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.
2014/09/25 19:33:02
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Not offended by the human body. Nor do I think anyone should be, would hate to go back to that Victorian era mind set. There is nothing sexist about loving the human form, male or female. Some of my favorite works of art are of nude people both well known and not so well know.
Yes you can get very tacky or tasteless with some of the art out there but no one has the right not to feel insulted.
When it comes to models/miniature wargames, I don't mind half naked models or completely naked models. However, when it comes to a wargame I feel as though both men and woman should wear adequate armor unless their fluff/history supports it, like a barbarian race wearing bear fur or something. Does not make a whole of sense going into battle with crotch and titty armor if your male counter part has a full suit of armor. Cheese cake models should be some sort of special edition for those who like the art form.
In the end sex sell and when you need to pay the bills...
2014/09/26 08:18:06
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of animal sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Don't answer that. I'm not seriously asking you that. I'm just demonstrating how one can avoid answering a question but changing the subject of the question.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
I never mentioned the "But it's art!!!!!" argument. And stop making false equivalencies.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
Again, I'm not making the "But it's art!!!!!" argument, but the idea that one cannot depict sexual abuse against women (and I'm only talking about women here) in any form, which is what you appear to be saying, is laughable. Plenty of movies/books/television shows depict sexual abuse. Why would models be any different? Why would they be held to a different standard?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
And the same thing can't be done with this subject matter?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank.
When about depictions of sexual assault against men? And who says that its creation or even purpose is for "sly titillation"? And if some people did get "sly titillation" from it, why should that mean that the majority of people cannot create/view it?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Victims of violence? Wouldn't corpses on a models' base be a "depiction of violence"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/26 08:18:59
What is all this agro and white knighting rage over a couple of gogo dancer models? We are mostly mature adults here and if someone has wanted to build something like that well, its their choice. Personally, I should mention, I am all for these models. They add some variety and allow for some interesting dioramas (Im thinking Necromundian strip clubs, Slaaneshi transports, etc).
When I first saw this thread I was expecting something like sex scenes, that diorama showing a couple of IG infantry raping an Eldar or that slaaneshi army. What I saw was tame and merely suggestive compared to some things out there.
Anyhow, I own a squad of these lovely ladies
(And yess, one of them is completely naked)
And this beauty
As well as a load of other stuff (I own 3 Darkage armies) and I have plans to get a few other kits, some for my Darkage which need expanding but others from "this site" for a few projects I have in mind, so I cannot really be offended by a few strippers
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2014/09/26 08:54:04
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
See, I agree with almost everything you wrote but I disagree with the conclusion because I just can't see why it matters in real terms when it comes to hobby and entertainment pursuits, you know what I mean?
Like I told that Vinni bloke that his slave girl mini was in ridiculously poor taste in the thread when it first showed up. Especially because it was obviously based off a real person, but I have spent my whole life saying that it was ridiculous to ban Child's Play just because two weirdos killed a kid. or that it's daft to worry about violence in films and games because if you actually get raised properly, and don't have severe mental disorders, they are irrelevant.
And I see much, much, much worse than naked chicks on the side of a very well painted model, so why the fuss?
How many truly brutal rape scenes do we see in other media? I saw a proper honking one in a Monica Belluci film about a decade ago, hence I remember it, gak even the one in The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo was pretty visceral, and I saw one movie as a kid where some reavers raid a village, the leader sticks a nun to a wall with his sword, and then proceeds to shag her twitching corpse while his horrified men look on!
Nobody says this should be banned, because it's a fact of life and rape, and savagery and brutality happen. I suppose in some ways, shocking the audience has a purpose because I remember seeing something savagely brutal as a young man and thinking "I would never do that to a woman"
My point is simply that I don't think this matters in real terms, a model in a cage with her baps out? We see worse every day of the year in movies, on TV, in novels, in art of all mediums, I don't think it needs to be banned or even audibly condemned by me if I play against it. I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
I mean, I would never field an army with slave girls because I'd feel like a total dweeb just gluing the model together, but I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely you have to ignore almost everything in life (not just movies and TV but even the bloody news!) if you think this type of thing is damaging right?
