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.

snake]The point stands that there is a line in the sand when playing a warGAME and some things inappropriately cross that line. The representation of the unfortunate realities of rape, sexual abuse, and the glorification of women as sexual tools to "inspire" and satisfy men cross that line in showcasing violation of human dignity and respect for gender if nothing else.

Could you elaborate on why you find this crossing a line while torture and murder apparently remains "a warGAME" as you put it?

I find more and more people having this point of view. My storyteller for Vampire:the Requiem also told us at the beginning of our campaign: "anything goes, but no rape.
As if rape were the worst crime imaginable (which the penal system of just about every civilised country seems to disagree with) I honestly think it's the numbing effect the prevalence of violence in entertainment and popular culture has, while sexual violence is still rather taboo in these areas.

snake wrote:
Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.

Who's glorifying rape? How many people do you think are looking at that diorama and thinking "Sweet! Rape is awesome!" I know I'm not. Sounds to me like your'e the only one in the thread who sees this as a glorification. You should explore that.

There is no "Regardless of whatever artistic merits..." That's like saying "Regardless of Mars being a planet, it's still a star." Something has artistic merit or it doesn't. Without putting too fine a point on it, I bet you'd be hard pressed to say Judith Beheading Holofernes glorifies murder or shouldn't be painted because decapitating people in their sleep is wrong. To wit: you're drawing parallels that don't exist.

I find it hard to believe that any person who fantasized about this, or similar events, would continue to do so after actually experiencing violent rape, slavery, etc., firsthand in reality, much less advocate their portrayal for the modeller's personal gratification.

Not only are you falsly assuming a direct link between rape fantasies and real rape, you're assuming a direct link between the diorama and real rape. You're also employing the Intentional Fallacy and not only assuming (possibly incorrectly) what the artist's motives were in making the piece, but also what they intended by it.

The rape taboo is a pretty strong one in Western cultures, and probably exists for a lot of reasons.

One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.

But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.

By the same token, few of us will be murdered, assaulted, or tortured. But stats show that a sizable minority of women are sexually attacked in some way.

We also know that sexual crimes are often covered up. They also can be very psychologically harmful.

So you have something that's actually pretty common, occuring to and by "normal" people, that is horrible.

It's just uncomfrotable to really make light of for a lot of people.

Hmm I may have to change my stance on that dirama since I have seen it. It is done in good taste. I personally have no problem with big titties hanging all over the place on the table if that is how someone did their models. I think nude models could be fine for some chaos armies. I think it looks silly for IG for reasons stated in my previous posts about what IG commisars would really wear.

wow heavy topic

some thoughts:

The person/s who made the display are pretty good at what they do.

Its something that likely has happened in the 40K universe

The 40K universe has Slaanesh and Dark Eldar in it - they do unspeakable things to each other and anything they can get their hands on.

it will offend some people

rape in art is not something new - right or wrong - I work with peices of art dating back hundreds of years - a couple of which - acknoweldged masterpieces depictict pretty much the same scene in antiquity. Plenty of such images in major galleries etc across the world

Should it be on display in your local GW store - probably not...... on display witha warning seems fair enough for those who want to look at it.

On the subject of naked figures - Is looking at and painting models of naked women (or men) worse than scupting scenes of graphic violence?

Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...

I agree with this.
Also imagine some kid walking up to your "artwork" and then you having to explain what its all about.
My minis are always on display and im proud of them, I wouldnt want to be questioned on my desire to build an "eldar rape scene" to a new girlfriend who came over for the first time. If I was a girl and a guy MADE something like that and proudly displayed it, I would be out of there in a second.

Polonius wrote:One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.

But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.

Wow, that's a rather bold statement. Have you got hard numbers on that?

I find it very hard to believe that there are more (potential) sexual offenders out there than people who would engage in casual violence.

