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.
2014/09/27 13:06:46
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
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!
My statement was that various crimes exist on a sliding scale, that society views different transgression from constructed norms in different ways and applies different punishment or restriction around it. You took offense to my umbrella terminology and claimed I don't speak for you on that. So you removed your person from the statement, you disagreed with the claim I made that all crime or taboo is not created equally, you continue to claim 'You just don't get me man!' without actually addressing that point, if you'd like to explain to me how you can remove yourself from that statement but somehow not come to the conclusion that instead you do view all taboo or crime as equal, or indeed that you believe there is no crime or taboo, then I'd be interested to hear how.
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!
Whilst I'll afford you points for quoting the bard, my claim to being born of woman etc was simply to identify my solidarity and suggest to others in the same situation, which should be all of us, that we take a minute to decide if the women in our lives were to see that, what it would say to them about us and how we think of them. If it further allows me to speak in a way contrary to the claimed female voice supporting portrayal of women as victim, my wife effing hates this figure as do a couple of my female friends who read the thread. Funnily enough, when I suggested they post here and actually add female commentary, they all echoed the statement that they had no wish to be shouted down by the prominent male voices here... Who'd have thunk it...
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!
So, as said, one female opinion. That's not the result of my dizzying intellect, that basic maths... I have another female opinion right here now, telling me to stop arguing with you because 'it's pointless and you're just being shouted down'. I already just matched that one opinion with another from the same demographic. What does this mean, could it possibly suggest you don't get to steamroller my opinion because 'this girl said'...?
Further, as I've been suggesting when I broadened this conversation from this miniature to others, their sales and accolades, I was suggesting that the miniatures/wargaming hobby has a problem with it's portrayal of women.
-"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!
Ah, because I take offense at something, I am a prude to be compared to Tipper Gore, who I presume can be compared to Mary Whitehouse. Again your 'all or nothing' stuck record.
BECAUSE ITS ART DARLING, YOU JUST DONT GET IT!
BECAUSE ITS BOUTIQUE IT CAN BE 'DARING'!
BECAUSE YOUR A PLEB TO TAKE OFFENSE!
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF CENSORSHIP!
They are sold because there is market and demand for them. I know you keep wanting to suggest that the kingdom death miniature in question is some kind of art, but it's a mass produced figurine covered in tits, about to put it's long tentacle-cock into a prone nude woman. It's not an art instillation, it's not got anything to 'say', it's not a portrayal of personal pain or a celebration of sexuality, it's a resin tit monster with naked female resin slaves. It's about as sacred a cow as Legend of the Overfiend and likely has the same audience who wore out the rewind button on that cartoon.
Vinny's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl' was not only portraying an actual human being, a named person who was imprisoned at the time, it labelled the women of a nation with an especially high rate of female abduction and human sex trafficking.
'But it can exist, because it's art and if you speak out on it you're a censor and you're a prude'.
Jog off. It's a toy soldier, it's a mass produced piece of resin. It's a snide source of denigration. It's spank-fodder. Or are you going to tell me manga tentacle porn is some form of art and sacred?
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!
Again, you love to keep cloaking these models in the emperor's clothes of 'it's art, you're not allowed to be offended'. 'You're a censor', no, but I am a human being with an established set of personal rules on what I do and do not find insulting, built from a mix of social upbringing and personal experience, this means I can take offense at things I view, yet your personal offense at my offense is... interesting. As though noone has a right, in your book, to be offended by portrayal of anything by anyone. You will find constant disappointment in the world if that's the case.
Can you explain to me, as I can't really see it, which group of people the hash pipe makers in your link are potentially denigrating, or is that just there to suggest I'm some form of pleb out to destroy artistic freedom and equatable to 'the man', man... ? If the glass they were working was being shaped into a child being abused, a woman in a cage or a black man hanging from a noose I might take offense, i don't personally fall into any of those categories as a white male adult. Do you think therefore I have no right to be offended by these things?
Can you really not see the difference? I don't give two gaks about people enjoying personal freedoms, but expressing the desire to restrict the freedoms of others with that is something I would confront.
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".
And we come full circle, to taboo and crime and degrees of acceptability.
