Recently, on a Facebook group dedicated to showing off GW models, a member posted some pictures of sexually explicit conversions he had made. One of them was a Land Raider with stripper cages instead of side sponsons. I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't. How do you feel about this? Would you feel comfortable walking into a hobby shop while someone showed off the blood covered strippers they had made?
The conversation went as follows...
Me: The technical skills are great, but then he has to add naked women to it. What's the point? This is why people think tabletop gamers are creepy basement dwellers. They go into shops and see stuff like this.
Him: Because I like it. I play a Debauchery themed army. Debauchery is a death metal band. Also I find it funny that you have no problem with blood, skulls, and gore, but you find nudity to be "creepy." Some double standards there?
Me: Sorry, I should have said sexist. The rest is quite obviously tongue in cheek, it's a silly game and a silly universe. But you are using women (in enslaved positions) as an accessory to this. Women are far too often shown as accessories in fiction, art, and real life, and you are encouraging this. However, while I don't have a problem with the tongue in cheek violence, your sexualisation of the blood and gore is just downright creepy.
Him: No, not at all. Strippers are not enslaved. Do they look enslaved to you?Warhammer hast tons of half naked guys covered in blood holding a weapon, but if I got a female in the same position it is sexist?
No sorry, it is your argument that is sexist.
Other: A lady in summer-ish beachwear and a girl with naked boobies and a chainsaw do not scream slavery to me to be honest..., I think you reaction to this particular model is a bit overreacted. I agree that the depiction of women in art etc is maybe not always as nice, but don't go crazy on this guy because of that, it's just not fair. I am a woman too and I just had to laugh a bit because of this model, I don't feel offended by this at all. I laughed my ass of because of the red river-thingy, because it maybe depicts the fear guys have of women's periods XD
Me: What do you mean not enslaved, in the Land Raider picture, they are literally in cages. The half naked men you speak of are not in sexualized poses, but your women are.
Anyway, just because the men and the women are both scantily clad does not make you an advocate of equality, because there is not a history of men being oppressed due to sexuality and sexual roles the way there is for women (disclaimer: not to say that it doesn't exist but it exists mostly non-hetero men and in far less numbers than it does for women).
Regardless of all the above, you are still creating a bad impression for the wargaming and modeling community, and discouraging new people, especially women, from taking part in this great hobby.
I find it hard to believe that so many people think this is okay. I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community. I understand that gaming communities often accept less "cool" people who are on the fringe of society, people who aren't as readily accepted into other groups, and that is fantastic, but that doesn't mean we have to accept all behaviour. What do you think?
Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
Unfortunately without a picture of the offending article, its hard to comment on it. If its done thematically I honestly don't see a problem with it. However if its the only thing in the army themed as such It might be a little odd to put it politely.
I've only really been offended by one thing in painting and that was a KKK themed Redemptionist warband.
I own one of the limited run topless dark Eldar prisoners but I've never used it as It doesn't fit in any army i have at the moment
It's as equally distasteful and rather silly as a band named "Debauchery". There should be a word for people who try too hard to be scary and alternative and just end up being extremely silly, which is true for most death metal bands. This word could be applied to songs that have lyrics about landslides of butchered baby parts and that sort of thing (look up Cannibal Corpse lyrics if you want to be entertained). It doesn't have any of the intended effect, it's just stupid.
In short, it'd make me think of the person as a bit of a creep.
Yes Frozen Ocean, that is it. He also has an equally distasteful Lord of Skulls/Knight which I am in the process of uploading. Unfortunately I'm on mobile using an awful mobile internet provider (TIM) so this could take a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes Frozen Ocean, that is it. He also has an equally distasteful Lord of Skulls/Knight which I am in the process of uploading. Unfortunately I'm on mobile using an awful mobile internet provider (TIM) so this could take a while.
That is a pretty tame implementation of a death metal design out of 'heavy metal' or something like that. Some people like that stuff, some people don't. I think if I am going to put my judgmental hat on, Daemonettes are way more offensive to the casual observer. And some people will find any form of naked breast on what is perceived to be a children's toy offensive.
I don't see anything sexually explicit though. Maybe you don't know what that term means? Sexually explicit usually means 'sex acts' like penetration and such.
Sexually explicit material" as that term is used in this section means any pictorial material displaying direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, masturbation, sodomy (i.e. bestiality or oral or anal intercourse), flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or emphasizing the depiction of adult human genitals: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That works of art or of anthropological significance shall not be deemed to be within the foregoing definition.
I would say it is NSFW, and it is nude... but none of it is what you describe or sexually explicit. Such descriptions are saved for 'KD: demon wetnurses' but that is a different discussion.
Since nothing there is any worse than the stock models GW releases, and this is pretty tame, seems like people are gonna dislike 40k as a whole way before they hate this one model. Claiming his model is creating a bad impression... GW's chaos god with satantic influences which involve one which is basically the sex/rape/S&M god does that already. If someone is gonna be offended, they will be plenty offended by the stock models and source material before they even see a bloody landraider with strippers on it.
Edit: I mean, their new release of dark Eldar is based around the concept of 'don't be taken alive' because they will torture, disembowel and rape you. That is the slogan. So if someone is gonna be offended, there is plenty to offend people.
Edit 2: And it is also pretty Heterosexist to basically determine what people should be offended by and assume all women everywhere would be offended by that and that women are not as multifaceted as men in their tastes. And death metal is a thing, Gwar just got a female lead singer. Is she going to cause women to dislike death metal? By assuming there are two analog points of view on sexuality and anything which goes against those views and might offend all women is where problems happen.
If you don't want to be associated with such things, pick another hobby with cleaner themes, or pick different friends who won't judge you by association and realize while they may not like everything, different people like different things. If you really are 'worried' about how women view your hobby, especially 40k, then the problem is with you since 40k is hardly defensible as a 'clean-themed' universe.
I think you are being WAY too sensitive on the subject. It shouldn't offend anyone. The only exception to this would be parents bringing their younger children around, which this would obviously be inappropriate for. Aside from that one case, I imagine anyone that get offended by things like this as a frumpy old bat that needs to fan herself to keep from fainting whenever a victorias secret commercial comes on TV.
I don't imagine anyone painting the models with sweaty palms or anything. Its a aesthetic decision that quite frankly fits in reasonably well with the fluff of Chaos and the story he has come up with for his army.
And as for alienating female to the game, I doubt VERY highly that women are more put off by the occasional boob on a tiny plastic model versus the hordes of socially awkward/inept guys that tend to play these games that have to break out the inhalers as soon as they are within the same room as a female. Yeah I know we aren't ALL like that but I can say with confidence that almost none of you can say that there isnt a minimum of 1 creepy dude at your FLGS. THAT is what puts people off about the game. The people. Not the models.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts.
That's a problem with your imagination, then.
Saying that the person in question is intentionally promoting the degradation of women would be like saying that people intentionally promote violent crime because they modelled their minis with guns and knives, or that they want someone's immortal soul to literally burn alive for the remainder of all eternity when they say "damned teenager".
The only thing people intend is what people intend. If you're reading more into it, then it's YOU reading more into it. People shouldn't be required to run around with a copy of their artist statement every time someone chooses to take offense to something they've created.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: I find it hard to believe that so many people think this is okay. I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community. I understand that gaming communities often accept less "cool" people who are on the fringe of society, people who aren't as readily accepted into other groups, and that is fantastic, but that doesn't mean we have to accept all behaviour. What do you think?
You're entitled to an opinion on someone else's work, but I find it slightly bizarre that you make the leap from an explicit mini to some guy using it as masturbation fuel. Freud might have something to say about that Unfortunately, if you look for things on the Internet to get offended about, you'll miss a lot of the good stuff. It's best just to click "Next" and move on. I've never seen anyone win a morality discussion, so why bother?
the_Armyman wrote: I find it slightly bizarre that you make the leap from an explicit mini to some guy using it as masturbation fuel. Freud might have something to say about that
Yeah, it seems that a person believing that people are sexually uncontrollable around toy soldiers says more about the person than about the people with the toy soldiers.
It's a model based on the 40k Universe and although GW like to target kids under 16, the fluff is grim and dark. This model is awesome and fits right in with it.
I do find it offensive, but as above, I don't want it banished.
Some people and groups try a little too hard.
Oversensitiveness is an issue, but so is a complete lack of such, which is one of the things that wargamers get stereotyped as. In this case, with good reason.
I'm also an artist, but I would still criticize someone for their artistic stance, even if I would still consider random crass stuff as art. Because frankly, there's a lot of really gakky art out there that has every right to exist.
Yeah, I think you are being way too sensitive. This is honestly pretty tame. You see far more sexist stuff on most other forms of entertainment.
Also, really, I have to agree with the dude on the violence vs sex double standard thing. He is right; society does have a double standard there. And the game - and your avatar! - is extremely explicit when it comes to violence. Literal rivers of blood, huge piles of skulls, limbs being hacked - sorry, chainsawed - off, an entire species that literally lives on inflicting as much pain and torture as they can! And you simply brush that off as "tongue in cheek"? If that stuff doesn't turn people away who are looking for wholesome fun, what on earth makes you think a couple of nude miniature women are going to?
Also, really:
I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts.
If it bothers you so much, stop thinking about it.
People like this are bad for the whole community.
People who judge an entire community based on a single person aren't worth listening to.
It depends on the context of your gaming environment.
With a group of mature (or not so much ) adult males? Sure, no problem. Its all in good fun.
Around people who might possibly be offended or made uncomfortable, like females, younger players (<18) and parents? No, absolutely not.
Same thing goes for say, swearing.
I love the idea of the Angry Marines Chapter and would like to do an army one day, but I would never show that army off to say, a young kid, his parents, or someone who I know would be offended.
I'm struggling to see how the model that started the discussion can be termed "explicit?"
When I saw someone supply a link and clicked on it, I was expecting something slightly stronger than a couple of sort of pole dancers where most of the nudity is in fact implied.
Now, I read 'sexually explicit' as something pornographic, i.e. two or more people 'making the beast with two backs' for want of another term.
This is crudely portrayed nudity, think in all honesty most people will find it a point somewhere between crap and amusing.
It would have been classed as 'sexually explicit' at some point in the 1960's in the developed/liberal parts of the world...
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I think there are genuine tragedies in this world, and people being exploited for commercial gain and whatnot, this ain't one of them.
curran12 wrote: Sometimes people have different definitions of things than you do, Azrael.
I personally do not find it "explicity" by my yardstick, but I do find it kinda low class and juvenile.
The First Online Dictionary I Found On Google wrote:
adj.
1.
a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" (Frederick Turner).
2. Forthright and unreserved in expression: They were explicit in their criticism.
3.
a. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail.
They may have different definitions, but they're wrong definitions.
Ironically most women I know think stuff like this is funny, slightly wierd, perhaps intersting or amusing but seldom have any real issues with little soldiers being nude - male or female.
The model in question is cool - not sure about Korne worshipers keeping women in cages - more likely to be Word Bearers or Slaanesh or Tzeentch - I could see various heads stuck all over the place being more Khorne.
The imagery of the model would very well with Dark Eldar - indeed just picked up some female prisoners and considering the same thing type of display on a Raider - likely with a female Archon based on the Coven Throne. I'll see if there is some male ones to go along with them - after all the Dark Eldar are no bothered which sex filfthy Monkeigh are - they are just animals / things to torment
Does the OP have a problem with Sisters of Battle? After all they are sexualized. Power armour with breasts? Look at female soldiers now in the army, you don't see no breasts, but yet the SoB in miniatures and especially in artwork is sexualized big time. Skinny women with large breasts.
I would hate to see how you would react to GW old miniatures of demonettes.
curran12 wrote: Sometimes people have different definitions of things than you do, Azrael.
I personally do not find it "explicity" by my yardstick, but I do find it kinda low class and juvenile.
The First Online Dictionary I Found On Google wrote:
a. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail.
They may have different definitions, but they're wrong definitions.
My bolding there - I don't think that many people would regard that as 'graphic detail'
You can also call the daemonettes graphic in detail but no one complains about them. Or all the blood and gore that makes the game grimdark as graphic detail
Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.
Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.
Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.
I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.
Kirasu wrote: Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.
Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.
Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.
I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.
I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
Kirasu wrote: Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.
Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.
Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.
I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.
Have you read The Horus Heresy: Fulgrim?
Or any book with a slaaneshi cult in it, or the night lords using rape as a fear tactic, or slaanesh in general
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I do have a problem with some of the other GW models actually.
Sisters of Battle: an army designed for girls is kind of insulting. It's as if an executive looked at the customer base one day and saw that it was predominantly male, and decided that an army of women would help broaden the appeal, rather than try to fix what already existed. Add into that the typical complaints about form-fitting armour, and you have my opinion on that.
Daemonettes: all four of the Chaos gods appeal to certain emotions and facets. One of them appeals to excess of the body, with the implication that sexual excess is encompassed by that. I don't have a problem there. The game appeals to children, but this is subtle enough to go unnoticed by them. However, I do have a problem with the models that are chosen to represent this particular god. It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies. I have a problem that while all of the other gods are represented by male or androgynous models, Slaanesh is represented by female ones. The implication here is that once the need to represent sexuality arises, the default assumption is that femininity will be chosen to do the job.
This coincides with so many other representations of women in art and media, that if a character with motives and complex emotions is wanted, a man or male is chosen, but the second sexuality needs to be shown, it's almost always a woman or female. In society, men are seen as people, and women as sexual beings. Opinions on their sexuality varies, some want to suppress it, some want to exaggerate it, or shape it to their will, but it's always done through lenses with a sexual filter.
I have to reply to other comments on this thread, but they will have to wait until I can access a computer.
At first, I was expecting flayed naked women chopped up and decorating the tank with body parts.
THAT picture was pretty cool, and as far as a Khorne army Landraider it wasn't half bad. Are the figures home made, or where are those stripper figs located at?
To the OP, I like naked women. To me, they are built pretty near perfectly that personally I couldn't do a better job. A rabid fan of Heavy Metal magazine, Epic, Hustler, Swank, The Smithsonian, The Artist's Magazine, Life, National Geographic, Art and Antiques, and a few others off the top of my head as well as a well rounded world adventurer I have grown up around tits about half to three quarters of my life.
With that as a background, the concept and context are well within the area of medium that the stripper tank in question is in. NOW, had it had a couple of demons ripping up children, or some sort of explicit acts of S and M, or some sort of over the top explicit NSFW stuff, the cause would be worth the righteous indignation.
As to the this is art/ that's art- the question is subjective. In this case, he got a reaction, and the model itself in my eyes has a really good template, and as much as any of the tabletop figures can be considered- this is part of the Hobby of miniatures.
Aside from the strippers in cages, what else on that tank is off to you?
( As a side note, How do you get that tank smoking like that without damaging the model or any of the other models on the table? What was done to get that effect without breaking the model or smoke damage to the tabletop? )
Daemonettes: all four of the Chaos gods appeal to certain emotions and facets. One of them appeals to excess of the body, with the implication that sexual excess is encompassed by that. I don't have a problem there. The game appeals to children, but this is subtle enough to go unnoticed by them. However, I do have a problem with the models that are chosen to represent this particular god. It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies. I have a problem that while all of the other gods are represented by male or androgynous models, Slaanesh is represented by female ones. The implication here is that once the need to represent sexuality arises, the default assumption is that femininity will be chosen to do the job.
The evidence of this thread suggest otherwise.
Also, while there are some models which have departed from the idea in the intervening years, historically Slaaneshi daemons only ever had one breast, to encompass the fact they weren't male or female. While their aesthetic is definitely the most feminine of the Chaos Gods, they aren't necessarily female.
Ustrello wrote: you do realize that daemonettes are hermaphrodites right? Take your SJW crap else where
This sums up my feelings for OP after reading his arguments, if a mere model offends you. Then I have some bad news for you, and I also find it strange that people waste so much energy when it comes to fretting over a bit of exposed flesh. Or as in this case, two naked women. I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?
Personally, I think he just chose the wrong chaos god. Should have been Slaanesh, then it would make perfect sense. Could even add a DJ or something, and replace the smoke inside with marijuana. That would tick off all the boxes. OP, you're definitely over sensitive about this. Or trolling us. But yeah, it's really not an issue. And you can paint/sculpt/create nude models in provoking ways without being crass. Such as this one: he has a theme, the girls fit perfectly in it, what's the issue? This feels like part 12 of "The Soccer Mom Wars: This Time It's Personal (for realz)!!"
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
I find nudity in tabletop models to be in bad taste, personally. I split my gaming time between a garage and a Games Workshop, and if someone came in with bloody strippers in cages, to be displayed around my children, I'd be thoroughly put off... but no more than a guy wearing a t-shirt with nudity upon it, or walking into the store while perusing a porn magazine.
