spacewolflord wrote: Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.
Those Daemonettes would still e far superior to the current ones even if they were covered.
If you're in need of demonettes use dark elf witches with a proper unearthly paint job.
Read through some of the content of this thread, though admittedly not all, so forgive me if I'm not following the prevailing winds.
I have no problem with sexually explicit imagery on its own. By 'sexually explicit' I mean anything depicting sexual imagery and/or consensual sexual acts. However, I do have kids and Western culture is already pornified enough so I try to be careful. That's partially where the consent issue comes into play, because I want my kids to have a 'healthy' perspective on sexuality. Sexuality is also tied closely to self-esteem for young people. Another reason to be careful. So I would also qualify that by adding a desire (requirement?) that I be given fair warning about sexually explicit imagery where my children may be present. I visited Osaka a few years ago with my wife and son, and yeah, staying in a hotel 10 meters away from an openly advertising porn theatre, loudly displaying some rather large posters, was a little much. Sensory overload. But if you're only busting out Kingdom Death's Scribe figure minus his covering cloth, my kids can handle that.
I lived in Korea for many years. Among traditional families (agricultural background) it's still common for family to discuss bowel movements at the dinner table, and to fart incessantly. Can't say I was always comfortable with it but hey, at least they included me as a member of the family. My kids were also born in Korea, and I lived with my parents-in-law, so the degree of words like 'poo' and 'bung hole' increased dramatically in relation to diapers and infant health. Normal stuff. FYI, the poo industry in Asia is a big deal, with tons of books, games, and characters devoted to the subject, targeted at all age groups.
What I did find bothered me in Korea though was that at the same time, sex was never to be discussed. Big taboo. And I've yet to hear a logical argument about how and why one natural bodily function should be treated any differently than another. People construct ridiculous boundaries all the time, most of which are illogical once you start to reflect on them. My experience has been that social conservatism, religion, and tradition are the root causes. Social status and hierarchy, and the way humans have traditionally used clothing to assert their status, also plays a part in the taboos around nudity.
So until humanity in general grows up (maybe 500 years from now, if we're lucky) I will continue to keep my risque' figures hidden away in my workroom.
However, I do have kids and Western culture is already pornified enough so I try to be careful.
Pornified enough!? Hate to break it to ya mate, but here in the US and Western side of the planet, we're still quite... VERY "puritan" when it comes to sexuality. If you take any movie rated PG-13, or R that ran in a US theater, and edit it for Television, in general, you're going to lose all of the nudity and sexuality scenes (you'll see the "frantic" making out just prior to the big sex scene in the movie, but not the actual "dirty scene" itself). Contrast this with places like Germany, where I watched the SAME movie on German television, and do you know what they edited out? The gun play. The big fight scene. Basically a goodly portion of "unnecessary" violence will be removed, but all the sex scenes will be left in. Heck, if you stay up late enough, you can basically watch softcore pornography on a basic channel on German TV, whereas here in the US, you have to use PPV or the internet to get the same thing.
I also have kids, so I completely understand that you want to do what you can to control the how and when your kids are exposed to things of a sexual nature. But to say our culture is "pornified enough" is just a bit ludicrous.
However, I do have kids and Western culture is already pornified enough so I try to be careful.
Pornified enough!? Hate to break it to ya mate, but here in the US and Western side of the planet, we're still quite... VERY "puritan" when it comes to sexuality. If you take any movie rated PG-13, or R that ran in a US theater, and edit it for Television, in general, you're going to lose all of the nudity and sexuality scenes (you'll see the "frantic" making out just prior to the big sex scene in the movie, but not the actual "dirty scene" itself). Contrast this with places like Germany, where I watched the SAME movie on German television, and do you know what they edited out? The gun play. The big fight scene. Basically a goodly portion of "unnecessary" violence will be removed, but all the sex scenes will be left in. Heck, if you stay up late enough, you can basically watch softcore pornography on a basic channel on German TV, whereas here in the US, you have to use PPV or the internet to get the same thing.
I also have kids, so I completely understand that you want to do what you can to control the how and when your kids are exposed to things of a sexual nature. But to say our culture is "pornified enough" is just a bit ludicrous.
I think he means the advertising or the encroachment of sexuality, without the actual nudity. Even young kids clothes are becoming oddly provocative. Couple this with the ads on TV, and its like the sexuality of porn without the actual nudity, its crazy frustrating lol
To add to that, I remember growing up, one of my favourite tv shows was Monty Pythons Flying Circus, which my mom was cool with letting me watch since her parents were good with letting her watch it when she was younger. She moved to Canada when she was 10 and that was one of the few available sources of 'good British humor' as my grandparents said it. There are a few skits and several animations that have topless women. My grandparents didn't approve of that but having their kids 'get' good comedy was more important to them.
Anyway, fast forward to a few years ago, my nephew saw The Quest for the Holy Grail at a friends house and it became one of his most favorite movies, so my mom gave him the Flying Circus dvd set one year. My sister watched a few episodes with him, but lost her mind when a scene came on with tits being shown and got sooo angry with our mom for giving her kid something like that to watch. (Just tits being seen - there was never any actual sex)
My mom still doesn't get why my sister made such a big deal over that, and my sister doesn't get why my mom got angry that my nephews been allowed to freely play games like CoD, Bioshock, Fear, Battlefield, etc since he was 10.
jreilly89 wrote: I think he means the advertising or the encroachment of sexuality, without the actual nudity. Even young kids clothes are becoming oddly provocative. Couple this with the ads on TV, and its like the sexuality of porn without the actual nudity, its crazy frustrating lol
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks! Ex. bikinis for tots. Popular dance styles that kids perform these days. Seeing that, all I want to ask is... why?
Personally i dont like it for my self cause i can put you in an awkward spot if playing against some one that might get offended, but for somebody else i Dont really care, what ever floats your boat.
Sizable difference between the portrayal of women in a sexualized manner in bubblegum etc and the portrayal of women as victims of sexual violence and objects.
It is the second version I take offence at. Having a wife, mother, female friends and relatives.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Sizable difference between the portrayal of women in a sexualized manner in bubblegum etc and the portrayal of women as victims of sexual violence and objects.
It is the second version I take offence at. Having a wife, mother, female friends and relatives.
Agreed. This gets close to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
(edited in line with MGS below) not seeing how its an appropriate topic of art for an expensive version of toy soldiers and pew pew noises.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Firstly, what defines "portrayal of sexual victims" then? Coz the model in question, the naked women don't look oppressed or victimised to me. Just depicting a sexual act doesn't imply victimisation, the victimisation seems mostly inferred.
Secondly, you say the "horrors of war" thing is stylised and softened... but isn't the sex as well? We're talking about 40k here, not Star Wars or whatever PG-13 movie where the gore is implied, 40k gore is often on display for all to see. I'd argue the sex is just as stylised as the violence is in the context of 40k. I still don't see why one is more acceptable than the other, as wargamers we make light of very real and painful topics. We often see models depicting grievously wounded soldiers, not just in 40k but in actual historics as well.
It still seems rather selective to make light of one atrocity and be outraged by another. Though that said I can understand why you might feel that way if you were specifically exposed to those particular atrocities. When I lost someone close to me under pretty fething horrible circumstances I will admit when I was watching TV/movies I would find myself frequently skipping painful drawn out death scenes because I just really did not want to see it, having experienced watching someone I cared for deeply go through it. But then nor do I want that stuff removed, I just didn't want to watch it myself.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank
But do they also need our constant protection and overwatch to make sure nothing we consider "harmful" can corrupt or offend their poor weak minds?
Several of my female gaming friends love the Raging Heroes minis - even the ones with their tits out - they see nothing wrong with them - quite the opposite as it fits the model etc..............
victims of violence,
I imagine to some, the entire making a game /toys out of war is deeply offensive when you cosider the implicaitons - same as letting children play with toy guns?
Any discussion of an art form, which I wouod argue painted minis is, is going to run into these issues - much classic and some modern art has extreme themes - often for shock value rather than asthetic....
Given that 50 shades of Grey is apparently mainstream literature and which is talked about on TV at all hours of the day and is about BDSM and in aprticular femae submisison fantasies- is having the same in some ranges of minis ok or not? Its a very difficult area.
People mess up children, negative consequences of say a child found watching porn messes up children not porn itself.
Look at what happened in Poland recently about mothers moaning about donkeys doing what donkeys do leading to them being separated and the centre ridiculed in the press.
Just because a mother was to lazy to explain that's how baby donkeys are made.
Well I guess I'm a horrible dad. Me and my daughter raise giant show rabbit's and she throws them in the cage together to breed them. Then pats her buck on the head and goes good boy after he is done. Then 30 days later gives the Doe treats when she has kits going good momma. I thinks its odd all the butt hurt exspressed in this thread. For the model it self I think its nice and would have no problem playing against it as long as the strippers did not change weapons lol. I looked at my sister's repentia squads and they are way more nude the that. I think there are worse things in life to be offended by.
Fireraven wrote: Well I guess I'm a horrible dad. Me and my daughter raise giant show rabbit's and she throws them in the cage together to breed them. Then pats her buck on the head and goes good boy after he is done. Then 30 days later gives the Doe treats when she has kits going good momma. I thinks its odd all the butt hurt exspressed in this thread. For the model it self I think its nice and would have no problem playing against it as long as the strippers did not change weapons lol. I looked at my sister's repentia squads and they are way more nude the that. I think there are worse things in life to be offended by.
Do you give her pictures of girls your daughter's age stuck in cages and covered in blood too? If not then your example is completely erroneous.
Thats what we're talking about here, not little bunny foo foo making more bunnys.
Quite simply put I could care less what models look like. That being said my daughter has played games with me and I dont need here seeing models like this. On top of that neither does the pimply 12 year old across from me during some games.
Generalstoner wrote: Quite simply put I could care less what models look like. That being said my daughter has played games with me and I dont need here seeing models like this. On top of that neither does the pimply 12 year old across from me during some games.
I'd like to know how old you are if you don't mind?
When I started chaos was far, far more x rated, heck I liked the Fimir and they were really near the knuckle.
If people don't realize that metal / plastic or resin figures are about as real as fairies and elves then I truly feel sorry for you.
Nursery rhymes are about death and plague but a bit of nudity and the whole world collapses.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: I am from the Republic of Ireland, which is admittedly an emotionally and sexually repressed nation.
Hasn't been my experience. Your mileage may vary, but please don't make such sweeping generalizations
I'm from there, I spent a lot of time there. People don't talk about their feelings, and if they do they feel it necessary to preface them with "no homo." Birth control was only legalised like thirty years ago or so. Organisations openly advertise that women shouldn't be allowed to control their own bodies and were "asking for it" (the Iona Institute et al).
Again, regarding the model, to restate what someone else said: it's not the women, or the nudity, or the affiliation to a certain god, or the blood or gore or guts that are the problem, it is the cages.
Anyway, I've said about as much as I can say on this subject, so I'll just be reading for now while this discussion continues.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:@MGS: A few points/questions...
Firstly, what defines "portrayal of sexual victims" then? Coz the model in question, the naked women don't look oppressed or victimised to me. Just depicting a sexual act doesn't imply victimisation, the victimisation seems mostly inferred.
I see women in cages, with what appear to be wounds. Captive and injured. Also why are the captive caged individuals women at all? Why aren't they both men, or one woman and one man. I would suggest it's the sexualizing factor, the objectification I referred to earlier.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Secondly, you say the "horrors of war" thing is stylised and softened... but isn't the sex as well? We're talking about 40k here, not Star Wars or whatever PG-13 movie where the gore is implied, 40k gore is often on display for all to see. I'd argue the sex is just as stylised as the violence is in the context of 40k. I still don't see why one is more acceptable than the other, as wargamers we make light of very real and painful topics. We often see models depicting grievously wounded soldiers, not just in 40k but in actual historics as well.
It still seems rather selective to make light of one atrocity and be outraged by another. Though that said I can understand why you might feel that way if you were specifically exposed to those particular atrocities. When I lost someone close to me under pretty fething horrible circumstances I will admit when I was watching TV/movies I would find myself frequently skipping painful drawn out death scenes because I just really did not want to see it, having experienced watching someone I cared for deeply go through it. But then nor do I want that stuff removed, I just didn't want to watch it myself.
The morality of the society I've grown up in places a far higher taboo on sexual violence, coupled with the quite real social stigmas of shame and the prejudices against women that exist around these acts. I was quite definitively beaten up as a young teen, my experience and shame were not to the scale of a young woman being raped. Casual violence does not carry the implications with it that sexual assault does.
Mr Morden wrote:
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank
But do they also need our constant protection and overwatch to make sure nothing we consider "harmful" can corrupt or offend their poor weak minds?
A considerable difference between showing respect and avoiding potential insult vs indulging in white knighting.
Mr Morden wrote:
Several of my female gaming friends love the Raging Heroes minis - even the ones with their tits out - they see nothing wrong with them - quite the opposite as it fits the model etc..............
Wife and I really like those models. Neither of us like the crying/supplicating women being sexually penetrated by a giant titmonster that kingdom death put out. Neither of us liked Vinni's 'ukrainian slave'... Again, it's not about sexuality, it's about power/victimization and disenfranchising women in representations.
Mr Morden wrote:
victims of violence,
I imagine to some, the entire making a game /toys out of war is deeply offensive when you cosider the implicaitons - same as letting children play with toy guns?
Any discussion of an art form, which I wouod argue painted minis is, is going to run into these issues - much classic and some modern art has extreme themes - often for shock value rather than asthetic....
Given that 50 shades of Grey is apparently mainstream literature and which is talked about on TV at all hours of the day and is about BDSM and in aprticular femae submisison fantasies- is having the same in some ranges of minis ok or not? Its a very difficult area.
Absolutely, offense, what is acceptable, occur along a sliding scale. As I mentioned above, most folks here would take offense at a baby raping diorama. Society is changing in terms of what is considered in good taste regarding the portrayal of women and asking for feedback from women the common cited offense, as I again mentioned before, is less about 'sexy models' as it is with women as victims.
My wife bought me the CMoN 'Army Brat' model, which I'm very fond of. I like a lot of Werner's minis. She doesn't find it rude, it's bubblegum and doesn't raise an issue. If I owned certain other models, with the woman as victim, that would not sit well at all and I can fully understand and appreciate why.
50 shades of grey, as I understand it, is about female submission fantasy, which like male submission fantasy, is a mutually consenting act, unlike rape, female human trafficking and the subjugation of half the species across the earth based on their lack of a winky...
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Actually they don't appear to be wounded. Bloodied yes, but it could be someone else's blood.
That and I'm pretty sure they're smiling or at least smirking in said pictures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amiricle wrote: To add to that, I remember growing up, one of my favourite tv shows was Monty Pythons Flying Circus, which my mom was cool with letting me watch since her parents were good with letting her watch it when she was younger. She moved to Canada when she was 10 and that was one of the few available sources of 'good British humor' as my grandparents said it. There are a few skits and several animations that have topless women. My grandparents didn't approve of that but having their kids 'get' good comedy was more important to them.
