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.

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?

Hell I'd paint them and put on a shelf right for all to see with pride.

Paint camouflage bikinis on them?

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.

If you don't want them, why not sell them to someone who has no shame in putting them on the table.

 mondo80 wrote:
If you don't want them, why not sell them to someone who has no shame in putting them on the table.

This, there are enough lechers who don't mind and you get a buck out of it.

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.

To help with that, I'd paint them a completely off color other than normal flesh.

That way, if the context is not taken well...they're androids, or robots, or pleasure machines...cylons. Etc. Might be easier to take.

They're nude models, nude isn't a bad thing but I know how American's can be about boobs at times.

Paint them up and display them if that's what you do with all your models.

Of course I'm assuming that you don't have a room full of Cheesecake models, then that might be strange......

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.

Paint em up and take them to the store, if you're lucky they'll be some sjw's to trigger.

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......

Well GW themselves put out six bewbed demonetes so really it's hard to argue someone playing a slanesh army shouldn't use lewd models.

Yeah, but Slaanesh is about to get squatted into oblivion once the 40k End Times get around to him/her.

I don't have any problems with lewd models, but personally I don't paint them myself. Just haven't seen any that appeal enough to me want to paint.

Really depends on the context and venue.

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.

I am getting the flesh eater court army specifically because they are naked.

 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

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

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.

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.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Distasteful is... subjective, at best.

never said it wasn't.

not worrying about the shame involved with tiny little naked statues makes my world just a little bit bigger and more interesting than yours.

Never mentioned shame, said I found it distasteful. And if you're bringing up subjectivity, "my life's better than yours"? Really?

Why change them to be more prudish? What have you really accomplished except build a monument to your own sense of moral righteousness?.

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.

You are a blight on artistic expression, unworthy of buying Kingdom Death miniatures in the first place.

wow,aren't you mr. sunshine?

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:


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.

Art is subjective. All art.

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.