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.

How's Queen Helga suit the argument?

One model that I have bought to paint.


(Ok, so you can paint her with exposed cleavage if you want to, but the rest of the armour is pretty good, and the pose isn't too sexualised).

alot of the darksword stuff fits {but then they also have loads at the other end of the spectrum !}

Most of the Mirliton Amazon range is tasteful actually

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

How about this one, painted as a zombie but does not need to be:





And these are not fat, but still cool.







This one may be slightly objectified...






Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I have thse two in 15mm:

CptJake wrote:

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

This one may be slightly objectified...

Please don't block-quote large images. -Mannahnin

And a racist apparently...

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.

xcasex wrote:

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.

500 posters 500 different definitions

@Navarro, hey, they'll better get in line and do a team effort on it

scarletsquig wrote:

Ouze wrote:

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

That's every other thread, essentially.

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

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

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



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



I own that figure and really like it!

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

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

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

In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.

Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.

And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.

Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.

JOHIRA wrote:

Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.

And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.

Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.

Well, we do live in a world where TV censors think that aggressive women cause homosexuality. Let's face it, humanity hasn't left the Dark Ages all that far behind where women were property and so were the men, in all likelihood.

CURNOW wrote:

Great White wrote:

Tronzor wrote:

CptJake wrote:

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

This one may be slightly objectified...

Please don't quote large images unless it's really necessary. -Mannahnin

And a racist apparently...

I thought the same thing

not sure im getting the racist thing here ?

It's a very contentious issue, but the Confederate flag is seen by many as a symbol of slavery and the Southern States attempts to keep it. It's also commonly used by white supremicist groups for this symbolism. There are people who argue it is a symbol of "Southern Pride" but to the vast majority of people it's seen as a symbol of slavery and racism. I'm Canadian and up here, it's pretty well seen as a racist flag.

However, I tool this from the all-knowing Wikipedia re: the Confederate Flag (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America)

Displaying the flag:

The display of the Confederate flag remains a highly controversial and emotional topic, generally because of disagreement over its symbolism.

Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from Northern government. Some groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including racist groups such as the Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.[23] The flag is also sometimes used by separatist organizations such as the Aryan Nations. The Aryan Nation also uses the U.S. flag as well as the Christian flag displayed in some Protestant churches.

Due to its ban in some schools and universities that have viewed it as a racist symbol, display of the flag has, in these contexts, also been considered an exercise of free speech.[24]

Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Some rockabilly fans hold the Confederate flag as their emblem as well.[citation needed] The flag is a regular cultural meme, often appearing in association with a character intended to represent a stereotypical Southerner.

As a result of these varying perceptions, there have been a number of political controversies surrounding the use of the Confederate flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events, at Southern universities, and on public buildings. According to Civil War historian and native Southerner Shelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the South's resistance to Northern political dominance; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when fighting against desegregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.

Symbols of the Confederacy remain a contentious issue across the United States and their civic placement has been debated vigorously in many Southern state legislatures since the 1990s."





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Hmm.. men in improbable bikinis?

oh god oh god oh god

As Borat would say, "JAGSHEMASH!"

Borat Sagdiyev.

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

I'm a fool for ever thinking that this thread would end in anything other than catastrophic failure, and I'm especially a fool for getting suckered into off-topic discussion.

Some people just live to destroy. They see a thread specifically made to cater to a group of people whose views they don't share, and what do they do? Do they leave these people in peace? Do they make their own thread? Hell, no. Everything is about them. They don't like a thread, nobody else gets to enjoy it. It's just the sort of thing that happens on boards like these, I suppose. I don't know why I thought it would be different this time around.

JOHIRA wrote:So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem

NO. No, we are not. None of us are. Because that is NOT what this thread is about, or was ever about, at any point, at all. Go start your own thread specifically to discuss these matters. You saw what happened to the last one. Can you guess why, then, I am keen to keep this gak out of this thread?

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, there are minis where women are overly sexual.

But perhaps it's hard to hear their complaints over the sound of all that rippling beefcake...

What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?

Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models? Would you like to be able to find more? If so go make a thread about that.

I haven't been here very long, yet I've already worked out how the New Thread feature works. If anybody is having trouble with it, PM me and I'll talk you through it. I would be delighted to do so. Really.

xcasex wrote:And as you see, you have me riled up.

Read a different thread, then! Clearly, this one is not for everyone!

xcasex wrote: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.

Fantastic! Go start a blog on it, then!


EDIT: I'll try to butt out now. For reals. No sense repeating myself ad infinitum. I've said my piece.

EDIT-EDIT: And I'll try to stop being such an ogre, too. Promise. Combative tones don't make for a welcoming atmosphere.

