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.

Pumpkin wrote:Hey, that's some pretty awesome stuff so far, peeps! Especially loving that kick-ass Studio McVey model. Do they do any 28mm minis? I'm just assuming that one isn't based on how detailed it is.

The one I have is either 28 or 30mm to eyes, for the limited run resin version. She is one of the best models out there for female kickassery, IMHO.

JOHIRA wrote:*snip*
I say clothing a mini in a cultural millieux does not prevent it from being a sexual object. Victorian dress (or faux-Victorian) has many elements quite capable of being sexualized, particularly the corsets and garters present on so many of these figures. And as for the faux-Japanese and faux-Chinese minis, I'd say they are both sexually and racially objectified. The opium elemental in particular is like a laundry-list of attributes someone I know finds incredibly sexy, but wearing a skin-tight chipao that's blowing open in the wind should be obvious sexual objectification.

Are you kidding me? Both of these models have pokey nipples on display, and the second has a frankly absurd bust-to-hip-to-waist ratio. Definitely sexual objects.


I can't help but think a lot of people here have missed the point of what sexual objectification means. These minis are not fully-fledged people who live complex lives. They are archetypes. Some are more shallow than others, but in the end they all represent something that is clearly recognizable just by looking at them. And that's what a good mini should be.

The only time sexual objectification is really a problem is when that sexual objectification is used in lieu of other kinds of objectification. So for example, the Wargames Factory Amazon plastics are a prime example of a bad kind of sexual objectification because the sexual objectification interferes with believably implementing other kinds of objectification. They can't really represent a "fierce warrior woman" archetype because plainly by looking at them they have a spray-on fake breast plate and have chosen thong underwear in lieu of clothing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with depicting the female form, even with depicting it sexually. Sex is a part of who we are, and believe me, you can't shield a child from knowing there are differences between males and females. They know this before they could even comprehend what a miniature is. The problem is when sex is all there is to a miniature, and I think it's making a grave mistake to assume just because a miniature has uncensored naughty bits that sex is all there is to it. I'd say there is more non-sexual content in the wetnurse model, for example, than in most of the minis listed so far on this page. Because in the wetnurse model the sexual content is used to create a feeling of bizarre revulsion in the viewer. Whereas for many of these models the sexual content is depicted exclusively so the painter has something safe and pretty to look at. Not that there is anything wrong with safe and pretty. But in the end, safe and pretty isn't morally superior to nudity, it's still a form of sexual objectification.

I'm glad someone gets it, but sssssh. We're not allowed to discuss on this here discussion board.

I am going to have to read this thread when I am not on my phone - lots of cool models

Brushfire's Zabar Pride Lioness:



Completely functional, non-objectified (unless you're a furry) female model.

Like Johira said, it's only a matter of not breaking suspension of disbelief.

http://red-box-games.com/

Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)

I'm glad someone mentioned Red Box Games. Tre' makes some excellent female fantasy models that are feminine without being sexualized, and using practical-looking equipment without looking manly.

He also makes some sexy female models.

Osyr wrote:Like Johira said, it's only a matter of not breaking suspension of disbelief.

http://red-box-games.com/

Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)

You mean like this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


I kid because I love Red Box Games. But the fact is, a lot of their models positively drip sexuality. What makes their models the good kind of sex objects as opposed to the bad kind is that they aren't just sex objects. In fact I like Dagny (the first one) the best of all of these because even though she appears to be all about sex, her posing and acessorizing is clearly chosen to tell a story about how she approaches her sexuality. She could be posed the same way, but buck-naked with her robes on the floor, and I'm confident that Tre could tell the same story. Because in the end what makes a mini is not if it shows a few milimeters of exposed breast, but how it is sculpted.

For non-sexualized females....



For our own 40k from The Phoenix Club (though try to find 'em these days...)

Well there are dozens of minis I think that fit here but heres just a few:











I will stop here because there are soooooooo many that I like.

I'll be the first to admit there is a real lack of fat chick miniatures.

