There seems to be a fair bit of discussion around here recently regarding the pros and cons of fan service/cheesecake/overtly sexualised female miniatures. Why, there's two such threads here and here.
Why do we need another thread on the subject, then? Well, this thread is different. This thread is special. While the primary purpose of those threads is debate, this thread is intended to be purely practical. No matter what one's opinion on the subject, it's hard to deny that female models are both fairly rare and also frequently sexualised. This presents problems for those of us who either find such things distasteful or who want a bit more variety. Therefore, let's use this space to make a catalogue of female models that might interest others with similar concerns - a wee little repository that fellow gamers can use to find that badass warrior woman they've been looking for, to round out their army!
Now, people's opinions are going to differ on which models meet the criteria of this thread. It is a pretty subjective area, after all. As such, I'd suggest we adopt a lenient approach in order to avoid in-fighting. At the same time, I'd ask that contributors remember that sexualisation/objectification goes beyond mere skimpy attire. If a female model is modestly dressed, but still looks like she's posing for a glamour photographer, some people might still find that rather irritating. At the same time, it is possible for skimpy outfits to be done right (e.g. properly tough female barbarians), but let's try not to flood the thread with too much "empowered skimpiness", for obvious reasons.
I've got a couple of examples of my own, but I'll open the floor for other posters first, because I want this opening post to remain relatively short and neat. So, go ahead and start posting non-fanservice-y female models that you like! Let's see how many we can find...
The top one that comes to mind is High Arbiter Arkeid shown above. She is wearing full plate armor without the usual metal breasts you see on female models giving her a very gender neutral look. She obviously has a slender figure but doesn't have an oversized bust or flaunt her sexuality in any way.
The most surprizing thing is that she comes from the same range as several highly sexualized female models like Maria here, I suppose you can't say that they lack variety.
So basically you opened a thread to catalog something that differs from person to person? And even then do you understand that for a extremely prude person cataloguing 10% of every female mini outhere its just not doable... now imagine someone is very liberal and cataloguing 100% of every female models on the market... Good luck !
NAVARRO wrote:So basically you opened a thread to catalog something that differs from person to person? And even then do you understand that for a extremely prude person cataloguing 10% of every female mini outhere its just not doable... now imagine someone is very liberal and cataloguing 100% of every female models on the market... Good luck !
I think objectification of women is pretty easy to tell. Now a person's ability to perceive that differs from person to person, but that is a societal problem, more than a personal opinion problem.
NAVARRO wrote:So basically you opened a thread to catalog something that differs from person to person? And even then do you understand that for a extremely prude person cataloguing 10% of every female mini outhere its just not doable... now imagine someone is very liberal and cataloguing 100% of every female models on the market... Good luck !
I think objectification of women is pretty easy to tell. Now a person's ability to perceive that differs from person to person, but that is a societal problem, more than a personal opinion problem.
Because people don't make personal decisions based on the society they live in? even then it can change greatly if someone's is part of a religion etc... So to me ITS NOT that clear that its easy to tell if objectification of women is present on miniatures in the first place... even assuming it is the percentage changes from person to person.
Ouze wrote:I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey
That's awesome! Also led me to see their amazing Utility Carapaces... unfortunately they're 22 pounds for a single fig . Even on a 40mm base, that's insane if you wanted to use them for a unit in another game system...
Thankyou for starting this thread, I wanted to post this pic in the previous one but it got shut down because of all the delicious cheesecake pictures
So what is the opinion on this one?
Personally, I plan this on using this on a friend who plays PanO and takes the game far too seriously, and will laugh loudly as this model guns down his hardcore fusiliers as they advance towards her
This thread is clearly not intended as an extension of the previous debate. Please confine further posts to pics of (in the poster's opinion) non-sexualized female figs, or discussion thereof.
Yes, +1 to this thread, and thank you. I'm really looking forward to what folks will find!
Here are my contributions so far...
I've always like this reaper female elf ranger:
And here is a female knight:
I like her tunic, pants, and boots outfit:
The running theme of all of these? The models have a job. That job comes first in the model design- not bewbs. I didn't get a chance to look for sci-fi examples from reaper, but am now curious...
EDIT: OMG I love this model (Reaper Pathfinder Ameiko Kaijitsu). This just says, Come at me, bro.
This one is pretty badazz too (Briony, Cybertechnician):
Edit 2- Briony looked familiar, then I realized, I look at her and think: Amy Farrah Fowler from Big Bang Theory!
Hey, that's some pretty awesome stuff so far, peeps! Especially loving that kick-ass Studio McVey model. Do they do any 28mm minis? I'm just assuming that one isn't based on how detailed it is.
I should probably have made a short list before starting this thread, but I had an itchy trigger finger. I did at least remember one good model I liked, though. Brother Vinni specialises in historical male models and dabbles in sexual female models on the side. Obviously not the sort of thing that would fit in here. However, there is this delightful little gem nestled in amongst his "girlie" collection:-
The chest armour is a teensy bit corset-like around the waist, but I'd say it's just subtle enough to look stylish rather than sexual. I'd totally take one for a Bretonnian army or whatever.
NAVARRO wrote:So basically you opened a thread to catalog something that differs from person to person? And even then do you understand that for a extremely prude person cataloguing 10% of every female mini outhere its just not doable... now imagine someone is very liberal and cataloguing 100% of every female models on the market... Good luck !
Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. Of course everyone's tastes are going to differ, but this thread can still serve as a starting point for somebody's search. We don't all have to agree on everything. When I said "no arguments", I just meant no "skimpy clothes: yea or nay" debates - we can still discuss the models posted here, just so long as we're civil and remember to agree to disagree when appropriate.
I know I certainly like some models that wouldn't be to everyone's tastes. For instance, I absolutely adore Malifaux's resident stage magician, Colette Du Bois and her Showgirls. That's mostly because I'm a huge fan of frilly vintage dresses and the whole showgirl and burlesque aesthetic. I'd say it's a testament to the tastefulness of their designs that the Showgirls are some of the least cheesecake-y models in Malifaux (with the exception of Colette, who is pretty sexual, but at the same time fabulous). Still, I doubt many people would agree that they belong here, so I'll just leave that link instead of pics. Malifaux's fairly good for female models, overall. It certainly has a lot of them, and the majority would totally fit in here if the artists didn't feel the need to tack on plunging necklines all over the place.
Speaking of Malifaux, Sonnia and Kirai totally belong here:-
Sister_Lucy wrote:
As do Rusty Alyce...
...Abuela Ortega...
...and good ol' Molly Squidpiddge.
(That's a skull she has clutched to here bosom - her neckline's pretty modest.)
