AllSeeingSkink wrote:

migooo wrote:
your own crime agency is racist? okay sure, is the BBC? its fairly left leaning here. No im making a point in a country which most consider to be run by social justice the crime is astronomical. Which is more important than boobs on plastic figures. that is the point im making

I've really tried to avoid commenting on this because I do tend to think it's rather off topic, but when it comes to crime statistics you always have to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, different countries report them differently (such as domestic abuse cases, multiple incidences against a person being counted as a single report vs multiple reports and so on). Secondly, the rate of reported sex crimes doesn't always correlate to actual number of sex crimes because of unreported cases. If a country fosters the attitude of standing up and reporting sex crimes, it may very well see higher rates of reported crimes than a country which is actually worse off. Even things like "assault rates" have to be taken with a grain of salt because some countries have a high rate of drunken brawls which get put down as assaults but to the person walking down the street they might be just as safe as any other city.

Overall I think it's a pointless tangent to the thread. Maybe it's more important than boobs on plastic figures, but this is a thread about boobs on plastic figures and not crime rates in different countries, maybe we can start a thread in the off-topic forum about that instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

migooo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.

The main thing the Prodos backlash has taught me is that cheesecake is fine until it doesn't meet a certain quality expectation then it cops a whole lot of flak Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.

They are poorly sculpted.

That's what I mean. If they are perceived as poorly sculpted half naked ladies apparently it creates a gakstorm of backlash. If they are perceived as well sculpted half naked ladies, the backlash will be drowned out be the praise.

both good points. sorry it was a tangent i shouldnt have gone down. apologies.

im not sure what you are saying in the second though do you want better sculpted half naked things or would rather the option of half naked and more sensible?

im telling you now to have a half decent sculpt you do have to exaggerate features, pointer face, bust, hands just so it looks female, in reality there is no differnce. untill you get to about 75mm.. you know the garage kit size

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Personally, I consider it a non-issue.


Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."


Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".


It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.

No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.

Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.

It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.

A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.

The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.

then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D

really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,

You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.

I'm not talking dedicated pandering, I'm talking about breaking down that chip on people's shoulders by the eventual level treatment of everyone.

If a ten year old girl wants to play Space Marines, then it's not her fault that someone in 1989 called you a goon.
It's your turn to hold open that door and tell her how much fun she could be having.
Or that Mantic is way better. Whatever.

migooo wrote:
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D

really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,

So is this like some sick sort of revenge, then? You were made fun of in school for being a geek and now that it's more "socially acceptable" you're going to do everything you can to put people off and make them unwelcome? "Feth you, this is my hobby!"?

You're really not any better than them if that's the case.

migooo wrote:


(Lots of redaction…)

then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. …

This is the problem, right here.

What other wargame hobby are people supposed to join if they don’t like Phwoarhammer?

Why do you have the right to dictate to everyone else what wargames are about?

migooo wrote:
[im not sure what you are saying in the second though do you want better sculpted half naked things or would rather the option of half naked and more sensible?

im telling you now to have a half decent sculpt you do have to exaggerate features, pointer face, bust, hands just so it looks female, in reality there is no differnce. untill you get to about 75mm.. you know the garage kit size

Personally half naked or fully naked female models don't bother me either way. I tend to not buy them myself because I am not very good at painting and no where is that more telling when you try and paint a naked human

I think if models are badly sculpted then it's fine to judge them as badly sculpted. BUT, I think if a naked model is badly sculpted that doesn't diminish its right to exist any more than a well sculpted naked model. Either they are all fine or they are all not fine. Prodos got a lot of backlash because they were received by the community as a poor attempt at cheesecake, where as a good attempt at cheesecake (in my observation, which may be flawed) seems to mostly get a pass.

Overall I don't love the Prodos Space Crusaders models (some I don't mind but none that I intend to buy) but I think they probably got more flak than they deserved. If it was JUST badly sculpted and not a cheesecake attempt, it probably would have gotten a page of two of responses then faded in to a dead thread. I think that's all it was worth really.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Personally, I consider it a non-issue.


Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."


Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".


It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.

No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.

Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.

It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.

A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.

The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.

then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D

really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,

You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.

I'm not talking dedicated pandering, I'm talking about breaking down that chip on people's shoulders by the eventual level treatment of everyone.

If a ten year old girl wants to play Space Marines, then it's not her fault that someone in 1989 called you a goon.
It's your turn to hold open that door and tell her how much fun she could be having.
Or that Mantic is way better. Whatever.

that is not what im saying dude and you know it. im saying that the culture has developed and it shouldn't now be forced to become something it wasn't that completely destroys what it was. No i dont get to decide who joins and you can call your army the fuzzy marines and knit them for all i care. im saying changing things say for example lets go with your analogy suddenly female space marines are possible despite bieng in the fluff that its not possible to pander. no why?, why should it?

you are calling for special snowflake in everything everything has to be so exceptional... that its no longer what its supposed to be about ... case in point the ultramarines being basically superior to all others when really the rigidity to a doctrine would probably end up in a situation similar to fuedal japan.. a war that lasted a long time.

or another point arrow is no longer about Oliver Queen... its about how great Felicity is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

migooo wrote:


(Lots of redaction…)

then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. …

This is the problem, right here.

What other wargame hobby are people supposed to join if they don’t like Phwoarhammer?

Why do you have the right to dictate to everyone else what wargames are about?

i dont and Phoarhammer as you put it isnt the norm. its the exception. ive seen two boobie armies in 30 years.. 30... maybe i came off as more agressive i dont care who joins. just dont come into a hobby and start dictating to me what it should be about without experiencing it first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

migooo wrote:
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D

really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,

So is this like some sick sort of revenge, then? You were made fun of in school for being a geek and now that it's more "socially acceptable" you're going to do everything you can to put people off and make them unwelcome? "Feth you, this is my hobby!"?

You're really not any better than them if that's the case.

probably not but i didnt tell him football was naff and should be played by strippers did i?

the whole point is while i came off as more aggressive than i mean to is that everything i like is being destroyed by this moronic social crusade now dictates what i cant or can play with / paint.

and i think that when you get known con people who are on record saying they dont like games or are scared of them when they lie and pretend to be gamers. that is when i say you are not part of this hobby. stop pretending

My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.

If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.

If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

okay fine .. you know how many nude figures i have? one the topless dark eldar slave. i never even painted it. but dont you see that is pandering. first it will be witch elves to have fully clothed armour, then it will be female figures are contributing to violence against women.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.

its exactly the same as the Conservative think of the children view. Look at the sigmarines for age of sigmar they can be male or female.. thats what the hobby wil become. bland and unrecognizable.

migooo wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.

If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

okay fine .. you know how many nude figures i have? one the topless dark eldar slave. i never even painted it. but dont you see that is pandering. first it will be witch elves to have fully clothed armour, then it will be female figures are contributing to violence against women.

I ... what?
Mate, I'm trying to follow your train of thought, but this is a new line in bewildering.
Just slow down a bit. There's clearly something you're trying to say but you're not allowing anyone else to appreciate that by making these frankly bizarre statements.

Plus you're ignoring the part where I didn't even say half of of the points you're replying to.

migooo wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.

I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.

its exactly the same as the Conservative think of the children view. Look at the sigmarines for age of sigmar they can be male or female.. thats what the hobby wil become. bland and unrecognizable.

I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.

I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.

If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.

I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.

If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.

So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?

The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.

What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.

do you know what cause and effect is?

if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?

ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.

do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not. it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.

its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.

I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.

If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.

So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?

The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.

What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.

I'm certainly not in favour of outright censorship and removal of aspects of the hobby.

I'm saying that we're at a stage of turning on the lights and everything in the room is now visible to all... And it's time to choose which aspects we want to put forward and embrace the most.

To continue that light example. I'm talking putting brighter bulbs in positive displays, and maybe when time comes, not replacing the ones as often in the areas we are less proud of.

Part of that needs to be open and earnest discussion with companies about what we want to see more and less of.
Doing nothing because "it's always been like that" is not nearly as damaging as policing and censoring content. But it doesn't help.

Telling a creator "I'm a customer, but didn't buy this because it was X. I honestly would if you'd made it more Y" helps things change over time.
That's all I'm in favor of; more feedback and less outrage.

migooo wrote:
do you know what cause and effect is?

if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?

That is indeed how gravity works, though it seems completely unrelated to the issue of the depiction of females in miniature form.

ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.

Why? Do you walk around spewing your innermost thoughts at people no matter how uncomfortable it makes them? Or do you go "hmm, maybe they don't want to hear that" and censor yourself? If so, why are you not protesting yourself? After all, censorship for feelings is wrong according to you.

Maybe (I know I'm reaching here) the situation is actually fairly nuanced and not black & white?

do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not.

Okay then, I'm assuming this is a point about altering something to change the group it appeals to, but I'm not 100% sure.

it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.

Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.

its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.

Ah, so people that dislike it should be censored and not say anything about disliking it?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.

I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.

If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.

So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?

The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.

What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.

I'm certainly not in favour of outright censorship and removal of aspects of the hobby.

I'm saying that we're at a stage of turning on the lights and everything in the room is now visible to all... And it's time to choose which aspects we want to put forward and embrace the most.

To continue that light example. I'm talking putting brighter bulbs in positive displays, and maybe when time comes, not replacing the ones as often in the areas we are less proud of.

Part of that needs to be open and earnest discussion with companies about what we want to see more and less of.
Doing nothing because "it's always been like that" is not nearly as damaging as policing and censoring content. But it doesn't help.

Telling a creator "I'm a customer, but didn't buy this because it was X. I honestly would if you'd made it more Y" helps things change over time.
That's all I'm in favor of; more feedback and less outrage.

This i could get behind. however what dictates it?, GW do not do customer research they don't, never have, they ignore the press and for a most part the player base. everybody asks for Sisters at any kind of interaction but they ignore it. and gave us AoS

Why are you assuming I meant GW?

Barring pre 2000 figures, they are easily one of the most conservative companies regarding nudity and theme.
The nuns are in some aspects crass, but they're not supported or highlighted. You could be forgiven (not by the Emperor!) for forgetting they exist.

migooo wrote:
This i could get behind. however what dictates it?, GW do not do customer research they don't, never have, they ignore the press and for a most part the player base. everybody asks for Sisters at any kind of interaction but they ignore it. and gave us AoS

You realise that this thread has been discussing miniatures as a whole, right? On the first two pages, out of about 30 images, not a single one was by GW, and only one of them was a GW universe.

I realise you dislike AoS, but that's kind of unrelated to the depiction of females in miniature form.

 Goliath wrote:

migooo wrote:
do you know what cause and effect is?

if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?

That is indeed how gravity works, though it seems completely unrelated to the issue of the depiction of females in miniature form.

ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.

Why? Do you walk around spewing your innermost thoughts at people no matter how uncomfortable it makes them? Or do you go "hmm, maybe they don't want to hear that" and censor yourself? If so, why are you not protesting yourself? After all, censorship for feelings is wrong according to you.

Maybe (I know I'm reaching here) the situation is actually fairly nuanced and not black & white?

do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not.

Okay then, I'm assuming this is a point about altering something to change the group it appeals to, but I'm not 100% sure.

it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.

Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.

its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.

Ah, so people that dislike it should be censored and not say anything about disliking it?

Obviously I do not say hateful things towards people. However why should any sort of speech except actually inciting physical harm be censored because it feels very one sided

no people can dislike whatever they want. They can say what they like . I am saying that we are at an impasse. and wont get anywhere by going around in circles.

it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.

Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.

----- I'm saying here that age of sigmar was nothing like the original, it was in fact fairly rubbish compared to earlier editions.. if you like that game good for you.. but dont say i cant play older versions.


I think I'm getting to wound up by this. and will bow out I dont think that covering up miniatures or anything is good. ill say while i have disagreed there are no hard feelings on my side. if things become more censored ill just keep what i have.

Go back to bed, migooo.

Nobody's going to force you to play AoS.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Go back to bed, migooo.

Nobody's going to force you to play AoS.

No but you would make me put a towel on figures for feelings sake. Yet I would not stop you or anybody else enjoying what they like even if i disagreed.

I only slept for two hours im guessing it shows. Again thank you for the discussion. Ill be leaving this topic for now.

Can we please please stop pretending that women are unified block. That they all think the same. That "women" don't like x, or that "women" don't like y. Because it is total BS. Woman like any group don't agree on much of anything. Much like all the men arguing back in forth in this thread don't seem to agree on anything either.

What I have found, in this post sexual revolution world that we know live in, is that women who actually have opinion about this topic tend to be very divided. Some women, those that tend to dress conservatively and are very reserved about their sexuality in my experience, do tend to take issue with female sexuality in art or entertainment. These women get turned off by sexualized miniatures or characters in video games like bayonetta. Even some feminists think this way as well. From what I understand they are called sex negative feminists. These feminists call bayonetta a fighting feth toy and take issue with things like porn.

However there is a whole other group of women out there. These women don't dislike female sexuality being portrayed in media, in fact they often love it. From women who love the bayonetta games to all those female cossplayers I have seen over the years that dress up like those female characters that sex negative feminists think are off putting to women. In my experience these are sort of women who own their sexuality and don't always dress modestly. They have no moral qualms going out dancing with their friends in high heels and a mini skirt. Women who do sex work tend to be like this. These women are not turned off by guys playing with sexy miniatures. Feminists who are like this are called sex positive feminists (I mention them earlier). They organize things like slut walks and say that characters like bayonetta are a positive thing.

To use an example here take the new denny2 scuplt.


Someone women will take issue with this model that is true. However other women will look at the characters fluff and end up really loving the model. The fact is she is a femme fatal that owns her sexuality would be appealing to them.

Because the funny thing about this thread to me is, that all miniatures that people have been complaining about, from sisters of battle, to female models with things like boob window or high heels. I have seen real women, yes real women play with all of these models. The real women that I have actually seen play and played against in 40k played armies like dark eldar with wyches or sisters of battle. In warmachine/hordes I have seen real women play with kaya as their warlock. Who, lets say goes into battle with her heart exposed. These women didn't seem to have any issue with any these figs.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.

This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I had hoped the topic, such as it is, would have been returned to in my absence. But no. Okay then, let's adress this latest development.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

From the Daily Mail article;

That you quote the infamous 'newspaper' Daily Mail does not really support you. In fact, that Daily Mail agrees with you only weakens your argument, because that alone means it is more likely than not false (and yes, all of those are real). It also shows that you do not check if your sources are actually trustworthy before you post, or that you know they aren't but you choose to use them anyway because who needs truth when there are SJWs to bash right? No matter which, you do not come across as credible, which is not helping when you are already an American telling three Swedes that we live in SJW hell and oh no why are you so happy stop living normal lives your country is being destroyed can't you see ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Oh, and I did not 'concede' anything to you. You post about American 'feminists' (which I cannot argue about since I am not there) but you worded your posts as if referring to the movement globally. Which is also why I ignore 99% of the content in your posts, because it is just filler others are already pointing out the absurdity of, while demonising feminism is something that affects me personally.

So, yeah. This is like the Gamergate thread. You'd think we would have seen the last of 'misogyny xd patriarchy xdddddddd' gakposting.

Hmmm...

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


The "Is modern femininism cancer" thing should be obvious from watching the video and reading Buzzsaw's post that it's not talking about the brand of feminism that seeks equality but that which seeks censorship, that assigns blame based on gender, that seeks favouritism instead of equality and that seeks to quash discussion to the point where it bans a debate. Even the side of the debate which is a true feminist who has spent her life seeking equality for women and standing up against violence against women, against human trafficking, against religious fundamentalism which suppresses women and so forth.

I can agree that the ones Buzzsaw are referring to are bad. In fact, I probably dislike them more than most others, due to how they hamper my efforts.

I wish those who do not strive for equality would find a better tag to apply to themselves instead of trying to drag feminism with them into the mud.

Also, you once again repeate the point you were corrected on before: it is not American feminism. Had you been willing to do even the slightest bit of research, perhaps the British accents would have tipped you off. Also, incidentally, even if we just go by populations, I'm describing conditions as they exist for about 400 million people (the combined population of the USA and Great Britain) while you are fixated on defending conditions that, at best, you can defend as existing for less then 10 million (the population of Sweden).

As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form? Perhaps best two points;

First, an argument ad hominem that relies on song is no less a logical fallacy. By this standard, the National Enquirer (which regularly runs articles on Bigfoot) should not have had their allegations believed regarding Presidential Candidate John Edwards.

Second: one might notice I posted two sources, rather then one. No doubt you have a song about how racist The Spectator is. Also the Wall Street Journal. It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?

Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
I can agree that the ones Buzzsaw are referring to are bad.

Yes, because I assumed you were telling me the truth (an assumption I am no longer so quick to make). If you consider that a concession, consider the concession withdrawn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


Also, you once again repeate the point you were corrected on before: it is not American feminism. Had you been willing to do even the slightest bit of research, perhaps the British accents would have tipped you off. Also, incidentally, even if we just go by populations, I'm describing conditions as they exist for about 400 million people (the combined population of the USA and Great Britain) while you are fixated on defending conditions that, at best, you can defend as existing for less then 10 million (the population of Sweden).

And there are over six billion people who are neither, but who you also word your arguments as talking about.

Keep that broad brush of yours to your own territory, not to mine or to others'.

As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form?

You place unnecessary focus on the song. It is just an amusing example of just how bad Daily Mail is. I shouldn't really have to tell you how bad it is, since it is something you already should know if you are trying to use it as a source. The Daily Mail has a long and consistent history of posting utter BS, and equating it to rare mistakes from other new sources is false.

do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?

You tell me, you are the lone American telling us a lying newspaper and your own political agenda is a more valid source on the situation in Sweden than the words of those who live there.

Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.

Because your 'points' are mostly regurgitated filler that only serves to provoke driving the thread further off topic. Drop it here, and I will too.

Wall Street Journal

If you had actually been here, you would have seen that our immigration is a good thing. Sweden's non-immigrant population is actually in a slow decline, believe it or not. Our country uses the immigrants as a cheap workforce (and whether that is fair is a separate topic), and it helps the economy.

I do not have to argue with newspapers telling me country is going to hell when I live here and I, along with every other Swede who is posting in the topic, can quite clearly see that it is not. The one political party that for some reason disapproves of the immigration is so widely disagreed with that our two large political blocks basically unite against them, something previously unheard of.

Everyone is talking about how feminists allegedly 'shut down dissenting voices', but has it ever struck you how ridiculously easy it would be for real hardcore sexists to work their anti-feminism agenda since when I object I frequently get called a 'manhating SJW'? I suspect it goes that way far more than you believe, or wish to believe. And trust me, if I got a dollar for each time I had seen someone complain on 'SJWs', Donald Trump would be licking my boots, whereas the 'manhating' is as said something I have never observed - in real life or on the internet.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form? Perhaps best two points;

First, an argument ad hominem that relies on song is no less a logical fallacy.

