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.
2014/09/19 21:59:03
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yet again, as with Frazzled, you make a perfectly sound and logical point, but are not offended yourself.
There are plenty of arguments for why someone may be offended, but very few, if any, who genuinely ARE offended.
So, I continue to stand by my point.
The part of your point that I was contesting was that there was no reasonably objective basis on which to be offended by the model. I think that there is an objective basis on which to be offended.
But yes, I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over. If I saw a different model like that every time I went to the FLGS or went to the GW website, it would be a different story.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:02:10
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
2014/09/19 22:03:30
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
I wasn't talking about the cages or the women at all, I was specifically dealing with your description of the TANK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:03:53
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 22:10:37
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
The model itself doesn't really seem that overboard. Juvenile, yes, but we can argue back and forth about whether it is explicit, not-explicit, appropriate, in appropriate, etc. These all cloud what I think is a bigger issues.
-What do models like this -and their acceptance by gamers- say about attitudes toward women in the hobby?
-Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?
I am not a woman and don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that if I asked my wife she'd not be impressed by the person who made it and it certainly wouldn't encourage her to come gaming with that person.
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.
I agree regarding discouragement of women. However sexuality, and mining the real-world for material have ALWAYS been part of 40k. As for Nazis, the 40k imperium is a facist state that kills billions of it's own people, and there is alot of artwork and designs that are heavily influenced by the iconography, military and aesthtic of the third reich. Regarding sex, sexualized images of women have always been present in 40k even if explicit sex is much less common, as befits a game that targets young teens. They have an entire demon cult dedicated to "pleasure" as well as the multitude of skinny chicks with big breasts and corsets that have appeared across any number of 40k and WHFB factions. The game may not be about having sex, but it certainly goes out of it's way to include sexualized imagery.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:11:21
-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.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
No offense to Weeble in specific, but this touches on something I noticed above;
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.
One of these things is not like the others...
The reaction tells one a great deal more about the person having the reaction then the item at hand: if, to use this example, you don't want to play against "israeli[sic] army IG" because you feel awkward about the real life army of a real life state, that's one thing. If it's because f' those Jooooos, then... yeah, maybe you have the problem there buddy.
This is the same matter: by the by, am I the only person that finds it intensely rude to have people discussing a particular person's model without any attempt to get the story from guy whose model it is (who apparently posts on Dakka)?
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
It's also worth pointing out that the model in question was posted on Dakka months ago, and by a user who is clearly in Germany (a country with radically different nudity taboos).
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
I wasn't talking about the cages or the women at all, I was specifically dealing with your description of the TANK.
Fair enough.
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
2014/09/19 22:14:35
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Even if someone decided to model 6 girls defecating on a guy dressed as a pig with a plug in his bum I personally wouldn't be offended. In fact I believe I would find the scene fairly amusing.
After seeing that image maybe you will choose to imagine the creator jacking off whilst choking themselves on lingerie stolen from the neighbours washing line, but that's your hang up and prejudice.
Truth is sex is fun, sex can be freaky. People like to think about sex, film it, draw it, photograph it, write about it and yes indeed sculpt and model it.
People have odd sexual desires. At the end of the day I would rather see someone try to fulfil them in an artistic way then by welding two cages to the side of a ford escort, kidnapping two pretty girls and forcing them to dance whilst they drive around the M25 at high speed.
So yeah that's how I feel about it.
Personally I don't think people directly jerk off over models like this. Maybe they use the creative process as an aid to fire up their imagination and think about sexual fantasy's, if so honestly where's the harm?.
What it comes down to is that no one is harmed so why are you taking offence? Sure find it tasteless, immature or crass by all means but I choose to save my feelings of offence for true crimes against humanity. Everything else is just a joke.
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group.
.
That's the thing, one or two slightly too zealous to be taken seriously posts aside, nobody seems to be upset by the model other than the OP, but are offering reasons why others may be offended. That, incidentally, is one of my personal bugbears. If you're not upset or offended by something, don't get up in arms on behalf of other people you think might be offended by it. It is all very reasonable and well thought out so far, in the main, but there's still time for someone to enter the thread clutching their breast and pulling their hair, wailing "the women, think of the women!"
