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.

Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.

Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.

Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.

I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.

 Kirasu wrote:
Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.

Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.

Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.

I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.

Have you read The Horus Heresy: Fulgrim?

I like to keep my 40k'ing and sexing separate...

To clarify: I'm not offended by it, it's just that when I'm surrounded by neckbeards, I don't exactly think..."sex."

I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Eh daemonettes arent graphic.. they just had breasts. Only in a crazy sexually repressive culture is that considered graphic.

Anyway, I dislike sexually explicit conversions because it's completely against the asthetic and feel of 40k. The universe itself, and the fluff is very very non-sexual. It's grim, cold, heartless and brutal.

Very little hope, no time for joy, only the unending drums of war and eternal conflict. Even slaanesh doesnt revel in sex while ON the battlefield.. the warriors desire pain and experience.

I think those kind of models just have very little place in the world that 40k is.

Have you read The Horus Heresy: Fulgrim?

Or any book with a slaaneshi cult in it, or the night lords using rape as a fear tactic, or slaanesh in general

 -DE- wrote:
I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.

By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.

Hey OP: make sure you don't wver check out the Juan Diaz demonettes or the Mierce Euralyia model.

People are so easily offended these days.

I do have a problem with some of the other GW models actually.

Sisters of Battle: an army designed for girls is kind of insulting. It's as if an executive looked at the customer base one day and saw that it was predominantly male, and decided that an army of women would help broaden the appeal, rather than try to fix what already existed. Add into that the typical complaints about form-fitting armour, and you have my opinion on that.

Daemonettes: all four of the Chaos gods appeal to certain emotions and facets. One of them appeals to excess of the body, with the implication that sexual excess is encompassed by that. I don't have a problem there. The game appeals to children, but this is subtle enough to go unnoticed by them. However, I do have a problem with the models that are chosen to represent this particular god. It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies. I have a problem that while all of the other gods are represented by male or androgynous models, Slaanesh is represented by female ones. The implication here is that once the need to represent sexuality arises, the default assumption is that femininity will be chosen to do the job.

This coincides with so many other representations of women in art and media, that if a character with motives and complex emotions is wanted, a man or male is chosen, but the second sexuality needs to be shown, it's almost always a woman or female. In society, men are seen as people, and women as sexual beings. Opinions on their sexuality varies, some want to suppress it, some want to exaggerate it, or shape it to their will, but it's always done through lenses with a sexual filter.

I have to reply to other comments on this thread, but they will have to wait until I can access a computer.

I like it.

At first, I was expecting flayed naked women chopped up and decorating the tank with body parts.

THAT picture was pretty cool, and as far as a Khorne army Landraider it wasn't half bad. Are the figures home made, or where are those stripper figs located at?


To the OP, I like naked women. To me, they are built pretty near perfectly that personally I couldn't do a better job. A rabid fan of Heavy Metal magazine, Epic, Hustler, Swank, The Smithsonian, The Artist's Magazine, Life, National Geographic, Art and Antiques, and a few others off the top of my head as well as a well rounded world adventurer I have grown up around tits about half to three quarters of my life.

With that as a background, the concept and context are well within the area of medium that the stripper tank in question is in. NOW, had it had a couple of demons ripping up children, or some sort of explicit acts of S and M, or some sort of over the top explicit NSFW stuff, the cause would be worth the righteous indignation.

As to the this is art/ that's art- the question is subjective. In this case, he got a reaction, and the model itself in my eyes has a really good template, and as much as any of the tabletop figures can be considered- this is part of the Hobby of miniatures.

Aside from the strippers in cages, what else on that tank is off to you?


( As a side note, How do you get that tank smoking like that without damaging the model or any of the other models on the table? What was done to get that effect without breaking the model or smoke damage to the tabletop? )

you do realize that daemonettes are hermaphrodites right? Take your SJW crap else where

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:

Daemonettes: all four of the Chaos gods appeal to certain emotions and facets. One of them appeals to excess of the body, with the implication that sexual excess is encompassed by that. I don't have a problem there. The game appeals to children, but this is subtle enough to go unnoticed by them. However, I do have a problem with the models that are chosen to represent this particular god. It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies. I have a problem that while all of the other gods are represented by male or androgynous models, Slaanesh is represented by female ones. The implication here is that once the need to represent sexuality arises, the default assumption is that femininity will be chosen to do the job.

The evidence of this thread suggest otherwise.

