I repeat myself: we aren't (or at least I, certainly, am not) devaluing all nude models as junk.
I haven't read people saying all nude models are junk in this thread. Where did you read such?
I have to agree taht you are not, and in that quote as you can see i am using the word "If", if implies that it can happen. And if you really want i can go through this thread and the other ones like it online and show you where people are stating things similar to that.
examples:
chromedog wrote:It's not just those without gamer wives.
It's those without ANY female companionship at all.
The socially insular and maladroit.
Squidmanlolz wrote:
Thare1774 wrote:@Mannahnin- I totally agree that there are nude/semi nude minis that are done well and make sense. I'm speaking of the ones that are done for purely sexual reasons. I as m not a prude and none of it offends me, I just don't see value in it a lot of the time.
There's no real value besides the people willing to spend money on it, it's like miniature, expensive, metal smut that beyond sitting on a shelf doesn't offer anything to anyone.
im not going to look for any more, im tryingmy best not to use any extremes in my own writing, i dont think all nude models are good, but I IN MY EXPERIENCE have noticed a great deal of people shooting down nude models as not being worth the time BECAUSE they are nude, rather than for another particular reason. In a game that has rape, mass-murder, a demon-god with half naked women demons, genocide, etc. i don't see the issue with nudity.
Melissia wrote:I really don't care about any of that topic. Glorifying rape is not something I can support...
I can agree it happens, but really there is zero need to depict it, and it is utterly tasteless to do so outside of fetish porn (where it's still tasteless, but it's porn so it doesn't matter).
Theres a 40k cartoon with rape in it? wtf. I honestly think it could do without rape unless its necessary to the story. I usually just speed through those parts anyways.
Nooo, noooo, noooo... We are fighting over nothing, you see what that image depicts is a respectful soldier helping a hostile enemy fix her wardrobe malfunction, he didn't pull it off, he's giving it back to her cause it fell off.
The guy that's behind the tank OBVIOUSLY had to pee, and he's just zipping back up his pants. It's all a huge misunderstanding!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Awww Melissa :( are you judging me? I'm gonna go cry in a corner now
Melissia wrote:I really don't care about any of that topic. Glorifying rape is not something I can support...
I can agree it happens, but really there is zero need to depict it, and it is utterly tasteless to do so outside of fetish porn (where it's still tasteless, but it's porn so it doesn't matter).
Theres a 40k cartoon with rape in it? wtf. I honestly think it could do without rape unless its necessary to the story. I usually just speed through those parts anyways.
As if Warhammer/40k could get weirder? In one of the Horus Heresy Books, (I think it may be Horus rising) there is a reference to sex on page 321 between Euphrati Keeler an Imperial soldier...or that's what it had appeared like.
Rejn wrote:Nooo, noooo, noooo... We are fighting over nothing, you see what that image depicts is a respectful soldier helping a hostile enemy fix her wardrobe malfunction, he didn't pull it off, he's giving it back to her cause it fell off.
The guy that's behind the tank OBVIOUSLY had to pee, and he's just zipping back up his pants. It's all a huge misunderstanding!
Sounds Legit. I'm actually glad someone posted this one, with there being no solid, official back-story to the diorama, this explanation is as likely as the insinuations of rape.
c0un7_z3r0 wrote: I see two general "roles" (gender roles if you wish) for female miniatures, the dominatrix and the passive object of desire.
I think there are three actually, the two you mentioned and also "The Bertha" as we used to call them.
The Bertha is usually depicted for comic relief (though not always). It is usually some combination of large/fat woman/masculine/butch.
Examples include the matronly and heavy set Mordheim sister (miniatures), various characters from movies (commonly evil stepsisters or matrons, etc.)), and can go to as much of an extreme as the orc cheerleader for Bloodbowl...
jah-joshua wrote:i would venture to guess that most of the pro-nude camp are about as moderate as me in their view of this topic, yet the naysayers seem to be full of hate and judgement...
That's because you have n't actually bothered to read a goddamned thing.
Hell the "pro-nude" people are the ones tossing the most insults around, such as "prude" and "immature".
how can you tell me i haven't read the 11 goddamned pages we have going???
you don't know me, or what i have done...
i posted on page 8 after reading through the first 8 pages, and then again page 10 after reading what had gone on inthe last 2 days...
i just get the feeling that the people on the con side of the issue are taking this much more personal, and the pro side is a lot more ambivalent...
yes, there have been insults on both sides, but not from me...
i do refute your claim that 99%+ of the topless or nude minis out on the market are "distasteful and pointless"...
i would say it's more like 50/50...
there really are some nice pin-ups, topless minis, and full-on naked ladies that don't cross the line into smut, exploitation, or crimes against humanity...
if they are not your cup of tea that's fine, there is no reason to think that i am trying to insult you by disagreeing, just as there is no reason for you to insult me because i have an opinion...
jah-joshua wrote:how can you tell me i haven't read the 11 goddamned pages we have going???
Because what you said proved that you didn't.
jah-joshua wrote:i just get the feeling that the people on the con side of the issue are taking this much more personal, and the pro side is a lot more ambivalent...
ok, you disagree with me, but that doesn't changed the fact that i have read every post...
i just have a different opinion than you...
at least in my post i gave good reasons for my stance, and sited what i like and don't like, as well as referencing different minis for both sides of the argument...
i'm not trying to start a fight, i'm trying to contribute to the discussion...
Well... I'm sorry if I offended anyone (I don't think so but sometimes you're offensive without noticing it)...
There's something I do not understand Melissia... why do you dislike so much nude models? I read through the thread but i didn't understand... EDIT for horrible grammar
Melissia wrote:I can agree it happens, but really there is zero need to depict it, and it is utterly tasteless to do so outside of fetish porn (where it's still tasteless, but it's porn so it doesn't matter).
I think Steig Larrson would disagree, on the general need to depict it in a fictional setting - a depiction isn't of nesc a glorification, it's just one more aspect that makes the future grimmer and darker... and since the peice in question -is- fetish porn does that mean you give it a pass on tastelessness?
Melissia wrote:Most of the time, it's because it's obviously just to titilate others. Other times it's because they're really just not good models.
I don't oppose EVERY one of them. I liked the old daemonette models for example, but then, they made sense in-universe as well.
Melissia, I remember years ago seeing you post on B&C and not agreeing with a single thing you said. In this thread I agree with you on almost every single point.
if you want the straight good answer I'll tell everyone one of you what it is.
Rape is bad and should only be used when necessary to demonstrate story not because (AWWW DATS HOT) rape is one of the most fethed up things in this world and if you say "what the feth do you know about it SHADOWSNIP? aren't you a pervy slaanesh anyways???" Ill just retort by saying I know a lot more about it than I'd like to (it didn't happen to me but to many people I know)
BOOBS ON MODELS ARE FINE! as long as theres no sexual organs going into other sexual organs on the model ITS OKAY because if there was intercourse on the model thats technically porn.
Rape porn is EFFED UP. BDSM is one thing but when you're watching someone get raped and like it YOU ARE FETHED UP. I understand fetishes perfectly but rape porn??
If you don't like a nude commissar then don't buy one and don't hate on people who do have one if they aren't hurting anyone.
And by god i pay 33 bucks for 10 daemonettes if i want them to have tits I'll make them have tits. Its not just your hobby its mine too!
Honestly, this issue is way too subjective to have a constructive debate on. It's all down to personal taste whether you find the models distasteful or not, and it's going to be impossible to make the other party feel the same way - it is, after all, personal opinion here. It's not something that can be debated.
I think the last 11 pages of throwing not-so-veiled insults at each other proves that this thread won't accomplish a thing.
I'm not insulting anyone I'm just pointing out the obvious. Don't buy a nude model if you don't like them. If you like making nude models because thats your thing then roll with it. And if you don't like nuduity then don't deal with it by not buying nude models. And if it offends you that much don't play with people who have nude models. Is it that hard to comprehend? \
I think the human body is a beautiful thing, and I don't think nude models are tasteless, until someone's immaturity makes it that way.
Just passing through to state my opinion (;
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shadowsnip wrote:I'm not insulting anyone I'm just pointing out the obvious. Don't buy a nude model if you don't like them. If you like making nude models because thats your thing then roll with it. And if you don't like nuduity then don't deal with it by not buying nude models. And if it offends you that much don't play with people who have nude models. Is it that hard to comprehend? \
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
Just passing by to defend the "rape scene", that diorama was not mad eto depict a nude eldar, but to depict a very unused facet of war. It is gross, but superb...
I dont like naked figures, excepet when the nudity makes sense, and is part of the nature: you dont expect a dryad to wear clothes. Meanwhyle, all our "problem with nudity" is a result of culture before anything else, just take a look at very young kids or "selvages", they just dont see problems walking around without clothes...
Lanceradvanced wrote:since the peice in question -is- fetish porn does that mean you give it a pass on tastelessness?
I don' think that particular piece was meant to be porn, but to answer this:
Porn is, almost by definition, tastless. It's not meant to be fine art, and even "classy" porn isn't really.
Mind you, a lot of so-called art is tasteless too, because certain "artists" rely on shock value instead, and taht's what I presume that piece was intended to be.
^^This. Melissa is correct in that all of that dirty crap is senseless, tasteless, and perverse. Shock value is often used as a ways of getting attention, and I don't feel that they deserve that attention because they're just using obscenity as a way of going 'hey! over here!'
Back to the main topic, I don't like how unrealisticnude minis are, in that why would they go into battle without armor, let alone without a shirt? Demonettes are part of the universe's story, while that damn crappy commissar is just unnecessary.
killykavekommando wrote:^^This. Melissa is correct in that all of that dirty crap is senseless, tasteless, and perverse. Shock value is often used as a ways of getting attention, and I don't feel that they deserve that attention because they're just using obscenity as a way of going 'hey! over here!'
