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.

Firstly, iffin you don't like the minis, don't buy them.
Secondly, if you're griping here rather than to the manufacturer you might want to tell the kid at the counter that you don't like the supplier choices the hamburger joint makes.

Now, to the meat of the matter:

You're seriously complaining about some miniatures making females appear sexually available without engaging advertisements available on television or in print first? The presumption of being 'sexually available' on a glance is akin to the presumption that 'Twilight' was good literature based on the author. It is at best a reflection of the viewer rather than the purchaser. The human form in its natural state is only sexualized by context. Compiling this nudity with violence does indeed reinforce Dworkin's spurious thesis that "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence". Since Dworkin's thesis has been proven as untrue on more than one occasion we can presume that much of Dworkin's other work is equally in question - including the parallels between female nudity and sexualization.

Male sexualization is however more subtle. Short hair, broad torsos, defined muscles and phallic substitutes all compile to a implication of prowess and ability. Males are presumed to be able and willing simply by presenting the appearance of masculinity. The armor on the current cadian imperial guard is an implication masculinity and ability with their pectoral muscles (armor) and flat stomach (armor) rather than a deeper implication. Heaven forbid the supermen that are Space Marines, Marvel's Wolverine, Tony Stark, the blatantly pansexual 300 film, or historical minis.

Humans tend to relate to each other in sweeping generalizations - A defense mechanism that still runs deep in our learning process. Inductive reasoning, if you will, allowing us to work on the probabilities of our experience and the teachings of others.

Your position
"I wonder if some of the anger and dismissive "That's the the way it is!" statements on this thread are not directed at me because they hit a little too close to home; are people here realizing they are objectifying women, realizing it is wrong, but not wanting to admit it? "
implies you are correct, not yourself missing some nuance, and there is no objectifying of men. It also doesn't embrace the possibility of looking to further chain the female form as dirty or inherently sexual thereby further taking power from women and chaining them to a secondary social role.

Just a perspective.

@ Oldgrue: Nice summary mate
This whole issue is so vastly intricate that generalizing what is and isn't right (or appropriate in this situation) is basically saying that the whole style of design is flawed. Over-sexualization is a common marketing ploy, I remember sodas being things like ice-cream and g.i. joes, but now the soda commercials are some of the most sexual advertising you will see on the planet. At what point in time did cereal become sexy? Ooooh, that bran is SO good with those sexy strawberries... oh man, I am fantasizing about a strawberry now, the Apocalypse surely is nigh .

Darknight wrote:I shall remove the ignore, but please - if you want me to continue dialog with you in the future - don't be silly like that. We can have an adult conversation based on honest, can't we?

Dude, anyone can ignore anything without using the ignore button, it is just a fancy way of saying feth off quite frankly.

So... yes we can have a conversation, but if you really feel as strongly as you do, I can only imagine how many people you are ignoring on a constant basis. I didn't irrationally blow-up at you, I just made a few strong points with the intention of (yes, I am a ronin artist ) of benefiting from understanding what you have to say by pushing back in the exact place that you chose to present a debate.

The question you seem to be asking, is why do we allow this filth on our shelves? To a point I understand you but my opinion of you over-reacting still stands. I have mentioned already that I would like to hear what you would want done about this, and I still do.

If you could present some of the worst objectification, we could review it and figure out exactly what should be avoided in the future.

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

"Slutty" models are in the minority.

And I disagree with Dark Knight's thesis.

EDIT:

Wow, I agree with Oldgrue also!

Hey Polonius, Dogma and Sebster, you guys are slackin'!

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

Absolute rubbish. I will not speak for all religions, but mine has a very healthy attitude towards sex. "Go forth and multiply" - how is that supposed to happen without sex? Sex is a beautiful and a wonderful thing between a man and a woman. We have, in fact, the healthiest attitude towards sex there is - because we keep it perfectly natural. We simply do not believe that sexual objectification of human beings is right. How is that unhealthy?