In fact, these are the numbers I found (for the Netherlands, but I'd think it would broadly go for each civilised country) over 2010.
sexual offences: 4.519 / 10000 people
assault: 37.431 / 10000 people

So assault (I didn't even add the numbers for murder, armed robbery and other violent crimes) is committed more than 8 times as much as all sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, incest, but also possession of child pornography).
Granted, sexual crimes are often not reported to the police, but even accounting for that I think the violence figures would be much higher than the figures for sex crimes.

What exactly is your definition of sexual violence? Because the way I read it in your post I may even be a sex offender. Isn't standing in a bar trying to act extra cool and giving the whole: "Yeah I'm an artist, deep and brooding and all that." to this girl with the thought that that might result in sexual intercourse "coercing others into sex"?

VanHammer wrote:

Ascalam wrote:who aren't getting any...

I wouldnt want to be questioned on my desire to build an "eldar rape scene" to a new girlfriend who came over for the first time.

Then it's fortunate the world doesn't revolve around the odds of 'getting any' for everyone.

TiB wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.

But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.

Wow, that's a rather bold statement. Have you got hard numbers on that?

I find it very hard to believe that there are more (potential) sexual offenders out there than people who would engage in casual violence.

In fact, these are the numbers I found (for the Netherlands, but I'd think it would broadly go for each civilised country) over 2010.
sexual offences: 4.519 / 10000 people
assault: 37.431 / 10000 people

So assault (I didn't even add the numbers for murder, armed robbery and other violent crimes) is committed more than 8 times as much as all sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, incest, but also possession of child pornography).
Granted, sexual crimes are often not reported to the police, but even accounting for that I think the violence figures would be much higher than the figures for sex crimes.

What exactly is your definition of sexual violence? Because the way I read it in your post I may even be a sex offender. Isn't standing in a bar trying to act extra cool and giving the whole: "Yeah I'm an artist, deep and brooding and all that." to this girl with the thought that that might result in sexual intercourse "coercing others into sex"?

There's a pretty in depth discussion of the topic here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/417490.page

Basically, sexual crimes are reported far, far less than any other crime.

dogma wrote:Personally, I find it stranger that people still assume those who appreciate nude, female miniatures lack sexual companionship.

I find it odd too, because a lot of erotic and nude painting and modelling is done by people who are in relationships. All those artists and sculptors are not sad lonely people living in their parent's basements. As long as there's a fun element I quite like nude and semi-nude figures, and so does my wife.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.

I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO. Some people will say "well you're okay with people being killed in wargames" but the difference is that it's mostly a fantasy, and most people do not have to face being killed by a daemon in their life. Although death is something everyone has to face.

Rape is a horrible act that affects a lot of people and is highly emotionally charged for the numerous affected. I'd be surprised if many rape victims or their friends/relatives would cheer this model on for being 'realistic'. I gain no pleasure from seeing this scene regardless of how well modelled it is. It's not greatly profound when trying to be shocking, it's not 'offensive' to me, I just think it's nasty.

Sometimes nudity makes sense. Do you think a greater daemon of Khorne or something would care to cove up his dingly bits?

JOHIRA wrote:

snake wrote:Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.

Depiction != glorification

You're welcome to your opinion of the quality and tastefulness of the scene in question, but dishonestly representing it's content serves no purpose.

I use glorification loosely. Admittedly it is probably too strong of a word. The creation and presentation of a diorama for public display involves the investment of a certain amount of pride and seeking of approval (not in a pejorative sense) on behalf of the modeller. This piece for public appreciation showcases a rape scene. While the rape itself may be criticized apart from the painting and modelling skills, the subject matter is still placed in the spotlight as part of a piece for praise. Even if intended to depict rape negatively, using such subject matter places it dangerously close to being extolled, especially for the impressionable. Moreover, using rape - however it is meant to be portrayed - as the vehicle for a piece for public appreciation suggests that it is ok to use such matters as a means of personal gratification. This mitigates the grotesque severity of the reality of rape.

snake wrote: I'm not calling anyone a perv for finding natural attraction to and pleasure in the opposite sex. I am calling them a perv for carrying it to aspects of their life where it doesn't fit. A naked commissar on a battlefield? Give me a break. That has nothing to do with the role of sexuality in fostering the continuation of the human race. It is rather a perversion of that natural attraction between humans into something objectifying the female party alone for nothing more than male pleasure, no different than an "adult" video or magazine.