Back to the main topic, I don't like how unrealisticnude minis are, in that why would they go into battle without armor, let alone without a shirt? Demonettes are part of the universe's story, while that damn crappy commissar is just unnecessary.
what if your having beers with the boys while your playing and you suddenly bring out the boob commissar and everyone laughs and they have a good time trying to kill the boob girl? Bringing it out just to have a good time and some fun?
I mean isn't wargaming and modelling about expression who you are and to have your army represent you? I mean if you like boobs then you like boobs. Doesn't mean your a tasteless gakker or an incompetent moron if your commissar has boobs?
I mean just picture yourself sitting down with a guy who pulls out a boob Commissar. Your reactions either going to be a shocking laugh or a shocking mad face.
For all those people who got angry Picture yourself saying "I don't want to play because of those boobs... it ruins the immersion"
Okay it ruined the immersion but you still have a game on your hands and a reason to fight and get competitive. To me I care more about winning and crushing my enemies than some bimbo with her ta ta's out but if you're there for the fantasy then you're there for the fantasy,
but in my sincere opinion to the humblest degree I firmly believe that if you're so high strung that you can't play agaisnt someone who has a nude model then you shouldn't be playing warhammer in the first place (I'm not saying anyone here is)
I have a few issues here, firstly I am still trying to work through the process of figuring out who is glorifying rape 0o
It seems like some people consider the hint of something sinister in a graphically moderate scene to be extremely sinister.
I dont consider being very emotional concerning this subject, but if our painted toy soldiers are considered art, then a skillfully made and technically beautiful diorama that has stirred up this much conversation clearly has some value in it.
Melissia wrote:Most of the time, it's because it's obviously just to titillate others. Other times it's because they're really just not good models.
I don't oppose EVERY one of them. I liked the old daemonette models for example, but then, they made sense in-universe as well.
I agree with this completely.
Titillation for the sake of titillation is pointless. I get erotica and the place it has. Porn is just boring.
Nudity on a nymph or dryad is fine and in keeping with it. Nudity on daemons that are the embodiment of a god of pleasure and excess is also fitting (and the older metal ones that people liked) had style in a kinda cheeky way. Several of them had a kind of coyness about them. Coy and nudity and also great big claws and horns and teeth.
Commissar Stripperella is a whole different kettle of fish. Now, I can kinda understand the discipline fetishists (except I don't really. The whole catholic guilt and punishment thing that seems to be behind it stymies me) but not in a miniatures game (unless we're talking Spinespur which is not my bag.).
Sure, I liked cheesecake as much as the next teen boy - I guess I just outgrew the need to have cheesecake and/or pinups/centrefolds on every surface (unlike my 37 year old brother-in-law who still hasn't).
Oh, had a thought, in that Eldar rape diorama, think about what will happen next.... The guardsmen will undoubtedly be executed on the spot for consorting with Xenos...
dogma wrote:Though, outrage for the sake of outrage? That's pointless.
If you're claiming I'm doing this, I would argue that this also applies to you, Dogma, for being outraged that someone dare disagree wtih your views on the subject.
Then I played a HackMaster tournament at a local gamestore. (hackmaster is based off 2nd edition D&D). There was a guy not in the tournament, but walking from table to table, asking to see people's painted miniatures. Then he'd ask specifically to see female miniatures. Then he asked to see topless female miniatures. He kept one hand in his front pants pocket the whole time.
I told him to get away from the table, he's disrupting the game. Apparently, anytime people are in there playing D&D or other games, he pulls this. I haven't been back to that store in years. But since then, I usually think of that guy when I see a painted, topless miniature.
Then I played a HackMaster tournament at a local gamestore. (hackmaster is based off 2nd edition D&D). There was a guy not in the tournament, but walking from table to table, asking to see people's painted miniatures. Then he'd ask specifically to see female miniatures. Then he asked to see topless female miniatures. He kept one hand in his front pants pocket the whole time.
I told him to get away from the table, he's disrupting the game. Apparently, anytime people are in there playing D&D or other games, he pulls this. I haven't been back to that store in years. But since then, I usually think of that guy when I see a painted, topless miniature.
That is a whole other level of creepy far above and beyond the Eldar diorama...
I find the nude commisar silly, for the record. I'm not offended by it at all. Just find it silly. Why would you be running around the battlefield topless unless you were attacked in the middle of the night or something?
But then, I'd rather see that across the table than this:
I don't get the use of nude models as well, especially when people claim that it is 'art'. I know this maybe a bit of sweeping statement, but i think that it is just people fulfilling some weird childish fantasy they have, as all the nude models just so happen to be big breasted, skinny waisted women in suggestive/ sexual poses, which I find unrealistic, tacky and not how women should be portrayed. I would only be forgiving of nudity of models if it was Celtic historical's.
That's my opinion.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone, I admit it wasn't the best choice of wording.
Beany10 wrote:I don't get the use of nude models as well, especially when people claim that it is 'art'. I know this maybe a bit of sweeping statement, but i think that it is just people fulfilling some weird childish fantasy they have, as all the nude models just so happen to be big breasted, skinny waisted women in suggestive/ sexual poses, which I find unrealistic, tacky and not how women should be portrayed. I would only be forgiving of nudity of models if it was Celtic historical's.
That's my opinion.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone, I admit it wasn't the best choice of wording.
We play with toy soldiers and some of us even go as far as making zoom zoom noises as they push their tanks across the table. A childish mentality somewhat comes with the territory when dealing with games of this nature. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that war gaming is anything more fundamental than an more expensive version of playing with green and tan army men that all 7 year olds have at one time or another put to war.
However, as I don't think its been mentioned yet, but is it the size that matters? At what point is the nude model no longer considered a toy soldier and becoming something of a sculpture. Now not all sculptures can be 17 feet tall like Michelangelo's David. But what about 52 mm scale, 1/8, 1/6, 1/4 scale?
I personally build and paint 1/6 - 1/4 scale anime figures. Some have nudity in them, some do not. I've also done the occasional Samurai and put in a lot of time and effort into the base work. (For the curious if you click around the link in my sig you will find them) I get a lot of pleasure out of completing these models to what IMO is a very high standard and feel that doing all the work myself takes it into the area of art and not just collection action figures.
Lol, if someone puts boobs on a 15mm model their skilled, art or not.
The Eldar rape scene shows an alternative to the traditional Warhammer 40k theme, it's normally comedically Grimdark (Orks, Space Monkeys and overall ridiculousness), but with a little work it could relatively easily changed into a seriously Grimdark universe, and the Eldar Rape scene no doubt shows how it could be
It does depend on both context, if the model is a slave then being naked is understandable. Same with a Slannesh demon, or a Celt. Even in certain armies that wouldn't normally have naked/half naked models theres the potential for nudity at times in the case of certain models, like if there was an Araby army and the Sultan had half naked harem girls it'd make sense, or if there was an army based on South American tribesmen and women.
Orks aren't comedic to me. But then I don't have any need for comic relief in my 40k, so I can take them and 40k quite seriously without adding in a pointless and tasteless rape scene.
Orks aren't comedic to me. But then I don't have any need for comic relief in my 40k, so I can take them and 40k quite seriously without adding in a pointless and tasteless rape scene.
I think what he was saying is that 40k avoids things such as rape that would be a "real" factor, because it is more comedic oriented (example: orks).
Being Catholic, nude miniatures that are especially distasteful offend me. If a model makes sense and is in the context, I am okay with it. That damn controversial guard-eldar 'mobbing' scene is out of context and especially offensive. Women are equals as humans, and it is obvious that the elder are closely related to humans in this artist's depiction, in particular. This is why it especially offends me.
killykavekommando wrote:Being Catholic, nude miniatures that are especially distasteful offend me. If a model makes sense and is in the context, I am okay with it. That damn controversial guard-eldar 'mobbing' scene is out of context and especially offensive. Women are equals as humans, and it is obvious that the elder are closely related to humans in this artist's depiction, in particular. This is why it especially offends me.
Being a former catholic I find it very funny that the supposed nuditty offends you but the extreme violence does not...
Necro wrote:Not to mention the Imperium worshiping the God Emperor.
And that as well, the whole: "God is dead, his church is an extremelly corrupt organization bent on the domination of humankind and his son was turned to the devil" seems a little bit more offensive to me than a pair of breasts...
Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...
Those of us with Gamer wives, on the other hand...
Because nobody is allowed to artistically represent the human body in any way, and it immediately means that they are basement dwellers who don't get laid.
If you were more similar to a 15 year old I might just think you are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beany10 wrote:I don't get the use of nude models as well, especially when people claim that it is 'art'. I know this maybe a bit of sweeping statement, but i think that it is just people fulfilling some weird childish fantasy they have, as all the nude models just so happen to be big breasted, skinny waisted women in suggestive/ sexual poses, which I find unrealistic, tacky and not how women should be portrayed. I would only be forgiving of nudity of models if it was Celtic historical's.
That's my opinion.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone, I admit it wasn't the best choice of wording.
I'm gonna TL;DR this as "Jealous ugly person accusing others of sick perverted fantasies involving physically fit fertile looking women."
Go back to painting and building your hulk and arny male models from any line and keep thinking that males should look like/do look like them.
Of course they are imaginatively proportioned, it's a fantasy miniature about space and aliens.
Untwist panties and remove broompole from rear end please.
Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...
Those of us with Gamer wives, on the other hand...
Because nobody is allowed to artistically represent the human body in any way, and it immediately means that they are basement dwellers who don't get laid.