Actually .. With all the Islamic groups, Boko Haram enslaving hundreds of women, and IS decapitating everyone I would say ESPECIALLY the bloody news!
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.
2014/09/26 11:06:40
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can women be portrayed as victims of sexual violence whilst not being shown as objects, and if so, is there anything wrong with that?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming? If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank. Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
See, I agree with almost everything you wrote but I disagree with the conclusion because I just can't see why it matters in real terms when it comes to hobby and entertainment pursuits, you know what I mean?
Like I told that Vinni bloke that his slave girl mini was in ridiculously poor taste in the thread when it first showed up. Especially because it was obviously based off a real person, but I have spent my whole life saying that it was ridiculous to ban Child's Play just because two weirdos killed a kid. or that it's daft to worry about violence in films and games because if you actually get raised properly, and don't have severe mental disorders, they are irrelevant.
And I see much, much, much worse than naked chicks on the side of a very well painted model, so why the fuss?
How many truly brutal rape scenes do we see in other media? I saw a proper honking one in a Monica Belluci film about a decade ago, hence I remember it, gak even the one in The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo was pretty visceral, and I saw one movie as a kid where some reavers raid a village, the leader sticks a nun to a wall with his sword, and then proceeds to shag her twitching corpse while his horrified men look on!
Nobody says this should be banned, because it's a fact of life and rape, and savagery and brutality happen. I suppose in some ways, shocking the audience has a purpose because I remember seeing something savagely brutal as a young man and thinking "I would never do that to a woman"
My point is simply that I don't think this matters in real terms, a model in a cage with her baps out? We see worse every day of the year in movies, on TV, in novels, in art of all mediums, I don't think it needs to be banned or even audibly condemned by me if I play against it. I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
I mean, I would never field an army with slave girls because I'd feel like a total dweeb just gluing the model together, but I don't see what the fuss is about. Surely you have to ignore almost everything in life (not just movies and TV but even the bloody news!) if you think this type of thing is damaging right?
Actually .. With all the Islamic groups, Boko Haram enslaving hundreds of women, and IS decapitating everyone I would say ESPECIALLY the bloody news!
The films you've cited had rape scenes in them as a part of the plot, demonstrating the wickedness of a villain in them. The scene is shocking, brutal and designed to elicit outrage. I personally have difficulty watching those sorts of thing in the same way I can't watch those animal shelter commercials, I get really angry, even in fictitious media.
The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
I've listened to these little punks at the local shop, gathered around playing magic and scoffing cheetos, talking about women like they're a bunch of hardcore pimps, until a woman walks into the shop and they all can't make eye contact and the smell of them drives her out again. Once she's gone, of course, she's fair game for the comments and all the things they'd have done to her, the same applies in the internet comments, when they don't have to actually try speaking to a woman face to face.
The point with the videos, is that you look at a list of them and choose one. Seeing a rape scene in GwDT is expected, the victim also, refreshingly, takes her own revenge and doesn't have to rely on a savior to rescue her. I considered it pertinent to the movie and of it's genre, it's inclusion isn't glorified, it's horrific and unpleasant. Bloodied nudes in cages on land raiders isn't designed to horrify, it's designed with a sly wink to your mates about chicks. It's objectification, moreover, it's objectification as victim.
2014/09/26 11:25:35
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of child sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Well, is there anything wrong with the portrayal of animal sexual abuse in miniature wargaming?
Don't answer that. I'm not seriously asking you that. I'm just demonstrating how one can avoid answering a question but changing the subject of the question.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If an 'eldar girl rape scene' is appropriate because 'it's art', is a 'slaanesh cultist getting his johnson out in a locked nursery full of toddlers' an appropriate scene because 'it's well painted'?
I never mentioned the "But it's art!!!!!" argument. And stop making false equivalencies.
