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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

Well, it is two completely unrelated issues. If you want to talk about violence in game culture, maybe open a new thread?

well they are somehwat entwinned - especially when you add in sexual violence which some argue are linked to imagery?

 Peregrine wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:
So when an artist creates a nude figure, it is just a piece of art with no inherent sexual attribute.

No, this is absolutely not true at all. A nude figure is not necessarily sexual, but nude figures often are sexual. There is lots of artistic pornography where the poses/props/setting/etc all scream "THIS IS ABOUT SEX", and even a casual observer can immediately tell that the point of the piece is to communicate sexual ideas. And when we contrast that pornography with, say, the statue of David, we can see a pretty obvious difference between the two. Obviously there are some gray areas involved, but in the case of a lot of the models people often object to it's very clearly a piece where the artist is presenting something sexual.

And I say this as an artist who has done both sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity. If you can't figure out that the sexual stuff is sexual without going into a detailed investigation of the viewer's psychology then either you're a terrible art critic, or I'm a shameful failure as an artist.

and when you censor something based on sexuality, you are forcing your view of sexuality on all other human beings.

Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder.

Artistic Pornography is STILL what the observer deems sexual, and the degree of that, or societal acceptance, is also up to the beholder. You may think this piece of art is sexual in an artistic way, but another person may think it's pornographic, and if they have more power in society than you, they can get it banned. It is just art, a non sexual thing. Anything sexual you say it has, was prescribed onto it by your mind, and in the mind of anyone else observing it.

How terrible a critic a person is is irrelevant to my point. You draw a boob, it's a drawing. Anyone can look at it and it would be up to them, NOT the picture, as to how pornographic it is, how acceptable it is, whether it arouses the observer or doesn't, etc...

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

Well, it is two completely unrelated issues. If you want to talk about violence in game culture, maybe open a new thread?

well they are somehwat entwinned - especially when you add in sexual violence which some argue are linked to imagery?

I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.

A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power. Essentially the same power structure as government to the people, but on a smaller scale?

Note I'm not asking if private groups have the right to 'censor' their members. I'm just asking what you'd call it, if not censorship?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.

They're absolutely connected because they're essentially the same claim- 'This fictional representation of women in [movies/TV/advertising/games/miniatures/etc] has harmful real world effects on real women.'

So again I have to ask- do people who believe this harm exists want to limit, restrict or ban the sources of the harm? Or are you merely expressing disapproval, but are otherwise accepting of these practices?

Buzzsaw, as a fellow Jew, I wonder how you would feel about someone producing miniatures of Jewish concentration camp victims in the selection process. I know you don't think miniatures can be bigoted or reflect harmful ideas on the part of their creators or purchasers. However, I am curious if would you feel the need to tell them your level, composed rendition of "not cool bro"? Or would you just say nothing at all?

Personally, I've always seen the squeaky wheel get the grease, and I belong to the Mel Brooks school of thought, where if you cannot defeat a harmful idea, at least you can mock it until everyone sees it as ridiculous. So, yes, I complain a lot about miniatures I don't like. Sometimes companies even listen and make changes. More often, they do not. That's okay. People can make and buy what they want, and I can think what I want about them. And we can all have a conversation about it. That isn't censorship. That's social discourse. These days, it isn't as pleasant as it used to be.

I'm not trying to shut down GoA. I do however want them to realize that some of their decisions can drive away customers and negatively impact their brand. I doubt they care. they could probably release an entire sex- trafficking faction, and their ridiculous prices would still be the biggest threat to their business.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wasn't Tipper Gore left wing?
The Parental Advisory had the repercussion of stores refusing to sell albums branded by it, all because the albums had questionable material, as determined by the PMRC. Is that not like demolishing stairs?

And the MPAA is conservative, with a much larger impact on which movies are distributed to which theaters, let alone get made in the first place. I guess two or more f-bombs are like stairs, too. Can I get a g-dammit? Only for for PG-13?

