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.

Ed_Bodger wrote:I posted a much more complete answer in the DCM forum but basically I think it is a great diorama well modelled, well painted and thought provoking.

How is it thought provoking ?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Dedicated no doubt to all the victims of rape by occupying soldiery and condoned because "Boys will be boys."

40k, Dedicated no doubt to all the victims of war by occupying solidery and condoned because "War will be War".

Innocents are slaughtered by war, I'm currently on a 2 year posting in the Middle East so I know first hand what goes on. So, depicting this on your models that are showing slaughter, bloodshed, violence is perfectly acceptable, but the depicting a potential rape scene isn't?

Even a Gaunt Novel described one of his soliders raping an innocent before knifing her to death. A DE Reaver is sold with slave Girl models. Khorne is slaughter everyone, blood for the blood God.

If this is an acceptable FICTION, then you are a hypercrite to say another form of FICTION is wrong.

Both the killing and torture of innocent Civilians and the rape of women is a harsh reality of war. Niether are accepable in my opinion, but they both still take place.

reds8n wrote:

Ed_Bodger wrote:I posted a much more complete answer in the DCM forum but basically I think it is a great diorama well modelled, well painted and thought provoking.

How is it thought provoking ?

My thoughts exactly. This is an attempt to be edgy. Why make this diorama? Sure, it could happen, but why? The valiant Space Marines battling the nefarious forces of Chaos or the nasty Tyranids coming to grips with the heroic, yet tragic, Eldar are more in tune with our hobby than a rape scene.

People say this is hypocrisy, but while we play out our little wars on our tabletops, there is something almost noble about open conflicts like that versus the more seedy, less tactful portions of war we can do without.

Of course, that is just my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSecretSquig wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Both the killing and torture of innocent Civilians and the rape of women is a harsh reality of war. Niether are accepable in my opinion, but they both still take place.

That may be true, but why make a diorama of them? Its not edgy, its in poor taste. We are not saying it is "wrong" per se, but just inappropriate in our opinions.

People seem to have forgotten what 40k is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jBnE3LYo4

LINK NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

I don't have any problem with this diorama.

And I must say I totally agree with Skylifter, ph34r, ED_Bodger and TheSecretSquig.

I agree, it may be in bad taste for some. But some are suggesting that it is unacceptable, which to me, is hypocrisy considering the hobby we take part in and the background it dictates.

TheSecretSquig wrote:40k, Dedicated no doubt to all the victims of war by occupying solidery and condoned because "War will be War".

To an extent. 40K is, by and large, a grotesque satire upon the horrors of war is it not ? When done "right" anyway.

I don't see what this diorama actually "says" or is purported to represent.

As to the people yelling " OHMAGAWD HYPERCRITE (sic)".. I think a deep breath and a step back is a good idea. It's a wargame, so there's always going to be violent imagery associated. But the mechanics of the game itself are kept quite deliberately abstract and "clean" so as to avoid any real graphicness.



The painting technique is really very good, the detailing on the faces is superb indeed. I don't think there's much debate with regards to that.

Oh right, I was forgetting p69 in the BRB about forcibly having sex with prisoners.
Don't worry pal, I saw your original post.

It is also pointless me coming on this forum and arguing from a point of empathy and compassion.
Despite the fact that I realise there will be plenty to say it is fair spoils cos genocide is okay. and shout me down.

It is a war game, not a kinky sex role playing game.
Look man there is plenty of that highly abusive and offensive on the internet and worst. It need not be imposed on a plastic soldiers game.

Again, it is not an act of courage to make this diorama, just the will to offend. There is zero intellectual contaent and no artistic merit. It is purely meant to titilate. As such the work is a dreadful piece of juvenalia. The creater needs to grow up.

reds8n wrote:

Ed_Bodger wrote:I posted a much more complete answer in the DCM forum but basically I think it is a great diorama well modelled, well painted and thought provoking.

How is it thought provoking ?

