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.

Don't worry I will not post it because:

1) you advice me not to even without knowing what I was to post
2) I really dont have the energies to explain my personal beiefs towards my choices to a board of people that go from polite and tolerant to the oposite
3) I rather spend time sculpting and painting those minis some of you are so offended by
4) Ill be the judge of my own choices thank you sir

Would you enter a debate of judging people's tastes? I would not go there and just assume everyone's different and its all good.

NAVARRO wrote:Don't worry I will not post it because:

1) you advice me not to even without knowing what I was to post

I just said not to post if you're going to post male models who you believe are being sexually objectified. That's pretty off-topic.

NAVARRO wrote:2) I really dont have the energies to explain my personal beiefs towards my choices to a board of people that go from polite and tolerant to the oposite

Just ignore them. That's what I'd do. Once you've posted models that suit your tastes, you shouldn't feel the need to explain yourself. Let them comment, but don't let them get to you. You post, they respond, then just leave it there. That would work fine.

NAVARRO wrote:3) I rather spend time sculpting and painting those minis some of you are so offended by
4) Ill be the judge of my own choices thank you sir

Would you enter a debate of judging people's tastes? I would not go there and just assume everyone's different and its all good.

Hey, your choice. It makes sense to focus on what you like doing. Don't worry about ifs and buts if you do want to post more models here. Just so long as you think they fit the theme of this thread.

well I thought about it, then thought what the heck. Whats the worst that could happen, I'd be 'wrong' on the internet.

All the following I would class on not-objectified, due to look, personalty in the model and other factors.

Will put them in a spoiler to save folks with slower connections.

Off topic i know, but some of these smaller mini companies really need to hire better painters for their photos, some of them are pretty poor and it doesn't show the sculpt off in the best light.

$20-30 for a decent paint job would pay for itself in increased sales id have thought?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pumpkin wrote:

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.

Pumpkin has been very respectful of people who have different views and hasn't been attacking models and sculptors like some others in previous posts, thats one of the main reasons i have no problem with this topic.

Skippy wrote:Pumpkin has been very respectful of people who have different views and hasn't been attacking models and sculptors like some others in previous posts, thats one of the main reasons i have no problem with this topic.

I'm not sure I agree:

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.

I wouldn't say accusing people who don't post exactly what pumpkin wants of "living to destroy" as being very respectful at all.

JOHIRA wrote:

I wouldn't say accusing people who don't post exactly what pumpkin wants of "living to destroy" as being very respectful at all.

I wrote a reply to this on "whats the point of being wound up at somebody over the internet, just press back on your broser" then i realised i was being a hypocrite



On topic, i think there are some really nice minis that have been posted that could actually make an army more mixed rather than 95% male in composition, while still being grimdark and in theme.

They're just so sexual! LOL

Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic. There is a difference between being able to see that somebody has breasts, and somebody wearing 'armor' that does nothing except cover their naughty bits.

Like here

Clearly female, and I don't need to see any cleavage to know it.

AtariAssasin wrote:Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic.

Ah, but again, you're making judgements on miniatures (and the people who buy them) based on a principle I reject. A mini is not "strong" simply because it shows very little skin. Simply because a mini depicts female sexuality does not mean it was designed solely to appeal to males, nor does a mini depicting female sexuality that does appeal to males mean the appeal comes exclusively from the depiction of sexuality. You're passing pretty sweeping judgements with these claims, and then trying to silence anyone who disagrees with your sweeping judgements by accusing them of being "intentionally argumentative". No, I'm not being intentionally argumentative. You are insulting me, and demanding I not respond. That does not fly.

JOHIRA wrote:

AtariAssasin wrote:Look guys, there is a difference between stating your opinion and being intentionally argumentative. The point of this was ultimately just to try and show off strong minis that didn't fall into being sexualized just to appeal to a male demographic.

Ah, but again, you're making judgements on miniatures (and the people who buy them) based on a principle I reject. A mini is not "strong" simply because it shows very little skin. Simply because a mini depicts female sexuality does not mean it was designed solely to appeal to males, nor does a mini depicting female sexuality that does appeal to males mean the appeal comes exclusively from the depiction of sexuality. You're passing pretty sweeping judgements with these claims, and then trying to silence anyone who disagrees with your sweeping judgements by accusing them of being "intentionally argumentative". No, I'm not being intentionally argumentative. You are insulting me, and demanding I not respond. That does not fly.

I agree with Johira, at least in the part concerning the own minis.

All I am trying to say is that the original point of this topic was not to argue the definition of what is or is not objectified. Since we were never given a specific guideline to follow as to what the poster thought fit into this topic, we therefore have to use our own judgements and that leaves a wide opening for us to argue about what applies. However, coninually forcing an argument instead of getting behind the spirit of the thread isn't helping. If you don't want to post some pictures, you don't have to... but why continue to argue? I'll bow out after this, I didn't want to fan the flames, I was just trying to suggest that we maybe refocus our energies...

AtariAssasin wrote:All I am trying to say is that the original point of this topic was not to argue the definition of what is or is not objectified. Since we were never given a specific guideline to follow as to what the poster thought fit into this topic, we therefore have to use our own judgements and that leaves a wide opening for us to argue about what applies. However, coninually forcing an argument instead of getting behind the spirit of the thread isn't helping. If you don't want to post some pictures, you don't have to... but why continue to argue? I'll bow out after this, I didn't want to fan the flames, I was just trying to suggest that we maybe refocus our energies...

