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.
2014/09/21 14:42:14
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
That is quite simply what is wrong with what you linked to. Men and Women are different. Boys and Girls are different. They like different things - they like those things to look differently.
Lego has had (for a very long time) gender neutral Lego sets (which regular Lego is) with male and female minifigs. Girls didn't want them.
That isn't sexist - that is reality.
Nicely summed up. Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want? A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
Azazelx wrote: So having caught up on the rest of this thread, the one thing that stands out to me and makes me shake my head a little is the repeated "well, if it were Slaanesh, it'd be okay!"
....
So yeah. Blood-spattered, naked chicks with great big fuckin' axes fit pretty well with Khorne to me. Certainly as much as a male would.
That was my thinking a few pages back.
My two cents: I love idealized fantastical forms. It reminds me that my world is too multifaceted to be contained. Also, as I like ladies and gents both, I'm totally fine with nudity. For me, applying a feminist lens to comic books, Twilight, 40k, etc. is not about going "guh, objectifying!" but rather a sort of "Nelson" reaction of pointing and laughing at simplification (not necessarily idealization, btw).
\m/
2014/09/21 15:36:07
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Being both a libertarian and an equity feminist I find his army a bit odd and I wouldn't do it myself, but I find your outrage even more odd.
Who does it hurt if a nerd puts boobs on his model? My wife is smarter than me, confident, and capable. She would not be outraged or concerned over such a thing, so neither would I. Most women aren't such delicate little flowers we have to worry over them to the point of being patronising. It's where I suppose I differ with many feminists.. I think constantly worrying about ladies is flying in the face of a feminist and truly egalitarian society.
It's just modelling, I think people should be able to make and paint almost anything at all.
I'll tell you what I do find bizarre about the states though.... People ARE way more bothered about boobs than violence. In Europe we worry about guns and death, in the states they worry about booze and boobs.
I feel we approach things more sensibly.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2014/09/21 15:55:41
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Completely OT, but are you back in the UK now Matty, or just visiting?
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
Eilif wrote: Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?
A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.
I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.
Look at the tragic case of Lego right now. They figured out that 80% of who plays with their toys are male, so their solution was to come out with a line of ridiculously over-the-top female stereotype lego sets. You can almost hear the painfully awkward "Well, uhh, I guess we need to make some kits around shopping and ponies" conversation that had to have taken place at a board meeting.
I'm not a woman, but even I'm grossly offended by the idea that girls can't like science, or astronauts, or the middle ages, or under-the-sea, or star wars, or any of their existing kits. No, they need to be pandered to horribly with things like this:
Spoiler:
I'm going to jump to LEGO's defense here.
LEGO tried for decades to both launch "girly" type/color sets and to get more girls to buy the "regular" LEGO sets. They were unsuccessful at every turn. The most recent line of "Friends" sets is one of LEGO's most successful lines EVER, for boys or girls. I've got a buddy who works at the LEGO store and they have a hard time keeping them in stock.
It's not simply a matter of stereotyped color and "girly" themes, but it's actually the result of extensive product testing showing that girls preferred sets that were still very building-focused (note the lack of big pre-made sections) but also were aimed toward "role-playing" and that for whatever reason there is also a preferred color palette. Hence the Friend's sets have lots of named characters, more accessories and center around places that girls might like to interact, and yes they are in stereotypically "girly" colors.
Some folks have jumped on LEGO pretty hard for perceived stereotyping, but it's actually a matter of giving girls the look they want in sets designed for girls preferred methods of play. Girls tend to play differently than boys and I think it's pretty great that LEGO has finally found a way to get more girls involved without simply recoloring to pink (Paradisia) or just playing dolls in LEGO (Belville).
I don't see what the big deal is. Why are people complaining about Lego? Isn't this giving people what they want?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am loving this thread. I am reading a few guys are butt hurt. Funny when you are on the other side now but making excuses for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Never seen more pages, finished reading them all.
How come some people are up in arms for Lego giving people what they want, but in the same breath will complain that GW does no research, it doesn't care what their customers want and just do what they want and we will buy it no matter what.
Hypocrites?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/21 17:16:24
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2014/09/21 17:26:10
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Eilif wrote: Is LEGO supposed to ignore what it's customers want?
