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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Sexism is discrimination. This is not discrimination. If a testosterone-fueled male is biologically attracted to big breasts and a big butt, then what's wrong with that? This is yet another attack on the male sex drive.

It's wrong because it is the ONLY image of women the hobby offers.

I'm sure you've heard people talk about Infinity before. Sure, they have some Cheesecake models, but they have a healthy amount of good female models. They just seem to have a fascination with bare midriffs.

 Melissia wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Strawman, I never said that.

Yes you did.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
If a testosterone-fueled male is biologically attracted to big breasts and a big butt, then what's wrong with that? This is yet another attack on the male sex drive.

Right here.

But then again, I don't agree with your definition of what makes a man.

The pertinent part is the "be the only place for women". I never insinuated that sexy women should be the only place for women in the hobby, but there is a place for them alongside well dressed females like Loki posted above.

Also of course you'd disagree, you aren't a man.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
The ONLY? You sure you want to go there? Because when you start putting out words like that, it gets much easier to prove you wrong.

Oh FFS, do you really need to go straight to nitpicking? Yes there are occasional female characters/models that aren't defined by sex appeal, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are, or that a loud and obnoxious element of the community wants them to stay that way.

Also anecdotes aren't going to get you anywhere because I'm sure that at least one person is sexually attracted to one of the models.

The point is that your "it's all about biology, that's just what men want" argument is ridiculous. Since not all men are sexually attracted to that image it's not some universal "law of being a man" that you want them instead of being a personal preference that some men have.

Strawman, I never said that. I said that if men purchase it because it is attractive to them, then that's that. And like it or not, the women (at least in the art) are designed to be attractive to men. You may not like it but the numbers don't lie, many others do.

You did say that. You said that men are being attacked for being men. You very clearly defined "liking and buying X art" as an inherent part of "being a man", such that an attack on the former is also an attack on the latter.

Seriously.

Well, at least you're honest about having no credibility.

 Somedude593 wrote:
if that were true there would be no crime

A strawman. The overwhelming majority of people aren't sociopaths.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Also of course you'd disagree, you aren't a man.

Apparently, that just gives me a better perspective, because I have a higher opinion of men than you do.

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
if that were true there would be no crime

A strawman. The overwhelming majority of people aren't sociopaths.

you dont have to be a sociopath to commit a crime... you are putting up the strawman

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
The ONLY? You sure you want to go there? Because when you start putting out words like that, it gets much easier to prove you wrong.

Oh FFS, do you really need to go straight to nitpicking? Yes there are occasional female characters/models that aren't defined by sex appeal, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are, or that a loud and obnoxious element of the community wants them to stay that way.

If you can't stand my nitpicking then don't make all-encompassing statements, especially when they are easily disproved.

Also after what just happened, do you really want to get into the whole "loud and obnoxious element of the community wanting them to stay that way"? Because we all both know that it's not going to end well...for you.

Also anecdotes aren't going to get you anywhere because I'm sure that at least one person is sexually attracted to one of the models.

The point is that your "it's all about biology, that's just what men want" argument is ridiculous. Since not all men are sexually attracted to that image it's not some universal "law of being a man" that you want them instead of being a personal preference that some men have.

However, they were designed to be traditionally attractive, in the sense that they have the typical structure associated with fertility. Aka large hips, breasts, butt, and legs. If you don't find them attractive that's that, but they do have the traditional fertility features.

Strawman, I never said that. I said that if men purchase it because it is attractive to them, then that's that. And like it or not, the women (at least in the art) are designed to be attractive to men. You may not like it but the numbers don't lie, many others do.

You did say that. You said that men are being attacked for being men. You very clearly defined "liking and buying X art" as an inherent part of "being a man", such that an attack on the former is also an attack on the latter.

I replied to this for Melissia who called me out, but I was referencing the portion of text referring to men desiring sex objects as the ONLY part of the hobby.

Seriously.

Well, at least you're honest about having no credibility.

Says the guy who backs down from his own statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Apparently, that just gives me a better perspective, because I have a higher opinion of men than you do.

Except that it doesn't, nice try though. You want to prove that you have a higher opinion of men than I do or will you just conveniently ignore this?

