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.

RH ladies are "oppressed, abused, enslaved"?

Really? Aren't they rather opressers, abuseres and enslavers?

 ImAGeek wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.

It's as unnecessary as that kind of thing ever is. I don't think that necessarily means it's problematic. Things like this are in character sometimes for the character being portrayed. It reminds me of when Tarantino got a load of crap for the amount of racial slurs used in Django Unchained; these things sometimes fit the character being displayed. Of course sometimes it can be problematic or gratuitous, and I don't know the fluff of this model in particular, but it might fit perfectly. It's not like it's condoning it, he's pretty clearly an evil character.

Wow - yes - hit the nail on the head.

It's as if society has lost the ability to deal with issues with any kind of Nuance.

I remember when Whale Rider got an R rating for showing drug use - even though the entire point of the movie was to show kids - hey drugs are bad and messed up this guy's whole life - watch as the heroic teenage girl learns from his mistakes and makes her life great! And the response was an instant kneejerk - showing drugs is bad so don't show this to any impressionable teens!

We've figured out that X is bad so any depiction of X must be bad. It's easier to cement that in your mind rather than judge each instance in context.


This is in response only to the "OMG this evil genocidal alien warlord is SEXIST!!" people, and not commenting at all on whether or not the miniature is actually appropriate as a game piece for children of "x" age. I have no comment or opinion on that argument.

We come again in the roots of the basic argument? wargames deal with far greater issues than a "slave girl" and "stereotypes".

Since the "armchair parenting" has been touched yet again, there is no chance for anyone to agree here, even if X poster is a parent and disagrees with the overprotective mantra the stock answer is "you raise your children poorly" lets face the fact that what should and what should not a minor be exposed to is a philosophical question with no right or wrong answers beyond some really basic ones.

My personal stance is that exposing somebody to the various aspects of the world and life is healthy as long as you are prepared to guide it through the tough questions that will arise sooner or later, I also do not like the fact that in our western protective society killing is acceptable to be seen but exposed flesh is not.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
My personal stance is that exposing somebody to the various aspects of the world and life is healthy as long as you are prepared to guide it through the tough questions that will arise sooner or later

It is again much easier to do this when you know what to expect from the media you expose your child with. Having a rape scene in the middle of a My Little Pony episode, for instance, would be a terrible, terrible idea, and I don't think I need to explain why. That's why classification, even if self-made and informal, matters.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I also do not like the fact that in our western protective society killing is acceptable to be seen but exposed flesh is not.

Can't speak about other countries, but in France, as long as you don't show genitals, exposed flesh is alright, even in cartoons for kids. But yeah, the cartoon I am thinking of (Kirikou) had troubles exporting to the US for that reason; too many naked breasts.
Sexualization don't fly though.

But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.

RoninXiC wrote:
RH ladies are "oppressed, abused, enslaved"?

Really? Aren't they rather opressers, abuseres and enslavers?

Completely different topic from what is currently being discussed.

Looking over at the GoA model, I really don't see as big of a problem with the model beyond a "Was it really needed?" It's not something that is particularly explicit - Dark Eldar have much more explicit or sexualized stuff in their fluff and line. Nor is it something that young kids can't understand is a bad thing. I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

If a parent thinks pair of miniature women in underwear and poncho's are going to make children form negative options about women and sex, I would tell that parent to more closely at the influencing figures in that child's life. A child that is in an environment that promotes a healthy view of women, the body, and ethics is going to be able to understand the concept of right and wrong. Adults and their actions and opinions are a lot more influencing on children then little toys. The idea of one little toy "damaging" a child's view just because they see it reeks of the same fear based reasoning behind Reefer Madness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And in regards to the GoA models in question, while being unnecessary, have some reasoning behind showing skin. I would say that models showing skin because of the women being slaves would be a better way at conveying the idea to children the proper way to see and treat women than models like Witch Elves, which are showing skin for the sake of skin itself.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.

In this case it is up to the parent to decide what is best for their situation, and deal with it in their own home so to speak. It is not their responsibility to enforce what is best for Their Child on -everyone- else Man Woman or child.