It is thought provoking in the sense that this is the third thread on this diorama and has divided wargamers on morality depicted within the hobby. If the diorama had been similar but with a male eldar on the ground and instead of taking off his trousers the guy was drawing a knife to slit the eldar's throat - or if his chestplate had been removed then cut out his heart the vast majority would just say - nice model nice paint job and that would be it. However this has made us all sit up take note and express an meaningful opinion.

brother_zach wrote:I try to browse Cool Mini or Not to see what the elite in the hobby are doing to set trends that we often see showing up in painting and modeling. Having only trolled the site enviously, I often stumble across works that truely inspire me and make me proud to be apart of the hobby. Tonight, I found a very disturbing, but real piece of work titled "Alien Contact".

Here's the link, and to be safe, I would classify this Warning: NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/266249

I don't want to post this to start controversy, rather I'd like to discuss if this work has its purpose. Do you think such a work has its place, because it reminds us of the grim attrocities commited in warfare? Do you feel as if the piece simply is meant to execute some sick fantasy of the artist? Or do you feel otherwise?

Personally, its a very grim and real piece. Rape and warfare, sadly, often go hand in hand. Given the ammount of work placed in the piece, I don't see this being something that gratifies it nor was the work created to fill out a sick obsession. The fact that the act isn't occouring yet leaves the audience to wonder, which in my opinion is the scariest part of the piece.

*Mod Disclaimer* Once again, I'm not trying to start a controversy here. I feel as if discussions like this need to happen, and I hope our dakkadites keep their maturity through this thread. If things get out of hand or if you feel as if this thread is simply too controversial, please take all necessary action.

I think 40k is about escapism.... so no something hard core and realistic like this doesnt have much of a place. The guy is a great modeller. I dont really care for his theme.

ps
I have friends who have been raped.
Tell them it is only a game.

Ed
I believe you are crediting the creator with too much intelligence.
There is nothing to suggest that the work was intended to elicit discussion.
It is simply an inevitable reaction that the debate takes place.

If there was some indication of a disinterested viewpoint from the maker, or something to facilitate the discussion in a more intellectual way then I would agree with you.

Chibi I completely appreciate your point of view and I feel very sorry for your friends. I have friends who have died or been mutilated in Afghanistan and Iraq but I can still look at a diorama depicting violent death and not be offended or think that the modeler is juvenile.

If you actually analysed the Eldar model inline with the background, I doubt the boobs would actually be that big. Eldar are tall, slim and slender build so its doubtful they'd fill anything more than a 'B' cup. I'd also argue about the Eldar trying to cover herself. Eldar would not see the embarrasment or need to cover that part of thier body from view than any other part other than a practical reason. Its more likely the Eldar would not move or fight back until they thought they could strike an attack back.

This isn't part of the game we play, but an expression of the background connected to the game. Similar to any diorama scene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:ps
I have friends who have been raped.
Tell them it is only a game.

I have friends who have been shot and friends mutilated by IED's designed to mutilate. I had friends who have taken civillian lives for one reason or another (note, HAD friends).

Tell them its only a game.

Sorry but this dio is to me the 28mm scale version of graffiti on the lavatory wall.

Ed Thank you.
Likewise, my thoughts go out to your friends and loved ones.
When it comes to a disagreement between explosive hot metal and flesh and bone, sadly there is only ever one winner. :(

Ed_Bodger wrote:It is thought provoking in the sense that this is the third thread on this diorama and has divided wargamers on morality depicted within the hobby. If the diorama had been similar but with a male eldar on the ground and instead of taking off his trousers the guy was drawing a knife to slit the eldar's throat - or if his chestplate had been removed then cut out his heart the vast majority would just say - nice model nice paint job and that would be it. However this has made us all sit up take note and express an meaningful opinion.

..*obvious joke about meaningful opinion comment*

I think there's a difference between something being thought provoking -- which generally is taken to mean it forces one to stop and reconsider ones' established perspective on something or think about something from a previously unconsidered angle or approach -- and merely divisive or controversial. Or even just kind of lame.

