No, not just the fact they don't mind if they get painted with oil or enamel or arcylic, but why can't I buy a female model who isn't impossibly busty and / or "dressed" like a whore?
I recently purchased some bits to create an avatar of Myrmidia (basically, a 54mm female knight with wings) for WFB. And I would like to have some attendants for her - I thought it would be cool to have some armored females; nuns in heavy armour kind of thing. GW doesn't do a lot of models in that style (there is the Sisters of Sigmar, but they are very Sigmarite - I want swords and spears, not hammers) so I looked elsewhere.
Oh sweet merciful Jesus, tell me why there is NO-ONE who sculpts models who didn't learn what women are like SOLELY from Jim Balent comics? And, if the Son of God is too busy dying for my sins to tell me, can a Dakkaite answer this?
Case in point - Werner Knocke's work. I bought a 54mm model of his, and it is a nice model and not too bad (although my wife did say "She has a very big chest" which, coming from my wife, is kinda like me saying "He's very Catholic") - but look at the rest of his stuff!
And it's not just him - Dark Elf Witch Elves I understand (they are part of a sadistic sex / death cult), same with Daemonettes. But, seriously guys - this is a fantasy game so I should be able to have female models doing traditionally male roles (like fighter etc.) Can I please have a model or two who is not dressed like a freaking whore? Some practical armor? Maybe if she actually covered her bumpers?
Does anyone have any comments - or perhaps somewhere where I can purchase heroic 28mm (or even 28mm or 25mm) female figures in armor which are NOT dressed like the hostesses at the local Spearmint Rhino?
I think it has too do with majority of the sculptors being male. Also think about the modeling on the faces of these and other female figs. Most female faces aside from the long hair are rather bland and not too distinguishable from male models. The easiest way to make the model stand out as female aside from a fruity pose is to slap a DD rack on there or throw some junk in the trunk.
Good luck on the hunt, but I would'nt hold my breath.
I think it has a lot to do with the miniatures not getting enough attention from their miniature family, especially miniature daddy, so now they're getting drunk in crappy bars and showing off in front of a hundred strangers with a camera for a free t-shirt.
Remember, a miniature who will sleep with anyone is a slut; a miniature who will sleep with anyone but you is a bitch.
RxGhost wrote:I think it has a lot to do with the miniatures not getting enough attention from their miniature family, especially miniature daddy, so now they're getting drunk in crappy bars and showing off in front of a hundred strangers with a camera for a free t-shirt.
Remember, a miniature who will sleep with anyone is a slut; a miniature who will sleep with anyone but you is a bitch.
No, not just the fact they don't mind if they get painted with oil or enamel or arcylic, but why can't I buy a female model who isn't impossibly busty and / or "dressed" like a whore?
I recently purchased some bits to create an avatar of Myrmidia (basically, a 54mm female knight with wings) for WFB. And I would like to have some attendants for her - I thought it would be cool to have some armored females; nuns in heavy armour kind of thing. GW doesn't do a lot of models in that style (there is the Sisters of Sigmar, but they are very Sigmarite - I want swords and spears, not hammers) so I looked elsewhere.
Oh sweet merciful Jesus, tell me why there is NO-ONE who sculpts models who didn't learn what women are like SOLELY from Jim Balent comics? And, if the Son of God is too busy dying for my sins to tell me, can a Dakkaite answer this?
Case in point - Werner Knocke's work. I bought a 54mm model of his, and it is a nice model and not too bad (although my wife did say "She has a very big chest" which, coming from my wife, is kinda like me saying "He's very Catholic") - but look at the rest of his stuff!
And it's not just him - Dark Elf Witch Elves I understand (they are part of a sadistic sex / death cult), same with Daemonettes. But, seriously guys - this is a fantasy game so I should be able to have female models doing traditionally male roles (like fighter etc.) Can I please have a model or two who is not dressed like a freaking whore? Some practical armor? Maybe if she actually covered her bumpers?
Does anyone have any comments - or perhaps somewhere where I can purchase heroic 28mm (or even 28mm or 25mm) female figures in armor which are NOT dressed like the hostesses at the local Spearmint Rhino?
I agree. Not to drag your topic OT, but have query-please check your PM.
You have to also keep in mind that this is a male dominated hobby. There's always some amount of fan service associated with hobbies with these kinds of demographics.
The same trend is noticeable in Video Games (though that's getting a bit better as of late) and the most common super power.
Not that I'm saying I don't agree with you, just saying that the main target audience of the hobby tend to gravitate toward buxom and scantily clad women.
On the plus side, a lot of Reaper minis tend to be ok.
Two-fold simple answer: Most sculptors are male geeks, male geeks are to sluts as the pious are to heaven (they've never been there, and probably won't ever get there, but they still spend their whole lives trying to).
Secondly, sex sells. Sluts sell. Sales mean capital, capital means the ability to sculpt MORE SLUTS! Who can argue with MORE SLUTS?!
That being said I actually think GW (for all their inability to actually sculpt a believable female face) have made some of the most conservative female minis in the past (they're rare but they happen, the few female Guardsmen minis come to mind).
A reason I think I've seen posted, aside from the obvious ("sex sells"), is that it's the easiest way to differentiate male/female models at such a small scale.
As someone who used to spend hours in art class, sculpting and painting the female form is a pain in the ass for one MAJOR reason..... the person modeling for you is an image obsessed hormonal killing machine. sculpt the boobs too small or the ass not firm enough and they b**ch. And it doesn't matter if the way you sculpt or paint it is the way it actually looks..... And heaven forbid you should make the woman weigh what she actually weighs.... For example, with the Lord of the Rings Models, The lead female elf from the movie actually was sculpted around 3-5 times. Every other model based on the movie actors was sculpted once or twice. Each time the actress sent the sculpt back saying she didn't like it. Finally, the sculpter gave the model much bigger cleavage and a smaller waistline, and we have the model we have today. A woman will argue with a mirror..... of course she's going to argue with the sculpter about how she thinks she should look.
Werner Klocke is a terrible sculptor. All of his stuff basically looks the same. Kev white does decent women, although most of them have the same pornstar physique you describe. Some of them are based off his wife though - those aren't so bad.
Really, this needed to be asked? I always thought it was obvious... Because they're sculpted by horny, geeky, gamer guys, and purchased by horny, geeky, gamer guys. I don't want to spend my $ on something wearing a damn sweater... MMmm, sweater cows!
I think you need to bear in mind this is "fantasy"....its a fact of life that sexual needs fulfill many peoples fantasies.....in the same way as massively armoured men, large guns and aliens who bleed acid.
To ask why? about the female sexual side, means, to be balanced, you need to ask why? regarding all the other facets of the fantasy genre! Is one worse than the other?
If you want reasonably dressed female fighters, try out Dark Sword miniatures, they do a lot of different stuff based on D&D I think, and you can find some ok dressed women in there. Here are a few examples:
I do get the notion that there is a signifiant number of hobbyists who are horny teens (or think like teens) who want to objectify women - but surely there are enough people who DON'T want that?
I am not arguing for all female models to be completely realistic (this is, they are in armor there is very little to differentiate) - I think the notion of fantasy female armor (i.e. shaped overly like a woman) is a good one for a fantasy game. I would just like to be able to get SOME models who are wearing armor which actually functions as armor.
Also, on the whole objectification of women by gamer geeks - okay, it is to be expect from a certain age of man (and even, because of the media's influence, from ALL men to a certain degree) but . . . heck, guys! It's a one-inch-tall piece of metal!
I can understand a desire to have posters on the wall, or books of art or glossy magazines, or even pornography. But seriously - does sex sell SO MUCH that something that small sells via its sexuality?
I wonder if there is not a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy here - namely that sculptors make these things because they think they will sell, and gamers buy them because they think they are supposed to buy them - NOT because they genuinely find the models attractive.
As an example, someone posted a (lovely) model on another thread as an example of an alternative Calidius assassin. Great model - woman in tight leather armor with a cloak and sword. Okay, so she is in a catsuit - but that is okay ....
... until you turn her around, and not only is she wearing a thong, but she is (unnaturally) pulling her cloak aside so you can see her ass!
I dunno - it just seems like the female minatures are being sculpted for the lowest common denominator, and it is kinda embarassing. It's like going to a hobby shop and finding the walls covered in Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo art - great stuff, but it is basically soft-core porn. It is just embarassing for those of us who AREN'T horny 13 year olds.
I will check out Hasslefree - I have heard good things about them.
Hmm, I think the OP is over simplifying this. Yes, there are way too many female models that are baring way too much. But if I understand, the question is "can there be obviously female models without being hyper-feminine." And while I think there can be, keep in mind the limitations of the scale. A six foot tall figure is roughly 30mm, a breast is roughly 6" across if you're lucky, so a well endowed female in real scale would have breasts roughly 2.5mm across. that's pretty small, so much like guns, heads, hands, and eyes are; the breasts are upsized so they show up in scale.
As for the target demo, keep in mind that many women also like hyper feminized models. As has been pointed out, it's hard to show that a model is female if they're in armor.
Finally, even GW has a pretty decent range of female figures that aren't embarrassing. The WH inquisitors, howling banshees, the old catachan grenade launcher, warrior woman and rocket girl, etc.
There are plenty of non-slutty female models in the Privateer lines. There's a fair share of slutty ones two, but they tend to represent characters who are supposed to be slutty, like Satyxis.
Polonius wrote:Hmm, I think the OP is over simplifying this. Yes, there are way too many female models that are baring way too much. But if I understand, the question is "can there be obviously female models without being hyper-feminine." And while I think there can be, keep in mind the limitations of the scale. A six foot tall figure is roughly 30mm, a breast is roughly 6" across if you're lucky, so a well endowed female in real scale would have breasts roughly 2.5mm across. that's pretty small, so much like guns, heads, hands, and eyes are; the breasts are upsized so they show up in scale.
As for the target demo, keep in mind that many women also like hyper feminized models. As has been pointed out, it's hard to show that a model is female if they're in armor.
Finally, even GW has a pretty decent range of female figures that aren't embarrassing. The WH inquisitors, howling banshees, the old catachan grenade launcher, warrior woman and rocket girl, etc.
I am not complaining about hyper-feminization - that is necessary at this scale. I am complaining about the fact it is very difficult to find models of women which are not, in some way, dressed provocatively and inappropriately.
A barbarian queen dressed in a fur bikini is a good idea. It is appropriate. A female near-naked Spartan hoplite is (while utterly ahistorical) appropriate.
A member of a religious order who is NOT given over to the goddess of lust or somesuch wearing a thong and a loincloth and with cleavage down to her navel is NOT appropriate. She can be shapely and sexy, but she needs to we wearing something appropriate.
