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.

Posting this bit here, as it's further on the tangent than my other reply.

weeble1000 wrote:

I agree with Arty here, and I will add that I don't think a nude is inherently sexualized. I daresay one might argue that automatically viewing a nude female as a sexual object is inherently sexist.
HFM absolutely sells sexualized models, but most of Kev's nudes do not even fall into that category. Kev sculpts from a mostly finished nude dollie. Finishing the dollie and selling the work separately is frankly good business sense, but more importantly, the nude was often not even intended for a sexualized model.
It's just a nude female.
The difference between a nude female and a sexist depiction of women is miles wide.

It's also entirely subjective. Let's also not pretend that we don't all know the majority market for these figures is guys who like to look at naked women. And that's fine - I've got no problem with that. The other thing is that if we can ignore noble intentions for a moment, the fact is certainly that in the societies that we both live in and I'd suggest that across the English-speaking world and quite a lot of the rest of it as well, images of nude woman are automatically sexualised. They just are. Perhaps not to you or me or Kev or Arty , but they are to someone. And quite a lot of someones.



...and just in case my reply to Arty gets Mod-deleted - even though it's much more about the miniatures.

 Artemis Black wrote:

And I still, completely, disagree. There is a huge difference between sexualised and sexist. I've never pretend we don't sell naked minis, both male and female. And a lot of them are sexualised (some are just naked). In fact at some points I have made Kev go out of his way to finish dollies to sell them as completely naked ones (There's one above, but we sell like 20 at this point). (I have also never made the 'arty' argument, no pun intended. That was other people).

But just being nude doesn't make something sexist? That's a crazy notion. However making a mini in a sci-fi setting with guns and massive amounts of armour and then just removing the torso section because boobs is 'not' what we do, and never will.

I'll agree with you to an extent, but at the same time, you couldn't claim that much of Kev's stuff is anything but gratuitous nudity. HF isn't alone in this of course, aside from the other companies listed, Reaper has more than their fair share as well. And we know why (in Reaper's case - they sell damned well.) With Hasslefree, my gut tells me that it's a combination of nudes selling well along with Kev simply sculpting what he enjoys. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

I would never be embarrassed to show a non-gamer our range, I would be mortified to show them those.

Sure, but that's a basic point, innit? Everyone thinks their own products are fine. Angelos, the Shieldwolf guy swears blue that his figures are better sculpts than AoW or Mierce. It's a natural reaction for anyone who believes in their product. Even the Prodos guy feels that his sculpts are peachy-keen. I mean, when we get to Poots he might want to go with an explanation first before showing them to Theo's family, but even in your own range there's a big difference between these two.

NSFW


The first of yours (Kev's) there is a very classical sculpt. The second is pure 1980's-1990's. Now neither I nor my family are particularly easily offended, but I could show the first to my co-workers and while some might think it a little gratuitous, I'm confident that they would see the classical influence that would override any discomfort or shock from the nudity. The second one (or the topless female dwarf slayer, etc)? Well, in all honesty I think it'd get the same reaction by and large that the Prodos figures would get.

I think what it comes down to in many ways is that the Prodos stuff offends you personally (which is fine) but you're having trouble stepping back and seeing the bigger perspective on it.

Like I said somewhere else, if someone just can't see that difference straight off, there's not much point in arguing. But I am completely befuddled as to why.
You'll notice I haven't said a word about the covered up ones, nor would I ever have. The sexist ones can still feth off back to the 80s though.

The Prodos stuff - ridiculous as it is - I definitely agree with that - actually has a lot more in common with Anime and Manga (and Japanese videogame) design elements. It's much more that, shoved into a 40k-style shell than something especially 80's or 90's. With badly-sculpted balloon breasts.

Spoilered for size.

But if people keep wanna bringing up our minis, then I have no objection

Well, that's gonna happen when you wade in and start slinging mud, given that there are direct points of comparison between the two companies. In fact, if I were even slightly cynical, I might think you're here and so invested in this thread at least in part for marketing purposes. You've got double the amount of posts here than in the actual HF thread!

Oh, while you're here - are the Greek decals printed on decal sheets or are they individual decals? And do any of them come in white? They might be exactly what I'm after for a current project.

Seemed like a nightmare to try and reply in between each point and spoiler things etc .

For the record, I don't consider HF 'my' products in that way. And I've long sold HF while having no stake in the company and my opinion was the same then as now, I was never embarrassed by the nudity of a figure, I'm embarrassed by 'concepts' and I can't think, off the top of my head, of a HF mini that would embarrass me that way.
I'm also pretty known for speaking my mind even about things I sell My opinion isn't something that should factor into anyone else's purchases so I've never been afraid to say that I don't like something in my own shop, whether it be by someone else or by Kev.

Also I am going to have to go against something I read elsewhere about naked figures selling better, none of our top selling miniatures are topless or nude.