Since you're labeling me a book burner and a moral guardian, I'll label you a rapist endorser, a pedophile sympathizer, a racism supporter and a champion of misogyny, as you believe everything is permissible if you label it 'art'. If, according to your hyperbole indulged lambasting, I'm the moral equivalent of a book burner for stating a thing to be sexist, because I'm 'against art', then you're facilitating all of the above because someone speaking out about a book on 'man and child love' is 'against literature'... (I'm not actually labeling you anything, you're someone I'm having a disagreement with on the internet, I'm just repaying the kindness of equating me with religious fundamentalists, fascists and totalitarians, hyperbole for the goose is hyperbole for the gander... ).
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.
All societies exist with moral codes. All groups of people who come together agree, verbally and subconsciously, to a series of boundaries and rules. It's what stops us all reenacting the snuff video bit from Event Horizon.
All I want is a more hospitable environment for female gamers, because female gamers tell me they find the environment in the miniatures/tabletopwargaming community unfriendly and sexist. I believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for people.
You and I find ourselves (on several occasions I think) at odds on this issue because you say 'Artists should have the right to produce whatever they want in the name of Free Speech and Free Expression' and I say 'Women and girls should have the rights to enjoy freedom, respect and equal treatment in the name of Democracy, Enlightenment and the Equality of the Individual'. I'll also remind you that a few posts above, you took me to task on using the word 'we' and claimed that I could make no sweeping statements on this as the forum and hobbies are multinational and multitudinous, yet here you are championing the 1st Amendment and applying entirely American philosophy and American libertarian bias to the issue...
Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Does someone have the right to produce a sculpture that is insulting to women?
For you yes it's art. For me... yes, but I also have the right to absolutely verbally pillory them for it, art is not a sacred cow, I also question calling mass produced models 'art'.
Labeling something 'Art' does not place an invulnerable forcefield around something. It does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a surrounding society, culture and the reaction of it's citizens.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
2014/09/27 13:08:08
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
spaceelf wrote: This is simply a matter of respect. If we do not have any, then the hobby will continue to be dominated by distainful men.
...and women. Because we've already seen that there are women in hobby who don't have a problem with it.
We don't want to be sexist here now do we?
But yeah, I do think you can try too hard to be inclusive. I think you'll find the people offended by it enough to not join the hobby when they might have otherwise is small. I imagine the main people offended by it are people who couldn't give a frak about wargaming in the first place and just want a reason to be offended... also the people who are outraged for the sake of being outraged or outraged that that someone else might be offended even though they're not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Err, no one is saying you can't have an opinion on a piece of art, there's a lot of art that I think is a pile of crap, but as you yourself pointed out....
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 13:12:41
2014/09/27 13:23:23
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
And you're comment here demonstrates precisely why I stopped responding to you, because in every reply, you missed the bloody point. It had nothing to do with tits. I'll engage criticism, I'll not engage willful misdirection and I hope it was willful and you're not actually just too bloody thick to understand what I've been saying..
Let me just clarify it for you one last time then we can move on.
It's not about tits, it's not about bubblegum or nudity on a miniature. It's about pose, situation, the suggestion or full depiction of victimization, subjugation and objectification. It's about disempowering and reinforcing the notions of women as objects, prizes and victims instead of equal human beings.
2014/09/27 13:44:24
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Your criticism once it's out in public is in and of itself also open to criticism.
You're free to think whatever you want about boobies on miniatures... we're free to disagree with what you think.
And you're comment here demonstrates precisely why I stopped responding to you, because in every reply, you missed the bloody point. It had nothing to do with tits. I'll engage criticism, I'll not engage willful misdirection and I hope it was willful and you're not actually just too bloody thick to understand what I've been saying..
Let me just clarify it for you one last time then we can move on.
It's not about tits, it's not about bubblegum or nudity on a miniature. It's about pose, situation, the suggestion or full depiction of victimization, subjugation and objectification. It's about disempowering and reinforcing the notions of women as objects, prizes and victims instead of equal human beings.
What?? You stopped replying to me because I was missing the point even though the point you just outlined is one of the exact points I was addressing. So in other words, yeah, you missed my points
Don't accuse me of wilful misdirection when I'm addressing your points but in a way you don't like. Here, this is one of the spots I specifically addressed that point:
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...
I even gave you a chance to clarify if I was misinterpreting you here and you ignored me:
Perhaps I did, your points seemed to be...
1. The women were victimised.
2. There's a social stigma of shame against women with sex.
3. Sexual violence doesn't carry the same implications as casual violence.
To which my reply is...
