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.

Mannahnin, I'm certain that in addition to the two ranges you posted that there are several more ranges of nude male historicals out there. I've seen Greek Peltasts (alongside those Hoplites), javelien wielding Picts, and various Africans. Finding them, however, is proving difficult.

Irregardless, it is the female human form that has for centuries been held as the most visually appealing. This isn't to say the male form isn't, it's just less so than the female. Even in ancient times the female body was revered (though it was on a more even keel aesthetically speaking). There are even many examples of scantily clad women bearing arms in ancient Mycenaean, Greek and Roman art. And this doesn't even touch women warrior societies like the Amazonians.

As mentioned before, it really is too bad that far too many are embarrassed by something as natural as nudity or feel the need to control other's access to it. Who cares? They are pretty figures, fun to paint and fun to display. It seems more indicative of someone's own twisted mental state if they seriously think most people (or even any but the mode depraved) get these for some sort of pornographic sexual stimulation. As if admiring the human physique is something to be ashamed of.

Anyhow, I find it amusing that Phryixis wishes to so quickly dismiss the fine art perspective, seeing how both Elusive and I currently make our livings out of the art world (or shortly will be). It is, after all, artistic liberty that brought so many of these most awesome female figurines, armed and empowered. I for one see nothing wrong with it. Plus, sex sells. Mmmmm....

Foundry makes nude historicals (Male and female) Shadowforge makes nude female 'historicals', and Mark Copplestone has started doing nude male mesoamerican historicals as well. Most male figures are somewhat 'exaggerated', mostly, as far as I can tell, due to the difficulties of sculpting anatomical detail on 28mm figs (hands and heads included, as are often commented).

And believe me, I did quite a bit of research...

Right, there's a historical basis for nude male warriors. The only major basis for female warriors at all is the Amazons, and they are of questionable reality, and aren't specifically said to be naked. Despite this, the historical based male nudes are few and far between, to the point you can't even find them it seems, while I am constantly coming across nude female models just by visiting this site, CMoN, etc.

The point here is that "realism" isn't why we have nude female models. It's because male painters want to paint nude female models.



Who's trying to control access? Who's embarassed? I'm saying that people who paint nudie models are geeks, and it strikes me as a bit sad. I'm not at all suggesting they can't, or even shouldn't do it. I'm just saying that if they're going to do it, I'm going to think it's sad. It's the same thing as the guys who get all fired up and macho about their models, and really want to HAVE A PAIR or KICK SOME ASS, or whatever other ridiculousness. We're grown men painting little toy models. Involving sexuality in it, or masculenity... Well, that's sad.



Much like your arguments in favor of metal over plastic, a small to tiny minority doesn't speak for the majority.

Perhaps you really are such a student of the masters that a human female form is nothing more than a canvas of artistic expression to you, a chance to observe the purity of nature, and nothing at all sexual. Perhaps. But I promise you, the vastness of your enlightenment and artistic sophistication doesn't make up for the thousands of paint nerds who just like to paint boobies and naked girlbutts. If these things were meant to be works of art, they wouldn't have nipples the size of dinner plates.



Yes, nothing says "female empowerment" like massive boobs, a chainmail thong, and a claymore. It's not a sex object if it can kill you!

Posted By Phryxis on 12/29/2006 7:56 PM
Perhaps you really are such a student of the masters that a human female form is nothing more than a canvas of artistic expression to you, a chance to observe the purity of nature, and nothing at all sexual. Perhaps. But I promise you, the vastness of your enlightenment and artistic sophistication doesn't make up for the thousands of paint nerds who just like to paint boobies and naked girlbutts. If these things were meant to be works of art, they wouldn't have nipples the size of dinner plates.

They're called areolas, mate.  Nipples are the pointy part

Posted By Phryxis on 12/29/2006 7:56 PM

I've seen Greek Peltasts (alongside those Hoplites), javelien wielding Picts, and various Africans.

Right, there's a historical basis for nude male warriors. The only major basis for female warriors at all is the Amazons, and they are of questionable reality, and aren't specifically said to be naked. Despite this, the historical based male nudes are few and far between, to the point you can't even find them it seems, while I am constantly coming across nude female models just by visiting this site, CMoN, etc.

I tend to concur with most of your sentiments, though perhaps I'm not as harsh.  The Celts (and perhaps the Picts as well) had some female warriors though, who would be about as likely as the males to be naked.

I know! The areolas are the size of a hubcap! ZOMG!

And Hubcap is a beastly, bulging man.

But, if you can believe it, he's a truly discerning connoisseur of art.

Posted By Phryxis on 12/29/2006 2:11 PM
And yet, somehow Rackham has managed to transmogrify that into mostly naked women with huge ass cheeks and nipples.

There's nothing "huge" about Rackham's female models' ass cheeks.  Their waifish thighs leave me unsatisfied!

This isn't the time to talk about my small boob fetish is it?

Posted By Infantryman on 12/30/2006 8:32 AM
This isn't the time to talk about my small boob fetish is it?

Dude, it's totally time to talk about it.

Every night is A-cup night, baby!  

More like B, tbh. Never was a fan of huge titties.

It's not about huge, medium or small. It's about glorious titty variety. I think the liberals call it "diversity."

Although, within the scope of a single chest, sameness. Variety interchest... Sameness intrachest.

Seriously guys, this is supposed to be a family-friendly forum.

I don't see any more on-topic discussion forthcoming, so I'm locking this puppy.