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.

 RunicFIN wrote:
My opinion is that modern society is over the top sensitive and a big deal is made about pretty much anything. This is especially prevalent in social media which is filled with justice warriors who are often paradoxical themselves and have double standards.

I don't think that's entirely fair. While it's true that social media is full of people that appear to be using these issues for their daily pat on the shoulder fix, there are those that are genuinely offended/made uncomfortable by these sorts of things, and that should be respected. Surely you can see where they're coming from?

Awesome as it may be, naked chicks covered in blood or whatever it might be are best kept private.

In a game where every object is covered in skulls and things like dismembered corpses are just peachy-keen, I'm not about to take offence at a few uncovered nipples.

But this is just fine and dandy...

I have no problem with sexually explicit models. I would be a bit bothered if there weren't sexually explicit models. I'm an adult, lotsof gamers are adults, therefore it makes sense to have adult themed miniatures. I still enjoy reading comics/graphic novels but they aren't always ones that I would let my kids read because they're not old enough yet.

I don't see a problem with letting adults manufacture whatever minis they want, purchase, convert and paint whatever minis they want however they want. I wouldn't want anyone to be discouraged from gaming how they want and if I was truly offended or upset by a model or game I simply wouldn't play that game or opponent. I don't feel the need to condemn anyone for their gaming choices but I'm not going to spend hours of my day with a game or opponent that I find bothersome.

Personally, what offends me isn't a penis monster or blood soaked naked women on a tank but the covert sexism of making female models over sexualized for no good reason. Again, I would never seek to bar anyone from making whatever mini they want but when some manufacturers sexualize female models for no reason it comes across to me as condescending and patronizing of the customers. If male soldiers find it appropriate to wear pants then it makes no sense for female soldiers fighting with them to be wearing tiny shorts. If a spacesuit fits a male in a normal somewhat loose fashion it makes no sense for an accompanying female model to have a skintight spacesuit. Every woman doesn't need to be exposing cleavage when going into battle, etc.

Companies can make whatever female models they want but the ones I purchase are ones that have women dressed in an appropriate common sense manner that fits with the army theme and game setting because those are the ones I'll game with in front of my wife and kids.

In that example? You are being way too sensitive, that land raider is amazing.

In general?

...

So i took the time to check out the band Debauchery.

The tank is a pretty good representation of what they sing about, sex,blood, chansaws and khorne among other things.

I therefore conclude that the modeler/painter did nothing outside of the theme of the band to which the army is a homage, the chicks, blood and chainsaw are on there for quite a good reason(the theme) and therefore should not have sparked this discussion in the first place

As a side note there is a funny, sorta tragic and sorta related story behind the singer of the band, he was given the choice between a gig where he was a teacher of politics, history and ethics or his band.

Not because he was teaching questionable things but because the bigots around him couldnt stand the idea of someone doing other than mainstream stuff in their free time.

He choose the band.

This is a back patch from the band showing the theme:
(I chose the more SFW chainsaw pic they have )

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. If you wish to share any such image you need to use an offsite host and image tags. reds8n

der ray wrote:
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.

That's how our sick world goes.

The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.

Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.

Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.

Am I the only one who wants to see more of that chainsaw?

Litcheur wrote:

The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.

Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.

Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.

You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Litcheur wrote:

The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.

Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.

Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.

You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"

The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.

And yet, when comparisons are made between a variety of films and scenes with hetero vs. homosexual scenarios, it's clear that the MPAA are biased towards awarding higher ratings when the relations are same-sex.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.

If you can find it, probably on Youtube or something, check out the "documentary" called "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"

The MPAA system really is that vague, and it CAN actually be very difficult to avoid an NC-17 rating.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

The movie was given an NC-17 rating because of nudity and explicit sex not because of the sexuality of the characters. There are plenty of movies out there that have homosexual romances that don't have an NC-17 rating. While I agree with the sentiment that nudity is an outdated taboo in US culture, it's not hard to avoid an NC-17 rating the MPAA system isnt' that vague.

If you can find it, probably on Youtube or something, check out the "documentary" called "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated"

The MPAA system really is that vague, and it CAN actually be very difficult to avoid an NC-17 rating.

