I think I would happily submit that something like the ESRB rating may be a good guide for what audience the model may be suitable for:
First of all, the ESRB is a bit more draconian in nature than MPAA ratings, due to the circumstances under which they were made, and the fact that gaming is a relatively new media that has not yet fought the censorship battles that movies have had to go. We're still in the Hayes Code era of video games, largely because they are still being blamed for everything from school shootings to rape culture.
Second, the ESRB has to cover a wide variety of age groups and capabilities - everything from toddlers to adults. Miniature gaming, due to the requirement of fine motor skills and use of deadly tools (aerosol sprays, hobby knives, files, drills, etc), that the vast, vast majority of people interacting with the hobby will be 13 and older. Anyone younger than 13 will undoubtedly be engaging in the hobby with the oversight and help of an adult, and it would be their responsibility to protect the innocence of their child. Also, I can't think of many miniatures which venture into sexual explicitness or depravity that would bump them up to R or NC-17 (Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse is one).
So really, you are looking at a PG-13, at least, which can include non-sexualized nudity, including boobs, butt, and occasionally bush. It can also include decapitations and blood, which are included in prime time television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural. Frankly, there aren't a lot of miniatures out there which would be grotesquely inappropriate for a teenage main audience (except, again, maybe the Wet Nurse).
And with the internet being what it is, I'm not sure the same puritanical standards of nudity apply to the upcoming generation. One google image search is all it takes to see some naked people, and with the majority of teenagers losing their virginity at 16, I'm not sure exactly what standards we are using for when it is appropriate for them to be exposed to benign cheesecake miniatures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DaggerAndBrush wrote: @Spiralingcadaver: That is some impressive painting and I think your conversions improve the original sculpt/ add more agency.
Agency? You do realize they are inanimate objects,right? They don't have agency in how they are designed, nor in how prudish modelers cover them up. Neither action adds more agency.
I was refering to the addition of a dagger. IThe miniature is an inanimate object, but the character depicted has in my opinion more agency on the battlefield with a dagger, than without. My english might fail me here and it maybe not the right word to describe it.
I just think that say a female naked Hoplite in a sensible fighting pose should not be as objectionable as the same miniature in a pin-up pose. I would actually say that it is not about naked or not, it is about posing and making sense in a given historical or fantastical universe.
Thanks, D&B, yeah, I liked the model enough to mess around with it, and I thought she'd be better suited for combat w/ a reinterpreted defensive pose and a ready, concealed weapon, instead of a vulnerable pose with no weapons and a random fantasy bikini. I know the theme is she's a sacrifice, but what are you going to do with that model? Take it out while you're rolling the sacrifice event and put it back? I like my minis to be functional, and no one in my group, of either sex, had any interest in playing some random boob victim as their avatar, so, the mini got a new look. And I got to practice my sculpting.
In contrast, not-Ayla was a mini I didn't modify at all, because she's got a kinda' badass dramatic action hero pose going on, and looks perfectly comfortable taking on monsters in her silly fur cavewoman thing, that fits theme, reference, and combat role in a way I found way more appropriate (well, except the weird choice about some of her mechanics, but that's really a question of gameplay instead of aesthetics).
And agency is the correct word, he's just nit-picking about semantics. You could have said "a sense of agency" to be more technically accurate, but your meaning was completely obvious unless you're going to take every statement literally.
Off-topic, nice logo profile/design. Think it reads better in your sig, with the different orientation/proportion.
@Spiralingcadaver: And another excellent paintjob. I really like your style, but I see you are a professional painter so no wonder your stuff is so visually pleasing.
I agree entirely and approach it the very same way. I convert miniatures to make sense in a given setting/situation, should the original sculpt not be what I had in mind.
Off-topic: Glad you like it. I think the logo works better in a black circle with finer lines, but I couldn't make it work on Dakka.
DaggerAndBrush wrote: I was refering to the addition of a dagger. IThe miniature is an inanimate object, but the character depicted has in my opinion more agency on the battlefield with a dagger, than without. My english might fail me here and it maybe not the right word to describe it.
I just think that say a female naked Hoplite in a sensible fighting pose should not be as objectionable as the same miniature in a pin-up pose. I would actually say that it is not about naked or not, it is about posing and making sense in a given historical or fantastical universe.
I think you used agency correctly. If literary characters can exhibit agency why couldn't a sculpture?
I also agree with you that the pose of a model, which ties in with the model's larger context, really helps determine the "decency" of the model for me.
For example, I have a small collection of nude models, but the nudity is contextually significant to what the model are depicting (the aforementioned 6-breasted Daemonettes are an example, or in my case nearly-naked-cat-people from Wargods of Aegyptus). For my half-nude Basti, they represent fantastical cat-warriors fighting in the harsh climate of the Aegyptian desert. The entire range of models, both male and female, are sparsely attired (because the game is set in a hot desert climate) and the game's rules even note that most armor is too hot and restrictive to be used regularly. Also, with a few fan-service exceptions, the models are posed in such a way that depicts them as warriors and not purely as sexual objects. That is enough context for me to accept the models as suitable for inclusion in my collection and I would use them without question at a game shop. I've routinely used the Raging Heroes not-Daemonettes in my allied Chaos force at the LGS and no one said anything other than "cool minis."
It makes it a lot easier for me to collect models with justification for their nudity, and by justification I mean setting/game rationale, not just artistic license, than it is to just collect pin-up models.
There are a lot of well-sculpted models that I can appreciate their artistic merit which I would never want in my collection. Some of the Kingdom Death stuff falls into that category, as does a lot of Brother Vinni's offerings. For me, those models appear to simply titillate rather than having any real or imagined justification for their nudity.
A human female soldier, armed and in an action pose but without her shirt and revealing an ample, exposed bosom is just silly to me. There is no reason for that model's shirt to be missing and her breasts to be exposed except to excite the viewer. Whereas a deviant elf gladiatrix who forsakes armor for speed, and fights in a g-string is also silly, but at least there is some fluff reasoning for her outfit, and her daring attire is reflected by a crappy in-game armor save.
Now of course that topless soldier could be a loader for a very tongue-in-cheek Catachan unit, but there is no fluff justification for female Catachan soldiers going into battle topless (nor is there a rule justification, Catachan tank tops already confer a 5+ armor save, so would these ladies get a 6+ save?), so anyone making such a unit is doing it just to work some boobs onto their game table. Which is fine, but that would be a line for me and I'd consider the model/unit "indecent."
Of course not all fluff is the same, and what one person finds an acceptable justification for nudity another person will disagree with. I think Prodos' Space Crusade is ridiculous and wouldn't be caught with those minis in my collection for all the resin in Nottingham, but generally, if a model seems to be doing more than trying to arouse its audience I am willing to include it in my collection or on the game table.
A bit off topic, although still partially on topic. I know a guy that models, but does NOT game.
He modeled and painted a group of Maori Warriors in the middle of doing the Hakka dance. (google this if unfamiliar) Basically it is a native dance for warriors of the native peoples of New Zealand.
Why is this relevant? I pointed out that to be culturally correct, not only should the models be nude, the warriors did the dance with a full-on erection. (no, I'm not kidding). After confirming this, he seriously started contemplating making another batch of models "historically accurate".
timthehierodule wrote: I heard of a guy who tried to enter "Armies on parade" with a force of Death Korps Of Krieg painted as Nazis.
I think that was a commission with a nazi color scheme but the the nazi symbol was that of a dollar sign
its a reference to some song or something IIRC
but some people will always see commies in their soups
or sour in their kraut.
i dont know what im on about
I shouldn't post when im hungry
as to the topic. i figure it would 100% depend on what you intend on doing and where you play
if there are kids running around, i high doubt you should bring out the DIAZ daemonetts. pretty much the same as not cursing around children . its mostly common courtesy for the sake of the parents . with friends and beers you can be as weird as you want
DaggerAndBrush wrote: I Now of course that topless soldier could be a loader for a very tongue-in-cheek Catachan unit, but there is no fluff justification for female Catachan soldiers going into battle topless (nor is there a rule justification, Catachan tank tops already confer a 5+ armor save, so would these ladies get a 6+ save?), so anyone making such a unit is doing it just to work some boobs onto their game table. Which is fine, but that would be a line for me and I'd consider the model/unit "indecent."
Of course not all fluff is the same, and what one person finds an acceptable justification for nudity another person will disagree with. I think Prodos' Space Crusade is ridiculous and wouldn't be caught with those minis in my collection for all the resin in Nottingham, but generally, if a model seems to be doing more than trying to arouse its audience I am willing to include it in my collection or on the game table.
While I generally agree with you, there is also a topless Catachan model that is male. No real reason for him to have lost his shirt either.
Well put, DT- I agree that even hypothetical reasons that require some serious suspension of disbelief for silly clothes are far more justified than skin for its own sake.
D&B, thanks, IDK, guess I wanted to point out (IMHO) effective work regarding conversions to back up the point I was making...
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?
It's not like IG have any effective armor; they might as well be naked...
MasterSlowPoke wrote: I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?
It's not like IG have any effective armor; they might as well be naked...
It's inherently silly, and to some audiences the nudity has no negative connotations. In a private setting, where I'm not running the risk of disrespecting passers-by, it's reasonable that something like that could be acceptable.
i'm curious for those supporting nudity in minis (not saying I do or not, as far as i'm concerned it depends on what the mini is of, a slave mini, yeah nude, getting ready to do battle unless an ancient Celt, Pict or Greek or such then no.) what would they say if they were nude males?
as to the models in question by the OP not having seen them could not give an informed opinion on them.
Honestly, just have similar amounts of male and female nudity, in similar qualities. You have cheesecake in your female minis? Paint up some male cheesecake for the ladies you face.
You have reasonably nude figures, such as Dark Eldar... Well, anything? Make sure there's some dudes mixed in with the ladies.