1. The victimisation is inferred rather than implied.
2. Maybe there is but I don't see how shying away from sexual themes helps that.
3. It may not carry the same implications as getting beaten up as a teenager... however that's not the type of violence we are seeing depicted in wargames anyway, the type of violence we see in wargames has deep and serious implications too and we trivialise it in to a game. If you're against the trivialisation and then flagrantly flaunting of atrocities that have personal implications on real life peoples, it seems you wouldn't be playing a war game to begin with. You wrote off "horrors of war" as being stylised and softened... but so are the sex themes so I'm not seeing what makes sex themes special, especially when it's not actually depicting sexual violence, it's just depicting sex... and violence (if you understand what I mean ).
No need for this bit. Reds8n
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/27 14:17:07
2014/09/27 14:56:26
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I still am shocked that people are making assumptions for the sake of being offended here.
No one is objectified or being abused in that mini unless you make sweeping assumptions about the creator.
As has been pointed out earlier, the bars are plenty wide enough for those dames to eat half the county supply of Mickey D's and still comfortably walk out. They aren't slaves unless giving free range with and axe is normal for being a slave.
It's the assumptions that something wrong is happening with the model that bother me most.
Some people truly want to be offended nowadays. They assume the worst intent in people rather then the best. That bothers me most.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 14:56:55
Sometimes a model needs to look brutal, in which case, it will have severed heads and skulls and tools of butchery.
Sometimes a model needs to look hideous, in which case we add deformities and ruined trappings.
And yes, sometimes a model needs to looks seductive. So you craft it to accentuate sexual beauty. Not everyone has the ability to handle sexual themes. In my opinion, this would be proof that the model is a success and should be lauded as such.
Still, the issue of this group remains. A model is making a person feel uncomfortable. How should this be approached? He is another person and his discomfort shouldn't be dismissed. It's like not liking sad movies. If you had in your possession an extremely depressing miniature, one that really got to them, they should stop for a moment and realize that what has happened is that they have just been affected by art. More often than not we tend to forget that this hobby is one of art, and this should be explained to them in a clear and respectful way. Those people here (not those being offended on others' behalf) against sexualization in miniatures don't seem to make this connection. So I think I've pinpointed the place where the solution to this is, and it is up to the anti crowd to create the resolution by coming to terms with it on their own. Removing or hiding the miniature won't solve the problem, it will only hide it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/27 15:18:31
2014/09/27 15:43:40
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
I just think it's worth noting that with art and any visual stimulus for that matter, people project based on their past and upbringing.
With this model for example, the people who see it as elicit and objectifying are projecting those ideals. Just like when I saw the mini I immediately thought the bars were for safety and the two women were vicious murderers that were possibly possessed.
If you want to see a theme in anything you'll find it.
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!
My statement was that various crimes exist on a sliding scale, that society views different transgression from constructed norms in different ways and applies different punishment or restriction around it. You took offense to my umbrella terminology and claimed I don't speak for you on that. So you removed your person from the statement, you disagreed with the claim I made that all crime or taboo is not created equally, you continue to claim 'You just don't get me man!' without actually addressing that point, if you'd like to explain to me how you can remove yourself from that statement but somehow not come to the conclusion that instead you do view all taboo or crime as equal, or indeed that you believe there is no crime or taboo, then I'd be interested to hear how.
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!
Whilst I'll afford you points for quoting the bard, my claim to being born of woman etc was simply to identify my solidarity and suggest to others in the same situation, which should be all of us, that we take a minute to decide if the women in our lives were to see that, what it would say to them about us and how we think of them. If it further allows me to speak in a way contrary to the claimed female voice supporting portrayal of women as victim, my wife effing hates this figure as do a couple of my female friends who read the thread. Funnily enough, when I suggested they post here and actually add female commentary, they all echoed the statement that they had no wish to be shouted down by the prominent male voices here... Who'd have thunk it...
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!
So, as said, one female opinion. That's not the result of my dizzying intellect, that basic maths... I have another female opinion right here now, telling me to stop arguing with you because 'it's pointless and you're just being shouted down'. I already just matched that one opinion with another from the same demographic. What does this mean, could it possibly suggest you don't get to steamroller my opinion because 'this girl said'...?
Further, as I've been suggesting when I broadened this conversation from this miniature to others, their sales and accolades, I was suggesting that the miniatures/wargaming hobby has a problem with it's portrayal of women.
-"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!
Ah, because I take offense at something, I am a prude to be compared to Tipper Gore, who I presume can be compared to Mary Whitehouse. Again your 'all or nothing' stuck record.
