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.

 Foo wrote:
This thread is basically one person saying, "I find something offensive" and then other people getting offended about that and telling them if they're offended not to look and to ignore it.

It's like a ball of melted hypocrisy with some bad logic sprinkled on top for flavour.

"Stop using your right to free speech to discuss someone else's expression of their free speech!"

Bollocks. If we wanted to silence the OP we'd be reporting him and trying to get this thread closed.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion does not equate to wanting to silence it.

Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.

Not to mention they were excellent models, regardless of their boobs.

 Lockark wrote:
I'd love some models of men who stepped out of a yaoi and it all hanging out.

>=C

Foundry minis do (or did ) various "Sky Clad" male warriors including Hoplites - sad to say given the scale is there going to be very much to see

Naked Spartan Hoplites apparently "at the ready" - a tag line that amused me

Don't females like Debauchery too? I mean, i'm pretty sure that there are girls out there that dig the band and if this is done in their style then why wouldn't girls like it? I don't think it's explicit, just a representation of a theme. Sure, it maybe should be Slaaneshi, but I guess you get female Cultists who like rocking a big spe ... err, axe .. taking skulls for the blood God.

The chicks in the cages look like they are having a mean old time.

Personally.. I think real gender issues can be found in reproductive rights, child custody, etc.
Not in warhammer, art, and video games. If you really care about womens rights, go to Saudi Arabia. Where it is needed.

I also personally think that expressing yourself through art is okay... Whether it is to offend people or just to make a fool out of yourself.
I wouldnt care if you sculpted and painting up a child getting molested by lucious. Because it isnt a real person. It's pure fantasy. No one is getting hurt. Maybe your feelings... But thats a part of being human.
I Can totally understand if you are offended by it, or in other terms... Just really, really butthurt about it. Thats fine! but when you try to censor it.. Shame on you. You have no rights to tell others what not to think, draw, paint.. And so on.
Again, you can draw my mom getting tortured by Asmodai. And I still wouldnt care. Because its just a fictional fantasy that tries to represent my mother. My point is... Is this real life? Or is it just fantasy? It's a F#"%!ing fantasy people.. Put down the guns. Enjoy the hobby, state your opinion if you really have to, but don't try to censor it.
I'm not saying that you should ignore offensive art. But don't try to censor it.(Sorry for repeating myself, but no seriously don't censor art.)

Sorry if theres some spelling or gramma' errors. English isnt my main language.

Why do I have visions of Porkey's in my mind reading this thread? It's the morale high people who say "sex is bad" but yet are in the basements watching porn hooting and hollering.

I have a hard time believing anyone who says "sex is bad" but yet doesn't say anything about how the plastic toy soldiers represent Hitler and mankind in all it's worst forms combined and says that is ok. So SS is good, boobs bad? Yeah right. Can't believe a word he/she says. They have no moral ground to stand on at all.

I think it says volumes about the OP that he cannot look at the human body without bringing sex and jacking off into it.
Its his loss, he will grow up in time.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.

Now there's a man with an opinion!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.

Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.

I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.

Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fifty wrote:
I have to wonder at those who are offended by it... Which of the following are you offended by?

1) Nudity?
2) Sexism?
3) The fact you imagine someone masturbating as they made it?

I reject your attempted argument.
I'm offended by
1. inappropriate
2. really all badly done
3. incredibly unthematic for the army.
Come on it reeks of 14 year old boy who's never actually touched a boob in his life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I am disappointed. I was expecting dicks and gaping fanged hell vaginas everywhere when I read "sexually explicit."

Just a pair of bloodied pole dancers.
The only problem I see here is that a Khornate Landraider has strippers. They should be wearing more armor, not less!

Exactly. A Dusk until Dawn motiff would be better with Slaanesh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.

Correction: It has no place in YOUR hobby.

