Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:31:20


Post by: Dark Severance


Since it is 2018 I figure it is about time to start a new discussion centered sexualization of miniatures again. However this time I am going a different route. We have already agreed to disagree on multiple parts that sexualization is subjective based on the perception of the artist as well as those that view a miniature.

Instead of recapping and rehashing those discussions, let's talk about something else that I thought was an interesting disagreement. I'll start it by calling it "Is this a sexualized pose?". There are probably better titles for what the discussion is trying to encompass and I'm open to suggestions for let's start with that.

When having discussions an industry person made an interesting statement/question, "Are talking or typing on a thread to add to a conversation or are you talking 'to be right'". I definitely want to add and I'm not saying I'm right or someone is wrong, but just trying to add some perspective from different sides.



Some various quotes about the pose:
"one of the worst Sniper models to date, and that includes the poledancing Al-Hawwa Sniper"

"How can this model possibly be construed as a poledancer? She's literally just standing next to her rifle. She's one of the least sexualized models in the entire range."

"It's more because that particular model's pose has what CB considers their 'special lady' pose. Hips slightly to one side in an attempt with one hand on hip to make the model look sassy. "

"It is a common "resting pose"."

"If it's such a common "resting pose", where are the males doing the same thing?"

I am trying to look at this from the various perspectives and objectively. I thought it was interesting that the comparison was basically 'since there are no males modeled that way' the natural conclusion was it must be sexualized. Is that true simply because males are modeled differently or are they just unrelated? It was also interesting that the takeaway, hip cocked to the side or hand on hip is meant to be sassy. We all know that men and women don't normally walk or stand similar. It isn't that they can't or won't, as there also exceptions and some definitely do but more in trying to understand "is there a reason why".

For this I decided to be a bit more scientific and that meant observation. I like to people watch because the interactions of different people from different cultures, views and backgrounds is interesting to see how it impacts their interactions. So off to the mall I went, starting with eating lunch at the food court at the mall and watch people. The one thing I noticed is that males generally walked in 'male-like' and women tended to have a sway to hips. That is a general statement as there were definitely people to the exception of that. People stood in different resting places. Context is obviously important as people by themselves tend to have different gaits about them, then someone who looked like they were flirting with someone. Of course, I had no idea if they were flirting, since I wasn't listening to interactions just eating as I looked around... so them flirting was an opinion based from body language and my perceptions.

That got me wondering why do people walk or stand a certain way. My son walks in what society would consider a masculine way and my daughter walks in a feminine manner. I didn't teach them to walk in a particular way, this is how they walk and they learned on their own. I'm sure some of that is probably influenced by who they interact with, observations and adapting to their environment. I can say my outward attitudes and walk was different in Hawaii than it was when I lived in LA to some degrees. I definitely don't walk or stand in a particular way because it is sexy, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't do something to be 'sexier'.

I asked my wife who was fiddling with her phone, with her hip cocked to the side (no there wasn't one hand on the hip) and asked her why she stood that way. Her response was simply "it is comfortable". So I wondered if men and women have a different center of gravity... and the answer was, yes. Generally speaking, a man’s center of gravity is located at the center of his chest at his sternum while a woman’s center of gravity is located approximately in the center of her pelvis. That is also changed more depending on their body type. There are actual videos and tests called physics center of mass experiment also known as the chair experiment.

Interesting that gave me a different perspective on poses. I still believe it is still subjective based on personal experiences, tastes, and perceptions. However, it was interesting to realize there are some things that women can do and can't do. Just because one is one way and another isn't, doesn't necessarily mean those two equate out to the same thing.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:33:55


Post by: Desubot


Yes no maybe

its different for different people.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:33:57


Post by: John Prins


That's an "At ease" pose. Any sexualization comes from the form fitting torso armor.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:35:07


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


No, they are just looking for attention. I see a soldier standing with her rifle. If they see a pole dancer then they have some sexual repression issues they need to work out.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:38:56


Post by: Ratius


Im a male.
I stand like the sniper girl all the time.
My back is fubar'd cause of it.
Don't do it gentlemen.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:40:01


Post by: DCannon4Life


If you don't see male, "at ease", figures with the same pelvic tilt, then it's sexualized. If 'real' military women stand at ease like this, and men don't, then it's not. If men stand like that too, but never get modeled as such, then it's sexualized. By sexualized, I don't mean 'sexy'. That's a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:42:06


Post by: Galas


No, it isn't. That pose, with the hips a little to the side, are more natural for woman than for men. Of course, for that reason, is consireded a "feminine" pose, and as nearly everything feminine, is deconstructed to the extreme by artists of all media to a point where just posing like that, even in a normal and not exagerated way, is considered "sexual".


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:54:06


Post by: Iron_Captain


If it were a normal resting pose, we should also be seeing male miniatures in a similar pose. We see not. Most notably, we would also see women in the real world standing at rest in normal circumstances in such poses. We see not. (women generally don't slant their hips when standing still)
Therefore, it is a sexualised pose. It accentuates the hips and the female form. Not that there is anything wrong with that. There is such a thing as bad sexuality, but this is model and this pose are completely normal.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:57:44


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Dark Severance wrote:
I asked my wife who was fiddling with her phone, with her hip cocked to the side (no there wasn't one hand on the hip) and asked her why she stood that way. Her response was simply "it is comfortable". So I wondered if men and women have a different center of gravity... and the answer was, yes. Generally speaking, a man’s center of gravity is located at the center of his chest at his sternum while a woman’s center of gravity is located approximately in the center of her pelvis. That is also changed more depending on their body type. There are actual videos and tests called physics center of mass experiment also known as the chair experiment.

Interesting that gave me a different perspective on poses. I still believe it is still subjective based on personal experiences, tastes, and perceptions. However, it was interesting to realize there are some things that women can do and can't do. Just because one is one way and another isn't, doesn't necessarily mean those two equate out to the same thing.


This seems similar to the non-controversy that was "man spreading" on trains which was making the rounds two years back. Differing physical traits between men and women are going to create different at rest poses that are more or less comfortable based on body type.

However, regarding the sniper model's pose, and the concepts of "feminine" and "masculine" postures, I think that the sculptor was using well-established cues in the model's posing that would identify the model as female. Even a quick Google search of "how to draw a woman standing" returns many of the same "sassy" cocked hip, hand on the hip, poses. Where as a search for "how to draw a man standing" you get a more neutral posing that doesn't accentuate or draw attention to masculine aspects of the figure.

I think that is what people are hitting on when they say the figure is sexualized.

DCannon4Life wrote:
If you don't see male, "at ease", figures with the same pelvic tilt, then it's sexualized. If 'real' military women stand at ease like this, and men don't, then it's not. If men stand like that too, but never get modeled as such, then it's sexualized. By sexualized, I don't mean 'sexy'. That's a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.


I agree with DCannon4Life. I don't think the pose is sexy, but it is sexualized, in that the model's feminine traits are being focused on with her pose, in this case the figure's hips.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 19:59:03


Post by: daedalus


Yes it is horrible and anyone who is okay with it is unbelievable. This is 2018 after all and how do we not know better.

Or, no it's not in the slightest and anyone getting offended is just looking for reasons to get offended because this is what happens in 2018.

The real pity is that it's too early yet here to start drinking.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 20:06:25


Post by: Dark Severance


 Desubot wrote:
Yes no maybe

its different for different people.
I can definitely agree to that.

 John Prins wrote:
That's an "At ease" pose. Any sexualization comes from the form fitting torso armor.
That is definitely fair. I can see how in that matter the context of the outfit can give a more sexualized perspective. I don't want too much into talking about the realistic aspect of armor vs anime vs practicality which would probably be its own separate discussion. But the context is important which can give a different perspective to a viewer.

DCannon4Life wrote:
If you don't see male, "at ease", figures with the same pelvic tilt, then it's sexualized. If 'real' military women stand at ease like this, and men don't, then it's not. If men stand like that too, but never get modeled as such, then it's sexualized. By sexualized, I don't mean 'sexy'. That's a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Would males "at ease" be the same as a woman's, with the same pelvic tilt, based on their different body types and center of gravity? Just because a woman stands one way and men stand a different way, does it mean that stance is sexualized because men don't stand like that?

To be fair I do know real military women who do stand like that. They wouldn't be standing like that while holding a sniper rifle and I don't know anyone who would stand like that with their rifle. I know women in the office who do stand like that and it wasn't to garner attention either or meant to be sexualized. On the flip side, I also know real military women who stand like men do normally. They do tend to have body types that are more masculine looking body shape compared to a curvy women.

I'm not sure how much different body types, muscular effects center of gravity. Generally speaking physically men tend to gain muscle easier and faster, while women tend to have more fat. That doesn't mean that women can't be as physical or strong as men (I have a few friends that competitively lift and they definitely put men I know to shame). It is usaully because they are more underdeveloped (in terms of upper body strength) they have to work more to get at the same point.

What is harder to find out with examples, if a man and woman have the same body type and size then do they stand relaxed, walk or generally do things in a similar method of body movement and poses? Or are there still going to be differences in how they move, are those differences more subtle or more apparent?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 20:24:59


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Dark Severance wrote:
To be fair I do know real military women who do stand like that. They wouldn't be standing like that while holding a sniper rifle and I don't know anyone who would stand like that with their rifle. I know women in the office who do stand like that and it wasn't to garner attention either or meant to be sexualized. On the flip side, I also know real military women who stand like men do normally. They do tend to have body types that are more masculine looking body shape compared to a curvy women.


I think this is the issue people have with the pose.

The pose isn't sexy, but it is using a pretty standard female posture to accentuate the models hips and add a flair of sex to a figure that otherwise doesn't need to be posed in that manner.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 20:37:13


Post by: Alpharius


I like that model - one of my favorites from the Haqqislam group.

I don't find it overly or even overtly sexual.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 20:39:23


Post by: Dark Severance


 Iron_Captain wrote:
It accentuates the hips and the female form. Not that there is anything wrong with that. There is such a thing as bad sexuality, but this is model and this pose are completely normal.
That is sensiable and something I can agree with. I am not so sure just because we don't see a male in a similar pose, that makes it sexualized. Although I would probably say it isn't a "normal resting pose" either. I do consider it a resting pose, but wouldn't exactly label it normal nor would I say it was sexualized.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

However, regarding the sniper model's pose, and the concepts of "feminine" and "masculine" postures, I think that the sculptor was using well-established cues in the model's posing that would identify the model as female. Even a quick Google search of "how to draw a woman standing" returns many of the same "sassy" cocked hip, hand on the hip, poses. Where as a search for "how to draw a man standing" you get a more neutral posing that doesn't accentuate or draw attention to masculine aspects of the figure.

I think that is what people are hitting on when they say the figure is sexualized.
That was the issue when I was first looking at resting, stances and poses for men and women. The majority of artwork and references does tend to accenstiate masculine and feminine aspects to better differeinatiate. That was one of the reasons I hit the mall to look at people who normally interact and aren't intending to be in a "sexualized" environment like a club or bar.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think this is the issue people have with the pose.
I can agree with the sentiment to a degree. I think this is why I believe context is important. If this was a WWII war game or even one not really centered or based on anime influences, then absolutely I would probably think the pose was bad... still not sexualized to be sexy, but sexualized to emphasize it is a woman (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing). It isn't much of a stretch though to see "Major Kusanagi" from Ghost in the Shell posed like that which is probably why it is more acceptable, at least to me.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely worst poses, even if you give it an anime stylization and theme that are just bad. Clothing aside because that is really a different discussion. But I can't see "Major Kusangai" doing any of these poses:
Spoiler:

Like I have no idea what is going on here, it looks like she might have to use the bathroom. I have tried to imagine movement or how someone would be moving and it being a picture with bad timing but can't even see how it would come about.


From the third angle, this doesn't actually look bad. It could be someone spinning around to look but when you look at the other angles, it just looks horrible. I do not understand the knees close together pose, while feet at a wider stance.


I have a flashback of a Rudolph saying, "She said I'm cute" as she struck the pose.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:04:47


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


DCannon4Life wrote:
If you don't see male, "at ease", figures with the same pelvic tilt, then it's sexualized. If 'real' military women stand at ease like this, and men don't, then it's not. If men stand like that too, but never get modeled as such, then it's sexualized. By sexualized, I don't mean 'sexy'. That's a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.


Nope, the pelvis design of men and women differ so slightly different natural standing poses are the result

now whether this pose is naturally feel more comfortable in or not that I can't tell you


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:08:29


Post by: An Actual Englishman


Jesus christ, the pic above is considered sexualised?! Unbelievable what the pc police will do for funses these days. I stand like that all the time. Women stand like that all the time. It's a god damn resting pose you virgins! Everyone must be really sexualised if you think this is it.

If you're worried about this, don't search for "dark Eldar slaves", it'll blow your mind.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:12:01


Post by: Desubot


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus christ, the pic above is considered sexualised?! Unbelievable what the pc police will do for funses these days. I stand like that all the time. Women stand like that all the time. It's a god damn resting pose you virgins! Everyone must be really sexualised if you think this is it.