He never said that if you represent a human body you are a sexually devoid basement dweller. The majority of people in this hobby have represented a human body in some way, whether that be assembling a model, painting a model, artwork, whatever. So does that make every one of them a sexually devoid basement dweller? No. So to interpret that as being what he said isn't correct. I think I get where you coming from by attacking the fact that it seems to imply that anyone who sculpts boobies on a miniature 'isn't getting any', because it is a bit of a generalisation. But I think that Ascalam was saying it in a rather 'tongue in cheek' manner and so there's not really a need to take it so seriously.
BronzeJon wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beany10 wrote:I don't get the use of nude models as well, especially when people claim that it is 'art'. I know this maybe a bit of sweeping statement, but i think that it is just people fulfilling some weird childish fantasy they have, as all the nude models just so happen to be big breasted, skinny waisted women in suggestive/ sexual poses, which I find unrealistic, tacky and not how women should be portrayed. I would only be forgiving of nudity of models if it was Celtic historical's.
That's my opinion.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone, I admit it wasn't the best choice of wording.
I'm gonna TL;DR this as "Jealous ugly person accusing others of sick perverted fantasies involving physically fit fertile looking women."
Go back to painting and building your hulk and arny male models from any line and keep thinking that males should look like/do look like them.
Of course they are imaginatively proportioned, it's a fantasy miniature about space and aliens.
Untwist panties and remove broompole from rear end please.
Woah calm down there, just because you don't agree with their opinion doesn't mean you have to say things like that to them.
Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...
Those of us with Gamer wives, on the other hand...
Because nobody is allowed to artistically represent the human body in any way, and it immediately means that they are basement dwellers who don't get laid.
If you were more similar to a 15 year old I might just think you are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Beany10 wrote:I don't get the use of nude models as well, especially when people claim that it is 'art'. I know this maybe a bit of sweeping statement, but i think that it is just people fulfilling some weird childish fantasy they have, as all the nude models just so happen to be big breasted, skinny waisted women in suggestive/ sexual poses, which I find unrealistic, tacky and not how women should be portrayed. I would only be forgiving of nudity of models if it was Celtic historical's.
That's my opinion.
P.S. Sorry if I offended anyone, I admit it wasn't the best choice of wording.
I'm gonna TL;DR this as "Jealous ugly person accusing others of sick perverted fantasies involving physically fit fertile looking women."
Go back to painting and building your hulk and arny male models from any line and keep thinking that males should look like/do look like them.
Of course they are imaginatively proportioned, it's a fantasy miniature about space and aliens.
Untwist panties and remove broompole from rear end please.
You just did to Beany10 what you accused Ascalam of doing, neither is very correct.
First, the depiction of females being unrealistic, the depiction of ALL models is the same level of unrealism, it's a fantasy game!
Then if you as a general could hire physically unfit soldiers to serve as your army would you? No, you want the soldiers who are gonna perform the best!
Melissa, how are the Orks not comedic to you? 90% of everything about them is a joke! That is comming from an avid Orc fan in and out of WH.
And with the arguement that tits don't belong on the battlefield, I couldn't disagree more! What better way to distract the enemy or opponent than with some sex appeal. It's been used since humans first started warring, and is still a tactic used today (sex appeal).
I play in a lot of tournaments and most of my armies have female miniatures in them, which is difficult given GWs apparent war on boobs. A couple of these armies (notably my slaanesh daemon ones) feature nude women, mostly topless. It fits the theme of the army, but basically I just plain like having female miniatures in my army. They are pleasant to look at and fit the entire scifi female ass kicker achetype.
My ogre army is led by a female ogre (Reaper Fire Giantess mini). My Daemon army has various topless daemonettes various ranges and is headed up by three topless female keepers, including a classic Ral Partha half dragon and the beast of war one. My dark elf army is lead by a Jain Zar conversion on a dragon. My Bretts have a reaper female knight on a peg and Repanse de Lionesse as the BSB. I play Sisters because I like the concept of woman who kick ass (a sci fi staple). And so on.
I like seeing women, from plain to cheesecake, on the table because it is asthetically pleasing to my idea of the fiction behind things and more apealling to me personally than a bunch of steroided up dudebros. I really do not care what is on the other side of the table, as long as the other person put effort into it, so if someone wanted to have an army of purple dildo swinging gay jester men, I would not care one bit as long as they were happy with it. Given the source material of the genre, its a lot like complaining about anatomy of comic book women and men.
I really don't think anyone who uses nude minis (or even just cheescake ones) is a pervert. Why would they be with the abundance of free fap material all over the internet? Its nearly always either a one off joke or part of an army theme.
TLDR version: I like the way women look in the context of the genre and get over yourselves puritans.
Rejn wrote:Melissa, how are the Orks not comedic to you? 90% of everything about them is a joke! That is comming from an avid Orc fan in and out of WH.
Because they are the never-ending horde of technobarbarians at the gate, with no desire nor comprehension of peace. They are monstrous berserkers capable of smashing a man's head with their bare hands like a grape, with multiple redundant organs and a robust physiology that exceeds that of the Space Marines, with technology that we likely will never comprehend that is capable of defying the laws of physics. Even if you kill one of them, a dozen more pop up, and they reproduce their entire lives just by living and dying through their spore-based reproductive cycle. They know how to fight like we know how to breathe, meaning that unlike us they don't need a time to train before being as effective as a soldier-- they don't need a boot camp.
And what's worse? They've already conquered most of the galaxy. Orks have basically already won, and everyone else is just fighting over scraps.
Orks are frightening. They make Necrons and Tyranids look pathetic in comparison, and equally rival Chaos in fear factor.
Rejn wrote:how are the Orks not comedic to you? 90% of everything about them is a joke!
There is nothing comedic about the orks in Helsreach or Rynn's World. That's how I like my orks. Nasty fethers! They will kill you, torture you, and eat your children (in no particular order).
Skippy wrote:"women are equals as humans" means women and men are equal to me, you saying wow, just...wow to that implies you dont agree.
However obviously we are just interpreting the original statement from killy differently, so no worries.
Yeah, I guess we interpret it different because to me that sentence sounds like if human only refered to men. So when I read the sentence I was like "What are women then? Platypus?".
Why are people so offended about some exposed breasts on the tabletop? Nude models are not all women, and some not even humans at all this model has his bits hanging out (NSFW)
Arm.chair.general wrote:Why are people so offended about some exposed breasts on the tabletop? Nude models are not all women, and some not even humans at all this model has his bits hanging out (NSFW)
Spoiler:
Here is a celtic model with his 'weapon' exposed
Spoiler:
They're not really offended by the nudity in of itself; more those that don't make sense in context (or are stupidly "justified"), made for sheer titillation.
Arm.chair.general wrote:Why are people so offended
You start your post off with a loaded question and it only goes downhill from there....
Asking :"why are you offended" is like asking "why won't you stop sleeping with your underaged daughter?" It presumes and unproven statement (IE, that you are offended in the former, and that you are sleeping with your underaged daughter in the latter).
It's not about taking offense as much as noting distaste and not liking it. If your definition of taking offense is "not liking it", I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Arm.chair.general wrote:Why are people so offended
You start your post off with a loaded question and it only goes downhill from there....
Asking :"why are you offended" is like asking "why won't you stop sleeping with your underaged daughter?" It presumes and unproven statement (IE, that you are offended in the former, and that you are sleeping with your underaged daughter in the latter).
It's not about taking offense as much as noting distaste and not liking it. If your definition of taking offense is "not liking it", I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
That's because you have taken it out of context. I originally put why are people so offended of exposed breasts on the tabletop.
In my dictionary: Offended: To cause displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in.
Consequently displeasure is: A feeling of annoyance or disapproval
The word offence can be taken in many ways, don't try to pin one meaning on it.
Although I will admit that maybe dislike is a better word to use as it has less meanings to it.
Skippy wrote:"women are equals as humans" means women and men are equal to me, you saying wow, just...wow to that implies you dont agree.
However obviously we are just interpreting the original statement from killy differently, so no worries.
Yeah, I guess we interpret it different because to me that sentence sounds like if human only refered to men. So when I read the sentence I was like "What are women then? Platypus?".
I meant to say that men and women are equal, not that men are humans and women are platypus(es?).
Melissia wrote:Because they are the never-ending horde of technobarbarians at the gate, with no desire nor comprehension of peace. They are monstrous berserkers capable of smashing a man's head with their bare hands like a grape, with multiple redundant organs and a robust physiology that exceeds that of the Space Marines, with technology that we likely will never comprehend that is capable of defying the laws of physics. Even if you kill one of them, a dozen more pop up, and they reproduce their entire lives just by living and dying through their spore-based reproductive cycle. They know how to fight like we know how to breathe, meaning that unlike us they don't need a time to train before being as effective as a soldier-- they don't need a boot camp.
And what's worse? They've already conquered most of the galaxy. Orks have basically already won, and everyone else is just fighting over scraps.
Orks are frightening. They make Necrons and Tyranids look pathetic in comparison, and equally rival Chaos in fear factor.
Yes, that is what they would sound like had Matt Ward written the codex.
Luckily though, mr. Kelly has gotten his hands on it and we have an insane Dok because a helper threw up in his brainpan and Meks looking on with paternal pride while their new Kans are being broken in by the driving Gretchin killing all his bullies.
It just reads like grimdark slapstick. You may not like it and choose to ignore it, but you can't with a straight face say that it's not there.
You point at me and say "don't pin the word to a single definition!" then you go and do exactly what you say I shouldn't do afterwards...
Be that as it may, just because I find the overwhelming majority of models which are nude to be distasteful doesn't mean that I say all of them are. I thought the daemonette models (the old ones) were pefectly fine, for example-- they fit the theme of the army and all that.
But for an opposing example... that tentacle monster surrounded by nude female sex slaves? That's... definitely tasteless and for the most part pointless. Am I saying "don't buy that model", no, and also no. You can do whatever you want with your money, but it's still a trashy model. If you like that sort of thing, bully for you. But that doesn't mean you should look down on me for not having the same level of enjoyment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TiB wrote:Yes, that is what they would sound like had Matt Ward written the codex
That's what they sound like right now. It has nothing to do with Ward.