JNAProductions wrote: Honestly, just have similar amounts of male and female nudity, in similar qualities. You have cheesecake in your female minis? Paint up some male cheesecake for the ladies you face.
You have reasonably nude figures, such as Dark Eldar... Well, anything? Make sure there's some dudes mixed in with the ladies.
Does anyone even make a nude male model that would look sufficiently like an IG soldier? I'm wondering if I even have a small enough brush to paint realistic genitalia. Something tells me that a guy with foreskin would be easier to paint.
Asterios wrote: i'm curious for those supporting nudity in minis (not saying I do or not, as far as i'm concerned it depends on what the mini is of, a slave mini, yeah nude, getting ready to do battle unless an ancient Celt, Pict or Greek or such then no.) what would they say if they were nude males?
as to the models in question by the OP not having seen them could not give an informed opinion on them.
Wouldn't bother me either if we were playing historical and someone brought naked Spartans or were playing warhammer and you slap down a nude barbarian.
I would have much more sympathy for the pro-nudity arguments if it wasn't for the fact that the vast majority of nude and sexy miniatures I've seen have been really terrible sculpts. It's almost always zero-talent sculptors throwing giant breasts onto a model that wouldn't sell a single copy without them, usually in a context that excludes any possible realism argument in favor of the nudity. It just looks cheap and tasteless, without any redeeming qualities at all.
"Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher."
I can't believe the problem is nudity...
Surely, if we welcome wargames, one should probably also welcome nude models (both men, women and aliens)
But boobs are obviously more dangerous than guns...
Antitrist wrote: "Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher."
I can't believe the problem is nudity...
Surely, if we welcome wargames, one should probably also welcome nude models (both men, women and aliens)
But boobs are obviously more dangerous than guns...
I keep trying to read your post but for some reason can't get past the 7th word....
...sorry, couldn't help myself
I personally don't have any problem with naked female wargaming models but at the same time I guess I don't really see the appeal because I have never painted one myself.
I think if I were going to paint a nekkid woman, it'd probably be 54mm scale or larger display model rather than a wargaming figure.
Antitrist wrote: "Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher."
I can't believe the problem is nudity...
Surely, if we welcome wargames, one should probably also welcome nude models (both men, women and aliens)
But boobs are obviously more dangerous than guns...
Always bugged me that guns and violence are fine but you have to be ashamed of the human body, can't let Timmy see a nipple but a bad guy graphically gunned down is fine.
Talizvar wrote: I think I would happily submit that something like the ESRB rating may be a good guide for what audience the model may be suitable for:
First of all, the ESRB is a bit more draconian in nature than MPAA ratings, due to the circumstances under which they were made, and the fact that gaming is a relatively new media that has not yet fought the censorship battles that movies have had to go. We're still in the Hayes Code era of video games, largely because they are still being blamed for everything from school shootings to rape culture.
Someone has an axe to grind... sorry to hit the red button there.
OK, you do not like that system used and feel it is not applicable due to that particular charged topic.
I was throwing that out there as something to start from.
Second, the ESRB has to cover a wide variety of age groups and capabilities - everything from toddlers to adults. Miniature gaming, due to the requirement of fine motor skills and use of deadly tools (aerosol sprays, hobby knives, files, drills, etc), that the vast, vast majority of people interacting with the hobby will be 13 and older. Anyone younger than 13 will undoubtedly be engaging in the hobby with the oversight and help of an adult, and it would be their responsibility to protect the innocence of their child. Also, I can't think of many miniatures which venture into sexual explicitness or depravity that would bump them up to R or NC-17 (Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse is one).
Yep, 9 years old I got my kids to put together Orks and Marines.
They painted too.
We are on the topic of "explicitness or depravity" that are readily available or can be added to models.
The old metal Daemonetts had a fair bit of bare torso which as you say would fall in the PG-13 rating (I assume you endorse the movie rating system then?).
So really, you are looking at a PG-13, at least, which can include non-sexualized nudity, including boobs, butt, and occasionally bush. It can also include decapitations and blood, which are included in prime time television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Supernatural. Frankly, there aren't a lot of miniatures out there which would be grotesquely inappropriate for a teenage main audience (except, again, maybe the Wet Nurse).
It really depends on what your "audience" has chosen to expose their children to.
I was rather surprised how shows in the 80's I grew up to had more racy and nasty stuff than I remembered (made the mistake of looking back at a few) and make some of the shows today seem tame.
We still see people game between the age of 10 to 15 who are not exposed yet to full-time Call of Duty, Walking Dead, Sparticus or Hannibal.
I would say that a person should keep in mind if they want to show their PG-13 models at the FLGS or at a tournament, you may be playing "kids".
And with the internet being what it is, I'm not sure the same puritanical standards of nudity apply to the upcoming generation. One google image search is all it takes to see some naked people, and with the majority of teenagers losing their virginity at 16, I'm not sure exactly what standards we are using for when it is appropriate for them to be exposed to benign cheesecake miniatures.
I think nudity "for the sake of" is not in of itself a bad thing: they are body parts people have.
Depicted violence and sexual behavior is more the offending material to avoid.
Try not to laugh too hard since we ARE playing war games so violence is rather the topic.
Think of blaster shots to storm troopers rather than Conan disemboweling an enemy and swinging them by their entrails...
Peregrine wrote: I would have much more sympathy for the pro-nudity arguments if it wasn't for the fact that the vast majority of nude and sexy miniatures I've seen have been really terrible sculpts. It's almost always zero-talent sculptors throwing giant breasts onto a model that wouldn't sell a single copy without them, usually in a context that excludes any possible realism argument in favor of the nudity. It just looks cheap and tasteless, without any redeeming qualities at all.
I've seen the types of models you describe, and while many are over the top I think a lot of them are dated as well. A lot of contemporary models do take the actual human form into consideration when sculpting female models. I think the industry is getting better in that regard, at least with the more well known smaller operations and even some mainstream companies. Some of the topless female models GW made for Fantasy right before The End Times looked less like a 12 year-old boy's dirty doodles of a woman and more like actual women (I am thinking of the Lamia and some Dark Elves, can't be bothered to find pics at the moment, though). So, some progress. I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
hobojebus wrote: Always bugged me that guns and violence are fine but you have to be ashamed of the human body, can't let Timmy see a nipple but a bad guy graphically gunned down is fine.
Completely backwards.
Agreed. It is backwards that sexuality and the human form are less accepted than violence in our culture. However, these are miniature war games and not miniature sex games so I can also understand why some people want to cut most or all sexual components out of their gaming.
Talizvar wrote: Someone has an axe to grind... sorry to hit the red button there.
It's not that I have an axe to grind, it's just that traditionally, new media tends to get blamed for the corruption of our youth. Movies were at the beginning, television, comic books, role playing games, heavy metal - and traditionally, this tends to lead to efforts in censorship through things like the Hayes Code, Comic Code, and the ESRB. The ESRB is a censorship system masquerading as a rating system, but no retailers will sell an AO games (nor will consoles allow them at all), and certain sinful topics like religion, drug use, and sexuality are weighted far heavier than they should be. Thong becomes a M rating, smoking or drinking alcohol gets you a T, and even something as benign as boobs will get you an AO rating in many cases. The only AO rated game for violence is Hatred, and that was due more to the political statement made by the game and game team than any sort of actual gore. Recently, Criminal Girls 2 redrew a significant portion of the artwork to remove bondage in an effort to "give the female characters more agency" due to fears of an AO rating from the ESRB.
I think that video games really need that major challenge that they can overcome and become legitimized. They need their cds to be burned by a parent organization, and Tom Hanks movies made about their satanic influences. Video games need their Beyond the Green Door and Birth of a Nation. They haven't had that yet (not really), and I think it is largely because the ESRB is working as a chilling effect on transgressive works, preventing video games from reaching their true potential.
Miniature games have never really broken into the mainstream enough to be challenged, which is why things like Kingdom Death can exist without complaint. But miniature gamers are all too happy to censor their own games out of a misguided concept of equality and a deep shame felt with regards to the human body.
We are on the topic of "explicitness or depravity" that are readily available or can be added to models.
Readily available? Not sure that's the case. Don't think you can walk into your corner gaming store and walk out with anything like that. You pretty much have to go out of your way to find it, and even then, the explicitness and depravity of the models is debatable.
It really depends on what your "audience" has chosen to expose their children to.
I was rather surprised how shows in the 80's I grew up to had more racy and nasty stuff than I remembered (made the mistake of looking back at a few) and make some of the shows today seem tame.
When I was a kid, the comic book store I went to kept adult comics on the top shelf where kids couldn't reach them - but they could still see the covers. I vividly remember some of the covers to Clive Barker Presents and Vampirella, and they were as bad or worse than most anything in the miniature gaming sphere, and I wouldn't argue that the comic book store did anything wrong by displaying them where children could see them. That comic book store is long gone, but I wouldn't have a problem with any other comic book stores doing the same thing. Part of the appeal of being a kid in a comic book store is that it isn't a kid's store. That it does have some adult material, and that it hasn't been sanitized down to the shortest common denominator. Same appeal for when kids watch R rated movies. I saw Aliens in the theater when I was 10 and it was amazing.
I think kids need to be exposed, in small doses, to adulthood as they are growing up so that they aren't surprised by it. And I say that as a parent of two. I think part of the problem with society right now is how we mollycoddle our young, with the end result of actually delaying the onset of adulthood by up to a decade. I've seen 25 year olds who aren't prepared for the real world, and I can't help but think, if only they had been exposed to Slaanesh a bit when they were younger.
I think nudity "for the sake of" is not in of itself a bad thing: they are body parts people have.
Depicted violence and sexual behavior is more the offending material to avoid.
Try not to laugh too hard since we ARE playing war games so violence is rather the topic.
Think of blaster shots to storm troopers rather than Conan disemboweling an enemy and swinging them by their entrails...