 Somedude593 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Somedude593 wrote:
if that were true there would be no crime

A strawman. The overwhelming majority of people aren't sociopaths.

you dont have to be a sociopath to commit a crime... you are putting up the strawman

No, I'm not. The lack of empathy required to commit the most heinous of crimes almost guarantees that the person committing them is, at some level, a sociopath. Thievery might be driven by need in a dire situation, but it takes a certain kind of person to do something like this, and even amongst criminal acts, such things are rare and exceptional.

The fact remains, you were using a strawman argument. A small portion of the population commits crimes, and an even smaller one commits heinous crimes, but neither of those samples imply that the entire population is the exact same.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Except that it doesn't, nice try though.

You believe men are animals driven by nothing more than base instincts regarding lust, I believe men are intelligent, rational people, and that the sex drive is only a single part of the human psyche, one that many people, both male and female, ignore all the time for the sake of more important things.

And before you start incoherently babbling about "feminazi" again, there's nothing inherently wrong with the occasional fanservice in a medium, but that does not excuse the idea that fanservice is all that the audience wants.

There are plenty of different options for people who do not want cheese cake miniatures. If you want them seek them out.

They tend to be in the minority because that isn't what sells. You can see the exact same thing in real life - yesterday they had the Golden Globes here in the US. They didn't talk about the dresses which were modest and showed a persons intellect - they talked about and showed the women who wore dresses which showed everything...or nearly so. Even in women's magazines - you find women being shown in ways which are not much different than the miniatures which are being criticized.

If you guys want to fix what you perceive is wrong - I would suggest starting there as opposed to here. Reaper has a hundred or so of them. 7TV has several as well. Play Battletech - no boobies there.

Please don't even mention women's magazines. Absolute trash.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
There are plenty of different options for people who do not want cheese cake miniatures.

No, not really. There's very few examples of models that might be useable for an Imperial Guard infantrywoman, for example. Almost none of them are for sale-- most are custom-converted. And this is just to reproduce something that exists in real life, to boot. Most fantasy models used for games such as DnD are cheese-cake, too, this despite the fact that women go in to roleplaying games at a much higher rate than they do wargaming.

"It's what sells" isn't accurate when you haven't even bothered to try anything else.

 Melissia wrote:

Except that it doesn't, nice try though.

You believe men are animals driven by nothing more than base instincts regarding lust, I believe men are intelligent, rational people, and that the sex drive is only a single part of the human psyche, one that many people, both male and female, ignore all the time for the sake of more important things.

That's funny, because I also believe that men are more logical, intelligent and rational. Of course when you try to hamfist one thing I said into my entire belief system regarding men, I can't say that I'd be surprised by the outcome, which by the way I'm not. But that's what you get when you jump to conclusions.

And before you start incoherently babbling about "feminazi" again, there's nothing inherently wrong with the occasional fanservice in a medium, but that does not excuse the idea that fanservice is all that the audience wants.

So it was one kickstarter that got your panties in a knot? Also here we go again in the inclusive word "all". I'm sure that some people for the Kingdom Death starter were legitimately interested in the game, and they happened to get a few of the pinups on the side. Is there anything wrong with that? You can't just throw around words like "all people" and expect that to stick.

 Melissia wrote:
"It's what sells" isn't accurate when you haven't even bothered to try anything else.

Reaper...over 100 of them. They don't sell.

That is why while they have over 100 non-cheese cake females, they also happen to have about the same number who are wearing nothing at all...not to mention all the ones who are actually wearing chain mail bikinis.

While the non-cheese cake guardsmen are harder to find - they are not impossible to find. CHS does some. Tinbits had some nice ones...they are no longer in business though. Most of Copplestone's female troopers are non-cheese cake (though a couple of them are wearing shirts as opposed to flak jackets).

Granted, when it is something that I feel that strongly about...I tend to do something about it. You can arrange for custom figures to be sculpted for a couple hundred a pop and casting can be handled by a contract company easily enough. If you think there is a market - it should be a sure thing.

I had this discussion rather recently in context of actual professional planning in the industry.

Here is the issue, there is always clamoring for female models, and saying it is extremely easy. 'I want respectful, non-exagerated female models'. There, I just said it. Easy!

The problem is execution.

What makes a model female? Really? Hairstyle, boobs, hips. That isn't sexist, it is simply the reality that sexual characteristics physically differentiate the genders. It's inescapable.