And that is exactly what happens when people get loud and upity about "Their best Interests are best for all". If you don't want your kid exposed to "XYZ" thing, be it Violence or in this case possible full or partial Nudity then it is YOUR duty as a parent to do the research and screen the things your kids want. It is not societies responsibility to force everyone to conform to what you want for your kids.

If you don't want you or yours exposed to a thing, you need to avoid it, not make everyone else responsible for Your wants.

The easiest comparison I can make is food allergies. It is my responsibility to research and find out what is being served, and to have my contingencies ready just in case something goes wrong. Not your responsibility to try and plan for my specific requirements that you do not know about. And even so I can request a specific meal but that does not mean the whole menu should be scrapped so everyone must meet my requirements.

To parody Video games:

LIFE: rated E for Everyone*

*(experience may change during Social Interaction)

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
But should the parent really relax on the classification? I know I have come to some arguments with my sister because I feel some of the kids cartoons my nephew watches promotes too much the idea that the kid can be an ass his friends will accept him despite his bad behavior.

In this case it is up to the parent to decide what is best for their situation, and deal with it in their own home so to speak. It is not their responsibility to enforce what is best for Their Child on -everyone- else Man Woman or child.

And that is exactly what happens when people get loud and upity about "Their best Interests are best for all". If you don't want your kid exposed to "XYZ" thing, be it Violence or in this case possible full or partial Nudity then it is YOUR duty as a parent to do the research and screen the things your kids want. It is not societies responsibility to force everyone to conform to what you want for your kids.

If you don't want you or yours exposed to a thing, you need to avoid it, not make everyone else responsible for Your wants.

The easiest comparison I can make is food allergies. It is my responsibility to research and find out what is being served, and to have my contingencies ready just in case something goes wrong. Not your responsibility to try and plan for my specific requirements that you do not know about. And even so I can request a specific meal but that does not mean the whole menu should be scrapped so everyone must meet my requirements.

To parody Video games:

LIFE: rated E for Everyone*

*(experience may change during Social Interaction)

would that be the same for the woman who got TRU to get rid of the Breaking Bad figures in their store?

or would it be aligned to parents who sue McDonald's because their kids are fat?

Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.

Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."

Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.

Read an interesting quote today, made me think of this thread:

"The difference between a social justice activist and a social justice warrior is the activist tries to get a ramp added to a building for easier wheelchair access whereas the warrior tries to get the stairs removed because they might offend people who can't use them."

Now just replaces ramp, wheelchair and a few other things with "minis with boobs" and you'll get a similar result.

RoninXiC wrote:
RH ladies are "oppressed, abused, enslaved"?

Really? Aren't they rather opressers, abuseres and enslavers?

Actually, they're none of those. What they are is not real.

Soooo deep. Still rarher dumb comment.

Harry Potter is not a Wizard because he isn't real. Uuh.

Social Justice? That's Charles Bronson isn't it?

Nah. He's extreme justice.

Social Justice has a name: Tipper Gore.

RoninXiC wrote:
Soooo deep. Still rarher dumb comment.

Harry Potter is not a Wizard because he isn't real. Uuh.

Neither are wizards.
Unless it works like multiplying two negatives, where you get a positive.

I still find it ironic that there's such an outcry of nipples and breasts but this is perfectly fine:



Seriously. Most guys playing 40k or a lot of other tabletop games won't have Arnold's rockhard abs, but it's perfectly fine to keep pumping out shirtless guys in thongs.

I really don't have a problem with sexualized miniatures, but I think they have a time and place. I love seeing and playing against the Dark Eldar and Slaanesh minis, but I agree there are some that go beyond naked flesh and enter a more erotic nature. Those I have a problem with.

"Because male power fantasy" which is like the most stupid reply ever invented.