Mannahnin wrote:This thread is clearly not intended as an extension of the previous debate. Please confine further posts to pics of (in the poster's opinion) non-sexualized female figs, or discussion thereof.
Thanks, Sheriff! We ain't lookin' fer no trouble here!
Brother Gyoken wrote:Anyone have the link to where the "debate" is going on, since apparently we're not allowed to discuss it here?
Yeah, my bad - I didn't realise that thread had been locked. You're free to go start the debate up again, but in a purpose-built thread, not in here.
Pumpkin wrote:
Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. Of course everyone's tastes are going to differ, but this thread can still serve as a starting point for somebody's search. We don't all have to agree on everything. When I said "no arguments", I just meant no "skimpy clothes: yea or nay" debates - we can still discuss the models posted here, just so long as we're civil and remember to agree to disagree when appropriate.
.
Okidoki as long as everyone understands that my idea of "Non-objectified female models" and yours or anyone else's may be totally different its all good I guess. I have some models of females I love and they are as decent IMO as a mini can be. Will post later. If we are going to be picky with what fits or not I could tell you now that depending on the Posters diferent background everything err fits
"Non-Objectified" is really a poor term to use here, because all miniatures, as unthinking pieces of pewter/resin/plastic are objects and the characters they depict are objectified. A female model in a completely body-covering haz-mat suit is still being objectified, she's just (possibly) not being sexually objectified.
Sexual objectification hugely varies from person to person, but I would say any time the model's sex is apparent there is some degree of sexual objectification. But some of these examples of supposedly non-objectified models really strike me as absurd to say they aren't objectified:
Ouze wrote:I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey:
She's definitely objectified. Look at that face, those almond-shaped eyes, those lips. The object she represents is the "strong woman", which by virtue of having a sexual component makes her a sex object. And let me remind everyone, the "strong woman" archetype is every bit as shallow and superficial as the "hot chick" archetype.
Chowderhead wrote:Also from McVey, the Blight Witch!
And the Harbinger of Menoth.
I'd say both of these are very sexually objectified as well. The first is wearing unnecessarily form-fitting armor where several lines converge directly around her vagina (located in the compositional center of the model,) while the second features a priestly woman in white with bare thighs and chains.
Sister_Lucy wrote:
I say clothing a mini in a cultural millieux does not prevent it from being a sexual object. Victorian dress (or faux-Victorian) has many elements quite capable of being sexualized, particularly the corsets and garters present on so many of these figures. And as for the faux-Japanese and faux-Chinese minis, I'd say they are both sexually and racially objectified. The opium elemental in particular is like a laundry-list of attributes someone I know finds incredibly sexy, but wearing a skin-tight chipao that's blowing open in the wind should be obvious sexual objectification.
curran12 wrote:
Are you kidding me? Both of these models have pokey nipples on display, and the second has a frankly absurd bust-to-hip-to-waist ratio. Definitely sexual objects.
I can't help but think a lot of people here have missed the point of what sexual objectification means. These minis are not fully-fledged people who live complex lives. They are archetypes. Some are more shallow than others, but in the end they all represent something that is clearly recognizable just by looking at them. And that's what a good mini should be.
The only time sexual objectification is really a problem is when that sexual objectification is used in lieu of other kinds of objectification. So for example, the Wargames Factory Amazon plastics are a prime example of a bad kind of sexual objectification because the sexual objectification interferes with believably implementing other kinds of objectification. They can't really represent a "fierce warrior woman" archetype because plainly by looking at them they have a spray-on fake breast plate and have chosen thong underwear in lieu of clothing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with depicting the female form, even with depicting it sexually. Sex is a part of who we are, and believe me, you can't shield a child from knowing there are differences between males and females. They know this before they could even comprehend what a miniature is. The problem is when sex is all there is to a miniature, and I think it's making a grave mistake to assume just because a miniature has uncensored naughty bits that sex is all there is to it. I'd say there is more non-sexual content in the wetnurse model, for example, than in most of the minis listed so far on this page. Because in the wetnurse model the sexual content is used to create a feeling of bizarre revulsion in the viewer. Whereas for many of these models the sexual content is depicted exclusively so the painter has something safe and pretty to look at. Not that there is anything wrong with safe and pretty. But in the end, safe and pretty isn't morally superior to nudity, it's still a form of sexual objectification.
Pumpkin wrote:Hey, that's some pretty awesome stuff so far, peeps! Especially loving that kick-ass Studio McVey model. Do they do any 28mm minis? I'm just assuming that one isn't based on how detailed it is.
The one I have is either 28 or 30mm to eyes, for the limited run resin version. She is one of the best models out there for female kickassery, IMHO.
JOHIRA wrote:*snip*
I say clothing a mini in a cultural millieux does not prevent it from being a sexual object. Victorian dress (or faux-Victorian) has many elements quite capable of being sexualized, particularly the corsets and garters present on so many of these figures. And as for the faux-Japanese and faux-Chinese minis, I'd say they are both sexually and racially objectified. The opium elemental in particular is like a laundry-list of attributes someone I know finds incredibly sexy, but wearing a skin-tight chipao that's blowing open in the wind should be obvious sexual objectification.
Are you kidding me? Both of these models have pokey nipples on display, and the second has a frankly absurd bust-to-hip-to-waist ratio. Definitely sexual objects.
I can't help but think a lot of people here have missed the point of what sexual objectification means. These minis are not fully-fledged people who live complex lives. They are archetypes. Some are more shallow than others, but in the end they all represent something that is clearly recognizable just by looking at them. And that's what a good mini should be.
The only time sexual objectification is really a problem is when that sexual objectification is used in lieu of other kinds of objectification. So for example, the Wargames Factory Amazon plastics are a prime example of a bad kind of sexual objectification because the sexual objectification interferes with believably implementing other kinds of objectification. They can't really represent a "fierce warrior woman" archetype because plainly by looking at them they have a spray-on fake breast plate and have chosen thong underwear in lieu of clothing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with depicting the female form, even with depicting it sexually. Sex is a part of who we are, and believe me, you can't shield a child from knowing there are differences between males and females. They know this before they could even comprehend what a miniature is. The problem is when sex is all there is to a miniature, and I think it's making a grave mistake to assume just because a miniature has uncensored naughty bits that sex is all there is to it. I'd say there is more non-sexual content in the wetnurse model, for example, than in most of the minis listed so far on this page. Because in the wetnurse model the sexual content is used to create a feeling of bizarre revulsion in the viewer. Whereas for many of these models the sexual content is depicted exclusively so the painter has something safe and pretty to look at. Not that there is anything wrong with safe and pretty. But in the end, safe and pretty isn't morally superior to nudity, it's still a form of sexual objectification.