Anyway, fast forward to a few years ago, my nephew saw The Quest for the Holy Grail at a friends house and it became one of his most favorite movies, so my mom gave him the Flying Circus dvd set one year. My sister watched a few episodes with him, but lost her mind when a scene came on with tits being shown and got sooo angry with our mom for giving her kid something like that to watch. (Just tits being seen - there was never any actual sex)
My mom still doesn't get why my sister made such a big deal over that, and my sister doesn't get why my mom got angry that my nephews been allowed to freely play games like CoD, Bioshock, Fear, Battlefield, etc since he was 10.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:@MGS: A few points/questions...
Firstly, what defines "portrayal of sexual victims" then? Coz the model in question, the naked women don't look oppressed or victimised to me. Just depicting a sexual act doesn't imply victimisation, the victimisation seems mostly inferred.
I see women in cages, with what appear to be wounds. Captive and injured. Also why are the captive caged individuals women at all? Why aren't they both men, or one woman and one man. I would suggest it's the sexualizing factor, the objectification I referred to earlier.
They are covered in blood, they don't look wounded and injured to me, just covered in blood... like the whole tank. They just look like strippers covered in blood to me, the victimization seems to be inferred by the observer than implied by the model. They're in cages but again they don't look to be crying out to escape and the cages mostly look decorative, they look like they're working a stripper pole more than they look to be captive.
Why aren't they men? Perhaps because the person who did it didn't want them to be men. If the female form is more pleasing to the eye, I don't see any problem not using men.
It may sound horrific to you, but if my opponent were an attractive female and said "I want to play in the nude", I'd be like "umm, ok", if it were an overweight dude I'd be like "umm, please don't... or at least put on some pants". I don't see it as wrong to use imagery you find better suits your desired aesthetic, and that might be naked women over naked men.
Also why would it be better if it were one man and one woman? Sexual abuse of boys is a serious issue too.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Secondly, you say the "horrors of war" thing is stylised and softened... but isn't the sex as well? We're talking about 40k here, not Star Wars or whatever PG-13 movie where the gore is implied, 40k gore is often on display for all to see. I'd argue the sex is just as stylised as the violence is in the context of 40k. I still don't see why one is more acceptable than the other, as wargamers we make light of very real and painful topics. We often see models depicting grievously wounded soldiers, not just in 40k but in actual historics as well.
It still seems rather selective to make light of one atrocity and be outraged by another. Though that said I can understand why you might feel that way if you were specifically exposed to those particular atrocities. When I lost someone close to me under pretty fething horrible circumstances I will admit when I was watching TV/movies I would find myself frequently skipping painful drawn out death scenes because I just really did not want to see it, having experienced watching someone I cared for deeply go through it. But then nor do I want that stuff removed, I just didn't want to watch it myself.
The morality of the society I've grown up in places a far higher taboo on sexual violence, coupled with the quite real social stigmas of shame and the prejudices against women that exist around these acts. I was quite definitively beaten up as a young teen, my experience and shame were not to the scale of a young woman being raped. Casual violence does not carry the implications with it that sexual assault does.
I try not to presume what someone else feels. I've been beaten up as a kid... I've also beaten up other people as a kid I haven't however had my family wiped out in genocide, I haven't watched my friends and family tortured and executed, I'm one generation removed from having a family member who died in a war. All those things are pretty horrific things that are trivialised when we play a wargame. We are literally making a game out of war. Doesn't that sound a bit insensitive? We have people in our communities who are still dealing with the psychological and physical damage of war, across the world there's still people being tortured and executed for a bunch of pathetic reasons.
Casual violence and getting beaten up as a kid has nothing to do with the atrocities we trivialise simply by turning war in to a game, let alone the themes of torture and genocide in 40k.
I don't see how stylised sex is any different to stylised violence. It's not even depicting rape or anything like that, just nudity and blood. It's themed on that Debauchery band... I actually hadn't heard of them up until this thread... but watching a couple of their music videos, the women are the ones doing the torturing and what not.
It seems to me that if you have a problem with this model it's because you have a problem with depicting anything sexual, which I disagree with (though you're entitled to your opinion) or you have inferred a theme of a sexual victim, which IMO is your own doing in this case where it's not explicitly depicted as such.
2. There's a social stigma of shame against women with sex.
3. Sexual violence doesn't carry the same implications as casual violence.
To which my reply is...
1. The victimisation is inferred rather than implied.
2. Maybe there is but I don't see how shying away from sexual themes helps that.
3. It may not carry the same implications as getting beaten up as a teenager... however that's not the type of violence we are seeing depicted in wargames anyway, the type of violence we see in wargames has deep and serious implications too and we trivialise it in to a game. If you're against the trivialisation and then flagrantly flaunting of atrocities that have personal implications on real life peoples, it seems you wouldn't be playing a war game to begin with. You wrote off "horrors of war" as being stylised and softened... but so are the sex themes so I'm not seeing what makes sex themes special, especially when it's not actually depicting sexual violence, it's just depicting sex... and violence (if you understand what I mean ).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
Very will said.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
So where do you draw the line? I understand your point about the objectification of women. What I don't understand is, how can you say in the same breath though that "well, the horrors of war" doesn't apply? Are you saying it's ok? You do know that these soldiers rape and murder innocent women as well. No country is innocent of this crime and since these soldiers are based on real life, they do the same thing. If you are playing Space Marines, I guess they don't rape, but they do murder innocents if they don't agree with their "father". So subjectivication of women is wrong but playing Nazi like toy soldiers is ok then. You tell that to a halocaust survivor how your plastic toy men don't subectify women, but they represent the worst in Humanity and are like the SS.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Again, where is the line drawn? Ok to play with Nazi like characters but not subjection of women is not?
Not offended by the human body. Nor do I think anyone should be, would hate to go back to that Victorian era mind set. There is nothing sexist about loving the human form, male or female. Some of my favorite works of art are of nude people both well known and not so well know.
Yes you can get very tacky or tasteless with some of the art out there but no one has the right not to feel insulted.
When it comes to models/miniature wargames, I don't mind half naked models or completely naked models. However, when it comes to a wargame I feel as though both men and woman should wear adequate armor unless their fluff/history supports it, like a barbarian race wearing bear fur or something. Does not make a whole of sense going into battle with crotch and titty armor if your male counter part has a full suit of armor. Cheese cake models should be some sort of special edition for those who like the art form.
In the end sex sell and when you need to pay the bills...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of animal sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Don't answer that. I'm not seriously asking you that. I'm just demonstrating how one can avoid answering a question but changing the subject of the question.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
I never mentioned the "But it's art!!!!!" argument. And stop making false equivalencies.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
Again, I'm not making the "But it's art!!!!!" argument, but the idea that one cannot depict sexual abuse against women (and I'm only talking about women here) in any form, which is what you appear to be saying, is laughable. Plenty of movies/books/television shows depict sexual abuse. Why would models be any different? Why would they be held to a different standard?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
And the same thing can't be done with this subject matter?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank.
When about depictions of sexual assault against men? And who says that its creation or even purpose is for "sly titillation"? And if some people did get "sly titillation" from it, why should that mean that the majority of people cannot create/view it?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Victims of violence? Wouldn't corpses on a models' base be a "depiction of violence"?
What is all this agro and white knighting rage over a couple of gogo dancer models? We are mostly mature adults here and if someone has wanted to build something like that well, its their choice. Personally, I should mention, I am all for these models. They add some variety and allow for some interesting dioramas (Im thinking Necromundian strip clubs, Slaaneshi transports, etc).
When I first saw this thread I was expecting something like sex scenes, that diorama showing a couple of IG infantry raping an Eldar or that slaaneshi army. What I saw was tame and merely suggestive compared to some things out there.
Anyhow, I own a squad of these lovely ladies
(And yess, one of them is completely naked)
And this beauty
As well as a load of other stuff (I own 3 Darkage armies) and I have plans to get a few other kits, some for my Darkage which need expanding but others from "this site" for a few projects I have in mind, so I cannot really be offended by a few strippers
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
See, I agree with almost everything you wrote but I disagree with the conclusion because I just can't see why it matters in real terms when it comes to hobby and entertainment pursuits, you know what I mean?
Like I told that Vinni bloke that his slave girl mini was in ridiculously poor taste in the thread when it first showed up. Especially because it was obviously based off a real person, but I have spent my whole life saying that it was ridiculous to ban Child's Play just because two weirdos killed a kid. or that it's daft to worry about violence in films and games because if you actually get raised properly, and don't have severe mental disorders, they are irrelevant.
And I see much, much, much worse than naked chicks on the side of a very well painted model, so why the fuss?
How many truly brutal rape scenes do we see in other media? I saw a proper honking one in a Monica Belluci film about a decade ago, hence I remember it, gak even the one in The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo was pretty visceral, and I saw one movie as a kid where some reavers raid a village, the leader sticks a nun to a wall with his sword, and then proceeds to shag her twitching corpse while his horrified men look on!
Nobody says this should be banned, because it's a fact of life and rape, and savagery and brutality happen. I suppose in some ways, shocking the audience has a purpose because I remember seeing something savagely brutal as a young man and thinking "I would never do that to a woman"
My point is simply that I don't think this matters in real terms, a model in a cage with her baps out? We see worse every day of the year in movies, on TV, in novels, in art of all mediums, I don't think it needs to be banned or even audibly condemned by me if I play against it. I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
I mean, I would never field an army with slave girls because I'd feel like a total dweeb just gluing the model together, but I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely you have to ignore almost everything in life (not just movies and TV but even the bloody news!) if you think this type of thing is damaging right?
Actually .. With all the Islamic groups, Boko Haram enslaving hundreds of women, and IS decapitating everyone I would say ESPECIALLY the bloody news!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
See, I agree with almost everything you wrote but I disagree with the conclusion because I just can't see why it matters in real terms when it comes to hobby and entertainment pursuits, you know what I mean?
Like I told that Vinni bloke that his slave girl mini was in ridiculously poor taste in the thread when it first showed up. Especially because it was obviously based off a real person, but I have spent my whole life saying that it was ridiculous to ban Child's Play just because two weirdos killed a kid. or that it's daft to worry about violence in films and games because if you actually get raised properly, and don't have severe mental disorders, they are irrelevant.
And I see much, much, much worse than naked chicks on the side of a very well painted model, so why the fuss?
How many truly brutal rape scenes do we see in other media? I saw a proper honking one in a Monica Belluci film about a decade ago, hence I remember it, gak even the one in The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo was pretty visceral, and I saw one movie as a kid where some reavers raid a village, the leader sticks a nun to a wall with his sword, and then proceeds to shag her twitching corpse while his horrified men look on!
Nobody says this should be banned, because it's a fact of life and rape, and savagery and brutality happen. I suppose in some ways, shocking the audience has a purpose because I remember seeing something savagely brutal as a young man and thinking "I would never do that to a woman"
My point is simply that I don't think this matters in real terms, a model in a cage with her baps out? We see worse every day of the year in movies, on TV, in novels, in art of all mediums, I don't think it needs to be banned or even audibly condemned by me if I play against it. I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
I mean, I would never field an army with slave girls because I'd feel like a total dweeb just gluing the model together, but I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely you have to ignore almost everything in life (not just movies and TV but even the bloody news!) if you think this type of thing is damaging right?
Actually .. With all the Islamic groups, Boko Haram enslaving hundreds of women, and IS decapitating everyone I would say ESPECIALLY the bloody news!
The films you've cited had rape scenes in them as a part of the plot, demonstrating the wickedness of a villain in them. The scene is shocking, brutal and designed to elicit outrage. I personally have difficulty watching those sorts of thing in the same way I can't watch those animal shelter commercials, I get really angry, even in fictitious media.
The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
I've listened to these little punks at the local shop, gathered around playing magic and scoffing cheetos, talking about women like they're a bunch of hardcore pimps, until a woman walks into the shop and they all can't make eye contact and the smell of them drives her out again. Once she's gone, of course, she's fair game for the comments and all the things they'd have done to her, the same applies in the internet comments, when they don't have to actually try speaking to a woman face to face.
The point with the videos, is that you look at a list of them and choose one. Seeing a rape scene in GwDT is expected, the victim also, refreshingly, takes her own revenge and doesn't have to rely on a savior to rescue her. I considered it pertinent to the movie and of it's genre, it's inclusion isn't glorified, it's horrific and unpleasant. Bloodied nudes in cages on land raiders isn't designed to horrify, it's designed with a sly wink to your mates about chicks. It's objectification, moreover, it's objectification as victim.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of animal sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Don't answer that. I'm not seriously asking you that. I'm just demonstrating how one can avoid answering a question but changing the subject of the question.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
I never mentioned the "But it's art!!!!!" argument. And stop making false equivalencies.
It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
Again, I'm not making the "But it's art!!!!!" argument, but the idea that one cannot depict sexual abuse against women (and I'm only talking about women here) in any form, which is what you appear to be saying, is laughable. Plenty of movies/books/television shows depict sexual abuse. Why would models be any different? Why would they be held to a different standard?
Because that's how our society ranks crime. That's why we have toy guns for sale and not 'learn to rape' dolls. This isn't an art installation, it's not designed to 'say' anything. It's designed for immature giggling and it's insulting. 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
And the same thing can't be done with this subject matter?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank.
When about depictions of sexual assault against men? And who says that its creation or even purpose is for "sly titillation"? And if some people did get "sly titillation" from it, why should that mean that the majority of people cannot create/view it?
I would be against depictions of sexual assault against men. They aren't common though, are they? We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time. And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'.
Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Victims of violence? Wouldn't corpses on a models' base be a "depiction of violence"?
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
When I started 40k it was a lot more adult in tone. It was much sillier with pop culture references everywhere and punk characters with mohawks. But it also had art and rules books with 'mature readers' labels on the front. I suspect in some cases it was a gimmick because the contents were more text heavy than particularly salacious.
Older players with older attitudes are more likely to model adult themes, not just because they are older but because that's what 40k was. I can't speak for the thoughts behind the landraider starting this thread, but my idea of 40k is not what GW today thinks grimdark is.
The main audience for GW now is younger teenagers, GW make the game 'grimdark' in a very safe way. It's mostly full of characters doing OTT things rather than a genuine sinister feel to the universe. GW have tried to steer away from the approach in the 80s but there will always be a clash of ideas within the hobby. Just be aware of your local audience when bringing out models that might be risqué.
The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
I've listened to these little punks at the local shop, gathered around playing magic and scoffing cheetos, talking about women like they're a bunch of hardcore pimps, until a woman walks into the shop and they all can't make eye contact and the smell of them drives her out again. Once she's gone, of course, she's fair game for the comments and all the things they'd have done to her, the same applies in the internet comments, when they don't have to actually try speaking to a woman face to face.