Who the feth do you think you are to dictate to other people what they can and cannot do with their models, their PROPERTY?

he's not dictating. Dictating is when I tell you to go jump in a lake and have a Mossberg pointed at your chest.
He's proffering his opinion which was the point of the fething thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fezman wrote:
I wouldn't call it explicit. But I would say "what's the point?" It seems to be done just for pure shock value, or to try to be "edgy." But I just find such desperate attempts to be edgy childish.

I'd say the whoever did this conversion has perpetuated the stereotype of the creepy gamer with an unhealthy attitude to women, because the only way they could think to get them on the model was in cages, naked and dancing round poles...if you want women on your Chaos tank why not a female tank commander sticking out the hatch or female warriors clinging to the sides? Do followers of Khorne even care about sexuality as opposed to just hitting things with big axes?


And no, I'm not offended by sex/violence/swearing/Howard the Duck in art (delete where applicable)...I shouldn't even have to point that out. But the default role for women shouldn't be eye-candy.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.

I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.

Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.

I see "in keeping with the fluff" to be irrelevant. Many many people take liberties with the fluff to create their own vision, just because GW wrote X has exposed boobies doesn't mean you have to give X exposed boobies and likewise doesn't mean it's any more inappropriate to give Y exposed boobies instead.

At first glance the Land Raider just reminded me of the torture/sex/sin/death vision of hell. I don't see how it's any more inappropriate or offensively stupid than any other nude theme in a wargame.

Could it have been better executed? Maybe. But that is entirely irrelevant. Just because you aren't skilled enough to paint "The Birth of Venus" doesn't make your attempts to paint some boobies more inappropriate or stupid... it just means you aren't going to be making money and getting famous off it

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:

Him: Because I like it. I play a Debauchery themed army. Debauchery is a death metal band. Also I find it funny that you have no problem with blood, skulls, and gore, but you find nudity to be "creepy." Some double standards there?

His Land Raider fits his debauchery theme perfectly, it's neither Slaaneshi or Khornate. I googled Debauchery Band and this is the one of the first images that came up


If that's what his intention really was then it's a pretty good stab at it.

 Rayvon wrote:
I think it says volumes about the OP that he cannot look at the human body without bringing sex and jacking off into it.
Its his loss, he will grow up in time.

I think it says volumes that you jumped at and attacked him instead of addressing the argument and the topic he brings up.

Maybe you will grow up in time too?

I've already said my piece in this argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.

Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.

I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.

Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.

Talk about needing to read the thread...

I posted that on page 3. We are now on page 10. You do the maths.

I'm all for creativity, there are a lot more ugly things in life than the naked human form, and I have to ask to the OP - have you not seen such wonderfully powerful pieces of classic art such as Boticelli's venus and some of the pre-raphaelites work, and do you find that 'sexually explicit'?

Although the example given here is rather crudely done and I think more an object of mirth (and probably done for a piss-take) rather than through any desire to offend the prudish.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Its utterly stupid and has no place in the hobby. If people need to be so surrounded by sex that they convert or buy nude models to place in their army they play at public stores with children they have a problem. Nobody wants to look at your ugly conversions pervert, go look at porn.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Try reading the thread. There is no such person who has posted their own "sexually explicit" models in this thread, nor defended their existence to other posters. You are not really replying to anyone and you're just shouting at a wall.

Actually there have been plenty. Read the thread again.

I'll restate, I don't find these minis offensive, just inappopriate and offensively stupid.

Dark elf wyches- excellent models and in keeping with the fluff.
Khorne strippers - horrible minis, stupid fluff, and utterly antithematic.
if you were doing it right you would have Dark elf wyches on top the raider wielding super powerful electric guitars (or whatever the noise marines use) for the greater glory of Slaanesh.

Talk about needing to read the thread...

I posted that on page 3. We are now on page 10. You do the maths.

I've read it. You must not be familiar with the concept of disagreement in your world.

 Frazzled wrote:


I've read it. You must not be familiar with the concept of disagreement in your world.

Okay then, show me on the first 3 pages where such things are. As quoting something from 7 pages ago and using everything that has happened in between as basis for your rebuttal is just dumb.