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
-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.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
2014/09/19 22:20:32
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
weeble1000 wrote: And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object
Aggressive looking, sure, but it can be argued that something that could be psychologically boiled down to a giant metal womb that protects its charges from harm isn't necessarily masculine in nature, treaded or not.
Cages. That's why anyone has a reasonable basis to be offended. The imagery of the cage suggests confinement, subordination, and (importantly) entertainment.
Like I said, Maybe the women in those cages are super-powerful sorceresses who birthed a daemon tank from their menstrual blood and are dealing out deathmetal-fueled justice to an army of anthropomorphic misogynistic pigs.
That could be, but you have to read that into the artwork, whereas the imagery of caged women rides right on the top. The female models aren't doing anything in those cages which immediately suggests any agency in the operation of that vehicle. They aren't frightened or scared, but that's a mixed bag in terms of meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yet again, as with Frazzled, you make a perfectly sound and logical point, but are not offended yourself.
There are plenty of arguments for why someone may be offended, but very few, if any, who genuinely ARE offended.
So, I continue to stand by my point.
The part of your point that I was contesting was that there was no reasonably objective basis on which to be offended by the model. I think that there is an objective basis on which to be offended.
But yes, I agree with you that in the grand scheme of things it's not worth getting your knickers in a twist over. If I saw a different model like that every time I went to the FLGS or went to the GW website, it would be a different story.
Though I will point out that the bars of the 'cage' are so widely spaced that the only reason that they are in the cage is because they haven't left.
Unlike the Dark Eldar vehicle/character that had female prisoners chained up on it - and that was an official model. The Khorne Strippers do not appear to be bound in any way.
This Land Raider is... tacky, vulgar, and tasteless, I will grant you. Not my cup of tea.
But the strippers are no more objectifying women than strippers usually are. (Which, admittedly, is a lot....)
I will say that OP's 'sexually explicit' is pretty wide of the mark....
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2014/09/19 22:33:53
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Which leaves us all in the same spot: the people that are offended are either a) part of that ever-growing group of people that are looking to be offended, or b) people offended because the model breaches the standards of their particular gaming group. If it's the first group, then who cares? If it's the second, then it's a matter for their group. .
That's the thing, one or two slightly too zealous to be taken seriously posts aside, nobody seems to be upset by the model other than the OP, but are offering reasons why others may be offended. That, incidentally, is one of my personal bugbears. If you're not upset or offended by something, don't get up in arms on behalf of other people you think might be offended by it. It is all very reasonable and well thought out so far, in the main, but there's still time for someone to enter the thread clutching their breast and pulling their hair, wailing "the women, think of the women!"
Well, as a small point of clarification, in my personal case it is a matter of degree. I think the model is offensive, but not worth getting riled up about. My wife was actually pretty upset about it. As I said, if I saw that kind of thing all over the FLGS, it would be a different story.
I think the OP believes that this should be a bigger deal than people are treating it as, and he may be interpreting the degree to which people are either offended by it, or willing to do something about it, as not actually being offended. It seems that you are doing something similar.
One of the guys I used to game with noticed an African American family down the street having what was obviously a wake and chose to make a racist comment about what was happening to the neighborhood. I didn't say anything about it because it wasn't worth making an issue out of at that time, and I did not think anything productive would come of it. That doesn't mean I wasn't deeply offended by what he said.
In the grand scheme of things, it is just one model; a drop in the misogyny bucket. It isn't worth getting emotional about because my daily life is more important to me than stamping out every instance of sexism I come across. I also didn't stop and help a guy stuck on the side of the road earlier this week. I should have stopped. It would have been the right thing to do, but I didn't do it because of what it would have cost me, and as traffic was bumper to bumper there was a lot of bystander syndrome going on.
