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.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
You do not get to decide who is it isn't welcome in a hobby scene.

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.

I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but it does rather seem that it is you, who does not appreciate the import of what you are saying.

What I mean by that is you can't really reconcile saying "All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.", when previously in the thread you've described the situation saying; A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

You can't say you're "Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things", when you've said "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."

You can't say "I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content", while at the same time talking about the impact on you and yours of "thinly veiled smut".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but there is a term for what you are doing and it's Passive Aggression*.

The problem is that you are a genuine victim, just not of what you think. You and yours are victims of an ideology that has sensitized you, as surely as if you had been scoured with sandpaper. You're approaching people who are doing nothing morally wrong, who are either making trivial mistakes or simply enjoying things you don't like and telling them "you're hurting us". Your problem is the answer they ought to give you is "then... you should probably go somewhere else."

When one goes to a restaurant it is entirely morally appropriate to, for example, inform the server and the kitchen about your food allergy, or your vegetarianism or other dietary restriction. They should adhere to your wishes, because they are serving you. What is not either moral or appropriate is to demand that the people around you conform to your medical or dietary restrictions.

Let's be clear, there are actually people that have such severe allergies that they cannot be in a room with (for example) nut products. The answer, morally and practically, is that these people don't go to restaurants, not unless they know beforehand that the place is safe for them.

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

I don't deny that you and yours may, in fact, be as emotionally affected as you write. What I do deny is that you should be, and I deny that it's our fault if you are. You have been convinced, by a harmful movement, to pay great attention to things that deserve no attention, to see slights in mistakes and bigotry in errors... to be crushed, by things that have no weight.

Finally, if it seems strange that people are arguing that your concerns are so trivial with great concern, perhaps it is because a candy bar is just a candy bar... until someone slaps it out of your hand.

*Yes, that's a link to Sargon of Akkad's channel... though it's an excerpt from an audiobook, in case you were looking for the epic beard.

This thread has gone way off topic and can we all just discuss the main topic at hand: General depictions of nudity in miniatures. Seriously guys, if you want to go discuss gender politics go to reddit or some other suitable site. Dakka is a wargaming forum not a political chat room.

@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Sitting and waiting is actually the answer. You want to know, there you go.

Unfortunately, you have to recognize that... you may just be wrong about the market and what people want. It may be that the market never gets where you want, because what you want is not what most people willing to pay want.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Considering the most egregious offenders of sexualization that make some folks uncomfortable(Kingdom Death, Brother Vinni, Raging Heroes) are already fairly niche with little to no market penetration beyond forums and few conventions; I'm not sure there's anyway to make them more irrelevant to Wargaming/Miniature hobbying as a whole. So to be honest, I don't really believe there's anything to be done about it.

If say, someone who's sensibilities are easily offended by sexualization/nudity are interested in Wargaming/miniature hobbying, where do they start? Do they suddenly stumble upon Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse, and become disgusted with the hobby? I'm going to assume they're far more likely to be introduced through model railroads, Games Workshop, gundam model kits, or some form of historical gaming. Until one becomes immersed in the hobby to a certain point, they just won't come across or interact with any form of sexualization. After they've become immersed to the point of finding sexualization, would they suddenly divest themselves of the time and effort they've already sunk into their hobby? I assume they managed to happily get along far enough that these boutique producers won't have much of an effect upon them at all. Of course, I could be completely wrong here.

So to sum it up, stay the course.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but it does rather seem that it is you, who does not appreciate the import of what you are saying.

What I mean by that is you can't really reconcile saying "All I've been chiming for is social feedback to product-makers. Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things.", when previously in the thread you've described the situation saying; A more appropriate expression is, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I'll accept that saying was hyperbole in a poor attempt to think of how to reply. I probably should of followed up with a giggle face Ork or something, but I thought by explaining later in the same post what I wasn't calling evil I was relatively in the clear.
I don't think such things are actual "evil". I don't think it's possible for them to be.

You can't say you're "Not shaming, deletion or barring entry to folk who enjoy these things", when you've said "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."

