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.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make.

Sidstyler wrote:It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.

I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't think it's very good proof that British people are more tolerant of nudity, just that those particular British women had no problem sunbathing topless at the river, which sounds like a semi-appropriate place to be topless if you ask me. It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.

Granted, I'm sure that most folks don't decide it's time for a 'pants-less day' in public, but in England and Wales, public nudity is not illegal (I tried my darndest to find an example of it saying it was [just now], but the most I could find, is that it was essentially 'uncouth' and 'not always appropriate'...). However not following a constable's direction's to cover up is illegal.

dogma wrote:If you want better proof, you can just look at British law, or Page 3.

What was it on page 3? I'm sorry, but I read it twice and didn't really see what you were talking about...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.

Seems you beat me to the punch...

Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.


(and no, it wasn't a movement started by men )

Like I said I know it isn't illegal, I'm just trying to point out that even though it isn't most people probably aren't going to be walking around nude anyway. I was trying to imply that there are probably more reasons why someone would want to cover up besides "prudishness", which has been everyone's favorite word in this topic (and that other one). Basically, even though they're more tolerant, they still realize that it's not appropriate all the time, or just don't feel like being nude (which I think is acceptable, if I don't want to be I don't have to be, right?).

That's mostly my personal view about the whole thing. I don't think nudity is wrong, I just don't think it's always appropriate.

Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.

Hell, I didn't know that. I say if they really want to then fine, but I just imagine most women not being up for that anyway, lol.

Was just gonna say that there was a movement that I read about off and on in the news a while back, that was trying to fight for women's right to got topless in public in the states (like men do, often in the summer at the pool or beaches, etc...), I don't really remember much beyond that... something just sparked that memory.

Sidstyler wrote:Hell, I didn't know that. I say if they really want to then fine, but I just imagine most women not being up for that anyway, lol.

Ok, I found it... wow, wasn't hard to find... Uhhh, I'm gonna say off the bat right now NSFW... really... don't get fired for looking at this site... if you're in the states, or someplace else that looks down upon nudity... NSFW... seriously...




again, NSFW.



ok?


NSFW! Once more

OMG TITS

Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers
Read for yourself the message for humanity that was given to Rael during his UFO encounters of 1973!

...lol? So this "spiritual leader" thinks we were made by aliens, or...what? And one of these messages was "Women should go topless or men should cover up!"?

Actually I really am against public nudity now, for all we know it's an alien plot to steal our women. I don't trust this Rael one bit!

Sidstyler wrote:...if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.

I don't know about that. I mean, I've heard that on the internet, but IRL I know plenty of Americans that have reacted negatively to the decision of certain women to show the goods. The most vibrant memories regard Halle Berry and Tyra Banks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revarien wrote:
What was it on page 3? I'm sorry, but I read it twice and didn't really see what you were talking about...

Page 3 girls are a well established, and much appreciated, aspect of British news.

Just Google it.

JOHIRA wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art".

While that is true, as someone with a fine arts degree, I find there are plenty of artists who are pretentious douchebags who sneer at things they are not interested in as clearly not being art- not because they have some developed grasp of what the difference between art and not art is, but because they feel an insecure need to belittle anything they are not personally interested in.

It's kind of like a microcosm for this thread. In the end it all boils down to "The way you play is inferior to the way I play."

Plenty of artists sure are Insecure douchebags, but there are plenty that are not like that... Like in every other area of expertise ( I will nevertheless agree that there are to many incompetents with to much ego/vanity/snob etc).. I don't want to go there (I mean if its art or not) but as someone with a degree and that created a company in that area for more than a decade AND that also sculpts and loves it as much as other artistic activities I'm from the opinion that sculpting tokens for a wargamme is not a art and rather a craft

As for nudity in wargames it does not need the excuse of being artistic ( because IMO its not), nudity is present in your daily life everywhere you may not like that and thats why some choose to not look at it, to think wargames are immune to that is a bit naive... as i say don't like it don't buy it or don't play it. Me personally I have not problems with it when it fits a context.

Sidstyler wrote:Everyone seems to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make.