A lot of assumptions and massive judgments here - so are you saying everyone who ever owns or paints a model that is not within your defined standards of taste and decency is either a bad man or a "basement dwelling virgin" - nice. You might be insulted, others are not, but isn't this the same as imageries of the Prophet which some find deeply offensive?
As I have said women have a variety of views on this - and shock horror have their own tastes, sexual fantasies which maybe mainstream or absolutely not and things that just amuse in this area - just listen to a bunch of women talk about sex / partners - its pretty graphic.
A lot of films and other art forms (photographers and modern artists) use sexual violence in varying ways - to educate, to titillate or just to garner headlines. Quite a lot of them have nothing actually to say about anything - they just want to sell DVDs, prints or whatever.
Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
Surely its the same argument but a different theme - what's right and wrong and what impositions should be made on people /society as a whole. Of course certain Asian countries would find this whole discussion a bit weird given the themes in manga etc.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
So you're psychic now?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
mattyrm wrote: I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
(interestingly, while the average effect size of TV violence -> increased aggression is rather large, the TV altruism -> increased altruistic behavior is even larger!)
Going right back to the original post on the first page, I just wanna say I thought the 'strippers in cages Land Raider' was a pretty silly idea. I understand the thinking behind it and I don't agree with it, but I can't yell 'ban this filth!' because, in the end, it's just a single plastic model built by someone whose maturity I'd question.
On a more intellectual level, the female form has been objectified and femininity itself condensed into a saleable asset for many years and this objectification is probably at it's peak right now. And I'm not happy with that. It's everywhere I look and my daughter, entering her teenage years, faces it too, as does every woman and girl you know. if you think that's right and OK then you're no friend of womankind.
But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
Now I dont use this model if I am in a store where there are children present. Not that I think it will corrupt thier little minds, but it isnt my place to expose them to anything thier parents dont want.
As far as I am concerned, it is art and it fits with the theme of my army (which is led by a women btw)
To each their own, and my own political leanings are too libertarian for me to tell other people what they should or not make/buy/paint, but here is my opinion.
For myself, I don't buy models that clearly objectify women or are explicitly violent. Just as I don't swear in my day-to-day conversations. The reason is that I know that those things are bad for my mental health/psyche... not in the "If I see one more boob model I'll go insane". Instead, I think of it as pollution... a little bit isn't going to hurt anyone, but as it builds up in the environment more people are affected by it in worse and worse ways.
Yes, for me that means no Dark Eldar or Demon armies in my future... certainly no Kingdom Death (that is the stuff of nightmares). No gore dripping from Warscythes in my Necron army of even Flayed Ones either. That doesn't prevent me from having fun playing against someone's Dark Eldar or Demon army... but I have set the limits for what I'm comfortable bringing into my home.
Can someone please explain to me why Hitler like characters are ok, but sex is not? People say they don't want violence or sex in there games yet play with characters that are worse than Hitler and all of evils men combined.
Davor wrote: Can someone please explain to me why Hitler like characters are ok, but sex is not? People say they don't want violence or sex in there games yet play with characters that are worse than Hitler and all of evils men combined.
Because 20,000 years in the future or past is as removed from reality as most of us can imagine. Hell, it's been 700 years since Genghis Khan depopulated areas of Asia... and scholars in the West are applauding him for 'shaking things up' in a way to allow for the advancement of civilization. Collectively, we have a short memory.
But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
Fine by me - there are few naked male figures around - posted the naked Hoplites early There are also some gimp and similar models about for modern day games. Quite a few male "barbarians" have little on.
Chrissy_J wrote: But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
As long as someone wants to sculpt them (and I know there are lots of people who have sculpted naked/servant male models) then I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
No, I'm more than a bit sure you'd find some very poor behaviors towards women in the football stands and on the forums for paint ball. It is because we're nerds, because we're supposed to have a higher amount of smarts that I'd hope to find more readiness to accommodate and display a tolerant and welcoming attitude. Rather than divert our efforts into forming some form of resistance against some bizarrely perceived invasion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress.
I already stated several times this is not directed at the bubblegum or the little metal bikinis or having their tatas out, I own figures like that, I'm talking about the darker stuff, my ongoing point, portrayal of victimization of women.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Because you claimed 'the majority of people', when what you meant was 'the majority of men in a fringe hobby' but wanted to sound like you were representing 'the masses' vs lunatic fringe.
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
Depictions of sexual violence are not bad. Depictions of sexual violence for cheap thrills, immature amusement or to pay homage to a heavy metal band with your toy tank are.
mkay?
"placatory tautological nonsense" Handbags at dawn eh?
Nice, you kiss your mother with that thesaurus-vomiting gob? I'll raise your accusation with the counter of your indulgent reactionary dismissive closeted mysogenistic hyperbole bordering on social maladjustment.
How'd you like them apples?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
No, I'm more than a bit sure you'd find some very poor behaviors towards women in the football stands and on the forums for paint ball. It is because we're nerds, because we're supposed to have a higher amount of smarts that I'd hope to find more readiness to accommodate and display a tolerant and welcoming attitude. Rather than divert our efforts into forming some form of resistance against some bizarrely perceived invasion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress.
I already stated several times this is not directed at the bubblegum or the little metal bikinis or having their tatas out, I own figures like that, I'm talking about the darker stuff, my ongoing point, portrayal of victimization of women.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Because you claimed 'the majority of people', when what you meant was 'the majority of men in a fringe hobby' but wanted to sound like you were representing 'the masses' vs lunatic fringe.
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
Depictions of sexual violence are not bad. Depictions of sexual violence for cheap thrills, immature amusement or to pay homage to a heavy metal band with your toy tank are.
mkay?
"placatory tautological nonsense" Handbags at dawn eh?
Nice, you kiss your mother with that thesaurus-vomiting gob? I'll raise your accusation with the counter of your indulgent reactionary dismissive closeted mysogenistic hyperbole bordering on social maladjustment.
How'd you like them apples?
Hmmm.....
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said. Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
I move this here because as I go through the many ways you've failed to understand and/or distorted my argument, it will be increasingly distressing that you imagine holding the intellectual high ground. 'Posts Muthalover!
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
I like how I caution that even in this thread most people don't agree, and there are many different possible viewpoints, which to you meant 'opposite day', where I am professing that black is white, up is down and there is no moral overlap whatsoever between our worldviews. That charming naïveté becomes even more precious later when you dismiss a point as "sheltered". I also like how you both crafted a viewpoint for me from whole cloth and then helpfully supplied that it was a minority viewpoint.'Posts Muthalover!
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said.
Oh, my bad! I didn't realize that when you helpfully supplied that you were "born of a woman" it was only to let us know you were ineligible to kill King MacBeth. That wasn't at all a facile attempt to decide what women deserve in their portrayals.'Posts Muthalover!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. I say (in addition to my pointing out people in this thread) that there is a dissenting female opinion in the OP, and this is in your mind transmuted into an outlier "one opinion". I suppose I could say that one opinion, repeated many times with many people has a different name, and that name is consensus. But hey, it's not like there are women posting in this very thread that don't find any real problem with the thing, or that, again, the majority of the thread seems to disagree with you (or at least a very healthy portion), but I would just be telling you what you surely already know. 'Posts Muthalover!
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
I find your notion, that one man's ability to create and sell "these things" is hostage to what others may do or say in reaction to "these things", loathsome. Also shortsighted and... very sheltered. 'Posts Muthalover!
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
Yeah... see, when you start promoting the view that all art must service a particular moral or political ideal, that's when people start asking "where have I heard this before?"'Posts Muthalover!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
You spelled "scold" wrong. Let me give you a final hint: whether or not you think you are a feminist doesn't matter (for the record I count myself as one). Because guess what? When you demand that all art pass an ideological purity test, then you've numbered yourself among the book burners and the record smashers that came before. I know, I know, you're "protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children".
Whether or not you think my views are feminist, one thing I am without question is a civil libertarian. That's not just about the First Amendment, but a philosophy regarding how people in a free society must conduct themselves and the privileges they reserve both for themselves and for others. In this matter of speech at least, I am entirely in agreement with Alan Dershowitz, so if you wonder what I think in such a matter of speech, all you need to remember is that... I have better hair.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
I'm going to echo Buzzsaw and say "stop saying "we"". Now, yes, I do place a higher degree of taboo on sexual violence than I do getting beaten up as a teenager. But when it comes to genocide, murder, torture and "horrors of war", these different degrees of taboo start to blur a little bit, don't ya think?
Maybe it's just because I have friends whose houses have been burned down and their communities destroyed by people fuelled by religious intolerance. Maybe it's because I know people who have had to flee countries where some of these atrocities have occurred. Maybe it's because I know soldiers who are still emotionally scarred from having their friends brutally and violently killed in front of them. Maybe it's because unlike you I wasn't born of a woma... oh wait, yes I was.
Now, I've said earlier I can totally understand why someone would personally be more sensitive to a particular atrocity (sexual violence) than others (horrors of war). But I don't see how you can so easily write off those other atrocities as "oh well, it's stylised" or "oh well, sex is taboo". We often go back to Hitler, but these "horrors of war" are still happening now across the world. People are still being tortured and murdered for what they believe or who they are and where they live. Children are still being given guns and trained as soldiers.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Well obviously it has nothing to do with women in the information age... coz that's just fething stupid, 40k is not the information age, it's the anti-information age
But no, they don't look disempowered to me. Maybe it's just because almost all the women in my life have been strong, independent go-getters rather than the sort of women who need to be sheltered, but my mind doesn't immediately go to "those poor slave girls!". The Land Raider girls have smirks on their faces, they're in sexual poses but not subjugated poses, they're covered in blood but they don't look injured or in pain which to me immediately indicated they were the ones doing the killing (or at the very least just enjoying bathing in blood).
Not a wholesome theme at all, blood, death, sex... but I think if you are seeing it as disempowered and subjugated women that's your own inference rather than the intention. It's not the gist I got from seeing the model for the first time nor is it the gist I got of the creator's intention from watching the video that it was themed off...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
I'm going to echo Buzzsaw and say "stop saying "we"". Now, yes, I do place a higher degree of taboo on sexual violence than I do getting beaten up as a teenager. But when it comes to genocide, murder, torture and "horrors of war", these different degrees of taboo start to blur a little bit, don't ya think?
Maybe it's just because I have friends whose houses have been burned down and their communities destroyed by people fuelled by religious intolerance. Maybe it's because I know people who have had to flee countries where some of these atrocities have occurred. Maybe it's because I know soldiers who are still emotionally scarred from having their friends brutally and violently killed in front of them. Maybe it's because unlike you I wasn't born of a woma... oh wait, yes I was.
Now, I've said earlier I can totally understand why someone would personally be more sensitive to a particular atrocity (sexual violence) than others (horrors of war). But I don't see how you can so easily write off those other atrocities as "oh well, it's stylised" or "oh well, sex is taboo". We often go back to Hitler, but these "horrors of war" are still happening now across the world. People are still being tortured and murdered for what they believe or who they are and where they live. Children are still being given guns and trained as soldiers.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Well obviously it has nothing to do with women in the information age... coz that's just fething stupid, 40k is not the information age, it's the anti-information age
But no, they don't look disempowered to me. Maybe it's just because almost all the women in my life have been strong, independent go-getters rather than the sort of women who need to be sheltered, but my mind doesn't immediately go to "those poor slave girls!". The Land Raider girls have smirks on their faces, they're in sexual poses but not subjugated poses, they're covered in blood but they don't look injured or in pain which to me immediately indicated they were the ones doing the killing (or at the very least just enjoying bathing in blood).
Not a wholesome theme at all, blood, death, sex... but I think if you are seeing it as disempowered and subjugated women that's your own inference rather than the intention. It's not the gist I got from seeing the model for the first time nor is it the gist I got of the creator's intention from watching the video that it was themed off...
spacewolflord wrote: Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.
Those Daemonettes would still e far superior to the current ones even if they were covered.
One of the major problems that plagues the hobby is egotism. There are a lot of gamers who only think about themselves. Gamers who do not shower do not care if other people are offended by their odor. Such behavior damages the community.
Obviously some people are offended by sexually explicit models. Using such models in games, or posting them on forums devoted to the hobby has the potential to drive the offended parties away from the hobby.
This is simply a matter of respect. If we do not have any, then the hobby will continue to be dominated by distainful men.
I don't find nudity offensive at all - I'm European What I find offensive is depicting women (or men) in a derogative way, reduced to their sexuality. Depicting torture and gore is not a problem, but if the message that I receive is "Women are to be used" then that's not ok for me.
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
I like how I caution that even in this thread most people don't agree, and there are many different possible viewpoints, which to you meant 'opposite day', where I am professing that black is white, up is down and there is no moral overlap whatsoever between our worldviews. That charming naïveté becomes even more precious later when you dismiss a point as "sheltered". I also like how you both crafted a viewpoint for me from whole cloth and then helpfully supplied that it was a minority viewpoint.'Posts Muthalover!
My statement was that various crimes exist on a sliding scale, that society views different transgression from constructed norms in different ways and applies different punishment or restriction around it. You took offense to my umbrella terminology and claimed I don't speak for you on that. So you removed your person from the statement, you disagreed with the claim I made that all crime or taboo is not created equally, you continue to claim 'You just don't get me man!' without actually addressing that point, if you'd like to explain to me how you can remove yourself from that statement but somehow not come to the conclusion that instead you do view all taboo or crime as equal, or indeed that you believe there is no crime or taboo, then I'd be interested to hear how.
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said.
Oh, my bad! I didn't realize that when you helpfully supplied that you were "born of a woman" it was only to let us know you were ineligible to kill King MacBeth. That wasn't at all a facile attempt to decide what women deserve in their portrayals.'Posts Muthalover!
Whilst I'll afford you points for quoting the bard, my claim to being born of woman etc was simply to identify my solidarity and suggest to others in the same situation, which should be all of us, that we take a minute to decide if the women in our lives were to see that, what it would say to them about us and how we think of them. If it further allows me to speak in a way contrary to the claimed female voice supporting portrayal of women as victim, my wife effing hates this figure as do a couple of my female friends who read the thread. Funnily enough, when I suggested they post here and actually add female commentary, they all echoed the statement that they had no wish to be shouted down by the prominent male voices here... Who'd have thunk it...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. I say (in addition to my pointing out people in this thread) that there is a dissenting female opinion in the OP, and this is in your mind transmuted into an outlier "one opinion". I suppose I could say that one opinion, repeated many times with many people has a different name, and that name is consensus. But hey, it's not like there are women posting in this very thread that don't find any real problem with the thing, or that, again, the majority of the thread seems to disagree with you (or at least a very healthy portion), but I would just be telling you what you surely already know. 'Posts Muthalover!