I'm glad someone gets it, but sssssh. We're not allowed to discuss on this here discussion board.
Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)
I'm glad someone mentioned Red Box Games. Tre' makes some excellent female fantasy models that are feminine without being sexualized, and using practical-looking equipment without looking manly.
Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)
You mean like this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
I kid because I love Red Box Games. But the fact is, a lot of their models positively drip sexuality. What makes their models the good kind of sex objects as opposed to the bad kind is that they aren't just sex objects. In fact I like Dagny (the first one) the best of all of these because even though she appears to be all about sex, her posing and acessorizing is clearly chosen to tell a story about how she approaches her sexuality. She could be posed the same way, but buck-naked with her robes on the floor, and I'm confident that Tre could tell the same story. Because in the end what makes a mini is not if it shows a few milimeters of exposed breast, but how it is sculpted.
Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)
You mean like this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
or this one?
I kid because I love Red Box Games. But the fact is, a lot of their models positively drip sexuality. What makes their models the good kind of sex objects as opposed to the bad kind is that they aren't just sex objects. In fact I like Dagny (the first one) the best of all of these because even though she appears to be all about sex, her posing and acessorizing is clearly chosen to tell a story about how she approaches her sexuality. She could be posed the same way, but buck-naked with her robes on the floor, and I'm confident that Tre could tell the same story. Because in the end what makes a mini is not if it shows a few milimeters of exposed breast, but how it is sculpted.
I fear you would have had a constant coronary in Sparta.
All you have proven by your examples - and your earlier comments - is that you have a weird view of women. Perhaps you would like them all in a berka?
VanHammer wrote:Some of these models are ok, but the probelm for me is that people have painted them to be wearing makeup.
"Hold on, can go out to war just yet because I need to put my blush and lipstick on"
Yeah.... check out milla jovovich in joan of arc. Thats how they should look in my opinion.
I hate to break it to you, but I've seen guys, particularly elves, but even IG, painted that way, as well. I just sort of think of it in the same light as NMM and go 'eh'.
marielle wrote:All you have proven by your examples - and your earlier comments - is that you have a weird view of women. Perhaps you would like them all in a berka?
Uh, what the ?
I have no idea how you could possibly get that I would want any woman to wear a burqa from what I wrote. I'm saying the exact opposite, that all this hand-wringing about miniatures being objectified is pointless when the definition of objectification is the degree of skin being shown with no qualitative, subjective look at why and how the skin is shown.
Honestly, your attempt to launch a personal attack at me is baffling.
Yeah, it's kinda just what lazy painters do. Kinda like lazy artists who haven't ever really looked closely at women outside of porn so they always draw hard nipples, pouty lips, and other features of arousal.
JOHIRA wrote:"Non-Objectified" is really a poor term to use here, because all miniatures, as unthinking pieces of pewter/resin/plastic are objects and the characters they depict are objectified. A female model in a completely body-covering haz-mat suit is still being objectified, she's just (possibly) not being sexually objectified.
Sexual objectification hugely varies from person to person, but I would say any time the model's sex is apparent there is some degree of sexual objectification.
I should indeed have used the full term "sexual objectification" in the title. I was just looking for something short and snappy that people would understand - had this been on another messageboard, I might have used the terms "fan service" or "cheesecake" - so I guess I missed the mark a bit.
I would say that sexual objectification only occurs when a model's sex most heavily defines them, as a model. The Eldar Guardians (posted earlier on page 2) are great examples: they're Guardians who happen to be female. "Pin-up" models, on the other hand, tend to look more like women who are merely playing dress-up - that is, they give off a feeling that their designer first thought "let's make a sexy woman" and then tried to make it fit in thematically afterwards.
JOHIRA wrote:I can't help but think a lot of people here have missed the point of what sexual objectification means. These minis are not fully-fledged people who live complex lives. They are archetypes. Some are more shallow than others, but in the end they all represent something that is clearly recognizable just by looking at them. And that's what a good mini should be.
Objectification is a polyseme, a word with multiple meanings derived from a shared semantic origin. While one meaning is indeed what you describe - the presentation of archetypes - the meaning we're concerned with here is the presentation of characters with ostensibly serious roles who are none the less presented primarily as sex objects. The fact that they are not real people is irrelevant, because their presentation can have unfortunate implications about how designers and their fans regard real women. I would like to stress that I'm not saying all of these people actually see real women this way, but the abundance of all this fan service is still a little tiresome, regardless.
JOHIRA wrote:The only time sexual objectification is really a problem is when that sexual objectification is used in lieu of other kinds of objectification. So for example, the Wargames Factory Amazon plastics are a prime example of a bad kind of sexual objectification because the sexual objectification interferes with believably implementing other kinds of objectification. They can't really represent a "fierce warrior woman" archetype because plainly by looking at them they have a spray-on fake breast plate and have chosen thong underwear in lieu of clothing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with depicting the female form, even with depicting it sexually. Sex is a part of who we are, and believe me, you can't shield a child from knowing there are differences between males and females. They know this before they could even comprehend what a miniature is. The problem is when sex is all there is to a miniature, and I think it's making a grave mistake to assume just because a miniature has uncensored naughty bits that sex is all there is to it. I'd say there is more non-sexual content in the wetnurse model, for example, than in most of the minis listed so far on this page. Because in the wetnurse model the sexual content is used to create a feeling of bizarre revulsion in the viewer. Whereas for many of these models the sexual content is depicted exclusively so the painter has something safe and pretty to look at. Not that there is anything wrong with safe and pretty. But in the end, safe and pretty isn't morally superior to nudity, it's still a form of sexual objectification.
No-one's making moral judgements on sexual depictions here. Regardless of one's feelings on the matter, sifting through the piles of pin-up models can get annoying, if that's not what you're looking for. Hence, this thread. No moralising, just a resource for a certain "niche" some us happen to be into. That's it. I think the Monty Python crew summed it up best:-
Ain't nothing wrong with a bit of "spam" every now and then, but some of us just want a more varied menu.
Brother Gyoken wrote:I'm glad someone gets it, but sssssh. We're not allowed to discuss on this here discussion board.
Shush, indeed. Like I said, you're free to go make your own topic on that. Here, it's de-railing.
Yes, I know I responded to JOHIRA's post, but that's only because I thought doing so might clear up some misunderstandings that might have lead to future de-railing.
aosol wrote:I'll be the first to admit there is a real lack of fat chick miniatures.
Somebody PM'd me this female dwarf from Four A Miniatures, which is pretty neat:-
Looks like a Trollslayer and would probably fit in well with them, because male ones tend to be depicted topless and with little armour (IIRC).
