One should not discard the fact that a game designer can and will use the lore to explore and present philosophical concerns they have or to highlight social problems they may see.
PsychoticStorm wrote: The heart of the topic is how having females/ women in such an outfit may or may not deter female gamers
I am wondering why you cannot see how this is directly related to having male and female characters dressed differently…
Dark Severance, are you really comparing historical games that are accurate to an history that is completely independent from the wish of the authors to fictional games where the lore is literally anything the authors wants it to be?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A fictional scenario without the same grounding in history would not have the same argument.
I gave both a historical example and a non-historical example. A fictional lore/history still has the same argument. For one thing if everything was equal there wouldn't be war or conflict in the first place. That is what happens when two societies have different perspectives, point of views and environments creating that conflict. Fiction isn't any different than non-fiction, except one of them isn't real which means they wouldn't and shouldn't have to conform to certain concepts and ideas. It is fiction. That also means that doesn't stop anyone from creating their own "fan-fiction" and rewriting or changing things, but you shouldn't expect those companies to accept that fan-fiction and have to create products to match them.
Now a game can become adaptable to show growth by expanding its base with future expansions or updating the lore. If a new chapter was added with a different set of views and beliefs in the lore of that story. They couldn't go back and say, "everything you read was wrong, there really was women in the units and we'll update the lore to become politically correct now."
Well they could but that creates a whole different version, basically becomes a "reboot". Star Wars did it when they threw out expanded universe. The Star Trek remakes completely changed what previous Star Treks and set up. DC and Marvel have all sorts of reboots... which is one of the reasons I stopped reading half the comics in the first place. Decisions were made to change and update their stories to be politically correct. They should have simply incorporated new additions or made other characters adapt and change point of views to show that change instead of just reboot.
A certain game company could also easily say "women and men" do serve in those units, they are however indistinguishable from each other especially since they all wear helmets. The only way to show they were different would be to do a unhelmeted head swap and put a female head on them (which is suggested and people do). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It satisfies both discussions. It is realistic because in soldiers, you wouldn't want people to distinguish men and women from each other for various reasons. You also want the army unit to function without any boundaries or lines, hence most are helmeted soldiers that are the bread and butter... they are all the same, simply soldiers, not women, not men but soldiers. Current lore and everything could still fit in without rebooting.
However once we got to head swaps. Then it became, well why can't we do more. That isn't enough, now we have to have a realistic female (despite that two armored units indistinguishable would be realistic) alternate sculpt. They want something that they can identify with, that isn't 'manlike' in nature.
They could also come out with completely new units that embrace a new ideology. I don't think they will, but that is probably how I would handle it. That is in fact how new units that were primarily men serving, would have conditions changing as time progresses where women do start to be allowed to serve in those units.
Well, that is completely false. The argument was “That is how it was, we are not responsible for it and we cannot change it”. In a fictional setting, it becomes “That is how we decided it would be, we are responsible for it and we could change it if we wanted to.”
Dark Severance wrote: They couldn't go back and say, "everything you read was wrong, there really was women in the units and we'll update the lore to become politically correct now."
Oh the nice PC boogieman. They have multiple ways to do it, you just don't like them. And they could simply get it right the first time…
A certain game company could also easily say "women and men" do serve in those units, they are however indistinguishable from each other especially since they all wear helmets. The only way to show they were different would be to do a unhelmeted head swap and put a female head on them (which is suggested and people do). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It satisfies both discussions. It is realistic because in soldiers, you wouldn't want people to distinguish men and women from each other for various reasons. You also want the army unit to function without any boundaries or lines, hence most are helmeted soldiers that are the bread and butter... they are all the same, simply soldiers, not women, not men but soldiers. Current lore and everything could still fit in without rebooting.
However once we got to head swaps. Then it became, well why can't we do more. That isn't enough, now we have to have a realistic female (despite that two armored units indistinguishable would be realistic) alternate sculpt. They want something that they can identify with, that isn't 'manlike' in nature.
I'm not entirely sure how this is a bad thing, though. Considering that, well, the Imperial Guard is in fact mixed gender. I don't think anyone is arguing that Space Marines should be mixed, or that there absolutely can not be any male (or female!) only units. Actually having variety in units that are, by lore, mixed though would be pretty great.
I'm also 100% with Hybrid here. Wyches are fine because both are treated equally. It's only bs if only the female combatants are required to wear high heels (or the guys have to go as chippendale mock-ups.) Yes, Elves are androgynous, that makes it easier, but you need to sculpt the bodies either way, so why not have a 3/7, 4/6 or 5/5 split in IG boxes? It's not like the current Cadians and Catachans aren't horrendous anyway. I mean, honestly, they don't look suited for human beings of either gender right now.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Dark Severance, are you really comparing historical games that are accurate to an history that is completely independent from the wish of the authors to fictional games where the lore is literally anything the authors wants it to be?
I highlighted the important part of that statement. In my previous post I did give two examples. The reason I included the historical example is because most authors write using real world examples and fiction is stylized from non-fiction. In the case of the Queen's Guard there is a direct relation and correlation with how some fiction authors created their fictional game worlds. I also gave a fictional example to highlight the imperfections of that universe as it was created and serves as a ground basis behind portions of the conflict that happen in the game.
You are right that the fictional game can be anything the author wants it to be. I don't disagree with that. However you are asking for them to modify their fictional world, to create something you want. There isn't anything wrong with that either. Not everyone likes the same books, writers, or even movies. That comes from differences in preferences. I am saying the Dark Elf example isn't valid because they represent what is written and how the lore of those backgrounds were created. Could that be updated, absolutely. Will they update it? I doubt it but one could hope but then again that is in part one of many reasons I don't play that particular game as much as I used too.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: They have multiple ways to do it, you just don't like them. And they could simply get it right the first time…
It is kind of hard to get it right the first time when the game was created, at that time it was created, that those units were stylized after a particular military unit that actually didn't allow women in them... hence why they were created as they were. It was fiction mimicking reality at that time.
It isn't so much that I don't like them. I don't like reboots. There are many ways to do it. It is more along the lines you don't like they aren't doing that or anything at all... which is valid. I have no effect on that whatsoever.
As I said earlier newer games in today do a better integration and representation because they are newer, there are more things to stylize and create the fictional worlds from. They can also do additional new chapters and stories, talking about a completely new unit under those divisions. The easiest method though would be that they are indistinguishable from each other, offer alternate unhelmeted head swaps and then make minor modifications to Lore. There are a few other ways they could do it... but again I have no effect on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Korraz wrote: I'm not entirely sure how this is a bad thing, though.
It isn't a bad thing. I think there should be alternate head sculpts although they probably won't do it as there are already bits on the market that meet that demand. When we talked about alternate head sculpts. It was then brought up why can't they do alternate body sculpts like they do with Dark Eldar which have equal representation. They have that equal representation because of the lore.
Alternate sculpts for space marines does increase costs. If they simply just did a chest swap, it could be done. But if they base it on the Eldar/Dark Eldar examples then it would just be boob plate chests. Then we end up going around again the discussions. It becomes why boob plate, why not stylize the body differently, then update legs/arms and now we're getting into a whole new sculpt vs just an alternate chest and head. Then it is the discussion if Dark Eldar/Eldar is really a good thing, yes they can be considered dressed similar but now we're back to boob plate which was the initial started for part of this thread.
If you really want to get to the heart of when someone will include alternates of something. It really comes down to, will there be room on the sprue for it. Then if there is room, what do they put there... as it is highlighted and explained by Ludo. I snip'ed out the whole post and just kept the example of what I mean.
We must try to find the best set up between mould cost and miniature cost (simple: more moulds mean easier production, but moulds are expensive; using fewer moulds with miniatures that we do not require the same number of makes production more difficult and therefore more expensive per miniature). For that purpose we need to know how many of which miniature we need to produce, and how to pack them.
What I can promise you is that we will try to optimize production. If we have space on the moulds, we will add a miniature even if that stretch goal is not reached.
PsychoticStorm wrote: The heart of the topic is how having females/ women in such an outfit may or may not deter female gamers
I am wondering why you cannot see how this is directly related to having male and female characters dressed differently…
Dark Severance, are you really comparing historical games that are accurate to an history that is completely independent from the wish of the authors to fictional games where the lore is literally anything the authors wants it to be?
Answer to question A is because the examples we have and talk here for example the mobile brigadas are not dressed differently, they are sexualised (and that done equally) but they dress the same.
Answer to type B is because fluff is a creative endeavor and is used to express the author's ideas fears and concerns, most of it is based in reality and discusses concerns that are present in real life.
As for the really interesting retcon discussion, I hate retcons, fluff evolution is one thing retcon is a double edged sword with handle been a blade too waving it with the finesse it requires is a form of art rarely seen.
A certain game company could also easily say "women and men" do serve in those units, they are however indistinguishable from each other especially since they all wear helmets. The only way to show they were different would be to do a unhelmeted head swap and put a female head on them (which is suggested and people do). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It satisfies both discussions. It is realistic because in soldiers, you wouldn't want people to distinguish men and women from each other for various reasons. You also want the army unit to function without any boundaries or lines, hence most are helmeted soldiers that are the bread and butter... they are all the same, simply soldiers, not women, not men but soldiers. Current lore and everything could still fit in without rebooting.
However once we got to head swaps. Then it became, well why can't we do more. That isn't enough, now we have to have a realistic female (despite that two armored units indistinguishable would be realistic) alternate sculpt. They want something that they can identify with, that isn't 'manlike' in nature.
I'm not entirely sure how this is a bad thing, though. Considering that, well, the Imperial Guard is in fact mixed gender. I don't think anyone is arguing that Space Marines should be mixed, or that there absolutely can not be any male (or female!) only units. Actually having variety in units that are, by lore, mixed though would be pretty great.
I'm also 100% with Hybrid here. Wyches are fine because both are treated equally. It's only bs if only the female combatants are required to wear high heels (or the guys have to go as chippendale mock-ups.) Yes, Elves are androgynous, that makes it easier, but you need to sculpt the bodies either way, so why not have a 3/7, 4/6 or 5/5 split in IG boxes? It's not like the current Cadians and Catachans aren't horrendous anyway. I mean, honestly, they don't look suited for human beings of either gender right now.
It's important to remember, as Dark Severance has pointed out elsewhere (I think), all design choices come with benefits ant drawbacks. Let's say that you go the Kingdom Death route, and you have completely different sculpts for males and females: male legs, torsos, arms and heads, and same for females.
While now you do have some very nicely differentiated male and female figures, you also have the problem that you've limited the universality of the figures. What I mean by that is something that Mark Mondragon dealt with when he was designing his female Stormtroopers: the male and female can only diverge so much before they can't use the same accessories like weapons and so on.
If you have males and females with separate arms, then the only points of connections (by and large) with weapons have to be the hands. While that fine for medieval style hand weapons like swords, axes and so on, it's much more problematic with rifles, crossbows and any other weapon that needs to connect with either the shoulder, upper arm or chest. Mark had to make design compromises in order to make his females compatible with the pre-existing accessory kit. Any similar endeavor would have to do the same; the more options, the more design time is needed to make sure that things are interchangeable, the more costs.
All of this, of course, is downstream from a question that has to be asked: do people want mixed gender boxes at all? I'm not saying that in the sense of why have male and female, but asking if people really would prefer that the company determine the ratio, or themselves. Mixing the sculpts in a single box not only makes each box more complicated to cut and design, but it means that people that want, for example, all female Wyches now have to buy more in order to get what they wanted.
As I recall, when I made my DE, I wanted my Wyches to be all female, but they are (I think) split 7:3 female: male torsos. The Kabelite unit is split the opposite way, 3:7, so if you wanted 10 female wyches, you had to buy a box of Kabelites. Which I did, ending up ultimately with 10 female Wyches and 10 male Kabelites. Now, one may object that this is exactly what GW wanted, the problem with that is... yeah, I know, and it pissed me off then, and now I don't buy GW stuff.
I would have much preferred being able to buy all female wyches, and all male kabelites, and deciding if I wanted to mix the torsos, rather then the reverse. Is that just me? Who knows. But when you mix in the box, the question always is "what is the right ratio?" Should we really assume that people buying line troopers by the dozens want a 50:50 split? What if they want their troopers to be uniform, and now, in the interest of having sexual differentiation, they don't have that anymore either for male or female.
This is not to say that any one of these points is dispositive, but only to point out that creators are taking huge risks with any or all of these choices.
Keep in mind I'm not against seeing alternate women designs and sculpts for existing games. I would love to see a modified space marine that is a female sculpt sexualised or even non-sexualised honestly doesn't really matter to me. I would honestly like to see more women miniatures in WH40K besides outdated SoB sculpts. One of the reasons I tend to play Eldar and Dark Eldar because they do have women sculpts and I identify more with them then the men. I would probably play SoB if they had more updated sculpts.
The question was asked why don't they or why don't other companies have equal representation in those regards with miniatures. There is the economic factor in more designs means more costs. There is the lore/history factor, is that an accurate representation of what was written for those game universes. Doing a complete alternate models is different than providing alternate heads or chest piece.
I'm not against having other options and would like to see more, that was never in question. I also understand the differences between what I want may not be what others want and ultimately those are those companies decisions. I can either support or don't support them. Whether I agree with their final decisions they make or not.
Korraz wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that Space Marines should be mixed
GW was found ways to wedge anything they wanted into the game, like Tau to get some Gunpla enthusiasts into the game (arguably). They could just make one of these expansions sets that they like to do now, just for a completely new chapter that lives in a death world where the male population isn't enough to replace losses -> magic of storytelling -> for some reason (heroic battle and sacrifice!) they get a favour from some Forgeworld/mechanicus types who make it possible for women to become Space Marines. Of course the process is really, really hard and they are the only chapter who (officially) has access to that technology. There is your mixed SM chapter that is just as unique as all the other new special characters (Hello Muderfang from Omnicide!). They change the lore whenever they want for any reason they want so why should that be impossible? When the Predator Annihilator kit was introduced they justified it with barely three paragraphs of "Space Wolves need more lasers" and that was it.
Just drop small separate sprue with some female heads into the campaing box with all the other stuff (chapter specific shoulder pads transfers, whatever) and sell the sprue individually over the online store (if you want just the heads for your own chapter but don't need the campaign box). People can buy the box and use helmeted/male/female heads to their chosing. If they don't like women mixed with their Marines they can just put the extra heads into their bits box or throw/trade them away like all the other bits they shake off a sprue.
Wolf tails are more or less only useful for Space Wolves (or similar chapters) and they put half a dozen on a sprue but a sprue with a few female heads could be useful for any chapter if a player is interested in mixing them in with the rest. If it's reasonably successful they could make different sprues (viking women, greek/roman hairstyle for Ultramarines, barbarians, …anything really) and if it doesn't work then it was still a cheaper experiment than AoS and can be relegated to the background radiation of the 40k universe like all the other obscure RT era stuff.
One small sprue that could bring in new (Space Marine) players and be an upgrade that might be interesting for some of their huge Space Marine fan base. People are already complaining about them retconning things when it happens. What's one more chapter among a thousand?
The cynic in me might guess that SoB were GW's experiment in to female models without disrupting their existing lines and they didn't make enough off them to justify pursuing it.
I disagree, the fluff of the entire space marines is that the emperor himself could not make the female body work (witch is a ridiculous excuse from a biological standpoint but hey this is 40k) so having a random mechanicus inventing what a god entity could not is quite a leap.
GW has set themselves in the corner with their fluff and innovation ectr ectr must be explained with even more ridiculous excuses, oh we found this, oh the space wolves who do not care did a non sanctioned stuff that worked, oh we had it in the inventory just never used it, whatever, on some cases though as the above hand-waiving it simply does not work.
If you want female space marines the entire 40k fluff needs retcon, a move I am sure neither GW nor the fans want to happen.
Other than that, in 40k imperioum is an equal opportunities employ the do not care what gender you are, you will die for the emperor without any special privileges or protections GW could and should try to make more female models in their lines if they cared and if they thought a simple headswap would be enouph.
Given the fact Jess is adamant on the silhouette dogma (something that has served him well all these decades) I doubt he would ever settle with a simple headswap for human female troops, TAU were an unknown so they could and did make it a headswap, eldar are androgynous but still human enouph so they did it with a head and boobplate swap there is no way GW will ever make female guards, mechanicus ectr without making them having a female silhouette.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Answer to question A is because the examples we have and talk here for example the mobile brigadas are not dressed differently, they are sexualised (and that done equally) but they dress the same.
The men wear huge, extremely thick armor. The women wear skin-tight armor. How can you say they dress the same?
PsychoticStorm wrote: Answer to type B is because fluff is a creative endeavor and is used to express the author's ideas fears and concerns, most of it is based in reality and discusses concerns that are present in real life.
You may be confusing “expressing fear and concerns” with “mimicking” here…
PsychoticStorm wrote: I disagree, the fluff of the entire space marines is that the emperor himself could not make the female body work (witch is a ridiculous excuse from a biological standpoint but hey this is 40k) […] If you want female space marines the entire 40k fluff needs retcon, a move I am sure neither GW nor the fans want to happen.
If there was female space marines, it would mean that basically one line from an article from WD in 1988 would be retconned. That's… not exactly “the entire 40k fluff”, given how it has no bearing on basically anything else. And yeah, that line has been rewritten a few times, most notably on some RPG dedicated to marines. But it was never used as a plot device for ANYTHING, as far as I know. Even the stupid, stupid, STUPID omophagea is more relevant to the universe as it is a plot device in some stories.
Also, making female space marines is clearly a case of just alternate heads and different use of pronouns in the fluff, given how thick the armor is.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Answer to question A is because the examples we have and talk here for example the mobile brigadas are not dressed differently, they are sexualised (and that done equally) but they dress the same.
The men wear huge, extremely thick armor. The women wear skin-tight armor.
How can you say they dress the same?
Because they dress the same, the sexualisation of the model does not mean they do not wear the same outfit.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Answer to type B is because fluff is a creative endeavor and is used to express the author's ideas fears and concerns, most of it is based in reality and discusses concerns that are present in real life.
You may be confusing “expressing fear and concerns” with “mimicking” here…
No I do not, please do not try to twist reality to fit your viewpoint.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I disagree, the fluff of the entire space marines is that the emperor himself could not make the female body work (witch is a ridiculous excuse from a biological standpoint but hey this is 40k) […]
If you want female space marines the entire 40k fluff needs retcon, a move I am sure neither GW nor the fans want to happen.
If there was female space marines, it would mean that basically one line from an article from WD in 1988 would be retconned. That's… not exactly “the entire 40k fluff”, given how it has no bearing on basically anything else. And yeah, that line has been rewritten a few times, most notably on some RPG dedicated to marines. But it was never used as a plot device for ANYTHING, as far as I know. Even the stupid, stupid, STUPID omophagea is more relevant to the universe as it is a plot device in some stories.
Also, making female space marines is clearly a case of just alternate heads and different use of pronouns in the fluff, given how thick the armor is.
You might be misunderstanding the importance of fluff and fluff integrity, what led me to leave 40k was Andy Chambers Necrons, a single book that retconed the entirety of 40k fluff especially warp and chaos, not rules, not prices, not stupidity of models design, but fluff degradation, other have left because of this too, a shakeup of fluff to a product line that is the face of their flagship product and the company itself in its most basic level is not something minor its an earthquake of great magnitude that will rub a lot of people in the wrong way, not because they are misogynists, but because fluff is important and maintaining the integrity for such people is really important too, in the case of marines when it is clearly stated that the Emperor could not do it, for good or evil, it is out of touch for everybody.
Would I like a reboot of the 40k fluff to be more in line with rogue trader and updated to a modern era including visuals? sure, there are two problems, I am sure the core of the GW customers do not want it and secondly I do not have faith in GW pulling it off.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Because they dress the same, the sexualisation of the model does not mean they do not wear the same outfit.
They don't dress the same. Some have super-thick armor and some having skin-tight armor. You can repeat the same thing over and over, but unless you tell me those are aliens and the male ones actually looks exactly like this without armor, they don't dress the same at all.
PsychoticStorm wrote: You might be misunderstanding the importance of fluff and fluff integrity
Sure. Whatever. There has been way, WAY bigger retcon, that GW survived perfectly. You are telling me that retconning a single line of useless fluff would be out of the line, when GW just canned the entirety of the Old World to replace it with something completely different?
What about that time GW retconned Ophelia IV into Ophelia VII? How hardly did it hurt the integrity of the setting?
I had thought there was a really bad female imperial guards sculpt that was a women in a tank top with a grenade launcher(?). I had found it yesterday when I was trying to find other female miniatures that GW had officially created based on their lore. It said 10% of Guard soldiers are are female. I can't seem to find it anymore. I did however find a cosplay giving a realstic representation of a female Cadian, which would show a real example of an indistinguishable miniature that was just a head swap if translated to miniatures.
Spoiler:
When we talked about making their own miniatures earlier to fill a gap. I did find someone who did just that, they also take commissions it seems. They created their own set of female Space Marines, Eldar and other soldiers a few years ago. You can read about it here.
I thought the whole process of how a space marine was created was highlighted in multiple sources. I believe semi-recently there was a novel that also went over the process in more detail of how the body is transformed.
This process is the heart of a space marine. Any time you make major changes to lore, you risk alienating existing player-base and fans. It is rarely a good brand and business decision to do that. Sometimes it pays off but most of the time it does not. The best solution would be for them to create a new chapter and creation process. Over time the old process, though works for many of the chapters, had complications... and a new process was created. Through detachments those could eventually be integrated into other chapters. That would be better method to grow and adapt. That would be the better method without just throwing out all the canon. However I doubt they would entertain either idea, at least for space marines, for other races and imperial guard probably but they seem stuck on what a Space Marine is.
Given Cadians all wear helmets except for squad leaders... would you realistically see any difference at all unless you exaggerate the more feminine features on the rest of the model?
Dark Severance wrote: I thought the whole process of how a space marine was created was highlighted in multiple sources. I believe semi-recently there was a novel that also went over the process in more detail of how the body is transformed.
90-99% of this article is a direct re-transcription of the WD article I was talking about ^^.
Dark Severance wrote: Any time you make major changes to lore, you risk alienating existing player-base and fans. It is rarely a good brand and business decision to do that. Sometimes it pays off but most of the time it does not.
Well, it did not stop the MASSIVE necron retcons…
And again, this is certainly not as big a change as people make it out to be.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I disagree, the fluff of the entire space marines is that the emperor himself could not make the female body work (witch is a ridiculous excuse from a biological standpoint but hey this is 40k) so having a random mechanicus inventing what a god entity could not is quite a leap.
"Hey, check out this cool STC printout we found! Shame that it only works on this one planet due to a genetic quirk though."
Dark Severance wrote: I thought the whole process of how a space marine was created was highlighted in multiple sources. I believe semi-recently there was a novel that also went over the process in more detail of how the body is transformed.
90-99% of this article is a direct re-transcription of the WD article I was talking about ^^.
Dark Severance wrote: Any time you make major changes to lore, you risk alienating existing player-base and fans. It is rarely a good brand and business decision to do that. Sometimes it pays off but most of the time it does not.
Well, it did not stop the MASSIVE necron retcons…
And again, this is certainly not as big a change as people make it out to be.
Changing Marines is huge, even though it might only be mentioned once somewhere obscure "no girls allowed because biology" it would still be a huge change to tell people "oh, by the way, half your previously male army is female now, please cross out all references of battle brothers and change it to battle siblings".
Anything is possible. If GW wanted, Abaddon could be a High Lord of Terra tomorrow and all of the Chaos Space Marines could denounce Chaos and rejoin the Imperium in an effort to fend off the allmighty Tau. It would take them all of ten minutes and a paragraph.
But I don't think there's really a need for that. I honestly don't see anything wrong with having gender-specific factions, they add variety to the world. I love me some Sisters of Sigmar and always wished that they spread out from Mordheim and became a presence in the Empire.
Good video here where he actually goes into women in armor.
TLDR:
male armor vs female armor is almost identical, and you couldnt really tell. Towards the end she wears mail, roman plate, full plate, ect, and as we can plainly see boob plate is not needed, nor is any major modification.
[quote=easysauce 681771 8546640 8db2026d12e1e74e47074f749d377399.jpg
male armor vs female armor is almost identical, and you couldnt really tell. Towards the end she wears mail, roman plate, full plate, ect, and as we can plainly see boob plate is not needed, nor is any major modification.
We know that already, the question never was if realistically there would be any difference, there would not be any, the question was why bother if there is no difference, even the model ranges celebrated for their representation of women, Victoria and now "Heroines in sensible shoes" kickstarter sexualise the models to emphasize the fact the model is female not male.
@ Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Mobile brigadas were the same suit of armour, yes, male brigada is thicker, female brigada is thinner this is due to the sexualisation of the miniatures to be different, this does not change the fact their armour is the same, it is shaped the same way it has the same silhouette, if you cannot understand why one is thinner and the other is thicker and why this is irrelevant, I may as well start giving up hope on you understanding it, I am guessing Victorias Tannenburg Fusiliers were different armour too in your eyes, because the females sure were thinner fatigues and the shirt is quite bulgy.
Yes, GW did a huge retcon yes, they blew up the old world yes, this had the expected results and now were WHF was a dying game not its a dead franchise and AOS get the reaction one would expect from the old fans, now Fantasy was as said a dying IP and one that they could experiment with major retcons with little impact (well AOS was a bit more than major). On the other hand WH40K is their bread and butter if they do anything wrong with it anything that will alienate the fans they are a dead company, so AlmightyWalrus you can create an excuse in 5 seconds (though I have to inform you Space marines were never part of STC, but Emperor's original research spawning at least a millenia) good for you, I am sure GW can too, how well will this be received by the customer base? how willing are they to risk their flagship product? they can't afford to "play" with something that its lore generates a bit more than half their income.
And sorry to say that but SOB are not a fluff crucial part of the 40k lore as far as the accounting department is concerned, so they changed the orbit of Ophelia bid deal, most don't know and don't care, most don't know that in the old IG fluff IG recruited massively regardless of gender and viewed children born from their mixed regiments as bonus recruits, I miss that lore more than the orbit of Ophelia.
PsychoticStorm wrote: We know that already, the question never was if realistically there would be any difference, there would not be any, the question was why bother if there is no difference, even the model ranges celebrated for their representation of women, Victoria and now "Heroines in sensible shoes" kickstarter sexualise the models to emphasize the fact the model is female not male.
Congratulations, you've demonstrated how nonsensical it is to the word "sexualize" to mean "make recognizably of one gender or the other".
Spoiler:
A human figure wearing leather armor, boots, recognizably of one gender while wearing realistic armor. The rest of the figures in the line use similar "somewhat more padded than a the armor tailored for a man" appearances.
Two of the big objections to the 'boob plate' are:
1. It's the worst possible thing you could do to the armor, if you were actually trying to make it functional.
2. It's unnecessary and unrealistic.
3. The combination of those factors is that it's jarring, and destroys the immersion.
A little bit of extra padding in the chest isn't going to hurt anyone, and gives a profile distinguishable from the male profile. Armor designed to crack sternums gets people killed and ruins the illusion.
In other words, it's the exact opposite of the Rule of Cool, it's the Rule of This Looks Dumb. It's the same sort of situation that happens when someone tries to design fantasy armor, gets confused and produces a dress or bikini.
Congratulations, you've demonstrated how nonsensical it is to the word "sexualize" to mean "make recognizably of one gender or the other".
