Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm so glad that threads about models without games attached, and terrain for sale shares a specific forum with totally random threads like this one.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't.

It's neither. People can feel offended about something that other people do not feel offended by. And in both cases, that's where it ends. You feel offended, but that doesn't give you license to censor the item in question* no more than someone not feeling offended is given license to walk around promoting/bragging about how great it is. It's about personal taste.

Me personally? I don't care. People can do what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws, and if someone wants to model stripper cages on their Land Raider then who am I to tell them otherwise? I can refuse to play against them, I can choose not to look at it. I can't make them put it away/stop using it, nor should I, because I do not control them (nor should I).

Or, to put it differently.



*Not that you were suggesting that.

Lol im imaging those offended picturing a group of uber neckbeards furiously fapping over a land raider

LMAO one of the funnier threads on dakka

The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts

Ewww.... I find this far more offensive than the actual model.

The model itself just seems to be going for the sex/death/torture version of hell. I don't see any problem with it. I can see why some people reckon it would be more suited for slaanesh, but slaanesh aren't typically depicted with the red, blood and death, so I again I don't see the problem.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.

Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.

Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?

I think most of us thought that.

A blood soaked warrior queen bent on tearing the gak out of anything in her path with epithets of str 9ap 2 rage restrained by those who would seek to harness that power could possibly be appropriate.

A coupla strippers in cages don't convey the power to destroy vehicles.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It's as equally distasteful and rather silly as a band named "Debauchery". There should be a word for people who try too hard to be scary and alternative and just end up being extremely silly, which is true for most death metal bands. This word could be applied to songs that have lyrics about landslides of butchered baby parts and that sort of thing (look up Cannibal Corpse lyrics if you want to be entertained). It doesn't have any of the intended effect, it's just stupid.

In short, it'd make me think of the person as a bit of a creep.

I typed in "cannibal corpse" and the third link down was a youtube video of one of their songs, literally called "I cum blood" what? what the feth?

also, i agree with the post directly above this one.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
The other comments that I think are a bit off are those saying in essence "why do you get worked up about sex, but not violence". If the model were simply a nude lady with nothing more to it, this would be a valid point. But, this model can be viewed as using violence (violating a person in one way) to force sexual exploitation (violating them in a second way and one that may be even more destructive psychologically than the physical abuse alone). So while it may be terrible to imagine being beaten, the thought of being beaten and repeatedly raped may be significantly more disturbing.

It can be viewed as using violence. It can be viewed as a pair of super powerful women warriors who shoot laser beams from their frickin' eyes! Does not make either one true. Judge the model, not the interpretation you choose to apply.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.

No reason to have sexually explicit models, I just about agree with you. But more just to be on the safe side than because it is some sort of major problem.

No reason to have nude models? I disagree. I would say there is no reason not to.

These models are nude, unarguably. They may be suggestive of something. So what?

 Platuan4th wrote:

Funny comic, but its entire premise falls apart if you apply it to Spiderman instead of Batman.

 Fifty wrote:
Funny comic, but its entire premise falls apart if you apply it to Spiderman instead of Batman.

I'd also argue that creepy bug eyed batman is NOT what all women would find attractive anyway. It strikes me more as something a young girl would find cute than an adult woman would find attractive.

I have to say I have no problem what so ever with that model.. The strippers are fairly tame, though they will probably die horribly once the shooting begins

And on females finding it offensive, my girlfriend does not who also takes part in the Hobby as Tyranids, Dark Eldar and Dark Elves...

I find it funny when men take offence on behalf of women who tend to not actually have an issue at all with it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't.

It's neither. People can feel offended about something that other people do not feel offended by. And in both cases, that's where it ends. You feel offended, but that doesn't give you license to censor the item in question* no more than someone not feeling offended is given license to walk around promoting/bragging about how great it is. It's about personal taste.

Me personally? I don't care. People can do what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws, and if someone wants to model stripper cages on their Land Raider then who am I to tell them otherwise? I can refuse to play against them, I can choose not to look at it. I can't make them put it away/stop using it, nor should I, because I do not control them (nor should I).

Or, to put it differently.



*Not that you were suggesting that.

Exalted. love that Stephen Fry quote, even though I do consider him a pompous jackass at times.

Whenever someone complains that you have offended them, you need to ask yourself a question:

Do I care?

