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.

I wouldn't be horrified - nor even particularly surprised. I was merely objecting to the prevelance of slutty models.

And as for GWs stuff being "non-slutty" - well, some of the examples you give are, frankly, kinda sexualized. The Sisters of Sigmar novices are wearing mini-skirts. That is totally inappropriate for what they are supposed to me. I admit that the female plastics are good - because they are just the male plastics with bumps in the chest armor!

As for the other companies, yes, there are other miniatures. Perhaps saying ALL female miniatures are sluts is a bit much.

Still, the fact of the matter is you don't have to look hard to find semi-naked women dressed inappropriately. And I found it difficult to find women who were not showing something they really shouldn't for the job they do.

A poledancer dressed in nothing is cool - you want a poledancer for your game? Then you need a poledancer. You want an army of warrior nuns?

Great - but they should wear clothes!

I think there is a wider issue here - Julie Bell et al have done this to death. And modern comics - superheroines are generally speaking showing too much flesh. I understand the need for a catsuit - that is what guys wear too - but why are they showing so much flesh?

The most egregious example for me was the Magdalena - the concept was really cool, but she was dressed ludicrously. It ruined any sense of realism the story had for me (and, to be honest, it was pretty realistic, in a "DVC RCC" kinda way).

i don't want any flat chested prudes in my army by god!

I personally don't really care a model having big boobs or anything has never made me want to buy it and hell I'm 18 so thats my thing. The thing is this is a male dominated game and guys rather the overexsagerated girl over a normal one anyday. Why? not really cuz they are obsessed with its boobies but because I think it makes it stick out as a female more. In the end I'd say just get over it "wahhh they all got big boobies girls in RL don't look like that!" Its a game the sculpters sculpt it sells they get profit don't like it scuplt yourself.

DELETED BY THE UNHOLY MODQUISITION FOR FLAMING.

Darknight wrote:I can understand a desire to have posters on the wall, or books of art or glossy magazines, or even pornography. But seriously - does sex sell SO MUCH that something that small sells via its sexuality?

I dunno - it just seems like the female minatures are being sculpted for the lowest common denominator, and it is kinda embarassing. It's like going to a hobby shop and finding the walls covered in Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo art - great stuff, but it is basically soft-core porn. It is just embarassing for those of us who AREN'T horny 13 year olds.

DUH OP. Let's be honest, when it comes to brawling in battle women can't hold a candle to men, but this is fantasy, so it is acceptable for women to fight, not in a manly way though, in bikinis with lots of swirling and swaying and with occasionally throwing in some feminine grunts and moans.

Do you want realism or fantasy... You can't expect men to create an ideal of women (FANTASY WORLD HERE) that are on par with men in every way, and completely un-objectified.

As much as I believe in equality in a relationship etc. people's fantasies are often nothing like their realities, and very few men or none fantasize about Madeline Albright or Margret Thatcher.

Given the amount of real pr0n easily available on the Internets it's surprising that anyone would bother to be aroused by a lead model about 1 inch high.

I think the whole chainmail bikini thing is an old cliche and cultural icon left over from the days when pictures of bikini clad girls were still genuinely risque and arousing for teenage boys. Think of Raquel Welch in 1,000,000 Years BC, or Ursula Andress in Doctor No.

It's just like a tradition nowadays.

I am actually a bit confused about your question.

The answers seem quite obvious.
A.) Target audience is male, and go figure most of them like beautiful curvy women (what a freaking surprise ).

B.) There are most definitely less sexual (yes this is the word of the day today) female miniatures if you are the type that would want them. I am a pretty big fan of some of the more obscure models, but I am new to all of these companies so I cannot remember which sells the best.

C.) Well... this is really the same thing as A.) but it has to do more with the sculptors and there training (as mentioned before) but it is true that art school tends to sap the originality from your works. If the standard is big boobs and nice curves, then so be it, these sculpts feed the sculptor and if they do not sell I would assume that the sculptor would have a hard time eating.