"think of the children" isn't limited to either wing.

 BuFFo wrote:
You draw a boob, it's a drawing.

And here's where you miss the point. I can draw a boob in a non-sexual way. I can draw a boob in a sexual way. If you can't figure out that the second type is sexual, despite me doing everything I can in drawing it to say "this is sexual" then either I suck as an artist or you suck as an art critic.

There is nothing inherently sexual about past slaneeshi figures that GW had to drop due to criticisms/threats/etc... and getting them removed IS the literal definition of censorship.

No, that isn't censorship at all. Censorship means that you are FORCED to remove the material being censored, and GW was not forced to do anything. If those slaaneshi miniatures sold well enough then GW would have said " you, we're keeping them". The people who didn't like those miniatures, for whatever reasons, had absolutely no power to force GW to stop selling them. And if any other company wants to make not-slaaneshi miniatures with full nudity they are free to do so, no matter how many people complain.

It all just goes back to what I keep saying: being a small market that nobody cares about or wants to listen to is not the same thing as being censored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power. Essentially the same power structure as government to the people, but on a smaller scale?

Note I'm not asking if private groups have the right to 'censor' their members. I'm just asking what you'd call it, if not censorship?

Moderation, site policies, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Hi that would be from me, so lets take a look at this paranoia then, in the Australia from what I gather the government given pressure from local internal and external groups has made a committee that bans games (computer games) for whatever reasons, games that are acceptable pretty much everywhere else are banned there, can't argue the games are profitable for example fallout 3 or smash bros brawl (??!), but it is banned there, of course it is available elsewhere

That is true, but it's a problem with Australia having incredibly stupid censorship policies that the rest of the world laughs at. We should not approve of what they're doing, but it isn't something that has any direct impact on the rest of us and it is incredibly unlikely that it ever will in the foreseeable future.

but if Australia ever becomes a major market many games will not be attempted simply because missing a major market can be an economic suicide.

So what? If selling particular games isn't profitable enough then I fail to see the problem. Some companies may decide that selling to Australia is more profitable than selling a game with more sex/violence/whatever in other countries, but if you really want to make a game that fails Australian censorship standards then you're free to do so. But you don't have a right to have game creators cater to your desires.

 Mr Morden wrote:
A related question

is sexualisation in Geek cultures worse than the enjoyment / promotion of extreme or even just "average" violence in Geek cultures.

The last GOT episode even seemed to suggest that only violence solves violent problems

I think it's a very tricky question to answer because context is so important. For example, a protagonist who is portrayed as morally right using violence to extract a confession from a suspect is far more harmful in its message than any war movie or fantasy series that uses violence as a solver to violent problems. Playing off prison rape as a normal, if not funny, aspect of punishment is definitely harmful. Violence against women is even more tricky because the portrayal can be a reflection of real atrocities, or it could be titilation, like all those Cinemax women in prison movies. it can send a bad message to associate helpless women in chains with "so hot" if consent is explicitly not given.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.

Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.

 Kojiro wrote:
A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power.

Moderation. Something incidentally even 4chan does sometime.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would say they are quite connected and not unrelated, both are moral questions and one getting a free pass sounds odd.

Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.

Really now, go reread the monolith of a thread an find out how many times I and others have brought it up again and again here.

If you want to defend your worldview on moral grounds or want to enforce a PG rating over nudity on models then prepare to accept counter arguments and somebody calling you on finding extreme death and violence acceptable but showing flesh not is a good one.

Besides having a new thread titled "General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures and their comparison to violence and other equally morally objectionable representations in tabletop wargaming" a bit fitting to be merged into this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
A question to those who believe only governments can censor. What term would you use if you were part of a forum, facebook group or other community where the ways you can express yourself are limited by those in power.

Moderation. Something incidentally even 4chan does sometime.