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I have a few female minis that are no more sexualized than thier male counterparts.
I submit to you.
The Eldar Harlequins
And Shadowseer
As well as
Guardians, the 2 right.
I love the treatment the sexes get in the Eldar range. They've always been some of my favourites. It's subtle enough not to be overly sexualised, and yet the form-fitting Eldar armour makes the different sexes clear without making the female models stick out like sore thumbs.
VanHammer wrote:Some of these models are ok, but the probelm for me is that people have painted them to be wearing makeup.
"Hold on, can go out to war just yet because I need to put my blush and lipstick on"
Yeah.... check out milla jovovich in joan of arc. Thats how they should look in my opinion.
Totally agree. It's a pet peeve of mine. I won't deny that the paintjob on the McVey model, for instance, looks fantastic, but I'd dearly love to see more female soldiers painted the same as their male counterparts. Make-up works fine on "magical" sorts of models - hell, even if they're male - but it looks a little out of place on soldiers.
This is, of course, probably a case of "art imitating...other art". Women tend to be depicted this way in movies and other media, too, so painters just follow the trend.
I think some of you are always raising the goals further....
No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.
As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.
And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!
NAVARRO wrote:I think some of you are always raising the goals further....
No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.
As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.
And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!
People should feel free to point out their issues with the models posted in here. So long as it's more along the lines of "sorry, that doesn't cut it for me" rather than "your suggestions are preposterous and so are you". If some people are going to be more demanding in their tastes, then that can only be a good thing. Nobody's under any obligation to meet all of their requirements, and yet the fact that they've laid down a challenge can also be fun for people who want to take up that challenge and push even harder to find hidden gems. All in all, I'd say it's a positive thing.
PhantomViper wrote:So are we getting a thread on non-objectified male models next?
That's every other thread, essentially.
I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey:
Terrible example, that model is practically the token "pinup" of the McVey range, and it has an exposed breast that you can't see due to the gun.
To counter, here's the other variant of that exact model that shows the exposed breast:
Just because it's well-sculpted, doesn't mean it's not cheesecake.
I own that figure and really like it!
*However* it could be said that there is some objectification going on there, as the female model is the only one who doesn't have her chest covered up by a cloak or gun, and is also the only one with a bare head.
To counter my own point... it could be argued that without the head and chest being visible, it would be very hard to make the model actually appear distinctly female at 28mm scale.
For instance, some of the kneeling snipers could be female, but we wouldn't know either way due to them being too covered up.
NAVARRO wrote:I think some of you are always raising the goals further....
No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.
As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.
And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!
People should feel free to point out their issues with the models posted in here. So long as it's more along the lines of "sorry, that doesn't cut it for me" rather than "your suggestions are preposterous and so are you". If some people are going to be more demanding in their tastes, then that can only be a good thing. Nobody's under any obligation to meet all of their requirements, and yet the fact that they've laid down a challenge can also be fun for people who want to take up that challenge and push even harder to find hidden gems. All in all, I'd say it's a positive thing.
I'm saying the same thing with the difference, and hence my comment, this thread is not just for a niche of people sharing the same ideas because errr most here do not share same ideas about the subject. I dont want to enter in arguments but some of you seem to believe your personal boundaries applies to a defined niche here, no.... they are just personal and so complex that much like the randomness nature of personal tastes cannot be successfully registered here.
I can show you a miniature almost naked, and one of my all time favorites that IMO fits here because thats my personal interpretation on the subject, but I choose not to because I dont have the time to deal with some of the style of comments I see on this same thread... I think my next example will clarify what Im talking about... I draw plenty of 100% nude women in my youth with the help of real models and NEVER I felt anything besides its a sketch exercise... yet the women were naked just a few meters from me and I was a young lad etc To me minis of women showing everything mean nothing more than a mini to paint. Period.
Pumpkin wrote:the meaning we're concerned with here is the presentation of characters with ostensibly serious roles who are none the less presented primarily as sex objects..
But there are two rather significant problems with this:
1) That not all miniatures are supposed to be serious. Not being serious while depicting nudity doesn't make the miniature objectified,
and more problematically,
2) There is an implication here that depicting female sexuality (or even anatomy it appears) interferes with having a serious role. I find this notion extremely misogynistic.
This model depicts very little nudity or sexuality, and yet I would say it treats the female form it depicts very un-seriously, on the same territory as the Infinity Nomads Daktari. Meanwhile I would say the Dagny model from Red Box Games is quite serious and quite sexual, despite depicting no exposed bits.
To say that depicting sexuality "objectifies" women because it interferes with them being serious seems to harken back to Victorian notions of women being burdened by their sex.
The problem with these sorts of models, and i'll use this as an example, not necessarily as the only example of objectification in this list, is not just the clothing and skin showing, though that's certainly part of it. But it's also the proportions of her body, the way she has as little waist as possible, the way she seems to pose as if she was wearing high heels, and the way she bends over just like that so you can see her ass stick out. There's also the fact that well-defined musculature is rare in these sorts of models. This one in particular does have it in the arms, to the sculptor's credit.
The fact that these ostensibly serious women are depicted with nudity or in ridiculous garb is part of objectification, and a society that caters almost exclusively to straight male sexuality. If it were a few models that emphasized this, I could almost forgive it, but almost everything "not-serious" and "women" is sexxed up to a ridiculous level. Whereas, with models that are ostensibly male, there's a lot more diversity in body shapes, sizes, depictions, clothing. That's objectification. That's the problem.
Panzeh wrote:The fact that these ostensibly serious women are depicted with nudity or in ridiculous garb is part of objectification,
Again, I have to protest the implication that sexual content alone can interfere with a model being "serious".
and a society that caters almost exclusively to straight male sexuality. If it were a few models that emphasized this, I could almost forgive it, but almost everything "not-serious" and "women" is sexxed up to a ridiculous level. Whereas, with models that are ostensibly male, there's a lot more diversity in body shapes, sizes, depictions, clothing. That's objectification. That's the problem.
I'm not convinced it is a problem. In every girl-gamer forum I've seen, the general consensus seems to be that it isn't sexiness that women who play these games object to, it's when the characters depicted are only sexy. When they are not percieved as interesting. For example, Bayonetta is fetishized up the wazoo and the consensus was that she is not a problem because she is interesting as depicted. Princess Peach is not sexualized at all (apart from maybe on creepy Deviantart sites) but is absolutely loathed as not even a person, but rather a helpless McGuffin in an ankle-length dress. Now not everyone is going to agree obviously and I'm sure there's at least one woman on this forum who strongly opposes any female models demonstrating any kind of sexual content. But then again IIRC there is a talented woman who paints on here where a significant portion of her work involves nude or sexualized female depictions.
