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.

MagickalMemories wrote:The manbits on this thing look to be sculpted into the loun cloth, making it MUCH more work to snip it.

Just add a second flappy bit to the backside, I'd say.

MagickalMemories wrote:As for us stating our opinions about it... any good company wants to hear opinions, good and bad. It's how they gauge whether or not they're giving their customer base what they want.
If the vast majority of commentary they get online says "cover the crotch," then future sculpts will be "sausage" and "taco" free.

On the other hand, giving Internet commenters far too much relative importance is very easy. The real yardstick of any product are sales. It doesn't matter if six hundred people in the peanut gallery think it's great if nobody buys it anyway.

I have dealt with Maelstrom for ordering nearly all of my Infinity stuff, and I already like the company and the service they provide.

What I like about this range, is that the quality and level of dedication to detail is unrivaled by almost any other miniatures company out there, I'm truley speechless. This is clearly not just another "band wagon" jumper, trying to muscle in on GW's territory....

As far as the genitals are concerned, I think it's a shame that people (especially those who claim to admire miniature art and sculpting) can not go beyond their puritan society indoctrination. Rather than seeing a fruity beardy guy sculpting a pair of danglies for the hell of it, try seeing a serious sculpting team who have taken the decision to take miniature sculpting to the next level.

To be fair, it's not surprising to see this level of shock at seeing male genitals on a miniature, after all, we're dealing with the GW fan-club, and it's their double standards....sure, it's politically correct to show a vehicle sporting a severed head, hand, arm, leg etc, it's fine to show a pair of bare breasts, but by God, Queen and Country, don't you dare sculpt a pair of balls on my miniature....it's pathetic what people find to be insulted by.

I would buy all of these miniatures, simply just to paint and display, and I can't wait for Maelstrom to make the move to Sci-Fi....if they want to get rich quick, take this level of detail into the Sci-Fi genre, and do it soon!!

Now the latest challenge for our shoop pros...

Photoshop those danglies onto the lastest GW New Releases...

K GO!

I just think it doesn't make much sense...or at least the giant doesn't. If the whole point of showing your genitals is to unsettle the enemy then why is the giant wearing a loincloth that covers just the front so you can't see them?

Delephont wrote:I have dealt with Maelstrom for ordering nearly all of my Infinity stuff, and I already like the company and the service they provide.

What I like about this range, is that the quality and level of dedication to detail is unrivaled by almost any other miniatures company out there, I'm truley speechless. This is clearly not just another "band wagon" jumper, trying to muscle in on GW's territory....

As far as the genitals are concerned, I think it's a shame that people (especially those who claim to admire miniature art and sculpting) can not go beyond their puritan society indoctrination. Rather than seeing a fruity beardy guy sculpting a pair of danglies for the hell of it, try seeing a serious sculpting team who have taken the decision to take miniature sculpting to the next level.

To be fair, it's not surprising to see this level of shock at seeing male genitals on a miniature, after all, we're dealing with the GW fan-club, and it's their double standards....sure, it's politically correct to show a vehicle sporting a severed head, hand, arm, leg etc, it's fine to show a pair of bare breasts, but by God, Queen and Country, don't you dare sculpt a pair of balls on my miniature....it's pathetic what people find to be insulted by.

I would buy all of these miniatures, simply just to paint and display, and I can't wait for Maelstrom to make the move to Sci-Fi....if they want to get rich quick, take this level of detail into the Sci-Fi genre, and do it soon!!

well said - hear hear!

My two cents, not like it matters, I don't collect miniatures for their anatomical correctness.

To me it's not art and even if it were I wouldn't want naked female or male bodies in my hobby room, on my gaming table, etc.

GW pushes the line sometimes with their minatures, especially considering it's targeted at prepubescent boys but outright modelling of genitalia, male or female, is not something I'm comfortable with.

I don't think porn has a place on a gaming table, esepecially considering the number of young participants that frequent FLGSs. If their parents don't mind them owning such models, that's fine; however, I don't believe adult, non-family members should be presenting this material. That's for a family to decide, not some strange neck-beard that happens to get his jollies by looking at the shock on little Timmy's face when he comes to the game table and sees the daemon with her S&M regalia and exposed breasts and the cyclops and minotaur dangling their parts for all to see.