You can't say "I'm not in favour of outright removal or censorship of content", while at the same time talking about the impact on you and yours of "thinly veiled smut".

I was not meaning to tar any and all miniatures of any nature with that label, and I apologise if my poor phrasing came across as such.
But there are cringy figures. There are also racy, cute, clever and dull figures. I don't think calling some of the figures out there smutty is unfair. Perhaps "smut" has a harsher meaning elsewhere, but here it's a word for what you'd find on a racy seaside postcard.
And my post about how people are affected was using solely examples of unintentional or well mannered things that feel bad. It was to offer insight into sensation as an explanation. I was not using it for any other means.

The problem is that you are a genuine victim, just not of what you think. You and yours are victims of an ideology that has sensitized you, as surely as if you had been scoured with sandpaper. You're approaching people who are doing nothing morally wrong, who are either making trivial mistakes or simply enjoying things you don't like and telling them "you're hurting us". Your problem is the answer they ought to give you is "then... you should probably go somewhere else."

When one goes to a restaurant it is entirely morally appropriate to, for example, inform the server and the kitchen about your food allergy, or your vegetarianism or other dietary restriction. They should adhere to your wishes, because they are serving you. What is not either moral or appropriate is to demand that the people around you conform to your medical or dietary restrictions.

Let's be clear, there are actually people that have such severe allergies that they cannot be in a room with (for example) nut products. The answer, morally and practically, is that these people don't go to restaurants, not unless they know beforehand that the place is safe for them.

If I gave the impression that I spend my time upset over this sort of material or what people buy, I apologise. I don't. As I posted on page one, it's more a state if continual tiredness with an occasional shock to the system.
Examining/discussing how to make a hobby more accessible to everyone isn't the same as having a horse in the race all the time. I can't maintain or imagine a viable existence of perpetual distress. I've been trying to explain how it feels on the other side of the fence(?) because one of the most useful things to have is an understanding of other people's views and where they are rooted, particularly those you disagree with.
If all that I put across is "I'm upset and you shouldn't have a choice in miniatures." then my brain to thumb is sincerely lacking.

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

Then I apologise for the use of those terms. I was not looking to browbeat people.

I don't deny that you and yours may, in fact, be as emotionally affected as you write. What I do deny is that you should be, and I deny that it's our fault if you are. You have been convinced, by a harmful movement, to pay great attention to things that deserve no attention, to see slights in mistakes and bigotry in errors... to be crushed, by things that have no weight.

Now this part puzzles me. Do you believe that there any valid instances of people being hurt, following this train along?

I can back into someone who was behind me, and knock them over, it doesn't mean that I didn't hurt them, or that the pain is their fault. It's probably not mine either.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I can't pretend I know. Very early on I said that don't have an answer. But I'm unsure that sitting and waiting is that answer. But then forced change isn't either.
What course(s) would you say is in fact reasonable?

(I'm not being sarcastic there, I'm sincerely curious)

Considering the most egregious offenders of sexualization that make some folks uncomfortable(Kingdom Death, Brother Vinni, Raging Heroes) are already fairly niche with little to no market penetration beyond forums and few conventions; I'm not sure there's anyway to make them more irrelevant to Wargaming/Miniature hobbying as a whole. So to be honest, I don't really believe there's anything to be done about it.

If say, someone who's sensibilities are easily offended by sexualization/nudity are interested in Wargaming/miniature hobbying, where do they start? Do they suddenly stumble upon Kingdom Death's Wet Nurse, and become disgusted with the hobby? I'm going to assume they're far more likely to be introduced through model railroads, Games Workshop, gundam model kits, or some form of historical gaming. Until one becomes immersed in the hobby to a certain point, they just won't come across or interact with any form of sexualization. After they've become immersed to the point of finding sexualization, would they suddenly divest themselves of the time and effort they've already sunk into their hobby? I assume they managed to happily get along far enough that these boutique producers won't have much of an effect upon them at all. Of course, I could be completely wrong here.

So to sum it up, stay the course.