Quite frankly, in an era where Internet porno is free and widely available, I don't really get the idea of putting naked models on the table... it just strikes me as a, "Why do I need to be more sexually aroused while playing 40k... the game itself gets my juices flowing."
Yes, a joke, kind of... I'm missing the point. It seems in bad taste, just like Nazi guard, or painting swear words on the side of a tank, or any manner of WTF things that people can do with their minis, that they would take to a public place.
That isn't an issue inherent to the subject though. It would be bad taste to expose young children to adult nudity on any level.
It isn't in any way like a "Nazi Guard" at all, but good shout at Godwinning the thread, because there are unlikely to be people present who had their ancestors brutally murdered by a boobie.
Besides if you have no problem with the extreme violence and glorification of fascism that goes on in 40k but a bit of female flesh freaks you out, then I'd say you need to reassess your priorities.
Wargaming is at heart a rather UN PC hobby. Attempts to sanitise it will just make it dull.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
-C.S. Lewis
I always liked that quote. It seems very fitting for this topic. Personally I'm getting the feeling that this thread was just trolling. The OP's post seems very contrived. There are a lot more obscene models to get up in arms about than a Go-Go tank, and if you feel the need to get up in arms over a model you must not have too many problems to think about in your life. I'll save my fury and anger for my bills.
It would probably be more useful to discuss whether the model in question would fall under the "PG" ratings guidelines. Then it's just a matter of "Is the game store operating under a G or PG rating system?"
solkan wrote: It would probably be more useful to discuss whether the model in question would fall under the "PG" ratings guidelines. Then it's just a matter of "Is the game store operating under a G or PG rating system?"
How does one make such a standard when GW sells Daemonettes? (and stores sell Daemonettes?)
40k is not G and I don't think anyone can ever claim any true wargame should be G as all simulated violence should have parental guidance.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: Sisters of Battle: an army designed for girls is kind of insulting. It's as if an executive looked at the customer base one day and saw that it was predominantly male, and decided that an army of women would help broaden the appeal, rather than try to fix what already existed. Add into that the typical complaints about form-fitting armour, and you have my opinion on that.
I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...
... It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies....
The post that started all of this suggests otherwise...
I would have less trouble believing the OP was upset about the equation of women solely with sexuality if the OP didn't specifically post about envisioning 'slimy' males masturbating to the models. It's one thing to find something offensive, but it's a quite different thing to project a description of the creator (and graphic descriptions of his envisioned activity) just from the model itself.
It's not that I like the model. I dislike it for the simple reason that it doesn't make any sense. You have lascannons on a Land Raider. How do you functionally replace them with stripper cages? What's the arc of fire on a stripper? If the model had lascannons and strippers, I would be fine.
I do really, really worry about the evident inability of many members of our society to distinguish sexual imagery from sexual activity, especially when we have almost entirely, and completely, viewed graphic violent imagery as being unconnected to violent activity.
If you can paint tiny guns and tiny swords, and yet not snap and attack people with guns and swords, why would painting tiny naked women make you some sort of sexual deviant?
Why is it so obvious that all the blood and gore and violence and suffering is tongue in cheek, and 'just part of the universe', but so immediately clear that having a naked woman on the model indicates sexual deviancy or sexism in the creator?
Nobody assumes that the guy painting up disgusting Nurgle models is brewing up anthrax in his basement, but the OP takes a couple of painted strippers and envisages 'slimy guy masturbating". I find that much more disturbing and offensive than the model.
I also find it irritating that someone thinks that because a model is sexual, and it offends them, that it is inappropriate, but that sort of special treatment is restricted to sexual imagery. If you don't like violent imagery, then you are being over-sensitive. If you don't like gory imagery, then you are being oversensitive. But if you don't like sexual imagery, then your personal preferences are super-special and must be respected by others in polite society.
At first, I was expecting flayed naked women chopped up and decorating the tank with body parts.
THAT picture was pretty cool, and as far as a Khorne army Landraider it wasn't half bad. Are the figures home made, or where are those stripper figs located at?
They're Hasslefree I think.
I think nudity in modelling is like anywhere else in public. Keep it appropriate for the local audience. You don't leave nudie photos lying around in public, take care where you show your models if there's children around. This land raider isn't that shocking really. There was someone a while back that made a Slaanesh soulgrinder and sculpted a massive erect dick on it. That was pretty tasteless and somewhat unsuitable for most public places.
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
By your metric it isn't offensive. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your views represent the rest of the world. You're on the same planet where women can be put in jail if they don't cover their hair in many countries.
Grimtuff wrote: Well, that's a bit tame. It's hardly the infamous Slaaneshi Hellcannon made from a dildo with a Daemonette riding the... erm, cannon's ammunition.
When you say ammunition, do you mean when it is leaving the weapon? Like that scene from Doctor Strangelove?
Grimtuff wrote: Well, that's a bit tame. It's hardly the infamous Slaaneshi Hellcannon made from a dildo with a Daemonette riding the... erm, cannon's ammunition.
When you say ammunition, do you mean when it is leaving the weapon? Like that scene from Doctor Strangelove?
To be blunt I mean sperm.
I cannot seem to find a pic of it anywhere, but that was an offensive and sexually explicit model. For full disclosure the LR in question would warrant an eyeroll from me and probably thinking a few of the things said in this thread, but its pretty tame compared to the above or other stuff I've seen from Slaanesh forces unsurprisingly.
Eh, pretty tame. I think its cool in an artistic way, but losing the Lascannon sponsons for strippers sucks Honestly, it's not that big of a deal to me. As far as kids, I'm all for young adults getting into the game, but I think there should be a limit. 40K is a gory, nasty universe. It can be silly, but its usually not. Even some of the graphic design in the GW books can be gnarly.
I'd say this thing is cool to show off, but know your audience. If you feel there are people at your LGS who might be offended, don't bring it.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
By your metric it isn't offensive. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your views represent the rest of the world. You're on the same planet where women can be put in jail if they don't cover their hair in many countries.
Nah, I stand by what I said. I'm not saying it is impossible to be offended by it, I'm not saying it is wrong to be offended by it, but if you were to put this up for a poll, I'm confident that the majority wouldn't be offended at all.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
By your metric it isn't offensive. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your views represent the rest of the world. You're on the same planet where women can be put in jail if they don't cover their hair in many countries.
Nah, I stand by what I said. I'm not saying it is impossible to be offended by it, I'm not saying it is wrong to be offended by it, but if you were to put this up for a poll, I'm confident that the majority wouldn't be offended at all.
Run your poll in the ME, Latin America, or most of Asia and get back to me.
Again, personally I don't find it offensive, just offensively stupid.
LuciusAR wrote: Besides if you have no problem with the extreme violence and glorification of fascism that goes on in 40k but a bit of female flesh freaks you out, then I'd say you need to reassess your priorities.
Wargaming is at heart a rather UN PC hobby. Attempts to sanitise it will just make it dull.
I was going to say something like that, but you said it so much better. All I can think of is this now.
"Double D's bad, (DDs) the SS is good."
Basically mankind's saviours are worse than them and every other evil in the human history put together. But that is ok I guess, but heaven forbid any cleavage is shown.
Run your poll in the ME, Latin America, or most of Asia and get back to me.
Yeah, we could ask them a bunch of other questions about Scottish Independence, American Gun control and the Oscar Pistorious trial at the same time as getting their predictions for the Ryder Cup.
Or simply canvas a demographic that was relevant to the topic at hand. (Which, going by the flags I see on Dakka, doesn't seem to include many residents of the areas you mention.)
Maybe, WRT the UK, we have Mary Whitehouse to thank for that and imposing rather Protestant standards on the country for a long period of time, whether the majority agreed or not.
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
The legendary American liberal attitude towards sex, ladies and gentlemen!
If you HAD read the thread, you'd not only realise how your response was utterly ill informed, but that the timing of it in light of where the discussion was when you posted could not have painted it in a worse light.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
The legendary American liberal attitude towards sex, ladies and gentlemen!
If you HAD read the thread, you'd not only realise how your response was utterly ill informed, but that the timing of it in light of where the discussion was when you posted could not have painted it in a worse light.
I have to wonder at those who are offended by it... Which of the following are you offended by?
1) Nudity?
2) Sexism?
3) The fact you imagine someone masturbating as they made it?
Because my arguments against you depend on which one of those is the problem. Or is it something else entirely?
1) Do we think children old enough to see blood, death, gore and genocide should be forbidden from seeing nudity? Hmm...
2) Do we think that whilst it is fine to portray mass genocide of other (alien) species, total enslavement of entire human populations, the suppression of democracy, torture, etc, etc, the line must be drawn at the grimdark future being sexist?
3) I'll answer in two parts. What the hell makes you think the guy was sitting there jacking off as he painted it? Do you think he was shooting lasers as he painted those bits? And, if either of those things were true, which one might be your business? I'd be more concerned about someone using siege weaponry in my neighbourhood than someone spanking in private.
If someone is playing a Slaanesh army I'd think risqué material would be fluffy. Same with Khorne and copious amounts of blood, gore and body parts. Or Nurgle and slime/vomit/worse slathered everywhere. Within reason of course. A graphic sex scene or something is uncalled for no matter what.
I am disappointed. I was expecting dicks and gaping fanged hell vaginas everywhere when I read "sexually explicit."
Just a pair of bloodied pole dancers.
The only problem I see here is that a Khornate Landraider has strippers. They should be wearing more armor, not less!
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
I didn't know Space Marines had a White Knight chapter!
Seriously dude, its toy soldiers. So he has little strippers (who I can't even see nipples or bush on) in cages, worshipping Daemons. Shouldn't the heresy bother you more than some plastic nudes?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Correction: It has no place in YOUR hobby.
Who the feth do you think you are to dictate to other people what they can and cannot do with their models, their PROPERTY?
I wouldn't call it explicit. But I would say "what's the point?" It seems to be done just for pure shock value, or to try to be "edgy." But I just find such desperate attempts to be edgy childish.
I'd say the whoever did this conversion has perpetuated the stereotype of the creepy gamer with an unhealthy attitude to women, because the only way they could think to get them on the model was in cages, naked and dancing round poles...if you want women on your Chaos tank why not a female tank commander sticking out the hatch or female warriors clinging to the sides? Do followers of Khorne even care about sexuality as opposed to just hitting things with big axes?
And no, I'm not offended by sex/violence/swearing/Howard the Duck in art (delete where applicable)...I shouldn't even have to point that out. But the default role for women shouldn't be eye-candy.
To the OP, I don't find nudity on models to be offensive, but full disclosure, I have a Slaaneshi CSM/Daemons army with Raging Heroes not-Daemonettes and Mierce's Euraliya acting as a Greater Daemon (making me a little biased).
I have argued in the past that depictions of women in some gaming art and some miniatures is exploitative, and I think that can be a barrier to entry for some women. However, that opinion is reserved for artwork/models that depict a woman otherwise functioning in a manner similar to her male counterparts but dressed or posed in a sexual manner. So the ubiquitous high heels in combat, boob plate, stripper pole-poses and other cliche'd depictions of women that often grace our hobby world I find rather dumb.
But, if a setting has lust demons with penis arms and fire breathing vaginas in their eye sockets, well, then a mini or painting depicting said entity makes sense to me given the context of that entity within a particular setting. Strippers adorning a Khornate Land Raider inspired by a heavy metal band also makes sense to me in the context of Khorne and the devolution of humanity to its core, base desires when influenced by Chaos. If Vect can have slave girls riding around on his air skiff, why can't some Khornate warriors bring pole dancing cultists along to revel in the arterial spray of Khorne's defeated enemies?
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.
Within this context the cage is rather significant.
One can interpret this model in plenty of other ways though.
I will also add that instances of the objectification of women within the 40K fictional universe would not, in themselves, excuse further acts of such objectification. Two wrongs do not make a right, and so forth.
Is the model worth getting in a tizzy about? No, not in my opinion. It aint the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. In the grand scheme of things, I wouldn't want my sons to be exposed to that sort of art without the benefit of parental guidance, so I do understand the OP's reaction to it. I am also glad that we are having a dialog about this, because it does at least suggest that artwork like the model under discussion is not so 'normative' as to avoid raising any eyebrows.
It aint the nudity, it aint the women, it aint the blood, it aint the skullz, it aint the smoke or the giant axe. It's the cages.
It is the fact that little persons who see depictions like that can begin to believe that the proper place for a woman is one in which they are deprived of power and agency.
Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs. While that would be bitchin', it is not readily apparent in the artwork, hence the objective basis on which to be offended.
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yet again, as with Frazzled, you make a perfectly sound and logical point, but are not offended yourself.
There are plenty of arguments for why someone may be offended, but very few, if any, who genuinely ARE offended.
So, I continue to stand by my point.
The part of your point that I was contesting was that there was no reasonably objective basis on which to be offended by the model. I think that there is an objective basis on which to be offended.
But yes, I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over. If I saw a different model like that every time I went to the FLGS or went to the GW website, it would be a different story.
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
I wasn't talking about the cages or the women at all, I was specifically dealing with your description of the TANK.
The model itself doesn't really seem that overboard. Juvenile, yes, but we can argue back and forth about whether it is explicit, not-explicit, appropriate, in appropriate, etc. These all cloud what I think is a bigger issues.
-What do models like this -and their acceptance by gamers- say about attitudes toward women in the hobby?
-Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?
I am not a woman and don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that if I asked my wife she'd not be impressed by the person who made it and it certainly wouldn't encourage her to come gaming with that person.
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
I agree regarding discouragement of women. However sexuality, and mining the real-world for material have ALWAYS been part of 40k. As for Nazis, the 40k imperium is a facist state that kills billions of it's own people, and there is alot of artwork and designs that are heavily influenced by the iconography, military and aesthtic of the third reich. Regarding sex, sexualized images of women have always been present in 40k even if explicit sex is much less common, as befits a game that targets young teens. They have an entire demon cult dedicated to "pleasure" as well as the multitude of skinny chicks with big breasts and corsets that have appeared across any number of 40k and WHFB factions. The game may not be about having sex, but it certainly goes out of it's way to include sexualized imagery.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
No offense to Weeble in specific, but this touches on something I noticed above;
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
One of these things is not like the others...
The reaction tells one a great deal more about the person having the reaction then the item at hand: if, to use this example, you don't want to play against "israeli[sic] army IG" because you feel awkward about the real life army of a real life state, that's one thing. If it's because f' those Jooooos, then... yeah, maybe you have the problem there buddy.
This is the same matter: by the by, am I the only person that finds it intensely rude to have people discussing a particular person's model without any attempt to get the story from guy whose model it is (who apparently posts on Dakka)?
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
It's also worth pointing out that the model in question was posted on Dakka months ago, and by a user who is clearly in Germany (a country with radically different nudity taboos).
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
I wasn't talking about the cages or the women at all, I was specifically dealing with your description of the TANK.
Even if someone decided to model 6 girls defecating on a guy dressed as a pig with a plug in his bum I personally wouldn't be offended. In fact I believe I would find the scene fairly amusing.
After seeing that image maybe you will choose to imagine the creator jacking off whilst choking themselves on lingerie stolen from the neighbours washing line, but that's your hang up and prejudice.
Truth is sex is fun, sex can be freaky. People like to think about sex, film it, draw it, photograph it, write about it and yes indeed sculpt and model it.
People have odd sexual desires. At the end of the day I would rather see someone try to fulfil them in an artistic way then by welding two cages to the side of a ford escort, kidnapping two pretty girls and forcing them to dance whilst they drive around the M25 at high speed.
So yeah that's how I feel about it.
Personally I don't think people directly jerk off over models like this. Maybe they use the creative process as an aid to fire up their imagination and think about sexual fantasy's, if so honestly where's the harm?.
What it comes down to is that no one is harmed so why are you taking offence? Sure find it tasteless, immature or crass by all means but I choose to save my feelings of offence for true crimes against humanity. Everything else is just a joke.
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
.
That's the thing, one or two slightly too zealous to be taken seriously posts aside, nobody seems to be upset by the model other than the OP, but are offering reasons why others may be offended. That, incidentally, is one of my personal bugbears. If you're not upset or offended by something, don't get up in arms on behalf of other people you think might be offended by it. It is all very reasonable and well thought out so far, in the main, but there's still time for someone to enter the thread clutching their breast and pulling their hair, wailing "the women, think of the women!"
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yet again, as with Frazzled, you make a perfectly sound and logical point, but are not offended yourself.
There are plenty of arguments for why someone may be offended, but very few, if any, who genuinely ARE offended.
So, I continue to stand by my point.
The part of your point that I was contesting was that there was no reasonably objective basis on which to be offended by the model. I think that there is an objective basis on which to be offended.
But yes, I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over. If I saw a different model like that every time I went to the FLGS or went to the GW website, it would be a different story.