It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The answer, for me, is a definite no. I've worked in child protection and I've worked with women who've been abused. I know there is enough total wickedness in the world that I really don't want it anywhere near one of my sources of escapism. The arguments for such things, the claims of some that 'it's art' or 'it depicts things that really happen' must, I hope, come from people without personal exposure to the real life horrors of violence against the vulnerable. I've seen it for real, I don't want it in my games, my miniatures and my life.
Again, I'm not making the "But it's art!!!!!" argument, but the idea that one cannot depict sexual abuse against women (and I'm only talking about women here) in any form, which is what you appear to be saying, is laughable. Plenty of movies/books/television shows depict sexual abuse. Why would models be any different? Why would they be held to a different standard?
Because that's how our society ranks crime. That's why we have toy guns for sale and not 'learn to rape' dolls. This isn't an art installation, it's not designed to 'say' anything. It's designed for immature giggling and it's insulting. 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The response of 'well, the horrors of war' is often touted at this point, those also don't apply here, war in these games is stylized and softened in the same way we don't worry overly about the storm trooper left to die slowly and horribly of his blaster wound after Solo shot him or the mutants eviscerated by the sword of omens when Lion-O cruised through.
And the same thing can't be done with this subject matter?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I am married to a woman, I was born of a woman, I am friends with women. They do not deserve this denigrating portrayal and the sly titillation it encourages among certain of our rank.
When about depictions of sexual assault against men? And who says that its creation or even purpose is for "sly titillation"? And if some people did get "sly titillation" from it, why should that mean that the majority of people cannot create/view it?
I would be against depictions of sexual assault against men. They aren't common though, are they? We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time. And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'.
Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like I said in my previous post, a little bubblegum does no harm, imo. Portrayals of sexual victims, victims of violence, however, do. As a side effect, they also send a very negative portrayal of a hobby I love out to the rest of the world and I really begrudge the ill effect these people and their 'ukrainian slave girl' minis or 'impregnating tit monster' being applied to the rest of us.
Victims of violence? Wouldn't corpses on a models' base be a "depiction of violence"?
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/26 11:28:26
2014/09/26 11:39:03
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
When I started 40k it was a lot more adult in tone. It was much sillier with pop culture references everywhere and punk characters with mohawks. But it also had art and rules books with 'mature readers' labels on the front. I suspect in some cases it was a gimmick because the contents were more text heavy than particularly salacious.
Older players with older attitudes are more likely to model adult themes, not just because they are older but because that's what 40k was. I can't speak for the thoughts behind the landraider starting this thread, but my idea of 40k is not what GW today thinks grimdark is.
The main audience for GW now is younger teenagers, GW make the game 'grimdark' in a very safe way. It's mostly full of characters doing OTT things rather than a genuine sinister feel to the universe. GW have tried to steer away from the approach in the 80s but there will always be a clash of ideas within the hobby. Just be aware of your local audience when bringing out models that might be risqué.
2014/09/26 11:46:04
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
I've listened to these little punks at the local shop, gathered around playing magic and scoffing cheetos, talking about women like they're a bunch of hardcore pimps, until a woman walks into the shop and they all can't make eye contact and the smell of them drives her out again. Once she's gone, of course, she's fair game for the comments and all the things they'd have done to her, the same applies in the internet comments, when they don't have to actually try speaking to a woman face to face.
A lot of assumptions and massive judgments here - so are you saying everyone who ever owns or paints a model that is not within your defined standards of taste and decency is either a bad man or a "basement dwelling virgin" - nice. You might be insulted, others are not, but isn't this the same as imageries of the Prophet which some find deeply offensive?
As I have said women have a variety of views on this - and shock horror have their own tastes, sexual fantasies which maybe mainstream or absolutely not and things that just amuse in this area - just listen to a bunch of women talk about sex / partners - its pretty graphic.
A lot of films and other art forms (photographers and modern artists) use sexual violence in varying ways - to educate, to titillate or just to garner headlines. Quite a lot of them have nothing actually to say about anything - they just want to sell DVDs, prints or whatever.
Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
Surely its the same argument but a different theme - what's right and wrong and what impositions should be made on people /society as a whole. Of course certain Asian countries would find this whole discussion a bit weird given the themes in manga etc.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
So you're psychic now?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/26 12:17:30
mattyrm wrote: I don't buy into any of this airy fairy nonsense that if you see a graphic act in a game you are more likely to go "awesome lets go do it!" so it just seems propesterous to drip about it.
(interestingly, while the average effect size of TV violence -> increased aggression is rather large, the TV altruism -> increased altruistic behavior is even larger!)
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2014/09/26 13:11:49
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Going right back to the original post on the first page, I just wanna say I thought the 'strippers in cages Land Raider' was a pretty silly idea. I understand the thinking behind it and I don't agree with it, but I can't yell 'ban this filth!' because, in the end, it's just a single plastic model built by someone whose maturity I'd question.
On a more intellectual level, the female form has been objectified and femininity itself condensed into a saleable asset for many years and this objectification is probably at it's peak right now. And I'm not happy with that. It's everywhere I look and my daughter, entering her teenage years, faces it too, as does every woman and girl you know. if you think that's right and OK then you're no friend of womankind.
But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
"If I advance, follow me. If I retreat, shoot me. If I fall, avenge me. This is my last command to you all. FORWARD!!"
2014/09/26 13:18:21
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Now I dont use this model if I am in a store where there are children present. Not that I think it will corrupt thier little minds, but it isnt my place to expose them to anything thier parents dont want.
As far as I am concerned, it is art and it fits with the theme of my army (which is led by a women btw)
~2k
~4k
kill team
2014/09/26 13:21:41
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
To each their own, and my own political leanings are too libertarian for me to tell other people what they should or not make/buy/paint, but here is my opinion.
For myself, I don't buy models that clearly objectify women or are explicitly violent. Just as I don't swear in my day-to-day conversations. The reason is that I know that those things are bad for my mental health/psyche... not in the "If I see one more boob model I'll go insane". Instead, I think of it as pollution... a little bit isn't going to hurt anyone, but as it builds up in the environment more people are affected by it in worse and worse ways.
Yes, for me that means no Dark Eldar or Demon armies in my future... certainly no Kingdom Death (that is the stuff of nightmares). No gore dripping from Warscythes in my Necron army of even Flayed Ones either. That doesn't prevent me from having fun playing against someone's Dark Eldar or Demon army... but I have set the limits for what I'm comfortable bringing into my home.
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
2014/09/26 13:51:05
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Can someone please explain to me why Hitler like characters are ok, but sex is not? People say they don't want violence or sex in there games yet play with characters that are worse than Hitler and all of evils men combined.
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".
2014/09/26 14:22:45
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Davor wrote: Can someone please explain to me why Hitler like characters are ok, but sex is not? People say they don't want violence or sex in there games yet play with characters that are worse than Hitler and all of evils men combined.
Because 20,000 years in the future or past is as removed from reality as most of us can imagine. Hell, it's been 700 years since Genghis Khan depopulated areas of Asia... and scholars in the West are applauding him for 'shaking things up' in a way to allow for the advancement of civilization. Collectively, we have a short memory.
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
2014/09/26 15:16:41
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
Fine by me - there are few naked male figures around - posted the naked Hoplites early There are also some gimp and similar models about for modern day games. Quite a few male "barbarians" have little on.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Chrissy_J wrote: But in the world of miniature wargaming, how about a compromise? For every busty, barely-clothed warrior princess or serving girl, how about sculpting a chiselled, leather thong-clad male cage fighter or slave?
Bare-chested or topless sculpts aren't enough - if you want to be fair, show us some almost-naked men as well as women.
As long as someone wants to sculpt them (and I know there are lots of people who have sculpted naked/servant male models) then I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
2014/09/26 20:21:44
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
No, I'm more than a bit sure you'd find some very poor behaviors towards women in the football stands and on the forums for paint ball. It is because we're nerds, because we're supposed to have a higher amount of smarts that I'd hope to find more readiness to accommodate and display a tolerant and welcoming attitude. Rather than divert our efforts into forming some form of resistance against some bizarrely perceived invasion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress.