Oh I am sorry I never realized its completely natural for chain mail and scale mail to bulge
And leather armour to be soft enough to separate the breasts with shoulder straps
Have a better word, educate us.
The two big objections mean nothing to those that do not care, worst possible solution? realistic? I thought we were passed that stage when we discuss of making each gender visibly distinct, a practical realistic armour is as it has been repeated many times already the same as a male armour and if you fancy fielding male looking figures and naming them with female names, the world is indeed your oyster there is an amazing selection out there, now if you would like to have something that looks like a female, realistic is definitely not the option.
The question from there on is at what level you want the differentiation to stop, rule of cool, rule of dump are subjective and mean nothing to anybody but the observer, chain mail bikini are cool for some dump for others and indifferent for most.
Look I understand you read bikini armour battle damage, nice site, I cannot take the authors seriously on many of their articles, some of their articles have merit and many miss the point and go on their own meaningless crusade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is a huge difference between having models that look different
both are equally dressed, both are reasonably/ realistically dressed, both are equally sexualised and easy to tell apart.
And models that are "realistic"
The two on the left are female, I guess?
Who really wants the latter? and if you do it already exists name your male models females.
When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.
Spoiler:
If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Changing Marines is huge, even though it might only be mentioned once somewhere obscure "no girls allowed because biology" it would still be a huge change to tell people "oh, by the way, half your previously male army is female now, please cross out all references of battle brothers and change it to battle siblings".
Except you wouldn't need to tell people anything about whether their army are half women or not. They would just know that the Chapter Mistress of the Wolf Angel Fists is Augustina Haravina, who gained her rank after the previous Chapter Master was killed by Chaos Lord Methronic Barbarus, or something like this. Which would just mean that it would be perfectly compatible with canon that their home-made chapter is 100% male, 100%, or anything in between, and they can choose for themselves.
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back…
PsychoticStorm wrote: Mobile brigadas were the same suit of armour, yes, male brigada is thicker, female brigada is thinner this is due to the sexualisation of the miniatures to be different, this does not change the fact their armour is the same, it is shaped the same way it has the same silhouette, if you cannot understand why one is thinner and the other is thicker and why this is irrelevant, I may as well start giving up hope on you understanding it, I am guessing Victorias Tannenburg Fusiliers were different armour too in your eyes, because the females sure were thinner fatigues and the shirt is quite bulgy.
You seem pretty annoyed. One of those armor is definitely extremely thick, the other is definitely extremely thin.
I looked at the Tannenburg Fusiliers, pictures just below:
Spoiler:
It looks like similar clothes that look different because they are worn by people with different bodies.
That is VERY different from the Brigada because, unless those are aliens, the differences cannot be explained by the differences between the bodies below the armor.
PsychoticStorm wrote: On the other hand WH40K is their bread and butter if they do anything wrong with it anything that will alienate the fans they are a dead company, so AlmightyWalrus you can create an excuse in 5 seconds (though I have to inform you Space marines were never part of STC, but Emperor's original research spawning at least a millenia) good for you, I am sure GW can too, how well will this be received by the customer base? how willing are they to risk their flagship product? they can't afford to "play" with something that its lore generates a bit more than half their income.
Newcrons. Bigger retcon. Now C'tan are enslaved rather than masters. HUGE retcon. In your 40k.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Who really wants the latter? and if you do it already exists name your male models females.
It should be obvious by now what people want. They want the female models to look different when given the type of armor worn, it would be realistic to have them look different, and they want the female models to be the same when it would be realistic that they look the same. Because going out of one's way to show the difference will make the designs look dumb.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back…
I don't think that group is nearly as small as you think it is.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.
I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.
Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).
Ashiraya wrote: When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means
If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.
I am sorry to disappoint you I go by the basic translation, not how it has been devolved, so I use it to mean showing difference between the two genders, not asexual.
Solkan's models show breast shape under Gambeson and Chainmail, (and leather armour but NMT) if you think that is realistic or not an artistic licence making the model acquire the female form then you are mistaken.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Changing Marines is huge, even though it might only be mentioned once somewhere obscure "no girls allowed because biology" it would still be a huge change to tell people "oh, by the way, half your previously male army is female now, please cross out all references of battle brothers and change it to battle siblings".
Except you wouldn't need to tell people anything about whether their army are half women or not. They would just know that the Chapter Mistress of the Wolf Angel Fists is Augustina Haravina, who gained her rank after the previous Chapter Master was killed by Chaos Lord Methronic Barbarus, or something like this. Which would just mean that it would be perfectly compatible with canon that their home-made chapter is 100% male, 100%, or anything in between, and they can choose for themselves.
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back…
PsychoticStorm wrote: Mobile brigadas were the same suit of armour, yes, male brigada is thicker, female brigada is thinner this is due to the sexualisation of the miniatures to be different, this does not change the fact their armour is the same, it is shaped the same way it has the same silhouette, if you cannot understand why one is thinner and the other is thicker and why this is irrelevant, I may as well start giving up hope on you understanding it, I am guessing Victorias Tannenburg Fusiliers were different armour too in your eyes, because the females sure were thinner fatigues and the shirt is quite bulgy.
You seem pretty annoyed. One of those armor is definitely extremely thick, the other is definitely extremely thin.
I looked at the Tannenburg Fusiliers, pictures just below:
It looks like similar clothes that look different because they are worn by people with different bodies.
That is VERY different from the Brigada because, unless those are aliens, the differences cannot be explained by the differences between the bodies below the armor.
PsychoticStorm wrote: On the other hand WH40K is their bread and butter if they do anything wrong with it anything that will alienate the fans they are a dead company, so AlmightyWalrus you can create an excuse in 5 seconds (though I have to inform you Space marines were never part of STC, but Emperor's original research spawning at least a millenia) good for you, I am sure GW can too, how well will this be received by the customer base? how willing are they to risk their flagship product? they can't afford to "play" with something that its lore generates a bit more than half their income.
Newcrons. Bigger retcon. Now C'tan are enslaved rather than masters. HUGE retcon. In your 40k.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Who really wants the latter? and if you do it already exists name your male models females.
It should be obvious by now what people want. They want the female models to look different when given the type of armor worn, it would be realistic to have them look different, and they want the female models to be the same when it would be realistic that they look the same. Because going out of one's way to show the difference will make the designs look dumb.
Pretty annoyed? not sure, I like how you discarded the image I provided that has the Tanebreg together and went with the separate pics, sure they wear the same uniform, the females just have a really thin waist, thinner arms and definitely a bulge the uniform should not have, mobile brigadas have difference thickness armour, between male and female? I don't see anybody disagreeing there it still is the same shape of armour despite the thickness difference.
I would not classify Necrons retcon a "huge retcon", Ctan became slaves and the biggest continuity issues they created with their AC codex were fixed, necrons are a new race with hardly any established fluff and their codex was severely criticized for violating the existing lore.
I am afraid you do not realize the impact of changes of the things, you want for yourself really, impact a company overestimate how many like minded people are out there and how many of them will buy the products you suggest, or will not be rubbed the wrong way with drastic fluff changes you wish to happen.
I will again suggest make the product you want for yourself, yourself,at best you will supply the untapped market that eagerly waits such models to exist, at worse you will have a failed investment but hey a few decades of collective industry experience and practical examples are obviously wrong and you know better, so what there could go wrong?
Ashiraya wrote: When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.
Spoiler:
If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.
Why are breasts assumed to be sexual rather then distinguishing? Your assuming the female mobile brigada's armored chest is somehow sexy rather then simply a distinguishing attribute. I personally don't see anything sexy about that mini at all. In the absence of breasts what would you do to distinguish the two? What else wouldn't be considered sexual? Long hair maybe? Then your making other assumptions instead.
Ashiraya wrote: When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.
Spoiler:
If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.
Why are breasts assumed to be sexual rather then distinguishing? Your assuming the female mobile brigada's armored chest is somehow sexy rather then simply a distinguishing attribute. I personally don't see anything sexy about that mini at all. In the absence of breasts what would you do to distinguish the two? What else wouldn't be considered sexual? Long hair maybe? Then your making other assumptions instead.
The word "sexual" can have varying connotations which in turn means "sexualise" can also have different connotations. Unrealistically emphasizing the breasts on a female model to make it identifiable as female is sexualisation, but not eroticisation. Giving a model clothing and poses that are supposed to arouse some sexual desire is also sexualisation but with the connotation of also being eroticised.
At least that's my understanding, I've never really studied English or anything like that, lol.
Yeah I saw the Last Chancers when I googled it, but Psienesis said "The Xenan Free Legion were an all-female IG Regiment that GW produced models for a very, very long time ago."
I couldn't find any such models so I was wondering what their deal was, when were they around, what did the models look like, did they have a back story other than being a Xena pun, etc.
And leather armour to be soft enough to separate the breasts with shoulder straps
Spoiler:
I imagine leather armour would be too solid for that, especially if it was cuir bouilli, rather than unworked rawhide. However, I sculpted both those models wearing cloth, so I guess the point is moot...
On these models however, wearing hardened leather, there's no 'strap separation'...
Spoiler:
Ashiraya wrote: When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.
I am sorry to disappoint you I go by the basic translation, not how it has been devolved, so I use it to mean showing difference between the two genders, not asexual.
Solkan's models show breast shape under Gambeson and Chainmail, (and leather armour but NMT) if you think that is realistic and not an artistic licence making the model acquire the female form then you are mistaken.
Actually not, as shown by the chainmail-wearing lady in the photo above... but I think the real problem here is just a semantic misunderstanding. The word 'sexualised' means different things to different people, quite legitimately, depending on which dictionary definition you use. It's just not always obvious which definition someone's used when they post. You got to love web-based communication!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah I saw the Last Chancers when I googled it, but Psienesis said "The Xenan Free Legion were an all-female IG Regiment that GW produced models for a very, very long time ago."
I couldn't find any such models so I was wondering what their deal was, when were they around, what did the models look like, did they have a back story other than being a Xena pun, etc.
I'm certain no models were ever made - they were just one of the many little illustrations in the 3rd edition Guard codex:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.
I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.
Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).
GW never releases sales data so it's unlikely we'll never have any hard data to discuss in regards to their lines. However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.
Mind you I do not find your models bad, I agree that what "sexualisation" means is dependent on what the poster has in mind when using the word, for me it simply means made clear it is a female.
I think we can agree that the pic you posted more or less in model size would be flat, but there is not harm in exaggerating the effect for 28mm models.
The IG codex pic you posted I think was a weak attempt by GW to tie in the Escher line with IG.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Pretty annoyed? not sure, I like how you discarded the image I provided that has the Tanebreg together and went with the separate pics
Dude. Your image was showing the exact same thing. I put 10 female Tanenberg next to 10 male Tanenberg. I don't know how I can make things more obvious. You are in no way answering ANYTHING I said. I am going to copy it again for you.
It looks like similar clothes that look different because they are worn by people with different bodies. That is VERY different from the Brigada because, unless those are aliens, the differences cannot be explained by the differences between the bodies below the armor.
Just answer those questions, it should be goddamn easy: - How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso? - How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso? - Are those two thickness very different? - How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is? - How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is? - Are those two thickness very different? - Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?
Here are the pictures for reference:
Spoiler:
I even put your picture even though I think it doesn't do nearly as good a job at showing the miniatures and the differences.
And now, the correct answers were: - Very, more than 20mm. - Skintight, maybe 1 or 2 mm. - Yes - Similar to actual Earth uniforms - Similar to actual Earth uniforms - No - Yes
Seriously, are the differences between male and female Tannenburg grenadier slightly exaggerated to make them distinguishable on the battlefield? Maybe. But the Brigada are not just “sightly” exaggerated. It is like those are aliens with much, MUCH more sexual dimorphism than humans, or they are two completely different types of armors. It's like if you made models whose hands were bigger than their torso and then claimed “It's heroic scale”. Just no.
It is though. It changed their whole nature. Now they have personalities and stuff. Meanwhile, the named C'tan have disappeared or been retconned as shards or fugitives. Meanwhile, retconning the marines to include women would change… well, literally nothing to any of the named Marines, literally nothing to the history of any named chapter, …
Rainyday wrote: However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.
Well, GW already DID change the SM tactical squad box to add new stuff. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015 As the url says, the change happened in 2015. Good luck finding anything similar to those on the 1rst, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th pictures in the previous box. Or in previous artwork. Or in previous anything.
Seems like GW is perfectly fine with adding new stuff to this kit. I cannot see why female head would be so different…
Except that the Brigada male and females are clearly two different body types. The male is a whole head taller than the female. That could could be anywhere between 6 - 8" taller. Depending on body mass/build he could easily be 50-70 lbs heavier. Thus needing a bigger suit of armor just from the get go. The actual thickness of the armor may not actually be that different.
However, looking at the Tannenburges all the soldiers are within an inch of height of each other and clearly both the male and females have pretty much the same body/build. I'm not sure how realistic it is to have 6 people with all the same body portions hanging out together, even if the female armor is more in line with the male versions, you are loosing the diversity of the race wearing the armor. I honestly can't think of three other men my exact same height and build, let alone three women.
From a realistic perspective it looks wrong, but people want their miniatures to be the same height, so I cannot flaw miniature companies that do that.
Just answer those questions, it should be goddamn easy:
- How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is?
- How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?
Here are the pictures for reference:
Spoiler:
I even put your picture even though I think it doesn't do nearly as good a job at showing the miniatures and the differences.
And now, the correct answers were:
- Very, more than 20mm.
- Skintight, maybe 1 or 2 mm.
- Yes
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- No
- Yes
Seriously, are the differences between male and female Tannenburg grenadier slightly exaggerated to make them distinguishable on the battlefield? Maybe. But the Brigada are not just “sightly” exaggerated. It is like those are aliens with much, MUCH more sexual dimorphism than humans, or they are two completely different types of armors. It's like if you made models whose hands were bigger than their torso and then claimed “It's heroic scale”. Just no.
I am assuming you are unfamiliar with what we discuss and really read nothing in this thread when we discussed about making models of different genders look different and easy to tell apart, while I am sure I can find easilly realistic examples of a male and a female been so different regarding the body type, it is completely irrelevant because, it is an artistic decision to exaggerate body proportions in order to amke the models easy to tell apart.
Thanks for choosing the answers for me, but I think Ill give you a c- and have to answer them myself.
- How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
Not much sufficient to offer adequate protection from small arms fire?
- How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
Not much sufficient to offer adequate protection from small arms fire?
- Are those two thickness very different?
Not as much as you think. if you look at the models were the armour shows on sides its roughly the same (for example look at the legs were the armour stops), the fiber muscle bodysuit underneath it is were most of the bulk is, which in turn means the body type under the suit makes most of the bulk.
- How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is?
Standard issue dress uniform? no protection at all?
- How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is?
Standard issue dress uniform? no protection at all?
- Are those two thickness very different?
Again the visual distinction comes from the body type under the uniform and the artistic decision to exaggerate the differences to make the models distinct from each other.
- Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?
No.
I do not understand why you insist the armours are different when they clearly are not, how big the model is does not alter the uniform the shape and the details are the same, the uniform is the shame, I understand it does not sit well with your agenda but this is what it is.
On the female marines subject I must assume the discussion is a dead end, you are unwilling to accept either lore or real world issues that makes this an impossibility until GW endtimes 40k reboots it and do whatever the hell they want with it alienating yet more of their customer base and creating a spectacular implosion.
Rainyday wrote: However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.
Well, GW already DID change the SM tactical squad box to add new stuff.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015 As the url says, the change happened in 2015. Good luck finding anything similar to those on the 1rst, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th pictures in the previous box. Or in previous artwork. Or in previous anything.
Seems like GW is perfectly fine with adding new stuff to this kit. I cannot see why female head would be so different…
I was just using the tactical squad as an example of how popular SM are. The SM tactical squad kit gets upgraded all the time to the point where it would be shocking if an edition went by and the SM tactical squad didn't get an update, even if just to the packaging. However, there's a world of difference between adding /removing weapon options from the kit and drastically changing the fluff behind an army. Details about events and individual chapters, and what gear they have access to has changed many times over the years, but as far as I know, there haven't been any changes to the core space marine fluff since 2nd ed. Space marine gear and basic vehicles, chapter structure, the Codex Astartes, the creation/recruitment process, SM roles (devastator/ apothecary/chaplain) and unit types (tactical squad, devastator squad), and the fact that they're an all male army of warrior-monks might as well be set in stone.
We're more likely to see female bloodletters and plaguebearers or female heads on the Ork boys sprue than we are to see space marine fluff get overhauled to allow female marines.
PsychoticStorm wrote: - Are those two thickness very different?
Not as much as you think. if you look at the models were the armour shows on sides its roughly the same (for example look at the legs were the armour stops), the fiber muscle bodysuit underneath it is were most of the bulk is, which in turn means the body type under the suit makes most of the bulk.
You must be joking. Or blind. Either that, or you believe the male Brigadas to look like this without armor:
Spoiler:
Which, indeed, was an artistic decision to exaggerate body proportions… a rather famous one. Or should I say infamous?
(also the female ones must look like this too:
Spoiler:
)
Rainyday wrote: The SM tactical squad kit gets upgraded all the time to the point where it would be shocking if an edition went by and the SM tactical squad didn't get an update, even if just to the packaging.
I am sure there were plenty of new editions without a new SM tactical sculpt.
Rainyday wrote: However, there's a world of difference between adding /removing weapon options from the kit and drastically changing the fluff behind an army.[…]but as far as I know, there haven't been any changes to the core space marine fluff since 2nd ed. Space marine gear and basic vehicles[…]
That is not true. Just a few years back, the weapons available to tactical marines did not include grav-stuff. Grav-stuff was inexistent both in the lore and in models. And then GW decided to add grav-stuff in both, changing the lore and the models. Their gear changed.
And I am not even talking about the Centurion armor suddenly appearing after decades of “The Terminator armor is the best armor available!”
Similarly, right now tactical marines only have male members. They could change the lore and the models to include female marines, though. It is the exact equivalent. You add something new to the lore, and to the models.
I am neither, I also know for fact how the digital sculpts are created in CB and a standard body is used as a basis and everything is build on top of it.
I am also not insulting you.
Unfortunately I am probably reaching the conclusion that you are not here to debate, but to enforce your opinion, regardless of clear evidence to the contrary.
In the end I must insist, if you think your ideas are a meaningful and solid business plan grounded in reality, go for it you need 0 experience and talent all of that can be hired, you just need to invest time to coordinate the various artists and money to hire them.
Hey if it succeeds everybody is happy you for creating and offering to the market what you wanted, the market who buys it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.
I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.
Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).
A lot of the conversation in this thread has focused on "Why aren't we seeing X?", and, as Severance observes, it ultimately boils down to risk and profit.
For a moment, look at the statement that Severance highlights not as a consumer, but as someone that puts food on their table, clothes on their kids' backs by making and thus selling miniatures. What businessman would follow a course of actions where even the advocates for it admit it's going to piss off the existing customers? Moreover, pissing off the existing customer base in favor of a demographic that may or may not exist, and certainly isn't an existing customer. It's fascinating to see criticism leveled at, for example, the Mobile Brigada unit I posted a bit ago. Now, no model ever receives universal acclaim, but my general impression is the reception for the Brigadas is more along the line of "Sweet Jesus those Mobile Brigada are awesome". As an anecdote: when Miniature Market put the Brigada box on sale for their Deal of the Day, they sold out their entire stock before 9 AM.
That's just a fun little anecdote, but it should give pause to people who are making these demands: if you're going to demand that companies stop selling things that their customers like and are already buying, you better have some rock solid evidence that they can make more money by doing something else. That evidence is going to come, if it exists, from a particular source: the marketplace.
This is exactly why (IMO) the way forward doesn't lie with movements or getting everyone together... it lies with people like Micheal (Lovejoy), with Mark Mondragon, with Tre Manor, with Victoria Lamb, with Adam Poots, with Patrick Keith, with Dark Severance, with companies like Shieldwolf, C'MoN, Dreamforge, Mierce Miniatures and Ninja Division (or whatever they are called now...). Their actions are what is going to create concrete change, precisely because their actions are expanding the marketplace and letting the more cautious, slower and larger companies see where new resources are. This is not unique to the miniature scene, but a constant in all marketplaces: the reason there are, for example, so many vegan entrees in grocery stores isn't because people called for them, but because people bought them from the companies that started making them.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I am neither, I also know for fact how the digital sculpts are created in CB and a standard body is used as a basis and everything is build on top of it.
That sounds interesting, PS - is there an article or video somewhere talking through their usual process?
I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.
From Azra'il released when people were wondering about the proportions and how a human can fit inside, CB takes care to be consistent in their design and with the 3D sculpting technology everything to be the same height, so they use a standard body (well a few but that is not really relevant) so that everything is build on it to maintain the same height and be sure the model fits properly inside the armour.
I think this is a perfect example of how there should be no real discernible difference between a male and female model and there would be no need for separate miniatures unless maybe, MAYBE, for ones not wearing helmets (but for both genders).
But personally, I'm not a fan of power armored warriors not wearing helmets in warzones, so I could do 100% without that.
The debate was never, if a realistically proportioned female warrior in realistically depicted combat gear would look different from a male warrior realistically proportioned and in realistic combat gear, they would look the same and we are all in agreement (I hope).
The debate is:
It is not realistic!
Yes, I agree but f I am going to spend the money and resources to include a female fighter in my miniatures line I want it to look like a female else why should I bother?
If people want to buy male models and name them female models because in reality they would be virtually the same, be my guest do so, even in GW lines you can do that, buy full helmet IG and call them female troops, you will not convince many people though with such attempt.
I never claimed that. All I wanted to express is that full power-armor suits that completely encompass their wearers and are more robots than suits are a good example for where gender distinction other than heads would be completely off. But I guess it's heard to see over the trenches and sangbags sometimes.
The debate seems to be changing every few pages, because
The heart of the topic is how having females/ women in such an outfit may or may not deter female gamers and it has evolved (after it has been established that such miniatures are in no way a widespread phenomenon) debating whether a realistic but indistinguishable from the male model outfit or a sexualised and distinguished from the male models outfit is better.
Which is another matter entirely from
The debate is:
It is not realistic!
Yes, I agree but f I am going to spend the money and resources to include a female fighter in my miniatures line I want it to look like a female else why should I bother?
At the very least the heads of female combatants look different. The current IG heads, helmet or not, barely look human, let alone feminine so, yeah, that wouldn't work because the faces look like some unholy union of Ork and Ape. Yes, men and women in heavy combat gear look very similar, especially when shrunk down to 28mm. So, if there are women in the IG and all you need to cover them both is feminine heads, it shouldn't be that hard to include them, should it?
As always, the imporant point here is nuance. For some miniatures, it'd be pretty easy to include male and female heads and be done with it, because for that type of gear there'd be no difference in body types between the two. Robot-Style power armor is the perfect example for that. In other kits, you'd need to sculpt two entirely different lines. It'd be pretty hard to mix the parts of male and female roman gladiators.
But this is also an issue of multi-part plastic kits. If you are doing a set of one-piece metal or resin miniatures for example, it becomes another matter entirely because every model is a single sculpt anyway and you don't have to worry about compatability.
Either way, I'm still a firm believer of making what you want to see or at least giving your miniatures money to the companies that produce what you want
PsychoticStorm wrote: I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.
Spoiler:
Can you post the Brigada, male and female versions? Because you are just proving my point here that the male armor is super thick, especially in the torso region! Like, the armor alone seems to be thicker than the whole female Brigada torso, with body AND armor included. It seems about the same size and shape as the male Brigada armor, though.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.
Spoiler:
Can you post the Brigada, male and female versions? Because you are just proving my point here that the male armor is super thick, especially in the torso region! Like, the armor alone seems to be thicker than the whole female Brigada torso, with body AND armor included. It seems about the same size and shape as the male Brigada armor, though.
I'm not all that familiar with Infinity, but just looking at the site the Azrail dude's armour is huge compared to Brigada. The Brigada appear to wear form fitting armour, not much thicker than a few layers of clothes, it's just Infinity model the male and female forms quite differently.
You see the same difference between male and female Brigada as you do in just general male and female models. Males are modelled as athletically beefy, females as athletically trim and slightly shorter.
Spoiler:
If you take those bodies and model some reasonably thin armour like the Brigada seem to be wearing of equal thickness for men and women (not the huge armour that the Azrail wears) then you get something that looks (not surprisingly) like the Brigada.
The dude's arms are similar size to the lady's thighs. Which, I mean, isn't that far off reality when you look at the Australian Biggest Loser trainers...
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm not all that familiar with Infinity, but just looking at the site the Azrail dude's armour is huge compared to Brigada.
I managed to find a picture with both I think:
The Azra'il armor is bigger, but roughly the same shape though.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Brigada appear to wear form fitting armour, not much thicker than a few layers of clothes
Nope. The torso is way too convex (not sure this is the right word in English), so is the back.
Seems obvious from the inside view posted above: you can make the guy inside bigger all you want, it is never going to be skintight, because the shape of the armor is just too different from the shape of the guy inside.
Sorry I meant the dark grey/black part of the Mobile Brigada suit looks to be form fitting, not the armour itself. Then the armour plates are layered on top of that. The actual difference in armour plate thickness, eh, there might be a small difference, it looks to be insignificant compared to the actual size of the person under the armour.
The Azrail model is completely different, the armour is so thick that the dude it practically floating in it, his feet don't reach the ground and his hands don't reach the "gloves". I'm pretty sure Storm just used it as an example that CB do use actual 3D human models to sculpt armour over, they don't just create armour randomly. But it doesn't have much application when discussing the Brigada models which aren't so insanely armoured.
Mobile Brigada: It is more of a thick mesh suit with armor plates built upon it. You get a better idea of size when you compare to other models that aren't in armor. Mobile Brigada isn't technically considered power armor, they are heavy infantry. The hex designed mesh suit underneath is a type of armor, but different than the fibroarmored plates of the Azrail.
Spoiler:
Azrail: The main reason they put a figure in the suit was because there was already a figure size that it was upgraded from. They are meant to be closer to power armor than heavy infantry which is shown more when you look at the two versions of 2008 vs 2015. The concept art shows a little better comparison about how it is more of true power armor suit design than the Brigada. You can see on the close up the fibro-muscle-like material instead of the hex/mesh suit.
@ Korraz
I am sorry you are right I should have said "the debate at the moment is"
Mobile brigada is a proper next gen powered armour, (by Infinity's fluff) a from fitting fiber muscle suit with structural support to enhance load bearing, mobility and to provide light ballistic protection and fragmentation protection the fiber muscle suit copies the movements of the wearer, but as is evident it does not follow the human muscle structure too closely because it is an over-suit and attachment points are different, on top of that the rest of the armour is attached to provide a better protection.
The Azra'Il is an old tech powered armour works with a master/ slave principle similar to what TAGs use and it is closer to an exoskeleton than a suit of armour.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Mobile brigada is a proper next gen powered armour, (by Infinity's fluff)...
Is it actually classified as power armor? The N3 book I have does say they are Heavy Infantry... although that can me also classifying heavy infantry different than power armor. I tend to view power armor closer to TAG. While heavy infantry I tend to classify heavy armor up to exo-skeleton, which I don't group with power armor as I consider them different things. But that is my own beliefs based on anime and how I think it should be, not actually how they have defined it.