Generally Kev makes what he likes but also things that make a modicum of sense.I would hope none of the figure he makes are purely for titilation purposes, I know none of the ones I've asked him to make were. I don't like to speak too much for Kev though, I'm not his keeper

Many times the naked or partially naked minis are simply that Kev sculpts from the body up, so usually ahs a mostly sculpted naked ody to start with. If he makes a body he partilarly likes, artistically, then he won't want to cover it. Taxxis, for example, is a naked woman that started as the dolly for Alicia a completely covered up figure.
Lately I have exaggerated this by checking his WIPs for dollies I think will sell as a naked one if he finishes it.

I don't consider either of the minis you selected as 'sexist' or coming from a sexist concept. They might be if all of our males were perfectly normally attired and all of our females were big boobed, manga armoured nonsense even if Kev sculpted them all very well.

The Prodos boobmarines were clearly made for titilation and 'look boobs!' purposes. I find that offensive and embarrassing. Enough so to interject myself into another company's thead on a forum I barely use. I honestly think the absolute best scenario upon showing them to a woman is an eye roll, and most reaction would be worse than that.

While some HF figures may certainly get an eye roll, I doubt we'd ever get much worse than that.

And while I'd love to take credit for the HF mentioning, I was only speaking as myself, other people brought HF into it (not particularly unsurprisingly). I also don't think I ever posted in the HF thread until well into this one, thought I might as well while I'm here

(Decal sheets, we don't do precut at the moment. We don'thave white but I could do a test print in white if you wanted, just drop me a pm with what you're after and I could see how they come out)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that we have firm plans for a KS at long last and it will 'definitely' involve nakedness and some cheesecake. So that should be fun for a few of th people who followed me from the old FF threads

I shall make sure I come back here for that, if only for them to get their licks in

Several years ago, when Poser was a brand new program, an artist did a crowd scene - to save rendering time, the figures in the back, where no one could see them, were nude.

Humans being humans, somebody took the file, rendered it from another angle, then lambasted the artist for his nude scene....

The artist, in that case, was not responsible - the responsible party was the idiot that did a new render, just to show the nekkid people that were not visible from the angle intended.

Ral Partha, way back when, had more than their fair share of bottomless male orcs, goblins, ghouls, and satyrs - and the models were not overly sexualized.

Prodos, by comparison, is doing women in armor that does not protect the part of the body that most need protecting - the gut.

Instead they decided that bikinis were just the ticket for a futuristic firefight.

If they have force fields that protect the bodies, then why bother with the heavy armor on arms, legs, and shoulders?

If they do not have forcefields, then they should be wearing their gosh darned armor!

So, yes, there is a difference.

The Auld Grump - who has decided not to buy from Prodos, but is quite happy to buy from Hasslefree, Reaper, Darksword, and other companies that do tasteful nude miniatures.

Well, the thing there is that you're possibly in too deep to have a "normal" perspective on Kev's nudes vs Prodos' nudes. At least compared to someone who doesn't see them on a daily basis as part of your work. We all become somewhat innured to things in our own jobs/lives/circles that would be far from forgettably routine to others. Interesting that you say none of your top selling models are topless or nude - though they clearly sell well enough to be a pretty notable feature of the overall ranges - and the fact that you intercept some of Kev's nudes before they get clothed.

I think an objective observer (not one of Buzzsaw's extreme feminists, but someone reasonable, like me) could go through the HF range and make a decent judgement on which figures are there for prurient reasons and which aren't. And to retread old ground... this one is as much "look, BOOBS!" as the Prodos figures. It's just better sculpted.



I expect thatyou'll disagree, and then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a completely gratuitous figure and pose.

Either both of those things above are sexist and gratuitous and titillative or neither of them is. But this is what I mean by you being too close to it to have the broader perspective. It's not stated as an insult, rather a rather clinical statement. Because I think you'll find that the two images above are very much one and the same thing to most people rather than one being artistic and the other sexist - and would produce the same eyeroll or worse reaction that you'd rightly expect to get from the boobmarines.

You've also got to remember, my points here might argue with you but I'm not here to attack you. I'm a HF customer (though not as regular as we'd probably both like - but someone has to keep GW afloat, after all) My disagreement with you is really about the moral high ground as opposed to quality of sculpt, aesthetics, etc - because the boobmarines look ridiculous to me as well.

I'll have a closer look at the letters and PM you.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If you don't notice that a nude is nude, you probably need an eye test before you worry about anything else!

My wife just saw the Football Kaelee model in my above post and asked "what the feth is that?"

Responding into the spinoff to keep things separate.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Kingdom Death is about body horror, not hentai...

Much of the body horror contains elements of rape. I wasn't calling KDM hentai, but rather saying that like with hentai there are many more issues with KDM than just the tits.

Man, I was over on Boardgamegeek arguing the differences between sexism and sexualization in the context of KDM, and then there were people talking about how they didn't see any sex in horror, let alone KDM. It was utterly baffling. I was like, "nudity and T&A and rape imagery!" and they were like "wut? pages?" and then "nope, don't see it" then I was like, "ladies, compromised positions, monsters putting things in them"... still nothing.