An Ad Hominem would be if Ashiraya were directly attacking you. Discrediting a source is not a personal attack, and the fact that you're legitimately giving credence to The Daily Mail is telling.

It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?

Honestly, this line is actually hilarious. The concept of 'Social Justice Sharia' is so oxymoronic and contradictory that the mental images it inspires are breathtakingly daft.

Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.

Here's the thing. Your repetitive use of "SJ(W/sharia/other)" gives an absolutely massive indication that you aren't arguing from good faith. For goodness' sake, you just used the phrase "SJ Sharia" without the slightest hint of irony, and you're complaining that people aren't engaging with your arguments?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Personally, I consider it a non-issue.


Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."


Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".


It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.

No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.

Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.

It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.

A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.

The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.

I think this is a great post, and very illustrative of the problem. Your quote about the triumph of evil is especially instructive, not least because it shows the unbridgeable chasm at play.

Which is to say, the evil being opposed... is yours.

Now, by that I don't just mean the Social Justice movement, which I earlier labeled as illiberal, racialist and standing as the antithesis of Actual Justice, but the entirety of this affair. Censorship is an actual evil, the foreclosure of the market of ideas to certain modes or kinds of expression is a terrible thing. On rare occasions it is a necessary evil (real child pornography falls into this category), but it is always illiberal and to be avoided.

Against this real evil, you stack up a pretend evil, an hallucinatory evil: an intuition that there is some vast number of women who are being kept out of 'the hobby' by a barrage of slights and offenses. I've referenced The Coddling of the American Mind before, now I'll quote a particularly relevant part;

But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.

Let me be clear: the constellation of SJ remedies and theories, the trigger warnings, the micro-aggressions, the safe spaces, all of these appear to be harming people. This program of indoctrination is the cognitive equivalent of giving a person shots in order to induce a peanut allergy.

This is no mere speculation: you yourself have given testimony to this;


Before I said that you ought to look at things differently, to not give mind to things that don't matter. What I should also have said is that it is harmful to look at things the way you are: you are making yourself ill by seeing evil in innocent or innocuous things. You are first hurting yourself.

But second you are hurting others, because you are imputing bad to people that are not bad.

I've said before that Social Justice is the antithesis of Actual Justice, that it is illiberal and racialist and authoritarian. But perhaps the worst evil of this terrible movement is the damage it is doing to the people that adhere to it: it's a movement that is teaching people to think in pathological terms.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.

This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.

What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.

All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.

Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.

This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.

What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.

All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.

Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.

To quote some earlier post of yours...



Seems to me that you would be happy to dictate what miniatures people create/use, as long as you dont have to call it censorship.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.

This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.

What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.

All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.

Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.

To quote some earlier post of yours...

Spoiler:

No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.

Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.

It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.

A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.

The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.

You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.

I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.

Seems to me that you would be happy to dictate what miniatures people create/use, as long as you dont have to call it censorship.

Then you are deliberately seeking out parts of what I'm saying and wilfully ignoring others.
Hell, in at least two posts I've said that I don't propose removal or destruction of products. In one of those quotes, in fact.

Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.

This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.

What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.

All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.

Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.

I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but it does rather seem that it is you, who does not appreciate the import of what you are saying.

What I mean by that is you can't really reconcile saying "All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.", when previously in the thread you've described the situation saying; A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

You can't say you're "Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things", when you've said "It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience."

You can't say "I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content", while at the same time talking about the impact on you and yours of "thinly veiled smut".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but there is a term for what you are doing and it's Passive Aggression*.

The problem is that you are a genuine victim, just not of what you think. You and yours are victims of an ideology that has sensitized you, as surely as if you had been scoured with sandpaper. You're approaching people who are doing nothing morally wrong, who are either making trivial mistakes or simply enjoying things you don't like and telling them "you're hurting us". Your problem is the answer they ought to give you is "then... you should probably go somewhere else."

When one goes to a restaurant it is entirely morally appropriate to, for example, inform the server and the kitchen about your food allergy, or your vegetarianism or other dietary restriction. They should adhere to your wishes, because they are serving you. What is not either moral or appropriate is to demand that the people around you conform to your medical or dietary restrictions.

Let's be clear, there are actually people that have such severe allergies that they cannot be in a room with (for example) nut products. The answer, morally and practically, is that these people don't go to restaurants, not unless they know beforehand that the place is safe for them.

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

I don't deny that you and yours may, in fact, be as emotionally affected as you write. What I do deny is that you should be, and I deny that it's our fault if you are. You have been convinced, by a harmful movement, to pay great attention to things that deserve no attention, to see slights in mistakes and bigotry in errors... to be crushed, by things that have no weight.

Finally, if it seems strange that people are arguing that your concerns are so trivial with great concern, perhaps it is because a candy bar is just a candy bar... until someone slaps it out of your hand.

*Yes, that's a link to Sargon of Akkad's channel... though it's an excerpt from an audiobook, in case you were looking for the epic beard.

This thread has gone way off topic and can we all just discuss the main topic at hand: General depictions of nudity in miniatures. Seriously guys, if you want to go discuss gender politics go to reddit or some other suitable site. Dakka is a wargaming forum not a political chat room.

@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Sitting and waiting is actually the answer. You want to know, there you go.

Unfortunately, you have to recognize that... you may just be wrong about the market and what people want. It may be that the market never gets where you want, because what you want is not what most people willing to pay want.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Considering the most egregious offenders of sexualization that make some folks uncomfortable(Kingdom Death, Brother Vinni, Raging Heroes) are already fairly niche with little to no market penetration beyond forums and few conventions; I'm not sure there's anyway to make them more irrelevant to Wargaming/Miniature hobbying as a whole. So to be honest, I don't really believe there's anything to be done about it.

If say, someone who's sensibilities are easily offended by sexualization/nudity are interested in Wargaming/miniature hobbying, where do they start? Do they suddenly stumble upon Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse, and become disgusted with the hobby? I'm going to assume they're far more likely to be introduced through model railroads, Games Workshop, gundam model kits, or some form of historical gaming. Until one becomes immersed in the hobby to a certain point, they just won't come across or interact with any form of sexualization. After they've become immersed to the point of finding sexualization, would they suddenly divest themselves of the time and effort they've already sunk into their hobby? I assume they managed to happily get along far enough that these boutique producers won't have much of an effect upon them at all. Of course, I could be completely wrong here.

So to sum it up, stay the course.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but it does rather seem that it is you, who does not appreciate the import of what you are saying.

What I mean by that is you can't really reconcile saying "All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.", when previously in the thread you've described the situation saying; A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I'll accept that saying was hyperbole in a poor attempt to think of how to reply. I probably should of followed up with a giggle face Ork or something, but I thought by explaining later in the same post what I wasn't calling evil I was relatively in the clear.
I don't think such things are actual "evil". I don't think it's possible for them to be.

You can't say you're "Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things", when you've said "It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience."

You can't say "I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content", while at the same time talking about the impact on you and yours of "thinly veiled smut".

I was not meaning to tar any and all miniatures of any nature with that label, and I apologise if my poor phrasing came across as such.
But there are cringy figures. There are also racy, cute, clever and dull figures. I don't think calling some of the figures out there smutty is unfair. Perhaps "smut" has a harsher meaning elsewhere, but here it's a word for what you'd find on a racy seaside postcard.
And my post about how people are affected was using solely examples of unintentional or well mannered things that feel bad. It was to offer insight into sensation as an explanation. I was not using it for any other means.

The problem is that you are a genuine victim, just not of what you think. You and yours are victims of an ideology that has sensitized you, as surely as if you had been scoured with sandpaper. You're approaching people who are doing nothing morally wrong, who are either making trivial mistakes or simply enjoying things you don't like and telling them "you're hurting us". Your problem is the answer they ought to give you is "then... you should probably go somewhere else."

When one goes to a restaurant it is entirely morally appropriate to, for example, inform the server and the kitchen about your food allergy, or your vegetarianism or other dietary restriction. They should adhere to your wishes, because they are serving you. What is not either moral or appropriate is to demand that the people around you conform to your medical or dietary restrictions.

Let's be clear, there are actually people that have such severe allergies that they cannot be in a room with (for example) nut products. The answer, morally and practically, is that these people don't go to restaurants, not unless they know beforehand that the place is safe for them.

If I gave the impression that I spend my time upset over this sort of material or what people buy, I apologise. I don't. As I posted on page one, it's more a state if continual tiredness with an occasional shock to the system.
Examining/discussing how to make a hobby more accessible to everyone isn't the same as having a horse in the race all the time. I can't maintain or imagine a viable existence of perpetual distress. I've been trying to explain how it feels on the other side of the fence(?) because one of the most useful things to have is an understanding of other people's views and where they are rooted, particularly those you disagree with.
If all that I put across is "I'm upset and you shouldn't have a choice in miniatures." then my brain to thumb is sincerely lacking.

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

Then I apologise for the use of those terms. I was not looking to browbeat people.

I don't deny that you and yours may, in fact, be as emotionally affected as you write. What I do deny is that you should be, and I deny that it's our fault if you are. You have been convinced, by a harmful movement, to pay great attention to things that deserve no attention, to see slights in mistakes and bigotry in errors... to be crushed, by things that have no weight.

Now this part puzzles me. Do you believe that there any valid instances of people being hurt, following this train along?

I can back into someone who was behind me, and knock them over, it doesn't mean that I didn't hurt them, or that the pain is their fault. It's probably not mine either.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Considering the most egregious offenders of sexualization that make some folks uncomfortable(Kingdom Death, Brother Vinni, Raging Heroes) are already fairly niche with little to no market penetration beyond forums and few conventions; I'm not sure there's anyway to make them more irrelevant to Wargaming/Miniature hobbying as a whole. So to be honest, I don't really believe there's anything to be done about it.

If say, someone who's sensibilities are easily offended by sexualization/nudity are interested in Wargaming/miniature hobbying, where do they start? Do they suddenly stumble upon Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse, and become disgusted with the hobby? I'm going to assume they're far more likely to be introduced through model railroads, Games Workshop, gundam model kits, or some form of historical gaming. Until one becomes immersed in the hobby to a certain point, they just won't come across or interact with any form of sexualization. After they've become immersed to the point of finding sexualization, would they suddenly divest themselves of the time and effort they've already sunk into their hobby? I assume they managed to happily get along far enough that these boutique producers won't have much of an effect upon them at all. Of course, I could be completely wrong here.

So to sum it up, stay the course.

Aye. It is easy to forget what a pocket universe forums and conventions are. Hell, other than occasional jokes and examples of shock value, I barely look at Kingdom Death because it's something you would have to actively seek out. KD, Vinni and even Raging Heroes are likely not contributing to the external image of gaming. They don't exactly permeate even when people do know companies other than Reaper or Citadel produce minis.

I think only really Prodos flies closest to casual observation of adult content due to reusing a game title that will have nostalgia value for long in the tooth gamers, family style players and all in between.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Second: one might notice I posted two sources, rather then one. No doubt you have a song about how racist The Spectator is. Also the Wall Street Journal. It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?

Your Daily Mail article claimed there was 34 refugee hostels in Kalmar. The actual figure is two. That's a misrepresentation of 1700%. Further, the Daily Mail is aware (link in Swedish) that the figure is inaccurate, but has not corrected it. The conclusion is that the Daily Mail is a lying piece of filth. QED.

Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

I think we all can at least agree that miniature design, painting and what that miniature means to a potential buyer is subjective. Even if a designer created a miniature in mind because of "sexy porn" that doesn't mean that "potential buyer A" will have that same view. Some will view it as just a toy, some will call it sexy, others will call it something else.

There are a couple pre-conceived conceptions based on someone having, buying, liking and even not liking a particular "cheesecake" miniature. A lot of the conceptions are about bringing shame to gamers in public light either because "What if" someone has that in their game shop and/or making "X/Y uncomfortable" or "think of the kids". However those conceptions only factor in if they are viewed in public and brought to game shops.

As much as we bring up Kingdom Death, Vinni and even the other companies we have talked about... I have to say I have never seen them in a game shop or anyone playing with them there. I know they are used. I have seen them played in private clubs, games or groups but not in a local game store.

If these are in private games, sessions or collections... then do they still reflect poorly to the gaming community escpially when to find them you have to purchase them from specific places (not in a LGS normally)?

Edit: I take that back. I have seen Kingdom Death played in the LGS but that is in the bar section, only over 21 allowed in there normally. None of the miniatures used were pin-ups either.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Second: one might notice I posted two sources, rather then one. No doubt you have a song about how racist The Spectator is. Also the Wall Street Journal. It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?

Your Daily Mail article claimed there was 34 refugee hostels in Kalmar. The actual figure is two. That's a misrepresentation of 1700%. Further, the Daily Mail is aware (link in Swedish) that the figure is inaccurate, but has not corrected it. The conclusion is that the Daily Mail is a lying piece of filth. QED.

Aaaaand? No, seriously here, every newspaper regularly has errors, I would go so far as to say every person has made errors. Often they go uncorrected. Your argument (which is weird in a second fashion, more on that in a moment), such as it is, argues against trusting anyone and anything that has ever made a mistake. Which, if one accepts my relatively modest proposal above, means no one and nothing can every be trusted. Clearly we cannot go by this rule.

For example, the New York Times writer Walter Duranty wrote a serious of untrue, most argue fraudulent, articles about Stalin's Russia. For these articles he received the Puilitzer Prize. For articles that were at best untrue and most likely outright frauds. The prize has not, and apparently will not, be revoked. The logic of your contention is that, the Pulitzer Prize being openly acknowledged to have gone to fraud/bad journalism, that it therefore ought to be afforded no weight at all.

That aside... what you wrote, whether one considers it damning of the Mail or not, is rather irrelevant to the point of mine that you quoted: where I made the point that I had quoted multiple sources. I pointed out I had two (now three) sources, and people were only responding to one.

Okay, let's stipulate for the argument that the Mail is unreliable: is the Spectator also unreliable? Is the Wall Street Journal unreliable? Is the Pope... well, we don't need to go into that.

Also, an an aside, unless Google translate is horrifically bad with Swedish, the article you link doesn't say what you claim: it claims that Magnus Ranstorp (who tweeted a link) was told about the 2 to 34 conflation. The story you link in turn links to a second story here, also in Swedish, that does mention alerting the Mail about problems... but the main problem discussed as brought to the Mail's attention is that a picture is wrong. Were the other errors? Maybe, who knows?

Now, that does make one think, and what it makes me thing is... maybe I should cite or look at more then one source. Gee, wouldn't that be good.

As an aside to the aside, I think you meant to end with res ispa loquiter, as given your lack of connection to my points, quod erat demonstrandum seems more like a non sequitur.

EDIT to include later point;

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

The funny part here is that the article you linked is to an infamous newspaper that are in the pockets of the very party AlmightyWalrus was talking about, and also has a history of dubious journalism.

Why not pick a more neutral newspaper without a conflict of interest? Because, of all the many newspapers Sweden has, you will not find any supporting your opinion outside the far right.

Can people please stop feeding this guy? Considering he's now quoting Fria Tider (quite obviously without even reading the article, although Google Translate might be at fault) it's just a matter of time before he cites forum posts on Stormfront as legitimate sources (which would actually be a pretty small step at this point). Don't quote him, don't acknowledge him, don't give him the time of day. He's either a brilliant troll or a legitimate believer in these sources. I sincerely hope it's the former. His pseudo-intellectualism isn't fooling anyone, although the italicization is hilarious.

The QED was meant in the context of the thread: arguments were made that just because it's the Daily Mail it doesn't have to mean they're wrong. The fact that they were in fact wrong had already been posted once, but since that was ignored I pointed it out again, using it, along with the fact that the Daily Mail knows that their article is untrue, as evidence of the Daily Mail's status as a lying scumbag of a source.

The Swedish link ends with

Varken Mail Online eller den påstådda tafsvaktchefen vill kommentera saken för Barometern.

Så var det med den historien. Artikeln ligger kvar i oförändrat skick på Mail Online. Det gör även lästipset hos Magnus Ranstorp

which translated means

Neither Mail Online or the alleged grope guard manager wants to comment on the issue in the Barometer [My note: the second newspaper linked earlier in the article].

That's that story. The article remains unaltered at Mail Online. So does the reading tip at Magnus Ranstorp

Thus the Daily Mail has been given opportunity to comment on the gross misrepresentation in their article but has both declined to do so and correct their 1700% error. The article being referenced isn't the one we're discussing, but another one featuring the same 1700% error, as well as a claim that over 6000 refugees have recently arrived in Kalmar. The real number is 310. That's almost a 2000% error.

Considering the Daily Mail's reputation for being utter trash I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case. Either they're grossly incompetent, in which case they're not reliable, or they're maliciously reporting false statistics, in which case they're absolutely not accountable.

Regarding the allegation that one isn't allowed to discuss immigration in Sweden, all I can say is that since the Sweden Democrats got into the Riksdag in 2010 the single most debated issue in the press, in politics and in society in general has been immigration. It is simply flat-out wrong to pretend that the issue isn't being discussed. If one doesn't want to be labelled as a racist, supporting a party that openly claims that there's an inherent, inherited essence to human beings that decides how different societies are formed might not be the best idea. That's not even about contested terms like cultural racism, that's flat-out textbook biological racism.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

The Daily Mail censored themselves. No one's forcing them to pull their article. Considering, though, that there's this wee little obstacle called the Rule of Law that says printing the name and image of someone before he's even been convicted is a tad completely insane you're actually helping prove our point that the Daily Mail is utter trash.

And please, for the love of all that is holy, Fria Tider? Really? Their front page as of the time of me writing this post has more than 75% of their linked articles related to how nasty immigrants are in one form or another. They're essentially the media arm of the Sweden Democrats. The image in the article you linked is even subtitled "No, it's not the government behind the censoring. This time.". They're the textbook example of an unreliable source.

So, can we go abck tot he purpose of this thread and please stop the "my country your country".

It seems as childish as it sounds.

That's a good idea.

You know, upon reflection, I think I have been a bit too strident. Thought to be fair, none of the arguments from the Nordic sector are good ones... oh Lordy no, seriously, you guys are terrible. It's like you all graduated from fallacy University (Go fighting Fallus! that's for Mym, the sweetheart).

No, rather it occurred to me that there is a nation, which is regularly the subject of misrepresentation in the press, regularly slandered and worked against... that nation, of course, is Israel.

Let's appreciate this lesson from the Swedes: if you read something outrageous in the paper about a nation you are unfamiliar with, just don't believe it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's a good idea.

Indeed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's a good idea.