Again, my opinion. What you do in your home is your business, what you bring to a public venue affects everyone.

agnosto wrote:My two cents, not like it matters, I don't collect miniatures for their anatomical correctness.

To me it's not art and even if it were I wouldn't want naked female or male bodies in my hobby room, on my gaming table, etc.

If you don't collect miniatures for their correctness, why collect miniatures at all? I mean, you buy a miniature of a Space Marine, because it represents a Space Marine in 28mm scale, the level of the representation is what makes you buy it over say, using a gaming piece from a Monopoly board game set...right? So when someone buys a minature of a Human male or female, it's safe to assume they're spending the money on that particualr minature because it well repesents their chosen subject.....

agnosto wrote: GW pushes the line sometimes with their minatures, especially considering it's targeted at prepubescent boys but outright modelling of genitalia, male or female, is not something I'm comfortable with.

I don't think porn has a place on a gaming table, esepecially considering the number of young participants that frequent FLGSs. If their parents don't mind them owning such models, that's fine; however, I don't believe adult, non-family members should be presenting this material. That's for a family to decide, not some strange neck-beard that happens to get his jollies by looking at the shock on little Timmy's face when he comes to the game table and sees the daemon with her S&M regalia and exposed breasts and the cyclops and minotaur dangling their parts for all to see.

Again, my opinion. What you do in your home is your business, what you bring to a public venue affects everyone.

Just because GW pushes their line of miniatures at kids doesn't make it the defacto ruling for all companies. I find it disturbing that you feel it's ok for a child to play a game that incites racial hatred, intolerance, and mass murder, and yet balk at the fact that a miniature used in said game should display a level of anatomical correctness that "Timmy" would see on his own body when going to the toilet or taking a shower....way to go to teach your child that the human form is something "negative" or "dirty".....but mass murder and wholesale destruction is no problem

I think your take on "porn" is misguided.....the miniatures here are no more "pornographic" then you taking off your clothes to go take a bath.....unless of course you cover your eyes until you know your "parts" are safely submerged bellow the bubbles far from sight?....the models here are not engaging in sexual acts alone or otherwise (which incidentally would be in keeping with a pornographic feel).....go to any art statue museum in the UK and mainlamd Europe, and you'll see statues ranging back from the Roman times, in full nudity or partially clothed, but all anatomically correct.....try telling the various people who go to see this that it isn't art.

The models so far look really detailed,im interested in seeing what they can come up with in terms of sci fi.

Delephont wrote:

If you don't collect miniatures for their correctness, why collect miniatures at all? I mean, you buy a miniature of a Space Marine, because it represents a Space Marine in 28mm scale, the level of the representation is what makes you buy it over say, using a gaming piece from a Monopoly board game set...right? So when someone buys a minature of a Human male or female, it's safe to assume they're spending the money on that particualr minature because it well repesents their chosen subject.....

Just because GW pushes their line of miniatures at kids doesn't make it the defacto ruling for all companies. I find it disturbing that you feel it's ok for a child to play a game that incites racial hatred, intolerance, and mass murder, and yet balk at the fact that a miniature used in said game should display a level of anatomical correctness that "Timmy" would see on his own body when going to the toilet or taking a shower....way to go to teach your child that the human form is something "negative" or "dirty".....but mass murder and wholesale destruction is no problem

I think your take on "porn" is misguided.....the miniatures here are no more "pornographic" then you taking off your clothes to go take a bath.....unless of course you cover your eyes until you know your "parts" are safely submerged bellow the bubbles far from sight?....the models here are not engaging in sexual acts alone or otherwise (which incidentally would be in keeping with a pornographic feel).....go to any art statue museum in the UK and mainlamd Europe, and you'll see statues ranging back from the Roman times, in full nudity or partially clothed, but all anatomically correct.....try telling the various people who go to see this that it isn't art.

I mentioned twice in my post that it was my opinion; if you don't agree, then fine, your opinion is equally valid in the larger scheme of things as are your values and artistic taste. My point, and you may have missed it since I only said it twice, is that such miniatures have no place on a gaming table, at a FLGS because of the fact that Timmy and Tommy's parents may not want strange adults having naked models around their child regardless of whether or not the neck-beard across the table considers his toy soldier to be "art". Not everyone may share this person's view of what art is and also may not share his view of what is acceptable presentation of said art in a public place at a comic book store.