I think it is important to keep a little perspective here. We are, as a species, extremely violent, and throughout our history, children have been exposed to violence and sexuality. It wasn't that long ago that we were drafting 18 year olds into wars, and it wasn't that much longer before that when 12 year olds were being married off. Ghandi himself was married at 13 and apparently enjoyed a normal sex life (before becoming sex crazy later in life and sleeping next to naked 14 year old girls). There used to be mixed gender swimming classes where girls had suits on and the boys swam naked (there's a 1941 issue of LIFE that included a picture of young boys naked in the locker room, to absolutely no angry response at all). And if you go way, way back, kids were taken to arenas to watch slaves get disemboweled by exotic animals.
My point is that our standards have become more prudish over the years while at the same time becoming less prudish. In some ways, we are exposed to more than our predecessors, and in others, things that used to be commonplace have become dangerous ideas to hide and feel shame about. I realize that the reality of the current day is different. If I let my kids walk to the park alone, I'd get arrested, even though I did it as a kid. But I'm not convinced that the more prudish ways are better, and I can't for the life of me figure out what harm is being done by tiny little naked statues.
My father had a miniature replica of the famous statue where a nude Perseus (hanging dong) is holding the severed head of Medusa (gore). Don't remember that having an adverse affect on my mental well being. Someone will have to explain how that is different to the models described in this thread. Or how a plot point in the PG film The Goonies involved the penis of a David replica falling off ("that my mom's favorite part") and being glued on upside down to look like an erection is inappropriate for children. Is The Goonies secretly an R-rated film?!
I have no problem with nudity. Sexy models, fine, just not my cup of tea. The point is context. They don't make sense in the games I play and thats it. While Wargames Exclusive makes some good models they also make female servitors that are practically 90% robot except for their tits and vag hanging out for everyone to shoot their bolters at. Just, why? I don't get why people would need sexual gratification from their miniature tabletop games. It doesn't get weird looks because its naked, its gets weird looks because its just pointless and distasteful. If it were I dunno, like an actual work of art like a statue of David then nobody would care. You can't compare non-sexualized greek sculptures to half naked pin-up models.
I don't care about whats appropriate for what age because I'm an adult playing a game with other adults. I care about what makes sense on the goddam battlefield. Warhammer is about the girm darkness of war where everything is in constant bloody battle with each other. To sit there and ask why violence is ok and not tits just makes no sense in the context of whats going on.
Asterios wrote: i'm curious for those supporting nudity in minis (not saying I do or not, as far as i'm concerned it depends on what the mini is of, a slave mini, yeah nude, getting ready to do battle unless an ancient Celt, Pict or Greek or such then no.) what would they say if they were nude males?
as to the models in question by the OP not having seen them could not give an informed opinion on them.
Having faced a Slanneesh army using naked Pict minis for their barbarian core units without having a stroke or any other sort of nasty side effects, I can safely say there is no problem.
A 1mm wang is nothing to be scared of.
Just Tony: I've got it. I painted a bikini top on her, too. The Queen of All Elves does not reveal herself to just anyone...
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Some of the topless female models GW made for Fantasy right before The End Times looked less like a 12 year-old boy's dirty doodles of a woman and more like actual women (I am thinking of the Lamia and some Dark Elves, can't be bothered to find pics at the moment, though). So, some progress. I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
Asterios wrote: what would they say if they were nude males?
I could care less if there were nude males or if there were scantly clad males. Although the issue you'll find is that most 'scantly' men are considered a male power fantasy. My wife would love some nice looking sculpted men that didn't require it to be a demon, WWF wrestle body, beards and smoking a cigar. It is why some of the male miniatures we've designed tend to be more what she would find attractive.
One of my friends who is an artist draws Yaoi. I definitely am not a fan of it, but her artwork is fairly top notch. I am not so insecure in myself that I can't appreciate good artwork, whether it is to my taste or not. It isn't like there aren't games or things we don't like or strongly don't like in this hobby.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Sqorgar wrote: The ESRB is a censorship system masquerading as a rating system
It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.
There used to be mixed gender swimming classes where girls had suits on and the boys swam naked (there's a 1941 issue of LIFE that included a picture of young boys naked in the locker room, to absolutely no angry response at all).
That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes. But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity. These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).
Sqorgar wrote: The ESRB is a censorship system masquerading as a rating system
It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.
There used to be mixed gender swimming classes where girls had suits on and the boys swam naked (there's a 1941 issue of LIFE that included a picture of young boys naked in the locker room, to absolutely no angry response at all).
That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes. But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity. These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).
I agree the ESRB has about as much power as the Comic Book Authority, none whatsoever, as to artistic miniatures there are some pretty dang good artistic miniatures out there, problem is many artists do do cheesecake style of art, but cheesecake style of art has been around a very long long time, even before the written word like the Earth Mother statuettes exaggerated features, but done that way to explain its a woman a mother and so forth. just like men with rippling muscles and well "packages" you make a miniature of a person crouched down with a relatively flat chest, you would think male, even though it might have been female. or an Amazon who decided to break tradition and chopped off both breasts instead of one. penises and breasts are there in art since time immortal to point out male and female.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Some of the topless female models GW made for Fantasy right before The End Times looked less like a 12 year-old boy's dirty doodles of a woman and more like actual women (I am thinking of the Lamia and some Dark Elves, can't be bothered to find pics at the moment, though). So, some progress. I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
Their shirtless guys, however...
Off topic, but I would so pose these in the classical YMCA stance...
It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.
The ESRB was created under pressure from Congress due to what they perceived as influential violence in products meant for children. Congress said that if you don't start to reign it in yourselves, we'll do it for you. So out of fear of government regulation, the game industry collectively got together to create a rating system with the purpose of protecting their asses. Initially, there were regulations over how M-rated games could be marketed (when you could advertise them on TV, where you show them in stores, and those dumb ass age gates for trailers for M-rated games even if the trailers themselves didn't contain anything bad). There were also regulations on how and to whom you could sell M-rated games to. Businesses could get fined if they sold M-rated games to minors. Many of these regulations have been unenforced and relaxed in recent years.
And it wasn't "some" stores that don't sell AO games. It's ALL of them - digital and physical. The problem is that the ESRB regulations have rules for how an AO title can be advertised and sold. Some adult Japanese game sellers in the US also sell non-adult games, but they need two completely separate online stores, two completely separate website catalogs, to sell their adult games. The ESRB has also given out AO ratings for political reasons (like with Hatred), and has twice caused reratings of games (GTA:San Andreas after Hot Coffee, and Oblivion after a quest involving cannibalism was discovered) which meant that stores had to stop selling the game until the publishers recalled the game and either changed the game, or changed the packaging, at their own expense in the millions. Bethesda and Take Two could afford it, but can you imagine what it would do to an indie company?
The Chilling Effect is a real thing in free speech where the threat of lawsuit, fine, or other repercussion (such as social ostracization for misogyny) ends up retarding free speech through semi-voluntary (coerced) censorship. Would I make a PC game that I couldn't sell on Steam because Steam doesn't sell AO games? No, I'd be giving up the majority of my profits. If I wanted to make a game for a teenage audience that included a character smoking and drinking, that could potentially bump the game up to an M-rating, meaning that it would've only been displayed behind the counter and purchasers would be carded - so maybe I remove the smoking and drinking, as has happened in MANY games brought over from Japan.
Rating systems are like points in 40k. Instead of being something that explains how powerful your army it, they end up becoming the most important criteria in army creation, defining just about everything you can do with the game. Ratings systems are, at their heart, chilling effects on free speech by controlling the manner under which things are sold - and the ESRB was literally created expressly for this purpose.
That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes.
The OP said the figures were standing naked in boots and holding guns. He doesn't say they are explicit or bent over like a Penthouse centerfold. Why are you assuming that the models are sexy and not just naked?
But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity.
We are talking about artistic nudity, maybe, but not sexual. It is still rather uncommon to see miniatures with molded labia or erections. Sticking your butt out a little isn't enough to go from artistic nudity to pornography. Are you now going to argue that the Sears catalog shouldn't have lingerie sections because you can spank to them in a pinch?
These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).
I do not think that exposing children to simple nudity is particularly dangerous or likely to adversely affect their sexual development. Exposing them to explicit sexual behavior at a young age, however, can have repercussions - and that is what we, as a society, need to protect children from. But I've still never seen a miniature riding reverse cowgirl in the throws of ecstasy and I doubt very much I will ever see one during a game of Age of Sigmar.
The overly sexy scifi women isn't my thing, but there are a gakload of people at my LGS who would LOVE those minis. Do what you are comfortable with them. If there are kids at your shop, it might not be the best idea to play them every day.
ITT: nudity is artsy because art is subjective.
I would keep the minis on a display case, 4 pages of arguing about it should be enough evidence as to why. The people at my shop who love those models keep them at home, because there are usually some underage kids at our shop.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.
A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.
A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.
Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?
It is a male thing for the most part. I don't think anything negative was meant by the comment.
There is a very typical stereotype look that if a male admires a male body or physique, it would be considered gay. Not that it is a bad thing but that is the social belief of such a thing. Males don't normally sit around talking about other mens abs, butts or how handsome they look.
There will always be those that aren't typical but the majority is the social norm. I am not typical, but secure enough to be able to say "his butt looks good". I know what my wife and my women friends like in men. I have no issues pointing out someone or participating in the comments on someone's abs. The term that was phrased before it was main-streamed was that I was "metro-sexual".
Women in various cultures tend to, as a typical stereotype, will look and compare woman features. A woman admiring another woman isn't considered gay or that she is 'lusting' at the person, but simply admiring something that is beautiful. It is socially more acceptable for a woman to look at a male admire them, think they are beautiful and the same when looking at a female. Where if a male did the same thing, if they admired a woman it would be considered perverted or lusting and if it was admiring a male gay. It isn't just a US thing, but does depend on countries, culture (environment).