So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem, especially when as has been clearly shown by the minis pictured on these pages that users' notions of what makes a model sexualized is so wildly different as to almost be useless to describe.
As for the mini you pictured, I don't usually collect "Dark Elf-looking" models so I'm not interested in it, but I really like the way she stands on her toes. She almost looks to me like a "ballerina of death". And while this is not a new or innovative trope, she is executed fantastically well, and I cannot accept that her clothing somehow interferes with her being a serious model without also taking as read an argument I disagree with that says women who show any kind of sexual appeal are impossible to take seriously- that women cannot be simultaneously sexually appealing and competent. I just don't buy that.
Well. Bollocks. Artists create, if you react, good. But, its all subjective. When i was on active duty, the women wore sporty wifebeatery things, us lads wore tee's. In uniform, with RRV's / CIRAS, guess what attribute still showed? and yes there were pretty ones, a lot of them. And for that matter my MAFD with the IDF, there were more often than not, very pretty ladies doing their part.
But as i believe was shown above, its a double edged sword, so to say. you can't have one, with the other.
But its as much depicting a characteristic, as it is trying to enhance an attribute to make it look more female, pointy nipples or not, on a 28-34mm scale.
For a miniature to look more male, the buff / thin as a stick stereotype works splendid, but for females the same selections of attributes for a stereotype is apparently sexistic, much as i guess some will complain about my non-use of genus.
I'll take discussions such as these more seriously when the Opinionated Bunch, actually pick up a sculpting tool and try sculpting a miniature.
also: see _marketing_ (key rule being, if it doesnt sell, it doesnt get produced)
EDIT:
For sculpters (slash wargames, slash mini's) to be sexist against women the "game world" would need to state or imply (through various means) that women are different (it works best if they are represented as inferior) than men in ways that are not supported by by reasonable biological evidence.
For example, if the game states something to the effect that all the participants are women because only women are of the fragile mental state required to participate in such brutal fighting, then you could cry sexism. If the game instead demonstrates that the women in this game have large breasts and comic book sculpted bodies (what I currently see) then all you have done is give me a caricature of women that reduces the idea of femininity to an easily measured metrics (e.g. breast measurements).
That doesn't mean people shouldn't complaint about such objectification because that is, by far, the more prevalent issue in games. That said, games as a whole tend to objectify men as often as women. It just happens that the square jawed brown haired habitual hero seems less negative than "sex vixen" even though it is exactly as incorrect.
BUT males are _every_ bit as stereotyped: 1) Handsome to sexy, a quality largely based on the perspective of the person who makes the character/sculpt. 2) Selflessly heroic - to the extent that they might as well be the fairy tale knight in shining armor type (fluff, felix) 3) Fantastically masculine - square jaw, self assured and with a body somewhere between working out 10 hours a week with a personal trainer to "I spend all my time in the gym lifting heavy things". (oh ho hum, marines?) 4) Often in direct or indirect pursuit of a romantic goal (various fluff on both sides of the gw franchises)
So What you see here _is not_ inherently sexist and especially not exclusively sexist towards women. GW Games are based on the previously defined world that they've been curating for the better part of four decades. Make no mistake, male characters are sexualized. The catch is, being designed by males, such characters are not objectified ideal of the gender but rather classic examples of Marty Stu. In other words, they are the objectified ideal of the male gender as a male might see it.
Also: Sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex Objectify: Degrade to the status of a mere object.
And as you see, you have me riled up. I'll make good on one thing. When i'm done with the admech and chapter serf sculpts around april, i'll do a female sculpt. I'll let you lot define it. Challenge Accepted.
I'll make good on one thing. When i'm done with the admech and chapter serf sculpts around april, i'll do a female sculpt. I'll let you lot define it. Challenge Accepted.
PhantomViper wrote:So are we getting a thread on non-objectified male models next?
That's every other thread, essentially.
I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey:
Terrible example, that model is practically the token "pinup" of the McVey range, and it has an exposed breast that you can't see due to the gun.
To counter, here's the other variant of that exact model that shows the exposed breast:
Just because it's well-sculpted, doesn't mean it's not cheesecake.
I own that figure and really like it!
*However* it could be said that there is some objectification going on there, as the female model is the only one who doesn't have her chest covered up by a cloak or gun, and is also the only one with a bare head.
To counter my own point... it could be argued that without the head and chest being visible, it would be very hard to make the model actually appear distinctly female at 28mm scale.
For instance, some of the kneeling snipers could be female, but we wouldn't know either way due to them being too covered up.
In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.
Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.
And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.
Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.
Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.
And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.
Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.
Well, we do live in a world where TV censors think that aggressive women cause homosexuality. Let's face it, humanity hasn't left the Dark Ages all that far behind where women were property and so were the men, in all likelihood.
aosol wrote:I'll be the first to admit there is a real lack of fat chick miniatures.
This one may be slightly objectified...
Please don't quote large images unless it's really necessary. -Mannahnin
And a racist apparently...
I thought the same thing
not sure im getting the racist thing here ?
It's a very contentious issue, but the Confederate flag is seen by many as a symbol of slavery and the Southern States attempts to keep it. It's also commonly used by white supremicist groups for this symbolism. There are people who argue it is a symbol of "Southern Pride" but to the vast majority of people it's seen as a symbol of slavery and racism. I'm Canadian and up here, it's pretty well seen as a racist flag.
The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over its symbolism.
Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from Northern government. Some groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including racist groups such as the Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.[23] The flag is also sometimes used by separatist organizations such as the Aryan Nations. The Aryan Nation also uses the U.S. flag as well as the Christian flag displayed in some Protestant churches.
Due to its ban in some schools and universities that have viewed it as a racist symbol, display of the flag has, in these contexts, also been considered an exercise of free speech.[24]
Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Some rockabilly fans hold the Confederate flag as their emblem as well.[citation needed] The flag is a regular cultural meme, often appearing in association with a character intended to represent a stereotypical Southerner.
As a result of these varying perceptions, there have been a number of political controversies surrounding the use of the Confederate flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events, at Southern universities, and on public buildings. According to Civil War historian and native Southerner Shelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the South's resistance to Northern political dominance; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when fighting against desegregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.
Symbols of the Confederacy remain a contentious issue across the United States and their civic placement has been debated vigorously in many Southern state legislatures since the 1990s."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:Hmm.. men in improbable bikinis?
Skippy wrote:1.5 pages before the debating started? Longer than i thought!
I'm a fool for ever thinking that this thread would end in anything other than catastrophic failure, and I'm especially a fool for getting suckered into off-topic discussion.