So, as said, one female opinion. That's not the result of my dizzying intellect, that basic maths... I have another female opinion right here now, telling me to stop arguing with you because 'it's pointless and you're just being shouted down'. I already just matched that one opinion with another from the same demographic. What does this mean, could it possibly suggest you don't get to steamroller my opinion because 'this girl said'...?
Further, as I've been suggesting when I broadened this conversation from this miniature to others, their sales and accolades, I was suggesting that the miniatures/wargaming hobby has a problem with it's portrayal of women.
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
I find your notion, that one man's ability to create and sell "these things" is hostage to what others may do or say in reaction to "these things", loathsome. Also shortsighted and... very sheltered. 'Posts Muthalover!
Ah, because I take offense at something, I am a prude to be compared to Tipper Gore, who I presume can be compared to Mary Whitehouse. Again your 'all or nothing' stuck record.
BECAUSE ITS ART DARLING, YOU JUST DONT GET IT!
BECAUSE ITS BOUTIQUE IT CAN BE 'DARING'!
BECAUSE YOUR A PLEB TO TAKE OFFENSE!
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF CENSORSHIP!
They are sold because there is market and demand for them. I know you keep wanting to suggest that the kingdom death miniature in question is some kind of art, but it's a mass produced figurine covered in tits, about to put it's long tentacle-cock into a prone nude woman. It's not an art instillation, it's not got anything to 'say', it's not a portrayal of personal pain or a celebration of sexuality, it's a resin tit monster with naked female resin slaves. It's about as sacred a cow as Legend of the Overfiend and likely has the same audience who wore out the rewind button on that cartoon.
Vinny's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl' was not only portraying an actual human being, a named person who was imprisoned at the time, it labelled the women of a nation with an especially high rate of female abduction and human sex trafficking.
'But it can exist, because it's art and if you speak out on it you're a censor and you're a prude'.
Jog off. It's a toy soldier, it's a mass produced piece of resin. It's a snide source of denigration. It's spank-fodder. Or are you going to tell me manga tentacle porn is some form of art and sacred?
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
Yeah... see, when you start promoting the view that all art must service a particular moral or political ideal, that's when people start asking "where have I heard this before?"'Posts Muthalover!
Again, you love to keep cloaking these models in the emperor's clothes of 'it's art, you're not allowed to be offended'. 'You're a censor', no, but I am a human being with an established set of personal rules on what I do and do not find insulting, built from a mix of social upbringing and personal experience, this means I can take offense at things I view, yet your personal offense at my offense is... interesting. As though noone has a right, in your book, to be offended by portrayal of anything by anyone. You will find constant disappointment in the world if that's the case.
Can you explain to me, as I can't really see it, which group of people the hash pipe makers in your link are potentially denigrating, or is that just there to suggest I'm some form of pleb out to destroy artistic freedom and equatable to 'the man', man... ? If the glass they were working was being shaped into a child being abused, a woman in a cage or a black man hanging from a noose I might take offense, i don't personally fall into any of those categories as a white male adult. Do you think therefore I have no right to be offended by these things?
Can you really not see the difference? I don't give two gaks about people enjoying personal freedoms, but expressing the desire to restrict the freedoms of others with that is something I would confront.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
You spelled "scold" wrong. Let me give you a final hint: whether or not you think you are a feminist doesn't matter (for the record I count myself as one). Because guess what? When you demand that all art pass an ideological purity test, then you've numbered yourself among the book burners and the record smashers that came before. I know, I know, you're "protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children".
And we come full circle, to taboo and crime and degrees of acceptability.
Since you're labeling me a book burner and a moral guardian, I'll label you a rapist endorser, a pedophile sympathizer, a racism supporter and a champion of misogyny, as you believe everything is permissible if you label it 'art'. If, according to your hyperbole indulged lambasting, I'm the moral equivalent of a book burner for stating a thing to be sexist, because I'm 'against art', then you're facilitating all of the above because someone speaking out about a book on 'man and child love' is 'against literature'... (I'm not actually labeling you anything, you're someone I'm having a disagreement with on the internet, I'm just repaying the kindness of equating me with religious fundamentalists, fascists and totalitarians, hyperbole for the goose is hyperbole for the gander... ).
Whether or not you think my views are feminist, one thing I am without question is a civil libertarian. That's not just about the First Amendment, but a philosophy regarding how people in a free society must conduct themselves and the privileges they reserve both for themselves and for others. In this matter of speech at least, I am entirely in agreement with Alan Dershowitz, so if you wonder what I think in such a matter of speech, all you need to remember is that... I have better hair.
All societies exist with moral codes. All groups of people who come together agree, verbally and subconsciously, to a series of boundaries and rules. It's what stops us all reenacting the snuff video bit from Event Horizon.
All I want is a more hospitable environment for female gamers, because female gamers tell me they find the environment in the miniatures/tabletopwargaming community unfriendly and sexist. I believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for people.
You and I find ourselves (on several occasions I think) at odds on this issue because you say 'Artists should have the right to produce whatever they want in the name of Free Speech and Free Expression' and I say 'Women and girls should have the rights to enjoy freedom, respect and equal treatment in the name of Democracy, Enlightenment and the Equality of the Individual'. I'll also remind you that a few posts above, you took me to task on using the word 'we' and claimed that I could make no sweeping statements on this as the forum and hobbies are multinational and multitudinous, yet here you are championing the 1st Amendment and applying entirely American philosophy and American libertarian bias to the issue...
Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Does someone have the right to produce a sculpture that is insulting to women?
For you yes it's art. For me... yes, but I also have the right to absolutely verbally pillory them for it, art is not a sacred cow, I also question calling mass produced models 'art'.
Labeling something 'Art' does not place an invulnerable forcefield around something. It does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a surrounding society, culture and the reaction of it's citizens.
spaceelf wrote: This is simply a matter of respect. If we do not have any, then the hobby will continue to be dominated by distainful men.
...and women. Because we've already seen that there are women in hobby who don't have a problem with it.
We don't want to be sexist here now do we?
But yeah, I do think you can try too hard to be inclusive. I think you'll find the people offended by it enough to not join the hobby when they might have otherwise is small. I imagine the main people offended by it are people who couldn't give a frak about wargaming in the first place and just want a reason to be offended... also the people who are outraged for the sake of being outraged or outraged that that someone else might be offended even though they're not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Err, no one is saying you can't have an opinion on a piece of art, there's a lot of art that I think is a pile of crap, but as you yourself pointed out....
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
And you're comment here demonstrates precisely why I stopped responding to you, because in every reply, you missed the bloody point. It had nothing to do with tits. I'll engage criticism, I'll not engage willful misdirection and I hope it was willful and you're not actually just too bloody thick to understand what I've been saying..
Let me just clarify it for you one last time then we can move on.
It's not about tits, it's not about bubblegum or nudity on a miniature. It's about pose, situation, the suggestion or full depiction of victimization, subjugation and objectification. It's about disempowering and reinforcing the notions of women as objects, prizes and victims instead of equal human beings.
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
And you're comment here demonstrates precisely why I stopped responding to you, because in every reply, you missed the bloody point. It had nothing to do with tits. I'll engage criticism, I'll not engage willful misdirection and I hope it was willful and you're not actually just too bloody thick to understand what I've been saying..
Let me just clarify it for you one last time then we can move on.
It's not about tits, it's not about bubblegum or nudity on a miniature. It's about pose, situation, the suggestion or full depiction of victimization, subjugation and objectification. It's about disempowering and reinforcing the notions of women as objects, prizes and victims instead of equal human beings.
What?? You stopped replying to me because I was missing the point even though the point you just outlined is one of the exact points I was addressing. So in other words, yeah, you missed my points
Don't accuse me of wilful misdirection when I'm addressing your points but in a way you don't like. Here, this is one of the spots I specifically addressed that point:
But no, they don't look disempowered to me. Maybe it's just because almost all the women in my life have been strong, independent go-getters rather than the sort of women who need to be sheltered, but my mind doesn't immediately go to "those poor slave girls!". The Land Raider girls have smirks on their faces, they're in sexual poses but not subjugated poses, they're covered in blood but they don't look injured or in pain which to me immediately indicated they were the ones doing the killing (or at the very least just enjoying bathing in blood).
Not a wholesome theme at all, blood, death, sex... but I think if you are seeing it as disempowered and subjugated women that's your own inference rather than the intention. It's not the gist I got from seeing the model for the first time nor is it the gist I got of the creator's intention from watching the video that it was themed off...
I even gave you a chance to clarify if I was misinterpreting you here and you ignored me:
Perhaps I did, your points seemed to be...
1. The women were victimised.
2. There's a social stigma of shame against women with sex.
3. Sexual violence doesn't carry the same implications as casual violence.
To which my reply is...
1. The victimisation is inferred rather than implied.
2. Maybe there is but I don't see how shying away from sexual themes helps that.
3. It may not carry the same implications as getting beaten up as a teenager... however that's not the type of violence we are seeing depicted in wargames anyway, the type of violence we see in wargames has deep and serious implications too and we trivialise it in to a game. If you're against the trivialisation and then flagrantly flaunting of atrocities that have personal implications on real life peoples, it seems you wouldn't be playing a war game to begin with. You wrote off "horrors of war" as being stylised and softened... but so are the sex themes so I'm not seeing what makes sex themes special, especially when it's not actually depicting sexual violence, it's just depicting sex... and violence (if you understand what I mean ).
I still am shocked that people are making assumptions for the sake of being offended here.
No one is objectified or being abused in that mini unless you make sweeping assumptions about the creator.
As has been pointed out earlier, the bars are plenty wide enough for those dames to eat half the county supply of Mickey D's and still comfortably walk out. They aren't slaves unless giving free range with and axe is normal for being a slave.
It's the assumptions that something wrong is happening with the model that bother me most.
Some people truly want to be offended nowadays. They assume the worst intent in people rather then the best. That bothers me most.
Sometimes a model needs to look brutal, in which case, it will have severed heads and skulls and tools of butchery.
Sometimes a model needs to look hideous, in which case we add deformities and ruined trappings.
And yes, sometimes a model needs to looks seductive. So you craft it to accentuate sexual beauty. Not everyone has the ability to handle sexual themes. In my opinion, this would be proof that the model is a success and should be lauded as such.
Still, the issue of this group remains. A model is making a person feel uncomfortable. How should this be approached? He is another person and his discomfort shouldn't be dismissed. It's like not liking sad movies. If you had in your possession an extremely depressing miniature, one that really got to them, they should stop for a moment and realize that what has happened is that they have just been affected by art. More often than not we tend to forget that this hobby is one of art, and this should be explained to them in a clear and respectful way. Those people here (not those being offended on others' behalf) against sexualization in miniatures don't seem to make this connection. So I think I've pinpointed the place where the solution to this is, and it is up to the anti crowd to create the resolution by coming to terms with it on their own. Removing or hiding the miniature won't solve the problem, it will only hide it.
I just think it's worth noting that with art and any visual stimulus for that matter, people project based on their past and upbringing.
With this model for example, the people who see it as elicit and objectifying are projecting those ideals. Just like when I saw the mini I immediately thought the bars were for safety and the two women were vicious murderers that were possibly possessed.
If you want to see a theme in anything you'll find it.
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
I like how I caution that even in this thread most people don't agree, and there are many different possible viewpoints, which to you meant 'opposite day', where I am professing that black is white, up is down and there is no moral overlap whatsoever between our worldviews. That charming naïveté becomes even more precious later when you dismiss a point as "sheltered". I also like how you both crafted a viewpoint for me from whole cloth and then helpfully supplied that it was a minority viewpoint.'Posts Muthalover!
My statement was that various crimes exist on a sliding scale, that society views different transgression from constructed norms in different ways and applies different punishment or restriction around it. You took offense to my umbrella terminology and claimed I don't speak for you on that. So you removed your person from the statement, you disagreed with the claim I made that all crime or taboo is not created equally, you continue to claim 'You just don't get me man!' without actually addressing that point, if you'd like to explain to me how you can remove yourself from that statement but somehow not come to the conclusion that instead you do view all taboo or crime as equal, or indeed that you believe there is no crime or taboo, then I'd be interested to hear how.
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said.
Oh, my bad! I didn't realize that when you helpfully supplied that you were "born of a woman" it was only to let us know you were ineligible to kill King MacBeth. That wasn't at all a facile attempt to decide what women deserve in their portrayals.'Posts Muthalover!
Whilst I'll afford you points for quoting the bard, my claim to being born of woman etc was simply to identify my solidarity and suggest to others in the same situation, which should be all of us, that we take a minute to decide if the women in our lives were to see that, what it would say to them about us and how we think of them. If it further allows me to speak in a way contrary to the claimed female voice supporting portrayal of women as victim, my wife effing hates this figure as do a couple of my female friends who read the thread. Funnily enough, when I suggested they post here and actually add female commentary, they all echoed the statement that they had no wish to be shouted down by the prominent male voices here... Who'd have thunk it...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. I say (in addition to my pointing out people in this thread) that there is a dissenting female opinion in the OP, and this is in your mind transmuted into an outlier "one opinion". I suppose I could say that one opinion, repeated many times with many people has a different name, and that name is consensus. But hey, it's not like there are women posting in this very thread that don't find any real problem with the thing, or that, again, the majority of the thread seems to disagree with you (or at least a very healthy portion), but I would just be telling you what you surely already know. 'Posts Muthalover!
So, as said, one female opinion. That's not the result of my dizzying intellect, that basic maths... I have another female opinion right here now, telling me to stop arguing with you because 'it's pointless and you're just being shouted down'. I already just matched that one opinion with another from the same demographic. What does this mean, could it possibly suggest you don't get to steamroller my opinion because 'this girl said'...?
Further, as I've been suggesting when I broadened this conversation from this miniature to others, their sales and accolades, I was suggesting that the miniatures/wargaming hobby has a problem with it's portrayal of women.
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
I find your notion, that one man's ability to create and sell "these things" is hostage to what others may do or say in reaction to "these things", loathsome. Also shortsighted and... very sheltered. 'Posts Muthalover!
Ah, because I take offense at something, I am a prude to be compared to Tipper Gore, who I presume can be compared to Mary Whitehouse. Again your 'all or nothing' stuck record.
BECAUSE ITS ART DARLING, YOU JUST DONT GET IT!
BECAUSE ITS BOUTIQUE IT CAN BE 'DARING'!
BECAUSE YOUR A PLEB TO TAKE OFFENSE!
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF CENSORSHIP!
They are sold because there is market and demand for them. I know you keep wanting to suggest that the kingdom death miniature in question is some kind of art, but it's a mass produced figurine covered in tits, about to put it's long tentacle-cock into a prone nude woman. It's not an art instillation, it's not got anything to 'say', it's not a portrayal of personal pain or a celebration of sexuality, it's a resin tit monster with naked female resin slaves. It's about as sacred a cow as Legend of the Overfiend and likely has the same audience who wore out the rewind button on that cartoon.