D.) Sexist... erm, what?
What P.C. malarchy, I cannot imagine why you think this is such a big deal. You see it EVERYWHERE, as in all advertising, most cities, all media, and so on.

E.) P.C. thread is too P.C.

F.) Equality is not created equal, and few women actually look like the fantasy version that sculptors create. This is cultural, and it really doesn't matter. If someone objectifies women it will have little to do with them collecting too many bodacious miniatures, and a lot more to do with them being sexist.

G.) Women come in all shapes and sizes, it really is not your place to decide which shape and which size people should fantasize about. These ARE fantasy women, and I feel it is a bit petty to complain about peoples preferences.

H.) A lot of us grew up watching stuff like this.



""

Do I really need to dignify your childish insults with a response, GeneralX? If I do, please tell me.

For the rest of your post; there is no objection to creating an idealized woman - this has been done for centuries. But why is it the case that the idealized woman is invariably not only sexually attractive (which is to be expected and normal - few heroines in any story are ugly) but gives all the impression of being sexually available?

Models in this game are idealized versions of reality - they are unreal, and that unreality manefests itself in a perfection. Designers are creating a significant number of female characters who are dressed / posed provocatively.

What this says is that designers think gamers' ideal woman is a sexually appealing one who also acts in a sexually available way. This, I feel, is kind of insulting to us as a group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur; your whole post basically boils down to "This is just how it is".

Okay; why is it like that, and are we happy with that? Are we ALL happy with the fact significant numbers of female models are wet-dream material and people outside the hobby might think we ALL want that?

I am not saying people who want to look at provocative Dark Elves are wrong or bad or whatever; but rather asking the question of why is there this assumption we are all like that? There is an over-sexualization and objectification of women in fantasy art. They are treated, fundamentally, as pleasure-objects for men. This can be explained as saying "that is what guys want so deal with it!" but that does not address the core issue I think I was trying to raise.

Are we happy with the fact our hobby objectifies women so much, and portrays women consistently as nothing more than pleasure objects for men?

I guess I'm not happy with that. Maybe I'm in the minority? I dunno.

I tend to agree with the whole "Ok, what exactly is that armor protecting?" line of dispute. Armor's functionality does not tend to follow different rules of physics dependant on the chromosomal pairings of the wearer.

However, I can also appreciate that most armor in art, or really anywhere other than the battlefield, is meant to emphasize certain aspects of the wearer. Whether it is extra spikey to make the wearer look more dangerous, very bulky to make the wearer seem more massive and strong, or cut away in odd places to play up the feminine side of the wearer. Often the latter is found to be especially pleasing since the juxtaposition of extreme femininity and dangerous fighter is uncommon in real life and so makes for an interesting thing.

Personally, I would really like some models that are properly proportioned in realistic armor in both male and female, with heads that are recognizable as either. It is probably unlikely, however.

As a side note, the busty, super sexy woman in skimpy clothing is not only due to male fan boys. Women often prefer those as well. Just as guys don't like super heroes that kind of have a belly, small muscles and poor posture, women don't necessarily want their characters to be just like "real" women. Our heroic interests demand men who are exceedingly well muscled, and women who similarly over emphasize the female dimorphism. It is just the way of things.

I don't think the sculptors/artists really spend much time thinking about why they draw or scuplt women mostly in provocative poses. I think they do it because it's what they like, no real sense of arousal no great mystery just that when they are creating a woman in this medium their default position is to make her seem "attractive" in whatever way they feel they can convey that. Their reasons probably vary quite a bit, miniatures often reflect the art that inspires them and most sculptors grew up on a steady diet of attractive representations of woman, all posed provocatively and suggestively or mostly so. So why should there be any surprise that they mostly create similar images. By the same token, most male figures are in dynamic or heroic poses, for the same reasons.

In answer to your question I don't believe ALL miniature models are sluts or are intended to be. They are invariably well indowed and pleasing to look at given the target audience are young males.