Yes.

I think the most important bit here is this;

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

Then I apologise for the use of those terms. I was not looking to browbeat people.

The most important element of this discussion is that the discussion is only important because of the imputation of immorality.

What I mean by that is: if the discussion is started by saying that people using, buying and bringing to the store these objectionable miniatures are hurting people, then it's a moral discussion and the implication is that the aforementioned people are acting immorally.

If, however, it's simply a matter of taste, preference and sales, then it's not just not a moral conversation... it's something of an uninteresting conversation.

Don't get me wrong: for any store owner of business operator, 'what will sell and to who' is enormously important. But it's also completely particularized: I have no more insight into what Showcase Comics should be stocking then I have about what should be in your pantry (arguably less insight, since at least in foods there are staples). I have a larger post on this that will probably be posted as it's own thread, so I'll just leave that there.

@Abanshee: I merely like to do conversions and enhance some miniatures so they look like I want them to look. That can be a staff that I want to be more exciting or adding a purse. With Freja Fangbreaker it is also about realism (as much realism there can be in a Fantasy setting). The whole exposed heart while wearing heavy armour on arms and legs makes no sense in-universe. If magic protects you why wear armour at all? If it would be just a dress and she would be a priest or wizard I would go with it.

It is a bit sad that I have to do this in the first place, but I have the miniatures and it is fun to convert them, so I can improve on my greenstuff skills and at the same time make some unique models.

That is maybe something to consider too with miniatures that try to titillate: It often leads to highly unrealistic/impractical combat stances and equipment. Nothing against a bard or sorceress in a titillating outfit, but when it comes to functional armour I prefer something more reasonable.

Another example: If we have a naked Spartan warrior (I don't think that was actually all too common, but there is mention of a Spartan that was fined after fighting in the heroic style ) there is no reason not to have a female equivalent in a Fantasy setting. It would be important what pose the miniature has, however.

So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

2. It is indeed more important to provide an inviting environment for any gamer, no matter the gender or ethnicity. Inclusive miniatures might help to make people more interested in the hobby as they can find themselves represented in it, but people need to be welcoming and not be akward/WAAC.

3. I don't think the goal is to censor anything, but rather to promote the idea that gamers do also want sensible sculpts. Accordingly a companies might react and if a line is successful they will provide more. If you like the cheescake that is cool, but I just think the ratio of cheescake to sensible should be at least 50:50 and I don't think this is the case at the moment.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I think this point here is getting overlooked a little bit.

These heavily sexualised models are not in the spot light in the context of wargaming, at least not that I've seen. We don't need to gently push them aside because are already aside.

There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Can we please please stop pretending that women are unified block. That they all think the same. That "women" don't like x, or that "women" don't like y. Because it is total BS. Woman like any group don't agree on much of anything. Much like all the men arguing back in forth in this thread don't seem to agree on anything either.

I think this is also a good thing to keep in mind to maintain some sanity in the discussion.

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

 Buzzsaw wrote:


The most important element of this discussion is that the discussion is only important because of the imputation of immorality.

What I mean by that is: if the discussion is started by saying that people using, buying and bringing to the store these objectionable miniatures are hurting people, then it's a moral discussion and the implication is that the aforementioned people are acting immorally.

If, however, it's simply a matter of taste, preference and sales, then it's not just not a moral conversation... it's something of an uninteresting conversation.

Don't get me wrong: for any store owner of business operator, 'what will sell and to who' is enormously important. But it's also completely particularized: I have no more insight into what Showcase Comics should be stocking then I have about what should be in your pantry (arguably less insight, since at least in foods there are staples). I have a larger post on this that will probably be posted as it's own thread, so I'll just leave that there.

Is it possible that in fact it is not precisely the case that any individual making, buying, enjoying, etc. miniatures are hurting anyone directly by doing so, just as it is not precisely the case that it is all down to a matter of taste or preference? What if the discussion is about coming to grips with themes and trends within the hobby we all (presumably) share, and thinking about where those themes came from and what they could mean? Some people think that such an examination is worthwhile because they see a gestalt of sex (biologically speaking) and gender depictions that could be construed as forbidding or retrograde from the outside looking in.

It may be in that case that those people (both those interested in an examination of the gestalt, and the hypothetical individuals who are on the outside looking in) do just need to "toughen up" or find themselves a different hobby. However, such a sentiment precludes discussion, which seems obtuse given the venue. If the conversation is uninteresting to someone, it is hard to read their participation as anything but masochism.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

Exactly those who play historical miniatures wouldn't bat an eye if you have Spartans walking naked or naked African tribes miniatures. But the whole idea of these cheesecake miniatures is to appeal to a certain group of customers, and they are an minority, I understand buttery that when playing in a store environment you have be aware of the people that come in and could be offended (especially in certain countries), but if at home i want a slaneesh guro erotic army than i would do that.
But personally i find the exploitation of female sexuality in media and magazines, and don't get me started on music videos, a bigger issue, while this is just a sliver of a larger issue. These prodos miniatures are tame compared to stuff in Japan, when you see some of
the underage sexy figures, and the whole focus on under-aged cutesy models/singers/actresses makes me much more uncomfortable.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

Exactly those who play historical miniatures wouldn't bat an eye if you have Spartans walking naked or naked African tribes miniatures. But the whole idea of these cheesecake miniatures is to appeal to a certain group of customers, and they are an minority, I understand buttery that when playing in a store environment you have be aware of the people that come in and could be offended (especially in certain countries), but if at home i want a slaneesh guro erotic army than i would do that.
But personally i find the exploitation of female sexuality in media and magazines, and don't get me started on music videos, a bigger issue, while this is just a sliver of a larger issue. These prodos miniatures are tame compared to stuff in Japan, when you see some of
the underage sexy figures, and the whole focus on under-aged cutesy models/singers/actresses makes me much more uncomfortable.

There are really two things going on here, and I think you're right (or mostly right) about both of them;

-I think there really is no question that what really made the Prodos Space Crusade miniatures so unfortunate wasn't the nudity, per se, it was that they were aping an established aesthetic, and the nudity made no sense 'in-universe' given the conventions of 40k. It wasn't even the 'armor on the limbs, nothing on the torso' motif by itself: in the Prodos thread I pointed out there are plenty of examples of that, male and female, in fantasy. The problem was that Prodos was (let's be generous) 'lifting' their aesthetic from 40k. Compare that to, for example, the somewhat more cartoony stylings of Warmachine and their steampunk style. Specifically, I saw that one of their older sculpts is recently being redone, Wraith Witch Deneghra;
Old

New

Since the characters have been introduced, Deneghra and Haley have had consistent (and opposite) styles. Most importantly, the styles that each character has fits: Deneghra is a high Defense, low Armor spell-slinger who (in universe) is related to the Warwitch Sirens. A relationship carries over in terms of both armor style and spell list. It's also worth pointing out that Warmachine is more cartoony (the 'stitches' across her abdomen are exactly that: she's been bisected and reconnected, Frankenstein style). As under-dressed as Deneghra is, Haley has (to the best of my knowledge) never had a model that is less than completely covered neck-to-toe.

-The second point, which I would contend really limits the utility of a global conversation, is that ultimately all of this comes down to thousands of micro-environments. Miniature games are played in everything from smokey basement clubs to comic book stores where you might have to move so some kid can get to the Youghio cards. What is encouraged, or even acceptable, at one may be completely forbidden at the other and vice versa.

The problem with these conversations is the tendency to talk about 'the hobby', as if there is such a unified thing. The idea that there is one model, one way to bring people in, is just silly: there is a reason we would never (seriously) talk about, say, what gyms should be doing to get everyone in. Because there is no model that can do so, no unified theory of 'what people want from a gym'.

So when people say 'how do we get more women into the hobby', the real question is 'which women are you trying to get?' I think it was Blood Hawk who pointed this out above: women are just as individual as men, with interests just as varied. The idea then, that there is some overarching flaw, some pervasive 'it' that is putting women off, seems far from reality to me.

Go back to the gym example: there are ironhead gyms, there are aerobic gyms, there are Crossfit 'gyms', there are boxing gyms... there is a lot of mutual exclusivity there. I, for example, go to a mid-range gym (LA Fitness); it has a pool, a very decent weight selection and a bunch of aerobic machines of various types. One of the first things I noticed was how self-segregating it was: you start to see the same faces after a while, and you realize how even though there are options, most people are coming for one particular thing. There are a handful of women working the weights, and while they work it hard, they are outnumbered about 10:1 by women that only ever use the aerobic machines. Conversely, with guys, you notice there is a profile of guys using the weights, and a profile of guys using the elliptical, and there tends to be little crossover. Now, let's imagine that the management came up with the bright idea that they wanted everyone to use all of the areas to the same degree. Does anyone see that being anything but a disaster?

The problem is the women and men on the treadmills aren't avoiding the weights because they are being scared off by the meatheads (by and large): it's because they genuinely don't want to throw around the iron. Conversely, the guy trying to get from 450 to 500 on his bench press isn't avoiding the elliptical out of social pressure... he's avoiding it because cardio sucks and is a waste of his time. Sometimes the hardest thing is to accept that differences in participation doesn't necessarily mean some nefarious system is at work. On the contrary, more and more evidence is accumulating that shows that increasingly divergent outcomes are a product of giving people the freedom to do what they actually want.

Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

In my experience, it is some degree of general disinterest and the fact that the wargaming community caters mostly to men, making those - like me - who delve into it regardless akin to those swimming against the current.

Broadly speaking, women do not seem to have the same interest in war and playing at war that men do. Why that should be I don't know, it could very possibkly be a social-cultural norm that is gradually changing. Lots of women started to role-play in the 70 and 80s.

I doubt very much it is to do with sexualised wargame figures, since these did not exist until fantasy and SF games started to become mainstream in the late 80s. Before then, if you went to a wargame convention it was filled with historicals.

The fact that wargames are dominated by men is probably part of the reason. I don't think there are many women going to model railway shows, and there's no sexualisation at all. It's cultural bias.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

Quite a lot of reasons. I mean, hell, you could ask....

Why, then, do most men not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

...given, ya know, most men aren't part of the war gaming community

This isn't going to be an exhaustive list and I'm sure others can add to it or put it more eloquently, but these things initially come to mind....

1. Less interest in war to begin with. This is a societal issue (not necessarily going to call it a "problem" ) more than an issue specifically with wargaming.

2. Less nerdy women than there are men. You have to be at least a little bit nerdy to care about wargames, especially the sci-fi and fantasy variety and there tend to be less nerdy women than men to begin with. A large swath of society only has a very passing interest in things sci-fi and fantasy, they might go see the next Star Wars or Star Trek, they might have watched and enjoyed Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, very few (be they male or female, but more so female) have the nerd-like interest to go out and buy little toy figures to paint up and put on a table and go "pew pew pew" with a few friends.

3. It not being seen as a productive way to waste time by much of society. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is more off-putting to women than it is to men.

4. The smelly teenage boys and creepy old guys playing with kid's toys stereotypes.... that are often largely true. I've taken non-wargaming male friends in to wargaming shops and walking out they comment how it reinforced their stereotypes. At a guess I'd say this dissuades more women than it does men from joining up in the first place.

5. War itself has historically and still is a male dominated arena.

Somewhere very far down the list you might find "lack of modestly proportioned female models", "male dominated scifi and fantasy factions" and "cheesecake models". I'm not even sure cheesecake models would even register as I'd think most people would have made up their mind before they even hit their first cheesecake model, and I think it's as likely to attract some females as it is to scare off others.

Times are changing. Take a game like WoW - one of the most infamously neckbeardy video games around. Its gender ratio is surprisingly even. Not completely even, but it's much closer to being even than people think it is.

I suspect this will spread to wargaming as cultural norms evolve and people consider what they would not previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

3. It not being seen as a productive way to waste time by much of society. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is more off-putting to women than it is to men.

Three words: Facebook and Instagram.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Somewhere very far down the list you might find "lack of modestly proportioned female models", "male dominated scifi and fantasy factions" and "cheesecake models". I'm not even sure cheesecake models would even register as I'd think most people would have made up their mind before they even hit their first cheesecake model, and I think it's as likely to attract some females as it is to scare off others.

I suspect it would really help. Men have everything from slim and agile Eldar to average (outside the absurd Cadian models, anyway, though models like FW DKoK are very realistically proportioned) IG, heroically strong Space Marines and even brutish Ogryns depending on preference. This is a variety that, for female models, pretty much does not exist. Female models without gratitous boobplate, such as some Victoria Miniatures, is so rare as to become famous for that alone, and if you want someone like Zarya or Mei from Overwatch you are SOL.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Times are changing. Take a game like WoW - one of the most infamously neckbeardy video games around. Its gender ratio is surprisingly even. Not completely even, but it's much closer to being even than people think it is.

I suspect this will spread to wargaming as cultural norms evolve and people consider what they would not previously.

Do you have any indication of the number of women in WoW? I googled and found one source that said 35%, without quoting a source. The server stats say currently 38% female, but I'm pretty sure that's 38% female CHARACTERS not PLAYERS. Plenty of dudes play female characters in games, when it comes to MMORPGs (of which I haven't played many and I've never played WoW) I often alternate my characters, male - female - male.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if women penetrate the MMORPG and even physical RPG markets far more easily than they do the wargaming market. MMORPGs and RPGs are still a much more inherently social activity than wargaming.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

3. It not being seen as a productive way to waste time by much of society. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is more off-putting to women than it is to men.

Three words: Facebook and Instagram.

True that FB and IG might not be viewed as productive, but they are definitely more socially acceptable ways of wasting time. I've personally never been a FB fan, I only made an account because the groups I was hanging around in University would use FB to organise events... so basically I joined FB to avoid being a social outcast rather than the other way around


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Somewhere very far down the list you might find "lack of modestly proportioned female models", "male dominated scifi and fantasy factions" and "cheesecake models". I'm not even sure cheesecake models would even register as I'd think most people would have made up their mind before they even hit their first cheesecake model, and I think it's as likely to attract some females as it is to scare off others.

I suspect it would really help. Men have everything from slim and agile Eldar to average (outside the absurd Cadian models, anyway, though models like FW DKoK are very realistically proportioned) IG, heroically strong Space Marines and even brutish Ogryns depending on preference. This is a variety that, for female models, pretty much does not exist. Female models without gratitous boobplate, such as some Victoria Miniatures, is so rare as to become famous for that alone, and if you want someone like Zarya or Mei from Overwatch you are SOL.

I'd still hazard a guess that it's further down the list, I think most women (like most men) would have made up their mind on wargaming before they even reach the point of knowing the lack of big beefy female warriors or non-boob-plate female warriors.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Do you have any indication of the number of women in WoW? I googled and found one source that said 35%, without quoting a source. The server stats say currently 38% female, but I'm pretty sure that's 38% female CHARACTERS not PLAYERS. Plenty of dudes play female characters in games, when it comes to MMORPGs (of which I haven't played many and I've never played WoW) I often alternate my characters, male - female - male.

I am on my phone and can't easily do thorough digging (Praise Dakka for eating surprisingly little bandwidth!) but I found this statistic at a glance.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/240998/gender-split-of-mmo-gamers-in-the-us/

Even the infamous Call of Duty, which used to be all but exclusively a boys' club, has about 20% female players and the percentage is rising.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/call-of-duty-ghosts-shakes-up-venerable-video-game-1.2355531

 Kojiro wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

In the case of cosplayers the women have agency, in other words, it is their choice not mens'.

It's the same reason as when black people use the term "ni**er" compared to when white people use it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

That is a wide blanket statement that serves no purpose and has no actual data.

its like me asking "why men not feel like been part of the quilting community?"

Does it serve a purpose? no.

There has been a big discussion over Extra Credits mainly about FPS but still the question is the same, do female players really want to play this type of game? I stand with James that gender does not preclude someone from enjoying a gender, it has more to do with social pressure and wargames already have a social pressure stigma on them regardless of gender.

So what are the barriers to enter the wargaming hobby regardless of gender really? social pressure, the hobby itself (it requires you to assemble and possibly paint the models and then display them to others), the theme, time invested, cost, aesthetics, maybe something more I forget.

I think the female player who passes all those barriers would not then look at the really few examples of cheesecake miniatures (if they even exist in the genre she chooses) and say "that's it I am out" I firmly believe the social pressure is the one most critical aspect of joining the wargaming hobby for both genders, males been slightly easier because it is more socially accepted for them (as accepted can be the opinion that they are men who have not grown enouph and stil play with toy soldiers), most outside observers will never see KDM, prodos space crusade, Hasslefree or whatever other cheesecake miniature you can think of, they will see grown human playing with toy soldiers and move on (unfortunate they miss a great hobby but hey) those that will be interested in my opinion will not stop because of the naked models somewhere.

As it has already been said above humans are varied and have different tastes and opinions about EVERYTHING, clumping all females in a stereotypical, puritanical, mindset, that are offended of everything female depicted that has even the slightest hint of sexuality (or worse) is as bad as assuming the exact opposite and not accepting there will be uncountable shades of grey between the two extremes and most will be in the middle of the "don't care" camp.

Anecdotal I know, but I ran a booth last year in the first big "geek con" in my country promoting wargaming and Infinity in general, didn't get any bad comments from female attendants for the models, I even got a few positive comments from them for some of the female models (some were happily surprised to see female models).

There are quite a few good reasons why wargame models are designed as they are and a sexualised pose and gender specific attributes help define the aesthetic of a small figure that is intended to be seen from quite some distance and be recognizable and this goes for both genders (the excuse for male models that it is a power fantasy is weak in my opinion), of course sex does sell and it is attested by many of the big manufacturers willing to discuss it but I do not think it is out of line in this industry.

There will be a part of the industry that will test the waters of a more mature and niche theme like KDM and prodos Space Crusade and I think that this is great in a healthy industry, stagnation leads to ruins.

If somebody wants to try the exact opposite niche they can try and see the results, that would be great too.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
(the excuse for male models that it is a power fantasy is weak in my opinion)

That's funny, male models seem to be able to wear armour that does not exaggerate their sexual characteristics just fine.

Consider yourself in the same situation. You are going to start wargaming, and you want to play a male army. People tell you 'the models must have gratuitous pecs or shoulders the width of a tank, often both, because if it isn't obviously male at a glance why not just make it a female'.

If you kept hearing this over and over, wouldn't it feel pretty dumb?

So what does that mean? If a woman wants to sculpt or play with sexy models its ok because its a womans choice?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
(the excuse for male models that it is a power fantasy is weak in my opinion)

That's funny, male models seem to be able to wear armour that does not exaggerate their sexual characteristics just fine.

