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 like the look of them but i honestly cant see them representing anything but Imperial Guard in terms of warhammer

I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

then why do the female eldar don't look like men?

shadowsnip wrote:then why do the female eldar don't look like men?

Because eldar are aliens, not people.

The female eldar wear stylized "female" looking armor.

That's why they don't look like men.

Meh, I admit, that was a huge wall of text and I'm not really in the mood to respond to most of it.

But this part in particular strikes me as odd:

Buzzsaw wrote:then what conceivable rational is there for them to spend quite a lot of money in an attempt to capture the business of the disgruntled few?

So because they disagree wtih you, they must be the "disgruntled few", huh?

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

If sculpted correctly, the female form can still be detected, while maintaining realistic battle armor. For example, many Imperial Guards-women have been sculpted in full armor, while still keeping a female look. Besides, does it really matter that much that we can tell which are specifically male or female without taking a closer look and not just knowing that they're there?

The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man, and good armor MUST take this in to account (poorly fitting armor is almost worse than no armor at all in the long run). So with well designed armor you'll still have the subtle differences between males and females. It just won't be of the "omg boobs boobs boobs BOOBS!" variety of difference.

If we use the original Infinity models posted, the one sticking her hind end out in a thong, IIRC has an alternate model with the same gear.. actually, IIRC she has a total of 3 different models available, so the choice really is there.


Also, I personally think that any type of model, regardless of sculpt can fit within its theme. Also the Infinity line, that female "scottish" soldier with miniskirt, and "see-through" tank top are only PAINTED that way... I know that I personally do not have the skills to paint a shirt as being partially see through. This is being used as a sales ploy. There are some companies out there, however, that I think wouldn't fit with many games, and if purchased, are really only purchased as models. Such as the Kabuki models "21st Century Pinup" line.


I think that there is, even in minis, an element of Art for Art's sake. Just because there is nudity within a miniature, or line of miniatures, does not mean that they are too taboo, or have no place in gaming. And so, if I think that a miniature is artistically produced and sculpted, I may think about purchasing and painting it.

I'm perfectly ok with cheesecake in wargaming. Also, the bigger the miniature range, the better, so having both options would be the best. And I like more erotic minis too, always understanding that they are created for the adult collector, and not for kid playing his first wargame.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

NAVARRO wrote:I'm just a bit tired of saying to you the same thing over and over again, even with screwed analogies to try to reach you... You just don't seem to get it.

Or maybe you need to understand the fact that not everyone likes the same models you do and that insulting them isn't going to change this.

Mellissia you answer your own posts now?

"I might hurt their feelings or something?"

Nope but,

"you need to understand the fact that not everyone likes the same models you do and that insulting them isn't going to change this."

Being rude to CB will not change a thing but you lose a great opportunity to have a good debate on dakka... specially when the rudeness is totally unwarranted!

Buzzsaw wrote:[
Falls down. As pointed out above, there are real differences between the situation of a restaurant and the model maker, which make the situations fundamentally dissimilar. To wit;
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

Just to point out that if you change the menu of a restaurant there are considerable money investments also... new supplies, maybe new chef, also the risk of losing identity.... things are more similar than you may think.

Speaking of identity well thats one of the main points why cheesecake fits infinity and has been present from day one, so yeah is a bit disingenuous to think they dont fit because your personal taste clashes with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

killykavekommando wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

If sculpted correctly, the female form can still be detected, while maintaining realistic battle armor. For example, many Imperial Guards-women have been sculpted in full armor, while still keeping a female look. Besides, does it really matter that much that we can tell which are specifically male or female without taking a closer look and not just knowing that they're there?

Bringing GW sculpts of women to this debate is like bring a fleabag to a pedigree contest

CB is a Spanish company. Andrea Miniatures, the brand of the big scale pin-ups, is a Spanish company. You can suggest them to take that cheesecake out. But they won't hear. We are not as perverted as the bad-japanese stereotype, but we still like our heat and sun. Good luck with that.

Giving more options is one thing. And they are doing it step by step, they can't work in too many things at a time. Eliminating some of the options because of complaints... that's different, and I don't see it happening.

You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story. You don't like it, we get it, message recieved. Move on already. As has been explained, there's lots of alternatives out there, from converting to other miniature lines to other games completely. Clearly CB is not catering to your tastes and doesn't feel that doing things the way YOU feel they should be done works for their game. You made your point. Stop SAYING something and go DO something, get some greenstuff, do some weapon swaps, or just use a proxy and ignore the fact that the sniper rifle form line X isn't the exact same design as from Infinity. Go to town, make it a project as expensive or cheap as you want. But get over it, or move on to greener pastures, and let the people that enjoy it have their fun.