Historically, women wore a variety of costumes which were provocative - low-cut dresses, corsets etc. etc. And a hyperfeminized model with large breasts, narrow waist, long legs and wide hips dressed like that would be fine.
Heck, I am not advocating some puritan "no naked women!" On another thread, I actually complained that a photograph of a female minature had censored the evil nipples (nipples, as all men of learning know, corrupt children who can never look at them - blindfold your kids while breastfeeding!)
I just object to the "default" for a female model to be dressed far more provocatively / skimpily than her male counterpart. And I was very disappointed by what I found with certain minatures lines where women were basically wearing half a suit of plate armor, and flashing a lot of breast and thigh.
Hasselfree seems to offer me more options, and I do like their stuff. But there is a serious point here - how many of us want to be known as "those guys who play with miniature sex dolls"? 'Cause that is, sadly enough, what many of these figures are.
GW makes plenty of appropriately armored/clothed models: Eldar, Wood Elves, Sisters of Sigmar, Sisters of Battle, Female Inquisitor, Bretonnian Sorceress, High Elves, etc
Privateer Press makes plenty of appropriately armored/clothed models: Skarre, Alexia Cannor, Makeda, Captain Haley, Tharn Blood Trackers, etc
Reaper makes plenty of appropriately armored/clothed models: Warlord Line, Dark Heavens line
Rackham makes plenty of appropriately armored/clothed models: Lions, Griffons, Elves, AT-43 stuff.
Some of the companies also make the "sluts" that you are talking about. I think you are overreacting though.
I am modding them for 40K so SF bits are getting added.
I hate to admit it, but as we are on the subject, I am modding a few of the other Hasslefree women into 'hoes'. Again, I have a totally legitimate reason.
I wouldn't be horrified - nor even particularly surprised. I was merely objecting to the prevelance of slutty models.
And as for GWs stuff being "non-slutty" - well, some of the examples you give are, frankly, kinda sexualized. The Sisters of Sigmar novices are wearing mini-skirts. That is totally inappropriate for what they are supposed to me. I admit that the female plastics are good - because they are just the male plastics with bumps in the chest armor!
As for the other companies, yes, there are other miniatures. Perhaps saying ALL female miniatures are sluts is a bit much.
Still, the fact of the matter is you don't have to look hard to find semi-naked women dressed inappropriately. And I found it difficult to find women who were not showing something they really shouldn't for the job they do.
A poledancer dressed in nothing is cool - you want a poledancer for your game? Then you need a poledancer. You want an army of warrior nuns?
Great - but they should wear clothes!
I think there is a wider issue here - Julie Bell et al have done this to death. And modern comics - superheroines are generally speaking showing too much flesh. I understand the need for a catsuit - that is what guys wear too - but why are they showing so much flesh?
The most egregious example for me was the Magdalena - the concept was really cool, but she was dressed ludicrously. It ruined any sense of realism the story had for me (and, to be honest, it was pretty realistic, in a "DVC RCC" kinda way).
I personally don't really care a model having big boobs or anything has never made me want to buy it and hell I'm 18 so thats my thing. The thing is this is a male dominated game and guys rather the overexsagerated girl over a normal one anyday. Why? not really cuz they are obsessed with its boobies but because I think it makes it stick out as a female more. In the end I'd say just get over it "wahhh they all got big boobies girls in RL don't look like that!" Its a game the sculpters sculpt it sells they get profit don't like it scuplt yourself.
Darknight wrote:I can understand a desire to have posters on the wall, or books of art or glossy magazines, or even pornography. But seriously - does sex sell SO MUCH that something that small sells via its sexuality?
I dunno - it just seems like the female minatures are being sculpted for the lowest common denominator, and it is kinda embarassing. It's like going to a hobby shop and finding the walls covered in Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo art - great stuff, but it is basically soft-core porn. It is just embarassing for those of us who AREN'T horny 13 year olds.
DUH OP. Let's be honest, when it comes to brawling in battle women can't hold a candle to men, but this is fantasy, so it is acceptable for women to fight, not in a manly way though, in bikinis with lots of swirling and swaying and with occasionally throwing in some feminine grunts and moans.
Do you want realism or fantasy... You can't expect men to create an ideal of women (FANTASY WORLD HERE) that are on par with men in every way, and completely un-objectified.
As much as I believe in equality in a relationship etc. people's fantasies are often nothing like their realities, and very few men or none fantasize about Madeline Albright or Margret Thatcher.
Given the amount of real pr0n easily available on the Internets it's surprising that anyone would bother to be aroused by a lead model about 1 inch high.
I think the whole chainmail bikini thing is an old cliche and cultural icon left over from the days when pictures of bikini clad girls were still genuinely risque and arousing for teenage boys. Think of Raquel Welch in 1,000,000 Years BC, or Ursula Andress in Doctor No.
The answers seem quite obvious.
A.) Target audience is male, and go figure most of them like beautiful curvy women (what a freaking surprise ).
B.) There are most definitely less sexual (yes this is the word of the day today) female miniatures if you are the type that would want them. I am a pretty big fan of some of the more obscure models, but I am new to all of these companies so I cannot remember which sells the best.
C.) Well... this is really the same thing as A.) but it has to do more with the sculptors and there training (as mentioned before) but it is true that art school tends to sap the originality from your works. If the standard is big boobs and nice curves, then so be it, these sculpts feed the sculptor and if they do not sell I would assume that the sculptor would have a hard time eating.
D.) Sexist... erm, what?
What P.C. malarchy, I cannot imagine why you think this is such a big deal. You see it EVERYWHERE, as in all advertising, most cities, all media, and so on.
E.) P.C. thread is too P.C.
F.) Equality is not created equal, and few women actually look like the fantasy version that sculptors create. This is cultural, and it really doesn't matter. If someone objectifies women it will have little to do with them collecting too many bodacious miniatures, and a lot more to do with them being sexist.
G.) Women come in all shapes and sizes, it really is not your place to decide which shape and which size people should fantasize about. These ARE fantasy women, and I feel it is a bit petty to complain about peoples preferences.
Do I really need to dignify your childish insults with a response, GeneralX? If I do, please tell me.
For the rest of your post; there is no objection to creating an idealized woman - this has been done for centuries. But why is it the case that the idealized woman is invariably not only sexually attractive (which is to be expected and normal - few heroines in any story are ugly) but gives all the impression of being sexually available?
Models in this game are idealized versions of reality - they are unreal, and that unreality manefests itself in a perfection. Designers are creating a significant number of female characters who are dressed / posed provocatively.
What this says is that designers think gamers' ideal woman is a sexually appealing one who also acts in a sexually available way. This, I feel, is kind of insulting to us as a group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrexasaur; your whole post basically boils down to "This is just how it is".
Okay; why is it like that, and are we happy with that? Are we ALL happy with the fact significant numbers of female models are wet-dream material and people outside the hobby might think we ALL want that?
I am not saying people who want to look at provocative Dark Elves are wrong or bad or whatever; but rather asking the question of why is there this assumption we are all like that? There is an over-sexualization and objectification of women in fantasy art. They are treated, fundamentally, as pleasure-objects for men. This can be explained as saying "that is what guys want so deal with it!" but that does not address the core issue I think I was trying to raise.
Are we happy with the fact our hobby objectifies women so much, and portrays women consistently as nothing more than pleasure objects for men?
I guess I'm not happy with that. Maybe I'm in the minority? I dunno.
I tend to agree with the whole "Ok, what exactly is that armor protecting?" line of dispute. Armor's functionality does not tend to follow different rules of physics dependant on the chromosomal pairings of the wearer.
However, I can also appreciate that most armor in art, or really anywhere other than the battlefield, is meant to emphasize certain aspects of the wearer. Whether it is extra spikey to make the wearer look more dangerous, very bulky to make the wearer seem more massive and strong, or cut away in odd places to play up the feminine side of the wearer. Often the latter is found to be especially pleasing since the juxtaposition of extreme femininity and dangerous fighter is uncommon in real life and so makes for an interesting thing.
Personally, I would really like some models that are properly proportioned in realistic armor in both male and female, with heads that are recognizable as either. It is probably unlikely, however.
As a side note, the busty, super sexy woman in skimpy clothing is not only due to male fan boys. Women often prefer those as well. Just as guys don't like super heroes that kind of have a belly, small muscles and poor posture, women don't necessarily want their characters to be just like "real" women. Our heroic interests demand men who are exceedingly well muscled, and women who similarly over emphasize the female dimorphism. It is just the way of things.
I don't think the sculptors/artists really spend much time thinking about why they draw or scuplt women mostly in provocative poses. I think they do it because it's what they like, no real sense of arousal no great mystery just that when they are creating a woman in this medium their default position is to make her seem "attractive" in whatever way they feel they can convey that. Their reasons probably vary quite a bit, miniatures often reflect the art that inspires them and most sculptors grew up on a steady diet of attractive representations of woman, all posed provocatively and suggestively or mostly so. So why should there be any surprise that they mostly create similar images. By the same token, most male figures are in dynamic or heroic poses, for the same reasons.
In answer to your question I don't believe ALL miniature models are sluts or are intended to be. They are invariably well indowed and pleasing to look at given the target audience are young males.
This seems like an odd question coming from someone with a somewhat provocative avatar.
Grimhowl wrote:posed provocatively and suggestively
most male figures are in dynamic or heroic poses, for the same reasons.
And that is the core of this, I think - women are shown as provocative and suggestive, sexually available and willing. Men are shown as dynamic and heroic.
I understand this hobby is male dominated - and so the male figures (who the gamers identify as) are what the men WANT TO BE and the women will be what the men WANT. But, conversely, aren't the male figures what the women WANT (powerful, hyper-masculine)? Why aren't the women what women WANT TO BE?
Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;
i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
or
ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.
Darknight wrote:Wrexasaur; your whole post basically boils down to "This is just how it is".
Okay; why is it like that, and are we happy with that? Are we ALL happy with the fact significant numbers of female models are wet-dream material and people outside the hobby might think we ALL want that?
I am not saying people who want to look at provocative Dark Elves are wrong or bad or whatever; but rather asking the question of why is there this assumption we are all like that? There is an over-sexualization and objectification of women in fantasy art. They are treated, fundamentally, as pleasure-objects for men. This can be explained as saying "that is what guys want so deal with it!" but that does not address the core issue I think I was trying to raise.
Are we happy with the fact our hobby objectifies women so much, and portrays women consistently as nothing more than pleasure objects for men?
I guess I'm not happy with that. Maybe I'm in the minority? I dunno.
You ARE in the minority quite obviously. Yes young men specifically are total and utter perverts bent on world domination and giant boob creation . Although the big boob mcgee models do not equate to what I find attractive in a woman, but I think they are pretty generalized representations of a homogenized sexual thought.