It's all about venue. FLGS is not a museum of art, nor are these little toy figures the works of past masters nor are they of historical significance. Venue, the creepy, unwashed neck-beard doesn't need to have his naked toys in a public place. I suppose by your argument that sex dolls are ok in a public place as well. I realize that gamers in Europe often have "clubs" where groups of similar people and friends meet and rent or otherwise arrange for space; however, here in the US that's not the case most of the time. Most wargaming here, especially in my area, happens at FLGSs that are often frequented by younger gamers and families that are shopping or otherwise occupying the space.

My use of the word "pornography" may have been hyperbole but it was the closest word I could think of at the time to express my feeling on the matter. And no, the S&M female daemon is not ok in my book either, in fact, it's the lowest example.

You may be a modeller but I'm a gamer, I don't need my toys to be detailed to the microscopic level to paint them and put them on a gaming table in an imaginary universe. I can enjoy playing with my toy soldiers without seeing their dangly parts.

Again, this is my opinion YMMV.

while the models are not pornographc, the female demon is certainly sexualised in that she is mostly naked, and the piercings and accessories are blatant fetish-wear. I'm not against that at all, but it does worry me when there are responses to the models that are decrying the sight of genitalia, but say nothing about the sexualisation and potential objectification depicted in a particular model.

I know this sort of topic can be contentious, but there does seem to be a lot of double-standards flying around. Are they beautifully sculpted models? Certainly. But in the scale of things, seeing un-eroticised male genitalia pales compared to the fetishistic and sexual nature of the female demon.

agnosto wrote:I mentioned twice in my post that it was my opinion; if you don't agree, then fine, your opinion is equally valid in the larger scheme of things as are your values and artistic taste. My point, and you may have missed it since I only said it twice, is that such miniatures have no place on a gaming table, at a FLGS because of the fact that Timmy and Tommy's parents may not want strange adults having naked models around their child regardless of whether or not the neck-beard across the table considers his toy soldier to be "art". Not everyone may share this person's view of what art is and also may not share his view of what is acceptable presentation of said art in a public place at a comic book store.

It's all about venue. FLGS is not a museum of art, nor are these little toy figures the works of past masters nor are they of historical significance. Venue, the creepy, unwashed neck-beard doesn't need to have his naked toys in a public place. I suppose by your argument that sex dolls are ok in a public place as well. I realize that gamers in Europe often have "clubs" where groups of similar people and friends meet and rent or otherwise arrange for space; however, here in the US that's not the case most of the time. Most wargaming here, especially in my area, happens at FLGSs that are often frequented by younger gamers and families that are shopping or otherwise occupying the space.

My use of the word "pornography" may have been hyperbole but it was the closest word I could think of at the time to express my feeling on the matter. And no, the S&M female daemon is not ok in my book either, in fact, it's the lowest example.

You may be a modeller but I'm a gamer, I don't need my toys to be detailed to the microscopic level to paint them and put them on a gaming table in an imaginary universe. I can enjoy playing with my toy soldiers without seeing their dangly parts.

Again, this is my opinion YMMV.

Firstly, I understand that this is your opinion, and I respect this fact. To dictate the tone of my response and my previous responses, I see myself as engaging you in a discussion / debate, not an argument...I realise that alot can be "lost in translation" when you only have the written word to go by whilst communicating a point.

On point. I understand your point about public interest, and what people may or may not consider acceptible for a public gaming table. However, you have focused on only one part of my point, the art point, and that is always going to be an area of debate and tolerance / intolerance. However, you didn't go anywhere near the other side of my agrument....the side of morals and ethics.

On the one side we feel it is acceptible to expose children (I assume you refer to Timmy as a child) to wargames and all of the brutallity they entail, and yet nudity is a step to far. Personally speaking, I would rather my child grow up with a clear understanding and acceptance of the human form then numbed to the horros of war through constant bombardment of acts of attrocity as portrayed in the media, console games and tabletop wargames.

While I understand it is everyones responsibility to raise their children as they see fit, I find it strange and worrying what public opinion deems to be acceptible and / or right and wrong.