Or not wear armour in the parts were body building muscles have to be shown, were armour even plain clothing would be quite practical, overall body mass is skewed towards at least "too athletic" and usually way too pumped and many usual body types are not present at all if you can except caricatures.

I am not going to quote you but victoria models, Zaria and Mai have the "boobplate" phenomenon in one form or the other, they just look better/ more reasonable?

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Do you have any indication of the number of women in WoW? I googled and found one source that said 35%, without quoting a source. The server stats say currently 38% female, but I'm pretty sure that's 38% female CHARACTERS not PLAYERS. Plenty of dudes play female characters in games, when it comes to MMORPGs (of which I haven't played many and I've never played WoW) I often alternate my characters, male - female - male.

I am on my phone and can't easily do thorough digging (Praise Dakka for eating surprisingly little bandwidth!) but I found this statistic at a glance.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/240998/gender-split-of-mmo-gamers-in-the-us/

Even the infamous Call of Duty, which used to be all but exclusively a boys' club, has about 20% female players and the percentage is rising.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/call-of-duty-ghosts-shakes-up-venerable-video-game-1.2355531

Your first link wants me to pay $50 a year to see the sources. I tend to not believe stats without the sources to put them in context.

Your second link says the numbers come from Activision, again I'd like to see how they got those stats. I don't recall ever having to put down my sex when signing up for a CoD game though I haven't played the recent ones, but even if I did, how many people are going to lie? Rarely do I give correct personal information over the internet unless I have to. Maybe it's from credit card info, in which case how many kids are using Mommy's CC instead of Daddy's?

The anonymity of online gaming makes it exceedingly difficult to determine realistic stats about the basement dwellers playing. The best you could probably do is look at events and hope that a similar balance of males/females exists in homes as it does at events.

Zarya and Mei not only have relatively toned-down boobplate, especially Mei, but they also have body shapes (weightlifter and stocky, respectively) that are a bit exaggerated like all of the game's art style but still quite believable, which are all but non-existent among our models.

I would not put them in the non-sexist category, at all, there are people who like those body types a lot.

Now in the Extra Credits they made a few discussions that theme and not the nature of the game could be more important to be appealing for a female player, I know they talk about CG but still, making an argument for example about an FPS were a mother guides her children through a warzone.

I am not sure if that really has ground but I would like to hear opinions about it.

Allow me to propose a (for the sake of argument), a biological basis. That is, tabletop wargaming appeals to characteristics that are most commonly distributed among males.



As I alluded to before, when people with options exhibit differences along sex lines, it doesn't hurt to ask "are these differences due to the fact that men and women really are profoundly different?"

It's also worth pointing out, as was alluded to above, war gaming is not a popular hobby. When I did a post mortem on Maelstrom's Edge, Legoburner was kind enough to reply in detail; on of his points was this astonighing (to me) statistic;

 legoburner wrote:
...By our calculations, the market size for Maelstrom's Edge on kickstarter was/is dramatically less than the retail market, with a total upper limit of around 1300 people (compared to way over 5 figures at retail - 40k for reference is about 200K active players as of 2 years ago by our calculations). We managed to get 63% of that market which is not a bad result in our eyes, but perfect marketing (including much higher expense) would have let us get closer to 80% or so....

200,000 players, worldwide, for 40k. That's it. I think we can all agree that 40k was the most popular sci-fi tabletop game, but to put it in perspective, the football stadium at Texas A&M seats 100,000 people... for a college football team.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

In the case of cosplayers the women have agency, in other words, it is their choice not mens'.

It's the same reason as when black people use the term "ni**er" compared to when white people use it.

So wait what are saying? That the characters that women dress up as at conventions are the equivalent to people calling black people the n word? I have an odd feeling that there are many female cosplayers that would like have a word with you if that is the case.

Because I am pretty positive that female cosplayers dress up as those characters because they love them and think they are a positive thing, not because they are offensive. You know "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" and all that. And really don't thing black people use the n word because the love and think it is a positive thing.



Also a thing to keep in mind though is that men and women aren't attracted to the same things in the opposite sex as far as physical characteristics go. Men are attracted to women's breasts while vice verca isn't true.

Also I made another point earlier about male power fantasies and female sexual fantasies. That they can often be interchangeable. There are strong heroic men with big muscles saving women in many super hero stories, which are popular with men and boys. However similar things pop up in Romance novels, which cater more to women.

Also many of the characters or figs that you might point to as being male sexual fantasies are often popular with many women. Hence female cosplayers.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Allow me to propose a (for the sake of argument), a biological basis. That is, tabletop wargaming appeals to characteristics that are most commonly distributed among males.

Is that anything like the arguments which state that aptitude towards science and math are more commonly distributed among males? Just asking because it's not clear how rhetorical your devil's advocacy is.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

In the case of cosplayers the women have agency, in other words, it is their choice not mens'.

It's the same reason as when black people use the term "ni**er" compared to when white people use it.

So wait what are saying? That the characters that women dress up at conventions are the equalivent to people calling black people the n word? I have an odd feeling that there are many female cosplayers that would like have a word with you if that is the case.

What I am saying is that you deciding to do something for yourself is different to someone else deciding that you will do something for them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

In the case of cosplayers the women have agency, in other words, it is their choice not mens'.

It's the same reason as when black people use the term "ni**er" compared to when white people use it.

So wait what are saying? That the characters that women dress up at conventions are the equalivent to people calling black people the n word? I have an odd feeling that there are many female cosplayers that would like have a word with you if that is the case.

What I am saying is that you deciding to do something for yourself is different to someone else deciding that you will do something for them.

Once again you are avoiding the question. Are female characters that women cosplay as negative or harmful?

 solkan wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Allow me to propose a (for the sake of argument), a biological basis. That is, tabletop wargaming appeals to characteristics that are most commonly distributed among males.

Is that anything like the arguments which state that aptitude towards science and math are more commonly distributed among males? Just asking because it's not clear how rhetorical your devil's advocacy is.

I'm not well researched in the area, but the references Buzzsaw provided were to toy preferences. That's something that can be analysed at a very early age, supposedly (I'm not entirely convinced) early enough to try and separate nature from nurture.

Aptitude for science and math is something that can't be analysed early enough to make a meaningful statement about nature vs nurture. Even in primary school it's hard because the methods of thinking required for primary school math and science is fundamentally different to that required for university level math and science (I know several people who struggled with basic math but excelled at abstract math). Personally it wouldn't surprise me at all if one sex statistically has a better chance of grasping certain concepts, though I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which way.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

In the case of cosplayers the women have agency, in other words, it is their choice not mens'.

It's the same reason as when black people use the term "ni**er" compared to when white people use it.

So wait what are saying? That the characters that women dress up at conventions are the equalivent to people calling black people the n word? I have an odd feeling that there are many female cosplayers that would like have a word with you if that is the case.

What I am saying is that you deciding to do something for yourself is different to someone else deciding that you will do something for them.

Once again you are avoiding the question. Are female characters that women cosplay as negative or harmful?

I hadn't realised that was the question. i don't know what the answer is.

To expand on that, I don't personally object to sexy miniatures per se, but I do recognise that the fact that I don't, does not give me an automatic right to have them regardless of other people's opinions on the matter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I hadn't realised that was the question. i don't know what the answer is.

To expand on that, I don't personally object to sexy miniatures per se, but I do recognise that the fact that I don't, does not give me an automatic right to have them regardless of other people's opinions on the matter.

That fine. I was asking that question because by saying that women dressing up as characters is somehow equivalent to black people using the n word is therefore implying that these characters are equivalent to the n word. That is something that those female cosplayers would strongly disagree with.

What I meant was that if black people claim the N word for their own, that is their decision, and it is different to white people forcing it on them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What I meant was that if black people claim the N word for their own, that is their decision, and it is different to white people forcing it on them.

I understand what you are trying to say now but just understand that women embrace female characters for radically different reasons than black people do with the n word.

@Buzzsaw Men and Women aren't profoundly different, at least in my experience. Gender differences tend to be cultural differences. When my daughter wears a spider-man shirt to school it's note worthy for some of her peers but not others. She doesn't understand why they care as an example. There are differences between male and female but even those are blurry at best.

As far as gaming in general is concerned, I'm worried that teenage girls lets say 12-14,The demo I think TWG would appeal too most, might be put off by over sexualized minis. Boys just don't deal with the same level of shame/akwardbess that girls of that age do.

@Kilkrazy
I think I see the point your making but I think that equating N* too cosplay is a little too far.
The jist I think is that by taking back something used to harm people (N*/Sexuality) is empowering.

We could also talk about how culturally sexy= powerful for women. I assume that a bad *ss female character without the over-sexualized look would appeal just as much to the girls being raised in a more gender neutral world.

Mostly I concerned that the choice isn't really there at all. I can name three companies off the top my head making cool non-sexualized mini's.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be sexy or should be ashamed of wanting to be sexy. I care about the choice and it just isn't there.

I'm not equating the N word with cosplay. I am trying to point out what "agency" means by reference to things a lot of people understand. Once people understand the concept of agency, it can be applied to other situations.

@Kilkrazy I get that, freewill is only good if the culture around you is supportive. Despite people with freewill making a choice it's limited by a number of factors, at least when those people care about the social standards. I think that's why free spirits are portrayed using the stereotypical bohemian life style in western culture. It's hard to be truly free if your living up too your end of the social contract.

Equates was a poor choice of words, I should have said compare. Both can be used as a shield or as a weapon. Socially using N* in a positive way is still more acceptable in most social circles than women who express their sexuality in my opinion.

I can't speak for other women as likes and dislikes as to their reasons. Social issues with peer pressure and stigma's have been brought up, but these are also effected by environment locally and regionally. As conventions are starting to bridge gaps, gaming at anime conventions, cosplay at normal gaming conventions, etc these gaps start to shrink but there are many factors. It isn't an easy discussion to just say it is because of X or Y.

I can however speak for my wife and the women in my game group as this is a discussion that happens frequently. We have a game group of 20 people, 8 of the people are couples either dating and married. There are also another 3 women in our game group as well, so the breakdown is 13 males, 7 women. The majority of the game group is mostly board gamers and RPGers. When we discuss things on why they aren't interested in miniatures games there are a few factors that are common, none of it has ever been centered around female sexualized miniatures though.

Traditionally miniatures games have a fairly steep learning curve. There is a lot of information to keep in mind and process when trying to be competitive. Our group is casual and not competitive but it takes a certain environment to ease these two different styles of groups together. No one likes to lose games, especially when you invest a couple hours in a game. Board games tend to be 30-45 minutes on average so in the time of one miniatures game, we can get 4-5 board games in which they may win 30% but there are wins compared to one game with no wins. It is discouraging. That isn't all women though but I am generalizing it.

The other factor actually does come down to miniatures but not sexualized females. They actually don't care about that, they would prefer there were more miniatures targeted towards them. They have different views on opinions on what they find attractive (Chris Hemsworth vs Akashi Jin vs Brad Pitt) but none of these types tend to exist in miniatures gaming. They are bulky, grizzled veterans with beards smoking manly cigars for the most part. It isn't that there are sexualized females, there isn't a lot of sexualized males unless you are doing Conan (to be fair not a lot of women find Conan attractive). So there is nothing visually that draws them in. Now there are elves, there are some alien races that can attract them but for the masses of human models there isn't a lot of choices.

There is a shift to more objective type of game play for miniature vs elimination. That does help a bit. There is also the aspect they assimilate and learn things differently than most of us. Most of us trudged through the hobby, learned by smacking our heads against the wall. I mean in most environments you learned just by playing over and over and observing. There is a lot of "outside" time devoted to miniature gaming, not just painting and assembly but strategy around playing. Board games and RPG tend to be limited responses to plays and easier to pick up. Many people just aren't willing to devote that time to playing. They play games and when they are done they do other things, not spend time researching or learning.

The high learning curve and competitiveness also leads us to not being a welcome environment. Back when I was heavy into Magic and WoW TCG, that was one of the limiting factors. Although WoW tended to be more inviting environment to women but that was mostly due to WoW MMO, it still could easily become an unwelcoming environment and it usually isn't intentional.

Board games with miniatures and cooperative games help bridge this gap. Getting them to play Super Dungeon Explorer, Zombicide, etc is easier and they tend to have fun as it is a group effort with more people involved. They are easier to pick up and understand the mechanics vs miniatures with LoS, movement, psychic, magic, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Once again you are avoiding the question. Are female characters that women cosplay as negative or harmful?

If they are harmful or negative is subjective. For a good portion of 'options' that women have as choices to cosplay as... Yes there is a fairly large group that views those types of characters as negative and harmful, although that tends to revolve around sexualization. There are also an almost equal number that view them as strong, powerful choices to cosplay as.

The question by itself doesn't mean anything without any real further background. Are they negative or harmful as in what way and to whom? The question you ask is way too general and can easily be answered yes and no.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 solkan wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Allow me to propose a (for the sake of argument), a biological basis. That is, tabletop wargaming appeals to characteristics that are most commonly distributed among males.

Is that anything like the arguments which state that aptitude towards science and math are more commonly distributed among males? Just asking because it's not clear how rhetorical your devil's advocacy is.

I'm not well researched in the area, but the references Buzzsaw provided were to toy preferences. That's something that can be analysed at a very early age, supposedly (I'm not entirely convinced) early enough to try and separate nature from nurture.

First, let me make something clear I should have in my earlier post: that video is not from some random guy on YouTube, but from Gaad Saad, Professor, "holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption". It's basically a video presentation of his lay article on the evolutionary basis of toy selection (lots of links in that article).

So, forgive me when I'm a little unclear on what you (Solkan) mean by "devil's advocacy"; that toy preferences in children are subject to innate sex differences is, I would say, pretty standard for anyone interested in evolutionary biology or evolutionary phsychology. (Unless you were making a very obscure pun on evolution as the devil's work, in which case, bravo!)

Now, that is dealing with small children, and it is not the whole of my argument: that is the baseline assumption for my proposal. Which is, that differences in interest in table top wargames is largely a consequence of innate differences in interests.

This is one reason why I think it's important to point out how few TT wargamers there are: that an already rare trait (interest in TTGs) would skew along sex lines is completely unsurprising once one accepts the sexes as innately different.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Aptitude for science and math is something that can't be analysed early enough to make a meaningful statement about nature vs nurture. Even in primary school it's hard because the methods of thinking required for primary school math and science is fundamentally different to that required for university level math and science (I know several people who struggled with basic math but excelled at abstract math). Personally it wouldn't surprise me at all if one sex statistically has a better chance of grasping certain concepts, though I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which way.

I don't want to delve too deeply into the nuances of sex differences, but I did want to point out that once one takes biological reality into account, a lot of questions get turned on their head. This is one: why, after all, would one expect a sexually dimorphic species like homo sapiens to exhibit no sex diversity with regards to traits like aptitudes?

Which goes back to my earlier point: what if there simply isn't a commercially significant number of women that are being 'kept out of the hobby'? I'm not saying there is no utility in increasing advertising to girls, for example (it's hard to gauge interest when so many people don't know about the product at all), but I think it's worth challenging this underlying assumption that 'but for X, more women would be playing.'

There is, after all, a certain amount of futility in directing a great deal of effort in attracting a group that may not exist (at least, not in any great numbers).

I will have to call BS on him despite his really impressive title, I was not aware that "scientists" ever tried to make a theory of tying social aspects on biology and calling them "evolutionary psychology" that was an interesting read.

So after science decried those who insisted the measurements of ones body dictates what they will become and do, they try again with more "elaborate" theories.

He even says colour choices are dictated by biology, no, just no.

I will agree that there are biological differences between male and female humans, we are sexually diverse species after all, but social behavior been dictated by biology? no.

Yes, I realize quite a few pages ago that I also said that the potential female player base may be small, but I believe its because of social pressure, preconceptions and gender roles society enforces on genders, not "biology".

as it relates to the topic:

Bad Suiddo just released a new range of 28mm Red Army female soldiers:

http://thedicebaglady.net/bad-squiddo-games-women-of-the-red-army/



I think they do look female (shape of the face) and tailoring of the uniform. Also nice that this historical topic gets some exposure.

 Dark Severance wrote:
The question by itself doesn't mean anything without any real further background. Are they negative or harmful as in what way and to whom? The question you ask is way too general and can easily be answered yes and no.

Let me see if I can restate my question to be more specific.

There is a claim that certain depictions of women that are in some fashion harmful or negatively impact real women. This can be through various vectors from teaching me to objectify women to body shaming with unattainable figures. The exact form of the harm doesn't actually matter so long as we can agree that it is in fact harmful.

The claim that there is harm is the essential core of the moral argument. Because if there is no harm, the complaints loose all moral authority. They become nothing more than subjective opinions. Nothing more than 'stop liking what I don't like!'

Now if seeing a tiny pewter statue of a woman is going to cause harm- if that example crosses the harm threshold- how could a fully grown woman copying it be anything less? For example, if a picture or miniature of Red Sonja in her chainmail bikini is distressing, how much worse to see it in real life?

I understand that the cosplayer has the agency and choice to dress like that- which I fully support- but it seems like an inconsistency to decry a model of Red Sonja while approving of an actual Red Sonja. If the depiction is harmful, I fail to see how the genitals of the person doing the depicting makes it acceptable in some fashion.

I feel like this thread can be sumerized as:

"The trend is usely male miniatures are the men the cis-male gamer wants to me, and the women are the women that the cis-male gamer wants to be with. This is because the Cis-Male is the main demographic for Wargameing."

People are taking notice now, because in other fantasy media their has been recognition of making a wider variety of representations because this means more people of different backgrounds will be able to find characters they can relate to. This generally also makes for better stories and deeper worlds, but most importantly to companies means wider appeal to more people you can sell to. But Wargameing for the most part has been lagging behind in regards to this trend, to the point that people are starting to take notice.


Disclaimer: I know I just made a bunch of huge generalizations, and that there are exceptions. What I'm trying to get at is that this is more the historic trends in the industry, and trends have have started appearing in other industries. Compare Modern Role playing games to classic ones to see this evolution. I think here on dakka many people lament the fact that Wargameing feels like it's lagging behind other more progressive IP's.

Mostly I wanted to try and speculate about how market forces could play a role in these changes.

It also needs to be said the elephant in the room in all of this is Games-Workshop's Warhammer games. Well industry leader RPG books like D&D and pathfinder have been moving towards more inclusive depictions of characters, We have not seen this in the warhammers. In fact, the reboot of fantesy with Age-of-Sigmar and introduction of the stormcasts would of been a perfect time to make add a more gender inclusive army. Instead we got the space mariens 2.0 "boys only" club with the storm cast eternals.

The main argument of agency is a real person chooses to do what they do, but a fictional character is "enslaved" to the will of its creator.

A logic I cannot really follow, it can be used against any and every fictional character for every aspect of their existence.