Not to sound like a doucher but I kinda wanna see this eldar thing everyone is talking about, cause I have no idea how pieces of fake plastic could turn anyone on, but then again people watch tentacle porn, and that just freaks me the frag out.
azrel9 wrote:Not to sound like a doucher but I kinda wanna see this eldar thing everyone is talking about, cause I have no idea how pieces of fake plastic could turn anyone on, but then again people watch tentacle porn, and that just freaks me the frag out.
There's a spoilered picture of it earlier in the thread, azrel.
You point at me and say "don't pin the word to a single definition!" then you go and do exactly what you say I shouldn't do afterwards...
Be that as it may, just because I find the overwhelming majority of models which are nude to be distasteful doesn't mean that I say all of them are. I thought the daemonette models (the old ones) were pefectly fine, for example-- they fit the theme of the army and all that.
But for an opposing example... that tentacle monster surrounded by nude female sex slaves? That's... definitely tasteless and for the most part pointless. Am I saying "don't buy that model", no, and also no. You can do whatever you want with your money, but it's still a trashy model. If you like that sort of thing, bully for you. But that doesn't mean you should look down on me for not having the same level of enjoyment.
I didn't do that afterwards, I just said dislike has less meanings to it. I did not try to pin a meaning to it, I was just simply trying to get across that Dislike may be better because it's more specific, compared to offend which has a range of meanings from displeasure, to stronger emotions like resentful and anger.
I am guessing this is the mini you were talking about? (NSFW)
Spoiler:
I agree with you that things like that the monster with slave girls is distasteful, but I theorise that most people would dislike it and find it somewhat disturbing, because in polls and threads on Dakka and elsewhere the general response for nude miniatures is that it's ok as long as it's kept clean (no sex, rape ect...)
I think nude models are unnecessary. It's the chainmail bikini syndrome. They don't fit the setting, thus they become tacky. They'd be acceptable in a tortured slave situation, as with Dark Eldar, and they're acceptable in as so far as Daemonettes go, because they fit there as well. Your commissar should not be topless. Neither should your Inquisitor.
That thing above is utterly appalling, and frankly, I kind of think that's the point. It's not "horray boobies", it's the thing that's been haunting the dreams of the hobo living by the overpass that makes him try to direct traffic on the freeway and crucify squirrels. It's the horrible unspeakable present in Lovecraft. It's something I'd expect to see drawn in a Hellblazer comic. It's evocative of, well, horror, but that in and of itself makes it significant. It's EXACTLY what I would expect a daemon to look like: Horrible mockery of humanity combined with dark perversion of things that would make most people kind of uncomfortable. If anything, it's biggest fault is that it does what it does TOO well. It's too much. It's not fit for a game board because, well, it's just too much. I don't know how to better describe it.
I definitely wouldn't expose the kids at the store to it though.
punkow wrote:(I play DA and Orks... no boobs here) I see nothing wrong in it...
The irony of this comment is priceless. (For anyone for whom that's a little obscure, I'm getting at the "Dark Angels are gay, that's their secret, that's why their wear dresses" malarky...)
Anyway, to comment on-topic, so as to not post something completely irrelevant, I'm neither particularly for it, or offended by it. I haven't bought any nude models, and I've no desire to, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the sculpting/painting that somebody else has done to create theirs.
There have been lots of posts pro-nudity in miniatures and lots of posts against it. Either way, enjoy it if you'd like or choose not to expose yourself to it if you don't.
"women are equals as humans" -- The guy obviously meant that as humans, women and men are equal. Don't know what people are debating about.
Orks ARE scary, at least in most fantasy/sci-fi mediums. In Warhammer and the Warhammer inspired Warcraft Or(k/c)s are on the silly side.
Melissia wrote:
Be that as it may, just because I find the overwhelming majority of models which are nude to be distasteful doesn't mean that I say all of them are. I thought the daemonette models (the old ones) were pefectly fine, for example-- they fit the theme of the army and all that.
The old daemonettes are pretty inaccurate and looks to me as boobs and chainmail bikinis for the sake of it. I always thought that daemonettes would look more like the body art/painting women, but a little more daemonic and mutated. Slaanesh is about beauty, lust, greed, art and music.
WARNING (NSFW)
Daemonettes are as beautiful as they are terrible, for Slaanesh also enjoys revulsion-- his/her daemons are are not just beautiful but also monstrous. It's actually one of the reasons why some slaanesh players use both the new models AND the previous models in unison.
I don't think it's a game system so much as it's a group of miniatures that are linked by a theme intended for collectors and painters (as opposed to being collected played as a wargame like 40k or Infinity).
Melissia wrote:I don't think it's a game system so much as it's a group of miniatures that are linked by a theme intended for collectors and painters (as opposed to being collected played as a wargame like 40k or Infinity).
Not a game system yet, true...
Apparently they plan on making it a game eventually... according to the little card I got with one of their limited models.
Adam Poots (the guy behind Kingdom Death) did a piece on his plans for it for the ezine I edit, Irregular.
The short version is that it will be a horror fantasy board game, with the players playing against the system (a bit like Warhammer Quest). For a bit more from Adam regarding Kingdom Death, the article is on page 49 of issue 2 of Irregular magazine.
i have never seen a mini that i considered offensive, since it is all make believe...
i have however see some sculpts and paintjobs that i thought were ugly...
if i think something is ugly, i just don't buy it, end of story...
no need to get so worked up over someone else's work...
it has zero effect on my life...
when something is done well, like the Kingdom Death sculpts, i think the work of the artists and designers should be respected...
you don't have to like it or buy it, but the sculpts definitely fit into the setting, and are well done...
to attack someone else's work and aesthetic is really disrespectful...
as for nudity without the bizarre twist of KD's creations, it is natural...
nudes have been sculpted for thousands of years...
why is it suddenly perverse to sculpt on a small scale???
not very relevant in a gaming sense ...
still, don't see why anyone would get worked up and call something like this "tasteless and unnecessary"...
not sexy, suggestive, exploitive, demeaning, or raunchy, but instead very classical...
not very relevant in a gaming sense ...
still, don't see why anyone would get worked up and call something like this "tasteless and unnecessary"...
not sexy, suggestive, exploitive, demeaning, or raunchy, but instead very classical...
cheers
jah
I bought another nude model from hassle free after this thread started, they do some lovely sculpts.
@jah-joshua I completely agree, I have two that model and I use one as a Greek Statue for scenery in 28mm games, and the other as a soldier in 40mm games, and don't see why people would be upset about that, sure it's a naked woman, but it's classical, historically accurate and a well sculpted model
Actually Hasslefree do a lot of nude models, their wonderfully sculpted, and in a lot of cases make great extra touches in certain armies, like the Harem Members are great for an Araby army surrounding the Sultan. And that's how I'd use them.
Some people may get upset or offended in some way by them, and I simply say lighten up, this is a game of toy soldiers, yes there are a lot of models that are nude for the sake of being nude like the Commissar, but IT'S A GAME, if your going to complain about naked female models that a gamer chooses for whatever reason then you really need to chill out
Especially if your getting upset about it not making sense or not being practical to go into battle like that, it's not practical to go into battle against giant demons and monsterous aliens while dressed in combat trousers and a thin shirt but Catachans do it all the time. Let's be honest, warhammer and most Sci-Fi or fantasy wargaming background isn't supposed to make sense
Also I've noticed a minimal outrage against naked men as opposed to naked women, it's the same with Comic books where people complain over and over about female superheroes wearing skimpy outfits, being next to nude and mostly being proportioned ridiculously, but ignore characters like Superman or Captain America which wear spandex and are drawn as adonis' and have greek god bodies in minimal or skintight clothing most of the time
Like many things in our society, we fear what we do not know. If someone who grew up with the absence of feelings, the absence of love, the absence of .. art. That someone will not be able to sense love for nothing but their own self.
But if you take a person on the opposite end of that spectrum, you'll have someone who'll find the love for art, the love for another.
If you are afraid of nudity, of sexuality, that is a prejudice, a prejudice that you bring yourself to judge others with.
No, liking something that features a nude person, be it a photograph, a painting or a miniature figure, is an aesthetic. nothing more. there's seldom any sexual arousal involved for anyone but pre-pubescant boys.
And likewise the diorama showing the horrors of war, yes, it exists to this day. I've myself averted scenes such as that on my tour of duty. But, its a superb scenario, it fulfills it purpose. If you are not taken aback by it, you need to get back to your shrink.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Melissia, well the chapter serf i'm sculpting atm has a bulge of a package near his groin.
People have been sculpting body parts and naked statues from the beginning.
People have been paint people naked for ages. Always have always will.
People have been taking photos of naked women when cameras were just invented.
People did it with "motion pictures"
Including them in miniature wargaming line? Just another tradition of human race. "We" love the naked body, in any form. It's fascinating and beautiful form.
Now what irks me, are those people offended by nudity and not playing a game with guns and the objective is to kill you opponent. Great set of morals you got there.
EDIT: After some quick googling I found the Eldar rape diorama.
The scene is disturbing, then again I have never been a fan of rape scenes in shows/movies. It's not some moral superiority judge and jury bullcrap many seem to play (ie I hate nude models argument but I play violent games). It's just not my thing even in a fantasy setting where it is make believe.
However, I do have to consider the molder's intentions. Is some warped fantasy? Like some of those disturbing japanese cartoons on the internet?
Or was he just portraying the dark side of war like many war movies have done? Which have occurred in every war, etc.
Does it go to far for miniatures game? Yeah, but everyone has there own taste and perception of right and wrong and what it ok and what is bad (again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).