In the meantime, sex sells. Always has. Sexy pin-up style anything has always sold to young men, and the miniature market is absolutely dominated by young men. It's almost the exact same demographic as the video game industry which caters to: the mid/late teens and early/mid-twenties males. There's lots of other people outside that demographic, but when you make a video game you know that you are either marketing to them, or marketing to fill a smaller niche. Look at the women in video games. Lara Croft was practically the Playstation icon for years, a female Indiana Jones, but with short shorts, huge tits and a skin-tight shirt to show em off. What were half the pictures of any E3 game show? the booth babes. What does any super heroine in any comic book in the last 30 years look like? A super model in a scanty costume. What character did they add to star trek voyager to pick up waning viewership? a bombshell blonde in a skin tight suit. It also happens in sports. Guess which Sports Illustrated issue sells the most each year? That's right! the one devoted to scantily clad women striking sexy poses! Sex sells to guys, and especially nerdy geeky guys, even the ones that have wives and girlfriends. Sometimes ESPECIALLY the ones with wives and girlfriends.

If you don't like it, if you think it's sexist, if you think it doesn't fit the aesthetic, well you've said so, you have your opinion and are welcome to it. You're welcome to share it, that's what forums are for. But brow beating it over and over and over and over and over isn't going to make that opinion right for anyone but you. If you're offended by the objectifying of women, well that's a far larger issue than just miniature gaming, and asking a small company in an already small market to go against the flow and to make alternatives (that won't make as much money) to things that already sell like hotcakes is the wrong arena to pick this particular fight in.

For what it's worth I don't like these kinds of models all that much, and would MUCH prefer more realistic poses and armor, but whatever. I don't play with models that I don't like. If for some reason I'm forced to or the unit is just that good, I find an alternative that looks awesome. I move on. Being offended that people tell you do stop bitching and do something about something you don't like after reading page after page after page of complaining is tiresome, it's annoying, and it undermines any legitimate complaint you have.

Kalamadea wrote:You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

You're free to do that too, but the law might take issue.

Kalamadea wrote:It also happens in sports. Guess which Sports Illustrated issue sells the most each year?

A better example is Kournikova.

Kalamadea wrote:But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

And, to riff off myself: ram away Aries.

Erasoketa wrote:CB is a Spanish company. Andrea Miniatures, the brand of the big scale pin-ups, is a Spanish company. You can suggest them to take that cheesecake out. But they won't hear. We are not as perverted as the bad-japanese stereotype, but we still like our heat and sun. Good luck with that.

Giving more options is one thing. And they are doing it step by step, they can't work in too many things at a time. Eliminating some of the options because of complaints... that's different, and I don't see it happening.

Was going to say, anything that CB does pales in significance next to some of the things the Japanese have released. That innuendo heavy Transformers cartoon with the girls in it springs to mind..

Looking back over the last few pages, I think this discussion is just going in circles now. Melissa, I'm guessing you don't have the Infinity rulebook, but if you did you would see that the style/concept of the 'cheesecake' models fits perfectly with the universe that CB have created - it is a concept that stretches back many years in Anime, in sci-fi itself, and you could argue goes back to the earliest forms of visual entertainment when cavemen scratched big bosomed women on their cave walls to the appreciative grunts of their comrades.

For infinity itself, the clean lines of terrain and modern aspect are meant to revoke 'Ghost in the Shell', 'Appleseed' and many other Anime. Having 'Cheesecake' is part of that, and is no doubt why the miniatures sell so well, and CB continue to make them, because they fill that concept.

Well, I was specifically talking about ramming opinions down people's throats. Ramming physical objects down their throats is decidedly more illegal, unless you sign a waiver and set up a safe-word beforehand

A better example is Kournikova.

True enough. The only people that cared at all about tennis were people that played tennis themselves, until suddenly the entire country started watching and they started watching because she wore a short skirt when she played.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

Buzzsaw wrote:
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

-With a model maker, there is an opportunity cost. Sculpting one thing means another project gets pushed back: pursuing one artistic direction precludes pursuing the other.

So you can't complain to companies that manufacture expensive stuff 'cause it would cost the too much money to give the customer what they want?

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

You probably wouldn't see much of a difference depending on the armor, a female cadian, the only differance would probably just be the face but that would be enough for me, though It would be cool with a unit box where all kinds of bodies are represented! But if we are talking about an ultra tight armor like most infinity minis got, yes then you probably would see a difference. But it would be a shame if females and males alike would only be represented by one body-type. And here male models have more diversity, there are beefcake ones, thin, fat, old and saggy etc. while most female miniature follow the same "mold" IE skinny with big boobs, and more often than not, in a "sexy" pose. I'd say that more diversity, both for male and female miniatures, would make most miniature collection more interesting! But one big problem is the general lack of female minis to begin with, and when present often in niche rolls.

