Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/09/19 23:10:10
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
But this is the point of the thread: the offense isn't a part of the thing itself, but of the observer. And with regards to this item: if a prude is disturbed by a thing, is it your responsibility to conform to the prude's expectations? That can quickly become a heckler's veto, where the level of discourse is dictated by those most capable of finding offense, even if it seems unusual or indeed crazy.
Consider what Weeble said above: "The fact that we are 4 pages in suggests, on its face, that there is something about that model worth discussing." Putting aside how many posts are people saying the OP is too think skinned, some people are offended: so what?
If the issue is that some people are genuinely offended, or genuinely think some crazy things, then nothing is safe. As Nuggz and Pluan4th point out, we could, if we so chose, find hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages of people on the internet making in all earnestness the argument that Israel is morally and in all other ways indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. Those people really believe that... because they're crazy.
Again, it all comes down to context: at this particular guys local (in Germany*), this model is fine.
*Not continuing the Nazi thing there, more pointing out that the Germans are famously not too hung up on nudity taboos.
Carrie Nation and the Temperance movement as well as the 19th amendment and Comstock act all had an effect on the American tradition of prudishness (prudency?)
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2014/09/19 23:18:11
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I have run games at a pagan retreat - which means that I have seen naked gamers. (Not as bad as a video that I have seen of naked bowlers.... which were just that - not nude models bowling, but bowlers sans accoutrements.)
My girlfriend has had me convert and paint a skyclad dwarf witch for one of her characters. (She is a pagan, and likes playing witches in Pathfinder... go figure.)
As I said, not my cuppa - but I was not offended.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2014/09/19 23:18:24
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you.
Objective just means that a judgement or an interpretation is influenced by facts rather than feelings. What I described was the objective basis on which one could interpret the model to objectify women.
If you have a substantive disagreement about what I wrote, fine, but your disagreement appeared to be based solely on an erroneous correlation between interpretation and subjectivity.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/19 23:20:35
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
2014/09/19 23:22:36
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
2014/09/19 23:24:12
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
Sorry for the hostility, it's hard to figure out people's intentions over the internet.
It's cool, it's also one of those touchy subjects.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 23:27:54
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
Part of the problem is the cultural contexts of what counts as something that needs to be covered up. I certainly don't agree with the idea that women should have to cover their chests anymore than men, but I have to recognize the issue is a cultural one, not a personal one.
2014/09/19 23:28:16
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
xraytango wrote: Carrie Nation and the Temperance movement as well as the 19th amendment and Comstock act all had an effect on the American tradition of prudishness (prudency?)
And are descended from the Puritans of previous generations. I'm still blaming the Euros for us. They should have sunk the ships the moment they hit the open water.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
2014/09/19 23:28:23
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
2014/09/19 23:31:25
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/19 23:33:48
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 23:34:02
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
-DE- wrote: I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.
By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
But that's not what you wrote, was it? Unless your sole point of disagreement was that there is no possible way for a variable interpretation to have an objective basis. Were you really only arguing that because someone can interpret something in a way that is different than someone else's interpretation, no one can possibly have an objective opinion about it? That's rather postmodern of you.
Objective just means that a judgement or an interpretation is influenced by facts rather than feelings. What I described was the objective basis on which one could interpret the model to objectify women.
If you have a substantive disagreement about what I wrote, fine, but your disagreement appeared to be based solely on an erroneous correlation between interpretation and subjectivity.
It is rather much subjective though. We don't have enough information to actually make an objective analysis of the scene. Naked? Yes. Cage? Perhaps. Slave? Don't know.
One mans cage could be another persons roll cage - meant to protect rather than imprison. When I first saw it - I didn't think prisoner...I was reminded of one of those scenes from the movies where the psychotic person is hanging out on the top of the modded out car screaming and yelling...slapping the side of the Land Raider saying "Go Faster". They could be slaves - but slaves don't fit the fluff. Psycopaths screaming makes more sense...objectively. What do they do in their time off? Probably make necklaces out of ears or some other interesting hobby that is common among cinematic psycopaths. Who knows, they might not even be naked...or females, rather pulling a "Buffalo Bill" type act.
That subjective analysis isn't any more or less accurate as any other subjective analysis which relates to objectification of women, slavery and whatever forced rape (not sure where that came from...but don't see any objective information to support that train of thought).
2014/09/19 23:38:59
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
blaktoof wrote: Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.
I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...
...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
That said, I always get positive comments on my IDF IG. Not everybody is a curmudgeon.