Argh!

Glad I got that off my chest. And thanks for being sane.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).

 Azazelx wrote:
Well, the thing there is that you're possibly in too deep to have a "normal" perspective on Kev's nudes vs Prodos' nudes. At least compared to someone who doesn't see them on a daily basis as part of your work. We all become somewhat innured to things in our own jobs/lives/circles that would be far from forgettably routine to others. Interesting that you say none of your top selling models are topless or nude - though they clearly sell well enough to be a pretty notable feature of the overall ranges - and the fact that you intercept some of Kev's nudes before they get clothed.

I think an objective observer (not one of Buzzsaw's extreme feminists, but someone reasonable, like me) could go through the HF range and make a decent judgement on which figures are there for prurient reasons and which aren't. And to retread old ground... this one is as much "look, BOOBS!" as the Prodos figures. It's just better sculpted.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I expect thatyou'll disagree, and then we'll simply have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a completely gratuitous figure and pose.

I just got through explaining why I'm not 'in too deep', so I think saying it again might be superfluous. tl;dr I had no dog in the race in past years and thought exactly the same.

As for FF Kalee, she's a variant, I think I mentioned in the other thread somewhere that she was requested as an amazon star player from the existing topless fantasy figure. Doesn't make much sense but she wasn't made that way (Although if someone wanted an Amazon team or player then it's more than possible we'd offer topless versions, it kinda comes with the myth),

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

Ditto for if you do not notice that the crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor.

Prodos has made a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is, I think the main point.

All else aside - the bikini marines are Just. Plain. Stoopid.

The Hasslfree miniatures have the redeeming value of being decent sculpts, even if you think that the subject is indecent.

The bikini marines have no such saving grace.

I will not call them 'porn' - because they aren't.

I will call the armor that they are wearing really stupid - because it is.

There are companies that make more pornographic models that are worse sculpted.

I do not buy from them, either.

I am, in point of fact, more annoyed with the stupid armor than the bikinis - the juxtaposition of heavy armor and an exposed gut... is just plain poor armor design.

I am, further, less offended by the Wargames Exclusive Nekkid Tau with Big Gun miniature - she just isn't wearing her armor, as opposed to wearing armor that will just plain get her killed.

There is no practical reason for the bikini marines to exist.

The Auld Grump

 Artemis Black wrote:

As for FF Kalee, she's a variant, I think I mentioned in the other thread somewhere that she was requested as an amazon star player from the existing topless fantasy figure. Doesn't make much sense but she wasn't made that way

Yep, I'm aware that she's a variant, but the figure is what it is.

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

You know your range better than I do. I'll go look her up.
Yep, she's well over that line. Just change the spear to a "proper" pole and you've got a stripper figure for that bit of urban scenery/diorama.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Ditto for if you do not notice that the crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor.

What?

Prodos has made a crappy sculpt of really stupid armor is, I think the main point.

Arty and I agree on that point.

All else aside - the bikini marines are Just. Plain. Stoopid.

That's a personal and aesthetic opinion. I agree with you, but that's just mine.

The Hasslfree miniatures have the redeeming value of being decent sculpts, even if you think that the subject is indecent.

Not sure if anyone here is claiming that they're "indecent"? Certainly no-one is claiming that they're not decent or better sculpts.

The bikini marines have no such saving grace.

Some of the Prodos models are better technical sculpts than others. The awfully-done boobs bring the others down. Like the winged one. The Daemonette-ish things are decent.

I will not call them 'porn' - because they aren't.

Again, I don't think anyone was calling any of them porn. That one guy started talking about porn, but he was using it as an example compared to the models, not actually calling any of the models porn.

I will call the armor that they are wearing really stupid - because it is.

There were only a few people saying it wasn't. And Prodos. It was funny every time I read it.

There are companies that make more pornographic models that are worse sculpted.

Sure.

I do not buy from them, either.

Okay.

I am, in point of fact, more annoyed with the stupid armor than the bikinis - the juxtaposition of heavy armor and an exposed gut... is just plain poor armor design.

Yes, I agree - though as I noted, it reminds me of one aspect of the Japanese Anime/Manga/Gaming aesthetic design. Shoehorned into not-40k.

I am, further, less offended by the Wargames Exclusive Nekkid Tau with Big Gun miniature - she just isn't wearing her armor, as opposed to wearing armor that will just plain get her killed.

I think that figure is particularly dopey as well. I'm hoping that WE will redo their AdMech models with a few more robes. No reply to that so far.

There is no practical reason for the bikini marines to exist.

Sure there is. Moneys!

The Auld Grump

Agreed.

I would argue that many of the sci fi designs especially of the Gothic horror variety do not have a reason of existence, but get a huge by because of "rule of cool" which is entirely subjective.

One could argue that in Prodos case the huge pauldrons are lightweight protection domes for the energy field that does not stop melee attacks hence the shields and armoured limbs.

The entire combat of their universe can have devolved in gladiatorial combat for all we care.