Aye. It is easy to forget what a pocket universe forums and conventions are. Hell, other than occasional jokes and examples of shock value, I barely look at Kingdom Death because it's something you would have to actively seek out. KD, Vinni and even Raging Heroes are likely not contributing to the external image of gaming. They don't exactly permeate even when people do know companies other than Reaper or Citadel produce minis.

I think only really Prodos flies closest to casual observation of adult content due to reusing a game title that will have nostalgia value for long in the tooth gamers, family style players and all in between.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
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?

Your Daily Mail article claimed there was 34 refugee hostels in Kalmar. The actual figure is two. That's a misrepresentation of 1700%. Further, the Daily Mail is aware (link in Swedish) that the figure is inaccurate, but has not corrected it. The conclusion is that the Daily Mail is a lying piece of filth. QED.

Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

I think we all can at least agree that miniature design, painting and what that miniature means to a potential buyer is subjective. Even if a designer created a miniature in mind because of "sexy porn" that doesn't mean that "potential buyer A" will have that same view. Some will view it as just a toy, some will call it sexy, others will call it something else.

There are a couple pre-conceived conceptions based on someone having, buying, liking and even not liking a particular "cheesecake" miniature. A lot of the conceptions are about bringing shame to gamers in public light either because "What if" someone has that in their game shop and/or making "X/Y uncomfortable" or "think of the kids". However those conceptions only factor in if they are viewed in public and brought to game shops.

As much as we bring up Kingdom Death, Vinni and even the other companies we have talked about... I have to say I have never seen them in a game shop or anyone playing with them there. I know they are used. I have seen them played in private clubs, games or groups but not in a local game store.

If these are in private games, sessions or collections... then do they still reflect poorly to the gaming community escpially when to find them you have to purchase them from specific places (not in a LGS normally)?

Edit: I take that back. I have seen Kingdom Death played in the LGS but that is in the bar section, only over 21 allowed in there normally. None of the miniatures used were pin-ups either.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
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?

Your Daily Mail article claimed there was 34 refugee hostels in Kalmar. The actual figure is two. That's a misrepresentation of 1700%. Further, the Daily Mail is aware (link in Swedish) that the figure is inaccurate, but has not corrected it. The conclusion is that the Daily Mail is a lying piece of filth. QED.

Aaaaand? No, seriously here, every newspaper regularly has errors, I would go so far as to say every person has made errors. Often they go uncorrected. Your argument (which is weird in a second fashion, more on that in a moment), such as it is, argues against trusting anyone and anything that has ever made a mistake. Which, if one accepts my relatively modest proposal above, means no one and nothing can every be trusted. Clearly we cannot go by this rule.

For example, the New York Times writer Walter Duranty wrote a serious of untrue, most argue fraudulent, articles about Stalin's Russia. For these articles he received the Puilitzer Prize. For articles that were at best untrue and most likely outright frauds. The prize has not, and apparently will not, be revoked. The logic of your contention is that, the Pulitzer Prize being openly acknowledged to have gone to fraud/bad journalism, that it therefore ought to be afforded no weight at all.

That aside... what you wrote, whether one considers it damning of the Mail or not, is rather irrelevant to the point of mine that you quoted: where I made the point that I had quoted multiple sources. I pointed out I had two (now three) sources, and people were only responding to one.

Okay, let's stipulate for the argument that the Mail is unreliable: is the Spectator also unreliable? Is the Wall Street Journal unreliable? Is the Pope... well, we don't need to go into that.

Also, an an aside, unless Google translate is horrifically bad with Swedish, the article you link doesn't say what you claim: it claims that Magnus Ranstorp (who tweeted a link) was told about the 2 to 34 conflation. The story you link in turn links to a second story here, also in Swedish, that does mention alerting the Mail about problems... but the main problem discussed as brought to the Mail's attention is that a picture is wrong. Were the other errors? Maybe, who knows?

Now, that does make one think, and what it makes me thing is... maybe I should cite or look at more then one source. Gee, wouldn't that be good.

As an aside to the aside, I think you meant to end with res ispa loquiter, as given your lack of connection to my points, quod erat demonstrandum seems more like a non sequitur.