Vinny's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl' was not only portraying an actual human being, a named person who was imprisoned at the time, it labelled the women of a nation with an especially high rate of female abduction and human sex trafficking.
'But it can exist, because it's art and if you speak out on it you're a censor and you're a prude'.
Jog off. It's a toy soldier, it's a mass produced piece of resin. It's a snide source of denigration. It's spank-fodder. Or are you going to tell me manga tentacle porn is some form of art and sacred?
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
Yeah... see, when you start promoting the view that all art must service a particular moral or political ideal, that's when people start asking "where have I heard this before?"'Posts Muthalover!
Again, you love to keep cloaking these models in the emperor's clothes of 'it's art, you're not allowed to be offended'. 'You're a censor', no, but I am a human being with an established set of personal rules on what I do and do not find insulting, built from a mix of social upbringing and personal experience, this means I can take offense at things I view, yet your personal offense at my offense is... interesting. As though noone has a right, in your book, to be offended by portrayal of anything by anyone. You will find constant disappointment in the world if that's the case.
Can you explain to me, as I can't really see it, which group of people the hash pipe makers in your link are potentially denigrating, or is that just there to suggest I'm some form of pleb out to destroy artistic freedom and equatable to 'the man', man... ? If the glass they were working was being shaped into a child being abused, a woman in a cage or a black man hanging from a noose I might take offense, i don't personally fall into any of those categories as a white male adult. Do you think therefore I have no right to be offended by these things?
Can you really not see the difference? I don't give two gaks about people enjoying personal freedoms, but expressing the desire to restrict the freedoms of others with that is something I would confront.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
You spelled "scold" wrong. Let me give you a final hint: whether or not you think you are a feminist doesn't matter (for the record I count myself as one). Because guess what? When you demand that all art pass an ideological purity test, then you've numbered yourself among the book burners and the record smashers that came before. I know, I know, you're "protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children".
And we come full circle, to taboo and crime and degrees of acceptability.
Since you're labeling me a book burner and a moral guardian, I'll label you a rapist endorser, a pedophile sympathizer, a racism supporter and a champion of misogyny, as you believe everything is permissible if you label it 'art'. If, according to your hyperbole indulged lambasting, I'm the moral equivalent of a book burner for stating a thing to be sexist, because I'm 'against art', then you're facilitating all of the above because someone speaking out about a book on 'man and child love' is 'against literature'... (I'm not actually labeling you anything, you're someone I'm having a disagreement with on the internet, I'm just repaying the kindness of equating me with religious fundamentalists, fascists and totalitarians, hyperbole for the goose is hyperbole for the gander... ).
Whether or not you think my views are feminist, one thing I am without question is a civil libertarian. That's not just about the First Amendment, but a philosophy regarding how people in a free society must conduct themselves and the privileges they reserve both for themselves and for others. In this matter of speech at least, I am entirely in agreement with Alan Dershowitz, so if you wonder what I think in such a matter of speech, all you need to remember is that... I have better hair.
All societies exist with moral codes. All groups of people who come together agree, verbally and subconsciously, to a series of boundaries and rules. It's what stops us all reenacting the snuff video bit from Event Horizon.
All I want is a more hospitable environment for female gamers, because female gamers tell me they find the environment in the miniatures/tabletopwargaming community unfriendly and sexist. I believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for people.
You and I find ourselves (on several occasions I think) at odds on this issue because you say 'Artists should have the right to produce whatever they want in the name of Free Speech and Free Expression' and I say 'Women and girls should have the rights to enjoy freedom, respect and equal treatment in the name of Democracy, Enlightenment and the Equality of the Individual'. I'll also remind you that a few posts above, you took me to task on using the word 'we' and claimed that I could make no sweeping statements on this as the forum and hobbies are multinational and multitudinous, yet here you are championing the 1st Amendment and applying entirely American philosophy and American libertarian bias to the issue...
Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Does someone have the right to produce a sculpture that is insulting to women?
For you yes it's art. For me... yes, but I also have the right to absolutely verbally pillory them for it, art is not a sacred cow, I also question calling mass produced models 'art'.
Labeling something 'Art' does not place an invulnerable forcefield around something. It does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a surrounding society, culture and the reaction of it's citizens.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
First, an apology: I should not have used the word "art" when I should have said "speech", since art is just a type of speech and now you have latched onto definitions of art erroneously. "[M]ass produced" models are most definitely speech, just as mass produced books, records, pamphlets, photos, pieces of machines steel, textiles, little glass pipes... well, you get the point (I hope).
And a second apology as while I do intend to pick through the many, many terrible arguments and incorrect assumptions in MGS' post, I have plans for the afternoon and will attend to it later this evening.
Finally, let me simply point out that I didn't pick Professor Dershowitz' name out of a hat. In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
Having chopped heads, ripped spines, split guts, exploded brains, tons of blood, tapestries made of skin, and a bucket load of skull on a model is totally acceptable and cool?
Having sexually explicit models, is offensive?
The level of hypocrisy and puritanism in our society is exceeding my wildest expectations.
First, an apology: I should not have used the word "art" when I should have said "speech", since art is just a type of speech and now you have latched onto definitions of art erroneously. "[M]ass produced" models are most definitely speech, just as mass produced books, records, pamphlets, photos, pieces of machines steel, textiles, little glass pipes... well, you get the point (I hope).
I didn't latch onto anything erroneously, you made repeated reference to art and freedom of artistic expression, now you're claiming a mass produced item for retail is 'freedom of speech'.
You appear to be shifting your goalposts considerably. I'm pleased you're forced to reexamine your perspective, shaky as it is. Cloak it as my mistake if you want, but you've been talking about not getting art for the last few posts.
Are massed produced burgers free speech? Someone designed them, someone wanted them to be as they are. By your logic, citing a mass produced item firstly as art and then as freedom of speech, the big mac is both art and the expression of the Freedom of Speech.
I think that's a bit slanted tbh.
Also, again, because you were sure enough to point the finger at me and squeal 'J'accuse', I can only return the favor.
In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
vs
Buzzsaw wrote: On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
Do you see the hypocrisy in what you're said? I'm totally glad you're here to lecture us all about how America wants us to behave and what America wants us to tolerate... Not only speaking for the constitution, not only speaking for your own nation, but applying your moral framework for everyone else... Because Freedom!
You're both talking past one another, and I imagine that's the source of your mutual (apparent) frustration.
An argument addressing the casual and rampant objectification of women in gaming (and the larger society) is a good one.
An argument for a person's or group's right to express themselves verbally or artistically is a good one.
Is this PARTICULAR example (OP's) an especially good one, from the point of view of either of these positions (which most certainly are not diametrically opposed)? Clearly it is not. You can imagine all sorts of things about authorial intent. Nude dancers, are they empowered? Are they caged? etc. etc. The pedantic nit-picking could go on forever.
I think what's ignored by some is the context in which expressions like this happen. Take a Golliwog by way of analogy. Is a cartoon representation of a black person doing something comedic insulting or problematic in a vacuum? No more so than a cartoon white person doing something slapstick-ey. It is because of historical and cultural conditions that it is in the real world problematic. Does that mean one CANNOT create or depict Golliwogs? Does it make one automatically racist? It depends on one's level of awareness of what one is doing, one's intent and the context in which it is presented. Used as part of a recognition or critique of said history/cultural conditions it could be entirely legitimate. Used without thought, or with callous intent it would be (and is) uninformed, cruel, and racist.
I would argue that there's a parallel with sexualized depictions of women by men.
You're both talking past one another, and I imagine that's the source of your mutual (apparent) frustration.
An argument addressing the casual and rampant objectification of women in gaming (and the larger society) is a good one.
An argument for a person's or group's right to express themselves verbally or artistically is a good one.
Is this PARTICULAR example (OP's) an especially good one, from the point of view of either of these positions (which most certainly are not diametrically opposed)? Clearly it is not. You can imagine all sorts of things about authorial intent. Nude dancers, are they empowered? Are they caged? etc. etc. The pedantic nit-picking could go on forever.
I think what's ignored by some is the context in which expressions like this happen. Take a Golliwog by way of analogy. Is a cartoon representation of a black person doing something comedic insulting or problematic in a vacuum? No more so than a cartoon white person doing something slapstick-ey. It is because of historical and cultural conditions that it is in the real world problematic. Does that mean one CANNOT create or depict Golliwogs? Does it make one automatically racist? It depends on one's level of awareness of what one is doing, one's intent and the context in which it is presented. Used as part of a recognition or critique of said history/cultural conditions it could be entirely legitimate. Used without thought, or with callous intent it would be (and is) uninformed, cruel, and racist.
I would argue that there's a parallel with sexualized depictions of women by men.
You're right and I'm done with the thread. I'm not going to get anywhere further with this discussion, we're travelling in ever decreasing circles with the conclusion we'll just get ruder and ruder to each other until one or both of us is censured for it by the mods. So, to conclude.
I think it's a portrayal of women in an unfavorable light. I think there are worse tbh, I thought the eldar rape was totally out of order, but it's tinder on the bonfire, it's contributing to reinforced objectifying depiction of women.
I think our hobbies have an issue regarding how they portray women.
I think how we portray women keeps more women out of gaming or of contributing more directly if they are already in the hobby.
I think our hobbies would benefit from a more gender mixed ratio. I think we could be looking at a potential 50% increase in gamers/painters etc. More people to play against, more writers, more designers, more miniatures, more painters, all of this is a good thing imo.
I think it reinforces negative stereotypes people outside our hobbies may have of us. I think we do ourselves a great disservice in this.
I'd like to see us smarten up a bit, tidy the place up, hide our spank-mags, put on deodorant and welcome the ladies over for pizza and a movie, try to include them, make them feel comfortable and not immediately creep them out and drive them off with our posters of torture porn just 'because we have the right to have posters of torture porn', metaphorically speaking.
I want the ladies to join us. I enjoy their company and think they can do nothing but good for the hobbies. I object to people putting them off.
Buzzsaw wrote: In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means that the government can't ban speech it doesn't like (outside of certain limited situations), not that you have a right to say whatever you want without anyone objecting to it. And since the issue here is individuals objecting to speech rather than government censorship calling it a "freedom of speech" issue is a joke.
Buzzsaw wrote: In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means that the government can't ban speech it doesn't like (outside of certain limited situations), not that you have a right to say whatever you want without anyone objecting to it. And since the issue here is individuals objecting to speech rather than government censorship calling it a "freedom of speech" issue is a joke.
Would that it were - but it is on the edge of the slippery slope...
We have a very bad history of using the government to stomp on freedom to be stupid, hateful or vile. There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...). There is a long history (much of it still in effect) that prevents your average sexist, bigot, racist or otherwise from fully and freely practicing their right to free expression.
The simple answer to expressions you don't like is that if you don't like it, don't buy it (or view it, listen to it, taste it...). When people start pushing against an idea (in this case objectification of women - which is hard to even reason given the facts of the model in question) it is tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." and then there is one "for the children..." (or for equality, or respect...). It all ignores that people have the right to be dumb - and to be honest...I think it would be much better if we just let them. Think of how much easier it would be if we still allowed business owners to post signs outside their shops "No Colored Folk Allowed" - identifying the morons becomes simple stuff.
Ok time to cool it a bit guys. Saying things would be easier with segregation still a thing is going to make a lot of people angry, so let's dial it back a few steps
Not sure what all's going on but in response to the topic title i don't mind sexually explicit with some things. That said it seems to scream 'closet pervert' when you make or buy a model of a bunch of naked or at least topless slave girls. I'm a huge pervert myself but i'm more open about it.
For me it's ok to show nudity on models but if it shows rape like one pic of several guardsmen about to rape a female eldar then it isn't (it was on 'cool mini or not'). Is anybody being harmed in reality? No. Is it crude and repulsive? In my opinion it is (and that's saying something coming from me). I suppose some art is supposed to inspire emotions in the viewer. If that art's point was to make me feel disgusted and angered then job well done. I'm not even saying somebody should or shouldn't make it. I merely say i'd rather not look at it since i'm one of those people that would rather not deprive people of something just because i don't agree with it.
Also on the topic of the female eldar about to be raped by some guardsmen though i thought the scene was disgusting i will admit the painting was well done.
except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
it also fits into the 40K setting in a way that the Land Raider that started this topic doesn't...
the Land Raider that started all this is representing a theme of a modern band, which has nothing to do with the 40K setting, and thus doesn't work for me...
why did the tank lose it's lascannons???
what purpose do the dancers serve as a weapon???
these two things are what make the conversion fail for me as a 40K mini...
as a man, i won't even touch the subject of how women should or should not be represented...
i will leave that to the women, who are quite capable of defending their own ideals...
i just love them, and respect them, and get driven up the wall trying to figure them out...
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
it also fits into the 40K setting in a way that the Land Raider that started this topic doesn't...
the Land Raider that started all this is representing a theme of a modern band, which has nothing to do with the 40K setting, and thus doesn't work for me...
why did the tank lose it's lascannons???
what purpose do the dancers serve as a weapon???
these two things are what make the conversion fail for me as a 40K mini...
as a man, i won't even touch the subject of how women should or should not be represented...
i will leave that to the women, who are quite capable of defending their own ideals...
i just love them, and respect them, and get driven up the wall trying to figure them out...
cheers
jah
I agree people are projecting too much, also people should take notice of the context of which period, fantasy or fiction world the diorama or model tries to convey.
I see chaos as like a gwar concert where no one is save from debauchery, victimization, etcetera, normal morality just doesn't apply,
People keep projecting their own morality on a miniature set in a world with questionable morality.
And i could understand why clubs and/or tournaments would or could ban it , but it is his mini he can do with it whatever he want, would you be offended if it had a gay bondage sm theme where leather laced Freddy Mercury stands on top whipping the 12 gimps pulling the land raider?
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
I would disagree with you on this piece. The helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in its posing. There is no visual key for the viewer to see the Eldar defending herself.
The Land Raider Is particularly poor in execution. Modelling wise the ladies are not the worst part by a long shot but are part of a whole that is unconvincing.
And i could understand why clubs and/or tournaments would or could ban it , but it is his mini he can do with it whatever he want, would you be offended if it had a gay bondage sm theme where leather laced Freddy Mercury stands on top whipping the 12 gimps pulling the land raider?
Entire army of Exterminators... Can't seem to find any pictures of it - but shortly after Neal produced those...it was done. Had a unit of cav, three units of infantry all lead by Sean Connery...err...Zardoz.
Sean_OBrien wrote: There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...).
I can understand why you'd balk at the name of the site that hosts that article, but the research reviewed in that meta-analysis was conducted empirically. If you read it all and drew your own conclusions, thats fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Sean_OBrien wrote: There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...).