Also, while there are some models which have departed from the idea in the intervening years, historically Slaaneshi daemons only ever had one breast, to encompass the fact they weren't male or female. While their aesthetic is definitely the most feminine of the Chaos Gods, they aren't necessarily female.

 Ustrello wrote:
you do realize that daemonettes are hermaphrodites right? Take your SJW crap else where

This sums up my feelings for OP after reading his arguments, if a mere model offends you. Then I have some bad news for you, and I also find it strange that people waste so much energy when it comes to fretting over a bit of exposed flesh. Or as in this case, two naked women. I actualy quite like the model and dont see anything offensive about it, and may I ask if it would be offensive if the two models where replaced with two naked men?

Personally, I think he just chose the wrong chaos god. Should have been Slaanesh, then it would make perfect sense. Could even add a DJ or something, and replace the smoke inside with marijuana. That would tick off all the boxes. OP, you're definitely over sensitive about this. Or trolling us. But yeah, it's really not an issue. And you can paint/sculpt/create nude models in provoking ways without being crass. Such as this one: he has a theme, the girls fit perfectly in it, what's the issue? This feels like part 12 of "The Soccer Mom Wars: This Time It's Personal (for realz)!!"

 -DE- wrote:
I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

-C.S. Lewis

I find nudity in tabletop models to be in bad taste, personally. I split my gaming time between a garage and a Games Workshop, and if someone came in with bloody strippers in cages, to be displayed around my children, I'd be thoroughly put off... but no more than a guy wearing a t-shirt with nudity upon it, or walking into the store while perusing a porn magazine.

Quite frankly, in an era where Internet porno is free and widely available, I don't really get the idea of putting naked models on the table... it just strikes me as a, "Why do I need to be more sexually aroused while playing 40k... the game itself gets my juices flowing."

Yes, a joke, kind of... I'm missing the point. It seems in bad taste, just like Nazi guard, or painting swear words on the side of a tank, or any manner of WTF things that people can do with their minis, that they would take to a public place.

That isn't an issue inherent to the subject though. It would be bad taste to expose young children to adult nudity on any level.

It isn't in any way like a "Nazi Guard" at all, but good shout at Godwinning the thread, because there are unlikely to be people present who had their ancestors brutally murdered by a boobie.

One of the most dreaded phrases in the modern world is 'I find that offensive'! And it's one that seems to be being spoken more and more.

It just seems to be a quick way of shutting down a conversation/debate by shaming people into being quiet.

Being 'offended' doesn't grant moral authority.

Hardly explicit IMO. I'd be more concerned with someone bringing a Kingdom Death model in to a store.

Besides if you have no problem with the extreme violence and glorification of fascism that goes on in 40k but a bit of female flesh freaks you out, then I'd say you need to reassess your priorities.

Wargaming is at heart a rather UN PC hobby. Attempts to sanitise it will just make it dull.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 -DE- wrote:
I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

-C.S. Lewis

I always liked that quote. It seems very fitting for this topic. Personally I'm getting the feeling that this thread was just trolling. The OP's post seems very contrived. There are a lot more obscene models to get up in arms about than a Go-Go tank, and if you feel the need to get up in arms over a model you must not have too many problems to think about in your life. I'll save my fury and anger for my bills.

It would probably be more useful to discuss whether the model in question would fall under the "PG" ratings guidelines. Then it's just a matter of "Is the game store operating under a G or PG rating system?"

 solkan wrote:
It would probably be more useful to discuss whether the model in question would fall under the "PG" ratings guidelines. Then it's just a matter of "Is the game store operating under a G or PG rating system?"

How does one make such a standard when GW sells Daemonettes? (and stores sell Daemonettes?)

40k is not G and I don't think anyone can ever claim any true wargame should be G as all simulated violence should have parental guidance.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
Sisters of Battle: an army designed for girls is kind of insulting. It's as if an executive looked at the customer base one day and saw that it was predominantly male, and decided that an army of women would help broaden the appeal, rather than try to fix what already existed. Add into that the typical complaints about form-fitting armour, and you have my opinion on that.

I think it would be more insulting, if I were a woman, to see someone assume that just because a given army is comprised mostly of women that it must have been designed for girls...

... It is not that I have any issue with sex, or naked bodies....

The post that started all of this suggests otherwise...

I would have less trouble believing the OP was upset about the equation of women solely with sexuality if the OP didn't specifically post about envisioning 'slimy' males masturbating to the models. It's one thing to find something offensive, but it's a quite different thing to project a description of the creator (and graphic descriptions of his envisioned activity) just from the model itself.