They've referred to HI armour as powered armour - where it's suitable - since the beginning. Example - Asawira. 'They are equipped with the finest light powered armour on the market'.
In infinity fluff Heavy Infantry is a mix of powered and un powered suits of armour, only Ariadna use the later and this is because their rare metal (tesseum) allows them to have equivalent protection with powered armour without needing the fiber muscle support powered armour troops need to remain effectively mobile.
The power armour is essentially what I described a form fitting muscle suit that has structural support for the wearer, such as reinforced spinal support this is the base and most essential part is provides the increased strength and mobility despite the armours weight plus the extra subsystems that help stabilize the wearers condition and provides some ballistic protection and shrapnel protection.
On top of that the actual armour is attached, Azra'Il is an old armour type and it shows how powered armours evolved in Infinity's fluff with miniaturization of components and change to be a smaller silhouette.
What might has threw you off is the medium infantry classification in Infinity this is what other fluff say heavy infantry and mean hard-shell unpowered armour.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: An interesting tangent on Infinity armour fluff, I'm not sure what it still has to do with the original topic though?
It all revolves around the idea that on the other hand when using power armor, that you don't need to see that the wearer is female and infinity uses different types for male and female just to show the different sex.
It comes down to what the customer wants, and as far as i can discern, most of them want to see difference between male and female armor, realistically it depends on how bulky or thin the armor is and from a sales point of view it depends on the customer being
into hard realistic SF or more into non realistic and/or cheesecake.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: An interesting tangent on Infinity armour fluff, I'm not sure what it still has to do with the original topic though?
It all revolves around the idea that on the other hand when using power armor, that you don't need to see that the wearer is female and infinity uses different types for male and female just to show the different sex.
It comes down to what the customer wants, and as far as i can discern, most of them want to see difference between male and female armor, realistically it depends on how bulky or thin the armor is and from a sales point of view it depends on the customer being
into hard realistic SF or more into non realistic and/or cheesecake.
Well in the context of Mobile Brigada which don't wear tremendously bulky armour (relative to the size of the person inside it) it seems Infinity make the distinction between male and female by modelling males and females vastly differently rather than the armour being significantly different.
When it comes to super bulky armour like Azra'il, where you could make the argument that a male and female model should look quite similar, is there an example in Infinity of male vs female in very bulky armour?
No, but most TAG pilots are females (as evident by the models sculpted for it) and the TAGs does not have any distinct appearance, but they fall on the "vehicle" category rather than the suit of armour category.
And before Marut's are brought up, these do not have a pilot inside, they are controlled remotely by an AI aspect.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When it comes to super bulky armour like Azra'il, where you could make the argument that a male and female model should look quite similar, is there an example in Infinity of male vs female in very bulky armour?
Technically speaking the majority of TAG pilots are female. The Anaconda has a the pilot model while we know the other TAGS have female pilots from the Bootlegs.
Spoiler:
The closest I know of with actual heavy armor instead of a pilot of power armor would be Janissaires and Naffatun. You can barely tell the female is female on the table, but closer look you'll see not technically boob plate, but the armor is more like a sports bra. I know someone will say it is "form fitting" but that is subjective because she doesn't have to be DD to fill, she could still be a C/B cup and the shaping is design to support and protect. You can tell it is roughly the same thickness as the male equivalent. Then you have Ghulam which looks like boob plate, but it isn't. It is shaped to come down and then curve around the breasts but given the paint job, the shadow of the curvature people tend to see it as form fitting but it is roughly the same thickness as the male versions. The Muyibs has a female, which they use really long hair emphasis with a slight increase in breast size which you can see zoomed in but on the table it is subtle, the identifier for her being female is the hair.
Spoiler:
Then there is what I could call questionable. I'm sure someone who is more up on the fluff could tell me if it is correct or wrong. The Hafza (Spitfire) could technically be female but you'd only know close up. The closeup paintjob gives the face a feminine look. The same goes for the Asawira which is probably a male but utilizes slightly thicker pectorial armor plates that you could say she was female. I also always thought a couple of the Briscards could be considered female depending on how you paint them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is that your picture? Could you add a female Brigada for reference?
I frankly feels like the armor bulks the upper torso a lot on the male one.
That was not my picture. I think I do have a female Brigada but she isn't assembled or painted yet. I'll see if I can locate her to compare with the male one I have. The chest is naturally bulkier both because of the armor but also because is a wrestler style body, his arms and legs are about twice the size of the female if I recall.
Given the new renders released for the Raging Heroes Sisters Davidans, why do they not get as much scorn as Space Crusade? They have bare midriff, underboobs, heavy armored legs, some heavy arms (power fist) or shoulders. Is it because they aren't considered new anymore, those discussions already happened with the first campaign?
I will say Raging Heroes are better sculpts, but that was always my issue however given some of the discussions about believe-ability and boob plate, these apparently don't get as much scorn.
1) As you say, they're better done for starters. While certainly cheesecake-esque, they don't go "HERE ARE BOOBS AND LOOK A BUTT" like the Prodos models did. Yes, they are clearly female and impractically clad, but the posing is not nearly as exploitative (note the word "as" in there).
2) They're actually roughly even on clothing with the models they're supposed to be proxying in the Sisters Repentia. Those models are in turn based on an actual historical reference of flagellants who are often depicted as having no clothing on their torsos. The context of the model's origin informs the design.
3) While some have an arm encased in armor, nor all of them appear to nor is that armor clearly enormously heavy. The Prodos sculpts had massively heavy plates on both arms, shoulders and leg and left the vital organs wholly unprotected. These women appear to be mainly wearing boots, and that could be for balance with their comically oversized blades (which again, originates with their "source" models).
4) Raging Heroes doesn't have as checkered of a history as Prodos. They weren't releasing "new" things while they still had a huge number of years-old "debts" they hadn't paid. Now, that's not say RH doesn't have a history of mistakes, just that they're seemingly not slow-rolling anyone who didn't know that already.
5) If you follow Raging Heroes, you know that's their style and nearly all of the models mirror it. They're being RH just like people don't have outrage with KD models as every model KD makes fits the over-sexualized theme. Prodos in contrast makes many sculpts and the Space Crusaders line seemed to be a cynical cash-grab versus artistic expression. #4 obviously colors that perception.
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying and even understand some of the reasoning behind it. There was however a much more deeper "hate" though vs subjective reasoning behind a lot of the complaints with Space Crusade.
It also probably didn't help they did digital paint jobs, instead of just doing a gray render and then letting other people color/paint it mentally. There was definitely more of a cheesecake feel, then here is a strong powerful female character. I wouldn't say they are more heavily armored though. Comparing the various armored Raging Heroes, that armor is just as thick on the heavy boots. I would have to agree though that the Space Crusaders style being completely different than anything Prodos released made it more of a "shock" which probably resulted in more backlash too.
It was just something I found funny and amusing.
kronk wrote: They can clearly make armored females (posted below).
I wasn't saying that they didn't make armored females. I am more interested in the armored ones personally. I don't mind a couple being having high heeled but more along the style of Bubblegum Crisis power suits, for a hero character or something. However for the most of the base troops I definitely would have preferred to have the boots styled like the Davidians.
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
They definitely look like them. Although after watching a couple concerts over the weekend, being amazed how well some of the stage dancers moved with thigh high boot stilettos was pretty cool. I can't imagine someone wearing those long term for a battle though.
lets face it Sex sells, whether you are male or female its that female model or male model that will get you to buy, how many movies with fat ugly people sell a lot of tickets?
Asterios wrote: lets face it Sex sells, whether you are male or female its that female model or male model that will get you to buy, how many movies with fat ugly people sell a lot of tickets?
I have a spare tire. And I'm still a sexy bitch like Papa Nurgle.
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
They definitely look like them. Although after watching a couple concerts over the weekend, being amazed how well some of the stage dancers moved with thigh high boot stilettos was pretty cool. I can't imagine someone wearing those long term for a battle though.
To me they resemble nothing so much as what is known in BDSM as 'ballet boots';
To say that they are not... practical as footwear is a bit of an understatement.
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
I'm staring at her heels wondering how a normal foot can even sit in those, and I feel that I must conclude she has mutant and/or robotic claws for feet.
Seriously chief, "I don't want my kids exposed to that" is pretty much the daftest reason to want something banned/not to be made in the first place ever, because you're the one who decides what they're exposed to. It's like those numpties you see decrying videogame violence because think of the children, when the only reason children saw videogame violence at all is their pushover parents bought them a 16 or 18 rated product in the first place.
So you are saying that the game is an R rated game? I have no problems with that, if thats the direction warlord want to go with the game but thats now what I have seen in other products in the range.
I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves. What you prefer to expose them to or otherwise, however, is nobody else's ruddy problem nor is it the responsibility of Warlord to produce their models according to your particular expectations.
Ah yes, that wonderful and not at all vacuously condescending "as a mother..." logic that parents deploy whenever they can't actually address the argument being made.
So we'll try again - if you are dismayed at the idea of exposing your children to gender stereotypes or "damaging" depictions of women through gaming, to the extent you would refuse to even let them see models that exemplify those topics in your view, why are you not also equally dismayed at the idea of exposing your children to notions of war, slaughter, and genocide via that same medium, once again to the extent you would refuse to even let them see the models that would cause that exposure?
It's a question of consistency - if your kids are at risk of forming negative opinions in the long term based on their exposure to models you consider questionable in the case of sex, they must necessarily(by any logic that could justify such a premise) be at the same risk from exposure to models that demonstrably are "questionable" in the case of war and violence(or do you not consider child soldiers taken from their society prior to what any modern society would consider a reasonable age of consent and then subjected to barbaric medical experiments and psychological conditioning, as an example cough Space Marines cough, "questionable"?).
And if that's the case your reaction in both cases should be the same, but for some reason you're happy to let your kids form unrealistic and childish views of war and violence, but not of sex.
Yodhrin wrote: - I wonder what it is about having them that makes adults forget what it was like to be one?
Its called responsibility and if you think exposing children to the horrors of war or reinforcing gender stereotypes is a good thing then you have alot to learn
I actually think children could do with being exposed to a great deal more reality a good deal sooner than is considered "proper" in western society - as I say, I don't know what it is about becoming a parent that means they forget what it was like being a child, but they're actually pretty intelligent wee creatures and are usually at least two stages ahead in their development on any given topic than their parents think/are willing to believe they are.
As for my views, whatever they are I hope I would at least be consistent in their application when it came to raising children, rather than passively allowing glorification of violence on the one hand then behaving like a prudish reactionary on matters of sex with the other.
Yodhrin wrote: I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves.
I think that is where not being a parent yourself might come into play, because I think it may be much easier said than done… Basically “So you are saying that the game is an R rated game? I have no problems with that, if thats the direction warlord want to go with the game but thats now what I have seen in other products in the range.” means “I would like game company to help me with it by identifying precisely what kind of things I can expect to find in them”. Seems a perfectly fine request.
If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.
Yodhrin wrote: I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves.
I think that is where not being a parent yourself might come into play, because I think it may be much easier said than done…
This. Armchair CEOing is a bit different from armchair parenting.
JohnnyHell wrote: If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.
It's as unnecessary as that kind of thing ever is. I don't think that necessarily means it's problematic. Things like this are in character sometimes for the character being portrayed. It reminds me of when Tarantino got a load of crap for the amount of racial slurs used in Django Unchained; these things sometimes fit the character being displayed. Of course sometimes it can be problematic or gratuitous, and I don't know the fluff of this model in particular, but it might fit perfectly. It's not like it's condoning it, he's pretty clearly an evil character.
JohnnyHell wrote: If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.
It's as unnecessary as that kind of thing ever is. I don't think that necessarily means it's problematic. Things like this are in character sometimes for the character being portrayed. It reminds me of when Tarantino got a load of crap for the amount of racial slurs used in Django Unchained; these things sometimes fit the character being displayed. Of course sometimes it can be problematic or gratuitous, and I don't know the fluff of this model in particular, but it might fit perfectly. It's not like it's condoning it, he's pretty clearly an evil character.
Wow - yes - hit the nail on the head.
It's as if society has lost the ability to deal with issues with any kind of Nuance.
I remember when Whale Rider got an R rating for showing drug use - even though the entire point of the movie was to show kids - hey drugs are bad and messed up this guy's whole life - watch as the heroic teenage girl learns from his mistakes and makes her life great! And the response was an instant kneejerk - showing drugs is bad so don't show this to any impressionable teens!
We've figured out that X is bad so any depiction of X must be bad. It's easier to cement that in your mind rather than judge each instance in context.
This is in response only to the "OMG this evil genocidal alien warlord is SEXIST!!" people, and not commenting at all on whether or not the miniature is actually appropriate as a game piece for children of "x" age. I have no comment or opinion on that argument.
We come again in the roots of the basic argument? wargames deal with far greater issues than a "slave girl" and "stereotypes".
Since the "armchair parenting" has been touched yet again, there is no chance for anyone to agree here, even if X poster is a parent and disagrees with the overprotective mantra the stock answer is "you raise your children poorly" lets face the fact that what should and what should not a minor be exposed to is a philosophical question with no right or wrong answers beyond some really basic ones.
My personal stance is that exposing somebody to the various aspects of the world and life is healthy as long as you are prepared to guide it through the tough questions that will arise sooner or later, I also do not like the fact that in our western protective society killing is acceptable to be seen but exposed flesh is not.
PsychoticStorm wrote: My personal stance is that exposing somebody to the various aspects of the world and life is healthy as long as you are prepared to guide it through the tough questions that will arise sooner or later
It is again much easier to do this when you know what to expect from the media you expose your child with. Having a rape scene in the middle of a My Little Pony episode, for instance, would be a terrible, terrible idea, and I don't think I need to explain why. That's why classification, even if self-made and informal, matters.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I also do not like the fact that in our western protective society killing is acceptable to be seen but exposed flesh is not.
Can't speak about other countries, but in France, as long as you don't show genitals, exposed flesh is alright, even in cartoons for kids. But yeah, the cartoon I am thinking of (Kirikou) had troubles exporting to the US for that reason; too many naked breasts.
Sexualization don't fly though.
But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.
RoninXiC wrote: RH ladies are "oppressed, abused, enslaved"?
Really? Aren't they rather opressers, abuseres and enslavers?
Completely different topic from what is currently being discussed.
Looking over at the GoA model, I really don't see as big of a problem with the model beyond a "Was it really needed?" It's not something that is particularly explicit - Dark Eldar have much more explicit or sexualized stuff in their fluff and line. Nor is it something that young kids can't understand is a bad thing. I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
If a parent thinks pair of miniature women in underwear and poncho's are going to make children form negative options about women and sex, I would tell that parent to more closely at the influencing figures in that child's life. A child that is in an environment that promotes a healthy view of women, the body, and ethics is going to be able to understand the concept of right and wrong. Adults and their actions and opinions are a lot more influencing on children then little toys. The idea of one little toy "damaging" a child's view just because they see it reeks of the same fear based reasoning behind Reefer Madness.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in regards to the GoA models in question, while being unnecessary, have some reasoning behind showing skin. I would say that models showing skin because of the women being slaves would be a better way at conveying the idea to children the proper way to see and treat women than models like Witch Elves, which are showing skin for the sake of skin itself.
PsychoticStorm wrote: But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.
In this case it is up to the parent to decide what is best for their situation, and deal with it in their own home so to speak. It is not their responsibility to enforce what is best for Their Child on -everyone- else Man Woman or child.
And that is exactly what happens when people get loud and upity about "Their best Interests are best for all". If you don't want your kid exposed to "XYZ" thing, be it Violence or in this case possible full or partial Nudity then it is YOUR duty as a parent to do the research and screen the things your kids want. It is not societies responsibility to force everyone to conform to what you want for your kids.
If you don't want you or yours exposed to a thing, you need to avoid it, not make everyone else responsible for Your wants.
The easiest comparison I can make is food allergies. It is my responsibility to research and find out what is being served, and to have my contingencies ready just in case something goes wrong. Not your responsibility to try and plan for my specific requirements that you do not know about. And even so I can request a specific meal but that does not mean the whole menu should be scrapped so everyone must meet my requirements.
To parody Video games:
LIFE: rated E for Everyone*
*(experience may change during Social Interaction)
PsychoticStorm wrote: But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.
In this case it is up to the parent to decide what is best for their situation, and deal with it in their own home so to speak. It is not their responsibility to enforce what is best for Their Child on -everyone- else Man Woman or child.
And that is exactly what happens when people get loud and upity about "Their best Interests are best for all". If you don't want your kid exposed to "XYZ" thing, be it Violence or in this case possible full or partial Nudity then it is YOUR duty as a parent to do the research and screen the things your kids want. It is not societies responsibility to force everyone to conform to what you want for your kids.
If you don't want you or yours exposed to a thing, you need to avoid it, not make everyone else responsible for Your wants.
The easiest comparison I can make is food allergies. It is my responsibility to research and find out what is being served, and to have my contingencies ready just in case something goes wrong. Not your responsibility to try and plan for my specific requirements that you do not know about. And even so I can request a specific meal but that does not mean the whole menu should be scrapped so everyone must meet my requirements.
To parody Video games:
LIFE: rated E for Everyone*
*(experience may change during Social Interaction)
would that be the same for the woman who got TRU to get rid of the Breaking Bad figures in their store?
or would it be aligned to parents who sue McDonald's because their kids are fat?
Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.
Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."
Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.
Read an interesting quote today, made me think of this thread:
"The difference between a social justice activist and a social justice warrior is the activist tries to get a ramp added to a building for easier wheelchair access whereas the warrior tries to get the stairs removed because they might offend people who can't use them."
Now just replaces ramp, wheelchair and a few other things with "minis with boobs" and you'll get a similar result.
RoninXiC wrote: RH ladies are "oppressed, abused, enslaved"?
Really? Aren't they rather opressers, abuseres and enslavers?
Actually, they're none of those. What they are is not real.
I still find it ironic that there's such an outcry of nipples and breasts but this is perfectly fine:
Seriously. Most guys playing 40k or a lot of other tabletop games won't have Arnold's rockhard abs, but it's perfectly fine to keep pumping out shirtless guys in thongs.
I really don't have a problem with sexualized miniatures, but I think they have a time and place. I love seeing and playing against the Dark Eldar and Slaanesh minis, but I agree there are some that go beyond naked flesh and enter a more erotic nature. Those I have a problem with.
Don't blame (only) sculptor/manufacturer for miniature sexualization.
Half of it depends about how the customer decide to paint it.
Just look the 2 ways I painted my Prodos Space Crusaders to join my Utramarines Team for Space Crusade
As I explain here
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1050/678971.page#8662798 and there
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1050/678971.page#8662884 I consider them not as human (if needed female human I would have use SoB in power armor) but as cyborg like Scarlet Blade's Arkana, 2000AD Rogue Troopers or Infinity Aleph.
What the use of an armor if you are bulletproof like a T-500 (or a Necron).
Only shoulder pad is needed for identification, boots to fit the Land Speeder, Marines bike pedals, gloves for standard bolter, and "gorgerin" ( http://monde-medieval.com/3279-large/set-gorgerin-spallieres.jpg ) + arm protection for everything to stay in place.
(or swapping standard SM gauntlet for power glove)
If the Astartes were performing an operation inside a strip club, then those models are fine. Otherwise, they're just plain stupid, and I would feel a little sad for anyone playing with them. It's not offensive to me, it's just foolish.
The picture of the Inifinity minatures squad a few pages back (absolutely gorgeous miniatures by the way, wow) with the male and female soldiers, in my opinion, is totally fine and appropriate. It's less of a sexual thing and more of a feminine thing in my eyes...and keep in mind, this ISN'T real life, this is a game primarily played by males, who want their female models to look like female models and some kind of appeal to them.
This subject is running rampant through the world of video games right now too, with lots of talk about tropes and the depiction of females in gaming, and there seem to be three groups of people where this topic is concerned: the angry, militant feminists (and their white-knight allies), the ignorant misogynists who claim there is no issue, and the (very large) group of people who just want to enjoy the game. I see that situation playing out here too.
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
Kriegspiel wrote: What the use of an armor if you are bulletproof like a T-500 (or a Necron).
Why look like a conventionally sexy woman if you are like a T-500?
RoninXiC wrote: "Because male power fantasy" which is like the most stupid reply ever invented.
Nah, it's not. The female equivalent of that Conan image would be like (NSFW language, nipples):
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:
“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.
People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:
“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.
People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.
I would like to remind you that most of these conventions you speak of are considered to be family friendly and have a large number of Family's and "nerd parents" with their kids along who enjoy the same things.. so that's not a very valid argument.
Kriegspiel wrote: Don't blame (only) sculptor/manufacturer for miniature sexualization.
Half of it depends about how the customer decide to paint it.
-SNIP-
Honestly, I'm a proponent and defender of liberty in miniature sculpting, but that "Marine" just looks naked with a layer of bodypaint on. Or, if you are really, really lenient, wearing an incredibly thin, skintight suit that perfectly clings to every curve.
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:
“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.
People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.
I would like to remind you that most of these conventions you speak of are considered to be family friendly and have a large number of Family's and "nerd parents" with their kids along who enjoy the same things.. so that's not a very valid argument.
While yes it has been moving towards a more family friendly theme, with days being dedicated to the kids, every major convention I've been to has included a number of booths and panels containing adult content not far from the ones directed at kids.
More so, the amount of female cosplayers that show much more skin than many of the miniatures that people have problems with, including the GoA one of the current discussion, is still a pretty high number. Bringing a child to a convention "exposes" them to such costumes, and in a much less controlled setting than playing with miniatures. Adult women are going to go to these conventions in such costumes, and can do so in a mentally healthy manner due to their own complex understanding of sexuality, so I fail to see how it invalidates the argument.
Personally I just don't see the point in the slaves being on the miniature in the first place, other than T&A. Yeah, I suppose it helps hammer the point home that the character is a bad guy, but that doesn't really seem necessary to me. If the intent was purely to make it obvious that he was a Jabba the Hutt reference, I would argue that his obvious physical similarities and general demeanor, lazily sitting back in his hover chair and having others do the dirty work for him, do enough to convey that. The idea that we need to have these over-the-top depictions of evil deeds in order to make people understand that a character is evil comes off as being a little bit silly to me. Speaking of Star Wars references, does a Darth Vader miniature need to be shown killing children with his lightsaber in order to convey that Darth Vader has committed a number of atrocities for his evil master?
And as for the Dark Eldar miniature line, which has been brought up a few times already as being "just as bad" or worse than the model in question, I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Yeah, slavery and torture is a huge part of DE background, but as far as miniatures go the only thing even comparable to this instance would be the ugly DE slave girls/prisoners models, which were made damn near 20 years ago. If you actually look at the miniature line you'll notice that all of the modern plastics don't have included slaves or torture victims to decorate your vehicles with, and indeed the worst thing you'll find are probably the trophy racks with skulls on them, and capes/loin cloths which could be made from human skin if you choose to paint them that way, which as far as violent imagery goes is fairly tame, especially in 40k where even the "good guys" are covered in skulls, bones, and other symbols of death. Even the modern DE wyches are showing a lot less skin than the old models did (I've seen people walking around in public showing more skin than your average DE wych model), with the only real offender being Lilith who is basically wearing a black bikini (which you can't really defend, there's no REAL reason for her to be wearing so little other than it made a more "interesting" figure), but in all of those cases it's totally fitting in with their background, being more of a statement about their prowess as fighters than "Look at how sexy I am!"...exposed flesh is a dare, and the fact that it's unmarked a testament to their skill in battle (which makes some sense when you get to Lilith, who is supposed to be the best wych evar). In fact I still remember back when these models were released that the DE wyches faced pretty heavy criticism because they weren't sexy enough, with one of the main points of contention being that there were even male wyches on the sprues at all. It's funny to see people make that complaint, and then six years later hold that kit up as an example of a company getting away with incorporating sexual imagery into their models.
I'm not saying it's all perfectly fine and innocent, either, but I think it's worth noting that, when designing the updated DE line, GW didn't go out of their way to depict scenes of slavery, rape, or torture in the miniature line itself, and opted to keep that kind of thing mostly in the background (where it belongs, frankly). Not only is there really no need for that kind of thing on the tabletop anyway, but it makes the DE miniature range more "accessible" too, as people who are otherwise not fond of that kind of thing can still enjoy the beautiful model range, with the worst thing showing the DE's evil nature being blades/spikes on their weapons and armor and a few sneering/angry faces here and there on your infantry models. That and I don't think it makes much sense, either...even if a DE archon wanted to go to battle with his/her harem in tow, you wouldn't see them anyway because they'd be left on the raider, not being dragged around the battlefield on chains/leashes while the archon is doing ninja flips and gak, which would not only be impractical but could actually get the archon killed. And if we're talking about a character that's fat or slovenly, like the GoA guy who is meant to be a Jabba the Hutt reference, even when Jabba leaves the palace you can clearly see that he doesn't strap his slaves to the hull of his barge, they stay inside the vehicle with him.
In any case I don't really care. I saw the model and made a face because I personally think it's silly, but that's the extent to which this kinda thing bothers me. I don't think the model is promoting slavery or trying to suggest that women are supposed to be treated like property or abused, I get that those are bad things and it's making the point that the guy is bad and he does bad things. I personally just think there's no real reason for them to be there in order to make that point and that it's little more than an excuse to sell some "sexy" models. And there's nothing really wrong with that, either, I just wish people would be a little more honest about it, admitting that they just want to paint a little T&A instead of trying to imply that the slave girls are actually a really important part of the miniature and need to be there in order to convey that the character in question is evil, as if there were no other way.
RoninXiC wrote: "Because male power fantasy" which is like the most stupid reply ever invented.
Nah, yours is the most stupid reply ever invented. People use this all the time to try and put down completely valid arguments about pretty much everything and fail miserably. Just like now.
I don't need social justice warriors defending me from whatever their supposed slight of the month is this month.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy was born from the likes of Boris, Franzetta, and the pages of Heavy Metal, Eerie, Weird tales, comic books by Stan Lee,Bob Kane, Robert Kanigher, Garth Ennis, Todd Mcfarlane, Joe Kubert etc,,,. It's not for everyone, nor should it be. As a gangly teen age boy/ girl, it should be about freedom of expression, much the same as all art combat
The slave reference is good. You need them, or the effect of, "These guys are slave raiders, who will as easily skin you alive and laugh at you for fun while you writhe around in agony, then they get powered by it..." There are more female figures, and blades, and violent intent in the "New" Dark elder line then was in the past.
Darth Vader.... well, if Disney has anything to do with it, it will be a small world after all, and he's just lashing out for his mommy issues. ( about as much as the princess empowerment league that has taken over Disney's talent department.)
When Robert E. Howard wrote Conan, Red Sonja, or the rest, Edger Rice Burroughs writing Tarzan, John Carter, or When Jules Vern wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, or H.P. Lovecraft wrote about the Cthuhlu mythos, they all had no idea that someone was going to come behind them and complain that there was social injustice because they didn't write in enough wuss into the characters and get them all in touch with their feminine side. Nudity and violence is visceral, and raw. They go hand in hand with scifi and fantasy like peanut-butter and jelly.
Runic wrote: Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.
Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."
Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.
There's a huge difference between sexualization and sexual violence. One can be fine with sexuality and not want to see "unfortunate implications" in models clearly portraying slavery with a sexual light. There's also a difference between "I don't like cheesecake because it breaks suspension of disbelief for fan service" and "this mini reminds me of what that kid at school who always got sent home for smelling of urine and crying oddly went through all those years".