So, if you take the realistic angle, and shove a woman in combat fatigues, which are typically fairly formless and covered in pouches and stuff... what do you do? Most women are not endowed with boobs so big that they would show through a kevlar vest or a chest plate, so boobs disappear. Then what about hips? All those lovely pouches and cantines tend to get in the way. Then what? Hair? Is she going to have a pixie cut? Or, if we are sticking to realism, isn't it more likely to be in a bun or shaved and under a helmet?

So what are you left with to make it look like a woman? The model may have a sligtly slimmer sillouette, but thats about it. Honestly speaking, if you are realistic, you should barely be able to tell. Period.

This assumes a warrior scenario, I am sure you could do a woman in a tasteful pant suit with no issue, but lets face it this is not the typical setting we are going for.

Then on the other hand, can you do a warrior woman respectfully and still have it actually look like a woman? Sort of. Mcvey does this fairly well in some instances, although he semi cheats by putting his heroine in a tank top or some other unconventional battle dress that lets you notice their sexual attributes (boobahs) and gives them hairstyles not suited to war.

That's kinda the trick of it... you have to show some skin at a certain point, or the form of the body. Even the sisters, commonly regarded as fairly respectful, have form fitting power armor emphasizing their female curves and hairstyles that although are slightly severe, still feminine. They still have corsets on guys lets be honest.

So, being honest, the reason you don't see lots of 'respectable' female warrior forces on the table is not necessarily some prevalent but aggressive undercurrent of woman hating... it is simply that obviously female + what we have come to expect of serious warrior garb, modern or sci-fi, simply does not work. The result of that equation is not feminine at all.

No one to blame here really, but the idea that it is eminently doable but no one is interested or has thought about it or tried is patently false.

The other, secondary question is, is it wrong to glorify the femininity of women in model form, if we accept that feminine physical features are by definition sexual? To me, it's a murky question. I don't find Renaissance works like 'Venus' to be disrespectful of women, even if it could be seen that way as she is nude.

I find kingdom of death minis quite beautifully sculpted, but I do find that they could be interpreted as offensive due to the design of the ... bikinis. But still beautiful models. The soda pop stuff is borderline porn in the poses, again, I can see why some would be offended.

But at the end of the day it pre-supposes that it should be offensive to appreciate the female form.

I ask you, even in media targetted at women, by women, is it ok to do this? Is it offensive to buy a copy of Elle or Vogue? Cause guess what there is quite a bit of nudity and really attractive women in there too. And that is by women for women.

So my second point would be there shouldn't be anything offensive about glorifying a beautiful woman, as we have all been doing so, men and women, for a very, very long time.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
If you can't stand my nitpicking then don't make all-encompassing statements, especially when they are easily disproved.

Or you could just not nitpick and address the substance of the comment instead of whether it's technically "all" or if we need to refer to "the overwhelming majority" instead.

Also after what just happened, do you really want to get into the whole "loud and obnoxious element of the community wanting them to stay that way"? Because we all both know that it's not going to end well...for you.

Sorry, but remind me again who it was that started off with calling people "feminiazis"?

However, they were designed to be traditionally attractive, in the sense that they have the typical structure associated with fertility. Aka large hips, breasts, butt, and legs. If you don't find them attractive that's that, but they do have the traditional fertility features.

Of course they were designed to be attractive. The point is that this attractiveness is not some inherent thing about being a man, it's just a popular image. Your "but biology!" argument is nonsense.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
So it was one kickstarter that got your panties in a knot? Also here we go again in the inclusive word "all". I'm sure that some people for the Kingdom Death starter were legitimately interested in the game, and they happened to get a few of the pinups on the side. Is there anything wrong with that? You can't just throw around words like "all people" and expect that to stick.

You're missing the point. If the KD kickstarter was one example of women as sex objects in a hobby full of awesome non-sex-object female characters and models there wouldn't be a problem. The issue here is that their models are representative of a larger trend of sexism in the hobby, where the default customer is a man and women are excluded.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Reaper...over 100 of them. They don't sell.

Which just highlights the sexism problem. The customers, as a whole, want women as porn, not legitimate characters. This is a problem.

Granted, when it is something that I feel that strongly about...I tend to do something about it. You can arrange for custom figures to be sculpted for a couple hundred a pop and casting can be handled by a contract company easily enough. If you think there is a market - it should be a sure thing.

