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.

 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?

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?

 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.

 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.

 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.

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?

 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?

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