Depictions in themselves are not necessarily harmful, else doctors would be terrible rapists etc because they spend a fair amount of time learning about bodies in anatomy classes.

What is possibly harmful is the presentation of the display, owing to the social and mental attitudes that surround it.

Personally I think cosplayers are perhaps suspect for buying into an often clearly fetishistic display of female attraction -- depending on the character. This would be because they are victims of false consciousness. They have been conditioned to think that their proper role is to display themselves for the delectation of primarily male onlookers.

There are male cosplayers too, of course.

So you rule out any possibility they like it and cosplay give them the freedom to dress in a way society would not approve?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I will have to call BS on him despite his really impressive title, I was not aware that "scientists" ever tried to make a theory of tying social aspects on biology and calling them "evolutionary psychology" that was an interesting read.

So after science decried those who insisted the measurements of ones body dictates what they will become and do, they try again with more "elaborate" theories.

He even says colour choices are dictated by biology, no, just no.

I will agree that there are biological differences between male and female humans, we are sexually diverse species after all, but social behavior been dictated by biology? no.

Yes, I realize quite a few pages ago that I also said that the potential female player base may be small, but I believe its because of social pressure, preconceptions and gender roles society enforces on genders, not "biology".

It's funny, this comment brought to mind a story that one of my thesis advisers (I want to say Dan Weinstein) told me back when I was in grad school;

He was at a conference, sitting at a table with other developmental biologists, talking about their various areas of research. One of them was researching a compound used in olfactory signalling; what was so interesting about it was that the receptors for this compound had differential expression in humans, with only females expressing the olfactory receptors necessary to smell it.
"In fact, I have some right here," the researcher said, producing a bottle from his pocket.
'Eh... I dunno about that" said one of his colleagues at the table, "let's have a sniff, this seems far fetched."
So they popped open the bottle and around it was passed, each man taking a sniff deeper then the last and proclaiming "I think I smell something."
The bottle was making it's way around the table until, at last, the only woman among the colleagues, hand on her forehead, fingers pinching her nose, interjected "Could you dumb-asses close that? You're going to make me puke over here!"

The moral being: even the most scientifically sophisticated people have trouble accepting things that challenge their world view.

It's important to understand that, but at the same time to understand that when you do what you seem to be doing, rejecting evolutionary psychology as a discipline, you're making a statement of belief. That is, you're not registering a complaint about a study being used, nor quarreling with the methodology: your objection is not that they are failing to prove their point, but that such a point could be proven. Now that's fine, you're entitled to reject evolutionary psychology as a part, just a creationists are entitled to reject evolution as a whole.

It is also, however, important to understand that there is a difference between attributes influenced by inherent biological factors, and biological or racial (or sexual) determinism, as we see here;

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Depictions in themselves are not necessarily harmful, else doctors would be terrible rapists etc because they spend a fair amount of time learning about bodies in anatomy classes.

What is possibly harmful is the presentation of the display, owing to the social and mental attitudes that surround it.

Personally I think cosplayers are perhaps suspect for buying into an often clearly fetishistic display of female attraction -- depending on the character. This would be because they are victims of false consciousness. They have been conditioned to think that their proper role is to display themselves for the delectation of primarily male onlookers.

There are male cosplayers too, of course.

For those that don't know, 'false consciousness' is a term of Marxist origins that was at first used to explain the failings of Marxist pseudoscience to predict the actions of people according to 'class'. Now it is usually used as a more polite way to say a black man is an Oreo (or Cornball brother), an Asian man is a banana, or a woman is "conditioned by an androcentric society". It is an essentialist term, and is fundamentally linked to the idea that certain groups of people have "authentic" modes of thinking, and diverting from that represents a loss of race/class/gender authenticity.

Let's be clear that is not what evolutionary psychology is about: evolutionary psychology instead critiques Biological Determinism as nonsensical.

Science and religion have base in faith, the difference is science puts faith in having the principles right and religion puts faith as the end reason.

So yes, I am making a statement of belief if you will, I have no faith in that disciplines principles.

As I said I agree there are biological differences between humans, I am not denying that, but I do not believe biology dictating social behavior.

The data presented on the initial video you showed seems to be more a "I chose to interpret what I have in the way I want them to be" than science.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

For the same reason most men do not feel like being part of a scrap booking community.

We, generally speaking, like different stuff.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The moral being: even the most scientifically sophisticated people have trouble accepting things that challenge their world view.

As I said previously, I'm not well researched on the topic so I don't intend to make broad sweeping statements. The reason I said "I'm not entirely convinced" was not because it challenges my world but because in the video you linked I can see potential for holes between the facts he is stating and the conclusions he is drawing, but without reading all the papers he quoted I'm not willing to make a judgement one way or the other and I currently don't have the time to do that, so without a more compelling argument I shall remain in limbo for now.

Obviously being a Professor (which you didn't have to make clear, I noticed it all by myself TYVM )makes his opinion more credible than your average forum dweller, but I've spent enough time surrounded by people with the title of Professor at respected Universities to know not to trust someone based on their title. As someone who has spent considerable time working as a researcher as well, reviews and summaries like that are useful but I'll always go back to the original studies to form an opinion based on how valid I think the testing methodology was.

Also, FWIW, I also really hate watching videos of people talking My colleagues seem to love it, I hate spending 15 minutes watching a video that I could have read in 5 and gotten more out of it.

 Lockark wrote:

Disclaimer: I know I just made a bunch of huge generalizations, and that there are exceptions. What I'm trying to get at is that this is more the historic trends in the industry, and trends have have started appearing in other industries. Compare Modern Role playing games to classic ones to see this evolution. I think here on dakka many people lament the fact that Wargameing feels like it's lagging behind other more progressive IP's.

To an extent but personally I find oversexualised miniatures in poor taste, in general at least. It simply looks cheap in the same way that inappropriately oversexualised women (and occasionally men these days) make other mediums look cheap. It may be entirely appropriate for the specific project, in which case I don't mind, but titillation is its usual function.

'Feminism' has little to do with my view.

About 10 years ago I encountered one of the most well crafted armies that I have ever seen. It was a Warhammer Chaos army (before it was split of into various factions) and it was heavily converted to the extent that much of it was handmade (the deamons were giant maggots) and it was well painted, it looked extremely impressive on the table.
The problem with it is that it a strong motif of vaginally impaled women, every unit had one as a standard and there were quite a few scattered around the deamon units. This was entirely appropriate given the context of the army but on the other hand it was uncomfortable viewing (which actually increased the impact of the army to be fair) it also asked quite a lot of questions about the guy who made the army.

This thread brought that army to mind and to be honest I'm still not sure if I approve of it or not.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So you rule out any possibility they like it and cosplay give them the freedom to dress in a way society would not approve?

Society clearly has an ambivalent attitude to these costumes. There are so many video games that feature them, and such popular events. Against that, there is also the annual shenanigans of the Booth Babe at E3, and so on.

But to address the question properly, I think the situation is too complex to have an easy explanation. Fancy dress is a very old activity and cosplay is merely a modern variation. Clearly there are a lot of people who just enjoy dressing up for the party atmosphere, the social aspect, and probably the crafting skills too.

OTOH there are people who crave attention, and in some cases they are happy for that to come from a crowd of leering men, because this is pretty easy to get by being a nubile young woman, dressing in a skimpy outfit, and going to a games convention. This is where the idea of false conciousness comes into it. Someone validating their choice by conformation to the preferences of the audience is not making a true choice of their own volition even if they think they are. Of course some of them may be doing it knowingly as an ironic tease or soemthing.

I don't think cosplay is a bad thing, but there are some dubious aspects to it.

Ah ok, you sounded too absolute in that statement.

There are dubious aspects in every part of life so I do not see cosplay been any different.

I am not sure I agree with the false consciousness assessment, but I can see what you mean.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So you rule out any possibility they like it and cosplay give them the freedom to dress in a way society would not approve?

It's called "internalising misogyny".

And yes, it's a load of bull.

You know it´s quite feisty to make a passionate defense of not dismissing fields of study because they contradict your personal opinions, then in the next paragraph dismissing a field you dont personally agree with as "pseudoscience"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OTOH there are people who crave attention, and in some cases they are happy for that to come from a crowd of leering men, because this is pretty easy to get by being a nubile young woman, dressing in a skimpy outfit, and going to a games convention. This is where the idea of false conciousness comes into it. Someone validating their choice by conformation to the preferences of the audience is not making a true choice of their own volition even if they think they are. Of course some of them may be doing it knowingly as an ironic tease or soemthing.

I don't think cosplay is a bad thing, but there are some dubious aspects to it.

So if a woman desires attention, and dresses in a manner to appeal to a specific audience that would give her that attention she didn't actually make a choice for herself? Unless she does it "ironically" somehow? Is that what you're saying? That if a woman uses her sexuality to get something for herself it's not of her own volition?

If a girl cosplayer goes to Tokyo Game Show as Kasumi out of Dead Or Alive, what is the benefit she is getting?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a girl cosplayer goes to Tokyo Game Show as Kasumi out of Dead Or Alive, what is the benefit she is getting?

Attention, to show off time spent at the gym, display of her tailoring skill, and/or to meet other people that share her interests?

 Buzzsaw wrote:


First, let me make something clear I should have in my earlier post: that video is not from some random guy on YouTube, but from Gaad Saad, Professor, "holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption". It's basically a video presentation of his lay article on the evolutionary basis of toy selection (lots of links in that article).

So, forgive me when I'm a little unclear on what you (Solkan) mean by "devil's advocacy"; that toy preferences in children are subject to innate sex differences is, I would say, pretty standard for anyone interested in evolutionary biology or evolutionary phsychology. (Unless you were making a very obscure pun on evolution as the devil's work, in which case, bravo!)

When you read the research articles cited, and those they in turn cite, you notice that while males significantly favor wheeled toys, female preference is variable to the point that a significant attraction one way or the other (to wheeled toys vs. dolls, plush things, etc. varies by study) is not often determined. The difference then is the presence vs. the absence of uniformity of preference across genders, which is interesting in light of this discussion.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a girl cosplayer goes to Tokyo Game Show as Kasumi out of Dead Or Alive, what is the benefit she is getting?

Attention, to show off time spent at the gym, display of her tailoring skill, and/or to meet other people that share her interests?

To show they are a fan, they are literally wearing it on their sleeve, socializing with meetups to do group cosplays, events with prizes (not sure if they have that at Tokyo Game Show but just reference to conventions in general).

I feel like that is like saying, what benefit does any miniature gamer get by playing with a painted miniature... or miniatures at all. Why not just tokens and play the rules? There is no benefit to the miniatures painted or unpainted.

Why not ask the question of what benefit is derived from playing with model figures?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why not ask the question of what benefit is derived from playing with model figures?

I'm more curious into whether there was anything you wanted to expand upon regarding the benefits of a cosplayer going to a convention, or it was a genuine question asking what benefit would a person receive from that?

ulgurstasta wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

It's funny, this comment brought to mind a story that one of my thesis advisers (I want to say Dan Weinstein) told me back when I was in grad school;

He was at a conference, sitting at a table with other developmental biologists, talking about their various areas of research. One of them was researching a compound used in olfactory signalling; what was so interesting about it was that the receptors for this compound had differential expression in humans, with only females expressing the olfactory receptors necessary to smell it.
"In fact, I have some right here," the researcher said, producing a bottle from his pocket.
'Eh... I dunno about that" said one of his colleagues at the table, "let's have a sniff, this seems far fetched."
So they popped open the bottle and around it was passed, each man taking a sniff deeper then the last and proclaiming "I think I smell something."
The bottle was making it's way around the table until, at last, the only woman among the colleagues, hand on her forehead, fingers pinching her nose, interjected "Could you dumb-asses close that? You're going to make me puke over here!"

The moral being: even the most scientifically sophisticated people have trouble accepting things that challenge their world view.

It's important to understand that, but at the same time to understand that when you do what you seem to be doing, rejecting evolutionary psychology as a discipline, you're making a statement of belief. That is, you're not registering a complaint about a study being used, nor quarreling with the methodology: your objection is not that they are failing to prove their point, but that such a point could be proven. Now that's fine, you're entitled to reject evolutionary psychology as a part, just a creationists are entitled to reject evolution as a whole.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

For those that don't know, 'false consciousness' is a term of Marxist origins that was at first used to explain the failings of Marxist pseudoscience to predict the actions of people according to 'class'.

You know it´s quite feisty to make a passionate defense of not dismissing fields of study because they contradict your personal opinions, then in the next paragraph dismissing a field you dont personally agree with as "pseudoscience"

Heh, I think the Imperial Infantryman's Handbook describes your point best, "an open mind is like a fortress with its walls unmanned and its gates unbarred." Put another way, you seem to think I am advocating non-judgmentalism with regards to science, when I am actually advising against prejudging. Avoiding prejudging simply means that one is open to ideas that challenge your existing ideas (this is, of course, the basis of the scientific method); you, on the other hand, seem to think that I'm advocating never making a judgement even after the evidence has been presented, which is antithetical to science.

Put another way, after a century of gathering evidence, we can safely classify Marxist doctrines as about as scientifically rigorous as Scientology. With... well, a whole lot more corpses.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
So you rule out any possibility they like it and cosplay give them the freedom to dress in a way society would not approve?

Society clearly has an ambivalent attitude to these costumes. There are so many video games that feature them, and such popular events. Against that, there is also the annual shenanigans of the Booth Babe at E3, and so on.

But to address the question properly, I think the situation is too complex to have an easy explanation. Fancy dress is a very old activity and cosplay is merely a modern variation. Clearly there are a lot of people who just enjoy dressing up for the party atmosphere, the social aspect, and probably the crafting skills too.

OTOH there are people who crave attention, and in some cases they are happy for that to come from a crowd of leering men, because this is pretty easy to get by being a nubile young woman, dressing in a skimpy outfit, and going to a games convention. This is where the idea of false conciousness comes into it. Someone validating their choice by conformation to the preferences of the audience is not making a true choice of their own volition even if they think they are. Of course some of them may be doing it knowingly as an ironic tease or soemthing.

I don't think cosplay is a bad thing, but there are some dubious aspects to it.

Speaking of said pseudoscience, the above is a great example: to say that something exhibits 'false consciousness' is to imply the existence of True consciousness. A true consciousness that is not derived from the individual or their choices, since their choices can be entirely volitional but still 'false consciousness'. Again, whether it's applied to blacks, women, workers or any other class, it's an attempt at delegitimizing personal choice, in favor of the preferred policies of the Marxist/feminists.

More then anything it reveals how Marxism (and Marxist influenced Feminism) is a secular religion, 'false consciousness' being a stand in for sinful. Seriously, how do you measure the falseness of a consciousness, whether a choice is "true" (or by implication, false)?

Lest you think I'm joking about how fanatical this gets, this analysis is exactly how you get to Radical feminists proclaiming that all PIV sex is Rape.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why not ask the question of what benefit is derived from playing with model figures?

I'm more curious into whether there was anything you wanted to expand upon regarding the benefits of a cosplayer going to a convention, or it was a genuine question asking what benefit would a person receive from that?

There's a danger of going in circles as I've already said earlier that there are various different reasons why people go display.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


Heh, I think the Imperial Infantryman's Handbook describes your point best, "an open mind is like a fortress with its walls unmanned and its gates unbarred." Put another way, you seem to think I am advocating non-judgmentalism with regards to science, when I am actually advising against prejudging. Avoiding prejudging simply means that one is open to ideas that challenge your existing ideas (this is, of course, the basis of the scientific method); you, on the other hand, seem to think that I'm advocating never making a judgement even after the evidence has been presented, which is antithetical to science.

Put another way, after a century of gathering evidence, we can safely classify Marxist doctrines as about as scientifically rigorous as Scientology. With... well, a whole lot more corpses.

Cute, but no. I think you have an inherent bias that makes you pre-judge a specific field, just like feminists pre-juge for example evolutionary psychology. Which is okay and I wont stop you from doing that (we all have our biases, best we can do is trying to be aware of them), but please dont try painting yourself being above such behavior when you partake in it, hypocrisy is a unbecoming trait.

 Lockark wrote:
In fact, the reboot of fantesy with Age-of-Sigmar and introduction of the stormcasts would of been a perfect time to make add a more gender inclusive army. Instead we got the space mariens 2.0 "boys only" club with the storm cast eternals.

I was under the impression that, according to fluff, there were female stormcasts, they just look and act identical to the male ones. Your predetermined notions just led you to believe the sexless, immortal supersoldiers were all cis-male (I'm sure in part due to their armor all being identical).

Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a girl cosplayer goes to Tokyo Game Show as Kasumi out of Dead Or Alive, what is the benefit she is getting?

Whatever she wants, it is her body, her choice, if the lewd guys have fantasies about her, that hardline feminist go on about that she is brainwashed, that normal feminist applaud that she uses her sexuality to her advantage, it all doesn't matter.
If she enjoys it for whatever reason, is all that matters

The incorrect implication is that cosplay (or anything) has to have an inherent "benefit".

I think the cosplay thing has gone wildly off topic, the original 2 questions (which haven't been addressed because we instantly went off on a tangent ).....

 Kojiro wrote:
I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

Something doesn't need to have benefit if it's enjoyable. Being enjoyable is benefit enough, surely wargamers should know that more than anyone The question posed was whether it was harmful in general in the same context as some people are viewing sexy miniatures as harmful.

Sexualised models are far less prominent in wargaming than sexualised costumes are in cosplay. Google images "tabletop wargame" and it's a while before you hit your first female model in skimpy clothing. Google images "cosplay" and you won't find much else besides females in skimpy clothing

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think the cosplay thing has gone wildly off topic, the original 2 questions (which haven't been addressed because we instantly went off on a tangent ).....

 Kojiro wrote:
I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

Something doesn't need to have benefit if it's enjoyable. Being enjoyable is benefit enough, surely wargamers should know that more than anyone

People are entitled to do things they find enjoyable? The hell you say...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The question posed was whether it was harmful in general in the same context as some people are viewing sexy miniatures as harmful.

Sexualised models are far less prominent in wargaming than sexualised costumes are in cosplay. Google images "tabletop wargame" and it's a while before you hit your first female model in skimpy clothing. Google images "cosplay" and you won't find much else besides females in skimpy clothing

Ah, herein lies the rub: the people that find sexy miniatures "harmful in general", let's call them X (normally I would use a three letter abbreviation, but let's be thrifty).

Group X finds sexy miniatures harmful. I would content that Group X members are the same individuals that object to 'sexy' cosplay, and for the same reasons.

I would further argue that Group X would justify this finding (of harm) with terms like 'false consciousness'*, 'gender in-authenticity' and 'making patriarchy work for her' arguments. We might also get a smattering of 'cultural appropriation' thrown in.