It's not that I like the model. I dislike it for the simple reason that it doesn't make any sense. You have lascannons on a Land Raider. How do you functionally replace them with stripper cages? What's the arc of fire on a stripper? If the model had lascannons and strippers, I would be fine.

I do really, really worry about the evident inability of many members of our society to distinguish sexual imagery from sexual activity, especially when we have almost entirely, and completely, viewed graphic violent imagery as being unconnected to violent activity.

If you can paint tiny guns and tiny swords, and yet not snap and attack people with guns and swords, why would painting tiny naked women make you some sort of sexual deviant?

Why is it so obvious that all the blood and gore and violence and suffering is tongue in cheek, and 'just part of the universe', but so immediately clear that having a naked woman on the model indicates sexual deviancy or sexism in the creator?

Nobody assumes that the guy painting up disgusting Nurgle models is brewing up anthrax in his basement, but the OP takes a couple of painted strippers and envisages 'slimy guy masturbating". I find that much more disturbing and offensive than the model.

I also find it irritating that someone thinks that because a model is sexual, and it offends them, that it is inappropriate, but that sort of special treatment is restricted to sexual imagery. If you don't like violent imagery, then you are being over-sensitive. If you don't like gory imagery, then you are being oversensitive. But if you don't like sexual imagery, then your personal preferences are super-special and must be respected by others in polite society.

 Grot 6 wrote:
I like it.

At first, I was expecting flayed naked women chopped up and decorating the tank with body parts.

THAT picture was pretty cool, and as far as a Khorne army Landraider it wasn't half bad. Are the figures home made, or where are those stripper figs located at?

They're Hasslefree I think.

I think nudity in modelling is like anywhere else in public. Keep it appropriate for the local audience. You don't leave nudie photos lying around in public, take care where you show your models if there's children around. This land raider isn't that shocking really. There was someone a while back that made a Slaanesh soulgrinder and sculpted a massive erect dick on it. That was pretty tasteless and somewhat unsuitable for most public places.

Being a well adjusted adult male, I'm not one to go searching for offence nor seeing where it clearly isn't intended.

Finding boobs offensive is... Worrying. But I'm not one to cast aspersions.

The again, in the UK, the tabloid papers all have Page 3 - a topless girl,every day of the week!

This is a huge subject, and it'll probably get locked down soon. Plenty of interesting points from both sides. Enjoy!

Well, that's a bit tame. It's hardly the infamous Slaaneshi Hellcannon made from a dildo with a Daemonette riding the... erm, cannon's ammunition.

blaktoof wrote:
Should put naked men in the cages and see what the response is.

I feel like women are already discouraged to join this hobby...

...but regardless adding sexuality to the game generally doesn't help get people interested as the game isn't about sex, its about toy models made from plastic/resin/metal/etc firing pretend missiles at people shooting brain bullets at them.

Much like adding politics or real world nonsense, like israeli army IG or nazi army IG, or taliban IG, no one wants to see that.

Blacktoof has the way of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It's probably this.

Thats just stupid. Its not thematic in any way to Khorne. Its not even done well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
Do I find it kind of crass and tasteless? Yes.

Do I find it so offensive that I want it banished? No.

To me, it just is kinda juvenile. Not anything I'd want to put out on a table and say "yeah check that out".

Agreed. Put that on the table and its instant face palm. Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I like to keep my 40k'ing and sexing separate...

To clarify: I'm not offended by it, it's just that when I'm surrounded by neckbeards, I don't exactly think..."sex."

I usually think...Right Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 -DE- wrote:
I wouldn't call it offensive, just plain juvenile. Oh, and it's as much "art" as a 16-year old spraying penises on walls, thinking he's edgy and anti-establishment. Some people simply never grow up.

By any reasonable metric it isn't offensive. Which isn't to say that anyone who finds themselves offended by it is wrong, simply that they perhaps should acknowledge that their view isn't necessarily the majority one.

By your metric it isn't offensive. Please don't make the mistake of thinking your views represent the rest of the world. You're on the same planet where women can be put in jail if they don't cover their hair in many countries.

Offensive sexy Sci fi imagery? Have you seen Alien?

 Grimtuff wrote:
Well, that's a bit tame. It's hardly the infamous Slaaneshi Hellcannon made from a dildo with a Daemonette riding the... erm, cannon's ammunition.

When you say ammunition, do you mean when it is leaving the weapon? Like that scene from Doctor Strangelove?