It's not like we are talking about Kingdom Death here. This is a game that features goofy rockmen, goofy hobbit-daleks, badass 90's latex-forehead aliens, and a Firefly fan pandering faction. I guess I just can't accept a goofy sex slaver.
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:
“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.
People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.
I have more concerns about how it is seen by the people who gladly purchase them. I honestly doubt most children grasp all of the implications behind the slave girl imagery. But the adults who buy the mini based on its aesthetics? I remember when I was old enough to realize what Slave Leia's outfit implied was happening, and from then on it really bothered me how much the fandom latched on to that costume. Yeah, I could see using it in personal role play, but at a convention? It seems like a very public blending of forced sexual servility with sexual desirability, which is all kinds of disturbing.
I guess it makes me that SJW who hates on the Slave Leia look, but that's how I feel.
Grot 6 wrote: Darth Vader.... well, if Disney has anything to do with it, it will be a small world after all, and he's just lashing out for his mommy issues.
Pretty sure Lucas beat them to the punch on that one.
Runic wrote: Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.
Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."
Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.
There's a huge difference between sexualization and sexual violence. One can be fine with sexuality and not want to see "unfortunate implications" in models clearly portraying slavery with a sexual light. There's also a difference between "I don't like cheesecake because it breaks suspension of disbelief for fan service" and "this mini reminds me of what that kid at school who always got sent home for smelling of urine and crying oddly went through all those years".
It's not like we are talking about Kingdom Death here. This is a game that features goofy rockmen, goofy hobbit-daleks, badass 90's latex-forehead aliens, and a Firefly fan pandering faction. I guess I just can't accept a goofy sex slaver.
RivenSkull wrote: I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.
Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…
That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:
“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.
People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.
I have more concerns about how it is seen by the people who gladly purchase them. I honestly doubt most children grasp all of the implications behind the slave girl imagery. But the adults who buy the mini based on its aesthetics? I remember when I was old enough to realize what Slave Leia's outfit implied was happening, and from then on it really bothered me how much the fandom latched on to that costume. Yeah, I could see using it in personal role play, but at a convention? It seems like a very public blending of forced sexual servility with sexual desirability, which is all kinds of disturbing.
I guess it makes me that SJW who hates on the Slave Leia look, but that's how I feel.
The way I view it, things like Slave Leia have a duality to them.
On one hand, there will be the women who dress up in the costume. It's one of the few costumes that gets to be sexy and be Star Wars in a canonical way. And then because of human nature, it garners a lot of attention, which feeds the ego/self-esteem. Who doesn't want to wear a costume and be the center of attention? It can also be a source of pride for the women wearing it. Working to have the body to pull that off, and then having a reason to show off and get a lot of attention? That was a factor to many of the women I've spoken to wearing that costume, and it's something I've experienced as well. Before I was injured last year, I was in spectacular physical shape, and did a Conan cosplay - the whole bare chest and legs thing. It was a chance to show off my hard work and do nerdy things at the same time. I got alot of attention from people, especially women. It's hard not to enjoy the level of attention that that type of cosplay brings.
But on the other hand, there's that completely creepy attitude that some guys do have towards women and sexuality; and as much as it's stereotypical to say it - it's not a particularly uncommon thing in the nerdy hobbies. I ended up having lunch and then spending the afternoon with a pair of Slave Leia cosplayers at that convention after I shooed/intimidated away an unsettling guy that had been following them and taking pictures, and then went back to trying to follow them after he thought I had walked off. It can ruin something that can be both fun and sexy. There were a few times that afternoon where we did the "Conan sitting with women at his feet" picture, and all 3 of us had a blast doing it. If I had an unhealthy view of sexuality and women, that could never have happened. That creepy fixation on the female body, and only seeing it as a sexual object is pretty fething disturbing when it's seen first hand.
Bringing this back to miniatures, I perfectly see where you are coming from when talking about the excess T&A for some models and not really wanting to be around it, and I completely agree with you on that. I just don't think that the "think of the children" is a good reason for it - I feel that "Think of the creeps" is a much more compelling argument against the skimpy miniatures.
Personally, I can understand the reasoning for having some lightly miniatures if they are women in some form of slavery or serving a gangster lord or whatever. There's some reason to why they look like that beyond "Tits because of tits; ass because of ass". That's more where is crosses into the unsavory feeling. The entire female line from Darksword Miniatures is like that. It ranges from very acceptablefemaleminiatures to those that make me say "I'm notoffended, but isthat reallynecessary?" I'm all for enjoying the view of an attractive woman in everyday life, but if I want to see T&A in a heavier sexual manner, I'll go watch porn in private and not leer at people or inanimate objects in public.
More or less it can be summed up in character build, since the miniatures, much like paintings do not have the luxury of text or screenplay to reinforce the character to the viewer they need to reinforce the character by visual trappings and posture.
A fat guy conveys not much, he could be equally gluttonous, lazy, or have some health issues, a fat guy on a throne is in command a fat guy that is on the middle of the battlefield with slaves feeding him creates a different profile.
A guy definitely in command, a show off, both gluttonous and lustful, prideful and eager to display to everybody he has conquered his enemies.
Is it really necessary? especially the slaves feeding him? I guess you could do the same thing with him eating snacks and having trophies racks besides him, but would not give the same feeling of been fed by the slave girls.
Does it also fulfill a sex sells approach too? sure it does.
On another note IIRC Darksword does the miniatures from the already published artwork so there is no consistency because the artists in question did the artwork under different conditions.
Grot 6 wrote: Sci-Fi and Fantasy was born from the likes of Boris, Franzetta, and the pages of Heavy Metal, Eerie, Weird tales, comic books by Stan Lee,Bob Kane, Robert Kanigher, Garth Ennis, Todd Mcfarlane, Joe Kubert etc,,,.
Hum what? Citing Todd McFarlane or Garth Ennis as the inventors of Sci-Fi/Fantasy, really? I mean, they ARE influential, but both Sci-Fi and Fantasy were very well established when their started their careers. You ought to name Jules Verne or Tolkien.
Grot 6 wrote: The slave reference is good. You need them, or the effect of, "These guys are slave raiders, who will as easily skin you alive and laugh at you for fun while you writhe around in agony, then they get powered by it..."
Okay, then were are the male slaves in bikini going out of their way to show off their bottoms and nice chiseled abs, in submissive positions?
Grot 6 wrote: When Robert E. Howard wrote Conan, Red Sonja, or the rest, Edger Rice Burroughs writing Tarzan, John Carter, or When Jules Vern wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, or H.P. Lovecraft wrote about the Cthuhlu mythos, they all had no idea that someone was going to come behind them and complain that there was social injustice because they didn't write in enough wuss into the characters and get them all in touch with their feminine side. Nudity and violence is visceral, and raw. They go hand in hand with scifi and fantasy like peanut-butter and jelly.
If you quote Jules Verne and H.P. Lovecraft to illustrate how nudity and visceral, raw violence goes hand to hand with sci-fi and fantasy, I doubt you read either. Seriously, Verne stories were moralistic books for young readers. All the “morally correct” (for the time) stuff in L'Île mystérieuse became rather tedious to read tbh. Verne should definitely be the last author you would quote to illustrate your point of unpolitically correct, immoral, violent Sci-Fi designed for adults.
Okay, then were are the male slaves in bikini going out of their way to show off their bottoms and nice chiseled abs, in submissive positions?
I'm guessing because the slaver in question is probably not into the male physique.
There is a severe lack of naked or half-naked males of both chiseled and less muscular variety on the market, though. I tried making a pleasure barge for a Vampire Baroness once, and let me tell you, it's damn near impossible to find suitable miniatures for that.
Still, I can't really fault creators to make what they want to create or feel will sell, especially not when it's practically a hobby operation for most manufacturers.
Sexualization of something is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing has an inherent sexual attribute to it.
A human body has nothing sexual about it. A finger is as "sexual" as a vagina. What makes a body part sexual is the person observing the subject.
This concept is such a simple one, yet, most people either never realize it, or scoff at it without giving it a thought.
For example... I'm a nurse, and I wash private areas all night long. I hand wash butts and breasts and vaginas, but I do not get "sexually" aroused because I, ME, do not find those body parts on those women sexual. Same reason why Doctors don't get hard ons or get wet while operating on a naked body. But if I see my gf's body, I get sexually aroused.
I sexual the subject I view. They are not sexual themselves.
This is why you have certain groups of people FORCE their concepts of what is sexual on other, and other people scratch their heads in confusion.
There are tons of examples of this.... Most people don't sexualize dogs, but some people, do. We can both look at the same dog, but she will get aroused and not me, because what is sexual about that dog is in her head and mine, not inherent to the dog itself. Same for corpses, young kids, feet, couches, car mufflers, etc....
So when an artist creates a nude figure, it is just a piece of art with no inherent sexual attribute. Most of us will paint the figure and use it, but we aren't going to pleasure ourselves over it... Until one person sees the figure, finds it offensive, then decides for the rest of society that the figure is too sexual for all human beings.
One human is forcing their sexual feelings of an object/subject and projecting that onto everyone else.
It's like, if a woman finds a couch sexually attractive, but feels that being sexually attracted to the couch is evil, so she gets couches banned from IKEA.
A nude figure is nothing more than that, a nude figure. Heck, you can be sexually aroused by feet, or hands, or elbows and not breasts or a penis. You're gonna ban a figure because it isn't wearing shoes, and you can't stop getting wet around The Hobbit line of Hobbit figures?
So in my OPINION, and from what research I've done over the years, sexuality is not an attribute of the subject/object, but of the observer's mind/body, and when you censor something based on sexuality, you are forcing your view of sexuality on all other human beings.
Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
BuFFo wrote: So when an artist creates a nude figure, it is just a piece of art with no inherent sexual attribute.
No, this is absolutely not true at all. A nude figure is not necessarily sexual, but nude figures often are sexual. There is lots of artistic pornography where the poses/props/setting/etc all scream "THIS IS ABOUT SEX", and even a casual observer can immediately tell that the point of the piece is to communicate sexual ideas. And when we contrast that pornography with, say, the statue of David, we can see a pretty obvious difference between the two. Obviously there are some gray areas involved, but in the case of a lot of the models people often object to it's very clearly a piece where the artist is presenting something sexual.
And I say this as an artist who has done both sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity. If you can't figure out that the sexual stuff is sexual without going into a detailed investigation of the viewer's psychology then either you're a terrible art critic, or I'm a shameful failure as an artist.
and when you censor something based on sexuality, you are forcing your view of sexuality on all other human beings.
Nobody is censoring anything here. You would have a point if, say, people were suggesting that companies who make sexy miniatures should be prosecuted under obscenity laws, but that is simply not happening. Telling a company that you don't like their products is not censorship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
I expect you to be consistent in this principle and never, under any circumstances, criticize the products a company chooses to sell. Don't like GW's latest space marine kit for whatever reason? Too bad, vegetarians and steakhouses.
Korraz wrote: I'm guessing because the slaver in question is probably not into the male physique.
As you mention, none seems to. At that point, maybe we should ask ourselves why…
BuFFo wrote: This concept is such a simple one, yet, most people either never realize it, or scoff at it without giving it a thought.
Nah, it's just that you are mixing stuff up. The fact some people are not aroused in strip clubs doesn't meant that strip tease and lap dance aren't explicitly sexual stuff. They are sexual. The fact some people are aroused by naked anatomy illustrations doesn't meant those are sexual. They are not. People are way better at doing the difference between one or the other than you give them credit for. For instance, that's why children get to see Kirikou, a cartoon full of women going entirely topless, but won't (normally) see sexual cartoons even when there is no explicit nudity on screen. Or that's how clips like this don't get censored off Youtube, while erotic video with the same level of nudity would. Now that we have shown that people are completely able to make the distinction between sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity when they are not arguing in bad faith (i.e. not to pretend “You are censoring that perfectly non-sexual depiction of a woman in a pose
I think there is a big mix between sexualization used here to describe both the Stylization used to enhance the visual difference between male and female models and the concept of making models sexual.
Both can coexist together witch enhances the confusion.
Vulcan wrote: Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
I expect you to be consistent in this principle and never, under any circumstances, criticize the products a company chooses to sell. Don't like GW's latest space marine kit for whatever reason? Too bad, vegetarians and steakhouses.
I don't get how these are connected, he didn't say don't criticize, he said stop trying to enforce a ban on things you do not like.
Vulcan wrote: It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't.[…] It really is that simple.
Nope, it's not. I don't want to launch a discussion on vegetarianism in here, but no, it's certainly not that simple. We all agree that some actions are harmful and immoral and that they should be forbidden (say, for instance, murder, torture, …). We don't stop at not doing it ourselves. There are other actions that we just don't want to do ourselves but wouldn't want to forbid other to do. Where to place the cursor is not always as clear as you make it. Some people consider eating meat to be among the actions that are harmful and immoral enough that they should be forbidden. You can talk it out with them, or you can, for the moment pretty safely, ignore them, but you can't pretend it's “just that simple”.
As you mention, none seems to.
At that point, maybe we should ask ourselves why…
Probably because
A) The sculptors didn't feel like sculpting scantily clad manhunks
or
B) They didn't feel like the volume they could sell would warrant the production
or a combination of the two. More often than not it's going to be A) though.
Vulcan wrote: Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
I expect you to be consistent in this principle and never, under any circumstances, criticize the products a company chooses to sell. Don't like GW's latest space marine kit for whatever reason? Too bad, vegetarians and steakhouses.
I don't get how these are connected, he didn't say don't criticize, he said stop trying to enforce a ban on things you do not like.
They are connected because Vulcan somehow equates criticism with banning or censorship. The ban argument seems to only come from the "anti censorship" side who overreact to criticism with slipper slope arguments. Who's for banning stuff? Who would even have the power to actually do this?
As far as I have seen here people want more diversity and variety and they say so repeatedly because companies don't serve them adequately (customer feedback). Companies, of course, can chose what to do (if they read these type of discussions). It's not censorship just because some people don't like your product. One might as well accuse the Dakkadakka community as trying to censor GW products all the time just because people don't like some of their stuff (WHFB -> AoS transition, rules writing, some aesthetic choices). And that would be ridiculous.
Vulcan wrote: Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
I expect you to be consistent in this principle and never, under any circumstances, criticize the products a company chooses to sell. Don't like GW's latest space marine kit for whatever reason? Too bad, vegetarians and steakhouses.
I don't get how these are connected, he didn't say don't criticize, he said stop trying to enforce a ban on things you do not like.
They are connected because Vulcan somehow equates criticism with banning or censorship. The ban argument seems to only come from the "anti censorship" side who overreact to criticism with slipper slope arguments. Who's for banning stuff? Who would even have the power to actually do this?
As far as I have seen here people want more diversity and variety and they say so repeatedly because companies don't serve them adequately (customer feedback). Companies, of course, can chose what to do (if they read these type of discussions). It's not censorship just because some people don't like your product. One might as well accuse the Dakkadakka community as trying to censor GW products all the time just because people don't like some of their stuff (WHFB -> AoS transition, rules writing, some aesthetic choices). And that would be ridiculous.
but it is understandable, one woman was incensed about some breaking bad figs for sale at TRU for adult collectors and got them removed from the store, just because she had a stick up her bum about it.
Asterios wrote: but it is understandable, one woman was incensed about some breaking bad figs for sale at TRU for adult collectors and got them removed from the store, just because she had a stick up her bum about it.
And? She didn't force the manufacturer to stop selling them or ban people from buying them. And at no point was government intervention (aka real censorship) a concern. I fail to see the problem with a retail store determining that appealing to one market is more profitable than appealing to a different market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: I don't get how these are connected, he didn't say don't criticize, he said stop trying to enforce a ban on things you do not like.
And guess what is also "enforcing a ban on things you do not like": telling GW to stop making more space marine kits and work on new Cadian sculpts. Or telling GW to stop selling AoS and go back to WHFB. Etc.
Mario wrote: They are connected because Vulcan somehow equates criticism with banning or censorship. The ban argument seems to only come from the "anti censorship" side who overreact to criticism with slipper slope arguments. Who's for banning stuff? Who would even have the power to actually do this?
It's because in general criticism also often comes from the people who want stuff banned or are demanding change rather than just politely suggesting it.
Who would actually have the power to do it? If the groups wanting stuff banned are loud enough they might persuade stores to stop carrying certain stock, they might persuade artists to stop selling it, they might even convince governments to enforce it.
It's not a slippery slope argument, it's cause and effect, stupid stuff gets banned all the time, you can look across the globe and see the entire spectrum of censorship. The forum suggests you are posting from Germany, Germany bans lots of stuff all the time, usually violent in nature rather than sexual, but a lot of stuff that's considered fine in the rest of the western world you won't find on shelves in Germany.
There's lots of people out there who don't just simply not like something, they don't like that you do like it and want to stop you from being able to enjoy that something.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If the groups wanting stuff banned are loud enough they might persuade stores to stop carrying certain stock, they might persuade artists to stop selling it, they might even convince governments to enforce it.
So what? If a store finds that one group of customers makes more money than another group I really fail to see the problem with catering to the first group. If an artist finds that making non-sexual models gives them more income than making sexy models then why should they make the sexy ones? As far as I can see this is just another group of people who are afraid that they aren't a profitable enough market trying to silence the voices of people who they disagree with.
And no, nobody is getting governments to enforce a supposed "ban" on sexy miniatures. Perhaps this is an issue in other situations, but it's not at all one that has been raised in this context.
Asterios wrote: but it is understandable, one woman was incensed about some breaking bad figs for sale at TRU for adult collectors and got them removed from the store, just because she had a stick up her bum about it.
And? She didn't force the manufacturer to stop selling them or ban people from buying them. And at no point was government intervention (aka real censorship) a concern. I fail to see the problem with a retail store determining that appealing to one market is more profitable than appealing to a different market.
what about the Bay Area where you no longer get toys in kids meals? or get a nice piping hot cup of coffee from places anywhere?
Asterios wrote: what about the Bay Area where you no longer get toys in kids meals?
That is arguably an issue, but not one that is relevant here. Selling stuff to kids is subject to more regulations than selling to adults, and it is not at all plausible that we are going to see a government ban on selling sexy miniatures to adults.
or get a nice piping hot cup of coffee from places anywhere?
Usually though it is not a shop or an artist finding X loud voiced group will support them but that X loud voiced group turns away their customers and does not support them when they cave to their demands.
The subject is always complex and complicated I am weary of simplistic explanations.
Vulcan wrote: Trying to ban nudity because you're offended by it is silly. It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't want to buy naked minis, don't. It really is that simple.
I expect you to be consistent in this principle and never, under any circumstances, criticize the products a company chooses to sell. Don't like GW's latest space marine kit for whatever reason? Too bad, vegetarians and steakhouses.
Absolutely correct. If it's not to my taste, I don't buy it. Period. Whining about it on the internet never changed anything. Case in point: Age of Sigmar. I can't stand it, so I didn't buy it. If you like it, more power to you. I've moved on to 9th Age, which is more to my taste.
In the end, there's only one way to change how a business does business from the outside. That's to NOT patronize the business while it's doing what you don't like. If enough people do so, the business either changes, or goes out of business.
Needless to say, it doesn't always work. If there are plenty of OTHER people who DO like what the business is doing (or just plain don't care), the business won't care that YOU no longer patronize them.
Asterios wrote: what about the Bay Area where you no longer get toys in kids meals?
That is arguably an issue, but not one that is relevant here. Selling stuff to kids is subject to more regulations than selling to adults, and it is not at all plausible that we are going to see a government ban on selling sexy miniatures to adults.
or get a nice piping hot cup of coffee from places anywhere?
You can still get hot coffee.
actually in the Bay area they banned toys in kids meals because they said it caused kids to want the happy meals and such and gain weight, all because parents don't know how to say no, so yes it is very relevant, if they can ban toys from kids meals because of weak and inadequate parents, they can ban anything.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Usually though it is not a shop or an artist finding X loud voiced group will support them but that X loud voiced group turns away their customers and does not support them when they cave to their demands.
The subject is always complex and complicated I am weary of simplistic explanations.
But the point is that it's still not censorship. It's a business/artist/whatever making their own choices about what is best, not a government forcing them to comply with a rule. The people complaining about sexy miniatures only have power as long as the targets of their attention are willing to listen to them. If an company says "we're going to make sexy miniatures no matter how much you hate them" then the complainers are absolutely powerless. The company will make sexy miniatures, and people who want sexy miniatures will buy them.
So, again, it all comes down to "shut up, I'm afraid you're going to persuade people to do something I don't like".
Vulcan wrote: It's the equivalent of trying to ban steakhouses because you're a vegetarian and offended by the idea of ANYONE eating meat.
If you don't want to eat meat, don't.[…] It really is that simple.
Nope, it's not. I don't want to launch a discussion on vegetarianism in here, but no, it's certainly not that simple. We all agree that some actions are harmful and immoral and that they should be forbidden (say, for instance, murder, torture, …). We don't stop at not doing it ourselves. There are other actions that we just don't want to do ourselves but wouldn't want to forbid other to do. Where to place the cursor is not always as clear as you make it. Some people consider eating meat to be among the actions that are harmful and immoral enough that they should be forbidden. You can talk it out with them, or you can, for the moment pretty safely, ignore them, but you can't pretend it's “just that simple”.
Oh, we're going to get into morality, are we?
Here's my definition of immoral: Someone ELSE is hurt in some way, shape, or form. Anything else doesn't matter.
Is someone hurt by murder, rape, arson, robbery, burglary, petty theft, or even just being a jerk on the internet? Yes.
Is someone hurt in a consensual sexual relationship? No. Even if they are both the same sex.
Is someone hurt by eating a hamburger? Certainly not the person COMPLAINING about someone eating a hamburger.
Is someone hurt by tiny tin or plastic boobs? Nope.
There's my definitions and I live by them. You are free to disagree; I'll not try to force you to change your mind (that would be doing you harm).
Asterios wrote: actually in the Bay area they banned toys in kids meals because they said it caused kids to want the happy meals and such and gain weight, all because parents don't know how to say no, so yes it is very relevant, if they can ban toys from kids meals because of weak and inadequate parents, they can ban anything.
No they can't ban anything. This is not a representative case for two reasons:
1) The toys in fast food meals were open to banning because they were marketing to children. Like it or not when you're selling products for young children you're subject to more regulation than if you're selling to adults. Miniatures, especially sexy miniatures, are intended for adults (or at least older children) and do not face the same level of regulation.
2) The fast food toys were banned for a legitimate health reason. Fast food is indisputably bad for you, and we have a well-established precedent of restrictions on how harmful things can be marketed (see alcohol and tobacco marketing rules). But no such issue exists with sexy miniatures. You can argue all you want over whether they're a good thing or not, but there is no plausible claim that they are physically harmful (unless they're lead miniatures, but that's a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one).
Finally, let me remind you that it is indisputably legal for adults to buy hardcore pornography. There is absolutely no chance of the government banning the sale of sexy miniatures to adults.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: Is someone hurt by eating a hamburger? Certainly not the person COMPLAINING about someone eating a hamburger.
Sigh. Even if you don't agree with the argument it's pretty obvious that the vegetarian argument against meat is that someone is harmed. Their claim is that the animals killed for meat are worthy of being counted when we're talking about who is harmed.
Is someone hurt by tiny tin or plastic boobs? Nope.
And here is where we disagree. Sexy miniatures are part of some rather harmful attitudes towards women. It may be a small part compared to other things, but it's still harm.
Asterios wrote: what about the Bay Area where you no longer get toys in kids meals?
That is arguably an issue, but not one that is relevant here. Selling stuff to kids is subject to more regulations than selling to adults, and it is not at all plausible that we are going to see a government ban on selling sexy miniatures to adults.
You won't find a swastika on model aircraft in Germany because models are viewed as toys. If memory serves, you're allowed to use the swastika in a historical context or I believe in an artistic context, but because models are considered toys it's banned. Even at a model show which I would most definitely consider a historical context and artistic context, you aren't allowed to show them.
The "think of the children!" argument is definitely a possibility for miniatures as well.
The same way video games get banned or censored for children's sake even when they have an adults only rating on it.
Asterios wrote: actually in the Bay area they banned toys in kids meals because they said it caused kids to want the happy meals and such and gain weight, all because parents don't know how to say no, so yes it is very relevant, if they can ban toys from kids meals because of weak and inadequate parents, they can ban anything.
No they can't ban anything. This is not a representative case for two reasons:
1) The toys in fast food meals were open to banning because they were marketing to children. Like it or not when you're selling products for young children you're subject to more regulation than if you're selling to adults. Miniatures, especially sexy miniatures, are intended for adults (or at least older children) and do not face the same level of regulation.
2) The fast food toys were banned for a legitimate health reason. Fast food is indisputably bad for you, and we have a well-established precedent of restrictions on how harmful things can be marketed (see alcohol and tobacco marketing rules). But no such issue exists with sexy miniatures. You can argue all you want over whether they're a good thing or not, but there is no plausible claim that they are physically harmful (unless they're lead miniatures, but that's a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one).
Finally, let me remind you that it is indisputably legal for adults to buy hardcore pornography. There is absolutely no chance of the government banning the sale of sexy miniatures to adults.
so banning of people from smoking in bars, where people are all about smoking how is that harmful to kids?, but it definitely hurt businesses, that is legal? i've seen bars close down because once they lost the smokers, they lost their customers, I've seen other bars just ignore the ban all together, so tell me how does such a ban exist when places had no problem with it before? how is that legal? trust me enough people complain they can get anything banned.
Asterios wrote: so banning of people from smoking in bars, where no one is mad about it, but it definitely hurt businesses, that is legal? i've seen bars close down because once they lost the smokers, they lost their customers, I've seen other bars just ignore the ban all together, so tell me how does such a ban exist when places had no problem with it before? how is that legal? trust me enough people complain they can get anything banned.
Again, this is a legitimate health issue. Smoking in public can be banned because secondhand smoke is a legitimate health risk. If it was merely a case of "I don't like being around smokers" then there would have been no grounds for a legal ban and individual bars would have to decide whether smokers or people who hate smokers are a more profitable target market. But no such argument exists for miniatures. Outside of toxic material concerns (which, again, is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic issue) there is no health or safety justification for banning sexy miniatures.
And, you seem to have missed it the first time, so I'll say it again. It is indisputably legal for adults to buy hardcore pornography. Sexy miniatures are not going to be banned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You won't find a swastika on model aircraft in Germany because models are viewed as toys. If memory serves, you're allowed to use the swastika in a historical context or I believe in an artistic context, but because models are considered toys it's banned. Even at a model show which I would most definitely consider a historical context and artistic context, you aren't allowed to show them.
This is an issue specific to Germany, I think. And it's not one with a lot of relevance to the issue of sexy miniatures, since those don't have the same "never again" issues attached to them as symbols of Nazi ideology.
The "think of the children!" argument is definitely a possibility for miniatures as well.
The same way video games get banned or censored for children's sake even when they have an adults only rating on it.
Maybe in some countries they do. In the US at least you're free to put whatever you want in a video game. Any "censorship" is done voluntarily by the creator, for the sake of appealing to a broader audience and making more money. But if you aren't concerned with making a ton of money off mass-market appeal you can put all the hardcore pornography, graphic violence, racist propaganda, etc, you like in it and the government is incredibly unlikely to do anything about it.