I hope there are more reasonable people involved in this hobby, who have the ability to look at their own moral ideals and question whether their reactions to certain things are founded on something plausible or simply an emotive response passed down from puritan do-gooders whose micky mouse view of the world is anything but wholesome.

I personally don't mind naked figures, male, female, human, animal, mythical creature, alien or mutant so long as the flesh is appropriate to the setting or design of the model.

I love the "Artemis" model from Hasslefree and think it would be great to have her and a few of the other full or semi nude female warrior models in my collection (not sure the wife would agree though ). I would also be perfectly happy with a few of the same kind of models (ancient Greek warriors) with full male nudity.

The problem comes in that not many people make them because most gamers and modelers tend to be male and a little squeemish about nekid men.

I don't have an issue with the male gibblies on display in the new models on display here (I was a little shocked when I first saw them I will admit - I was not expecting to see anything like that ) and if I had the spare cash, space and time to paint them up, I would possibly get them just for display. Sadly I lack cash, space and time

Having said that, I would only use nude or nearly nude models on the tabletop in establishments where such things are permitted (ie where kids are not going to be wondering around).

Delephont wrote:I hope there are more reasonable people involved in this hobby, who have the ability to look at their own moral ideals and question whether their reactions to certain things are founded on something plausible or simply an emotive response passed down from puritan do-gooders whose micky mouse view of the world is anything but wholesome.

My objection isn't one of anatomical correctness. I studied at art college and have drawn many nude life models male and female. We had to get everything correct and in proportion from hands and fingers to faces and even their genitals. Yes we had to spend time drawing them properly and not gloss over them. Even with all that experience I dont like them being on models that I buy, especially when they are so 'realistic'. If you read up on horned gods and what they represent you'd realise that the correct way to represent them would be phallus erect as the ancient Egyptians and Greeks did. As I said before, in the context of nakedness in battle they should have full frontal nudity, but they don't. Also from the Warhammer perspective (which these models are aimed at) everything is mutated or over proportioned, to my mind the truly liberal should include the genitalia within that exaggerated visual imagery if they are going to be sculpted.

For myself, when I buy models for gaming they should have qualities that excite me and the cyclops doesn't. The greek myths that the cyclops came from were overtly sexual including instances of homosexual encounters between male gods, especially Pan who was also in some stories supposed to have 'invented' masturbation. My main point in all this is that if there is an argument for art and anatomical correctness then it should be done in context with the mythology that these creatures come from. From the sexual and regenerative context of the horns to the actual genitalia themselves there is a great deal of symbolism in the combining of man and beast in the context of physical and sexual prowess and this portrayal makes the characters seem weak.

A question for tournament goers and organisers though is would you allow these models to be used at your tournament? Would it be covered by an inherent age limit for the event? Would you then ban children attending because of the possibility of these models being on display?

Its chaos, if it was me id sculpt a horned demonic snake head on the end shooting demonic ichor or flames.

Bloodwin wrote:
My objection isn't one of anatomical correctness. I studied at art college and have drawn many nude life models male and female. We had to get everything correct and in proportion from hands and fingers to faces and even their genitals. Yes we had to spend time drawing them properly and not gloss over them. Even with all that experience I dont like them being on models that I buy, especially when they are so 'realistic'. If you read up on horned gods and what they represent you'd realise that the correct way to represent them would be phallus erect as the ancient Egyptians and Greeks did. As I said before, in the context of nakedness in battle they should have full frontal nudity, but they don't. Also from the Warhammer perspective (which these models are aimed at) everything is mutated or over proportioned, to my mind the truly liberal should include the genitalia within that exaggerated visual imagery if they are going to be sculpted.

For myself, when I buy models for gaming they should have qualities that excite me and the cyclops doesn't. The greek myths that the cyclops came from were overtly sexual including instances of homosexual encounters between male gods, especially Pan who was also in some stories supposed to have 'invented' masturbation. My main point in all this is that if there is an argument for art and anatomical correctness then it should be done in context with the mythology that these creatures come from. From the sexual and regenerative context of the horns to the actual genitalia themselves there is a great deal of symbolism in the combining of man and beast in the context of physical and sexual prowess and this portrayal makes the characters seem weak.