Hell, we pretty much have longer and more frequent threads on far more banal subjects -- favourite sandwich/pizza topping/HAWT women -- all the time and I don't really think one can honestly describe those as being thought provoking as such no ?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sorry but this dio is to me the 28mm scale version of graffiti on the lavatory wall.

You want to read some of the Graffiti on the lavatory walls where I'm living, its hilarious!!!

Good point perhaps I should have used another phrase but it has made people consider what they find acceptable to be depicted in 28mm scale and what they don't so in that sense it could be called though provoking. Maybe to lighten the tone this thread should be hijacked to discuss favorite Pizza toppings?

Chibi: Thank you.

Brace yourselves for the wall of text:

No one has yet mentioned the fact that these models have expressions. Far from "LOLRAPEBEWBSLOOK!!1!" this scene probably has the greatest sense of narrative tension and interiority that I've ever seen in a diorama. In fact, I think the whole thing is quite artfully composed.

As for the bewbs, something a little more subtle might have been more "artful," but the artist is functioning within the scope of the model range, which is governed by exaggerated proportions. Ignoring that, note her pose. She is tensed, half covering her naked chest, her expression stern and her eyes turned to her left. Is she reaching for the knife? Is she trying to hide her fear as the disrobing guardsman approaches? Is she ashamed, trying to cover her nakedness? You know what? This isn't even about rape. This is about exploring traditional modes of sexuality as a vulnerability in otherwise dominant, empowered women. How do I know? I don't, but it's plausible and thought provoking (if you're the type inclined to let your thoughts be provoked). Wait, now it's depicting the loss of humanity through the dehumanization of a non-human, predicting a doomed future for mankind who, as a species, cannot grow to accept anything beyond itself. See what I did there? Two totally different directions, same piece. Either way, it gives me a hell of a lot more pleasure to play around with ideas like that than it does to call the artist a pervy neckbeard.

Are miniature painters to be relegated to the realm of artisans, never pushing boundaries, never tackling taboo subjects, never raising questions with their work? It seems like this kind of thing is far more acceptable in the "fine arts," but I have a feeling that's more the demographic, not the medium. When a painting or sculpture generates this much ambivalent discussion after a gallery viewing, it called a resounding success (and someone possibly buys it for heinous amounts of money). And yet, I personally know plenty of people who would immediately not only dismiss the piece as crap, but start slinging insults and spiteful insinuations about the artist (as some have done online).

Rape is just too taboo for many people to handle (not even referring to those who have had emotionally scarring personal experiences therewith). I recall a discussion about modeling erect penises on Soul Grinders a while back. There's a lot to be said for that, actually, from an artistic-analytical perspective. But, of course, some people will still find it distasteful. The number of "anyone who does this is a perv and a very bad person" comments, however, was significantly lower than the "just don't show it to kids" camp. So an erect penis on a twisted manifestation of perverse sexuality and insatiable bloodlust which delights in nothing more than desecrating any and everything it can, only to crush it moments later is fine and dandy, as long as you don't let kids see it? The insinuation of sexual violence/violent sexuality there should be no less shocking than in this diorama. And yet, you've all seen the reactions...

I think the diorama is fantastic. Then again, maybe I'm just an artsy-fartsy, amorality-preaching rape apologist whose tolerance (let alone praise) of such a work means he should probably be raped, himself, so he knows how terrible it is and why he was really really wrong to ever bring it into a discussion beyond saying "it's bad." I'm sure someone on the internet will let me know, sooner or later.

Ed_Bodger wrote:Good point perhaps I should have used another phrase but it has made people consider what they find acceptable to be depicted in 28mm scale and what they don't so in that sense it could be called though provoking.

Perhaps.

