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.

 Melissia wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
If this thread was "I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

Yes I would, because that's the same knee-jerk reaction that's had every single time that sentiment is expressed..

Where? Everyone person in this discussion seems to be in agreement that more is good. Some disagree in the likelihood of market viability or success, but I haven't seen a soul here argue that there isn't a place for it or that it shouldn't exist. On the contrary I, as well as most other posters, agree that they'd happily buy these sorts of models in the same shopping cart as all their cheesecake.

Edit: As for the video gaming forum thing... It's a video gaming forum. Dakka is where people who actually care about themselves or that you might talk to in person go. Video game forums are typically right up there with youtube comments in being anything but rational or sociable, and instead are full of people who talk some one into suicide for a laugh if they thought they could.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

 MetalOxide wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I'd prefer more of all of them.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hands_miranda wrote:
Can someone then explain the point of cheesecake/sexualized figures to me then?

I think this would be a great question to address to Mrs Stompa and any other women gamers who apparently don't find that category of models to be prima facie offensive. Because the assumption has been that those models exist only to titillate men by demeaning women.

I don't find cheesecake or sexualized figures to be "offensive." Silly? Sure. MGS can tell you how much I sigh and eyeroll at the majority of female models I see. Straight men like looking at lady parts. This is a fact, and one that doesn't bother me. I just have a desire to see more female models (speaking about 40k, Fantasy, and all manner of minis) which are sculpted less to tittilate and more to look badass. I'm not saying that the tittilation models are evil and should be scrapped. But just balance the offerings a little so that if I ever want to paint a female model, I have more to think about than which shadowing will make her bosom look more voluptuous.

How do you feel about the Elvish/Eldar races then, which often have female and male models mixed or are on occasion sexually ambiguous?

Fine? I'm not terribly familiar with them, to be honest. Ours is a household of Orcs and Tyranids. But let me be clear, I'm not anti boob-having models. And I'm not anti sexy models.

Ok. I was just wondering, because you made the comment about if you ever wanted to paint a female model you have more to think about than shading her bosom to look more voluptuous, it seemed to me GW do have models which fulfill this criteria in their Elven and Eldar races. To be honest, I haven't heard a lot of complaints before this thread about GW not having enough female models or poorly representing women (not necessarily because they don't exist, I just haven't heard a lot of it) and I figured GW did have a reasonably balanced female contingent of models in their Elf based races.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if this is the sort of thing that Melissia means but I don't think more is necessarily good. For example, I'd say femarines have no place in the 40k setting. I don't mind them as homebrewed (you can have blue Blood Angels for all I care!) but I would be pretty disappointed if I saw GW make them.

Well I don't think there's any reason to shoe-horn female figures into lore just for the sake of putting females in it, if that's what you mean.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Mrs. Stompa, do you really run into a lot of gamers making rape jokes at game stores? That's pretty messed up.

No, no. I mentioned in my last post that I was being too broad in discussing my gaming experiences, and including online and platorm games.

I think you might have a problem with people following the anonymity+audience=dick method of life. I believe you'd find in-person gaming through Warhammer, etc. much more agreeable as people actually have to face you when they play you and can't hide behind a screen name.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
Well I don't think there's any reason to shoe-horn female figures into lore just for the sake of putting females in it, if that's what you mean.

Yeah, I think that's what it would be and that's a shame. I think one of the reasons I hate the idea of femarines is because I'm protective of the SoB's niche. They're my favorite faction and they're kind of an "endangered species" in terms of production.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:
ETA - I did find that one diorama that guy did - the one with the Eldar woman surrounded by men and getting her clothes torn off, making it clear she was in for a raping - to be offensive. That bothered me because it was rape as tittilation.

I'm such a horrible person because EVERYTHING technical about that piece is AMAZING! the blending, the conversions, sculpting, basing, everything! But I feel like such a cretin for liking that diorama because of the subject matter.

Well...that's probably a topic for another forum altogether. But I, like a lot of women, am bothered by graphic and/or realistic depictions of rape or near rape . I think it's just a chemical thing in our brains that makes us go NOPE THAT'S NOT ENJOYABLE TO LOOK AT.

My edit on that post clarifies my point, because the original version of that message made it seem like I like the content lol.

But that guy has done several other pieces, one of which was humans being enslaved by Dark Eldar, just as technically sound without the rapey undertones. That artist in general is a fantastic painter, but gets a lot of recognition because of his racey content.

Well yeah, it was technically lovely. I just didn't like looking at it.

Technically it was very good, but I felt it was only popular because of the shock value and controversy over it. A piece of art doesn't have to be shocking to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:


"I wish there were more non-cheesecake cool female sculpts", you wouldn't see a defensive reaction.

