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.
2016/03/08 10:24:19
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
migooo wrote: your own crime agency is racist? okay sure, is the BBC? its fairly left leaning here. No im making a point in a country which most consider to be run by social justice the crime is astronomical. Which is more important than boobs on plastic figures. that is the point im making
I've really tried to avoid commenting on this because I do tend to think it's rather off topic, but when it comes to crime statistics you always have to take them with a grain of salt. For one thing, different countries report them differently (such as domestic abuse cases, multiple incidences against a person being counted as a single report vs multiple reports and so on). Secondly, the rate of reported sex crimes doesn't always correlate to actual number of sex crimes because of unreported cases. If a country fosters the attitude of standing up and reporting sex crimes, it may very well see higher rates of reported crimes than a country which is actually worse off. Even things like "assault rates" have to be taken with a grain of salt because some countries have a high rate of drunken brawls which get put down as assaults but to the person walking down the street they might be just as safe as any other city.
Overall I think it's a pointless tangent to the thread. Maybe it's more important than boobs on plastic figures, but this is a thread about boobs on plastic figures and not crime rates in different countries, maybe we can start a thread in the off-topic forum about that instead.
Buttery Commissar wrote: The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
The main thing the Prodos backlash has taught me is that cheesecake is fine until it doesn't meet a certain quality expectation then it cops a whole lot of flak Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.
They are poorly sculpted.
That's what I mean. If they are perceived as poorly sculpted half naked ladies apparently it creates a gakstorm of backlash. If they are perceived as well sculpted half naked ladies, the backlash will be drowned out be the praise.
both good points. sorry it was a tangent i shouldnt have gone down. apologies.
im not sure what you are saying in the second though do you want better sculpted half naked things or would rather the option of half naked and more sensible?
im telling you now to have a half decent sculpt you do have to exaggerate features, pointer face, bust, hands just so it looks female, in reality there is no differnce. untill you get to about 75mm.. you know the garage kit size
2016/03/08 10:26:54
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".
It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D
really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.
I'm not talking dedicated pandering, I'm talking about breaking down that chip on people's shoulders by the eventual level treatment of everyone.
If a ten year old girl wants to play Space Marines, then it's not her fault that someone in 1989 called you a goon.
It's your turn to hold open that door and tell her how much fun she could be having.
Or that Mantic is way better. Whatever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 10:27:50
migooo wrote: then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D
really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,
So is this like some sick sort of revenge, then? You were made fun of in school for being a geek and now that it's more "socially acceptable" you're going to do everything you can to put people off and make them unwelcome? "Feth you, this is my hobby!"?
You're really not any better than them if that's the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 10:33:56
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
2016/03/08 10:32:42
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
migooo wrote: [im not sure what you are saying in the second though do you want better sculpted half naked things or would rather the option of half naked and more sensible?
im telling you now to have a half decent sculpt you do have to exaggerate features, pointer face, bust, hands just so it looks female, in reality there is no differnce. untill you get to about 75mm.. you know the garage kit size
Personally half naked or fully naked female models don't bother me either way. I tend to not buy them myself because I am not very good at painting and no where is that more telling when you try and paint a naked human
I think if models are badly sculpted then it's fine to judge them as badly sculpted. BUT, I think if a naked model is badly sculpted that doesn't diminish its right to exist any more than a well sculpted naked model. Either they are all fine or they are all not fine. Prodos got a lot of backlash because they were received by the community as a poor attempt at cheesecake, where as a good attempt at cheesecake (in my observation, which may be flawed) seems to mostly get a pass.
Overall I don't love the Prodos Space Crusaders models (some I don't mind but none that I intend to buy) but I think they probably got more flak than they deserved. If it was JUST badly sculpted and not a cheesecake attempt, it probably would have gotten a page of two of responses then faded in to a dead thread. I think that's all it was worth really.
2016/03/08 10:45:45
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".
It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D
really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.
I'm not talking dedicated pandering, I'm talking about breaking down that chip on people's shoulders by the eventual level treatment of everyone.