Sidstyler wrote:It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.

I'm aware of UK law (well you know what I mean). What I'm trying to say is that if those three women were wearing bikini tops no one would likely be calling them prudes, even though they could be topless if they wanted to be. If a British woman didn't want to be topless it's okay, if an American woman didn't want to be topless she's a prude and it's an example of how fethed up and backwards our culture is.

Isn't it illegal for american women to go topless in public places like beaches and parks?

Piston Honda wrote:marielle,

the porn comment was just a joke. Hope you didn't take it too seriously.


Sorry about that.

Thanks for further confirmed my initial suspicions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revarien wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...

Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.

Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol

On 1 of the 7 days I visited the UK, I went to the Cambridge grounds... I had a tour of the campus and got a picnic lunch from the open air market there, with my folks... we went to a park near the river as our entire week there was surprisingly nice weather (it did rain the day we left)... we could see the tennis courts, the small river that weaved between the old buildings and we also saw the 3 topless women sunbathing.

My point still stands, as much of a mockery as you try to make of it.

Indeed, but consider the furore if those same women had been trying to breast feed in public.... now there's a debate that really gets the nutters going. They have had to change the law to prevent people from harrassing women for feeding their children.

I recall some American friends coming to visit, and the chap getting rather worked up about an advertising poster for M&S bras and knickers, which not unreasonably had a woman wearing the bra and knickers that M&S were trying to flog. He couldn't understand how it was legal. Occasionally there will be a manufactured row about such posters in the Daily Mail, the Hello Boys Wonderbra advert springs to mind, with the anti-brigade claiming that it would corrupt children and lead to traffic acidents.

I've spent a large amount of time reading this thread... and wow some people have got wound up.

I think there needs to be a differentiation between the wargaming side of the hobby, and the more artistic side (painting/modelling/dioramas etc)

In wargaming, i think that nudity is slightly misguided as its a public game and rightfully so, people have different opinions about what is and isnt acceptable.

But the more artistic side of the hobby such as the eldar diorama should be treated differently as it is (most of the time) intended to be viewed as art.

I've tried to be brief with my explanations as im short on time but i'd be curious to see who agree's that the hobby does have different areas of interest that shouldnt be stamped with the same expectations.

D.Smith wrote:i'd be curious to see who agree's that the hobby does have different areas of interest that shouldnt be stamped with the same expectations.

I don't think about the "artistic" side of the hobby, as it does not at all interest me. I hate painting, and though I can enjoy a good conversion, a conversion that basically amounts to "omg look there's boobs!" (IE, the overwhelming majority of the ones that involve nudity) is almost invariably generic, unimaginative, unoriginal, tasteless, and boring.

I don't really see the need to have different standards. As I have said numerous times-- do whatever the hell you want with your miniatures. You paid for them, they're yours to do waht you want with them, and I wouldn't argue against that. But that stll gives me no obligation to say anything nice about it or like it.

I don't think its really a big deal, who cares, personally I woudnt want an army looking like a game of doa volleyball but if some dudes wants that all the power to him, my only problem with the eldar rape diorama is I don't think this is very likely as one: simple people of the imperuimum are so superstitous and narrow minded that they woudnt have sex with any xenos lol, secondly I don't think you could force an eldar( whom has been alive for thousands of years) to allow her self to be voilated in such away, she would fight until they were forced to kill her, injured or not, she woulld have no illusions of survival when they were done, and even if she did eldar are far to honourable to not die in defianance,But it does do a wonderful job potrraying the untold horrors of war, however in my opionon it doesn't apply well with the fluff of 40K universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lol I think we got all got trolled hard

I had my conscription time in Finnish army. While in my battalion, there were no women, all the other battalions had them and we heard stories about women in the army like all the time. I even have a few female friends that went through the conscription time (women don't have to go to army in Finland if they don't want to, and it's actually hard for them to get there).
Were women there showing us their breasts? Some wished they would be, but yes, they wore their clothes. Coats, pants, boots, cap and most of the times helmet and flak jacket. And during winter, a whole lot more clothes under them. And the snow camoflage suit above all of that.
Then, put some war painting to their face and live in the forest for 5 days without shower, not the most sexiest thing I know. The fact that some men looked more woman than some of the women and that few women looked more man than most men, is a whole another thing.