EDIT to include later point;

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

The funny part here is that the article you linked is to an infamous newspaper that are in the pockets of the very party AlmightyWalrus was talking about, and also has a history of dubious journalism.

Why not pick a more neutral newspaper without a conflict of interest? Because, of all the many newspapers Sweden has, you will not find any supporting your opinion outside the far right.

Can people please stop feeding this guy? Considering he's now quoting Fria Tider (quite obviously without even reading the article, although Google Translate might be at fault) it's just a matter of time before he cites forum posts on Stormfront as legitimate sources (which would actually be a pretty small step at this point). Don't quote him, don't acknowledge him, don't give him the time of day. He's either a brilliant troll or a legitimate believer in these sources. I sincerely hope it's the former. His pseudo-intellectualism isn't fooling anyone, although the italicization is hilarious.

The QED was meant in the context of the thread: arguments were made that just because it's the Daily Mail it doesn't have to mean they're wrong. The fact that they were in fact wrong had already been posted once, but since that was ignored I pointed it out again, using it, along with the fact that the Daily Mail knows that their article is untrue, as evidence of the Daily Mail's status as a lying scumbag of a source.

The Swedish link ends with

Varken Mail Online eller den påstådda tafsvaktchefen vill kommentera saken för Barometern.

Så var det med den historien. Artikeln ligger kvar i oförändrat skick på Mail Online. Det gör även lästipset hos Magnus Ranstorp

which translated means

Neither Mail Online or the alleged grope guard manager wants to comment on the issue in the Barometer [My note: the second newspaper linked earlier in the article].

That's that story. The article remains unaltered at Mail Online. So does the reading tip at Magnus Ranstorp

Thus the Daily Mail has been given opportunity to comment on the gross misrepresentation in their article but has both declined to do so and correct their 1700% error. The article being referenced isn't the one we're discussing, but another one featuring the same 1700% error, as well as a claim that over 6000 refugees have recently arrived in Kalmar. The real number is 310. That's almost a 2000% error.

Considering the Daily Mail's reputation for being utter trash I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt in this case. Either they're grossly incompetent, in which case they're not reliable, or they're maliciously reporting false statistics, in which case they're absolutely not accountable.

Regarding the allegation that one isn't allowed to discuss immigration in Sweden, all I can say is that since the Sweden Democrats got into the Riksdag in 2010 the single most debated issue in the press, in politics and in society in general has been immigration. It is simply flat-out wrong to pretend that the issue isn't being discussed. If one doesn't want to be labelled as a racist, supporting a party that openly claims that there's an inherent, inherited essence to human beings that decides how different societies are formed might not be the best idea. That's not even about contested terms like cultural racism, that's flat-out textbook biological racism.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Further, the accusation that one isn't allowed to discuss whatever one wants is pretty much the old tactic of pulling the free speech card whenever someone doesn't agree with what one's saying. You're perfectly welcome to discuss immigration in Sweden, but when political representatives of the one political party that has made anti-immigration its hallmark makes remarks like "Political Corectness was behind Kristallnacht" and social media like Facebook and Twitter is being filled with death threats against people that don't agree with the far right the problem isn't that one isn't allowed to be critical towards immigration.

The argument that people are "too afraid to say what they really think" is getting old. The anti-immigration side is loud beyond belief, but apparently cannot fathom the idea that there are people that disagree with them, so these disagreeing people must simply be in denial.

Mmmmm... Just to be clear, there are articles that are confirmed to be blocked in Sweden regarding (broadly) immigration matters. Now, one may argue that the law that requires this censorship is just (and I would disagree with you), but it is indisputable that some of the conversation is being censored.

The Daily Mail censored themselves. No one's forcing them to pull their article. Considering, though, that there's this wee little obstacle called the Rule of Law that says printing the name and image of someone before he's even been convicted is a tad completely insane you're actually helping prove our point that the Daily Mail is utter trash.

And please, for the love of all that is holy, Fria Tider? Really? Their front page as of the time of me writing this post has more than 75% of their linked articles related to how nasty immigrants are in one form or another. They're essentially the media arm of the Sweden Democrats. The image in the article you linked is even subtitled "No, it's not the government behind the censoring. This time.". They're the textbook example of an unreliable source.