Though I will point out that the bars of the 'cage' are so widely spaced that the only reason that they are in the cage is because they haven't left.
Unlike the Dark Eldar vehicle/character that had female prisoners chained up on it - and that was an official model. The Khorne Strippers do not appear to be bound in any way.
This Land Raider is... tacky, vulgar, and tasteless, I will grant you. Not my cup of tea.
But the strippers are no more objectifying women than strippers usually are. (Which, admittedly, is a lot....)
I will say that OP's 'sexually explicit' is pretty wide of the mark....
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group. .
That's the thing, one or two slightly too zealous to be taken seriously posts aside, nobody seems to be upset by the model other than the OP, but are offering reasons why others may be offended. That, incidentally, is one of my personal bugbears. If you're not upset or offended by something, don't get up in arms on behalf of other people you think might be offended by it. It is all very reasonable and well thought out so far, in the main, but there's still time for someone to enter the thread clutching their breast and pulling their hair, wailing "the women, think of the women!"
Well, as a small point of clarification, in my personal case it is a matter of degree. I think the model is offensive, but not worth getting riled up about. My wife was actually pretty upset about it. As I said, if I saw that kind of thing all over the FLGS, it would be a different story.
I think the OP believes that this should be a bigger deal than people are treating it as, and he may be interpreting the degree to which people are either offended by it, or willing to do something about it, as not actually being offended. It seems that you are doing something similar.
One of the guys I used to game with noticed an African American family down the street having what was obviously a wake and chose to make a racist comment about what was happening to the neighborhood. I didn't say anything about it because it wasn't worth making an issue out of at that time, and I did not think anything productive would come of it. That doesn't mean I wasn't deeply offended by what he said.
In the grand scheme of things, it is just one model; a drop in the misogyny bucket. It isn't worth getting emotional about because my daily life is more important to me than stamping out every instance of sexism I come across. I also didn't stop and help a guy stuck on the side of the road earlier this week. I should have stopped. It would have been the right thing to do, but I didn't do it because of what it would have cost me, and as traffic was bumper to bumper there was a lot of bystander syndrome going on.
Note, however, that I have spent plenty of time discussing this model, which does indicate that it is more than a non-issue for me. The fact that we are 4 pages in suggests, on its face, that there is something about that model worth discussing.
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
That said, I always get positive comments on my IDF IG. Not everybody is a curmudgeon.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Eh. It's khorne, strippers don't have a place within a khorne army, sorry. My guess is it'll be offensive to most women based on, as others said, the portrayal of no control, and to me it makes 0 sense on a khorne model. Since it is not thematic, I cannot justify it as art, I can call it unneeded sexuality and say that I don't approve. My approval is also just that, my approval. Someone on the internet doesn't care, they're outside my sphere of persuasive influence.
Eilif wrote: The model itself doesn't really seem that overboard. Juvenile, yes, but we can argue back and forth about whether it is explicit, not-explicit, appropriate, in appropriate, etc. These all cloud what I think is a bigger issues.
-What do models like this -and their acceptance by gamers- say about attitudes toward women in the hobby?
-Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?
I am not a woman and don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that if I asked my wife she'd not be impressed by the person who made it and it certainly wouldn't encourage her to come gaming with that person.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
So my Tallarn, what would those be by this metric? DKoK and Steel Legion are more akin to the German armies of the Kaiser in WW1 and don't confuse the Waffen SS with the Heer, they were separate organizations and the Heer were more "German" than Nazi, although in order to not be thrown into a concentration camp most Germans would be Nazi by default as there wasn't a choice. Valhallans are obviously WW2 Russians, but I feel that bog standard Cadians have that same flavor. Vostroyans would be Tsarist (White as opposed to Red) Russians. Catachans are less "U.S. In Vietnam" and more "Hollywood goes back to Vietnam" with OTT action star styling c. 1980.
Tallarn are less Arabic and more British 8th in N. Africa. As well as Al'Rahem being more or less T.E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia). So there you have it Tallarn aren't Taliban or Israeli.
As for the model in question, sure it might be in bad taste in your eyes, but it is more offensive to the fluff in that it should obviously be part of a Slaanesh army rather than a Khornate force.
Let's face it these figures are 1 1/8 inches tall, most people wouldn't even notice if you don't point it out to them.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
I tend to be a very live and let live type of person. 99 times out of 100 if someone says they are offended, I will take the other side of the issue if for no other reason than that people need to thicken their skin a bit...and if it offends you, change the channel, click the back button or otherwise don't spend so much time dwelling on the issue.
My personal opinion on sexually explicit miniatures is...whatever. Don't see the point, but don't get bent out of shape regarding it. However, I do not see a stripper cage (with male or female strippers) as explicit. If you want explicit, you would be talking about these:
The strippers might be objectification, but there is little sexual about them...other than what someone might be thinking in their mind.
If you want to get offended - there are plenty of things to get offended about. However, I find it to be much better to ignore the things that offend you and enjoy the things that don't.
No particular thoughts on the model. The point that has been made which goes something like "look, no one here cares so there must be nothing wrong with it" is a little myopic. Many of the sorts of people who would be offended probably are less likely to be around a forum like this. Minatures are not exactly mainstream. So the views here are not necessarily those of society as a whole.
The other comments that I think are a bit off are those saying in essence "why do you get worked up about sex, but not violence". If the model were simply a nude lady with nothing more to it, this would be a valid point. But, this model can be viewed as using violence (violating a person in one way) to force sexual exploitation (violating them in a second way and one that may be even more destructive psychologically than the physical abuse alone). So while it may be terrible to imagine being beaten, the thought of being beaten and repeatedly raped may be significantly more disturbing.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
Sorry for the hostility, it's hard to figure out people's intentions over the internet.
Jeez, I swear some people scour the Web for things to be offended about. It's a good thing you don't live in Europe. You might (gasp!) see topless girls in ads or at the beach, and that would just be terrible. I'm so tired of this PC nonsense going around. Grow up/get over it/don't look at it. You are clearly in the vast minority of people who find this "offensive"...
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Not a fan of nudity in my minis. If I wanted look at naked people I'd look at porn, classical art or actual naked people.
I mean I get it if the setting for it makes sense, but typically it doesn't so I don't get the point of shoehorning it in. Probably also why I don't find fan fics all that appealing I guess.
And if you really wanted nudity on your 40k models wouldn't Slaanesh make more sense? Just from a fluff stand point I mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: Jeez, I swear some people scour the Web for things to be offended about. It's a good thing you don't live in Europe. You might (gasp!) see topless girls in ads or at the beach, and that would just be terrible. I'm so tired of this PC nonsense going around. Grow up/get over it/don't look at it. You are clearly in the vast minority of people who find this "offensive"...
Been to Germany, can confirm late night TV commercials of topless/stripping women who advertise phone sex lines.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
But this is the point of the thread: the offense isn't a part of the thing itself, but of the observer. And with regards to this item: if a prude is disturbed by a thing, is it your responsibility to conform to the prude's expectations? That can quickly become a heckler's veto, where the level of discourse is dictated by those most capable of finding offense, even if it seems unusual or indeed crazy.
Consider what Weeble said above: "The fact that we are 4 pages in suggests, on its face, that there is something about that model worth discussing." Putting aside how many posts are people saying the OP is too think skinned, some people are offended: so what?
If the issue is that some people are genuinely offended, or genuinely think some crazy things, then nothing is safe. As Nuggz and Pluan4th point out, we could, if we so chose, find hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages of people on the internet making in all earnestness the argument that Israel is morally and in all other ways indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. Those people really believe that... because they're crazy.
Again, it all comes down to context: at this particular guys local (in Germany*), this model is fine.
*Not continuing the Nazi thing there, more pointing out that the Germans are famously not too hung up on nudity taboos.
Carrie Nation and the Temperance movement as well as the 19th amendment and Comstock act all had an effect on the American tradition of prudishness (prudency?)
Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
I have run games at a pagan retreat - which means that I have seen naked gamers. (Not as bad as a video that I have seen of naked bowlers.... which were just that - not nude models bowling, but bowlers sans accoutrements.)
My girlfriend has had me convert and paint a skyclad dwarf witch for one of her characters. (She is a pagan, and likes playing witches in Pathfinder... go figure.)
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you.
Objective just means that a judgement or an interpretation is influenced by facts rather than feelings. What I described was the objective basis on which one could interpret the model to objectify women.
If you have a substantive disagreement about what I wrote, fine, but your disagreement appeared to be based solely on an erroneous correlation between interpretation and subjectivity.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
Sorry for the hostility, it's hard to figure out people's intentions over the internet.
It's cool, it's also one of those touchy subjects.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
Part of the problem is the cultural contexts of what counts as something that needs to be covered up. I certainly don't agree with the idea that women should have to cover their chests anymore than men, but I have to recognize the issue is a cultural one, not a personal one.
xraytango wrote: Carrie Nation and the Temperance movement as well as the 19th amendment and Comstock act all had an effect on the American tradition of prudishness (prudency?)
And are descended from the Puritans of previous generations. I'm still blaming the Euros for us. They should have sunk the ships the moment they hit the open water.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you.
Objective just means that a judgement or an interpretation is influenced by facts rather than feelings. What I described was the objective basis on which one could interpret the model to objectify women.
If you have a substantive disagreement about what I wrote, fine, but your disagreement appeared to be based solely on an erroneous correlation between interpretation and subjectivity.
It is rather much subjective though. We don't have enough information to actually make an objective analysis of the scene. Naked? Yes. Cage? Perhaps. Slave? Don't know.
One mans cage could be another persons roll cage - meant to protect rather than imprison. When I first saw it - I didn't think prisoner...I was reminded of one of those scenes from the movies where the psychotic person is hanging out on the top of the modded out car screaming and yelling...slapping the side of the Land Raider saying "Go Faster". They could be slaves - but slaves don't fit the fluff. Psycopaths screaming makes more sense...objectively. What do they do in their time off? Probably make necklaces out of ears or some other interesting hobby that is common among cinematic psycopaths. Who knows, they might not even be naked...or females, rather pulling a "Buffalo Bill" type act.
That subjective analysis isn't any more or less accurate as any other subjective analysis which relates to objectification of women, slavery and whatever forced rape (not sure where that came from...but don't see any objective information to support that train of thought).
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
That said, I always get positive comments on my IDF IG. Not everybody is a curmudgeon.
I think context has to be taken here. The original post -or my reply- was not equating Nazi, Taliban or IDF IG, but simply listing off historically-based IG forces that have been created that some might find offensive.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
So my Tallarn, what would those be by this metric? DKoK and Steel Legion are more akin to the German armies of the Kaiser in WW1 and don't confuse the Waffen SS with the Heer, they were separate organizations and the Heer were more "German" than Nazi, although in order to not be thrown into a concentration camp most Germans would be Nazi by default as there wasn't a choice. Valhallans are obviously WW2 Russians, but I feel that bog standard Cadians have that same flavor. Vostroyans would be Tsarist (White as opposed to Red) Russians. Catachans are less "U.S. In Vietnam" and more "Hollywood goes back to Vietnam" with OTT action star styling c. 1980.
Tallarn are less Arabic and more British 8th in N. Africa. As well as Al'Rahem being more or less T.E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia). So there you have it Tallarn aren't Taliban or Israeli.
As for the model in question, sure it might be in bad taste in your eyes, but it is more offensive to the fluff in that it should obviously be part of a Slaanesh army rather than a Khornate force.
Let's face it these figures are 1 1/8 inches tall, most people wouldn't even notice if you don't point it out to them.
.02
Not every IG force has a possibly-contentious historical parallel, though the Tsarist connection is one I forgot, thanks for pointing that out. I was just pointing out that some do. I would still say Steel Legion have more in common with German WW2 paratroops, but that's debatable. I'm definitely not going to get into it with you on the culpability of the average ww2 era german for the crimes of Nazism. Suffice to say, I probably find them more cupable.
Regardless, my point isn't that every element of 40k is inspired by something real world or objectionable, but that there's plenty enough there that hobbyists bringing "real world" elements (even possibly controversial ones) into the 40k universe are treading on established ground.
For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
I find it to be a special kind of irony when the OP's avatar is a character from a film that had 35 minutes of it removed due to excessive gore/disturbing images/hellish scenes of Slaanesh style rape/murder/torture.
TheCustomLime wrote: For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
So basically - no cheesecake?
Definitely agree with you there - I'll never understand the tabletop gamer desire to bring busty exotic dancers sporting Daisy Dukes into combat roles.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
TheCustomLime wrote: For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
So basically - no cheesecake?
Definitely agree with you there - I'll never understand the tabletop gamer desire to bring busty exotic dancers sporting Daisy Dukes into combat roles.
Gotta agree with you there. I'm fine with some gonzo babes in a post apoc setting, but cheesecake in sci-fi combat settings seems pretty ridiculous. Midriff and cleavage baring body armor, thongs and hot paints as combat gear, etc it's all pretty stupid to me.
That said, 40k's original setting was pretty gonzo, so maybe it's just going back to the past?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
For that matter... Boris Vallejo was his own model for barbarians.... (Neither of them look like a fantasy artist should... they should be skinny, with glasses, dammit! ) They were well matched.
The Auld Grump, if I recall properly Julie Bell once did a cover with She Hulk... that she posed for herself....
That said, 40k's original setting was pretty gonzo, so maybe it's just going back to the past?
40K was always more Mad Max then Star Ship Troopers...to me at least, going back the Rogue Trader book - where the pages in the society and culture section in the back looked a bit copy/paste out of Road Warrior or one of those other movies.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
For that matter... Boris Vallejo was his own model for barbarians.... (Neither of them look like a fantasy artist should... they should be skinny, with glasses, dammit! ) They were well matched.
The Auld Grump, if I recall properly Julie Bell once did a cover with She Hulk... that she posed for herself....
She had done several covers for comics that she was the model for. She Hulk was one, Deathstrike, Phoenix...plus several others using other real female models (and all the proportions generally lined up with the model...another one of those "No real women looks like that" issues...). Also did a lot of male covers...same general style as well (not much left unseen...).
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
The reason is simple...
The person likes them. There is no reason to have any miniature of any kind for gaming. Can be done easily enough with counters...or beans. We choose miniatures for any number of reasons - the same things which impact what is or is not art (historical or otherwise). Just because an old dead guy wrote the book or chiseled the statue - it doesn't make it any more art than when Kev White sculpted the little naked women.
That you don't like them is no reason to not have them, any more than my distaste for chibi miniatures is a reason that all GW figures should be banned from the gaming table.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows her breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
*Shrug* Still not explicit, though.
Also, while there is no reason to have nekkid figures on the table*, there is also no reason not to.
I might roll my eyes, or, if the miniatures are crudely done, face palm. But there is nothing there to get bent out of shape over. (And I know somebody that has used GWAR miniatures in his Slaanesh army. **)
I am more bothered by misusing terms such as explicit, when that is not even close to being accurate.
You want to say 'gratuitous and tasteless nudity' then fine - but explicit that tank is not - and as far as I can see the actual naughty bits are covered, by cage bars and blood, but covered..
The Auld Grump
* My girlfriend's dwarf witch miniature is an exception. Her character really does go skyclad a lot... and so does my girlfriend, for that matter. Though not at most games. ***
** Tacky and tasteless GWAR miniatures, from back when sculptor Drew Williams lived in the Portland, Maine area.
Except this is the dude in the female version of objectification. Maybe not quite the same style as the comic power dude, but the substance is more or less the same. It isn't that batman.
weeble1000 wrote: It is the fact that little persons who see depictions like that can begin to believe that the proper place for a woman is one in which they are deprived of power and agency.
Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs. While that would be bitchin', it is not readily apparent in the artwork, hence the objective basis on which to be offended.
It's probably worth pointing out that the women in those 'cages' are not restrained in any way. There are no chains, no restraints of any kind, and the 'cages' have bars spaced so wide that they could just walk through whenever they choose.
That being said, it's still a silly conversion. Not something I see any reason to get offended over, just a bit odd.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
One of these things is not like the others...
The reaction tells one a great deal more about the person having the reaction then the item at hand: if, to use this example, you don't want to play against "israeli[sic] army IG" because you feel awkward about the real life army of a real life state, that's one thing. If it's because f' those Jooooos, then... yeah, maybe you have the problem there buddy.
This is the same matter: by the by, am I the only person that finds it intensely rude to have people discussing a particular person's model without any attempt to get the story from guy whose model it is (who apparently posts on Dakka)?
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
It's also worth pointing out that the model in question was posted on Dakka months ago, and by a user who is clearly in Germany (a country with radically different nudity taboos).