If this is such an issue to you, I would recommend stock-piling all of the non-sexual female miniatures and hand them out to kids so they get a better idea of how to treat women or some such nonsense.
YOU ARE OVER-REACTING!!!
If you have a wife who does not like these miniatures, just do not get them. If you are offended by them, just do not play with people that use them; your message has now been sent to the masses.
Darknight wrote:Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;
i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
or
ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.
...
Okay, you seem to be taking this extremely seriously. Dude, if you want to fight for womens rights, please do so; my Grandmother has been in the League of Women Voters for most of her life, on top of working at planned parent-hood for around a decade. THAT is how you take action against this stuff, there are just WAY too many women that actually want to be treated like that for some reason. I personally do not date women that act like that, and if a chick like to wear itty-bitty tank tops and shorts, I do usually take a quick look. You need to consider what you are actually saying, and apply your energy into the appropriate areas. War-gaming simply isn't one of them.
Heavygear wrote:Why did you marry a woman with large breasts?
Because I love her and she is the very best woman I have ever met. She is very beautiful, yes, but that is not why I married her. She is the only woman I have met who I felt I really could fulfil the sacramental nature of marriage with - namely I could treat her as Christ treats the Church.
That is my answer - I doubt it was that obvious.
As for the avatar, there is a world of differnce between a pretty girl blowing smoke off her gun and a pretty girl shaking her thang in a thong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrex, you are a very angry person.
Seriously; I am not supposed to have a discussion because I disagree with you? I am now painted as some kind of guy who wants to stop other people playing with whatever models they want?
You make assumptions about me and what I do and do not want to do without a single shred of evidence.
Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"
Find a single time in this thread where I have said other people should not do whatever they like re. their own models. I haven't - yet you have told me what I should do.
All I have asked is if there are other people who are concerned by the depiction of women in fantasy - specifically female models. Obviously, you are not such a person.
Well done, your message has been conveyed to the masses.
Darknight wrote:
Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;
i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
or
ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.
I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.
Well the you sir are in the minority.
I respect my current girl friend more then any other woman I have met at my age, and I think she is probably more intelligent then me in many ways, BUT when it comes to the bedroom I can tell you what I want, and I know what she wants to. Maybe we just fit stereotypes, to be honest this might be too much information, but she fits 1) and I fit 2).
BUT, I am not sure why you think sexual poses mean sexual promiscuity... Most guys want a woman to be readily sexually available, but really only to them, not to other men as well
But seriously, my insults are in jest, but I really am starting to wonder if your wife has snuck onto you account.
Darknight wrote: She is the only woman I have met who I felt I really could fulfil the sacramental nature of marriage with - namely I could treat her as Christ treats the Church.
You need to lighten up a little you're right in a lot of things you say, but life is too short. You know, even if we had modest and balance female characters in our games, we'd still be geeks.....
People always find something to complain about, so I wouldn't worry about being labelled.
Now, if you want miniatures that appeal to your needs, and you can't find someone who makes them, why not hire a sculptor to do something for you?
Darknight wrote:Wrex, you are a very intense person.
Seriously; I am not supposed to have a discussion because I disagree with you? I am now painted as some kind of guy who wants to stop other people playing with whatever models they want?
You make assumptions about me and what I do and do not want to do without a single shred of evidence.
Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"
Find a single time in this thread where I have said other people should not do whatever they like re. their own models. I haven't - yet you have told me what I should do.
All I have asked is if there are other people who are concerned by the depiction of women in fantasy - specifically female models. Obviously, you are not such a person.
Well done, your message has been conveyed to the masses.
I am just wondering what you are hoping to accomplish by this, because my mentality obviously offends you. I never said you should not have this conversation, all I said is that if you want to make any changes you are going about it the wrong way. I never said you should not talk about this, I just said how I felt and you responded to me.
Pointing at me and inferring that I am such and such does not make you sound any more rational than I.
Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"
That was the one... yeah, speak a bit louder and insult me through my P.M. in the future. I say you ARE OVER-REACTING and you say I am some sort of angry fearful troll... how am I supposed to react to that one? Seriously though...
As we are only talking about miniature games, GeneralX, I won't address your post. But thank you for the information.
And why are you wondering if my wife is on my account? Is it so hard to you to conceive of a man who does not think it is appropriate to show an ideal of women which is sexually available?
Delephont: We would still be geeks, true. I don't contend that. And as for the models, I can covert or (as people have said) use Hasslefree or other companies. My initial post was based on a very limited sample, and the issue of ALL minatures being provocative is inaccurate, and I apologize for my error.
But the question still remains; are we (as a group) happy about the implication which GeneralX agrees with - that we want women to be sluts and that we think women want to be sluts?
Life is short - which is why such things are important. We don't have very long to make sure people get the right idea about what we think.
I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it?
GeneralX admitted it. It is a brave action. Wrex kinda admitted it too.
Apply this with a pinch of economics to modeling war-gaming mini's and you have a marketable product. I am not saying that these miniatures do not objectify women in a very simple way, but they do not make people sexist. Owning a naked greek statue would include this simple objectification. In case you did not notice practically all miniature objectify SOMETHING, they just do it in different ways.
At this point I am convinced that you are just trying to convince people that they are sexist pigs...
Wrex : Sorry - I missed your edit to the message I responded to! I understand now!
Rest assured, I *do* spend my time fighting for these issues in FAR MORE important arenas. Of course, your grandmother and I are mortal enemies in this fight, but we both think we are fighting for women's rights. In any case, please - rest assured I am constantly advocating for fair and ethical treatment of everyone, including women.
But, the question remains here - because this is a miniature gaming forum. I am asking this question (about the treatment of women) and making it specific to the portrayal of women in a fantasy fiction setting.
I am certain there is no-one here who is beating women or raping them or whatnot. What people here do is based on visual, fictional objectification of women. I am not saying (and, if you note, have never said) this is WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE DONE! (Although it is clear I think it is wrong because I don't do it, which strongly implies I don't think it should be done.)
I am not going to tell people what they should and should not do with toy soldiers - which is why I have not. You, on the other hand, HAVE. All I have done is ask the question "Are people happy with the objectification of women in fantasy art?" You have kinda said "Yeah" and GeneralX has definitely said "Yeah" (he has also admitted to the objectificiation of women in other arenas too).
I not passing judgment - I am asking others to make a judgment on themselves. My objective was not to change anyone's mind - it was to create a discussion where people might consider what their views were and reflect on them.
You are not going to like my next sculpture Darknight ...
Women are beautiful, but I have absolutely no need to conform to ANY standard of beauty but my own. If you define beauty as everything, then so be it; but do not ask me to include ALL of the world's beauty into one sculpture.
Darknight wrote:...and then consider if they are happy with that.
I think you have made this point a few times now...
Darknight wrote:...there is a WORLD of difference between a Greek statue of a classical nude and a girl bent over a poleaxe with her tush in the air, and you know it!)...
Yes there is, and I actually take a bit of offense to the more... well vulgar poses on some of these models. Kids should not be playing with stripper toys, and on this I TOTALLY agree with you. On this same note though, I happen to think that Slaanesh are some of the coolest "sexiest" miniatures I have seen on the market. I commend the artists who conceptualized them, the team who cultivated them, and the sculptors who made them.
How do you feel about this for instance?
Man, I love this model... and I will be making my own variant soon.
"Note"
Please remember that I do not take all of what I read seriously, I just react to it (sometimes overly so ), and talking online is always quite confusing. I think while we may be misunderstanding eachother, you obviously saw something like this happening as you were writing your posts.
Wrexasaur wrote:At this point I am convinced that you are just trying to convince people that they are sexist pigs...
And what the devil do you base that on? I am asking people to CONSIDER what they think. I am asking people to look at my thesis, decide if it is right (no-one has really argued that fantasy miniatures do not sexually objectify women - there is a WORLD of difference between a Greek statue of a classical nude and a girl bent over a poleaxe with her tush in the air, and you know it!) and then consider if they are happy with that.
When GeneralX said he liked his women to be sexually available pleasure objects did I wave a finger at him and say "YOU ARE A BAD MAN!" No, I didn't.
Also; what if I was trying to convince people they are sexist pigs? Is that so very wrong, if they actually are?
I have been honest in this thread - I have strongly implied (and now I confirm) I consider the sexual objectification of women to be wrong, and I consider many fantasy works of art to be sexual objectification of women. I am asking if other feel the same way about any or all of my views. That is all. At no point have you found a single statement of mine which reads "Sexual objectification is wrong because ...." (it leads to rape / abortions / murder / global warming / whatever). NONE of this have I said. I have simply said I think it is wrong.
All I asked is do others agree with me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:You are not going to like my next sculpture Darknight ...
Maybe not. You probably won't like mine But, how is any of this relevant? If you are meaning your next model will be one which shows a girl in a sexually suggestive pose or otherwise sexually objectifies her then, no, I won't like it and I will question the motivation behind it. I might admire the artistic skill used in it, though.
But, again - how is this relevant? Or are you simply pointing this out to show you disagree with me? Thank you - but I already got that from your earlier posts. You and I disagree on many levels. I think you and I have established this before
Hrm. With the amount of 'non-slutty' miniatures being pointed out in this thread I'm starting to wonder if slutty miniatures are even the majority we assume them to be. Maybe they're just far, FAR more memorable and widespread, because *shock* they are far more provocative and usually more 'interesting' (for better or worse).
Me, I'm perfectly fine with slutty models. I can appreciate an (good) artistic interpretation of the female form in most any media. And my favorite female sculpts are usually split evenly between the cool and slutty and the cool but tasteful.
I can, however, understand Darkknight's point. At least the point of how these provocative miniatures portray the hobby in general to outsiders. Some people may look at these scantily clad women and immediately dismiss the hobby as a domain exclusive to pervs and oversexed teenagers. And that somewhat bothers me.
But then I realize I'm playing and painting with little toy men (and women), and I ask myself what the hell does it matter what 'outsiders' think of my hobby?
Darknight wrote:But, again - how is this relevant? Or are you simply pointing this out to show you disagree with me? Thank you - but I already got that from your earlier posts. You and I disagree on many levels. I think you and I have established this before
I think we are misunderstanding each other Darknight, I am just pushing a few buttons back so I can see you jump too . I am training myself to sculpt, and I could benefit from your perspective on this, my intention is not to offend... to a point of course . As I have mentioned before, the worst of these models I am no fan of, but the majority don't offend me in the slightest.
Alex : Thanks for your comment. I admit (again!) my description of "all" was inaccurate. And my concern is not simply with what outsiders thinks, but what WE think too. Are we happy with out attitude towards the models, based on what it says about us.