If you're worried about this, don't search for "dark Eldar slaves", it'll blow your mind.


Woh there edge master you might poke some ones eye out.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:12:49


Post by: Kanluwen


daedalus wrote:Yes it is horrible and anyone who is okay with it is unbelievable. This is 2018 after all and how do we not know better.

Or, no it's not in the slightest and anyone getting offended is just looking for reasons to get offended because this is what happens in 2018.

The real pity is that it's too early yet here to start drinking.


An Actual Englishman wrote:Jesus christ, the pic above is considered sexualised?! Unbelievable what the pc police will do for funses these days. I stand like that all the time. Women stand like that all the time. It's a god damn resting pose you virgins! Everyone must be really sexualised if you think this is it.

If you're worried about this, don't search for "dark Eldar slaves", it'll blow your mind.

And this is why we can't have quality discussions about things like this.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:21:29


Post by: daedalus


Hey, I'm saving the thread by stating the two conflicting attitudes that will eventually ruin it anyway. Or something. Who cares. Casual nihilism and stuff.

I have no real dog in the fight other than a desire to not see the thread floating on the main page. I guess I can leave if you want.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:40:33


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think this is the issue people have with the pose.
I can agree with the sentiment to a degree. I think this is why I believe context is important. If this was a WWII war game or even one not really centered or based on anime influences, then absolutely I would probably think the pose was bad... still not sexualized to be sexy, but sexualized to emphasize it is a woman (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing). It isn't much of a stretch though to see "Major Kusanagi" from Ghost in the Shell posed like that which is probably why it is more acceptable, at least to me.

Context helps, for sure. I agree an anime-themed game "makes more sense" to have sexualized figures in it because anime often uses overtly sexual themes, and or has characters with exaggerated sexual traits. However, doesn't that facet of anime argue *for* the sniper figure being intentionally sexualized? It is part of one of the games themes after all, and one that has been problematic for some players based on the overt sculpts that line has produced (some of which you referenced).

Knowing Infinity's history of sculpts, it is hard for me to accept that the figure wasn't intentionally sculpted to give the viewer a little titillation (which is fine). Otherwise the sniper would be posed realistically at rest, or just not swaying her hips. or even actually, you know, sniping. I guess the lack of agency on the model's part is what pushes this into sexualized territory for me. You could just as easily snip the gun off the figure and have a "pin-up" miniature. The only way I know she is a sniper is her giant gun, which seems secondary to her hips.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely worst poses, even if you give it an anime stylization and theme that are just bad. Clothing aside because that is really a different discussion. But I can't see "Major Kusangai" doing any of these poses:


I am not sure if this fan art or not, but I can see the Major doing some of those dumb poses.
Spoiler:



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 21:46:18


Post by: Alpharius


A lot of dumb, stupid, off topic and otherwise generally crappy posts have been deleted.

It IS possible to have a serious discussion about this topic - and the OP has legitimate reasons to want to have the discussion.

Posts that attempt to troll and/or derail in here will see the user in question move directly to suspension - we'll be skipping the warning phase.

Hopefully that is clear enough?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:03:23


Post by: PsychoticStorm


I think it goes back to the main argument of the past iterations of the question,an artist will try to enhance the details of the silhouette to make the gender of the sculpt, artwork, whatever medium they work on more prominent, the less you progressively interact with the character the more prominent the little details need to be in order to give the impression it needs to have.

Humans are sexually dimorphic poses and little details are slight to quite different between the genders and that is fine, we are different and there is nothing wrong with that.

Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy"

As for the figure itself, it is a resting pose that enhances the fact the model represents a female trooper, it gives it a silhouette that can be seen from far and most can determine its a female form and does what it needs to do differentiate the model from a male resting pose, for example the male Intruder sniper.



And there is nothing wrong with that, in fact an artist should use such poses and anything else that enhances the form of the character to further impact the feel he or she wants to express.

To conclude.

If by sexualised you mean the pose makes the model look female, yes it is sexualised.
If by sexualised you mean the pose makes the model look sexy, I don't know that is up to the viewers taste.
If by sexualised you mean the pose is designed to make the model sexually appeal to the male buyer, no it is not sexualised.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:10:54


Post by: Red Harvest


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy"
Masculine and feminine do quite well, with the verbs being masculinize/femeninize.

The mini in question is feminine. However, it is a mini, a thing. Best pronoun for it is... it, not she.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:23:15


Post by: LunarSol


It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative. I personally find the "stripper pole" argument more harmful than anything, as its the kind of comment that tries to make something identifiably femine and make that itself a negative. A lot of that comes from "girl" being an insult for as long as it has, which is a parallel issue that's easy to mix up with exploitive representation.

To put it another way; try to imagine a world in which "ninja" was for whatever reason used as an insult. There are few models in gaming with poses as ridiculous as a ninja, but because we associate ninjas with cool things, we think those poses are cool, regardless of their practicality. Remember, sometimes we go out of our way to be impractical to look cool.

I don't personally regard something recognizably female and impractical for the sake of being aesthetically cool to necessarily be sexual. Perhaps more specifically, I associate the idea of something being sexualized as being exploitively so. In many ways it would be worse if the only female representation in a game looked boring compared to the cooler male models. I think its far more important to have things that look impractal and cool and at the same time clearly female, because representation of characters we self identify with is a huge part of what draws people into things like table top games.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:30:53


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Red Harvest wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy"
Masculine and feminine do quite well, with the verbs being masculinize/femeninize.

The mini in question is feminine. However, it is a mini, a thing. Best pronoun for it is... it, not she.


Apologies I meant neutral word, as is sexualised that can be used for male and female genders.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:35:15


Post by: Marmatag


My god people are so sensitive.

Feminine doesn't mean sexual.

Is this oversexualized because it has boobs?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:35:49


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Red Harvest wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy"
Masculine and feminine do quite well, with the verbs being masculinize/femeninize.

The mini in question is feminine. However, it is a mini, a thing. Best pronoun for it is... it, not she.


Apologies I meant neutral word, as is sexualised that can be used for male and female genders.


Yeah, sexualised. Pretty sure its already gender neutral.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:40:34


Post by: Pacific


 Alpharius wrote:
I like that model - one of my favorites from the Haqqislam group.

I don't find it overly or even overtly sexual.


Agree 100%

Probably one of my favourite miniatures in the Haqqislam range, and I know it is for a number of other people too.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 22:58:12


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Marmatag wrote:
Is this oversexualized because it has boobs?


Are you reading the thread or just emotionally posting? The issue isn't breasts but the pose of the model, specifically the hips.




Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 23:01:17


Post by: Elbows


Christ, I hope these people never watch anime...they'll have a heart attack.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/10 23:15:38


Post by: JoshInJapan


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy".


The word we should be using here is "gendered," I think.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 00:32:35


Post by: Dark Severance


 Alpharius wrote:
A lot of dumb, stupid, off topic and otherwise generally crappy posts have been deleted.

It IS possible to have a serious discussion about this topic - and the OP has legitimate reasons to want to have the discussion.

Posts that attempt to troll and/or derail in here will see the user in question move directly to suspension - we'll be skipping the warning phase.

Hopefully, that is clear enough?

Well, that was fast...

It is definitely interesting to get input from those outside of the "Infinity" community chime in. This post wasn't made because someone went overboard or even what I'd consider PC Police. The discussion was derailing the other thread so I thought it would be nice to take a different approach and I think there was a difference of opinion, instead of being offended one way or another. I am trying a different spin of understanding the dynamics behind the posing. I don't think anyone was really triggered in a political type, "This must change" type of attitude over that particular pose. I mean there are probably ones that warrant that but it wasn't that.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Knowing Infinity's history of sculpts, it is hard for me to accept that the figure wasn't intentionally sculpted to give the viewer a little titillation (which is fine). Otherwise the sniper would be posed realistically at rest, or just not swaying her hips. or even actually, you know, sniping. I guess the lack of agency on the model's part is what pushes this into sexualized territory for me. You could just as easily snip the gun off the figure and have a "pin-up" miniature. The only way I know she is a sniper is her giant gun, which seems secondary to her hips.
This is something that as a game designer and someone who has concept art as well as sculpts made is difficult to do. I don't particularly think it was meant to give a little titillation but that is just my opinion. Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.

When I have sculptors or artists working on things, I tend to have 3-5 examples of what I'd consider good poses. I also give them 3-5 examples of what I'd consider bad poses. They are usually current miniatures, although sometimes they are images from TV, movie or real-life references. I tend to give them creative freedom beyond that. That isn't how everyone works, but I don't intentionally go into as "make this look sexy". We tend to go into the design phase of "make it cool" while keeping functionality and realistic in the background but not too far background. The hard part comes trying to make it stand out.

I am not sure if this fan art or not, but I can see the Major doing some of those dumb poses.
Yeah not sure if is fan art. But I don't consider those bad poses. Her backside, turn around shooting pose at least has her legs equally in a balanced shooting stance. She doesn't have her legs in some awkward, caught doing the 'pee-pee' dance. Although one of the poses is in a sexualized manner, it isn't an awkward or strange looking pose. She looks balanced, comfortable and functional. The only part that seems over sexualized is her outfit, but that is a different discussion.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.
How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 01:05:36


Post by: -Loki-


 Dark Severance wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.
How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?


I really wish I knew what model those binoculars came from because I love the mini but as a sniper she doesn't see much use. As an FO she'd see the table every single game.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 01:08:28


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Dark Severance wrote:


 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Knowing Infinity's history of sculpts, it is hard for me to accept that the figure wasn't intentionally sculpted to give the viewer a little titillation (which is fine). Otherwise the sniper would be posed realistically at rest, or just not swaying her hips. or even actually, you know, sniping. I guess the lack of agency on the model's part is what pushes this into sexualized territory for me. You could just as easily snip the gun off the figure and have a "pin-up" miniature. The only way I know she is a sniper is her giant gun, which seems secondary to her hips.
This is something that as a game designer and someone who has concept art as well as sculpts made is difficult to do. I don't particularly think it was meant to give a little titillation but that is just my opinion. Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.

When I have sculptors or artists working on things, I tend to have 3-5 examples of what I'd consider good poses. I also give them 3-5 examples of what I'd consider bad poses. They are usually current miniatures, although sometimes they are images from TV, movie or real-life references. I tend to give them creative freedom beyond that. That isn't how everyone works, but I don't intentionally go into as "make this look sexy". We tend to go into the design phase of "make it cool" while keeping functionality and realistic in the background but not too far background. The hard part comes trying to make it stand out.


I think I understand your perspective, though it seems that you are suggesting in order to make things "stand out," in this case for a hypothetical 20 different sniper sculpts, the sculptors need to make things "cool" and that becomes sexualize the models. If the "normal" i.e. "functional" poses get used up immediately and you still need to sculpt additional snipers, then they have to be punched up a bit and made unique enough to sell? Do I have that correct? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but defaulting to exaggerated sexual features, and or suggestive poses seems like a lazy way of handling the problem of creating variety. Not saying that is what you and your company are doing, but in the case of the sniper you referenced in the OP, it seems more the case of using sexuality to sell the model and make it "unique" rather than finding a creative way to create yet another sniper pose. Again, you even said yourself the way the model is standing with her rifle is unrealistic.

For your other point about sculptors and artists, you do realize that those sculptors and artists are bringing their own biases and preferences into the mix, though, yes? Part of the problem some people have with our industry is the ingrained sexism especially in the art and miniatures, and so it stands to reason that artist, writers and sculptors would bring their own baggage to the table when working on projects. There may not be an intention to create something "sexy" when it should be representing a soldier but the project becomes sexy through conscious or unconscious means through the hands of the artists.


 Dark Severance wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I am not sure if this fan art or not, but I can see the Major doing some of those dumb poses.
Yeah not sure if is fan art. But I don't consider those bad poses. Her backside, turn around shooting pose at least has her legs equally in a balanced shooting stance. She doesn't have her legs in some awkward, caught doing the 'pee-pee' dance. Although one of the poses is in a sexualized manner, it isn't an awkward or strange looking pose. She looks balanced, comfortable and functional. The only part that seems over sexualized is her outfit, but that is a different discussion.


How is the image with the Major's buttocks front and center and her turned backwards much different than this figure?

Spoiler:


To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."

 Dark Severance wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.
How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?


Jumping in here, because that modification looks much better to me. Her hand is on her pistol, and her cocked hips are less of a focus because she looks like she is actually in a pose someone would make, unlike the sniper pose which, as you admit, no one would stand with a rifle in that manner.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 01:10:07


Post by: Kanluwen


 -Loki- wrote:
 Dark Severance wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.
How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?


I really wish I knew what model those binoculars came from because I love the mini but as a sniper she doesn't see much use. As an FO she'd see the table every single game.

Cheapest way to do it is get the Briscard with Heavy Rocket Launcher. The Briscard's version is left-handed though.
The other alternative is the Maverick(dismounted) model that was a limited edition with the USARF army pack.

If you're feeling really gutsy, go for the Marauders. The HRL Marauder has right-handed binoculars.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 01:21:44


Post by: Grot 6


 Ratius wrote:
Im a male.
I stand like the sniper girl all the time.
My back is fubar'd cause of it.
Don't do it gentlemen.