JOHIRA wrote:

Osyr wrote:Like Johira said, it's only a matter of not breaking suspension of disbelief.

http://red-box-games.com/

Red box games is a good example of not objectifying, the minis are largely believable. The women are as armored as well as the men, they all seem to actually be carrying gear, and the posing is believable. The women are recognizable not because of chain mail bikinis, but due to the well sculpted faces of the minis. (I'd post pics, but I don't know how)

You mean like this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


or this one?


I kid because I love Red Box Games. But the fact is, a lot of their models positively drip sexuality. What makes their models the good kind of sex objects as opposed to the bad kind is that they aren't just sex objects. In fact I like Dagny (the first one) the best of all of these because even though she appears to be all about sex, her posing and acessorizing is clearly chosen to tell a story about how she approaches her sexuality. She could be posed the same way, but buck-naked with her robes on the floor, and I'm confident that Tre could tell the same story. Because in the end what makes a mini is not if it shows a few milimeters of exposed breast, but how it is sculpted.

I fear you would have had a constant coronary in Sparta.

All you have proven by your examples - and your earlier comments - is that you have a weird view of women. Perhaps you would like them all in a berka?

NAVARRO wrote:Well there are dozens of minis I think that fit here but heres just a few:



I will stop here because there are soooooooo many that I like.

That is an awesome mini - who makes it?

aosol wrote:I'll be the first to admit there is a real lack of fat chick miniatures.

And check hasslefree Mary miniature...

Theres more I just dont have the time to dig out for more....


@Schmapdi its from old rackham metals, the Shany, even during production she was hard to get.

I have a few female minis that are no more sexualized than thier male counterparts.

I submit to you.


The Eldar Harlequins


And Shadowseer



As well as

Guardians, the 2 right.

NAVARRO wrote:Well there are dozens of minis I think that fit here but heres just a few:

What size is she, and where does she come from?


KHADOOOOOOOOOR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So are we getting a thread on non-objectified male models next?

That's every other thread, essentially.

I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey:

34 MM is how big in relation to 40K?

Some of these models are ok, but the probelm for me is that people have painted them to be wearing makeup.

"Hold on, can go out to war just yet because I need to put my blush and lipstick on"

Yeah.... check out milla jovovich in joan of arc. Thats how they should look in my opinion.

VanHammer wrote:Some of these models are ok, but the probelm for me is that people have painted them to be wearing makeup.

"Hold on, can go out to war just yet because I need to put my blush and lipstick on"

Yeah.... check out milla jovovich in joan of arc. Thats how they should look in my opinion.

I hate to break it to you, but I've seen guys, particularly elves, but even IG, painted that way, as well. I just sort of think of it in the same light as NMM and go 'eh'.

marielle wrote:All you have proven by your examples - and your earlier comments - is that you have a weird view of women. Perhaps you would like them all in a berka?

Uh, what the ?

I have no idea how you could possibly get that I would want any woman to wear a burqa from what I wrote. I'm saying the exact opposite, that all this hand-wringing about miniatures being objectified is pointless when the definition of objectification is the degree of skin being shown with no qualitative, subjective look at why and how the skin is shown.

Honestly, your attempt to launch a personal attack at me is baffling.

Yeah, it's kinda just what lazy painters do. Kinda like lazy artists who haven't ever really looked closely at women outside of porn so they always draw hard nipples, pouty lips, and other features of arousal.

Re: makeup.

I took a class with Jennifer Haley, and one of her suggestions is
that you blush female miniatures.

JOHIRA wrote:"Non-Objectified" is really a poor term to use here, because all miniatures, as unthinking pieces of pewter/resin/plastic are objects and the characters they depict are objectified. A female model in a completely body-covering haz-mat suit is still being objectified, she's just (possibly) not being sexually objectified.

Sexual objectification hugely varies from person to person, but I would say any time the model's sex is apparent there is some degree of sexual objectification.

I should indeed have used the full term "sexual objectification" in the title. I was just looking for something short and snappy that people would understand - had this been on another messageboard, I might have used the terms "fan service" or "cheesecake" - so I guess I missed the mark a bit.