Ive been interested in the differences between the minis posted by different people, it shows what a massive gulf in opinion there is about whats acceptable and whats not.

Personally, I would decide if a model was "objectified" based on whether it looked like it was designed with "looking sexy" in mind.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:Personally, I would decide if a model was "objectified" based on whether it looked like it was designed with "looking sexy" in mind.

My personal preference is to have models that look like they're actually ready for battle, not posing for a glamour shoot. Infinity, which I'm thinking of getting into, has a boatload of "pin-up pose" women (and robots). Fortunately, the Japanese Sectorial Army, which I'm especially interested in (hell yes, "Akira" bikers!), avoids those sorts of models almost entirely, which is very handy. Apart from the utterly bizarre Karakuri sex-bots, the Japanese Sectorial's women are pretty awesome: posed like they're ready for battle and dressed appropriately (apart from the odd bit of "boob armour" and boots with built-in heels, which are both understated and easily overlooked). Good stuff.

While we're on that subject, Lelith Hesperax is a fantastic model. She obviously was designed to look sexy, but in a good way. Her appearance genuinely fits her background, she has appropriate musculature (at least for a Dark Eldar warrior), and she looks like she's about to cave your goddamned face in. Poses get overlooked so often, but they're so very, very important for characterisation. I would take a scantily clad ass-kicker over a fully clothed "tee-hee! I'm posing with a gun!" pin-up dollie any day of the week. ...Of course, it would be nice if most of my ass-kickers were also fully dressed, too!

Less text, more pics!

Looking at some of these minis makes me wish I could paint.

Alrighty, then! I was being a bit lazy.

These models are all from Infinity's Yu Jing range. Specifically, ones you'd be using in a Japanese Sectorial Army (Sectorial Armies limit your troop choices within a faction, in a flavourful way, but allow you to take more of any rare troops which fall under your Sector, and there's also some other special bonuses or something).

Biker on the right is female:-




Female, male, female, male:-














Yes, there is some minor degree of silliness on some of these models: namely boob armour and built-in high heels. But, as I said before, that stuff is really quite subtle. The boob armour is about as tasteful as it can get, and you'd actually have to be looking carefully to notice the heels. Both are silly in the context of a military unit (I shouldn't need to explain the heels to anyone, but if anyone's scratching their heads over my aversion to boob armour, check out this awesome article, Section 4 in particular), but both are either easily overlooked, or perhaps even embraced for their quirky stylishness. Apart from those minor quibbles, this stuff is pretty darned fab.

Pumpkin wrote:
this awesome article

This is the best. Article. Ever. Seriously.

As for pics... this one may be controversial, but let me explain:




Seraphine Le Roux, by Studio McVey.

She is not a sex object. She is goddess as snake, she is lady luck, she is voodoo priestess. She is sexy, yes, but sex is just part of who she is. Her face says it all - desire me if you will, for luck, for blessings, for sex, but at your peril. Do so and I may bless you with your every desire, or curse you with despair.

To me this mini is one of the better example of a sexy female mini that is more than just a sex object.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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).

What model is that?

And does reaper mini get sold in the UK?

found it http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/female/sku-down/30004

So does this mean I can start a thread of tastless female models? This is just a flame bait thread, imo, but in the interests of civil discourse, I am going to assume the OP is talking about female models with no exposed flesh that cannot in any way seem sexually apealing. A hobby Burka if you will...

GW has a fair number of those, the best example being the Sisters of Sigmar from the Mordhiem range and the numerous Brettonian female models. Their general aversion to boobs has pretty much meant that they have made very few female models in the last few years, even for armies that should have fighting women in them, like Warriors of Chaos or Imperial Guard. Outside of GW, Reaper has a fair amount of conservatively attired women, mostly in their legends range. Everywhere else its a crapshoot, because sex sells and attractive women kicking butt in cheasecake outfits has been a staple of the genre since the first Conan novels. If tasteful nudity is acceptable, then Shadowforge has a ton of stuff, especially historics.

Phazael wrote:So does this mean I can start a thread of tastless female models? This is just a flame bait thread, imo, but in the interests of civil discourse, I am going to assume the OP is talking about female models with no exposed flesh that cannot in any way seem sexually apealing. A hobby Burka if you will...

Do whatever you want. I don't see why this thread has to be flame bait: different people have different tastes. Also, there is a gigantic range of clothing in between a chainmail bikini and a burka. I have no idea why anyone, designers and sculptors included, should feel that only these two binary states exist.

I've trimmed a few off-topic posts.

It is within the purview of a thread's creator to set the topic. That's not to say that discussion is not permitted, but if a general topic has been established, then posts deliberately outside those bounds will be violations of the Dakka rules.

Yes, this topic is an inherently subjective one, and different people's standards will differ. But I think we can all make reasonable judgments about the general kind of thing that's being sought here. Nice female models which either a) don't show off sexual attributes, or b) only incidentally do so, as opposed to being primarily 3D pin-up girls. Yes, different people will draw the line different places, and that's okay.

I appreciate folks' efforts to keep the discussion on-topic and polite.

Alrighty! Thanks again, Mannahnin!