So, can we go abck tot he purpose of this thread and please stop the "my country your country".

It seems as childish as it sounds.

That's a good idea.

You know, upon reflection, I think I have been a bit too strident. Thought to be fair, none of the arguments from the Nordic sector are good ones... oh Lordy no, seriously, you guys are terrible. It's like you all graduated from fallacy University (Go fighting Fallus! that's for Mym, the sweetheart).

No, rather it occurred to me that there is a nation, which is regularly the subject of misrepresentation in the press, regularly slandered and worked against... that nation, of course, is Israel.

Let's appreciate this lesson from the Swedes: if you read something outrageous in the paper about a nation you are unfamiliar with, just don't believe it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's a good idea.

Indeed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's a good idea.

Yes.

I think the most important bit here is this;

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

Again, I recognize that you may not realize what you are doing, but you are never the less doing it: by making the argument not about personal preference, but about hurt, about impact, about smut and evil, you have recast the discussion in moral terms.

Then I apologise for the use of those terms. I was not looking to browbeat people.

The most important element of this discussion is that the discussion is only important because of the imputation of immorality.

What I mean by that is: if the discussion is started by saying that people using, buying and bringing to the store these objectionable miniatures are hurting people, then it's a moral discussion and the implication is that the aforementioned people are acting immorally.

If, however, it's simply a matter of taste, preference and sales, then it's not just not a moral conversation... it's something of an uninteresting conversation.

Don't get me wrong: for any store owner of business operator, 'what will sell and to who' is enormously important. But it's also completely particularized: I have no more insight into what Showcase Comics should be stocking then I have about what should be in your pantry (arguably less insight, since at least in foods there are staples). I have a larger post on this that will probably be posted as it's own thread, so I'll just leave that there.

@Abanshee: I merely like to do conversions and enhance some miniatures so they look like I want them to look. That can be a staff that I want to be more exciting or adding a purse. With Freja Fangbreaker it is also about realism (as much realism there can be in a Fantasy setting). The whole exposed heart while wearing heavy armour on arms and legs makes no sense in-universe. If magic protects you why wear armour at all? If it would be just a dress and she would be a priest or wizard I would go with it.

It is a bit sad that I have to do this in the first place, but I have the miniatures and it is fun to convert them, so I can improve on my greenstuff skills and at the same time make some unique models.

That is maybe something to consider too with miniatures that try to titillate: It often leads to highly unrealistic/impractical combat stances and equipment. Nothing against a bard or sorceress in a titillating outfit, but when it comes to functional armour I prefer something more reasonable.

Another example: If we have a naked Spartan warrior (I don't think that was actually all too common, but there is mention of a Spartan that was fined after fighting in the heroic style ) there is no reason not to have a female equivalent in a Fantasy setting. It would be important what pose the miniature has, however.

So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

2. It is indeed more important to provide an inviting environment for any gamer, no matter the gender or ethnicity. Inclusive miniatures might help to make people more interested in the hobby as they can find themselves represented in it, but people need to be welcoming and not be akward/WAAC.

3. I don't think the goal is to censor anything, but rather to promote the idea that gamers do also want sensible sculpts. Accordingly a companies might react and if a line is successful they will provide more. If you like the cheescake that is cool, but I just think the ratio of cheescake to sensible should be at least 50:50 and I don't think this is the case at the moment.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Buttery Commissar
"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."

How do you propose to give certain items lower priority? Aren't most of the nude/sexualized products fairly niche, even in the Wargaming community? Games Workshop and from what I understand most Historical manufacturers which make up most of the Wargaming hobby don't have large lines of sexualized/nude figures.

If sexualized/nude figures even reflect poorly upon the hobby to any great extent at all.

I think this point here is getting overlooked a little bit.

These heavily sexualised models are not in the spot light in the context of wargaming, at least not that I've seen. We don't need to gently push them aside because are already aside.

There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
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.

I think this is also a good thing to keep in mind to maintain some sanity in the discussion.