Asterios wrote: so banning of people from smoking in bars, where no one is mad about it, but it definitely hurt businesses, that is legal? i've seen bars close down because once they lost the smokers, they lost their customers, I've seen other bars just ignore the ban all together, so tell me how does such a ban exist when places had no problem with it before? how is that legal? trust me enough people complain they can get anything banned.
Again, this is a legitimate health issue. Smoking in public can be banned because secondhand smoke is a legitimate health risk. If it was merely a case of "I don't like being around smokers" then there would have been no grounds for a legal ban and individual bars would have to decide whether smokers or people who hate smokers are a more profitable target market. But no such argument exists for miniatures. Outside of toxic material concerns (which, again, is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic issue) there is no health or safety justification for banning sexy miniatures.
And, you seem to have missed it the first time, so I'll say it again. It is indisputably legal for adults to buy hardcore pornography. Sexy miniatures are not going to be banned.
oh so you have evidence that it is a legitimate health risk? do you? or are you going by those ads seen on TV? well guess what a Federal judge would disagree with you:
furthermore those ads claim smoking causes all kinds of host of problems, me myself I've been smoking over 30 years a pack a day and i'm healthier then many people younger then me. also I scuba Dive, I hike, jog have been sky diving, look younger then my real age and so on and so on, but because people said second hand smoke was dangerous without research to back it up, it is banned.
furthermore if we go by your standard that anything that is a health issue should be banned, then got news for you, just about everything in your place is banned, just about anything in the world is banned, because the EPA says its a health hazard, they say guns are a health hazard, should they be banned?, they say knives are a health hazard should they be banned? they say your pots and pans are a health hazard should they be banned? they saying burning wood is a health hazard should they be banned? and the list goes on and on, so if we go by your standards just about everything you own should be banned.
Indeed, and that's wonderful for the US, it's one of the things I liked when living in the US is the government feels less like it's babysitting me.
But that's my point, it's not a "slippery slope" argument, it's a "oh, this gak happens in the modern world in real life" argument and even in the US there's people who would happily ban things, you just have to make sure the people yelling "freedom of expression" are louder than the people yelling "this hurts my feelings". And even though hardcore porn is legal (and it is in most western countries I think?) I don't particularly want wargames relegated to adults-only backrooms because GW decided to sculpt a boob on a slaneesh model and it's deemed unacceptable for public consumption because it might offend someone or some child might be influenced by an exposed boob on a plastic dolly.
Asterios wrote: well guess what a Federal judge would disagree with you:
That's nice. A federal judge is not a medical expert, and his ruling was overturned on appeal.
Anyway, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject (enjoy that lung cancer in your future!) the point remains that bans on smoking in public were justified by legitimate health concerns. You can disagree about the extent to which those concerns have been proven to be accurate, but there was clearly a lot more behind the ban than "I find smoking aesthetically unpleasant*". But no such concern exists with sexy miniatures. The only possible health or safety issues involving miniatures are related to manufacturing, not aesthetic choices.
*Which, to be fair, is a pretty strong argument. Smoking is disgusting, and I am perfectly happy with smokers being banned from public places. Keep your smoking in private, and put on some clean clothes before you go out in public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But that's my point, it's not a "slippery slope" argument, it's a "oh, this gak happens in the modern world in real life" argument and even in the US there's people who would happily ban things, you just have to make sure the people yelling "freedom of expression" are louder than the people yelling "this hurts my feelings".
It happens, but I don't think the example you gave is a really relevant one. You're talking about a country where there are still living supporters of the government that murdered people by the millions in horrifying industrialized slaughter. And there are still people who want to return to Nazi policies. It's arguable whether bans on Nazi symbols need to be quite as strict as they are to accomplish the goal of keeping that ideology from gaining support, but it's clearly an exceptional case that goes way beyond the average "I don't like this" complaint.
And even though hardcore porn is legal (and it is in most western countries I think?) I don't particularly want wargames relegated to adults-only backrooms because GW decided to sculpt a boob on a slaneesh model and it's deemed unacceptable for public consumption because it might offend someone or some child might be influenced by an exposed boob on a plastic dolly.
I don't know, I'd be perfectly happy with wargaming getting an 18+ rule attached. I want to play games with other adults, not obnoxious children.
Of course this is really not something to be worried about because there's no sign that anyone is moving in that direction. Not in miniatures, and not in society in general. Things that are sexy but not explicitly pornographic are permitted with little or no regulation, and (effective) opposition to them is focused on getting people to voluntarily change their behavior rather than imposing government bans.
Asterios wrote: well guess what a Federal judge would disagree with you:
That's nice. A federal judge is not a medical expert, and his ruling was overturned on appeal.
Anyway, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject (enjoy that lung cancer in your future!) the point remains that bans on smoking in public were justified by legitimate health concerns. You can disagree about the extent to which those concerns have been proven to be accurate, but there was clearly a lot more behind the ban than "I find smoking aesthetically unpleasant*". But no such concern exists with sexy miniatures. The only possible health or safety issues involving miniatures are related to manufacturing, not aesthetic choices.
*Which, to be fair, is a pretty strong argument. Smoking is disgusting, and I am perfectly happy with smokers being banned from public places. Keep your smoking in private, and put on some clean clothes before you go out in public.
meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.
what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?
Asterios wrote: meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk.
And, if this is found to be true, there is a legitimate safety issue that might justify bans or restrictions on those non-stick materials. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of sexy miniatures. Product safety is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one. Any product safety concerns over sexy miniatures would apply just as much to all miniatures made from the same material.
meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.
I'm glad we have amateur doctors like you to tell us what the health risks are. I, on the other hand, think I'll stick with what the actual experts in the field have to say.
what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?
Polygamy is banned for religious reasons. It should not be banned.
Asterios wrote: meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk.
And, if this is found to be true, there is a legitimate safety issue that might justify bans or restrictions on those non-stick materials. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of sexy miniatures. Product safety is a manufacturing issue, not an artistic one. Any product safety concerns over sexy miniatures would apply just as much to all miniatures made from the same material.
meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.
I'm glad we have amateur doctors like you to tell us what the health risks are. I, on the other hand, think I'll stick with what the actual experts in the field have to say.
what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?
Polygamy is banned for religious reasons. It should not be banned.
so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.
Asterios wrote: so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.
Given that, as I keep pointing out, it is indisputably legal to buy and sell hardcore pornography I'd say that the religious opposition is not very effective.
Asterios wrote: so if religious individuals find those sexy images wrong they will push to get them banned, just like Polygamy was, this is my point, it doesn't matter what it is, if you get a group complaining enough it will get banned.
Given that, as I keep pointing out, it is indisputably legal to buy and sell hardcore pornography I'd say that the religious opposition is not very effective.
but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.
Asterios wrote: but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.
No, the slippery slope doesn't begin, because it's very easy to put an "18+ only" label on them and end the slope at that. And really, I don't see any problem with sexy miniatures being limited to adults only.
Asterios wrote: but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.
No, the slippery slope doesn't begin, because it's very easy to put an "18+ only" label on them and end the slope at that. And really, I don't see any problem with sexy miniatures being limited to adults only.
but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?
also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.
Asterios wrote: but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?
What does any of this have to do with the current subject?
also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.
Asterios wrote: but what about little Army men and or LEGO minifig guns?should those have 18+ labels on them? or hello kitty bubble guns? should they be banned? or banned from certain areas? how about T-Shirts with the American flag on them?
What does any of this have to do with the current subject?
also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.
Welcome to 2016. Online shopping is a thing.
those were all things banned from schools, and evidently you do not realize when it comes to minis an 18+ rating is a death sentence.
Asterios wrote: those were all things banned from schools, and evidently you do not realize when it comes to minis an 18+ rating is a death sentence.
So now we've gone from "banned from being sold" to "banned from schools"? Why do you keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the subject of sexy miniatures?
And no, I don't think an 18+ rating is a death sentence, considering how many adults play miniatures games. It might hurt profits a bit if your goal, like GW, is to sell as many starter sets as possible to children who will probably never play the game, but those starter sets aren't sexy miniatures. If you're making sexy miniatures then it's a safe bet that your primary market is people who are already 18+ and won't care about an 18+ only rating.
Well, since no one doing any of the complaining is interested in banning, restricting or otherwise limiting what others can buy I don't see a problem. Let them complain. Unless they're advocating some sort of enforced change, it can all be safely dismissed as complaining about things they don't like. Ignore it, move on.
meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.
what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?
I.... what? That's not how cancer works. Demonstrably so. Genes are a factor, but you aren't immune because you "don't have the gene". Because there is no singular cancer gene, it's not a switch you flip.
Also, as a European, the extreme sensitivity of the US in regards to sexuality is, frankly, very hard to understand to me. It borders on unhealthy in my opinion.
meanwhile you will probably end up getting Cancer from your pots and pans you use, you know those nasty non-stick pans they say are a cancer risk. meanwhile me i think the cancer thing is on the wrong track, it is all a matter of genetics, if you have the cancer gene in you then you are bound to get cancer, if you do not anything short of major radiation exposure you will not get cancer.
what about Polygamy? it is banned how is that a health risk ?
I.... what? That's not how cancer works. Demonstrably so. Genes are a factor, but you aren't immune because you "don't have the gene". Because there is no singular cancer gene, it's not a switch you flip.
and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?
Asterios wrote: and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?
If you shoot yourself in the head you aren't guaranteed to die. But that doesn't mean that shooting yourself in the head isn't a stupid idea.
Asterios wrote: and yet just because a person smokes doesn't guarantee they will get Lung Cancer either, yet if you listen to the hype you will and yet there are people who have smoked all their lives and lived to be 100 without getting lung cancer or any cancer associated with smoking. so how is that explained then?
If you shoot yourself in the head you aren't guaranteed to die. But that doesn't mean that shooting yourself in the head isn't a stupid idea.
yes but same could be said of taking a shower, does that mean you won't take showers? or drive in a car? or go for a walk? the list goes on, your argument is faulty at best.
I have seen people (famous people) who lived healthy lives and yet died young of various diseases and cancer, and yet also seen people lived anything but healthy lives and live a very long long long time, look at Bob Hope smoked and drank and did all kinds of things and yet lived too a 100 when he died of Pneumonia, or George Burns who always had one of his stogies and smoking and drinking and he also lived to be a 100 until he died of cardiac arrest.
the whole thing of life is to experience it, if you restrict yourself on enjoying life then you are missing out on it and will most likely put yourself into an early grave from stress or such.
This is completely off-topic, so I'm going to end it here: you are free to ignore the well-documented risks of smoking, including vastly increased chances of lung cancer. You are free to declare that you don't care what the risk is, and that your short-term enjoyment is more important than anything else. However, your refusal to acknowledge the fact that you are engaging in a disgusting habit that has a significant chance of killing you (slowly and incredibly painfully, in case you were wondering) does not make the unpleasant truth go away. Nor do any of your laughably bad attempts at explaining away the risk. They merely reveal your own ignorance, both of smoking risks in general and of how statistics work. For your own sake I really hope you figure this out before it is too late.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Korraz wrote: Also, as a European, the extreme sensitivity of the US in regards to sexuality is, frankly, very hard to understand to me. It borders on unhealthy in my opinion.
It is, but I don't think that's the primary factor here. US sensitivity to sexuality is usually the "JESUS HATES THIS" kind where any sexuality, regardless of context or content, is presumed to be bad. But the objections to sexy miniatures, on the other hand, tend to be complaints about having sexuality that doesn't make any sense in a particular context (half-naked female marines in 40k, for example) or sexuality that is presented in specific ways that are objectionable.
Shooting yourself in the head is actually a great analogy. Statistical outliers are a simple fact of reality. Just because somebody gets hit by lightning thrice doesn't mean that you run a high risk of getting hit by angry sky-plasma every time you leave your house.
And just because somebody has most likely unhealthy habits and lives to 100 doesn't mean it's not unhealthy.
Science is a tool, it creates models, theories and projections that are, by their very nature, imperfect. But that doesn't mean it has no meaning and can be completely disregarded. And, honestly, if blasting your lungs with street pavement for practically no gain whatsoever other than getting addicted to it doesn't sound like a bad idea all by itself, I don't know what does.
On topic: If we take the Titmarines from Prodos as example, yeah, those simply do not make sense. Honestly, I think they look incredibly dumb and ugly. Another ever-repeating gripe of mine are high-heels, because it's bloody impossible to buy SciFi Miniatures of Women that don't wear them (I'm looking at you, Corvus Belli!)
I think they look dumb, I don't buy them and I usually voice my opinion about that, where appropriate.
Thing is, in the end it all comes down to personal preference. If a sculptor feels like creating such a miniature, I definitely should be able to do so. I won't endorse is his business, but if enough other people do for him to stay in business, then he's just producing what sells. I don't really see a problem with that, since I simply don't see those models as harmful. Distasteful? Possibly, not really as something that needs to disappear from the face of the earth.
There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned. I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.
And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
Mymearan wrote: and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.
You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.
All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.
I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.
If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.
but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.
Mymearan wrote: and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.
You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.
All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.
I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.
If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.
but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.
Getting "labeled as an SJW" sounds pretty grim, although it's an inane insult on the level of "hater/fanboy". Anyway, you're right that a large portion of the difference in gender is explained by external factors. But some of it is not. As I work in the public sector in Sweden you'll have to forgive me for using Swedish sources, but according to this report by the Swedish National Mediation Office (http://www.mi.se/files/PDF-er/att_bestalla/loneskillnader/skillnaden14.pdf) the entire difference in salary cannot be explained by using regression analysis of official statistics. If you have concrete proof to the contrary I would genuinely love to read it!
If you don't think that things we see and hear contribute to our opinions of others, I would like to point you to the entire concept of a"stereotype". A stereotype is entirely based on what we see and hear and not on what we actually know. That would include what we see on TV, hear on the radio, talk to our coworkers about etc. And although "imbeciles" probably rely on those stereotypes more than the rest of us, we all have them, and are sometimes irrationally ruled by them. We are creatures of emotion after all, not fact-collecting robots (just look at the rise of populist political parties in Europe, their entire schtick is to appeal to emotion).
Mymearan wrote: There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned. I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.
And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
Quite a few women would argue that you can be sexy, submissive and in control - in fact they can be very strong characters - just not always in the bedroom - its a choice they choose to make and they can get pretty irate if they are critisiced about it . They can also be interested in images / representations of submission be that male or female. Lets face it anything related to sexuality is complicated.
GW has done male and female slave models - in fact the first ones I remember are lobotmised male humans for the Slaan long long ago. The old model for Vect had the two slave girls - although one of them had a concelaed blade and so was a bit more ambivalent than perhaps it appeared at first glance.
There are now an awful lot of female models on the market (Praise the lord!) - they range from very practical to cheesecake and many in between. It is however very true that there are many more cheescake ladies than gentlemen, the naked males tending to be from ancients ranges - foundry in particular have quite a few sky clad males - they also do lots of naked or semi naked Nymph warriors. I have lots of both practical and cheesecake female models.
It will, I thnk be intersting to see what the new Alrialle model looks like (the last one was not great)
Mymearan wrote: and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts.
You're going to get yourself labelled a SJW for perpetuating this myth. At least in most western counties it is illegal to pay a woman less for the same work, and it doesn't happen. The reason there's a pay gap isn't because women get paid less for the same work, rather they tend to choose career paths that don't pay as much or work less hours and there's a whole nature vs nurture debate about whether that's biologically engrained or socially imprinted.
All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women.
I think this is overblown BS. The image we as a society have of women comes from those we interact with far more than movies or comics or magazines and certainly not miniatures.
If people are getting their views of women from advertising, movies, comics and magazines I think we have a bigger issue that those people are fething imbeciles.
but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
The more I think about it the more I think it doesn't matter, people will create what they want and what they think will sell and the market can naturally adjust if it needs to do so.
Getting "labeled as an SJW" sounds pretty grim, although it's an inane insult on the level of "hater/fanboy". Anyway, you're right that a large portion of the difference in gender is explained by external factors. But some of it is not. As I work in the public sector in Sweden you'll have to forgive me for using Swedish sources, but according to this report by the Swedish National Mediation Office (http://www.mi.se/files/PDF-er/att_bestalla/loneskillnader/skillnaden14.pdf) the entire difference in salary cannot be explained by using regression analysis of official statistics. If you have concrete proof to the contrary I would genuinely love to read it!
Yeah that's in Swedish (I assume), I don't speak/read Swedish so your source is largely irrelevant to me.
There is a gap of a few percent (not the 20 something percent some people like to pretend) but the data is too limited to account for the last few percent. Things like bargaining for pay increases or taking non-wage benefits like health insurance may account for that last few percent.
This is one report that just came up with a quick googling....
If you don't think that things we see and hear contribute to our opinions of others, I would like to point you to the entire concept of a"stereotype"
When I said I thought it was overblown BS, I didn't mean there's no influence whatsoever, just that the influence is overblown.
I don't think those factors you mention (and specifically talking about MINIATURES here) are drivers of peoples impression of women, they are at best followers. I say AT BEST because they are also FANTASY and fantasy is not reality and people are smart enough to figure that out. You can grow up exposed to half naked images of suppressed women in the form of comics and video games all you like and it takes one whack over the head from a mother or older sister for it to have absolutely no influence on your perceived image of women.
Maybe if we were talking 40-50+ years ago I might have agreed with you, especially advertising and movies being big drivers of how we perceive ourselves in society. But we aren't living in the era of "Mad Men" any more and seeing strong women spread throughout different industries and young girls being encouraged that they can do whatever they want by parents, teachers and so on is a larger influence in shaping our views of women in society than any of that other crap, especially when you get down to something like miniatures in a fantasy world I'd call it negligible.
I don't think you give women enough credit for being able to stand on their own two feet instead of being weak minded enough to influenced by such sources, or people in general to discern the difference between hobby/fantasy and reality. *My* view of women doesn't come from the video games or wargames I grew up playing, it comes from a Mum who was one of the most intelligent people I've met, my sister who wouldn't take gak from anyone even as a kid and grew up to be a teacher who excelled so well that her work regularly takes her overseas and she's still one of the strongest and forward people I know, or my other sister who started working the floor in retail and worked her way up to management in the head office of that same retail chain.
Real life influences trump all the other peripheral stuff like..... an underrepresentation of females in a 40k Imperial Guard army or scantily clad Witch Elf models.
In general I think modern feminism is misguided and has gotten to the point where it actually undermines the strength of individual women firstly by focusing on increasingly petty things (that frankly not all women may agree on anyway) and secondly by acting like girls constantly need a leg up to compete with the boys.
Feminism is most definitely still needed, but where it's needed is places like the middle east or africa.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's because in general criticism also often comes from the people who want stuff banned or are demanding change rather than just politely suggesting it.
I say this isn't true at all. Remember that post in the Blizzard forums about one Tracer victory pose. It was politely suggesting a change, got the very same amount of flak for being censorship .
Vulcan wrote: Here's my definition of immoral: Someone ELSE is hurt in some way, shape, or form. Anything else doesn't matter.
[…]
Now please grant me the same respect.
So, just to make things clear, are you saying that I should abide by your definition of morality, but that you will in turn abide to mine? Damn. Then, causing unnecessary harm to living, feeling creatures for entertainment purpose is immoral. That involves meat, especially the brand that require extra suffering like foie gras, blood sports like corrida, …
Asterios wrote: but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.
So can sex toys. Beware, all sex toys will be required to be children-friendly by law!
(It's sarcasm. Please, please tell me everyone understood it as sarcasm. It's to show slippery slope arguments don't work and are not logical in the slightest.)
Asterios wrote: but miniatures can be construed as toys, and thereby the slippery slope begans.
So can sex toys. Beware, all sex toys will be required to be children-friendly by law!
(It's sarcasm. Please, please tell me everyone understood it as sarcasm. It's to show slippery slope arguments don't work and are not logical in the slightest.)
if you watched neighbors 2, you might be demanding that, but now onto the discourse.
sex toys were designed to be played with only by adults, not kids, while miniatures are designed to be played with in a game played by adults and kids, hence the slippery slope and your argument fail.
now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.
I say this isn't true at all. Remember that post in the Blizzard forums about one Tracer victory pose. It was politely suggesting a change, got the very same amount of flak for being censorship .
Because most wanted tracer to not be posed sexy, the comment that made the change was that the pose was out of character and this is what Blizzard actually fixed, gave tracer a new sexy pose (a pin up posture) that is more inline with her character.
I will ask why the GOA character is not right as visual character build and more importantly were is this thread directed, seriously we can agree to disagree, try to debate our position forever and this is fine, but some of the comments in this page alone are horrific, can we continue this debate in a civilized manner?
Asterios wrote: sex toys were designed to be played with only by adults, not kids, while miniatures are designed to be played with in a game played by adults and kids, hence the slippery slope and your argument fail.
now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.
I have no idea what I am supposed to be talking about. Like, really. I should be trying to demonstrate to you that not every model is going to suddenly become 18+ only?
There are some 18+ movies, and some 18+ video games. It has been the case for a very long time. Do I need to prove to you that all movies and video game won't suddenly become 18+ because of a slippery slope?
The slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Because most wanted tracer to not be posed sexy, the comment that made the change was that the pose was out of character and this is what Blizzard actually fixed, gave tracer a new sexy pose (a pin up posture) that is more inline with her character.
Not only did the complaint say that the pose was out of character because it was trying to be sexy, but also that changes nothing to my point. The usual suspects cried that the post was a terrible, terrible call to censorship and raged about it for days. Until the new pose was released, actually. They raged and called it censorship despite it being perfectly polite. Their definition of censorship is more akin to “some change that I don't like, pushed by people I don't like” than to anything like the real definition.
it all comes down to you can please some of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all the time, there are people who would be offended by anything, look at that one actress who is complaining about Apocalypse strangling Mystique, saying it promotes violence against women, its a snapshot of a scene and taken out of context is wrong, but if the whole scene is taken in it makes sense, but still Sony took it down, thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Somebody I do not like, wants something I do not like, seems quite a good definition, short but not bad at all.
The fear of slippery slope is quite real and it has been demonstrated enouph times in the history of mankind that it can happen, I will agree some cases are more likely and some are highly unlikely, but the fear of giving a "freedom" leading to an unpredictable chain reaction is always there.
And the question of why change is a question needing to be answered and many think it is not answered in a sufficient way beyond "because I want it to change".
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
just because you can say something, doesnt mean you should. You are free to say what ever you want but you will be punished for it acordingly. For instance go into a court room and curse at the judge, free speech and all that but you will be punished.
Free speech is the right to voice an oppnion not be ignorant of others or rude to peoples feelings. Hate speech is still very much a thing.
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
just because you can say something, doesnt mean you should. You are free to say what ever you want but you will be punished for it acordingly. For instance go into a court room and curse at the judge, free speech and all that but you will be punished.
Free speech is the right to voice an oppnion not be ignorant of others or rude to peoples feelings. Hate speech is still very much a thing.
and yet the KKK and Black lives Matter groups can legally go out and march and such, that is the value of freedom of speech, but these are done on streets and the open, inside a home and a courthouse is like the judges home, you say something he does not like he has the right to kick you out of his house, so there is a big difference since you can be outside the courthouse and curse the judge and well within your rights to do so, you just can't do it in his house and expect to be allowed to.
Peregrine wrote: I don't know, I'd be perfectly happy with wargaming getting an 18+ rule attached. I want to play games with other adults...
I will say having a local game store with a bar, makes this rather nicely serving as a seperation. I have started to see more "Game and Brew" places starting to pop up as well. I can see the appeal for them.
Asterios wrote: also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.
Kingdom Death has "MA 17+" label and I can pick it up at two of the local game shops here.
Kojiro wrote: Complaining something is sexist is expressing a moral opinion.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, just to make things clear, are you saying that I should abide by your definition of morality, but that you will in turn abide to mine?
That is the main crux which is why there is such a diversity to the issues with the subject, sexism and morals are subjective especially moreso when we aren't talking about real people but imaginary things.
Asterios wrote: also you slap an 18+ label on a mini only place you will get them is online and even then probably not.
Kingdom Death has "MA 17+" label and I can pick it up at two of the local game shops here.
big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.
The big difference is we are another industry entirely and we can see from the other industry.
For many especially the small companies the computer games industry rating is a money-drain and a barrier to competition.
If you cannot pay to be rated you cannot join the competition in the shops, digital distribution as steam has helped a lot with this barrier but it is still there, moreover many studios has sacrificed content to hit a more desirable age bracket by the distributor because X rating committee thought their content was for a higher age bracket while another (or even the same) committee decided their competitors game with the same content more or less is ok for the desired age bracket.
who really decides what content is and at what age bracket? and how products are rated, as individual peaces? as a whole? for example (again) 40k models are not that big of a deal may get a rating T but some would definitely get higher rating because of gore, should the entire range get the rating or just that model? the fluff books are definitely M should the models get M rating too?
Putting a rating is not easy and should not be taken so light, KDM put a rating on the box for reasons, I do not agree with his choice, there is no rating system in the industry.
Asterios wrote: big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.
In this example I'm not sure what video games have to do with miniatures games, Kingdom Death is a miniatures game. The statement was made that if you put a MA label on a miniature, then it will only be available online.
Asterios wrote: big differance between video and miniature games, slapping a 17+ or 18+ on it makes it much more exciting and desired, while miniatures it makes you a pervert.
In this example I'm not sure what video games have to do with miniatures games, Kingdom Death is a miniatures game. The statement was made that if you put a MA label on a miniature, then it will only be available online.
my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.
Asterios wrote: my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.
Just do a search for Kingdom Death and you will understand why. It has the rating moreso because of the theme, over-the-top demons (that thematically fit) and pin-ups. Although the pin-ups aren't needed for the game at all they were an example of miniatures that didn't get a huge outcry that they were sexiest unlike Prodos Space Crusaders which did.
Keep in mind there were no laws or regulations that actually made him do that. That was something he chose to do given the subjective nature of the material.
Asterios wrote: the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Ah yes, the traditional "but the first amendment!!!" argument we always get in these threads. The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. It does NOT apply to individuals saying "this is bad, stop doing it". Please do not confuse the wo.
Asterios wrote: now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.
Who. ing. Cares.
If all miniatures games become 18+ then I'm not going to care one bit about it. In fact, my game experience will likely improve now that there aren't obnoxious children in the store making all of the adults feel awkward. Just imagine: no "watch your language, there are kids here" rules, no worrying about how to tell the annoying kid with the half-assembled space marine starter box that don't want to play a game without causing an argument, etc. If this is the horrible dystopian future that you see if sexy miniatures are criticized then I'm really not worried.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.
And the fact that the game exists and seems to be selling pretty well rather clearly disproves your claim of such a rating being a death knell. Younger players are nowhere near as necessary as you seem to think.
Mymearan wrote: There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think anyone wants sexy miniatures banned.
Spoiler:
I certainly don't, although I would probably still be labelled an "SJW" by many people. What I personally would like to see is variety. There is room for cheesecake, there is room for seriousness. But if the majority of what we have is cheesecake, if 99% of all "sexy slave models" are female... Then we have a problem. Why? Because of the society we live in. Historically, women have most often (but not always!) been seen as the lesser gender. Men are the ones with power, the ones who rule, the ones who decide the important things. The women are at home, taking care of the children, providing sexual services, cooking, cleaning, etc. Again, not in all societies and certainly not always. But it is there, and it is very common. This image of the submissive woman is something that has carried forward to our day. It is getting better in many cases. We see more powerful female role models, like Katniss Everdeen of Hunger Games, Elsa and Anna of Frozen, and many others. Women have the power, in many countries, to have their own careers, to be powerful... Although still not nearly as much as men, and they still get paid less for the same work because of those cultural artefacts. And that's the point. These things have effects in real life. No one thing does, but millions and millions of small things put together.