It's not practical to go to battle naked. What if, for example, you would fall and get a scratch? Not a big problem, but with low hygiene on the battlefield, it will get infected and that will be a problem. We (men) wished we could do marches wearing only T-shirts, but just because of that, we had to wear coats, even when it was +35c and a sunny day.
I also don't think it's practical to be not wearing flak jacket during the war. For example, Finnish flak jacket is almost knife proof (we put it into ground and tried to get knife through by hitting it. After sharpening his knife, strongest of us did it).

So, the summary?
Woman or not, you don't want to be on the battlefield without clothes. And women wearing realistic amount of clothes and that have been in the war for few weeks are not so sexy and probably smell bad (just like the men).


After writing this, I started to though, what if minis like the commissar with exposed breast, is actually just showing herself day before the battle, saying the troops will see rest after they won? Or what if she's drunk? Or what if she was just sleeping in her tent wearing only her pants and boots, then the enemy got suprise attack on their camp, set it on fire with molotovs coctails and she barely escaped having just enough time to crap her coat and not shirt or bra and now shes commanding defences? The last 2 could actually happen in war.

And with that Eldar "rape" diorama. It's clearly not about rape! One man is trying to help her by giving back the breastplate, other is going to give her his clothes so she wouldn't catch the cold. It's not so perverted as you feel it to be.

Edit:
Sry for my bad language. I'm not a native english speaker 'ye know.

Also, for the nude models, I wish to show some about 6-7 years old models one finnish guy made for his army called Figunarkin Bordelli (Bordel of Figunarkki). It had barbara doll, hookers, jerking off zombies, mobile bed unit and lot's of pink paint.
Few pictures of it, what will ya thing?
Do not look, if you don't want to see fapping zombies. You have been warned.

N S F W










edit2: hopefully I don't get banned after first post

hahahahahhaha that army is so silly, hahahaha, how large is it!

Sageheart wrote:hahahahahhaha that army is so silly, hahahaha, how large is it!

From what I can see on the pictures in the album on photobucket (it's not my army afterall) and what I remember it having, I think about 100 zombies (some were never painted though), 2 black coaches, ~10 heroes, unit of black knights and some models on 40x40mm bases. It's been years afterall (I think year was 2005) and from what I know, that army has been sold at least 2 times now. But even today, fins still speak of "fapping zombies".

After writing this, I started to though, what if minis like the commissar with exposed breast, is actually just showing herself day before the battle, saying the troops will see rest after they won?

While this is possible it is unlikely. Most Commissars lead through fear, with Ciaphas Cain and a few others being an exception (though Cain does this just to avoid suffering the common fate of Commissars who lead through the fear method, i.e a lasgun shot to the back). The commissar is meant to be a figure of total authority in the Emperor's name and I don't think authority and showing off your assets in front of the common soldiery are usually combined.

Or what if she's drunk?

Pretty much same as above. The commissar wouldn't get into such a state as they may be required to discipline the soldiers under their command at any time. They would drink with the officers most of the time.

Or what if she was just sleeping in her tent wearing only her pants and boots, then the enemy got suprise attack on their camp, set it on fire with molotovs coctails and she barely escaped having just enough time to crap her coat and not shirt or bra and now shes commanding defences?

If the enemy is close enough to be able to launch such an attack then I don't think the commissar would be sleeping completely nude (surprise chaos/genestealer cult uprising excluded). Also, wouldn't they be more likely to take off their boots than their trousers? If the above did happen then I think they'd to at least do up the coat as opposed to run around with their breasts swinging about, which I'm pretty sure would not be very comfortable.

Anyways, those zombies were hilarious. Someone spent a lot of time building that army. They were obviously insane but the good kind which gives everyone else a laugh

crossposting here since i am bleeding tired of this debate.