This seems like an odd question coming from someone with a somewhat provocative avatar.

Why did you marry a woman with large breasts?

The answer seems fairly obvious.

Before I write a long post, hasn't anyone pointed out the sisters of battle? they are very warrior nun like still sexy, but maybe not slutty:

I think there is a fair number of female models that GW makes that are pretty straightforward without being sexual........

Sisters of Battle look like women in heavy armor........and not in a "belly/ass" showing way

Eldar have female gaurdians that at first glance look exactly like males (till you see the breasts)

Howling Banshees have a nice mix between being intimidating and sexy

The Female Catachan with Grenade-launcher looks more bad ass than some of the male models for that same army......


I personaly noticed that most of the "Slutty" female models are in the Fantasy games......

Grimhowl wrote:posed provocatively and suggestively

most male figures are in dynamic or heroic poses, for the same reasons.

And that is the core of this, I think - women are shown as provocative and suggestive, sexually available and willing. Men are shown as dynamic and heroic.

I understand this hobby is male dominated - and so the male figures (who the gamers identify as) are what the men WANT TO BE and the women will be what the men WANT. But, conversely, aren't the male figures what the women WANT (powerful, hyper-masculine)? Why aren't the women what women WANT TO BE?

Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;

i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

or

ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.

Darknight wrote:Wrexasaur; your whole post basically boils down to "This is just how it is".

Okay; why is it like that, and are we happy with that? Are we ALL happy with the fact significant numbers of female models are wet-dream material and people outside the hobby might think we ALL want that?

I am not saying people who want to look at provocative Dark Elves are wrong or bad or whatever; but rather asking the question of why is there this assumption we are all like that? There is an over-sexualization and objectification of women in fantasy art. They are treated, fundamentally, as pleasure-objects for men. This can be explained as saying "that is what guys want so deal with it!" but that does not address the core issue I think I was trying to raise.

Are we happy with the fact our hobby objectifies women so much, and portrays women consistently as nothing more than pleasure objects for men?

I guess I'm not happy with that. Maybe I'm in the minority? I dunno.

You ARE in the minority quite obviously. Yes young men specifically are total and utter perverts bent on world domination and giant boob creation . Although the big boob mcgee models do not equate to what I find attractive in a woman, but I think they are pretty generalized representations of a homogenized sexual thought.

If this is such an issue to you, I would recommend stock-piling all of the non-sexual female miniatures and hand them out to kids so they get a better idea of how to treat women or some such nonsense.

YOU ARE OVER-REACTING!!!

If you have a wife who does not like these miniatures, just do not get them. If you are offended by them, just do not play with people that use them; your message has now been sent to the masses.

Darknight wrote:Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;

i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

or

ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.

...

Okay, you seem to be taking this extremely seriously. Dude, if you want to fight for womens rights, please do so; my Grandmother has been in the League of Women Voters for most of her life, on top of working at planned parent-hood for around a decade. THAT is how you take action against this stuff, there are just WAY too many women that actually want to be treated like that for some reason. I personally do not date women that act like that, and if a chick like to wear itty-bitty tank tops and shorts, I do usually take a quick look. You need to consider what you are actually saying, and apply your energy into the appropriate areas. War-gaming simply isn't one of them.

Heavygear wrote:Why did you marry a woman with large breasts?

Because I love her and she is the very best woman I have ever met. She is very beautiful, yes, but that is not why I married her. She is the only woman I have met who I felt I really could fulfil the sacramental nature of marriage with - namely I could treat her as Christ treats the Church.

That is my answer - I doubt it was that obvious.

As for the avatar, there is a world of differnce between a pretty girl blowing smoke off her gun and a pretty girl shaking her thang in a thong.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrex, you are a very angry person.

Seriously; I am not supposed to have a discussion because I disagree with you? I am now painted as some kind of guy who wants to stop other people playing with whatever models they want?