Oddly enough, everyone loved it when he first posted it
I agree with what I think is the majority - nothing to be offended about. Nudity shouldn't be more of a concern than violence. I can understand not liking it or not thinking it fits, and while I probably wouldn't do it I do like it.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
I would like to reference your previous post.
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't.
It's neither. People can feel offended about something that other people do not feel offended by. And in both cases, that's where it ends. You feel offended, but that doesn't give you license to censor the item in question* no more than someone not feeling offended is given license to walk around promoting/bragging about how great it is. It's about personal taste.
Me personally? I don't care. People can do what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws, and if someone wants to model stripper cages on their Land Raider then who am I to tell them otherwise? I can refuse to play against them, I can choose not to look at it. I can't make them put it away/stop using it, nor should I, because I do not control them (nor should I).
The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.
Ewww.... I find this far more offensive than the actual model.
The model itself just seems to be going for the sex/death/torture version of hell. I don't see any problem with it. I can see why some people reckon it would be more suited for slaanesh, but slaanesh aren't typically depicted with the red, blood and death, so I again I don't see the problem.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.
Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?
Jehan-reznor wrote: The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.
Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?
I think most of us thought that.
A blood soaked warrior queen bent on tearing the gak out of anything in her path with epithets of str 9ap 2 rage restrained by those who would seek to harness that power could possibly be appropriate.
A coupla strippers in cages don't convey the power to destroy vehicles.
Frozen Ocean wrote: It's as equally distasteful and rather silly as a band named "Debauchery". There should be a word for people who try too hard to be scary and alternative and just end up being extremely silly, which is true for most death metal bands. This word could be applied to songs that have lyrics about landslides of butchered baby parts and that sort of thing (look up Cannibal Corpse lyrics if you want to be entertained). It doesn't have any of the intended effect, it's just stupid.
In short, it'd make me think of the person as a bit of a creep.
I typed in "cannibal corpse" and the third link down was a youtube video of one of their songs, literally called "I cum blood" what? what the feth?
also, i agree with the post directly above this one.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: The other comments that I think are a bit off are those saying in essence "why do you get worked up about sex, but not violence". If the model were simply a nude lady with nothing more to it, this would be a valid point. But, this model can be viewed as using violence (violating a person in one way) to force sexual exploitation (violating them in a second way and one that may be even more destructive psychologically than the physical abuse alone). So while it may be terrible to imagine being beaten, the thought of being beaten and repeatedly raped may be significantly more disturbing.
It can be viewed as using violence. It can be viewed as a pair of super powerful women warriors who shoot laser beams from their frickin' eyes! Does not make either one true. Judge the model, not the interpretation you choose to apply.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
No reason to have sexually explicit models, I just about agree with you. But more just to be on the safe side than because it is some sort of major problem.
No reason to have nude models? I disagree. I would say there is no reason not to.
These models are nude, unarguably. They may be suggestive of something. So what?
Fifty wrote: Funny comic, but its entire premise falls apart if you apply it to Spiderman instead of Batman.
I'd also argue that creepy bug eyed batman is NOT what all women would find attractive anyway. It strikes me more as something a young girl would find cute than an adult woman would find attractive.
I have to say I have no problem what so ever with that model.. The strippers are fairly tame, though they will probably die horribly once the shooting begins
And on females finding it offensive, my girlfriend does not who also takes part in the Hobby as Tyranids, Dark Eldar and Dark Elves...
I find it funny when men take offence on behalf of women who tend to not actually have an issue at all with it.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't.
It's neither. People can feel offended about something that other people do not feel offended by. And in both cases, that's where it ends. You feel offended, but that doesn't give you license to censor the item in question* no more than someone not feeling offended is given license to walk around promoting/bragging about how great it is. It's about personal taste.
Me personally? I don't care. People can do what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws, and if someone wants to model stripper cages on their Land Raider then who am I to tell them otherwise? I can refuse to play against them, I can choose not to look at it. I can't make them put it away/stop using it, nor should I, because I do not control them (nor should I).
Azreal13 wrote: The US has a distinctly prudish attitude from over here in Europe.
Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic I do not find this to be an accurate statement. The US believes Europe to be distinctly prudish. Both views are incorrect.
Azreal13 wrote: The legendary American liberal attitude towards sex, ladies and gentlemen!
Ignoring of course all those Americans who agreed with you. But it's so much easier to make sweeping generalizations based solely on nationality
Fifty wrote: Funny comic, but its entire premise falls apart if you apply it to Spiderman instead of Batman.
I'd also argue that creepy bug eyed batman is NOT what all women would find attractive anyway. It strikes me more as something a young girl would find cute than an adult woman would find attractive.
It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive. It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.
Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.
Also note, there is a huge difference for many females between what they find attractive for a partner and what they find sexually attractive.
If we were t believe the stereotypes based upon my country, i probably would have been eaten by giant spiders years ago.. ya know, besides that one time i was eaten by giant spiders, but that was ages ago...or that other time.
insaniak wrote:I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...
Oh my goodness, yes.
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
An army of badass babes is slightly tacky at worst, but it's in a sci-fi/fantasy world where everything is taken to its ridiculous extreme (I don't think the hyper-masculine motif of space marines is any better or worse than sisters of battle). It's in an unrealistic environment that more or less exists to play around with tropes and silly stereotypes and memes. That's what fantasy does: lets you be unrealistic.
Which is a far, far cry from real sexism.
Trondheim wrote:I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?
Some day, far, far into the future, I'm going to make a dong-based slaanesh army. Forget the patriarchy fearing female sexuality, let's see how offended people get when the army lead by the great chaos lord Phallatius Fellatius hits the table...
I actually like a couple of the Lego Friends sets, the boat model is pretty nice. I just hate they they made the unique Minifigs, rather then use the standard ones.
As for the topic on hand...
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jehan-reznor wrote: The only problem i have with it is that the guy who made it has his factions mixed up, Slaneesh would appropriate, if he had raging blood letters in it , it would be more logical.
Is it strange that that's the first thing I thought as well?
This.
insaniak wrote:I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...
And this.
I know more women who play Tyranids than Sisters... I don't think i've ever seen a woman with a Sisters army...
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
You are way under thinking this. There is no legitimate reason not to have nude models on a gaming table. Notice I did not include sexually explicit (or even naked). Historical art, was the art of it's day. Plastic miniatures are part of the art of this day. Hope you never go to church in Europe and look up. You might see some boobies! Or *gasp* a wang!
Off topic, (on troll) if I ever get my time machine working I look forward to going 1k years into the future and criticizing the Louvre for labeling that LR as a warmachine of Slaanesh.
I don't get all these comments on "The Sisters of Battle are an all female army so it was obviously a transparent attempt to appeal to female players".
The SOB were based on an archetype - Warrior Nuns. Its all about "Nuns in Space. With guns", not a marketing ploy to get more girls playing 40K.
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
Spoiler:
I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.
It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
Spoiler:
I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here. LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.
It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
Eilif nails it, actually. If you actually look into the history of this issue, everything Eilif says is 100% true and the massive popularity of the Friends lines had a big push that ensured them the #1 Toy Company slot. Friends had been a long time in development after a lot of very careful research into why girls weren't buying. And they're STILL listening to the market, hence why there's now things like scientists and the like in the line.
Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.
If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.
the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.
Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.
Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.
Platuan4th wrote: It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.
Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.
Platuan4th wrote: Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.
Yeah but I don't think that is an accurate representation of what an objectified fantasy for females would be anyway The image looks like a bug eyed freak... maybe I've totally underestimated women but I just don't see it as something that would be a positive fantasy for a female, which makes the point of the cartoon somewhat lessened.
It might be a fantasy for someone, and I tend to think that someone could be either male or female, but I don't think it works as a generalised gender vs gender thing. I think if you made something that was generally what a female envisioning of Batman was (not just an attempt to make it freakish to prove a point) it would be something most men wouldn't find so disgusting (other than the fact it's specifically batman and so you're playing with fire regardless of what the interpretation is ).
At the end of the day, people are going to make art of what they want to make art about. It's something they want to create and it should be their right to create it.
If there is a lack of female focused art (in the forms of comics, video games, miniatures) it's because there's a lack of female focus in the design level and a lack of female desire at the community level. I'm not saying that's not necessarily a problem, it may be a problem it may not be a problem, but whether it is or isn't a problem, the answer isn't to tell someone they must create something different to what they want to create. Nor is it to tell people they aren't allowed to enjoy something.
Platuan4th wrote: It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.
Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.
Yes. Note the bolded part, which implies personal preference. It's not worded "what a female finds attractive", which is how you're reading it.
Platuan4th wrote: It's also not saying that said Batman is what all women find attractive.
Well actually the comic does say "It has jack to do with what a female such as myself finds attractive", which implies the end result is something a female such as her would find attractive.
Yes. Note the bolded part, which implies personal preference. It's not worded "what a female finds attractive", which is how you're reading it.
Sorry for the ninja editing of my previous post.
But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon? I look at that bug eyed batman and think "creepy bug eyed freak", and I tend to think there would be plenty of females who look at it and think "creepy bug eyed freak". It's just a personal like and dislike thing rather than a gender thing. There are also dudes who are bronies
Platuan4th wrote: Willis(through Amber there) is simply using the Batman as an example of how he may be designed by a female is he was to be an objectified fantasy for females.
Yeah but I don't think that is an accurate representation of what an objectified fantasy for females would be anyway The image looks like a bug eyed freak... maybe I've totally underestimated women but I just don't see it as something that would be a positive fantasy for a female, which makes the point of the cartoon somewhat lessened.
You keep saying this stuff about "bug eyed freak", but larger eyes =/=bug eyed(bug eyed would be much more like Looney Tunes styled Peter Lorre eyes that bulge), and I'm not seeing the bug-eyes here, more a yaio style of eyes. Larger eyes convey more emotion, which is what she's aiming to convey, and many women DO find larger, more expressive eyes to be more attractive on a man.
But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?
I already explained that.
Platuan4th wrote: It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.
But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?
I already explained that.
Platuan4th wrote: It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.
But then what would a superhero that is sexually objectified for women actually look like? Because I don't think it'd look like that Batman. I tend to think it wouldn't look like something a man would find creepy or disturbing like that cartoon shows. But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian (and just because I am a man doesn't mean I'd presume to think what I find attractive in a woman applies to all men either).
blaktoof wrote: Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.
If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.
the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.
Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.
Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.
The problem, which many people have pointed out, is that you're basically validating a heckler's veto: at a certain point, the onus is on the extra-ordinarily sensitive viewer to endure the assault on their rarefied senses.
Consider this somewhat puzzling argument advanced by Weeble;
weeble1000 wrote: But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you. ...
Which ties into what he mentioned earlier,
weeble1000 wrote: ... There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.
The problem with making the IDF controversial, or Weeble's odd usage of "objective" in this discussion is the shifting of responsibility: under Weeble and your construction, a person that responds to a kippa on a Imperial Guardsman (or whatever they are called now) with "What is that, some kinda F'in Christkiller?" has an "objective basis" for their outburst. After all, you've brought "real world nonsense" into the game, and you know there are some people that like to get their Judenhass on.
Let's use a different, less charged example: you start setting up for a random game, and when you take your SoB army out, the person on the other side of the table says "oh, sorry, I don't play against Sisters, because X". X could be a load of things: perhaps it's a fellow that won't play against army of unveiled women. Or a woman that objects to fighting a female army out of gender solidarity. Or a chivilrious fellow that won't hit a girl. Or a thousand other reasons, each bearing the same signature quality: it is a characteristic of the opponent that is creating the controversy, not the items on the table.
Outside of certain well defined groups, a person may reasonably expect that they are not going to run into people that react badly to an IDF themed army, or to gratuitous sexuality with Chaos forces.
But if it's simply what that specific person who happens to be female finds attractive... what exactly was the point of the cartoon?
I already explained that.
Platuan4th wrote: It's showing that the argument that things that are a Male Power Fantasy(which superheroes are designed to be) are sexually objectified for women is a False Equivalence because it's not designed to be a sexually attractive fantasy for the average female. In contrast, female superheroes and villains ARE designed to be sexually objectified fantasy for the average male.
The problem here is that the available evidence is that... what you're saying just doesn't seem to be supported.
That is to say, men's power fantasies generally correspond to what women find attractive, and female power fantasies generally correspond to what man find attractive.
The problem with that comic is it implies there is some unmet demand by women for men that look like they should be on the cover of Tiger Beat... and it just doesn't seem to be true.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian
And now you understand the point of what she's saying.
But her point is largely wrong...
Sure, there are those girls who go for the feminized form that you find in actors like the Twilight movies...
However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.
It also ignores that the drawings are, as I said before, not objectifications - but idealizations. Again, backed up by objective data in spades. How people view it subjectively is a different matter, and says more about the viewer than it does the work or the artist who creates the work.
blaktoof wrote: Regarding my comment about IG Israeli, IG Nazi, or IG taliban forces.
If you would please notice I did not actually say they are equal or morally the same.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
but rather its obvious given the amount of responses it generated that the mere existence of things that mirror real world social/political/religious issues whether you think its okay or not is an issue for some people as either an antagonistic or reactionary protaganistic expression that is not needed in what is essentially a game designed for 12+ year olds.
the responses both "why are you bothered" or "of course I am bothered" by that obviously show that its not something that should be on the table top in public play.
Which is why i stated some people are bothered by them, which is true, just like some people would be bothered by a slaaneshi marine that's noise blaster was his penis.
Most people are playing to have fun, and don't want real world issues injected into the game.
The problem, which many people have pointed out, is that you're basically validating a heckler's veto: at a certain point, the onus is on the extra-ordinarily sensitive viewer to endure the assault on their rarefied senses.
Consider this somewhat puzzling argument advanced by Weeble;
weeble1000 wrote: But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you. ...
Which ties into what he mentioned earlier,
weeble1000 wrote: ... There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.
The problem with making the IDF controversial, or Weeble's odd usage of "objective" in this discussion is the shifting of responsibility: under Weeble and your construction, a person that responds to a kippa on a Imperial Guardsman (or whatever they are called now) with "What is that, some kinda F'in Christkiller?" has an "objective basis" for their outburst. After all, you've brought "real world nonsense" into the game, and you know there are some people that like to get their Judenhass on.
Let's use a different, less charged example: you start setting up for a random game, and when you take your SoB army out, the person on the other side of the table says "oh, sorry, I don't play against Sisters, because X". X could be a load of things: perhaps it's a fellow that won't play against army of unveiled women. Or a woman that objects to fighting a female army out of gender solidarity. Or a chivilrious fellow that won't hit a girl. Or a thousand other reasons, each bearing the same signature quality: it is a characteristic of the opponent that is creating the controversy, not the items on the table.
Outside of certain well defined groups, a person may reasonably expect that they are not going to run into people that react badly to an IDF themed army, or to gratuitous sexuality with Chaos forces.
I think the difference in our discussion is that if someone finds a standard army that is produced by GW controversial, is one thing.
However someone going out of their way to model / paint their army to be a certain real world theme that is not present overtly in the game, is another.
One is injecting a real world personal bias against something that is already produced by the company, GW.
The other is taking a real world issue some people have bias with, and modifying product sold by GW in a way to inject that bias directly into the game as the person across from you, or beside you if its a team game.
I played in a tournament once against an ork player who had a "nazi" ork army, they weren't blood axes[not that this really matters...]. They were just painted all in SS uniforms with swastikas everywhere. The TO okayed it, and honestly I felt awkward playing against the guy. When I politely asked him about his army paint scheme and why he chose it, he just laughed and said it looked "badass".
There are depictions of female models I don't really like, because they are overtly sexualized in a way that is more like silicone than natural in some cases, but overall I was never bothered when seeing them on the table. I am also very aware of the "fascist" type iconography which is thrown about among the imperial factions, but there is something much different when its the player across from you overtly injecting a real world issues onto the table top, then when its something done by the game company. Perhaps it is that there is the person right there infront of you overtly making the statement, who you can see and identify and are more or less forced to interact with if you choose to play the game with them. And then there is the GW company, whos injection of real world issues is present, but not overtly often, and is not right there infront of you playing with you.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But I'm not a woman so I can't really speak to what objectively would be a sexually attractive superhero/villian
And now you understand the point of what she's saying.
But for the point to be a meaningful point you actually have to show what a male superhero sexualised for females would look like... and I don't think it's the representation of batman shown in the cartoon.
I've never really gotten in to these conversations before because my level of caring is very low***, so forgive my ignorance But I've heard this argument before and it's never really made sense to me because for it to be valid there has to be some sort of vision of a male superhero that is sexualised for females. The argument seems to go like this...