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
For the most part sculptors in general don't have to deal with any double standards, male or female. They either sculpt something because they like it or are hired to sculpt something. Sometimes they are given concept art and create their own interpretation, while other times more free reign and given only a couple examples to go from. Half the time no one even bothers saying or thinking "X Sculptor is a perv"... those comments tend to either get directed at the customer/collector who purchased them or has them or the company as a whole.
The few times that comments are directed at the sculptor. Like in the case of Grim Skull, when they referred to her as a male. Until she came out and said she was a woman and that was how she liked them, thought they were done well, etc.
Renders tend to get more critique than the actual miniature. Renders are zoomed in, so the detail is exaggerated and although we are gamers know it is... there is still that part that goes, "Wow those are big". Just going over some of the other threads of these discussions, a lot of times people are like "Why are they all 34DD" but that is because they associate it with a size they think they know. Most of the time if you showed someone DD vs C they wouldn't have a clue... especially when you add accessories. Clothes make a huge difference in how a body is shaped and moreso in terms of 'support'.
Some people will sculpt what they are familiar with or what they have experience with. For example my wife is 34GG, they aren't fake as such I expect without support, certain shapes and forms. Those shapes and forms don't always translate well into a miniature when shrunk down. Miniatures tend to be representations of the best of the best, not the average or below average person. Just like models and ads in magazines tend to have someone who makes the outfit look good, not someone who would actually be wearing it. It is always frustrating to see a good looking outfit, purchase it but it never looks right, because the model that was based on wasn't 'real'.
Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium. They are in nature sexiest at all. It is the person who views such art, miniature and adds the label and determines if something is sexist. There is no discrimination or prejudice directed towards the miniatures at all, nor do miniatures of women reflect a prejudiced or discrimination against females. Those are all projections of the viewer coming to their own perceptions or misconceptions.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?
It is a male thing for the most part. I don't think anything negative was meant by the comment.
Really? It read pretty insultingly from my perspective.
In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi
The implication being that I think women only find other women's bodies attractive for sexual reasons. That is flat out wrong and not something I ever even intimated. In fact I even accounted for the possibility by saying:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form
So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
For the most part sculptors in general don't have to deal with any double standards, male or female. They either sculpt something because they like it or are hired to sculpt something. Sometimes they are given concept art and create their own interpretation, while other times more free reign and given only a couple examples to go from. Half the time no one even bothers saying or thinking "X Sculptor is a perv"... those comments tend to either get directed at the customer/collector who purchased them or has them or the company as a whole.
The few times that comments are directed at the sculptor. Like in the case of Grim Skull, when they referred to her as a male. Until she came out and said she was a woman and that was how she liked them, thought they were done well, etc.
So you are making my point that there is a double standard at play here. Grim Skull was a perv until it was revealed that she was a woman. I've seen posts making claims about Brother Vinni that would indicate people have a negative view of him based on his creations.
And my point was that a double standard exists for the people who own these models. The vast majority of which are men, who are held to a standard that women gamers aren't held to. I think that informs a lot of the responses we are seeing here and a lot of reservations the "anti-nude" camp has for nudity in war gaming. That is just personal opinion, but I think it is something to consider.
Dark Severance wrote: Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.
Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.
Dark Severance wrote: Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.
Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.
So you are suggesting that by creating sexy female miniatures, that female sculptors are willfully engaging in "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex?" That's a strange accusation for a man to make towards a woman.
Dark Severance wrote: Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.
Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.
So you are suggesting that by creating sexy female miniatures, that female sculptors are willfully engaging in "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex?" That's a strange accusation for a man to make towards a woman.
No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.
Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The implication being that I think women only find other women's bodies attractive for sexual reasons.
But this whole thread implies and is about men finding women's bodies (or rather miniatures) attractive for sexual reasons. There is a bit about art, about appreciating women and it not being sexual... but the thread devolved into the basic retort 'if female miniature is naked, it is because of sexual reasons/perv, etc.'. With that same token it would imply the same from a woman's perspective.
Although you do make a statement about them enjoying a sculpting an exaggerated form. The thread devolved into 'are they sexist or considered sexual' and thus "enjoying" can be taken as sexual or non-sexual. Since there is a society stigma/social aspect that men don't normally engage those types of activities unless sexual... it seemed valid to me. Could it have been said in a better way, sure.
Given that I don't know the poster, what their language or anything about them. I also haven't had a back and forth with them so I don't immediately go for the negative opinion. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't agree with them or having a passionate discussion. That is just me. And given there wasn't enough context, that was simply how I had viewed it.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: So you are making my point that there is a double standard at play here. Grim Skull was a perv until it was revealed that she was a woman. I've seen posts making claims about Brother Vinni that would indicate people have a negative view of him based on his creations.
And my point was that a double standard exists for the people who own these models. The vast majority of which are men, who are held to a standard that women gamers aren't held to. I think that informs a lot of the responses we are seeing here and a lot of reservations the "anti-nude" camp has for nudity in war gaming. That is just personal opinion, but I think it is something to consider.
As much as society and we try to make a conscious effort to not have or create a double standard, it does exist and will always exist. In some instances it is conscious and while in others subconscious creation.
For example: As a project manager when I interview for a new position to hire someone because of how things are today, I have to re-examine every decision. If all the candidates were male, I simply choose based on the candidates who I felt fit into the work environment well... that includes not only work experience, work ethic but also how they present themselves. When a woman is thrown into the mix, if I don't feel she fits even if she didn't have the work experience. I still have to re-evaluate it again, look at outside factors of how many men/female we have, can she learn it, is she capable and then ultimately be able to "prove" she wasn't chosen because of strictly experience and not because she was a woman. It sounds easy but not so much. Consciously it takes twice as much time because of repercussions thus creating a double standard that isn't applied to the other sex.
Having a double standard doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing either. It can push us to hold things to a higher standard. It also does force us to exist outside the normal boundaries which can be beneficial.
Yes the sculptor was called a 'mouth breather' among some other comments, implying he (she) was a perv. Once she said was identified as a woman, suddenly she wasn't a perv. However people still objected to the shape of some of the breasts or lack of clothing but it wasn't done in a insulting fashion as it was before.
Yes you are correct, a double standard does exist for people who do own the miniatures as well. There is a social stigma and social expectation that 'nude' is sexual and perverted. When men are amongst their close group of friends, they wouldn't think twice (usually) about saying someone was hot looking or sexy. When in public, that tends to change and they aren't as vocal about it. Mix in the aspect that nerd/geek/gamers are socially inept people (that is starting to change but that is mostly with board gamers, less with miniatures) that when someone has something that could be considered "controversial" there is an outside influence in the game store to be embarrassed that someone brought in Y miniature. Keep in mind this is stereotyping not to be negative and there are exceptions but for the most part that is where some of it stems from.
Sexism itself is subjective. The sculptor doesn't necessarily sculpt a sexist model or miniature. Creating something that looks appealing or beautiful or even sexy, doesn't mean sexiest. The confusing part is that sexy means "provoking or intended to provoke sexual interest" but it also means "interesting, exciting, or trendy" or even "excitingly appealing (without implying sexual reasons)". When someone says "that brochure is sexy", they don't think that person thinks it is arousing. However when you apply that same statement to a car or even a miniature, the first connotation is the opposite because of how society, culture is programmed... skin, boobs=sex.
The same double standard above exists. When a man says "she/he is sexy", the first association is sexual (pervy) interest. When a woman says the same thing, the first impression isn't always sexual interest but more acceptable to be associated with "they enjoy" vs "sexual". Those impressions are impacted by the people around them in a concious and subconcious method, which is what makes discussions like this difficult.
Dark Severance wrote: Creating something that looks appealing or beautiful or even sexy, doesn't mean sexiest.
THAT. Right there. Exactly that.
All of this shame about naked miniatures comes from the appearance that it is sexist - not that it is vulgar. People don't complain about the Sisters of Battle's boob armor or chainmail bikinis because they are vulgar. They are terrified that it might be sexist. So they come up with all these shallow excuses for it to be wrong without saying it is sexist. Like, it isn't practical or historically realistic. Or they come up with shallow excuses that it isn't sexist (the men show as much skin, so equality! Yay!).
But the fact is, sexy isn't sexist. We are convinced that women are the victims of some sort of social injustice going back to the beginning of time, and that the only way to make up for thousands of years of oppression is to go as far as possible in the other direction to compensate. And somewhere in this giant discussion, someone decided that basic human sexuality is oppressive to women and now we can't have a two inch tall naked female miniature without someone trying to figure out exactly where it fits into the tradition of oppression (women will avoid game stores because of naked miniatures! They won't know true equality unless we hide them from sight!)
It's so stupid. I think I would have an easier argument trying to convince someone that vulgarity (Piss Jesus, anyone?) can be high art than convince someone that pornography can be.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.
A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.
Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?
I didn't, my apologies I meant a collective "you" when I said "you" and not "you" specifically, I can see how it would cause a misunderstanding.
Your post said "I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market." I was just pointing out that many women do find it appealing and it's not simply because they are trying to appeal to a perceived market, otherwise you wouldn't have amateur female artists also producing similar art because they have no financial stake in it.
So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?
Don't be so defensive, I wasn't making an attack at all, I was just stating that it's often assumed it's creepy dudes making and/or enjoying these types of art when in reality it's often women who both create and enjoy it which makes it hard to consider it sexism. Of course then people will come back with terms like internalised misogyny.
But just because I was replying to your post doesn't mean I was attacking you personally.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.
Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.
I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements. The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?
I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".
I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.
It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.
Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.
In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.
A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.
Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?
I didn't, my apologies I meant a collective "you" when I said "you" and not "you" specifically, I can see how it would cause a misunderstanding.
Your post said "I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market." I was just pointing out that many women do find it appealing and it's not simply because they are trying to appeal to a perceived market, otherwise you wouldn't have amateur female artists also producing similar art because they have no financial stake in it.
So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?