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There are facets of nerdom where highly sexualised imagery IS in the spotlight, it tends not to be wargaming.

I'm curious if the same people who object to sexy miniatures object to sexy cosplayers? I mean, if it's harmful to women for miniatures to depict women then surely its at least as harmful to have real women turn themselves into these depictions?

 Buzzsaw wrote:


The most important element of this discussion is that the discussion is only important because of the imputation of immorality.

What I mean by that is: if the discussion is started by saying that people using, buying and bringing to the store these objectionable miniatures are hurting people, then it's a moral discussion and the implication is that the aforementioned people are acting immorally.

If, however, it's simply a matter of taste, preference and sales, then it's not just not a moral conversation... it's something of an uninteresting conversation.

Don't get me wrong: for any store owner of business operator, 'what will sell and to who' is enormously important. But it's also completely particularized: I have no more insight into what Showcase Comics should be stocking then I have about what should be in your pantry (arguably less insight, since at least in foods there are staples). I have a larger post on this that will probably be posted as it's own thread, so I'll just leave that there.

Is it possible that in fact it is not precisely the case that any individual making, buying, enjoying, etc. miniatures are hurting anyone directly by doing so, just as it is not precisely the case that it is all down to a matter of taste or preference? What if the discussion is about coming to grips with themes and trends within the hobby we all (presumably) share, and thinking about where those themes came from and what they could mean? Some people think that such an examination is worthwhile because they see a gestalt of sex (biologically speaking) and gender depictions that could be construed as forbidding or retrograde from the outside looking in.

It may be in that case that those people (both those interested in an examination of the gestalt, and the hypothetical individuals who are on the outside looking in) do just need to "toughen up" or find themselves a different hobby. However, such a sentiment precludes discussion, which seems obtuse given the venue. If the conversation is uninteresting to someone, it is hard to read their participation as anything but masochism.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

Exactly those who play historical miniatures wouldn't bat an eye if you have Spartans walking naked or naked African tribes miniatures. But the whole idea of these cheesecake miniatures is to appeal to a certain group of customers, and they are an minority, I understand buttery that when playing in a store environment you have be aware of the people that come in and could be offended (especially in certain countries), but if at home i want a slaneesh guro erotic army than i would do that.
But personally i find the exploitation of female sexuality in media and magazines, and don't get me started on music videos, a bigger issue, while this is just a sliver of a larger issue. These prodos miniatures are tame compared to stuff in Japan, when you see some of
the underage sexy figures, and the whole focus on under-aged cutesy models/singers/actresses makes me much more uncomfortable.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

 DaggerAndBrush wrote:


So some ideas/suggestions for further discussion:

1. I suggest it is not so much about nudity or titillation, but rather about pose and in-universe realism/suspension of disbelief.

Good suggestion.

I was thinking about Crocodile Games' Wargods of Aegyptus (some images NSFW) range when the Prodos thread blew up a few weeks back. I have a large collection of Wargods minis, and wouldn't have any problems bringing them to a game shop, but more than half my army is comprised of busty, topless female cat-warriors. I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing the Prodos models, let alone gaming with them at the LGS, so what was the disconnect?

I think you nailed something in regards to the pose and in-universe realism that places Wargods figures in the "acceptable" column for me, rather than the "unacceptable" column in which I place Prodos' Space Crusade minis.

My Wargods Basti are largely in fighting poses, with only a few "titillating" poses reserved for models that actually act as a sort of cheer squad for your army to boost morale (which I guess could be argued as legitimizing those cheesecake poses but I won't make that argument). The models in that range are also by and large nearly nude regardless of sex because of the game's setting in a hot, ancient desert where armor is rare and often uncomfortable to wear. So while the "hey, look! bewbs!!!" reaction might occur upon first glance at the army, I'd hope the nearly nude males in the army, along with the realistic fighting poses would push the viewer to go beyond the small metal breasts and see the army in a larger context.

I don't know if I could have the same hopes with an army that was comprised of armored male models and nearly nude female models. Or male models in fighting poses and female models in cheesecake poses.