"females in comics (or whatever) are just an unrealistic idealised sexualised male fantasy" ---- true
"but males in comics are also an unrealistic idealised fantasy" ---- true
"yeah but it's still a male fantasy" ---- true (though it does seem to me a lot of female heroins appeal to women too, having a strong commanding personality in your hero/heroin seems to appeal to both genders)
So where do we go from here? What does the male hero who is sexualised specifically for females look like? Are we saying it's like that picture of batman... coz I tend to think it's not. That's a caricature of what it might be, not an actual idealisation of what it would be.
I think once you dial it back from the absurdity of that huge eyed batman cartoon and look at what would be a male superhero that would appeal to women (whether sexually or not) it would, at least physically, look much the same as the male superhero that men want, which is what a lot of male superheroes already look like. Muscular, chiselled facial features, chiselled body. The same idealisation that men want to be. Maybe slightly less like Arnold Schwarzenegger and slightly more like Hugh Jackman, but still very similar and not something that many men would find creepy like that batman caricature.
*** my caring is very low because I think artists should be able to create whatever the hell they want, if there's a lack of a specific type of art it's because there's a lack of artists and/or people who want that type of art, and that's not a fault of the artist nor the people who enjoy the art.
However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.
Who, incidentally, matches that Batman by being an athletically built, thinner, lithe male with expressive eyes.
Yeah, those guys, so... non-muscular...
Spoiler:
Making light of things a bit there, but the point (which I also made above and I notice you haven't even attempted to dispute) is that women really do like masculine, powerful men. Put another way, women are attracted to male power fantasies.
There is a pretty big difference in absolute mass between Bruce Lee and Hugh Jackman (Hugh is like 8 inches taller),
Spoiler:
But it's indisputable that both represent idealized male physiques that are deeply attractive to women and, in a very different way, to men.
So having caught up on the rest of this thread, the one thing that stands out to me and makes me shake my head a little is the repeated "well, if it were Slaanesh, it'd be okay!"
Let's look at a few things, shall we? The first girl is leaning on a great big fething axe. If it were a male figure, with all the covering of a set of furry speedos, people would think it were A-OK. if it were a nude male with that axe, some people would be ok with it as Khornate still, while others would be bleating on about Slaanesh. The other figure doesn't appear to have a weapon, and instead has stripper heels, but still, it's not a far cry from the Cult of Khaine. And lest we forget who Khaine is - and sometimes even referred to as an Aspect of Khorne (depending on who's writing that bit of the fluff at the time, the weather, phase of the moon, etc...)
So yeah. Blood-spattered, naked chicks with great big fuckin' axes fit pretty well with Khorne to me. Certainly as much as a male would.
Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).
You can make it about characters without pandering. You can make it about building without pandering. You can have accessories and have interactions without pandering. You can even change the color of the blocks without pandering. There were plenty of ways they could have achieved their objective, but instead they chose that way. On purpose.
Popularity doesn't validate their chosen way of doing things any way more than basic economics. I mean, if I did market research and found out that the people in my town were horrible racists, sexists, or bigots would it be appropriate for me to sell T-shirts with certain slogans on them?
In any case, there's a difference between making money off of a fantasy-genre work, including a facet of "lawl, bewbs!", and something that's clearly sexist from the outgo (how can make a different version of our product just for females), executed in such a blatantly stereotyping way, targeted specifically at young kids. Lego friends is about as tasteful as a blackface version of legos to sell to "little colored children".
At least the khorne slutraider has an attempt at some artistic quality, rather than just genderbaiting for a quick buck.
Trondheim wrote:I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?
Some day, far, far into the future, I'm going to make a dong-based slaanesh army. Forget the patriarchy fearing female sexuality, let's see how offended people get when the army lead by the great chaos lord Phallatius Fellatius hits the table...
I wouldn't be offended mostly I would rather not have to look at a bunch of dicks all game long I think most women would agree as well, I remember reading something a few years back how most women would rather not stare at dicks and male strippers are better off just stripping down to their shorts to appeal to women.
While I have no problem with the Land Raider, when it comes to actually bringing it to the table top for a game, I wouldn't do it unless the gaming group was entirely adults. I don't think it's socially acceptable in our culture to expose kids to sex and such and so I'd respect that it's up to the parents whether or not they want their kids exposed to such things (or in some cases up to the kids to subvert their parents desires either way, not up to me).
In a group of adults I don't really see a problem with it though.
Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).
Take a look at that page (just one example of a few thousand to choose from). The women want to look like the idealized woman as well. It may be an ideal form for men...but it also is an ideal form for women. They generally do not want to be the shape of a bowling pin...or carry around the muffin top. If anything, women are even more critical than men of their appearances (both their own - and that of other women...they are vicious creatures).
However, larger portions of objectively available data show that they go for something more like the main character of Arrow.
Who, incidentally, matches that Batman by being an athletically built, thinner, lithe male with expressive eyes.
Yeah, those guys, so... non-muscular...
Spoiler:
Making light of things a bit there, but the point (which I also made above and I notice you haven't even attempted to dispute) is that women really do like masculine, powerful men. Put another way, women are attracted to male power fantasies.
There is a pretty big difference in absolute mass between Bruce Lee and Hugh Jackman (Hugh is like 8 inches taller),
Spoiler:
But it's indisputable that both represent idealized male physiques that are deeply attractive to women and, in a very different way, to men.
Quite so. They have much more in common with the comic book characters than with the comic strip character. What the strip portrays is a form like the Twilight character (can't be bothered to recall his name) or other twiggy types like DeCaprio.
While they are not on the Lou Ferrigno side of things - they are not far off from most modern comic book characters...and the women, well - look at that, women want to look attractive too.
Eilif wrote:It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
But they could have easily achieved these objectives without horrible pandering. Girls want to role play? Fine, but do the characters need to be the "drinking margaritas in the hot tub", "shopping till I drop", "barrista babe", and "I finally got a pony!"? Of course not. They could have made all sorts of characters. They still executed their idea in an awful way, no matter how many people have been buying them over the past few months (probably a one-time bump from "repressed" girl lego fans).
You can make it about characters without pandering. You can make it about building without pandering. You can have accessories and have interactions without pandering. You can even change the color of the blocks without pandering. There were plenty of ways they could have achieved their objective, but instead they chose that way. On purpose.
Popularity doesn't validate their chosen way of doing things any way more than basic economics. I mean, if I did market research and found out that the people in my town were horrible racists, sexists, or bigots would it be appropriate for me to sell T-shirts with certain slogans on them?
In any case, there's a difference between making money off of a fantasy-genre work, including a facet of "lawl, bewbs!", and something that's clearly sexist from the outgo (how can make a different version of our product just for females), executed in such a blatantly stereotyping way, targeted specifically at young kids. Lego friends is about as tasteful as a blackface version of legos to sell to "little colored children".
So...
To get things straight...because women (or girls in the case of Legos) like girly things...they are wrong and need to go to reeducation camps so that they learn that they shouldn't like girly things?
I've been hearing that same line from people for decades now - and to be perfectly honest, it is about as messed up as you can get. Comparing girls wanting to play with girl toys to racists or bigots is the true definition of false equivalency and ignores things like biology and evolution which span cultures, generations and continents (including matriarchal societies...).
In general? No, of course not. In the way they chose to do it? Well...
Plus, why do there need to be gender-based legos in the first place? What's wrong with:
And even if you did want to do genders, what's wrong with:
A woman can be a car owner without the car being purple and with a tiny dog and a bunch of cosmetic products in the back seat.
Sean_OBrien wrote:To get things straight...because women (or girls in the case of Legos) like girly things...they are wrong and need to go to reeducation camps so that they learn that they shouldn't like girly things?
So let me get this straight, because racists (or young racists in this case) like racist things, it's okay for me to make a "jews must die" onesies and children's toys?
Even if you want people to be able to sell such products (which I do), doesn't mean that racist products aren't racist or sexist products aren't sexist or bigoted products aren't bigoted. You can buy a shovel from Home Depot, but it doesn't mean the tool's not a spade.
If you take a sexist product and put it on sale, it doesn't magically become non-sexist. You can both condone free trade AND disagree with sexism at the same time. Just because lego friends sells well doesn't make it okay, and just because a person disagrees with sexism doesn't mean they want to take merchants who hawk sexist swag and lock them up in concentration camps. There is a reasonable alternative to both of those viewpoints.
Which is what this whole thread is really about, really. The OP thinks that something is not okay for them, and many other people are saying that they should be allowed to do it anyways. Both of those statements are true. The conflict comes in that the OP is saying that something shouldn't be okay for everyone else as well and that people shouldn't be allowed to do things anyways.
There's room for a genuine difference of what defines sexist here, of course. I'd argue that the OP is way too restrictive with their definition, but that there are other things (like lego friends) that count. There isn't a point complaining about what I'd consider fake sexism in miniature toys when there is what I'd consider real sexism in miniature toys. Of course, I don't think that lego should be forced to stop making friends, just like I don't think that the person making the khornemobile should have been prevented from doing his thing either.
But you can still argue about the definition of vague subjects without instantly becoming a social justice warrior. Even if other people in the debate are.
Firstly, racism in the form of nazism where you actively desire the death/torture/etc of people is very different to giving your child a pink tshirt instead of a blue one.
Secondly, sexism from my understanding is either being derogatory toward someone based on their sex or reinforcing a stereotype of specific gender roles. I'm not all that familiar with the lego line being discussed, but it doesn't seem to fit either of those criteria for being sexist.
Marketing specifically to girls with a different aesthetic is not sexist. Marketing specifically to girls in a way that reinforces a stereotypical gender role is sexist advertising. The only one of those "friends" things that looks sexist might be the beauty parlour one, because you could argue that is pushing a specific gender role. The others are just tailoring the aesthetic to match the desired customer.
Unless you want to say that suggesting boys and girls might find different things appealing is in and of itself sexist, which I think is debatable.
In general? No, of course not. In the way they chose to do it? Well...
Plus, why do there need to be gender-based legos in the first place? What's wrong with:
And even if you did want to do genders, what's wrong with:
A woman can be a car owner without the car being purple and with a tiny dog and a bunch of cosmetic products in the back seat.
But little girls won't want to buy them.
That is quite simply what is wrong with what you linked to. Men and Women are different. Boys and Girls are different. They like different things - they like those things to look differently.
Lego has had (for a very long time) gender neutral Lego sets (which regular Lego is) with male and female minifigs. Girls didn't want them.
That is quite simply what is wrong with what you linked to. Men and Women are different. Boys and Girls are different. They like different things - they like those things to look differently.
Lego has had (for a very long time) gender neutral Lego sets (which regular Lego is) with male and female minifigs. Girls didn't want them.
That isn't sexist - that is reality.
Nicely summed up. Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want? A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
Azazelx wrote: So having caught up on the rest of this thread, the one thing that stands out to me and makes me shake my head a little is the repeated "well, if it were Slaanesh, it'd be okay!"
....
So yeah. Blood-spattered, naked chicks with great big fuckin' axes fit pretty well with Khorne to me. Certainly as much as a male would.
That was my thinking a few pages back.
My two cents: I love idealized fantastical forms. It reminds me that my world is too multifaceted to be contained. Also, as I like ladies and gents both, I'm totally fine with nudity. For me, applying a feminist lens to comic books, Twilight, 40k, etc. is not about going "guh, objectifying!" but rather a sort of "Nelson" reaction of pointing and laughing at simplification (not necessarily idealization, btw).
Being both a libertarian and an equity feminist I find his army a bit odd and I wouldn't do it myself, but I find your outrage even more odd.
Who does it hurt if a nerd puts boobs on his model? My wife is smarter than me, confident, and capable. She would not be outraged or concerned over such a thing, so neither would I. Most women aren't such delicate little flowers we have to worry over them to the point of being patronising. It's where I suppose I differ with many feminists.. I think constantly worrying about ladies is flying in the face of a feminist and truly egalitarian society.
It's just modelling, I think people should be able to make and paint almost anything at all.
I'll tell you what I do find bizarre about the states though.... People ARE way more bothered about boobs than violence. In Europe we worry about guns and death, in the states they worry about booze and boobs.
Eilif wrote: Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?
A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.
I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
Spoiler:
I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.
It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
I don't see what the big deal is. Why are people complaining about Lego? Isn't this giving people what they want?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am loving this thread. I am reading a few guys are butt hurt. Funny when you are on the other side now but making excuses for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Never seen more pages, finished reading them all.
How come some people are up in arms for Lego giving people what they want, but in the same breath will complain that GW does no research, it doesn't care what their customers want and just do what they want and we will buy it no matter what.
Eilif wrote: Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?
A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.
I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.
Lego realy deserves the position they are in when they directly marketed towards boys at an exclusion of a female audience that they had.
At one stage female Lego bits was hard to get here as they under stocked and stores would get picked clean where I was off them.
That changed as Lego become a boys toy within culture more, posibly due to there own marketing over a extended period of time.
Now they may be selling Lego to girls since it is branded and parents are getting them for there girls, and gifts for birthdays.
Which can also reinforce the culture that these are for girls. Which does ad to the issue people bring up with the girls isle.
Pink was never the issue, not what is complained about.
As to the model that started it all. It's crude and sexist but who cares about it.
The issues are more within the culture and the marketing.
In the end, marketing is probably the big evil, simplifying there market. With culture and the way we raise children playing a huge role for both girls and boys.
Davor GW is giving what it chosen market wants, weather that's the right market who knows. It's certainly getting more specific .
If it is this particular model the OP is referring to I do see where he/she is coming from. I actually think that the naked women detract from an overall nice model, since it just clashes with the theme of Khorne. On this model it seems gratuitous and unnecessary.
Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
Do go educate yourself on Mary Whitehouse and how this pertains to censorship on television, rioting sports fans are not part of censorship or lack therof.
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
Do go educate yourself on Mary Whitehouse and how this pertains to censorship on television, rioting sports fans are not part of censorship or lack therof.
*Shrug* And before England's Mary Whitehouse the US had Anthony Comstock. And before Comstock, England had Thomas Bowdler. (Source of the term 'Bowdlerized'.)
Whichever country is doing it, no matter the century, 'tis a silly thing.
The Auld Grump, and remember boys and girls, it was in Victorian England that somebody invented the nipple ring....
Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
Wait, its a mythos where genocide level violence and personalized murder are staples of both the imagery and the "facts of life in the dark far-future"....how many novels talk about demons raping and destroying, virus bombs wiping out planets, or Space Marines blowing everything in front of them into bloody chunklets?
And someone is concerned about a half naked woman being offensive?
Pardon me if I just don't really see the logic in any of that.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: Recently, on a Facebook group dedicated to showing off GW models, a member posted some pictures of sexually explicit conversions he had made. One of them was a Land Raider with stripper cages instead of side sponsons. I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't. How do you feel about this?
I feel like your avi is way more explicit and "offensive" (if one were to take offense at artwork, which I do not" than a half naked lady in a cage, not to be a jerk...just to be real. Blood and violence are fine, but a little bit of sexuality isn't? I don't get it...I just don't get it.
I find it hard to believe that so many people think this is okay. I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.
Wait what, are you kidding me?
Obvious comments about the extremist and puritanical values underlying such a statement aside (meanwhile blood, guts, and violence are fine?), what business is it of ANYONE what goes through someone's mind while they are converting or painting? I'm a lot more disturbed that someone within the wargaming community would have such thoughts about another person BASED ON SEEING A HALF NAKED WOMAN than the fact that boobs and sexuality are, and have been, staples of both science fiction and fantasy for decades. I think that the logic & emotional reaction you're displaying are far more indicative of true misogyny (recognized by its violently negative reaction to women) than the idea that someone who is sexually interested in the female gender painting a skin colored boob.
I don't find the original model the OP brought up to be offensive. It's too poorly done and uninspired to be anywhere near offensive, which is good because I think the creator was just trying to do something he'd never seen before.
As MattyRM states above I don't think women are the delicate flowers they're taken for (quoting more or less).
But I'm sure the hobby as a whole would take a little hit if mainstream news came to the game shop and caught a glimpse of "RockNRoll CageRaider". Oh the humanity!! Feminist rallies at the gameshops!!! ALCU in Nottingham!!
Mainly because people are too damned thin skinned these days. I guess they can argue they have a right to be, but damn... I'm going to logic myself in circles now.
The almost universal sexualised depiction of women in the hobby is sexist. You can’t point to a few bare-chested male models, massively outnumbered by clothed and heavily armoured male models, as proof of an equality of the sexes when the minority of female figures that are not presented as almost naked to please the hetero male gaze are almost all presented in corsetry or with deathtrap breastformed armour - in cup sizes from large to Blackstone Fortress - to please the male gaze. And that’s before we touch on the almost universal depiction of gender variance as deviant and corrupt. Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn. Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
lindsay40k wrote: The almost universal sexualised depiction of women in the hobby is sexist. You can’t point to a few bare-chested male models, massively outnumbered by clothed and heavily armoured male models, as proof of an equality of the sexes when the minority of female figures that are not presented as almost naked to please the hetero male gaze are almost all presented in corsetry or with deathtrap breastformed armour - in cup sizes from large to Blackstone Fortress - to please the male gaze. And that’s before we touch on the almost universal depiction of gender variance as deviant and corrupt. Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn. Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
All totally true, though I think you are venturing into a bit of paranoia towards the end there. That said, I'll certainly admit that there's not much room for normalized gender fluidity in a mythos strongly based on seeing Abrahamic tradition as "good" and pagan tradition as "evil".