A question for tournament goers and organisers though is would you allow these models to be used at your tournament? Would it be covered by an inherent age limit for the event? Would you then ban children attending because of the possibility of these models being on display?

This discussion is going round in circles, because you're not reading the posts fully. I have already agreed and stated that the argument for or against, based on a foundation of "art" will always fail due to the subjective nature of the standpoint. While I respect your training and therefore greater knowledge in the realm of studied arts, I have to disagree with your insistance that "to create an anatomically correct figure based on these characters, one must adhere to the original ideology that spawned them"....lets remember, these are fantasy figures, and therefore open to interpretation.....the sculptor has artistic license to produce these characters how he/she deems appropriate.

However, it's interesting that you (like agnosto) fail to approach the other aspect of the discussion, should children being playing "wargames" anyway? Setting young Timmy loose into the seedy world of destruction and murder, and then worrying about a few breasts and bums, seems a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

Stating that you don't like the model is one thing, it's a personal choice how you spend your money after all, but basing your decision not to buy on moral grounds, that are already shakey, seems like a cop out to me, and borderline preaching. After all, who want's to be asscoiated with the corruption of children? who want's to be labled a seedy neck beard one step down from a flasher? which, although the intention might not be there, the statements against these models suggest that of you do like them or are not offended by them, you fall squarely in the camp that has either a low moral standard or a disregard for public interest!

"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?

With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?

In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

That giant certainly adds a whole new realm of possibilities for the "Pick up and..." result.

jprp wrote:"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?

With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?

In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

Ok, you get 6 cool points, you said the same thing as me in three sentences

Delephont wrote:
However, it's interesting that you (like agnosto) fail to approach the other aspect of the discussion, should children being playing "wargames" anyway? Setting young Timmy loose into the seedy world of destruction and murder, and then worrying about a few breasts and bums, seems a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

I havent said that I wouldn't buy them on moral grounds, I was asking the question of wether they might be banned by others on those grounds. It's an interesting question about war in light of recent world events. The US government has said that they wont publish pictures of Osama Bin Laden after he was killed on grounds of decency. As for children being exposed to war and violence, most myths and legends especially the original versions of the tales by the Brothers Grimm are full of violence. The predominant religion in the UK (not mine) is Christianity which has imagery of the suffering of Jesus on the cross. Here in London one of our principal tourist attractions, The Tower of London is one of the most violent and vicious places on the planet, full of death and torture and full of school kids. European history is full of it not to mention the many martyred saints. Every November people in the UK celebrate Guy Fawkes night remembering a man who tried to blow up parliament and even in my youth I remember people making 'Guys' for the bonfire. The national flag of scotland is the Cross of St Andrew which is in the shape of the cross he was crucified on upside down. In modern movies we have Star Wars movies with it's scenes of dismemberment and torture, and the original Indiana Jones Trilogy that always had a gruesome death at the end.

The question isn't wether we would censor this imagery on our tables but wether society would. So no I am not hiding behind morals in my dislike for the miniature. I am saying that it doesn't excite me or hold to the values that I feel it should, that of overt sexuality. My problem is not that it shows genitalia but that it isn't explicit enough and is in my mind a cop out. I also think that there is an attempt to shock with these figures to get them noticed but that is my personal speculation. I should also add in fairness that some of the beasts recently produced by Warhammer Forge also have full genitalia modeled (the Reaper demigriffon).

I should also add that I have had my own art that I did for a publisher friend of min turned down because it was too suggestive and that the US market would not look kindly on it so I am not shy about these things.

Thread full of win turned to thread full of fail. In only 4 pages no less.

More pics less blahblahblahblah...

jprp wrote:"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?
With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?
In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to play against a 12 year old with a penis themed army.

Sidstyler wrote:I just think it doesn't make much sense...or at least the giant doesn't. If the whole point of showing your genitals is to unsettle the enemy then why is the giant wearing a loincloth that covers just the front so you can't see them?

That's only one possible cultural interpretation of nakedness. A lot of cultures had no significant nudity taboos whatever, with men walking around with their meat and two veg on display quite openly, without any sort of emotive context. Furthermore, these are all beastmen, the one fantasy culture you'd expect to behave like wild animals. There's no pornography portrayed here, there's no sexuality, just plain anatomy. Considering the bestial associations between goats and lust, from horny devils to bow-legged satyrs, they could have gone a whole lot further with this.