I don't know the molder's intentions. Sick perv who needs to seek mental help? Or just reminding us that war is something we should never grow too fond of?
There are tasteful nude miniature. Their are tasteless nude miniatures. And there are some stupid ones.
I generally find what I call "center fold" poses to be the better miniatures. I don't paint nude miniatures because I have a gf or have those set of morals. My painting skills suck and don't want to paint a display figure that is going to look like crap. And none of the games I play have nude models. So......
I'm kinda having trouble understanding folks' problems with nude or non-nude or whatever models... I mean, folks that have issues with nude models, how do you feel about the statue David, by Michelangelo? Or 'The Birth of Venus' painting by Sandro Botticelli?
I mean... I guess I tend to see little miniatures as art a lot more than just grey men we push around the table and roll dice with. Maybe that's just me.
Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).
Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?
I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.
Revarien wrote:I guess I tend to see little miniatures as art a lot more than just grey men we push around the table and roll dice with.
And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art". They're just toys to a lot of people.
Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).
Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?
I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.
There is someone on this thread. Actually a few.
I think it would be helpful if people read the entire threads or look to see if such cases do exist.
Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art". They're just toys to a lot of people.
"I don’t think I’ve ever read a definition for art that wasn’t stupid. Generally speaking, when a person constructs a thought-machine of this kind, what they’re actually trying to do is determine what isn’t art. I have always been white trash, and will never cease to be so; what that means is that I was raised with an inherent distrust in the Hoity and a base and brutal urge to dismantle the Toity. This is sometimes termed anti-intellectualism, usually by intellectuals, when what it is in truth is an opposition to intellect for intellect’s sake. The reality is that what “is” and “isn’t art” is something we can determine with a slider in our prefrontal cortex.
If this thought-machine had any purpose other than to create a world with less art, I could cut it some slack. But it doesn’t. Its entire purpose is to rarify art, controlling expression thereby. The aperture must be cinched, and quickly, before someone creates a cultural product without elite imprimatur. Its effete and its fething disgusting."
Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art".
While that is true, as someone with a fine arts degree, I find there are plenty of artists who are pretentious douchebags who sneer at things they are not interested in as clearly not being art- not because they have some developed grasp of what the difference between art and not art is, but because they feel an insecure need to belittle anything they are not personally interested in.
It's kind of like a microcosm for this thread. In the end it all boils down to "The way you play is inferior to the way I play."
Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).
Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?
I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.
There is someone on this thread. Actually a few.
I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.
Murdock129 wrote:
Also I've noticed a minimal outrage against naked men as opposed to naked women, it's the same with Comic books where people complain over and over about female superheroes wearing skimpy outfits, being next to nude and mostly being proportioned ridiculously, but ignore characters like Superman or Captain America which wear spandex and are drawn as adonis' and have greek god bodies in minimal or skintight clothing most of the time
The difference between the two is that the men don't have their reproductives dangling out, while you can clearly see more private parts of the females. This thread is NOT about comic books, but miniatures might I add.
This discussion is going to rage back and forth until one of the sides of the argument just gets too annoyed to continue corresponding. In my opinion, we should simply just agree to say that we all have different interpretations of scantily clad miniatures. I personally don't find them interesting or at all appealing, but that isn't the case with, say, Piston Honda who look at it as art.
What is NOT okay is calling others 'jag-bags' or whatever was said to mellissia just because they have different, legitimate opinions than you do. That is immature and wrong.
I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.
Actually, it's kind of interesting how Honda's argument has been twisted and its fine, but that his argument was simply that from what's being said here one can infer that people are of the position that "Nudity" = bad, "Violence" = okay.
Honda never directly said "Melissa is a Jagbag" but many have "inferred" such intention. Doesn't make insulting people a legitimate argument to be sure, but it IS very interesting that those barking loudest about "not having said that" are now the ones drawing conclusions from others while continuing the rhetoric of "read before responding."
Melissa and others with her position are more than free to not play against someone with nudes in their army, or on their shelf; and are also more than welcome to not look at said models as well. I'm going to stay on the position that no one can tell me that its not artistic expression of one kind or another. Though I just still don't understand the concept that nude models are horrible in a game like 40k, where there are so many things that are downright nasty ((As stated several times before, Chaos, Dark Eldar, Traitor Guard, etc etc etc)).
I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.
Actually, it's kind of interesting how Honda's argument has been twisted and its fine, but that his argument was simply that from what's being said here one can infer that people are of the position that "Nudity" = bad, "Violence" = okay.
Honda never directly said "Melissa is a Jagbag" but many have "inferred" such intention. Doesn't make insulting people a legitimate argument to be sure, but it IS very interesting that those barking loudest about "not having said that" are now the ones drawing conclusions from others while continuing the rhetoric of "read before responding."
Melissa and others with her position are more than free to not play against someone with nudes in their army, or on their shelf; and are also more than welcome to not look at said models as well. I'm going to stay on the position that no one can tell me that its not artistic expression of one kind or another. Though I just still don't understand the concept that nude models are horrible in a game like 40k, where there are so many things that are downright nasty ((As stated several times before, Chaos, Dark Eldar, Traitor Guard, etc etc etc)).
+1
I never called anyone directly a jagbag (and jagbag has more than 1 meaning by the way)
As I stated, I don't understand the few people stating they don't like nude models because of their morals or religious beliefs (as said by a few people on this thread) but don't mind a game about a war torn universe.
Sorry but have never heard annoy to explain this to me where it makes sense. You can believe if you want, I even agree that there are tasteful and tasteless nude minis but don't give me your judge and jury BS.
I think I'll bow out of the discussion if we go to personal insults of anyone, agreeing with their position or not...
My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...
This point was made abundantly clear to me after watching about an hour of TV in the UK, on my week visit there, lol.
I don't paint nude miniatures because I have a gf or have those set of morals. My painting skills suck and don't want to paint a display figure that is going to look like crap. And none of the games I play have nude models. So......
But I do like porn.
What odd views you have. On the one hand you take an intellectual liberal laisse faire attitude, and yet when faced with the concrete reality of an actual model you take a moral standpoint and then seek excuses. Before capping it off by equating nudity with porn. It reminds me of the characters in Spring Awakening by Wedekind,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Revarien wrote:I'm kinda having trouble understanding folks' problems with nude or non-nude or whatever models... I mean, folks that have issues with nude models, how do you feel about the statue David, by Michelangelo? Or 'The Birth of Venus' painting by Sandro Botticelli?
The Birth of Venus is hardly a nude. She is covering her bits up, and the figure on the right is hurrying to hide her modesty.
I much prefer a Lucian Freud, though I suspect in this discussion the realism of the human form depicted is not eroticised sufficiently.
Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...
Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.
Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol
Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...
Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.
Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol
On 1 of the 7 days I visited the UK, I went to the Cambridge grounds... I had a tour of the campus and got a picnic lunch from the open air market there, with my folks... we went to a park near the river as our entire week there was surprisingly nice weather (it did rain the day we left)... we could see the tennis courts, the small river that weaved between the old buildings and we also saw the 3 topless women sunbathing.
My point still stands, as much of a mockery as you try to make of it.
I don't think it's very good proof that British people are more tolerant of nudity, just that those particular British women had no problem sunbathing topless at the river, which sounds like a semi-appropriate place to be topless if you ask me. It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make.
Sidstyler wrote:It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.
I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.
Sidstyler wrote:I don't think it's very good proof that British people are more tolerant of nudity, just that those particular British women had no problem sunbathing topless at the river, which sounds like a semi-appropriate place to be topless if you ask me. It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.
Granted, I'm sure that most folks don't decide it's time for a 'pants-less day' in public, but in England and Wales, public nudity is not illegal (I tried my darndest to find an example of it saying it was [just now], but the most I could find, is that it was essentially 'uncouth' and 'not always appropriate'...). However not following a constable's direction's to cover up is illegal.
dogma wrote:If you want better proof, you can just look at British law, or Page 3.
What was it on page 3? I'm sorry, but I read it twice and didn't really see what you were talking about...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote:I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.
Seems you beat me to the punch...
Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.
Like I said I know it isn't illegal, I'm just trying to point out that even though it isn't most people probably aren't going to be walking around nude anyway. I was trying to imply that there are probably more reasons why someone would want to cover up besides "prudishness", which has been everyone's favorite word in this topic (and that other one). Basically, even though they're more tolerant, they still realize that it's not appropriate all the time, or just don't feel like being nude (which I think is acceptable, if I don't want to be I don't have to be, right?).
That's mostly my personal view about the whole thing. I don't think nudity is wrong, I just don't think it's always appropriate.
Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.
Hell, I didn't know that. I say if they really want to then fine, but I just imagine most women not being up for that anyway, lol.
Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.
Sidstyler wrote:Hell, I didn't know that. I say if they really want to then fine, but I just imagine most women not being up for that anyway, lol.
Ok, I found it... wow, wasn't hard to find... Uhhh, I'm gonna say off the bat right now NSFW... really... don't get fired for looking at this site... if you're in the states, or someplace else that looks down upon nudity... NSFW... seriously...
Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers Read for yourself the message for humanity that was given to Rael during his UFO encounters of 1973!
...lol? So this "spiritual leader" thinks we were made by aliens, or...what? And one of these messages was "Women should go topless or men should cover up!"?
Actually I really am against public nudity now, for all we know it's an alien plot to steal our women. I don't trust this Rael one bit!
Sidstyler wrote:...if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.
I don't know about that. I mean, I've heard that on the internet, but IRL I know plenty of Americans that have reacted negatively to the decision of certain women to show the goods. The most vibrant memories regard Halle Berry and Tyra Banks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Revarien wrote:
What was it on page 3? I'm sorry, but I read it twice and didn't really see what you were talking about...