I would personally pefer less cheese cake and more robots, zombies and giant space bugs

I'd prefer more of all of them.

Yes, I am interested in seeing what GW does with the Sisters of Battle

Nakatan (the artist behind the piece) is, like I said, amazing!

His dakka gallery only has a few select pieces, but his Cool Mini or Not Gallery shows on average that his painting skills are near "perfect" his images, even the non Alien Contact images rate near perfects.

The man is skilled, and may have been commissioned to do that, but idk.

wewowewo its the morals police....

xxvaderxx wrote:
wewowewo its the morals police....

As a general rule, if it's in the Sci-Fi or Fantasy category, chances are the women will be scantly clad or their armor will be curvy. There are, of course, exceptions (Samus, but now she has Zero-Suit, so ...) but that's the general trend as the main consumers are men who may be more on the "sexually-deprived" end of the spectrum. At least, that is the stereotype.

On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Also, a lot has to do with aesthetics. Now, I'm not saying I want scantily clad women running around my tabletop (not saying I don't) but if you want the character to look female, either clad it in almost nothing, or if it is an armored character, accentuate those curves.

Look at the game Dark Souls: There is almost no way of telling the gender of a character based on the build after the armor is on - the armor appearance does not change. Now this is fine because they aren't aiming for these characters to be obviously female.

Now let's look at the train-wreck-of-a-game Halo: Reach. If there's one thing this game did right, it was finally including a character model for female Spartans. The female models where skinnier then the men, and had narrower wastes but the hips were still large, giving that curved look. The chest, however, looks the same on both genders, because they're in bulky armor. Fast forward to Halo 4 (better than Reach) and they still have models for the female Spartans but ... well, honestly they just look like skinny dudes(and the helm size doesn't change, making them all have large heads.) I played as a female in Reach, but in 4 I am sticking with the male, for reasons described in the TL;DR below

TL: DR

The entertainment industry has corrupted how we see people. Ever notice that just about every character in every show/movie ever is more on the attractive side? I noticed this and became somewhat agitated by it ... and then when I saw a film with a rather unattractive leading lady I was ... well, I didn't care about her character very much.

However, there is a point where it becomes "put some effing clothes on."

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

 Melissia wrote:

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy, imposing one prepackaged pre-approved sexual identity on all women. Nope, you aren't allowed to want to look like this, or desire someone who looks like that. If you feel differently then you've just been brainwashed...

 Melissia wrote:

 Hojtastic wrote:
On the flip-side, aren't the men practically always muscular? Is that not "sexist?"

Nowhere near as much.

This, which someone (who I forgot the name of) linked to earlier, is a good explanation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5950-Tropes-vs-MovieBob

Both overly muscular men and scantily clad women can be stupid and tacky.

Or sexy.

 kronk wrote:
Or sexy.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy

No, it's not. You are ignoring the fact that the sexualization of men is still almost entirely done FOR men, as a power fantasy, not to make them in to sex objects. Men have, historically, been sexualized for what they can do-- while women have been sexualized for what can be done TO them.

That said, a stay at home dad is sadly openly mocked by many people, to give an example of the sexualization negatively effecting both men and women.

This whole debate still comes down to the color green.

Its what sells.

If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well. If a company sees that its "non-cheesecake" minis are selling well, they will make more.


Its economics. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm not saying there shouldn't be more non-cheescake minis. What I am saying is that the market is what drives new minis. Make a demand and it will be filled. Perhaps not immediatly, but it will.

Your all mighty dollar (or Euro) is the loudest voice you can yell with.

Accusing male gamers of sexism isn't going to change it or help matters... Nor is blaming the companies for sexism... They follow what makes them money, for the immediate financial good of their company and the shareholders.

But the approach this thread came in with, I can see why it generated knee-jerk reactions and negative opinions.

Please remember, not everyone's opinion of what they want in a miniature is the same.
Not everyone's opinion of what IS a "cheescake" mini is going to be the same.
You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine, and TFG is entitled to his/hers (no matter how asinine it is).

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well

I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

I started reading this post and found myself losing focus. Minis produced by X company are considered "bad/good" by different people is a predominant part of this conversation. And I fear that there is nothing the average gamer can do about that. Yes some mini lines sell better than others, but the company at large chooses what to produce and sell, even if a large number of people disagree. The most important part of this conversation is, do the gamers at large make the hobby uncomfortable for women to join. If this is a problem it should never be tolerated. If I was at a game store and heard a number of people making comments of the type some posters complain about, it is my duty as a conscientious person to ask them to stop, or ask the game store employee if that kind of behavior is tolerated. It should not be tolerated. Truly deep conversations about what is sexist, or does owning or looking at something make me sexist is fine, but it does not start the corrective measures to making the hobby more accessible to people of different genders. Armies are what we make of them, and getting a company do cater to us is hard, especially to a company that dislikes change. But making gaming more friendly is something we can all do, even if we don't game at FLGS, we can offer a moral compass to those who do play in them.