And still, the image of the sexy and submissive woman is everywhere. In advertising, in movies, in comics, in magazines... And in miniature wargaming. All these things contribute to the image we, as a society, have of women. Now again, I don't want to ban anything. Every creator should be free to create whatever they want. The problem is society's, not any one person or company's. But this is something more people should think about. So we get back to the GoA Jabba guy. I personally find the portrayal of sexual slavery in a goofy, often comical game to be in not very good taste. Why continue to propagate the image of the submissive, sexy, woman, going as far as to make her physically chained to the man who controls her? Does it add anything to the portrayal of this character beyond T&A and some quite horrifying implications that don't jive with the general tone of the game? In my opinion it does not. There is always the excuse of "but it's fluffy!". Yes. And GW could make a miniature portraying Dark Eldar group raping a human female, and it would be very fluffy. But would you find it in good taste? Probably not. Note that I'm not equating these two concepts, but simply making the point that everyone makes moral judgements. There are infinite ways to portray this concept without resorting to sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is not goofy, or comical, or something that should be used as a throwaway reference. Again, I don't want to ban anything, but I would love if people put more thought into these things.
If the the slave handler was a female would have been ok? It is a fact that most countries in the past have been involved in slavery business, so slavery is associated with a dark past, and a practice of lesser civilization, in miniatures the pose is often sexually depicted but in the past the nudity was part of the humiliation, slaves were like cattle, they didn't need clothes, and clothes hide defects.
It would nice if people would stop looking at things without their high morality glasses. And then there is the avenue of kickstarter to make miniatures in a more realistic stance.
Asterios wrote: the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Ah yes, the traditional "but the first amendment!!!" argument we always get in these threads. The first amendment applies to government censorship of speech. It does NOT apply to individuals saying "this is bad, stop doing it". Please do not confuse the wo.
no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.
Asterios wrote: now if laws are passed to make all miniature games 18+ then your argument might have had a chance, but they are not, then you say what about the nudes being made 18+? then I say what about the scantily clad ones which parents would deem offensive to their poor childs eyes?ok we make those 18+ ? so that leaves us with what miniatures left that kids can use in their miniature games?but wait those miniatures are holding weapons and promote violence, well have to make those 18+ now and by the time you are done kids are removed from miniature game hobby.
Who. ing. Cares.
If all miniatures games become 18+ then I'm not going to care one bit about it. In fact, my game experience will likely improve now that there aren't obnoxious children in the store making all of the adults feel awkward. Just imagine: no "watch your language, there are kids here" rules, no worrying about how to tell the annoying kid with the half-assembled space marine starter box that don't want to play a game without causing an argument, etc. If this is the horrible dystopian future that you see if sexy miniatures are criticized then I'm really not worried.
now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.
Asterios wrote: my bad thought it was a video game since never heard of a miniatures board game being rated since its a death knell to any such game since it would exclude younger potential players.
And the fact that the game exists and seems to be selling pretty well rather clearly disproves your claim of such a rating being a death knell. Younger players are nowhere near as necessary as you seem to think.
i'm glad it is doing good, just saying i've never heard of it. that is why I confused it with a Video game, it is not played anywhere around here or sold now that i think about it.
Asterios wrote: no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.
Well ok, what's your point here? There is no realistic possibility of legal bans on sexy miniatures any time in the foreseeable future. The government is not going to take your toys away.
now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.
Then why are you so worried about the possibility of miniatures games getting an 18+ rule?
Asterios wrote: no but if our right to do such is taken away then it is bad, just like Christians wanted to do away with Polygamy even though it hurt no one and it was done away with.
Well ok, what's your point here? There is no realistic possibility of legal bans on sexy miniatures any time in the foreseeable future. The government is not going to take your toys away.
just like the government won't do religious prosecutions? like not allowing the Mormons polygamy beliefs?
Asterios wrote: now see we can agree on something I've noticed a trend of game stores being turned into essentially free day care for parents to drop off their kids with a couple bucks and send the whole day there. here here I say make all miniature board games and all games become 18+, but that would also mean doing away with pokemin, yu-gi-oh and magic card games since those market to kids mainly.
Then why are you so worried about the possibility of miniatures games getting an 18+ rule?
because it would hurt the hobby as a whole, with no younger generation playing there is no way to get them into the game or continue the game down the generations. after 18 not many people will pick up miniature games, that is mostly done when they are younger.
also I'm not talking about a Government ban per se but if the company is forced to stop selling something because some group got in a tizzy over it, classic items include the Taco Bell Chihuahua, Spanish Barbie, plastric pigs in farm toy sets in the UK, Black Canary Barbie, the current push to ban gender specific toys and areas, Steve the tramp figure, breaking bad figures and the list goes on and on and on, all products the company removed and stopped making because of pressure from way too sensitive groups.
Asterios wrote: just like the government won't do religious prosecutions? like not allowing the Mormons polygamy beliefs?
Look, you can make all the theoretical arguments you like, but it all comes back to the fact that you can buy and sell hardcore pornography right now and there is no credible challenge to this policy. As long as this remains the case there is absolutely zero chance of the sale of sexy miniatures to adults being in any danger. It is unfortunate that polygamy is treated differently, but it doesn't mean anything for this discussion.
because it would hurt the hobby as a whole, with no younger generation playing there is no way to get them into the game or continue the game down the generations. after 18 not many people will pick up miniature games, that is mostly done when they are younger.
{citation needed}
I picked up miniatures at about 25, and most of the people I play miniatures games with also got into them as adults.
also I'm not talking about a Government ban per se but if the company is forced to stop selling something because some group got in a tizzy over it, classic items include the Taco Bell Chihuahua, Spanish Barbie, plastric pigs in farm toy sets in the UK, Black Canary Barbie, the current push to ban gender specific toys and areas, Steve the tramp figure, breaking bad figures and the list goes on and on and on, all products the company removed and stopped making because of pressure from way too sensitive groups.
So what? I fail to see the problem here. If these controversial things weren't profitable enough for the manufacturer to say "STFU, we're going to keep selling this" then that's too bad, companies aren't obligated to continue selling the products you want to buy no matter what effect it has on their profits. On the other hand, if there is a significant market for those things then the company is entirely free to say "STFU we're going to keep selling this" and make lots of money. Or, if they choose not to, another company is free to come along and fill that market niche.
So what it comes down to is the real fear here: that people who want sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, and the only way to keep those products available is to silence all criticism of them.
Peregrine wrote: So what? I fail to see the problem here. If these controversial things weren't profitable enough for the manufacturer to say "STFU, we're going to keep selling this" then that's too bad, companies aren't obligated to continue selling the products you want to buy no matter what effect it has on their profits. On the other hand, if there is a significant market for those things then the company is entirely free to say "STFU we're going to keep selling this" and make lots of money. Or, if they choose not to, another company is free to come along and fill that market niche.
So what it comes down to is the real fear here: that people who want sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, and the only way to keep those products available is to silence all criticism of them.
so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell? it was removed because people said it was insensitive to Mexicans and yet most of the Mexicans I know loved the dog and did not consider it racist or denegrating to their culture.
and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.
Asterios wrote: so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell?
Apparently not, because if it was then Taco Bell would have kept it.
and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.
And yet the racist name* still remains. Despite all the protests about it they have no power to force the owner to make a change. In fact, he has stated that he will not make a change. Nor will the government step in and force him to make a change. All you've done here is help to prove my point for me.
*Yes, it is a racist name. Go read the history of the team, and how its original name was changed by a white supremacist owner.
Given the reports from the companies that care to give them out I would say people who want sexy miniatures over sensible" miniatures are a major buying force, so this is not a fear.
The market been small and underexposed is also a good factor it allows manufacturers to do their business without social press on their shoulders.
If you fail to see the problem, you simply fail to see the problem and nothing can be done, I will try to explain, there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.
This is not realistic to happen in the wargame industry at this point, but could happen if it gets more successful the boardgame industry is on the verge of getting the mass to draw attention and the industry that is huge enouph to be a close example is the computer games industry were they have a constant battle against media and people getting offence.
I would like to prevent our industry from falling in the same situation with "violent games" for example in Australia games deemed perfectly fine are banned, I would not like to see this in our industry.
Asterios wrote: so the Taco Bell Chihuahua wasn't profitable for Taco Bell?
Apparently not, because if it was then Taco Bell would have kept it.
and now we have the Redskins Mascot and name which is under fire the owner does not want to get rid of it, yet is being forced too, even though most recent polls show most Native Americans have no problem with the name or the mascot, yet because of an over sensitive minority (or as I call them White Indians, go see the pics of the people going after the redskins and see how many are White.) these thing are gone or will be gone soon. so, so much for your STFU theory since that doesn't wash.
And yet the racist name* still remains. Despite all the protests about it they have no power to force the owner to make a change. In fact, he has stated that he will not make a change. Nor will the government step in and force him to make a change. All you've done here is help to prove my point for me.
*Yes, it is a racist name. Go read the history of the team, and how its original name was changed by a white supremacist owner.
the dog was an icon plain and simple, as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:
These two things have something in common that they don't share with gaming miniatures, they are public icons. They are on tv, movies, on clothing, posters, in magazines and on billboards. People don't have a choice to not see them or look. They can turn off the tv, close the magazine, look away from the posterboard yes... but they are always there.
Unlike gaming miniatures which are in a public store or setting, however people going to those places already have a general idea of what they are going to find and see. There is a wide diveristy of games, those that people don't like, they just don't watch or participate. They don't however go to a WH40K table and picket them because they don't like how Slaanesh miniatures look. You aren't going to have people coming into the store complaining because they were outside, looking in a window and noticed a scantly clad miniature and it offended them.
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.
Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".
And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.
as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:
Well that's certainly an impressively dishonest bit of goalpost moving. Or do you honestly not understand the difference between the government forcing a private business to change its mascot and the government deciding that its own organizations will not use that mascot?
Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.
You are not the only one confused here, I really do not get some of this!
Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".
And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.
as to the redskins, go read your history on that about Government not getting involved:
Well that's certainly an impressively dishonest bit of goalpost moving. Or do you honestly not understand the difference between the government forcing a private business to change its mascot and the government deciding that its own organizations will not use that mascot?
except that it is not only for public schools, but private schools too.
as to the NFL team they are still facing issues and might even have the NFL force them to change their name, not counting the federal trademark office that tried to block them from trademarking their name, then there is the name itself which was changed to Redskins when the team was in Boston, when it used to be called the Braves so named by a self proclaimed American Sioux.
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.
no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.
Never forget that the definition of Public versus Private property rights. I see an awful lot of people arguing that "Some institutions ban offensive speech" and that should be grounds for government to ban offensive speech. This is a common mistake. Property rights dictate that I may set whatever rules I wish on my property. I can ban cursing, or wearing a certain set of shoes, or I can ban somebody from visiting for no other reason that to demonstrate that I can.
In the First Amendment, it covers public property to be a "Place of Open Forum" which means you can say anything you wish, because the property belongs to everybody, and therefor everything is fair game. They did this because you had two viewpoints: "Because the property is everyone's, you should uphold everyone's right to say what they wish", "or because the property is everyone's you must attempt to protect everyone's sensibilities". Protecting everyone's sensibilities was out of the question because no matter you say, it is possible that somebody might find it objective and offensive. So they chose the former.
But to the point: Private Property is private: the owner bans whatever he wishes.
Public Property belongs to everyone, and because it is impossible to protect everyone's sensibilities, the only reasonably alternative to giving the courts a dangerous power over what people might or might not say in public is to allow everyone to say whatever they wish in equal measure. Similarly, the internet has been declared a place of open forum with exception to sites that are privately owned (the people who run dakkadakka, for instance, may ban me for whatever reason they wish, and that is their sovereign right as owners of this website to do so) .
PsychoticStorm wrote: Given the reports from the companies that care to give them out I would say people who want sexy miniatures over sensible" miniatures are a major buying force, so this is not a fear.
That sounds a bit like the "We don't need a ramp, we never had a customer with a wheelchair" argument. They are a major buying force but from their exiting customer-base (and often with a lack in the same variety as male miniatures). The industry is relatively small and it might grow even better if it had more options. Some people like a bigger variety of female miniatures and not the same sexy miniatures all the time. They might think these are not immersive, ridiculous, or whatever. We have the internet and people can voice their opinion, that makes it much easier for a small company to see what people might want. How is that a bad thing? They still can chose to produce something more conservative that their customer-base is used to or try to expand with that information. Nobody is forcing them and yes, some people who make their own miniature lines have told us in this thread that having a bigger variety can be a hard thing to do because of the production needs. It's still their choice and they can just ignore the articles and blogs and just do their own thing.
Overall i don't know how somebody can complain about the possibility of censorship and at the same time advocate for the silencing of dissenting opinion on grounds that somebody else might feel bad because of it? If people are okay with somebody feeling bad about a sexy female miniature then they should also be able to be okay with somebody else feeling bad about a review of that miniature.
And generally regarding the censorship in Germany (yes the flag is correct): I don't know the exact details for this because it was never really a problem for me I got Doom/Quake/Wolfenstein/C&C without problem as a teenager. The store I bought it from just had the Austrian version of the game (or some other european version, or the US version). Overall it means the game may not be advertised but adult still may buy them but it also made the games much more in demand for young edgy teenagers so the censorship just increased sales (think Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics stickers on CDs). I think there is a second list that is a bit harsher but I don't know the details (or that was the harsher list?). It never really affected me, I just got more choices.
When it comes to video games humans were often replaced by robots (or green blood) but you could easily patch it (and I think these days there isn't much that is changed anyways) or just buy the non-german version (it's not like they put much effort in the translation), or the original version that was usually released weeks or months earlier (who could really wait?). And you can also ask them to evaluate your game again. Most of the stuff that got onto the list would be removed today as the perception of video games has changed.
On the other hand that censorship got us some fun stuff like crunchy infantry when you drive your tank over them in C&C (they were robots after all), or Probotector which was the european version of Konami's Contra games. The robots were much cooler than puny humans.
I don't know about scale models and swastikas. I think they could be okay (but I never bought german planes, never felt like "Nazis, yeah, that's what I want") on these (had they different decal sheets?). Usually it's just about not promoting nazi stuff and that also adjusts to perception and changes how it's applied. Censorship in Germany (from my point of view) is not really worse than film or video game ratings in the USA, technically it probably is but the effect never showed for me.
Asterios wrote: no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.
There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.
How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?
Asterios wrote: no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.
There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.
How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?
Asterios wrote: no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.
There is a difference between censorship and removing something because it is considered racist.
How do you know that minority is a vocal minority?
Define "Racist". For instance, if I suggested to an asian woman she was not cut out to be an airforce pilot, and she thought it was because I was racist and not because the minimum height requirement for an airforce pilot to be 5'10 (as opposed to this woman's stature of 5'4), should I be censored for racism?
Do you understand how those surveys actually work? I will quote you from the actual survey done in 2004 that explains where the numbers came from:
The sample of telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of thousands of active residential exchanges across the country. Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey.
In other words they cold call people in the US. They ask them if they would like to take a survey, then they ask qualifier questions, do they consider themselves to be a Native American or Indian. When they answer yes, they ask questions.
The problem with those polls is that they are way too small of a sample size to determine anything. The survey you linked to asked 504 people, the one in 2004 asked 1,000 people. You also don't know what other qualifier questions were asked. Are these voters? What is the age range of these people? There is no evidence that the person asked is actually a Native American or Indian, they just have to say yes.
The advocates asking for change are multiple organizes and groups, one of them being National Congress of American Indians which has 1.2 million individuals within the organization. That is just one of the organizations... but a random poll of 1504 people is supposed to be considered a majority?
Do you understand how those surveys actually work? I will quote you from the actual survey done in 2004 that explains where the numbers came from:
The sample of telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of thousands of active residential exchanges across the country. Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey.
In other words they cold call people in the US. They ask them if they would like to take a survey, then they ask qualifier questions, do they consider themselves to be a Native American or Indian. When they answer yes, they ask questions.
The problem with those polls is that they are way too small of a sample size to determine anything. The survey you linked to asked 504 people, the one in 2004 asked 1,000 people. You also don't know what other qualifier questions were asked. Are these voters? What is the age range of these people? There is no evidence that the person asked is actually a Native American or Indian, they just have to say yes.
The advocates asking for change are multiple organizes and groups, one of them being National Congress of American Indians which has 1.2 million individuals within the organization. That is just one of the organizations... but a random poll of 1504 people is supposed to be considered a majority?
continue reading the article, it goes on about others in the nations and their not being ashamed of the name or its use , meanwhile the ones who are pushing it are back peddling and making excuses and such, also did you read the part how this survey also matched another survey that was done within the nations themselves?
in other words is a small minority, but its a poll and therefore not good, but if it backed your stance it would be all right with you, how hypocritical of you.
Randomrolls wrote: Define "Racist". For instance, if I suggested to an asian woman she was not cut out to be an airforce pilot, and she thought it was because I was racist and not because the minimum height requirement for an airforce pilot to be 5'10 (as opposed to this woman's stature of 5'4), should I be censored for racism?
Air Force do have strict height/weight requirements for various reasons, which isn't 5' 10". However providing she didn't weigh more than 160 lbs at 5'4" she would qualify. If she weighed more then that is a valid reason to suggest she isn't qualified. Also providing she didn't require glasses with an eye refraction worse than +/-8.0.
It doesn't matter what she thought, if she didn't fit the height, weight, vision, age and health requirements. Now how it was stated to her (context), could have been identified as possibly racist. For example if you said, "the asian woman is not cut out to be an airforce pilot" then you are infering it is because of her race. Technically the race does't matter and the correct response should have been "the woman is not cut out to be an airforce pilot because she does not meet X/Y/X". That fact that she was asian doesn't matter.
Asterios wrote: in other words is a small minority, but its a poll and therefore not good, but if it backed your stance it would be all right with you, how hypocritical of you.
Actually even if it was a poll that backed my stance it would not be all right with me. It is a poll, they aren't an accurate measurement of anything as they are designed to be biased. It also states that the people they are quoting are the 504 people that were polled.
They called 504 people. Did you know that only 100 of them were actually self identified Native American? So it wasn't that 504 Native American Indidians gave an opinon, only 100 did.
One of the questions asked was "Are you currently enrolled as a member with a Native American tribe? If yes what tribe?" - 44 people said yes, 56 were not enrolled.
Then they ask "As a Native American, do you fin dthe name offensive or doesn't it bother you?" - 9 Offensive, 90 does not bother and 1 no opinion.
Then they ask "In general, do you feel the word "Redskin" is disrespectful of Native Americans or not?" - 21 Yes, 73 No and 6 no opinion. WAIT! Didn't only 9 people find it offensive? See how selective data is... selective?
I find this question amusing, "If a NON-Native American person called you a Redskin, would you be personally offended or not? - 17 offended, 80 not offended and 3 no opinion. It also states "Based on 504 interviews" but it only qualifies and shows a 100 questions tallied. Are those Native Americans who answered that or just other people?
There is a lot more in there that makes the whole poll itself funny. Again even if the poll was in my favor, it is a poll and not accurate. Why do you think there are so many issues when talking about gun violence, because there are polls designed to back each side.
Edit: Sorry I did not refresh before posting as I was still replying so did not see the mod warning. If someone wants to create a new topic on the Redskins, feel free though and we can continue the discussion there.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Given the reports from the companies that care to give them out I would say people who want sexy miniatures over sensible" miniatures are a major buying force, so this is not a fear.
That sounds a bit like the "We don't need a ramp, we never had a customer with a wheelchair" argument. They are a major buying force but from their exiting customer-base (and often with a lack in the same variety as male miniatures). The industry is relatively small and it might grow even better if it had more options. Some people like a bigger variety of female miniatures and not the same sexy miniatures all the time. They might think these are not immersive, ridiculous, or whatever. We have the internet and people can voice their opinion, that makes it much easier for a small company to see what people might want. How is that a bad thing? They still can chose to produce something more conservative that their customer-base is used to or try to expand with that information. Nobody is forcing them and yes, some people who make their own miniature lines have told us in this thread that having a bigger variety can be a hard thing to do because of the production needs. It's still their choice and they can just ignore the articles and blogs and just do their own thing.
Overall i don't know how somebody can complain about the possibility of censorship and at the same time advocate for the silencing of dissenting opinion on grounds that somebody else might feel bad because of it? If people are okay with somebody feeling bad about a sexy female miniature then they should also be able to be okay with somebody else feeling bad about a review of that miniature.
Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so.
Personally as I have said in this thread if somebody wants realistic female models he or she can be my guest put their money were their mouth is and create them and if they have a commercial success good for them it may also make others think about it, but demanding from established companies to change course because of their wants is not acceptable, if we go further and this thread has gone further, a small minority at the present society can indeed get a massive force multiplier and try to enforce their opinion on a much larger but less active majority.
Overall once freedom of speech and morality is involved along with any talk about an age rating system the discussion gets to a new level that government is involved and is enforced to everybody and that is always problematic.
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
Limited runs and great quality mean they sell well, and are a good collector's item.
People collect playboys and hustlers, but pinup miniatures are a step too far? Besides the Illuminated Lady none of the pinup miniatures are nude, and even then the IL isn't even considered a pinup. People collect lots of things, and eroticized miniatures are low on my list of "too far [out there]". But I may be a bit biased, seeing as I own a few of them.
kb_lock wrote: So by that logic if I created a limited run, but great quality cast of a dog turd, you'd think it is an amazing item that has to be purchased?
Collecting playboys and hustlers is weird too - got nothing against reading them, but collecting them is bizarre.
I have no interest in scatological miniatures, so I think I'd keep my money. Sorry hoss.
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
Well if you start by insulting people who disagree with your world view than you might get derision...
The models are well done both as sculpts and as design, depict what they are supposed to depict and quite a few humans have no issue with the naked human form, it has its audience and people who care about such things buy, you don't you do not buy, there is nothing more to really understand about it.
So the cast quality and limited run are moot points then. So what is the appeal of the miniatures? I honestly want to know. I'm not judging, you be whoever you are, but it is such an alien concept to me.
There's all likelihood that I'm the weird one, and I am happy to accept that
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
It isn't exactly that people go mad for them but there is a limited amount of them. Kingdom Death Kickstarter had 5,410 backers. The limited runs are usually 250 miniatures (if I recall). The rule of 80/20 says at least 20% of those 5410 backers would like those pinups, which is 1082. There is a higher demand than supply available. They are popular but it still a boutique thing.
kb_lock wrote: So by that logic if I created a limited run, but great quality cast of a dog turd, you'd think it is an amazing item that has to be purchased?
If there was demand for a cast of that, then yes. There isn't a demand for it, even if it was a limited run. Now maybe if you put googly eyes on it, you might be able to make one. LOL!
There is a damand for unique, highly detailed, high quality miniatures. I prefer the 54mm and larger pinups vs the 28mm simply because they do go with some of my anime resin garage kits. There are many that aren't for me. Although I understand the horror theme, the monsters are actually over the top for me and I haven't bought them. I can get away with having pin-ups but trying to play a game with some of monsters, with my children around, probably not so much.
Also just the sculpting themselves. There is something about highly detailed but there is almost an art for just the right details. The miniatures don't tend to be too busy, the leather outfits and designs tend to sculpt just the minimum but the right details. Hard to explain but when you compare the sculpts to others it is easier to explain.
kb_lock wrote: So the cast quality and limited run are moot points then. So what is the appeal of the miniatures? I honestly want to know. I'm not judging, you be whoever you are, but it is such an alien concept to me.
There's all likelihood that I'm the weird one, and I am happy to accept that
When I said they sell well, I meant resell for high amounts on eBay, so you also have the scalpers come in to churn the numbers and make them even harder to get for the limited audience it already has.
Personally I like female pinups/models in general(miniatures, statuettes, posters, art prints). As for Kingdom Death main I've been a long time fan of the 80s "body horror" horror films- Hellraiser, The Thing, The Beyond and such. It tickles that itch.
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
It isn't exactly that people go mad for them but there is a limited amount of them. Kingdom Death Kickstarter had 5,410 backers. The limited runs are usually 250 miniatures (if I recall). The rule of 80/20 says at least 20% of those 5410 backers would like those pinups, which is 1082. There is a higher demand than supply available. They are popular but it still a boutique thing.
kb_lock wrote: So by that logic if I created a limited run, but great quality cast of a dog turd, you'd think it is an amazing item that has to be purchased?
If there was demand for a cast of that, then yes. There isn't a demand for it, even if it was a limited run. Now maybe if you put googly eyes on it, you might be able to make one. LOL!
There is a damand for unique, highly detailed, high quality miniatures. I prefer the 54mm and larger pinups vs the 28mm simply because they do go with some of my anime resin garage kits. There are many that aren't for me. Although I understand the horror theme, the monsters are actually over the top for me and I haven't bought them. I can get away with having pin-ups but trying to play a game with some of monsters, with my children around, probably not so much.
Also just the sculpting themselves. There is something about highly detailed but there is almost an art for just the right details. The miniatures don't tend to be too busy, the leather outfits and designs tend to sculpt just the minimum but the right details. Hard to explain but when you compare the sculpts to others it is easier to explain.
Googly eyed resin dog turd kickstarter launches in 3 weeks, stay tuned!
Are there other pinup models like this that aren't KD?
Sinful Hero wrote:
kb_lock wrote: So the cast quality and limited run are moot points then. So what is the appeal of the miniatures? I honestly want to know. I'm not judging, you be whoever you are, but it is such an alien concept to me.
There's all likelihood that I'm the weird one, and I am happy to accept that
When I said they sell well, I meant resell for high amounts on eBay, so you also have the scalpers come in to churn the numbers and make them even harder to get for the limited audience it already has.
Personally I like female pinups/models in general(miniatures, statuettes, posters, art prints). As for Kingdom Death main I've been a long time fan of the 80s "body horror" horror films- Hellraiser, The Thing, The Beyond and such. It tickles that itch.
I know they sell well, I just don't get the appeal of them. WHY do they sell well? Is there a game associated with the pinup models? Is it JUST the rarity of them? Your comment does shed more light on it now though, thank you.
PsychoticStorm wrote:I quoted you when you wrote anime fan and not "some anime fan thing"
Dark Sword and Reaper have a few pinup models I believe(Sophie th Succubus for Reaper I know). There are a fair few boutique manufacturers scattered around that sell Pinups, but you'd have to search for them.
As for why they sell well, they're pinup female miniatures. People like scantily clad females, whether it be a calendar in the garage or a marble statue amidst a topiary garden. The pinup models are just another variation of that.
There should be a game eventually for the non-pinup non-KD:Monster figures, but the pinups are totally their own thing. More than likely a small reason, but Adam Poots(creator of Kingdom Death) has said quite often that they're to just support KD and keep it going. Charity boosts basically. I believe it's in one of the Kickstarter updates that resin sales contributed a large portion of the shipping cost.
kb_lock wrote: Are there other pinup models like this that aren't KD?
There are probably way more than you want to know but the answer is absolutely. Although Kingdom Death are probably some of the highest quality I've seen. Take a look at e2046.com, although what they are known as resin garage kits they have a vast range.