Note, however, that I have spent plenty of time discussing this model, which does indicate that it is more than a non-issue for me. The fact that we are 4 pages in suggests, on its face, that there is something about that model worth discussing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:36:49
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
2014/09/19 22:34:50
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
cincydooley wrote: I wonder how everyone feels about the Mierce Albaain dude that has his wanger out.
Personally, I know I'm going to do a bit of giggling when I paint him.
OHNOAPENIES!!!!!
As someone who's now painted about 20+ horse wangs thanks to PP's need for anatomical correctness, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 22:35:25
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
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.
Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
That said, I always get positive comments on my IDF IG. Not everybody is a curmudgeon.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 22:39:13
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Eh. It's khorne, strippers don't have a place within a khorne army, sorry. My guess is it'll be offensive to most women based on, as others said, the portrayal of no control, and to me it makes 0 sense on a khorne model. Since it is not thematic, I cannot justify it as art, I can call it unneeded sexuality and say that I don't approve. My approval is also just that, my approval. Someone on the internet doesn't care, they're outside my sphere of persuasive influence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:47:15
4500
2014/09/19 22:48:02
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Eilif wrote: The model itself doesn't really seem that overboard. Juvenile, yes, but we can argue back and forth about whether it is explicit, not-explicit, appropriate, in appropriate, etc. These all cloud what I think is a bigger issues.
-What do models like this -and their acceptance by gamers- say about attitudes toward women in the hobby?
-Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?
I am not a woman and don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that if I asked my wife she'd not be impressed by the person who made it and it certainly wouldn't encourage her to come gaming with that person.
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.
.
As to "real World" issues, Israeli or Taliban IG forces may push a few more folks buttons, but remember they're following in line with official 40k armies based on controversial military forces of the past including: Nazi Germans (Steel Legion), Vietnam era US (Catachans), Colonial British ( Praetorian) and Communist Russian (Valhallans) all of whom have serious human rights violations on their record. Seems like there's plenty of "real world nonsense" built into 40k already.
So my Tallarn, what would those be by this metric? DKoK and Steel Legion are more akin to the German armies of the Kaiser in WW1 and don't confuse the Waffen SS with the Heer, they were separate organizations and the Heer were more "German" than Nazi, although in order to not be thrown into a concentration camp most Germans would be Nazi by default as there wasn't a choice. Valhallans are obviously WW2 Russians, but I feel that bog standard Cadians have that same flavor. Vostroyans would be Tsarist (White as opposed to Red) Russians. Catachans are less "U.S. In Vietnam" and more "Hollywood goes back to Vietnam" with OTT action star styling c. 1980.
Tallarn are less Arabic and more British 8th in N. Africa. As well as Al'Rahem being more or less T.E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia). So there you have it Tallarn aren't Taliban or Israeli.
As for the model in question, sure it might be in bad taste in your eyes, but it is more offensive to the fluff in that it should obviously be part of a Slaanesh army rather than a Khornate force.
Let's face it these figures are 1 1/8 inches tall, most people wouldn't even notice if you don't point it out to them.
.02
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
-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.
I will have to disagree with you there Az. There's a perfectly reasonable objective basis on which to be offended by the model.
The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. ...
Aaaand, that's where that went off the rails (nicely quick self-contradiction though).
Not really. Note that the point being made was that there is a perfectly objective basis on which to find the model offensive. There's nothing self-contradictory in what I wrote. I like to choose my words pretty carefully. If you are going to dismiss them, it would be courteous to read them first.
Really. And I did read them. I also disagreed with them, which is why I didn't quote them.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/19 22:58:40
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2014/09/19 23:00:48
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
2014/09/19 23:01:29
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I tend to be a very live and let live type of person. 99 times out of 100 if someone says they are offended, I will take the other side of the issue if for no other reason than that people need to thicken their skin a bit...and if it offends you, change the channel, click the back button or otherwise don't spend so much time dwelling on the issue.