I'm a male and was once upon a time a part time sniper...

The answer to the question is no. As was said by my counterpart- DON'T Try it at home.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 01:46:47


Post by: PsychoticStorm


To be entirely honest the Panzerfaust Ghulam lady is an old sculpt from a new sculptor (back then), I am more impressed the new back then CB took the risk to allow him to have one of his work published by a real company and the improvements on his sculpting under CB's guidance show on this figure, more impressive if from what I recall was an American sculptor so things were probably done by email.

There are many things to consider on a pose, casting, parts, angle and profile, back then CB was relying in traditional sculpting photos were the main way to access a model and photos can be deceptive, especially on pose and scale, some big scale variations were because of this, now with digital sculpting things can be checked easier.

Now on your other comment, No I do not think people "have an issue with our industry" all complains I see are from people who are already playing citing sources out side, our hobbies are mostly a niche of a niche, not many outsider see, care, or bother to look into, to have an issue with.

The fact that one needs to buy a product that needs cleaning, assembling, painting, then make terrain to finally play the game is more of a barrier than female models looking female and male models looking male, witch kinda is the point in making the models look different, for further explanation why this is the case especially from a business and economic standpoint, look at the previous discussion about the same issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:

The other alternative is the Maverick(dismounted) model that was a limited edition with the USARF army pack.


I think these are the parts of that conversion.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 03:05:10


Post by: Dark Severance


 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
For your other point about sculptors and artists, you do realize that those sculptors and artists are bringing their own biases and preferences into the mix, though, yes? Part of the problem some people have with our industry is the ingrained sexism especially in the art and miniatures, and so it stands to reason that artist, writers and sculptors would bring their own baggage to the table when working on projects. There may not be an intention to create something "sexy" when it should be representing a soldier but the project becomes sexy through conscious or unconscious means through the hands of the artists.


I think you may have misunderstood or I might not have explained it correctly. There are different methods to make something stand out, it doesn't have to just be 'cool'. Not to mention what one person might think as cool, another person wouldn't. The cool part was more in reference that Infinity miniatures tend to use the "rule of cool" as an excuse or as a primary reason some of their sculpts are the way they are. That tends to be the primary purpose, sometimes that may translate to exaggerate or can be considered sexualized but that tends to fall upon artist preference.

I don't know the process, in relation to how CB does their models, how much leeway the sculptors have with them vs how much influence is directly from CB themselves. I am not saying they need to be punched up a bit, but I do think that they tend to take the lazy or easy approach. It isn't necessarily a bad or a good thing but it can result in some really bad poses.

I was giving an example of what I do to not saying it was the correct method. But explaining that I do give sculptors and artists their own leeway to bring their own preferences. I do try to influence it indirectly or at least curb it by showing bad and good examples with references. Given my budget though my concept art tends to be front and back images that is usually unposed, this is to give clear detail of the character. Most of the posing I tend to rely on the 3d sculptor. I want to challenge them to do new and creative ways to push the boundaries without necessarily taking the easy way out. Again I don't know if that is what happened. It is what seems like could have happened. Just because something is unrealistic doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.


 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."
The difference between the Major's image and the figure referenced is because one is "thrusting" their rear out and she is not. The Major is not thrusting hers out, her feet are evenly spaced apart and she is turned looking over her shoulder. It would be different if she was bent over while looking over or faced behind her, but she is in a square balanced stance. The infantry trooper isn't in a movement or motion that makes sense, her rear is actually being thrust out unnaturally.

It is more of a case of unnatural vs natural. Just like swapping out the sniper rifle for the binoculars, it looks more natural despite the pose itself didn't change.

Jumping in here, because that modification looks much better to me. Her hand is on her pistol, and her cocked hips are less of a focus because she looks like she is actually in a pose someone would make, unlike the sniper pose which, as you admit, no one would stand with a rifle in that manner.
Her hand on the pistol wasn't modified at all in the alternate version, they just changed her right arm. Her hand is in the same position, her hips in the same position and the only difference was the rifle was removed and her right hand was swapped with bincoulars. Now she may look more natural or that her hip stance had changed but that is becuase the angle of the two images are different (but they are the same pose).

The right arm with the bincoulars would be from this:




For reference, he is a better shot from different angles of the sniper:


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 03:05:17


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


The modified pose looks less stereotypical to me. With the huge gun, the pose looks passive, as if she isn't using the gun expressly so she can stand like a woman. With the binoculars, the pose looks more natural--even though it is the same pose--because the context lends itself more to "just standing around".


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 04:00:01


Post by: -Loki-


Aha, I have that Maverick.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 05:43:55


Post by: ced1106


Model's fine, but the context is that the person in battle should be alert, not at ease.

I think sexualization is a far greater problem outside of the hobby -- and it's not just men looking at women. : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2232842/Women-spend-time-checking-OTHER-WOMEN-men-clothes-figures-hair-interested-in.html


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 05:54:23


Post by: Voss


It isn't a particularly sexualized pose.
It is designed to draw attention that the figure is a woman, which is fine from a design stand point, but I'm sure hypothetical someones at either extreme of any argument about it will find that to be offensive.

But if you want overtly sexualized miniatures of women to argue about, you can definitely find some in the Infinity catalog.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 07:18:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Alpharius wrote:
I don't find it overly or even overtly sexual.
HA. Forget overtly sexual. It's not even covertly sexual.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 08:22:11


Post by: Gimgamgoo


We're looking at figures that are 30mm tall. Many of them wearing masks. If a sculptor wants to make it obvious it's female, there's limited options. Pose it to show a narrow waist and larger hips, make the chest oversized, or go with really long hair.
That particular model is no more sexualised than showing hunky barbarians with 6 packs, surely.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 10:08:13


Post by: fresus


 Gimgamgoo wrote:
We're looking at figures that are 30mm tall. Many of them wearing masks. If a sculptor wants to make it obvious it's female, there's limited options. Pose it to show a narrow waist and larger hips, make the chest oversized, or go with really long hair.
That particular model is no more sexualised than showing hunky barbarians with 6 packs, surely.

I agree.
The model's pose is clearly gendered: even if you hide the torso and the face, you know the model represents a female from the pose alone.
However, there's nothing sexual about it. There is nothing about it that evokes a sexual act (as opposed to the Major's model bending over…).


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 13:57:23


Post by: Stevefamine


Absolutely not, none of these are


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 14:47:25


Post by: LunarSol


 Dark Severance wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.
How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?


When I said I didn't like the rifle, I meant literally just the rifle itself. The barrel makes it look like someone put a comically large silencer on the end of a combi. That's the only thing I don't like, but its still a nice conversion.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 15:09:54


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


I say it is, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, it's a pose chosen to accentuate the female characteristics, and one we don't see male equivalent sculpts in.

Now, that doesn't mean it's the sculptors 'favourite five-tissue-fantasy', but it remains sexualised, as it's designed to draw said attention.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 15:47:48


Post by: jhe90


Its all also on context and comparison ot theme and other minis in the range.

theres alot of room for yes and no in the answer and this could vary quite far. Depending on themes, settings and game type this can influence it.

We say yes and no but sometimes due to size, a degree of sexulised features amd exageration are needed to emphasis the female nature of model as in a perfectly realistic world, a female in armour, and helmet. would be hard pressed to tell bar being slightly slimmer build and minor diffrences to armour form.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 15:48:27


Post by: Ushtarador


It's clearly meant to be a sexy pose, and most people will get this association at first glance. However, the miniature also looks very cool and dangerous and could be the hero of any action movie. In my opinion, whether the sexualized pose is a problem mostly depends on the overall setting. Infinity generally has an anime style going and many miniatures have impractical and/or titillating poses (from both genders), it's a defining feature of the game.

Of course people are people and everybody is outraged on the internet, but that's another problem.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 15:49:39


Post by: Dark Severance


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I say it is, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, it's a pose chosen to accentuate the female characteristics, and one we don't see male equivalent sculpts in.

Now, that doesn't mean it's the sculptors 'favourite five-tissue-fantasy', but it remains sexualised, as it's designed to draw said attention.
This is actually something I'd like to focus on as a discussion point. I find it interesting from a sociology standpoint but for other reasons as well. I got into making miniatures because my wife didn't like any of the male miniatures. They traditionally are what is labeled "male fantasy" where they are bulking barbarian looking, with scars, beards, etc. Now that isn't saying she speaks for what all women find attractive but none of them were hot in her opinion. To get her interested in gaming, I had to find miniatures that interest her even in gaming this held true because she played Horde because of Blood Elfs. That said men and women find things differently from different point of views.

I find it interesting that because something ' accentuates the female characteristics' that qualifies it as sexualized. There are different women who wear certain outfits be sexualized, but traditionally and socially speaking they don't wear those clothes because of that. It can be a secondary reason but the primary reason is they like it for themselves. Men traditionally are different and think jeans and shirt is acceptable so the viewpoints are different.

I guess what I'm asking is... do we come to this conclusion because we are looking at it from a male point of view? Do women find it sexualized for the same reasons? Granted there are definitely miniatures out there that both can agree are and I'm not saying they don't exist. But we make an assumption that it was done to draw attention which seems to be mean sexualize instead of differentiating between counterparts. And because they don't see a male equivalent, despite we know that men and women stand and walk differently that reinforces that belief.

I may not be saying what I'm thinking correctly but I'll start with that.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 15:53:57


Post by: Nurglitch


It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 16:07:39


Post by: ChargerIIC


There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 17:41:17


Post by: Ratius


They traditionally are what is labeled "male fantasy" where they are bulking barbarian looking, with scars, beards,


Yeah but most girls love those type of models. They snap them up dead quick.
I want to see more skinny, pimple faced, glasses-wearing male models.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 18:53:00


Post by: Sqorgar


 ChargerIIC wrote:

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s
You should check again on the combat heel thing. Actually, you should check again on just about everything you said here. They aren't toned down at all compared to the previous models. If anything, they are much sexier (especially if you are into some snu snu)


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:00:05


Post by: Nurglitch


Love me some snu-snu...


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:01:50


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.


You mean the heels they or the SoB never had?
Also, today I learned Warhammer has been around since the 60s, and not the 80s /s
Also, you are aware that the model in the OP is not GW mini, right? Its from Infinity, a Corvus Belli game.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:14:44


Post by: Red Harvest


This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...


Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:25:31


Post by: Dark Severance


 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.
Sure I am not going to deny that there are definitely sexualized poses with GW or other lines. We know that there definitely are such poses. Nor are we saying that it is PC or that it isn't exaggerated or accentuating the female attributes of the character.

It has more or less turned into the discussion of, does exaggerating or emphasizing feminine attributes mean that it is sexualized? Does making something clearly distinguishable between a masculine and feminine character mean sexualization or I guess really exploitation? And does a pose that exists only in female characters and does not have a male in that same pose, mean that it is sexualization?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:52:13


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Dark Severance wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.
Sure I am not going to deny that there are definitely sexualized poses with GW or other lines. We know that there definitely are such poses. Nor are we saying that it is PC or that it isn't exaggerated or accentuating the female attributes of the character.

It has more or less turned into the discussion of, does exaggerating or emphasizing feminine attributes mean that it is sexualized? Does making something clearly distinguishable between a masculine and feminine character mean sexualization or I guess really exploitation? And does a pose that exists only in female characters and does not have a male in that same pose, mean that it is sexualization?


The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper. She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat. Emphasizing her hips is secondary to me that she is just standing there posing with her huge gun presumably in the middle of a field mission. The fact that the reason she is posing like an idiot is so that we can tell she's a woman just makes it feel more like an unfortunate stereotype to me, even if that was not intended by the sculptor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To sum up: not so much sexualization as stereotyping by gender.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 19:54:02


Post by: Luciferian


Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:07:21


Post by: Dark Severance


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper.
I can see that from that perspective. In another discussion, it was mentioned that the "weapon seemed like an after-thought" which seems to be accurate. I believe that is why the modified version of her with the binoculars seems like less of an issue and more acceptable.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.
This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:19:37


Post by: Kanluwen


 Dark Severance wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.
This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?

I think there's such a breadth of different posing options that can be worked out as 'combat adjacent' that some of the wilder/weirder poses shouldn't really be for anything beyond display models.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:26:10


Post by: Fafnir


If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Often times artists will exaggerate and accentuate masculine or feminine features in order to create a more lively, or easily identifiable silhouette. Nothing wrong with that or inherently sexually exploitative, it's a matter of aesthetic.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:36:26


Post by: Nurglitch


 Red Harvest wrote:
This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...


Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.


One can hope, right?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:39:42


Post by: Sqorgar


 Fafnir wrote:
If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Justified dealing out some life lessons. (a bit of cursing)


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:41:24


Post by: Desubot


Nurglitch wrote:
 Red Harvest wrote:
This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...


Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.


One can hope, right?


Im scaroused

Its funny i feel like this thread is some sort of Rorschach test.

op you aren't psychoanalyzing us are you?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 20:43:10


Post by: Momotaro


The pose is basically a mirror image of Michelangelo's David. He doesn't have his right hand on his hip, although the angle of his pelvis is very similar. It's a common sculpture pose, relaxed yet alert, called "contrapposto".