Don't be so defensive, I wasn't making an attack at all, I was just stating that it's often assumed it's creepy dudes making and/or enjoying these types of art when in reality it's often women who both create and enjoy it which makes it hard to consider it sexism. Of course then people will come back with terms like internalised misogyny.
But just because I was replying to your post doesn't mean I was attacking you personally.
No need to get your knickers all up in a twist.
This is great, you apologize in the first part of your post by admitting you phrased your response to me poorly in such a way that you can understand it causing a misinterpretation and then you end the post by making me out to be unreasonable.
My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements.
No, they don't. I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them. There are people out there who literally think everything is "problematic" and no matter what steps you take to minimize this, they'll find something, anything, to complain about. Some people are very myopic in their interpretations. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and nothing you can say will convince them that it isn't phallic oppression.
And it's even worse when you simply disagree. You can make a statue of a naked woman as an expression of beauty, vulnerability, innocence, love - whatever - and they'll see it as pornography or patriarchal oppression of women by taking away agency and depersoning a women by focusing on their sexual parts as objects (or something equally stupid). You simply can not create art with integrity if you have to factor in the selfish opinions of stupid people. Bowing down to social peer pressure to create something you don't agree with is the opposite of integrity.
The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum.
This is where we disagree the most, I think. Art transcends time. It outlives the artist and the audience - and it certainly outlives whatever moral panic fad is going on when it was created. History is filled with literature, art, science, and philosophy that was considered dangerous during its day, but that history has proven wrong. Socrates was put to death for espousing ideas that essentially form the backbone of thousands of years of Western civilization. Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal encouraged satanic worship. Tales From the Crypt and Mad Magazine corrupted our youth. Elvis' rotating pelvis was too much for broadcast television. Women were burned as witches. Huck Finn was banned from libraries. Grand Theft Auto caused school shootings. Don't forget the Red Scare and blacklisting, not to mention a heliocentric model of the solar system.
As a society, we move from one moral panic to the next. It's always something. And we NEVER learn from. We are always convinced that this time, this moral panic is real! And artwork from those times ALL out survived the panic. We still have heavy metal and DnD, Elvis and Mad, Huck Finn and GTA. Art is a product of its time, but it exists outside of it.
If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.
Again, bullploppies. The fear of misogyny is just the newest in a long line of stupid moral panics, and possibly the first to really be amplified by the echo chambers of social media. But we are already on the tail end of its stupidity, and its power to shame and control is rapidly diminishing. I promise you that any artist making "sexist" models will have their work remembered long after this moral panic has been replaced with the next one.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements. The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.
An artist will not be able to help what others identify with or as sexist. You could put them in a burlap sack and there are still people who would and could construe them as being sexiest.
We can break it down a bit further since I know others have already brought up, there is no prejudice or discrimination based on sex invovled thus not sexism. Sexism is a broad category but does have its genre fairly well categorized from gender steroytypes, language (use of masculine him as the default of an unknown character), occupational sexism, weight based sexism, advertising, pornography, jokes, gender discriminiation and objectification.
For the most part when someone says art or miniatures are considered sexist they are usually refering to objectification. It doesn't fall under media/advertising because it isn't used to draw an audience (ie: sex sells) to play a game. In most cases these miniatures are boutique and although popular, are a limited market which isn't the whole 'gaming community'. However they are aren't women, they are an actual object. They don't somehow underline feminity anymore than video games contribute to violence. They are subjective in that nature that it is the viewer who identifies and projects their own perceptions on it.
An artist can not bear full responsibility for what others will label or think of their art. To a degree they can effect it (ie: burlap sack) but they still can't control the response of someone else.
For example, let's take a look at a toy. There will be people who will have no idea what it is, some will know exactly what it is and then there is going to be a larger group that will identify it as something else entirely. The artist should then be completely responsible for determining how each of use see's this toy?
Spoiler:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.
Sorry couldn't help to chuckle at this mainly because I'm listening to Hamilton... and I read it in Alexander Hamilton's voice.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements.
No, they don't. I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them. There are people out there who literally think everything is "problematic" and no matter what steps you take to minimize this, they'll find something, anything, to complain about. Some people are very myopic in their interpretations. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and nothing you can say will convince them that it isn't phallic oppression.
And it's even worse when you simply disagree. You can make a statue of a naked woman as an expression of beauty, vulnerability, innocence, love - whatever - and they'll see it as pornography or patriarchal oppression of women by taking away agency and depersoning a women by focusing on their sexual parts as objects (or something equally stupid). You simply can not create art with integrity if you have to factor in the selfish opinions of stupid people. Bowing down to social peer pressure to create something you don't agree with is the opposite of integrity.
Are we talking about artists changing their art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation or are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced? I am talking about the later, you seem to be talking about the former.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum.
This is where we disagree the most, I think. Art transcends time. It outlives the artist and the audience - and it certainly outlives whatever moral panic fad is going on when it was created. History is filled with literature, art, science, and philosophy that was considered dangerous during its day, but that history has proven wrong. Socrates was put to death for espousing ideas that essentially form the backbone of thousands of years of Western civilization. Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal encouraged satanic worship. Tales From the Crypt and Mad Magazine corrupted our youth. Elvis' rotating pelvis was too much for broadcast television. Women were burned as witches. Huck Finn was banned from libraries. Grand Theft Auto caused school shootings. Don't forget the Red Scare and blacklisting, not to mention a heliocentric model of the solar system.
As a society, we move from one moral panic to the next. It's always something. And we NEVER learn from. We are always convinced that this time, this moral panic is real! And artwork from those times ALL out survived the panic. We still have heavy metal and DnD, Elvis and Mad, Huck Finn and GTA. Art is a product of its time, but it exists outside of it.
Yes, and if you were an artist in the 80's painting Fantasy artwork with demons and other "Satanic" elements which played into the moral panic of the time then you as that artist should be prepared for any backlash you receive. It is your art, it is your prerogative for exploring themes you choose to explore for reasons that are your own, but it doesn't exempt you from judgement by others.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.
Again, bullploppies. The fear of misogyny is just the newest in a long line of stupid moral panics, and possibly the first to really be amplified by the echo chambers of social media. But we are already on the tail end of its stupidity, and its power to shame and control is rapidly diminishing. I promise you that any artist making "sexist" models will have their work remembered long after this moral panic has been replaced with the next one.
And again, I am not talking about artists changing their art to cater to the sensibilities of others, rather that the artist can't claim ignorance, or not expect labeling, when their artwork creates a response from an audience.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced?
I don't think anyone has said or claimed that artists "can't" be criticized. Being criticized, interpreting something differently than how the artist thinks is different than them being responsible.
Sqorgar wrote: Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.
True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...
For me, thematic appropriateness is key. It's a hard thing to quantify, being broader than simply paint scheme etc, but a lot of times, armies that include topless models or naked dudes do it in a fairly unsubtle manner, like splicing a pie throwing contest into "Shindler's List". If you want to have a squad of topless Marines, have the rest of your army in equally tongue-in-cheek style, is a good rule of thumb.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.
You're on an international forum, I admitted my wording wasn't clear but it's always wise to assume people aren't attacking you personally otherwise the internet is going to be a very hard place for you. You raised the point of whether women enjoyed sculpting exaggerated female forms and I responded, even if it weren't for my ambiguous posting and took it word for word you sure did get yourself up in a tantrum about it.
MDSW wrote: True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...
This is a favorite argument of people who wish for censorship. It's not Art. Art is protected free speech. It's commerce. And commerce answers to the customer. And the customers want this. I ought to know. I'm a customer. So I get to tell artists what to do. The customer is always right, after all. When you think about it, I'm their boss. I'm entitled.
There are several glaring problems with this, the biggest being that the audience is not of one singular mind and does not speak with one singular voice - nor, frankly, are they always aware of what they really want from something (if GW followed half the recommendations I see, it would not produce the game they think it would). The majority of your audience either enjoys it quietly or consumes it in quiet indifference, and those loud people decrying your work at the top of their lungs represent a vocal minority - a very vocal, VERY entitled minority. And often, they aren't your customers and changing your work for their benefit won't make them your customers.
The only responsibility an artist has is to make something worth existing. Everything else is negotiable.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Are we talking about artists changing their art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation or are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced? I am talking about the later, you seem to be talking about the former.
I didn't see this post when I responded earlier. Is Dakka having issues?
Anyway, I think they are both the same thing. The only reason to criticize an artist is to get him to either change his work or to no longer produce works using those themes - either way, the artist is changing his art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation. I mean, what's the point of criticizing an artist if you actively don't want him to change what he is doing?
Yes, and if you were an artist in the 80's painting Fantasy artwork with demons and other "Satanic" elements which played into the moral panic of the time then you as that artist should be prepared for any backlash you receive. It is your art, it is your prerogative for exploring themes you choose to explore for reasons that are your own, but it doesn't exempt you from judgement by others.
Have you ever been a famous person? Not like Brad Pitt famous, but famous enough that people who have never met you or read your work know your name and has an opinion on you as a person? Because you literally can not operate if you give a second thought to what those opinions might be. Threatening judgment is hardly a deterrent to someone who is judged every second of every day as it is. And legally, free speech protections mean that whatever judgment may come your way, a jail sentence will not. So yeah, I don't think a good artist is all that worried about what social errors strangers think he has committed in the process of creating art. They couldn't be a good artist if they did.
And again, I am not talking about artists changing their art to cater to the sensibilities of others, rather that the artist can't claim ignorance, or not expect labeling, when their artwork creates a response from an audience.
All artists expect labeling, but it is impossible to predict what that labeling could be. What may seem obvious and predictable in retrospect likely wasn't when the decision was being made. An artist is one person making decisions, but labels come from hundreds, thousands, and occasionally millions of people with different philosophies, life experiences, beliefs, and morals. You absolutely can't predict it, so while you can aim for praise, you don't really expect it, and damnation is always a surprise unless you are purposefully being insulting.