I already stated several times this is not directed at the bubblegum or the little metal bikinis or having their tatas out, I own figures like that, I'm talking about the darker stuff, my ongoing point, portrayal of victimization of women.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Because you claimed 'the majority of people', when what you meant was 'the majority of men in a fringe hobby' but wanted to sound like you were representing 'the masses' vs lunatic fringe.
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
Depictions of sexual violence are not bad. Depictions of sexual violence for cheap thrills, immature amusement or to pay homage to a heavy metal band with your toy tank are.
mkay?
"placatory tautological nonsense" Handbags at dawn eh?
Nice, you kiss your mother with that thesaurus-vomiting gob? I'll raise your accusation with the counter of your indulgent reactionary dismissive closeted mysogenistic hyperbole bordering on social maladjustment.
How'd you like them apples?
2014/09/27 00:19:05
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The minis I've talked about aren't there to anger and outrage, or to raise awareness of a serious issue, they're their so basement dwelling virgins can exchange knowing smirks across the table and say 'hey bro, you stuck sluts on your raider, you're the alpha in our pack for sure'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not a false equivalence, it's a further example of sexual violence, with a change in gender/target, designed to illustrate that the gaming world finds this model more acceptable than those examples, because it's a woman and denigration of a woman to sexual object and victim is seen as acceptable whilst those other examples are not. I think we should be asking ourselves why.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Plenty of movies/books/television covers'... You just claimed I was making false equivalencies. Why don't we frequently see depictions of miniatures doing their yearly bookkeeping or nipping down to the shops to buy crisps... because it's a wargame. Whether we should be selling toy guns to kids or playing games depicting wars is another issue altogether.
You're claiming insider knowledge of the intent of the creator or, at the very least, assigning (an ulterior) motive to the model's creation without presenting any evidence that you know this to be true. If the guy who made that Land Raider said in a statement "I put these babes on the sponsons because LOL boobs!", then fine, but I can't see that he has. Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Why? What makes them different to any other form of violation, be it brutal murder, slavery, and so on... all of which exist within the universe this game is set within.
Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
And that's meant to prove what? Again, that's a question you needn't answer. I already know what you're going to say: "Because us nerds value women less! MISOGYNY!". Is that giant paint brush you're holding heavy? It sure looks heavy.
No, I'm more than a bit sure you'd find some very poor behaviors towards women in the football stands and on the forums for paint ball. It is because we're nerds, because we're supposed to have a higher amount of smarts that I'd hope to find more readiness to accommodate and display a tolerant and welcoming attitude. Rather than divert our efforts into forming some form of resistance against some bizarrely perceived invasion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: We see this dis-empowering depiction of women in miniatures all the time.
All the time hey? Most of the female miniatures I see tend to be "warrior" types, and are mostly fantasy models. They're mostly never dis-empowered. Or to put it another way: An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress.
I already stated several times this is not directed at the bubblegum or the little metal bikinis or having their tatas out, I own figures like that, I'm talking about the darker stuff, my ongoing point, portrayal of victimization of women.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: And it's not the 'majority of people' is it, our hobbies are vastly male dominated, so it's the 'majority of men who are in the hobby'. Men are highly unlikely to be subjected to violence and especially sexual violence purely based on their gender. Women are victimised across the face of the earth purely based on their gender.
Ok... we're talking about a Land Raider with some women in cases representing Lascannons. Why are you talking about who's more likely to be exposed to violence based upon their gender?
Because you claimed 'the majority of people', when what you meant was 'the majority of men in a fringe hobby' but wanted to sound like you were representing 'the masses' vs lunatic fringe.
Not what I wrote, comment taken out of context. Poor show.
What i said was 'sexual victims, victims of violence'. Are the corpses people raped to death? Unlikely.
That was churlish of you.
Cool. That's great. When you can show me why depictions of sexual violence are bad (not actual sexual violence, which obviously is bad, and no one is arguing otherwise) and, more importantly, when you can show that said depictions are done in a positive light (rather than usually being the purview or 'bad guys' or 'adversaries'), that is to say, somewhere where depictions of sexual violence are celebrated, then get back to me. Until such time, you're spouting placatory tautological nonsense and you might as well have just said "Sexual violence is bad, mkay!", and been done with it.