When I saw the statue, our guide pointed out a couple of people in the crowd who were in similar stances.

Hand on hip stereotyped? Maybe, I dunno. Plenty of guys do it too.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 21:17:51


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Dark Severance wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper.
I can see that from that perspective. In another discussion, it was mentioned that the "weapon seemed like an after-thought" which seems to be accurate. I believe that is why the modified version of her with the binoculars seems like less of an issue and more acceptable.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.
This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?


By no means. I am speaking for myself and my own tastes. There are a lot of brilliant miniatures that are not in combat-ready poses; I am just not interested in them. However, it is my belief that a soldier or other combat-centric miniature that is not in a combat pose should have a reason for it, some sort of personality-defining purpose to the pose.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 21:26:27


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Dark Severance wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat.
This brings a question to mind. Should all miniatures in miniatures games always or have to be ready to shoot or participate in combat? Does that limit the types of poses that are available making choices dull and too generic in some cases?


Depends on the market you aim for, combat ready poses are great for realism, bad for painting, if you aim to sell only to players of your wargame, then it does not matter, if you aim to sell to people who play your wargame and to miniature painters there is a whole other layer of considerations you need to think for the poses of your range.

That been said, combat poses, in general, obscure the form and make identification of what the model represents (as troop type and weapons) difficult (or we go to a set of few blunt poses) that is another layer of considerations for the poses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.


I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 21:55:51


Post by: Luciferian


 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.


I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.


Not to mention the fact that they are around 80% straight white males, which should give anyone pause when they claim to speak for women as a group.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:02:06


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 Luciferian wrote:
 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.


I find it hard to believe anything good comes from this group, but colour me intrigued, I usually avoid closed groups who require "ideological pledge" to let you join on what is supposed to be a public discussion.


Not to mention the fact that they are around 80% straight white males, which should give anyone pause when they claim to speak for women as a group.


If you read their FAQ; it's downright scary. They sound like a cult, a very scary cult, where only they know what's the truth.

On topic: I find the model not to be sexist, only "playful", giving a very feminine vibe but that's it. She's still a badass sniper with the weapon to prove it. I like these models that aren't in combat, they are fun.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:08:51


Post by: Luciferian


The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:10:25


Post by: Desubot


 Luciferian wrote:
The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.


Well that and she probably should cut her hair.

it might get caught in something.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:23:18


Post by: Luciferian


True, that haircut is definitely out of regs.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:30:24


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 Luciferian wrote:
True, that haircut is definitely out of regs.


Yeah, but this is a case of "Rule of Cool". Every model with long hair doesn't make sense in a combat miniature since an enemy can grab it and if I'm not mistaken, hygiene is also a valid reason to crop it, but I'll be damned if it wouldn't be boring if everything was short hair.

Or maybe it's just me, but I love to paint long flowy hair


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:36:41


Post by: Luciferian


To be fair the same could be said of the male model that accompanies her. Frosted, anime spike hair is not by any means a practical haircut for a professional soldier. But it looks cool and it gives you something to paint.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 22:53:06


Post by: -Loki-


The thing with the hair on both of them is the same reason we have walking manned robot suits, girls with rabbit ears, women with bare midriffs and wearing high heels into combat zones. Despite how much people want to deny it, Infinity is rooted in an anime aesthetic. It's gradually gotten more 'hard sci fi' over the years but that influence has always, and will always be there.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/11 23:11:38


Post by: Elemental


 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.


Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 00:40:35


Post by: Pacific


 Fafnir wrote:
If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.

Often times artists will exaggerate and accentuate masculine or feminine features in order to create a more lively, or easily identifiable silhouette. Nothing wrong with that or inherently sexually exploitative, it's a matter of aesthetic.


I agree with that second paragraph.

Representation of the human form is one of the foundation stones of painted, drawn and sculpted art. That's the case because it, in simple terms, can be beautiful, and is something that tugs on our emotional strings. We're designed to find the human form attractive, and consequently representations of it (although, looking at some of the toy/miniature stuff you can get from asia, some people take that part a bit too far). I think the fact that the hobby is so male dominated means that you get miniatures designed to appeal, and not so much for the other way round (and when you do you get guys sculpting what they think is the kind of thing that women want to see.. which often isn't that at all)

Something like the sniper, or the miniature below, in some ways I find less offensive (or should I say offensive to my sensibilities) than someone swinging a chainsaw or with an angry, shouting face and firing a missile launcher. She's got hips and looks fairly cool. So what?





Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 00:47:14


Post by: Galas


 Elemental wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.


Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.


To be honest , "sexualized" males aren't a common sing out there.

This is not a sexualized male, as much as people likes to put him as a example of it:
Spoiler:


THIS are sexualized males.:
Spoiler:

Spoiler:


Is easy to spot the difference. If you see a semi naked male and think "Wow, I want to be like him"; he isn't sexualized. If you see one and think "Wow, thats some weird stuff", then its sexualized.

Now I'll say that I have 0 problems with sexualization and even if I find the miniature a little "eye catching", I really like it. I was just answering to the "Portrayals of men are almost never critisied for being sexualized". Thats because the portrayal of sexualized men is very, very small.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 01:32:19


Post by: PsychoticStorm


All are sexualised, the difference is the culture that created them, all aim to give a male form in the prime form their culture believes it to be, you find it "weird" because your image, does not align with theirs.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 01:46:29


Post by: Mario


Dark Severance wrote:Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.
I don't mind the initial miniature too much and I don't know if I would actually say it's overtly sexualised but the pose is a rather boring cliche of the sassy and confident archetype for female poses.

The question of how to make them stand out from each other is an interesting problem and the main issue when you need multiple miniatures (even if they are not all connected by being the same type or wearing the same outfit). I don't think "SJW" would mind too much if female miniatures were more sexualised in their presentation if the same happened to male miniatures too. But that usually doesn't happen too often. Female miniatures often rely on "sexy" poses or outfits to differentiate them from the male ones while the male ones look regular. Why do female miniatures often rely on sexualisation to differentiate them but male ones don't?

Imagine a line of miniatures where the female miniatures were all in the standard poses while the male miniatures often had some variations of a pelvic thrust pose, maybe they also focused a bit too much on an exaggerated adonis belt (or the clavicle/shoulder/calves), softer musculature (and not extreme bodybuilder physique), or with posing that exposed and exaggerated certain features no matter what the male miniature's job actually were. The line would feel unbalanced and strange. Call me crazy but I think that if male miniature can manage to have such a huge diversity of poses, body types, outfits, and expressions without constantly drifting into the liminal space of maybe—or maybe not—being sexualised then the same should be also possible for female miniature.

Fafnir wrote:If you see penises and stripper poles everywhere you go, maybe the problem isn't that penises and stripper poles are everywhere, but rather the problem might just be that they're always on your mind.
If only it were that but we just tend do see a lot of stripper poles (as shorthand for sexualised female miniatures) and nearly no penises (as shorthand for sexualised male miniatures). The "problem" some people have with this is the lack of balance in the depiction (besides often breaking immersion). Why does the depiction of women often just drift so quickly into old cliches?

I still love this sniper very much and the miniature is recognisable as female even without the usually heavily exaggerated indicators. And this female barbarian looks more believable (despite the loose boob) than these even if the Confrontation barbarians have both breasts covered.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 01:52:42


Post by: SagesStone


 Luciferian wrote:
The thing that I dislike about the sculpt is that she has her hand over the muzzle of her weapon. But that would be annoying whether it was a male or female model.


Either she doesn't like that hand or the sculptor didn't want her gripping the barrel as it may have been confused as a sexual pose.
I'm wondering what the other model's pose is though, it looks like they're being swarmed by bees or something and trying to brush them off.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 02:32:54


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Oh he is a hacker, he manipulates a VR interface only he can see.

That is actually another good example of exaggeration, CB has said many times hackers in reality would do minor moves usually non perceivable, but to emphasise their role they give them these poses.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 17:23:41


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 Dark Severance wrote:
 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."
The difference between the Major's image and the figure referenced is because one is "thrusting" their rear out and she is not. The Major is not thrusting hers out, her feet are evenly spaced apart and she is turned looking over her shoulder. It would be different if she was bent over while looking over or faced behind her, but she is in a square balanced stance. The infantry trooper isn't in a movement or motion that makes sense, her rear is actually being thrust out unnaturally.

It is more of a case of unnatural vs natural. Just like swapping out the sniper rifle for the binoculars, it looks more natural despite the pose itself didn't change.


Respectfully, this seems like a distinction without a difference. The focus of the Ghulan Infantry figure is the woman's rear. The focus of the image of the Major is her rear. The leg stance seems secondary to the fact that the artists wanted you to focus on the women's buttocks.

What makes the Ghulan figure with binoculars work for me is that her pose seems natural because she isn't using a sniper rifle prop. She looks like a soldier at rest armed with a pistol and binoculars. In that context the pose is fine. With the sniper rifle, she is not in a natural pose and not in anyway indicating she is a sniper other than the prop gun she has. That the figure looks more natural without the gun simply reinforces how awkward the sniper sculpt is in my opinion.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 18:44:14


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Correct, context is the key, the Ghulam is in a pose that contextually makes sense, she is hiding behind some frame spotting enemies, its a natural pose, but out of context it does not make much sense.

The sniper is a resting pose makes more sense she is posing for a picture than be on the battlefield, its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 21:37:55


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.


Exactly! I'm a painter first, gamer second, and I love when I paint the occasional "relaxed" miniature. It's a breath of fresh air


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 22:08:44


Post by: DarkTraveler777


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The sniper is a resting pose makes more sense she is posing for a picture than be on the battlefield, its not a combat pose but painters love to paint these models.


Which is why the model gets labeled as sexualized by some. If the context to understand the pose is "she is taking a picture" then the model is not a sniper and is simply a female figure holding a prop in a "sassy" pose.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 22:17:14


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Maybe she wants to screw up her back so she can get sent home from Space 'Nam?

Might explain her hand on the barrel, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It tells a story. She ain't no fortunate one.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 22:35:05


Post by: Ulfhednar_42


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Maybe she wants to screw up her back so she can get sent home from Space 'Nam?

Might explain her hand on the barrel, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It tells a story. She ain't no fortunate one.


That there is a million dollar wound, straight through your hand without hitting a single bone. If it wasn't for the powder burns on your palm, I'd say you were shot by a sniper.

Oh you are a sniper.

Here's your 247, get out of my office.


I don't think it's a titillating sexualized pose, but the lack of muzzle discipline (hand on a suppressor, over the muzzle) in the model screams "conscript" not "trained sniper" to me.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/12 22:38:05


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Jane Fonda in the Negaverse?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/13 04:03:29


Post by: Alpharius


Sometimes, if all you've got is The LULZ, well, maybe it doesn't need to be posted?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 01:28:38


Post by: Paimon


Someone wrote a thing that I will try to summarize because I can't be arsed to find it.

They tended to dislike the "strong female characters" that were badass fighters and were worried that it was some kind of internalized misogyny. Then they watched the new Mad Max, and didn't get that same feeling at all, and realized that the thing that bugged them about the fighting styles of characters like Black Widow was that it was "fighting" choreographed to emphasize that this character is a woman, and look at how sexily she can beat people up, whereas Furiosa was brutal, efficient, and allowed to be ugly while she fought.

That said, mini's are an inch tall, and can blur together on a table top unless they are exaggerated at least a little. It's a pointlessly feminized pose, but not really sexualized. But I agree with the people talking about the context of the pose, comparing the sniper vs the binoculars.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 16:42:43


Post by: Llamahead


Treating your gun like that? It's a disgrace man or woman a delicate piece of equipent like that should be treated with more care.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 16:47:46


Post by: Trondheim


Oh Odin help me! If People manage to anything sexual about that figure they need to seek help, for their represed sexual issues.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 19:07:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


An important thing to remember when comparing game or movie characters with sculpts, is that sculpts do not benefit neither from the animation nor the story arc of these mediums, they are static likewise in comics while the characters are static they ahve an arc.

You cannot pull a Samus Aran in a miniature for example.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 19:48:49


Post by: Elbows


Without going on a long-winded tangent, for me it boils down to: it's their product, their sculpt, their decision.

Don't like it? Piss off.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/14 20:52:17


Post by: stroller


It took me a while to decide which way to jump off the fence.

In my infinite wisdom, it's my view that the pose is not sexualised, but that the paintjob is. Google the model, and there's an unpainted "as supplied" on a blog.

That said, its theoretical for me: I don't actually like the model, and wouldn't buy it. YMMV


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 03:51:08


Post by: a_dead_thing


I think the OP is putting too much thought into a wargame miniature. Granted I'm not going to throw down cash for a tits out mini, but I'm not going to refrain from buying a mini like the OP is having a breakdown over. Or even care if it shatters some bodies sensibilities.
And 2018 has nothing to do with it. Have you seen how easy it is to get port. Of all kinds. And you think sexualization is out of fashion! Lol.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 10:20:07


Post by: PsychoticStorm


In context the OP is not having a breakdown over a miniature, others outside the thread had, OP has his own new miniature company and validly asks what people think about the subject.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 10:39:35


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Nah I think it's fine. Looks like a touch exaggerated version of how a woman would stand, which might come across a bit "sexualised" when the model is blown up to 5 times its actual size on a computer monitor but would look normal on a table top. Both men and women often stand with one leg locked straight and the other slightly bent or not locked, but due to the proportions of a woman it makes her hips stand out more than a man.