That's missing the point. Companies releasing the products that sell best is just a symptom of the problem. The larger issue is the attitudes of the community, and commissioning some custom figures doesn't do anything to address that larger issue.

Yes - the "Venus de Milo" and the "Birth of Venus" (or any other classical sculpture or painting) are "porn".

 MajorTom11 wrote:
What makes a model female? Really? Hairstyle, boobs, hips. That isn't sexist, it is simply the reality that sexual characteristics physically differentiate the genders. It's inescapable.

What makes a model male? And why is the default that a model is male unless a specific and obvious effort is made to define it as female?

Honestly speaking, if you are realistic, you should barely be able to tell. Period.

Then start with the fluff. Release a model for a female character, and clearly define her as a woman on the fluff page in the codex. Even if the model isn't clearly a woman just by looking at it from across the table every time you use or talk about the character you'll be using "she" and "her" and making it clear that it is a woman.

But at the end of the day it pre-supposes that it should be offensive to appreciate the female form.

No, it doesn't do that at all. Appreciating the female form is fine. The problem is when it's almost universal that a female character is there to be appreciated for her form, while male characters are there because you want to BE that character. It's offensive because it pushes away women as potential members of the community, since there are few characters they can identify with and an obvious attitude (helped in large part by the community) that women are there to be pretty.

So my second point would be there shouldn't be anything offensive about glorifying a beautiful woman, as we have all been doing so, men and women, for a very, very long time.

That's not really true. Men and women are glorified, but in entirely different ways. Women are glorified as something to look at, while men are glorified as someone to BE. In both cases it's being done from a male perspective of what is "glorious".

Major Tom: I actually would prefer to have "not obviously female" miniatures over ones which are "obviously female"; if I had to choose between putting a guardswoman in fatigues or putting her in a skirt, I'd choose the former over the latter without exception.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Reaper [...] have over 100 non-cheese cake females

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly I have considered some of Reapers miniatures to represent DnD characters, but I was not impressed by their overall offering the last time I looked, and I spent practically all day looking. Someone who is much more casual about it would probably stop looking after the first couple pages of miniatures.

Looking through the female models in the sci-fi category, I can count the number which are not cheesecake on one hand. The posing is almost uniformly terrible, and they seem confused on how to sculpt breasts that aren't behind apparently overly-tight fabric, often with erect nipples poking out, and very short pleated skirts (wait, isn't this supposed to be sci-fi?). And there's very few of them, but I can hardly blame them there I suppose, Reaper does fantasy mostly.

Their fantasy selection is a bit better, what with them apparently understanding how to sculpt fantasy armor where they're incapable of sculpting a woman in sci-fi armor, but even then, there's more fanservice with lovingly sculpted cleavage and buttocks than there are usable miniatures.

For every warrior such as "Oriana: Grey Maiden" who are given both a good pose and are competently designed, there's quite a few that are closer to "Lorna the Huntress", whom are both almost naked and posed to try to maximize how apparent this fact is. For each spellcaster like "Sharyn, Female Wizard" who look the part (no pointy hat makes me sad though, but eh, ymmv), there's probably four or five who are more like "Dragon Summoner", chainmail bikini and all, highly sexualized poses, etc.

And then there are the models that are just plain bad, but I'm sure I probably have a bit too high of a standard on that (I also think plenty of GW and Infinity models are just plain bad, as well, FWIW). So pardon me for not taking Reaper in to account, but they're... a mixed bag, at best.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
There is a difference - one is illegal...the other is not..

Actually, in many places it isn't legal, and can be constituted as a verbal assault that can get you fined.

But that's not really relevant-- why should mere legality define morality? Something being legal doesn't make it right or wrong.

While I know some people will spaz out and invoke Godwin's Law, you should note most everything Hitler did was perfectly legal as per the laws of the country. If Legality = Morality, that makes his actions moral. Same with Stalin's massacres as well, and indeed most government oppression such as slavery.

Even though all of these things were morally wrong, they were frequently LEGAL.

It is important because we live in a nation of laws. These laws can change, and by all means seek to change what you feel is not just, but it does not change the fact that we live in a society that holds everyone equal before a set of rules that we (the people) have ostensibly agreed to.