I would say that sexual objectification only occurs when a model's sex most heavily defines them, as a model. The Eldar Guardians (posted earlier on page 2) are great examples: they're Guardians who happen to be female. "Pin-up" models, on the other hand, tend to look more like women who are merely playing dress-up - that is, they give off a feeling that their designer first thought "let's make a sexy woman" and then tried to make it fit in thematically afterwards.

JOHIRA wrote:I can't help but think a lot of people here have missed the point of what sexual objectification means. These minis are not fully-fledged people who live complex lives. They are archetypes. Some are more shallow than others, but in the end they all represent something that is clearly recognizable just by looking at them. And that's what a good mini should be.

Objectification is a polyseme, a word with multiple meanings derived from a shared semantic origin. While one meaning is indeed what you describe - the presentation of archetypes - the meaning we're concerned with here is the presentation of characters with ostensibly serious roles who are none the less presented primarily as sex objects. The fact that they are not real people is irrelevant, because their presentation can have unfortunate implications about how designers and their fans regard real women. I would like to stress that I'm not saying all of these people actually see real women this way, but the abundance of all this fan service is still a little tiresome, regardless.

JOHIRA wrote:The only time sexual objectification is really a problem is when that sexual objectification is used in lieu of other kinds of objectification. So for example, the Wargames Factory Amazon plastics are a prime example of a bad kind of sexual objectification because the sexual objectification interferes with believably implementing other kinds of objectification. They can't really represent a "fierce warrior woman" archetype because plainly by looking at them they have a spray-on fake breast plate and have chosen thong underwear in lieu of clothing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with depicting the female form, even with depicting it sexually. Sex is a part of who we are, and believe me, you can't shield a child from knowing there are differences between males and females. They know this before they could even comprehend what a miniature is. The problem is when sex is all there is to a miniature, and I think it's making a grave mistake to assume just because a miniature has uncensored naughty bits that sex is all there is to it. I'd say there is more non-sexual content in the wetnurse model, for example, than in most of the minis listed so far on this page. Because in the wetnurse model the sexual content is used to create a feeling of bizarre revulsion in the viewer. Whereas for many of these models the sexual content is depicted exclusively so the painter has something safe and pretty to look at. Not that there is anything wrong with safe and pretty. But in the end, safe and pretty isn't morally superior to nudity, it's still a form of sexual objectification.

No-one's making moral judgements on sexual depictions here. Regardless of one's feelings on the matter, sifting through the piles of pin-up models can get annoying, if that's not what you're looking for. Hence, this thread. No moralising, just a resource for a certain "niche" some us happen to be into. That's it. I think the Monty Python crew summed it up best:-




Ain't nothing wrong with a bit of "spam" every now and then, but some of us just want a more varied menu.

Brother Gyoken wrote:I'm glad someone gets it, but sssssh. We're not allowed to discuss on this here discussion board.

Shush, indeed. Like I said, you're free to go make your own topic on that. Here, it's de-railing.

Yes, I know I responded to JOHIRA's post, but that's only because I thought doing so might clear up some misunderstandings that might have lead to future de-railing.

aosol wrote:I'll be the first to admit there is a real lack of fat chick miniatures.

Somebody PM'd me this female dwarf from Four A Miniatures, which is pretty neat:-



Looks like a Trollslayer and would probably fit in well with them, because male ones tend to be depicted topless and with little armour (IIRC).

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I have a few female minis that are no more sexualized than thier male counterparts.

I submit to you.

The Eldar Harlequins

And Shadowseer

As well as

Guardians, the 2 right.

I love the treatment the sexes get in the Eldar range. They've always been some of my favourites. It's subtle enough not to be overly sexualised, and yet the form-fitting Eldar armour makes the different sexes clear without making the female models stick out like sore thumbs.

VanHammer wrote:Some of these models are ok, but the probelm for me is that people have painted them to be wearing makeup.

"Hold on, can go out to war just yet because I need to put my blush and lipstick on"

Yeah.... check out milla jovovich in joan of arc. Thats how they should look in my opinion.