Point taken, I agree.

snake wrote: What is unacceptable to me is why anyone would promote these most severe "horrors of war", straight from the experience of a "real war-zone' in what is supposed to be game aimed at escaping reality

Again, my point was that you can't cast certain war actions "MOST" severe and others as not. That's madness, I mean how do you justify this?, would you take a woman hostage, declare to her that she's your prisoner and then offer her the option of being raped, beheaded, dismembered and pinned to the side of a land raider, or caught in a round of viral bombardment from your orbiting battle barge? Hmmm....yeah, well rapes of the menu because that's too offensive, so take your pick of the rest....and be happy about it?!?

snake wrote:There are no Eldar or IG in the real world, which makes it acceptable to play a game based on strategy and warfare between the two.

Well raping one is going to matter too much either is it? I mean, I'm sure there wouldn't be this much buzz about a miniature scenario about a group of men raping a cloud, or a puff of fresh air.....and that's pretty much what an Eldar amounts to....in the real world.

snake wrote: If you can't realize that the depiction of a rape (or a beheading, or mutilation, and so on) is taking that GAME too far, then I can't help you.

Well, your point would hold some water if most of the artwork created by GW and most of the miniatures created for the game didn't have severed heads hanging from belts or stuck on poles.....I mean, seriously, the only logical ay for those heads to get up on that pole, or hangig from that belt is if someone (probably the owner of the pole or the guy wearing the belt) removed it from someones body.....they probably still had a need for it, and guess what...that's called beheading!!

So again, why is one more acceptable to your moral compass than another....surely all of these things should cause you to shy away from this hobby.....my guess is, it doesn't.

My closing point on this. I would understand your point wholly if this were a game about the Carebears, or the Smurfs (no, not the Ultramarines).....but it's not. GW make a big thing about their GrimDark universe, and showers of Blood (Blood for the Blood God anyone). They parade their skull thrones and cloaks made of human skin, they glory in the destruction of worlds and the mass enslavement of global populations to be sacrificed for mad Gods......they do all of this, and the fans take it all in laughing happily and bearing no shame at being associated with it.....until a scene depicting rape shows up.....suddenly the gaming society is split, and the same people that were happily painting blood dripping from the axes of their Orks, and getting just the right hue of dead flesh for the heads hanging from belts, suddenly find a moral platform to shout foul

People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!

Agree.

Saw the diorama, and it's bittersweet. Such fantastic modelling and painting, yet the subject matter is rather disturbing. The guy whipping it out is really well done, but again, it's disturbing. I don't think that it's a realistic situation, as I would tend to believe the guy pointing the gun at her would have shot her (what with guardsmen being no exception to the gigantic Xenophobia in 40k)

GW used to sell chained half naked women on the Dark Eldar Raider model for Vect - not sure if they are still n mail order.

There is a definate implicaiton as to what he does with them, which is not much different ot his model. Granted he is not unzipping his trousers but the sub text is not much different?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dogma wrote:Personally, I find it stranger that people still assume those who appreciate nude, female miniatures lack sexual companionship.

I find it odd too, because a lot of erotic and nude painting and modelling is done by people who are in relationships. All those artists and sculptors are not sad lonely people living in their parent's basements. As long as there's a fun element I quite like nude and semi-nude figures, and so does my wife.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.

I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO. Some people will say "well you're okay with people being killed in wargames" but the difference is that it's mostly a fantasy, and most people do not have to face being killed by a daemon in their life. Although death is something everyone has to face.