Assuming the above, I content that group X should rightly be the subject of much scorn. No woman, after all, is hostage to the image of all women, no more then any Jew is hostage to the good of all Jews, a given Black hostage to the image of all Blacks, and so forth. To presume or operate as if it were otherwise is to cast our rights to do as we wish as group rights, rather then individual rights. It is a wholly illiberal enterprise.


*As an aside, apparently I'm familiar enough with Marxism to identify relatively obscure nomenclature, but my opinions of it are 'prejudgment'. Ah, kids these days...

If someone decided to oppress all Jews, individual Jews surely would be oppressed.

At root we are all members of the group "human" and our rights derive from that membership. Individuality is one of those rights -- freedom of religion and expression, for instance.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The incorrect implication is that cosplay (or anything) has to have an inherent "benefit".

To digress briefly to cosplay again;

People do things because they get a benefit from it. It's core reward/reinforcement behaviour.

Therefore cosplay does not "have to have" a benefit, but for different people it does present them a benefit -- a reward for performing the behaviour -- and this is what draws people to do it. No-one would go to all the trouble involved otherwise. Some people (booth babes) are rewarded with money. Others are rewarded with emotional benefits.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If someone decided to oppress all Jews, individual Jews surely would be oppressed.

At root we are all members of the group "human" and our rights derive from that membership. Individuality is one of those rights -- freedom of religion and expression, for instance.

You do realize that you just completely inverted the point I was making, right? To the degree I'm not even sure if you understood what I was saying at all. Further undermining my confidence in your understanding is this baffling manner you describe human rights. Even if we were to accept your formulation, it would still be irrelevant to my point.

Which is, quite simply, that 'false consciousness' and other similar doctrines of racial/sexual 'inauthentic thought' are illiberal doctrines, which are ultimately rooted in the authoritarian idea that some entity external to the individual can determine what is an appropriate thought for someone based on their immutable characteristics.

As I understand it, you are making the point that group rights cannot trump individual rights.

I am making the point that our individual rights derive from being a member of a group, and that if you oppress the group you oppress the members individually.

I am perplexed on the "reward thing" because you place it as an external only situation, people can do things because it pleases them and only for them.

As you put it everything must be done for external reason and only rewards come if an externalized source is pleased, I am not subscribing to such an idea.

As for group rights and individual rights? who chooses what is a group and what rights the group has, who chooses who belongs and who doesn't belong to such group, it is quite often in history that a "groups" rights is not determined by the majority of the group or even by the group itself, moreover in the oppression scenario you describe the relation is quite complicated.

An individual may not identify with the group so they do not belong to such a group, you may feel they do and thing you affect them, while they do not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, you are making the point that group rights cannot trump individual rights.

I am making the point that our individual rights derive from being a member of a group, and that if you oppress the group you oppress the members individually.

I see... unfortunately, I think this is a good demonstration of what I mean: you conception is (from my point of view) simply flawed. Most noticeably the concept "group rights" shifts dramatically in definition from the first sentence (where you describe what I am talking about) to the second sentence (where you describe your own beliefs).

That's the first problem. The second problem is that your concept of where rights comes from is the reverse of my understanding. A Stop sign, a ripe red apple and a lipstick are all in the group 'red items', but they aren't red because they are members in that group; they are in the group because of their individual characteristics. Similarly, you don't derive your rights from being a member of the 'group' human, you are human because you have a series of characteristics that endow you with rights;



Our rights are derived from our characteristics as individuals, not as members in a group. The problem is that you're referring to a thing that is composed of substituent parts as if the parts existed as a consequence of the group.


Like the school of fish above, groups are an illusion: individual entitites interacting in such a way as to create the impression of a collective. But it only lasts as long as the fish swim together; when they disperse, they stop being a school of fish but don't stop being fish.

In the same way, it's tautological at best and sophistic at worst to imagine "our individual rights derive from being a member of a group", because the "group" is simply all entities that have individual rights... a category, not a club.

All of this, of course, is rather futile: we're arguing about belief, not empiricism. True, we can have a discussion, a debate about the nature of our views, we can even compare the logical consequences of these views... but if you truly believe that "our individual rights derive from being a member of a group", that's as near an axiom, a basic principle, as anything that springs to mind.

Put another way: what proof could I offer that would disabuse you of the idea that there is such a thing as a group right? I suppose I could explore the negative consequences of this belief system, but doesn't prove they don't exist, it merely is a negative externality.

It's not having shared characteristics that give us rights; it's that we've identified certain characteristics as indicators of who should be considered having these rights. It is not the capacity for sentient thought that gives one rights, but rather our collective acceptance of sentience as signifier of rights. If everyone decided tomorrow that anyone with a surname starting with the letter "F" no longer had the right to live, the right to live of such persons would no longer exist. If rights were inherent to human beings they would be empirically demonstrable, which they aren't.

We're essentially arguing representation theory's constructivism vs. reflectivism.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

 Lockark wrote:
All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

You just put more thought into this than all of the people writing the Stormcast stuff at GW combined. And that's not a dig at them.

 Lockark wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Stormcasts are actually fine in that regard as far as I can see. Their armour is all male because they are made to look like Sigmar, but the Eternals themselves can be women too.

Though, they don't all have male names/personalities, right? Because if they do, then Lockark would be right anyway, as it would be a distinction without a difference.

All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

If I am incorrect and their is refrence to them keeping their female name and pronouns I would be interested to know. But in all honesty a fear something like that would become a joke fairly fast instead of considered with any seriousness.

Hmm, actually, it occurs to me that this situation has occurred earlier in 40k: Necrons. The transition to their metallic forms has stripped away almost all of the rank and file's individuality, including their gender.

Now I'm going off of older knowledge of Necrons, but my recollection is that the warriors (at least) were rather indiscriminately converted. I'm moderately sure that the old background indicated whole segments of the population (certainly including women) were converted.

Huh, I suppose I've had an all female army for years and didn't even know it...

The big issue, for me, on the sexist representation of females on the models is not so much the nudity as the poses.

The picture of the classic greco/roman spartan model is a pose a male or female can be placed in nude or clothed and would look respectable and awesome. The nudity is not sexist because the nudity is not what the entire piece is about.

However, most nude female models stand in ridiculous poses that shove their tits as far out as possible, their ass as far back as possible hold/swing/wield their weapons in ways that accentuate their female parts for everyone to ogle at without any practical reason for them to be standing that way.

Show me a bunch of nude male models that look like magic mike with their crotch thrust forward shoving their boner out for everyone to admire. It doesn't exist. Show me one doing that while swinging an axe like this chick is

 Ashiraya wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
(the excuse for male models that it is a power fantasy is weak in my opinion)

That's funny, male models seem to be able to wear armour that does not exaggerate their sexual characteristics just fine.

Consider yourself in the same situation. You are going to start wargaming, and you want to play a male army. People tell you 'the models must have gratuitous pecs or shoulders the width of a tank, often both, because if it isn't obviously male at a glance why not just make it a female'.

If you kept hearing this over and over, wouldn't it feel pretty dumb?

I have never once heard someone tell me that a male isn't a male because "PROPORTIONS". You really got some peculiar examples there.

 Lockark wrote:


All the ones that appear in the stories seem to go by male names and male pronouns. I kind of assume at this point any woman who becomes a storm cast is sort of a trans-man situation and take on a male identity.

My guess is it's more likely due to GW's inability to add female named characters, even when it would make sense to do so. (See: every mixed-gender 40k army having all-male characters except for one token female)

If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

I am not defending the golden boys, but last time this was discussed, it was ventured that the reason they are all in that image is the extremely narcissistic nature of their creator (Sigmar, not GW ).
That said, I haven't read their fluff.

And I question: If that fluff did not exist before AoS, why did they create it in such a manner? They could just as easily have kept the all welcoming soul party and not pulled a 2015 Astartes.
If it didn't exist. I don't know.

That Jimquisition video shared quite a few pages back may have some basic truth in it, publishers, GW in this case, may indeed really believe that their customers are only male and they cannot relate to a female character, but still try to widen to female customers for some reason, probably because of marketing saying so, or some other internal reason, but failing to do so because of the preconception of their customer base.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you have an entire army all male looking and have a tiny part of the background most casual observers will never see saying some are female, does that make a female representation of the table?

Shouldn't this be more a disservice, it sure looks as if the only way a female can be on the table is if it looks like a male.

Sorry, if that is the stormcasts lore its a bit ridiculous.

I am not defending the golden boys, but last time this was discussed, it was ventured that the reason they are all in that image is the extremely narcissistic nature of their creator (Sigmar, not GW ).
That said, I haven't read their fluff.

And I question: If that fluff did not exist before AoS, why did they create it in such a manner? They could just as easily have kept the all welcoming soul party and not pulled a 2015 Astartes.
If it didn't exist. I don't know.

I thinks it´s quite obvious in this case that it´s simply GW trying to make the space marine thunder strike again. Sigmarines has been designed to be fantasy space marines, in a desperate attempt to lure in 40k players(or people who would consider playing 40k), so they are going to be masculine just like space marines. GW doesn´t care about representation or women in wargaming, all they care about is making money and they think the money is where the space marines are.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
<snip>

I thinks it´s quite obvious in this case that it´s simply GW trying to make the space marine thunder strike again. Sigmarines has been designed to be fantasy space marines, in a desperate attempt to lure in 40k players(or people who would consider playing 40k), so they are going to be masculine just like space marines. GW doesn´t care about representation or women in wargaming, all they care about is making money and they think the money is where the space marines are.

Let's be fair (a phrase I rarely use with regards to GW);

-As a publicly traded company, GW has a legal obligation to care about money, so let's not be too down on them for following the money*. Moreover,

-This seems like the Phasma issue that I brought up earlier in the thread: there are no small number of people arguing for 'realistic' armor, which in the case of dehumanizing forces like Sigmarites (or Storm Troopers) means erasing femininity.

It's one of the (many) ironies of the demand for 'realism' in fantastical settings.

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

Forgive me, I was using 'sexualized' in the technical sense, not to mean "sexy", but to mean that a design concession has been made to make it unambiguous what gender the model is. While this sometimes takes the form of making the model 'sexy', it doesn't have to.

The Victoria Imperial Guard stand-ins that have been brought up are 'sexualized', as are Dreamforge's Black Widow Tank Hunters. They are sexualized without being sexy.

The Prodos Space Crusade models are both sexualized and 'sexy' (or gratuitous, frankly).

As I brought up, technically speaking, Necrons could be used as an example of a mixed gender force. Necrons have no sexual dimorphism anymore, therefore any given Necron model might be a female or a male. Same with Tyranids. In fact, given the insect qualities of Tyranids, one would suspect they might be all or almost all female (if GW gave a fig about the genetics of them, which they don't).

A good example of sexualized models that straddle the border between 'sexy' and not are the Mobile Brigada box from Infinity;


This is a good example of sexualized miniatures: there is a clear aesthetic differentiation between the male and female models. Whether they are 'sexy' or not is up to the individual owner; certainly they are not cheesecake.

Holy crap those Mobile Brigada models are beautiful. I'm getting a huge Bubble Gum Crisis crossed with Appleseed vibe from these guys and that pretty much is hitting all of my weak spots.

I think that those type of reactions are what drive people to buy one type of model over another. Its beyond obvious that cheesecake style of sculptures/painting/photos etc. resonate in some sort of happy place in the male brain. These depictions have been around since man first scrawled rock on rock and will continue long after we have made nice nice with the little green men from space and we will probably get an eyeful of what they consider cheesecake and sexy.

I've seen countless "reasonably" dressed female models and rarely have any of them invoked my "must buy now" button. At the most they would merely be background characters and not feature pieces. After all, how can anything be a focal point when it looks just like everything else?

I didn't read all the 15 pages, but it is a very interesting issue, especially with the "phasma ironie" brought up by Buzzsaw.
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?
It would bring female characters without sexualizing them.
They would just look like men with all their wargear, as in the reality, and be females, by their name.

If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with [Edit]Victoria[/Edit] Statuesque Miniatures female heads looks the part.

Lance845 wrote:



That pose is ridiculous. The only reason that model is positioned that way is to stick out her ass and spread her legs. Look at the feet. How is that any way to stand when swinging that axe? It's not. That model exists to be a sex object and THAT is what makes so many of these models tasteless and sexist.

It's exaggerated to be sure and probably horrible for axe combat but that's not too far off of a baseball swing. The pose isn't bad in that regards.

Edit: here's a baseball swing a fraction of a second further in the swing. The weight has furthered transferred to the front leg causing a less solid rear leg plant but notice the similar spread stance and butt position.

 godardc wrote:

So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

Many of us commenting here do not really care about GW specifically (or at all) the discussion is about industry in general.

GW is just a part of it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

And if you put the helmet on nobody knows what is under the armour.

And these would still score the "no head protection" on the female armour bingo....

Yeah, I don't know why I wrote GW, maybe because I just read about the sigmarites
Those "sisters" are exactly what I was speaking about: just say in their background they are females, but don't let the mini show it if they are wearing armour.
I think you are exaggerating when you speak about the "no head protection".
Some males mini do not wear helmet, too. And some females have helmets (some just have an helmet ! )
And those aren't sold like this, they are supposed to have an helmet, it is up to the converter to put some helmets.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

That said, those 'SoB' are probably the best female miniatures I have seen so far, which is a bit depressing.

The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

 godardc wrote:
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

This assumes that the obstacle preventing females from playing miniatures game is sexualized miniatures.

Personally I don't think sexualization of miniatures is what keeps women from playing miniatures game compared to males. That would imply that these over sexualized miniatures are in game shops and I don't think that has been made clear or visible. Most of these are in niche markets that you see online, not purchased in a store, and rarely played on a table at a game store... at least I haven't seen it in all my years of gaming (unfortunately I realize that sample size is considered small).

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

I actually have both the Dreamforge Valkir and Statuesque Miniatures female heads to create that. Unfortunately I haven't had time to get to that project yet.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

*For what it's worth, I think they are wrong: the success of Raging Heroes in this space, with a spincast product (an, IMO, inferior material) shows that people do want to buy sexualized female models.

I think its quite obvious that sexy models do sell, and probably sell well due to just how many new ones get made each and every year. It also might be that non sexy female models dont sell well, or at least well enough to keep several companies churning out new ones each and every year. I wonder how many of us would actually buy female space marines or even guardsmen? Yeah, I can appreciate the idea behind it, I might even like how the model looks. I probably wouldn't buy any though as there is no reason for me too. And if I did, It wouldn't be more than a single unit box just for the novelty of it. Unlike the dozens of squad boxes from the other armies I own. This is all personal opinion though, There are probably some who would drop $300 bucks on female space marines. But are there enough other people out there to actually make it worth it for the model company?

Forgive me, I was using 'sexualized' in the technical sense, not to mean "sexy", but to mean that a design concession has been made to make it unambiguous what gender the model is. While this sometimes takes the form of making the model 'sexy', it doesn't have to.

The Victoria Imperial Guard stand-ins that have been brought up are 'sexualized', as are Dreamforge's Black Widow Tank Hunters. They are sexualized without being sexy.

The Prodos Space Crusade models are both sexualized and 'sexy' (or gratuitous, frankly).

As I brought up, technically speaking, Necrons could be used as an example of a mixed gender force. Necrons have no sexual dimorphism anymore, therefore any given Necron model might be a female or a male. Same with Tyranids. In fact, given the insect qualities of Tyranids, one would suspect they might be all or almost all female (if GW gave a fig about the genetics of them, which they don't).

A good example of sexualized models that straddle the border between 'sexy' and not are the Mobile Brigada box from Infinity;
[Corvus Belli Miniatures Snip for Size]

This is a good example of sexualized miniatures: there is a clear aesthetic differentiation between the male and female models. Whether they are 'sexy' or not is up to the individual owner; certainly they are not cheesecake.

Partially related:
It saddens me every time Corvus Belli gives the female varaiant of a great miniature blood highheels or a butt on presentation yet again.
Especially the heels. God damnit, CB, I want to like you. Stop doing that.

 BrookM wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

They are indeed Statuesque heads, though BoLS (and Spikey Bits) got the source right and helped massively to increase awareness of my product.

 Andrew Rae wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

They are indeed Statuesque heads, though BoLS (and Spikey Bits) got the source right and helped massively to increase awareness of my product.

Ah gotcha, posters being dumb again.

 Korraz wrote:
Partially related:
It saddens me every time Corvus Belli gives the female varaiant of a great miniature blood highheels or a butt on presentation yet again.
Especially the heels. God damnit, CB, I want to like you. Stop doing that.

It is a Bubblegum Crisis thing.

 Ashiraya wrote:
The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

Don't confuse a lack of ability to do something with the lack of desire. Why would a creator spend their time, energy and money doing something they don't want to?

The only circumstance I can see where a creator would be obligated to make the kind of content I want is if I am paying them.

 Andrew Rae wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
If you don't like the "sexy" sisters of battle, dreamforge Valkir with Victoria female heads looks the part.

Spoiler:

Aren't those heads from Andrew Rae's Statuesque Miniatures?

edit.

Ah I see, BoLS is the source, they always feth up.

They are indeed Statuesque heads, though BoLS (and Spikey Bits) got the source right and helped massively to increase awareness of my product.

Sorry, mistake corrected!

 Kojiro wrote:
Don't confuse a lack of ability to do something with the lack of desire. Why would a creator spend their time, energy and money doing something they don't want to?

I'm not entirely sure it is lack of desire as it is why bother. If the only difference between a "realistic" armor set of a male and female is simply a slightly thinner waist and maybe arms thinner... but not exaggerated but only shaving a 1-2mm off then there is no reason to do it. The only other difference is a head swap and everyone already has a choice to do that if they want too.

At least that is my opinion. I did go down the route of designing artwork for set that would do just that. The differences although could be noticeable on the artwork if you viewed them side by side and if you blew up the 3d sculpt. However on the table there wasn't a difference that you could tell. The only way to tell a difference was with a head swap. If I couldn't see a noticeable difference between armor, then why bother making a separate sculpt, when I could just do one, create a new head and just have one set of molds. I'll probably still attempt it at some point but with limited budget towards sculpting I would want those resources spent on more varied designs.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not entirely sure it is lack of desire as it is why bother.

As with any labour, either you have to do it or you choose to do it.

If you really want to see a certain type of content created, you have two choices. 1) you can commission a creator to make the thing you want or you can 2) get off your ass and make it yourself. Either of those seem valid to me. What isn't valid, so far as I'm concerned, is 3) whine that other people aren't spending their time, energy and money to cater to your tastes.

Then there's the morality aspect, which is really only grounds to ban content.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not entirely sure it is lack of desire as it is why bother.