MDSW wrote: True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...
This is a favorite argument of people who wish for censorship. It's not Art. Art is protected free speech. It's commerce. And commerce answers to the customer. And the customers want this. I ought to know. I'm a customer. So I get to tell artists what to do. The customer is always right, after all. When you think about it, I'm their boss. I'm entitled.
Yes you get to complain like any other customer in any similar situation and they get to decide what they want to do with your criticism (that is if they even know of it). Why would you want to restrict your rights to appease a company that is only after your money?
That's the difference between entertainment art and the art world (as in "capital a" Art), even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time. Commerce doesn't just blindly answer to the customer (that's just a strange argument in itself, the whole "customer is king" idea that seems to be taken so seriously in the USA), the company (and the people working there) do what they think is best, from the CEO to the lowest sculptor. They can use whatever tools they want to make an informed decision and they can decide if they want to create a product with a more widespread appeal or aim for a smaller niche where they (hopefully) get to create something that is more to their own liking. Do you think they let the sculptors at Disney just "do their thing" and then sell whatever toys they come up with? Their art is a job first and self-fulfillment second (or third) and heavily regulated from the top to meet whatever specifications Disney needs. If they can't handle that they won't be employed for long.
GRRM, for example, created ASoIaF because he wanted to creates something that he was not able to do while writing TV shows (and was a bit fed up with that) and didn't even think it would be adapted for TV at the time (and when it happened he didn't have full control over the TV series because it was somebody else's project) while other writers create novels with the aim/hope of getting a TV deal. Some comics are made to look like storyboards (easier to adapt) and made as appealing as possible for TV/movie people because overall comic sales are not doing that great. If you think they are all aiming for the highest concentration of artistic expression and noting else in their work then the only word that comes to mind is: naive.
And why do these arguments about art/free speech in a heavily commercial context always make the creators out to be weak willed pushovers who for some reason can't be trusted to form their own opinion? If they can't handle criticism they are in the wrong business (they should have learned how do that way back in art school or in their creative writing classes). They are creating a commercial product and it's their choice what audience they want to target. They need to be ready to deal with criticism like adults. There are other field of employment where you don't have to deal with other people's opinions.
The truth is if it's art/Art and also a product/commerce then you have to decide what your priorities are. You live in a human/capitalistic society where your choices have consequences. If you want to to go full art and not care about the possible commercial ramifications then you are free to do that but if that decision results in low or unsustainable sales numbers then you have only yourself to blame for that. The customer doesn't owe you or your creation any attention, sales, or admiration just because you created something that you consider art. And if you turn heavily towards the commerce/product side then some people will make fun of your "art" for the ewoks or for the Michael Bay-ish senseless garbage movie (while you end up swimming in money).
There are several glaring problems with this, the biggest being that the audience is not of one singular mind and does not speak with one singular voice - nor, frankly, are they always aware of what they really want from something (if GW followed half the recommendations I see, it would not produce the game they think it would). The majority of your audience either enjoys it quietly or consumes it in quiet indifference, and those loud people decrying your work at the top of their lungs represent a vocal minority - a very vocal, VERY entitled minority. And often, they aren't your customers and changing your work for their benefit won't make them your customers.
Lets really take GW as an actual example: People (the loud minority) have been complaining about GW doing things the wrong way for (literary) decades and GW have (for the most part) just ignored that criticism. See how easy it was for them to just not do whatever people wanted from them for a very long time because it's their company and not ours. People complain about art all the time and companies ignore nearly as much. Just read the first line of this reply to see why.
The only responsibility an artist has is to make something worth existing. Everything else is negotiable.
That also means your art could end up not sellable so you will need to find another jobs and create your art in your free time. There is no guarantee that you will be able to make money with your art. You can't ignoring the commercial aspect of all of this in thread about toys just because you want to win an internet argument. Context matters.
Mario wrote: Yes you get to complain like any other customer in any similar situation and they get to decide what they want to do with your criticism (that is if they even know of it). Why would you want to restrict your rights to appease a company that is only after your money?
But complaining rarely works. Boycotts rarely work. If it is a tool of the consumer, it is an ineffective one.
Do you think they let the sculptors at Disney just "do their thing" and then sell whatever toys they come up with? Their art is a job first and self-fulfillment second (or third) and heavily regulated from the top to meet whatever specifications Disney needs. If they can't handle that they won't be employed for long.
In this example, the sculptors are considered contract workers as far as intellectual property is concerned and don't own their own work, nor are entitled to the results of their work. I don't consider artists to be employees of their audience.
GRRM, for example, created ASoIaF because he wanted to creates something that he was not able to do while writing TV shows (and was a bit fed up with that) and didn't even think it would be adapted for TV at the time (and when it happened he didn't have full control over the TV series because it was somebody else's project) while other writers create novels with the aim/hope of getting a TV deal. Some comics are made to look like storyboards (easier to adapt) and made as appealing as possible for TV/movie people because overall comic sales are not doing that great. If you think they are all aiming for the highest concentration of artistic expression and noting else in their work then the only word that comes to mind is: naive.
I think GRRM is. I'm not denying that people create for all sorts of reasons, but there is a difference between creating towards a specific goal and changing/censoring a work in response to external pressures.
For example, if I was paid to write a book and told that I could not use the word "the", I would have no problems with that (morally, at least). However, if I had written a book that I was rather proud of and the publishers wanted me to rewrite parts of it to remove all the "the"s, I would have a problem with that. I am not opposed to including your audience as part of your design goals for a project, but I am opposed to them coming in after the fact and telling you that you did it stupid.
And why do these arguments about art/free speech in a heavily commercial context always make the creators out to be weak willed pushovers who for some reason can't be trusted to form their own opinion? If they can't handle criticism they are in the wrong business (they should have learned how do that way back in art school or in their creative writing classes). They are creating a commercial product and it's their choice what audience they want to target. They need to be ready to deal with criticism like adults. There are other field of employment where you don't have to deal with other people's opinions.
My argument isn't that the creators don't face criticism, but that the criticism is worthless. Constructive criticism best comes from your peers and superiors. The audience wants something from you, and have this criticism colored by that bias.
You live in a human/capitalistic society where your choices have consequences.
And my argument is that criticism isn't a consequence. Whether you, personally, think a work of art is good or bad is really only relevant to you, personally. Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.
Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?
Not sure if it's been said but couldn't you just ask your opponent and the local game store if it's ok beforehand. I mean if they say it's ok then go ahead.
I will say though i hate the more offended bunch i will admit naked women models don't exactly make wargamers or yourself look good. If some women go around you might want to hide em a bit. After all if you saw a bunch of chiseled naked dudes with oiled up abs in a girl hobby you wouldn't think well of them either. That said it's a hobby and it's entirely your right to enjoy your hobby. So yeah more just words of advice rather than forcing you to put your naked lady models away.
cuda1179 wrote: A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.
Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?
Not sure if it's been said but couldn't you just ask your opponent and the local game store if it's ok beforehand. I mean if they say it's ok then go ahead.
I will say though i hate the more offended bunch i will admit naked women models don't exactly make wargamers or yourself look good. If some women go around you might want to hide em a bit. After all if you saw a bunch of chiseled naked dudes with oiled up abs in a girl hobby you wouldn't think well of them either. That said it's a hobby and it's entirely your right to enjoy your hobby. So yeah more just words of advice rather than forcing you to put your naked lady models away.
Why would I care what models female or male gamers use in a game? Chiseled naked dudes and gals and for that matter naked babies are all over the place in the form of stone, concrete and Marble Statues and Fountains that men women and children of all ages can aee in any park or museum for free. and dont say "but they're art!" A donger in public is a donger in public, stone, marble, plastic or otherwise.
If it's that offensive to you then worry about it if you have to play that person. Otherwise it shouldn't matter to you.
The actual spectrum of artistic freedom here is surprisingly (and, with the economic disparities and lack of culture as a status symbol, which we've been seeing, increasingly) narrow: the top is dominated by art-as-investment (often with enjoyment as secondary or nonexistant), and the bottom is plagued with all of the regular commercial stuff you need to consider, leaving a small window where you're successful enough to not be scrounging but not so prestigious that your career is based on maintaining your buyers' investments. If you're not independently wealthy, the art world is a pretty hostile place.
The actual spectrum of artistic freedom here is surprisingly (and, with the economic disparities and lack of culture as a status symbol, which we've been seeing, increasingly) narrow: the top is dominated by art-as-investment (often with enjoyment as secondary or nonexistant), and the bottom is plagued with all of the regular commercial stuff you need to consider, leaving a small window where you're successful enough to not be scrounging but not so prestigious that your career is based on maintaining your buyers' investments. If you're not independently wealthy, the art world is a pretty hostile place.
I wanted to keep the post short (I was already rambling) thus the "even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time" bit. Fine art is, more or less, it's own industry and next to the art-as-investment there's also the art-as-speculative-investment group where people try to push the young artists they invested in into prominence and fame. The industry has everything from high school popularity contests to economic gambling, in addition to the actual art. :/
Then there's a certain disdain from the Art world for the craftsmanship of illustrators and non-fine-art painters. Some people literary have multiple personas so their their artwork doesn't get devalued or seen as inferior from the art side. A few people even manage the jump from being a "lowly" illustrator to fine artist (although they tend to plateau at some pop art level) while some "real" artists pillage the history of illustration and comics and are seen as revolutionary. And there are also groups like ARC who have a allergic reaction to anything that drifts to far from realistic or representational art (ARC is not bad per se but sometimes just a bit narrow minded, in my opinion).
Sqorgar wrote: For example, if I was paid to write a book and told that I could not use the word "the", I would have no problems with that (morally, at least). However, if I had written a book that I was rather proud of and the publishers wanted me to rewrite parts of it to remove all the "the"s, I would have a problem with that. I am not opposed to including your audience as part of your design goals for a project, but I am opposed to them coming in after the fact and telling you that you did it stupid.