I can understand why you'd balk at the name of the site that hosts that article, but the research reviewed in that meta-analysis was conducted empirically. If you read it all and drew your own conclusions, thats fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Has nothing to do with the baby, the bathwater or the children...
Rather the parents. I don't think brothels should be illegal...nor most drugs. I also don't think kids should be hanging out with hookers or smoking pot. However, I don't think we should do anything to keep them away from hookers and pot - that is up to parents. Sites like that do want the government to get involved though - and that is the problem. Not the results of their studies, but what they want to do with it. There goal of influencing "policy-relevant" regulations is a very scary thing to me. They actually want to get into real, honest to goodness, government censorship (and they think it is a good thing).
It's a whole other subject, and OT for here, so I'll keep it brief, but the whole abdication of personal responsibility to the state is my BIGGEST bugbear with modern society as a whole.
"My child is fat/stupid/badly behaved/illl-disciplined/whatever, but it can't possibly be my fault for feeding it crap/not spending time educating it/establishing boundaries/whatever, it must be the state. Give me money."
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
I would disagree with you on this piece. The helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in its posing. There is no visual key for the viewer to see the Eldar defending herself.
The Land Raider Is particularly poor in execution. Modelling wise the ladies are not the worst part by a long shot but are part of a whole that is unconvincing.
of course, i respect the fact that you are free to disagree with me on the piece...
that is the nature of art interpretation...
it speaks differently to each viewer...
if you read my post again, you will see that i said i see it as "the moment BEFORE the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape..."
for me, the key is the look in the eyes of the mini, who is assessing her options, before making her move...
i don't see her as looking helpless or defeated, accepting that she will be violated...
if that is what you see, that is your interpretation, but i don't think "the helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in the posing", because the look in her eyes is what is telling me the story...
i give Nakatan the benefit of the doubt in this piece...
i think he created an amazing narrative, because the tiny size of the eyes still convey a story, to me...
obviously, nobody has to agree with me, but if you go back and read the comments on CMON, you will see that i am not alone in this interpretation...
i do need to thank you for disagreeing in a positive, friendly manner, instead of just jumping on me, and calling me a sick, twisted, basement-dwelling pervert for defending this diorama's existence...
it is a refreshing change of tone from many of the posts in this thread, on both sides of the argument...
Would that it were - but it is on the edge of the slippery slope...
We have a very bad history of using the government to stomp on freedom to be stupid, hateful or vile. There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...). There is a long history (much of it still in effect) that prevents your average sexist, bigot, racist or otherwise from fully and freely practicing their right to free expression.
There are no government agencies on dakkadakka. Some people are just advocating against some type of miniatures and want to see less of that and more of other types of depiction of women. Nobody is saying the government should be involved, so why even mention that. The other poster was right is saying that this is not an free speech issue. Nobody can censor miniatuers of any type in a "people talking about stuff on a forum" situation.
The simple answer to expressions you don't like is that if you don't like it, don't buy it (or view it, listen to it, taste it...). When people start pushing against an idea (in this case objectification of women - which is hard to even reason given the facts of the model in question) it is tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." and then there is one "for the children..." (or for equality, or respect...). It all ignores that people have the right to be dumb - and to be honest...I think it would be much better if we just let them. Think of how much easier it would be if we still allowed business owners to post signs outside their shops "No Colored Folk Allowed" - identifying the morons becomes simple stuff.
It might be the simple answer but inaction often doesn't help improve a situation because people who have nothing to lose from the situation staying the same don't even see the need to change stuff. If nobody says anything things tend to not change, change rather slowly, or even get worse.
People who don't like somebody's expression are also free to express themselves so why advocate for them staying silent? If one is so concerned about the freedom to express oneself then one should also be able to deal with criticism (which are other people's expressions after all). And escalating the argument to tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." is just avoiding the actual discussion for the sake of an fictional argument that nobody made.
How does this even make sense? :- /
One person makes a miniature with questionable content: Great, feel free to express yourself!
Another person says they don't like that miniature and mentions that things could be better: What's your problem, don't you have anything better to do?
After reading some of this threat I am sitting here with my mouth wide open, staring at my screen in disbelief and I am still wondering what is going on.
I mean the Landraider is from a universe in which it is absolutely fine to torture people to death because they are just different or believe in other gods etc.
Mass genocide, torturing the popolation of an entire world to please some gods is fine, letting people work themselfs to death to build wargear is daily buissnes and races like the Tau who just expand their empire and only feed some of the people of the planets they conquered or just a part of the pow they make to their allies and not just butcher all of them are considered to be not grimdark enough and are hated by some folks for that reason.
And you folks are loosing your minds because of what ? Some half naked girls in cages ?
der ray wrote: After reading some of this threat I am sitting here with my mouth wide open, staring at my screen in disbelief and I am still wondering what is going on.
I mean the Landraider is from a universe in which it is absolutely fine to torture people to death because they are just different or believe in other gods etc.
Mass genocide, torturing the popolation of an entire world to please some gods is fine, letting people work themselfs to death to build wargear is daily buissnes and races like the Tau who just expand their empire and only feed some of the people of the planets they conquered or just a part of the pow they make to their allies and not just butcher all of them are considered to be not grimdark enough and are hated by some folks for that reason.
And you folks are loosing your minds because of what ? Some half naked girls in cages ?
der ray wrote: After reading some of this threat I am sitting here with my mouth wide open, staring at my screen in disbelief and I am still wondering what is going on.
I mean the Landraider is from a universe in which it is absolutely fine to torture people to death because they are just different or believe in other gods etc. Mass genocide, torturing the popolation of an entire world to please some gods is fine, letting people work themselfs to death to build wargear is daily buissnes and races like the Tau who just expand their empire and only feed some of the people of the planets they conquered or just a part of the pow they make to their allies and not just butcher all of them are considered to be not grimdark enough and are hated by some folks for that reason.
And you folks are loosing your minds because of what ? Some half naked girls in cages ?
Apart from the fact that a famous author's opinion on a picture of his own face holds no more weight than anyone else's simple text opinion, even if he is the currently Internet[sup]TM[/sup] approved nerdgod, the quotation from GRRM isn't even relevant. A penis entering a vagina is a consensual and enjoyable act for both parties, and even in the cases of rape in his books, he as an author is condemning their actions, The creator of this Land Raider may not be openly condoning sexual abuse, but he is depicting it in a way that is attempting to glamorise it. Regardless of whether or not that was his intention, the fact remains and creators of "art" or "product" or whatever you want to call it, should be aware of the implications of what they have created. If the intention is to offend, or to ignite controversy, that person better be prepared to defend their reasoning.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: The creator of this Land Raider may not be openly condoning sexual abuse, but he is depicting it in a way that is attempting to glamorise it.
Wut
Seriously, in what way, shape or form is this "glamorising" sexual abuse? Does every strip club out there "glamorise" sexual abuse in your eyes?
Murenius wrote: I don't find nudity offensive at all - I'm European What I find offensive is depicting women (or men) in a derogative way, reduced to their sexuality. Depicting torture and gore is not a problem, but if the message that I receive is "Women are to be used" then that's not ok for me.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: Apart from the fact that a famous author's opinion on a picture of his own face holds no more weight than anyone else's simple text opinion, even if he is the currently Internet[sup]TM[/sup] approved nerdgod, the quotation from GRRM isn't even relevant. A penis entering a vagina is a consensual and enjoyable act for both parties, and even in the cases of rape in his books, he as an author is condemning their actions, The creator of this Land Raider may not be openly condoning sexual abuse, but he is depicting it in a way that is attempting to glamorise it. Regardless of whether or not that was his intention, the fact remains and creators of "art" or "product" or whatever you want to call it, should be aware of the implications of what they have created. If the intention is to offend, or to ignite controversy, that person better be prepared to defend their reasoning.
I watched the Debauchery (band) video clip that ASS (hmm....) linked earlier. The chicks are clearly more in line with Dark Eldar Torturer than anything else - and - while heavily sexualised - certainly not victims. And as we've said a dozen or more times, one of them has a great big fething axe. The "problem" here seems to be people projecting what they want to see onto it, without any appreciation of it's actual context. Then when the context is pointed out, denying that they could possibly have made a mistake and that their interpretation of the model supersedes the creator's intent or the actual context of it, because reasons. So even with the context supplied in the video, people are still seeing what they want to project onto it. Such as your hurfblurf about "sexual abuse".
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
But this is the point of the thread: the offense isn't a part of the thing itself, but of the observer. And with regards to this item: if a prude is disturbed by a thing, is it your responsibility to conform to the prude's expectations? That can quickly become a heckler's veto, where the level of discourse is dictated by those most capable of finding offense, even if it seems unusual or indeed crazy.
Consider what Weeble said above: "The fact that we are 4 pages in suggests, on its face, that there is something about that model worth discussing." Putting aside how many posts are people saying the OP is too think skinned, some people are offended: so what?
If the issue is that some people are genuinely offended, or genuinely think some crazy things, then nothing is safe. As Nuggz and Pluan4th point out, we could, if we so chose, find hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages of people on the internet making in all earnestness the argument that Israel is morally and in all other ways indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. Those people really believe that... because they're crazy.
Again, it all comes down to context: at this particular guys local (in Germany*), this model is fine.
*Not continuing the Nazi thing there, more pointing out that the Germans are famously not too hung up on nudity taboos.
Wait, how is it that everything is about context, but you are allowed to declare people's opinions and arguments as objectively crazy and wrong?
EDIT: Nevermind, from your later repeated attempts to link critique of the IDF to antisemitism(and implying there is no way whatsoever to distinguish between someone objecting to an IDF IG army because they hate Jews, or because of many, many other reasons), it's pretty evident where you're coming from.
The main thing that annoys me with that land raider model is I don't see why strippers would be on a Khorne land raider. If it was a Slaanesh one, it'd be way more valid and seem less juvenile. That just seems like a weak excuse to put strippers on your model. Lame.
I see no runes of Khorne on that LR. It's painted red, but no runes. Also, to quote myself:
Azazelx wrote: So having caught up on the rest of this thread, the one thing that stands out to me and makes me shake my head a little is the repeated "well, if it were Slaanesh, it'd be okay!"
Let's look at a few things, shall we? The first girl is leaning on a great big fething axe. If it were a male figure, with all the covering of a set of furry speedos, people would think it were A-OK. if it were a nude male with that axe, some people would be ok with it as Khornate still, while others would be bleating on about Slaanesh. The other figure doesn't appear to have a weapon, and instead has stripper heels, but still, it's not a far cry from the Cult of Khaine. And lest we forget who Khaine is - and sometimes even referred to as an Aspect of Khorne (depending on who's writing that bit of the fluff at the time, the weather, phase of the moon, etc...)
So yeah. Blood-spattered, naked chicks with great big fuckin' axes fit pretty well with Khorne to me. Certainly as much as a male would.
slowthar wrote: The main thing that annoys me with that land raider model is I don't see why strippers would be on a Khorne land raider. If it was a Slaanesh one, it'd be way more valid and seem less juvenile. That just seems like a weak excuse to put strippers on your model. Lame.
I said this earlier...
"I see "in keeping with the fluff" to be irrelevant. Many many people take liberties with the fluff to create their own vision, just because GW wrote X has exposed boobies doesn't mean you have to give X exposed boobies and likewise doesn't mean it's any more inappropriate to give Y exposed boobies instead."
It makes almost no sense to me why it'd be fine for a Slaanesh model to have boobies but a different Chaos god wouldn't because who gives a feth what GW tells you your models should look like. Especially when this particular LR does have a specific theme of the Debauchery band... a band oddly enough who themed THEMSELVES off Khorne, one of their album covers was even drawn by one of the GW artists, but they do have lots of boobies in their videos.
(more than anything this thread has taught me about Debauchery, and no, I don't like their music )
The interesting thing is that 40k is the dark ages set in the future, so naked chaos soldiers and demon's flaunting their sexual organs, would be perfect to weaken the imperial morale because of their puritanical view of themselves.
Also Europeans have lesser issues with nudity than countries outside of Europe.
Allseeingskink but that is just it, all our hobbyists have a personal view on GW's fluff and it is that interpretation that molds our armies.
If an others view clashes with your morality or view on the fluff, though luck ( i mean that in a positive way ).
slowthar wrote: The main thing that annoys me with that land raider model is I don't see why strippers would be on a Khorne land raider. If it was a Slaanesh one, it'd be way more valid and seem less juvenile. That just seems like a weak excuse to put strippers on your model. Lame.
What bothers me is that the strippers are going to get blown to smithereens with the first volley in the battle.
slowthar wrote: The main thing that annoys me with that land raider model is I don't see why strippers would be on a Khorne land raider. If it was a Slaanesh one, it'd be way more valid and seem less juvenile. That just seems like a weak excuse to put strippers on your model. Lame.
What bothers me is that the strippers are going to get blown to smithereens with the first volley in the battle.
Jehan-reznor wrote: If an others view clashes with your morality or view on the fluff, though luck ( i mean that in a positive way ).
If someone finds nudity morally reprehensible then that's something I can accept.
What I find confusing is the idea that it is morally reprehensible or wrong or whatever... unless it's slaanesh then it's fine Then we're just letting GW decide what is and isn't ok and that is by far the most wrong
Jehan-reznor wrote: If an others view clashes with your morality or view on the fluff, though luck ( i mean that in a positive way ).
If someone finds nudity morally reprehensible then that's something I can accept.
What I find confusing is the idea that it is morally reprehensible or wrong or whatever... unless it's slaanesh then it's fine Then we're just letting GW decide what is and isn't ok and that is by far the most wrong
The problem with this Land Raider is that in execution its a load of junk. It really is poorly thought out.
It's just nude women in a cage on the side of a tank which has an oversize axe in the top of it - not to mention a working SMOKE GENERATOR! (something cool lost amidst a gakky model).
Even if it were pink and and with Emps children heraldry it would still be poor.
There is nothing that the side cages on this model say apart from stripper in a cage.
I don't disagree that it's not a work of art, but that doesn't really make it any less valid in my eyes.
Is it just an excuse to have naked women? Maybe***, but then so is most everything that has naked women, it's hardly necessary, it's just done because the person who did it wanted to do it... kind of like everything else in fictional wargaming.
***(at least it IS following a theme and that theme has naked women).
calamarialldayerrday wrote: Apart from the fact that a famous author's opinion on a picture of his own face holds no more weight than anyone else's simple text opinion, even if he is the currently Internet[sup]TM[/sup] approved nerdgod, the quotation from GRRM isn't even relevant. A penis entering a vagina is a consensual and enjoyable act for both parties, and even in the cases of rape in his books, he as an author is condemning their actions, The creator of this Land Raider may not be openly condoning sexual abuse, but he is depicting it in a way that is attempting to glamorise it. Regardless of whether or not that was his intention, the fact remains and creators of "art" or "product" or whatever you want to call it, should be aware of the implications of what they have created. If the intention is to offend, or to ignite controversy, that person better be prepared to defend their reasoning.