If a ten year old girl wants to play Space Marines, then it's not her fault that someone in 1989 called you a goon.
It's your turn to hold open that door and tell her how much fun she could be having.
Or that Mantic is way better. Whatever.
that is not what im saying dude and you know it. im saying that the culture has developed and it shouldn't now be forced to become something it wasn't that completely destroys what it was. No i dont get to decide who joins and you can call your army the fuzzy marines and knit them for all i care. im saying changing things say for example lets go with your analogy suddenly female space marines are possible despite bieng in the fluff that its not possible to pander. no why?, why should it?
you are calling for special snowflake in everything everything has to be so exceptional... that its no longer what its supposed to be about ... case in point the ultramarines being basically superior to all others when really the rigidity to a doctrine would probably end up in a situation similar to fuedal japan.. a war that lasted a long time.
or another point arrow is no longer about Oliver Queen... its about how great Felicity is.
then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. …
This is the problem, right here.
What other wargame hobby are people supposed to join if they don’t like Phwoarhammer?
Why do you have the right to dictate to everyone else what wargames are about?
i dont and Phoarhammer as you put it isnt the norm. its the exception. ive seen two boobie armies in 30 years.. 30... maybe i came off as more agressive i dont care who joins. just dont come into a hobby and start dictating to me what it should be about without experiencing it first.
migooo wrote: then do not join that hobby. you know the whole problem is you expect us to accommodate. when we were always outcast for liking such things. I was called a devil worshiper, a freak, and at one point one guy came up to me and said he couldn't be my friend despite previously being my friend for years because he found out i played D&D
really honestly NO dude, dont like it dont buy it,
So is this like some sick sort of revenge, then? You were made fun of in school for being a geek and now that it's more "socially acceptable" you're going to do everything you can to put people off and make them unwelcome? "Feth you, this is my hobby!"?
You're really not any better than them if that's the case.
probably not but i didnt tell him football was naff and should be played by strippers did i?
the whole point is while i came off as more aggressive than i mean to is that everything i like is being destroyed by this moronic social crusade now dictates what i cant or can play with / paint.
and i think that when you get known con people who are on record saying they dont like games or are scared of them when they lie and pretend to be gamers. that is when i say you are not part of this hobby. stop pretending
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 10:52:29
2016/03/08 10:57:03
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
Buttery Commissar wrote: My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
okay fine .. you know how many nude figures i have? one the topless dark eldar slave. i never even painted it. but dont you see that is pandering. first it will be witch elves to have fully clothed armour, then it will be female figures are contributing to violence against women.
2016/03/08 11:06:50
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.
2016/03/08 11:08:24
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.
its exactly the same as the Conservative think of the children view. Look at the sigmarines for age of sigmar they can be male or female.. thats what the hobby wil become. bland and unrecognizable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 11:11:15
2016/03/08 11:22:01
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: My analogy had nothing to do with female space marines or changing the core of the hobby. In fact I said that it's not about pandering to people.
Slow down a little and look over my post, my only point was to welcome people to something fun and creative.
If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
okay fine .. you know how many nude figures i have? one the topless dark eldar slave. i never even painted it. but dont you see that is pandering. first it will be witch elves to have fully clothed armour, then it will be female figures are contributing to violence against women.
I ... what?
Mate, I'm trying to follow your train of thought, but this is a new line in bewildering.
Just slow down a bit. There's clearly something you're trying to say but you're not allowing anyone else to appreciate that by making these frankly bizarre statements.
Plus you're ignoring the part where I didn't even say half of of the points you're replying to.
Buttery Commissar wrote: If that means putting a small towel over the naked tits, then it's time to query whether your desire to have them outweighs the comfort and enjoyment of an entire gender.
I still question whether putting a towel over the naked tits of a couple of models (that you are probably unlikely to see on 95% of wargaming tables anyway) is going to have any difference whatsoever to the appeal of wargaming to anyone considering the hobby.
its exactly the same as the Conservative think of the children view. Look at the sigmarines for age of sigmar they can be male or female.. thats what the hobby wil become. bland and unrecognizable.