A measured look at LEGO's process and product shows that they achieved an admirable balance between giving the customer what they want and aiming for a meaningful play experience.
It's not going to please everyone. There's always going to be a contingent that is uncomfortable with any sets that are gender-tailored in color or subject matter, but short of abandoning a potentially huge portion of customers, there's really no way of pleasing those customers. Let's not forget that there are already dozens of gender neutral sets for those folks already.
And more importantly, is LEGO just supposed to ignore consumer demographics.
I tend to get quite annoyed when people complain that the girl's isle at the toy store is pink, and that it should be changed because it enforces out-dated stereotypical societal roles that don't apply to modern culture and blah blah blah. Well... most of the girl's I know (and when I was a kid as well), they liked pink things. Even my mother likes things that are pink. Drives me nuts.
Lego realy deserves the position they are in when they directly marketed towards boys at an exclusion of a female audience that they had.
At one stage female Lego bits was hard to get here as they under stocked and stores would get picked clean where I was off them.
That changed as Lego become a boys toy within culture more, posibly due to there own marketing over a extended period of time.
Now they may be selling Lego to girls since it is branded and parents are getting them for there girls, and gifts for birthdays.
Which can also reinforce the culture that these are for girls. Which does ad to the issue people bring up with the girls isle.
Pink was never the issue, not what is complained about.
As to the model that started it all. It's crude and sexist but who cares about it.
The issues are more within the culture and the marketing.
In the end, marketing is probably the big evil, simplifying there market. With culture and the way we raise children playing a huge role for both girls and boys.
Davor GW is giving what it chosen market wants, weather that's the right market who knows. It's certainly getting more specific .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/21 17:31:37
2014/09/21 18:46:25
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
If it is this particular model the OP is referring to I do see where he/she is coming from. I actually think that the naked women detract from an overall nice model, since it just clashes with the theme of Khorne. On this model it seems gratuitous and unnecessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/21 18:46:47
2014/09/21 18:50:57
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
2014/09/21 18:52:52
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
Do go educate yourself on Mary Whitehouse and how this pertains to censorship on television, rioting sports fans are not part of censorship or lack therof.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2014/09/21 20:20:23
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
dkoz wrote: Americans are far to sensitive when it comes to even somewhat sexual imagery but when it comes to violence they let there kids watch TV shows like CSI and movies like Saw with no issue.
Americans are also great at broad sweeping generalizations. Side note, I do love that the UK is the first to call Americans on violence, given their own soccer hooligans
Do go educate yourself on Mary Whitehouse and how this pertains to censorship on television, rioting sports fans are not part of censorship or lack therof.
*Shrug* And before England's Mary Whitehouse the US had Anthony Comstock. And before Comstock, England had Thomas Bowdler. (Source of the term 'Bowdlerized'.)
Whichever country is doing it, no matter the century, 'tis a silly thing.
The Auld Grump, and remember boys and girls, it was in Victorian England that somebody invented the nipple ring....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/21 20:22:06
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.
2014/09/22 22:18:36
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
2014/09/22 22:21:22
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Wait, its a mythos where genocide level violence and personalized murder are staples of both the imagery and the "facts of life in the dark far-future"....how many novels talk about demons raping and destroying, virus bombs wiping out planets, or Space Marines blowing everything in front of them into bloody chunklets?
And someone is concerned about a half naked woman being offensive?
Pardon me if I just don't really see the logic in any of that.
calamarialldayerrday wrote: Recently, on a Facebook group dedicated to showing off GW models, a member posted some pictures of sexually explicit conversions he had made. One of them was a Land Raider with stripper cages instead of side sponsons. I commented that this was offensive, but the general consensus amongst the commenters was that it wasn't. How do you feel about this?
I feel like your avi is way more explicit and "offensive" (if one were to take offense at artwork, which I do not" than a half naked lady in a cage, not to be a jerk...just to be real. Blood and violence are fine, but a little bit of sexuality isn't? I don't get it...I just don't get it.
I find it hard to believe that so many people think this is okay. I'm honestly disturbed by it. I imagine some slimy dude jacking off as he paints the breasts. People like this are bad for the whole community.
Wait what, are you kidding me?