Laws, like any set of rules, is imperfect by nature because they exist to a large degree in the abstract, i.e. without consideration of the specific facts to which the law will be applied. This is quite out of necessity because one cannot make a rule for every set of facts,

Now, as to your other point, our systems of governance are generally based on a single principle: the protection of personal property. The rights of every individual necessarily stop at the rights of another individual, with the ideal being that each individual's rights extend as far as it is possible to go while guaranteeing equal protection. Thus, I may have freedom of religion, but my freedom of religion stops at your right to the property in your own person. Thus I cannot murder you in the practice of my religion, even though I should be free to practice my religion. That is a hyperbolic example used to make my point clear.

Now, this is far afield from the current discussion. To make an on topic comment I will say that wargaming is a rather gendered activity. One can argue about the appropriateness of gender roles, but this does not change the fact that, according to perceptions of gender roles prevalent within the dominant society, wargaming is a very masculine activity. Wargaming principally concerns themes of conflict and violence. In this way it is a very masculine activity. One can easily argue that a wargaming identity is often a subordinated form of masculinity, if one were keen on the concept of the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities.

Thus one finds that there is a perception, and here I emphasize perception for it does not always match up with reality, that wargaming is a predominantly male activity. Therefore I am not surprised by the high volume of interest among miniature gamers for so-called "cheese cake" aesthetics, especially if once considers wargaming to be a subordinated identity. Sexualization of the female can be a means to assert dominance and possession, so it can be used to not only assert the hegemony of ones masculine identity vis a vis the female, but also one's hegemony vis a vis other males.

People are also on a big retro kick nowadays.

I've 30+ years old been make been into moel since I was 9, I have tons of models, I don't looked at the any figure as a sexal thing. I always wonder the peope pushing the sexism angle, never think there the one with a problem, becouse they even think it in the first place. It never crossed mt mind, why dose it so fill there minds.

weeble1000 wrote:
To make an on topic comment I will say that wargaming is a rather gendered activity. One can argue about the appropriateness of gender roles, but this does not change the fact that, according to perceptions of gender roles prevalent within the dominant society, wargaming is a very masculine activity. Wargaming principally concerns themes of conflict and violence. In this way it is a very masculine activity. One can easily argue that a wargaming identity is often a subordinated form of masculinity, if one were keen on the concept of the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities.

But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wargaming is perceived as a male activity, therefore the wargaming industry and community treat it as a male activity and do things that push women away, and therefore wargaming continues to be a male activity. There's nothing inherent about wargaming that makes it inappropriate for women. The same was said about RPGs and video games, and yet somehow both of these manage to have decent numbers of women participating. So why is wargaming somehow special? Even if the "natural" ratio would be, for example, 70/30 that's still a substantial female audience being driven away by the actions of the community and industry.

And of course none of this changes the fact that a problem exists.

Ok, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I'm not really sure why you posted in an argumentative fashion though peregrine, I certainly don't really see anything offensive in my post.

I'll make a few broad comments in response but I will leave it at that afterwards.

1. To your what makes a model male comment, I'm really surprised you went there actually! The default assumption in wargaming is that the model will be male, thats not really up for debate, it is demonstrable fact... I am surprised you even raised it as a question. When you see combat armor and power armor, the assumption is the model is male. When you see a viking you assume the model is male. The onus is not equal in this venue, in fact, the level of automatic assumption of maleness both in the medium and subject matter in general of warriors means you have to go to extra effort to 'call out' a female.

2. People are clamoring for female models, not female fluff with unidentifiably female models. That is what the discussion is about unless I am mistaken?

3. Again, you are very black and white here. I don't think everyone wants to be every single male model out there. I haven't ever looked in the mirror and said damn, I wish Yarrick was looking back at me lol. You are very much in denial if you think that male models are not also there to be appreciated for their form alone too for a great many people. Sure, there are a few rock-stars... but it's like saying I wanted to be every storm trooper in star wars. I didn't. Sometimes, males are just dudes in cool armor. Not every single model is representative of some devastating and deep psychological envy.

Similarly in your last called out point is the idea that all men are glorified as something to be and women are glorified to look at only. It is extremely male centric to not realize that as far as pretty people go, the same is also true in reverse when a female sees an attractive pretty-boy and attractive pretty-girls in a magazine. We all want to be idealized versions of ourselves, I doubt many women are wishing they looked like brad pitt or whatnot lol. Maybe some lol, lord love em lol!.