You guys can be the ones to tell Roza Shanina she needs to pull her hips in...



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 11:01:35


Post by: FrozenDwarf


You cant set a general norm on these kind of things as every single human as their own preferences on the subject at hand.

However it is easyer for a small to medium reputation known company do get away with these things then the big companys can.
So i would dare to say that for the players of infinity, majority of them would not think that is a sexualized pose(me included) when you see some of the other poses their female models have.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 12:50:05


Post by: lyrken


The pose is fine.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 13:24:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Galas wrote:
 Elemental wrote:
 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.


Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.


To be honest , "sexualized" males aren't a common sing out there.

This is not a sexualized male, as much as people likes to put him as a example of it:
Spoiler:


THIS are sexualized males.:
Spoiler:

Spoiler:


Is easy to spot the difference. If you see a semi naked male and think "Wow, I want to be like him"; he isn't sexualized. If you see one and think "Wow, thats some weird stuff", then its sexualized.

Now I'll say that I have 0 problems with sexualization and even if I find the miniature a little "eye catching", I really like it. I was just answering to the "Portrayals of men are almost never critisied for being sexualized". Thats because the portrayal of sexualized men is very, very small.
If you're going to make that argument, they're all sexualised males, just in different ways. The former is a buff dude sexualisation and the latter is a pretty boy effeminate sexualisation.

I don't know where this idea came from that sexualised males had to look almost creepily effeminate (like that weird scary batman comic thing that occasionally pops up in these discussions), it might be a specific woman's creepy fantasy to be with a batman who looks like a bug eyed pansy but it's not a global representation of women find attractive.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/15 13:44:47


Post by: Captain Joystick


I wouldn't say it's sexualized, beyond the apparent belly-shirt (though from seeing the other minis, is that an element of their uniform?) I'd surely say it's a bit sexist, which I think is the point that the original quoted person is making... But calling that a 'pole dancer' is an exaggeration.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/17 07:53:39


Post by: XuQishi


The pose is fine, I think. It emphasizes the feminine aspect of the miniature (generally stuff like that is hard to do without going overboard in 28-mm-Miniatures, which is probably one of the reasons why you hardly ever see black or asian characters: you're supposed to see that they possess these features, but it is very difficult not to get into the realm of racist caricature, even unintentionally). At least she doesn't have the "I've got to pee"-pose that's so common in anime-inspired miniatures.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/17 13:15:10


Post by: Wunzlez


I hope nobody mentions the Darkland's Ysian Melusines...

Oh no! Whoops!


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 02:10:40


Post by: Frankenberry


*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 03:09:17


Post by: beowulfhunter


 Frankenberry wrote:
*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.


People just want to be offended. I suggest they eat a Tide Pod, but that is me.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 12:29:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


Let's try and make substantive contributions to the debate.

Thanks...


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 14:18:34


Post by: Albertorius


I think that Infinity has a gak-ton of overtly sexualized female miniatures, many in some quite weird ways.

I would not say that sniper is one of them, actually I'd say it's one of the better ones in that regard. No weird molded boob armor (just cloth and a "generous" bosom), no combat heels, no weird "ass&tits on show" pose... only thing I can fault there is that's a weird way to treat a rifle, and that the quartermaster seems to have given her a vest three sizes too small.

I mean... priorities.




EDIT: Whoops, wrong mini. Fixed.



That's literally from a 1-minute GIS.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 15:14:04


Post by: ChargerIIC


Sigh..Infinity. Making you ashamed to be seen in public with your figures since 2005.

It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

The figure in question isn't terribly sexualized and outside of a couple game systems the trend is towards less obvious sexualization. Which is probably a good thing, as gamers are more likely to be family people these days and the number of women in the hobby go up. It's going from a cheap technique to get lonely gamers to buy figures they don't need to an easy way to drive away customers who are likely to buy figures for themselves, their spouse and their soon to be indoctrinated 10 year old kids. Of course, this is moving someone's cheese, so the intenret will be in a flame war about it for the next couple decades.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 18:04:30


Post by: Dark Severance


 Frankenberry wrote:
*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.

beowulfhunter wrote:
People just want to be offended. I suggest they eat a Tide Pod, but that is me.


I don't believe having discussions on if something is sexualized or exploitation isn't a bad thing to have. It was meant to be intellectual. I also don't believe anyone was truly offended, this wasn't a SJW response or someone outraged.

The miniature itself was an example but the real qualifying statement about if something was "sexualized" was, "Since males aren't in the same pose, then the conclusion is it must be sexualized" which I didn't agree with. Overall I think the majority of people are in some sort of agreement that it wasn't over the top but it does emphasize the female qualities, which is not technically bad or good.

Now some insight on the pole dancer statement. I have been told that the origins of that statement was because of discussions with the sculptor who had said he sculpted the model after looking at reference photos of pole-dancing classes and that he was told to 'make it sexy'. I don't know if that is true but I also don't have a reason to doubt it, but that is why the statement came about not particularly because that person immediately saw a pole dancer.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.
To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 18:16:02


Post by: Desubot


Seems that most miniature type games kinda need to emphasize certain aspects of the human form for humanoid models as it doesn't read from 3 feet away.
its kinda why a Cadian in real life would be pretty monstrously proportioned.
that's more of a sculpting technique if anything and is probably drilled into classically trained artists. at the same time..... some of those infinity models. well if that is what the sculptor and painters are into. :/ for the most part pigeon legged women would be a pretty good indicator of a sculptor trying to sexualized a female sculpt. (i think, im not a woman and i dont think iv ever seen a normal woman walk or pose that way that wasnt in some magazine)

though things like pin ups, special editions and basically all of kingdom death are pretty obviously trying to be sexualized for various reasons.



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 18:44:28


Post by: ChargerIIC


 ChargerIIC wrote:
It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.
To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.


I agree that most are fine. The werewolf figures and 90% of the kilted range are figures I dream about painting/playing with. The aliens are pretty cool too. Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists. Maybe in 5-10 years.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 19:06:25


Post by: Luciferian


 ChargerIIC wrote:

Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists.


Care to elaborate on that?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 19:20:42


Post by: Frankenberry


 ChargerIIC wrote:
Sigh..Infinity. Making you ashamed to be seen in public with your figures since 2005.

It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

The figure in question isn't terribly sexualized and outside of a couple game systems the trend is towards less obvious sexualization. Which is probably a good thing, as gamers are more likely to be family people these days and the number of women in the hobby go up. It's going from a cheap technique to get lonely gamers to buy figures they don't need to an easy way to drive away customers who are likely to buy figures for themselves, their spouse and their soon to be indoctrinated 10 year old kids. Of course, this is moving someone's cheese, so the intenret will be in a flame war about it for the next couple decades.


- Make a sweeping generalization that is based solely on nothing.
- Points out the merits of the game itself, then quickly backtracks to avoid sounding objective.
- Insults a customer base, then switches to the soapbox in order to again, avoid having to answer for insulting said customer base.
- Finally, ends the entire post with a passive-aggressive comment that nullifies the previous message in total, blaming some nameless/faceless group of angry folks on the internet.

I don't get it, is it just good looking women-figures that you hate or is your ire reserved for the overly-muscled, strongjaw male types as well? Asking for a friend.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 20:12:08


Post by: techsoldaten


 ChargerIIC wrote:
To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.

I agree that most are fine. The werewolf figures and 90% of the kilted range are figures I dream about painting/playing with. The aliens are pretty cool too. Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists. Maybe in 5-10 years.


The background of 40k consists of:

- Cult-worship of skeletal remains
- Xenophobes
- Devil Worshippers
- Devils
- Bioforms with an irrepressible, instinctive urge to consume everything organic
- Green humanoids that assemble weapons out of spare parts to carry out wars of convenience
- Constructs that cheat death through preservation of their souls in jewelry and mechanical shells
- Inquisitions, genocides, destruction of planets, summary execution, mass slavery, oppression

... and that's just for starters. The backgrounds of most other games are a watered down rehash of the same dark future narratives.

If gender stereotypes are what keep your wife away, but she accepts and enjoys the rest, you are dealing with a very flawed individual in need of professional help. I really don't believe that's the case, and anyone with that much of a conscience would be adverse to playing the game.

The fact you are encouraging your wife to engage in this activity, which is clearly dissonant and dysphoric in relation to her expressed sensitivity to gender roles, probably constitutes abuse. Pressuring someone to engage in an activity which they find offensive or actually leads to harm cannot be considered consensual. As a spouse, you have a responsibility to provide safe harbor from activities that could lead to harm, not encourage enthusiastic engagement in it. This is like giving a spouse a gun and encouraging her or him to rob a convenience store, it's wrong because of the trust they put in you to protect them from harm.

I don't know you and understand I don't have enough of the facts to understand exactly what is going on here. But what has been described is disturbing at a lot of levels. Who you invite to play tabletop games matters.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 20:52:58


Post by: Luciferian


I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Charger's wife hasn't ever actually said anything to the effect of, "table top gamers are misogynists," and that he's ascribing such a viewpoint to her because of some level of cognitive dissonance on his own part. Either he can't reconcile with the fact that his wife doesn't truly enjoy war games and so has to find some way to explain her ambivalence towards them, or he simply doesn't believe that any woman could feel any differently about them because that's what he's been told is the inviolate truth by BuzzFeed and Mashable.

In any case, it is definitely pretty weird to indirectly cast aspersions on the whole of a community to which one belongs themselves, and to do it vicariously through someone else's mouth when they're not around to share their perspective or give it context. Then again, that's exactly what I've come to expect from people who claim to champion entire groups of people they don't even belong to.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:00:27


Post by: ChargerIIC


 Frankenberry wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
Sigh..Infinity. Making you ashamed to be seen in public with your figures since 2005.

It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

The figure in question isn't terribly sexualized and outside of a couple game systems the trend is towards less obvious sexualization. Which is probably a good thing, as gamers are more likely to be family people these days and the number of women in the hobby go up. It's going from a cheap technique to get lonely gamers to buy figures they don't need to an easy way to drive away customers who are likely to buy figures for themselves, their spouse and their soon to be indoctrinated 10 year old kids. Of course, this is moving someone's cheese, so the intenret will be in a flame war about it for the next couple decades.


- Make a sweeping generalization that is based solely on nothing.
- Points out the merits of the game itself, then quickly backtracks to avoid sounding objective.
- Insults a customer base, then switches to the soapbox in order to again, avoid having to answer for insulting said customer base.
- Finally, ends the entire post with a passive-aggressive comment that nullifies the previous message in total, blaming some nameless/faceless group of angry folks on the internet.

I don't get it, is it just good looking women-figures that you hate or is your ire reserved for the overly-muscled, strongjaw male types as well? Asking for a friend.


Wow. You took those goalposts and ran with them, didn't you?

I have nothing against good looking people in a tabletop game. I'm a little concerned that you seem to only think a woman is goodlooking if she bares her breasts and bends over, but that's a whole separate thread.

Saying a model is sexualized does not insult a playerbase. I think even those defending the look would admit that some of the figures are well into softcore porn range, given they bear the same outfits, poses and looks found on softcore porn cosplay sites.

This thread gives enough examples of people who are upset over the trend to remove/remodel overtly sexualized models that I don't need to name names, nor would it be proper to do so given the rules of the Dakka forum.

We've seen multiple games curb their more extreme models and art in the past 10 years, a charge generally led by Wizards of the Coast in MTG and D&D, not to mention Games Workshop and Privateer Press. You wouldn't be getting so upset if they weren't. I mentioned Necromunda as a good example earlier in this thread, did they remove sexuality? No. They did tone it down. You'd have to be easily triggered to get offended at the Escher range or illustrations made for this new version.

I don't want this to devolve into a flame war, but I'm certain people will read my post and yours and come to their own conclusions based on what has been said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.

I agree that most are fine. The werewolf figures and 90% of the kilted range are figures I dream about painting/playing with. The aliens are pretty cool too. Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists. Maybe in 5-10 years.


The background of 40k consists of:

- Cult-worship of skeletal remains
- Xenophobes
- Devil Worshippers
- Devils
- Bioforms with an irrepressible, instinctive urge to consume everything organic
- Green humanoids that assemble weapons out of spare parts to carry out wars of convenience
- Constructs that cheat death through preservation of their souls in jewelry and mechanical shells
- Inquisitions, genocides, destruction of planets, summary execution, mass slavery, oppression

... and that's just for starters. The backgrounds of most other games are a watered down rehash of the same dark future narratives.

If gender stereotypes are what keep your wife away, but she accepts and enjoys the rest, you are dealing with a very flawed individual in need of professional help. I really don't believe that's the case, and anyone with that much of a conscience would be adverse to playing the game.