The third post of the thread.
If no one was defending it, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

I'll restate, appropriate nudity is fine. The piece being discussed is just lame, it doesn't even make the offensive test, unlike the "eldar chick rape" diorama or the rather disgusting wet nurse miniature.

 Frazzled wrote:
The third post of the thread.
If no one was defending it, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

I'll restate, appropriate nudity is fine. The piece being discussed is just lame, it doesn't even make the offensive test, unlike the "eldar chick rape" diorama or the rather disgusting wet nurse miniature.

I'm not sure if the diorama was first or the /TG story, but yeah that one did leave a rather unpleasant sting

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this thread, as I have had not had a reliable internet connection for several days. Firstly I would like to say thank for you for keeping this debate relatively civil, as it would have been a shame for it to deride into name-calling or worse, for it to be locked. I would like to now address some of the points that have come up again and again.

I am not from the United States. The forum incorrectly identified my location as such. I am from the Republic of Ireland, which is admittedly an emotionally and sexually repressed nation. Right now I am living in Brazil with my girlfriend. I am employed and live on the second floor (third floor for the Americans among us), a far cry from the basement.

Some have noted that my forum avater is a still from the sci-fi horror film Event Horizon. It is one of my favourite films, and it does feature a lot of graphic violence. A considerable amount of footage was removed from this film, and left unpublished. While I'm familiar with neither the contents of said footage nor the circumstances surrounding this case, I am assuming somebody made a decision at one point that maybe certain material wasn't suitable for publishing, and this is enough to suggest to me that they exercised common sense and personal responsibility for their actions. Regarding the violent content in the pubished version of the film, I address similar points with regard to 40k at a later point in this post.

Some personal attacks against my character have been made, and while I subscribe to the thought that a personal attack is an argumental fallacy, given that the choice has been made to address the character rather than the argument, I don't entirely agree with it, because if an “argument,” valid or not by anyone's metric, has been brought up, then there must have been a reason, and it is right to address it, if one has time.

With this is mind, I would like to retract my statement about the original modeller being a creepy, slimy, masturbating basement dweller. While it is not only perfectly okay to do these things in the comfort of one's own home, it is also a personal attack, and again while I don't challenge the basis of personal attacks, I do think it is advisable to refrain from them. I also apologise if I initially appeared to be telling anybody how to think, or suggesting that anything should be censored. I absolutely do not believe in censorship. Instead I believe in common sense and personal responsibility regarding what kinds of things people can produce and publish.

While we are on the subject of the original modeller, several commentors have stated that we are having this discussion on the forum, and not in fact a conversation with the modeller. Also, questions of privacy have been brought up. In response to this, I would like to state that I spoke “directly” to him, via Facebook. My Facebook account is very much tied to my real person. I also did not post pictures of the model, and merely described it. Admittedly, this was partially because of my aforementioned poor internet connection, but I was also hesitant about using the original material.

The oft-quoted Stephen Fry piece of wisdom regarding the meaningless of the statement “I find that offensive” has been brought up. I agree with Stephen Fry. But, he's not objecting to taking offence, he's objecting to people using the fact that they've taken offence as a conversation ender, when in fact it should be the beginning of a discussion. It's not wrong to take offence, it's wrong to take offence and to then expect everyone to tiptoe around you without having their own input.

Now, on to the subject at hand. There seem to be several issues in discussion. I will go through them one by one. Before I start, as this thread progresses can we keep the usage of the words “men and females” to a minimum? This isn't the Discovery Channel, the species you are referring to are humans, and in the real world we call them women.

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

Yes, I am sure there are many other models that also depict tasteless imagery, but this is the particular one that caused me to start this discussion. Why? Couldn't it have been any other model? Yes, it could have been, but co-incidentally it was this one. These issues have been circulating in my mind lately, and given the rare opportunity, I chose to engage in a discussion with the other person involved. When that discussion went nowhere, I chose to bring it to the wider community.

I would say it is NSFW, and it is nude... but none of it is what you describe or sexually explicit. 