BECAUSE ITS ART DARLING, YOU JUST DONT GET IT!
BECAUSE ITS BOUTIQUE IT CAN BE 'DARING'!
BECAUSE YOUR A PLEB TO TAKE OFFENSE!
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF CENSORSHIP!
They are sold because there is market and demand for them. I know you keep wanting to suggest that the kingdom death miniature in question is some kind of art, but it's a mass produced figurine covered in tits, about to put it's long tentacle-cock into a prone nude woman. It's not an art instillation, it's not got anything to 'say', it's not a portrayal of personal pain or a celebration of sexuality, it's a resin tit monster with naked female resin slaves. It's about as sacred a cow as Legend of the Overfiend and likely has the same audience who wore out the rewind button on that cartoon.
Vinny's 'Ukrainian Slave Girl' was not only portraying an actual human being, a named person who was imprisoned at the time, it labelled the women of a nation with an especially high rate of female abduction and human sex trafficking.
'But it can exist, because it's art and if you speak out on it you're a censor and you're a prude'.
Jog off. It's a toy soldier, it's a mass produced piece of resin. It's a snide source of denigration. It's spank-fodder. Or are you going to tell me manga tentacle porn is some form of art and sacred?
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!
Again, you love to keep cloaking these models in the emperor's clothes of 'it's art, you're not allowed to be offended'. 'You're a censor', no, but I am a human being with an established set of personal rules on what I do and do not find insulting, built from a mix of social upbringing and personal experience, this means I can take offense at things I view, yet your personal offense at my offense is... interesting. As though noone has a right, in your book, to be offended by portrayal of anything by anyone. You will find constant disappointment in the world if that's the case.
Can you explain to me, as I can't really see it, which group of people the hash pipe makers in your link are potentially denigrating, or is that just there to suggest I'm some form of pleb out to destroy artistic freedom and equatable to 'the man', man... ? If the glass they were working was being shaped into a child being abused, a woman in a cage or a black man hanging from a noose I might take offense, i don't personally fall into any of those categories as a white male adult. Do you think therefore I have no right to be offended by these things?
Can you really not see the difference? I don't give two gaks about people enjoying personal freedoms, but expressing the desire to restrict the freedoms of others with that is something I would confront.
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".
And we come full circle, to taboo and crime and degrees of acceptability.
Since you're labeling me a book burner and a moral guardian, I'll label you a rapist endorser, a pedophile sympathizer, a racism supporter and a champion of misogyny, as you believe everything is permissible if you label it 'art'. If, according to your hyperbole indulged lambasting, I'm the moral equivalent of a book burner for stating a thing to be sexist, because I'm 'against art', then you're facilitating all of the above because someone speaking out about a book on 'man and child love' is 'against literature'... (I'm not actually labeling you anything, you're someone I'm having a disagreement with on the internet, I'm just repaying the kindness of equating me with religious fundamentalists, fascists and totalitarians, hyperbole for the goose is hyperbole for the gander... ).
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.
All societies exist with moral codes. All groups of people who come together agree, verbally and subconsciously, to a series of boundaries and rules. It's what stops us all reenacting the snuff video bit from Event Horizon.
All I want is a more hospitable environment for female gamers, because female gamers tell me they find the environment in the miniatures/tabletopwargaming community unfriendly and sexist. I believe very strongly in equal rights and treatment for people.
You and I find ourselves (on several occasions I think) at odds on this issue because you say 'Artists should have the right to produce whatever they want in the name of Free Speech and Free Expression' and I say 'Women and girls should have the rights to enjoy freedom, respect and equal treatment in the name of Democracy, Enlightenment and the Equality of the Individual'. I'll also remind you that a few posts above, you took me to task on using the word 'we' and claimed that I could make no sweeping statements on this as the forum and hobbies are multinational and multitudinous, yet here you are championing the 1st Amendment and applying entirely American philosophy and American libertarian bias to the issue...
Does an artist have a right to make a statement, even if that statement insults a group or misrepresents and undermines the liberties of a group?
For me, that's questionable. For you it's a sacred right.
Do people have the right to speak out and say that they find something insulting or belittling or morally offensive?
For me that's a sacred right. For you that's unacceptable if it's 'art'.
Does someone have the right to produce a sculpture that is insulting to women?
For you yes it's art. For me... yes, but I also have the right to absolutely verbally pillory them for it, art is not a sacred cow, I also question calling mass produced models 'art'.