The fact you are encouraging your wife to engage in this activity, which is clearly dissonant and dysphoric in relation to her expressed sensitivity to gender roles, probably constitutes abuse. Pressuring someone to engage in an activity which they find offensive or actually leads to harm cannot be considered consensual. As a spouse, you have a responsibility to provide safe harbor from activities that could lead to harm, not encourage enthusiastic engagement in it. This is like giving a spouse a gun and encouraging her or him to rob a convenience store, it's wrong because of the trust they put in you to protect them from harm.

I don't know you and understand I don't have enough of the facts to understand exactly what is going on here. But what has been described is disturbing at a lot of levels. Who you invite to play tabletop games matters.


I think you've made some serious assumptions about the nature of my invitation to my wife and to her own nature. I assure you, women do not break down psychologically form playing Warhammer 4000. They are a rising presence in the tabletop world and I've never heard of any of them suffering a mental break, nor did I indicate that one would occur. You seem to have some very strong opinions on gender roles, but I assure you that my wife isn't some kind of mental health case. I don't think you have enough information to carry out your loudly stated opinion that we should both be removed from general society and commited to psychiatric care. That's a pretty extreme punishment for disagreeing with you.

Let me be clear: Not all women hate the sexualized poses. Some even prefer them. They do however, create an unwelcoming atmosphere for the majority of women and have been used as an excuse to call this a "man's hobby" and to harass and chase out female players. Women and Families have a vital role to play in the future of this hobby and the game companies know that. It's not a bad thing and indeed is a driving force behind the recent upsurge in FLGS presence.

I said this in a previous response but I'll repeat it here. There is no reason to resort to personal attacks or hyperbole. I've stated my opinion and you are free to state yours in the same thread. People will read both and come to their own conclusion. Attacking each other just makes us both look pointless.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:18:49


Post by: techsoldaten


 Luciferian wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Charger's wife hasn't ever actually said anything to the effect of, "table top gamers are misogynists," and that he's ascribing such a viewpoint to her because of some level of cognitive dissonance on his own part. Either he can't reconcile with the fact that his wife doesn't truly enjoy war games and so has to find some way to explain her ambivalence towards them, or he simply doesn't believe that any woman could feel any differently about them because that's what he's been told is the inviolate truth by BuzzFeed and Mashable.

In any case, it is definitely pretty weird to indirectly cast aspersions on the whole of a community to which one belongs themselves, and to do it vicariously through someone else's mouth when they're not around to share their perspective or give it context. Then again, that's exactly what I've come to expect from people who claim to champion entire groups of people they don't even belong to.


Let's assume the author is being genuine and take his comments at face value. His wife is an excellent tabletop gamer and perceives an undercurrent of misogyny in the design of models that keeps her away from the game.

EVERYTHING else about the game keeps someone away. Anyone who is sensitive to the role of women would surely take issue with the themes of domination, slavery, religious overtones, empire-building, and outright brutality that are essential parts of the game. These are the instruments used by men to disenfranchise women throughout the history of Western culture and mean more than a little plastic model on a table.

What concerns me is how anyone could coerce another person into playing a game they are clearly going to have issues with? How is someone going to enthusiastically enjoy a gaming experience centered around things they detest, and what right does he have to do this to that person?

This is less about enjoying something with someone and more about doing something to someone, which is abuse. Not going to debate it to death, some things are just wrong and we don't need a court to tell us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry about the double post, this just has me furious.

Have any of you ever read the Invisible Napsack?

https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

This is a good place to start for understanding the level of privilege wrapped up in some of the statements in this thread. While it's possible for us to understand that women are disadvantaged, it's possible to be blind to our own advantages in society at the same time.

Telling other people that you are going to keep your wife away from a game over depictions of women, then let her back in - despite the other obvious problems - is just way out of control. Understand, this is not her voice - this is a man expressing his intent to coerce her into continued exposure to something that contains misogynistic undertones at every level.

As a community, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our most vulnerable members and work to create an inclusive and welcoming environment everyone can enthusiastically enjoy. We can't do that in an environment where open discussions about coralling the activities of partners and forcing them to be exposed to abusive ideas are allowed to flourish.

This has me so mad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
I think you've made some serious assumptions about the nature of my invitation to my wife and to her own nature. I assure you, women do not break down psychologically form playing Warhammer 4000. They are a rising presence in the tabletop world and I've never heard of any of them suffering a mental break, nor did I indicate that one would occur. You seem to have some very strong opinions on gender roles, but I assure you that my wife isn't some kind of mental health case. I don't think you have enough information to carry out your loudly stated opinion that we should both be removed from general society and commited to psychiatric care. That's a pretty extreme punishment for disagreeing with you.

Let me be clear: Not all women hate the sexualized poses. Some even prefer them. They do however, create an unwelcoming atmosphere for the majority of women and have been used as an excuse to call this a "man's hobby" and to harass and chase out female players. Women and Families have a vital role to play in the future of this hobby and the game companies know that. It's not a bad thing and indeed is a driving force behind the recent upsurge in FLGS presence.

I said this in a previous response but I'll repeat it here. There is no reason to resort to personal attacks or hyperbole. I've stated my opinion and you are free to state yours in the same thread. People will read both and come to their own conclusion. Attacking each other just makes us both look pointless.


Must be real nice to be able to ignore all the brutality that's part of the lore and assume your wife will be okay with it then, right?

She must be lucky to have you to make up her mind for her. Doesn't matter the harm it might do.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:38:24


Post by: Luciferian


Well, at a certain level I feel like most adults are capable of forming decisions about what they do and don't like and handling that in a responsible manner. There are plenty of female gamers, and female 40k players, and from what I've heard from the mouths of the ones I've spoken to, they are indeed fans of the lore and setting of their chosen fictional universes. You can be a fan of 40k precisely because of its over the top, dystopian brutality. There are certainly women who are.

But that really comes to the crux of the issue; if you don't like the setting or aesthetic of a game, don't play it. That isn't me as a man telling women not to play wargames, that is me as a wargamer telling people who don't like wargames not to play them. If you feel that something must be fundamentally modified in order for you to even consider taking part in it then that thing is probably best left to people who do actually enjoy it. Start a Kickstarter for your own game in your own image. Break out some putty and get sculpting. If people like your vision, they will get involved. If they don't, there's no sense in trying to force them to, because it won't be successful.

There is a lot to be said for major companies and cultural icons making efforts to be culturally aware and inclusive, but it's inane to pursue the idea that everything should be pleasing and inoffensive to everyone at all times. If only because it's impossible.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:43:52


Post by: ChargerIIC


 Luciferian wrote:
Well, at a certain level I feel like most adults are capable of forming decisions about what they do and don't like and handling that in a responsible manner. There are plenty of female gamers, and female 40k players, and from what I've heard from the mouths of the ones I've spoken to, they are indeed fans of the lore and setting of their chosen fictional universes. You can be a fan of 40k precisely because of its over the top, dystopian brutality. There are certainly women who are.

But that really comes to the crux of the issue; if you don't like the setting or aesthetic of a game, don't play it. That isn't me as a man telling women not to play wargames, that is me as a wargamer telling people who don't like wargames not to play them. If you feel that something must be fundamentally modified in order for you to even consider taking part in it then that thing is probably best left to people who do actually enjoy it. Start a Kickstarter for your own game in your own image. Break out some putty and get sculpting. If people like your vision, they will get involved. If they don't, there's no sense in trying to force them to, because it won't be successful.

There is a lot to be said for major companies and cultural icons making efforts to be culturally aware and inclusive, but it's inane to pursue the idea that everything should be pleasing and inoffensive to everyone at all times. If only because it's impossible.


While I don't 100% agree with the statement, I do want to +1 this as pretty damn well written.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:48:49


Post by: techsoldaten


 Luciferian wrote:
Well, at a certain level I feel like most adults are capable of forming decisions about what they do and don't like and handling that in a responsible manner. There are plenty of female gamers, and female 40k players, and from what I've heard from the mouths of the ones I've spoken to, they are indeed fans of the lore and setting of their chosen fictional universes. You can be a fan of 40k precisely because of its over the top, dystopian brutality. There are certainly women who are.

But that really comes to the crux of the issue; if you don't like the setting or aesthetic of a game, don't play it. That isn't me as a man telling women not to play wargames, that is me as a wargamer telling people who don't like wargames not to play them. If you feel that something must be fundamentally modified in order for you to even consider taking part in it then that thing is probably best left to people who do actually enjoy it. Start a Kickstarter for your own game in your own image. Break out some putty and get sculpting. If people like your vision, they will get involved. If they don't, there's no sense in trying to force them to, because it won't be successful.

There is a lot to be said for major companies and cultural icons making efforts to be culturally aware and inclusive, but it's inane to pursue the idea that everything should be pleasing and inoffensive to everyone at all times. If only because it's impossible.


It's not possible for us to consider every possible viewpoint, but it *is* possible to exclude the ones that are discriminatory or oppressive to others.

Anyone who wants to claim 40k is anything by misogynistic - at any level - has not done their research into how systematic hostility and oppression are used to control women. Sure, there are some people who are going to say it's only a game and see it as something other than deep-seated hatred of women.

But this guy is talking about specific plans to coerced his wife into being exposed to the game despite the fact she is clearly put off by representations of females. I can't think of a louder non-verbal she could be giving him about what she does and does not consent to.

To be clear, exposing a woman to 40k, even an internalized misogynist who is not sensitive to depictions of females in the game, is harmful in that it's reinforcing a system of oppression. It could not be any more clear that's what's going on here.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:55:50


Post by: Galas


I think the difference between the representation of genocide in 40k and the representation (Or misrepresentation of women) in 40k, is that the first one is part of the lore, and accepted. The second one isn't in the lore, is a product of the company not producing female models and the authors not making female characters.

Warhammer 40k lore is many things, but it isn't mysoginist. If it was, it could be critizised for it (And it would, oh boy), but it would be part of the lore, like SM being male. But the lack of Imperial Guard, Eldar, etc... female models and relevant characters isn't part of the lore. But to be honest I haven't encounter a 40k fan opossed to more female models for Tau, Eldar, IG, etc... barring some extrange cases of: "But 40k is my manly-hobby! What I'm gonna do if it is invaded by FEMINIDS?!". But I have found like... 2-3 guys like that.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 21:56:11


Post by: Luciferian


 techsoldaten wrote:


It's not possible for us to consider every possible viewpoint, but it *is* possible to exclude the ones that are discriminatory or oppressive to others.

Anyone who wants to claim 40k is anything by misogynistic - at any level - has not done their research into how systematic hostility and oppression are used to control women. Sure, there are some people who are going to say it's only a game and see it as something other than deep-seated hatred of women.

But this guy is talking about specific plans to coerced his wife into being exposed to the game despite the fact she is clearly put off by representations of females. I can't think of a louder non-verbal she could be giving him about what she does and does not consent to.

To be clear, exposing a woman to 40k, even an internalized misogynist who is not sensitive to depictions of females in the game, is harmful in that it's reinforcing a system of oppression. It could not be any more clear that's what's going on here.


Honestly, I feel like your take is more sexist than his, at least from my limited understanding of both of you personally. Women are fully capable of reading the subtext and implications of a work of fiction and deciding for themselves if it's something they like or not. It's also possible to enjoy a work of fiction without internalizing the values and mores of the fictional world. Women who like 40k aren't internalized misogynists... that's just silly. They're gamers who presumably are attracted to 40k for the same reasons as anyone else. Women aren't delicate beings that have to be protected from fiction, or reality itself. They are people with agency and preferences. If they want to play a game that only espouses the most literal interpretation of what modern Feminism sees as acceptable, they can play a game where everyone wears the same color baggy coveralls and works shoulder to shoulder tilling the green earth for the glory of the State. If they want to play 40k, let them play 40k.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:00:16


Post by: Galas


Yeah, in <Current Year> it looks like you can't enjoy something without embracing what it represents. Look, guys, because I like Sauron, Saruman and Isengard doesn't mean I condone the slavery of Hobbits and the destruction of the natural enviroment of the Shire.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:03:10


Post by: techsoldaten


 Galas wrote:
I think the difference between the representation of genocide in 40k and the representation (Or misrepresentation of women) in 40k, is that the first one is part of the lore, and accepted. The second one isn't in the lore, is a product of the company not producing female models and the authors not making female characters.

Warhammer 40k lore is many things, but it isn't mysoginist. If it was, it could be critizised for it (And it would, oh boy), but it would be part of the lore, like SM being male. But the lack of Imperial Guard, Eldar, etc... female models and relevant characters isn't part of the lore.


Going to ignore the obvious counters to that statement, but feel free to click to see some of the earliest, shameful depictions of sexism from Games Workshop related to 40k.

http://www.blackmoor.ca/gwdeslaves1.htm

How are the Orks, Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines, etc anything by misogynistic? They are commonly depicted as keeping slaves, sometimes converting them into other forms for their enjoyment.

How is the Inquisition and Ad Mech anything but misogynistic? They lobotomize people and turn them to automotons for their own purposes.

How are Sisters of Battle anything by misogynistic? They are leather clad warriors fighting out of worship for a man they consider their God - who happens to be dead.