Obvious comments about the extremist and puritanical values underlying such a statement aside (meanwhile blood, guts, and violence are fine?), what business is it of ANYONE what goes through someone's mind while they are converting or painting? I'm a lot more disturbed that someone within the wargaming community would have such thoughts about another person BASED ON SEEING A HALF NAKED WOMAN than the fact that boobs and sexuality are, and have been, staples of both science fiction and fantasy for decades. I think that the logic & emotional reaction you're displaying are far more indicative of true misogyny (recognized by its violently negative reaction to women) than the idea that someone who is sexually interested in the female gender painting a skin colored boob.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/09/22 22:42:55
I don't find the original model the OP brought up to be offensive. It's too poorly done and uninspired to be anywhere near offensive, which is good because I think the creator was just trying to do something he'd never seen before.
As MattyRM states above I don't think women are the delicate flowers they're taken for (quoting more or less).
But I'm sure the hobby as a whole would take a little hit if mainstream news came to the game shop and caught a glimpse of "RockNRoll CageRaider". Oh the humanity!! Feminist rallies at the gameshops!!! ALCU in Nottingham!!
Mainly because people are too damned thin skinned these days. I guess they can argue they have a right to be, but damn... I'm going to logic myself in circles now.
THE FUN HAS BEEN DOUBLED!!!
2014/09/22 22:50:27
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
The almost universal sexualised depiction of women in the hobby is sexist. You can’t point to a few bare-chested male models, massively outnumbered by clothed and heavily armoured male models, as proof of an equality of the sexes when the minority of female figures that are not presented as almost naked to please the hetero male gaze are almost all presented in corsetry or with deathtrap breastformed armour - in cup sizes from large to Blackstone Fortress - to please the male gaze. And that’s before we touch on the almost universal depiction of gender variance as deviant and corrupt. Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn. Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/22 22:51:48
lindsay40k wrote: The almost universal sexualised depiction of women in the hobby is sexist. You can’t point to a few bare-chested male models, massively outnumbered by clothed and heavily armoured male models, as proof of an equality of the sexes when the minority of female figures that are not presented as almost naked to please the hetero male gaze are almost all presented in corsetry or with deathtrap breastformed armour - in cup sizes from large to Blackstone Fortress - to please the male gaze. And that’s before we touch on the almost universal depiction of gender variance as deviant and corrupt. Women in 40k are presented as sex objects or anti-nanite aegis waiting to be worn. Transgender and queer people are presented as daemon spawn.
All totally true, though I think you are venturing into a bit of paranoia towards the end there. That said, I'll certainly admit that there's not much room for normalized gender fluidity in a mythos strongly based on seeing Abrahamic tradition as "good" and pagan tradition as "evil".
Don't think that I said for one second that the dynamics of sexualization between genders is equitable. Its not. I fully support further sexualization of the male gender within both pop culture and hobby culture. The point stands that to be offended by a fantasy image of sexualization while finding fantasy imagery of genocidal violence OK is pretty messed up.
Important to note that the OP's reaction to seeing a half naked figure of a woman was to become angry and judgmental as well as develop a catastrophized scenario in his mind of a "creep jacking off while he paints boobs"....and this was followed by multiple comments of "its hard enough to get girls into this hobby." I'll leave it at that...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/09/22 23:07:49
...if you want to attract females to the game then you've got to have strong female characters in the game. 40K has....umm none (maybe one or two).
So I play Malifaux, more to the point I hang out on a Malifaux Facebook page called "A Wyrd Place", and about a week or two ago someone was asking about what brought the player base to the game. Almost all of the female posters (and there's a lot) cited that Wyrd has a plethora of strong female characters with great backstories that are fun to play. And without going into too much detail, it's very true.
But in 40K females are absent unless you're playing Dark Eldar. GW pretty much made a boys game here, and when you've got no (or very few) gals around you get this "boys will be boys" attitude. Insensitivity. Misogyny. All that good / not so good behavior.
THE FUN HAS BEEN DOUBLED!!!
2014/09/22 23:23:31
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
R3con wrote: Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
Spoiler:
GamerGate's not the feminist critique of games, it's an expression of frustration with the way games journalism is done that's been overwhelmingly co-opted by obnoxious channers and dudebros who want technical reviews bereft of social commentary on the depiction of women and minorities. The political criticism of art is not a new thing to tabletop gaming, in fact it's been influential ever since GW said 'we've really got to discontinue this awful pygmy miniature, what the hell were we thinking'.