Totally agree. It's a pet peeve of mine. I won't deny that the paintjob on the McVey model, for instance, looks fantastic, but I'd dearly love to see more female soldiers painted the same as their male counterparts. Make-up works fine on "magical" sorts of models - hell, even if they're male - but it looks a little out of place on soldiers.

This is, of course, probably a case of "art imitating...other art". Women tend to be depicted this way in movies and other media, too, so painters just follow the trend.

I think some of you are always raising the goals further....

No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.

As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.

And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!

NAVARRO wrote:I think some of you are always raising the goals further....

No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.

As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.

And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!

People should feel free to point out their issues with the models posted in here. So long as it's more along the lines of "sorry, that doesn't cut it for me" rather than "your suggestions are preposterous and so are you". If some people are going to be more demanding in their tastes, then that can only be a good thing. Nobody's under any obligation to meet all of their requirements, and yet the fact that they've laid down a challenge can also be fun for people who want to take up that challenge and push even harder to find hidden gems. All in all, I'd say it's a positive thing.

Ouze wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So are we getting a thread on non-objectified male models next?

That's every other thread, essentially.

I proffer the obligatory Lt. Kara Black of Studio McVey:

Terrible example, that model is practically the token "pinup" of the McVey range, and it has an exposed breast that you can't see due to the gun.

To counter, here's the other variant of that exact model that shows the exposed breast:



Just because it's well-sculpted, doesn't mean it's not cheesecake.



I own that figure and really like it!

*However* it could be said that there is some objectification going on there, as the female model is the only one who doesn't have her chest covered up by a cloak or gun, and is also the only one with a bare head.

To counter my own point... it could be argued that without the head and chest being visible, it would be very hard to make the model actually appear distinctly female at 28mm scale.

For instance, some of the kneeling snipers could be female, but we wouldn't know either way due to them being too covered up.

Pumpkin wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I think some of you are always raising the goals further....

No skin, no cheesecake, more fatty, no makeup...etc... sorry guys its just nonsense. as Johira said those attributes alone do not define a miniature as Non Objectified.

As for those saying this thread is for a niche of people sorry to say that its not IMO. I like minis period, cheesecake not cheesecake whatever and for me this thread only shows a minimal percentage of the female minis outhere that I enjoy... I dont think you can establish a group of people as a niche when those same people cannot agree what fits or not. So yes instead of labeling people and minis how about you just accept the thread for what it is? I mean thats why Im participating here becasue as the OP said earlier "Think of this as more of a "suggestions" thread. " and to me this is not a labeling contest thread that some of you seem to be interested in.

And for those saying who paints make-up is either "lazy" or "never looked closely at women outside Porn" let me just contradict that with the cold hard facts that the most achieved, famous and most highly regarded talented painters ( not by me but by all international painters community in general) specialized in Painting females are in fact women!

People should feel free to point out their issues with the models posted in here. So long as it's more along the lines of "sorry, that doesn't cut it for me" rather than "your suggestions are preposterous and so are you". If some people are going to be more demanding in their tastes, then that can only be a good thing. Nobody's under any obligation to meet all of their requirements, and yet the fact that they've laid down a challenge can also be fun for people who want to take up that challenge and push even harder to find hidden gems. All in all, I'd say it's a positive thing.

I'm saying the same thing with the difference, and hence my comment, this thread is not just for a niche of people sharing the same ideas because errr most here do not share same ideas about the subject. I dont want to enter in arguments but some of you seem to believe your personal boundaries applies to a defined niche here, no.... they are just personal and so complex that much like the randomness nature of personal tastes cannot be successfully registered here.

I can show you a miniature almost naked, and one of my all time favorites that IMO fits here because thats my personal interpretation on the subject, but I choose not to because I dont have the time to deal with some of the style of comments I see on this same thread... I think my next example will clarify what Im talking about... I draw plenty of 100% nude women in my youth with the help of real models and NEVER I felt anything besides its a sketch exercise... yet the women were naked just a few meters from me and I was a young lad etc To me minis of women showing everything mean nothing more than a mini to paint. Period.