If sexually explicit means sexual insertion of an organ into an orrifice, then yes, you are right. These models do not include such imagery, but they do include imagery intended to be sexually provocative. Imagery like this would not feature in a PG movie, nor should it appear in a game designed for children.

Saying that the person in question is intentionally promoting the degradation of women would be like saying that people intentionally promote violent crime because they modelled their minis with guns and knives, or that they want someone's immortal soul to literally burn alive for the remainder of all eternity when they say "damned teenager". 

In all likelihood, you are probably right. I sincerely doubt he is promoting the subjugation of women. However, the simple fact is that there has been a long history of the such degradation, which still very much exists into the modern day, and he is using the same imagery as it.

 I've never seen anyone win a morality discussion, so why bother?

Yes, because it is hard to get people to agree on certain issues we shouldn't even bother having a conversation about them. Great addition to the thread.

Yeah, it seems that a person believing that people are sexually uncontrollable around toy soldiers says more about the person than about the people with the toy soldiers.

This, along with other comments about how I am the real mysognist here, are about as useful as saying “it takes one to know one,” or “whoever smelt it dealt it.” Regardless, you have fundamentally missed my point. I do not believe that after displaying this model in a shop, several onlookers would leave and begin raping. I believe that models like these are discouraging to women, and also endemic of a culture which actively reduces women to a sexual role. Men are people and women are sex objects.

I think there are genuine tragedies in this world, and people being exploited for commercial gain and whatnot, this ain't one of them.

---

I wish I had so little concerning me that I could get up in arms about boobs on little plastic soldiers. 

Consider yourself lucky in that regard, at least

Personally I think the societally endorsed subjugation of over fifty percent of the world's population is worth getting my knickers in a twist. There are other issues in the world which I also have opinions on. However, I spend most of my “issue solving energy” on gender issues and feminism, as given my resources and circumstances, I believe my energies are best spent in this regard. By regularly engaging in conversations and challenging people to consider different opinions, one can do a lot of good. As a kid, I was brought up to believe in things that I now know are wrong. Older kids told me that if I wanted to sleep with a girl at a party, I should give her a few drinks first, it would “loosen her up.” At no point did anyone equate this to date rape, and if questioned people would say something to the affect that the alcohol helped lower her inhibitions regarding society's expectations of her. But, I grew up and now know these things to be wrong. I'm glad that I never had any luck with tactics such as the above.

Personally, I think he just chose the wrong chaos god. Should have been Slaanesh, then it would make perfect sense.

Aside from it being thematic, with which I have other complaints, why would this have been so much better? It is still featuring the enslavement and objectification of women, who have been enslaved and objectified for most of human history by cultures all over the world, an issue which still exists in the present day. If this wasn't a real issue, if this were just a fantasy, then it wouldn't be a problem.

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.

No, but there are plenty of people who've been subject to all sorts of atrocities because of their gender. Most armies until very recent history have systematically raped women after conquering a new land. Women are still told how they should or shouldn't act, what types of products they should and shouldn't buy, all on the basis of what they have between their legs or under their shirts.

2) Do we think that whilst it is fine to portray mass genocide of other (alien) species, total enslavement of entire human populations, the suppression of democracy, torture, etc, etc, the line must be drawn at the grimdark future being sexist? 

---

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'

Partially because it is so over the top. It exists on a level that is completely unfathomable. The only word to describe the violence is silly. It's juvenile in the same way that the Cannibal Corpse lyrics that have been mentioned several times are juvenile. It's so over the top and ridiculous that it cannot possibly be taken seriously. However, it's also indiscriminate. Yes, there are organisations that specifically kill one type of people, but there are others that target them in turn, ad infinitum. I love the universe, but there is no denying that it is silly, and not even the most hardcore party line abiding GW staff member will disagree with you on this matter.