Some people just live to destroy. They see a thread specifically made to cater to a group of people whose views they don't share, and what do they do? Do they leave these people in peace? Do they make their own thread? Hell, no. Everything is about them. They don't like a thread, nobody else gets to enjoy it. It's just the sort of thing that happens on boards like these, I suppose. I don't know why I thought it would be different this time around.
JOHIRA wrote:So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem
NO. No, we are not. None of us are. Because that is NOT what this thread is about, or was ever about, at any point, at all. Go start your own thread specifically to discuss these matters. You saw what happened to the last one. Can you guess why, then, I am keen to keep this gak out of this thread?
BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, there are minis where women are overly sexual.
But perhaps it's hard to hear their complaints over the sound of all that rippling beefcake...
What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?
Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models? Would you like to be able to find more? If so go make a thread about that.
I haven't been here very long, yet I've already worked out how the New Thread feature works. If anybody is having trouble with it, PM me and I'll talk you through it. I would be delighted to do so. Really.
xcasex wrote:And as you see, you have me riled up.
Read a different thread, then! Clearly, this one is not for everyone!
xcasex wrote:I'll make good on one thing. When i'm done with the admech and chapter serf sculpts around april, i'll do a female sculpt. I'll let you lot define it. Challenge Accepted.
Fantastic! Go start a blog on it, then!
EDIT: I'll try to butt out now. For reals. No sense repeating myself ad infinitum. I've said my piece.
EDIT-EDIT: And I'll try to stop being such an ogre, too. Promise. Combative tones don't make for a welcoming atmosphere.
Is it fair to say that these models are one offs, that do not show all the aspects of somebodys being? And also, isn't it just as sexist to deny that a woman has breasts, and must only wear baggy armor/clothing which hides this? I point to this: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/81554/bayonetta-is-new-school-feminism/ You may not agree but I think its worth consideration.
Like in this pic.
Sorry... had trouble embedding...
@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.
Pumpkin wrote:Some people just live to destroy. They see a thread specifically made to cater to a group of people whose views they don't share, and what do they do? Do they leave these people in peace? Do they make their own thread? Hell, no. Everything is about them. They don't like a thread, nobody else gets to enjoy it. It's just the sort of thing that happens on boards like these, I suppose. I don't know why I thought it would be different this time around.
Now now, don't throw a tantrum. You aren't the boss of Dakkadakka, and part of posting a thread in a forum is accepting that people will post in it as well, even things you personally don't want to see. Best get accustomed to it.
And when the very title of your thread uses the words "Non-objectified" to imply that any models that don't fit the tone of what is posted here are objectified, then you are making a value judgement about the models posted here and not posted here. Heck, when you say that a depiction of women cannot be simultaneously sexual and serious, you're making a value judgement about sexuality itself. About femininity itself.
Don't think you can make all of these value judgement without other people throwing in their opinions. It's not destroying just to post something you personally don't like.
JOHIRA wrote:So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem
NO. No, we are not. None of us are. Because that is NOT what this thread is about, or was ever about, at any point, at all. Go start your own thread specifically to discuss these matters. You saw what happened to the last one. Can you guess why, then, I am keen to keep this gak out of this thread?
I don't think so. You made a claim in this thread, and if you want your claim to be taken seriously I would like you to explain it.
xcasex wrote:@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.
To be fair, this debate/argument was had a few weeks ago in the now locked thread. I generally agree with you and your views but this thread was started to just show off minis that a group of people personally consider to be non objectifying. Wether we agree with that term or not, this isnt really the place to discuss it.
However the nude models thread is still open for business and arguments, mostly arguments!
xcasex wrote:@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.
To be fair, this debate/argument was had a few weeks ago in the now locked thread. I generally agree with you and your views but this thread was started to just show off minis that a group of people personally consider to be non objectifying. Wether we agree with that term or not, this isnt really the place to discuss it.
The problem with that is that there isn't an agreement in what is objectified and what isn't. Every user has his/her own view. So I think that the natural path for this thread was show some pics, disagree in wether the pics fit or not, and finally discussion about the main question. I think I was right about that, discussion can't be avoided xD
Objectification depends on our own reactions to what we are seeing. If we can't see beyond the boobs... the problem probably is ours.
Well theres nothing stopping anyone starting another thread discussing the question lol. Its been quite interesting to see what models each person has posted, showing what they consider to fit the thread title, they clearly vary a lot!
I do agree this thread is doomed to end in fistycuffs. Theres been some cool models shown tho
Pumpkin wrote:
What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?
Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models? Would you like to be able to find more? If so go make a thread about that.
I haven't been here very long, yet I've already worked out how the New Thread feature works. If anybody is having trouble with it, PM me and I'll talk you through it. I would be delighted to do so. Really.
I can tell you haven't been here... or anywhere for that matter... for very long as you missed the point that while there are sexualized minis of females, there are also sexualized minis of men. My argument is that it's not entirely one sided.
Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.
And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.
Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.
I didn't mean that it was my own opinion, I intended to suggest how sexist society is in some aspects. I might not have elaborated properly, or it may be another case of written text not conveying my tone.
Erasoketa wrote:[
The problem with that is that there isn't an agreement in what is objectified and what isn't. Every user has his/her own view.
Exactly! Its like this thread is aimed at a group of people sharing same view on the subject but that group does not exist in the first place. That alone will make this thread a debate rather than a monologue.
One thing is posting a thread "post your favorite space marine", that is simple and has no room for interpretation, but posting a thread and making all kinds of personal judgements/ conclusions and assuming all other people think alike on very interpretative/ dubious issue is bound to generate some heated debates.
I also don't understand the OP comments about people destroying the thread. I mean, I post a suggestion according to my boundaries on the subject, someone politely disagrees and I respond etc thats the natural course of a "Dakka Discussions" thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pumpkin wrote:
What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?
Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models?
This was what I was afraid of Pumpkin, I can post most female models I like here and think they still fit, I choose not to because I would know that someone would simply fall on the easiest trap on this thread, assuming my choices don't fit this thread because it doesn't fit posters opinion. Its like trying to be objective on totally subjective things. ( not going to happen)
Aye, I fully support Erasoketa and NAVARRO on this one. Tbh its why I've barely posted in the three threads doing the rounds (well two now) as my view would clash with plenty of folks in here.
Oddly I agree with a lot of feminist views, Aura is pretty adamant in her views as well. I just have a discord when it comes to toys and fan art, as unless its over the line, its just fantasy depictions of the female form. There are a lot more 'real life' things to be worried about than does this 28mm figure have too much clevage on show.