Labeling something 'Art' does not place an invulnerable forcefield around something. It does not exist in a vacuum, it exists within a surrounding society, culture and the reaction of it's citizens.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
First, an apology: I should not have used the word "art" when I should have said "speech", since art is just a type of speech and now you have latched onto definitions of art erroneously. "[M]ass produced" models are most definitely speech, just as mass produced books, records, pamphlets, photos, pieces of machines steel, textiles, little glass pipes... well, you get the point (I hope).
And a second apology as while I do intend to pick through the many, many terrible arguments and incorrect assumptions in MGS' post, I have plans for the afternoon and will attend to it later this evening.
Finally, let me simply point out that I didn't pick Professor Dershowitz' name out of a hat. In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
Having chopped heads, ripped spines, split guts, exploded brains, tons of blood, tapestries made of skin, and a bucket load of skull on a model is totally acceptable and cool?
Having sexually explicit models, is offensive?
The level of hypocrisy and puritanism in our society is exceeding my wildest expectations.
Got milk?
All I can say about painting is that VMC tastes much better than VMA... especially black...
PM me if you are interested in Commission work.
2014/09/27 16:22:26
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
First, an apology: I should not have used the word "art" when I should have said "speech", since art is just a type of speech and now you have latched onto definitions of art erroneously. "[M]ass produced" models are most definitely speech, just as mass produced books, records, pamphlets, photos, pieces of machines steel, textiles, little glass pipes... well, you get the point (I hope).
I didn't latch onto anything erroneously, you made repeated reference to art and freedom of artistic expression, now you're claiming a mass produced item for retail is 'freedom of speech'.
You appear to be shifting your goalposts considerably. I'm pleased you're forced to reexamine your perspective, shaky as it is. Cloak it as my mistake if you want, but you've been talking about not getting art for the last few posts.
Are massed produced burgers free speech? Someone designed them, someone wanted them to be as they are. By your logic, citing a mass produced item firstly as art and then as freedom of speech, the big mac is both art and the expression of the Freedom of Speech.
I think that's a bit slanted tbh.
Also, again, because you were sure enough to point the finger at me and squeal 'J'accuse', I can only return the favor.
In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
vs
Buzzsaw wrote: 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".
Do you see the hypocrisy in what you're said? I'm totally glad you're here to lecture us all about how America wants us to behave and what America wants us to tolerate... Not only speaking for the constitution, not only speaking for your own nation, but applying your moral framework for everyone else... Because Freedom!
How benevolent of you...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 17:47:32
2014/09/27 17:24:45
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
You're both talking past one another, and I imagine that's the source of your mutual (apparent) frustration.
An argument addressing the casual and rampant objectification of women in gaming (and the larger society) is a good one.
An argument for a person's or group's right to express themselves verbally or artistically is a good one.
Is this PARTICULAR example (OP's) an especially good one, from the point of view of either of these positions (which most certainly are not diametrically opposed)? Clearly it is not. You can imagine all sorts of things about authorial intent. Nude dancers, are they empowered? Are they caged? etc. etc. The pedantic nit-picking could go on forever.
I think what's ignored by some is the context in which expressions like this happen. Take a Golliwog by way of analogy. Is a cartoon representation of a black person doing something comedic insulting or problematic in a vacuum? No more so than a cartoon white person doing something slapstick-ey. It is because of historical and cultural conditions that it is in the real world problematic. Does that mean one CANNOT create or depict Golliwogs? Does it make one automatically racist? It depends on one's level of awareness of what one is doing, one's intent and the context in which it is presented. Used as part of a recognition or critique of said history/cultural conditions it could be entirely legitimate. Used without thought, or with callous intent it would be (and is) uninformed, cruel, and racist.
I would argue that there's a parallel with sexualized depictions of women by men.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/27 17:26:18
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2014/09/27 20:55:41
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
You're both talking past one another, and I imagine that's the source of your mutual (apparent) frustration.
An argument addressing the casual and rampant objectification of women in gaming (and the larger society) is a good one.
An argument for a person's or group's right to express themselves verbally or artistically is a good one.
Is this PARTICULAR example (OP's) an especially good one, from the point of view of either of these positions (which most certainly are not diametrically opposed)? Clearly it is not. You can imagine all sorts of things about authorial intent. Nude dancers, are they empowered? Are they caged? etc. etc. The pedantic nit-picking could go on forever.