I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.
If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.
If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.
So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?
The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.
What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.
2016/03/08 11:32:07
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?
ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.
do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not. it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.
its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.
2016/03/08 11:45:08
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Buttery Commissar wrote: I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.
If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.
So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?
The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.
What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.
I'm certainly not in favour of outright censorship and removal of aspects of the hobby.
I'm saying that we're at a stage of turning on the lights and everything in the room is now visible to all... And it's time to choose which aspects we want to put forward and embrace the most.
To continue that light example. I'm talking putting brighter bulbs in positive displays, and maybe when time comes, not replacing the ones as often in the areas we are less proud of.
Part of that needs to be open and earnest discussion with companies about what we want to see more and less of.
Doing nothing because "it's always been like that" is not nearly as damaging as policing and censoring content. But it doesn't help.
Telling a creator "I'm a customer, but didn't buy this because it was X. I honestly would if you'd made it more Y" helps things change over time.
That's all I'm in favor of; more feedback and less outrage.
if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?
That is indeed how gravity works, though it seems completely unrelated to the issue of the depiction of females in miniature form.
ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.
Why? Do you walk around spewing your innermost thoughts at people no matter how uncomfortable it makes them? Or do you go "hmm, maybe they don't want to hear that" and censor yourself? If so, why are you not protesting yourself? After all, censorship for feelings is wrong according to you.
Maybe (I know I'm reaching here) the situation is actually fairly nuanced and not black & white?
do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not.
Okay then, I'm assuming this is a point about altering something to change the group it appeals to, but I'm not 100% sure.
it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.
Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.
its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.
Ah, so people that dislike it should be censored and not say anything about disliking it?
Buttery Commissar wrote: I was not talking about a literal towel, that would knock the display over.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
It's not a basement boys club any more, and new people and new ideas are coming in. That is the opposite of bland. That's fething magical right there, that you could be stood next to literally anybody at a gaming table and you would have this hobby in common.
If that's horrifying to you, I don't think that it's the the women who are in the wrong hobby.
So are we talking about things naturally progressing and changing or do you want people to sideline these things in expectation of attracting new people?
The former I have no problem with, if the market expands and for whatever reason people stop wanting to make and buy cheesecake models, and people want to make and buy more modest female models, that's cool.
What I have a problem with is trying to dictate what people are allowed to make and enjoy with the idea that maybe it's going to attract new people. Because I don't think doing that is going to help the people currently in the hobby nor do I think that it's going to attract new people anyway.
I'm certainly not in favour of outright censorship and removal of aspects of the hobby.
I'm saying that we're at a stage of turning on the lights and everything in the room is now visible to all... And it's time to choose which aspects we want to put forward and embrace the most.
To continue that light example. I'm talking putting brighter bulbs in positive displays, and maybe when time comes, not replacing the ones as often in the areas we are less proud of.
Part of that needs to be open and earnest discussion with companies about what we want to see more and less of.
Doing nothing because "it's always been like that" is not nearly as damaging as policing and censoring content. But it doesn't help.
Telling a creator "I'm a customer, but didn't buy this because it was X. I honestly would if you'd made it more Y" helps things change over time.
That's all I'm in favor of; more feedback and less outrage.
This i could get behind. however what dictates it?, GW do not do customer research they don't, never have, they ignore the press and for a most part the player base. everybody asks for Sisters at any kind of interaction but they ignore it. and gave us AoS
2016/03/08 11:54:51
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Barring pre 2000 figures, they are easily one of the most conservative companies regarding nudity and theme.
The nuns are in some aspects crass, but they're not supported or highlighted. You could be forgiven (not by the Emperor!) for forgetting they exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 11:57:55
migooo wrote: This i could get behind. however what dictates it?, GW do not do customer research they don't, never have, they ignore the press and for a most part the player base. everybody asks for Sisters at any kind of interaction but they ignore it. and gave us AoS
You realise that this thread has been discussing miniatures as a whole, right? On the first two pages, out of about 30 images, not a single one was by GW, and only one of them was a GW universe.