Do you not think it -- ie the diorama itself and/or the artists intent -- hasn't done this -- there's nothing in the portrayed scene that screams "discuss ! " or actually makes some form of comment in this regard. The title is really little more than a black humoured pun is it not ? There's nothing there that suggests to me that the artist was intending to make some statement as such. YMMV though of course.

And I don't really see much of the debate here -- from both the pro or anti "camps" -- really being any different than the last ( and I'd wager the next ) thread on Nazi themed 40k army 1111 / KKK themed Redemptionist gang/ kontrovershul armee 111 !!! etc etc threads either.


Really, any "debate" is really just a rehash of existing opinions and thoughts -- which is fair enough, keeps the world turning to a degree one supposes -- mainly by those who are, so to speak, quite experienced with regards to this sort of thread.

Any minute now we'll get some "brave" poster proclaiming what a work of genius the piece is, and then throwing themselves upon the savage and uncaring other posters who "just don't understand", as some form of human sacrifice to the artistic muses.

EDIT : The internet really is fast these days eh ?

oadie wrote:Brace yourselves for the wall of text:

No one has yet mentioned the fact that these models have expressions. Far from "LOLRAPEBEWBSLOOK!!1!" this scene probably has the greatest sense of narrative tension and interiority that I've ever seen in a diorama. In fact, I think the whole thing is quite artfully composed.

As for the bewbs, something a little more subtle might have been more "artful," but the artist is functioning within the scope of the model range, which is governed by exaggerated proportions. Ignoring that, note her pose. She is tensed, half covering her naked chest, her expression stern and her eyes turned to her left. Is she reaching for the knife? Is she trying to hide her fear as the disrobing guardsman approaches? Is she ashamed, trying to cover her nakedness? You know what? This isn't even about rape. This is about exploring traditional modes of sexuality as a vulnerability in otherwise dominant, empowered women. How do I know? I don't, but it's plausible and thought provoking (if you're the type inclined to let your thoughts be provoked). Wait, now it's depicting the loss of humanity through the dehumanization of a non-human, predicting a doomed future for mankind who, as a species, cannot grow to accept anything beyond itself. See what I did there? Two totally different directions, same piece. Either way, it gives me a hell of a lot more pleasure to play around with ideas like that than it does to call the artist a pervy neckbeard.

Are miniature painters to be relegated to the realm of artisans, never pushing boundaries, never tackling taboo subjects, never raising questions with their work? It seems like this kind of thing is far more acceptable in the "fine arts," but I have a feeling that's more the demographic, not the medium. When a painting or sculpture generates this much ambivalent discussion after a gallery viewing, it called a resounding success (and someone possibly buys it for heinous amounts of money). And yet, I personally know plenty of people who would immediately not only dismiss the piece as crap, but start slinging insults and spiteful insinuations about the artist (as some have done online).

Rape is just too taboo for many people to handle (not even referring to those who have had emotionally scarring personal experiences therewith). I recall a discussion about modeling erect penises on Soul Grinders a while back. There's a lot to be said for that, actually, from an artistic-analytical perspective. But, of course, some people will still find it distasteful. The number of "anyone who does this is a perv and a very bad person" comments, however, was significantly lower than the "just don't show it to kids" camp. So an erect penis on a twisted manifestation of perverse sexuality and insatiable bloodlust which delights in nothing more than desecrating any and everything it can, only to crush it moments later is fine and dandy, as long as you don't let kids see it? The insinuation of sexual violence/violent sexuality there should be no less shocking than in this diorama. And yet, you've all seen the reactions...

I think the diorama is fantastic. Then again, maybe I'm just an artsy-fartsy, amorality-preaching rape apologist whose tolerance (let alone praise) of such a work means he should probably be raped, himself, so he knows how terrible it is and why he was really really wrong to ever bring it into a discussion beyond saying "it's bad." I'm sure someone on the internet will let me know, sooner or later.

In my world, the title of "hero of the day" goes to you.

oadie, I bet your an art student.