Don't think that I said for one second that the dynamics of sexualization between genders is equitable. Its not. I fully support further sexualization of the male gender within both pop culture and hobby culture. The point stands that to be offended by a fantasy image of sexualization while finding fantasy imagery of genocidal violence OK is pretty messed up.
Important to note that the OP's reaction to seeing a half naked figure of a woman was to become angry and judgmental as well as develop a catastrophized scenario in his mind of a "creep jacking off while he paints boobs"....and this was followed by multiple comments of "its hard enough to get girls into this hobby." I'll leave it at that...
...if you want to attract females to the game then you've got to have strong female characters in the game. 40K has....umm none (maybe one or two).
So I play Malifaux, more to the point I hang out on a Malifaux Facebook page called "A Wyrd Place", and about a week or two ago someone was asking about what brought the player base to the game. Almost all of the female posters (and there's a lot) cited that Wyrd has a plethora of strong female characters with great backstories that are fun to play. And without going into too much detail, it's very true.
But in 40K females are absent unless you're playing Dark Eldar. GW pretty much made a boys game here, and when you've got no (or very few) gals around you get this "boys will be boys" attitude. Insensitivity. Misogyny. All that good / not so good behavior.
R3con wrote: Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
Spoiler:
GamerGate's not the feminist critique of games, it's an expression of frustration with the way games journalism is done that's been overwhelmingly co-opted by obnoxious channers and dudebros who want technical reviews bereft of social commentary on the depiction of women and minorities. The political criticism of art is not a new thing to tabletop gaming, in fact it's been influential ever since GW said 'we've really got to discontinue this awful pygmy miniature, what the hell were we thinking'.
We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.
Now, given a choice of:
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
If you are waiting for things to change at GW - you will need to wait for Blanche to die.
He is the heart of GW's position on women, and you will not see anything change until he is gone (and I doubt you will see him leave, if not in a casket...).
The upside is that GW does not equal the Hobby. The downside is that lack of boobies doesn't attract more female gamers. Battletech (and other stompy robot games) have almost no boobies - but there isn't a significantly higher number of female gamers for that game.
What does seem to attract more female gamers is fur. On the Lamb Games' Brushfire is the only game I know of that has statistically significant higher numbers of female gamers. They also buy mouslings by the truckload.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not about showing tits so much as it is about showing woman as victim and object.
It screams 'basement dwelling, cheetos drenched virgin'...
But...she has an Axe. How many slaves get to keep their gigantic executioners axe?
R3con wrote: Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
Spoiler:
GamerGate's not the feminist critique of games, it's an expression of frustration with the way games journalism is done that's been overwhelmingly co-opted by obnoxious channers and dudebros who want technical reviews bereft of social commentary on the depiction of women and minorities. The political criticism of art is not a new thing to tabletop gaming, in fact it's been influential ever since GW said 'we've really got to discontinue this awful pygmy miniature, what the hell were we thinking'.
We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.
Now, given a choice of:
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
which would you prefer?
Rather much avoid the PCBS - and just let companies do what they want. Want to try to cater to women? Have at it. Want to run a company called Maidenhead and sell nothing but boobies? Fine with that too.
PCBS tends to be noise - and any change that comes from it isn't real change...just pandering to get the noise to go away.
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
I can't even believe this is a conversation. Having seen the picture my only response is that you obviously have not seen older GW, or other companies models. I think your view is very narrowed on this subject.
Owning a Daemon army myself, I have several nude models, some being on a large scale for greater demons they fit in the lore very well. When I bring these into a store to play no one is offended, to include the several women who play at our store. We have a few young kids who play at the store, and their parents laughed at me when I asked them if they were ok with me bringing them out. If you thought that was bad, I can't imagine what you would think of my Soul Grinder.
Please go look at the old "Vect's Bitch Boat" model or conversions of this.
On the other note, I loved that Land Raider. Great Job to whomever made that, it was like I walked into a Rob Zombie Concert!
Theres no reason why 40K can't draw inspiration from the work of a wide range of artists - from the classic OTT big boobed sexy female characters, to more realistic depictions of women, and something in between.
If you don't like something, and you're offended by it, thats OK. Vote with your wallet - move on and find something that doesn't offend you.
Or in the case of Warhammer 40K, simply rework the fluff to your own liking, or come up with your own.
Where is it written that Cadian Shock Troopers can only be male? Perhaps there is a secret Chapter of Adepta Sororitas genetically engineered to be the equal of any Space Marine? Maybe a certain Imperial planet segregates its Infantry regiments by gender, and provides entire Regiments of female Guardsmen for the Imperial war machine? Maybe a woman has been appointed to the rank of Commissar on merit, thanks to her fanatical loyalty and dedication to the Emperor?
Sean_OBrien wrote: Rather much avoid the PCBS - and just let companies do what they want. Want to try to cater to women? Have at it. Want to run a company called Maidenhead and sell nothing but boobies? Fine with that too.
PCBS tends to be noise - and any change that comes from it isn't real change...just pandering to get the noise to go away.
'Vote with your wallet'? What, just walk away, without giving any kind of feedback? Is this a community or a status quo echo chamber? I'm an artist by trade, and let me tell you it's so much better to hear from customers what they'd like to see.
'PCBS doesn't effect real change'? Even if we assume that hardly any former blackface performers look back on their acts with contrition, there's a world of difference between art being filled with downward-punching stereotypes and art that listens to and engages with everyone beyond a privileged white male demographic.
---
Here's me thinking all that recent sympathy for feminist critiques of GW's art was something more than a proxy war against Mat Ward.
Thats a really strange idea....I mean look at Flames of War. You can buy & build Nazi armies. Look at historical games. You can buy Zulu vs Afrikaaner armies. I'm not seeing how a discussion about the depiction of women has branched off into talking about subjectively negative portrayals of indigenous people's in a line of Ogre models. Again, this is odd in light of the fact that folks automatically sign off scales of fantasy violence in this hobby that literally beggar the mind.
lindsay40k wrote: . Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
Interesting point.
It is undeniable that the depictions of anything in the 40k universe that mixes male and female or has the implication (40k rarely states such explicitly) of homosexuality Is almost exclusively tied to the daemonic.
Not something I'd considered before.
lindsay40k wrote: Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.
They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.
lindsay40k wrote: Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
This is hogwash, and not just because I'm having trouble even remembering the presence of trans/queer people in 40K, let alone their portrayal. And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.
This is just silly. Really, the Sororitas are the only female soldiers I've seen in... well... every fantasy/gothic game I played that are coverd and not in some silly, unrealistic armor. Now you're whining cause they have *OH GOSH* armor breasts!?
You could easily make an important female archon, or a badass canoness or whatever but no, let's complain about GW being misogynist? I mean, I hate GW as much as the next guy, but the first army I played was the Adepta Sororitas because gosh darn it, finally a female centered army that could kick ass! (let's ignore the Khornate Knights incident since they reconnected it too in the new GK codex) My canoness could rip a Chaos Lord a new one in CaC.
It's not "the hobby" or "GW", it's the customer. The guy put strippers on his land rider? Big deal, I don't like it, but whatever, I'd simply say "no thanks mate, I think I'll pass today" and be done with it.
This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.
It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.
"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"
lindsay40k wrote: Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.
I think the point was that they're one of the only depictions of gender not distinctly Male or Female in the 40k universe.
You do make a good point though, that it's something that it is presented as a positive, albeit in a daemonic milieu.
Kind of seeing where this could go either way. Hard to say for sure without any supporting evidence regarding the intent of the 40k authors.
lindsay40k wrote: Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.
I think the point was that they're one of the only depictions of gender not distinctly Male or Female in the 40k universe.
You do make a good point though, that it's something that it is presented as a positive, albeit in a daemonic milieu.
Kind of seeing where this could go either way. Hard to say for sure without any supporting evidence from the 40k authors.
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.
Buzzsaw wrote: [
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.
I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.
However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?
Foo wrote: This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.
It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.
"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"
I suppose that no one should tell the OP to look up the Slaaneshi army with the Defiler that has a dildo greenstuffed onto it...
Me personally, I agree with what many here have said: if the "offensive" model fits in with the theme of the army in question, it isn't all that offensive to me. There are of course, a few exceptions (such as the Nazi IG army mentioned and the like) to this rule for me, but generally I don't get offended. Depending on the setting, I may make the suggestion to the owner of the models to be careful, or not bring them to that location. Usually, this is only in times where there are many kids about, especially if said kids have parents with them.
Buzzsaw wrote: [
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.
I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.
However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?
I would say the problem with calling it a "slam" is... I just don't think that in the 1850s people even thought that trans/intersex people existed, much less should be mocked. I'm sure they would be mocked (like bearded ladies in sideshows), but the origins are, I would venture, much more to do with classic notions of sexual symbolism and its importance in Christian theology.
Specifically, Biblically inclined people would be familiar with the notion "man and women he made them" and recognize that a fusion of man and woman is symbolic of a revolt against the divine order. They also might be aware of the classical pagan character of Hermaphroditus, "where the hermaphrodite nature expressed the idea of a primitive being that united both genders".
Thus, while certainly this idea would be insulting to intersex people, I would venture it safe to say that is an accident.
lindsay40k wrote: Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.
They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.
'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.
Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.
A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy. When GW did the Cadians, I believe this was still available:
lindsay40k wrote: Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
This is hogwash, and not just because I'm having trouble even remembering the presence of trans/queer people in 40K, let alone their portrayal. And if your response is "Slaaneshi Daemons!", they are hermaphroditic, which isn't the same thing, and is granted as a boon. It isn't something they suffer, it's something they celebrate.
I'll be fair and concede that this was more Citadel Journal era stuff, that I guess informed the atmosphere in which hobbyists - including GW staff - told me that my transgender Chaplain conversion seemed 'more of a Slaaneshi thing'.
Foo wrote: This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.
It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.
"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"
Actually goes well beyond that...
The OP said:
I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.
That goes well beyond saying they find something offensive. Not only do they find it offensive, they also insult anyone who does those sorts of models (personally) and then proceeds to make a plea to ostracize them. There is a big difference between me saying "I don't like Hip Hop" and me saying "I don't like Hip Hop and anyone who does like Hip Hop is obviously a criminal who everyone should avoid at all costs or else you might be considered a criminal too".
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
I don't care, if somebody wants to model fabio butt naked riding on top of a tank barrel..then so be it, their choice and it does not effect my life at all. If somebody wants to paint swastikas on their leman russes, whatever..i'm not going to go home and lose my mind, yes its kind of sad but when people get worked up over this..then your just feeding the urge for these people to continue with what "offends" people
Buzzsaw wrote: [
It's also worth remembering that the commingling of male and female in demonic form can be traced back at least as far as 1856. Yet another idea that GW simply co-opted. The idea that these demons are intended to be a slam at intersex/transgendered people is... well, much in need of support.
I'm aware of the historical precedent and GW co-opt. There's really nothing new under the grimdark sun.
However, just to play devils advocate here (couldn't resist…) couldn't historical depictions of demons co-mingling the sexes themselves be a slam at inter/trans people? If they are, would the reuse be any less a slam?
I would say the problem with calling it a "slam" is... I just don't think that in the 1850s people even thought that trans/intersex people existed, much less should be mocked. I'm sure they would be mocked (like bearded ladies in sideshows), but the origins are, I would venture, much more to do with classic notions of sexual symbolism and its importance in Christian theology.
Specifically, Biblically inclined people would be familiar with the notion "man and women he made them" and recognize that a fusion of man and woman is symbolic of a revolt against the divine order. They also might be aware of the classical pagan character of Hermaphroditus, "where the hermaphrodite nature expressed the idea of a primitive being that united both genders".
Thus, while certainly this idea would be insulting to intersex people, I would venture it safe to say that is an accident.
Within a Western context, yes, LGBT people were viciously oppressed by the Inquisitorial culture that developed. 40K and Warhammer being pastiches of that history, non-Western gender variance & sexuality can be set aside (at least, until Ind and Nippon get army books).
The thing is, when LGBT people are at best only represented through the lens of a culture that is a pastiche of the worst elements of European Christianity, you're playing a very tricky game as a writer. And with the lens that GW have given themselves to work with, LGBT people of the Empire and Imperium are possibly safer unseen than out in the open and being talked about by characters for whom 'exterminate the xenos/deviant filth' is Plan A.
In fact, the main use of LGBT-related language I can think of is Orc/ks referring to Elves/Eldar as 'poncey pointy earz'. Seems to have petered off in recent years, though.
I don't care, if somebody wants to model fabio butt naked riding on top of a tank barrel..then so be it, their choice and it does not effect my life at all. If somebody wants to paint swastikas on their leman russes, whatever..i'm not going to go home and lose my mind, yes its kind of sad but when people get worked up over this..then your just feeding the urge for these people to continue with what "offends" people
Agreed... But personally, there is quite a difference between an SS "theme" with swastika, and "lol, bewbs" or "lol, wiener" (and not wienerdog..... Frazz). I don't get worked up over painted miniatures, but if I see an army that is NOT a historical army (as in Flames of War, etc) painted with swastikas, it is going to put my guard up, because I really dislike racist people, so I'm going to keep a closer eye on that person, and listen to what they say, etc. and if it turns out they painted their Nazi themed force because they really are quite a bit racist, then I'm probably going to stop talking/dealing with them. I'm not going to raise bloody hell over minis or that the person is less than agreeable, I just won't have associations or dealings with them in the future.
It really is kind of context for me though. If I'm heading to a FoW game, and I see a swastika tank, well, it'd better be an appropriate vehicle (as in, I'd better not see a Sherman tank with swastikas on it, except as kill markings) because I'm expecting some level of historical accuracy in the game. But if I'm going to an MTG game, and my opponent's card sleeves all look like Nazi party flags (the red, with white circle and swastika), or are playboy pinups (and not the censored, 1940s GI type from WW2) I might make a mention of it, due to location of the game, and that if some "concerned parent" or little timmy who's too young for certain subjects sees that, I don't really want to be lumped in with *that guy* who has that stuff; But again, I'm not freaking out about it, I'm merely a messenger/informant type letting the person know that his/her possessions may have a subject matter that some would consider inappropriate and he/she should think about changing it, or playing elsewhere.
The thing is, if someone put naked men in cages... there would be no response, no one would give a crap enough to post about it on the internet. You might get a few comments in person about it, just like you get a few comments about anything, but I doubt anyone would be enraged enough to take to the general discussion forum of a wargaming forum except maybe the most conservative people you could find.
I also tend to think there's less people who would actually find the desire to model a naked man grinding on an executioner's axe in a cage.
every human on earth is racist and they have pre-decided opinions of other people based off of appearence..whether they go with it or set it aside is they variable in this formula..but yes i agree with most for statement..but in the end if somebody wants a pair of milk cans or a man missile on their tank..whatever
The only instance of nudity in miniatures that was ever even relevant to me are Games Workshop's Daemonette models. They used to look seductive, but they had nipples. It didn't even register as pornographic to me because it was done tastefully, but since England is a christian nation and Games Workshop is trying to market their product to kids they had to change it to those uglier models with no nipples. So I guess I want more acceptance of sexually explicit models because otherwise we get crap daemonettes. Which are basically the only daemons of slaanesh Games Workshop has even made since the change. I didn't even realize that until now. Wow.
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring with this model here.
This is my defiler. Yes, it has two damonettes chained to it. But then again, the whole model has been chained. I have never had anyone ever even bat an eye and in fact have only ever gotten encouraging comments on the army.
Now maybe this falls into the Slannesh vs Khorne debate at what is fluffy or not. Or maybe its because the chained up girls are daemons and not actually depictions of human women. Or maybe its because the army has 18 more of those exact same damonettes running around butchering everything under the sun. So we have both enpowered and enslaved action being represented by the same models. But for what ever the case, I wonder if this negativity is a reaction of anonymity of the internet or having to tell someone to their face that their art offends them.
Or maybe when looked at as a theme, some of the shock goes away.
Here is my Deamon Prince
and my lord on bike
The girls are Vect slave girls. Actual GW models, however the only chains on them are those that were sculpted on them, also maybe the argument that the girls don't appear to be there against their will might have something to do with it. However, a slave girl is still a slave girl.
And yet again, maybe its because I'm an equal opportunity enslaver and we have this poor DA marine here. Please pardon my earlier conversion attempts. I'd like to think I'm better skilled now.