Wrex : You know what? We ARE misunderstanding each other - I was under the impression you were making valid points you believed in, not simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Might I suggest (if I am permitted) you don't do this in the future? It tends to make me think ANYTHING you say will be invalid (as an example, I actually clicked the "ignore" button under your name based on your first, unedited, post! See, I was thinking you were simply here to argue for the sake of arguing, rather than arguing with a vague idea of getting information for your own benefit! I shall remove the ignore, but please - if you want me to continue dialog with you in the future - don't be silly like that. We can have an adult conversation based on honest, can't we?)
I actually just asked you what you would want to see change specifically, and even mentioned that I would be willing to take your considerations into account when making my sculptures, but sure... by all means.
Darknight wrote:
I have been honest in this thread - I have strongly implied (and now I confirm) I consider the sexual objectification of women to be wrong, and I consider many fantasy works of art to be sexual objectification of women. I am asking if other feel the same way about any or all of my views.
......I need to stop you right here......I can tell there is a religious streak to your posts, and typical of most mainstream religions you seem to have an unhealthy attitude towards sex!
It strikes me as strange that you have an issue with women in miniature being objects of sexual fantasy, and yet have no issue with what the game itself potrays.....in that it covers one of the sickest aspects of the human psyche...the need to butcher, maim, murder and destroy!
I think you need to review your principles when a woman being sculpted with overly large breast fires your emotions more than a fantasy ork holding a severed human head!
I don't want to limit your avenue for discussion, however, I do feel you have been more insistant about the subject beyond simply "asking a question".
Personally, I believe most men on this board are not offended by the female form in the same way you seem to be, I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!
The fact that most of the females in this genre are not to your liking, sugests to me that this is not the hobby for you....perhaps.....
Firstly, iffin you don't like the minis, don't buy them.
Secondly, if you're griping here rather than to the manufacturer you might want to tell the kid at the counter that you don't like the supplier choices the hamburger joint makes.
Now, to the meat of the matter:
You're seriously complaining about some miniatures making females appear sexually available without engaging advertisements available on television or in print first? The presumption of being 'sexually available' on a glance is akin to the presumption that 'Twilight' was good literature based on the author. It is at best a reflection of the viewer rather than the purchaser. The human form in its natural state is only sexualized by context. Compiling this nudity with violence does indeed reinforce Dworkin's spurious thesis that "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence". Since Dworkin's thesis has been proven as untrue on more than one occasion we can presume that much of Dworkin's other work is equally in question - including the parallels between female nudity and sexualization.
Male sexualization is however more subtle. Short hair, broad torsos, defined muscles and phallic substitutes all compile to a implication of prowess and ability. Males are presumed to be able and willing simply by presenting the appearance of masculinity. The armor on the current cadian imperial guard is an implication masculinity and ability with their pectoral muscles (armor) and flat stomach (armor) rather than a deeper implication. Heaven forbid the supermen that are Space Marines, Marvel's Wolverine, Tony Stark, the blatantly pansexual 300 film, or historical minis.
Humans tend to relate to each other in sweeping generalizations - A defense mechanism that still runs deep in our learning process. Inductive reasoning, if you will, allowing us to work on the probabilities of our experience and the teachings of others.
Your position
"I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it? "
implies you are correct, not yourself missing some nuance, and there is no objectifying of men. It also doesn't embrace the possibility of looking to further chain the female form as dirty or inherently sexual thereby further taking power from women and chaining them to a secondary social role.
@ Oldgrue: Nice summary mate This whole issue is so vastly intricate that generalizing what is and isn't right (or appropriate in this situation) is basically saying that the whole style of design is flawed. Over-sexualization is a common marketing ploy, I remember sodas being things like ice-cream and g.i. joes, but now the soda commercials are some of the most sexual advertising you will see on the planet. At what point in time did cereal become sexy? Ooooh, that bran is SO good with those sexy strawberries... oh man, I am fantasizing about a strawberry now, the Apocalypse surely is nigh .
Darknight wrote:I shall remove the ignore, but please - if you want me to continue dialog with you in the future - don't be silly like that. We can have an adult conversation based on honest, can't we?
Dude, anyone can ignore anything without using the ignore button, it is just a fancy way of saying feth off quite frankly.
So... yes we can have a conversation, but if you really feel as strongly as you do, I can only imagine how many people you are ignoring on a constant basis. I didn't irrationally blow-up at you, I just made a few strong points with the intention of (yes, I am a ronin artist ) of benefiting from understanding what you have to say by pushing back in the exact place that you chose to present a debate.
The question you seem to be asking, is why do we allow this filth on our shelves? To a point I understand you but my opinion of you over-reacting still stands. I have mentioned already that I would like to hear what you would want done about this, and I still do.
If you could present some of the worst objectification, we could review it and figure out exactly what should be avoided in the future.
AlexCage wrote:Hrm. With the amount of 'non-slutty' miniatures being pointed out in this thread I'm starting to wonder if slutty miniatures are even the majority we assume them to be. Maybe they're just far, FAR more memorable and widespread, because *shock* they are far more provocative and usually more 'interesting' (for better or worse).
"Slutty" models are in the minority.
And I disagree with Dark Knight's thesis.
EDIT:
Wow, I agree with Oldgrue also!
Hey Polonius, Dogma and Sebster, you guys are slackin'!
Delephont wrote:......I need to stop you right here......I can tell there is a religious streak to your posts, and typical of most mainstream religions you seem to have an unhealthy attitude towards sex!
Absolute rubbish. I will not speak for all religions, but mine has a very healthy attitude towards sex. "Go forth and multiply" - how is that supposed to happen without sex? Sex is a beautiful and a wonderful thing between a man and a woman. We have, in fact, the healthiest attitude towards sex there is - because we keep it perfectly natural. We simply do not believe that sexual objectification of human beings is right. How is that unhealthy?
It strikes me as strange that you have an issue with women in miniature being objects of sexual fantasy, and yet have no issue with what the game itself potrays.....in that it covers one of the sickest aspects of the human psyche...the need to butcher, maim, murder and destroy!
There is a difference, however. The violence aspects of the game are NOT ones which are, generally speaking, held up as good. I have never seen a post justifying racism, violence, etc. etc. on these forums. Never once. No-one says "Yeah, the Imperium has the right idea - kill everyone who disagrees with you!"
The violence is never shown in a positive light, never once shown as being a good thing. The very nature of the worlds of 40K and WFB show there are no good guys - everyone is kinda evil. Other games (such as D&D) have very clearly defined "good and evil". So, killing an orc is okay because the orc is evil - he is not "differently good". Other games do not have "evil" races. There are races who might do bad things, but these guys are not de facto "evil to the bone" and so killing them is a matter of a moral choice.
I think you need to review your principles when a woman being sculpted with overly large breast fires your emotions more than a fantasy ork holding a severed human head!
Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.
Personally, I believe most men on this board are not offended by the female form in the same way you seem to be
I am married. I suspect the majority of guys on these boards are not. I assure you, I am not offended in the slightest by the female form. I am offended by objectification of women. Is that so wrong?
I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!
Again, this is true - and I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring this point up! And, yes, that is a valid point - the guy who says he does not objectify women except as miniatures. Still, that is still objectification. And are people happy with that? You imply that you are - which is your choice, of course.
I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.
Wrexasaur wrote:The question you seem to be asking, is why do we allow this filth on our shelves?
Not at all - I am asking IS this "filth" and, if so, do we want it on our shelves? Some people have answered this question - others have decided to ignore it.
I have mentioned already that I would like to hear what you would want done about this, and I still do.
Done about it? I have said what I want done - I want people to consider. People are doing. Thank you, people.
In my opinion the reason for women dressing like harlots in many fantasy settings is to identify them as "heroic"
wait, let me explain.
How do you tell the heroic and strong male from his supporting characters?
He is bulging with muscles, carries a large manly weapon, and looks like he's a male model on the side.
How can you tell the heroic female from her cast and crew?
2 options.
Either she is muscular, and carries a huge manly weapon.
Or
She is incredibly attractive.
The first option, well, the majority of people do not like large, muscular, manly women. Some people think it's ugly, and we can't have an ugly protagonist.
That leaves the second option. Now, which one does the majority of the population find more attractive: a woman clothed in traditional clothing, with a sword and shield, or a pencil-thin stripper wearing a skin-tight leather suit that is "battle-damaged" in all the wrong places?
kirsanth wrote:I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.
It is not simply based on how they are dressed, but also the poses chosen and the way they are described in the literature etc. Dark Elves were described as being very sexual creatures, the Witch Elves particularly so. I was working at GW when they came out - a memo was sent around detailing SPECIFICALLY how to deal with complaints that this was basically some kind of porn. The memo was, frankly, not much use - thankfully, we didn't get any complaints.
A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.
And I agree; men who look at a girl walking naked down the street and think she wants to have sex with any many she sees are wrong and foolish. I do not think that way. But, the fact remains that dressing and acting provocatively has become a usual method of signaling sexual availability, or at least is interpreted as such.
Under no circumstances is there ANY defence for treating a women as sexually available if she is not - it is wrong, pure and simple (at its most serious it is rape) and there is NEVER any justification. However, dressing in a particular way often makes people THINK she is sexually available, acting in a particular manner more so, and this is what I mean.
I think you need to review your principles when a woman being sculpted with overly large breast fires your emotions more than a fantasy ork holding a severed human head!
Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.
Should there be a difference? Is objectifying and glorifying violence (Winning the game requires violence on a large scale) any better than this "objectification of women" that you see? Why does one offend you more than the other? I think you are misplacing your offenses here, and really, you shouldn't be offended at all, because this is a game, and people know that it is not real.
If you are hung up on the objectification of women, lets take a look at several of the other "themes" in wargaming:
I could go on, but you get the idea. Why this topic jumps out at you more than any other amazes me, and is a result of all of us becoming numb to violence through TV, Movies and video games.
Darknight wrote:Done about it? I have said what I want done - I want people to consider. People are doing. Thank you, people.
Could you specify or link to which miniatures you are referring to?
I believe I gave an example in my first post. I have since been informed he is a particularly egregious example of the genre, and not all models are like this. Again; my initial hyperbolic statement of "all" is not accurate, and I do not wish it to be conisdered as such. Perhaps it would be better to say "some".
Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.
You keep saying people are objectifiying female models trying to make them into there fantasies and all that nonsense but with no proof. Really I can think of no one who looks at almost anymini and says, "Hell ya that model is all I ever dream about." That's because no one thinks about it or cares. It's just like video game violence this is the same kind of arguement against it. You think its bad cause your morals say so 99% of people either don't agree or don't care and think others should do what they want. Your in that small minority that thinks it wrong and is wondering why they alone are the only one that cares when your just trying to push your values that not everyone shares.