I realise you dislike AoS, but that's kind of unrelated to the depiction of females in miniature form.
if you knock a cup of water over it gets everywhere right?.. you need to clean up the water... yes?
That is indeed how gravity works, though it seems completely unrelated to the issue of the depiction of females in miniature form.
ill say it in very basic terms Nothing should be censored for feelings... doing so is wrong and only leads to a point where things are so dull that it is not fun or what was originally intended.
Why? Do you walk around spewing your innermost thoughts at people no matter how uncomfortable it makes them? Or do you go "hmm, maybe they don't want to hear that" and censor yourself? If so, why are you not protesting yourself? After all, censorship for feelings is wrong according to you.
Maybe (I know I'm reaching here) the situation is actually fairly nuanced and not black & white?
do you think that the creators of warhammer would have wanted aos?... no i do not.
Okay then, I'm assuming this is a point about altering something to change the group it appeals to, but I'm not 100% sure.
it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.
Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.
its the same with female figures.. and if you do not see that okay good . nice conversation.
Ah, so people that dislike it should be censored and not say anything about disliking it?
Obviously I do not say hateful things towards people. However why should any sort of speech except actually inciting physical harm be censored because it feels very one sided
no people can dislike whatever they want. They can say what they like . I am saying that we are at an impasse. and wont get anywhere by going around in circles.
it is so unbelievably dull and simple to accommodate people that is just awful. you like fine. good im happy for you. but then dont say my hobby should be censored for those who like aos.
Aaand you've lost me. I hate to say it dude, but you need to run a spellcheck or something over your posts, they're getting legitimately difficult to understand.
----- I'm saying here that age of sigmar was nothing like the original, it was in fact fairly rubbish compared to earlier editions.. if you like that game good for you.. but dont say i cant play older versions.
I think I'm getting to wound up by this. and will bow out I dont think that covering up miniatures or anything is good. ill say while i have disagreed there are no hard feelings on my side. if things become more censored ill just keep what i have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/08 12:06:34
2016/03/08 12:05:32
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
No but you would make me put a towel on figures for feelings sake. Yet I would not stop you or anybody else enjoying what they like even if i disagreed.
I only slept for two hours im guessing it shows. Again thank you for the discussion. Ill be leaving this topic for now.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 12:16:12
2016/03/08 14:44:11
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Can we please please stop pretending that women are unified block. That they all think the same. That "women" don't like x, or that "women" don't like y. Because it is total BS. Woman like any group don't agree on much of anything. Much like all the men arguing back in forth in this thread don't seem to agree on anything either.
What I have found, in this post sexual revolution world that we know live in, is that women who actually have opinion about this topic tend to be very divided. Some women, those that tend to dress conservatively and are very reserved about their sexuality in my experience, do tend to take issue with female sexuality in art or entertainment. These women get turned off by sexualized miniatures or characters in video games like bayonetta. Even some feminists think this way as well. From what I understand they are called sex negative feminists. These feminists call bayonetta a fighting feth toy and take issue with things like porn.
However there is a whole other group of women out there. These women don't dislike female sexuality being portrayed in media, in fact they often love it. From women who love the bayonetta games to all those female cossplayers I have seen over the years that dress up like those female characters that sex negative feminists think are off putting to women. In my experience these are sort of women who own their sexuality and don't always dress modestly. They have no moral qualms going out dancing with their friends in high heels and a mini skirt. Women who do sex work tend to be like this. These women are not turned off by guys playing with sexy miniatures. Feminists who are like this are called sex positive feminists (I mention them earlier). They organize things like slut walks and say that characters like bayonetta are a positive thing.
To use an example here take the new denny2 scuplt.
Someone women will take issue with this model that is true. However other women will look at the characters fluff and end up really loving the model. The fact is she is a femme fatal that owns her sexuality would be appealing to them.
