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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"

Works like this in many western countries, actually: a movie would usually need very explicit violence to have the same rating as a soft erotic movie.

You've probably fondled and licked boobs by 15-16, but you're not allowed to see them on screen until 16-17.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters.

While I do agree, I could have written "two persons" instead of "two girls". Doesn't really makes a difference.

Saw is quite explicit too, and about something far more unpleasant than love...

I have two sexually explicit models.

One is a surprised looking naked space marine, who I supply to any SM opponent whose model I have relieved of it's armor save via my harp of dissonance or scarabs (I have never gotten any complaints) and one grot, deployed usually as one of thirty, is leaning back and giving himself a quick one before he dies (non graphically, his hand is technically covering it up) who despite being completely lost in a crowd, I have gotten numerous complaints from scandalized mothers about. It's not like I point him out, and honestly I forget he exists, there was just one Gretchin model with a helmet and such a goofily happy face I couldn't think of anything else he could be doing.

a grot fisting his mister president.
GREAT!!!!!
wife complains why i ordered 3 boxes of grots.
gonna do the "spanking monkeys " grot gang, driving in the bang bus.
30 grots tossing the turkey and ork masters handing out some orky p$$rn magazines.
projekt for christmas days.
thank you so much

I want an entire army of naked chicks lol

so? he put a plastic rendition of a naked woman on the side of a toy. oh woe is me, the world is falling to misogyny. people shouldn't be forced to be censored because their actions offend someone. I don't care if it is tasteless and silly, he wanted to do something with his stuff, People should not be censored. all I can say to you is either A) get over it, or B) Live in a magical world where trigger warnings are everywhere and free speech is decided upon whether someone gets upset. I recommend option A.

 Brennonjw wrote:
so? he put a plastic rendition of a naked woman on the side of a toy. oh woe is me, the world is falling to misogyny. people shouldn't be forced to be censored because their actions offend someone. I don't care if it is tasteless and silly, he wanted to do something with his stuff, People should not be censored. all I can say to you is either A) get over it, or B) Live in a magical world where trigger warnings are everywhere and free speech is decided upon whether someone gets upset. I recommend option A.

Someone has the right to do/say what they want and I have the right to say that that I don't like it (it's that simple). I might think some minis are misogynistic but I am not breaking them. So why should my expression be worth less than someone else's? Also there is no censorship happening so why bring that even up? What is the problem with people expression their ideas if they do not confirm with yours?

If you don't like it you can talk about it (instead of recommending that people get over it) or ignore the thread (there are so many about everything else), nobody is forcing you to participate in a discussion that could include feminist content or anything that doesn't fit into your worldview. If the discussion is not important to you just ignore it and talk about something else.

What if you do the other side? My Slaanesh 40k army has a TON of penises sculpted, all the guns are penises, there's tentacle monster dreadnoughts, you don't even want to know what the tanks will look like...
The chaos lord alone has 3, not counting tentacles.

I can dig it. It's lore friendly and it makes sense for a Slaaneshi army.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
What if you do the other side? My Slaanesh 40k army has a TON of penises sculpted, all the guns are penises, there's tentacle monster dreadnoughts, you don't even want to know what the tanks will look like...
The chaos lord alone has 3, not counting tentacles.

If it's well done, I can appreciate the effort that went into the making of the models. It may not be my cup of tea, so I may not "like" it, but that doesn't mean that I won't appreciate the work that went into sculpting nearly everything from scratch.

Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.

Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.

Plus there's things like the seven deadly sins, which all represent overindulgence and excess, so, again, while things like vanity may be tough to portray, things such as gluttony would not - in fact, if one wanted to run Nurgle units for gameplay purposes in a Slaanesh themed force, this is a perfect way to represent it.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.

Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.

It would make sense though, if one were to create a "1500 point army" that is the 69th Phallic Company of the Emperor's Children, and then have another 1500 point army that is the 666th "Meshuggah" Company of the Emperor's Children, as the fluff is so large an individual may want to create a much larger force of slaaneshi followers, with various sections of the large force being comprised of some individual element of said fluff.

To me, it's much the same as someone running a Deathwing or Ravenwing army: they are only one small aspect of Dark Angel fluff.

If that were the case, yes, but, and I'm by no means including Dash in this, purely that it was that post that broached the subject, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the motivation for such a force was simply "hurr, willies!"