My personal opinion on sexually explicit miniatures is...whatever. Don't see the point, but don't get bent out of shape regarding it. However, I do not see a stripper cage (with male or female strippers) as explicit. If you want explicit, you would be talking about these:
The strippers might be objectification, but there is little sexual about them...other than what someone might be thinking in their mind.
If you want to get offended - there are plenty of things to get offended about. However, I find it to be much better to ignore the things that offend you and enjoy the things that don't.
2014/09/19 23:04:06
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
No particular thoughts on the model. The point that has been made which goes something like "look, no one here cares so there must be nothing wrong with it" is a little myopic. Many of the sorts of people who would be offended probably are less likely to be around a forum like this. Minatures are not exactly mainstream. So the views here are not necessarily those of society as a whole.
The other comments that I think are a bit off are those saying in essence "why do you get worked up about sex, but not violence". If the model were simply a nude lady with nothing more to it, this would be a valid point. But, this model can be viewed as using violence (violating a person in one way) to force sexual exploitation (violating them in a second way and one that may be even more destructive psychologically than the physical abuse alone). So while it may be terrible to imagine being beaten, the thought of being beaten and repeatedly raped may be significantly more disturbing.
2014/09/19 23:04:44
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Mentioning the Israeli army in the same sentence as Nazis or the Taliban is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.
From your cultural standpoint, perhaps.
But to people from certain areas of the Middle East, the comparison is probably not considered absurd or stupid.
Anyone who would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is a moron. End of story. The two are not even close to morally comparable. I shouldn't have to spell out to you why that is. A comparison with apartheid South Africa is fair. A comparison with Nazi Germany is simply exceptionally stupid and intellectually dishonest, no matter how you try to bend the truth.
Anyway, we've derailed this thread enough.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, though seeing the things that some Middle Easterns actually do say about Israel, you'd be wrong(and willfully ignorant) to think they'd blink at making those comparisons.
Sorry for the hostility, it's hard to figure out people's intentions over the internet.
Jeez, I swear some people scour the Web for things to be offended about. It's a good thing you don't live in Europe. You might (gasp!) see topless girls in ads or at the beach, and that would just be terrible. I'm so tired of this PC nonsense going around. Grow up/get over it/don't look at it. You are clearly in the vast minority of people who find this "offensive"...
2014/09/19 23:06:26
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Midnightdeathblade wrote: I wasn't targeting anyone, just stating my opinion. And yes the target was a wall. And Yes I know nobody has posted conversions of nude models. I just think the idea of it is stupid. Basically I was stating why go through all the trouble converting, and painting these explicit models when you can just go look at porn. There's no sense to it and it just looks like hell. Also, chill people.
See, that is sort of the thing though.
You say explicit. I say nude. Is the Venus de Milo explicit because she shows he breasts? I find that way of thinking to be rather offensive - but haven't bothered to get bent out of shape because someone keeps referring to a naked female figure as explicit (unless I am missing something...there isn't anything explicit about them or their posing). Should we go out and burn all the copies of The Cantebury Tales? The Merchant's Tale is rather explicit - but being explicit in and of itself isn't even necessarily a reason to get upset.
2014/09/19 23:07:10
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Not a fan of nudity in my minis. If I wanted look at naked people I'd look at porn, classical art or actual naked people.
I mean I get it if the setting for it makes sense, but typically it doesn't so I don't get the point of shoehorning it in. Probably also why I don't find fan fics all that appealing I guess.
And if you really wanted nudity on your 40k models wouldn't Slaanesh make more sense? Just from a fluff stand point I mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toofast wrote: Jeez, I swear some people scour the Web for things to be offended about. It's a good thing you don't live in Europe. You might (gasp!) see topless girls in ads or at the beach, and that would just be terrible. I'm so tired of this PC nonsense going around. Grow up/get over it/don't look at it. You are clearly in the vast minority of people who find this "offensive"...
Been to Germany, can confirm late night TV commercials of topless/stripping women who advertise phone sex lines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/19 23:08:06