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Lol im imaging those offended picturing a group of uber neckbeards furiously fapping over a land raider

LMAO one of the funnier threads on dakka

Hey man, have you seen the price of gloss varnish?
Might as well make your own, you know?

 Azreal13 wrote:
The US has a distinctly prudish attitude from over here in Europe.

Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic I do not find this to be an accurate statement. The US believes Europe to be distinctly prudish. Both views are incorrect.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The legendary American liberal attitude towards sex, ladies and gentlemen!

Ignoring of course all those Americans who agreed with you. But it's so much easier to make sweeping generalizations based solely on nationality

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Funny comic, but its entire premise falls apart if you apply it to Spiderman instead of Batman.

I'd also argue that creepy bug eyed batman is NOT what all women would find attractive anyway. It strikes me more as something a young girl would find cute than an adult woman would find attractive.

It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive. It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.

Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.

Also note, there is a huge difference for many females between what they find attractive for a partner and what they find sexually attractive.

If we were t believe the stereotypes based upon my country, i probably would have been eaten by giant spiders years ago.. ya know, besides that one time i was eaten by giant spiders, but that was ages ago...or that other time.

I missed this piece when it was first posted and likely would never have come across it.

I'm a fan of the smoke effect.

I'm not offended by the strippers at all.

@ OP- All you've done is bring this piece you find so offensive to a larger audience. I doubt that's what you intended... Fail.

You're welcome to your opinion and I'd never attempt to change your mind.

I am offended by the way you think your POV is the only one and everyone should agree.

insaniak wrote:I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...

Oh my goodness, yes.

Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.

I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:





An army of badass babes is slightly tacky at worst, but it's in a sci-fi/fantasy world where everything is taken to its ridiculous extreme (I don't think the hyper-masculine motif of space marines is any better or worse than sisters of battle). It's in an unrealistic environment that more or less exists to play around with tropes and silly stereotypes and memes. That's what fantasy does: lets you be unrealistic.

Which is a far, far cry from real sexism.

Trondheim wrote:I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?

Some day, far, far into the future, I'm going to make a dong-based slaanesh army. Forget the patriarchy fearing female sexuality, let's see how offended people get when the army lead by the great chaos lord Phallatius Fellatius hits the table...

I actually like a couple of the Lego Friends sets, the boat model is pretty nice. I just hate they they made the unique Minifigs, rather then use the standard ones.

As for the topic on hand...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.

Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?

This.

insaniak wrote:I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...

And this.

I know more women who play Tyranids than Sisters... I don't think i've ever seen a woman with a Sisters army...

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.

See, that is sort of the thing though.

You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.

Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.

You are way under thinking this. There is no legitimate reason not to have nude models on a gaming table. Notice I did not include sexually explicit (or even naked). Historical art, was the art of it's day. Plastic miniatures are part of the art of this day. Hope you never go to church in Europe and look up. You might see some boobies! Or *gasp* a wang!
Off topic, (on troll) if I ever get my time machine working I look forward to going 1k years into the future and criticizing the Louvre for labeling that LR as a warmachine of Slaanesh.

Well there is the cliché that women play Tyranids and Orks because they're "cute".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there is the cliché that women play Tyranids and Orks because they're "cute".

Well.. they are.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there is the cliché that women play Tyranids and Orks because they're "cute".

Well.. they are.

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

I know more women who play Tyranids than Sisters... I don't think i've ever seen a woman with a Sisters army...

one of our clubs regluars wife has a large Sisters army

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there is the cliché that women play Tyranids and Orks because they're "cute".

Well.. they are.

KILL IT WITH FIRE!

KILL IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL SMALL AND DOE EYED!

With our powers combined

Virgin!

Fat!

Bad Breath!

Spectrum Disorder!

Unemployed!

We are CAPTAIN SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR!

TO THE INTERNET!

 Cyporiean wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well there is the cliché that women play Tyranids and Orks because they're "cute".

Well.. they are.

Hmmm, this must be why Everblight brings all the girls to the yard...

I don't get all these comments on "The Sisters of Battle are an all female army so it was obviously a transparent attempt to appeal to female players".

The SOB were based on an archetype - Warrior Nuns. Its all about "Nuns in Space. With guns", not a marketing ploy to get more girls playing 40K.

Agree w/ the Captain.

Sisters of Battle are just awesome. Would've been my first army 13 years ago had Eldar not have been even more awesome. They're just cool.

I wonder if the OP takes offence of the Blood Angels having Nipples on their armour.