I think what's ignored by some is the context in which expressions like this happen. Take a Golliwog by way of analogy. Is a cartoon representation of a black person doing something comedic insulting or problematic in a vacuum? No more so than a cartoon white person doing something slapstick-ey. It is because of historical and cultural conditions that it is in the real world problematic. Does that mean one CANNOT create or depict Golliwogs? Does it make one automatically racist? It depends on one's level of awareness of what one is doing, one's intent and the context in which it is presented. Used as part of a recognition or critique of said history/cultural conditions it could be entirely legitimate. Used without thought, or with callous intent it would be (and is) uninformed, cruel, and racist.
I would argue that there's a parallel with sexualized depictions of women by men.
You're right and I'm done with the thread. I'm not going to get anywhere further with this discussion, we're travelling in ever decreasing circles with the conclusion we'll just get ruder and ruder to each other until one or both of us is censured for it by the mods. So, to conclude.
I think it's a portrayal of women in an unfavorable light. I think there are worse tbh, I thought the eldar rape was totally out of order, but it's tinder on the bonfire, it's contributing to reinforced objectifying depiction of women.
I think our hobbies have an issue regarding how they portray women.
I think how we portray women keeps more women out of gaming or of contributing more directly if they are already in the hobby.
I think our hobbies would benefit from a more gender mixed ratio. I think we could be looking at a potential 50% increase in gamers/painters etc. More people to play against, more writers, more designers, more miniatures, more painters, all of this is a good thing imo.
I think it reinforces negative stereotypes people outside our hobbies may have of us. I think we do ourselves a great disservice in this.
I'd like to see us smarten up a bit, tidy the place up, hide our spank-mags, put on deodorant and welcome the ladies over for pizza and a movie, try to include them, make them feel comfortable and not immediately creep them out and drive them off with our posters of torture porn just 'because we have the right to have posters of torture porn', metaphorically speaking.
I want the ladies to join us. I enjoy their company and think they can do nothing but good for the hobbies. I object to people putting them off.
And that's it from me really.
Adios.
2014/09/27 21:28:55
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Buzzsaw wrote: In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means that the government can't ban speech it doesn't like (outside of certain limited situations), not that you have a right to say whatever you want without anyone objecting to it. And since the issue here is individuals objecting to speech rather than government censorship calling it a "freedom of speech" issue is a joke.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/27 21:34:26
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
And I think you missed his point by a country mile and change.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Buzzsaw wrote: In America we often say that "Freedom isn't free" as a reference to the sacrifices of our servicemen for our country. But it is more then just that, it's a responsibility for all people to understand that free speech for the best of us cannot exist without free speech for the worst of us. Put another way, there is not (and indeed cannot be) a freedom from being offended.
I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means that the government can't ban speech it doesn't like (outside of certain limited situations), not that you have a right to say whatever you want without anyone objecting to it. And since the issue here is individuals objecting to speech rather than government censorship calling it a "freedom of speech" issue is a joke.
Would that it were - but it is on the edge of the slippery slope...
We have a very bad history of using the government to stomp on freedom to be stupid, hateful or vile. There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...). There is a long history (much of it still in effect) that prevents your average sexist, bigot, racist or otherwise from fully and freely practicing their right to free expression.
The simple answer to expressions you don't like is that if you don't like it, don't buy it (or view it, listen to it, taste it...). When people start pushing against an idea (in this case objectification of women - which is hard to even reason given the facts of the model in question) it is tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." and then there is one "for the children..." (or for equality, or respect...). It all ignores that people have the right to be dumb - and to be honest...I think it would be much better if we just let them. Think of how much easier it would be if we still allowed business owners to post signs outside their shops "No Colored Folk Allowed" - identifying the morons becomes simple stuff.
2014/09/28 00:20:12
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Ok time to cool it a bit guys. Saying things would be easier with segregation still a thing is going to make a lot of people angry, so let's dial it back a few steps
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2014/09/28 00:50:23
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Not sure what all's going on but in response to the topic title i don't mind sexually explicit with some things. That said it seems to scream 'closet pervert' when you make or buy a model of a bunch of naked or at least topless slave girls. I'm a huge pervert myself but i'm more open about it.
For me it's ok to show nudity on models but if it shows rape like one pic of several guardsmen about to rape a female eldar then it isn't (it was on 'cool mini or not'). Is anybody being harmed in reality? No. Is it crude and repulsive? In my opinion it is (and that's saying something coming from me). I suppose some art is supposed to inspire emotions in the viewer. If that art's point was to make me feel disgusted and angered then job well done. I'm not even saying somebody should or shouldn't make it. I merely say i'd rather not look at it since i'm one of those people that would rather not deprive people of something just because i don't agree with it.