You make assumptions about me and what I do and do not want to do without a single shred of evidence.

Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"

Find a single time in this thread where I have said other people should not do whatever they like re. their own models. I haven't - yet you have told me what I should do.

All I have asked is if there are other people who are concerned by the depiction of women in fantasy - specifically female models. Obviously, you are not such a person.

Well done, your message has been conveyed to the masses.

Darknight wrote:
Basically, it seems if if the sculptors / designers are saying one (or both) of two things;

i) Women want to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

or

ii) Men want women to be sexually available, pleasure objects.

I can't speak for women, but I will say that I am insulted by the implication I want a sexually available, pleasure objects.. I am certain women would be insulted too - but I lack the personal experience. However, women I have met would not want to be that - even the most liberal, sexually-open ones.

Well the you sir are in the minority.

I respect my current girl friend more then any other woman I have met at my age, and I think she is probably more intelligent then me in many ways, BUT when it comes to the bedroom I can tell you what I want, and I know what she wants to. Maybe we just fit stereotypes, to be honest this might be too much information, but she fits 1) and I fit 2).

BUT, I am not sure why you think sexual poses mean sexual promiscuity... Most guys want a woman to be readily sexually available, but really only to them, not to other men as well


But seriously, my insults are in jest, but I really am starting to wonder if your wife has snuck onto you account.

Darknight wrote: She is the only woman I have met who I felt I really could fulfil the sacramental nature of marriage with - namely I could treat her as Christ treats the Church.

never mind this all makes sense now

Darknight

You need to lighten up a little you're right in a lot of things you say, but life is too short. You know, even if we had modest and balance female characters in our games, we'd still be geeks.....

People always find something to complain about, so I wouldn't worry about being labelled.

Now, if you want miniatures that appeal to your needs, and you can't find someone who makes them, why not hire a sculptor to do something for you?

Darknight wrote:Wrex, you are a very intense person.

Seriously; I am not supposed to have a discussion because I disagree with you? I am now painted as some kind of guy who wants to stop other people playing with whatever models they want?

You make assumptions about me and what I do and do not want to do without a single shred of evidence.

Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"

Find a single time in this thread where I have said other people should not do whatever they like re. their own models. I haven't - yet you have told me what I should do.

All I have asked is if there are other people who are concerned by the depiction of women in fantasy - specifically female models. Obviously, you are not such a person.

Well done, your message has been conveyed to the masses.

I am just wondering what you are hoping to accomplish by this, because my mentality obviously offends you. I never said you should not have this conversation, all I said is that if you want to make any changes you are going about it the wrong way. I never said you should not talk about this, I just said how I felt and you responded to me.

Pointing at me and inferring that I am such and such does not make you sound any more rational than I.

Why are you so threatened by simple discussion? What did I do to earn a response which is basically "Sit down and shut up! You have your view, well don't come around here preaching it!"

That was the one... yeah, speak a bit louder and insult me through my P.M. in the future. I say you ARE OVER-REACTING and you say I am some sort of angry fearful troll... how am I supposed to react to that one? Seriously though...

As we are only talking about miniature games, GeneralX, I won't address your post. But thank you for the information.

And why are you wondering if my wife is on my account? Is it so hard to you to conceive of a man who does not think it is appropriate to show an ideal of women which is sexually available?

Delephont: We would still be geeks, true. I don't contend that. And as for the models, I can covert or (as people have said) use Hasslefree or other companies. My initial post was based on a very limited sample, and the issue of ALL minatures being provocative is inaccurate, and I apologize for my error.

But the question still remains; are we (as a group) happy about the implication which GeneralX agrees with - that we want women to be sluts and that we think women want to be sluts?

Life is short - which is why such things are important. We don't have very long to make sure people get the right idea about what we think.

I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it?

GeneralX admitted it. It is a brave action. Wrex kinda admitted it too.

@wrex - that has to be one of the best clips of the entire movie... ive loved that scene since i first saw it eons ago.