Rape is a horrible act that affects a lot of people and is highly emotionally charged for the numerous affected. I'd be surprised if many rape victims or their friends/relatives would cheer this model on for being 'realistic'. I gain no pleasure from seeing this scene regardless of how well modelled it is. It's not greatly profound when trying to be shocking, it's not 'offensive' to me, I just think it's nasty.

I see your point, but I honestly fail to see how it can do that much harm. Sure, rape is a horrible thing, but so is war in general, and if you spend all your time modelling little dudes that tear out each others guts, you shouldnt complain about a pair of boobs.

But then again, being chopped to bitz by an Ork isnt really something anyone is likely to suffer in real live, and i understand people being opposed to dioramas that picture scenes that are actually happening to people on this planet.

I guess it depends on the case. The eldar diorama isnt really tasteless, and i think it fits well into the world of 40k. It doesnt show the grisly details, and is very well done.

But showing nude models that are NOT being victim to rape, but rather just standing around in the adam-and-eve costume, is totally accepable imho, if it isn out of place (comissar). I'd never complain about a SoB berserk whos not wearing any clothing, or a demonette. Rreally, what harm does that do?

Merlin

The Dias with chained slave girls /captives for comparison

i remember a story in the old blood angels codex about assault marines and it featured a marine ripping the spinal column out of some guy. This was written in a detailed fashion and didn't pull any punches.

Its funny how that level of extreme violence is perfectly fine, but as soon as sex is mentioned people get so offended.

As for that rape diorama. It is horrific, just as the model maker intended it to be. It shows what happens in wars now and will continue to happen in the far future. If you dont like it, good! Thats the whole point, its meant to make you uncomfortable and make a statement.

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

I actually find this part of your post quite funny. Here let me try:

What if we showed a victim of Hiroshima a bat rep where the gamers call in an orbital bombardment.

Or what if we showed any number of civilians subjected to "prison camps" the fluff for the Dark Eldar!

Or what about actual soldiers who themselves or close friends were caught in bomb blasts the part where you launch a frag missile at your opponents.......

I wonder if they'd be like, "oh, that's really cool, you actually have a game that details everything I went through and struggle to come to terms with every waking hour of my life"......yeah, the gang rape victim really gets the lions share of offense when it comes to wargaming

Delephont wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

I actually find this part of your post quite funny.

And that speaks volumes...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

Just because it is art doesn't mean it can't be offensive. Art can be just as offensive as the next thing. Offense is relative. The diorama itself told a story in just a small frame. Just because you were offended doesn't mean it didn't convey its meaning. In fact, it did just the opposite - it conveyed its meaning so well that it illicited a response from you.

We've come to this place in our society when we think we have the right to not be offended, when I think it is just the opposite. People have died for the right for others to express themselves in ways that might offend you. If that diorama made you feel uncomfortable, then that is probably good. Offended is probably a normal reaction too. If you found yourself being excited or aroused by the diorama, then maybe you should think twice.

Platoon and Full Metal Jacket may seem offensive, but it doesn't stop them from being great movies.

MrMerlin wrote:
I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO.

While the subject matter was distasteful, it was presented tastefully. It could have very easily have been presented in a far more explicit manner, and in a way that was far more demeaning to to the female subject.

As I noted earlier, this is the internet, if you want to see something that endorses rape and the objectification of women there are certain words that Google would be happen to expound on.

dogma wrote:While the subject matter was distasteful, it was presented tastefully. It could have very easily have been presented in a far more explicit manner, and in a way that was far more demeaning to to the female subject.

This is the greatest reason why I think this diorama was made by someone who fully realised what he or she was making and what it communicates. As you say, a horny fanboy would make this a whole lot more explicit and focus on the ladyparts. As it is, the focus is on the menacing air of the guardsmen. The creator is obviously familiar with the well known illustration rule of thumb: the most interesting moment to depict takes place just before or just after the event.

That said, I think I would find the diorama a lot stronger if the eldar was still wearing her breastplate.
As it is now, the attention still goes to the boobies first. It would be better if one would just see the guardian lying down looking cornered and only then seeing the one guardsman unbuttoning his pants. That would be strong and subtle.