Because the funny thing about this thread to me is, that all miniatures that people have been complaining about, from sisters of battle, to female models with things like boob window or high heels. I have seen real women, yes real women play with all of these models. The real women that I have actually seen play and played against in 40k played armies like dark eldar with wyches or sisters of battle. In warmachine/hordes I have seen real women play with kaya as their warlock. Who, lets say goes into battle with her heart exposed. These women didn't seem to have any issue with any these figs.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 15:00:34
2016/03/08 14:56:15
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Ashiraya wrote: I had hoped the topic, such as it is, would have been returned to in my absence. But no. Okay then, let's adress this latest development.
That you quote the infamous 'newspaper' Daily Mail does not really support you. In fact, that Daily Mail agrees with you only weakens your argument, because that alone means it is more likely than not false (and yes, all of those are real). It also shows that you do not check if your sources are actually trustworthy before you post, or that you know they aren't but you choose to use them anyway because who needs truth when there are SJWs to bash right? No matter which, you do not come across as credible, which is not helping when you are already an American telling three Swedes that we live in SJW hell and oh no why are you so happy stop living normal lives your country is being destroyed can't you see ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Oh, and I did not 'concede' anything to you. You post about American 'feminists' (which I cannot argue about since I am not there) but you worded your posts as if referring to the movement globally. Which is also why I ignore 99% of the content in your posts, because it is just filler others are already pointing out the absurdity of, while demonising feminism is something that affects me personally.
So, yeah. This is like the Gamergate thread. You'd think we would have seen the last of 'misogyny xd patriarchy xdddddddd' gakposting.
The "Is modern femininism cancer" thing should be obvious from watching the video and reading Buzzsaw's post that it's not talking about the brand of feminism that seeks equality but that which seeks censorship, that assigns blame based on gender, that seeks favouritism instead of equality and that seeks to quash discussion to the point where it bans a debate. Even the side of the debate which is a true feminist who has spent her life seeking equality for women and standing up against violence against women, against human trafficking, against religious fundamentalism which suppresses women and so forth.
I can agree that the ones Buzzsaw are referring to are bad. In fact, I probably dislike them more than most others, due to how they hamper my efforts.
I wish those who do not strive for equality would find a better tag to apply to themselves instead of trying to drag feminism with them into the mud.
Also, you once again repeate the point you were corrected on before: it is not American feminism. Had you been willing to do even the slightest bit of research, perhaps the British accents would have tipped you off. Also, incidentally, even if we just go by populations, I'm describing conditions as they exist for about 400 million people (the combined population of the USA and Great Britain) while you are fixated on defending conditions that, at best, you can defend as existing for less then 10 million (the population of Sweden).
As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form? Perhaps best two points;
Second: one might notice I posted two sources, rather then one. No doubt you have a song about how racist The Spectator is. Also the Wall Street Journal. It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?
Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Buzzsaw wrote: I can agree that the ones Buzzsaw are referring to are bad.
Yes, because I assumed you were telling me the truth (an assumption I am no longer so quick to make). If you consider that a concession, consider the concession withdrawn.
Also, you once again repeate the point you were corrected on before: it is not American feminism. Had you been willing to do even the slightest bit of research, perhaps the British accents would have tipped you off. Also, incidentally, even if we just go by populations, I'm describing conditions as they exist for about 400 million people (the combined population of the USA and Great Britain) while you are fixated on defending conditions that, at best, you can defend as existing for less then 10 million (the population of Sweden).
And there are over six billion people who are neither, but who you also word your arguments as talking about.
Keep that broad brush of yours to your own territory, not to mine or to others'.
As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form?
You place unnecessary focus on the song. It is just an amusing example of just how bad Daily Mail is. I shouldn't really have to tell you how bad it is, since it is something you already should know if you are trying to use it as a source. The Daily Mail has a long and consistent history of posting utter BS, and equating it to rare mistakes from other new sources is false.
do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?