Aura being an artist pretty much feels the same way, she has no issue with my fantasy art thread in DCM for example. Actually contributed to it once as well, as long as its not 'hardcore' in style, we are generally not offended in the slightest.
NAVARRO wrote:This was what I was afraid of Pumpkin, I can post most female models I like here and think they still fit, I choose not to because I would know that someone would simply fall on the easiest trap on this thread, assuming my choices don't fit this thread because it doesn't fit posters opinion. Its like trying to be objective on totally subjective things. ( not going to happen)
The poster to whom I responded posted images of male models who they thought were sexually objectified. They not only didn't try, they actually did try: to do the exact opposite. That's like some sort of anti-trying. If that is your idea of appropriate content for this thread, then I suppose you were right not to post such things.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:There are a lot more 'real life' things to be worried about than does this 28mm figure have too much clevage on show.
This thread was never about making moral judgements, but purely about people who don't like the majority of female minis posting images of female minis that they do like, that is all, that is completely it. It then attracted a couple of people who don't have a problem with the majority of female minis, and who therefore had no need for this thread, but who demanded that we all explain ourselves immediately and stop feeling differently about things, I mean seriously what is everyone going on about, did you not see the Monty Python spam video, oh my god it's like talking to my own echo in here I think I can actually physically see my sanity slipping away it's waving and smiling at me why is it smiling why is it doing that
That wasn't at you Pumpkin, more at those who seem to be 'appalled' because a commissar is daring to show her upper breast.
I could post dozens of mini's in here that would be imo not objectified, however as NAVARRO said others might disagree and cause an issue.
You just suggested to him the same without any idea on what kind of models he is referencing, what makes your call on whats not objectified better than his?
Or should I just say damn the torpedos and post a group of models I don't see as objectified, as that would be in the spirit of the thread, even if I know going on posts from previous threads, there are folks who would diasagree with me.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:That wasn't at you Pumpkin, more at those who seem to be 'appalled' because a commissar is daring to show her upper breast.
Fair enough. I suppose I can't speak for everyone in this thread. If people say such things, I suppose I shouldn't butt in when someone responds. Maybe I am going a bit mad if I'm just firing at shadows now.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I could post dozens of mini's in here that would be imo not objectified, however as NAVARRO said others might disagree and cause an issue.
You just suggested to him the same without any idea on what kind of models he is referencing, what makes your call on whats not objectified better than his?
Or should just say damn the torpedos and post a group of models I don't see as objectified, as that would be in the spirit of the thread, even if I know going on posts from previous threads, there are folks who would diasagree with me.
So who is right in that situation?
Do it, do it, do it! It's so very hard to do "quality control" on something so subjective, so let's go for quantity. All I ask is that people "try". So what if others don't agree with you? If you believe they fit in here and you posted them, you tried. If someone posts something that they don't even care whether or not it fits here, just to provoke a reaction, then that would be someone who hasn't tried. At the end of the day, it's for everyone to individually make up their minds on whether or not they like the models other people have posted. Just so long as people are respectful, ain't nothing wrong with a little dissent.
1) you advice me not to even without knowing what I was to post
2) I really dont have the energies to explain my personal beiefs towards my choices to a board of people that go from polite and tolerant to the oposite
3) I rather spend time sculpting and painting those minis some of you are so offended by
4) Ill be the judge of my own choices thank you sir
Would you enter a debate of judging people's tastes? I would not go there and just assume everyone's different and its all good.
NAVARRO wrote:Don't worry I will not post it because:
1) you advice me not to even without knowing what I was to post
I just said not to post if you're going to post male models who you believe are being sexually objectified. That's pretty off-topic.
NAVARRO wrote:2) I really dont have the energies to explain my personal beiefs towards my choices to a board of people that go from polite and tolerant to the oposite
Just ignore them. That's what I'd do. Once you've posted models that suit your tastes, you shouldn't feel the need to explain yourself. Let them comment, but don't let them get to you. You post, they respond, then just leave it there. That would work fine.
NAVARRO wrote:3) I rather spend time sculpting and painting those minis some of you are so offended by
4) Ill be the judge of my own choices thank you sir
Would you enter a debate of judging people's tastes? I would not go there and just assume everyone's different and its all good.
Hey, your choice. It makes sense to focus on what you like doing. Don't worry about ifs and buts if you do want to post more models here. Just so long as you think they fit the theme of this thread.
Off topic i know, but some of these smaller mini companies really need to hire better painters for their photos, some of them are pretty poor and it doesn't show the sculpt off in the best light.
$20-30 for a decent paint job would pay for itself in increased sales id have thought?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pumpkin wrote:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:That wasn't at you Pumpkin, more at those who seem to be 'appalled' because a commissar is daring to show her upper breast.
Fair enough. I suppose I can't speak for everyone in this thread. If people say such things, I suppose I shouldn't butt in when someone responds. Maybe I am going a bit mad if I'm just firing at shadows now.
Pumpkin has been very respectful of people who have different views and hasn't been attacking models and sculptors like some others in previous posts, thats one of the main reasons i have no problem with this topic.
Skippy wrote:Pumpkin has been very respectful of people who have different views and hasn't been attacking models and sculptors like some others in previous posts, thats one of the main reasons i have no problem with this topic.
I'm not sure I agree:
Pumpkin wrote:Some people just live to destroy. They see a thread specifically made to cater to a group of people whose views they don't share, and what do they do? Do they leave these people in peace? Do they make their own thread? Hell, no. Everything is about them. They don't like a thread, nobody else gets to enjoy it.
I wouldn't say accusing people who don't post exactly what pumpkin wants of "living to destroy" as being very respectful at all.
I wouldn't say accusing people who don't post exactly what pumpkin wants of "living to destroy" as being very respectful at all.
I wrote a reply to this on "whats the point of being wound up at somebody over the internet, just press back on your broser" then i realised i was being a hypocrite
On topic, i think there are some really nice minis that have been posted that could actually make an army more mixed rather than 95% male in composition, while still being grimdark and in theme.
Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic. There is a difference between being able to see that somebody has breasts, and somebody wearing 'armor' that does nothing except cover their naughty bits.
Like here
Clearly female, and I don't need to see any cleavage to know it.
AtariAssasin wrote:Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic.
Ah, but again, you're making judgements on miniatures (and the people who buy them) based on a principle I reject. A mini is not "strong" simply because it shows very little skin. Simply because a mini depicts female sexuality does not mean it was designed solely to appeal to males, nor does a mini depicting female sexuality that does appeal to males mean the appeal comes exclusively from the depiction of sexuality. You're passing pretty sweeping judgements with these claims, and then trying to silence anyone who disagrees with your sweeping judgements by accusing them of being "intentionally argumentative". No, I'm not being intentionally argumentative. You are insulting me, and demanding I not respond. That does not fly.