We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.
Now, given a choice of:
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
If you are waiting for things to change at GW - you will need to wait for Blanche to die.
He is the heart of GW's position on women, and you will not see anything change until he is gone (and I doubt you will see him leave, if not in a casket...).
The upside is that GW does not equal the Hobby. The downside is that lack of boobies doesn't attract more female gamers. Battletech (and other stompy robot games) have almost no boobies - but there isn't a significantly higher number of female gamers for that game.
What does seem to attract more female gamers is fur. On the Lamb Games' Brushfire is the only game I know of that has statistically significant higher numbers of female gamers. They also buy mouslings by the truckload.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not about showing tits so much as it is about showing woman as victim and object.
It screams 'basement dwelling, cheetos drenched virgin'...
But...she has an Axe. How many slaves get to keep their gigantic executioners axe?
R3con wrote: Great so GamerGate is trying to make its way into Table Top Gaming,This is how it starts and sooner or later it will be "all 40k gamers are basement dwelling misogynists" on 10 different news sites all at the same time.
Its art, if you dont like it thats fine let it end at that.
Spoiler:
GamerGate's not the feminist critique of games, it's an expression of frustration with the way games journalism is done that's been overwhelmingly co-opted by obnoxious channers and dudebros who want technical reviews bereft of social commentary on the depiction of women and minorities. The political criticism of art is not a new thing to tabletop gaming, in fact it's been influential ever since GW said 'we've really got to discontinue this awful pygmy miniature, what the hell were we thinking'.
We've moved on from the time when prospective Black wargamers might have browsed a catalogue and, seeing the pygmy mini, said ' this racist ' and walked out. We're still at the 'Salamanders, stone age Orcs, and Himalayan Ogres' phase of representing non-White people and cultures, which is well short of proper inclusion but still a step forwards.
Now, given a choice of:
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
which would you prefer?
Rather much avoid the PCBS - and just let companies do what they want. Want to try to cater to women? Have at it. Want to run a company called Maidenhead and sell nothing but boobies? Fine with that too.
PCBS tends to be noise - and any change that comes from it isn't real change...just pandering to get the noise to go away.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/22 23:39:00
2014/09/22 23:41:37
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
- the art of the hobby remaining static with regards to the depiction of women, and people who find the almost universal presentation of women as objects to please the hetero male gaze distasteful remaining outside the hobby
- the art of the hobby evolving with regards to the depiction of women, just as it evolves with regard to all manner of things, and people who were put off by the relentless objectification of almost every female character entering the hobby
which would you prefer?
Both.
2014/09/22 23:47:21
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I can't even believe this is a conversation. Having seen the picture my only response is that you obviously have not seen older GW, or other companies models. I think your view is very narrowed on this subject.
Owning a Daemon army myself, I have several nude models, some being on a large scale for greater demons they fit in the lore very well. When I bring these into a store to play no one is offended, to include the several women who play at our store. We have a few young kids who play at the store, and their parents laughed at me when I asked them if they were ok with me bringing them out. If you thought that was bad, I can't imagine what you would think of my Soul Grinder.
Please go look at the old "Vect's Bitch Boat" model or conversions of this.
On the other note, I loved that Land Raider. Great Job to whomever made that, it was like I walked into a Rob Zombie Concert!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/22 23:48:19
Wood Elves: 2400 pts
Tau & Gue'vesa (IG): 9000 pts Chaos Daemons 3500pts Fantasy
2014/09/22 23:56:56
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Theres no reason why 40K can't draw inspiration from the work of a wide range of artists - from the classic OTT big boobed sexy female characters, to more realistic depictions of women, and something in between.
If you don't like something, and you're offended by it, thats OK. Vote with your wallet - move on and find something that doesn't offend you.
Or in the case of Warhammer 40K, simply rework the fluff to your own liking, or come up with your own.
Where is it written that Cadian Shock Troopers can only be male? Perhaps there is a secret Chapter of Adepta Sororitas genetically engineered to be the equal of any Space Marine? Maybe a certain Imperial planet segregates its Infantry regiments by gender, and provides entire Regiments of female Guardsmen for the Imperial war machine? Maybe a woman has been appointed to the rank of Commissar on merit, thanks to her fanatical loyalty and dedication to the Emperor?