You tell me, you are the lone American telling us a lying newspaper and your own political agenda is a more valid source on the situation in Sweden than the words of those who live there.
Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.
Because your 'points' are mostly regurgitated filler that only serves to provoke driving the thread further off topic. Drop it here, and I will too.
Wall Street Journal
If you had actually been here, you would have seen that our immigration is a good thing. Sweden's non-immigrant population is actually in a slow decline, believe it or not. Our country uses the immigrants as a cheap workforce (and whether that is fair is a separate topic), and it helps the economy.
I do not have to argue with newspapers telling me country is going to hell when I live here and I, along with every other Swede who is posting in the topic, can quite clearly see that it is not. The one political party that for some reason disapproves of the immigration is so widely disagreed with that our two large political blocks basically unite against them, something previously unheard of.
Everyone is talking about how feminists allegedly 'shut down dissenting voices', but has it ever struck you how ridiculously easy it would be for real hardcore sexists to work their anti-feminism agenda since when I object I frequently get called a 'manhating SJW'? I suspect it goes that way far more than you believe, or wish to believe. And trust me, if I got a dollar for each time I had seen someone complain on 'SJWs', Donald Trump would be licking my boots, whereas the 'manhating' is as said something I have never observed - in real life or on the internet.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/03/08 16:02:46
Buzzsaw wrote: As for the Daily Mail, what protest can I offer when testimony is given in song form? Perhaps best two points;
First, an argument ad hominem that relies on song is no less a logical fallacy.
An Ad Hominem would be if Ashiraya were directly attacking you. Discrediting a source is not a personal attack, and the fact that you're legitimately giving credence to The Daily Mail is telling.
It seems we have run into a SJ sharia court: do tell me, the testimony of how many non-believers is required to equal that of one of the faithful?
Honestly, this line is actually hilarious. The concept of 'Social Justice Sharia' is so oxymoronic and contradictory that the mental images it inspires are breathtakingly daft.
Finally, and this ties into regards for your respect, I can't say that I have noticed anyone actually engaging with my points at all; what I've noticed is a succession of logical fallacies and diversions.
Here's the thing. Your repetitive use of "SJ(W/sharia/other)" gives an absolutely massive indication that you aren't arguing from good faith. For goodness' sake, you just used the phrase "SJ Sharia" without the slightest hint of irony, and you're complaining that people aren't engaging with your arguments?
Back in the 1980's, I used to tell Moral Majority types this regarding porn: "If you don't like it, don't watch it."
Now, in 2016, with the shoe being on the other foot, I'll say this:"If you don't like the mini, don't buy it".
It operates under the same basic principle. But people want to bicker about something. So, said principle gets ignored.
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
I think this is a great post, and very illustrative of the problem. Your quote about the triumph of evil is especially instructive, not least because it shows the unbridgeable chasm at play.
Which is to say, the evil being opposed... is yours.
Now, by that I don't just mean the Social Justice movement, which I earlier labeled as illiberal, racialist and standing as the antithesis of Actual Justice, but the entirety of this affair. Censorship is an actual evil, the foreclosure of the market of ideas to certain modes or kinds of expression is a terrible thing. On rare occasions it is a necessary evil (real child pornography falls into this category), but it is always illiberal and to be avoided.
Against this real evil, you stack up a pretend evil, an hallucinatory evil: an intuition that there is some vast number of women who are being kept out of 'the hobby' by a barrage of slights and offenses. I've referenced The Coddling of the American Mind before, now I'll quote a particularly relevant part;
But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically.
Let me be clear: the constellation of SJ remedies and theories, the trigger warnings, the micro-aggressions, the safe spaces, all of these appear to be harming people. This program of indoctrination is the cognitive equivalent of giving a person shots in order to induce a peanut allergy.
This is no mere speculation: you yourself have given testimony to this;
Spoiler:
Buttery Commissar wrote: Railing is... quite a strong word. I am tired. I am very very tired.