AtariAssasin wrote:Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic.
Ah, but again, you're making judgements on miniatures (and the people who buy them) based on a principle I reject. A mini is not "strong" simply because it shows very little skin. Simply because a mini depicts female sexuality does not mean it was designed solely to appeal to males, nor does a mini depicting female sexuality that does appeal to males mean the appeal comes exclusively from the depiction of sexuality. You're passing pretty sweeping judgements with these claims, and then trying to silence anyone who disagrees with your sweeping judgements by accusing them of being "intentionally argumentative". No, I'm not being intentionally argumentative. You are insulting me, and demanding I not respond. That does not fly.
I agree with Johira, at least in the part concerning the own minis.
All I am trying to say is that the original point of this topic was not to argue the definition of what is or is not objectified. Since we were never given a specific guideline to follow as to what the poster thought fit into this topic, we therefore have to use our own judgements and that leaves a wide opening for us to argue about what applies. However, coninually forcing an argument instead of getting behind the spirit of the thread isn't helping. If you don't want to post some pictures, you don't have to... but why continue to argue? I'll bow out after this, I didn't want to fan the flames, I was just trying to suggest that we maybe refocus our energies...
AtariAssasin wrote:All I am trying to say is that the original point of this topic was not to argue the definition of what is or is not objectified. Since we were never given a specific guideline to follow as to what the poster thought fit into this topic, we therefore have to use our own judgements and that leaves a wide opening for us to argue about what applies. However, coninually forcing an argument instead of getting behind the spirit of the thread isn't helping. If you don't want to post some pictures, you don't have to... but why continue to argue? I'll bow out after this, I didn't want to fan the flames, I was just trying to suggest that we maybe refocus our energies...
Ive been interested in the differences between the minis posted by different people, it shows what a massive gulf in opinion there is about whats acceptable and whats not.
Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Personally, I would decide if a model was "objectified" based on whether it looked like it was designed with "looking sexy" in mind.
My personal preference is to have models that look like they're actually ready for battle, not posing for a glamour shoot. Infinity, which I'm thinking of getting into, has a boatload of "pin-up pose" women (and robots). Fortunately, the Japanese Sectorial Army, which I'm especially interested in (hell yes, "Akira" bikers!), avoids those sorts of models almost entirely, which is very handy. Apart from the utterly bizarre Karakuri sex-bots, the Japanese Sectorial's women are pretty awesome: posed like they're ready for battle and dressed appropriately (apart from the odd bit of "boob armour" and boots with built-in heels, which are both understated and easily overlooked). Good stuff.
While we're on that subject, Lelith Hesperax is a fantastic model. She obviously was designed to look sexy, but in a good way. Her appearance genuinely fits her background, she has appropriate musculature (at least for a Dark Eldar warrior), and she looks like she's about to cave your goddamned face in. Poses get overlooked so often, but they're so very, very important for characterisation. I would take a scantily clad ass-kicker over a fully clothed "tee-hee! I'm posing with a gun!" pin-up dollie any day of the week. ...Of course, it would be nice if most of my ass-kickers were also fully dressed, too!
These models are all from Infinity's Yu Jing range. Specifically, ones you'd be using in a Japanese Sectorial Army (Sectorial Armies limit your troop choices within a faction, in a flavourful way, but allow you to take more of any rare troops which fall under your Sector, and there's also some other special bonuses or something).
Biker on the right is female:-
Female, male, female, male:-
Yes, there is some minor degree of silliness on some of these models: namely boob armour and built-in high heels. But, as I said before, that stuff is really quite subtle. The boob armour is about as tasteful as it can get, and you'd actually have to be looking carefully to notice the heels. Both are silly in the context of a military unit (I shouldn't need to explain the heels to anyone, but if anyone's scratching their heads over my aversion to boob armour, check out this awesome article, Section 4 in particular), but both are either easily overlooked, or perhaps even embraced for their quirky stylishness. Apart from those minor quibbles, this stuff is pretty darned fab.
As for pics... this one may be controversial, but let me explain:
Seraphine Le Roux, by Studio McVey.
She is not a sex object. She is goddess as snake, she is lady luck, she is voodoo priestess. She is sexy, yes, but sex is just part of who she is. Her face says it all - desire me if you will, for luck, for blessings, for sex, but at your peril. Do so and I may bless you with your every desire, or curse you with despair.
To me this mini is one of the better example of a sexy female mini that is more than just a sex object.
So does this mean I can start a thread of tastless female models? This is just a flame bait thread, imo, but in the interests of civil discourse, I am going to assume the OP is talking about female models with no exposed flesh that cannot in any way seem sexually apealing. A hobby Burka if you will...
GW has a fair number of those, the best example being the Sisters of Sigmar from the Mordhiem range and the numerous Brettonian female models. Their general aversion to boobs has pretty much meant that they have made very few female models in the last few years, even for armies that should have fighting women in them, like Warriors of Chaos or Imperial Guard. Outside of GW, Reaper has a fair amount of conservatively attired women, mostly in their legends range. Everywhere else its a crapshoot, because sex sells and attractive women kicking butt in cheasecake outfits has been a staple of the genre since the first Conan novels. If tasteful nudity is acceptable, then Shadowforge has a ton of stuff, especially historics.
Phazael wrote:So does this mean I can start a thread of tastless female models? This is just a flame bait thread, imo, but in the interests of civil discourse, I am going to assume the OP is talking about female models with no exposed flesh that cannot in any way seem sexually apealing. A hobby Burka if you will...
Do whatever you want. I don't see why this thread has to be flame bait: different people have different tastes. Also, there is a gigantic range of clothing in between a chainmail bikini and a burka. I have no idea why anyone, designers and sculptors included, should feel that only these two binary states exist.
It is within the purview of a thread's creator to set the topic. That's not to say that discussion is not permitted, but if a general topic has been established, then posts deliberately outside those bounds will be violations of the Dakka rules.
Yes, this topic is an inherently subjective one, and different people's standards will differ. But I think we can all make reasonable judgments about the general kind of thing that's being sought here. Nice female models which either a) don't show off sexual attributes, or b) only incidentally do so, as opposed to being primarily 3D pin-up girls. Yes, different people will draw the line different places, and that's okay.
I appreciate folks' efforts to keep the discussion on-topic and polite.
I did at least remember one good model I liked, though. Brother Vinni specialises in historical male models and dabbles in sexual female models on the side. Obviously not the sort of thing that would fit in here. However, there is this delightful little gem nestled in amongst his "girlie" collection:-
?
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