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

There is a difference, however. The violence aspects of the game are NOT ones which are, generally speaking, held up as good. I have never seen a post justifying racism, violence, etc. etc. on these forums. Never once. No-one says "Yeah, the Imperium has the right idea - kill everyone who disagrees with you!"

The violence is never shown in a positive light, never once shown as being a good thing. The very nature of the worlds of 40K and WFB show there are no good guys - everyone is kinda evil. Other games (such as D&D) have very clearly defined "good and evil". So, killing an orc is okay because the orc is evil - he is not "differently good". Other games do not have "evil" races. There are races who might do bad things, but these guys are not de facto "evil to the bone" and so killing them is a matter of a moral choice.

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

Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.

Personally, I believe most men on this board are not offended by the female form in the same way you seem to be

I am married. I suspect the majority of guys on these boards are not. I assure you, I am not offended in the slightest by the female form. I am offended by objectification of women. Is that so wrong?

I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!

Again, this is true - and I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring this point up! And, yes, that is a valid point - the guy who says he does not objectify women except as miniatures. Still, that is still objectification. And are people happy with that? You imply that you are - which is your choice, of course.

I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.


shrug

Wrexasaur wrote:The question you seem to be asking, is why do we allow this filth on our shelves?

Not at all - I am asking IS this "filth" and, if so, do we want it on our shelves? Some people have answered this question - others have decided to ignore it.

I have mentioned already that I would like to hear what you would want done about this, and I still do.

Done about it? I have said what I want done - I want people to consider. People are doing. Thank you, people.

In my opinion the reason for women dressing like harlots in many fantasy settings is to identify them as "heroic"
wait, let me explain.

How do you tell the heroic and strong male from his supporting characters?
He is bulging with muscles, carries a large manly weapon, and looks like he's a male model on the side.

How can you tell the heroic female from her cast and crew?
2 options.
Either she is muscular, and carries a huge manly weapon.
Or
She is incredibly attractive.

The first option, well, the majority of people do not like large, muscular, manly women. Some people think it's ugly, and we can't have an ugly protagonist.
That leaves the second option. Now, which one does the majority of the population find more attractive: a woman clothed in traditional clothing, with a sword and shield, or a pencil-thin stripper wearing a skin-tight leather suit that is "battle-damaged" in all the wrong places?

Darknight wrote:Done about it? I have said what I want done - I want people to consider. People are doing. Thank you, people.

Could you specify or link to which miniatures you are referring to?

kirsanth wrote:I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.

It is not simply based on how they are dressed, but also the poses chosen and the way they are described in the literature etc. Dark Elves were described as being very sexual creatures, the Witch Elves particularly so. I was working at GW when they came out - a memo was sent around detailing SPECIFICALLY how to deal with complaints that this was basically some kind of porn. The memo was, frankly, not much use - thankfully, we didn't get any complaints.

A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.

And I agree; men who look at a girl walking naked down the street and think she wants to have sex with any many she sees are wrong and foolish. I do not think that way. But, the fact remains that dressing and acting provocatively has become a usual method of signaling sexual availability, or at least is interpreted as such.

Under no circumstances is there ANY defence for treating a women as sexually available if she is not - it is wrong, pure and simple (at its most serious it is rape) and there is NEVER any justification. However, dressing in a particular way often makes people THINK she is sexually available, acting in a particular manner more so, and this is what I mean.

Darknight wrote:

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

Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.

Should there be a difference? Is objectifying and glorifying violence (Winning the game requires violence on a large scale) any better than this "objectification of women" that you see? Why does one offend you more than the other? I think you are misplacing your offenses here, and really, you shouldn't be offended at all, because this is a game, and people know that it is not real.

If you are hung up on the objectification of women, lets take a look at several of the other "themes" in wargaming:

- Violence
- Destruction (Exterminatus)
- Ruthless dictatorships
- Demon Worship

I could go on, but you get the idea. Why this topic jumps out at you more than any other amazes me, and is a result of all of us becoming numb to violence through TV, Movies and video games.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Darknight wrote:Done about it? I have said what I want done - I want people to consider. People are doing. Thank you, people.

Could you specify or link to which miniatures you are referring to?