Canonness Rory wrote:
She is incredibly attractive.
Now, which one does the majority of the population find more attractive: a woman clothed in traditional clothing, with a sword and shield, or a pencil-thin stripper wearing a skin-tight leather suit that is "battle-damaged" in all the wrong places?
Well, my question is; DOES the majority of the population find a sexually-available looking person attractive? And not merely sexually, but as a whole person? Also, your two examples fail to take into account what we are actually seeing - it is not a choice between a realistic model and a attractive one; but rather a hyper-female one posed heroically and non-provocatively dressed attractively and modestly, and one which is hyper-feminine and posed and dressed provocatively.
It is a difference between a beautiful woman dressed suitably for the opera or fancy restaurant (she is hyper-feminine) and a porn-star on set (she is also hyper-feminine). Both are feminine, but only one is sexually objectified.
Oldgrue wrote:Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.
I am trying to figure out exactly what he is taking offense to.
@Darknight
You linked to a full page of numerous styles of female miniatures. Forgive me for saying so ( ) but you have made an incredibly broad argument that I consider to be quite provocative. Please specify the style that you are referring to for reference, or this whole conversation will continue to be an ember in the barn.
@BrookM
Those are really cool, I like the mechanic one a lot . Rosie the Riveter (circa the year 40k).
Darknight wrote:
A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.
Ooh!
From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.
That is, Sir, a patently offensive and sexist statement that it is ok to judge a person and their proclivities by their attire!
Edit: Does that mean men can't do this? Are topless men somehow not sexual? Is it the hair? Nipples?
kirsanth wrote:I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.
shrug
Aye, I'd go along with that, my wife has a similar viewpoint. She draws a lot of fantasy art, and although she is no where near ole Julie Bell in style, not all of her pictures are in nicely fitting armour and three layers to cover all and any blushes. Sometimes skin in good, its all about how its drawn.
Hell look at my Avatar, probably exactly what the OP is talking about, but I'd dare anyone to try and take it without her say so.
Hasselfree's sculpts are crap. Privateer Press has a nice line of female minis. Jes Goodwin has too many old HEAVY METAL magazines laying around I think.
I think you need to review your principles when a woman being sculpted with overly large breast fires your emotions more than a fantasy ork holding a severed human head!
Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.
Hmm.... ok, you're making some serious assumptions here. Firstly you assume that someone buys a miniature of an Ork holding a severed human head because he simply needs it for his army....I get images here of some guy reluctantly purchasing said miniature, grumbling the whole time, because he, deep down inside, hates the images of violence....and in the same shopping basket, purchases a miniature that "objectifies women" with mischievous glee, already anticipating what he will do to himself in the bathroom based on his new "toy".....
Come on, people buy miniatures because they love the imagery, you can't seperate the two! If people didn't like, on some level, the skulls, chains and severed heads then the miniatures wouldn't sell......you almost insult me with your response, which seems to push your point while conveniently ignoring the counter!!
Darknight wrote:
I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!
Again, this is true - and I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring this point up! And, yes, that is a valid point - the guy who says he does not objectify women except as miniatures. Still, that is still objectification. And are people happy with that? You imply that you are - which is your choice, of course.
This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome. The fact that you feel so strongly about it, as others have suggested, I think speaks volumes about your mental state then ours! I can paint and play with a large breasted female miniature and be unaffected by the experience! I can sit with my wife, talk about our day, plan for the future, meditate and generally live life without ever confusing the small miniature with the women around me!
I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality! However, that I think, is a discussion for another time.....perhaps not even on Dakka!
Darknight wrote:
A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.
Ooh!
From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.
That is, Sir, a patently offensive and sexist statement that it is ok to judge a person and their proclivities by their attire!
Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?
Saying a woman is trying to look sexy, has absolutely nothing to do with a guy harassing them. If a guy harasses woman on a constant basis in order to attempt to achieve whatever goal they have set out to, they are still just harassing women. Go to a club and watch how viciously women guard each other from all the dangers associated with it; one of the smallest issues is guys that you are mentioning, more likely that someone gets way too drunk and their friends help them home.
Delephont wrote:This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome. The fact that you feel so strongly about it, as others have suggested, I think speaks volumes about your mental state then ours! I can paint and play with a large breasted female miniature and be unaffected by the experience! I can sit with my wife, talk about our day, plan for the future, meditate and generally live life without ever confusing the small miniature with the women around me!
It is oddly misplaced, and I have asked a couple of times now for some specification so this can ACTUALLY be related to war-gaming. If it is not, then this whole subject should be re-named and sent to the OT forum for dissection .
As to these metal minis coming to life, I have plans to to something along those lines... but in a game called Warhammer40'000 my goals are not sexual I assure you. A horde of robotic Wraithlords with active flamers could do the trick .
Wrexasaur wrote:
Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?
Hey, someone dressed in a 'sexy' way could simply be trying to feel sexier as an affirmation of self.
But what I'm saying specifically is twofold:
First, according to the Quran, that there is a distinct boundary between right and wrong based on gender rather than identity.
Second that we shouldn't be so small minded about it *only* being women.
If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.
If the women are 'sexually available' so are the men.
Edit:
Don't go all wonky about citing the Quran. I'm just lazy about citing the KJ Bible. They're equally bad about this. And sexual harrassment is the same despite gender.
Oldgrue wrote:Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.
Sorry - I was getting to you! Broadly speaking, you make a lot of sense.
I disagree about the avatar - I have a woman blowing smoke off a gun. In my view, there is a world of difference between that and a woman going into battle half-naked, or a model which is specifically designed to show flesh in areas where it would not naturally be shown because of necessity and position of the model.
Oldgrue wrote:
Firstly, iffin you don't like the minis, don't buy them.
Already done. I have already not bought models, and will continue to not buy them!
Secondly, if you're griping here rather than to the manufacturer you might want to tell the kid at the counter that you don't like the supplier choices the hamburger joint makes.
I am not griping - I am asking a question. I have my answer - very few people seem to give a damn. It was the answer I expected.
You're seriously complaining about some miniatures making females appear sexually available without engaging advertisements available on television or in print first?
No - I am raising a question concerning minatures on a miniatures forum. As I said earlier, I argue these points (in a much more strident manner - it has become clear to me on this thread and elsewhere that certain discussions are simply not appreciated or listened to on Dakka) elsewhere. I am not simply complaining about miniatures; I am just keeping my focus on them here.
The human form in its natural state is only sexualized by context.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I argue (and have done elsewhere in this thread) that a naked female hoplite is appropriate. I also argue that a naked poledancer model shaking her thang is also appropriate (although I'd really like to know what scenario you are playing!) My argument is that a female warrior posed in a sexual pose is not appropriate, or a female warrior dressed in armor which is completely impractical (that is, covers very little).
Sexualization in art is never an issue - provided the art itself is showing something sexual. Beyond that, the question I would ask is "Is the sexual content appropriate for the theme?"
we can presume that much of Dworkin's other work is equally in question - including the parallels between female nudity and sexualization.
Agreed - naked women =/= sexualization. Naked women in sexual poses and portrayed as sexually available (as they often are in literature - and, as you pointed out above, NOT just fantasy and sci-fi) does, however, mean sexualization of them. It may not translate into the "real world", but the fact of the matter is that women are thought of as sexual objects in many forms of literature and art (Playboy etc. etc.) My question concerning models is is there a similarity between the two?
Male sexualization is however more subtle.
Again, agreed. And I agree with your points. However, men are usually not shown in a pose or manner which is overtly sexual - they are shown as powerful and heroic and beautiful, but not available and passive. Females often are.
implies you are correct, not yourself missing some nuance, and there is no objectifying of men.
Yes, it does. And I do think I am correct, not missing a nuance, and that the objectification of men is generally speaking non sexual (or at least non-passive). But you are correct.
quote]It also doesn't embrace the possibility of looking to further chain the female form as dirty or inherently sexual thereby further taking power from women and chaining them to a secondary social role.
I would strongly disagree the female form is dirty and it is no more inherently sexual than the male form. As for "secondary social role", I would argue the social roles of men and women are different - but neither is secondary to the other. In fact, if a statement of "secondary" had to be made, I would have to say that the male role is the secondary social one - but I would be loath to do so.
The role of men and women in fiction is unreal - women historically did not fight because they were too valuable to risk, NOT because they weren't that good at it. So, there is unreality to the roles already. I am simply asking if the elements of reality concerning poses and costume (and NOT hyper-feminisation) are ones we are happy with. So far, it seems as if most people are - I think I will respond to any questions people have posted while I have been responding to this post, and then call this thread done as far as I am concerned. I have my answer - and it is generally speaking what I thought it would be.
I just wanted a conversation - and I got it
Just a perspective.
And thank you very much for it. You will notice I broadly agree with what you say - I think you misunderstood or assumed a lot about my position. My position is not that sex is evil or wrong, or indeed that sexualization is wrong. I object to sexual objectification (for a number of reasons, all of them related to the dignity of the human person).
So, from an artistic perspective I do not object to beautiful women, nor do I object to beautiful women acting sexually in an appropriate situation. I object to women inappropraitely sexually objectified.
I add, however, that as this is a miniature modelling forum I am not bringing up certain other factors - which cause me to object to certain kinds of art based NOT on artistic issues but rather other factors. I may have allowed such other factors peripherally into other posts and, as such things apear to be taboo on Dakka, I apologize.
I find it also quite funny that the OP keeps refering to women being sexually availible? I wonder, are we still discussing miniatures or real people?
I must admit to my own ignorance, I have never once considered a lump of inch high white metal to be sexually availible....I find it disturbing to even mention the two points in the same sentence.
Taking the discussion beyond the confines of miniatures, perhaps where this discussion belongs! does the miniature trigger visions of sexual availibility in women? maybe, but no more than a model in glamour magazine, a make-up advert or a woman you see walking down the street!
Lets face it, without a degree of sexual availiblity you'd better say good bye to the human race.....or maybe hello to the test tube!
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm using her and the barbarian axe woman.
I am modding them for 40K so SF bits are getting added.
I hate to admit it, but as we are on the subject, I am modding a few of the other Hasslefree women into 'hoes'. Again, I have a totally legitimate reason.
That model needs a penis added to it. It would be awesome/lulzy to see people's reactions when they notice it...
Wrexasaur wrote:
Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?
Hey, someone dressed in a 'sexy' way could simply be trying to feel sexier as an affirmation of self.
But what I'm saying specifically is twofold:
First, according to the Quran, that there is a distinct boundary between right and wrong based on gender rather than identity.