I'm not speaking on behalf of an imagined slight; it's a thing I have witnessed and often experienced... I can't say that I speak for anyone but my close friends. I certainly don't speak for anyone in a commercial position or creative position.
It becomes a maelstrom of trying to work out which material you give a free pass to, which you avoid, which you could actively invest energy into being personally upset over. You can of course, relax entirely. Forget about all of it and enjoy yourself thoroughly.
But there will be something, be it a figure you'd love to own until you see the helium spheres, an alarmingly graphic comment when you thought we'd been quietly progressing, or an entire product line, that brings back the question of whether we're kidding ourselves.
The physical miniatures are just bits of material, not evil incarnate. But just a tiny piece of a larger thing.
To try and give a sense... Perhaps you're at Salute, cash in hand and someone shoulder checks you away from a stall because "I didn't realise you were here to buy something."
Perhaps your friend joined a painting group, and someone kindly tells them "That's a good effort for a girl."
Or perhaps she's sat at a gaming table mid-game, having painted that army, and a well meaning referee asks her what army her boyfriend plays and when he's coming back to the table.
There's this continual background awareness that women are indeed playing in someone else's garden. And you cannot unload both barrels into any one of these things.
None of them are singularly to blame. None of them are malicious. Likewise a miniature sculptor isn't aiming to hurt anyone with boobplate.
This makes you query the validity of your own sadness. Voicing sadness hurts other people, puts them on the defensive about what they quite rightly enjoy.
If you aren't an outspoken person who wants to be heard, or aggressive... You seemingly have the choice of accepting tits happen, or putting yourself in a bubble where you are brought painfully down to earth on occasion.
A good part of you is conflicted, and just wants to play.
I don't want to take people's toys away, I'm not judging those who like them. But things sometimes make me on a level, very uncomfortable, and I am no longer remotely sure what a viable, constructive response is.
On a single figure, the answer is likely to look away. But how frequently, and how many people need to feel that way before it is something worth discussing? Collective discomfort vs one person's "butthurt"...
I don't find anything wrong with sexuality being used as a sales tool, female or male. I think that thinking of women as 'just' their sexuality is a problem, but simply thinking of and even using sexuality to sell something shouldn't be an issue. It's part of life, it's perfectly normal.
Yes. Sex is a tool, and has been even before we knew commercially how to use it as such. To stifle that is censorship and not something I am in favour of. There is beauty and message in sex. There is humour. There's sometimes just raw imagery.
But I do regard it as a lazy tool at certain times. That many places will slip into a habit and use it in place of talent or creative thought. and that's where I would raise objection.
I don't think, "Oh no! A boob!"
I quite often think, "Why is that boob here at the moment?" Maybe I want to know about the content of the thing it is selling me. In certain cases, it is not clear.
To bring it back to miniatures, this is almost exactly why I argue concept not 'how undressed is the mini'. We absolutely use existing concepts such as topless amazon warriors and naked greek fighters etc. to inject some sexuality into some miniatures. We use it in the same way we use power for the male miniatures. And in lesser cases we swap that, we have naked male figures (possibly more than any non-historical company) and we have muscled female miniatures. The reason that the first two categories outnumber the second two is, I think, the source of our disagreement? You don't like that, and I actively think it's ok.
I am unsure, honestly. I feel that it's fair possibly, that I just didn't provide you with enough information.
Perhaps because I can't. I hope that my rather unwieldy explanation above gives some insight that it's not a case of "All nudity in the hobby is bad", but that "I have lost scope of what nudity even bothers me at this point." because I am adrift in a sea of tits and rights and wrongs.
I don't want to hurt people. If we took "nude minis" out if the sentence and replaced it with "taste" then telling people they are right or wrong for enjoying or selling them is abhorrent.
But I do feel most naked figures passively contribute to a larger whole that makes me deeply uncertain. I'm not looking for personal validity in my hobby (a beam of light is not going to hit my army case and light up a quest marker telling me I've arrived). I'm looking for signs that it's a place to invest time into on an equal basis for myself and all of my friends.