I like them because I find them good looking miniatures but also because of the challenge to paint them. You would think they are easy to paint but they provide an excellent canvas to properly learn how to paint lighting and layering.
@Dark Severence, On the contrary, I think they'd be extremely difficult to paint well, which is why I was more baffled by it.
@Sinful Hero, I am well aware of the attraction to scantly clad females, it's delivered me 3 kids so far and even that isn't enough of a deterrent. My confusion was more, why 28mm models to get that? Anyway, I think you've all answered my question - it makes more sense, and it just isn't my thing apparently
I didn't say they were easy to paint, I said they were challenging which is why I like them, pinups that is. They are a good practice because to make them look good, layering techniques need to be used (but that is my opinion technically). The armored versions have other complications but we're talking pinups overall. The larger pinups like the holiday ones aren't too bad though. They also look pretty. Now that doesn't' mean I like them all, there are ones that are overtop so I wouldn't get them at all. Otherwise are strangely posed but I don't expect everyone to have the same taste.
kb_lock wrote: So by that logic if I created a limited run, but great quality cast of a dog turd, you'd think it is an amazing item that has to be purchased?
Collecting playboys and hustlers is weird too - got nothing against reading them, but collecting them is bizarre.
There is a mindset that goes along with the idea that I bought it, its mine. So you have a subscription to Playboy, you read it for the interviews, ads, even the pin ups. Once finished you put it in a mag rack. You bought it, why throw it away. Next month the next one comes in. Rince and repeat. Now you have done this for six years. The mags still bring you enjoyment, so you keep the subscriptions coming. Now its been 20 years, man... that is quite a collection.
Many "collecitons" only dissapear once one of two things happen. One you move into a smaller place and just don't have the room and two, you die, and your inheritors have no use for them. I recently moved into a smaller home. In the process of moving I found 8 plaster gargoyle status. Just like the ones that were somewhat popular in the 90s (beause they were the ones that were popular in the 90s). So seriously, why did I need 8 gargoyles back then? Why do I need 8 gargoyles now, I donno, but I had a real hard time throwing out 6 of them because, well... I bought them, they are mine. We dont even mention the 14 various insense burners/trays. Hell, I don't even remember buying half of them.
People just collect stuff for many reasons and they hang onto them for many many more.
kb_lock wrote: Are there other pinup models like this that aren't KD?
There are probably way more than you want to know but the answer is absolutely. Although Kingdom Death are probably some of the highest quality I've seen. Take a look at e2046.com, although what they are known as resin garage kits they have a vast range.
You want a variety... check this page out. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=286 You have everything from 1/4 scale Japanese Garage kits to 10mm model raill road. Yes, naked women in a bath tub all in glorious 10mm scale, naked booty 1/3 the size of a space marine, because that railroad hotel has to look authentic.
I like them because I find them good looking miniatures but also because of the challenge to paint them. You would think they are easy to paint but they provide an excellent canvas to properly learn how to paint lighting and layering.
I've done over 30 of the larger garage kits, some of the painting skills for minis caries over, but each kit does present its one unique challenges. For the curious my gallery can be found here. http://www.pbase.com/jayden63/resin_models
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
I'm not sure why you have to ask why (given we are on a forum dedicated to little plastic dollies).
Some people like display models, I don't find it any stranger that someone would like a display model of a half naked lady vs a display model of a Space Marine vs a display model of a viking vs a display model of a pirate.
As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why, and half naked or naked imagery has a history of thousands of years of people finding it aesthetically pleasing.
To me, it's less of a question of "why" and more a question "why not". Even though I typically find military subjects more to my liking, I've never questioned why someone might like some half naked ladies instead.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why
And here's where I have to disagree. Merely saying "I find it aesthetically pleasing" should not be an absolute end to the conversation. Just to name a couple extreme examples, what if someone finds it aesthetically pleasing to build and paint miniatures of children being raped, or KKK lynchings, or any of countless other really horrible things? Shouldn't we, in that case, have some pretty strong negative opinions about that person based on what they find aesthetically pleasing?
Now, obviously sexy miniatures aren't anywhere near that level of wrong, even by the most critical point of view. But there have been various moral objections that go beyond mere matters of aesthetic taste, and I don't think "shut up I like it" is at all a response to those concerns.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so..
Our July Kickstarter will have an element of exactly this, and I'll be happy to let people know the various sales levels of each type of mini.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why
And here's where I have to disagree. Merely saying "I find it aesthetically pleasing" should not be an absolute end to the conversation. Just to name a couple extreme examples, what if someone finds it aesthetically pleasing to build and paint miniatures of children being raped, or KKK lynchings, or any of countless other really horrible things? Shouldn't we, in that case, have some pretty strong negative opinions about that person based on what they find aesthetically pleasing?
Now, obviously sexy miniatures aren't anywhere near that level of wrong, even by the most critical point of view. But there have been various moral objections that go beyond mere matters of aesthetic taste, and I don't think "shut up I like it" is at all a response to those concerns.
So then people who play Dark Eldar and Chaos are disgusting people then? Because background wise, DE and Chaos do some pretty horrible stuff, and if one tries to make a faithful representation of them, one may sculpt such horrible things. Would you not say that such a person finds such themes thematically or aesthetic? What about those who write horror stories?
I may have misunderstood, but such a stance demonizing those who like their fiction and aesthetics harsh does not seem right to me.
Asterios wrote: thats censorship when people are afraid of saying or doing something in fear of being labeled or called things and so forth.
So, your solution to that speech should be free of consequences? That we should silence people who would “label” others?
.
the right to freedom of speech is tantamount to our very constitution and is in our countries first amendment, censorship should not be allowed, nor be used to dictate our laws.
Are you telling me that because freedom of speech is so important, you should censor people because else there might be censorship?
This is getting more and more confusing.
no, people should not be censored, the problem is censorship is being forced on people by negativity from others, the issue is they should not allow censorship or the minority to make their decisions but they do because that minority is a very vocal minority.
Let's take a concrete example. Say, I want to complain about some preview of a model. Are you arguing that the company should be forbidden to change that model based on what I said because that would be censorship? Damn.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why
And here's where I have to disagree. Merely saying "I find it aesthetically pleasing" should not be an absolute end to the conversation.
In the context that I used it, I think it's a fitting response to the question. kb wasn't (I don't believe at least) trying to paint of picture of it be morally wrong, but rather "why would someone be interested?".
If you want to expand the context to "why do we like things in general?", as in why does someone think an image of a pirate is appealing, or why does someone thinks the image of a tank is appealing, or why does someone think a half naked woman is appealing, or why are we on a forum talking about miniature figurines, that's kind of a much broader and more philosophical question. If you then want to expand it further to include people finding interest in things like paedophilia, racist lynchings and so forth, that is a deeper question because then it does become more of a moral question as well.
I was not attempting to answer those questions, so your disagreement with my statement is a bit misplaced and out of context.
I would say broadly that if a person for whatever reason wants miniatures that depict those things, that's fine. I'd find it a bit odd and I'd be curious to know if they display such imagery proudly in their homes and gaming clubs where it might be a bit inappropriate for younger audiences and drive conversation that people may not want to have in such a setting. But overall I wouldn't really care, any more than I care about that sort of stuff being depicted in any mediums as long as no one is actually getting hurt in the process of creating it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why
And here's where I have to disagree. Merely saying "I find it aesthetically pleasing" should not be an absolute end to the conversation. Just to name a couple extreme examples, what if someone finds it aesthetically pleasing to build and paint miniatures of children being raped, or KKK lynchings, or any of countless other really horrible things? Shouldn't we, in that case, have some pretty strong negative opinions about that person based on what they find aesthetically pleasing?
Now, obviously sexy miniatures aren't anywhere near that level of wrong, even by the most critical point of view. But there have been various moral objections that go beyond mere matters of aesthetic taste, and I don't think "shut up I like it" is at all a response to those concerns.
Are you playing Devil's advocate or just rattling the cage?
People can make diorama's of Slaneesh orgies, Guro, rape or whatever, as long as they understand that in an open forum there will be resistance, i made a topless Necromunda Escher gang, which i played at my local store, but i understand i could never take them to an official events, some common sense applies
AllSeeingSkink wrote: As long as the person finds it aesthetically pleasing I don't really think there's any reason to ask why
And here's where I have to disagree. Merely saying "I find it aesthetically pleasing" should not be an absolute end to the conversation. Just to name a couple extreme examples, what if someone finds it aesthetically pleasing to build and paint miniatures of children being raped, or KKK lynchings, or any of countless other really horrible things? Shouldn't we, in that case, have some pretty strong negative opinions about that person based on what they find aesthetically pleasing?
Now, obviously sexy miniatures aren't anywhere near that level of wrong, even by the most critical point of view. But there have been various moral objections that go beyond mere matters of aesthetic taste, and I don't think "shut up I like it" is at all a response to those concerns.
Are you playing Devil's advocate or just rattling the cage?
People can make diorama's of Slaneesh orgies, Guro, rape or whatever, as long as they understand that in an open forum there will be resistance, i made a topless Necromunda Escher gang, which i played at my local store, but i understand i could never take them to an official events, some common sense applies
Jehan-reznor wrote: If the the slave handler was a female would have been ok?
Female slave handlers you say? I can help you with that...
Spoiler:
Apparently a pistol is the difference between 'sci-fi' and 'fantasy'. Renders from the current Raging Heroes campaign (you can, I think, still get in to the campaign).
Too bad it wasn't a profitable one. Taco Bell's purpose is to make money, not to preserve marketing campaigns you consider "iconic".
And again, this just goes back to the real fears here: you're afraid that people who want to buy sexy miniatures are a small and powerless market, so any criticism of sexy miniatures needs to be silenced. The threat is not that someone is going to step in and ban sexy miniatures, it's that the people making them are going to voluntarily decide "this isn't making enough money anymore" and move on to more profitable product lines. And you're terrified that if the current companies producing sexy miniatures do drop those product lines you aren't a profitable enough market for new companies to start producing their own sexy miniatures.
This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.
Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.
Of course, this then begs the question: what are the "real fears"? Well, PsychoticStorm touched on this quite well earlier;
PsychoticStorm wrote: there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.
This is not realistic to happen in the wargame industry at this point, but could happen if it gets more successful the boardgame industry is on the verge of getting the mass to draw attention and the industry that is huge enouph to be a close example is the computer games industry were they have a constant battle against media and people getting offence.
This is a branch of the same phenomenon that is currently running rampant in academia, which CH Summers refers to as 'Fainting Couch Feminism';
Spoiler:
Call it fainting couch feminism, Social Justice Warriors, intersectional feminism, the Regressive Left or whatever, there is a growing recognition that a small number of voices, amplified by social media, are able to exercise outsize influence. Less than a week ago a fine example of this occurred when a handful of complaints motivated Fox Studio to Apologize for an ad where the Villain is attacking the Hero.
So what's happening now, in video games, movies and pop culture in general, is a process of hashing out what the markets actually want, and the process of eroding the unearned moral authority that feminists are now seeking to exploit. We're going to see a great deal more of what we saw last year in the Protein World controversy; not necessarily people initially seeking to offend, but understanding that when they do offend, the better strategy is not capitulation but defiance.
Heck, I had barely heard of Prodos prior to all of the controversy about their product lines. Or look at Raging Heroes; putting aside controversies related to business practices, they don't exactly suffer for their... let's call it 'unsubtle' aesthetic.
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?
That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?
That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.
Torture porn is pretty mainstream these days - all those slasher flics from Scream to Hostel - lots of knives plunging into nubile flesh in lieu of something else....to be honest a few sexy minis is quite tame by comparison. I don't personally enjoy slasher flicks but lots and lots of people do.
Then there is GTA - some people have expresed concerns about violence in vid games - not convinced myself but its a debate. I love GTA
forced servility.
Sex and submission often goes together for both sexes, some like it - some don't - one womans fantasy can be "sick" to a given guy - and vice versa - humans are pretty wierd animals
Yeah, Slasher flicks and torture porn horror are a thing. I'm a not a fan; I find it to be a low form of horror, crass, if you will that replaces atmosphere and dread with copious amounts of bloodshed.
I do acknowledge that people enjoy them, and I don't judge them for it.
Sex and submission often goes together for both sexes, some like it - some don't - one womans fantasy can be "sick" to a given guy - and vice versa - humans are pretty wierd animals
Hence the BDSM market
And that's the more well known one.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, Slasher flicks and torture porn horror are a thing. I'm a not a fan; I find it to be a low form of horror, crass, if you will that replaces atmosphere and dread with copious amounts of bloodshed.
I do acknowledge that people enjoy them, and I don't judge them for it.
Hey, slasher flicks are quite different from torture porn. sure, nowadays slasher flicks are all bloodshed and gore, but the original classics like Friday the 13th and Halloween were utterly terrifying due to the dread imposed by the "monster".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film According to wikipedia, and that makes sense to me, the modern “torture porn” is a mix of slasher movies and splatter/gore movies.
While I do love “splatstick” (i.e. movies that are very gore, but in a completely over-the-top and unrealistic fashion that makes them impossible to take seriously, like Vampire Girl versus Frankenstein Girl), I am not really interested in actual gore movies like, say, the Guinea Pig series, or torture porn for that matter. I might watch some one day with a friend as a challenge (“Will I be able to stomach such an horrible movie”) like I did with Martyr (which wasn't that bad, really) but that's not my favorite stuff, by far.
Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so.
I don't know their full line on miniatures but from what I remember they have more than the usual number or sensibly armoured/clothed female miniatures. And they seem to sell, just not as much as the other miniatures. And they are still targeting the same market or group of people. The industry is relatively small and getting new customers is not as easy as just releasing a widely viewed advertisement. Nintendo managed to expand their user-base with the original DS and and the Wii (and then squandered that the following hardware generation but that's another issue). They also had much more marketing power to push the new thing in front of people who otherwise wouldn't have seen or considered it (they literary gave preview consoles to suburban soccer moms and old retirement homes and the thing was sold out for the first 18 months if I remember correctly). Even GW managed to get people beyond their existing audience with the LOTR game (and the magazine that was sold everywhere and had TV ads, in contrast that didn't work with The Hobbit which they didn't promote outside of their existing user-base that much, also high prices), and thus the LOTR bubble was born. Reaper (and other companies in this industry) probably can't diversify their advertisement to such a degree but if they can find a way to attract non-traditional customers it seems to work out much better.
Personally as I have said in this thread if somebody wants realistic female models he or she can be my guest put their money were their mouth is and create them and if they have a commercial success good for them it may also make others think about it, but demanding from established companies to change course because of their wants is not acceptable,
I have to disagree here. People are free to demand whatever they want. Should they restrict their own free speech just so you are more comfortable? People do it all the time. How the company reacts it their own business. People demand free DLC, cheaper prices, more stuff in the box, or a variations of this, a change of that, or a different ending, gameplay changes, a different colour scheme, anything really. I have never head anybody say they should not be allowed to voice their opinion or that it's not acceptable. Their demands might be called silly, delusional, or unrealistic but that argument (demanding from companies is unacceptable) only gets trotted out when somebody mentions they want more sensible outfits/interesting characters for female characters. Somehow now it's a censorship/free speech issue, as if wanting other changes would not interfere with the creator's free speech or vision for the product.
But yes I would love to have enough money to start a miniature like or game but that's not an option at the moment.
if we go further and this thread has gone further, a small minority at the present society can indeed get a massive force multiplier and try to enforce their opinion on a much larger but less active majority.
How? Companies know that what they hear online is a loud minority. That goes for all sides and all topics (for example: game balance in any online PVP multiplayer game). If companies were really to react to any little outcry like you imagine they do, all of them would be in ruins by now (just from all the contradicting demands). SJW have been complaining about video games for a long time and not much has changed because the people who actually have the money and power don't care about these topics that much (if they have heard these complaints then they have ignored most of them). It's perplexing how some people think game developers/artist/writer/creators don't have their own opinions and just blindly follow the loudest internet comments. How feeble minded are they supposed to be?
kb_lock wrote: So Kingdom Death stuff, I honestly don't get.
These pinup models are highly sexualised and borderline porn, but people seem to go mad for them. Why? Is this some anime fan thing that I just don't get? Am I getting too old? I mean, I can understand bronies and even anime as interests, but this is just too far.
Am I alone in this? Every time I've brought it up it's been met with derision.
I personally think their popularity is due to the skill of the sculptors, the brand name, and the fuller figure that is so rare among miniatures, even sexy miniatures. My wife is more of a fan of cheesecake minis than I am, and she likes the KDM pin ups and the WoK demonettes for their proportions, which more closely resemble hers than any mini put out by CB or even Reaper does. For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?
That lack of understanding and some unfortunate experiences with gamers and the Anime Club in college have shaped my opinion of more demeaning media representations, those with strong stereotypical markers or forced servility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, I also wonder about the people who really get into Chaos or Dark Eldar fluff. I don't relate. The only time I entertain torture fantasies is when I'm stuck on the freeway at rush hour, and 405 N Bob is not a nice Bob.
Great perspective (bolded), but does also highlight a hilarious hypocrisy of my own as I like the SI Swimsuit magazines, and you're dead right as it is just as irrelevant to what the magazine is about.
Its all escapism. For the 20 or so minutes your reading the SI swimsuit issue your putting yourself behind the lens and seeing these lovely ladies for yourself in a situation where none of us really have a chance of being. The same thing goes for watching movies. People watch scary movies to get their adrenaline pumping because that also releases endorphins which gives us a sense of feeling good. People respond differently to different stimulus, and most people continue to use that which works for them. Its why porn. Horror, dreamy romance, explosions, etc. Exist in film in the first place.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: For myself, I don't understand the desire for sexuality in miniatures the same way I don't get Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues or the anime fans who get off on anime sexuality; in a world full of real nudity (or even just porn), why would I want the watered down, weird stuff two steps removed?
Although nudity, porn, anime and miniatures/pinups can be viewed in a sexual nature and even be considered sexy, pretty or cute they aren't necessarily viewed in that nature and serve different purposes.
For example I would watch porn or look at nudity (although not nude is sexier than nude) for the purpose of well getting aroused. That is the purpose that those tend to exist. I don't like pinups or pinups miniatures for the same reason that I would look at porn. I didn't watch Avengers and see Natasha, although a sexy character as a sexual object for personal gratification. Just like I don't watch or enjoy anime for the same reasons. I don't mind fan service, but I do think some anime go way over the top for no explicit reason which detracts from the anime itself but obviously people like it. I enjoyed the story behind the anime Freezing, it could have been dark and good without the clothes being ripped off every fight. The characters were sexy, I liked watching the fights but it wasn't because I was looking for gratification.
That doesn't mean everyone looks at it the same way as you or I. There are probably some people that do enjoy pinups and garage kits for other reasons. That is fine if they want that and that is their thing.
Buzzsaw wrote: This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.
Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.
Then what exactly are you so afraid of? If sexy miniatures are an order of magnitude more profitable than other miniatures then no sane miniatures company is going to stop making them, no matter how many complaints they get. Because, in the end, the goal of a successful company is to make money.
Of course, what I suspect is really the case, is that you aren't all that confident in your "market research". No matter how confidently you state that sexy miniatures sell an order of magnitude better you're afraid that it isn't true, that sexy miniatures are a marginal product line and if the manufacturers get too many complaints they'll dump those product lines in favor of something less controversial. And that, because sexy miniatures don't make much money, no new company is going to replace them. So we get lots of outrage over "SJW censorship", because you're afraid that the "SJWs" have more influence than you.
Buzzsaw wrote: This was mentioned a bit ago and I think it merits an answer, as Peregrine's hypothesis is very nearly the exact opposite of what my research into the market of miniatures reveals.
Put simply, the facts I have available to me indicate that the market for 'sexy' miniatures is vastly larger than the market for 'sensible' miniatures (vastly as in perhaps an order-of-magnitude larger). This is my evaluation based on Kickstarter performances and the oft quoted point by Bryan from Reaper about the relative sales of clothed versus unclothed versions of the same miniature.
Then what exactly are you so afraid of? If sexy miniatures are an order of magnitude more profitable than other miniatures then no sane miniatures company is going to stop making them, no matter how many complaints they get. Because, in the end, the goal of a successful company is to make money.
Of course, what I suspect is really the case, is that you aren't all that confident in your "market research". No matter how confidently you state that sexy miniatures sell an order of magnitude better you're afraid that it isn't true, that sexy miniatures are a marginal product line and if the manufacturers get too many complaints they'll dump those product lines in favor of something less controversial. And that, because sexy miniatures don't make much money, no new company is going to replace them. So we get lots of outrage over "SJW censorship", because you're afraid that the "SJWs" have more influence than you.
At the risk of point out the obvious, I said exactly what "I am afraid of" in the paragraphs immediately following what you quoted. No, I'm afraid that your point lacks an empiric backing; especially in the ever diversifying model market, there is no realistic fear that 'sexy' miniatures will be put to pasture. Rather I must wonder, why do you think it exculpatory that the "SJWs" have more influence? As Maimonides said, "the truth is the truth, no matter how many believe it". But let me put it a different way;
I am Jew, one of a paltry few million in the world. Now, no one is exactly sure how many of us there are, but most agree something less then 15 million, or put another way, less then 0.25% of the total world population. Reliable sources indicate that something like 25% of the world's population harbors antisemitic views. In other words, for every Jew, man, woman or child, there are 100 people that hate and dislike them in the world. Let's be optimistic and presume only 10% of the people that hold the view that Jews ought to be stamped out, or perhaps a mere 5% would look favorably on another Holocaust. Even at that lowest figure, that is still a number in the tens of millions, vastly greater then all the Jews now alive.
So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism. In that sense, at least, you are correct: I am afraid that SJWs have more influence then they ought, just as book burners and others have ever risen to hold power.
To segue back to slightly more frivolous concerns, since being introduced to the precepts of Social Justice perhaps two years ago now, I have studied it and concluded that Social Justice is the very opposite of Actual Justice. At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.
That said, we must accept that there are now many people that hold these terrible views and that many others are adherents to related strange faiths. We can't change that. All we can do is speak; speak up against a movement based on terrible principles and illiberal ideas. A movement that justifies bigotry and validates lawlessness. A movement that grows not by winning arguments, but by silencing them.
Now, if all that sounds a bitoverwrought, I invite you to consider the equivalent spectacle of inveighing that "Sexy miniatures are part of some rather harmful attitudes towards women", as you have done.
See the thing is that if we're going to consider this a moral argument, then the answer to one side's counterfactual assertion that playing with little figures with even smaller boobies makes you a bigot and a promulgator of bigotry is that the other side is then entirely justified in pointing out that a) the claims of the first side are empirically dubious and b) that the attitudes on display are morally equivalent to those of book burners and scolds. Because, and this is a key thing, it's a terrible thing to accuse someone of being a bigot or spreading bigotry without strong evidence.
If the argument is aesthetic, then we can talk aesthetics and markets and so on. But once the argument becomes 'this is bad, and you're a bad person for liking such and such a thing', then, well, as we've noticed, the conversation becomes... heated.
Buzzsaw wrote: At the risk of point out the obvious, I said exactly what "I am afraid of" in the paragraphs immediately following what you quoted.
And, immediately following the paragraph I quoted, you approvingly quoted the following:
there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.
This is paranoia, not a rational fear. If a product line is canceled because of complaints then it wasn't successful. No company is saying "well, we're making record profits from this, but someone isn't happy so we'll have to shut the whole thing down". If they're making lots of money they make generic "we're sorry that you were offended by the thing we're going to keep doing" statements, throw the complaint letters in the garbage, and continue to make lots of money. Products are only canceled because of complaints if those products are only marginally profitable, or even dead weight that the company is happy to have an excuse to get rid of.
So, the moment you talk about "SJW censorship" being a problem in the miniatures hobby you are conceding that people who like sexy miniatures are a tiny and irrelevant minority that most manufacturers would be glad to be rid of.
So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism.
I said no such thing. I merely pointed out the absurdity of claims of "SJW censorship", I never said that "SJW" ideas can not be criticized.
At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.
IOW: "it makes me uncomfortable to think that large social structures are responsible for problems rather than individual Bad People that can take all of the blame".
A movement that grows not by winning arguments, but by silencing them.
You seem to be confusing "silencing" and "nobody wants to listen to you". Government censorship is not an issue here, all of the "silencing" in question takes the form of individuals saying "you shouldn't say that" and other individuals saying "you're right, we won't". The "victims" of this so-called "silencing" are entirely free to continue speaking if they believe that they are right. It just often turns out that nobody wants to listen to the anti-SJW crowd when they continue speaking, and they end up ranting to their echo chambers while the rest of us ignore them.
Now, if all that sounds a bitoverwrought, I invite you to consider the equivalent spectacle of inveighing that "Sexy miniatures are part of some rather harmful attitudes towards women", as you have done.
I fail to see what is "overwrought" about what I said there. In fact that's the rather modest form of the argument, merely pointing out that sexy miniatures are part of certain attitudes, not going all the way to "SEXY MINIATURES ARE THE EVILEST THING EVER". Please try to remember that "overwrought" has a meaning, and it is not "saying something I disagree with".
one side's counterfactual assertion that playing with little figures with even smaller boobies makes you a bigot and a promulgator of bigotry
That's an awfully nice straw man you've built there. Perhaps you could, instead, understand that there is a middle ground between "nothing to criticize" and "bigot"?
Buzzsaw wrote: To segue back to slightly more frivolous concerns, since being introduced to the precepts of Social Justice perhaps two years ago now, I have studied it and concluded that Social Justice is the very opposite of Actual Justice. At the core of Social Justice are principles of racial grievance, collective guilt and crude essentiallism that are not merely antithetical to my moral sense, but to the very foundations of the post enlightenment West.
A social justice activist is someone who campaigns to have a wheelchair ramp installed on a building to increase access. A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.
To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.
H.B.M.C. wrote: A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.
Fortunately this "social justice warrior" does not exist outside of the right-wing outrage machine's straw men.
To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.
Too bad that analogy has nothing to do with the stairs/ramp example.
Those people definitely do exist. Not as frequently as people think but they're definitely out there. And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?
ImAGeek wrote: And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?
Because the conservative outrage machine's straw man in the stair/ramp example wants to tear down the stairs out of spite. There's no reason given why anyone should be "offended" by the stairs or how that would justify their removal, likely because whoever came up with the straw man knows that any attempt at such an explanation would be obviously absurd and not representative of actual "SJW" arguments. But in the case of the miniatures people have given reasons for opposing them, whether you agree with them or not. And those reasons are more than just "someone could be offended".
ImAGeek wrote: And I don't see why the analogy doesn't relate to the stair/ramp example?
Because the conservative outrage machine's straw man in the stair/ramp example wants to tear down the stairs out of spite. There's no reason given why anyone should be "offended" by the stairs or how that would justify their removal, likely because whoever came up with the straw man knows that any attempt at such an explanation would be obviously absurd and not representative of actual "SJW" arguments. But in the case of the miniatures people have given reasons for opposing them, whether you agree with them or not. And those reasons are more than just "someone could be offended".
It's weird how the extreme right gets pilloried endlessly and those who of the right but not of the extreme right just kind have to take it, because their nuts are so nutty that you can't help but make fun of them, where as the left swears blind their their own extremists simply don't exist.
A social justice activist is someone who campaigns to have a wheelchair ramp installed on a building to increase access. A social justice warrior is someone who demands the stairs be removed in case someone who cannot use them gets offended.