Funny enouph governments tend to "moderate" things they do not want to hear or does not fit their political agenda, because hey X vocal group can influence voters so lets cave into their demands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Artemis Black wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Well Reaper famously quoted many times in this thread, did the test made the same models fully clothed sot so fully clothed and nude game then different names and didn't have them together and according to them the nudes sold always and consistently better than the not so clothed who sold better than the fully clothed version of the same model essentially.So I guess they did put the ramp, but did not see any significant reward for doing so..

Our July Kickstarter will have an element of exactly this, and I'll be happy to let people know the various sales levels of each type of mini.

It would be nice to see something useful for once and not you attacking the same company over and over in the various threads, but really do you expect it do be different than your usual business? I can hardly recall any mention of needing to restock especially fast any non scantly clad/ naked female miniatures over the years while models like Artemis needed many runs to satisfy demand and in CMON most of your models showing up are the naked ladies.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Funny enouph governments tend to "moderate" things they do not want to hear or does not fit their political agenda, because hey X vocal group can influence voters so lets cave into their demands.

Which would only be relevant if there is any (non tinfoil hat) concern over governments getting involved in miniatures designs. And there isn't.

Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.

My country has infamously passed a law quite a few years ago with the intention to ban Slot machines and gambling outside casinos, they managed to virtually ban any form of gaming (from a child kicking a ball, to playing on your computer or miniature games ectr) for about 3 months till they rewrote the rules this was the death sentence of the many profitable penny arcades we had around at the time.

Yes, I can see problems with some lawman heavy handling a law with completely other intentions and causing chaos in sectors he or she does not even know they exist.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.

Given that, as I keep saying, hardcore pornography is entirely legal for adults to buy and sell I do not find it at all plausible that sexy miniatures will be banned any time in the foreseeable future. Any claim otherwise is paranoia, nothing more.

My country has infamously passed a law quite a few years ago with the intention to ban Slot machines and gambling outside casinos, they managed to virtually ban any form of gaming (from a child kicking a ball, to playing on your computer or miniature games ectr) for about 3 months till they rewrote the rules this was the death sentence of the many profitable penny arcades we had around at the time.

And what's your point? Governments occasionally pass poorly written laws with unintended consequences, and sometimes frustrating things happen until the mistake is corrected. But this has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion of nudity in miniatures. Any accidental ban on miniatures stuff would be just that: an accident. By definition it could not have anything to do with any hypothetical demands for government regulation of miniatures, or any discussion of whether or not people should make or buy sexy miniatures.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Then create a thread to talk about the second. But if you are only willing to talk about the second in relation to the first, rather than on its own, I will call your sudden attachment to it disingenuous.

Really now, go reread the monolith of a thread an find out how many times I and others have brought it up again and again here.

If you want to defend your worldview on moral grounds or want to enforce a PG rating over nudity on models then prepare to accept counter arguments and somebody calling you on finding extreme death and violence acceptable but showing flesh not is a good one.

Besides having a new thread titled "General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures and their comparison to violence and other equally morally objectionable representations in tabletop wargaming" a bit fitting to be merged into this thread

So, yeah, that is it. Literally your only concern over violence in wargaming/miniature is about comparing it to sex.
In other word, it is just a deflection and you don't care at all about the issue.

And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.

I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.

Do I have an issue with any of them, no not really I take the wargaming genre (and boardgaming) for what it is and if I find something I do not like I simply do not buy that product or buy from that company.

I do not stand on a soap box trying to enforce my will on others, disregarding anything against my world view despite actual data.

As it has been said early on, if you do not like how something is depicted and really cannot find anything in your liking we are at an age were one individual can create what they like quite cheap and if you think it is a sound business plan, that means it will sell enouph to be profitable, you can not only spread your ideas but also make some money doing so.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Depends, a broad written rule could indirectly affect miniature designs and for many things in life we said something can't happen and somehow somebody managed to do it.