Don't blame (only) sculptor/manufacturer for miniature sexualization.
Half of it depends about how the customer decide to paint it.
Just look the 2 ways I painted my Prodos Space Crusaders to join my Utramarines Team for Space Crusade


As I explain here
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1050/678971.page#8662798
and there
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1050/678971.page#8662884
I consider them not as human (if needed female human I would have use SoB in power armor) but as cyborg like Scarlet Blade's Arkana, 2000AD Rogue Troopers or Infinity Aleph.
What the use of an armor if you are bulletproof like a T-500 (or a Necron).
Only shoulder pad is needed for identification, boots to fit the Land Speeder, Marines bike pedals, gloves for standard bolter, and "gorgerin" ( http://monde-medieval.com/3279-large/set-gorgerin-spallieres.jpg ) + arm protection for everything to stay in place.
(or swapping standard SM gauntlet for power glove)

If the Astartes were performing an operation inside a strip club, then those models are fine. Otherwise, they're just plain stupid, and I would feel a little sad for anyone playing with them. It's not offensive to me, it's just foolish.

The picture of the Inifinity minatures squad a few pages back (absolutely gorgeous miniatures by the way, wow) with the male and female soldiers, in my opinion, is totally fine and appropriate. It's less of a sexual thing and more of a feminine thing in my eyes...and keep in mind, this ISN'T real life, this is a game primarily played by males, who want their female models to look like female models and some kind of appeal to them.
This subject is running rampant through the world of video games right now too, with lots of talk about tropes and the depiction of females in gaming, and there seem to be three groups of people where this topic is concerned: the angry, militant feminists (and their white-knight allies), the ignorant misogynists who claim there is no issue, and the (very large) group of people who just want to enjoy the game. I see that situation playing out here too.

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

 Kriegspiel wrote:
What the use of an armor if you are bulletproof like a T-500 (or a Necron).

Why look like a conventionally sexy woman if you are like a T-500?

RoninXiC wrote:
"Because male power fantasy" which is like the most stupid reply ever invented.

Nah, it's not. The female equivalent of that Conan image would be like (NSFW language, nipples):

And nobody would complain about the nipple there.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:

“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.

People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:

“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.

People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.

I would like to remind you that most of these conventions you speak of are considered to be family friendly and have a large number of Family's and "nerd parents" with their kids along who enjoy the same things.. so that's not a very valid argument.

 Kriegspiel wrote:
Don't blame (only) sculptor/manufacturer for miniature sexualization.
Half of it depends about how the customer decide to paint it.
-SNIP-

Honestly, I'm a proponent and defender of liberty in miniature sculpting, but that "Marine" just looks naked with a layer of bodypaint on. Or, if you are really, really lenient, wearing an incredibly thin, skintight suit that perfectly clings to every curve.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:

Spoiler:

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:

“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.

People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.

I would like to remind you that most of these conventions you speak of are considered to be family friendly and have a large number of Family's and "nerd parents" with their kids along who enjoy the same things.. so that's not a very valid argument.

It's a mixed bag: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/media/increasingly-child-friendly-comic-con-cant-hide-its-raunchy-roots.html

While yes it has been moving towards a more family friendly theme, with days being dedicated to the kids, every major convention I've been to has included a number of booths and panels containing adult content not far from the ones directed at kids.

More so, the amount of female cosplayers that show much more skin than many of the miniatures that people have problems with, including the GoA one of the current discussion, is still a pretty high number. Bringing a child to a convention "exposes" them to such costumes, and in a much less controlled setting than playing with miniatures. Adult women are going to go to these conventions in such costumes, and can do so in a mentally healthy manner due to their own complex understanding of sexuality, so I fail to see how it invalidates the argument.

Personally I just don't see the point in the slaves being on the miniature in the first place, other than T&A. Yeah, I suppose it helps hammer the point home that the character is a bad guy, but that doesn't really seem necessary to me. If the intent was purely to make it obvious that he was a Jabba the Hutt reference, I would argue that his obvious physical similarities and general demeanor, lazily sitting back in his hover chair and having others do the dirty work for him, do enough to convey that. The idea that we need to have these over-the-top depictions of evil deeds in order to make people understand that a character is evil comes off as being a little bit silly to me. Speaking of Star Wars references, does a Darth Vader miniature need to be shown killing children with his lightsaber in order to convey that Darth Vader has committed a number of atrocities for his evil master?

