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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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?

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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

 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!

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!

 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.

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?

 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.

-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)

 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.