Point is a stupid paper napkin scribed explanation can be given for any silly design to give it "validation" and I have seen far stupider armour designs as artwork and character models mostly in CG games admittedly.

Is the design really so stupid? more stupid than a jet fighter with a shrine (with candles) on it or less? why does this offend more than say Football Kaelee they share the same level of "stupid design".

I would even argue that quality of craftmanship is not a redeeming value, one could just sigh and comment the talent wasted in such a sculpt.

Overall what is and isn't offensive, what is passable and what is not and what one would proudly show to others or not is subjective and from that comes the various attempts to make a grey subject black and white, there are many models as are other categories in line that are based on "sex sells" arguing that one is morally better than the other and hence it should be excluded from the category is in my opinion silly, all are in the same genre and cater to the same audience.

Personally I do not care much about Prodos game, it raised my interest on the disproportionate flack it got in comparison to virtually every other single project that is in the same genre and my main discussion was with Artemis Black on the morality on mudslinging a competitors product while his company produces models that are in the same genre.

I've got to say I'm pleasantly surprised this thread hasn't turned into an outright slanging match, even with this few posts. Can't say it'll last for another one or two pages, so here goes.

TheAuldGrump wrote:Ral Partha, way back when, had more than their fair share of bottomless male orcs, goblins, ghouls, and satyrs - and the models were not overly sexualized.

With wargaming still a largely nerdy-male hobby, I've little doubt that those weren't supposed to be sexualised. More 'uncivilised', I guess. If you do find someone selling sexualised naked ghouls and goblins, maybe take a couple of steps back.

I agree that there are different levels of tastefulness. (Difficult to pinpoint what that difference is between two nudes. Level of eroticness? Titillation?) Although, without wishing to misrepresent the big respect I have for Kev, I think something like Hasslefree's Artemis still finds a big portion of it's audience through the male gaze. More a mini to be looked at for it's curves than to be gamed with. More of a costumed model (or... uncostumed, as the case may be) than a warrior.
YMMV. I see it as a little like the painting of Ben Stiller's character in Dodgeball - kind of innocently presented as an artistic portrayal of an idealised human form, a fighter even, but... yeah.

Never one to back down from letting others argue for me, there's a trio of tumblrs I occasionally visit, here:

http://eschergirls.tumblr.com
http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com
http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com

The latter two probably more relevant to this topic of undress; and the last one, as it says, is home to the excellent female armour bingo cards. Now, you might roll your eyes at the mere mention of tumblr. You might disagree with some of the arguments there. Or you might find the outrage heavy going, even if you agree with it. But if there's one thing I've taken away from them, it's the sheer prevalence and normalisation of the straight male gaze in nerd culture and art, sexualising everything from comics to video games to gaming miniatures. So much is just taken for granted, even little things, that're just there to say "hey you guys, this one's got boobs!" And there's so little to the contrary, in comparison.
It's why Prodos thought that ridiculous first version of their powered armour was okay to design and show off. Shieldwolf was mentioned - I'd hazard they think they're being big badasses by producing minis of tough fighting women. No chainmail bikinis here, no sir! Only... chainmail crop tops and mini skirts.

Not to say I'm not subject to 'gazing' myself, but it's not what I got into gaming for. Heck, I'll say it insults my intelligence to assume I'll leap at some mini or other product because it's flashing cleavage. But I don't think it's entirely up to me. To inject just a little agency into the discussion, I think it might be useful to see what women are producing (or commissioning, or stocking) for their own independent shops and ranges. Male sex fantasies? Bare midriff armour? Tasteful nudes?

The first two that spring to mind are Bad Squidoo and Victoria Miniatures. Mmyep.

Sorry to say that I can't think of any others. Are there any? Is it wrong to think that's sort of indicative of the situation, too?

I just checked, to make sure I hadn't forgotten anything, and not a single one of our top 10 selling minis is in a state of undress.

In fact the only 2 unclothed figures breaking the top 20 are because they were new releases in the last yr. They drop out of the top 20 if I change it to the last 6 months.

The majority of our top 20 best selling figures are fully clothed females.

We don't stick boobs on things as a selling point unless you take it literally


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

(I would definitely have gone with Gayle for the argument, she's easily the closest figure to crossing the line, and I wouldn't argue if someone said she did)

You know your range better than I do. I'll go look her up.
Yep, she's well over that line. Just change the spear to a "proper" pole and you've got a stripper figure for that bit of urban scenery/diorama.

Actually, my problem with the mini is the opposite. If it 'was' a pole I'd be fine with it, because it'd be a miniature of a pole dancer.

Like I said, I dislike concepts not miniatures.

I'm really appreciative that this discussion is being given a civil exploration.
I hope it can continue.

It is hard for me to comment on cheesecake vs tasteful vs etc when one of the companies raised is Hasslefree. They are easily one of my favourite minis companies, great people. Sally has been personally very supportive to me in my home life.