So maybe the original Landraider in the original OP is only viewed as offensive because it is a model that has been singled out, and the context of the army as a whole has been lost on us who only have the one single picture to go off of and the original artist intent has been lost some how.
I think the Slaanesh vs Khorne debate is pointless. Since when is GW fluff sacrosanct? It's ok to have boobies if you play Slaanesh but not if you play Khorne because g-dubs says so? Slaanesh vs Khorne comes under the same line of thinking as I painted my Space Wolves blue instead of blue-grey. If you want boobies you want boobies, it doesn't really matter what army it is IMO as long as it fulfils your personal vision.
Foo wrote: This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.
It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.
"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"
I suppose that no one should tell the OP to look up the Slaaneshi army with the Defiler that has a dildo greenstuffed onto it...
Nice try. I tried to look it up and I think it's been taken down. Curiosity be damned!
No matter where you take this conversation, its worth noting that EVERYONE participating in it is totally cool with fantasy genocide in the 40k universe.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think the Slaanesh vs Khorne debate is pointless. Since when is GW fluff sacrosanct? It's ok to have boobies if you play Slaanesh but not if you play Khorne because g-dubs says so? Slaanesh vs Khorne comes under the same line of thinking as I painted my Space Wolves blue instead of blue-grey. If you want boobies you want boobies, it doesn't really matter what army it is IMO as long as it fulfils your personal vision.
My friend, you miss the point! We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters" (there really aren't enough ""s for that).
That's a little toungue-in-cheek, but take a moment to look over the thread, especially the people that are most offended by the models in question: what's fascinating is the personalizing, and moral character of their objections. This is started off nicely in the OP with "I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts". Notice how it's not enough that there is disagreement; the OP imagines that someone that likes something he doesn't like is a pervert and physically loathsome.
It's also particulalry telling that in the quote the OP supplies, you have this exchange;
Other: A lady in summer-ish beachwear and a girl with naked boobies and a chainsaw do not scream slavery to me to be honest..., I think you reaction to this particular model is a bit overreacted. I agree that the depiction of women in art etc is maybe not always as nice, but don't go crazy on this guy because of that, it's just not fair. I am a woman too and I just had to laugh a bit because of this model, I don't feel offended by this at all. I laughed my ass of because of the red river-thingy, because it maybe depicts the fear guys have of women's periods XD
Me: What do you mean not enslaved, in the Land Raider picture, they are literally in cages. The half naked men you speak of are not in sexualized poses, but your women are.
Anyway, just because the men and the women are both scantily clad does not make you an advocate of equality, because there is not a history of men being oppressed due to sexuality and sexual roles the way there is for women (disclaimer: not to say that it doesn't exist but it exists mostly non-hetero men and in far less numbers than it does for women).
Regardless of all the above, you are still creating a bad impression for the wargaming and modeling community, and discouraging new people, especially women, from taking part in this great hobby.
The OP is here flat out ignoring an actual woman that plays 40K, in favor of a hypothetical woman's sensibilities. A woman tells him he is overreacting, and he deigns to define who is and who is not an advocate for equality.
This is not a rational conversation: this is narcissism, of the most toxic type, a type sadly becoming more and more common. Heck, last week Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of Harvard Law and liberal champion of free speech (a man with whom I have a number of disagreements) pointed out on Fox's Red Eye program very pointedly that the place in the US where free speech is most under assault is the college campus.
lindsay40k wrote: 'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.
So you can think of three miniatures. That's nice. Really has little to do with anything, especially given the way women are portrayed in 40K as being no different from men. They hold the same positions as men (low and high), they fight in the same wars, they use the same equipment and the only place they are singled out are the Adepta Sororitas (just as men are in the Adeptus Astartes). Even the Callidus Temple sometimes isn't always female, occasionally using male assassins. And you want to point out three miniatures. Wellthat'sgreat, butItendtodisagreewiththeassertionsyou'remaking. And you forgot the Tannith minaiture.
lindsay40k wrote: Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.
So they would have wildly out-of-proportion bodies? Cadians have enough problems with their giant hands, now you want to throw even more wonky proportions into it?
lindsay40k wrote: A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy. When GW did the Cadians, I believe this was still available:
Spoiler:
What's stopping you from painting them up as non-Caucasians?
Crimson Heretic wrote: every human on earth is racist and they have pre-decided opinions of other people based off of appearence..whether they go with it or set it aside is they variable in this formula..but yes i agree with most for statement..but in the end if somebody wants a pair of milk cans or a man missile on their tank..whatever
lindsay40k wrote: Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.
So they would have wildly out-of-proportion bodies? Cadians have enough problems with their giant hands, now you want to throw even more wonky proportions into it?
Yeah, it would take a lot more than female heads to make female looking Cadians. They already have massively thick proportions for men, let alone women. Even have both female torsos and heads would look quite strange with the current legs and arms.
GW don't so much portray women in a sexist manner as they fail to portray them with miniatures at all, and when they do, they tend to look like dudes with boobs It's not so much objectifying women as it is failing at portraying them at all (at least in the miniatures more so than the fluff).
I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.
You need to get off your high horse. There's nothing directly wrong about this model other than the fact it you may say it doesn't really fit with Khorne. (Although, maybe it does, but since we only see one model here, we can't be sure - maybe the army is themed well via a heavy metal band as he hints with electric guitar wielding noise marines and such).
Anything you imagine is YOUR problem....hmm actually I just recalled a video I saw a lil while back that totally applies here. It's about a comic book cover but the points apply completely here to this topic as well:
lindsay40k wrote: Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn.
They absolutely are not. 40K is about one of the most sex-less universes around, where men and women hold equal positions of authority and poverty. There are really only two institutions where gender is important - The Adeptus Astartes and the Adepta Sororitas - outside of that every Imperial institution from Planetary Governors right down to lowly Guardsmen are shown to include both sexes equally.
'Shown'? I think you mean 'written'. I'm trying to remember physical examples of this AM equal inclusion other than a giant-breasted Commissar and a 'Warrior Woman' taking to the field of battle in a boob tube and miniskirt (as you do in a Penal Legion). Oh, wait - there was a Pte. Vasquez-styled 'Rocket Girl' as well. None of these are currently available, of course.
Six female heads on the Cadian sprue. That's all it would have taken. If that's too much, some FW heads; it wouldn't have been much help for a thirteen year old newcomer who wants an entry-level set of these women soldiers she's been told are equal to the male soldiers, but at least it'd be something. Anyone could have done mixed or segregated regiments that exist only in the fluff, in the collections of capable or wealthy convertors, and in collections that aren't allowed in GW stores and events.
A handful of non-caucasian heads would have been nice, as well, but let's not go crazy.
Yea, It's written, but not shown by GW official models, but that's just another in a long list of errors they've made. It's not like there isn't any demand either since Raging Heroes, for example has become quite successful doing a solely female model range and is planning another kickstarter.
Eilif wrote: Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?
A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.
I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.
Lego realy deserves the position they are in when they directly marketed towards boys at an exclusion of a female audience that they had.
At one stage female Lego bits was hard to get here as they under stocked and stores would get picked clean where I was off them.
That changed as Lego become a boys toy within culture more, posibly due to there own marketing over a extended period of time.
Now they may be selling Lego to girls since it is branded and parents are getting them for there girls, and gifts for birthdays.
Which can also reinforce the culture that these are for girls. Which does ad to the issue people bring up with the girls isle.
Pink was never the issue, not what is complained about.
As to the model that started it all. It's crude and sexist but who cares about it.
The issues are more within the culture and the marketing.
In the end, marketing is probably the big evil, simplifying there market. With culture and the way we raise children playing a huge role for both girls and boys.
Davor GW is giving what it chosen market wants, weather that's the right market who knows. It's certainly getting more specific .
Just wanted to comment on this, with a scenario that happened last month with my niece & nephew going to the Lego Store. Decades ago all lego was just lego, but after years of marketing focused on boys, they have taken a sledgehammer approach to getting girls back by making "girl lego". Anyway they go in and she's checking out the train and later some of the star wars stuff, wereupon the nephew tells her that she's on the boys side and should go over to the girl lego section. She said "there's no such thing, legos is legos" which sparked a cute (they're 6 & 8), but sad argument which my sister & I had to intervene in. She was nearly in tears trying to come to terms with the fact that what he was saying seemed to be true, 'star wars legos were just for boys'. We made sure to let them know she was right, "Legos IS Legos".
We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.[/spoiler]
Really? Because the "stone age orcs" have a celtic culture transplanted onto them. The wearing of woad isn't a non-white aspersion. The skin colour of the Salamanders is a ridiculous retcon, though I see no reason IG or even SMs should not all be heterogeneous anyway - and my own are painted as such. The only justification for that is in some limited situations where perhaps all of their initiates come from a small region of "planet viking", etc (Space Wolves).
I don't see such an issue with the Ogres, Chaos Dwarves, Lizardmen etc. But then, I'm not looking for things to be offended by. I think the addition of human cultural traits to non-human races is fine, and creates a bit more depth. My own ancestors are neither rats nor mutated worshippers of chaos, and I take no offence at either.
That's a little toungue-in-cheek, but take a moment to look over the thread, especially the people that are most offended by the models in question: what's fascinating is the personalizing, and moral character of their objections. This is started off nicely in the OP with "I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts". Notice how it's not enough that there is disagreement; the OP imagines that someone that likes something he doesn't like is a pervert and physically loathsome.
I tried it. It wasn't so good. Took too long, for one thing. I think regular pornography is better.
Foo wrote: This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.
It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.
"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"
Bollocks. If we wanted to silence the OP we'd be reporting him and trying to get this thread closed.
Disagreeing with someone's opinion does not equate to wanting to silence it.
Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.
Don't females like Debauchery too? I mean, i'm pretty sure that there are girls out there that dig the band and if this is done in their style then why wouldn't girls like it? I don't think it's explicit, just a representation of a theme. Sure, it maybe should be Slaaneshi, but I guess you get female Cultists who like rocking a big spe ... err, axe .. taking skulls for the blood God.
The chicks in the cages look like they are having a mean old time.
Personally.. I think real gender issues can be found in reproductive rights, child custody, etc.
Not in warhammer, art, and video games. If you really care about womens rights, go to Saudi Arabia. Where it is needed.
I also personally think that expressing yourself through art is okay... Whether it is to offend people or just to make a fool out of yourself.
I wouldnt care if you sculpted and painting up a child getting molested by lucious. Because it isnt a real person. It's pure fantasy. No one is getting hurt. Maybe your feelings... But thats a part of being human.
I Can totally understand if you are offended by it, or in other terms... Just really, really butthurt about it. Thats fine! but when you try to censor it.. Shame on you. You have no rights to tell others what not to think, draw, paint.. And so on.
Again, you can draw my mom getting tortured by Asmodai. And I still wouldnt care. Because its just a fictional fantasy that tries to represent my mother. My point is... Is this real life? Or is it just fantasy? It's a F#"%!ing fantasy people.. Put down the guns. Enjoy the hobby, state your opinion if you really have to, but don't try to censor it.
I'm not saying that you should ignore offensive art. But don't try to censor it.(Sorry for repeating myself, but no seriously don't censor art.)
Sorry if theres some spelling or gramma' errors. English isnt my main language.
Why do I have visions of Porkey's in my mind reading this thread? It's the morale high people who say "sex is bad" but yet are in the basements watching porn hooting and hollering.
I have a hard time believing anyone who says "sex is bad" but yet doesn't say anything about how the plastic toy soldiers represent Hitler and mankind in all it's worst forms combined and says that is ok. So SS is good, boobs bad? Yeah right. Can't believe a word he/she says. They have no moral ground to stand on at all.
I think it says volumes about the OP that he cannot look at the human body without bringing sex and jacking off into it.
Its his loss, he will grow up in time.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.
Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.
I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.
Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote: I have to wonder at those who are offended by it... Which of the following are you offended by?
1) Nudity?
2) Sexism?
3) The fact you imagine someone masturbating as they made it?
I reject your attempted argument.
I'm offended by
1. inappropriate
2. really all badly done
3. incredibly unthematic for the army.
Come on it reeks of 14 year old boy who's never actually touched a boob in his life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I am disappointed. I was expecting dicks and gaping fanged hell vaginas everywhere when I read "sexually explicit."
Just a pair of bloodied pole dancers.
The only problem I see here is that a Khornate Landraider has strippers. They should be wearing more armor, not less!
Exactly. A Dusk until Dawn motiff would be better with Slaanesh.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Correction: It has no place in YOUR hobby.
Who the feth do you think you are to dictate to other people what they can and cannot do with their models, their PROPERTY?
he's not dictating. Dictating is when I tell you to go jump in a lake and have a Mossberg pointed at your chest.
He's proffering his opinion which was the point of the fething thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fezman wrote: I wouldn't call it explicit. But I would say "what's the point?" It seems to be done just for pure shock value, or to try to be "edgy." But I just find such desperate attempts to be edgy childish.
I'd say the whoever did this conversion has perpetuated the stereotype of the creepy gamer with an unhealthy attitude to women, because the only way they could think to get them on the model was in cages, naked and dancing round poles...if you want women on your Chaos tank why not a female tank commander sticking out the hatch or female warriors clinging to the sides? Do followers of Khorne even care about sexuality as opposed to just hitting things with big axes?
And no, I'm not offended by sex/violence/swearing/Howard the Duck in art (delete where applicable)...I shouldn't even have to point that out. But the default role for women shouldn't be eye-candy.
Frazzled wrote: Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.
I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.
Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.
I see "in keeping with the fluff" to be irrelevant. Many many people take liberties with the fluff to create their own vision, just because GW wrote X has exposed boobies doesn't mean you have to give X exposed boobies and likewise doesn't mean it's any more inappropriate to give Y exposed boobies instead.
At first glance the Land Raider just reminded me of the torture/sex/sin/death vision of hell. I don't see how it's any more inappropriate or offensively stupid than any other nude theme in a wargame.
Could it have been better executed? Maybe. But that is entirely irrelevant. Just because you aren't skilled enough to paint "The Birth of Venus" doesn't make your attempts to paint some boobies more inappropriate or stupid... it just means you aren't going to be making money and getting famous off it
Him: Because I like it. I play a Debauchery themed army. Debauchery is a death metal band. Also I find it funny that you have no problem with blood, skulls, and gore, but you find nudity to be "creepy." Some double standards there?
His Land Raider fits his debauchery theme perfectly, it's neither Slaaneshi or Khornate. I googled Debauchery Band and this is the one of the first images that came up
Spoiler:
If that's what his intention really was then it's a pretty good stab at it.
Rayvon wrote: I think it says volumes about the OP that he cannot look at the human body without bringing sex and jacking off into it.
Its his loss, he will grow up in time.
I think it says volumes that you jumped at and attacked him instead of addressing the argument and the topic he brings up.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.
Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.
I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.
Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.
Talk about needing to read the thread...
I posted that on page 3. We are now on page 10. You do the maths.
I'm all for creativity, there are a lot more ugly things in life than the naked human form, and I have to ask to the OP - have you not seen such wonderfully powerful pieces of classic art such as Boticelli's venus and some of the pre-raphaelites work, and do you find that 'sexually explicit'?
Although the example given here is rather crudely done and I think more an object of mirth (and probably done for a piss-take) rather than through any desire to offend the prudish.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.
Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.
I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.
Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.
Talk about needing to read the thread...
I posted that on page 3. We are now on page 10. You do the maths.
I've read it. You must not be familiar with the concept of disagreement in your world.
I've read it. You must not be familiar with the concept of disagreement in your world.
Okay then, show me on the first 3 pages where such things are. As quoting something from 7 pages ago and using everything that has happened in between as basis for your rebuttal is just dumb.
The third post of the thread.
If no one was defending it, we wouldn't even be having this argument.
I'll restate, appropriate nudity is fine. The piece being discussed is just lame, it doesn't even make the offensive test, unlike the "eldar chick rape" diorama or the rather disgusting wet nurse miniature.
Frazzled wrote: The third post of the thread.
If no one was defending it, we wouldn't even be having this argument.
I'll restate, appropriate nudity is fine. The piece being discussed is just lame, it doesn't even make the offensive test, unlike the "eldar chick rape" diorama or the rather disgusting wet nurse miniature.
I'm not sure if the diorama was first or the /TG story, but yeah that one did leave a rather unpleasant sting
I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this thread, as I have had not had a reliable internet connection for several days. Firstly I would like to say thank for you for keeping this debate relatively civil, as it would have been a shame for it to deride into name-calling or worse, for it to be locked. I would like to now address some of the points that have come up again and again.
I am not from the United States. The forum incorrectly identified my location as such. I am from the Republic of Ireland, which is admittedly an emotionally and sexually repressed nation. Right now I am living in Brazil with my girlfriend. I am employed and live on the second floor (third floor for the Americans among us), a far cry from the basement.