Mr Morden wrote:GW used to sell chained half naked women on the Dark Eldar Raider model for Vect - not sure if they are still n mail order.

There is a definate implicaiton as to what he does with them, which is not much different ot his model. Granted he is not unzipping his trousers but the sub text is not much different?

So your saying Jabba raped Leia?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Delephont wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

I actually find this part of your post quite funny.

And that speaks volumes...

No, it doesn't. What it means is I find it amusing that you use so obvious a tactic to illicit support for your negativity for this piece. I find it interesting that you extract that part of my post but fail to comment on the rest of the post, probably because it trampled all over your argument and took you to a place where you have to face your hypocrisy regarding what should or should not be offensive in wargaming.

The bottom line in my post (and you know it), is if you show anyone any form of violence that they have had the misfortune to be subjected to, it will be a cause of offense for them....who knew? That your heart bleeds for rape victims, but somehow you manage to not bat an eyelid at every other victim of violence that happens to be glorified in your hobby....really speaks volumes about you sir.

Oh....

This topic again.

That Diorama was borderline brilliant,but in the context of a gaming venue would probibly be designated Adults Only.Maybe you forgot the funny little diddy in the GK codex about the GreyKnights first date with the sisters of battle? How did that end again?

To take it to this sort of browbeating over a ten minute " Oh, wow, thats kina.... wierd." that happened the last time we saw that diorama.

40k is a dangerous game. always has been. they started back in the old days, put on the kid gloves in 2d edition, slipped back to the darkside with the introduction of the Dark Eldar, and continued to go south through the consecutive editions.

As much as I've seen in ten years?

Rape, mutilation, slavery, defilement and anything else that you could pull out doesn't impress me anymore.

To the OP? Go read Heavy Metal, Old WD's, Old School D and D, or look over some Frank Franzetta, Antonio Vargas, Olivia De Berardinis, Rob Zombie, H.R. Gieger, Hieronymus Bosch, etc, etc, etc...

Fantasy Pin Up is part in parcel of the scifi/ fantasy hobbies, either in pin up,feminine empowerment, exploitation, " Grind house" or any other sub genere that we get out of the humanities aspect of "The Hobby". Remember, 90-100% of the scifi fantasy is reworked, or a variation on a theme. Some games come from movies, some from stories, some still others are works with lives of thier own that come in all different mediums.

It doesn't really have much to do with nekked ladies, but more to the topic of pushing boundaries, and entering new ground- where ever, and whatever that leads the viewer.

We're talking a fantasy- IE not real. Your mind pushes the envelope, and the artistic takes over.


It is what it is.

Some people monkey spank off on it, others, just take it as a conversation, still others get a rise out of it and beat thier chests in indignation.

Thats what it is for. Its Art. Enjoy it, or not.

@ Grot 6

Well said.

People bitch and moan about saying oh it can't be considered art because it's nudity/rape. I got news for you fellas, take a tour of any notable art museum and you are bound to find nudity and even scenes depicting rape that people don't seem to have a problem with taking and showing their kids to show them what it means to be "refined."

If it's well done and not utterly ridiculous, hell do what you want. That Eldar rape scene was very well done and I will agree that the disturbing feeling it gives some of you is very appropriate as this is a real life issue in all militaries. Hell, could be worse, could be post rape and cutting off her breasts which has and does happen most notably in conflict ravaged Africa.

I don't really get nude models either, but I also don't get smart cars, Joe Biden, pet rocks or why people would smoke. Maybe I'm just a nutter.

As for that eldar rape diorama, obviously it was very well painted, but the only reason I could imagine someone would actually spend a lot of time making something like that would be to troll the wargaming universe, which he has indeed done. Good for him. Bravo.

Delephont wrote:@ Grot 6

Well said.