Wrex kinda admitted it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

Apply this with a pinch of economics to modeling war-gaming mini's and you have a marketable product. I am not saying that these miniatures do not objectify women in a very simple way, but they do not make people sexist. Owning a naked greek statue would include this simple objectification. In case you did not notice practically all miniature objectify SOMETHING, they just do it in different ways.

At this point I am convinced that you are just trying to convince people that they are sexist pigs...

Wrex : Sorry - I missed your edit to the message I responded to! I understand now!

Rest assured, I *do* spend my time fighting for these issues in FAR MORE important arenas. Of course, your grandmother and I are mortal enemies in this fight, but we both think we are fighting for women's rights. In any case, please - rest assured I am constantly advocating for fair and ethical treatment of everyone, including women.

But, the question remains here - because this is a miniature gaming forum. I am asking this question (about the treatment of women) and making it specific to the portrayal of women in a fantasy fiction setting.

I am certain there is no-one here who is beating women or raping them or whatnot. What people here do is based on visual, fictional objectification of women. I am not saying (and, if you note, have never said) this is WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE DONE! (Although it is clear I think it is wrong because I don't do it, which strongly implies I don't think it should be done.)

I am not going to tell people what they should and should not do with toy soldiers - which is why I have not. You, on the other hand, HAVE. All I have done is ask the question "Are people happy with the objectification of women in fantasy art?" You have kinda said "Yeah" and GeneralX has definitely said "Yeah" (he has also admitted to the objectificiation of women in other arenas too).

I not passing judgment - I am asking others to make a judgment on themselves. My objective was not to change anyone's mind - it was to create a discussion where people might consider what their views were and reflect on them.

I think it is working.

You are not going to like my next sculpture Darknight ...

Women are beautiful, but I have absolutely no need to conform to ANY standard of beauty but my own. If you define beauty as everything, then so be it; but do not ask me to include ALL of the world's beauty into one sculpture.

Darknight wrote:...and then consider if they are happy with that.

I think you have made this point a few times now...

Darknight wrote:...there is a WORLD of difference between a Greek statue of a classical nude and a girl bent over a poleaxe with her tush in the air, and you know it!)...

Yes there is, and I actually take a bit of offense to the more... well vulgar poses on some of these models. Kids should not be playing with stripper toys, and on this I TOTALLY agree with you. On this same note though, I happen to think that Slaanesh are some of the coolest "sexiest" miniatures I have seen on the market. I commend the artists who conceptualized them, the team who cultivated them, and the sculptors who made them.

How do you feel about this for instance?



Man, I love this model... and I will be making my own variant soon.

"Note"
Please remember that I do not take all of what I read seriously, I just react to it (sometimes overly so ), and talking online is always quite confusing. I think while we may be misunderstanding eachother, you obviously saw something like this happening as you were writing your posts.

Wrexasaur wrote:At this point I am convinced that you are just trying to convince people that they are sexist pigs...

And what the devil do you base that on? I am asking people to CONSIDER what they think. I am asking people to look at my thesis, decide if it is right (no-one has really argued that fantasy miniatures do not sexually objectify women - there is a WORLD of difference between a Greek statue of a classical nude and a girl bent over a poleaxe with her tush in the air, and you know it!) and then consider if they are happy with that.

When GeneralX said he liked his women to be sexually available pleasure objects did I wave a finger at him and say "YOU ARE A BAD MAN!" No, I didn't.

Also; what if I was trying to convince people they are sexist pigs? Is that so very wrong, if they actually are?

I have been honest in this thread - I have strongly implied (and now I confirm) I consider the sexual objectification of women to be wrong, and I consider many fantasy works of art to be sexual objectification of women. I am asking if other feel the same way about any or all of my views. That is all. At no point have you found a single statement of mine which reads "Sexual objectification is wrong because ...." (it leads to rape / abortions / murder / global warming / whatever). NONE of this have I said. I have simply said I think it is wrong.