But I don't enjoy their nudes. They're often beautifully done. They're often realistically proportioned. They're a cut above.
But to me they are part of a larger flawed culture. That's not the fault of Kev, the buyers or the painters. I cannot say I have ill feelings toward anyone.
But when I am faced with a small naked woman, I'm reminded of the bigger picture. That gaming culture is gradually improving, but it's not an equal playing field. That sexualised women are still used to sell product. That women are not catered for as widely as guys. They're less welcome, often resented or the butt of jokes in the culture.

So no, for me it's not wholy about the minis, they're a tiny fraction of a wider discomfort. But I can't say they help.
I am not offended by them. I'm tired.

Joyboozer wrote:
If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, you're a stereotypical heterosexual male. Guys like looking at attractive naked women. Put a sculpture of an attractive naked woman in front of them, and they'll notice it's an attractive naked woman.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, its bad art.
The reason the nudity jumps out so much on the Prodos porn, is because the sculpts have no other redeeming features, and I'm guessing they aren't supposed to.

If the first thing you notice about something is the nudity, you're a stereotypical heterosexual male. Guys like looking at attractive naked women. Put a sculpture of an attractive naked woman in front of them, and they'll notice it's an attractive naked woman.

Yeah, I have to agree with Alex on this. As a male, if there is a naked woman in a room full of flowers, I'm pretty sure I'll notice the lady before picking out the three different colors of roses. Its just the way I'm wired.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm really appreciative that this discussion is being given a civil exploration.
I hope it can continue.

It is hard for me to comment on cheesecake vs tasteful vs etc when one of the companies raised is Hasslefree. They are easily one of my favourite minis companies, great people. Sally has been personally very supportive to me in my home life.

But I don't enjoy their nudes. They're often beautifully done. They're often realistically proportioned. They're a cut above.
But to me they are part of a larger flawed culture. That's not the fault of Kev, the buyers or the painters. I cannot say I have ill feelings toward anyone.
But when I am faced with a small naked woman, I'm reminded of the bigger picture. That gaming culture is gradually improving, but it's not an equal playing field. That sexualised women are still used to sell product. That women are not catered for as widely as guys. They're less welcome, often resented or the butt of jokes in the culture.

So no, for me it's not wholy about the minis, they're a tiny fraction of a wider discomfort. But I can't say they help.
I am not offended by them. I'm tired.

Hmm. I'm kinda loathe to reply because it'll take the slight tangent of yours and veer it further off course again, but I figure this is a run-off from the other thread so probably a bit more tolerant of tangents

Unrelated to miniatures, I disagree. I think, in fact, that thinking that way is almost as bad of a problem as the thing you are rightly railing against.

I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.

In real life the agency of the people involved is all-important. An attractive woman who realises that she can use the fact she's considered attractive to make money should be commended. It's a birth lottery in much the same way as a high IQ, or being tall and athletic etc. Part of using attractiveness to make money can easily involve sexuality, or nudity.

To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing. And I'll hold my hands up to that being a bit of a cop out because it' is very difficult to argue the point without being way more word than I am even now Basically I saw the pornmarines on FB, mentioned in a chat room that I thought it was utterly ridiculous that a large company was releasing a game of such nonsense in this day and age, they linked me to this thread and I felt strongly enough about it to show up here (much like I felt strongly about the scale lying the lasttime). It really does take a fair bit to get me to invade a thread on a forum I don't regularly use and speak up. I would never have done that for anything we sell (If I saw an army of figures like Gayle then I probably would have, it's pre-me and I'm not discontinuing a 10yr old mini because of my personal views),

I'd also like to raise a point about something that always comes up in these sort of threads and that is the idea of "realistically proportioned". I see some people using it to decry against some of these pin up or sexy styled models. But what really is realistically proportioned?



These are the natural states of the female body. But its a drawing, is it real? Well... what about this?




I'd argue that many of the pin up body styles are a mix of 3 and 4 and 40 - 80.

Larger boobs followed by a thin waist and good hips. But going back to the first diagram an inverted triangle body style would lead of a much larger breast region. But then you have other who love the standard triangle body style one which emphases a larger buttock region.

These are all standard female body types. What I think people actually have problems with is the posing. There are some classic pin-up poses that get used. Thse usually involve accentuating the hip area either to the side or the butt sticking out further to the rear. Basically any pose that would become uncomfortable if actually attempted for a moment of time longer than five minutes. These poses are used to invoke a sexual interest if not actually arousal. However, these poses are not in themselves unrealistic. Just watch a pole dancer as they contort their body into these same positions. But its not just them. Its pretty much all profession dancers, or ice skaters, or pretty much any artistic dancing form. Heck ever watch professional Tango or Samba dancers. Or anyone really into yoga. Some of those positions are well.... dirty thought inducing to say the least.

Now, lets talk accessories. This is where the real line can be drawn... or can it? Maybe if you take your wargaming as serious business then floating armor or boob plate is completely unacceptable. But for others who take it as a get away to imagination land, there may not be any issues with it at all. And that is where it all becomes subjective and up to personal opinion. We are each trying to get something out of this hobby for ourselves and the direction that each individual takes is completely their own.