Second that we shouldn't be so small minded about it *only* being women.
If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.
If the women are 'sexually available' so are the men.
I agree that some women do try and fit in when they really do not enjoy the "standard" clothing that they choose to wear. Honestly and truly, if a woman does that to herself she should be making new friends instead of forcing herself into a situation that put her in a position to receive looks that she does not want. There are very few guys that actually have the proverbial huevos to stand up and even talk to a woman. I enjoy complimenting women, it is a bit of a past time; do you know what I compliment? I compliment their clothes, and their shoes, and their hats, and even their jewelry.
So in a nutshell, you correct sir, but in due to the dynamic of the situation the standard rhetoric is not wrong nor is it all that generalized.
Kilkrazy wrote:Given the amount of real pr0n easily available on the Internets it's surprising that anyone would bother to be aroused by a lead model about 1 inch high.
I think the whole chainmail bikini thing is an old cliche and cultural icon left over from the days when pictures of bikini clad girls were still genuinely risque and arousing for teenage boys. Think of Raquel Welch in 1,000,000 Years BC, or Ursula Andress in Doctor No.
It's just like a tradition nowadays.
Hence why anyone would bother commenting on the chick in SoB cosplay that was floating around here not too long ago. I pulled that up and showed my brother some of the comments, and my first question was "have any of these people seen real porn?"
Darknight wrote:Is it so hard to you to conceive of a man who does not think it is appropriate to show an ideal of women which is sexually available?
But the question still remains; are we (as a group) happy about the implication which GeneralX agrees with - that we want women to be sluts and that we think women want to be sluts?
I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it?
GeneralX admitted it. It is a brave action. Wrex kinda admitted it too.
Woah slow down missionary.
1) Yes its hard to believe that a man isn't interested in a woman sexually, and therefore isn't interested in (perhaps his wife) being readily available for sex. (maybe a homosexual )
2) I don't think you understand that women can be sexually active/available and EAGER, while only having 1 sexual partner. (therefore not slutty). The fact that you can't separate nakedness and a vigorous sexual apetite from women who "whore" themselves out to many men, speaks volumes about YOU. Not me.
3) It really is actually, the way it is.
4) You say its brave of me like I am fessing up to something, like I've done something wrong. This is extremely condescending.
Darknight wrote:Well, my question is; DOES the majority of the population find a sexually-available looking person attractive?
Yes, humanity has evolved to find individuals who appear 'ready to have sex' as attractive. That's evolution bub. Any argument against the above statement is naive, or who knows what.
Darknight wrote:And not merely sexually, but as a whole person?
No probably not as a whole person, but in terms of what they are visually perceiving it is attractive.
Kilkrazy wrote:I'm using her and the barbarian axe woman.
I am modding them for 40K so SF bits are getting added.
I hate to admit it, but as we are on the subject, I am modding a few of the other Hasslefree women into 'hoes'. Again, I have a totally legitimate reason.
That model needs a penis added to it. It would be awesome/lulzy to see people's reactions when they notice it...
DarkKnight wrote:
The role of men and women in fiction is unreal - women historically did not fight because they were too valuable to risk, NOT because they weren't that good at it. So, there is unreality to the roles already.
Sorry but this is blatantly false. I can't even imagine how you could say this with a straight face.
The average man is almost 2x as strong as the average woman in the weight room, can run faster, longer, etc.
But more importantly, the men have more testosterone, more height, reach, and weight.
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
Darknight wrote:, as such things apear to be taboo on Dakka, I apologize.
It goes in the Off Topic area. That's part of it.
NO, REALLY MODS. MOVE THIS TO OFF TOPIC!!
According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual by juxtaposing an attractive human trait and the gun barrel. In general innocent, but context becomes king.
Also modern social theory suggests a degree of equality in gender roles. Sectarian views aside, current social expectation is gender equality.
Males sexualization is necessarily non-passive due to mechanical necessities.
As for human dignity, I would suggest that this is carried within the being, rather than their role in a fictionalized social event. This being a family friendly environment I'll have to make do with pointing you towards the BDSM subcultural literature rather than citing it. I will say it made my women's studies professor blush while I still got a 3.5 for the course. (Yes, men can actually take these courses.) The radical feminist theory also decries human dignity as a defining factor in line with more conservative religious factions...strange bedfellows as it were.
That said, there is a general trend toward finding curved lines more inherently attractive than relatively straight angles. This, combined with ease of sculpting and broader audience, tends to drive sales toward a (potentially odd) safe fictional perspective. The dark eldar scout models (why I can't think of them now is beyond me) are an example of why the 'fetish' look in minis doesn't always sell. Androgynous leading to masculine, fetishy...still no sales.
I disagree this is in any way filth, rather a sales and marketing ploy despite the popularity of some of the parts on the Adsurbael Vect kit.
And, in the interest of fairly promoting equal sexism:
Moar sweaty nekkid men soldier hotties!
You could argue that given our current technology men vs. women on the battlefield is not as much of an issue.
The fact remains that GeneralX is 100% correct on this one, and there is nothing sexist about stating this fact.
Oldgrue wrote:And, in the interest of fairly promoting equal sexism:
Moar sweaty nekkid men soldier hotties!
They are coming... you can hear them. Teenage boys across the entire planet are cowering in terror... NOOOOOOO!!! you will hear them scream, and it would be a tremendous force that could possibly dismantle society as we know it... be afraid, be very afraid...
Oldgrue wrote:From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.
And I would disagree - no woman asks to be raped; if she asks for sex then it isn't rape. A woman who dresses provactively acts provocatively and who is raped or hurt as a result is a victim and the blame lies squarely with the man who did it. Under NO circumstances should blame be taken off him.
However, if I walk five miles south on a Friday night with a bunch of $100 bills in my hand (I live north of Detroit) I should not be surprised if I get them stolen. I am not asking for it, and it is still stealing, but I should have expected unwanted attention.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hell look at my Avatar, probably exactly what the OP is talking about, but I'd dare anyone to try and take it without her say so.
I can't see clearly what that picture is; it is clearly a skimpily dressed woman. If the sexuality is appropriate then, artistically, I have no problem with it.
In any case, your wife clearly has no problem with the art she makes. Great! That is another point of view - thank you for sharing it!
Delephont wrote:Hmm.... ok, you're making some serious assumptions here. Firstly you assume that someone buys a miniature of an Ork holding a severed human head because he simply needs it for his army....I get images here of some guy reluctantly purchasing said miniature, grumbling the whole time, because he, deep down inside, hates the images of violence....and in the same shopping basket, purchases a miniature that "objectifies women" with mischievous glee, already anticipating what he will do to himself in the bathroom based on his new "toy".....
No, no, no - not at all. People buy models because they like them or because they need them for the army. Usually both - few people buy models they really hate the look of just for in-game effect, I suspect. I was raising the point that many of the female warrior models are dressed and posed provocatively.
This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome.
I disagree - sexual objectification is NEVER wholesome. It reduces a human being to nothing more than a means to an end. And a human being reduced to a sexual end is a victim of sexual violence - be it physical or no. Even if this does not carry into our real lives, my question stands - are we happy with how it is? You obviously are. Thank you for your view.
I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality!
Then you are very ignorant of Christianity, and are relying on hearsay and minor beliefs without major currency.
Oldgrue wrote:If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.
Very much agreed, Oldgrue. Sexual objectification DOES work both ways, but in miniatures games it appears to be primarially directed at women.
Don't go all wonky about citing the Quran. I'm just lazy about citing the KJ Bible. They're equally bad about this. And sexual harrassment is the same despite gender.
It is very fortunate indeed I am not part of a religion which i) uses the KJV or ii) relies on sola scriptura
Delephont wrote:I find it also quite funny that the OP keeps refering to women being sexually availible?
They represent a fictional character who is portrayed as being sexually available.
Taking the discussion beyond the confines of miniatures, perhaps where this discussion belongs! does the miniature trigger visions of sexual availibility in women? maybe, but no more than a model in glamour magazine, a make-up advert or a woman you see walking down the street!
I would agree wholeheartedly - but I wanted to keep this narrowly focused on something minatures based. You could, I daresay, swap out "miniature figure" for "comic book character" or "model in a perfume ad" and have the same discussion.
Lets face it, without a degree of sexual availiblity you'd better say good bye to the human race.....or maybe hello to the test tube!
Agreed again - which is the point I think you misunderstand about my religion. Sexual availibility is not a bad thing (in fact, it is one of the highest and best things and this has been the unfailing teaching of my Church for centuries!) BUT it has to be at the appropriate time and place, for the good of society and individuals. There is, for example, a reason sexual liasons are forbidden in the workplace.
LunaHound wrote:o_- not another of this debate , time for me to end this ...
Sorry, your point has been made better and earlier.
Its what the buyers *want . I dare GW to produce a human army where all the soldiers are either underweight , over weight , with pimples all over.
I never questioned this - what I questioned was WHY is this what people want?
GeneralX wrote:Woah slow down missionary.
You know what? I am done with your rudeness. I have been polite to you, and you continue to insult me. Enough.
GeneralX wrote:Sorry but this is blatantly false. I can't even imagine how you could say this with a straight face.
Because it is true.
The average man is almost 2x as strong as the average woman in the weight room, can run faster, longer, etc. But more importantly, the men have more testosterone, more height, reach, and weight. The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
And you will notice I did not challenge these. But the MAIN reason women do not fight is NOT because they are ineffective (which they are, in comparison to men, in most physical confrontations) but because they are too valuable to the survival of the group. A group without women cannot reproduce. Moral compunctions of monogamy aside, a group has to loose A LOT of men before the group is unable to continue to expand.
I responded to this question of yours because it raised a valid point - the rest of what you say is simply insult, and I see no reason to engage with you or it any longer.
Thank you all for your points of view - I asked a question, and I got a number of answers. Thank you very much, it has been most instructive. I think my conclusion is that, broadly speaking, I am in the minority with my views - both in the central opinion I hold, but more so in the question of does it matter.
Please feel free to continue the discussion without me!
GeneralX wrote:
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
Sorry; as Oldgrue was so polite with his long post and we broadly agreed, I answer this;
Oldgrue wrote:According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual
And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
Oldgrue wrote:That said, there is a general trend toward finding curved lines more inherently attractive than relatively straight angles. This, combined with ease of sculpting and broader audience, tends to drive sales toward a (potentially odd) safe fictional perspective. The dark eldar scout models (why I can't think of them now is beyond me) are an example of why the 'fetish' look in minis doesn't always sell. Androgynous leading to masculine, fetishy...still no sales.