Well.
Bollocks. Artists create, if you react, good.
But, its all subjective.
When i was on active duty, the women wore sporty wifebeatery things, us lads wore tee's.
In uniform, with RRV's / CIRAS, guess what attribute still showed?
and yes there were pretty ones, a lot of them.
And for that matter my MAFD with the IDF, there were more often than not, very pretty ladies doing their part.

But as i believe was shown above, its a double edged sword, so to say. you can't have one, with the other.

But its as much depicting a characteristic, as it is trying to enhance an attribute to make it look more female, pointy nipples or not, on a 28-34mm scale.

For a miniature to look more male, the buff / thin as a stick stereotype works splendid, but for females the same selections of attributes for a stereotype is apparently sexistic, much as i guess some will complain about my non-use of genus.

I'll take discussions such as these more seriously when the Opinionated Bunch, actually pick up a sculpting tool and try sculpting a miniature.

also: see _marketing_ (key rule being, if it doesnt sell, it doesnt get produced)

EDIT:

For sculpters (slash wargames, slash mini's) to be sexist against women the "game world" would need to state or imply (through various means) that women are different (it works best if they are represented as inferior) than men in ways that are not supported by by reasonable biological evidence.

For example, if the game states something to the effect that all the participants are women because only women are of the fragile mental state required to participate in such brutal fighting, then you could cry sexism. If the game instead demonstrates that the women in this game have large breasts and comic book sculpted bodies (what I currently see) then all you have done is give me a caricature of women that reduces the idea of femininity to an easily measured metrics (e.g. breast measurements).

That doesn't mean people shouldn't complaint about such objectification because that is, by far, the more prevalent issue in games. That said, games as a whole tend to objectify men as often as women. It just happens that the square jawed brown haired habitual hero seems less negative than "sex vixen" even though it is exactly as incorrect.

BUT males are _every_ bit as stereotyped:
1) Handsome to sexy, a quality largely based on the perspective of the person who makes the character/sculpt.
2) Selflessly heroic - to the extent that they might as well be the fairy tale knight in shining armor type (fluff, felix)
3) Fantastically masculine - square jaw, self assured and with a body somewhere between working out 10 hours a week with a personal trainer to "I spend all my time in the gym lifting heavy things". (oh ho hum, marines?)
4) Often in direct or indirect pursuit of a romantic goal (various fluff on both sides of the gw franchises)

So What you see here _is not_ inherently sexist and especially not exclusively sexist towards women. GW Games are based on the previously defined world that they've been curating for the better part of four decades. Make no mistake, male characters are sexualized. The catch is, being designed by males, such characters are not objectified ideal of the gender but rather classic examples of Marty Stu. In other words, they are the objectified ideal of the male gender as a male might see it.

Also:
Sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex
Objectify: Degrade to the status of a mere object.

And as you see, you have me riled up.
I'll make good on one thing. When i'm done with the admech and chapter serf sculpts around april, i'll do a female sculpt. I'll let you lot define it. Challenge Accepted.

Does anybody ever stop to wonder why it is we never see anybody complaining about the sexualization of men in entertainment? If you have a franchise geared towards women, men will be sexualized. If you have a franchise geared towards men, women will be sexualized. That’s just the way it works. You don't see the morality of this practice come into question with something like, say, a sex-driven 'vampire' flick (Twilight) that targets a female audience, but as soon as you start looking at the areas of entertainment that cater to a predominately male audience - gaming, namely - sexualization is criticized as ‘objectification’ for no justifiable and apparent reason other than the fact that the subjects of the aforementioned sexualization are women instead of men.
I don’t know about you, but sex is a good thing in my book. I don’t understand people that find sexuality offensive, let alone those that promote some sort of gender-discriminative double standard.

Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.

Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.

Not all of them.

Like any group of people, it's probably less than accurate to generalize about them.

Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.

Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.

Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.

Funny how a lot of women are happy to use sex to get what they want tho! Women have a lot of power in everyday life, generally id say the more attractive the woman, the more power over men.

My sister is blonde, very attractive, bubbly personality etc, she can and does have men doing whatever she wants.