Depictions of sexual violence are not bad. Depictions of sexual violence for cheap thrills, immature amusement or to pay homage to a heavy metal band with your toy tank are.
mkay?
"placatory tautological nonsense" Handbags at dawn eh?
Nice, you kiss your mother with that thesaurus-vomiting gob? I'll raise your accusation with the counter of your indulgent reactionary dismissive closeted mysogenistic hyperbole bordering on social maladjustment.
How'd you like them apples?
Hmmm.....
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said. Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
'Posts Muthalover, do you read them?', etc...
2014/09/27 03:49:15
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I move this here because as I go through the many ways you've failed to understand and/or distorted my argument, it will be increasingly distressing that you imagine holding the intellectual high ground. 'Posts Muthalover!
Buzzsaw wrote: We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters".
Now, while it's tempting to dismiss MGS' entire post with that, there are two pieces that deserve special scorn;
-"we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such..."
As they say, who is this "we" you refer to? Because, contrary to what you seem to imagine, you sure as heck don't speak for me. On dakka alone there are gamers from every English speaking country (and no small number of non-English speaking countries), from uncountable cultures with wildly differing moral and ethical frameworks and ideas about civil rights, free speech and what is, and is not, permissible in public. Yet you say "we", as if there were some monolithic group of like minded people for whom you were making pronouncements. Even in this thread there is every appearance that your point of view is strongly outnumbered. And yet you say "we".
So you, taking an opposing view to what I said, which would mean you think that all crime is equal, all offense is equal and all taboo exists equally, there is no sliding scale, there is no measurement, no hierachy of crime or sin or moral outrage.
That's absolutely fascinating and certainly does remove you from the 'we' umbrella I cast over most of the rest of society. It makes your viewpoint, however, fairly unique and when I say unique I mean round the fething twist. It places you in a very small minority however, I'm sorry if that's news to you.
I like how I caution that even in this thread most people don't agree, and there are many different possible viewpoints, which to you meant 'opposite day', where I am professing that black is white, up is down and there is no moral overlap whatsoever between our worldviews. That charming naïveté becomes even more precious later when you dismiss a point as "sheltered". I also like how you both crafted a viewpoint for me from whole cloth and then helpfully supplied that it was a minority viewpoint.'Posts Muthalover!
And again and again you claim the mantle of speaking for women, even when the evidence is presented in the very first post that there are women who don't care about this or think about it in the same way that you do. And yet you say "we".
Show me where I claimed this? Or is that what you are immediately imagining without actually reading what I've said.
Oh, my bad! I didn't realize that when you helpfully supplied that you were "born of a woman" it was only to let us know you were ineligible to kill King MacBeth. That wasn't at all a facile attempt to decide what women deserve in their portrayals.'Posts Muthalover!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Also, if I can show you a black man speaking in support of the Klan, does that make the Klan an ok thing? Or are you asinine enough to claim one opinion as vindication?
Truly, yours is a dizzying intellect. I say (in addition to my pointing out people in this thread) that there is a dissenting female opinion in the OP, and this is in your mind transmuted into an outlier "one opinion". I suppose I could say that one opinion, repeated many times with many people has a different name, and that name is consensus. But hey, it's not like there are women posting in this very thread that don't find any real problem with the thing, or that, again, the majority of the thread seems to disagree with you (or at least a very healthy portion), but I would just be telling you what you surely already know. 'Posts Muthalover!
-"I see a giant tentacled rape monster with three supplicant nude victims sold out overnight with demand, I see routinely produced women in chains and state of undress."
First, it's lovely to see you up and around Mrs. Gore.
Second, let's be clear here: it seems that you are referring to the Wet Nurse model from Kingdom Death. It's important that we're talking about that, because if so, then what we're talking about is now a totally separate game from 40K. You can't wrap yourself in the mantle of "think of the children", because children don't play Kingdom Death. Oh, I know, it no doubt says something just terrible about gamer culture that such a thing is bought. That an artist with a disturbing and novel vision is bringing something different to... well, that's the thing.