Is it fair to say that these models are one offs, that do not show all the aspects of somebodys being? And also, isn't it just as sexist to deny that a woman has breasts, and must only wear baggy armor/clothing which hides this? I point to this: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/81554/bayonetta-is-new-school-feminism/ You may not agree but I think its worth consideration.

Like in this pic.
Sorry... had trouble embedding...

@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.

Pumpkin wrote:Some people just live to destroy. They see a thread specifically made to cater to a group of people whose views they don't share, and what do they do? Do they leave these people in peace? Do they make their own thread? Hell, no. Everything is about them. They don't like a thread, nobody else gets to enjoy it. It's just the sort of thing that happens on boards like these, I suppose. I don't know why I thought it would be different this time around.

Now now, don't throw a tantrum. You aren't the boss of Dakkadakka, and part of posting a thread in a forum is accepting that people will post in it as well, even things you personally don't want to see. Best get accustomed to it.

And when the very title of your thread uses the words "Non-objectified" to imply that any models that don't fit the tone of what is posted here are objectified, then you are making a value judgement about the models posted here and not posted here. Heck, when you say that a depiction of women cannot be simultaneously sexual and serious, you're making a value judgement about sexuality itself. About femininity itself.

Don't think you can make all of these value judgement without other people throwing in their opinions. It's not destroying just to post something you personally don't like.

JOHIRA wrote:So you're going to have to be more specific about why you think the existence of minis with sexual content is a problem

NO. No, we are not. None of us are. Because that is NOT what this thread is about, or was ever about, at any point, at all. Go start your own thread specifically to discuss these matters. You saw what happened to the last one. Can you guess why, then, I am keen to keep this gak out of this thread?

I don't think so. You made a claim in this thread, and if you want your claim to be taken seriously I would like you to explain it.

Mercs made a impressive female soldier in a "center fold" pose.

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=25850.0




Unfortunately it is a limited edition model.

xcasex wrote:@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.

To be fair, this debate/argument was had a few weeks ago in the now locked thread. I generally agree with you and your views but this thread was started to just show off minis that a group of people personally consider to be non objectifying. Wether we agree with that term or not, this isnt really the place to discuss it.

However the nude models thread is still open for business and arguments, mostly arguments!

@Skippy, message received. a pity really, was just about to post penny arcades "greater interner fuckwad theory" illustration :(

Skippy wrote:

xcasex wrote:@Pumpkin, nice way to invalidate everything i wrote. but i guess that's how people roll when they're out of valid arguments. and yes, there's a projectlog, its linked in my signature.

To be fair, this debate/argument was had a few weeks ago in the now locked thread. I generally agree with you and your views but this thread was started to just show off minis that a group of people personally consider to be non objectifying. Wether we agree with that term or not, this isnt really the place to discuss it.

The problem with that is that there isn't an agreement in what is objectified and what isn't. Every user has his/her own view. So I think that the natural path for this thread was show some pics, disagree in wether the pics fit or not, and finally discussion about the main question. I think I was right about that, discussion can't be avoided xD

Objectification depends on our own reactions to what we are seeing. If we can't see beyond the boobs... the problem probably is ours.

Well theres nothing stopping anyone starting another thread discussing the question lol. Its been quite interesting to see what models each person has posted, showing what they consider to fit the thread title, they clearly vary a lot!

I do agree this thread is doomed to end in fistycuffs. Theres been some cool models shown tho

Pumpkin wrote:
What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?

Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models? Would you like to be able to find more? If so go make a thread about that.

I haven't been here very long, yet I've already worked out how the New Thread feature works. If anybody is having trouble with it, PM me and I'll talk you through it. I would be delighted to do so. Really.

I can tell you haven't been here... or anywhere for that matter... for very long as you missed the point that while there are sexualized minis of females, there are also sexualized minis of men. My argument is that it's not entirely one sided.

JOHIRA wrote:

Deathly Angel wrote:In my view, this is not sexualised though; it is a matter of realism. In the course of the battle, her top was ripped at the side, exposing her breast. If the exact same model was male, no one would be calling it cheesecake.

And that reveals something very telling about this argument. Masculinity is not perceived as incompatible with heroic competency. "If a male soldier's shirt gets ripped off to show his manly male chest, well, that's not sexual," people protest, "That just shows he's a man who gets stuff done." But that doesn't make it any less sexual objectification. However, with the arguments we've seen in this thread, it's clear that people think feminine sexuality is incompatible with serious models that appear to be competent for their battlefield role.

Personally, I find that sentiment far more dangerous than an exposed boob or female buttocks on a 32mm figure.

I didn't mean that it was my own opinion, I intended to suggest how sexist society is in some aspects. I might not have elaborated properly, or it may be another case of written text not conveying my tone.