 Vermis wrote:

It's why Prodos thought that ridiculous first version of their powered armour was okay to design and show off. Shieldwolf was mentioned - I'd hazard they think they're being big badasses by producing minis of tough fighting women. No chainmail bikinis here, no sir! Only... chainmail crop tops and mini skirts.

I'm mostly done with the discussion myself, but a couple of points worth mentioning. Back before the aborted Shieldwolf KS-2 they had a poll for more armoured females vs essentially cheescake ones. The armoured ones were winning pretty nicely over the course of it, and a fair few of us were gunning for a "Lagertha" vibe. Then some douchebags decided to refresh their cookies and broke the poll by attempting to cheat badly (cookie refresh, vote again), which was easy enough to figure out since the near-nudes rocketed up within the last day or two.

SW settled on their chainmail croptops and bikinis, but many people have continued pushing for more armour, and it seems we've gotten as far as covered midriffs joining the sprues. Since we're now looking at neck to knee, I'm happy with that. My male vikings have about that much armour, after all. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they have cleavage. I expect bare arms, since the arms are going to go with either models, but I can live with that. Still, it's nice to see a manufacturer willing to listen well enough to get us from war bikinis to significant coverage.

Not to say I'm not subject to 'gazing' myself, but it's not what I got into gaming for. Heck, I'll say it insults my intelligence to assume I'll leap at some mini or other product because it's flashing cleavage. But I don't think it's entirely up to me. To inject just a little agency into the discussion, I think it might be useful to see what women are producing (or commissioning, or stocking) for their own independent shops and ranges. Male sex fantasies? Bare midriff armour? Tasteful nudes?
The first two that spring to mind are Bad Squidoo and Victoria Miniatures. Mmyep.
Sorry to say that I can't think of any others. Are there any? Is it wrong to think that's sort of indicative of the situation, too?

Well, since you ask, I saw this the other day:

Grim Skull Miniatures via Facebook wrote:
Here's the new ‪#‎wip‬ hottie from our female 3D designer.
Yes, girls know how to make those right! wink emoticon

https://www.facebook.com/grimskullminis/photos/pcb.584393465056987/584392921723708/?type=3
Wargame Exclusive seem to be the retail arm? of Grim Skull? Or something? perhaps they commission their sculpts from GS? There's some sort of affiliation between them, anwyay.

 Artemis Black wrote:

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing.

See, that's fine. But which is which comes down to personal opinion. Because you're not the god of where exactly that line lies any more than I or anyone else in the world is, and frankly, the same model (image, etc) can be sexist and sexualised - they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Football Kaelee might be a conversion, or a custom job, and based off a different sculpt, no intent... whatever. Ultimately, that's all hurfblurf and the final product is what it is.

And in case there's any confusion, I don't dislike that model. I probably wouldn't buy it since there's other stuff I'd rather spend the funds on, but if it were given to me for free by someone I'd at least intend to eventually paint it.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
In response to the prodos thing, yeah, I think a lot of it is that there's nothing redeeming. It feels like there was no attempt at anything other than a grab & smash T&A fest, and therefore offensive (besides stupid and lowest common denominator).

I disagree with the Prodos miniatures not having any redeeming qualities. However, the second part of your statement is the only real reason I can see people being offended. I like (some of) the miniatures and I thought that was rather transparent as well.

I'm also not really ashamed or embarrassed by my hobbies and am not trying to uphold any great ideals with my pastimes. Friends, family, and strangers have rolled their eyes and openly mocked and belittled things I enjoy, and that's fine. It's their opinion on tabletop miniatures, D&D, video games, sci-fi, fantasy, the car I drive, etc. The subject matter is rather irrelevant to them and it rarely gets that far. Once someone observes that I'm playing a video game at all, it's usually a negative reaction (unless they play as well). So arguing that certain models (for whatever reason) demean us all and invalidate the hobby in the eyes of non-gamers is kind of a moot point, in my opinion.

Like Azazelx, I consider myself not to be easily offended, especially not by depictions of things. So maybe that kind of disqualifies me from commenting here.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Artemis Black wrote:

I've said in the other thread that if you can't see the difference between, what are to me, a sexualised mini and a sexist one, then there's no point in arguing.

See, that's fine. But which is which comes down to personal opinion. Because you're not the god of where exactly that line lies any more than I or anyone else in the world is, and frankly, the same model (image, etc) can be sexist and sexualised - they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Football Kaelee might be a conversion, or a custom job, and based off a different sculpt, no intent... whatever. Ultimately, that's all hurfblurf and the final product is what it is.

And in case there's any confusion, I don't dislike that model. I probably wouldn't buy it since there's other stuff I'd rather spend the funds on, but if it were given to me for free by someone I'd at least intend to eventually paint it.