Page 3 girls are a well established, and much appreciated, aspect of British news.
Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art".
While that is true, as someone with a fine arts degree, I find there are plenty of artists who are pretentious douchebags who sneer at things they are not interested in as clearly not being art- not because they have some developed grasp of what the difference between art and not art is, but because they feel an insecure need to belittle anything they are not personally interested in.
It's kind of like a microcosm for this thread. In the end it all boils down to "The way you play is inferior to the way I play."
Plenty of artists sure are Insecure douchebags, but there are plenty that are not like that... Like in every other area of expertise ( I will nevertheless agree that there are to many incompetents with to much ego/vanity/snob etc).. I don't want to go there (I mean if its art or not) but as someone with a degree and that created a company in that area for more than a decade AND that also sculpts and loves it as much as other artistic activities I'm from the opinion that sculpting tokens for a wargamme is not a art and rather a craft
As for nudity in wargames it does not need the excuse of being artistic ( because IMO its not), nudity is present in your daily life everywhere you may not like that and thats why some choose to not look at it, to think wargames are immune to that is a bit naive... as i say don't like it don't buy it or don't play it. Me personally I have not problems with it when it fits a context.
Sidstyler wrote:Everyone seems to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make.
Sidstyler wrote:It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.
I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.
Isn't it illegal for american women to go topless in public places like beaches and parks?
the porn comment was just a joke. Hope you didn't take it too seriously.
Sorry about that.
Thanks for further confirmed my initial suspicions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Revarien wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...
Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.
Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol
On 1 of the 7 days I visited the UK, I went to the Cambridge grounds... I had a tour of the campus and got a picnic lunch from the open air market there, with my folks... we went to a park near the river as our entire week there was surprisingly nice weather (it did rain the day we left)... we could see the tennis courts, the small river that weaved between the old buildings and we also saw the 3 topless women sunbathing.
My point still stands, as much of a mockery as you try to make of it.
Indeed, but consider the furore if those same women had been trying to breast feed in public.... now there's a debate that really gets the nutters going. They have had to change the law to prevent people from harrassing women for feeding their children.
I recall some American friends coming to visit, and the chap getting rather worked up about an advertising poster for M&S bras and knickers, which not unreasonably had a woman wearing the bra and knickers that M&S were trying to flog. He couldn't understand how it was legal. Occasionally there will be a manufactured row about such posters in the Daily Mail, the Hello Boys Wonderbra advert springs to mind, with the anti-brigade claiming that it would corrupt children and lead to traffic acidents.
I've spent a large amount of time reading this thread... and wow some people have got wound up.
I think there needs to be a differentiation between the wargaming side of the hobby, and the more artistic side (painting/modelling/dioramas etc)
In wargaming, i think that nudity is slightly misguided as its a public game and rightfully so, people have different opinions about what is and isnt acceptable.
But the more artistic side of the hobby such as the eldar diorama should be treated differently as it is (most of the time) intended to be viewed as art.
I've tried to be brief with my explanations as im short on time but i'd be curious to see who agree's that the hobby does have different areas of interest that shouldnt be stamped with the same expectations.
D.Smith wrote:i'd be curious to see who agree's that the hobby does have different areas of interest that shouldnt be stamped with the same expectations.
I don't think about the "artistic" side of the hobby, as it does not at all interest me. I hate painting, and though I can enjoy a good conversion, a conversion that basically amounts to "omg look there's boobs!" (IE, the overwhelming majority of the ones that involve nudity) is almost invariably generic, unimaginative, unoriginal, tasteless, and boring.
I don't really see the need to have different standards. As I have said numerous times-- do whatever the hell you want with your miniatures. You paid for them, they're yours to do waht you want with them, and I wouldn't argue against that. But that stll gives me no obligation to say anything nice about it or like it.
I don't think its really a big deal, who cares, personally I woudnt want an army looking like a game of doa volleyball but if some dudes wants that all the power to him, my only problem with the eldar rape diorama is I don't think this is very likely as one: simple people of the imperuimum are so superstitous and narrow minded that they woudnt have sex with any xenos lol, secondly I don't think you could force an eldar( whom has been alive for thousands of years) to allow her self to be voilated in such away, she would fight until they were forced to kill her, injured or not, she woulld have no illusions of survival when they were done, and even if she did eldar are far to honourable to not die in defianance,But it does do a wonderful job potrraying the untold horrors of war, however in my opionon it doesn't apply well with the fluff of 40K universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lol I think we got all got trolled hard
I had my conscription time in Finnish army. While in my battalion, there were no women, all the other battalions had them and we heard stories about women in the army like all the time. I even have a few female friends that went through the conscription time (women don't have to go to army in Finland if they don't want to, and it's actually hard for them to get there).
Were women there showing us their breasts? Some wished they would be, but yes, they wore their clothes. Coats, pants, boots, cap and most of the times helmet and flak jacket. And during winter, a whole lot more clothes under them. And the snow camoflage suit above all of that.
Then, put some war painting to their face and live in the forest for 5 days without shower, not the most sexiest thing I know. The fact that some men looked more woman than some of the women and that few women looked more man than most men, is a whole another thing.
It's not practical to go to battle naked. What if, for example, you would fall and get a scratch? Not a big problem, but with low hygiene on the battlefield, it will get infected and that will be a problem. We (men) wished we could do marches wearing only T-shirts, but just because of that, we had to wear coats, even when it was +35c and a sunny day.
I also don't think it's practical to be not wearing flak jacket during the war. For example, Finnish flak jacket is almost knife proof (we put it into ground and tried to get knife through by hitting it. After sharpening his knife, strongest of us did it).
So, the summary?
Woman or not, you don't want to be on the battlefield without clothes. And women wearing realistic amount of clothes and that have been in the war for few weeks are not so sexy and probably smell bad (just like the men).
After writing this, I started to though, what if minis like the commissar with exposed breast, is actually just showing herself day before the battle, saying the troops will see rest after they won? Or what if she's drunk? Or what if she was just sleeping in her tent wearing only her pants and boots, then the enemy got suprise attack on their camp, set it on fire with molotovs coctails and she barely escaped having just enough time to crap her coat and not shirt or bra and now shes commanding defences? The last 2 could actually happen in war.
And with that Eldar "rape" diorama. It's clearly not about rape! One man is trying to help her by giving back the breastplate, other is going to give her his clothes so she wouldn't catch the cold. It's not so perverted as you feel it to be.
Edit:
Sry for my bad language. I'm not a native english speaker 'ye know.
Also, for the nude models, I wish to show some about 6-7 years old models one finnish guy made for his army called Figunarkin Bordelli (Bordel of Figunarkki). It had barbara doll, hookers, jerking off zombies, mobile bed unit and lot's of pink paint.
Few pictures of it, what will ya thing?
Do not look, if you don't want to see fapping zombies. You have been warned.
N S F W
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Names of the hookers are horny kira and old frida, banner says "only 5 cents"
Spoiler:
Text says "Mobile Unit"
Spoiler:
edit2: hopefully I don't get banned after first post
Sageheart wrote:hahahahahhaha that army is so silly, hahahaha, how large is it!
From what I can see on the pictures in the album on photobucket (it's not my army afterall) and what I remember it having, I think about 100 zombies (some were never painted though), 2 black coaches, ~10 heroes, unit of black knights and some models on 40x40mm bases. It's been years afterall (I think year was 2005) and from what I know, that army has been sold at least 2 times now. But even today, fins still speak of "fapping zombies".
After writing this, I started to though, what if minis like the commissar with exposed breast, is actually just showing herself day before the battle, saying the troops will see rest after they won?
While this is possible it is unlikely. Most Commissars lead through fear, with Ciaphas Cain and a few others being an exception (though Cain does this just to avoid suffering the common fate of Commissars who lead through the fear method, i.e a lasgun shot to the back). The commissar is meant to be a figure of total authority in the Emperor's name and I don't think authority and showing off your assets in front of the common soldiery are usually combined.
Or what if she's drunk?
Pretty much same as above. The commissar wouldn't get into such a state as they may be required to discipline the soldiers under their command at any time. They would drink with the officers most of the time.
Or what if she was just sleeping in her tent wearing only her pants and boots, then the enemy got suprise attack on their camp, set it on fire with molotovs coctails and she barely escaped having just enough time to crap her coat and not shirt or bra and now shes commanding defences?
If the enemy is close enough to be able to launch such an attack then I don't think the commissar would be sleeping completely nude (surprise chaos/genestealer cult uprising excluded). Also, wouldn't they be more likely to take off their boots than their trousers? If the above did happen then I think they'd to at least do up the coat as opposed to run around with their breasts swinging about, which I'm pretty sure would not be very comfortable.
Anyways, those zombies were hilarious. Someone spent a lot of time building that army. They were obviously insane but the good kind which gives everyone else a laugh
crossposting here since i am bleeding tired of this debate.
Well.
Bollocks. Artists create, if you react, good.
But, its all subjective.
When i was on active duty, the women wore sporty wifebeatery things, us lads wore tee's.
In uniform, with RRV's / CIRAS, guess what attribute still showed?
and yes there were pretty ones, a lot of them.
And for that matter my MAFD with the IDF, there were more often than not, very pretty ladies doing their part.
But as i believe was shown above, its a double edged sword, so to say. you can't have one, with the other.
But its as much depicting a characteristic, as it is trying to enhance an attribute to make it look more female, pointy nipples or not, on a 28-34mm scale.
For a miniature to look more male, the buff / thin as a stick stereotype works splendid, but for females the same selections of attributes for a stereotype is apparently sexistic, much as i guess some will complain about my non-use of genus.