Actually that is the basis for western civilization, some peoples opinion matter more than your averages joe.
Feminism is a self defeating endeavor. It constantly brings up issues that for it to advance they ought to be laid to rest and not be issues any more.
Example, it makes a big deal about the first woman to be chosen president in country X. When real progress would have been made if no one actually cared that it was a woman.
Same is true here, want to paint naked women in SM be my guest, want to paint Men in SM be my guest. I would not give a gank about either, As long as the theme is appropriate for the situation (ie no kids around).
What I don't get is why anyone would do this to a Land Raider. Ripping out the Lascannons just to put in some stripper cages? That is stupid on so many levels.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't disagree that it's not a work of art, but that doesn't really make it any less valid in my eyes.
Is it just an excuse to have naked women? Maybe***, but then so is most everything that has naked women, it's hardly necessary, it's just done because the person who did it wanted to do it... kind of like everything else in fictional wargaming.
***(at least it IS following a theme and that theme has naked women).
Seeing the amount of porn in the world, pole dancers, lap dancers, prostitutes, the increased nudity in music clips, it doesn't surprice me that guys also need cheesecake in their 40K experience
TheCustomLime wrote: What I don't get is why anyone would do this to a Land Raider. Ripping out the Lascannons just to put in some stripper cages? That is stupid on so many levels.
...because they think it looks cool?
Isn't that enough? The Land Raider is already a completely stupid concept for a tank, it's less advanced than your average WW2 tank. In a sci-fi world like 40k, "because it looks cool" is reason enough to do anything.
I don't mind nudity in gaming (or anywhere else for that matter). This particular model is piss poorly made in my opinion, but I have nothing against the concept.
My opinion is that modern society is over the top sensitive and a big deal is made about pretty much anything. This is especially prevalent in social media which is filled with justice warriors who are often paradoxical themselves and have double standards.
I couldn´t care less if someones plastic miniature vehicle has female strippers on it, and if someone finds it offensive then they need bigger things to worry about. It´s so harmless I can´t even fathom how someone can get butthurt about that ( or the many other things that is made a huge deal about these days. )
RunicFIN wrote: My opinion is that modern society is over the top sensitive and a big deal is made about pretty much anything. This is especially prevalent in social media which is filled with justice warriors who are often paradoxical themselves and have double standards.
I don't think that's entirely fair. While it's true that social media is full of people that appear to be using these issues for their daily pat on the shoulder fix, there are those that are genuinely offended/made uncomfortable by these sorts of things, and that should be respected. Surely you can see where they're coming from?
Awesome as it may be, naked chicks covered in blood or whatever it might be are best kept private.
In a game where every object is covered in skulls and things like dismembered corpses are just peachy-keen, I'm not about to take offence at a few uncovered nipples.
I have no problem with sexually explicit models. I would be a bit bothered if there weren't sexually explicit models. I'm an adult, lotsof gamers are adults, therefore it makes sense to have adult themed miniatures. I still enjoy reading comics/graphic novels but they aren't always ones that I would let my kids read because they're not old enough yet.
I don't see a problem with letting adults manufacture whatever minis they want, purchase, convert and paint whatever minis they want however they want. I wouldn't want anyone to be discouraged from gaming how they want and if I was truly offended or upset by a model or game I simply wouldn't play that game or opponent. I don't feel the need to condemn anyone for their gaming choices but I'm not going to spend hours of my day with a game or opponent that I find bothersome.
Personally, what offends me isn't a penis monster or blood soaked naked women on a tank but the covert sexism of making female models over sexualized for no good reason. Again, I would never seek to bar anyone from making whatever mini they want but when some manufacturers sexualize female models for no reason it comes across to me as condescending and patronizing of the customers. If male soldiers find it appropriate to wear pants then it makes no sense for female soldiers fighting with them to be wearing tiny shorts. If a spacesuit fits a male in a normal somewhat loose fashion it makes no sense for an accompanying female model to have a skintight spacesuit. Every woman doesn't need to be exposing cleavage when going into battle, etc.
Companies can make whatever female models they want but the ones I purchase are ones that have women dressed in an appropriate common sense manner that fits with the army theme and game setting because those are the ones I'll game with in front of my wife and kids.
So i took the time to check out the band Debauchery.
The tank is a pretty good representation of what they sing about, sex,blood, chansaws and khorne among other things.
I therefore conclude that the modeler/painter did nothing outside of the theme of the band to which the army is a homage, the chicks, blood and chainsaw are on there for quite a good reason(the theme) and therefore should not have sparked this discussion in the first place
As a side note there is a funny, sorta tragic and sorta related story behind the singer of the band, he was given the choice between a gig where he was a teacher of politics, history and ethics or his band.
Not because he was teaching questionable things but because the bigots around him couldnt stand the idea of someone doing other than mainstream stuff in their free time.
He choose the band.
This is a back patch from the band showing the theme:
(I chose the more SFW chainsaw pic they have )
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. If you wish to share any such image you need to use an offsite host and image tags. reds8n
der ray wrote: After reading some of this threat I am sitting here with my mouth wide open, staring at my screen in disbelief and I am still wondering what is going on.
I mean the Landraider is from a universe in which it is absolutely fine to torture people to death because they are just different or believe in other gods etc.
Mass genocide, torturing the popolation of an entire world to please some gods is fine, letting people work themselfs to death to build wargear is daily buissnes and races like the Tau who just expand their empire and only feed some of the people of the planets they conquered or just a part of the pow they make to their allies and not just butcher all of them are considered to be not grimdark enough and are hated by some folks for that reason.
That's how our sick world goes.
The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.
Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.
Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.
The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.
Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.
Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.
You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"
The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.
Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.
Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.
You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"
The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.
Prestor Jon wrote: The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.
And yet, when comparisons are made between a variety of films and scenes with hetero vs. homosexual scenarios, it's clear that the MPAA are biased towards awarding higher ratings when the relations are same-sex.
The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.
If you can find it, probably on Youtube or something, check out the "documentary" called "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"
The MPAA system really is that vague, and it CAN actually be very difficult to avoid an NC-17 rating.
The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.
If you can find it, probably on Youtube or something, check out the "documentary" called "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"
The MPAA system really is that vague, and it CAN actually be very difficult to avoid an NC-17 rating.
Whatever your opinion of the MPAA, the point still stands that movies don't get an NC-17 rating because of homosexual romance content. If the movie didn't have nudity and explicit sex it wouldn't have gotten an NC-17 rating.
The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.
Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.
Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.
You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"
Kicked out of England is nothin'. They managed to get kicked out of Holland!
TheAuldGrump wrote: Kicked out of England is nothin'. They managed to get kicked out of Holland!
The Auld Grump
To be a little fair... if you had an idea what was going on in Holland at the time, it's a little bit understandable... Then again, almost all knowledge that I have of Holland around this time frame comes from Documentaries, so I don't have a very complete picture myself
I don't think that's entirely fair. While it's true that social media is full of people that appear to be using these issues for their daily pat on the shoulder fix, there are those that are genuinely offended/made uncomfortable by these sorts of things, and that should be respected. Surely you can see where they're coming from?
Awesome as it may be, naked chicks covered in blood or whatever it might be are best kept private.
When someone is offended/uncomfortable they have made the decision to be uncomfortable/ offended. It has to be the weakest excuse to go on a witch hunt I have ever heard. If there are those that aren't offended/made uncomfortable by something surely their wish to look at it/experience it should also be respected.
if someones mind = blown from that land raider picture, i would suggest they stop watching the news as there are far worse things going on in the world. I dunno, perhaps some perspective is needed before people decide to become offended
. The only miniature I thought could be offensive was the eldar rape diorama , I looked at it and though"geez, thats a bit off....then again it's probably a realistic representation of war, meh."
Bullockist wrote: When someone is offended/uncomfortable they have made the decision to be uncomfortable/ offended. It has to be the weakest excuse to go on a witch hunt I have ever heard. If there are those that aren't offended/made uncomfortable by something surely their wish to look at it/experience it should also be respected.
if someones mind = blown from that land raider picture, i would suggest they stop watching the news as there are far worse things going on in the world. I dunno, perhaps some perspective is needed before people decide to become offended
. The only miniature I thought could be offensive was the eldar rape diorama , I looked at it and though"geez, thats a bit off....then again it's probably a realistic representation of war, meh."
Who's suggesting witch hunts? You have every right in the world to look at it/experience it. Just do it where there aren't any parents with young kids, elders, angry feminists (for your own sake) or any other group that might be uncool with it.
Would it be appropriate to surf for porn at a library? Or pictures of naked women on the walls at the grocery store? I mean after all, people can just choose to not be made uncomfortable by it, and there are worse things in the world.
And I'm not talking strictly about the land raider. I'm talking about "sexually explicit models", as per the thread title.
Who's suggesting witch hunts? You have every right in the world to look at it/experience it. Just do it where there aren't any parents with young kids, elders, angry feminists (for your own sake) or any other group that might be uncool with it.
Would it be appropriate to surf for porn at a library? Or pictures of naked women on the walls at the grocery store? I mean after all, people can just choose to not be made uncomfortable by it, and there are worse things in the world.
And I'm not talking strictly about the land raider. I'm talking about "sexually explicit models", as per the thread title.
I was alluding to internet shitstorms that are generated from my moral betters (thank you HBMC ) on things like this land raider.
I grew up on the tail end of an era where naked pictures of women were common in workplaces, i don't have a problem with it, i also dont have a problem with pictures of naked men, ( i saw one once , the novelty value was awesome). it's a picture of a naked person ffs, Call me weird, i get more bothered by beheading videos and snuff movies.
I know you are talking about more than the land raider which is why i brought up the eldar rape diorama, possibly the most divisive diorama ever made. I just don't think this piece warrants any attention beyond, ï like it"or ""Ï don't like it"", personally i think it's cool, not something i would have done but it fits the theme aNd is quite well executed.
As for having sexually explicit models around children, children are seeing porn on the internet at a median age of 12 ( maybe 14 but i think 12) and you think this land raider will have any impact? I doubt it, they will have seen bdsm, gonzo videos ect., this pales in comparison.
No disagreement on the internet shitstorm part. I'm too very critical against moral outrages, as you can see in my post on the top of this thread.
Sure, they'll have been watching porn, and the land raider will not have impact on most of todays kids. But note I didn't say "children". I said "parents with children". The parents are more of a problem here than the children
My stance on this comes out of respect for other people, and it's that simple. I love me some nudity as much as the next guy...
Aesop the God Awful wrote: I don't mind nudity in gaming (or anywhere else for that matter). This particular model is piss poorly made in my opinion, but I have nothing against the concept.
... but I also understand that there are those who don't. In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.
Aesop the God Awful wrote: No disagreement on the internet shitstorm part. I'm too very critical against moral outrages, as you can see in my post on the top of this thread.
Sure, they'll have been watching porn, and the land raider will not have impact on most of todays kids. But note I didn't say "children". I said "parents with children". The parents are more of a problem here than the children
My stance on this comes out of respect for other people, and it's that simple. I love me some nudity as much as the next guy...
Aesop the God Awful wrote: I don't mind nudity in gaming (or anywhere else for that matter). This particular model is piss poorly made in my opinion, but I have nothing against the concept.
... but I also understand that there are those who don't. In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.
Respectfully, you have it backward. A person can own/build whatever model they want, sexually explicit or otherwise regardless of whomever may choose to be offended by it or disapprove of it. There are obscenity laws and local ordinances that govern what can be displayed in public, ie I cannot walk down the city street nude or put a big sign/billboard up in plain view of the public. However, there is no such limitation on my personal posession or the interior of my home or business establishment. If I have models/art/whatever in my home or business and you don't like it or are offended by it you can choose not to come to my house or patronize my business or engage in a game of WH40K with me and my sexually explicit army but you don't have the moral or legal authority to forbid me from having those things that offend you. It would be impossible to live in a free society if you set it up so that everyone was at the mercy of anyone else who was "offended" by something you said, did, wore, created, etc.
Aesop the God Awful wrote: But I'm not talking about what you're doing in your own home or your own business establishment, and I would have thought this would indicate that:
Aesop the God Awful wrote: In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.
Except that, unless otherwise told by management of an FLGS or an LGW, you are well within your rights to bring any model, such as this Land Raider into the store and play. If I were the manager/owner of the store, I'd allow that player to bring those models until such a time as I had received complaints from people about them, and it depends on the nature/temperment of the complaint, and even then... I'd probably be more along the lines of "dont bring them out until X hour, when most of the scrubs have left"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: If I were the manager/owner of the store, I'd allow that player to bring those models until such a time as I had received complaints from people about them, and it depends on the nature/temperment of the complaint, and even then... I'd probably be more along the lines of "dont bring them out until X hour, when most of the scrubs have left"
And then you do respect people that take issue with it, which is what I'm saying people should.
Aesop the God Awful wrote: But I'm not talking about what you're doing in your own home or your own business establishment, and I would have thought this would indicate that:
Aesop the God Awful wrote: In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.
The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.
For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.
I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.
A store is not a public place, that is correct, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it's pretty fair to call it that. It is a place almost everyone has access to (maybe this is where the confusion lies)
But I may have misused the word "right" earlier. I don't think someone has the "right" or "authority" to veto your models out of the game for arbitrary reasons. But if it is a serious problem for people I think the bigger man would remove the object that's bothering them, rather than going "umadlol"
For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.
Sexualized miniatures aren't as specific an example as that though. This is a thing.
But again, I'm not trying to enforce anything here, or suggesting that other people should. In the post that Bullockist first replied to all I implied was that you should show some consideration and tact when bringing your models somewhere. That's it.
I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.
A store is not a public place, that is correct, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it's pretty fair to call it that. It is a place almost everyone has access to (maybe this is where the confusion lies)
But I may have misused the word "right" earlier. I don't think someone has the "right" or "authority" to veto your models out of the game for arbitrary reasons. But if it is a serious problem for people I think the bigger man would remove the object that's bothering them, rather than going "umadlol"
For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.
Sexualized miniatures aren't as specific an example as that though. This is a thing.
But again, I'm not trying to enforce anything here, or suggesting that other people should. In the post that Bullockist first replied to all I implied was that you should show some consideration and tact when bringing your models somewhere. That's it.
I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.
No need, man
I agree with you that an attentive store manager should tell somebody who had say a DE or Slaneesh army that had something like a Gor them with lots of naked female slaves or somebody who wanted to get a game of Kingdom Death: Monster going, to only do it at a time where only adults would be around. I wouldn't want to see a store lose any business because a kid's mother got offended by something. I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.