Seconded. Some of the very first Citadel miniatures depicted a torture chamber full of nude women. Game value zero but collectability/value is way up.
I use a Reaper Egyptian priestess to represent Khalida in my TK army. Topless. Every opponent who has seen it so far has picked it up for closer examination with a big grin on their face while doing so.

As far as the diorama is concerned, I think there are better topics to build dioramas of but this one could have been much worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tim the Biovore wrote:I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.

I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.

And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.

The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.

Polonius wrote:This post sums up my thoughts very nicely. I agree 100%.

QFT x2

I have been extrememely impressed by the quality of the discussion, here, and commend all. Bravo, seriously, on the mature and thoughtful discussion so far. May it remain so.

OK, so that said, please may we stay focused on the topic. Imma jump in.

The Eldar rape scene bothers me technically because the female is too clean and bright, yet static. Makes it really seem more like a fantasy porno than an attempt at true depiction of the brutalities of war. And that, to me, is the difference.

The visual is broken because of the contrast- she is just too damn clean. The gun holder, the only real physical threat/restraint, is too far away... We all know IG Flashlights are harmless. That is just a spotlight so she glows (JOKE! OK back to srs bsns, but still, if you were about to be raped wouldn't you run if that were all holding you back?). There is no real restraint on her fleeing or fighting back.

It would actually show the brutalities of war and rape if she were held down by the gang, bruised, bloody, broken, as her assailant casually unbuckles his pants. I would absolutely defend that as the dark side, you wanna think about a world of endless war, it means this, too. It is not pretty. It is not sexy. It is horrific. THIS is not that. The clean shining female demurely fluttering her hand to nearly , but ooooh, not quite, cover her breasts, is fantasy- in a bad way. And silly. All this leads it to conclusion it is porn, i.e. rape fantasy, not commentary on horror or reality.

So I guess I'm dismayed at the those who call it a depiction of wartime horrors when it is obviously fantasy - and this statement is true on so many levels; i.e. 40k vs. real world war, clean vs. dirty, alien vs. human, sex vs. rape, etc. Goes back to my QFTx2 above - no real need for it, this is not real war.

Anyway, back to the discussion prior. Rape fantasy has its place, as does any sort of consensual behavior where both enjoy or voluntarily engage, no judgement at all. But it is completely inappropriate to equate rape fantasy and sex games with real world rape- which is about power and subjugation, not sex. You just can't justify rape fantasy as real world depiction of rape. It is like discussing the difference between cold and flu, or manslaughter and homicide, gorram mindblank there are probably a million other similes I cant think of right now.

I honestly am not trying to offend anyone, and am not attacking, I hope is clear. I just really want to clarify what I see. All depictions of rape are not valid as illustrative of the horror of the ultimate loss of power and agency, humiliation, and degradation that rape is for women (or any victim for that matter). I do not think it should be censored, but simply understood for what it is: A different, naughty, potential rape fantasy. It is NOT a depiction of the horrors of rape or war. Think about it...

If it were a clean, shining male Eldar with bare bum, or hey, lets say half nude little boy or girl, would it still be defended as depiction of the horrors of war and rape as well? Would it be more or less offensive? Why? Why is it different when it is an adult female?

Yes, I can absolutely appreciate the work and storytelling involved in the piece. Is it technically astounding, yes no doubt. Is it different? Absolutely. But I think attributing more to it than an attempt to shock and titillate is stretching. I applaud it for telling a different side, as well as execution. But it is a soft porn, Playboy letters to the editor, no more. In no way does it depict the brutalities of war or rape or anything else except a "What if" scenario... Bow chicka wow wow.

anyway, OT, LOL... I have several nude to nearly nude minis. Why? Because of the challenge and the beautiful sculpting is inspiring. A tastefully executed nearly nude figure is pleasing to behold. that is why we paint these things, right? Attributing moral and ethical attributes to something interesting is inappropriate. Does it please me to look upon? Yes. Shall I attempt to make it more pleasing by painting it? Yes. Does it get me off or say anything about anything? No.