And as for the Dark Eldar miniature line, which has been brought up a few times already as being "just as bad" or worse than the model in question, I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Yeah, slavery and torture is a huge part of DE background, but as far as miniatures go the only thing even comparable to this instance would be the ugly DE slave girls/prisoners models, which were made damn near 20 years ago. If you actually look at the miniature line you'll notice that all of the modern plastics don't have included slaves or torture victims to decorate your vehicles with, and indeed the worst thing you'll find are probably the trophy racks with skulls on them, and capes/loin cloths which could be made from human skin if you choose to paint them that way, which as far as violent imagery goes is fairly tame, especially in 40k where even the "good guys" are covered in skulls, bones, and other symbols of death. Even the modern DE wyches are showing a lot less skin than the old models did (I've seen people walking around in public showing more skin than your average DE wych model), with the only real offender being Lilith who is basically wearing a black bikini (which you can't really defend, there's no REAL reason for her to be wearing so little other than it made a more "interesting" figure), but in all of those cases it's totally fitting in with their background, being more of a statement about their prowess as fighters than "Look at how sexy I am!"...exposed flesh is a dare, and the fact that it's unmarked a testament to their skill in battle (which makes some sense when you get to Lilith, who is supposed to be the best wych evar). In fact I still remember back when these models were released that the DE wyches faced pretty heavy criticism because they weren't sexy enough, with one of the main points of contention being that there were even male wyches on the sprues at all. It's funny to see people make that complaint, and then six years later hold that kit up as an example of a company getting away with incorporating sexual imagery into their models.

I'm not saying it's all perfectly fine and innocent, either, but I think it's worth noting that, when designing the updated DE line, GW didn't go out of their way to depict scenes of slavery, rape, or torture in the miniature line itself, and opted to keep that kind of thing mostly in the background (where it belongs, frankly). Not only is there really no need for that kind of thing on the tabletop anyway, but it makes the DE miniature range more "accessible" too, as people who are otherwise not fond of that kind of thing can still enjoy the beautiful model range, with the worst thing showing the DE's evil nature being blades/spikes on their weapons and armor and a few sneering/angry faces here and there on your infantry models. That and I don't think it makes much sense, either...even if a DE archon wanted to go to battle with his/her harem in tow, you wouldn't see them anyway because they'd be left on the raider, not being dragged around the battlefield on chains/leashes while the archon is doing ninja flips and gak, which would not only be impractical but could actually get the archon killed. And if we're talking about a character that's fat or slovenly, like the GoA guy who is meant to be a Jabba the Hutt reference, even when Jabba leaves the palace you can clearly see that he doesn't strap his slaves to the hull of his barge, they stay inside the vehicle with him.

In any case I don't really care. I saw the model and made a face because I personally think it's silly, but that's the extent to which this kinda thing bothers me. I don't think the model is promoting slavery or trying to suggest that women are supposed to be treated like property or abused, I get that those are bad things and it's making the point that the guy is bad and he does bad things. I personally just think there's no real reason for them to be there in order to make that point and that it's little more than an excuse to sell some "sexy" models. And there's nothing really wrong with that, either, I just wish people would be a little more honest about it, admitting that they just want to paint a little T&A instead of trying to imply that the slave girls are actually a really important part of the miniature and need to be there in order to convey that the character in question is evil, as if there were no other way.

RoninXiC wrote:
"Because male power fantasy" which is like the most stupid reply ever invented.

Nah, yours is the most stupid reply ever invented. People use this all the time to try and put down completely valid arguments about pretty much everything and fail miserably. Just like now.

I don't need social justice warriors defending me from whatever their supposed slight of the month is this month.

Sci-Fi and Fantasy was born from the likes of Boris, Franzetta, and the pages of Heavy Metal, Eerie, Weird tales, comic books by Stan Lee,Bob Kane, Robert Kanigher, Garth Ennis, Todd Mcfarlane, Joe Kubert etc,,,. It's not for everyone, nor should it be. As a gangly teen age boy/ girl, it should be about freedom of expression, much the same as all art combat

The slave reference is good. You need them, or the effect of, "These guys are slave raiders, who will as easily skin you alive and laugh at you for fun while you writhe around in agony, then they get powered by it..." There are more female figures, and blades, and violent intent in the "New" Dark elder line then was in the past.