Erasoketa wrote:[
The problem with that is that there isn't an agreement in what is objectified and what isn't. Every user has his/her own view.

Exactly! Its like this thread is aimed at a group of people sharing same view on the subject but that group does not exist in the first place. That alone will make this thread a debate rather than a monologue.
One thing is posting a thread "post your favorite space marine", that is simple and has no room for interpretation, but posting a thread and making all kinds of personal judgements/ conclusions and assuming all other people think alike on very interpretative/ dubious issue is bound to generate some heated debates.

I also don't understand the OP comments about people destroying the thread. I mean, I post a suggestion according to my boundaries on the subject, someone politely disagrees and I respond etc thats the natural course of a "Dakka Discussions" thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pumpkin wrote:
What are you even doing? Why do you think these images fit in this thread? Do you not realise that they are, in fact, the opposite of what we're looking for?

Do you think it's too hard to find non-sexualised male models?

This was what I was afraid of Pumpkin, I can post most female models I like here and think they still fit, I choose not to because I would know that someone would simply fall on the easiest trap on this thread, assuming my choices don't fit this thread because it doesn't fit posters opinion. Its like trying to be objective on totally subjective things. ( not going to happen)

Aye, I fully support Erasoketa and NAVARRO on this one. Tbh its why I've barely posted in the three threads doing the rounds (well two now) as my view would clash with plenty of folks in here.

Oddly I agree with a lot of feminist views, Aura is pretty adamant in her views as well.
I just have a discord when it comes to toys and fan art, as unless its over the line, its just fantasy depictions of the female form. There are a lot more 'real life' things to be worried about than does this 28mm figure have too much clevage on show.

Aura being an artist pretty much feels the same way, she has no issue with my fantasy art thread in DCM for example. Actually contributed to it once as well, as long as its not 'hardcore' in style, we are generally not offended in the slightest.

NAVARRO wrote:This was what I was afraid of Pumpkin, I can post most female models I like here and think they still fit, I choose not to because I would know that someone would simply fall on the easiest trap on this thread, assuming my choices don't fit this thread because it doesn't fit posters opinion. Its like trying to be objective on totally subjective things. ( not going to happen)

The poster to whom I responded posted images of male models who they thought were sexually objectified. They not only didn't try, they actually did try: to do the exact opposite. That's like some sort of anti-trying. If that is your idea of appropriate content for this thread, then I suppose you were right not to post such things.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:There are a lot more 'real life' things to be worried about than does this 28mm figure have too much clevage on show.

This thread was never about making moral judgements, but purely about people who don't like the majority of female minis posting images of female minis that they do like, that is all, that is completely it. It then attracted a couple of people who don't have a problem with the majority of female minis, and who therefore had no need for this thread, but who demanded that we all explain ourselves immediately and stop feeling differently about things, I mean seriously what is everyone going on about, did you not see the Monty Python spam video, oh my god it's like talking to my own echo in here I think I can actually physically see my sanity slipping away it's waving and smiling at me why is it smiling why is it doing that

That wasn't at you Pumpkin, more at those who seem to be 'appalled' because a commissar is daring to show her upper breast.

I could post dozens of mini's in here that would be imo not objectified, however as NAVARRO said others might disagree and cause an issue.

You just suggested to him the same without any idea on what kind of models he is referencing, what makes your call on whats not objectified better than his?

Or should I just say damn the torpedos and post a group of models I don't see as objectified, as that would be in the spirit of the thread, even if I know going on posts from previous threads, there are folks who would diasagree with me.

So who is right in that situation?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:That wasn't at you Pumpkin, more at those who seem to be 'appalled' because a commissar is daring to show her upper breast.

Fair enough. I suppose I can't speak for everyone in this thread. If people say such things, I suppose I shouldn't butt in when someone responds. Maybe I am going a bit mad if I'm just firing at shadows now.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I could post dozens of mini's in here that would be imo not objectified, however as NAVARRO said others might disagree and cause an issue.

You just suggested to him the same without any idea on what kind of models he is referencing, what makes your call on whats not objectified better than his?

Or should just say damn the torpedos and post a group of models I don't see as objectified, as that would be in the spirit of the thread, even if I know going on posts from previous threads, there are folks who would diasagree with me.

So who is right in that situation?

Do it, do it, do it! It's so very hard to do "quality control" on something so subjective, so let's go for quantity. All I ask is that people "try". So what if others don't agree with you? If you believe they fit in here and you posted them, you tried. If someone posts something that they don't even care whether or not it fits here, just to provoke a reaction, then that would be someone who hasn't tried. At the end of the day, it's for everyone to individually make up their minds on whether or not they like the models other people have posted. Just so long as people are respectful, ain't nothing wrong with a little dissent.