To apply that same comparison to this debate, a social justice activist (such as there can be one in a discussion about miniatures, but whatever, stick with me) would be someone who campaigns for more miniatures that aren't of cheese-cake/obvious sexualisation variety whereas the social justice warrior calls for the removal of those miniatures.
That seems a sensible distinction to me.
If someone notices that something they would like to buy is not being produced/sold then they are more than welcome to point that out, loudly if possible. In this instance, there are many sensibly clothed women miniatures available from Victoria Miniatures and other manufacturers- that doesn't mean that all of them tickle everyone's fancy or that every taste is being catered to.
There is a dearth of women in power armour, as any sisters player will tell you, and those that exist generally have exaggerated feminine features (otherwise you'd just buy male power armour)
The difference between a wargame and a movie/videogame is that the visual elements are tactile artifacts- a selling point all its own.
It's understandable that to increase the draw, the models should be as appealing as possible. Beauty is subjective though, and people have different opinions on whats good and what is acceptable.
For me, Catachan Girl is a good example of a realistic female soldier. She's from an elgalitarian Deathworld meritocracy where everyone who is still alive is a warrior and she's treated just like everyone else.
She wears the same stretch shirt that the guys do, they've issued her a grenade launcher. She has bulging muscles (she'd win an arm wrestle with the average cadian man) but she's visibly less Stallone-y than the guys and has pronounced boobs because it's 28mm and she might just look like a skinny guy without them (the male figs have giant pecs)
I find her a capable guards-woman in the Ellen Ripley tradition, she's not asking for special treatment and she's not getting any.
For someone else, the concessions made so that she still appears female at arms length might seem exploitative. The breasts, the fatigues that are noticeably less baggy than the guys, the fact that she's less muscled than the dudes.
I find Commissar Titianna Juggsoff here a less convincing combatant, but she works as the kind of nonsensical aristocracy that the Imperium might employ as officers.
She doesn't really gel as a Schola Progenium graduate who fought as a Stormtrooper before selection as a ruthless executioner.
If the corset and thigh high boots under a split skirt are an affectation to make her appear more noble so be it- commissars aren't known for the practicality of their uniforms.
This is a bit to cheese cakey for my tastes but its still a nice miniature. The pose is wooden and weapons haven't aged well but the sculpt is nice enough. I'd appreciate if the breasts weren't so bolted on but a corset will do that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's weird how the extreme right gets pilloried endlessly and those who of the right but not of the extreme right just kind have to take it, because their nuts are so nutty that you can't help but make fun of them, where as the left swears blind their their own extremists simply don't exist.
Amazing blindness.
The difference is the right wing embraces its nuts (see Trump) and gives them a platform, while the left-wing nuts like the supposed person who wants the stairs demolished turn out to be random bloggers with single-digit readers.
Wasn't Tipper Gore left wing? The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?
No, for two reasons:
1) Even if you disagree with the reason for labeling the material "questionable" there were still reasons that were within the mainstream discussion. In the stair example the reasons for demolishing the stairs are held by the kind of fringe minority that makes the "BLACK HELICOPTERS MIND CONTROL IN THE CHEMTRAILS" crowd look sensible.
2) Refusing to sell an album still leaves it available to buy elsewhere (unless it's so unprofitable that nobody bothers selling it). Demolishing stairs prevents anyone from using them.
Buzzsaw wrote: I am Jew, one of a paltry few million in the world. Now, no one is exactly sure how many of us there are, but most agree something less then 15 million, or put another way, less then 0.25% of the total world population. Reliable sources indicate that something like 25% of the world's population harbors antisemitic views. In other words, for every Jew, man, woman or child, there are 100 people that hate and dislike them in the world. Let's be optimistic and presume only 10% of the people that hold the view that Jews ought to be stamped out, or perhaps a mere 5% would look favorably on another Holocaust. Even at that lowest figure, that is still a number in the tens of millions, vastly greater then all the Jews now alive.
So you see, I fail to understand why the ubiquity of a terrible idea should somehow make that idea immune to criticism. In that sense, at least, you are correct: I am afraid that SJWs have more influence then they ought, just as book burners and others have ever risen to hold power.
That's one of the weirdest, most convoluted Godwin point I have ever seen.
=Angel= wrote: I find Commissar Titianna Juggsoff here a less convincing combatant, but she works as the kind of nonsensical aristocracy that the Imperium might employ as officers.
She doesn't really gel as a Schola Progenium graduate who fought as a Stormtrooper before selection as a ruthless executioner. If the corset and thigh high boots under a split skirt are an affectation to make her appear more noble so be it- commissars aren't known for the practicality of their uniforms.
This is a bit to cheese cakey for my tastes but its still a nice miniature. The pose is wooden and weapons haven't aged well but the sculpt is nice enough. I'd appreciate if the breasts weren't so bolted on but a corset will do that.
It's weird. I've owned that model for years and I never noticed the split skirt. Ha!
As it happens, I used that mini as an Inquisitor in a Guard army, specifically an Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor by the name of Keira Jade whose only purpose was to make the life of the commanding officer difficult. The miniature's style does not fit a combatant, as you correctly pointed out, but as a haughty Inquisitor who sees heresy everywhere (as opposed to sexism everywhere, like some people in this thread), she worked quite well.
there is a possibility a product be successful but be canceled because of a minority of extremely loudmouthed minority abusing the normal democratic means to enforce their opinion on others.
This is paranoia, not a rational fear. If a product line is canceled because of complaints then it wasn't successful. No company is saying "well, we're making record profits from this, but someone isn't happy so we'll have to shut the whole thing down". If they're making lots of money they make generic "we're sorry that you were offended by the thing we're going to keep doing" statements, throw the complaint letters in the garbage, and continue to make lots of money. Products are only canceled because of complaints if those products are only marginally profitable, or even dead weight that the company is happy to have an excuse to get rid of.
Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there, of course it is available elsewhere, but if Australia ever becomes a major market many games will not be attempted simply because missing a major market can be an economic suicide.
This is how any successful product can be cancelled by an extremely vocal minority, of course you can argue, as the committee argues that they are not censorship anybody, that would be bad for a free speech world wouldn't it? they just refuse to give classification (and thus make the product legal in the country) if X.Y,Z things don't get edited or removed, so no censorship because the company does it not them.
Personally, I do not think it is paranoia and I do think there are plenty of real life examples of this happening in various fields through the history of mankind, but your opinion differs.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there
What the hell are you even talking about? Neither Fallout 3 nor Super Smash Bros Brawl have been banned in Australia… Beside, Australia and Germany are known for having extra hard rules against video games, they had those rules from quite the beginning. Those are completely unrelated, and were definitely not pushed for, by the people that argue against too much sexualization in geek cultures…
Fallout 3 was originally banned due to drug use related to incentives and rewards. When the worldwide edition was released it received an edit changing the name of morphine to Med-X which made it become unbanned.
I have no idea about Super Smash Bros Brawl.
Witcher 2 was banned because of sex related to incentive and rewards. Later a side quest was given a minor edit (changing the context of sex being used as an incentive) and the game was subsequently re-rated MA15+.
is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.
The last GOT episode even seemed to suggest that only violence solves violent problems
Depends. Here in America, you can shoot and murder everyone, but some softcore porn is not okay for TV. Although it seems like GOT is trying to change that
BuFFo wrote: So when an artist creates a nude figure, it is just a piece of art with no inherent sexual attribute.
No, this is absolutely not true at all. A nude figure is not necessarily sexual, but nude figures often are sexual. There is lots of artistic pornography where the poses/props/setting/etc all scream "THIS IS ABOUT SEX", and even a casual observer can immediately tell that the point of the piece is to communicate sexual ideas. And when we contrast that pornography with, say, the statue of David, we can see a pretty obvious difference between the two. Obviously there are some gray areas involved, but in the case of a lot of the models people often object to it's very clearly a piece where the artist is presenting something sexual.
And I say this as an artist who has done both sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity. If you can't figure out that the sexual stuff is sexual without going into a detailed investigation of the viewer's psychology then either you're a terrible art critic, or I'm a shameful failure as an artist.
and when you censor something based on sexuality, you are forcing your view of sexuality on all other human beings.
Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder.
Artistic Pornography is STILL what the observer deems sexual, and the degree of that, or societal acceptance, is also up to the beholder. You may think this piece of art is sexual in an artistic way, but another person may think it's pornographic, and if they have more power in society than you, they can get it banned. It is just art, a non sexual thing. Anything sexual you say it has, was prescribed onto it by your mind, and in the mind of anyone else observing it.
How terrible a critic a person is is irrelevant to my point. You draw a boob, it's a drawing. Anyone can look at it and it would be up to them, NOT the picture, as to how pornographic it is, how acceptable it is, whether it arouses the observer or doesn't, etc...
Nobody is censoring anything here. You would have a point if, say, people were suggesting that companies who make sexy miniatures should be prosecuted under obscenity laws, but that is simply not happening. Telling a company that you don't like their products is not censorship.
Not my point at all. What was deemed offensive was not in the figures themselves, but the offended. There is nothing inherently sexual about past slaneeshi figures that GW had to drop due to criticisms/threats/etc... and getting them removed IS the literal definition of censorship.
A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power. Essentially the same power structure as government to the people, but on a smaller scale?
Note I'm not asking if private groups have the right to 'censor' their members. I'm just asking what you'd call it, if not censorship?
I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.
They're absolutely connected because they're essentially the same claim- 'This fictional representation of women in [movies/TV/advertising/games/miniatures/etc] has harmful real world effects on real women.'
So again I have to ask- do people who believe this harm exists want to limit, restrict or ban the sources of the harm? Or are you merely expressing disapproval, but are otherwise accepting of these practices?
Buzzsaw, as a fellow Jew, I wonder how you would feel about someone producing miniatures of Jewish concentration camp victims in the selection process. I know you don't think miniatures can be bigoted or reflect harmful ideas on the part of their creators or purchasers. However, I am curious if would you feel the need to tell them your level, composed rendition of "not cool bro"? Or would you just say nothing at all?
Personally, I've always seen the squeaky wheel get the grease, and I belong to the Mel Brooks school of thought, where if you cannot defeat a harmful idea, at least you can mock it until everyone sees it as ridiculous. So, yes, I complain a lot about miniatures I don't like. Sometimes companies even listen and make changes. More often, they do not. That's okay. People can make and buy what they want, and I can think what I want about them. And we can all have a conversation about it. That isn't censorship. That's social discourse. These days, it isn't as pleasant as it used to be.
I'm not trying to shut down GoA. I do however want them to realize that some of their decisions can drive away customers and negatively impact their brand. I doubt they care. they could probably release an entire sex- trafficking faction, and their ridiculous prices would still be the biggest threat to their business.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wasn't Tipper Gore left wing?
The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?
And the MPAA is conservative, with a much larger impact on which movies are distributed to which theaters, let alone get made in the first place. I guess two or more f-bombs are like stairs, too. Can I get a g-dammit? Only for for PG-13?
"think of the children" isn't limited to either wing.
And here's where you miss the point. I can draw a boob in a non-sexual way. I can draw a boob in a sexual way. If you can't figure out that the second type is sexual, despite me doing everything I can in drawing it to say "this is sexual" then either I suck as an artist or you suck as an art critic.
There is nothing inherently sexual about past slaneeshi figures that GW had to drop due to criticisms/threats/etc... and getting them removed IS the literal definition of censorship.
No, that isn't censorship at all. Censorship means that you are FORCED to remove the material being censored, and GW was not forced to do anything. If those slaaneshi miniatures sold well enough then GW would have said " you, we're keeping them". The people who didn't like those miniatures, for whatever reasons, had absolutely no power to force GW to stop selling them. And if any other company wants to make not-slaaneshi miniatures with full nudity they are free to do so, no matter how many people complain.
It all just goes back to what I keep saying: being a small market that nobody cares about or wants to listen to is not the same thing as being censored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power. Essentially the same power structure as government to the people, but on a smaller scale?
Note I'm not asking if private groups have the right to 'censor' their members. I'm just asking what you'd call it, if not censorship?
Moderation, site policies, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PsychoticStorm wrote: Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there, of course it is available elsewhere
That is true, but it's a problem with Australia having incredibly stupid censorship policies that the rest of the world laughs at. We should not approve of what they're doing, but it isn't something that has any direct impact on the rest of us and it is incredibly unlikely that it ever will in the foreseeable future.
but if Australia ever becomes a major market many games will not be attempted simply because missing a major market can be an economic suicide.
So what? If selling particular games isn't profitable enough then I fail to see the problem. Some companies may decide that selling to Australia is more profitable than selling a game with more sex/violence/whatever in other countries, but if you really want to make a game that fails Australian censorship standards then you're free to do so. But you don't have a right to have game creators cater to your desires.
is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.
The last GOT episode even seemed to suggest that only violence solves violent problems
I think it's a very tricky question to answer because context is so important. For example, a protagonist who is portrayed as morally right using violence to extract a confession from a suspect is far more harmful in its message than any war movie or fantasy series that uses violence as a solver to violent problems. Playing off prison rape as a normal, if not funny, aspect of punishment is definitely harmful. Violence against women is even more tricky because the portrayal can be a reflection of real atrocities, or it could be titilation, like all those Cinemax women in prison movies. it can send a bad message to associate helpless women in chains with "so hot" if consent is explicitly not given.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.
Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.
Kojiro wrote: A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power.
Moderation. Something incidentally even 4chan does sometime.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.
Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.
Really now, go reread the monolith of a thread an find out how many times I and others have brought it up again and again here.
If you want to defend your worldview on moral grounds or want to enforce a PG rating over nudity on models then prepare to accept counter arguments and somebody calling you on finding extreme death and violence acceptable but showing flesh not is a good one.
Besides having a new thread titled "General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures and their comparison to violence and other equally morally objectionable representations in tabletop wargaming" a bit fitting to be merged into this thread.
Kojiro wrote: A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power.
Moderation. Something incidentally even 4chan does sometime.
Funny enouph governments tend to "moderate" things they do not want to hear or does not fit their political agenda, because hey X vocal group can influence voters so lets cave into their demands.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so..
Our July Kickstarter will have an element of exactly this, and I'll be happy to let people know the various sales levels of each type of mini.
It would be nice to see something useful for once and not you attacking the same company over and over in the various threads, but really do you expect it do be different than your usual business? I can hardly recall any mention of needing to restock especially fast any non scantly clad/ naked female miniatures over the years while models like Artemis needed many runs to satisfy demand and in CMON most of your models showing up are the naked ladies.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Funny enouph governments tend to "moderate" things they do not want to hear or does not fit their political agenda, because hey X vocal group can influence voters so lets cave into their demands.
Which would only be relevant if there is any (non tinfoil hat) concern over governments getting involved in miniatures designs. And there isn't.
Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.
My country has infamously passed a law quite a few years ago with the intention to ban Slot machines and gambling outside casinos, they managed to virtually ban any form of gaming (from a child kicking a ball, to playing on your computer or miniature games ectr) for about 3 months till they rewrote the rules this was the death sentence of the many profitable penny arcades we had around at the time.
Yes, I can see problems with some lawman heavy handling a law with completely other intentions and causing chaos in sectors he or she does not even know they exist.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.
Given that, as I keep saying, hardcore pornography is entirely legal for adults to buy and sell I do not find it at all plausible that sexy miniatures will be banned any time in the foreseeable future. Any claim otherwise is paranoia, nothing more.
My country has infamously passed a law quite a few years ago with the intention to ban Slot machines and gambling outside casinos, they managed to virtually ban any form of gaming (from a child kicking a ball, to playing on your computer or miniature games ectr) for about 3 months till they rewrote the rules this was the death sentence of the many profitable penny arcades we had around at the time.
And what's your point? Governments occasionally pass poorly written laws with unintended consequences, and sometimes frustrating things happen until the mistake is corrected. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of nudity in miniatures. Any accidental ban on miniatures stuff would be just that: an accident. By definition it could not have anything to do with any hypothetical demands for government regulation of miniatures, or any discussion of whether or not people should make or buy sexy miniatures.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.
Really now, go reread the monolith of a thread an find out how many times I and others have brought it up again and again here.
If you want to defend your worldview on moral grounds or want to enforce a PG rating over nudity on models then prepare to accept counter arguments and somebody calling you on finding extreme death and violence acceptable but showing flesh not is a good one.
Besides having a new thread titled "General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures and their comparison to violence and other equally morally objectionable representations in tabletop wargaming" a bit fitting to be merged into this thread
So, yeah, that is it. Literally your only concern over violence in wargaming/miniature is about comparing it to sex.
In other word, it is just a deflection and you don't care at all about the issue.
And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.
I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.
Do I have an issue with any of them, no not really I take the wargaming genre (and boardgaming) for what it is and if I find something I do not like I simply do not buy that product or buy from that company.
I do not stand on a soap box trying to enforce my will on others, disregarding anything against my world view despite actual data.
As it has been said early on, if you do not like how something is depicted and really cannot find anything in your liking we are at an age were one individual can create what they like quite cheap and if you think it is a sound business plan, that means it will sell enouph to be profitable, you can not only spread your ideas but also make some money doing so.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.
I don't think it's hard to have stuff like miniatures restricted. All you need is some smart cookie to classify them as toys or deem them not safe for public consumption. Is it likely to happen? Prolly not. Can it happen? Sure.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't think it's hard to have stuff like miniatures restricted. All you need is some smart cookie to classify them as toys or deem them not safe for public consumption. Is it likely to happen? Prolly not. Can it happen? Sure.
And were it to happen I think we can clearly see that some people in this thread would celebrating.
well it has already happened for a brief period of 3 months in a largely irrelevant country, at least as far as international law precedents are concerned and I was not happy about it.
Nothing to do with models nudity of course.
But it is a possibility, hopefully a remote one, it is more possible to have particular depictions banned as racist or sexist, but even then I think it is a really remote case.
I still feel it is, at least academically, worth the consideration.
PsychoticStorm wrote: And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.
That is not my own words, that is your own words. That is definitely not how I would phrase it.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.
If those are very, very morally questionable issues, why are you unwilling to discuss them except in the very specific frame of comparing them to the sexualization of female models? Why is apparently no one willing to discuss them outside of this specific frame?
PsychoticStorm wrote: I do not stand on a soap box trying to enforce my will on others, disregarding anything against my world view despite actual data.
I have greatly enjoyed reading some of this thread, as it is an issue I find important, so thank you to all the contributors.
There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls recently that discussed some of the issues mentioned here.
I'm not posting this so we can discuss it - I don't want to derail the discussion, but you might find it interesting reading nonetheless.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/on-maturity-40k-and-slaanesh.html
And were it to happen I think we can clearly see that some people in this thread would celebrating.
Who?
Me? I would hardly care enough to celebrate. Hybrid Son? I doubt he would either.
You seem to overestimate our emotional investment. To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage. More options would be cool. Removal of the options we do not want do not really do anything for us either way.
Buzzsaw's concerns are well founded it seems.
I would not call irrational paranoia 'well founded'.
Ashiraya wrote: To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.
What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..
Kilkrazy wrote: Markets and companies owe their existence to society.
No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.
Companies and markets owe their existence to the laws that sustain and govern them, such as limited liability and contract. These are created and upheld by society.
Actually, markets exist whenever any 2 or more parties come together to trade. They need neither laws, not social norms to exist.
Ashiraya wrote: To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.
What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..
Miniature making is not the most profitable business in the world. If the companies are only interested in money, there are other business options out there that will give a far better level of profit than making miniatures. I would suspect that most designers have considerations other than money, such as love of fantasy and sci-fi storytelling, artistic endeavour and so on.
I'm sure they do care about what people want to buy, and tailor their ranges accordingly, but if a certain kind of heterosexual man demands sexualised female models, the designers don't have to supply that, or they don't have to only supply that. They could supply sexualised female models and also supply more realistic female soldiers. If they do supply only that, then I would question how that designer views women - I can't see a staunch feminist producing models like that! Furthermore, one implication of that line of argument (whether intended or not) is that only a certain kind of heterosexual male plays wargames and therefore only what they want counts. I think our hobby would be much more rewarding if more people got engaged with it, and a huge market that is lurking out there is women. They are going to be more likely, as a group, to flock to the hobby if they feel the games and miniatures treat them as equals. If I saw a game that depicted the myriad social groups that I belong to in a degrading or mocking way (and let's remember that the way women are depicted in wargames is not just part of a small narrative but is endemic) then I would steer clear of it.
When you* are telling a story, you are representing either a fictional world or the real world. The same moral arguments apply to the citizens of both kinds of worlds. When you create a fictional world, you have to expect that, if people are to buy into it, that they will be questioning your motives in creating that world. If you create a world where women never do anything important, or if they do, that they look sexy, people will question why that is. You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.
Ashiraya wrote: To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.
What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..
Miniature making is not the most profitable business in the world. If the companies are only interested in money, there are other business options out there that will give a far better level of profit than making miniatures. I would suspect that most designers have considerations other than money, such as love of fantasy and sci-fi storytelling, artistic endeavour and so on.
Yeah, I stated the two extremes (they think of you as a wallet vs not thinking of you at all) but realistically it's going to be a grey area somewhere in the middle.
My main point was the way Ash said it makes it both personal with "we" and as if the models a designer makes is representative of how the designer things of womankind and their female customers in general.
It would be as absurd as me, a dude, saying "it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".
It's comments like that which make these discussions much more heated than other generic aesthetic and fluff questions (eg. I don't like that Space Wolves push the furry theme so far, I'd rather they push the Nordic theme more).
You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.
Yeah, but if you (in the general sense) try to call people sexist for creating sexist fantasy worlds I am also within my right to call you narrow minded and ignorant
The same way I would call someone narrow minded and ignorant if they called me racist if I wrote about a racist fantasy world or call me a violent war mongering person for writing a fantasy world that revolves around violence (which is basically every table top fantasy world ever ). That logic doesn't work with video games and it doesn't work with miniatures either.
But yes, it just again highlights why these conversations end up heated compared to other disagreements on how fluff/aesthetics should be handled.
It's comments like that which make these discussions much more heated than other generic aesthetic and fluff questions (eg. I don't like that Space Wolves push the furry theme so far, I'd rather they push the Nordic theme more).
You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.
Yeah, but if you (in the general sense) try to call people sexist for creating sexist fantasy worlds I am also within my right to call you narrow minded and ignorant
The same way I would call someone narrow minded and ignorant if they called me racist if I wrote about a racist fantasy world or call me a violent war mongering person for writing a fantasy world that revolves around violence (which is basically every table top fantasy world ever ). That logic doesn't work with video games and it doesn't work with miniatures either.
But yes, it just again highlights why these conversations end up heated compared to other disagreements on how fluff/aesthetics should be handled.
I know all the arguments about artforms being mindless escapism that should be disentangled from the rest of society and 'real politics', but I don't buy them. They all reflect society in some way or another, and in turn influence society back. I'm not saying that sexist miniatures are the root cause of sexism in society, but they don't help matters either, especially when you consider impressionable young men learning their way in the world coming across these miniatures. I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.
As a great person once said, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
corpuschain wrote: I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.
And now once again we have traveled full circle.
There is nothing wrong with wanting some realistic female miniatures that don't come in boob-plate. Just like I'd like to see some less bulky men miniatures that aren't all bearded wrestlers. We all want some variations of existing miniatures other than one particular body type which seems to exist on both sides. There is a cost to create variations that effect a complete line and image that was set by the game universe. That is why modding, head swaps, torso swaps are a popular thing and an entire secondary market exists centered around that. There is a cost associated to making females how someone wants or males how I want. When a tone, thinner not as muscular miniature is on the table then how is it differentiated from the others easily? When a female is on the table how is it differentiated? Then it becomes a basis of if you can't tell the difference, then why make an alternate sculpt. That is why alternate versions tend to be over the top, so you can easily tell them apart. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done or hasn't been done, it just means there are added costs and the main reason a secondary bit market exists in the first place. There is so much variations wanted that it isn't really enough support mainstream.
Who knows there might actually be... but it is going to take someone with some capital to make that plunge. You get hints at bits and pieces. Infinity and Malifaux goes all over the range from realistic to pushing over the top for both men and women designs. WH40K is fairly straight forward, there isn't a lot of variation between them. You can tell what the factions are and within the factions it is pretty much all the same (which is probably why it has a much larger bit market?). More and more miniatures are starting to come out that are more unique, but that also seems to be a shift from large scale games being popular to more smaller, faster skirmish games seemingly more popular (from what I can see, no actual data to support that though). It could be also that the market has a lower end entry point for startups in the skirmish and that is why there is an increase as well.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".
Well, to take GW as an example, you have the Eldar and Dark Eldar ranges as well as various species of (a)elf, featuring more sleek men.
Apparently, being androgynous is perfectly fine for a male model, but doing the same for your female models is financial suicide and meaningless on a 28mm scale?
corpuschain wrote: I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.
PsychoticStorm wrote: And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.
That is not my own words, that is your own words. That is definitely not how I would phrase it.
That was more or less your answer on the fully armoured Valkyr power armours at the first third of this thread IIRC.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
PsychoticStorm wrote: I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.
If those are very, very morally questionable issues, why are you unwilling to discuss them except in the very specific frame of comparing them to the sexualization of female models? Why is apparently no one willing to discuss them outside of this specific frame?
Good question, isn't the premise that we accept easier violence that the human form a bit strange? I find odd somebody throwing the sexualisation issue above every other social issue a wargame represents, if nothing else it is an artistic representation not a scale replica of real life in most cases, I could very well see the argument if at a scale representation of real events but over a fictional wargame? again depending on the setting art direction and a myriad other variables, coming back on the original argument, I prefer the models to be sexualised and stand apart than the asexual realistic representation.
Were do I stand on the chain-mail bikini? indifferent, if I like the model overall I may take it, if I don't I will not, will I raise an eyebrow if the female version looks nothing like the male one? maybe, I have criticized the female Dozer and that is a model from a company I call friends.
Setting plays a great role too, KDM feels absolutely natural.
corpuschain wrote:I have greatly enjoyed reading some of this thread, as it is an issue I find important, so thank you to all the contributors.
There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls recently that discussed some of the issues mentioned here.
I'm not posting this so we can discuss it - I don't want to derail the discussion, but you might find it interesting reading nonetheless.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/on-maturity-40k-and-slaanesh.html
Read the article was heavily disappointed, the author sees Slaanesh more or less as a dead end sex whatever, fails to grasp the whole idea about it representing the lust for everything in its most extreme from and how GW could utilize it for more than just boobs, the aspect of chaos (read human desires in their extreme form) Slaanesh represents is the one of the deepest desires seen in their perfect form, its not just about the sex, it is about having the perfect performance in any desire why should this be limited just in the bodily pleasures and not study martial prowess or other desires?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: "it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".
Well, to take GW as an example, you have the Eldar and Dark Eldar ranges as well as various species of (a)elf, featuring more sleek men.
Apparently, being androgynous is perfectly fine for a male model, but doing the same for your female models is financial suicide and meaningless on a 28mm scale?
Despite speaking about elfs who are described as been Androgynous and well they are represented in models form as such, I do not think these models would sell if they were supposed to represent normal humans and if I remember correctly they received heavy criticisms that the same body was representing a male and a female model by just switching the front.
WGF's male and female survivors both contained a range of body types. They must have been successful since the new owners effectively tripled the cost of the kits.
.
.
ing. Cares.