I believe I gave an example in my first post. I have since been informed he is a particularly egregious example of the genre, and not all models are like this. Again; my initial hyperbolic statement of "all" is not accurate, and I do not wish it to be conisdered as such. Perhaps it would be better to say "some".

Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.

I got these two for RT and DH purposes:

&

You keep saying people are objectifiying female models trying to make them into there fantasies and all that nonsense but with no proof. Really I can think of no one who looks at almost anymini and says, "Hell ya that model is all I ever dream about." That's because no one thinks about it or cares. It's just like video game violence this is the same kind of arguement against it. You think its bad cause your morals say so 99% of people either don't agree or don't care and think others should do what they want. Your in that small minority that thinks it wrong and is wondering why they alone are the only one that cares when your just trying to push your values that not everyone shares.

More sluts with even bigger tits/ass and skimpy utfits please

Becuase, even if you dont, thats what people like.

Canonness Rory wrote:
She is incredibly attractive.

Now, which one does the majority of the population find more attractive: a woman clothed in traditional clothing, with a sword and shield, or a pencil-thin stripper wearing a skin-tight leather suit that is "battle-damaged" in all the wrong places?

Well, my question is; DOES the majority of the population find a sexually-available looking person attractive? And not merely sexually, but as a whole person? Also, your two examples fail to take into account what we are actually seeing - it is not a choice between a realistic model and a attractive one; but rather a hyper-female one posed heroically and non-provocatively dressed attractively and modestly, and one which is hyper-feminine and posed and dressed provocatively.

It is a difference between a beautiful woman dressed suitably for the opera or fancy restaurant (she is hyper-feminine) and a porn-star on set (she is also hyper-feminine). Both are feminine, but only one is sexually objectified.

Oldgrue wrote:Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.

I am trying to figure out exactly what he is taking offense to.

@Darknight
You linked to a full page of numerous styles of female miniatures. Forgive me for saying so ( ) but you have made an incredibly broad argument that I consider to be quite provocative. Please specify the style that you are referring to for reference, or this whole conversation will continue to be an ember in the barn.

@BrookM
Those are really cool, I like the mechanic one a lot . Rosie the Riveter (circa the year 40k ).

Why doesn't dakka have a rep system bla hahaha I lawled.

A rep system would get taken advantage of in a heart beat.

Darknight wrote:
A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.

Ooh!
From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.

That is, Sir, a patently offensive and sexist statement that it is ok to judge a person and their proclivities by their attire!
Edit: Does that mean men can't do this? Are topless men somehow not sexual? Is it the hair? Nipples?

personally i only go for the plastic slut miniatures, i hear that the metal ones are real prima donnas.

kirsanth wrote:I think it's odd that the claim is asserting that the women are "sexually available" based on how they are dressed. That tends to say more about the person saying such things than the person wearing such things.


shrug

Aye, I'd go along with that, my wife has a similar viewpoint. She draws a lot of fantasy art, and although she is no where near ole Julie Bell in style, not all of her pictures are in nicely fitting armour and three layers to cover all and any blushes. Sometimes skin in good, its all about how its drawn.

Hell look at my Avatar, probably exactly what the OP is talking about, but I'd dare anyone to try and take it without her say so.

Hasselfree's sculpts are crap. Privateer Press has a nice line of female minis. Jes Goodwin has too many old HEAVY METAL magazines laying around I think.

Darknight wrote:

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

Again, there is a difference. The orc holding the severed head is an example of violence, but does not come from the fact the viewer finds decapitation laudible. The sexually-objectified woman (I note you simply latch onto one aspect of her attractiveness, NOT any issue of objectification) is modelled as such because people find that laudible. I am questioning if people think this is okay - you obviously do.

Hmm.... ok, you're making some serious assumptions here. Firstly you assume that someone buys a miniature of an Ork holding a severed human head because he simply needs it for his army....I get images here of some guy reluctantly purchasing said miniature, grumbling the whole time, because he, deep down inside, hates the images of violence....and in the same shopping basket, purchases a miniature that "objectifies women" with mischievous glee, already anticipating what he will do to himself in the bathroom based on his new "toy".....