Darth Vader.... well, if Disney has anything to do with it, it will be a small world after all, and he's just lashing out for his mommy issues. ( about as much as the princess empowerment league that has taken over Disney's talent department.)

When Robert E. Howard wrote Conan, Red Sonja, or the rest, Edger Rice Burroughs writing Tarzan, John Carter, or When Jules Vern wrote 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, or H.P. Lovecraft wrote about the Cthuhlu mythos, they all had no idea that someone was going to come behind them and complain that there was social injustice because they didn't write in enough wuss into the characters and get them all in touch with their feminine side. Nudity and violence is visceral, and raw. They go hand in hand with scifi and fantasy like peanut-butter and jelly.

 Runic wrote:
Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.

Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."

Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.

There's a huge difference between sexualization and sexual violence. One can be fine with sexuality and not want to see "unfortunate implications" in models clearly portraying slavery with a sexual light. There's also a difference between "I don't like cheesecake because it breaks suspension of disbelief for fan service" and "this mini reminds me of what that kid at school who always got sent home for smelling of urine and crying oddly went through all those years".

It's not like we are talking about Kingdom Death here. This is a game that features goofy rockmen, goofy hobbit-daleks, badass 90's latex-forehead aliens, and a Firefly fan pandering faction. I guess I just can't accept a goofy sex slaver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:

“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.

People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.

I have more concerns about how it is seen by the people who gladly purchase them. I honestly doubt most children grasp all of the implications behind the slave girl imagery. But the adults who buy the mini based on its aesthetics? I remember when I was old enough to realize what Slave Leia's outfit implied was happening, and from then on it really bothered me how much the fandom latched on to that costume. Yeah, I could see using it in personal role play, but at a convention? It seems like a very public blending of forced sexual servility with sexual desirability, which is all kinds of disturbing.

I guess it makes me that SJW who hates on the Slave Leia look, but that's how I feel.

 Grot 6 wrote:
Darth Vader.... well, if Disney has anything to do with it, it will be a small world after all, and he's just lashing out for his mommy issues.

Pretty sure Lucas beat them to the punch on that one.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Spoiler:

 Runic wrote:
Tbh I don't think it's a big deal, the whole thing. Guys like gals and the other way around (and more) and that will never change. Miniatures, even if sexualized, I find aren't the end of the world.

Some women/men hate the fact women/men are sexualized, some women/men further enforce it themselves. And no, they can do it out of their own free will and not automatically be "brainwashed to do so."

Tastes vary, and so do preferences. None is more correct than the other. We'll all just have to learn to deal with that fact.

There's a huge difference between sexualization and sexual violence. One can be fine with sexuality and not want to see "unfortunate implications" in models clearly portraying slavery with a sexual light. There's also a difference between "I don't like cheesecake because it breaks suspension of disbelief for fan service" and "this mini reminds me of what that kid at school who always got sent home for smelling of urine and crying oddly went through all those years".

It's not like we are talking about Kingdom Death here. This is a game that features goofy rockmen, goofy hobbit-daleks, badass 90's latex-forehead aliens, and a Firefly fan pandering faction. I guess I just can't accept a goofy sex slaver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
I saw Return of the Jedi when I was around 6-7, and I could figure out then that having the dancers/Leia in the skimpy clothes showed that Jabba wasn't a good character, and that it was something wrong to do. Kids aren't dumb, and can figure out concepts.

Well, it sure didn't work that well with everyone, given how many people just want to reuse that costume over and over again, in situation where it makes no sense that Leia would wear it…

That wasn't my point with that statement. The point was that children aren't dumb, and even if they don't immediately understand the visual message of Leia being forced to wear that as a bad thing, a simple explanation can easily inform a child of such. Carrie Fisher gives a pretty good answer if parents don't know how to explain it:

“What am I going to tell my kid about why she’s in that outfit?” Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn’t like it. And then I took it off. Backstage.