I think context has to be taken here. The original post -or my reply- was not equating Nazi, Taliban or IDF IG, but simply listing off historically-based IG forces that have been created that some might find offensive.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
So my Tallarn, what would those be by this metric? DKoK and Steel Legion are more akin to the German armies of the Kaiser in WW1 and don't confuse the Waffen SS with the Heer, they were separate organizations and the Heer were more "German" than Nazi, although in order to not be thrown into a concentration camp most Germans would be Nazi by default as there wasn't a choice. Valhallans are obviously WW2 Russians, but I feel that bog standard Cadians have that same flavor. Vostroyans would be Tsarist (White as opposed to Red) Russians. Catachans are less "U.S. In Vietnam" and more "Hollywood goes back to Vietnam" with OTT action star styling c. 1980.
Tallarn are less Arabic and more British 8th in N. Africa. As well as Al'Rahem being more or less T.E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia). So there you have it Tallarn aren't Taliban or Israeli.
As for the model in question, sure it might be in bad taste in your eyes, but it is more offensive to the fluff in that it should obviously be part of a Slaanesh army rather than a Khornate force.
Let's face it these figures are 1 1/8 inches tall, most people wouldn't even notice if you don't point it out to them.
.02
Not every IG force has a possibly-contentious historical parallel, though the Tsarist connection is one I forgot, thanks for pointing that out. I was just pointing out that some do. I would still say Steel Legion have more in common with German WW2 paratroops, but that's debatable. I'm definitely not going to get into it with you on the culpability of the average ww2 era german for the crimes of Nazism. Suffice to say, I probably find them more cupable.
Regardless, my point isn't that every element of 40k is inspired by something real world or objectionable, but that there's plenty enough there that hobbyists bringing "real world" elements (even possibly controversial ones) into the 40k universe are treading on established ground.
For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
2014/09/19 23:42:50
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I find it to be a special kind of irony when the OP's avatar is a character from a film that had 35 minutes of it removed due to excessive gore/disturbing images/hellish scenes of Slaanesh style rape/murder/torture.
TheCustomLime wrote: For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
So basically - no cheesecake?
Definitely agree with you there - I'll never understand the tabletop gamer desire to bring busty exotic dancers sporting Daisy Dukes into combat roles.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
2014/09/19 23:53:28
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
TheCustomLime wrote: For me it depends on context. Cadian women with exposed cleavage, short shorts and wide hips? No. Slaaneshi daemons with exposed breasts? It fits in well with the army's lore so it's fine with me.
So basically - no cheesecake?
Definitely agree with you there - I'll never understand the tabletop gamer desire to bring busty exotic dancers sporting Daisy Dukes into combat roles.
Gotta agree with you there. I'm fine with some gonzo babes in a post apoc setting, but cheesecake in sci-fi combat settings seems pretty ridiculous. Midriff and cleavage baring body armor, thongs and hot paints as combat gear, etc it's all pretty stupid to me.
That said, 40k's original setting was pretty gonzo, so maybe it's just going back to the past?
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
(tomjoad, this is in support of what you said, not aimed at you, in case you were wondering)
For that matter... Boris Vallejo was his own model for barbarians.... (Neither of them look like a fantasy artist should... they should be skinny, with glasses, dammit! ) They were well matched.
The Auld Grump, if I recall properly Julie Bell once did a cover with She Hulk... that she posed for herself....
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2014/09/20 00:09:55
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
That said, 40k's original setting was pretty gonzo, so maybe it's just going back to the past?
40K was always more Mad Max then Star Ship Troopers...to me at least, going back the Rogue Trader book - where the pages in the society and culture section in the back looked a bit copy/paste out of Road Warrior or one of those other movies.
Davor wrote: Uhm, am I in the FFG X-wing forum? I swear they just had the same conversation over there about sex. Someone said "sex wing" and someone took offence. 12 maybe 20 pages later...
It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).
I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.
I think this may be the perfect time for David Willis' run down on False Equivalence:
Simply put - I disagree.
The false equivalency that they address is one of objectification of the opposite sex - or attractiveness to the viewer. The artwork is just as much an idealization of the individuals. Men are big and muscular - an idealized form. Women are generally muscular and fit - also an idealized form. It isn't much different from the advertisements in women's magazines (and yes, I know, the feminists will tell me about how Cosmo, Women's Health, Shape and all the rest of those magazines help reinforce the patriarchal society which is forced upon women...but whatever, they do it because that is what most of their readers...women...want to see).