All I asked is do others agree with me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:You are not going to like my next sculpture Darknight ...

Maybe not. You probably won't like mine But, how is any of this relevant? If you are meaning your next model will be one which shows a girl in a sexually suggestive pose or otherwise sexually objectifies her then, no, I won't like it and I will question the motivation behind it. I might admire the artistic skill used in it, though.

But, again - how is this relevant? Or are you simply pointing this out to show you disagree with me? Thank you - but I already got that from your earlier posts. You and I disagree on many levels. I think you and I have established this before

Hrm. With the amount of 'non-slutty' miniatures being pointed out in this thread I'm starting to wonder if slutty miniatures are even the majority we assume them to be. Maybe they're just far, FAR more memorable and widespread, because *shock* they are far more provocative and usually more 'interesting' (for better or worse).

Me, I'm perfectly fine with slutty models. I can appreciate an (good) artistic interpretation of the female form in most any media. And my favorite female sculpts are usually split evenly between the cool and slutty and the cool but tasteful.

I can, however, understand Darkknight's point. At least the point of how these provocative miniatures portray the hobby in general to outsiders. Some people may look at these scantily clad women and immediately dismiss the hobby as a domain exclusive to pervs and oversexed teenagers. And that somewhat bothers me.

But then I realize I'm playing and painting with little toy men (and women), and I ask myself what the hell does it matter what 'outsiders' think of my hobby?

Darknight wrote:But, again - how is this relevant? Or are you simply pointing this out to show you disagree with me? Thank you - but I already got that from your earlier posts. You and I disagree on many levels. I think you and I have established this before

I think we are misunderstanding each other Darknight, I am just pushing a few buttons back so I can see you jump too . I am training myself to sculpt, and I could benefit from your perspective on this, my intention is not to offend... to a point of course . As I have mentioned before, the worst of these models I am no fan of, but the majority don't offend me in the slightest.

Alex : Thanks for your comment. I admit (again!) my description of "all" was inaccurate. And my concern is not simply with what outsiders thinks, but what WE think too. Are we happy with out attitude towards the models, based on what it says about us.

Wrex : You know what? We ARE misunderstanding each other - I was under the impression you were making valid points you believed in, not simply arguing for the sake of arguing. Might I suggest (if I am permitted) you don't do this in the future? It tends to make me think ANYTHING you say will be invalid (as an example, I actually clicked the "ignore" button under your name based on your first, unedited, post! See, I was thinking you were simply here to argue for the sake of arguing, rather than arguing with a vague idea of getting information for your own benefit! I shall remove the ignore, but please - if you want me to continue dialog with you in the future - don't be silly like that. We can have an adult conversation based on honest, can't we?)

I actually just asked you what you would want to see change specifically, and even mentioned that I would be willing to take your considerations into account when making my sculptures, but sure... by all means.

Darknight wrote:
I have been honest in this thread - I have strongly implied (and now I confirm) I consider the sexual objectification of women to be wrong, and I consider many fantasy works of art to be sexual objectification of women. I am asking if other feel the same way about any or all of my views.

......I need to stop you right here......I can tell there is a religious streak to your posts, and typical of most mainstream religions you seem to have an unhealthy attitude towards sex!

It strikes me as strange that you have an issue with women in miniature being objects of sexual fantasy, and yet have no issue with what the game itself potrays.....in that it covers one of the sickest aspects of the human psyche...the need to butcher, maim, murder and destroy!

I think you need to review your principles when a woman being sculpted with overly large breast fires your emotions more than a fantasy ork holding a severed human head!

I don't want to limit your avenue for discussion, however, I do feel you have been more insistant about the subject beyond simply "asking a question".

Personally, I believe most men on this board are not offended by the female form in the same way you seem to be, I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!

The fact that most of the females in this genre are not to your liking, sugests to me that this is not the hobby for you....perhaps.....

Easy: generalisation of Nerds' repressed and depressed sexual fantasies.

sA