Kroothawk wrote:

jprp wrote:"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?
With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?
In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to play against a 12 year old with a penis themed army.

Dont then.....?

I dont want to play with 12 year old boys at all.

Kroothawk wrote:Call me old fashioned, but I don't want to play against a 12 year old with a penis themed army.

Tough. I don't see why the miniatures companies should all have to cater to the same standards as GW just so some people are not inconvenienced by immature idiots engaging in stupid wankery (such as building penis-themed armies).

I wish i had a pic handy of my "Full disclosure oderus" miniature.
(oderus urungas from the band Gwar) that i use as a Slaaneshii champion.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Thread full of win turned to thread full of fail. In only 4 pages no less.

More pics less blahblahblahblah...

+1

The only way this thread can be saved is if Maelstrom post up some more photos.....and quick!

finnan wrote:no, I didn't miss it, thanks.

... struggling to come up with an appropriate response here.

... now on my fourth verion.

... fifth.

I can't say what I want to say without sounding like an idiot, when all I'm doing is asking a question why one thing is acceptable and another isn't when one sculpt is more extreme than the other, and without sounding patronising, ranting, trolling or preaching.

Sorry. Wasn't being an @ss.
Genuinely thought you missed it.

Point was that I don't want genitals on my minis... and many agree.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit...
Having caught up & seen where this thing's going, I'm out.
Those disagreeing with the "anti-penis" crowd will not be swayed and, on occasion, misrepresent our reasons.
Those who are (actually) "anti-genitals" are just saying the same things over & over.
We're not going to convince each other. We should all just zip it, so as to not to derail this epic thread any further.

Eric

Kroothawk wrote:

Wowowowowowowowowow! I'm in love! He would look great as my Beastlord with great weapon.

Edit: And after going through this quite clogged thread, I love him even more after seeing the alternative weapon.

Hear hear!! (to the edit )

jprp wrote:"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?

With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?

In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

I'll just answer both you and Delephont here.

As to the appropriate nature of these models. Parents should have the right to introduce their child and or edit what their child is exposed to not some stranger that happens to walk into a game store and gleefully show everyone the extra bits on their model. I'm not saying everyone is so childish as to do so but we are involved in a game where there are people that make "pew pew" sounds when rolling dice (you all have met this person, I'm sure). If someone's maturity level is that low, nothing will stop someone from running around a game store showing everyone that his minotaur's scrotum hangs down to its knees or that his daemonette is the S&M queen of the universe. I reserve the same disgust for this type of person as I do for the sad individuals that are constantly drooling to have femal space marines with giant breasts. Both are represehensible for different reasons.

I don't believe I even mentioned someone being "traumatised"; however, I also do not believe that the first place a child sees an S&M doll is on the game table at a FLGS. It's not a huge problem and I am sincerely sorry if you have taken my objections to mean that but we should all be considerate of each other and if I or others prefer not to see such things in a public venue, I hardly see why anyone would be so assinine as to willfully disregard others' opinions on the matter. I'm a firm believer that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business but they should also keep objectionable material to themselves. Let the prevailing mores of your locale be your guide and in my area, these models would not be acceptable. Oklahoma is the buckle of the bible-belt after all, YMMV; if nudity is ok in your neck of the woods, streak through the neighborhood for all I care.

As to violence in wargamming. So much with children is in explaining things to them and educating them. Especially historical wargamming is an excellent teaching tool for ancient/modern history. It allows a responsible adult to put things in perspective and in such a way as to create a deeper understanding of the events surrounding certain battles. Any psychological impact from simulated violence (and wargamming is much less harmful that watching an episode of the Simpsons IMHO) may be mediated by having a simple discussion with the child as to that it is just a game and that such activities in real life are not acceptable. Ultimately, a good parent will censor what their child has access to and will know what their child is capable of handling; however, some stranger off the street doesn't necessarily know these things for every child (as they're all different).

I'm not trying to be an ass or argumentative, I was simply providing my perspective on something that was being discussed and I freely admit that I may not be always the best at expressing myself (who is?). All of this said, I think we all understand each other so I'll just be quiet and let you folks talk about the models.