The structural underpinnings of the 40k universe closely resemble the structures and customs historically used to objectify and disinfranchise women throughout Western societies.

You can ignore that, but saying it's not there is dishonest.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:


It's not possible for us to consider every possible viewpoint, but it *is* possible to exclude the ones that are discriminatory or oppressive to others.

Anyone who wants to claim 40k is anything by misogynistic - at any level - has not done their research into how systematic hostility and oppression are used to control women. Sure, there are some people who are going to say it's only a game and see it as something other than deep-seated hatred of women.

But this guy is talking about specific plans to coerced his wife into being exposed to the game despite the fact she is clearly put off by representations of females. I can't think of a louder non-verbal she could be giving him about what she does and does not consent to.

To be clear, exposing a woman to 40k, even an internalized misogynist who is not sensitive to depictions of females in the game, is harmful in that it's reinforcing a system of oppression. It could not be any more clear that's what's going on here.


Honestly, I feel like your take is more sexist than his, at least from my limited understanding of both of you personally. Women are fully capable of reading the subtext and implications of a work of fiction and deciding for themselves if it's something they like or not. It's also possible to enjoy a work of fiction without internalizing the values and mores of the fictional world. Women who like 40k aren't internalized misogynists... that's just silly. They're gamers who presumably are attracted to 40k for the same reasons as anyone else. Women aren't delicate beings that have to be protected from fiction, or reality itself. They are people with agency and preferences. If they want to play a game that only espouses the most literal interpretation of what modern Feminism sees as acceptable, they can play a game where everyone wears the same color baggy coveralls and works shoulder to shoulder tilling the green earth for the glory of the State. If they want to play 40k, let them play 40k.


I am not the one saying I plan to expose my wife to something she has indicated she is not interested in. One of us is planning to do something in real life, the other is being a witness.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:05:02


Post by: Galas


I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then. I agree the original aesthetics of Sisters of Battle are obviously done to appeal to males, not to create a cool concept for everybody to enjoy. The worst examples are the Repentia. But I believe Celestine and the Geminae have achieved to dial down that aesthetic without abandoning it.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:06:54


Post by: techsoldaten


 Galas wrote:
I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then.


Objectifying other people, using them exclusively for your own purposes, denying them their essential dignity and humanity. Penetration.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:08:05


Post by: Galas


 techsoldaten wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then.


Objectifying other people, using them exclusively for your own purposes, denying them their essential dignity and humanity.


But it is not specific agaisn't women, so it isn't misogynyst. It would be quallified as Misanthropy.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:09:02


Post by: techsoldaten


 Galas wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then.


Objectifying other people, using them exclusively for your own purposes, denying them their essential dignity and humanity.


But it is not specific agaisn't women, so it isn't misogynyst. It would be quallified as Misanthropy.


Right, and that's not exactly what men do to women when they sexually abuse them.

Fine, add the word penetration to the end. But don't deny it.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:10:56


Post by: Galas


I think I know what you are trying to say here... but I believe thats jumping to extrapolations from something that wasn't mean to transmit that idea.




Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:12:52


Post by: Luciferian


 techsoldaten wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then.


Objectifying other people, using them exclusively for your own purposes, denying them their essential dignity and humanity.


This is your brain on Tumblr.

Objectifying and exploiting people is something that has been done by and to every group, tribe and nation in the history of humanity. It's called the human condition. The purpose of art is to explore and shed light on that condition, and to find meaning or catharsis therein. None of that necessarily has anything to do with misogyny, which is a very specific type of attitude against a specific group of people.

I mean, we could just burn all of our books and erase our history because it tends to show people things they may not like about themselves, but that doesn't sound like a very good way to keep from repeating the same mistakes.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:18:03


Post by: techsoldaten


 Galas wrote:
I think I know what you are trying to say here... but I believe thats jumping to extrapolations from something that wasn't mean to transmit that idea.


The fact that 40k is misogynist is besides the point. It's like a Russian novel, there are no redeeming characters.

The fact that someone wishes to force the game on another person - despite the fact she indicated she objects to these themes - does matter. On the one hand, her preferences are being clearly ignored and someone is laying out plans to violate them. On the other hand, this person is clearly ignorant of all the other violent expressions of misogyny that run rampant through the game and the lore.

I really get a queasy feeling anytime I see someone try to coerce anyone into playing any game they are not into. I can't think of a reason why one would want to do that, either someone enjoys something or not. It's not fun to do something someone does not enthusiastically enjoy, and trying to force others to enjoy it with you is wrong.

SHE ALREADY SAID SHE OBJECTS TO THE MISOGYNY. What good is it to confront her with more? Is he trying to teach her to accept it?

I could think of things to compare this with, but the statements in this thread are distasteful enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Luciferian wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I'm lost... whats the relation between lobotomizing people and misogyny?

And yeah, back in the day Warhammer was a game made by british guys to other british guys. Many things have changed since then.


Objectifying other people, using them exclusively for your own purposes, denying them their essential dignity and humanity.


This is your brain on Tumblr.

Objectifying and exploiting people is something that has been done by and to every group, tribe and nation in the history of humanity. It's called the human condition. The purpose of art is to explore and shed light on that condition, and to find meaning or catharsis therein. None of that necessarily has anything to do with misogyny, which is a very specific type of attitude against a specific group of people.

I mean, we could just burn all of our books and erase our history because it tends to show people things they may not like about themselves, but that doesn't sound like a very good way to keep from repeating the same mistakes.


And does that mean we need to continue doing it to each other?

Society has some practices that have not changed since the bronze age. Does that mean we should continue to maintain those customs since they are old and that's what people have done before?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:27:21


Post by: PsychoticStorm


Desubot wrote:
though things like pin ups, special editions and basically all of kingdom death are pretty obviously trying to be sexualized for various reasons.


KDM does not try, it is sexualized and erotic and it is not afraid or apologetic to anybody about it and guess what people love it, because it is genuine in that it does instead of trying to cater to people "horrified" about the miniatures and the art.

I was never ashamed and I will not be ashamed of my hobby, people wanting to be offended will always be offended for whatever reason they choose to, it is not my problem or responsibility.

CB does sexualised models, of everybody male and female, they are a celebration of human form and there is nothing wrong with that.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:35:02


Post by: Galas


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Desubot wrote:
though things like pin ups, special editions and basically all of kingdom death are pretty obviously trying to be sexualized for various reasons.


KDM does not try, it is sexualized and erotic and it is not afraid or apologetic to anybody about it and guess what people love it, because it is genuine in that it does instead of trying to cater to people "horrified" about the miniatures and the art.

I was never ashamed and I will not be ashamed of my hobby, people wanting to be offended will always be offended for whatever reason they choose to, it is not my problem or responsibility.

CB does sexualised models, of everybody male and female, they are a celebration of human form and there is nothing wrong with that.


I look at this like the problem with "Quiet" in the last Metal Gear Solid game vs Dragon's Crow female characters, or Nier's Automata.
Kojima was all pretentious about the reason why Quiet was sexualized "Oh no, theres a good reason for that in the game, you'll find it, it isn't gratuituous sexualization guys I promise!". The excuse? She breathes for his skin. Ignoring that other characters in the MGS saga had that exact trait and they weren't naked.
But the creator of Dragon's Crow and the creators of Nier's Automata, when asked about why their female characters where designed as they where, the answer was honest: We like big tits and butts.

And (Nearly) nobody complained. Its about being honest.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:37:01


Post by: Luciferian


 techsoldaten wrote:
[

And does that mean we need to continue doing it to each other?

Society has some practices that have not changed since the bronze age. Does that mean we should continue to maintain those customs since they are old and that's what people have done before?


That's a false equivalency. Merely stating the fact that it has been a part of the human condition for the entire existence of humanity does not mean one thinks it should continue. Must it continue? Well, that's another question altogether. People are animals. Animals have behaviors, perspective and limitations with biological components. The whole reason we as humans think we're so special is that we (believe we) can become aware of our own inner landscapes of innate drives, fears and desires, and through concerted self-inquiry and discipline we can work to control or sublimate the ones we find most destructive. That's a lot of work that can only be done with a certain amount of willpower that an individual chooses to exert over themselves as opposed to other people, and it's not something anyone can do for another. Are humans as a whole capable of taking that amount of responsibility for themselves on an individual level? We must hope, but it is not something I personally expect. If we could have gotten our gak together by now, we'd be as gods already. Does that mean we shouldn't work to improve ourselves? Of course not. However, that self-awareness and willingness to change is borne of confronting uncomfortable truths, which is not possible if we simply banish that which makes us uncomfortable.

Anyway, those questions are beyond the scope of this thread and forum.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:40:59


Post by: techsoldaten


 Luciferian wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
[

And does that mean we need to continue doing it to each other?

Society has some practices that have not changed since the bronze age. Does that mean we should continue to maintain those customs since they are old and that's what people have done before?


That's a false equivalency. Merely stating the fact that it has been a part of the human condition for the entire existence of humanity does not mean one thinks it should continue. Must it continue? Well, that's another question altogether. People are animals. Animals have behaviors, perspective and limitations with biological components. The whole reason we as humans think we're so special is that we (believe we) can become aware of our own inner landscapes of innate drives, fears and desires, and through concerted self-inquiry and discipline we can work to control or sublimate the ones we find most destructive. That's a lot of work that can only be done with a certain amount of willpower that an individual chooses to exert over themselves as opposed to other people, and it's not something anyone can do for another. Are humans as a whole capable of taking that amount of responsibility for themselves on an individual level? We must hope, but it is not something I personally expect. If we could have gotten our gak together by now, we'd be as gods already. Does that mean we shouldn't work to improve ourselves? Of course not. However, that self-awareness and willingness to change is borne of confronting uncomfortable truths, which is not possible if we simply banish that which makes us uncomfortable.

Anyway, those questions are beyond the scope of this thread and forum.


Yes, they are.

The question is it right for someone to force a game on another person that contains themes they are not comfortable with, and how much harm that constitutes.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:49:53


Post by: Luciferian


Well, first we must question whether such an offense has truly been committed at all. I don't know Charger's wife so I'm not comfortable using her as a damsel in distress that needs saving from the Patriarchy (TM) in the form of 40k. Like I said before, it would surprise me if someone had any true interest in the hobby yet found it so repulsive at the same time. In any case, their relationship is their own and they both make decisions every day that they remain in it. Not knowing the nature of those decisions or the reasoning behind them I can only hope that they each find fulfillment and happiness from what results.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:55:44


Post by: ChargerIIC


Let me be clear again:

I have not forced my wife to play. She has expressed interest, been invited but turned me down because of the sexualized nature of the miniatures she's seen. She does enjoy MTG and is frankly far better at the game than myself, same goes for most of the boxed games.

I don't know why you think I'm tying her down or harassing her. She's the matriarch of my family and my partner. I'm not crazy about the insinuations you've made and would rather we kept on the subject of the matter raised and not on the relation between myself and my family.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:58:31


Post by: techsoldaten


 Luciferian wrote:
Well, first we must question whether such an offense has truly been committed at all. I don't know Charger's wife so I'm not comfortable using her as a damsel in distress that needs saving from the Patriarchy (TM) in the form of 40k. Like I said before, it would surprise me if someone had any true interest in the hobby yet found it so repulsive at the same time. In any case, their relationship is their own and they both make decisions every day that they remain in it. Not knowing the nature of those decisions or the reasoning behind them I can only hope that they each find fulfillment and happiness from what results.


Those are good points, but there's things we can observe without needing to get into the details of their relationship.

She has an aptitude for board games, but she's turned off my perceived misogynistic undertones of some models. So instead of finding a game that does not involve gendered models - which do exist, some of which are quite good - she's just shut off from the hobby.

He states his intent to reintroduce her to the game at some point in the future. Never mind that there are misogynistic undertones at other levels of the game, never mind that SHE SAID SHE'S NOT COMFORTABLE WITH MISOGYNY IN THE GAME.

What is the problem here? He can't find another game, he can't listen to what she's saying? How does this represent welcoming and inclusiveness in the gaming community? She's on the bench for the present until he decides it's time to reintroduce her to the hobby.

It's all up to him when she gets to enjoy that. Male protectionism and dominating what they do during their free time as a couple. He's the savior, he's going to watch for the dust to clear before she gets to do something she appears to be quite good at.

This just baffles me. Maybe I am taking something he said too literally, but everything about this sounds sexist and crude.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 22:59:39


Post by: Desubot


Oh man she may not like some of the older cards then like earthbind



Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 23:00:18


Post by: techsoldaten


 ChargerIIC wrote:
Let me be clear again:

I have not forced my wife to play. She has expressed interest, been invited but turned me down because of the sexualized nature of the miniatures she's seen. She does enjoy MTG and is frankly far better at the game than myself, same goes for most of the boxed games.

I don't know why you think I'm tying her down or harassing her. She's the matriarch of my family and my partner. I'm not crazy about the insinuations you've made and would rather we kept on the subject of the matter raised and not on the relation between myself and my family.