This is very true, and it speaks of the inherent trial and error that is aesthetic design. There are many factors to making a miniature sell, and the greatest of these (of course) is the consumers attention span. I say this partially in jest, partially in truth, but the underlying honesty behind a lot of studies backs this claim up quite a bit. People buy what they want, and the market evolves in such a way to cut the excess fat, so to speak (pun intended?)
If we re-made this thread, we could focus on the history of sexuality in miniatures, and this speaks truly of both sexes, not just female. I have an inkling that the mods would not look upon it with great happiness and joy, but smitefulness and OMG!!! RUN AWAY!!!
Oldgrue wrote:
GeneralX wrote:
The average man vs woman in combat isn't even a contest.
In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
A trained fighter does not represent the average "match-up" as it were. Speaking in terms that can only be applied generally does not affect the truth to his statement. I do agree that women are better at team-work in general, although some might consider this counter-intuitive. Maybe men are just less mature, I do not know the answer to this.
Darknight wrote:Sorry; as Oldgrue was so polite with his long post and we broadly agreed, I answer this;
Oldgrue wrote:According to feminist theory your avatar is particularly sexual
And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
I could argue that this isn't phallic...
But I would end up dying from laughter after such a statement. Phallic is phallic, not much more too it that that. Next you will be saying that Giger did not intend to be phallic in his design.
Darknight wrote:
And I would disagree - no woman asks to be raped; if she asks for sex then it isn't rape. A woman who dresses provactively acts provocatively and who is raped or hurt as a result is a victim and the blame lies squarely with the man who did it. Under NO circumstances should blame be taken off him.
Apparently it depends on what church you go to,which addendum you read, and where you are. People are funny that way.
I disagree - sexual objectification is NEVER wholesome. It reduces a human being to nothing more than a means to an end. And a human being reduced to a sexual end is a victim of sexual violence - be it physical or no. Even if this does not carry into our real lives, my question stands - are we happy with how it is?
Fantasy is a safe outlet for humanity. There must never be thoughtcrime for freedom to exist (many argue speech, but I'll stick to thoughtcrime) and therefore if one never *acts* on said objectification it must be acceptable (if quite possibly icky! just because *i* don't like it doesn't mean you don't have the right to think it.)
The second part of your statement returns to the Dworkin end of the social spectrum. Even though we have a social structure, language, faiths, and laws there is no concrete evidence that Hassan-i Sabbah or even Aleister Crowley's theories that, in effect, there are no repercussions for what we do in living. We have no way to define a concrete right or wrong, only whether or not an action is acceptable.
I respect another person's right to think what they like, and society's right to tear them into painful shreds if they act on it.
As to the direct inference of your avatar please refer to nearly half of the gum ads made over the past few decades. If you listen and then look into the background of these ads, you will hopefully understand why your avatar is indeed very sexual... like a sexy strawberry in my cereal ads .
Darknight wrote:And I disagree with that theory. The notion the gun barrel is sexual is kinda foolish - sometimes a revolver is just a revolver, ya know? In any case, even if that were the case, I would argue the short, stubby barrel of a bolter is hardly a phallic symbol (which I presume is the justification for the sexualization argument).
Short and stubby means absolutely diddly in the world of... of sex really. Please review your argument then, explain to me how a beautiful woman blowing on the tip of a... gun is not telling me something about that situation.
Darknight wrote:However, if I walk five miles south on a Friday night with a bunch of $100 bills in my hand (I live north of Detroit) I should not be surprised if I get them stolen. I am not asking for it, and it is still stealing, but I should have expected unwanted attention.
Ridiculous. A woman should be able to walk the street naked and not be raped on principal. yes she should be forced to put on some clothing by the authorities, but being naked didn't mean she should have expected rape. With the same logic I could say attractive people should stay on their guard, because they should expect to be raped. In any case, citing criminals and fiends as a reason that something is a bad idea, is a poor arguement in my opinion. It doesn't imply to me that the woman should cover up, it implies that the man shouldn't rape her.
Darknight wrote:You know what? I am done with your rudeness. I have been polite to you, and you continue to insult me. Enough.
Meh, I find my comments hardly that severe, and most of them are jocular, but if you take serious offense, then maybe they are truer then I meant them to be.
Darknight wrote:Because it is true.
No, it isn't true.
Darknight wrote:And you will notice I did not challenge these. But the MAIN reason women do not fight is NOT because they are ineffective (which they are, in comparison to men, in most physical confrontations) but because they are too valuable to the survival of the group. A group without women cannot reproduce. Moral compunctions of monogamy aside, a group has to loose A LOT of men before the group is unable to continue to expand.
again, false. This may have been true in 9000 BC, but once you hit antiquity and beyond, where populations were often large, and there were even real cities, women didn't fight purely because they were second class citizens based on physical strength. This is about as debatable as gravity or evolution, but you may have problems with those as well, so maybe I shouldn't cite them
Darknight wrote:I responded to this question of yours because it raised a valid point - the rest of what you say is simply insult, and I need to reason to engage with you or it any longer.
And I raised several valid points in the post you chose to ignore, so I don't agree! Please feel free not to post this sort of topic on the board again, or I will return
Oldgrue wrote:In contrast the female nervous system is geared to better withstand pain and shock, while being socially trained not to engage in direct combat. Men have this inherently stupid concept of a fair fight. Predatory animals don't step up to a 'fair fight' - they fight when and how they can win.
Your positions are handled effectively in the FATAL rpg system, but I like you in general and suggest you avoid reading that feth.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I know you disagree with me, so can you clarify so I can counter your statement
I think I'd agree with the OP that there are many female models, for wargames, that emphasize her sensuality or sexuality through pose or outfit rather than fighting prowess.
Three huge factors to consider:
1) many female models aren't this way, or this is mitigated by adding context in which their prowess stems from their litheness.
2) With historical or even current female warriors as an extreme rarity (although this is changing), the pseudo historical basis for fantasy has nothing really to work with for female models. There is a demand for them, both from men and women, and with no real basis to work with, I think sculptors had fun. Is it demeaning? Maybe, but I think it's more a lack of creativity than anything else.
3) Not everything that is sexist is a big deal. One key thing that makes the more provacative models less a question of objectification is their inherent strength. They're not vicitims, nor merely sexpots, they're still powerful warriors in their own right. Yes, it would be nice if there were powerful female models that weren't skimpily dressed, and there are!
Finally, not every male model in the Citadel range is a perfect physical specimen built to crush all who oppose him. The Sanctioned psykers are frail, the old potbellied commissar and cadian lt. weren't exactly in shape, and the wizards of nearly every race are weedy.
GeneralX wrote:And I raised several valid points in the post you chose to ignore, so I don't agree! Please feel free not to post this sort of topic on the board again, or I will return
...with an army of angry people with erm... typing skills .
I wonder if we could recruit Gwar into this particular battle? YAY GWAR!!!
I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality!
Then you are very ignorant of Christianity, and are relying on hearsay and minor beliefs without major currency.
No, no I'm not.....but you go ahead and keep telling yourself that, most fanatics do.
Back on topic, I feel you need to drop this crusade. You're adding way too much negative baggage to something (the hobby) that doesn't need it, nor deserve it. You're making seperations where its not balanced and legitimate to do so.
Final point. Women dressed with all their noddies hanging out is not better or worse then a man dressed in power armour thats so big he couldn't see his weener if he had to go pee. Neither is tactically significant, nor is it practical in ranged or close combat!!!
Its all fantasy, its all fun, and none of it is serious.
My suggestion to you, with respect, stop confusing fantasy with reality! Its called fantasy for a reason, enjoy it, hate it....but stop the preaching.....please.
GeneralX wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is, but I know you disagree with me...
Read FATAL and you'll agree its feth!
The presumption of gender being a pivotal factor in combat presumes that said combat is engaged in some manner where reach and muscle mass have significant impact. Any force multiplier begins to remove that advantage. Firearms for example shift to hand-eye coordination and practice rather than mass/reach - traits that are refined by training rather than gender.
Further: Mass/reach is only an impact in a symmetric engagement (or fair fight). There are exceedingly few natural examples of a preference for a fair fight. Animals that compete for resources or mates use whatever advantages they have. Therefore the female in your example is functionally stupid for engaging in a fight she was aware she'd likely lose.
But, we digress! This is about 'the sexay miniz' not 'who is better: boys or girls?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I think this thread needs some appropriate pics
I feel better about myself and GRRLL minis in general. I hope you do have as well.
Yay Frazzled!
I'm at work, so hook me up with a Serous Cat too?
I'm not convinced that minis are in any way equal to pr0n (although many of us have spent waaay too much on both!) or equal to human degradation.A few more sweaty half naked celts might not hurt! But a pint and good conversation is fine too.
I'm more convinced that they're toys thus probably not the best thing to be worried about gender roles.
But then again, I *almost always* advocate a pint as part of a healthy bit of blowing off steam.
My girlfriend bought me the Army Brat limited edition model sculpted by Werner Klocke for a valentines present. It's effin awesome and she will be used in my bloodaxe army as a filthy umie traita-grrl in my unit of kommandos!
take a look at this mini, I think it's fecking grand.
As to women looking like sluts in this game? Yes, there are many female characters designed to be bought by adolescent and adult men. But there are plenty of nonslutty minis about as well. And lets be clear, this sort of thing is everywhere, why did transformers movie have megan fox running around in it? Cos she's bloody great to look at, not because she can act on par with Judi Dench. There should be megan fox minis and judi dench minis.
Some of them are OT. What I like is that we've had some mini lines come up that have added to the repertoire of fine minis to choose from and not just Dark Eldar slave girl #2.
I think we partially see the more risque ones more because they are literally more in your face. Having said that many of the armored ones do kind of suck in that regard. If you're going to give them armor, then give them armor. Comments about more religiously related ones are in similar. A nun is going to look like a nun, not like a Halloween party costume.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:My girlfriend bought me the Army Brat limited edition model sculpted by Werner Klocke for a valentines present. It's effin awesome and she will be used in my bloodaxe army as a filthy umie traita-grrl in my unit of kommandos!
take a look at this mini, I think it's fecking grand.
As to women looking like sluts in this game? Yes, there are many female characters designed to be bought by adolescent and adult men. But there are plenty of nonslutty minis about as well. And lets be clear, this sort of thing is everywhere, why did transformers movie have megan fox running around in it? Cos she's bloody great to look at, not because she can act on par with Judi Dench. There should be megan fox minis and judi dench minis.
DUDE!!! That is a frakking AWESOME mini... wow. I may try and get some stuff from these cats, very nice work.
"Note"
You should start a AWESOME (echo!) mini thread MGS, I would like to see a few more of your recommendations .