Warmachine 5-8 years ago had that problem; many of the female figures were in "sexy" outfits, or wore high heels to fight in the trenches (looking at you, Victoria Haley) or posed in silly poses (looking at you again, Haley2) that it did seem a bit ridiculous when looking at an army's full range of models on a table.

So, yes, I fully agree that the pose and context of a model within a game's setting can smooth over concerns of how that model is depicted.

Exactly those who play historical miniatures wouldn't bat an eye if you have Spartans walking naked or naked African tribes miniatures. But the whole idea of these cheesecake miniatures is to appeal to a certain group of customers, and they are an minority, I understand buttery that when playing in a store environment you have be aware of the people that come in and could be offended (especially in certain countries), but if at home i want a slaneesh guro erotic army than i would do that.
But personally i find the exploitation of female sexuality in media and magazines, and don't get me started on music videos, a bigger issue, while this is just a sliver of a larger issue. These prodos miniatures are tame compared to stuff in Japan, when you see some of
the underage sexy figures, and the whole focus on under-aged cutesy models/singers/actresses makes me much more uncomfortable.

There are really two things going on here, and I think you're right (or mostly right) about both of them;

-I think there really is no question that what really made the Prodos Space Crusade miniatures so unfortunate wasn't the nudity, per se, it was that they were aping an established aesthetic, and the nudity made no sense 'in-universe' given the conventions of 40k. It wasn't even the 'armor on the limbs, nothing on the torso' motif by itself: in the Prodos thread I pointed out there are plenty of examples of that, male and female, in fantasy. The problem was that Prodos was (let's be generous) 'lifting' their aesthetic from 40k. Compare that to, for example, the somewhat more cartoony stylings of Warmachine and their steampunk style. Specifically, I saw that one of their older sculpts is recently being redone, Wraith Witch Deneghra;
Old

New

Since the characters have been introduced, Deneghra and Haley have had consistent (and opposite) styles. Most importantly, the styles that each character has fits: Deneghra is a high Defense, low Armor spell-slinger who (in universe) is related to the Warwitch Sirens. A relationship carries over in terms of both armor style and spell list. It's also worth pointing out that Warmachine is more cartoony (the 'stitches' across her abdomen are exactly that: she's been bisected and reconnected, Frankenstein style). As under-dressed as Deneghra is, Haley has (to the best of my knowledge) never had a model that is less than completely covered neck-to-toe.

-The second point, which I would contend really limits the utility of a global conversation, is that ultimately all of this comes down to thousands of micro-environments. Miniature games are played in everything from smokey basement clubs to comic book stores where you might have to move so some kid can get to the Youghio cards. What is encouraged, or even acceptable, at one may be completely forbidden at the other and vice versa.

The problem with these conversations is the tendency to talk about 'the hobby', as if there is such a unified thing. The idea that there is one model, one way to bring people in, is just silly: there is a reason we would never (seriously) talk about, say, what gyms should be doing to get everyone in. Because there is no model that can do so, no unified theory of 'what people want from a gym'.

So when people say 'how do we get more women into the hobby', the real question is 'which women are you trying to get?' I think it was Blood Hawk who pointed this out above: women are just as individual as men, with interests just as varied. The idea then, that there is some overarching flaw, some pervasive 'it' that is putting women off, seems far from reality to me.

Go back to the gym example: there are ironhead gyms, there are aerobic gyms, there are Crossfit 'gyms', there are boxing gyms... there is a lot of mutual exclusivity there. I, for example, go to a mid-range gym (LA Fitness); it has a pool, a very decent weight selection and a bunch of aerobic machines of various types. One of the first things I noticed was how self-segregating it was: you start to see the same faces after a while, and you realize how even though there are options, most people are coming for one particular thing. There are a handful of women working the weights, and while they work it hard, they are outnumbered about 10:1 by women that only ever use the aerobic machines. Conversely, with guys, you notice there is a profile of guys using the weights, and a profile of guys using the elliptical, and there tends to be little crossover. Now, let's imagine that the management came up with the bright idea that they wanted everyone to use all of the areas to the same degree. Does anyone see that being anything but a disaster?