Ok just speaking for myself, i play games. because it takes my mind off of gak. like. this.

remember i called this, but soon someone will pull the structure card and start talking about societal patterns relating to a predominant patriarchy.

xcasex wrote:Ok just speaking for myself, i play games. because it takes my mind off of gak. like. this.

remember i called this, but soon someone will pull the structure card and start talking about societal patterns relating to a predominant patriarchy.

I quite agree, gaming is somewhere people should be pretty much free to what they want. Id have locked this thead a long time ago personally.

Melissia wrote:Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.

As evidenced by the predominantly overweight women in the porn industry, right?

Or if we're strictly talking about fictitious objectified women with six packs.





Also this:

Skippy wrote:Funny how a lot of women are happy to use sex to get what they want tho! Women have a lot of power in everyday life, generally id say the more attractive the woman, the more power over men.

My sister is blonde, very attractive, bubbly personality etc, she can and does have men doing whatever she wants.

That's a huge generalisation about both men and women.

I think there probably are certain women who might manipulate others this way and probably men that do it too.

Also doesn't saying that women have power because they can get men to do what they want imply that a woman’s only ever as powerful as the men she influences? Meaning she has to rely on men? I think that means that Men have the power


I would like to hope that most men in real life would not surrender all higher reasoning because of a pretty girl.

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.

Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.

Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.

And in a nutshell, you define the failure of modern feminism.

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. Women apparently do.

Usually because men being sexually objectified are basically glorified-- they're heroes and badasses, strong and powerful.

Usually when women are objectified they're shown to be weak and vulnerable. Objectifications of women rarely, for example, show the women having six pack abs.

I think it is really wrong to say most men wouldn't mind being sexually objectified. I don't think that can be said without adding in another wrongful stereotype to this conversation when there are already enough of them. A lot of men would mind I think def when they are forced to face the problems sexually objectification creates.

Melissa is correct here, the typical way in which men and women are objectified falls into a simple two sections: the Hero, savior, etc. and the helpless, usually the man is in the former and the woman in the latter. Nudity is something which is very linked to an idea of helplessness, but that doesn't make nudity a cause for sexual objectification, instead it is the artist him/herself who decides how to create the model, and in doing so chooses to move towards a more realistic apporach, a sexy (and so sexually objectified) look, or something utterly different. Nudity shouldn't be seen as the evil: A female model scantly clad, leaning forward could easily be seen as deeply sexual despite wearing clothes, while a female amazon model basically nude carrying a greatsword could be modelled to look like a legit warrior which doesn't hold any intense sexual desire. It is not the nudity itself but the purpose and intent of the model.

Monster Rain wrote:

Spoiler:

Six pack.

Also this:

Spoiler:

Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.

There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.

I would say that women being treated as weak or helpess is something that's dissapearing from our culture. I might be a cliche in older fiction, but it tends to dissappear. In Spain we have an expression to talk about that roles. Literally it would be a "flower-jar woman" ('mujer florero' in Spanish). She's pretty, looks good, but it doesn't do anything. Lelith and Storm aren't that kind of roles. Neither are Red Sonja, Cersei Lannister, Arya Stark (ASOIAF), Kate Beckett (TV Castle), Sarah Walker (TV Chuck), Sarah Connor (Terminator)... and all of them use their sexuality in a different way (well, maybe Arya doesn't!).

A great example of objectified women (who happen to not show too much skin) are Michael Bay's female characters. In Transformers movies, The Island... they are just companions.

I'd say wargames are following the strong-independent trend too. In one of this threads, Kanlowen posted pics or talked about two Infinity models like being the same "cheesecake": the Caledonian Volunteer with the short skirt, and the Merovingian Chasseur with ADHL. To me, they are very different models. The Volunteer is just a pin-up. Some kind of fun joke to paint something different that frowny guys. The female Chasseur, on the other hand, while being a sexy model, with a cleavage and curves, is still a powerful mini. She doesn't have a silly attitude or a provocative pose. She looks like she's waiting a chance to do her job - inmovilize a troublesome enemy. Nothing to do with the "Oops, I'm gonna drop my hat!" from the Volunteer.