Um yeah so new from hasslefree miniatures

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/64255_1566987883520991_7578484983981513587_n.jpg?oh=266c6cd884894331c4057fd7d76ecb6d&oe=54AE54EA&__gda__=1425190918_2080782c0858eafe9e24c5b8627ae121

http://s193.photobucket.com/user/Dagenhameast/media/10622823_1563312620555184_5822891570620938844_n_zpsb8ecd81b.jpg.html

 Azreal13 wrote:
If that were the case, yes, but, and I'm by no means including Dash in this, purely that it was that post that broached the subject, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the motivation for such a force was simply "hurr, willies!"

I think most of wargaming could be broken down to "hurr, guns, pew pew". We do write and read creative and elaborate (and sometimes not so creative and elaborate) stories about it, but at the end of the day I think for most people it comes down to some childish simplicity like "hurr, guns", "hurr, boobs", "hurr, swords", "hurr, dudes on steroids", "hurr, dragons".

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.

Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.

It would make sense though, if one were to create a "1500 point army" that is the 69th Phallic Company of the Emperor's Children, and then have another 1500 point army that is the 666th "Meshuggah" Company of the Emperor's Children, as the fluff is so large an individual may want to create a much larger force of slaaneshi followers, with various sections of the large force being comprised of some individual element of said fluff.

To me, it's much the same as someone running a Deathwing or Ravenwing army: they are only one small aspect of Dark Angel fluff.

Meh, I mean I don't have to make them Slaanesh, but they're still gonna have dicks regardless.
And I am in this for my enjoyment, fluff is irrelevant, maturity is irrelevant, imagination is irreverent.
I can come up with a ton of great ideas but they're not as hilariously striking as these guys.

I suppose my most serious army is the Slayer themed Dwarf Army. Still need more for that one though

How do I feel about sexually explicit models? FAP FAP FAP

 Eilif wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

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:

Spoiler:

I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.

It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.

Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).

I'm with you here. My daughter has a bunch of those and she will kill an hour or two hi problem with them. My son has the typical Lego and she could really care less. Its a pretty strange thing really but it totally works as intended

 KingCracker wrote:


I'm with you here. My daughter has a bunch of those and she will kill an hour or two hi problem with them. My son has the typical Lego and she could really care less. Its a pretty strange thing really but it totally works as intended

My daughter is much the same way, but she does also love the sets from the LEGO Movie, as well as the Marvel Super Heroes lines as well.... It makes things..... Interesting. I mean, seeing Ariel interacting with Nick Fury or Prince Eric running around with Thor is crazy, yet entertaining for me.

I don't get why people should be offended over Lego selling gender stereotyped sets. Simple market demand should dictate what it makes and sells.

If all the pink stuff, dolls and Friends role play stuff sells well, then Lego is simply giving its target audience (i.e. the kids) what they want.

If it falls flat, then the target audience does not want it, the products will be dropped sooner or later, and Lego will try to come up with a new product that does sell well.

Nothing about those sets implies to me that Girls can't like science, astronauts etc. If they do, just get the standard sets for them if thats what appeals to them. And if someone complains that "all the Science sets have male characters, not female"...well, aren't the parts compatible? Whats stopping kids simply swapping out the figures / heads for a female character? Heck, just do sets or series of "female mini fig" characters to supplement the standard sets if thats what customers want.

Lego should just produce a variety of products, and let the "customers" choose whatever they like (as Ensis Ferrae said).

Theres nothing wrong with studying the market demands of a specific target demographic and concluding " 'Girly' sets with lots of pink and ponies and pink ponies sell really well, so lets make more of these sorts of sets to appeal to those customers.

Give the customers what they want. DON'T complain that the customers doesn't want what YOU think they should want.

The only "real" issue that I have with the "girl specific" Friends sets, is in how the Lego people interact with the "boy" sets... Ie, Ariel/Eric have special legs that can ONLY stand on objects, whereas Nick Fury, Thor, etc can all be placed sitting on other pieces.

Ok that is stupid.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The only "real" issue that I have with the "girl specific" Friends sets, is in how the Lego people interact with the "boy" sets... Ie, Ariel/Eric have special legs that can ONLY stand on objects, whereas Nick Fury, Thor, etc can all be placed sitting on other pieces.

I still don't buy that the other sets are 'boy' sets, not in the least because my nieces love all my Lego. None of the boxes for any of the 'boy' sets depict a child, let alone a male one, playing with the sets. The City sets are blue, granted but so what? Builder sets are yellow, Technic uses black and all the other specific ones like DC, Marvel, TMNT etc all have their own colours. Maybe there's been a slew of ads somewhere depicting boys playing with them but without going back to the 80s they're hard to find.