People are posting here upset about the GoA model because of how it would be seen by children. The usage of the Slave Leia costume in places like conventions and such, is being used by adults, who have a much more complex relation and understanding of sex and sexuality than a child.

I have more concerns about how it is seen by the people who gladly purchase them. I honestly doubt most children grasp all of the implications behind the slave girl imagery. But the adults who buy the mini based on its aesthetics? I remember when I was old enough to realize what Slave Leia's outfit implied was happening, and from then on it really bothered me how much the fandom latched on to that costume. Yeah, I could see using it in personal role play, but at a convention? It seems like a very public blending of forced sexual servility with sexual desirability, which is all kinds of disturbing.

I guess it makes me that SJW who hates on the Slave Leia look, but that's how I feel.

The way I view it, things like Slave Leia have a duality to them.

On one hand, there will be the women who dress up in the costume. It's one of the few costumes that gets to be sexy and be Star Wars in a canonical way. And then because of human nature, it garners a lot of attention, which feeds the ego/self-esteem. Who doesn't want to wear a costume and be the center of attention? It can also be a source of pride for the women wearing it. Working to have the body to pull that off, and then having a reason to show off and get a lot of attention? That was a factor to many of the women I've spoken to wearing that costume, and it's something I've experienced as well. Before I was injured last year, I was in spectacular physical shape, and did a Conan cosplay - the whole bare chest and legs thing. It was a chance to show off my hard work and do nerdy things at the same time. I got alot of attention from people, especially women. It's hard not to enjoy the level of attention that that type of cosplay brings.

But on the other hand, there's that completely creepy attitude that some guys do have towards women and sexuality; and as much as it's stereotypical to say it - it's not a particularly uncommon thing in the nerdy hobbies. I ended up having lunch and then spending the afternoon with a pair of Slave Leia cosplayers at that convention after I shooed/intimidated away an unsettling guy that had been following them and taking pictures, and then went back to trying to follow them after he thought I had walked off. It can ruin something that can be both fun and sexy. There were a few times that afternoon where we did the "Conan sitting with women at his feet" picture, and all 3 of us had a blast doing it. If I had an unhealthy view of sexuality and women, that could never have happened. That creepy fixation on the female body, and only seeing it as a sexual object is pretty fething disturbing when it's seen first hand.

Bringing this back to miniatures, I perfectly see where you are coming from when talking about the excess T&A for some models and not really wanting to be around it, and I completely agree with you on that. I just don't think that the "think of the children" is a good reason for it - I feel that "Think of the creeps" is a much more compelling argument against the skimpy miniatures.

Personally, I can understand the reasoning for having some lightly miniatures if they are women in some form of slavery or serving a gangster lord or whatever. There's some reason to why they look like that beyond "Tits because of tits; ass because of ass". That's more where is crosses into the unsavory feeling. The entire female line from Darksword Miniatures is like that. It ranges from very acceptable female miniatures to those that make me say "I'm not offended, but is that really necessary?" I'm all for enjoying the view of an attractive woman in everyday life, but if I want to see T&A in a heavier sexual manner, I'll go watch porn in private and not leer at people or inanimate objects in public.

More or less it can be summed up in character build, since the miniatures, much like paintings do not have the luxury of text or screenplay to reinforce the character to the viewer they need to reinforce the character by visual trappings and posture.

A fat guy conveys not much, he could be equally gluttonous, lazy, or have some health issues, a fat guy on a throne is in command a fat guy that is on the middle of the battlefield with slaves feeding him creates a different profile.

A guy definitely in command, a show off, both gluttonous and lustful, prideful and eager to display to everybody he has conquered his enemies.

Is it really necessary? especially the slaves feeding him? I guess you could do the same thing with him eating snacks and having trophies racks besides him, but would not give the same feeling of been fed by the slave girls.

Does it also fulfill a sex sells approach too? sure it does.

On another note IIRC Darksword does the miniatures from the already published artwork so there is no consistency because the artists in question did the artwork under different conditions.