Melissia wrote:The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man, and goodsubtelty armor MUST take this in to account (poorly fitting armor is almost worse than no armor at all in the long run). So with well designed armor you'll still have the subtle differences between males and females. It just won't be of the "omg boobs boobs boobs BOOBS!" variety of difference.

I partly agree with this, if you would sculpt an average woman in something along the lines of a full modern battlegear there would probably be only a subtle differences from a male sculpt but hey, what is wrong with subtlety? A miniature doesn't have to be 2/4 boobs 1/4 bare skin (often the belly) for me to understand that its a female miniature. And if I couldn't decide about the sex the first time but instead just saw a cool mini, so what!?

"The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man" this is what I don't fully agree with. In general, yes this would be true. But some of the women we see are supposed to represent battle conditioned, extremely well trained special forces or women that grew up in an extremely unforgiving environment/society where "only the fittest survive" and every day is a "fight for survival" (cadia as an example). I would ague that these women's physics would differ from that of an "ordinary" woman. Especially those carrying HMGs and the like!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kalamadea wrote:

A better example is Kournikova.

True enough. The only people that cared at all about tennis were people that played tennis themselves, until suddenly the entire country started watching and they started watching because she wore a short skirt when she played.

So you mean just because you can make money on something that makes it a good thing? War is a most profitable thing (for some), does that make it a good thing though?

never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

Kanluwen wrote:No actually, it doesn't. None of the objections raised by myself or Slarg or Melissia are based simply upon "Hurr sexy models are bad". They're the fact that the models don't fit within the range proper, and for some asinine reason this is considered acceptable because "Infinity has anime inspiration!".


It's like if the Space Marines suddenly started fielding Assault Marines in bananahammocks and rollerblades, with wifebeaters on. It ruins the whole visual tie of the army--and it's not something that can simply be fixed with a paintjob.

There has almost never been a full update where a WHOLE ARMY gets new models at same time ( minus Dark Eldars )

hence there are always models that will ruin the visual tie, I can list you all the armies too, but to make it short,

and agreeing with whats said already,

deal with it.

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

I find interesting and alarming when someone doesn't seems to grasp the basic idea that opinions should* be forwarded with respect... in fact the less respectful you are towards the receptor the less your opinion is heard...if you didn't understand that yet, let me tell you the receptor here are us dakkaites and it rubs particularly bad when your rude towards a 3rd party that in fact gives you options without asking nothing in return.

* <if you're making snarky remarks about other posters, you're violating Dakka's rules...even in footnotes --Janthkin>

No one said, just because someone treats you nicely you cant form opinions... I'm telling you express your opinions with respect (specially if they are good to you)...

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Then I stand by my opinion that you should boycott miniature wargaming in its entirety because if you don't, by your own point of view, your are activelly supporting genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, fascism, witchcraft and the destruction of all life forms on Earth.

I don't support this point of view since miniature wargaming is by definition a GAME and as all GAMES are, it is a FANTASY that doesn't have any grip on reality! Neither does it necessarily portray any part of the feelings of either the people that made it or the people that play it.

That you feel otherwise and are offended by a small miniature tells more about yourself than it does about all the people that sculpted, painted and designed the miniature. (not directed directly at you c0un7_z3r0, but to all the people that think that it is somehow "offensive").

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Are we still talking about cheesecakes on a range of miniatures created with cheesecakes as part of the concept from day 1? You want to shape what? Society? What revolution are you talking about?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

I'm wrong? Really? Change does indeed start small, sure. And if indeed this issue needed changing (I don't believe it does, at all) you would indeed HAVE to start small. But change definitely wouldn't happen on a 3rd party message board that is mostly devoted warhammer. And it definitely won't happen when you're actively supporting the company that is doing these things. Hell, If complaining on dakka made any difference whatsoever, GW would charge half of what they do for models, all of the specialist games would be fully supported again, and LotR would have been stricken from White Dwarf years ago. You want to know what's more effective than a 14 page thread on dakka? A thread on the official infinity forums. More effective than that? A single email to Corvus Belli. A thousand times more effective than an email? Shipping your old figs to the company with a hand-written note saying how offended you are at the direction the game has been heading the last few years and how you can no longer support it in good conscience. It wouldn't even have to be your entire collection, just a half painted starter pack and you'd get their attention, I guarantee it. But arguing the same point over and over and over to people that play and enjoy the thing you're railing against is just annoying, it's not activism. And doubly so if the those people were mostly indifferant to begin with. I hate seeing people make a big stink over something so minor as a metal figure in a sexy pose catering to a niche market within a niche market. It's a miniature. If you don't like it, the point of the hobby is to use all those fancy skills you've been developing and turn it into something you DO like, and lead by example if it's so important to you.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

NAVARRO - I never meant to offend you and I never claimed that you said anything. My answer was to Melissas post more that yours, I found her post funny hence "hehehe". I'm sorry if I made you think that I was making fun out of you! But no, I'm not afraid of having a deviant opinion and express it. If other people find it offensive well there aren't much I can do about that is it? I won't keep quiet just to spare someones piece of mind.