I don't think it's hard to have stuff like miniatures restricted. All you need is some smart cookie to classify them as toys or deem them not safe for public consumption. Is it likely to happen? Prolly not. Can it happen? Sure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think it's hard to have stuff like miniatures restricted. All you need is some smart cookie to classify them as toys or deem them not safe for public consumption. Is it likely to happen? Prolly not. Can it happen? Sure.

And were it to happen I think we can clearly see that some people in this thread would celebrating.

Buzzsaw's concerns are well founded it seems.

well it has already happened for a brief period of 3 months in a largely irrelevant country, at least as far as international law precedents are concerned and I was not happy about it.

Nothing to do with models nudity of course.

But it is a possibility, hopefully a remote one, it is more possible to have particular depictions banned as racist or sexist, but even then I think it is a really remote case.

I still feel it is, at least academically, worth the consideration.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.

That is not my own words, that is your own words. That is definitely not how I would phrase it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.

If those are very, very morally questionable issues, why are you unwilling to discuss them except in the very specific frame of comparing them to the sexualization of female models? Why is apparently no one willing to discuss them outside of this specific frame?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I do not stand on a soap box trying to enforce my will on others, disregarding anything against my world view despite actual data.

.

I have greatly enjoyed reading some of this thread, as it is an issue I find important, so thank you to all the contributors.

There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls recently that discussed some of the issues mentioned here.
I'm not posting this so we can discuss it - I don't want to derail the discussion, but you might find it interesting reading nonetheless.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/on-maturity-40k-and-slaanesh.html

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And were it to happen I think we can clearly see that some people in this thread would celebrating.

Who?

Me? I would hardly care enough to celebrate. Hybrid Son? I doubt he would either.

You seem to overestimate our emotional investment. To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage. More options would be cool. Removal of the options we do not want do not really do anything for us either way.

Buzzsaw's concerns are well founded it seems.

I would not call irrational paranoia 'well founded'.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.

What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Markets and companies owe their existence to society.

No they owe their existence to people who create them and work for them.

Companies and markets owe their existence to the laws that sustain and govern them, such as limited liability and contract. These are created and upheld by society.

Actually, markets exist whenever any 2 or more parties come together to trade. They need neither laws, not social norms to exist.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.

What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..

Miniature making is not the most profitable business in the world. If the companies are only interested in money, there are other business options out there that will give a far better level of profit than making miniatures. I would suspect that most designers have considerations other than money, such as love of fantasy and sci-fi storytelling, artistic endeavour and so on.

I'm sure they do care about what people want to buy, and tailor their ranges accordingly, but if a certain kind of heterosexual man demands sexualised female models, the designers don't have to supply that, or they don't have to only supply that. They could supply sexualised female models and also supply more realistic female soldiers. If they do supply only that, then I would question how that designer views women - I can't see a staunch feminist producing models like that! Furthermore, one implication of that line of argument (whether intended or not) is that only a certain kind of heterosexual male plays wargames and therefore only what they want counts. I think our hobby would be much more rewarding if more people got engaged with it, and a huge market that is lurking out there is women. They are going to be more likely, as a group, to flock to the hobby if they feel the games and miniatures treat them as equals. If I saw a game that depicted the myriad social groups that I belong to in a degrading or mocking way (and let's remember that the way women are depicted in wargames is not just part of a small narrative but is endemic) then I would steer clear of it.

When you* are telling a story, you are representing either a fictional world or the real world. The same moral arguments apply to the citizens of both kinds of worlds. When you create a fictional world, you have to expect that, if people are to buy into it, that they will be questioning your motives in creating that world. If you create a world where women never do anything important, or if they do, that they look sexy, people will question why that is. You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.

*you as in 'someone'

 corpuschain wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
To me, this is more a 'it's a shame tits and asses is all we are to the model industry' than any kind of outrage.