You can have a problem with that if you want, but you have no grounds for your (moral) outrage. If your employer doesn't want to buy a book without "the" in it then you either write a book without the offending word or you don't get paid. That's just how business works.
The audience wants something from you, and have this criticism colored by that bias.
So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.
Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.
Sure it does. I'm the customer, I have the money. Do what I want or I don't pay you. I have every right to demand things from a business, just like people demand better FAQs or lower prices from GW. If you don't like customer demands then don't do art as a for-profit business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: Would I make a PC game that I couldn't sell on Steam because Steam doesn't sell AO games? No, I'd be giving up the majority of my profits
And this is the problem with your argument. It isn't about artistic integrity and being able to create whatever you want (which you can still do, there is no legal requirement to participate in ESRB ratings), it's about being able to make money as a for-profit business. And you aren't entitled to sell your products on Steam or in Walmart or whatever. If the market for AO-content games is not sufficient to make the level of profit that you want then too bad. You aren't being oppressed or losing your right to freedom of speech just because nobody wants to buy your work.
The OP said the figures were standing naked in boots and holding guns. He doesn't say they are explicit or bent over like a Penthouse centerfold. Why are you assuming that the models are sexy and not just naked?
I'm assuming it based on what similar models look like. It's a safe bet that they are sexy models, not artistic studies of the female form.
We are talking about artistic nudity, maybe, but not sexual. It is still rather uncommon to see miniatures with molded labia or erections. Sticking your butt out a little isn't enough to go from artistic nudity to pornography. Are you now going to argue that the Sears catalog shouldn't have lingerie sections because you can spank to them in a pinch?
Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.
Mostly agree, Peregrine. Only point there is about ratings- there are a lot of things that mess with your ability to sell stuff in many markets if the ratings board decides they don't like what you're selling.
...which, IMHO, would be completely fine if there were rules you could know and follow or choose not to, except (at least in film, and I can only assume in other media) the boards are thoroughly proven to be incredibly subjective and fairly arbitrary with no clear criteria except rating higher (i.e. penalizing) things they disagree with, and that screws with people's livelihoods and by extension craft/lives. They basically function like a monopoly, in all the worst ways one can.
You can have a problem with that if you want, but you have no grounds for your (moral) outrage. If your employer doesn't want to buy a book without "the" in it then you either write a book without the offending word or you don't get paid. That's just how business works.
You seem to believe that the almighty dollar is the ONLY factor in the creation of art, and I assure that it isn't - even to a business who's livelihood depends on selling things for money. There is a middle ground between capitalist slave and starving artist, and censorship is the most insidious attack on this middle ground. It is the fact that pro-censorship people don't understand the existence of this middle ground that allows them to make absurd claims like the following:
So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.
It really doesn't work like that. There's a middle ground between not getting paid and complete artistic freedom.
Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.
Sure it does. I'm the customer, I have the money. Do what I want or I don't pay you. I have every right to demand things from a business, just like people demand better FAQs or lower prices from GW. If you don't like customer demands then don't do art as a for-profit business.
I'm not sure there's anything I can do to cure you of your unwarranted sense of entitlement, but I am curious, how's it working out for you? Half the people on this board have you on their ignore list.
And this is the problem with your argument. It isn't about artistic integrity and being able to create whatever you want (which you can still do, there is no legal requirement to participate in ESRB ratings), it's about being able to make money as a for-profit business. And you aren't entitled to sell your products on Steam or in Walmart or whatever. If the market for AO-content games is not sufficient to make the level of profit that you want then too bad. You aren't being oppressed or losing your right to freedom of speech just because nobody wants to buy your work.
I lived in Japan for a while in college, and they have a very different attitude towards adult orientated games than the West does. And some of their adult games (which are displayed openly in big box retail stores and have easily found magazines dedicated to the genre) are actually quite amazing. People have this idea that adult games are just lewd - and a lot of them are - but that doesn't mean that they don't have artistic value. There are actually quite a few famous and respected anime properties that started their lives as pornography video games, and indeed, some of the most famous and respected artists in Japan have pornographic pasts (and presents, in many cases).
And we don't have that in the West at all. We don't have a market for adult games because nobody can sell or advertise adult games. Not only can we not create adult games, we can't even easily bring over adult games from other countries - which is probably why you don't realize that there IS a market for AO-content that absolutely can make a profit if it were allowed to.
Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.
Seriously dude, I think that maybe you don't have the healtiest attitude towards sexuality.
Western countries too quickly break things into porn and not-porn. If it is even the slightest bit lewd, it is porn. And if it is porn, it is dirty. I hate to bring up Japan again, but they have levels of lewdness that run a spectrum, from innocent fan service to moderate titillation to full on lewd to actual pornography. You can't just have two extremes which are subjective based largely on the political leanings of the viewer. There needs to be a level for "a bit sexy" that isn't flat out porn in the West, and I think the last time I saw anything like that was the late, great Benny Hill. I think naked miniatures are closer to Benny Hill than Chicks With Dicks, Volume 47 - so why do you insist on treating it as if it were the latter?
Because America is incredibly backwards in it's attitude about sex, that's why. For America any sort of nudity IS sex.
Just look at the big debate about breastfeeding in public, for chrissake! There's nothing at all sexual about feeding a baby, but from the reaction of the general public (or at least parts of it) you'd think mom was CONCEIVING a baby right there, not just feeding one.
Pretty well sums up the whole issue, in my opinion. America as a whole (regardless of the capabilities of any individual who may read this and disagree) lacks the maturity to deal with nudity and sexuality in a mature fashion.
Sqorgar wrote: You seem to believe that the almighty dollar is the ONLY factor in the creation of art, and I assure that it isn't - even to a business who's livelihood depends on selling things for money. There is a middle ground between capitalist slave and starving artist, and censorship is the most insidious attack on this middle ground. It is the fact that pro-censorship people don't understand the existence of this middle ground that allows them to make absurd claims like the following:
So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.
It really doesn't work like that. There's a middle ground between not getting paid and complete artistic freedom.
I don't think you understand how this works in the real world. If your boss says "make an Ultramarines™ captain in power armor with a bolt pistol and power sword" you make exactly that model. If you make a Raven Guard captain with a power axe you get told to fix it asap and stop screwing around. If you make an Eldar thing, no matter how awesome, you are going to be lucky to keep your job after so blatantly ignoring your instructions and wasting company time. But this is not censorship. Calling your job "art" doesn't mean you get to make up whatever you want to do and ignore what your employer is paying you to do. Just like every other profession you either do your job or you don't have a job.
And we don't have that in the West at all. We don't have a market for adult games because nobody can sell or advertise adult games. Not only can we not create adult games, we can't even easily bring over adult games from other countries - which is probably why you don't realize that there IS a market for AO-content that absolutely can make a profit if it were allowed to.
This is completely false. There are no laws against making or selling "adult" games. If you believe that there is money to be made from "adult" games you are 100% free to make an "adult" game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. The government will not stop you from doing so. The only obstacle to success is convincing enough people to buy the product you want to sell, just like any other business.
Seriously dude, I think that maybe you don't have the healtiest attitude towards sexuality.
Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS. Calling my attitude unhealthy just because I'm honest enough to admit that something is porn is rather laughably wrong.
Western countries too quickly break things into porn and not-porn. If it is even the slightest bit lewd, it is porn. And if it is porn, it is dirty. I hate to bring up Japan again, but they have levels of lewdness that run a spectrum, from innocent fan service to moderate titillation to full on lewd to actual pornography. You can't just have two extremes which are subjective based largely on the political leanings of the viewer. There needs to be a level for "a bit sexy" that isn't flat out porn in the West, and I think the last time I saw anything like that was the late, great Benny Hill. I think naked miniatures are closer to Benny Hill than Chicks With Dicks, Volume 47 - so why do you insist on treating it as if it were the latter?
The problem here is that you're assuming that "porn" means "extreme". There is plenty of porn that doesn't involve explicit PIV sex. And there's no reason to label it as anything but porn, other than your weird reluctance to admit that the thing you like is porn. Perhaps you are the one who doesn't have a healthy attitude towards sexuality, if you're so concerned with saying "but not that kind of porn".
Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS.
I think I've learned more about Peregrine in 5 minutes than in 3 years
Definition of Porn:
"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement."
Sounds to me like Peregrine is right about this, but it seems like your definition of pornographic material is entirely down to what "turns you on". That doesn't necessarily make it porn though.
Peregrine wrote: I don't think you understand how this works in the real world. If your boss says "make an Ultramarines™ captain in power armor with a bolt pistol and power sword" you make exactly that model. If you make a Raven Guard captain with a power axe you get told to fix it asap and stop screwing around. If you make an Eldar thing, no matter how awesome, you are going to be lucky to keep your job after so blatantly ignoring your instructions and wasting company time. But this is not censorship. Calling your job "art" doesn't mean you get to make up whatever you want to do and ignore what your employer is paying you to do. Just like every other profession you either do your job or you don't have a job.
Like I said, there is a middle ground. A lot of jobs will give you requirements, but they won't micromanage every creative decision you do (I've had jobs like that, so they exist - and they suck).
But I don't think censorship is a situation where your boss gives a work-for-hire employee instructions. Most of the time is a type of peer pressure based on a subjective morality that nobody ever defines or can fully explain the borders of. It is a hazy "this is wrong and you shouldn't do that" which eventually grows into a "you can't do that". And it usually comes from a VERY small minority who have somehow convinced themselves that their idea of morality is what is best for everyone.
This is completely false. There are no laws against making or selling "adult" games. If you believe that there is money to be made from "adult" games you are 100% free to make an "adult" game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. The government will not stop you from doing so. The only obstacle to success is convincing enough people to buy the product you want to sell, just like any other business.