I agree with what you've said, its a very good analysis. i personally have no problems with this piece, mainly because I have read a good majority of Bernard Cornwells books (you know; Sharpe, turncoat [or what ever the American civil war ones are],ect) which almost always include at least one sex, rape or attempted rape scene in the book. On top of this, I have seen plenty of artwork around and there are quite a few pieces around which depict taboo scenes (There is a huge canvas by my schools library with several people on it, one of which is a fully naked woman with greatly exaggerated breasts)

It is an excellent diorama in both painting a modeling sense, though the breasts are a bit too large but it has been said that certain things must be exaggerated to get the point across and a t some points it is impossible to make smaller what is already quite small (in RL, how big is it on the model? What, a few mm, I doubt it is a simple task to make them smaller but still get the point across). The diorama also has a great narrative, much better than the X vs Y + gore" or "Oh look, we've won" dioramas I see around.

I would also disagree that the eldar model is the focus point of the piece, the centaur is what attracts my eyes first, then to the eldar who is in a contrasting colour to pretty much everything on the diorama's base.

Do you think such a work has its place, because it reminds us of the grim attrocities commited in warfare? Do you feel as if the piece simply is meant to execute some sick fantasy of the artist? Or do you feel otherwise?

I think it's there to tell a story, and I think it does so in an exceptionally evocative and thought-provoking manner. The piece is full of little details that show the character of each of the various Guardsmen.

Look at the Officer. He's turning off the vox in a very subtle manner, but he's starring off into the distance with a "I don't want to know" thousand-yard stare. The guy holding the breast-plate looks really nervous, glancing at the guy to his right. The guy with the gun is a mad-dog - he has a gleam in his eye that screams "Revenge!". And the guy who's about the commit the act, he's similar to the guy with the gun. In his mind he is no doubt about to do what he is about to do to get revenge on the Eldar for what they've no doubt been doing to his buddies during this war (ie. revenge for killing them). The most twisted of them, by far, is the tank's driver. He is leaning over and leering - he has a sense of real detached fascination, so I think of all of them he's the budding psychopath.

In the end people have to remember that most rapes are not about sex, but about power. You have a crew of Guardsmen here who are doing something to get a little bit of power over the Eldar they are fighting. It's not fetishistic at all, and certainly isn't presented in a way that could be even considered erotic.

Like all good dioramas it tells a story, and it tells a very interesting one. And aside from that the modelling and painting are exquisite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:And I don't really see much of the debate here -- from both the pro or anti "camps" -- really being any different than the last ( and I'd wager the next ) thread on Nazi themed 40k army 1111 / KKK themed Redemptionist gang/ kontrovershul armee 111 !!! etc etc threads either.

Except in the case of a Nazi Guard army, or a KKK Redemptionist Gang, those are taking modern day or historical items and putting them in 40K clothing. Redemptionists in white lynching someone (whatever their colour... or species even) isn't 40K. A Leman Russ with a swastika on it isn't 40K. Why? Because neither of these things exist in 40K. There are no Nazi's in 40K. There is no KKK in 40K. To transplant them into 40K is about as 4th-wall-breaking as you can get.

But this diorama? It shows a story, a story that doesn't require the context of modern day or 38,000 years in the future to convey. It is conveying a common story of soldiers letting their emotions get the better of them and them taking their revenge on a captured enemy. That would fit into any time period as it is true to human nature (wanting revenge). Would people be up in arms if the Eldar wasn't half-naked, but was instead kneeling with a Laspistol to the back of her head? What if the diorama was 100% the same... except the Eldar was male?

No. It's because it's a female that people are up in arms about this, and while I'm not going to scream "hypocrite" as some have done already, it does show a real lack of thought going into the knee-jerk reactions of some people in this thread.

TheSecretSquig wrote:The modelling of death and mutilation is applauded, yet modelling a potential rape scene is worng??? Guys need a hypocrisy check!