The sexism that is displayed, in the models, the stories, and the conversions, is almost entirely one sided. Add to that the fact that there is not a significant history of men being subjugated sexually in real life, and it totally negates any sexism directed towards men in the game. Try an experiment. Wolf whistle at the next ten girls you see on the street. Now, find a girl friend and ask her to do the same, but to guys. The girls will be offended, the boys probably won't. Regardless of the motivations or subtleties to their reactions, the simple fact exists that the girls will feel offended and potentially frightened, but the boys won't. Why? I am addressing that elsewhere, but for now, it is enough to say that those emotions exist and we should be mindful of anything that causes them. I am not speaking about censorship, just about mindfulness and common sense.

Offensive sexy Sci fi imagery? Have you seen Alien?

Yes, it is a fantastic masterpiece of the sci-fi horror genre. Even looking past the amazing set design, cinematography, and music, it also features many feminist and male-dominance-challenging themes. The hero is a woman. The villian is a woman. The monster violates men and forces them to confront the idea of a parasite living inside them. Its features are distinctly female and vagina-esque, forcing men to reevalute their opinions of femininity as being something pretty and maleable. This Queen will kick your ass. Challenging these opinions was what made it such an uncomfortable watch for so many. A lot of people equated this discomfort with it being a horror film, but this subconscious effect had more to do with the implications than the scares.

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.

Please, you are not this naive.

It has been happening for years. People get all sorts of upset about the number of bare chested (or chainmail bikinis) with miniatures, RPGs and general gaming - seemingly ignoring the Big Borises and Conans of the world. Sure there is a good bit of it - and it doesn't generally add much to the story...but for every bare chested female, there is probably a bare chested male (often doing equally silly things like running through snow wearing nothing but a loin cloth and a smile).

I think the comparison falls apart when the male dressed in a silly way is to make him appear more powerful, while the female dressed this was is to make her seem more feth-able. Disagree if you want, but enough people feel that way that gamers and designers should at least consider it if they want to appear more open minded and inviting to all potential players/fans.

This point addresses what has been brought up several times in this thread. Swap it with a naked man, or a giant dick. I do think it would be equally crass, but again, the difference is in the intention behind these depictions. Hercules looks like a badass, Xena Warrior Princess looks hot.

I'd say the whoever did this conversion has perpetuated the stereotype of the creepy gamer with an unhealthy attitude to women, because the only way they could think to get them on the model was in cages, naked and dancing round poles...if you want women on your Chaos tank why not a female tank commander sticking out the hatch or female warriors clinging to the sides? Do followers of Khorne even care about sexuality as opposed to just hitting things with big axes? 

And no, I'm not offended by sex/violence/swearing/Howard the Duck in art (delete where applicable)...I shouldn't even have to point that out. But the default role for women shouldn't be eye-candy.

---

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?

---

The model can be interpreted as an objectification of women. I do not personally have much of a problem with the model, but fair is fair. As the OP pointed out, one could look at the female miniatures in the model as being subordinated or sexually objectified. And yes, depicting scantily clad women in cages attached to a very aggressive-looking, masculine object suggests, on its face, that the women are being objectified. If someone has a problem with objectification of women, there is an objective basis on which to consider the model to objectify women.

Within this context the cage is rather significant.

It aint the nudity, it aint the women, it aint the blood, it aint the skullz, it aint the smoke or the giant axe. It's the cages. 

It is the fact that little persons who see depictions like that can begin to believe that the proper place for a woman is one in which they are deprived of power and agency

---

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.

You guys have hit the nail on the head. I wish I could explain myself so concisely, as for example in “it's not the [...], it's the cage.” As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with. Those women aren't in those cages by choice. They are not expressing their sexuality with any freedom. They are forced to express their sexuality for the pleasure of others.

The main point I'm trying to get at here, is that while this is very much a multi-faceted argument, the most important things for us, at dakkadakka.com and as part of the larger modeling and wargaming community to discuss is that this behaviour is discouraging to women. Similar to the wolf whistle example I mentioned above, just ask yourself the simple question, as the quoted commentor suggested, “Do models like this make women feel more or less welcome in the hobby?” If you answer yes, then that is your opinion to which you are entitled, but I can't honestly answer anything but no. It is as simple as that. There are changes that need to be made to the models and the games to reach a wider audience, and if someone is scared away by, and stops playing a game that is more accepting of women, then they're not the type of people I want to share a game with.