Well there's no need to go down the 'that's only your opinion route, that way lies pointlessness. Of course it's only my opinion. I suppose I could get some kind of consensus but even that is iffy ground. I'm not going to write 'in my opinion' in front of everything The boobmarines are what I find sexist and I don't want them on a shelf in a hobby store, I would quite like it if they weren't available at all but that route gets a bit grey to me with regards to censorship etc. I said much the same about the recent Brother Vinni Indiegogo, he was less of a problem because he's basically a niche dealer. It's like not bothering to go out of your way to campaign against some daft japanese video game about simulated rape you can only buy through some dodgy website but then coming on strong if it turns up on the shelves of Blockbuster (I know they've gone bust, but I don't know which country you're from so I picked a universally recognisable name ).

And yes, Football Kalee is what she is, a fantasy football player for a team who's mythos includes fighting with bared breasts. It might be 'stupid', and the mythos may be heavily influenced by a male oriented society, but it is an actual thing. Like I said, you shoulda picked a different mini cos this is gonna remain my argument for it because that's what I see when I look at it, a mini based on a silly but recognisable concept. I have no argument for the other one, it's daft cheesecake and it's probably my least favourite mini concept we sell.

I'm going to reply here to a post there.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I think its important to point out, I fundamentally disagree that it is appropriate to use the terms 'sexism' or 'bigotry' with regards to models.

In what way? Are you making a semantics argument? I think it's pretty clear that when we call a miniature sexist we do not mean that the inanimate object itself holds sexist opinions, but rather that the sculptor's work was in some way informed by a sexist intent or internalized prejudice. For example, the early RH minis were all knock-kneed and pigeon toed because the sculptor considered that an inherent quality in how a woman stands or poses. I'm not sure how you can look at something like that and not see the expression of a sexist perspective.

Are you saying you don't even find any sexist qualities in Brother Vinnie's Eastern European sex slave minis? I'm confused about your meaning.

That said, I must point out that my feelings are not the basis of my point: those "people [that] can't differentiate degrees" are feminists,

I'm talking to you and everyone else here about our opinions, not about the kinds of irrational edge cases we can all find on the internet. I'm not interested in the kinds of uncompromising idealists who end up taking the hard road to "Firefly is a TV show about rape normalization."

I've known plenty of feminists who can understand the difference between degrees--it is often necessary in order to make progress instead of sabotaging progress because it isn't total victory.

Incidentally, let's also be clear that you are agreeing with me that Hasslefree and Prodos are both in what you would broadly refer to as "the sexist camp". Which, needless to say, is a direct challenge to what Artemis Black is stating.

Yes. I agreed with your post except for the statement that there are no degrees in sexism. I don't believe I have responded directly to Artemis Black, although I was quite entertained by his throw-down with Prodos. I think he has a few cogent points despite his glass house. I suppose it is a matter of degrees.

I was going to go on a long, wordy bit about sexism, feminism, etc, etc, but let's be reasonable: I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. It's nothing to do with this product, but a lifetimes worth of experiences, reasoning and moral/philosophical differences.

I find arguments are often more helpful in collating and improving my own understanding of a subject. Sometimes they force me to reevaluate.

So I'll avoid that and leave it at 'agree to dissagree' on the sexism, but I think we're both in agreement that the newer sculpts actually look pretty good, yes? I mean, some of this is good stuff;







These actually look pretty good. Which brings us to a question actually related to the thread (Gasp!): what are (excluding the kickstarter) people's experience with buying from Prodos in the USA?

They look good, although the Necronlady's pose is awkward, with action-packed Marvel Comics leg spacing and Perry Miniatures-style waiting-for-something-to-get-interesting arms. I guess she could be playing the game where she has to stand on the small squares because the big squares are lava..?

The Chaos Terminatrix looks good except for her shirt being all crumpled. It looks less like armor and more like laundry day.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But what really is realistically proportioned?

Gigantic tits are probably a bad place to start.

I have no issue at all with nudity and/or overt sexuality if, and in wargaming terms its a huge if, it fits with the context/concept of the model. I wouldn't expect a Celtic fanatic to be wearing pants nor would I expect a Necromundan Escher ganger to be frumpy. The problem with most female miniatures is that they fall within the sexualised camp for no good reason.

The female Caledonian Volunteer by Corvus Belli is a perfect example..

Compared with:

One of these things is not like the other.

Some people like 'cheesecake' but it seems to me that the default setting for female miniatures is 'tits out' and that is something that I find irritating and childish.

 Artemis Black wrote:

Well there's no need to go down the 'that's only your opinion route, that way lies pointlessness. Of course it's only my opinion. I suppose I could get some kind of consensus but even that is iffy ground. I'm not going to write 'in my opinion' in front of everything The boobmarines are what I find sexist and I don't want them on a shelf in a hobby store, I would quite like it if they weren't available at all but that route gets a bit grey to me with regards to censorship etc. I said much the same about the recent Brother Vinni Indiegogo, he was less of a problem because he's basically a niche dealer. It's like not bothering to go out of your way to campaign against some daft japanese video game about simulated rape you can only buy through some dodgy website but then coming on strong if it turns up on the shelves of Blockbuster (I know they've gone bust, but I don't know which country you're from so I picked a universally recognisable name ).