I personally don't care what your models look like so long as I can tell what it supposed to represent. Nor do I care what your motivation was for crafting whatever you did. There is simply no power a little plastic man on a table has to make me upset, no matter how it is painted or modified. You're free to express yourself in whatever way you see fit and, if I think it's stupid, immature or otherwise worthy of mockery I'm free to express that. We all get to do what we want.

Actually come to think of it, the Lego I played with as a kid (~15 years ago) was pretty basic and the figures were very androgynous.



Lego has come a long way since I last played with it

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Actually come to think of it, the Lego I played with as a kid (~15 years ago) was pretty basic and the figures were very androgynous.

Spoiler:

Lego has come a long way since I last played with it

When I started playing with Legos there were no figures.... (I think that I got my first set in 1968.... Back then I thought that Legos were the best toys ever, and I have seen no reason to change my mind. )

The Auld Grump

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Actually come to think of it, the Lego I played with as a kid (~15 years ago) was pretty basic and the figures were very androgynous.

Spoiler:

Lego has come a long way since I last played with it

They advertised these without gender bias and sold them to everyone. I think these were early 80s ads:
https://i.imgur.com/xwAsW56.jpg
http://trouble.room34.com/wp-content/uploads/trouble/2011/12/Screen-shot-2011-12-19-at-1.08.58-PM.png
http://bernalwood.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/lego-1978.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/89/e5/82/89e582f2f23201671578f57ee65933b6.jpg

At some point they focuses their marketing efforts only on boys and consequently sold mainly to boys. And now they started to target girls again with special sets instead of just using inclusive and inviting ads. They created their own gender bias by focusing their ads on boys only. It had nothing to do with ideas like "Girls won't play with normal Lego".

Mario wrote:

At some point they focuses their marketing efforts only on boys and consequently sold mainly to boys.

When was this 'at some point' and how did they market to boys? Can you show examples of this advertising?

 Kojiro wrote:

I still don't buy that the other sets are 'boy' sets, not in the least because my nieces love all my Lego. None of the boxes for any of the 'boy' sets depict a child, let alone a male one, playing with the sets. The City sets are blue, granted but so what? Builder sets are yellow, Technic uses black and all the other specific ones like DC, Marvel, TMNT etc all have their own colours. Maybe there's been a slew of ads somewhere depicting boys playing with them but without going back to the 80s they're hard to find.

Hence why I put "boy" in quotations, as well as "girl" my own daughter loves both, I was merely pointing my gripe that, the figures are completely different if you get a LEGO Friends set, vs. a LEGO City, Ninjago, Super Heroes, Ninja Turtles, LEGO Movie, etc. set.



VS.



One can sit down and drive cars, boats, helicopters, space ships, or anything else you can imagine to build.... the other, can merely stand around.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
[
Hence why I put "boy" in quotations, as well as "girl" my own daughter loves both, I was merely pointing my gripe that, the figures are completely different if you get a LEGO Friends set, vs. a LEGO City, Ninjago, Super Heroes, Ninja Turtles, LEGO Movie, etc. set.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you were making some alternate case. The 'normal' Lego sets seem utterly genderless when you see them in the store but the Friends line is clearly plonked in the pink section (not that I support pink sections).

Here is a YouTube playlist called 'Lego Ads Targeting Boys'. LIterally takes 5 minutes to watch. At most you can see some bare children's arms. There's no shots of boys playing, no exited boys seen displaying the products, no 'Oh cool!' boy voice overs. About the only thing explicitly male is the voice over describing the set.

It's all ogre now...

 Kojiro wrote:


Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you were making some alternate case. The 'normal' Lego sets seem utterly genderless when you see them in the store but the Friends line is clearly plonked in the pink section (not that I support pink sections).

Agreed. Hell, when we bought our kids their first Lego sets, I bought the LEGO City "Rescue helicopter" set for myself, and it does come with one "female" figure in there... Of course, by female really you get a head with a feminine look, thick lipstick and "mascara" eyes. You can put that head on the pilot/rescue swimmer body, the dispatcher body, or even the "shipwrecked surfer person" body.


IIRC, the only "feminine" Lego figures I had growing up came from the Pirate line, and it was clearly supposed to be outlined cleavage that denoted "female Lego figure" I do miss the pirate line though