That isn't to say it doesn't exist - but every girl in a chain mail bikini is not an attempt to subjugate women. It has a lot more to do with how people are perceiving it, than anything real.
For example, if you look at the work of Julie Bell - everything she does is about female power. She was a bodybuilder and one of the original models for Boris Vallejo. She also doesn't like to paint clothing. Even the clothing she does paint...is rather small. What she does is what she views as her ideal female form. Powerful, strong and still feminine. Put them in front of the feminists though...especially without telling them who painted them - and I am sure they will want to tar and feather that misogynistic artist who is sexualizing women and trying to hold them down.
For that matter... Boris Vallejo was his own model for barbarians.... (Neither of them look like a fantasy artist should... they should be skinny, with glasses, dammit! ) They were well matched.
The Auld Grump, if I recall properly Julie Bell once did a cover with She Hulk... that she posed for herself....
She had done several covers for comics that she was the model for. She Hulk was one, Deathstrike, Phoenix...plus several others using other real female models (and all the proportions generally lined up with the model...another one of those "No real women looks like that" issues...). Also did a lot of male covers...same general style as well (not much left unseen...).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/20 00:20:05
2014/09/20 00:58:28
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
2014/09/20 01:06:40
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
The reason is simple...
The person likes them. There is no reason to have any miniature of any kind for gaming. Can be done easily enough with counters...or beans. We choose miniatures for any number of reasons - the same things which impact what is or is not art (historical or otherwise). Just because an old dead guy wrote the book or chiseled the statue - it doesn't make it any more art than when Kev White sculpted the little naked women.
That you don't like them is no reason to not have them, any more than my distaste for chibi miniatures is a reason that all GW figures should be banned from the gaming table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/20 01:07:05
2014/09/20 01:12:50
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows her breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
Dude you are way over thinking this. There is legitimately no reason to have sexually explicit or nude models on a gaming table. Thats all this topic should cover anyways, not historical art.
*Shrug* Still not explicit, though.
Also, while there is no reason to have nekkid figures on the table*, there is also no reason not to.
I might roll my eyes, or, if the miniatures are crudely done, face palm. But there is nothing there to get bent out of shape over. (And I know somebody that has used GWAR miniatures in his Slaanesh army. **)
I am more bothered by misusing terms such as explicit, when that is not even close to being accurate.
You want to say 'gratuitous and tasteless nudity' then fine - but explicit that tank is not - and as far as I can see the actual naughty bits are covered, by cage bars and blood, but covered..
The Auld Grump
* My girlfriend's dwarf witch miniature is an exception. Her character really does go skyclad a lot... and so does my girlfriend, for that matter. Though not at most games. ***
** Tacky and tasteless GWAR miniatures, from back when sculptor Drew Williams lived in the Portland, Maine area.
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2014/09/20 01:38:23
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Except this is the dude in the female version of objectification. Maybe not quite the same style as the comic power dude, but the substance is more or less the same. It isn't that batman.
2014/09/20 02:52:40
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
weeble1000 wrote: It is the fact that little persons who see depictions like that can begin to believe that the proper place for a woman is one in which they are deprived of power and agency.
Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs. While that would be bitchin', it is not readily apparent in the artwork, hence the objective basis on which to be offended.
It's probably worth pointing out that the women in those 'cages' are not restrained in any way. There are no chains, no restraints of any kind, and the 'cages' have bars spaced so wide that they could just walk through whenever they choose.
That being said, it's still a silly conversion. Not something I see any reason to get offended over, just a bit odd.
2014/09/20 03:07:12
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.
One of these things is not like the others...
The reaction tells one a great deal more about the person having the reaction then the item at hand: if, to use this example, you don't want to play against "israeli[sic] army IG" because you feel awkward about the real life army of a real life state, that's one thing. If it's because f' those Jooooos, then... yeah, maybe you have the problem there buddy.
This is the same matter: by the by, am I the only person that finds it intensely rude to have people discussing a particular person's model without any attempt to get the story from guy whose model it is (who apparently posts on Dakka)?
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
It's also worth pointing out that the model in question was posted on Dakka months ago, and by a user who is clearly in Germany (a country with radically different nudity taboos).
Oddly enough, everyone loved it when he first posted it
I agree with what I think is the majority - nothing to be offended about. Nudity shouldn't be more of a concern than violence. I can understand not liking it or not thinking it fits, and while I probably wouldn't do it I do like it.
Do like that land raider!
2014/09/20 03:13:26
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
I would like to reference your previous post.
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
~1.5k