Come on, people buy miniatures because they love the imagery, you can't seperate the two! If people didn't like, on some level, the skulls, chains and severed heads then the miniatures wouldn't sell......you almost insult me with your response, which seems to push your point while conveniently ignoring the counter!!

Darknight wrote:

I also believe that most people here can distinguish between fantasy and "the real world", and like most fantasies, images like the ones you find offensive can and do have a place within this genre!

Again, this is true - and I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring this point up! And, yes, that is a valid point - the guy who says he does not objectify women except as miniatures. Still, that is still objectification. And are people happy with that? You imply that you are - which is your choice, of course.

This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome. The fact that you feel so strongly about it, as others have suggested, I think speaks volumes about your mental state then ours! I can paint and play with a large breasted female miniature and be unaffected by the experience! I can sit with my wife, talk about our day, plan for the future, meditate and generally live life without ever confusing the small miniature with the women around me!

I have to apologise if I offended you regarding your religion, I assumed you were Catholic or in some way Christian, if my guess was right then I disagree with you're appraisal of your religions acceptance of women and sexuality! However, that I think, is a discussion for another time.....perhaps not even on Dakka!

Oldgrue wrote:

Darknight wrote:
A woman who dresses in a particular way sends a particular signal - meaning that her appearance is interpreted as saying certain things by those who view her. Certain men look at women dressed provocatively and dancing provocatively and think "she is sexually available" (or use words to that effect). If the woman is genuinely NOT intending to send those messages then that is very unfortunate for her.

Ooh!
From the Quran 24 (the Light):31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
Now, we can extrapolate the next few steps regarding 'having one's way with loose women' as their fault.

That is, Sir, a patently offensive and sexist statement that it is ok to judge a person and their proclivities by their attire!

Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?

Saying a woman is trying to look sexy, has absolutely nothing to do with a guy harassing them. If a guy harasses woman on a constant basis in order to attempt to achieve whatever goal they have set out to, they are still just harassing women. Go to a club and watch how viciously women guard each other from all the dangers associated with it; one of the smallest issues is guys that you are mentioning, more likely that someone gets way too drunk and their friends help them home.

Delephont wrote:This whole point of objectification seems oddly misplaced in a hobby, that by its very nature objectifies things. That women are part of that objectification is neither surprising nor unwholesome. The fact that you feel so strongly about it, as others have suggested, I think speaks volumes about your mental state then ours! I can paint and play with a large breasted female miniature and be unaffected by the experience! I can sit with my wife, talk about our day, plan for the future, meditate and generally live life without ever confusing the small miniature with the women around me!

It is oddly misplaced, and I have asked a couple of times now for some specification so this can ACTUALLY be related to war-gaming. If it is not, then this whole subject should be re-named and sent to the OT forum for dissection .

As to these metal minis coming to life, I have plans to to something along those lines... but in a game called Warhammer40'000 my goals are not sexual I assure you. A horde of robotic Wraithlords with active flamers could do the trick .

Wrexasaur wrote:
Wait... are you honestly telling me that women who dress in ways that show of practically every aspect of their bodies when donning culturally accepted "standard" attire are not trying to show their bodies off?

Hey, someone dressed in a 'sexy' way could simply be trying to feel sexier as an affirmation of self.
But what I'm saying specifically is twofold:
First, according to the Quran, that there is a distinct boundary between right and wrong based on gender rather than identity.
Second that we shouldn't be so small minded about it *only* being women.

If men and women are equal, then the 300 movie should be qualified as just as 'adult' as many episodes of 'The L Word' (I thought it an ok drama, equally crappy stereotypes though.) and treated fairly.

If the women are 'sexually available' so are the men.

Edit:
Don't go all wonky about citing the Quran. I'm just lazy about citing the KJ Bible. They're equally bad about this. And sexual harrassment is the same despite gender.

Oldgrue wrote:Oh, Hey now!
How loud and offensive do I need to be to get my counter to your thesis looked at Darknight? Also, your avatar is pretty suggestive from a feminist point of view.