Yes, the argument is 'why bother with doing two genders for a single model, if the female one doesn't have watermelon breasts and a battle bikini?'. But I am not asking for that. While it would be nice, all that would be necessary really is that when people decide to have that dilemma for themselves, at least someone would then go with 'well, then we'll just make the female model'. That has never happened so far. Why on earth do people say it doesn't sell? You do not know. You have not tried. No one has. Sure, it is a niche within a niche, but so are cheesecake models. In an ideal world, realistic female models would not alone be enough to make me buy a model, but at this point it would probably be because we have six quintillion space marine variants but no other options for a realistic woman. I strongly doubt I would be alone in this - more niche things than this have sold well simply because it was the only option available and was first in an unexploited area.

If the only difference between a "realistic" armor set of a male and female is simply a slightly thinner waist and maybe arms thinner... but not exaggerated but only shaving a 1-2mm off then there is no reason to do it.

It's like the difference between MK2 and MK3 power armour, basically. Instead of segmented vs flat armour on the front only, we have different leg-torso and hip-shoulder ratios. And I have not seen people angrily ask FW why they bother with two different marks when they are not easily distinct from six feet away. And, you know, in many cases our delicately painted miniatures are detailed things that must be seen up close to be truly appreciated. There is nothing wrong with this.

And why the hell is your conclusion 'the difference is so small so there is no point to making the woman'? What is the magical thing the man has that makes his presence a must? Why is this alleged lack of distinction (which I am not convinced is 'I cannot see' as much as 'I do not want to see') something that is a problem for the female version only when it is actually bidirectional? If the idea of two different things being too similar is too painful, then surely you would be okay with sometimes only having the female version?

Well for the MK2-3 armour you would have me waving a stick at FW for throwing to the trash the existing 40k lore.

The main difference between the armours was the fact the helmet was movable instead of fixed, then it was the extra plating on the front witch is visible,but whatever, not that important difference I suppose.

On the important stuff, why my conclusion is this, quite frankly because if I want to represent a female warrior on the battlefield I want the model to look like a female, if I am to spend the resources those been time and money to make it I want it to be visually distinct.

And it is not a "I do not want to see" I have people confuse from a distance CB female sculpts for males and CB is not shy on making their female sculpts look female.

What is the point in making a female sculpt if the vast majority will confuse it for a male version? never realizing what it is? sure no problem in creating the female version of a troop only, but if nobody realize it, why bother?

Lets be honest here we talk about models, fluff means nothing, only the invested will read it, it is not a movie, a comic, a computer game were the audience can be teached this is a female warrior in an asexual armour, visuals are what matter.

One can make the argument that even in movies, comics and computer games visuals are important for somebody not investing time for the medium, a cover browser, but models in particular are a special case, either they are not made for a specific game or are used cross games.

Another problem with the asexual armour/ combat gear is that the warrior is a primarily male role, while there have been many instances of female warrior and even warrior cultures in the pages of history, they remain as "exceptions" and not the normal, so the subconscious is to expect a warrior to be male, this may change if mixed regiments become more prominent, but it will take more than a couple decades (and probably a few bloody battles) to enter the public consciousness.

So we come down to the point of asking why include female models, if the point is to represent the gender in the wargame then the model should be visually distinct, if it is for eye candy, well, it is for eye candy and whatever, if it is for simulation, we go to the simulation category and it should not be distinct I guess or the distinction should be kept to a realistic minimum (no helmet?).

Sorry I am not sure I make my point across.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the important stuff, why my conclusion is this, quite frankly because if I want to represent a female warrior on the battlefield I want the model to look like a female, if I am to spend the resources those been time and money to make it I want it to be visually distinct.

To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?

If there had been an equivalent 'there must be a LOT of emphasis on the cock (or superwide shoulders, etc), otherwise you may as well just make it a woman' and 'it must have obviously exaggerated stereotypical male features so it can be identified as male from a long distance, otherwise there is no point to a male model and you may as well make it a woman instead' trend going on there would be EXTREME amounts of outrage, but why is the inverse fine?

I only have mild sympathy for the "I can't identify" argument. I mean, I have a bit of sympathy, but it's not really much (if any) higher than any other "I want" complaints. Not being able to identify with the sexuality of the model you are playing with on the table top doesn't seem like anything overly major to me.

Maybe it's just me though, given more than half my armies *aren't even human to begin with*, including the army that got me in to wargaming to begin with and I don't particularly feel the need to relate to the gender of a character I'm playing in an RPG let alone a character that I am manipulating on a table top. Even when I do play a human male character (say in a video game), I can't say I particularly identify with the vast majority of fictional characters, it's a mark of good story telling to get you to care about a character who may be vastly different to you personally.

I don't want to see table top game characters in a fantasy world like *me*. Sharing the same tackle between the legs as me is only a surface trait.

If you're saying that it's vitally important that a player identifies sexually with their fictional characters then you're basically proving the video game executives right when they don't want to take the risk on female leads when most their existing customers are male.

But polls I've read from RPG's tend to suggest males are as likely to play a male character as a female character.

....there would be EXTREME amounts of outrage, but why is the inverse fine?

I actually don't think there would be extreme outrage in this hypothetical world of yours where models are by default female and need exaggeration to be male. Though it's kind of a difficult hypothesis to prove one way or the other.

Men are exaggerated as are women when it comes to table top miniatures. When neither male nor female features are exaggerated then people tend to default to thinking it's male for obvious reasons. It's not some great conspiracy against women, it's just reality that men are associated with war more than women.

I honestly feel the lack of topless female miniatures is kind of sad, it really just art to me. Painting the female miniature is the same as painting a nude woman on canvas in my opinion. If I wanted to look at topless women for sexual purposes I'd go down the road to the strip club.

Aside from that, I really wanted an entire army of topless deamonettes...that looked more elfish than deamon, until few years ago it would have never happened, a few companies have released topless dark elves which look great. Now I can have the army I wanted, deamonettes with a illusion spell on them to lure victims to the slaughter, in the way sirens of myth worked.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the important stuff, why my conclusion is this, quite frankly because if I want to represent a female warrior on the battlefield I want the model to look like a female, if I am to spend the resources those been time and money to make it I want it to be visually distinct.

To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?

If there had been an equivalent 'there must be a LOT of emphasis on the cock (or superwide shoulders, etc), otherwise you may as well just make it a woman' and 'it must have obviously exaggerated stereotypical male features so it can be identified as male from a long distance, otherwise there is no point to a male model and you may as well make it a woman instead' trend going on there would be EXTREME amounts of outrage, but why is the inverse fine?

First of all in my opinion, most of the non historical ranges (and some of the historical) model ranges depict males in a highly sexualised way, with an unrealistic body type that emphasize in indeed super wide shoulders unrealistic "bodybuilder muscles".

Why there is not much outrage I do not know, maybe males like to identify with this? maybe it is the social acceptable? maybe the vast majority does not care? definitely thought the average, normal, male body type is not what is depicted in models, coming to think about it it the same goes for sculpts and paintings throughout history, so it may have a lot to do with the societal perfect form of that era.

Why companies mainly make male only ranges, it is a multi problem issue, that has to do a lot with the expected target audience, the preconceptions of the management/ marketing/ industry knowledge, the fact that war is a mainly male dominated area for a few millennia at least and how this is engraved in the peoples consciousness, I am not saying this is right, I am saying these are the reasons.

Now, there are many companies out there who do sexualised female models without been cheesecake, I am not sure were you summed up my post in "if it is not chain mail bikini its is not worth it" I would be highly interested to see that logic path, but I did not say that I said I would rather spend money and resources to have a reverent custodier created, or indeed the mobile brigadas linked above that the Shadowforge troopers and name them "female troopers" in the fluff, nobody will understand they are female, they will not bring any gender inclusion to the table and for me it is a case of why bother.

Lets assume you played metroid and the revelation of Samus been a female never happened, except maybe in the footnotes of the manual that (almost) nobody reads, what would that bring to the table? what would the impact be? what gender representation be? how would the sock (for that era at least) that yes, there can be kick ass females out there that can easily take the role of the up to that point male dominated action hero?

It is different for you because you have plenty of options for male models that are not exaggeratedly masculine in any way. It appears to be a case of not noticing how good something is to have as an option until you don't have that option.

Consider these models, which are very realistic and unexaggerated - particularly the former - yet they have never been complained on as not looking obviously male enough. A female version of the latter, with slightly shifted proportions (leg-torso length ratio, hip-shoulder ratio, head size, smooother jaw, etc) would look great!



Why do only women have to justify their existence as models? Men have plenty of exaggerated models, but also plenty of models that are downright androgynous or everything in between. Why is it not okay for women who stray that entire range on the other side?

Of course you do not see the point, but then you were never going to collect those to begin with!

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why do only women have to justify their existence as models?

Whoever said you did? I simply said....

"I have a bit of sympathy, but it's not really much (if any) higher than any other "I want" complaints."

You can make all the "I want" complaints you want, doesn't bother me in the slightest. You don't even have to justify them. Just don't expect me to hold them any higher than any other "I want" complaint (that is, sure, it'd be nice to have, but if no one wants to sculpt it and/or not enough people want to buy it to make it profitable then such is life).

If I genuinely believed that the lack of realistically proportioned female soldier models (ie. so realistically proportioned that you can barely tell on a 28mm model) is keeping droves of genuinely potential female gamers out then I might care a bit more. However I tend to think it's pretty far down the list of things that stop females becoming interested in wargaming. I'd guess most the reasons are the same reasons most men don't care for wargaming either.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 godardc wrote:
So, in order to bring females to the tabletop, but keeping the realism,should GW just do the same models as now, but giving them femal name ?

This assumes that the obstacle preventing females from playing miniatures game is sexualized miniatures.

Personally I don't think sexualization of miniatures is what keeps women from playing miniatures game compared to males. That would imply that these over sexualized miniatures are in game shops and I don't think that has been made clear or visible. Most of these are in niche markets that you see online, not purchased in a store, and rarely played on a table at a game store... at least I haven't seen it in all my years of gaming (unfortunately I realize that sample size is considered small).

I agree on this: the problem is two fold, that 1) there really doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the 'exclusion' narrative, and 2) this exclusions narrative seems to be like the 'reasonable consumer' argument people make. That is, the person complaining claims that their preferences represent the reasonable consumer, so the company should pay attention to them.

Unintentinaly, Ash puts her finger on the problem;

 Ashiraya wrote:
That said, those 'SoB' are probably the best female miniatures I have seen so far, which is a bit depressing.

The sculptors of today can make insanely detailed miniatures (see FW Primarchs) but apparently making a female model without inexplicably thin armour, smacked-on T&A or big gaps is an insurmountable challenge.

Ash is saying that "the best female miniatures I have seen so far" are conversions made with Dreamforge Games Heavy Valkir troopers and Statuesque female heads. Fair enough, except for one point...

Dreamforge makes a line of Hard Plastic Female Stormtroopers.

Ash invites us to consider; "Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?"

Let me, by contrast, ask: how do you think someone like Mark Mondragon feels, having spend tens of thousands of dollars designing and producing a line of realistic female sci-fi troopers, only to see that the people who claim to be most interested in them think they don't exist. It rather makes the following seem a bit ironic, no?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not entirely sure it is lack of desire as it is why bother.

Yes, the argument is 'why bother with doing two genders for a single model, if the female one doesn't have watermelon breasts and a battle bikini?'. But I am not asking for that. While it would be nice, all that would be necessary really is that when people decide to have that dilemma for themselves, at least someone would then go with 'well, then we'll just make the female model'. That has never happened so far. Why on earth do people say it doesn't sell? You do not know. You have not tried. No one has. Sure, it is a niche within a niche, but so are cheesecake models. In an ideal world, realistic female models would not alone be enough to make me buy a model, but at this point it would probably be because we have six quintillion space marine variants but no other options for a realistic woman. I strongly doubt I would be alone in this - more niche things than this have sold well simply because it was the only option available and was first in an unexploited area.

Spoiler:

If the only difference between a "realistic" armor set of a male and female is simply a slightly thinner waist and maybe arms thinner... but not exaggerated but only shaving a 1-2mm off then there is no reason to do it.

It's like the difference between MK2 and MK3 power armour, basically. Instead of segmented vs flat armour on the front only, we have different leg-torso and hip-shoulder ratios. And I have not seen people angrily ask FW why they bother with two different marks when they are not easily distinct from six feet away. And, you know, in many cases our delicately painted miniatures are detailed things that must be seen up close to be truly appreciated. There is nothing wrong with this.

And why the hell is your conclusion 'the difference is so small so there is no point to making the woman'? What is the magical thing the man has that makes his presence a must? Why is this alleged lack of distinction (which I am not convinced is 'I cannot see' as much as 'I do not want to see') something that is a problem for the female version only when it is actually bidirectional? If the idea of two different things being too similar is too painful, then surely you would be okay with sometimes only having the female version?

Let's be clear: Mark went through an intense process to create his female troopers. I know this, because I was there, and it happened (in large part) on Dakka;

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, I guess I'll be the one to say it. Is it possible Mark just meant for their butts to look feminine and not sexualized, but just designed his minis based on a er, gifted model? As an artist, I would tend to use my wife as a model if I wanted to draw or sculpt a woman who looks as realistic as possible, and having been with her for years I tend to think of her automatically if tasked with conceptualizing female anatomy or proportions. Is it possible that's what happened here?

Considering how well-defined the male Eisenkern butts are, Mark was probably just sticking with the same aesthetic, although that doesn't explain the feature-free thigh and shoulder plates.

PS: Am I the only one reminded of "The Pumpkin" from Portnoy's Complaint? Surely not.

This is no complaint about Bob specifically (others are making the same point), but I do sometimes wonder if Dakka causes a kind of amnesia: this discussion, about the look of the (then called Black Widows) is one we already had six months ago.

Mark was quite interested in people's thoughts about the Widows, you can see him responding to my questions (specifically about the model's thighs) here. Mark even set up a survey about the Female Stormtroopers.

That's just some of the discussion from six months ago: in January Mark specifically asked people "how should the Female Stormtroopers look?", and it's worth pointing out that Mark has explicitly said that the feedback of one Ms. J. Cooper, a female LEO, was a major influence on the design of these models.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yelling "the time for complaints is over!", just pointing out that these images are... well, basically the same thing we saw (and I commented favorably on) six months ago. So... yeah, I'm pretty happy to get the girls in hand.

Wait...

Mark didn't just ask people's opinions, he didn't just conduct surveys, he talked at length with women that actually work in law enforcement (and thus actually wear modern body armor) in order to make the most realistic and interesting female models he could. He made them compatible with his superlative accessory kit, allowing you to outfit them in a huge variety of ways.

No boob plate. No pigeon toes. Heck, Mark himself made fun of exactly the same thing Ash is complaining about...


It is absolutely untrue that female model kits are limited to "watermelon breasts and a battle bikini". Mark went through huge efforts to put out a realistic female trooper kit, and you know what? I supported him then and now; there is a box of Eisenkern Panzerjagers, partially assembled on my desk right now. You want to support him? There is a link above to the Dice Lady store, which is specifically trying to carry non-cheesecake female models.

EDIT: oh, and for those inclined to think the final result was 'too sexy';

Mark's ones are good, no doubt about that. I think the converted Valkir look even better but that is because I prefer their armour design, like, from a design standpoint without any gender being involved.

The reason Mark's work is remarkable is because it is so rare as to be all but unheard of, which kind of adds to my point when you think about it, and you have to keep in mind Dreamforge is still relatively obscure.

But imagine how he feels when you use his work as a big red herring and slap it on my arguments.

Of course this is all an 'I want' from my side. A lot of posts here are 'I wants'. Many games started as 'I wants'. I doubt making a good sculpt like what I am asking for will be a revolution in wargaming, but it will sure add to an underused area to say the least.

In fact, I find it kind of insulting that you try to stomp all over everything I have said since your last 'contribution' by implying that I do not know what I am talking about because my favourite female armoured model is not your friend's, and given how you seem to pride yourself on logical arguments I really would expect better than that.

IOW tastes vary, but which model is my favourite has no effect on my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, I am not sure if there is much point left for me to debate here.

Me: 'Some more realistic female armoured models would be nice.'

X: 'No demand.'

Me: 'Well, it's not like people have checked very hard. Besides, they would be nice even if they are not in high demand.'

X: 'There is this one.'

Me: 'That is -one-. Let's hope more come.'

That is about my contribution here? To my knowledge, there is no real survey or evidence as to what would happen if that kind of model becomes widespread, so at this point we would just be stuck arguing 'if they become widespread, what I want to happen will happen!' and there is little point to that. My argument was of course never that a proliferation of reasonable female miniatures will suddenly bring in an avalanche of female gamers, but I do think it would help and it is certainly an underused design.

I will wait and see, and leap on to any models I like enough.

So yes, I am done here. Unless you post something particularly egregious, I guess.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Why do only women have to justify their existence as models? Men have plenty of exaggerated models, but also plenty of models that are downright androgynous or everything in between. Why is it not okay for women who stray that entire range on the other side?

Of course you do not see the point, but then you were never going to collect those to begin with!

I think that with wargaming miniatures, there is a rather justifiable bias of "Default=Male" stemming from the fact that, even in modern militaries, 85-90% of members are men, in many cases even more in the combat roles(88% in Canada, according to http://www.forces.ca/en/page/women-92). So in order for a model to be considered female for most people, it must be noticeably different than the males.

There's also the fact that for guys like GW, making the difference subtle differences in proportions doesn't work with the business model, since it just results in model parts which just don't fit with the "Same" model when the other model is male, limiting options for trading pieces.

We could probably use more minis like these:

http://thedicebaglady.net/bad-squiddo-games-women-of-the-red-army/

OK, the busts on some of them might be ... Generous, but no more so than the hands or heads. They definitely look like women, and there's no centrefold poses, chicken-legged stances or unlikely cleavage.

True, you're not going to find many ranges of historical miniatures like this (the Red Army in WW2 was rather a special case), but for fantasy and sci-fi? Yeah, go for it. Ideally they'd just be part of the standard packs, rather than special packs of "female troopers".

Ash here is (again, unintentionally) giving us the answer to a problem she has proposed, and it's what I like to call the McLean Deluxe problem;


For those that are unfamiliar with the McLean Deluxe, it was a low fat hamburger intended to appeal to more health conscious consumers. It was one of the biggest flops in fast food history, and the reason is quite illustrative: people were asking for two mutually exclusive things, a great burger and low fat.

You see, in taking out the fat, McDonalds had to replace them with something... which turned out to be water, bound to carrageen (a seaweed derivative). The resulting burger was... unpalatable.