Removal of nudity in minis isn't going to grant that. Clothing boobs isn't going to stop anything. Nor is it right.
But I have no idea personally, what will.
Before I said that you ought to look at things differently, to not give mind to things that don't matter. What I should also have said is that it is harmful to look at things the way you are: you are making yourself ill by seeing evil in innocent or innocuous things. You are first hurting yourself.
But second you are hurting others, because you are imputing bad to people that are not bad.
I've said before that Social Justice is the antithesis of Actual Justice, that it is illiberal and racialist and authoritarian. But perhaps the worst evil of this terrible movement is the damage it is doing to the people that adhere to it: it's a movement that is teaching people to think in pathological terms.
And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.
This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.
What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.
All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.
Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.
And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.
This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.
What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.
All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.
Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.
To quote some earlier post of yours...
Spoiler:
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
Seems to me that you would be happy to dictate what miniatures people create/use, as long as you dont have to call it censorship.
2016/03/08 18:34:31
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
And neither do you get decide what miniatures people get to make and/or paint.
This is straight up puritanism, I thought people had figured this out after the whole "D&D is satanic" thing.
What is with this topic and people quoting me to describe things I'm not actually doing or saying?
From female space marines to dictating what people paint?
Within three posts of me pretty emphatically fething saying that I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content.
Hell if you check out my early posts, I'm openly saying that painters, customers and creators are entitled to enjoy what they like, and swapping "miniature" for "taste" highlights how ludicrous trying to police that is.
All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.
In comparison to outright saying X group needs to shut up, or Y group need to leave, that's hardly aggression.
Rolling back to quoting: If you have a post or point to make, then please guys, do it on your own merit and don't drag me into it.
Or if you diverge, make it clear you're no longer addressing me, as inflection is very difficult to put across in text.
To quote some earlier post of yours...
Spoiler:
No, it doesn't.
Porn is a massive, diverse, but largely private industry.
Gaming is an industry where people bring it into their homes openly, wear it on their sleeve (sometimes literally) and there are huge events where people take their families. Gaming is a social event, and in theory all inclusive.
Having girls and women feeling unwelcome in a hobby due to a surfit of tits, "this has always happened" and a market that is uncertain how to deal with them is not the same as what people do in the privacy of their homes.
It doesn't affect me if I go down to the bar for the night, and at the end of the conversation, two of my friends go home and watch BDSM porn, and one goes home to watch Paddington Bear.
It does affect me and the people I care about if I turn up to a Wargaming event or convention and there's thinly veiled smut being sold, alongside any earnest efforts to represent the female audience.
A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For every genuine offense (and no, simply putting nudity on something isn't evil), the people going "Well what do you expect?" mentally or verbally, or simply walking away to avoid being considered "fussy" or "SJW"... Nobody learns from that situation.
The makers and distributors do not learn that you are unsatisfied, nor what would be preferable. It takes events like the free for all backlash at Prodos for the waters to ripple. And I don't think that's a good thing.
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.
I'm sorry that people have treated you poorly, but that does not in any way justify walling up a creative scene and turning away people who wish to join it.
Perhaps your post suffers from brevity over sentiment, but "I got called weird" is surely a reason to include more people, allow them to feel appreciated, not marginalised.
I am saying that by opening the door to everyone, you have to accept some of the things that make people uncomfortable are to be gently sidelined. Not obliterated, not removed entirely.
Seems to me that you would be happy to dictate what miniatures people create/use, as long as you dont have to call it censorship.
Then you are deliberately seeking out parts of what I'm saying and wilfully ignoring others.
Hell, in at least two posts I've said that I don't propose removal or destruction of products. In one of those quotes, in fact.
Suggesting we give lower priority to exhibiting or marketing material that reflects poorly upon the hobby scene and makes people uncomfortable is not "dictating what people create/use". It's finding an actual middle ground that allows continuation of those items whilst not making new people feel marginalised.
Above that quality level the praise will drown out the occasional complaints.
I ... what?
These women didn't seem to have any issue with any these figs.