No, you just said 5 - 10 years from now, you plan to reintroduce her to something she already said she doesn't enjoy. Never mind that the change required to make 40k representational and inclusive would require a complete rebrand.

Way to go!


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 23:17:30


Post by: Alpharius


We've wandered far enough afield here now - please get back on topic as it pertains to this thread, and feel free to start a different thread in the appropriate sub-forum.

Thanks!


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 23:44:32


Post by: PsychoticStorm


 Galas wrote:

I look at this like the problem with "Quiet" in the last Metal Gear Solid game vs Dragon's Crow female characters, or Nier's Automata.
Kojima was all pretentious about the reason why Quiet was sexualized "Oh no, theres a good reason for that in the game, you'll find it, it isn't gratuituous sexualization guys I promise!". The excuse? She breathes for his skin. Ignoring that other characters in the MGS saga had that exact trait and they weren't naked.
But the creator of Dragon's Crow and the creators of Nier's Automata, when asked about why their female characters where designed as they where, the answer was honest: We like big tits and butts.

And (Nearly) nobody complained. Its about being honest.


Honest is nice, not bending to criticism is also good.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/18 23:52:51


Post by: Luciferian


To bring things full circle, this last page or so just goes to show how subjective this kind of topic really is. Different people read different things into something as seemingly innocuous as a model design (or forum post) and I think most of us are also guilty of ascribing motivations to people or the objects they've created, even when we don't have enough information to know. There are so many variables to a question like, "is this model sexualized," including the background and beliefs of the sculptor and the viewer. Ultimately, there is no "right" answer, or at least no clear consensus. It all depends on context.

There are several more questions which could be raised for discussion, which will probably yield equally diverse and subjective opinions:

Does it matter if this model is sexualized? (No, I am not trying to be a smartass)

What are the positive/negative implications of this model being sexualized, if any?

Is it possible for two models depicting a male and a female not to be sexualized in some way, even assuming they had identical poses, clothing and equipment?

Is some level of sexualization acceptable without being exploitative, and if so, where do you draw that line?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 00:17:27


Post by: Galas


 PsychoticStorm wrote:
 Galas wrote:

I look at this like the problem with "Quiet" in the last Metal Gear Solid game vs Dragon's Crow female characters, or Nier's Automata.
Kojima was all pretentious about the reason why Quiet was sexualized "Oh no, theres a good reason for that in the game, you'll find it, it isn't gratuituous sexualization guys I promise!". The excuse? She breathes for his skin. Ignoring that other characters in the MGS saga had that exact trait and they weren't naked.
But the creator of Dragon's Crow and the creators of Nier's Automata, when asked about why their female characters where designed as they where, the answer was honest: We like big tits and butts.

And (Nearly) nobody complained. Its about being honest.


Honest is nice, not bending to criticism is also good.


Well, a mature person knows to separate constructive and legitimate criticism with toxic and destructive one. If by "Not bending to criticism" you are talking about not changing things just because they are criticized, instead of making a analisis, I agree. If you are talking about just ignoring all kind of criticism then I disagree. By being critical with ourselves his how we improve.
But even then, criticism can be totally reasonable and constructive, but the objetive of the work of an author is just different to what that critizism tries to accomplish, so is disregarded. Not everything needs to be the same, that is the death of art and human expresion.

 Luciferian wrote:
To bring things full circle, this last page or so just goes to show how subjective this kind of topic really is. Different people read different things into something as seemingly innocuous as a model design (or forum post) and I think most of us are also guilty of ascribing motivations to people or the objects they've created, even when we don't have enough information to know. There are so many variables to a question like, "is this model sexualized," including the background and beliefs of the sculptor and the viewer. Ultimately, there is no "right" answer, or at least no clear consensus. It all depends on context.

There are several more questions which could be raised for discussion, which will probably yield equally diverse and subjective opinions:

Does it matter if this model is sexualized? (No, I am not trying to be a smartass)

What are the positive/negative implications of this model being sexualized, if any?

Is it possible for two models depicting a male and a female not to be sexualized in some way, even assuming they had identical poses, clothing and equipment?

Is some level of sexualization acceptable without being exploitative, and if so, where do you draw that line?


My personal answer to those questions.

- If a model is sexualized or not matters based in the final objetive of the model. In many cases you see something sexualized that didn't need to be, and you ask yourself. Why?
-Sexualization is a tool. Like every tool in the hands of a artists, it can be used for good or for bad. A tool used in the wrong way ends in a worse product. I like this model, and Infinity has always had the anime aesthetic, so personally I think it does the job the author intended. Other examples of other infinity models that are too sexualized shown by Albertorious in the other hand, are so sexualized in a forced way, they distract from the miniature, resulting in a, in my opinion, a worse product.
Spoiler:
This two for example:


-I don't understand this question
-All levels of sexualization are acceptable based in the objetive and intent of the product. Theres no line. (Of course I wouldn't expect sexualization in a cartoon series targeted to 7 years old)


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 00:24:32


Post by: Peregrine


 Luciferian wrote:
Does it matter if this model is sexualized? (No, I am not trying to be a smartass)


Yes, because treating women (let's be honest here, this kind of thing happens almost entirely with women) as pretty decorations in a situation where sexy clothes/poses/etc are unrealistic sends a message to women who might be interested in the game: this is for men, you are there for men to look at and enjoy. This is a sniper in a realistic combat game, there's no reason for her to be sexy at all. Adding any level of sexualization to the sculpt has no realism justification behind it, it can only be an attempt to give certain men something sexy to look at. And do you really want to be catering to that audience?

Is it possible for two models depicting a male and a female not to be sexualized in some way, even assuming they had identical poses, clothing and equipment?


Of course it is possible. Why wouldn't it be possible?

Is some level of sexualization acceptable without being exploitative, and if so, where do you draw that line?


It depends on the context. If you make Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse, the game of sexual combat where men and women are equally objectified and sexy then yeah, sexualization is going to be appropriate. Anyone who gets into that game knows exactly what they're getting, and it fits 100% with the theme of the game. But if you're making a game like Infinity, a game that is supposed to be a realistic representation of future combat, there shouldn't be sexualization at all. Nothing about the subject/setting is sexy, and there's no reason for any of the models to have nonsense like pantsless women contorted into "look at my ass" poses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the model itself, it's sexualized, but to a much smaller degree than many other models. The pose is clearly a pose, not a snapshot of a sniper's natural position (look at the details of how her body is positioned, compared to the photo of the actual sniper in a similar pose that was posted previously), and the tight-fitting shirt is definitely putting her breasts on display. Is it worthy of outrage? That depends on your personal outrage threshold, I suppose. But it's definitely sexualized to some degree.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 01:28:37


Post by: Desubot


 Peregrine wrote:

It depends on the context. If you make Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse, the game of sexual combat where men and women are equally objectified and sexy then yeah, sexualization is going to be appropriate. Anyone who gets into that game knows exactly what they're getting, and it fits 100% with the theme of the game. But if you're making a game like Infinity, a game that is supposed to be a realistic representation of future combat, there shouldn't be sexualization at all. Nothing about the subject/setting is sexy, and there's no reason for any of the models to have nonsense like pantsless women contorted into "look at my ass" poses.


Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.

Also i though infinity was supposed to be an Animeistic representation of future combat. in which anime is pretty much about exaggerated features and sexualization isnt seen as taboo in Japanese culture. though its made by the...French? Italian?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 01:34:07


Post by: Luciferian


See, two different people, two different answers.

I tend to agree that the other examples of Infinity models we're referring to here are overtly eroticized portrayals of women. And, to my personal taste, it is indeed unnecessary and unrealistic. But I'm not the guy that Infinity is for. I'm not into anime, and I'm not a huge fan of that kind of art style.

The reason I asked if it were possible to have two models which are identical in pose and dress without them being "sexualized" is because I don't think it really is possible. Guess what; women have breasts. Men don't. We have different junk. Any two models, one male and one female, are naturally going to showcase how each are physically different, because they are.

Would it be preferable to de-emphasize all feminine traits in models?

Going off of what Peregrine said about catering to certain crowds, is it acceptable to market directly to males? If, as a private company, you decide you want to make a miniatures game that knowingly objectifies the female form but not the male form, is that OK? Or should we demand that such a company change its direction? What if there is an audience for that, and the company actively decides to pursue that market?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 01:44:50


Post by: JoshInJapan


 Desubot wrote:
Also i though infinity was supposed to be an Animeistic representation of future combat. in which anime is pretty much about exaggerated features and sexualization isnt seen as taboo in Japanese culture. though its made by the...French? Italian?


I'm not an expert, but I am a resident, and in my experience, the sexy stuff is considered pretty skeevy over here.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 02:00:54


Post by: techsoldaten


 Luciferian wrote:
See, two different people, two different answers.

I tend to agree that the other examples of Infinity models we're referring to here are overtly eroticized portrayals of women. And, to my personal taste, it is indeed unnecessary and unrealistic. But I'm not the guy that Infinity is for. I'm not into anime, and I'm not a huge fan of that kind of art style.

The reason I asked if it were possible to have two models which are identical in pose and dress without them being "sexualized" is because I don't think it really is possible. Guess what; women have breasts. Men don't. We have different junk. Any two models, one male and one female, are naturally going to showcase how each are physically different, because they are.

Would it be preferable to de-emphasize all feminine traits in models?

Going off of what Peregrine said about catering to certain crowds, is it acceptable to market directly to males? If, as a private company, you decide you want to make a miniatures game that knowingly objectifies the female form but not the male form, is that OK? Or should we demand that such a company change its direction? What if there is an audience for that, and the company actively decides to pursue that market?


No, it would not be preferable to de-emphasize all feminine traits. That has little to do with inclusiveness, it's removing femininity from the game. It's another way of making women invisible.

I don't think a company would want to create a game that actively objectifies the female form. Miniatures are exactly that, miniatures - the market for 1 inch tall depictions of people is not very large to begin with. It's very unlikely a company could operate profitably by focusing on tiny sculpts of highly sexualized women. There are only so many people who would find any interest in that.

The original post in this thread asked if a specific model was sexualized. I didn't respond, because the question may not really matter. There are absolutely some people who will take offense at it, just as there are people who will take offense at the Ininfity models.

There is so much about 40k, Warmahordes, Infinity, even Star Wars that can be considered offensive, from the depictions of stereotypes, to the racial / gender imbalances, to the apocalyptic themes, to the horrible rulesets, to the cost, etc. The list of problems goes on forever, and there are triggering points for everyone. Personally, I left 40k in the run up to 7th edition because it felt like GW was really just picking our pockets.

If someone really wanted a completely sanitized, politically correct tabletop game, it would probably start by removing all guns and violence. The best example would be the Smurfs, a collection of miniatures already exists. Someone just needs to write the rules and you would be all set.

But I doubt that would sell any more than a set of overtly sexualized female miniatures would. Our fascination with tabletop gaming does not stem from cooperative goals or objectifying others. It's something else entirely.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 02:14:16


Post by: Peregrine


 Luciferian wrote:
The reason I asked if it were possible to have two models which are identical in pose and dress without them being "sexualized" is because I don't think it really is possible. Guess what; women have breasts. Men don't. We have different junk. Any two models, one male and one female, are naturally going to showcase how each are physically different, because they are.


"Not sexualized" and "not showing any gender-specific attributes" are not at all the same thing. You can represent gender differences without having to say "look at this sexy thing". For example, most companies have no problem at all producing miniatures that are read as 100% masculine without having to resort to putting them in skin-tight pants with well-defined crotch bulges. We don't have whole games full of David Bowie in Labyrinth, but somehow the female equivalent is the only way to represent women?

Going off of what Peregrine said about catering to certain crowds, is it acceptable to market directly to males? If, as a private company, you decide you want to make a miniatures game that knowingly objectifies the female form but not the male form, is that OK? Or should we demand that such a company change its direction? What if there is an audience for that, and the company actively decides to pursue that market?


The company is free to do exactly that. People are free to buy from them, and other people are free to criticize them. If a sufficient market is there they will make money despite being looked at with contempt by a lot of people. If it isn't there then they will fail like every other company with a bad business plan.

Also, it isn't just marketing directly to men. Plenty of men have little or no interest in random porn in their games. It's catering to a specific sort of man, who wants random decorative women everywhere, even when it makes no sense in-universe. And it's a specific sort of man that often has trouble with boundaries and creepy/predatory behavior in the real world, treating real women as the same kind of decorative material.


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 02:22:45


Post by: Luciferian


I think that is probably true, in a general sense. So let's go with that: assume a company has decided that it is going to play to the creepers and releases a line of miniatures in which women are portrayed solely as decorative objects, and they are successful in doing so. Other than criticism and not becoming their patron, what is to be done about that?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 02:28:23


Post by: Peregrine


 Luciferian wrote:
I think that is probably true, in a general sense. So let's go with that: assume a company has decided that it is going to play to the creepers and releases a line of miniatures in which women are portrayed solely as decorative objects, and they are successful in doing so. Other than criticism and not becoming their patron, what is to be done about that?


What else could be done?


Is this a Sexualized Pose? @ 2018/01/19 02:30:30


Post by: Alpharius


Looks like we'll need a different thread now...