I find your point of view a little fearful and not entirely realistic to be honest but as I said you are entitled to it and to expressing it. We obviously disagree, I don't find your logic stands up particularly well and you probably feel similarly about mine, so how about we leave it at that and let the thread continue? If you would like to respond one more time to me though that is completely fair as I rebutted. Just want to keep things moving along after I'm sure you understand.

Noir wrote:
I've 30+ years old been make been into moel since I was 9, I have tons of models, I don't looked at the any figure as a sexal thing. I always wonder the peope pushing the sexism angle, never think there the one with a problem, becouse they even think it in the first place. It never crossed mt mind, why dose it so fill there minds.

Seriously? Can you honestly look at a model like http://hazardousarts.deviantart.com/art/Kingdom-Death-White-Speaker-154774935 and tell me that you don't see how it could be a sexual thing?

Just buy Dreamforge if this is something that bothers you. Both male and female models have bun-tight armor

Noir wrote:
why dose it so fill there minds.

An unnecessary personal attack.

Just because there's a thread on the topic does not mean that everyone in it thinks about the topic all the time and that it occupies their every fething thought. Personally, I rarely actually think about this topic, except when I'm trying to shop for miniatures and there's no good miniatures to buy (which happens FAR more often than it should).

That you never noticed the problem does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
2. People are clamoring for female models

That does not necessarily mean we require "obviously female" or, to put it more accurately, "blatantly exaggerated female features".

Would you want to buy a marine that had a codpiece that resembled a set of aroused genitals? I am certain that ther are some who would, and hey, that's cool and all, but that doesn't mean you would want it, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Noir wrote:
I've 30+ years old been make been into moel since I was 9, I have tons of models, I don't looked at the any figure as a sexal thing. I always wonder the peope pushing the sexism angle, never think there the one with a problem, becouse they even think it in the first place. It never crossed mt mind, why dose it so fill there minds.

Seriously? Can you honestly look at a model like http://hazardousarts.deviantart.com/art/Kingdom-Death-White-Speaker-154774935 and tell me that you don't see how it could be a sexual thing?

I don't find it overly sexual either... the pose conveys confidence and business... she is not bent over presenting her cho-cha like some soda-pop stuff. That being said obviously she is pretty bloody scantily clad, but again, it comes down to does nudity = sexual every time?

For example, I don't find this to be sexual or offensive either...

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I don't find it overly sexual either... the pose conveys confidence and business... she is not bent over presenting her cho-cha like some soda-pop stuff. That being said obviously she is pretty bloody scantily clad, but again, it comes down to does nudity = sexual every time?

Actually, it'd be less sexual if she was nude....

 Melissia wrote:

Noir wrote:
why dose it so fill there minds.

An unnecessary personal attack.

Just because there's a thread on the topic does not mean that everyone in it thinks about the topic all the time and that it occupies their every fething thought. Personally, I rarely actually think about this topic, except when I'm trying to shop for miniatures and there's no good miniatures to buy (which happens FAR more often than it should).

That you never noticed the problem does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
2. People are clamoring for female models

That does not necessarily mean we require "obviously female" or, to put it more accurately, "blatantly exaggerated female features".

Would you want to buy a marine that had a codpiece that resembled a set of aroused genitals? I am certain that ther are some who would, and hey, that's cool and all, but that doesn't mean you would want it, right?

You are being a bit dramatic Melissia lol. I was not advocating one extreme or another, merely saying some concession to feminity and therefore female sexuality must be made in a female model to make it work. I am not sure if you agree here, but Studio Mcvey's Kara Black models are good examples of 'tasteful' non-overly feminized sculpts that are respectful and treat her as a warrior first and a woman second. But the concessions are still there, the overly pouty lips, high cheekbones, woman's haircut unblocked by a helmet, some pretty form fitting clothes... It's not some plain looking woman all covered up, it's still feminine and makes concessions to show it, but it works... do you agree?

 Peregrine wrote:

Noir wrote:
I've 30+ years old been make been into moel since I was 9, I have tons of models, I don't looked at the any figure as a sexal thing. I always wonder the peope pushing the sexism angle, never think there the one with a problem, becouse they even think it in the first place. It never crossed mt mind, why dose it so fill there minds.