Whatever your opinion of the MPAA, the point still stands that movies don't get an NC-17 rating because of homosexual romance content. If the movie didn't have nudity and explicit sex it wouldn't have gotten an NC-17 rating.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Litcheur wrote:

The Expandables are rated PG-13. Killing people by the hundreds is fine.

Saw [1-n] are rated R. Torturing people isn't very nice, but that's kinda okay.

Blue is the Warmest Color is rated NC-17. Two girls love each other? Nope. That's evil.

You have to keep in mind that many of the colonies were founded by religious "extremists" who were so religious and uptight that even England said, "Good bye, don't hit any rocks on the way over"

Kicked out of England is nothin'. They managed to get kicked out of Holland!

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Kicked out of England is nothin'. They managed to get kicked out of Holland!

The Auld Grump

To be a little fair... if you had an idea what was going on in Holland at the time, it's a little bit understandable... Then again, almost all knowledge that I have of Holland around this time frame comes from Documentaries, so I don't have a very complete picture myself

FFS.

Get over yourselves.

You claim sexism and depraving! I bet that woman hanging on the outside of a landraider doesn't complain about the money she makes!

You just wish you could dance naked on the side of a landraider without people immedately labeling your a nurgle, hahahaha.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

I don't think that's entirely fair. While it's true that social media is full of people that appear to be using these issues for their daily pat on the shoulder fix, there are those that are genuinely offended/made uncomfortable by these sorts of things, and that should be respected. Surely you can see where they're coming from?

Awesome as it may be, naked chicks covered in blood or whatever it might be are best kept private.

When someone is offended/uncomfortable they have made the decision to be uncomfortable/ offended. It has to be the weakest excuse to go on a witch hunt I have ever heard. If there are those that aren't offended/made uncomfortable by something surely their wish to look at it/experience it should also be respected.

if someones mind = blown from that land raider picture, i would suggest they stop watching the news as there are far worse things going on in the world. I dunno, perhaps some perspective is needed before people decide to become offended
. The only miniature I thought could be offensive was the eldar rape diorama , I looked at it and though"geez, thats a bit off....then again it's probably a realistic representation of war, meh."

 Bullockist wrote:
When someone is offended/uncomfortable they have made the decision to be uncomfortable/ offended. It has to be the weakest excuse to go on a witch hunt I have ever heard. If there are those that aren't offended/made uncomfortable by something surely their wish to look at it/experience it should also be respected.

if someones mind = blown from that land raider picture, i would suggest they stop watching the news as there are far worse things going on in the world. I dunno, perhaps some perspective is needed before people decide to become offended
. The only miniature I thought could be offensive was the eldar rape diorama , I looked at it and though"geez, thats a bit off....then again it's probably a realistic representation of war, meh."

Who's suggesting witch hunts? You have every right in the world to look at it/experience it. Just do it where there aren't any parents with young kids, elders, angry feminists (for your own sake) or any other group that might be uncool with it.

Would it be appropriate to surf for porn at a library? Or pictures of naked women on the walls at the grocery store? I mean after all, people can just choose to not be made uncomfortable by it, and there are worse things in the world.

And I'm not talking strictly about the land raider. I'm talking about "sexually explicit models", as per the thread title.

I can't believe this thread has got so long, with so many responses that aren't 'Meh, whatever'.

winterdyne wrote:
I can't believe this thread has got so long, with so many responses that aren't 'Meh, whatever'.

We all heard Buzzsaw:

"We're not here to talk about useful things, but to witness the moral preenings of our "betters"."

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

Who's suggesting witch hunts? You have every right in the world to look at it/experience it. Just do it where there aren't any parents with young kids, elders, angry feminists (for your own sake) or any other group that might be uncool with it.

Would it be appropriate to surf for porn at a library? Or pictures of naked women on the walls at the grocery store? I mean after all, people can just choose to not be made uncomfortable by it, and there are worse things in the world.

And I'm not talking strictly about the land raider. I'm talking about "sexually explicit models", as per the thread title.