People told McDonalds they wanted healthy alternatives, the only problem was that people wouldn't actually buy them.

While I like to use the McLean as an example, it's by no means the most recent: ask people what kind of coffee they want and you'll invariably get people saying 'I want a dark, rich, hearty roast.’ The problem? Only "somewhere between 25 and 27 percent" actually want to drink that, "Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want – that 'I want a milky, weak coffee.’”

This brings us to Ash (used only as an example, not an attack), who, when speaking in the abstract, will say "In an ideal world, realistic female models would not alone be enough to make me buy a model, but at this point it would probably be because we have six quintillion space marine variants but no other options for a realistic woman. I strongly doubt I would be alone in this - more niche things than this have sold well simply because it was the only option available and was first in an unexploited area."

Confronted with an actual product that meets these specifications?

 Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

Mark's ones are good, no doubt about that. I think the converted Valkir look even better but that is because I prefer their armour design, like, from a design standpoint without any gender being involved.

The reason Mark's work is remarkable is because it is so rare as to be all but unheard of, which kind of adds to my point when you think about it, and you have to keep in mind Dreamforge is still relatively obscure.

But imagine how he feels when you use his work as a big red herring and slap it on my arguments.

Of course this is all an 'I want' from my side. A lot of posts here are 'I wants'. Many games started as 'I wants'. I doubt making a good sculpt like what I am asking for will be a revolution in wargaming, but it will sure add to an underused area to say the least.

In fact, I find it kind of insulting that you try to stomp all over everything I have said since your last 'contribution' by implying that I do not know what I am talking about because my favourite female armoured model is not your friend's, and given how you seem to pride yourself on logical arguments I really would expect better than that.

IOW tastes vary, but which model is my favourite has no effect on my argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said, I am not sure if there is much point left for me to debate here.

Me: 'Some more realistic female armoured models would be nice.'

X: 'No demand.'

Me: 'Well, it's not like people have checked very hard. Besides, they would be nice even if they are not in high demand.'

X: 'There is this one.'

Me: 'That is -one-. Let's hope more come.'

That is about my contribution here? To my knowledge, there is no real survey or evidence as to what would happen if that kind of model becomes widespread, so at this point we would just be stuck arguing 'if they become widespread, what I want to happen will happen!' and there is little point to that. My argument was of course never that a proliferation of reasonable female miniatures will suddenly bring in an avalanche of female gamers, but I do think it would help and it is certainly an underused design.

I will wait and see, and leap on to any models I like enough.

So yes, I am done here. Unless you post something particularly egregious, I guess.

Now the line is "Mark's ones are good, no doubt about that. I think the converted Valkir look even better but that is because I prefer their armour design, like, from a design standpoint without any gender being involved."

Realistic female miniatures are the "dark, rich, hearty roast" of the miniature world: loads of people claim they want them, but when creators actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars to make them... ehhhhh, maybe not.

This is a common problem in all genres: people are bad about predicting (or even understanding) their preferences. Heck, a game I was pretty fond of, Wildstar, is basically well into the (not so) slow death process Now, I won't claim that I have all the answers about why Wildstar is failing, but one thing that certainly didn't help was the repeated emphasis of how "HARDCORE" Wildstar's raids were. The developers listened to a niche player base that claimed they really wanted hardcore raids, like the earliest days of World of Warcraft. Unfortunately for Wildstar, when they actually provided that (and Wildstar's raids have been near universally praised as excellent), the audience just wasn't there. This is why game companies are increasingly paying less and less attention to forums, and more and more attention to what people are actually doing in the games.

So, the shift here from implying there is a large number of people interested in realistic female miniatures to "they would be nice even if they are not in high demand", and "My argument was of course never that a proliferation of reasonable female miniatures will suddenly bring in an avalanche of female gamers", the answer to why there aren't a lot of realistic female miniatures becomes pretty clear: there isn't a market, or, better put, not a market worth pursuing.

Or, to put it in raw numbers, DFG's kickstarter, which contained loads of awesome stuff in addition to the best realistic female miniatures on the market, ended with about $206k. Raging Heroes, pretty much the poster child for semi-cheesecake female miniatures? Their two campaigns combined to about $1.5 million.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, of course. One is hard plastic, the other spincast resin. One was focused on female miniatures, the other wasn't. But if there is a good example of 'realistic female miniatures' making big money on kickstarter I don't know about it and I've looked. Heroines in Sensible Shoes? About $50k. The two Bombshell Babes campaigns? About $180k.

I must say though, you sure are writing a gargantuan narrative because I happen to prefer angular over rounded armour. It is kind of surreal.

I would say that you are putting too much thought into my armour preferences but we have kind of crossed beyond that territory into something I struggle to even fit within the borders of farce.

I know I will remember the day when I said I preferred X armour suit over Y similar armour suit and someone spun it into a Tolkien-esque fairytale about hamburgers and Wildstar.

By the by, let me be clear (since I'm not sure it reads this way): I'm not saying that people that want X don't, on some level, actually want X.

So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

This is why I reference the McLean Deluxe: the issue was never that people didn't really want a healthy burger, it was just that they weren't willing to eat a healthy burger that didn't taste good.

So yeah, people genuinely do want realistic female miniatures, but even those people that claim to place a premium on them have other considerations that override that preference. In other words, people think it's their #1 concern, when it's really a distant #2 (at best).

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Realistic female miniatures are the "dark, rich, hearty roast" of the miniature world: loads of people claim they want them, but when creators actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars to make them... ehhhhh, maybe not.

What you are missing is that 'sensible female miniatures' are diverse. You are telling a hardcore Blood Angels player that she is a hypocritical Space Marine hater because she doesn't want your Space Wolf army, and it is kind of disingenious.

Also, good job. I did not expect you to post something so far out there it'd make me return within two hours after I left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

This is 100% true, but that making a miniature of sensible proportions would be enough to make them superpopular regardless of other factors is a claim I have not made.

I do think it is a good design component, though.

To return to the McLean example, of course people want healthy burgers, they just do not put it higher on the list than it tasting good. Kind of like how I want sensible female miniatures but not at the price of poor general design quality. Each thing has to juggle several criteria to truly excel.

 Ashiraya wrote:
'the difference is so small so there is no point to making the woman'? What is the magical thing the man has that makes his presence a must?

There isn't an magical thing that the man has to make his presence a must. It will depend on the game universe and environment. For example in one of our games most of the operatives and agents are female for one faction. For another faction the majority of them are male because that is the type of society it is, it isn't meant to be realistic or live up to someone elses values but the ones in the game universe.

It costs me roughly $1-2k for artwork and 3d sculpting. Another 100 for the 3d print and then the cost of casting. Generally I could spend that same amount to create a variation or I can instead make a new design for a different faction or unit entirely. Chances are funding would go for the fresh new unit than a variation. At some point it may be worth it to do the other but that isn't necessarily true. It just comes down to economics unfortunately. If I had an unlimited budget then absolutely choose differently.

 Ashiraya wrote:
If the idea of two different things being too similar is too painful, then surely you would be okay with sometimes only having the female version?

I don't have an issue with having an issue with their being a female only. Again when the differences simply comes down to a head swap that isn't an issue.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

That comes down to point of view and opinion though. If you honestly think I can identify with a male miniature because it is male, you would probably be sadly mistaken. I actually find I identify myself more with females than males but that is a preference. I definitely can't identify or relate with some steroid induced, nothing but pecs with a beard miniature which is why I tend to play aliens.

Hmm...

 Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Realistic female miniatures are the "dark, rich, hearty roast" of the miniature world: loads of people claim they want them, but when creators actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars to make them... ehhhhh, maybe not.

What you are missing is that 'sensible female miniatures' are diverse. You are telling a hardcore Blood Angels player that she is a hypocritical Space Marine hater because she doesn't want your Space Wolf army, and it is kind of disingenious.

Also, good job. I did not expect you to post something so far out there it'd make me return within two hours after I left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

This is 100% true, but that making a miniature of sensible proportions would be enough to make them superpopular regardless of other factors is a claim I have not made.

I do think it is a good design component, though.

To return to the McLean example, of course people want healthy burgers, they just do not put it higher on the list than it tasting good. Kind of like how I want sensible female miniatures but not at the price of poor general design quality. Each thing has to juggle several criteria to truly excel.

I don't mean to be overly condescending, but as before it seems you are now agreeing with my points, but objecting to their... length? Fair enough I suppose.

Then in the interest of brevity, the points I think we both agree on;

First: even for the people that claim to be most invested in 'realistic female miniatures', this interest is not a point that will lead to a purchase. Overall aesthetics far outweigh realism when making decisions for purchase.

Second: the people that fit in the category above are a "niche within a niche", a tiny group of people.

You'll forgive me, but the logical import of your points seems to be that people expressing your POV... are best off ignored. I don't say that to be cruel, but as a simple reflection of your current points that strongly mitigate against using your desires as the basis of a commercial action.

In the real world, where real money is being spent on real products, listening to you would convince me not to listen to you.

Conversely, when people follow my suggestions, I buy. I have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars on kickstarters over the years to support female miniature lines that I like. From my perspective, it's never been a better time to buy female miniatures, and it's only getting better.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Consider these models, which are very realistic and unexaggerated - particularly the former - yet they have never been complained on as not looking obviously male enough. A female version of the latter, with slightly shifted proportions (leg-torso length ratio, hip-shoulder ratio, head size, smooother jaw, etc) would look great!

It however doesn't bring any real variation or alternate design. The cost to create that vs creating a whole new troop type, the investment will go into the new troop type almost 80% of the time.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Of course you do not see the point, but then you were never going to collect those to begin with!

That is part of the point. In your example of models I wouldn't have purchased anyways to begin with. They are great looking miniatures but not something I would purchase in the first place as male or females, sexualized or not. I have no need for WWII looking miniatures and the modern/scifi aren't scifi enough for me. If a line by itself isn't a huge seller (not saying they aren't but I don't have those numbers to begin with) I would never spend the extra money developing more of the same.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Me: 'Some more realistic female armoured models would be nice.'
X: 'No demand.'

Like I have said it actually doesn't have to do with no demand. There is demand otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. It comes down to a business decision with one option being more of a risk.

A) Create a slightly different sculpt, not much variation but a different sculpt for an existing line. There could be 20% demand for it.
B) Create a new line, completely different sculpt expanding existing lines further even more. There is usually 80% demand for it.

Could A end up eventually be 80%... absolutely. However they would specifically need to alter, cater and adjust their market to target that set to increase the amount which does cost more. Or they could focus on the existing lines that sell, expanding them further and focusing on the customers they do have, while expanding the customer base at a lower cost. Personally I don't have the income to do both.

I will use this as an example because I had them designed and paid for them myself, so I can actually speak from experience. Here is concept art for two soldiers. The women isn't overly sexualized, she doesn't have watermelons or a chainmail bikini. In fact her outfit is almost on par with the male except for the slight variation in the chest.
I under normal circumstances would not have created the second, other than just simply providing an alternate head. Unfortunately the head covered wasn't enough to justify the cost of casting so we created an alternate head for all of them. The issue was still there was a no noticeable differences so in order to justify the cost, we did give her actual breasts. Given the armor type we figured that would still fit because she isn't wearing bulky armor to begin with. The overal design of both armor types match together. Since the faction specifically has men and women equally distributed through the military, unlike an opposing faction which the majority of soldiers are male. We needed and wanted there to be a female representation.

In most cases a company will spend that money on creating two completely different units. Considering we're still new establishing a larger customer base is important, so as a new company that would have been the better move. Now I have to wait for these to be completed, sell some before producing additional units. I now only have one product to sell, when I could have had two products to sell for the same price.

I don't think Ashiraya is being hypocritical in not liking the Dreamforge female models. I think that's just demonstrating the problem. If you want male SF troopers, there's a thousand and one different varieties. For female ones? Not really. The lack of choice is part of the problem.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Hmm...

 Ashiraya wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Realistic female miniatures are the "dark, rich, hearty roast" of the miniature world: loads of people claim they want them, but when creators actually spend the tens of thousands of dollars to make them... ehhhhh, maybe not.

What you are missing is that 'sensible female miniatures' are diverse. You are telling a hardcore Blood Angels player that she is a hypocritical Space Marine hater because she doesn't want your Space Wolf army, and it is kind of disingenious.

Also, good job. I did not expect you to post something so far out there it'd make me return within two hours after I left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

This is 100% true, but that making a miniature of sensible proportions would be enough to make them superpopular regardless of other factors is a claim I have not made.

I do think it is a good design component, though.

To return to the McLean example, of course people want healthy burgers, they just do not put it higher on the list than it tasting good. Kind of like how I want sensible female miniatures but not at the price of poor general design quality. Each thing has to juggle several criteria to truly excel.

I don't mean to be overly condescending, but as before it seems you are now agreeing with my points, but objecting to their... length? Fair enough I suppose.

Then in the interest of brevity, the points I think we both agree on;

First: even for the people that claim to be most invested in 'realistic female miniatures', this interest is not a point that will lead to a purchase. Overall aesthetics far outweigh realism when making decisions for purchase.

Second: the people that fit in the category above are a "niche within a niche", a tiny group of people.

You'll forgive me, but the logical import of your points seems to be that people expressing your POV... are best off ignored. I don't say that to be cruel, but as a simple reflection of your current points that strongly mitigate against using your desires as the basis of a commercial action.

In the real world, where real money is being spent on real products, listening to you would convince me not to listen to you.

Conversely, when people follow my suggestions, I buy. I have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars on kickstarters over the years to support female miniature lines that I like. From my perspective, it's never been a better time to buy female miniatures, and it's only getting better.

If you like Dark Eldar, you are also in a niche within a niche. That alone does not make something negligible.

If you think I am in agreement with you, you are not paying attention.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
So, people that want 'realistic female models' do want them, on some level, but they aren't willing to buy based only on that point.

Yeah, it's true. That's why having so few options on reasonably armored female models sucks. It means if you like reasonably armored female models, you are very likely going to be forced to compromise on other criterion.

I would argue that any miniature purchase is influenced by the quality of the miniature first, not matter if it is female, male, goblin or alien.

Nobody wants to buy blobs of tin or plastic. However, if I would like to buy high quality sensible female miniatures the options are limited. It is however true, that new ranges are emerging and I feel bringing these to the fore in this thread is already some good publicity.

I think I'll get some Red Army Minis from Squiddo for a diorama. Mainly because I like the minis and subject matter, because it is historically interesting (and I am not that big of a WWII person in the first place). So here the combination of female and high quality, makes me buy it. I would not be interested if they would be some male soldiers.

What is true for female miniatures is also true for their male counterparts. The Arnold barbarian or extremely broad dude right from an 80s action movie is not what I look for in miniatures. But as other have already said, there are more choices for gamers to get the exact male models they want. If one designs a new set I would wonder if they could not just have half male, half female bodies and heads in it. Adds variety and no second identical set needs to be produced.

 Ashiraya wrote:
<snip>

If you like Dark Eldar, you are also in a niche within a niche. That alone does not make something negligible.

If you think I am in agreement with you, you are not paying attention

No, the size of the niche is what makes it negligible; taking you at your word leads to the conclusions that a negligable number of people are motivated to buy based on the factors you've mentioned.

As for any disagreement, how about you specify where you think we're at odds? You have a pronounced tendency to in one post claim I'm being silly, and in the next post accept my premise. Seriously, you literally quote me above, write "This is 100% true..." and go on to restate my points as your own without any meaningful difference. EDIT: it occurs I should specify "at odds" with regards to miniatures, not in general.

The fact is, if you don't like how I'm saying it, just read what Dark Severance wrote: straight from the horse's mouth he's telling you, as a miniature maker, what you are asking for is commercially non-viable.

Most creators know their audience b/c their audience bought in without complaining, but I fear that a creator going by 'feel' of what they think their audience wants is dangerous...and I like that.

What I can add to the anecodtical discussion is: I'd love models like Infinity's minus the Heels and I'm not alone with that, at least not within my playgroup.
Or, more broadly speaking: We love good looking miniatures that fit their aesthetics and feel of the world and don't break it with dumb stuff that blatantly clashes with the picture the rest of the world tries to paint.

I feel my points are left unaddressed, at least I get support in what I said from Dark Severance.

Looking back at my posts in this thread, I think that the tangents may be obscuring my main point. So, to reiterate as plainly as possible;

I want More.

Simply put I want more diversity: more body types for males, more for females, more styles, more degrees of realism and more flights of fancy. Because ultimately I think that the way to grow the hobby is by having something for everyone that is at all interested in miniature games.

I contrast this against the people that are arguing for Less. Let's make no mistake, there are plenty of people arguing in good faith that the way to expand the hobby is to decrease diversity, to implement some sort of test for what can and cannot be put out. Go back to my first big post in this thread and you'll notice that I am specifically reacting to someone (in a published article) that was looking at Kingdom Death and saying 'isn't it a shame that this thing is being sold?' Well, No.

I think what has happened here, especially between Ash and myself, is she has mistaken my hostility to her political stance, with a hostility to the practical outcomes she prefers. As an aside, given that both of us seem to have had an ash blond female death knight on an RP server in World of Warcraft, my guess is our aesthetic sensibilities are likely a lot closer then one would initially imagine.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
No, the size of the niche is what makes it negligible; taking you at your word leads to the conclusions that a negligable number of people are motivated to buy based on the factors you've mentioned.

No, I said that a negligible amount of people are willing to buy based ONLY on if it's a reasonable sized female. IOW, it needs to be a suitable model in other respects as well, which I think is fairly reasonable.

I really hope I emphasised it enough this time.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, a female model is important because it is easier to identify with, not to show it off as obviously cheesecake-female.

What exactly do you 'identify' with from say, Sisters of Battle? Is it their religious fervor? Is it their racism and xenophobia? Is it their willingness to kill for an unquestionable authority? Is it their fondness for burning heretics alive? Their belief in Thoughtcrime? Is it some other aspect of Imperial culture you feel resonates within you? Please tell me it's not as simple as them having the same hypothetical genitals as you?

Can you imagine how it feels to enter the hobby as a woman, look around at the available options, see that people offer mostly male-only ranges, a few ranges where the women wear combat bikinis emphasising the T&A, and then be told that without emphasis on the T&A you may as well just make it a man instead?

So step up and make it yourself. Or pay someone else to do it. When I wanted a colour scheme for my DoW marines the game didn't support I remapped the textures. When I wanted a Transformers miniature game I made rules and then models. When I wanted to play Warmachine with my friend who lives 2,500km away I learned to use Blender and made the models for Tabletop Simulator. When my friends and I wanted to use their 40k models with Warmachine rules I made over 200 unit cards up.

If you want something people aren't making- and you feel there's a market for it- why aren't you making it?