I find your notion that these things exist in vacuums hilarious. And very sheltered.
I find your notion, that one man's ability to create and sell "these things" is hostage to what others may do or say in reaction to "these things", loathsome. Also shortsighted and... very sheltered. 'Posts Muthalover!
If the argument was solely about the model mentioned in the OP, you would have some point. I think your point would be wrong, but at least you would have the ability to point to GW's more recent moves in sanitizing (to at least some degree) their IP. Getting rid of the Diaz Demonettes and so on. But that's not the case: Kingdom Death material is far too hard to lay hands on, far too exotic and far too expensive to be a ready stand in for GW games. No, your problem with KD isn't that it's coming into 40k, your problem isthat it exists.
And that, my friend, throws out even the best argument your side mustered; that feedback should be offered so the business knows its customers. Because you're not a customer, it's impossible to imagine that the strange and disturbing world of KD will ever have any appeal for you, as the disturbing aesthetic is integral to the product. Which leaves you and yours not offering advice, but simply condemning a thing for existing.
Does the nursemaid miniature portray women in a positive light? Yes or no...
Yeah... see, when you start promoting the view that all art must service a particular moral or political ideal, that's when people start asking "where have I heard this before?"'Posts Muthalover!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: On the other note, again, it would be hugely useful if you could actually demonstrate some form of reading comprehension instead of half glancing at what I said and instantly getting your dismissive soapbox out, I have no issue with nudity, I don't have any problem with Diaz daemonettes, I own a half ton of them, along with witch elves, eschers, I do have a problem with portrayal of victimization and subjugation and it's repeated theme in miniatures, in it's portrayal of women, as sexual objects instead of people. Daemonettes aren't victims, Escher gangers and sexy pirate ladies or barbarian queens aren't slaves, aren't locked in cages covered in blood and aren't lying vulnerable on the floor about to be penetrated by a tentacle or raped by a gang of soldiers. I'm a little disappointed to be, again, explaining this to a poster who appears to have actually not read a word I wrote and instead got his nickers in a twist 'because feminist!'.
You spelled "scold" wrong. Let me give you a final hint: whether or not you think you are a feminist doesn't matter (for the record I count myself as one). Because guess what? When you demand that all art pass an ideological purity test, then you've numbered yourself among the book burners and the record smashers that came before. I know, I know, you're "protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children".
Whether or not you think my views are feminist, one thing I am without question is a civil libertarian. That's not just about the First Amendment, but a philosophy regarding how people in a free society must conduct themselves and the privileges they reserve both for themselves and for others. In this matter of speech at least, I am entirely in agreement with Alan Dershowitz, so if you wonder what I think in such a matter of speech, all you need to remember is that... I have better hair.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 03:51:07
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
I'm going to echo Buzzsaw and say "stop saying "we"". Now, yes, I do place a higher degree of taboo on sexual violence than I do getting beaten up as a teenager. But when it comes to genocide, murder, torture and "horrors of war", these different degrees of taboo start to blur a little bit, don't ya think?
Maybe it's just because I have friends whose houses have been burned down and their communities destroyed by people fuelled by religious intolerance. Maybe it's because I know people who have had to flee countries where some of these atrocities have occurred. Maybe it's because I know soldiers who are still emotionally scarred from having their friends brutally and violently killed in front of them. Maybe it's because unlike you I wasn't born of a woma... oh wait, yes I was.