Pumpkin wrote:the meaning we're concerned with here is the presentation of characters with ostensibly serious roles who are none the less presented primarily as sex objects..

But there are two rather significant problems with this:

1) That not all miniatures are supposed to be serious. Not being serious while depicting nudity doesn't make the miniature objectified,

and more problematically,

2) There is an implication here that depicting female sexuality (or even anatomy it appears) interferes with having a serious role. I find this notion extremely misogynistic.



This model depicts very little nudity or sexuality, and yet I would say it treats the female form it depicts very un-seriously, on the same territory as the Infinity Nomads Daktari. Meanwhile I would say the Dagny model from Red Box Games is quite serious and quite sexual, despite depicting no exposed bits.

To say that depicting sexuality "objectifies" women because it interferes with them being serious seems to harken back to Victorian notions of women being burdened by their sex.

1.5 pages before the debating started? Longer than i thought!

Kind of glad this one isn't objectified, though it may be boardering.

Must burn eyes.

Going by Warcasters

There's also Sorscha



Zevanna


Zerkova


Kaelyssa


Ravyn


Thyra


Blaize


Haley


Kara


Fiona


Ashlynn

The problem with these sorts of models, and i'll use this as an example, not necessarily as the only example of objectification in this list, is not just the clothing and skin showing, though that's certainly part of it. But it's also the proportions of her body, the way she has as little waist as possible, the way she seems to pose as if she was wearing high heels, and the way she bends over just like that so you can see her ass stick out. There's also the fact that well-defined musculature is rare in these sorts of models. This one in particular does have it in the arms, to the sculptor's credit.

The fact that these ostensibly serious women are depicted with nudity or in ridiculous garb is part of objectification, and a society that caters almost exclusively to straight male sexuality. If it were a few models that emphasized this, I could almost forgive it, but almost everything "not-serious" and "women" is sexxed up to a ridiculous level. Whereas, with models that are ostensibly male, there's a lot more diversity in body shapes, sizes, depictions, clothing. That's objectification. That's the problem.

Panzeh wrote:The fact that these ostensibly serious women are depicted with nudity or in ridiculous garb is part of objectification,

Again, I have to protest the implication that sexual content alone can interfere with a model being "serious".

and a society that caters almost exclusively to straight male sexuality. If it were a few models that emphasized this, I could almost forgive it, but almost everything "not-serious" and "women" is sexxed up to a ridiculous level. Whereas, with models that are ostensibly male, there's a lot more diversity in body shapes, sizes, depictions, clothing. That's objectification. That's the problem.

I'm not convinced it is a problem. In every girl-gamer forum I've seen, the general consensus seems to be that it isn't sexiness that women who play these games object to, it's when the characters depicted are only sexy. When they are not percieved as interesting. For example, Bayonetta is fetishized up the wazoo and the consensus was that she is not a problem because she is interesting as depicted. Princess Peach is not sexualized at all (apart from maybe on creepy Deviantart sites) but is absolutely loathed as not even a person, but rather a helpless McGuffin in an ankle-length dress. Now not everyone is going to agree obviously and I'm sure there's at least one woman on this forum who strongly opposes any female models demonstrating any kind of sexual content. But then again IIRC there is a talented woman who paints on here where a significant portion of her work involves nude or sexualized female depictions.

So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem, especially when as has been clearly shown by the minis pictured on these pages that users' notions of what makes a model sexualized is so wildly different as to almost be useless to describe.

As for the mini you pictured, I don't usually collect "Dark Elf-looking" models so I'm not interested in it, but I really like the way she stands on her toes. She almost looks to me like a "ballerina of death". And while this is not a new or innovative trope, she is executed fantastically well, and I cannot accept that her clothing somehow interferes with her being a serious model without also taking as read an argument I disagree with that says women who show any kind of sexual appeal are impossible to take seriously- that women cannot be simultaneously sexually appealing and competent. I just don't buy that.