I can model headless corpses, tie Prisoners riddled with bullet holes to the front of a Chaos or Ork Tank, or have a DE Reaver with a slave girl, and I'm applauded. But should I show another reality of war, your flamed by the Politically Correct brigade who themselves have done the above.

Maybe the diorama (which I think is excellently done, although the boobs are a bit comical) is showing a 'too reality' of war for people to grasp. Its too much from the 'dark side' of war.

Personally, I'd applaud the courage to produce this peice.

I dislike quoting a piece and saying that I simply agree, but I have to do that here. You make an excellent point that I fully agree with.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
But this diorama? It shows a story, a story that doesn't require the context of modern day or 38,000 years in the future to convey. It is conveying a common story of soldiers letting their emotions get the better of them and them taking their revenge on a captured enemy. That would fit into any time period as it is true to human nature (wanting revenge). Would people be up in arms if the Eldar wasn't half-naked, but was instead kneeling with a Laspistol to the back of her head? What if the diorama was 100% the same... except the Eldar was male?

I'm not sure I agree the reaction is coloured one way or another by the gender of the Eldar, but..well could be. I don't think anyone has argued (here) that female rape is intrinsically worse than male rape.

That would fit into any time period as it is true to human nature

I agree it would in any "realistic" setting, but the 40K setting, or at least the mindset described therein so often, distorts and twists the essential nature of humanity so often and so abusrdly at times, especially with regards to the Imperium's citizens beliefs and creeds that this scene doesn't really ring true IMO.
Mainly as it pretty much reduces the Eldar to little more than a human with pointy ears. they're not and the Imperium doesn't think of them that way.

They view them as animals, lesser beings.

Does rape happen in the 40K setting ? No doubt.

I'm sure that some guardsmen would rape people, in certain circumstances.

But I don't think they'd rape, for example, cattle. Or an ape. Or a ptera squirrel.

I agree that simply transplanting atiitudes X/Y/Z to the 40k setting -- which is done on occassion, and it dilutes and lessens the core concept/conceit IMO, like all bad writing -- is wrong, and yet this is exactly what this diorama does, because it really isn't "true" to the setting with regards to what it shows.

That said, part of the whole gmaes appeal is the "permission" given for players to go and do run with what they want to do with the setting, regardless of any "offical" cannon or somesuch. Exactly how successful many of these are of course... welll.....

I don't see the Guard (or humanity in the 41st Millennium) viewing the Eldar as animals. If they viewed them as animals they wouldn't care what they did. Animals are ignored and left alone, which is why you don't see Imperial Crusades purging all planets of life that didn't originate on Terra. Alien life is fine as long as it is animalistic and 'native' (so to speak). They wouldn't rape a petra-squirel or a Grox or whatever because they don't need to hold power over them - they (essentially) already do, in the same way we humans hold power of livestock.

Sentient beings on the other hand, they are seen as threats. They are seen as debased and inherently corrupt? Yes of course. But simple unthinking animals? No. The Guard know that the Eldar are 'people' (in the non-human specific sense of the world) and I can see a soldier driven to the edge wanting to exert power over an Eldar, especially one that's been "killing his buddies". Rape is a method of exerting power, so to me this diorama makes perfect sense.

I disagree with the notion that this diorama isn't 'true' to the setting. Is it brought about by the failure of those that drive 40K's narrative to make the Eldar anything more than pointy-eared humans (as you say)? Yes, it is. But taking that as a central conceit and accepting that the Eldar are just pointy-eared humans makes the diorama's narrative even easier to believe.

Reds8n you obviously haven,t been to Wales if you think humans won't rape animals (although they claim the sheep like it and push back)

I don't find it thought provoking nor interestedly laid out, the only thing positive about it is the sculpting and modelling.

Now normally that would be a great compliment to the artist, but when it is so incredibly obvious that the subject matter they chose was ONLY to garner more attention by stirring up this much poo, it makes me sad that someone with obvious skills has to resort to something so low.