Now, I've said earlier I can totally understand why someone would personally be more sensitive to a particular atrocity (sexual violence) than others (horrors of war). But I don't see how you can so easily write off those other atrocities as "oh well, it's stylised" or "oh well, sex is taboo". We often go back to Hitler, but these "horrors of war" are still happening now across the world. People are still being tortured and murdered for what they believe or who they are and where they live. Children are still being given guns and trained as soldiers.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Well obviously it has nothing to do with women in the information age... coz that's just fething stupid, 40k is not the information age, it's the anti-information age
But no, they don't look disempowered to me. Maybe it's just because almost all the women in my life have been strong, independent go-getters rather than the sort of women who need to be sheltered, but my mind doesn't immediately go to "those poor slave girls!". The Land Raider girls have smirks on their faces, they're in sexual poses but not subjugated poses, they're covered in blood but they don't look injured or in pain which to me immediately indicated they were the ones doing the killing (or at the very least just enjoying bathing in blood).
Not a wholesome theme at all, blood, death, sex... but I think if you are seeing it as disempowered and subjugated women that's your own inference rather than the intention. It's not the gist I got from seeing the model for the first time nor is it the gist I got of the creator's intention from watching the video that it was themed off...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Since this universe has humanity in it, all the unpleasantness of humanity exists, presumably, within it. I simply question the need to highlight certain aspects and further, the manner in which they were presented. As to why the sexual subjugation of women would be offensive vs violence of other kinds, I answered this previously, we place higher degrees of taboo on various types of crime against others and the portrayal of such.
I'm going to echo Buzzsaw and say "stop saying "we"". Now, yes, I do place a higher degree of taboo on sexual violence than I do getting beaten up as a teenager. But when it comes to genocide, murder, torture and "horrors of war", these different degrees of taboo start to blur a little bit, don't ya think?
Maybe it's just because I have friends whose houses have been burned down and their communities destroyed by people fuelled by religious intolerance. Maybe it's because I know people who have had to flee countries where some of these atrocities have occurred. Maybe it's because I know soldiers who are still emotionally scarred from having their friends brutally and violently killed in front of them. Maybe it's because unlike you I wasn't born of a woma... oh wait, yes I was.
Now, I've said earlier I can totally understand why someone would personally be more sensitive to a particular atrocity (sexual violence) than others (horrors of war). But I don't see how you can so easily write off those other atrocities as "oh well, it's stylised" or "oh well, sex is taboo". We often go back to Hitler, but these "horrors of war" are still happening now across the world. People are still being tortured and murdered for what they believe or who they are and where they live. Children are still being given guns and trained as soldiers.
No doubt he intended for the entire model to be a reflection of the empowerment of women in the information age, hence the cages and lack of clothes...
Well obviously it has nothing to do with women in the information age... coz that's just fething stupid, 40k is not the information age, it's the anti-information age
But no, they don't look disempowered to me. Maybe it's just because almost all the women in my life have been strong, independent go-getters rather than the sort of women who need to be sheltered, but my mind doesn't immediately go to "those poor slave girls!". The Land Raider girls have smirks on their faces, they're in sexual poses but not subjugated poses, they're covered in blood but they don't look injured or in pain which to me immediately indicated they were the ones doing the killing (or at the very least just enjoying bathing in blood).
Not a wholesome theme at all, blood, death, sex... but I think if you are seeing it as disempowered and subjugated women that's your own inference rather than the intention. It's not the gist I got from seeing the model for the first time nor is it the gist I got of the creator's intention from watching the video that it was themed off...
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.
....QFT, I guess.
2014/09/27 12:39:06
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
One of the major problems that plagues the hobby is egotism. There are a lot of gamers who only think about themselves. Gamers who do not shower do not care if other people are offended by their odor. Such behavior damages the community.
Obviously some people are offended by sexually explicit models. Using such models in games, or posting them on forums devoted to the hobby has the potential to drive the offended parties away from the hobby.
This is simply a matter of respect. If we do not have any, then the hobby will continue to be dominated by distainful men.
2014/09/27 12:47:06
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I don't find nudity offensive at all - I'm European What I find offensive is depicting women (or men) in a derogative way, reduced to their sexuality. Depicting torture and gore is not a problem, but if the message that I receive is "Women are to be used" then that's not ok for me.
My armies:
Eldar Necron Chaos Space Marines Grey Knights Imperial Knights Death Guard
2014/09/27 12:52:46
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
~2k
~4k
kill team 
~1.5k