 Mrs. Stompa wrote:

I have to say, I'm pretty baffled by this idea that "Wargaming/gaming is a hobby for men." I'm just finding that to be odd and a little off putting.

Be aware that I agree with most of what you have said, and clearly I've got no time for the ridiculous social misfits that make rape jokes (although, I have took my missus into GW with me many times and nobody has evr gave her any gak at all or displayed such a crass level of social ineptitude) But this comment makes no sense.. it IS a hobby for men surely?

If 95% of the people that you see at tourneys, or in Games Workshop have cocks.. even really small ones, then by definition, that's what It is, and therefore thats the norm. Note that Im not saying it should be that way, indeed, Id love it if my missus was interested (she massively isn't and reads or watches No Reservations or something when I paint or play) but you cant argue with what is an obvious fact, most chicks don't like wargaming.

In fact, I've probably dated more women than most chaps due to my "never at home for more than a month" Bootneck career, and I didn't actually meet a single one that was remotely interested either, I think the cl;osest I got was a goth bird who was into David Gemmell.. but obviously my hobby always came up when they saw my minis.. and the fact of the matter is that its pretty fething weird for a chick to like war gaming.

Ergo, if you fall into a huge, huge minority, surely you are the odd one?

And if its so normal for women to ignore the hobby (it is!) why do you find it off putting? Isn't it entirely understandable? Aren't we all just following the social norms? People don't find it odd when they see old people knitting, but they find it odd when they see them skateboarding! Is it really that strange that people think something thats very uncommon is a bit odd in itself?

What is a notable amount for you? I understand there aren'y any anywhere near the quantities of other figures... I also know my wife does not like "cheescake" minis either but has a collection of 45 or 50 figs from various companies that she has bought and painted to use for various things?

You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

Depending on what you want them for, perhaps try forming a petition of like-minded individuals to present to a company or various companies to show theree is a market.


Companies like having their market research done for them to a certain degree and if you can get enough signatures, I'm betting they would look into making more.

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

No, I haven't.

Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find (Reaper is the biggest source of this, and they've really improved... but they're not perfect by any means), the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
If you want it to change, make sure those models you agree with sell really well

I'd love to... if they were actually being sculpted.

By and large, they are not in any notable amount. How the hell am I supposed to buy something that doesn't exist?

It doesnt work as well for chicks because you arent as shallow for things like body parts as we men are... I cant see a buff man with a big wanger flying off the shelves for lady gamers.

I know.. he could be really buff and be carrying a big sack of chocolate and shoes?

 Melissia wrote:

 hammeyaneggs wrote:
You haven't found any company that makes some to your specifications?

No, I haven't.

Mostly, I'm looking for miniatures to represent my characters in various RPGs I play, and models I can use to represent female Imperial Guardsmen without having them blatantly stick out. The former is much, much easier to find, the latter... I haven't found any in the various years I've been looking.

Which is to say, since the launch of third edition C:IG.

Have you found any miniature that you found that could represent a character of yours? I'm asking to see if I can judge what you want versus minis I know of (I'm not above offering unasked for help )

I have, yes. Reaper has good examples for fantasy roleplays, although not very good if you're trying to get models for an entire army.

For example, I purchased this for a pilot character:



Her wearing a jumpsuit made sense for a pilot, after all, and it still has enough on it that you can envision her putting on some armor over that suit. I wish it wasn't zipped down so far? But meh.

 Melissia wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, that's largely the "no true Scottsman" fallacy

No, it's not. You are ignoring the fact that the sexualization of men is still almost entirely done FOR men, as a power fantasy, not to make them in to sex objects. Men have, historically, been sexualized for what they can do-- while women have been sexualized for what can be done TO them.

Again, implying that women cannot (or should not) want strapping men as sex objects, nor have certain fantasies about themselves. A quick perusal of romance covers artwork reveals a fair amount of hunky shirtless guys and boddice ripping... are those designed to appeal to men as well? Magic Mike and other strip clubs? And yes, I know they are no where near as prevalent as the ones aimed at men, the point is many women ARE attracted to that, and more would likely be if society weren't shaming women for more aggressive/overt sexuality. 50 Shades of Gray, with its female sub seems to have done well for itself, and a quick perusal of Crag's List will show many men wanting to be dominated by women. What I disagree with is the "one size fits all" ideal of fantasy.

That said, a stay at home dad is sadly openly mocked by many people, to give an example of the sexualization negatively effecting both men and women.

I would totally agree with this however.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Again, implying that women cannot (or should not) want strapping men as sex objects

That isn't being said.