Also on the topic of the female eldar about to be raped by some guardsmen though i thought the scene was disgusting i will admit the painting was well done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/28 00:52:06
except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
it also fits into the 40K setting in a way that the Land Raider that started this topic doesn't...
the Land Raider that started all this is representing a theme of a modern band, which has nothing to do with the 40K setting, and thus doesn't work for me...
why did the tank lose it's lascannons???
what purpose do the dancers serve as a weapon???
these two things are what make the conversion fail for me as a 40K mini...
as a man, i won't even touch the subject of how women should or should not be represented...
i will leave that to the women, who are quite capable of defending their own ideals...
i just love them, and respect them, and get driven up the wall trying to figure them out...
cheers
jah
Paint like ya got a pair!
Available for commissions.
2014/09/28 13:40:31
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
it also fits into the 40K setting in a way that the Land Raider that started this topic doesn't...
the Land Raider that started all this is representing a theme of a modern band, which has nothing to do with the 40K setting, and thus doesn't work for me...
why did the tank lose it's lascannons???
what purpose do the dancers serve as a weapon???
these two things are what make the conversion fail for me as a 40K mini...
as a man, i won't even touch the subject of how women should or should not be represented...
i will leave that to the women, who are quite capable of defending their own ideals...
i just love them, and respect them, and get driven up the wall trying to figure them out...
cheers
jah
I agree people are projecting too much, also people should take notice of the context of which period, fantasy or fiction world the diorama or model tries to convey.
I see chaos as like a gwar concert where no one is save from debauchery, victimization, etcetera, normal morality just doesn't apply,
People keep projecting their own morality on a miniature set in a world with questionable morality.
And i could understand why clubs and/or tournaments would or could ban it , but it is his mini he can do with it whatever he want, would you be offended if it had a gay bondage sm theme where leather laced Freddy Mercury stands on top whipping the 12 gimps pulling the land raider?
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
I would disagree with you on this piece. The helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in its posing. There is no visual key for the viewer to see the Eldar defending herself.
The Land Raider Is particularly poor in execution. Modelling wise the ladies are not the worst part by a long shot but are part of a whole that is unconvincing.
2014/09/28 15:56:04
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
And i could understand why clubs and/or tournaments would or could ban it , but it is his mini he can do with it whatever he want, would you be offended if it had a gay bondage sm theme where leather laced Freddy Mercury stands on top whipping the 12 gimps pulling the land raider?
Entire army of Exterminators... Can't seem to find any pictures of it - but shortly after Neal produced those...it was done. Had a unit of cav, three units of infantry all lead by Sean Connery...err...Zardoz.
2014/09/28 15:58:38
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Sean_OBrien wrote: There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...).
I can understand why you'd balk at the name of the site that hosts that article, but the research reviewed in that meta-analysis was conducted empirically. If you read it all and drew your own conclusions, thats fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Kabal of the Slit Throat ~2000pts
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
2014/09/28 18:53:59
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Sean_OBrien wrote: There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...).
I can understand why you'd balk at the name of the site that hosts that article, but the research reviewed in that meta-analysis was conducted empirically. If you read it all and drew your own conclusions, thats fine, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Has nothing to do with the baby, the bathwater or the children...
Rather the parents. I don't think brothels should be illegal...nor most drugs. I also don't think kids should be hanging out with hookers or smoking pot. However, I don't think we should do anything to keep them away from hookers and pot - that is up to parents. Sites like that do want the government to get involved though - and that is the problem. Not the results of their studies, but what they want to do with it. There goal of influencing "policy-relevant" regulations is a very scary thing to me. They actually want to get into real, honest to goodness, government censorship (and they think it is a good thing).
2014/09/28 19:05:50
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
It's a whole other subject, and OT for here, so I'll keep it brief, but the whole abdication of personal responsibility to the state is my BIGGEST bugbear with modern society as a whole.
"My child is fat/stupid/badly behaved/illl-disciplined/whatever, but it can't possibly be my fault for feeding it crap/not spending time educating it/establishing boundaries/whatever, it must be the state. Give me money."
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
jah-joshua wrote: except the scene did not depict rape...
that is projected by the viewer...
i was a vocal defender of the Alien Contact piece in 2010, and still am...
i see the piece as the moment before the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape...
had the piece actually been called Eldar Rape, and depicted a rape, i would find it distasteful...
since it isn't, and doesn't, i find it a very thought-provoking piece...