Not laws. Regulations. The ESRB has a list of regulations that you must follow to sell or advertise AO games - if you do not follow them, the ESRB will withhold a rating. One place where this is egregious is that you can't advertise adult games (rated or otherwise) at the same place you advertise non-adult ESRB rated games (and this includes online storefronts). To do so would have the ESRB remove their rating for your non-adult games, making it impossible to sell them in stores or on Steam. There are several Japanese adult game publishers in the US that likewise sell non-adult Japanese games, but has to maintain two separate websites and two separate online stores, so as to not lose the ability to sell their non-adult games.
So the standards that are in place (you need an ESRB rating, they can withhold that rating as punishment) effectively give the ESRB undue control over your ability to make money - thus creating a chilling effect on releases. There is no adult game market in the US. It is almost entirely publishers directly selling PC games from their website.
Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS. Calling my attitude unhealthy just because I'm honest enough to admit that something is porn is rather laughably wrong.
That's my point. Porn is okay, but only when it is completely separated from not-porn. There's no in between. Either it is dirty or it is clean. Benny Hill isn't porn. Nude beaches aren't porn. Naked miniatures aren't porn. Just because there is a bit of titillation or nudity doesn't mean it is porn. I'm sure you are absolutely fine with porn. Your problem is that your definition of porn is too broad.
There is plenty of porn that doesn't involve explicit PIV sex. And there's no reason to label it as anything but porn, other than your weird reluctance to admit that the thing you like is porn.
I don't even think explicit PIV sex is necessarily porn. Do you think the health videos you watched in 10th grade biology were porn?
Sqorgar wrote: Like I said, there is a middle ground. A lot of jobs will give you requirements, but they won't micromanage every creative decision you do (I've had jobs like that, so they exist - and they suck).
Sure, but having a job that sucks is not the same as being censored.
But I don't think censorship is a situation where your boss gives a work-for-hire employee instructions. Most of the time is a type of peer pressure based on a subjective morality that nobody ever defines or can fully explain the borders of. It is a hazy "this is wrong and you shouldn't do that" which eventually grows into a "you can't do that". And it usually comes from a VERY small minority who have somehow convinced themselves that their idea of morality is what is best for everyone.
Except that "minority" has no power to force you to do anything. If they say "you can't do that" and you say " you I'm doing it" then that's the end of it, you do the thing. You may or may not make much money if you do the thing, but nobody can stop you from doing it. The only time where anyone has control over your art is when you're in that work-for-hire situation and your boss is telling you what to do.
Not laws. Regulations. The ESRB has a list of regulations that you must follow to sell or advertise AO games - if you do not follow them, the ESRB will withhold a rating.
So what? There is no legal requirement to participate in the ESRB rating process. You can still make and sell a game without an ESRB rating, you just can't put the ESRB logo on the box.
To do so would have the ESRB remove their rating for your non-adult games, making it impossible to sell them in stores or on Steam. There are several Japanese adult game publishers in the US that likewise sell non-adult Japanese games, but has to maintain two separate websites and two separate online stores, so as to not lose the ability to sell their non-adult games.
So what? A private business saying "we don't want to sell this" is not censorship. You are still free to sell your product directly to the customer without going through Steam.
That's my point. Porn is okay, but only when it is completely separated from not-porn. There's no in between. Either it is dirty or it is clean. Benny Hill isn't porn. Nude beaches aren't porn. Naked miniatures aren't porn. Just because there is a bit of titillation or nudity doesn't mean it is porn. I'm sure you are absolutely fine with porn. Your problem is that your definition of porn is too broad.
You're the only one making value judgements here about whether porn is "okay" or not. I'm simply pointing out that porn and non-sexual nudity are two very different things. And a nude beach isn't porn because it's not sexualized. It's people wearing no clothing because they don't want tan lines or because feeling air on bare skin is nice or whatever, not people going around thrusting their sexy bits at people and saying "YOU LIKE THIS?".
I don't even think explicit PIV sex is necessarily porn. Do you think the health videos you watched in 10th grade biology were porn?
Peregrine wrote: So what? There is no legal requirement to participate in the ESRB rating process. You can still make and sell a game without an ESRB rating, you just can't put the ESRB logo on the box.
Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.
So what? A private business saying "we don't want to sell this" is not censorship. You are still free to sell your product directly to the customer without going through Steam.
Stores don't sell games with an AO rating or lacking an ESRB rating. The ESRB is the ratings gatekeeper. This means the ESRB is the one pressuring the game makers, not the stores. The stores have placed all their faith in the ESRB as an official ratings system, and the ESRB abuses that faith in an effort to punish developers for their games' moral content.
Yes, the stores could sell AO/unrated games, but the fact is, they don't want to face a backlash from the congressional committee that caused the creation of the ESRB in the first place. That's why Target is fine with selling the NC-17 version of Showgirls, but won't touch an AO rated game with a 10 foot pole. Congress hasn't actually censored video games, but they've fething threatened to, and the ESRB is the self policing compromise that was come up with to censor without governmental oversight.
And a nude beach isn't porn because it's not sexualized. It's people wearing no clothing because they don't want tan lines or because feeling air on bare skin is nice or whatever, not people going around thrusting their sexy bits at people and saying "YOU LIKE THIS?".
Whether something is sexualized or not is subjective, and some people (like yourself, obviously) see it as a hard line that is crossed very early. I see it as a spectrum that has varying degrees of lewdness, and I don't think fan service crosses the line into pornography.
Because it is subjective, neither one of us can definitively be correct, so objectively, we must adopt a standard allows for the greatest variety of artistic expression (freedom of speech, at least in the US, still reigns supreme as a guiding principle) while still knowing when the reign it in for the sake of the children and society. Unless you can objectively tell me how a naked miniature holding a gun is destructive to children and society, I say let's allow it. It's obviously art.
Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.
Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.
Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.
Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.
But from the developers point of view you can't invest much money in to a game that isn't going to be sold through the primary distributors. It's the internet equivalent of saying "well you can sell DVD's of your movie on a street corner so what are you complaining about?".
It's also inconsistent which means it's hard to make games with adult content because you may have invested all your money in to a game only to find out at the last moment you can't actually sell it through the channels you had planned. Steam requires some games to be censored for sexual content (typically the ones that revolve around the sexual content) while others are fine (like The Witcher).
Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.
Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.
The Sears underwear section sound pretty boring then, all the clothing catalogues my Wife get have as much sexy posing as thoughtful posing regardless of what clothing they have on.
Is the typical nudity in miniatures so bad, in summer (in my part of the world anyway) sexy outfits (on a range of body types) are everywhere enjoying the good weather. My neighbour is a model and he is always taking advantage of warm weather to walk around topless, I would too if I was a little less curvy.
I think it is unfair to highlight exaggerated sexual characteristics if you are talking about 28mm scale, the scale needs exaggeration otherwise you have to hold the figure close to your face to enjoy looking at it. Regardless, I am more annoyed by excessively thin waists than overly large T&A.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.
Maybe that more of a problem of Steam being a quasi-monopoly and not about censorship? Or is it also "effectively a form of censorship" that most big budget movies are rather safe and aimed at the mainstream. To me it just looks like big companies in billion dollar industries playing it very safe? I might not like it, I very much complain about it, and I spend my money somewhere else but I don't equate it with censorship. Because if that's censorship then nearly everything can be constructed as censorship.
When people say they want more normal female miniatures (or video game game characters) — the usual sexy/sexualised character complaints — some of the first replies are "then make your own, companies make what sells" and "if you want to buy some invest in it, nobody owes you these miniatures". Are practically armoured female miniatures somehow censored? Why is it always censorship when lewd content is considered but the harsh, rational, and capitalistic market when somebody wants a decent set or armour. It's funny how the argument is always censorship when they care but the market when they couldn't care less.
You want it? Then create a market for it. It seems that sexy female miniatures sell better than practically armoured ones. Why should it be so difficult for video games (when the market is orders of magnitude bigger)? If you want lewd games (to keep the argument simple) then maybe you should invest in them? If I remember correctly Steam has quite an extensive range of erotic/lewd visual novels/relationship simulators (cheap to produce), that type of gameplay just doesn't spread to other genres too much. They might experiment more if they had a bigger fanbase and budget so the occasional misstep wouldn't wipe out a company.
Besides if porn can make more money than Hollywood then somebody should really be able to profit from this unexploited market in the video gaming industry (from sexy to lewd, and even porn) with or without Steam. Wasn't this (NSFW?) the highest earner on https://www.patreon.com before it was shut down? No, not censorship, one of the developers took the money (just regular mismanagement). Or would that too be censorship in this vaguely all-encompassing definition of the term? More here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-14-highest-earning-game-on-patreon-cancelled-amidst-developer-squabble . Here's a link to a followup game (if somebody's interested): https://www.patreon.com/CloudMeadow (probably NSFW).
By the way that's a general you, I don't know what game preference AllSeeingSkink has and that preference is also not the point of my argument (If I remember correctly you don't like AoS too much and I can totally agree with that).
Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.
Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.
But from the developers point of view you can't invest much money in to a game that isn't going to be sold through the primary distributors. It's the internet equivalent of saying "well you can sell DVD's of your movie on a street corner so what are you complaining about?".
It's also inconsistent which means it's hard to make games with adult content because you may have invested all your money in to a game only to find out at the last moment you can't actually sell it through the channels you had planned. Steam requires some games to be censored for sexual content (typically the ones that revolve around the sexual content) while others are fine (like The Witcher).
Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.
I agree with you somewhat, but people with different tastes and i don't just mean porn, can get the stuff they are interested through other means, i mean sites like CD japan or Jlist cater to people interested in Japan, there is bandcamp for non mainstream bands,if you are not knowledgeable of these things you first have to do some investigation. What i am trying to say is that distributors are not anymore in full control as they used to be before the web came along, that is one of the reason so many board games and miniature games are being made. Thanks to kickstarter and boardgamegeek.com.
you", etc.