I was alluding to internet shitstorms that are generated from my moral betters (thank you HBMC ) on things like this land raider.

I grew up on the tail end of an era where naked pictures of women were common in workplaces, i don't have a problem with it, i also dont have a problem with pictures of naked men, ( i saw one once , the novelty value was awesome). it's a picture of a naked person ffs, Call me weird, i get more bothered by beheading videos and snuff movies.

I know you are talking about more than the land raider which is why i brought up the eldar rape diorama, possibly the most divisive diorama ever made. I just don't think this piece warrants any attention beyond, ï like it"or ""Ï don't like it"", personally i think it's cool, not something i would have done but it fits the theme aNd is quite well executed.

As for having sexually explicit models around children, children are seeing porn on the internet at a median age of 12 ( maybe 14 but i think 12) and you think this land raider will have any impact? I doubt it, they will have seen bdsm, gonzo videos ect., this pales in comparison.

No disagreement on the internet shitstorm part. I'm too very critical against moral outrages, as you can see in my post on the top of this thread.

Sure, they'll have been watching porn, and the land raider will not have impact on most of todays kids. But note I didn't say "children". I said "parents with children". The parents are more of a problem here than the children

My stance on this comes out of respect for other people, and it's that simple. I love me some nudity as much as the next guy...

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
I don't mind nudity in gaming (or anywhere else for that matter). This particular model is piss poorly made in my opinion, but I have nothing against the concept.

... but I also understand that there are those who don't. In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
No disagreement on the internet shitstorm part. I'm too very critical against moral outrages, as you can see in my post on the top of this thread.

Sure, they'll have been watching porn, and the land raider will not have impact on most of todays kids. But note I didn't say "children". I said "parents with children". The parents are more of a problem here than the children

My stance on this comes out of respect for other people, and it's that simple. I love me some nudity as much as the next guy...

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
I don't mind nudity in gaming (or anywhere else for that matter). This particular model is piss poorly made in my opinion, but I have nothing against the concept.

... but I also understand that there are those who don't. In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.

Respectfully, you have it backward. A person can own/build whatever model they want, sexually explicit or otherwise regardless of whomever may choose to be offended by it or disapprove of it. There are obscenity laws and local ordinances that govern what can be displayed in public, ie I cannot walk down the city street nude or put a big sign/billboard up in plain view of the public. However, there is no such limitation on my personal posession or the interior of my home or business establishment. If I have models/art/whatever in my home or business and you don't like it or are offended by it you can choose not to come to my house or patronize my business or engage in a game of WH40K with me and my sexually explicit army but you don't have the moral or legal authority to forbid me from having those things that offend you. It would be impossible to live in a free society if you set it up so that everyone was at the mercy of anyone else who was "offended" by something you said, did, wore, created, etc.

But I'm not talking about what you're doing in your own home or your own business establishment, and I would have thought this would indicate that:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
But I'm not talking about what you're doing in your own home or your own business establishment, and I would have thought this would indicate that:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.

Except that, unless otherwise told by management of an FLGS or an LGW, you are well within your rights to bring any model, such as this Land Raider into the store and play. If I were the manager/owner of the store, I'd allow that player to bring those models until such a time as I had received complaints from people about them, and it depends on the nature/temperment of the complaint, and even then... I'd probably be more along the lines of "dont bring them out until X hour, when most of the scrubs have left"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If I were the manager/owner of the store, I'd allow that player to bring those models until such a time as I had received complaints from people about them, and it depends on the nature/temperment of the complaint, and even then... I'd probably be more along the lines of "dont bring them out until X hour, when most of the scrubs have left"

And then you do respect people that take issue with it, which is what I'm saying people should.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
But I'm not talking about what you're doing in your own home or your own business establishment, and I would have thought this would indicate that:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:
In my opinion, their right to not have to see it in public comes on top of yours right to do so.

The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.

For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.

I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.

A store is not a public place, that is correct, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it's pretty fair to call it that. It is a place almost everyone has access to (maybe this is where the confusion lies)

But I may have misused the word "right" earlier. I don't think someone has the "right" or "authority" to veto your models out of the game for arbitrary reasons. But if it is a serious problem for people I think the bigger man would remove the object that's bothering them, rather than going "umadlol"

For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.