I would disagree with you on this piece. The helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in its posing. There is no visual key for the viewer to see the Eldar defending herself.
The Land Raider Is particularly poor in execution. Modelling wise the ladies are not the worst part by a long shot but are part of a whole that is unconvincing.
of course, i respect the fact that you are free to disagree with me on the piece...
that is the nature of art interpretation...
it speaks differently to each viewer...
if you read my post again, you will see that i said i see it as "the moment BEFORE the Eldar, who is faster and deadlier than a standard Guardsman, leaps into action, and takes out the Guardsmen, before making her escape..."
for me, the key is the look in the eyes of the mini, who is assessing her options, before making her move...
i don't see her as looking helpless or defeated, accepting that she will be violated...
if that is what you see, that is your interpretation, but i don't think "the helplessness of the Eldar is readily apparent in the posing", because the look in her eyes is what is telling me the story...
i give Nakatan the benefit of the doubt in this piece...
i think he created an amazing narrative, because the tiny size of the eyes still convey a story, to me...
obviously, nobody has to agree with me, but if you go back and read the comments on CMON, you will see that i am not alone in this interpretation...
i do need to thank you for disagreeing in a positive, friendly manner, instead of just jumping on me, and calling me a sick, twisted, basement-dwelling pervert for defending this diorama's existence...
it is a refreshing change of tone from many of the posts in this thread, on both sides of the argument...
cheers
jah
Paint like ya got a pair!
Available for commissions.
2014/09/28 21:45:22
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
Would that it were - but it is on the edge of the slippery slope...
We have a very bad history of using the government to stomp on freedom to be stupid, hateful or vile. There has already been links placed to a site which is "for the children" that wants to influence government regulations to limit violence in media (video games, movies, TV and books...). There is a long history (much of it still in effect) that prevents your average sexist, bigot, racist or otherwise from fully and freely practicing their right to free expression.
There are no government agencies on dakkadakka. Some people are just advocating against some type of miniatures and want to see less of that and more of other types of depiction of women. Nobody is saying the government should be involved, so why even mention that. The other poster was right is saying that this is not an free speech issue. Nobody can censor miniatuers of any type in a "people talking about stuff on a forum" situation.
The simple answer to expressions you don't like is that if you don't like it, don't buy it (or view it, listen to it, taste it...). When people start pushing against an idea (in this case objectification of women - which is hard to even reason given the facts of the model in question) it is tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." and then there is one "for the children..." (or for equality, or respect...). It all ignores that people have the right to be dumb - and to be honest...I think it would be much better if we just let them. Think of how much easier it would be if we still allowed business owners to post signs outside their shops "No Colored Folk Allowed" - identifying the morons becomes simple stuff.
It might be the simple answer but inaction often doesn't help improve a situation because people who have nothing to lose from the situation staying the same don't even see the need to change stuff. If nobody says anything things tend to not change, change rather slowly, or even get worse.
People who don't like somebody's expression are also free to express themselves so why advocate for them staying silent? If one is so concerned about the freedom to express oneself then one should also be able to deal with criticism (which are other people's expressions after all). And escalating the argument to tiny steps to "There ought to be a law..." is just avoiding the actual discussion for the sake of an fictional argument that nobody made.
How does this even make sense? :- /
One person makes a miniature with questionable content: Great, feel free to express yourself!
Another person says they don't like that miniature and mentions that things could be better: What's your problem, don't you have anything better to do?
2014/09/28 22:00:12
Subject: Re:How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
After reading some of this threat I am sitting here with my mouth wide open, staring at my screen in disbelief and I am still wondering what is going on.
I mean the Landraider is from a universe in which it is absolutely fine to torture people to death because they are just different or believe in other gods etc.
Mass genocide, torturing the popolation of an entire world to please some gods is fine, letting people work themselfs to death to build wargear is daily buissnes and races like the Tau who just expand their empire and only feed some of the people of the planets they conquered or just a part of the pow they make to their allies and not just butcher all of them are considered to be not grimdark enough and are hated by some folks for that reason.
And you folks are loosing your minds because of what ? Some half naked girls in cages ?
WTF
I have to quote Georgre R.R. Matin here I guess
2014/09/29 02:37:45
Subject: How do people feel about sexually explicit models?
).
Elect of the Plaguefather 4500pts
...