I'll take discussions such as these more seriously when the Opinionated Bunch, actually pick up a sculpting tool and try sculpting a miniature.
also: see _marketing_ (key rule being, if it doesnt sell, it doesnt get produced)
EDIT:
For sculpters (slash wargames, slash mini's) to be sexist against women the "game world" would need to state or imply (through various means) that women are different (it works best if they are represented as inferior) than men in ways that are not supported by by reasonable biological evidence.
For example, if the game states something to the effect that all the participants are women because only women are of the fragile mental state required to participate in such brutal fighting, then you could cry sexism. If the game instead demonstrates that the women in this game have large breasts and comic book sculpted bodies (what I currently see) then all you have done is give me a caricature of women that reduces the idea of femininity to an easily measured metrics (e.g. breast measurements).
That doesn't mean people shouldn't complaint about such objectification because that is, by far, the more prevalent issue in games. That said, games as a whole tend to objectify men as often as women. It just happens that the square jawed brown haired habitual hero seems less negative than "sex vixen" even though it is exactly as incorrect.
BUT males are _every_ bit as stereotyped:
1) Handsome to sexy, a quality largely based on the perspective of the person who makes the character/sculpt.
2) Selflessly heroic - to the extent that they might as well be the fairy tale knight in shining armor type (fluff, felix)
3) Fantastically masculine - square jaw, self assured and with a body somewhere between working out 10 hours a week with a personal trainer to "I spend all my time in the gym lifting heavy things". (oh ho hum, marines?)
4) Often in direct or indirect pursuit of a romantic goal (various fluff on both sides of the gw franchises)
So What you see here _is not_ inherently sexist and especially not exclusively sexist towards women. GW Games are based on the previously defined world that they've been curating for the better part of four decades. Make no mistake, male characters are sexualized. The catch is, being designed by males, such characters are not objectified ideal of the gender but rather classic examples of Marty Stu. In other words, they are the objectified ideal of the male gender as a male might see it.
Also:
Sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex
Objectify: Degrade to the status of a mere object.
And as you see, you have me riled up.
I'll make good on one thing. When i'm done with the admech and chapter serf sculpts around april, i'll do a female sculpt. I'll let you lot define it. Challenge Accepted.
Does anybody ever stop to wonder why it is we never see anybody complaining about the sexualization of men in entertainment? If you have a franchise geared towards women, men will be sexualized. If you have a franchise geared towards men, women will be sexualized. That’s just the way it works. You don't see the morality of this practice come into question with something like, say, a sex-driven 'vampire' flick (Twilight) that targets a female audience, but as soon as you start looking at the areas of entertainment that cater to a predominately male audience - gaming, namely - sexualization is criticized as ‘objectification’ for no justifiable and apparent reason other than the fact that the subjects of the aforementioned sexualization are women instead of men.
I don’t know about you, but sex is a good thing in my book. I don’t understand people that find sexuality offensive, let alone those that promote some sort of gender-discriminative double standard.
Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.
Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.
Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.
Funny how a lot of women are happy to use sex to get what they want tho! Women have a lot of power in everyday life, generally id say the more attractive the woman, the more power over men.
My sister is blonde, very attractive, bubbly personality etc, she can and does have men doing whatever she wants.
Melissia wrote:Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.
As evidenced by the predominantly overweight women in the porn industry, right?
Or if we're strictly talking about fictitious objectified women with six packs.
Spoiler:
Six pack.
Six pack.
Also this:
Spoiler:
Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.
Skippy wrote:Funny how a lot of women are happy to use sex to get what they want tho! Women have a lot of power in everyday life, generally id say the more attractive the woman, the more power over men.
My sister is blonde, very attractive, bubbly personality etc, she can and does have men doing whatever she wants.
That's a huge generalisation about both men and women.
I think there probably are certain women who might manipulate others this way and probably men that do it too.
Also doesn't saying that women have power because they can get men to do what they want imply that a woman’s only ever as powerful as the men she influences? Meaning she has to rely on men? I think that means that Men have the power
I would like to hope that most men in real life would not surrender all higher reasoning because of a pretty girl.
Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.
Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.
Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.
And in a nutshell, you define the failure of modern feminism.
Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.
Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.
Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.
I think it is really wrong to say most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. I don't think that can be said without adding in another wrongful stereotype to this conversation when there are already enough of them. A lot of men would mind I think def when they are forced to face the problems sexually objectification creates.
Melissa is correct here, the typical way in which men and women are objectified falls into a simple two sections: the Hero, savior, etc. and the helpless, usually the man is in the former and the woman in the latter. Nudity is something which is very linked to an idea of helplessness, but that doesn't make nudity a cause for sexual objectification, instead it is the artist him/herself who decides how to create the model, and in doing so chooses to move towards a more realistic apporach, a sexy (and so sexually objectified) look, or something utterly different. Nudity shouldn't be seen as the evil: A female model scantly clad, leaning forward could easily be seen as deeply sexual despite wearing clothes, while a female amazon model basically nude carrying a greatsword could be modelled to look like a legit warrior which doesn't hold any intense sexual desire. It is not the nudity itself but the purpose and intent of the model.
Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.
There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.
I would say that women being treated as weak or helpess is something that's dissapearing from our culture. I might be a cliche in older fiction, but it tends to dissappear. In Spain we have an expression to talk about that roles. Literally it would be a "flower-jar woman" ('mujer florero' in Spanish). She's pretty, looks good, but it doesn't do anything. Lelith and Storm aren't that kind of roles. Neither are Red Sonja, Cersei Lannister, Arya Stark (ASOIAF), Kate Beckett (TV Castle), Sarah Walker (TV Chuck), Sarah Connor (Terminator)... and all of them use their sexuality in a different way (well, maybe Arya doesn't!).
A great example of objectified women (who happen to not show too much skin) are Michael Bay's female characters. In Transformers movies, The Island... they are just companions.
I'd say wargames are following the strong-independent trend too. In one of this threads, Kanlowen posted pics or talked about two Infinity models like being the same "cheesecake": the Caledonian Volunteer with the short skirt, and the Merovingian Chasseur with ADHL. To me, they are very different models. The Volunteer is just a pin-up. Some kind of fun joke to paint something different that frowny guys. The female Chasseur, on the other hand, while being a sexy model, with a cleavage and curves, is still a powerful mini. She doesn't have a silly attitude or a provocative pose. She looks like she's waiting a chance to do her job - inmovilize a troublesome enemy. Nothing to do with the "Oops, I'm gonna drop my hat!" from the Volunteer.
Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.
There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.
Ladies and gentlemen, the point in the thread where the definition of objectification that has been constant throughout the thread is thrown aside.
All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.
Monster Rain wrote:All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.
Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.
Monster Rain wrote:All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.
Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.
Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.
Indeed.
There's nothing "suddenly" about it. Yes, I hold fantasy fiction and science fiction to a different standard than superhero fiction. I also hold fantasy fiction to a different standard than science fiction. What is believable and enjoyable in one is not necessarily believable and enjoyablein in another.
In superhero fiction spandex-clad badasses flying around sending blasts of raw "energy" from their palms is pretty much expected. Someone doing that in a sci-fi story would be just plain off-putting, even if you got rid f the spandex and put her in a space suit it would still be weird at best. You'd expect them to fly around with a jet pack rather tahn under their own power, and use a laser rifle or something instead of blasting from their bare hands. A mage might be able to get by with it, but mages usually aren't depicted as doing such unless they're world-destroyingly powerful, and frankly that kind of character is pretty boring most of the time in a fantasy setting anyway. But a mage riding on a dragon blasting lightning from their fingertips at the miserable evil minions below? AWESOME. That put in a science fiction setting? Eeeeeeeh... maybe if it was a robotic or cyborg dragon and the "mage" was an engineer with a plasma cannon...
Dr. Douchebag wrote:You don't see the morality of this practice come into question with something like, say, a sex-driven 'vampire' flick (Twilight) that targets a female audience,
To be fair, there's the bigger issue with that franchise, in that the promotion of paedophilia and grooming is fine if there is eye candy for the women...
Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.
There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.
So wait, a male character being "strong" is "objectifying" him, but a female character being "strong" is not? I'm sorry but it's getting very confusing what you've been trying to say.
Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.
There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.
So wait, a male character being "strong" is "objectifying" him, but a female character being "strong" is not? I'm sorry but it's getting very confusing what you've been trying to say.
If the male character is just strong, and anything else, then yes, he's being objectified. He's being reduced to a single concept. By you, if you can't see anything else while others can. By the creator of the character, if there isn't place for doubt.
Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian
Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.
Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian
Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.
Hang on a minute, nothing of the sort. You can belive what the frick you want to I really don't care. I was just trying to lighten the mood in a thread that has got very very heavy. Or did you not notice theLOLat the end of my post?
Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian
Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.
Toast36 wrote:Hang on a minute, nothing of the sort. You can belive what the frick you want to I really don't care. I was just trying to lighten the mood in a thread that has got very very heavy. Or did you not notice theLOLat the end of my post?
"Lightening the mood" by mocking and/or exaggerating another person's beliefs isn't exactly likely to work.
Brother SRM wrote:The fascination with painting models of naked women and the like just seems to be geeks being geeks. I don't really get the fascination; same with folks like Dr. Thunder and his infamous female Marine army. It's one of those things that oversteps a boundary and goes from a sane idea (I'll include a few women in my IG army!) and turns into something ridiculous (I'm going to make an all-female IG army, and they'll all be in bikinis and wearing ballgags!) and not many people stay anywhere near the line, unfortunately.
Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.
Chainmail bikinis are good for fighting dragons. Dragons are well known to be stuck in a developmental stage similar to teenage boys, and wearing a bikini gives the female fighter the necessary time to dispatch the beast.
At least, that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with...
Redbeard wrote:Chainmail bikinis are good for fighting dragons. Dragons are well known to be stuck in a developmental stage similar to teenage boys, and wearing a bikini gives the female fighter the necessary time to dispatch the beast.
At least, that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with...