Darknight wrote:No, not just the fact they don't mind if they get painted with oil or enamel or arcylic, but why can't I buy a female model who isn't impossibly busty and / or "dressed" like a whore?
I recently purchased some bits to create an avatar of Myrmidia (basically, a 54mm female knight with wings) for WFB. And I would like to have some attendants for her - I thought it would be cool to have some armored females; nuns in heavy armour kind of thing. GW doesn't do a lot of models in that style (there is the Sisters of Sigmar, but they are very Sigmarite - I want swords and spears, not hammers) so I looked elsewhere.
Oh sweet merciful Jesus, tell me why there is NO-ONE who sculpts models who didn't learn what women are like SOLELY from Jim Balent comics? And, if the Son of God is too busy dying for my sins to tell me, can a Dakkaite answer this?
Case in point - Werner Knocke's work. I bought a 54mm model of his, and it is a nice model and not too bad (although my wife did say "She has a very big chest" which, coming from my wife, is kinda like me saying "He's very Catholic") - but look at the rest of his stuff!
And it's not just him - Dark Elf Witch Elves I understand (they are part of a sadistic sex / death cult), same with Daemonettes. But, seriously guys - this is a fantasy game so I should be able to have female models doing traditionally male roles (like fighter etc.) Can I please have a model or two who is not dressed like a freaking whore? Some practical armor? Maybe if she actually covered her bumpers?
Does anyone have any comments - or perhaps somewhere where I can purchase heroic 28mm (or even 28mm or 25mm) female figures in armor which are NOT dressed like the hostesses at the local Spearmint Rhino?
It's just a reflection of the wider media. If you haven't already noticed, most films and video games aimed at men feature "slutty" women. Wargames are no different.
Oldgrue wrote:The presumption of gender being a pivotal factor in combat presumes that said combat is engaged in some manner where reach and muscle mass have significant impact. Any force multiplier begins to remove that advantage. Firearms for example shift to hand-eye coordination and practice rather than mass/reach - traits that are refined by training rather than gender.
In any period of time pretty much ever, even during the beginning of firearms, so about year 1600 and before (still lots of hand to hand combat, cav. charges etc.) Reach, mass, height, strength, stamina, ability to march great distances, carry loads, build camps, hunt etc. Were all critical to being a soldier. No just sticking a pointy thing in the other guy, but loads of other necessary tasks all requiring physical labor. The roman army built all those roads as they traveled! etc. Its not about GENDER (thought very important) an army of men who were well fed/rested and 6' 2" and muscular, with good morale, would destroy and army of 5' 4" men who had been suffering from malnutrition and lack of sleep.
Oldgrue wrote:Further: Mass/reach is only an impact in a symmetric engagement (or fair fight). There are exceedingly few natural examples of a preference for a fair fight. Animals that compete for resources or mates use whatever advantages they have. Therefore the female in your example is functionally stupid for engaging in a fight she was aware she'd likely lose.
Fair fight? you mean like most major combat engagements of historical significance? Well not all of them were fair obviously, or even close, but all involved soldiers who were in some ways prepared for war... And yes thats my point, women lose fights to men on the battle field, which is why they weren't soldiers, not because as darknight put it "they were needed for making babies" (paraphrased).
GeneralX wrote:
Fair fight? you mean like most major combat engagements of historical significance? Well not all of them were fair obviously, or even close, but all involved soldiers who were in some ways prepared for war... And yes thats my point, women lose fights to men on the battle field, which is why they weren't soldiers, not because as darknight put it "they were needed for making babies" (paraphrased).
Unless they are snipers. Or pilots.
Nobody is going to claim that physical strength/stamina isn't still major factor in modern combat, but there are a lot of places you can use women and not have a horrendous drop in performance.
there are many reason women aren't used in combat (well, at least officially not used), and it's a complex mixture of physical attributes, latent sexism, unit morale, fears of rape if captured, etc. To over simplify it so simply their strength is shortsighted.
Since the shift in modern man's diet to a much more protein rich diet, the relative size of gender has shifted drastically.
Using males as combatants is a genetically wise decision, seeing as one male can lead to several females being fertilized. Anything but a catastrophic drop in the male/female ratios becomes a non threat to survival.
The presumption that there is a gender inherent combat bias fails to take this into consideration. This also perpetuates itself by creating a gender role that distances females from being socially indoctrinated into combat as an acceptable profession. the gender role itself created what is effectively a Eugenic effect allowing females to be effectively bred for beauty rather than other traits like reach and muscle mass.
Current American military doctrine expects certain levels of performance out of combatants. Athletic necessities that the human body can achieve. Unless of course a female professional athlete can't perform to the same standards as an American soldier (Clue: there are many that exceed male PT requirements). Therefore we get back to a question of training to do so, and willingness.
From there we look at artifices of law suggesting that gender roles play significant impact in the minds of combatants. However we fail to take into account Law Enforcement. Since females are allowed to perform armed law enforcement duties, and expected to maintain the same levels of marksmanship as their male counterparts, endure the same environmental burdens, and same combat load (armor, weapon, ammunition).
Since the ability to deploy a firearm is delineated by role USMC MOS 0311 which has no mass requirements. So, we return to a social artifice rather than a minimum athletic requirement.
Therefore, I propose that the gender requirements of female combatants are effectively hogwash.
Quick edit:
Please note: Just because i have certain plumbing outside my body does *not* mean I want to get shot at, and my preferred combat role: 'Push button, watch rocket fly, go home for beer' is most definitely something children of any gender can do!
I figure it's just because it's harder to "read" the difference between male and female on the tabletop. Many sculptors simply aren't good enough to convey some of the more subtle differences between males and females. For instance, a flat chested and fairly broad shouldered woman is easy to read in the real world, but in 25 millimeters of metal, she'll look an awful lot like a man. Having gravity defying busty women makes it really obvious which figures represent males, and which represent females. I've seen some far more realistic work (some posted on the first page) but the large majority is pretty over the top.
No idea if anyone else posted this idea, just pitching in my 2 cents.
Polonius wrote:
there are many reason women aren't used in combat (well, at least officially not used), and it's a complex mixture of physical attributes, latent sexism, unit morale, fears of rape if captured, etc. To over simplify it so simply their strength is shortsighted.
shortsighted doesn't make sense in that context! In any case I specifically was referencing combat without significantly accurate firearms. Also I am mostly concerned with countering the blatantly false argument that women were not used in war due to reproductive necessity. Sure women can fight, and I bet some of them would beat some men, there is not black and white!
Sculpting in minature to show gender necesitates the need for large breasts, but does not mean they need to be half naked in armor that wouldn't protect a gnat while their male counterparts are walking tin cans.
SoB are a good example of functional but still obviously female warriors. While the repentia might be nearly naked, there is an actual reason for them to be so and the lack of armor duly noted.
This theory of "the female armor sets need to have drastically less covering them" has basically been around since the concept of visual gaming.
Take for instance most female armor set graphics vs the exact same armor on a male character in certain online fantasy RPGs. Metal bikini for the ladies, full plate chest piece for the guys. And we are supposed to believe that a small bit of metal to cover the nips is as effective in damage reduction as the exact same piece on a man? *insert rolleyes and deep sighing head shake here*
Neferteila wrote:Sculpting in minature to show gender necesitates the need for large breasts, but does not mean they need to be half naked in armor that wouldn't protect a gnat while their male counterparts are walking tin cans.
SoB are a good example of functional but still obviously female warriors. While the repentia might be nearly naked, there is an actual reason for them to be so and the lack of armor duly noted.
This theory of "the female armor sets need to have drastically less covering them" has basically been around since the concept of visual gaming.
Take for instance most female armor set graphics vs the exact same armor on a male character in certain online fantasy RPGs. Metal bikini for the ladies, full plate chest piece for the guys. And we are supposed to believe that a small bit of metal to cover the nips is as effective in damage reduction as the exact same piece on a man? *insert rolleyes and deep sighing head shake here*
The guardian kit also has full armor cover and a female guardian torso in there.
But apart from the IG, SOB, and Eldar, what races are there... there's CSM, DE, Orks, Nids, Tau, and Necrons.
Seeing as though there is only 1 tau female model that is covered in armor they are also safe. Necrons have no gender and you do not want to see a Nids gender.
That leaves CSM and DE, both are Sex craving, drug taking, torture loving, and horny groups so they like the models for their armies to be well scantily clad.
In the realm of geeks and nerds just about all women have big boobs and curves to die for. Tabletop mini's are far from the exception and you just have to check out comic books, video games, movies etc. to see what I mean.
Nerdy, horny artists make stuff for their nerdy, horny market. As for GW mini's; the human anatomy is caricatured- just look at Catachans; no one can get as ripped and big as that IRL.
Ahtman wrote:The female Knight of the Blazing Sun in WAR wears almost exactly the same armor as the male counterpart.
Same goes for the Warrior Priest.
Excellent examples of decent armor on a female while still being able to tell they are female.
I think this is what the OP was speaking of. The rarity of this phenomenon.
If busty curvy female minis offend anyone, feel free not to buy them. Or look at them. Or lick them. Or erect shrines in their honor.
To put some things in perspective, people talk about how unrealistic chainmail bikinis and corset power armor are. When in the same conversation you could mention warp demons, power fists, floating tanks, dragons, magic fireballs and psychic powers just to name a few.
Mistress of minis wrote:Its simple marketing. It sells.
If busty curvy female minis offend anyone, feel free not to buy them. Or look at them. Or lick them. Or erect shrines in their honor.
To put some things in perspective, people talk about how unrealistic chainmail bikinis and corset power armor are. When in the same conversation you could mention warp demons, power fists, floating tanks, dragons, magic fireballs and psychic powers just to name a few.
Get a grip, and some perspective.
I think all they would need to do, is put some sort of blurb out that the chainmail bikini is imbued with whatever super power so that it works as good as equivilent armor for male counterparts and it would blow the bitching right out of the water. Until the men start to complain about their armor rusting because walking around in a metal can produces more sweat than a racehorse.
While I think there is truth to that, I'm not sure it is completely true. The marketing is toward younger males which tend to make up the demographic and see females more in this way. As a slightly older (though young at heart!) gamer I find the examples from WAR I posted much more interesting than some comic book wet-dream with a 55F's and a 0 waist. Of course I am slightly outside of the demographic curve and it isn't as if I hate the female figure so I will somehow learn to manage to deal with the representations.
Spoiler:
I'm not actually young at heart, I am spiteful and vindictive
"
you're right in a lot of things you say, but life is too short. You know, even if we had modest and balance female characters in our games, we'd still be geeks.....
& 
) but you have made an incredibly broad argument that I consider to be quite provocative. Please specify the style that you are referring to for reference, or this whole conversation will continue to be an ember in the barn.