What do you mean "we"? All you are to the model industry is a wallet, doesn't matter what tackle you have between your legs. The depiction of women in the model industry has little to do with what the designers think of *you* beyond what they think we as a collective want to buy (or alternatively they don't think about you at all and just make what they want to make)..

Miniature making is not the most profitable business in the world. If the companies are only interested in money, there are other business options out there that will give a far better level of profit than making miniatures. I would suspect that most designers have considerations other than money, such as love of fantasy and sci-fi storytelling, artistic endeavour and so on.

Yeah, I stated the two extremes (they think of you as a wallet vs not thinking of you at all) but realistically it's going to be a grey area somewhere in the middle.

My main point was the way Ash said it makes it both personal with "we" and as if the models a designer makes is representative of how the designer things of womankind and their female customers in general.

It would be as absurd as me, a dude, saying "it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".

It's comments like that which make these discussions much more heated than other generic aesthetic and fluff questions (eg. I don't like that Space Wolves push the furry theme so far, I'd rather they push the Nordic theme more).

You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.

Yeah, but if you (in the general sense) try to call people sexist for creating sexist fantasy worlds I am also within my right to call you narrow minded and ignorant

The same way I would call someone narrow minded and ignorant if they called me racist if I wrote about a racist fantasy world or call me a violent war mongering person for writing a fantasy world that revolves around violence (which is basically every table top fantasy world ever ). That logic doesn't work with video games and it doesn't work with miniatures either.

But yes, it just again highlights why these conversations end up heated compared to other disagreements on how fluff/aesthetics should be handled.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

It's comments like that which make these discussions much more heated than other generic aesthetic and fluff questions (eg. I don't like that Space Wolves push the furry theme so far, I'd rather they push the Nordic theme more).

You can say 'it's my fantasy world, I can do what I like', and you'd be correct, but you have to accept that people are well within their right to call you on the blatant sexism. It's not proof that you are sexist, but the story you're telling is sexist.

Yeah, but if you (in the general sense) try to call people sexist for creating sexist fantasy worlds I am also within my right to call you narrow minded and ignorant

The same way I would call someone narrow minded and ignorant if they called me racist if I wrote about a racist fantasy world or call me a violent war mongering person for writing a fantasy world that revolves around violence (which is basically every table top fantasy world ever ). That logic doesn't work with video games and it doesn't work with miniatures either.

But yes, it just again highlights why these conversations end up heated compared to other disagreements on how fluff/aesthetics should be handled.

I know all the arguments about artforms being mindless escapism that should be disentangled from the rest of society and 'real politics', but I don't buy them. They all reflect society in some way or another, and in turn influence society back. I'm not saying that sexist miniatures are the root cause of sexism in society, but they don't help matters either, especially when you consider impressionable young men learning their way in the world coming across these miniatures. I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.
As a great person once said, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

 corpuschain wrote:
I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.

And now once again we have traveled full circle.

There is nothing wrong with wanting some realistic female miniatures that don't come in boob-plate. Just like I'd like to see some less bulky men miniatures that aren't all bearded wrestlers. We all want some variations of existing miniatures other than one particular body type which seems to exist on both sides. There is a cost to create variations that effect a complete line and image that was set by the game universe. That is why modding, head swaps, torso swaps are a popular thing and an entire secondary market exists centered around that. There is a cost associated to making females how someone wants or males how I want. When a tone, thinner not as muscular miniature is on the table then how is it differentiated from the others easily? When a female is on the table how is it differentiated? Then it becomes a basis of if you can't tell the difference, then why make an alternate sculpt. That is why alternate versions tend to be over the top, so you can easily tell them apart. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done or hasn't been done, it just means there are added costs and the main reason a secondary bit market exists in the first place. There is so much variations wanted that it isn't really enough support mainstream.