I thought it was because the rules of fantasy dictate that a woman in a fight will inevitably have her clothes ripped enough to expose tummy/legs/cleavage but not quite enough to fully expose private areas. Hence there is no point in wearing more armour as it's going to end up on the floor anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force,
No they shouldn't.
Male and female uniforms are often different in real life.
The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.
Imaginary logistical issues aside, the idea that male and female troops and officers should have identical uniforms has no basis in reality.
Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.
You realize this is just plain insulting towards the end and really ruins your integrity when you resort to calling those who so something you don't agree with a freak
Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.
You realize this is just plain insulting towards the end and really ruins your integrity when you resort to calling those who so something you don't agree with a freak
Fair play though - converting mini's with a ball gag is a tad ..... out there.
Also, the differences between a male and a female uniform generally don't include having the female uniform show lots of skin. The differences ahve more to do with a difference in the shape of the body, IE, thinner shoulders, wider hips, different chest shape, etc.
A Town Called Malus wrote:The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.
Imaginary logistical issues aside, the idea that male and female troops and officers should have identical uniforms has no basis in reality.
Combats are almost always the same and there is a VERY real reason for this; its the same reason you do not salute in concert. Differences in combat uniforms suggest identification of significance and thus makes targets higher priority. Even gear load outs can suggest your importance over others. Someone running around with JUST armor and no magazines or various gear pouches is easily spotted as a VIP or as a person that is not generally supposed to be in that particular situation outside the wire. For me it was the 9 ft radio whip off my back that would make me a bigger target than my group I'd generally be working with.
Where uniforms have often differed has been dress uniform; but you'll notice one thing, the Tunics are ALWAYS the same ((except for cut to allow for breast)). Insignia, awards, ribbons etc etc will always be placed the same regardless of gender. Tunic colour, pockets, buttons, have always been the same again regardless of gender. What does differ is often the headgear or leg wear. Some forces still employ skirts for women in dress uniform, many no longer do this for parade form and go straight to dress pants as well. Often you'll find that the only significant differences in uniform is the type of headgear used. Canadian Naval seamen ((and women)) will have different hats and that's it, every other piece is the same example:
Melissia wrote:Also, the differences between a male and a female uniform generally don't include having the female uniform show lots of skin. The differences ahve more to do with a difference in the shape of the body, IE, thinner shoulders, wider hips, different chest shape, etc.
This is completely untrue; for the LONGEST time women were only permitted certain roles in forces, often this was medical fields, cooking, etc etc jobs that were far from the combat line. Because of this, uniforms often included skirts; why? Because womens legs are great to look at. Example of this? Just watch the evolution of the skirt from the 1920's to today. At one time, knees were a private thing, only for those successful men who bedded the woman in marriage to see. Now as long as I don't see your clit its all chill.
It really comes down to cultural background, overseas in some states if a woman's ankle is seen she will be stoned to death. In what would be considered the first world nations today female soldiers have always been "objectified" as you'd put it with uniforms that are cut to show off T&A; with a show of legs in the skirt. Many countries still do not allow women into Combat positions, and remain only allowing them in medical fields ((which is nurses in skirts)). Countries that DO allow women into combat positions today: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, UK, as well as USA and Isreal.
However I know both the USA and Isreal still have positions that are men only. For Isreal for the longest time ((and only recently been changing)) women were not allowed into Close Combat situations; the reason behind this was not because of their ability to fight, but because the militants which the IDF deal with primarily will almost NEVER surrender to a woman. This is a very difficult tactial issue to deal with; prisoners = information, and it also means more danger for the female soldier because she literally HAS to kill the combatant to preserve her own safety.
Human history is quite full of its sexual flaw; either by total dominance of the female gender where they are treated like property ((ie no one sees you but me)) or as sexual creatures for which we look apon; everything from the damaging of feet in China to keep women short, to the relocating of internal organs via corsets of Europe, to the shortenin' of skirts of the America's. Sex has always been something to "view". What's an interesting thought is that when you look at tribes of people in warm climates that have less "civilization" in compare with the first worlds you'll notice that dress becomes less of an issue for most and only those of important get anything, where most of the women use only enough loin cloth to cover their vagina and breasts are left bear ((often this is only to help prevent dirt from getting into and irritating the genitalia for both men and women)).
Dracheous wrote:Where uniforms have often differed has been dress uniform; but you'll notice one thing, the Tunics are ALWAYS the same ((except for cut to allow for breast)). Insignia, awards, ribbons etc etc will always be placed the same regardless of gender.
Umm, no actually. Look closely at male and female dress uniforms. US Marine Dress Blues are a good example.
The "tunics", as you put it, are often different. "Neck Tab" is the key phrase here.
No it isn't, as I was referring to women who served on the front lines, not to noncombat roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
Melissia wrote: different chest shape, etc.
You mean breasts?
That is a part of the chest, yes. But it's not JUST breasts, even if that's a part of the body that's often focused on. The ribcage of a man is often wider than a woman, for example, so that also adds to the difference in shape.
The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.
Melissia wrote:
The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.
I don't know about that. Due to the increased angle at the knee, due to women's wider hips, women are more likely to suffer knee and ankle injuries while running, especially changing directions. This has been reported and discussed in several sports forums as it relates to women's soccer and basketball, without any extra equipment being involved.
Melissia wrote:The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.
I don't know about that. Due to the increased angle at the knee, due to women's wider hips, women are more likely to suffer knee and ankle injuries while running, especially changing directions. This has been reported and discussed in several sports forums as it relates to women's soccer and basketball, without any extra equipment being involved.
I said most of the problem, not all.
And the strains of being a soldier are quite a bit different than a basketball player, namely there's more endurance and upper body strength involved, making properly fitting equipment far more important.
Anyway, I think that obviously the old highly suggestive IG models don't make any sense, but then again, neither does much else in 40k. I think it's really about the art/fun/looking awesome that drives the imagery and appearance of the models. While no SoB are going to wear heels into battle, it looks cool. Nudity of models isn't the only thing that isn't practical; the Leman Russes don't have any room in the turret for more than a single crew member, and with that, they don't have room for the breech of the gun or the ammo. However, I don't really care about that or the fact that they have no suspension system because it looks awesome.
Dracheous wrote: Just watch the evolution of the skirt from the 1920's to today. At one time, knees were a private thing, only for those successful men who bedded the woman in marriage to see.
Very true - go to an earlier period and it was actually ankles.
Now as long as I don't see your clit its all chill.
Wait. What. Really. What the heck .... using an absurd statement to highlight a point is an effective literary tool but I think you may have stretched it a bit here.
Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force,
No they shouldn't.
Male and female uniforms are often different in real life.
Dress uniforms may have a different look, but standard field issued combat dress is the same. So you could argue that Mordian female troopers could have a different uniform from mordian male troopers, but other forces should look the same.
Skriker
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murdock129 wrote:
Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.
You realize this is just plain insulting towards the end and really ruins your integrity when you resort to calling those who so something you don't agree with a freak
You do realize that you apparently can't understand a joking humorous comment when you see one? My integrity is quite intact, thank you very much.
Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.
Most men believe they would like to be treated as sexual objects , and haven't been. Many women have been viewed as exclusively sexual objects, and many appear not to like the experience.
I don't know what the big deal is. So theres some tits out. Big fething wup.
I think if someone wants to buy/build a nude model, let them. I will buy a well-sculpted nude or scantilly clad female model without a doubt. Theres no big deal.
The Commissar, for instance, could have been asleep with her shirt open too enable her to cool off when the enemy attacked. Or she could have had it blown open by a nearby explosion.
The Eldar scene, can have a lot of things about to happen. A commissar could walk around the tank and execute them all. The guy 'whipping it out' could have needed a pee, or have his head in a Rangers crosshairs. The guy with the breastplate could be giving it back or removing it so that the gun guy can get a perfect shot straight through the Eldar's heart (cos we all know guard flashlights suck).
As for all you 'promoting violence' people, yeah rape is bad, but there is no sex taking place, therein it is not a "rape" diorama. Why some of you are comparing this to Vietnam or whatever, i don't get it.
And art is whatever the painter/sculpter defines as 'art'
We have blood gore and guts, genocide and dastardly plans in miniature wargames and these themes never cross the line... but somehow a pair of boobs, or and other private parts, natural parts of the human body does?...Give me strength
What's the point of having realism in a game that's not real in the first place? Who care if a model has some bare skin? It's not real, it's just a make believe game... I mean if I wanted to create an army of giant mutant doughnut men for a 40k army, there is nothing stopping me, and this can be applied to nude minis; just because some skin is showing, doesn't mean they are going to get shot, for all you know they could have some forcefield round them and they could be running round nude because they know that they cannot be easily shot and killed so they though they would piss the enemy off.
Hello,
Expanding further on the female commisar with her bits out there, yes she could have came out like that, as I was in the Army you did not wear anything to bed except maybe boots, as the sleeping bags were just to warm, the boots you left on just in case, as well as to pervent things from crawling into them.
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
Mannahnin wrote:
There are plenty of nude figures out there, however, which are nice little works of art and make sense in their context. Whether nude Celtic berserkers, or the old Juan Diaz metal Daemonettes, or some Frazetta or Boris Vallejo-inspired barbarian warriors, savage maidens, or Greek gods and goddesses.
We live in the US where Sex is bad mmmmmk don't you all know that? Nude models don't offend me because of this reason they are intended for art and not porn. I would think a lady with crab claws would need some kind of "attractive" value to seduce their prey. Also ancient historicals are just being accurate with their nudity. Celtic berserkers thought it to be honorable to fight in the nude it was also a way to show off masculinity. We see this a lot in ancient Europe and even with Native Americans.
Point is we need to pull the stick out of out butts. The Victorian age is over let move on.
...
mad face.