Sexualized miniatures aren't as specific an example as that though. This is a thing.

But again, I'm not trying to enforce anything here, or suggesting that other people should. In the post that Bullockist first replied to all I implied was that you should show some consideration and tact when bringing your models somewhere. That's it.

I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.

No need, man

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The only places I've ever played a tabletop wargame have been in stores and homes and neither of those is a public place. The point I was trying to make is that if you're playing a game in a home or store and the person who owns that store or home has the right to ask you to bring models that he/she object to because you're a guest/customer on their premises. Other gamers have no moral authority to demand that somebody refrain from using "offensive" models.

A store is not a public place, that is correct, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it's pretty fair to call it that. It is a place almost everyone has access to (maybe this is where the confusion lies)

But I may have misused the word "right" earlier. I don't think someone has the "right" or "authority" to veto your models out of the game for arbitrary reasons. But if it is a serious problem for people I think the bigger man would remove the object that's bothering them, rather than going "umadlol"

For example let's say that I know people from my church that went on a mission in Africa and had friends there that died of Ebola and consequently I felt that Nurgle themed armies were cartoonish trivializations of the serious issue of pestilence and were therefore "offensive" to me. While I have every right to refrain from purchasing or using Nugle minis I should have zero expectation that other people can't game with Nurgle armies in my presence because my personal objection to Nurgle somehow trumps their affection for Nurgle themed armies and/or their effectiveness in the game. I'm free to not play a game with somebody with a Nurgle army but I have no right to stop them from having using a Nurgle army in a game with somebody else just because I happen to be in the store at that time.

Sexualized miniatures aren't as specific an example as that though. This is a thing.

But again, I'm not trying to enforce anything here, or suggesting that other people should. In the post that Bullockist first replied to all I implied was that you should show some consideration and tact when bringing your models somewhere. That's it.

I'm sorry if my previous post didn't make that point clearly.

No need, man

I agree with you that an attentive store manager should tell somebody who had say a DE or Slaneesh army that had something like a Gor them with lots of naked female slaves or somebody who wanted to get a game of Kingdom Death: Monster going, to only do it at a time where only adults would be around. I wouldn't want to see a store lose any business because a kid's mother got offended by something. I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.

I think we're also in agreement that can build the army they want and should be able to play a game without upsetting the applecart. If a group of adults are at a store for a game night I would think it would be pretty difficult and somewhat impressive for somebody to bring an army that would actually make people go OMG! That's so disturbing/offensive. Speaking for myself, I think that too many people seem to believe that if they don't like something, if it isn't their cup of tea or they don't get it then they get to tell people they can't do it/have it. I've seen some crazy threads in my day about things like how playing WW2 Germans in FOW is fine but painting 40K IG to look like WW2 Germans is evil, but that's OT.

Over sexualized models is a problem, I do think it's mainly caused by the simple fact that the vast majority of people interested in tabletop wargaming are always going to be male and people/companies are willing to cater to their inner teenager. It's unfortunate that so many companies out there seem to believe that any girls/women who are into gaming also think the fantasy fallacies that choosing to go to war half naked or fully naked is reasonable and that armor/power armor for women needs giant boobs. Thankfully there are companies out there that produce normal female minis and hopefully market forces will reward them for it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.

That's all the parents in your area worried about??? Hell, where I grew up they were convinced that if you even THOUGHT about touching a d20 in order to play DnD, you'd run off in a month to join a Satanic Cult

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm old enough to remember the days when parents feared that letting kids play D&D would make them lose touch with reality and inadvertently hurt or kill themselves.

That's all the parents in your area worried about??? Hell, where I grew up they were convinced that if you even THOUGHT about touching a d20 in order to play DnD, you'd run off in a month to join a Satanic Cult

Thee still are some out there too, does anyone remember that story from a thread a few years back when a kids parents ran screaming into the store, grabbed him and dragged him out and never allowed him to return?