The only way you could find this "thought provoking" is if its your very first introduction to what rape is.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is a war game, not a kinky sex role playing game.

You wouldn't think that by reading some of the comments here on Dakka, though. How many people have we seen whining because the daemonettes or DE wyches aren't "sexy" enough? "These daemonettes don't have enough breasts, and why are there male components on the wyches sprue?! Not only that but there isn't a single thong here, WTF GW?!"

And then there's all the Slaanesh CSM conversions. You know the ones I'm talking about.

Anyway, all I'm going to say is that I'm tired of people treating me like a fething idiot and taking it upon themselves to "educate" me, or "open my eyes". Do you really think the fact that I'm not talking about rape 24/7 means I'm not aware that it exists? Come the feth on.

I know people who have been raped, and it really hurts knowing the people you love have to live with that pain. This hobby is my escape from the harshness of reality, it doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it, I just want some time away from it lest I put a fething bullet in my head.

Other than that I'm not really too bothered by it. I'm more disturbed by the aforementioned "NEED MOAR SEXY MODELS" types than anything.


EDIT: And since it came up a few posts up, I feel the need to defend myself yet again and state that I don't have a problem with people sculpting penises (peni?) on models, if it's done right. In nearly every single case I've seen someone do that, they were doing it just to make people laugh or get their buddies to high-five them for being rebellious and cool. Never have I gotten the feeling that anyone did it because they realized they were modeling a "twisted manifestation of perverse sexuality and insatiable bloodlust which delights in nothing more than desecrating any and everything it can" and wanted to properly represent that on the tabletop.

I've never said that anyone who models genitalia on a model is immature, but most of the ones I've seen definitely gave me that feeling. Usually you can tell the difference, and when it looks like someone put no thought or effort into their work and just slapped a dick on it to be funny, I think it's safe to call them out on it.

That isn't true at all, as I said earlier the fact that it makes you consider what is 'acceptable' to model makes it thought provoking. The fact that it has provoked a reaction makes it though provoking. I wonder if it was a male eldar getting bent over the bonnet would we see some jokes about it or would it be taken as seriously as a female eldar?

I was replying to Ifalna btw

H.B.M.C. wrote: The Guard know that the Eldar are 'people' (in the non-human specific sense of the world) and I can see a soldier driven to the edge wanting to exert power over an Eldar, especially one that's been "killing his buddies". Rape is a method of exerting power, so to me this diorama makes perfect sense.

I agree that rape is, generally, about that yes.

But I think there's a huge difference between wanting revenge or hating the enemy and being willing to have sex with them. I don't see guardsmen holding down an ork or, gods forbid, and Necron and...

.. well... not until next years' Golden demon anyway.

I'm not saying the Imperium views the Eldar as unthinking, I was meaning animal more in the non human, indeed the non-people sense of the term. And given the fear and hatred and mistrust of the xenos, I don't think this does represent a sensible or "common scene to the horrors of war" scene.

I'm sure there are people in the setting who fantasise about the exotic or the forbidden, to an extent. Just like there are in the real world. But that's so uncommon that it is far, far from usual or readily described as plausible.

The difference to playing games with toy soldiers doing war/murder and toy soldiers in a rape scene in this context is HUGE.

Yes they are both terrible, but play fighting and war are waay more acceptable than rape.

Imagine a different context. Imagine young boys outside that play everyday with shooting each other with toy guns, sword fighting, and plain having a fake battle (every kid has been doing this since the beginning of time, because we are wired to do this), now imagine those same boys, grabbing a young girl (possibly your young daughter) and pretend rape her, then pretend rape her everyday they see her.

I don't care what country you are from or what culture or taboo's are present/lacking. There is a line you draw when it comes to THAT kind of violence. It is a violence of control, humiliation, and absolute dominance that goes beyond war, but to a far more personal level. Any rape help groups, survivors, and councilors will tell you this. Rape is NOT a game and has no place in any game.