The problem is the women and men on the treadmills aren't avoiding the weights because they are being scared off by the meatheads (by and large): it's because they genuinely don't want to throw around the iron. Conversely, the guy trying to get from 450 to 500 on his bench press isn't avoiding the elliptical out of social pressure... he's avoiding it because cardio sucks and is a waste of his time. Sometimes the hardest thing is to accept that differences in participation doesn't necessarily mean some nefarious system is at work. On the contrary, more and more evidence is accumulating that shows that increasingly divergent outcomes are a product of giving people the freedom to do what they actually want.

Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

In my experience, it is some degree of general disinterest and the fact that the wargaming community caters mostly to men, making those - like me - who delve into it regardless akin to those swimming against the current.

Broadly speaking, women do not seem to have the same interest in war and playing at war that men do. Why that should be I don't know, it could very possibkly be a social-cultural norm that is gradually changing. Lots of women started to role-play in the 70 and 80s.

I doubt very much it is to do with sexualised wargame figures, since these did not exist until fantasy and SF games started to become mainstream in the late 80s. Before then, if you went to a wargame convention it was filled with historicals.

The fact that wargames are dominated by men is probably part of the reason. I don't think there are many women going to model railway shows, and there's no sexualisation at all. It's cultural bias.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why, then, do most women not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

Quite a lot of reasons. I mean, hell, you could ask....

Why, then, do most men not feel like being a part of a war gaming community?

...given, ya know, most men aren't part of the war gaming community

This isn't going to be an exhaustive list and I'm sure others can add to it or put it more eloquently, but these things initially come to mind....

1. Less interest in war to begin with. This is a societal issue (not necessarily going to call it a "problem" ) more than an issue specifically with wargaming.

2. Less nerdy women than there are men. You have to be at least a little bit nerdy to care about wargames, especially the sci-fi and fantasy variety and there tend to be less nerdy women than men to begin with. A large swath of society only has a very passing interest in things sci-fi and fantasy, they might go see the next Star Wars or Star Trek, they might have watched and enjoyed Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, very few (be they male or female, but more so female) have the nerd-like interest to go out and buy little toy figures to paint up and put on a table and go "pew pew pew" with a few friends.

3. It not being seen as a productive way to waste time by much of society. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is more off-putting to women than it is to men.

4. The smelly teenage boys and creepy old guys playing with kid's toys stereotypes.... that are often largely true. I've taken non-wargaming male friends in to wargaming shops and walking out they comment how it reinforced their stereotypes. At a guess I'd say this dissuades more women than it does men from joining up in the first place.

5. War itself has historically and still is a male dominated arena.

Somewhere very far down the list you might find "lack of modestly proportioned female models", "male dominated scifi and fantasy factions" and "cheesecake models". I'm not even sure cheesecake models would even register as I'd think most people would have made up their mind before they even hit their first cheesecake model, and I think it's as likely to attract some females as it is to scare off others.

Times are changing. Take a game like WoW - one of the most infamously neckbeardy video games around. Its gender ratio is surprisingly even. Not completely even, but it's much closer to being even than people think it is.

I suspect this will spread to wargaming as cultural norms evolve and people consider what they would not previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

3. It not being seen as a productive way to waste time by much of society. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is more off-putting to women than it is to men.

Three words: Facebook and Instagram.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Somewhere very far down the list you might find "lack of modestly proportioned female models", "male dominated scifi and fantasy factions" and "cheesecake models". I'm not even sure cheesecake models would even register as I'd think most people would have made up their mind before they even hit their first cheesecake model, and I think it's as likely to attract some females as it is to scare off others.

I suspect it would really help. Men have everything from slim and agile Eldar to average (outside the absurd Cadian models, anyway, though models like FW DKoK are very realistically proportioned) IG, heroically strong Space Marines and even brutish Ogryns depending on preference. This is a variety that, for female models, pretty much does not exist. Female models without gratitous boobplate, such as some Victoria Miniatures, is so rare as to become famous for that alone, and if you want someone like Zarya or Mei from Overwatch you are SOL.