 Jonavic wrote:
Is this real life? Or is it just fantasy?

CAUGHT IN A LANDSLIDE, NO ESCAPE FROM REALITYYYYYYY

If the Cage is a problem and not the sexually poses of the ladies, then you should think of the theme, maybe they are slaneseh demonets in human form put there to rile up the khorne berzerkers and they are in a cage for protection, maybe they are witches that use sorcerous powers instead of normal las cannon.

Maybe the modeler into bondage and/or S&M, it's his prerogative, instead of worrying about some miniatures, go against the institutions that keep the women down. Even Magazines for female viewers have images that could be considered objectificative and subjectificative.

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:


As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.

So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.

Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?

I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

Davor wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:


As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.

So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.

Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?

I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

In fairness, it's even worse then that: the catchphrase for the upcoming new Dark Eldar (IIRC) is "Pray they don't take you alive"... because, you know, Commoragh is one big cesspool of torture/rape/murder/slavery.

Ultimately what this comes down to is... well, as I already said;

 Buzzsaw wrote:
We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters" (there really aren't enough ""s for that).

Let's put all the PC/SJW bologna aside: the OP's argument collapses completely... if the color of the tank in question is pink. Seriously now, if the tank is Slaanesh instead of Khorne, it's not only unobjectionable, it's completely thematic.

To say that one has a problem with "implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality" is to indicate a shocking lack of knowledge of the setting. People like to talk about how it is "grimdark" and "over-the-top", and part of that is there are some very brutal elements of sexual sadism just beneath the surface. And in the case of the Dark Eldar and Slaanesh cultists it's hard to even say that... it's pretty much right there, right in the open.

I've already said my piece, but I just wanted to address this one comment:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:

This point addresses what has been brought up several times in this thread. Swap it with a naked man, or a giant dick. I do think it would be equally crass, but again, the difference is in the intention behind these depictions. Hercules looks like a badass, Xena Warrior Princess looks hot.

My ex-girlfriend some time ago said the exact opposite of that statement. She called Xena (Lucy Lawless) a total badass while Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) was a sexy hunk.

 Amiricle wrote:

My ex-girlfriend some time ago said the exact opposite of that statement. She called Xena (Lucy Lawless) a total badass while Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) was a sexy hunk.

As a man, I actually have to agree with this sentiment. Sorbo really doesn't appear very strong, as a Hercules character should be, whereas Xena really was a total badass (with a "sexy", yet very useless sidekick, occasionally)

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:

]Offensive sexy Sci fi imagery? Have you seen Alien?

Yes, it is a fantastic masterpiece of the sci-fi horror genre. Even looking past the amazing set design, cinematography, and music, it also features many feminist and male-dominance-challenging themes. The hero is a woman. The villian is a woman. The monster violates men and forces them to confront the idea of a parasite living inside them. Its features are distinctly female and vagina-esque, forcing men to reevalute their opinions of femininity as being something pretty and maleable. This Queen will kick your ass. Challenging these opinions was what made it such an uncomfortable watch for so many. A lot of people equated this discomfort with it being a horror film, but this subconscious effect had more to do with the implications than the scares.

Absolutely not. The monster violates men and the main character is a strong woman, but absolutely nothing about the Queen is feminine. Everything in Alien is phallic, even the set design. H.R. Giger was, I would say, obsessed with phallic imagery.

http://wallpaperus.org/wallpapers/06/22/aliens-movie-2160x2880-wallpaper-810308.jpg

Look at the back of the head. Another mouth emerges from the main mouth to pierce people.

Personally I think the societally endorsed subjugation of over fifty percent of the world's population is worth getting my knickers in a twist.