Well, ultimately that's where we're going to end up, since we agree in theory to some extent, but draw the line in different places. If we're each going to speak in absolutes as though we're the decider and arbiter, we'll be at confrontational loggerheads forever rather than simply agreeing to disagree - which I think is the best you and I are going to come to.

See, I don't care who stocks them - because the market will ultimately decide whether they're around in 2 year's time or not. Or to put it another way, this range might still be available direct from Prodos in 2 years, but I wouldn't be putting money on them being stocked in many retail (or online) outlets by then. Nature will run its course.

And yes, Football Kalee is what she is, a fantasy football player for a team who's mythos includes fighting with bared breasts. It might be 'stupid', and the mythos may be heavily influenced by a male oriented society, but it is an actual thing. Like I said, you shoulda picked a different mini cos this is gonna remain my argument for it because that's what I see when I look at it, a mini based on a silly but recognisable concept. I have no argument for the other one, it's daft cheesecake and it's probably my least favourite mini concept we sell.

I don't believe I called it stupid, but I think it's a fine example of a figure that is very easily viewed as just as sexist and gratuitous as the Prodos boobmarines. We can either agree to disagree on this as well, or we can back and forth headbutting one another on it until one of us gets bored (I'm pretty close already, TBH), because you shouldn't think that you're going to change my opinion on it by suggesting that I shoulda chosen a different figure, and I feel you've made your own perspective quite clear as well.

And, you know, some of the Prodos stuff can claim to be based off an actual thing/trope just as easily. Because it clearly is.

weeble1000 wrote:
The Space Crusade models and artwork that we are discussing are sexually objectifying. I do not think it is an issue of aesthetics. You can have a 'good' and a 'bad' drawing of sexually objectified female. The execution is immaterial.

The Space Crusade models are not objectifying, they are objects. They are tiny little sculptures of imaginary people from an imaginary place in an imaginary army. As long as you respect the barrier between fiction and reality, you might as well be declaring anyone who buys Space Marines endorses eugenics and murderous theocratic dictatorships.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
But what really is realistically proportioned?

Gigantic tits are probably a bad place to start.

I have no issue at all with nudity and/or overt sexuality if, and in wargaming terms its a huge if, it fits with the context/concept of the model. I wouldn't expect a Celtic fanatic to be wearing pants nor would I expect a Necromundan Escher ganger to be frumpy. The problem with most female miniatures is that they fall within the sexualised camp for no good reason.

The female Caledonian Volunteer by Corvus Belli is a perfect example..

Compared with:

One of these things is not like the other.

Some people like 'cheesecake' but it seems to me that the default setting for female miniatures is 'tits out' and that is something that I find irritating and childish.

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!



The models on the ends are female. Aside from some boob armour, they're not sexualised.



That guy with the missile launcher? Look close, there's boob armour. That's a female, not sexualised.



Left and center right? You got it.



Models on the ends? Uh huh.

Corvus Belli make a wide range of models. Some females are sexualised, some are absolutely not. Sexualised females are not Corvus Bellis 'default female'.

 -Loki- wrote:

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!

I wasn't cherry picking, that was just the example that came instantly to mind as I was looking to make a Caledonian sectoral list a few years ago and frankly the above is one of the things that put me of.

Even so those linked female minis are still most definitely in the 'big tits' camp.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Yes. I agreed with your post except for the statement that there are no degrees in sexism.

Only if you care to split straws, to somebody who does not care to make the distinction, there is none, same goes for redeeming values, there are if the observer cares to give them, both are entirely subjective.

To me, the Highlander girl is one of Corvus Belli's deliberately sexy comedy figures, like the cat girl medic. Most of their female figures are sensibly equipped.

The old style Odalisques are deliberately sexualised, because part of their role supposedly is to seduce enemies (this makes no sense in skirmish combat, of course, but what the hell... Look up the derivation of the word odalisque for background.)

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Oh oh oh! I can cherry pick too!

I wasn't cherry picking, that was just the example that came instantly to mind as I was looking to make a Caledonian sectoral list a few years ago and frankly the above is one of the things that put me of.

Even so those linked female minis are still most definitely in the 'big tits' camp.

Sorry, but it was cherry picking. You picked one sexualised sculpt, and said it was the default way of doing females.

You can't even see the boob armour on the Jannisarys and Govads unless you're looking for them. The others, yes, they're large, but none of them are sexualised. They're in combat poses, wearing the same gear as their male counterparts. They just happen to have boob armour, which without them, they'd just look like the males. While that is what female soldiers look like in real life, at 28mm you don't have the luxury of having a face detailed enough to look female - they'd just look like skinny men. Slightly exaggerated things like boob armour and non practical hair are easy ways to show that a model is female without going into the ridiculously sexualised.

Not saying that CB don't do sexualised females, just arguing your idea that it's the default option.