I think we're also in agreement that can build the army they want and should be able to play a game without upsetting the applecart. If a group of adults are at a store for a game night I would think it would be pretty difficult and somewhat impressive for somebody to bring an army that would actually make people go OMG! That's so disturbing/offensive. Speaking for myself, I think that too many people seem to believe that if they don't like something, if it isn't their cup of tea or they don't get it then they get to tell people they can't do it/have it. I've seen some crazy threads in my day about things like how playing WW2 Germans in FOW is fine but painting 40KIG to look like WW2 Germans is evil, but that's OT.
Over sexualized models is a problem, I do think it's mainly caused by the simple fact that the vast majority of people interested in tabletop wargaming are always going to be male and people/companies are willing to cater to their inner teenager. It's unfortunate that so many companies out there seem to believe that any girls/women who are into gaming also think the fantasy fallacies that choosing to go to war half naked or fully naked is reasonable and that armor/power armor for women needs giant boobs. Thankfully there are companies out there that produce normal female minis and hopefully market forces will reward them for it.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.
That's all the parents in your area worried about??? Hell, where I grew up they were convinced that if you even THOUGHT about touching a d20 in order to play DnD, you'd run off in a month to join a Satanic Cult
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.
That's all the parents in your area worried about??? Hell, where I grew up they were convinced that if you even THOUGHT about touching a d20 in order to play DnD, you'd run off in a month to join a Satanic Cult
Thee still are some out there too, does anyone remember that story from a thread a few years back when a kids parents ran screaming into the store, grabbed him and dragged him out and never allowed him to return?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"
Works like this in many western countries, actually: a movie would usually need very explicit violence to have the same rating as a soft erotic movie.
You've probably fondled and licked boobs by 15-16, but you're not allowed to see them on screen until 16-17.
Prestor Jon wrote: The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters.
While I do agree, I could have written "two persons" instead of "two girls". Doesn't really makes a difference.
Saw is quite explicit too, and about something far more unpleasant than love...
One is a surprised looking naked space marine, who I supply to any SM opponent whose model I have relieved of it's armor save via my harp of dissonance or scarabs (I have never gotten any complaints) and one grot, deployed usually as one of thirty, is leaning back and giving himself a quick one before he dies (non graphically, his hand is technically covering it up) who despite being completely lost in a crowd, I have gotten numerous complaints from scandalized mothers about. It's not like I point him out, and honestly I forget he exists, there was just one Gretchin model with a helmet and such a goofily happy face I couldn't think of anything else he could be doing.
a grot fisting his mister president.
GREAT!!!!!
wife complains why i ordered 3 boxes of grots.
gonna do the "spanking monkeys " grot gang, driving in the bang bus.
30 grots tossing the turkey and ork masters handing out some orky p$$rn magazines.
projekt for christmas days.
thank you so much
so? he put a plastic rendition of a naked woman on the side of a toy. oh woe is me, the world is falling to misogyny. people shouldn't be forced to be censored because their actions offend someone. I don't care if it is tasteless and silly, he wanted to do something with his stuff, People should not be censored. all I can say to you is either A) get over it, or B) Live in a magical world where trigger warnings are everywhere and free speech is decided upon whether someone gets upset. I recommend option A.
Brennonjw wrote: so? he put a plastic rendition of a naked woman on the side of a toy. oh woe is me, the world is falling to misogyny. people shouldn't be forced to be censored because their actions offend someone. I don't care if it is tasteless and silly, he wanted to do something with his stuff, People should not be censored. all I can say to you is either A) get over it, or B) Live in a magical world where trigger warnings are everywhere and free speech is decided upon whether someone gets upset. I recommend option A.
Someone has the right to do/say what they want and I have the right to say that that I don't like it (it's that simple). I might think some minis are misogynistic but I am not breaking them. So why should my expression be worth less than someone else's? Also there is no censorship happening so why bring that even up? What is the problem with people expression their ideas if they do not confirm with yours?
If you don't like it you can talk about it (instead of recommending that people get over it) or ignore the thread (there are so many about everything else), nobody is forcing you to participate in a discussion that could include feminist content or anything that doesn't fit into your worldview. If the discussion is not important to you just ignore it and talk about something else.
What if you do the other side? My Slaanesh 40k army has a TON of penises sculpted, all the guns are penises, there's tentacle monster dreadnoughts, you don't even want to know what the tanks will look like...
The chaos lord alone has 3, not counting tentacles.
Rainbow Dash wrote: What if you do the other side? My Slaanesh 40k army has a TON of penises sculpted, all the guns are penises, there's tentacle monster dreadnoughts, you don't even want to know what the tanks will look like...
The chaos lord alone has 3, not counting tentacles.
If it's well done, I can appreciate the effort that went into the making of the models. It may not be my cup of tea, so I may not "like" it, but that doesn't mean that I won't appreciate the work that went into sculpting nearly everything from scratch.
Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.
Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.
Plus there's things like the seven deadly sins, which all represent overindulgence and excess, so, again, while things like vanity may be tough to portray, things such as gluttony would not - in fact, if one wanted to run Nurgle units for gameplay purposes in a Slaanesh themed force, this is a perfect way to represent it.
Azreal13 wrote: Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.
Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.
It would make sense though, if one were to create a "1500 point army" that is the 69th Phallic Company of the Emperor's Children, and then have another 1500 point army that is the 666th "Meshuggah" Company of the Emperor's Children, as the fluff is so large an individual may want to create a much larger force of slaaneshi followers, with various sections of the large force being comprised of some individual element of said fluff.
To me, it's much the same as someone running a Deathwing or Ravenwing army: they are only one small aspect of Dark Angel fluff.
If that were the case, yes, but, and I'm by no means including Dash in this, purely that it was that post that broached the subject, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the motivation for such a force was simply "hurr, willies!"
Azreal13 wrote: If that were the case, yes, but, and I'm by no means including Dash in this, purely that it was that post that broached the subject, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the motivation for such a force was simply "hurr, willies!"
I think most of wargaming could be broken down to "hurr, guns, pew pew". We do write and read creative and elaborate (and sometimes not so creative and elaborate) stories about it, but at the end of the day I think for most people it comes down to some childish simplicity like "hurr, guns", "hurr, boobs", "hurr, swords", "hurr, dudes on steroids", "hurr, dragons".
Azreal13 wrote: Except Slaanesh isn't the God of penises. Slaanesh isn't even the God of sex - Slaanesh is the God of Excess so while the sexual element certainly has a place as an element of physical sensation, if one were to run an army purely modelled after phalluses I wouldn't be offended, but I may think it demonstrated a slight lack of imagination, an element of immaturity and a slight misunderstanding of the fluff.
Touch is only one sense, and while smell may be tough to represent on the tabletop, sound and sight could easily be.
It would make sense though, if one were to create a "1500 point army" that is the 69th Phallic Company of the Emperor's Children, and then have another 1500 point army that is the 666th "Meshuggah" Company of the Emperor's Children, as the fluff is so large an individual may want to create a much larger force of slaaneshi followers, with various sections of the large force being comprised of some individual element of said fluff.
To me, it's much the same as someone running a Deathwing or Ravenwing army: they are only one small aspect of Dark Angel fluff.
Meh, I mean I don't have to make them Slaanesh, but they're still gonna have dicks regardless.
And I am in this for my enjoyment, fluff is irrelevant, maturity is irrelevant, imagination is irreverent.
I can come up with a ton of great ideas but they're not as hilariously striking as these guys.
I suppose my most serious army is the Slayer themed Dwarf Army. Still need more for that one though
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
Spoiler:
I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.
It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
I'm with you here. My daughter has a bunch of those and she will kill an hour or two hi problem with them. My son has the typical Lego and she could really care less. Its a pretty strange thing really but it totally works as intended
I'm with you here. My daughter has a bunch of those and she will kill an hour or two hi problem with them. My son has the typical Lego and she could really care less. Its a pretty strange thing really but it totally works as intended
My daughter is much the same way, but she does also love the sets from the LEGO Movie, as well as the Marvel Super Heroes lines as well.... It makes things..... Interesting. I mean, seeing Ariel interacting with Nick Fury or Prince Eric running around with Thor is crazy, yet entertaining for me.
I don't get why people should be offended over Lego selling gender stereotyped sets. Simple market demand should dictate what it makes and sells.
If all the pink stuff, dolls and Friends role play stuff sells well, then Lego is simply giving its target audience (i.e. the kids) what they want.
If it falls flat, then the target audience does not want it, the products will be dropped sooner or later, and Lego will try to come up with a new product that does sell well.
Nothing about those sets implies to me that Girls can't like science, astronauts etc. If they do, just get the standard sets for them if thats what appeals to them. And if someone complains that "all the Science sets have male characters, not female"...well, aren't the parts compatible? Whats stopping kids simply swapping out the figures / heads for a female character? Heck, just do sets or series of "female mini fig" characters to supplement the standard sets if thats what customers want.
Lego should just produce a variety of products, and let the "customers" choose whatever they like (as Ensis Ferrae said).
Theres nothing wrong with studying the market demands of a specific target demographic and concluding " 'Girly' sets with lots of pink and ponies and pink ponies sell really well, so lets make more of these sorts of sets to appeal to those customers.
Give the customers what they want. DON'T complain that the customers doesn't want what YOU think they should want.
The only "real" issue that I have with the "girl specific" Friends sets, is in how the Lego people interact with the "boy" sets... Ie, Ariel/Eric have special legs that can ONLY stand on objects, whereas Nick Fury, Thor, etc can all be placed sitting on other pieces.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The only "real" issue that I have with the "girl specific" Friends sets, is in how the Lego people interact with the "boy" sets... Ie, Ariel/Eric have special legs that can ONLY stand on objects, whereas Nick Fury, Thor, etc can all be placed sitting on other pieces.
I still don't buy that the other sets are 'boy' sets, not in the least because my nieces love all my Lego. None of the boxes for any of the 'boy' sets depict a child, let alone a male one, playing with the sets. The City sets are blue, granted but so what? Builder sets are yellow, Technic uses black and all the other specific ones like DC, Marvel, TMNT etc all have their own colours. Maybe there's been a slew of ads somewhere depicting boys playing with them but without going back to the 80s they're hard to find.
I personally don't care what your models look like so long as I can tell what it supposed to represent. Nor do I care what your motivation was for crafting whatever you did. There is simply no power a little plastic man on a table has to make me upset, no matter how it is painted or modified. You're free to express yourself in whatever way you see fit and, if I think it's stupid, immature or otherwise worthy of mockery I'm free to express that. We all get to do what we want.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Actually come to think of it, the Lego I played with as a kid (~15 years ago) was pretty basic and the figures were very androgynous.
Spoiler:
Lego has come a long way since I last played with it
When I started playing with Legos there were no figures.... (I think that I got my first set in 1968.... Back then I thought that Legos were the best toys ever, and I have seen no reason to change my mind. )
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Actually come to think of it, the Lego I played with as a kid (~15 years ago) was pretty basic and the figures were very androgynous.
Spoiler:
Lego has come a long way since I last played with it
At some point they focuses their marketing efforts only on boys and consequently sold mainly to boys. And now they started to target girls again with special sets instead of just using inclusive and inviting ads. They created their own gender bias by focusing their ads on boys only. It had nothing to do with ideas like "Girls won't play with normal Lego".
I still don't buy that the other sets are 'boy' sets, not in the least because my nieces love all my Lego. None of the boxes for any of the 'boy' sets depict a child, let alone a male one, playing with the sets. The City sets are blue, granted but so what? Builder sets are yellow, Technic uses black and all the other specific ones like DC, Marvel, TMNT etc all have their own colours. Maybe there's been a slew of ads somewhere depicting boys playing with them but without going back to the 80s they're hard to find.
Hence why I put "boy" in quotations, as well as "girl" my own daughter loves both, I was merely pointing my gripe that, the figures are completely different if you get a LEGO Friends set, vs. a LEGO City, Ninjago, Super Heroes, Ninja Turtles, LEGO Movie, etc. set.
VS.
One can sit down and drive cars, boats, helicopters, space ships, or anything else you can imagine to build.... the other, can merely stand around.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: [
Hence why I put "boy" in quotations, as well as "girl" my own daughter loves both, I was merely pointing my gripe that, the figures are completely different if you get a LEGO Friends set, vs. a LEGO City, Ninjago, Super Heroes, Ninja Turtles, LEGO Movie, etc. set.
Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you were making some alternate case. The 'normal' Lego sets seem utterly genderless when you see them in the store but the Friends line is clearly plonked in the pink section (not that I support pink sections).
Here is a YouTube playlist called 'Lego Ads Targeting Boys'. LIterally takes 5 minutes to watch. At most you can see some bare children's arms. There's no shots of boys playing, no exited boys seen displaying the products, no 'Oh cool!' boy voice overs. About the only thing explicitly male is the voice over describing the set.
Apologies, I didn't mean to imply you were making some alternate case. The 'normal' Lego sets seem utterly genderless when you see them in the store but the Friends line is clearly plonked in the pink section (not that I support pink sections).
Agreed. Hell, when we bought our kids their first Lego sets, I bought the LEGO City "Rescue helicopter" set for myself, and it does come with one "female" figure in there... Of course, by female really you get a head with a feminine look, thick lipstick and "mascara" eyes. You can put that head on the pilot/rescue swimmer body, the dispatcher body, or even the "shipwrecked surfer person" body.
IIRC, the only "feminine" Lego figures I had growing up came from the Pirate line, and it was clearly supposed to be outlined cleavage that denoted "female Lego figure" I do miss the pirate line though
You can get the little one vehicle and driver sets for about $1 each if you buy them 20-30 at a time. I bought a 50 pack of generic people for $15. Also there is more variety of superhero minifigures by the bootleg companies than Lego actually puts out. I've got a collection of 200+ SuperHero Minifigs
Kojiro wrote: When was this 'at some point' and how did they market to boys? Can you show examples of this advertising?
I don't know exactly. I read a few articles about Lego's history and how they managed to get profitable again. By marketing to boys only they probably didn't have ads like the images I linked above and used (for example) magazines aimed at boys and not at girls. I think that was happening during the 90s when they has a slump (late 90s, early 00s) and lost a lot of sales (during that time they also tried to target girls but failed). They focused on boys (I think I remember part of the rationale being that Lego Technics and Mindstorms sets were selling to adult men and them thinking that was true for their whole line) and then later expanded with all the licensed products.
So in short the timeline was (I think):
Doing okay ->
leaving out girls bit by bit ->
trying to get them back in the late 90s (doesn't work) ->
even heavier focus on boys ->
financial problems in the early 00s (caused by, I think, not adjusting their product line/manufacturing (too many parts, …, manufacturing got more complicated over time)), no girls just meant less sales overall ->
licensed products and restructuring save them, bring back profitability ->
try to target girls again (more customer are better), this time with (some?) success
Sorry i don't have the articles but that's what/how I remember them.
I agree wholeheartedly.
).
and move on.