One could ask why then you're spending time arguing about subjective sexism in a tabletop game instead of raising awareness of the real issues women face in third world countries such as FGM, forced marriage, rapes etc.
I don't see "societally endorsed subjugation" of a majority people within western democracies.

If this wasn't a real issue, if this were just a fantasy, then it wouldn't be a problem

Humans have been enslaved and objectified, and still are. Do you oppose their depiction?

not a significant history of men being subjugated sexually in real life

Men are a significantly large number of victims of rape, especially in warzones, it just goes largely ignored and is conveniently perpetuated by you, the feminists, because it doesn't fit their agenda as women being the weaker sex.

reach a wider audience

If women were interested in playing then they could play, no one is stopping them. Instead they seemed content to label anyone playing tabletop games or video games as creepy nerds or virgin losers.
Now that these hobbies are more mainstream and perceived as "cool" they want men to change things for them.

wolf whistling

That just goes to highlight the differences between women and men. Women will be offended by things men won't and vice versa, and whilst I wouldn't find it acceptable to harass a woman on the street it is similarly not acceptable to enter an area with different views and culture and start throwing a tantrum until they change everything to cater to you.
If women want to play wargames and don't like any currently on offer, they're more than welcome to make their own.

told how they should or shouldn't act, what types of products they should and shouldn't buy

Which is exactly what you are trying to do right now.

not the type of people I want to share a game with

And you frankly are not the sort of person I want to share the planet with. You are displaying an extreme intolerance of anything that doesn't fit your own worldview and demand others change to suit you.
Your paranoid sense of oppression is going to lead to the same outcome as blacks in the US, who were truly oppressed. Despite many things now being in their favour they continue to view themselves as an oppressed underclass and their own culture has formed around that and prevents them from breaking free of it.
Third-wave feminism falls little short of being simply anti-man, rather than egalitarianism. It calls for equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
The unfortunately popular modern feminists with their twitter followings discard equality, and feminists who call this into question are accused of "internalized misogyny", the feminist's "Uncle Tom".

Davor wrote:

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:


As has been stated again and again, I do not have a problem with the nudity, but it is the implied violence surrounding that nudity and that sexuality that I do have the problem with.

So what violence is acceptable? violence against women I can see your point. But in the same breath, how come genocide is acceptable? How come having SM who can act like the Nazi SS and everything else the worst in humanity rolled up into one is acceptable? From what I am seeing, one is ok, one is not.

Where are you drawing the line? How can you have a moral ground about women but then it's ok to have a holocaust. It's ok for the "good guys" to eliminate entire planets who are innocent for the great good. It's ok to mind wipe, or even kill because someone looked the wrong way or was witness to something and not their fault? When does it become unacceptable that children and grown men are playing a game representing these things? Why is it ok to play as someone like Hitler or his men, but it's not ok to to have some minis represent some bondage?

I am trying to understand you. Where do you draw the line? I just don't understand how someone can take offence about women being objectified or supposed violence against women, but then in the same breath be ok with murdering innocents from "good guys" who torture and do worse. I am trying to see your point, but I don't see it. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

I would like to know this as well... where do you draw the line?

I tend to be of the opinion that either things that are offensive are bad or they are acceptable. The 40k universe is hardly a model of political correctness. Isn't it a bit sexist to say offensive things are fine as long as it's not gender based offensive things?

If you're just talking about being inclusive... well, that's a harder topic because as a man I have little fething idea what women want The OP themselves pointed out that a female wargamer had no issue with it.

 Robisagg wrote:

 Jonavic wrote:
Is this real life? Or is it just fantasy?

CAUGHT IN A LANDSLIDE, NO ESCAPE FROM REALITYYYYYYY

*High Five*

spacewolflord wrote:
Personally I find sexually explicit models generally boring. If I want to see boobies I have an internet full of them. And this go for female models that leave little to the imagination. They just seem to say "I have boobs buy me!"
But I will admit when the Deamonettes lost their boobs I was not happy. It was their thing to be that way and they still made them look like they wanted to kill you.

Those Daemonettes would still e far superior to the current ones even if they were covered.