Some have noted that my forum avater is a still from the sci-fi horror film Event Horizon. It is one of my favourite films, and it does feature a lot of graphic violence. A considerable amount of footage was removed from this film, and left unpublished. While I'm familiar with neither the contents of said footage nor the circumstances surrounding this case, I am assuming somebody made a decision at one point that maybe certain material wasn't suitable for publishing, and this is enough to suggest to me that they exercised common sense and personal responsibility for their actions. Regarding the violent content in the pubished version of the film, I address similar points with regard to 40k at a later point in this post.
Some personal attacks against my character have been made, and while I subscribe to the thought that a personal attack is an argumental fallacy, given that the choice has been made to address the character rather than the argument, I don't entirely agree with it, because if an “argument,” valid or not by anyone's metric, has been brought up, then there must have been a reason, and it is right to address it, if one has time.
With this is mind, I would like to retract my statement about the original modeller being a creepy, slimy, masturbating basement dweller. While it is not only perfectly okay to do these things in the comfort of one's own home, it is also a personal attack, and again while I don't challenge the basis of personal attacks, I do think it is advisable to refrain from them. I also apologise if I initially appeared to be telling anybody how to think, or suggesting that anything should be censored. I absolutely do not believe in censorship. Instead I believe in common sense and personal responsibility regarding what kinds of things people can produce and publish.
While we are on the subject of the original modeller, several commentors have stated that we are having this discussion on the forum, and not in fact a conversation with the modeller. Also, questions of privacy have been brought up. In response to this, I would like to state that I spoke “directly” to him, via Facebook. My Facebook account is very much tied to my real person. I also did not post pictures of the model, and merely described it. Admittedly, this was partially because of my aforementioned poor internet connection, but I was also hesitant about using the original material.
The oft-quoted Stephen Fry piece of wisdom regarding the meaningless of the statement “I find that offensive” has been brought up. I agree with Stephen Fry. But, he's not objecting to taking offence, he's objecting to people using the fact that they've taken offence as a conversation ender, when in fact it should be the beginning of a discussion. It's not wrong to take offence, it's wrong to take offence and to then expect everyone to tiptoe around you without having their own input.
Now, on to the subject at hand. There seem to be several issues in discussion. I will go through them one by one. Before I start, as this thread progresses can we keep the usage of the words “men and females” to a minimum? This isn't the Discovery Channel, the species you are referring to are humans, and in the real world we call them women.
HeyOP: make sure you don't wver check out the Juan Diaz demonettes or the Mierce Euralyia model.
Yes, I am sure there are many other models that also depict tasteless imagery, but this is the particular one that caused me to start this discussion. Why? Couldn't it have been any other model? Yes, it could have been, but co-incidentally it was this one. These issues have been circulating in my mind lately, and given the rare opportunity, I chose to engage in a discussion with the other person involved. When that discussion went nowhere, I chose to bring it to the wider community.
I would say it is NSFW, and it is nude... but none of it is what you describe or sexually explicit.
If sexually explicit means sexual insertion of an organ into an orrifice, then yes, you are right. These models do not include such imagery, but they do include imagery intended to be sexually provocative. Imagery like this would not feature in a PG movie, nor should it appear in a game designed for children.
Saying that the person in question is intentionally promoting the degradation of women would be like saying that people intentionally promote violent crime because they modelled their minis with guns and knives, or that they want someone's immortal soul to literally burn alive for the remainder of all eternity when they say "damned teenager".
In all likelihood, you are probably right. I sincerely doubt he is promoting the subjugation of women. However, the simple fact is that there has been a long history of the such degradation, which still very much exists into the modern day, and he is using the same imagery as it.
I've never seen anyone win a morality discussion, so why bother?
Yes, because it is hard to get people to agree on certain issues we shouldn't even bother having a conversation about them. Great addition to the thread.
Yeah, it seems that a person believing that people are sexually uncontrollable around toy soldiers says more about the person than about the people with the toy soldiers.
This, along with other comments about how I am the real mysognist here, are about as useful as saying “it takes one to know one,” or “whoever smelt it dealt it.” Regardless, you have fundamentally missed my point. I do not believe that after displaying this model in a shop, several onlookers would leave and begin raping. I believe that models like these are discouraging to women, and also endemic of a culture which actively reduces women to a sexual role. Men are people and women are sex objects.
I think there are genuine tragedies in this world, and people being exploited for commercial gain and whatnot, this ain't one of them.
---
I wish I had so little concerning me that I could get up in arms about boobs on little plastic soldiers.
Consider yourself lucky in that regard, at least
Personally I think the societally endorsed subjugation of over fifty percent of the world's population is worth getting my knickers in a twist. There are other issues in the world which I also have opinions on. However, I spend most of my “issue solving energy” on gender issues and feminism, as given my resources and circumstances, I believe my energies are best spent in this regard. By regularly engaging in conversations and challenging people to consider different opinions, one can do a lot of good. As a kid, I was brought up to believe in things that I now know are wrong. Older kids told me that if I wanted to sleep with a girl at a party, I should give her a few drinks first, it would “loosen her up.” At no point did anyone equate this to date rape, and if questioned people would say something to the affect that the alcohol helped lower her inhibitions regarding society's expectations of her. But, I grew up and now know these things to be wrong. I'm glad that I never had any luck with tactics such as the above.
Personally, I think he just chose the wrong chaos god. Should have been Slaanesh, then it would make perfect sense.
Aside from it being thematic, with which I have other complaints, why would this have been so much better? It is still featuring the enslavement and objectification of women, who have been enslaved and objectified for most of human history by cultures all over the world, an issue which still exists in the present day. If this wasn't a real issue, if this were just a fantasy, then it wouldn't be a problem.
It isn't in any way like a "Nazi Guard" at all, but good shout at Godwinning the thread, because there are unlikely to be people present who had their ancestors brutally murdered by a boobie.
No, but there are plenty of people who've been subject to all sorts of atrocities because of their gender. Most armies until very recent history have systematically raped women after conquering a new land. Women are still told how they should or shouldn't act, what types of products they should and shouldn't buy, all on the basis of what they have between their legs or under their shirts.
2) Do we think that whilst it is fine to portray mass genocide of other (alien) species, total enslavement of entire human populations, the suppression of democracy, torture, etc, etc, the line must be drawn at the grimdark future being sexist?
---
Why is it so obvious that all the blood and gore and violence and suffering is tongue in cheek, and 'just part of the universe'
Partially because it is so over the top. It exists on a level that is completely unfathomable. The only word to describe the violence is silly. It's juvenile in the same way that the Cannibal Corpse lyrics that have been mentioned several times are juvenile. It's so over the top and ridiculous that it cannot possibly be taken seriously. However, it's also indiscriminate. Yes, there are organisations that specifically kill one type of people, but there are others that target them in turn, ad infinitum. I love the universe, but there is no denying that it is silly, and not even the most hardcore party line abiding GW staff member will disagree with you on this matter.
The sexism that is displayed, in the models, the stories, and the conversions, is almost entirely one sided. Add to that the fact that there is not a significant history of men being subjugated sexually in real life, and it totally negates any sexism directed towards men in the game. Try an experiment. Wolf whistle at the next ten girls you see on the street. Now, find a girl friend and ask her to do the same, but to guys. The girls will be offended, the boys probably won't. Regardless of the motivations or subtleties to their reactions, the simple fact exists that the girls will feel offended and potentially frightened, but the boys won't. Why? I am addressing that elsewhere, but for now, it is enough to say that those emotions exist and we should be mindful of anything that causes them. I am not speaking about censorship, just about mindfulness and common sense.
Offensive sexy Sci fi imagery? Have you seen Alien?
Yes, it is a fantastic masterpiece of the sci-fi horror genre. Even looking past the amazing set design, cinematography, and music, it also features many feminist and male-dominance-challenging themes. The hero is a woman. The villian is a woman. The monster violates men and forces them to confront the idea of a parasite living inside them. Its features are distinctly female and vagina-esque, forcing men to reevalute their opinions of femininity as being something pretty and maleable. This Queen will kick your ass. Challenging these opinions was what made it such an uncomfortable watch for so many. A lot of people equated this discomfort with it being a horror film, but this subconscious effect had more to do with the implications than the scares.
Though I will point out that the bars of the 'cage' are so widely spaced that the only reason that they are in the cage is because they haven't left.
Please, you are not this naive.
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
This point addresses what has been brought up several times in this thread. Swap it with a naked man, or a giant dick. I do think it would be equally crass, but again, the difference is in the intention behind these depictions. Hercules looks like a badass, Xena Warrior Princess looks hot.
I'd say the whoever did this conversion has perpetuated the stereotype of the creepy gamer with an unhealthy attitude to women, because the only way they could think to get them on the model was in cages, naked and dancing round poles...if you want women on your Chaos tank why not a female tank commander sticking out the hatch or female warriors clinging to the sides? Do followers of Khorne even care about sexuality as opposed to just hitting things with big axes?
And no, I'm not offended by sex/violence/swearing/Howard the Duck in art (delete where applicable)...I shouldn't even have to point that out. But the default role for women shouldn't be eye-candy.
---
The model itself doesn't really seem that overboard. Juvenile, yes, but we can argue back and forth about whether it is explicit, not-explicit, appropriate, in appropriate, etc. These all cloud what I think is a bigger issues.
-What do models like this -and their acceptance by gamers- say about attitudes toward women in the hobby?
-Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?
---
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.
Within this context the cage is rather significant.
It aint the nudity, it aint the women, it aint the blood, it aint the skullz, it aint the smoke or the giant axe. It's the cages.
It is the fact that little persons who see depictions like that can begin to believe that the proper place for a woman is one in which they are deprived of power and agency
---
The other comments that I think are a bit off are those saying in essence "why do you get worked up about sex, but not violence". If the model were simply a nude lady with nothing more to it, this would be a valid point. But, this model can be viewed as using violence (violating a person in one way) to force sexual exploitation (violating them in a second way and one that may be even more destructive psychologically than the physical abuse alone). So while it may be terrible to imagine being beaten, the thought of being beaten and repeatedly raped may be significantly more disturbing.
You guys have hit the nail on the head. I wish I could explain myself so concisely, as for example in “it's not the [...], it's the cage.” As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with. Those women aren't in those cages by choice. They are not expressing their sexuality with any freedom. They are forced to express their sexuality for the pleasure of others.
The main point I'm trying to get at here, is that while this is very much a multi-faceted argument, the most important things for us, at dakkadakka.com and as part of the larger modeling and wargaming community to discuss is that this behaviour is discouraging to women. Similar to the wolf whistle example I mentioned above, just ask yourself the simple question, as the quoted commentor suggested, “Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?” If you answer yes, then that is your opinion to which you are entitled, but I can't honestly answer anything but no. It is as simple as that. There are changes that need to be made to the models and the games to reach a wider audience, and if someone is scared away by, and stops playing a game that is more accepting of women, then they're not the type of people I want to share a game with.
If the Cage is a problem and not the sexually poses of the ladies, then you should think of the theme, maybe they are slaneseh demonets in human form put there to rile up the khorne berzerkers and they are in a cage for protection, maybe they are witches that use sorcerous powers instead of normal las cannon.
Maybe the modeler into bondage and/or S&M, it's his prerogative, instead of worrying about some miniatures, go against the institutions that keep the women down. Even Magazines for female viewers have images that could be considered objectificative and subjectificative.
As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.
So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.
Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?
I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.
So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.
Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?
I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
In fairness, it's even worse then that: the catchphrase for the upcoming new Dark Eldar (IIRC) is "Pray they don't take you alive"... because, you know, Commoragh is one big cesspool of torture/rape/murder/slavery.
Ultimately what this comes down to is... well, as I already said;
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters" (there really aren't enough ""s for that).
Let's put all the PC/SJW bologna aside: the OP's argument collapses completely... if the color of the tank in question is pink. Seriously now, if the tank is Slaanesh instead of Khorne, it's not only unobjectionable, it's completely thematic.
To say that one has a problem with "implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality" is to indicate a shocking lack of knowledge of the setting. People like to talk about how it is "grimdark" and "over-the-top", and part of that is there are some very brutal elements of sexual sadism just beneath the surface. And in the case of the Dark Eldar and Slaanesh cultists it's hard to even say that... it's pretty much right there, right in the open.
This point addresses what has been brought up several times in this thread. Swap it with a naked man, or a giant dick. I do think it would be equally crass, but again, the difference is in the intention behind these depictions. Hercules looks like a badass, Xena Warrior Princess looks hot.
My ex-girlfriend some time ago said the exact opposite of that statement. She called Xena (Lucy Lawless) a total badass while Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) was a sexy hunk.
My ex-girlfriend some time ago said the exact opposite of that statement. She called Xena (Lucy Lawless) a total badass while Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) was a sexy hunk.
As a man, I actually have to agree with this sentiment. Sorbo really doesn't appear very strong, as a Hercules character should be, whereas Xena really was a total badass (with a "sexy", yet very useless sidekick, occasionally)
]Offensive sexy Sci fi imagery? Have you seen Alien?
Yes, it is a fantastic masterpiece of the sci-fi horror genre. Even looking past the amazing set design, cinematography, and music, it also features many feminist and male-dominance-challenging themes. The hero is a woman. The villian is a woman. The monster violates men and forces them to confront the idea of a parasite living inside them. Its features are distinctly female and vagina-esque, forcing men to reevalute their opinions of femininity as being something pretty and maleable. This Queen will kick your ass. Challenging these opinions was what made it such an uncomfortable watch for so many. A lot of people equated this discomfort with it being a horror film, but this subconscious effect had more to do with the implications than the scares.
Absolutely not. The monster violates men and the main character is a strong woman, but absolutely nothing about the Queen is feminine. Everything in Alien is phallic, even the set design. H.R. Giger was, I would say, obsessed with phallic imagery.
Personally I think the societally endorsed subjugation of over fifty percent of the world's population is worth getting my knickers in a twist.
One could ask why then you're spending time arguing about subjective sexism in a tabletop game instead of raising awareness of the real issues women face in third world countries such as FGM, forced marriage, rapes etc.
I don't see "societally endorsed subjugation" of a majority people within western democracies.
If this wasn't a real issue, if this were just a fantasy, then it wouldn't be a problem
Humans have been enslaved and objectified, and still are. Do you oppose their depiction?
not a significant history of men being subjugated sexually in real life
Men are a significantly large number of victims of rape, especially in warzones, it just goes largely ignored and is conveniently perpetuated by you, the feminists, because it doesn't fit their agenda as women being the weaker sex.
reach a wider audience
If women were interested in playing then they could play, no one is stopping them. Instead they seemed content to label anyone playing tabletop games or video games as creepy nerds or virgin losers.
Now that these hobbies are more mainstream and perceived as "cool" they want men to change things for them.
wolf whistling
That just goes to highlight the differences between women and men. Women will be offended by things men won't and vice versa, and whilst I wouldn't find it acceptable to harass a woman on the street it is similarly not acceptable to enter an area with different views and culture and start throwing a tantrum until they change everything to cater to you.
If women want to play wargames and don't like any currently on offer, they're more than welcome to make their own.
told how they should or shouldn't act, what types of products they should and shouldn't buy
Which is exactly what you are trying to do right now.
not the type of people I want to share a game with
And you frankly are not the sort of person I want to share the planet with. You are displaying an extreme intolerance of anything that doesn't fit your own worldview and demand others change to suit you.
Your paranoid sense of oppression is going to lead to the same outcome as blacks in the US, who were truly oppressed. Despite many things now being in their favour they continue to view themselves as an oppressed underclass and their own culture has formed around that and prevents them from breaking free of it.
Third-wave feminism falls little short of being simply anti-man, rather than egalitarianism. It calls for equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
The unfortunately popular modern feminists with their twitter followings discard equality, and feminists who call this into question are accused of "internalized misogyny", the feminist's "Uncle Tom".
As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.
So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.
Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?
I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to know this as well... where do you draw the line?
I tend to be of the opinion that either things that are offensive are bad or they are acceptable. The 40k universe is hardly a model of political correctness. Isn't it a bit sexist to say offensive things are fine as long as it's not gender based offensive things?
If you're just talking about being inclusive... well, that's a harder topic because as a man I have little fething idea what women want The OP themselves pointed out that a female wargamer had no issue with it.
spacewolflord wrote: Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.
Those Daemonettes would still e far superior to the current ones even if they were covered.
Unfortunately, if you look for things on the Internet to get offended about, you'll miss a lot of the good stuff. It's best just to click "Next" and move on. I've never seen anyone win a morality discussion, so why bother?
you do realize that daemonettes are hermaphrodites right? Take your SJW crap else where
this racist 