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Then I stand by my opinion that you should boycott miniature wargaming in its entirety because if you don't, by your own point of view, your are activelly supporting genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, fascism, witchcraft and the destruction of all life forms on Earth..

We already had this discussion and I already gave you my answer but got non back so I'll give you the same answer this time as well.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:To answer your other question, I believe that for example GW is quite clear on one point and its that for example the 40k universe is totally fu#&ed up. They don't really say that for example the Imperium of man, which just pops up in to my mind , necessarily are any nice chaps. They believe so (the Imperium) but GW leave it up to us to decide really. Sure the Imperium is somewhat depicted as the good guys but I say its up to you to decide. This is something they should emphasize a little more and yes in a way I do find it somewhat disturbing ('cause the imperium is really totally evil and disgusting, if such a word as "evil" is to be used at all). The minis however are more real in a sense. How they are made is not up to debate as much as how we should perceive the fluff. Because, if women and men almost entirely are depicted in two distinctively different ways in accordance with a global pattern of normative perceptions or ideas, that is a matter of fact rather than opinion and will more directly effect you. Of course we need an overhaul on the fiction as well, women will have to be visible both in mini and in text!

PhantomViper wrote:That you feel otherwise and are offended by a small miniature tells more about yourself than it does about all the people that sculpted, painted and designed the miniature. (not directed directly at you c0un7_z3r0, but to all the people that think that it is somehow "offensive")

I agree to a point, my stance in this question does tell a whole lot of myself, just as any opinion about it does as well as manufacturing it. I am not offended by the miniatures per se though, its the fact that there are few other options, its how men and women are constantly portrayed in certain ways after certain values that bother me, not the portrays themselves. Its the system behind I'm out to get, so to speak, but it have to be fought at all fronts.

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Are we still talking about cheesecakes on a range of miniatures created with cheesecakes as part of the concept from day 1? You want to shape what? Society? What revolution are you talking about?

NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

That is your words not mine! A naked woman is a naked woman, a hundred naked woman is a hundred naked woman, if every woman were naked at all times, fictitious as well as real, we would think every woman would have to be naked. A dressed woman would seem quite odd to us if things were this way, real or not. So a female miniature effects our way of perceiving the world as much as a fictional one. When it comes to the the fiction of a wargame you can not be so general, you'll have to deconstruct it into its core(/cores) as well as considering the authors intention and so on. I won't do this here. However, the "subtitle" to 40k is "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war". This gives me an impression that this is universe not to be perceived as a an ideal place to live in, and through out the fiction we are constantly met by the same message "things are going downwards fort most creatures involved" in other words, it's an dystopian setting not an utopian setting. Its an image of how we do not want things to be, hence a "manifesto" against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. This doesn't mean every 40K player are against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. but the general setting is by no doubt. And about the gamin itself, its a strategic game, it could just as well be colored squares of plastic instead of warrior miniatures. I've played countless of 40k battles using only round and square pieces och cardboard and it worked just fine!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

That is your words not mine! A naked woman is a naked woman, a hundred naked woman is a hundred naked woman, if every woman were naked at all times, fictitious as well as real, we would think every woman would have to be naked. A dressed woman would seem quite odd to us if things were this way, real or not. So a female miniature effects our way of perceiving the world as much as a fictional one. When it comes to the the fiction of a wargame you can not be so general, you'll have to deconstruct it into its core(/cores) as well as considering the authors intention and so on. I won't do this here. However, the "subtitle" to 40k is "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war". This gives me an impression that this is universe not to be perceived as a an ideal place to live in, and through out the fiction we are constantly met by the same message "things are going downwards fort most creatures involved" in other words, it's an dystopian setting not an utopian setting. Its an image of how we do not want things to be, hence a "manifesto" against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. This doesn't mean every 40K player are against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. but the general setting is by no doubt. And about the gamin itself, its a strategic game, it could just as well be colored squares of plastic instead of warrior miniatures. I've played countless of 40k battles using only round and square pieces och cardboard and it worked just fine!

I was not talking about fluff or the autors intentions in the setting, I was talking about the fact that miniature wargames are supposed to represent battles between two armies. More often then not, armies composed entirelly of human beings that are supposedly killing each other in some pretty horrifying ways.

So for all the violence that is represented as part of the game "its just a strategic game", but if one of the miniatures shows some skin then its a reflection of our societies objectification of women? Sorry, I don't buy it, you can't use an argument as a defence of one of your view points and then dismiss it completely when that same argument is used to counter your other points.

Kalamadea wrote:You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

So why are you doing that then?