Who knows there might actually be... but it is going to take someone with some capital to make that plunge. You get hints at bits and pieces. Infinity and Malifaux goes all over the range from realistic to pushing over the top for both men and women designs. WH40K is fairly straight forward, there isn't a lot of variation between them. You can tell what the factions are and within the factions it is pretty much all the same (which is probably why it has a much larger bit market?). More and more miniatures are starting to come out that are more unique, but that also seems to be a shift from large scale games being popular to more smaller, faster skirmish games seemingly more popular (from what I can see, no actual data to support that though). It could be also that the market has a lower end entry point for startups in the skirmish and that is why there is an increase as well.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".

Well, to take GW as an example, you have the Eldar and Dark Eldar ranges as well as various species of (a)elf, featuring more sleek men.

Apparently, being androgynous is perfectly fine for a male model, but doing the same for your female models is financial suicide and meaningless on a 28mm scale?

 corpuschain wrote:
I think the world would be a better place if some of the female soldiers in wargames put their boobs away and wore some armour, and I don't think it's too much too ask.

https://thedicebaglady.net/female-miniatures/

just leaving this here

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
And you only care about models showing been female, as by your own words, it is better a model be blandly male looking and have a possible fluff explanation of it been a female, or have none at all and leave it in the imagination of the player than show it is a female model.

That is not my own words, that is your own words. That is definitely not how I would phrase it.

That was more or less your answer on the fully armoured Valkyr power armours at the first third of this thread IIRC.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I care about people like you pulling the moral card over depiction of women on the wagaming aspect blatantly ignoring every other more morally questionable issues the hobby raises and to be frank the depiction of women is not on the same scale as death, violence, mutilation ectr.

If those are very, very morally questionable issues, why are you unwilling to discuss them except in the very specific frame of comparing them to the sexualization of female models? Why is apparently no one willing to discuss them outside of this specific frame?

Good question, isn't the premise that we accept easier violence that the human form a bit strange? I find odd somebody throwing the sexualisation issue above every other social issue a wargame represents, if nothing else it is an artistic representation not a scale replica of real life in most cases, I could very well see the argument if at a scale representation of real events but over a fictional wargame? again depending on the setting art direction and a myriad other variables, coming back on the original argument, I prefer the models to be sexualised and stand apart than the asexual realistic representation.

Were do I stand on the chain-mail bikini? indifferent, if I like the model overall I may take it, if I don't I will not, will I raise an eyebrow if the female version looks nothing like the male one? maybe, I have criticized the female Dozer and that is a model from a company I call friends.

Setting plays a great role too, KDM feels absolutely natural.

corpuschain wrote:I have greatly enjoyed reading some of this thread, as it is an issue I find important, so thank you to all the contributors.

There was an article on Bell of Lost Souls recently that discussed some of the issues mentioned here.
I'm not posting this so we can discuss it - I don't want to derail the discussion, but you might find it interesting reading nonetheless.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/06/on-maturity-40k-and-slaanesh.html

Read the article was heavily disappointed, the author sees Slaanesh more or less as a dead end sex whatever, fails to grasp the whole idea about it representing the lust for everything in its most extreme from and how GW could utilize it for more than just boobs, the aspect of chaos (read human desires in their extreme form) Slaanesh represents is the one of the deepest desires seen in their perfect form, its not just about the sex, it is about having the perfect performance in any desire why should this be limited just in the bodily pleasures and not study martial prowess or other desires?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
"it's a shame muscled killing machines are all we are to the model industry".

Well, to take GW as an example, you have the Eldar and Dark Eldar ranges as well as various species of (a)elf, featuring more sleek men.

Apparently, being androgynous is perfectly fine for a male model, but doing the same for your female models is financial suicide and meaningless on a 28mm scale?

Despite speaking about elfs who are described as been Androgynous and well they are represented in models form as such, I do not think these models would sell if they were supposed to represent normal humans and if I remember correctly they received heavy criticisms that the same body was representing a male and a female model by just switching the front.

WGF's male and female survivors both contained a range of body types. They must have been successful since the new owners effectively tripled the cost of the kits.