Seriously? Can you honestly look at a model like http://hazardousarts.deviantart.com/art/Kingdom-Death-White-Speaker-154774935 and tell me that you don't see how it could be a sexual thing?

Maybe I just can't get it up for a toy, but I guess barbie was a sex doll before they brough to the U.S.A. So in sure thous poeple are out there. But, I call it a work of art like david, just no were near the level of Michelangelo's work.

Sean previously pointed out the single most definitive point on this;

But we have done some tests. Conversions on the same figure, and released under different part numbers and names have shown that an immodest figure will outsell a more modest version of the same exact figure. A topless version will sell a LOT more, and full nudity will sell even more.

Nevertheless, we try to use sensuality and nudity only where it is appropriate to the figure, for the character, the story, or the imagery. Obviously, Valloa would not be appropriate as a nude figure, for example.

We are at a golden moment in miniature gaming: the costs of entry into production have never been lower, the costs for even scaling up to national/international distribution are not only low, but due to the existence of kickstarter, it's possible for a single sculptor/creative to bring their idea to light.

So where are the "acceptable" female miniatures? Bombshell Miniatures was designed with this idea in mind, to produce respectful and non-stereotypical female models. And it made $140,000! But let's not kid ourselves, how many of the people that condemn KD would find Bombshell miniatures acceptable, let alone ideal?

To MajorTom11's point, the most amazing female miniature is about to hit the market, want to see it?


What's that? Not feminine enough? how about this?


It's doubtful there is any more realistic female mini out there, and in perfect illustration of MT11's point, in order to show that that's a woman, Ada is modeled wearing power armor... with no helmet.

Man or woman, anyone wearing realistic rigid armor would have their gender become indistinguishable.

 Melissia wrote:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I don't find it overly sexual either... the pose conveys confidence and business... she is not bent over presenting her cho-cha like some soda-pop stuff. That being said obviously she is pretty bloody scantily clad, but again, it comes down to does nudity = sexual every time?

Actually, it'd be less sexual if she was nude....

I dunno... look at the spartacus dudes... straps all over, a sword, bulging cod-piece... they aren't really attired all that differently. It's really a matter of perspective there. You look at two nearly identically clad members of the opposite sex, neither posed provacatively, just clothed provacatively... with one you see warriors, strong and proud. With the other, a sexual object that is offensive. Really the problem to my view is our perception of some things, not the things themselves. That being said, I am sure we all, every last one of us, have gender defined pre-suppositions... it's just part of life.

I am not trying to point out that you or anyone is wrong to feel as you do, however, I am also trying to point out that likewise not thinking the model is sexist or sexual is not necessarily wrong either. Just perspective, it is literally down only to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Sean previously pointed out the single most definitive point on this;

But we have done some tests. Conversions on the same figure, and released under different part numbers and names have shown that an immodest figure will outsell a more modest version of the same exact figure. A topless version will sell a LOT more, and full nudity will sell even more.

Nevertheless, we try to use sensuality and nudity only where it is appropriate to the figure, for the character, the story, or the imagery. Obviously, Valloa would not be appropriate as a nude figure, for example.

We are at a golden moment in miniature gaming: the costs of entry into production have never been lower, the costs for even scaling up to national/international distribution are not only low, but due to the existence of kickstarter, it's possible for a single sculptor/creative to bring their idea to light.

So where are the "acceptable" female miniatures? Bombshell Miniatures was designed with this idea in mind, to produce respectful and non-stereotypical female models. And it made $140,000! But let's not kid ourselves, how many of the people that condemn KD would find Bombshell miniatures acceptable, let alone ideal?

To MajorTom11's point, the most amazing female miniature is about to hit the market, want to see it?

Spoiler:

What's that? Not feminine enough? how about this?

Spoiler:

It's doubtful there is any more realistic female mini out there, and in perfect illustration of MT11's point, in order to show that that's a woman, Ada is modeled wearing power armor... with no helmet.

Man or woman, anyone wearing realistic rigid armor would have their gender become indistinguishable.

Spot on, I had not actually seen that one, but it makes the point I was trying to articulate perfectly thank you! Note she also has her hair down, not shaved or in a manageable warrior cut, or bunned up.