Sorry - I was getting to you! Broadly speaking, you make a lot of sense.

I disagree about the avatar - I have a woman blowing smoke off a gun. In my view, there is a world of difference between that and a woman going into battle half-naked, or a model which is specifically designed to show flesh in areas where it would not naturally be shown because of necessity and position of the model.

Oldgrue wrote:
Firstly, iffin you don't like the minis, don't buy them.

Already done. I have already not bought models, and will continue to not buy them!

Secondly, if you're griping here rather than to the manufacturer you might want to tell the kid at the counter that you don't like the supplier choices the hamburger joint makes.

I am not griping - I am asking a question. I have my answer - very few people seem to give a damn. It was the answer I expected.

You're seriously complaining about some miniatures making females appear sexually available without engaging advertisements available on television or in print first?

No - I am raising a question concerning minatures on a miniatures forum. As I said earlier, I argue these points (in a much more strident manner - it has become clear to me on this thread and elsewhere that certain discussions are simply not appreciated or listened to on Dakka) elsewhere. I am not simply complaining about miniatures; I am just keeping my focus on them here.

The human form in its natural state is only sexualized by context.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I argue (and have done elsewhere in this thread) that a naked female hoplite is appropriate. I also argue that a naked poledancer model shaking her thang is also appropriate (although I'd really like to know what scenario you are playing!) My argument is that a female warrior posed in a sexual pose is not appropriate, or a female warrior dressed in armor which is completely impractical (that is, covers very little).

Sexualization in art is never an issue - provided the art itself is showing something sexual. Beyond that, the question I would ask is "Is the sexual content appropriate for the theme?"

we can presume that much of Dworkin's other work is equally in question - including the parallels between female nudity and sexualization.

Agreed - naked women =/= sexualization. Naked women in sexual poses and portrayed as sexually available (as they often are in literature - and, as you pointed out above, NOT just fantasy and sci-fi) does, however, mean sexualization of them. It may not translate into the "real world", but the fact of the matter is that women are thought of as sexual objects in many forms of literature and art (Playboy etc. etc.) My question concerning models is is there a similarity between the two?

Male sexualization is however more subtle.

Again, agreed. And I agree with your points. However, men are usually not shown in a pose or manner which is overtly sexual - they are shown as powerful and heroic and beautiful, but not available and passive. Females often are.

implies you are correct, not yourself missing some nuance, and there is no objectifying of men.

Yes, it does. And I do think I am correct, not missing a nuance, and that the objectification of men is generally speaking non sexual (or at least non-passive). But you are correct.

quote]It also doesn't embrace the possibility of looking to further chain the female form as dirty or inherently sexual thereby further taking power from women and chaining them to a secondary social role.

I find it also quite funny that the OP keeps refering to women being sexually availible? I wonder, are we still discussing miniatures or real people?

I must admit to my own ignorance, I have never once considered a lump of inch high white metal to be sexually availible....I find it disturbing to even mention the two points in the same sentence.

Taking the discussion beyond the confines of miniatures, perhaps where this discussion belongs! does the miniature trigger visions of sexual availibility in women? maybe, but no more than a model in glamour magazine, a make-up advert or a woman you see walking down the street!

Lets face it, without a degree of sexual availiblity you'd better say good bye to the human race.....or maybe hello to the test tube!

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm using her and the barbarian axe woman.



I am modding them for 40K so SF bits are getting added.

I hate to admit it, but as we are on the subject, I am modding a few of the other Hasslefree women into 'hoes'. Again, I have a totally legitimate reason.

That model needs a penis added to it. It would be awesome/lulzy to see people's reactions when they notice it...

o_- not another of this debate , time for me to end this ...

Here is my counter question , why are male models also fall under these stereo types:

*Bald and screaming
*Emo , Grim Dark

And lets not forget , * muscle bound Muscle Builder types ( like Arnold in Conan )

Its what the buyers *want . I dare GW to produce a human army where all the soldiers
are either underweight , over weight , with pimples all over.