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.

Yes, there models do seem to be the "boobs for the sake of boobs, and in one case vagina" kind of models. I thought I might convert an officer to look like a pimp, an old convertible Caddy model into a pimp-wagon (AKA Taurox) and have these galls be his "stable", or Command squad.

Could be a good laugh from friends. Probably need to hide it from my wife though, LOL.

I have a fair number of topless models, but I don't bring them to stores generally or post them on facebook. I don't think that makes me a coward or a hypocrite personally. Our society has nudity taboos, and I think they deserve some deference. There would be nothing inherently wrong with the guy you're playing against showing up nude for a game, but most of us would rather he didn't. Some parents don't care if their kids see 28mm boobs, some would. Some women wouldn't care if you ran an army of naked gals in boots, some would find it really creepy and disturbing. Why not err on the side of politeness? Censorship is when somebody makes a law against something. When society generally chooses not to do/say/view something that is a culture setting norms. It is my right to own slaneeshi Daemons, it is other's right to draw whatever conclusions they want to from that.

ArbitorIan wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I have little patience for censorship or those who believe the world to be better for it.

Which is interesting, because although you've complained about people attempting to shame others, every time you call someone a prude you're attempting to shame them.

So glad you noticed. I was afraid I'd have to point it out again, like I did a few posts back where I said, "If you can attempt to use shame to make me feel bad for liking cheesecake, it's only fair that I use shame to point out what a backwards prude you are being."

You've denied being on the defensive, but every time people post two lines of text disagreeing with you, you write an essay in response, and (again) label them a prude.

Pshaw. That's not defensiveness. I'm verbose. Look at my post history.

Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and shouted down in twice as many lines, their every sentence picked apart, and then insulted for disagreeing with models that primarily depict women as sexual objects. To use 'prude' as an argument is to imply that anyone who as a problem with sexualisation must just 'not like sex' - something that's also going to be quite difficult to scientifically prove, right?

Here's what I think is happening. For the past couple years, people have been inundated with this idea that we are treating women unfairly. We don't pay them enough, we don't treat them as equals, we don't let them into STEM programs, we deperson them as we break them down into a collection of individual sexual pieces, and so on. And in an effort to battle back against this perceived injustice, people go so far out of their way to be balanced, that they cease using their brains in an effort to either be, or at least be seen as, a good person.

The problem is, feminism isn't a science. A lot of that stuff you hear about the wage gap or 1 in 4 women are raped in college is based on a misreading of unscientific, biased data. Rape culture isn't a scientific theory. It's an idea, and one with absolutely no basis in reality other than "well, it could be happening". There's no way to prove it exists, no way to measure it, no way to even predict how it will affect things in the future. It fails all standards of scientific inquiry, and yet people tout it as if it were God's Own Truth after them doing nothing more than skimming the feminism wiki entry. And equality? It requires a bit more nuanced understanding than wanting a balance of half naked men with your half naked women. God, that is a really shallow approach to equality.

But that's the problem with social media. We don't do nuance. We can't communicate it - not without being blocked, banned, or unfollowed. And the messages that get responses are the loudest, brashest, and least rational ones. I could write a treatise on how feminism has created the uninformed backlash against sexuality, but you wouldn't read it. You might skim it. But you wouldn't respond to it. But I call you a prude, get your blood boiling a little bit, and bam, now you are in the conversation. Now I write my treatise, and now you have to respond to it. I've impugned your good honor, sir. You can't let that stand.

And I'm not denying feminism or the lofty ideals that feminism works towards. You just can't treat feminism as science. There are no studies. No peer review. No repeatable experiments. It barely works as a philosophy. It's isn't a unified body of work. Feminist don't even agree with other feminists (especially over sex). So you can't just take some concept like the male gaze or rape culture, understand it in the most shallow and uninformed way possible, and use it as a reason for absurd social norms that must be enforced by all good people.

And coming into a forum where the OP has an issue with overly sexualised minis and declaring him wrong and attempting to shame him as merely 'a prude' would seem to be to be an attempt at censorship.

I get what you were going for, but I don't think it works. I am using censorship to... what? Allow for an open exchange of free ideas in the form of less control over artistic expression? Man, I'm devious in how I censor censorship!

Peer pressure isn't, itself, censorship, even if it is often employed towards that purpose.

Vulcan wrote:As far as rape culture goes, it's definitely a thing. One only has to read the headlines and see the stories about these sports stars who get caught up in it and think it's perfectly okay for them to take advantage of a passed-out girl.

Citation needed. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

REMINDER: RULE #1 IS "BE POLITE".

DEBATE THE POINT, DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK THE PERSON MAKING IT.

 Vulcan wrote:
"This art is good; this art is bad" is trying to make objective decisions about a 100% subjective subject...

Have to respond to this... Taste is completely subjective. Taste affects perception, but a reasonable person can separate taste from merit, and know something has merit, without being their taste. And, the merit of a given piece, assuming relevant knowledge and experience, is far from pure subjectivity. Even a lay person can pretty easily tell the difference between a novice and someone with a lot of experience. (Take dakka's own gallery rating system- there are pretty obvious tiers, and while that will be influenced by taste which skews things, the difference between any given 2 and any given 9 will probably be indisputable.) It takes more knowledge in some areas (photography and conceptual art are certainly up there in difficult to recognize, since the easy meter of technique is less obvious), but, there's still a difference.

Arbitorian, oh, thought he was just having a bad day. In that case, well put.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yes, there models do seem to be the "boobs for the sake of boobs, and in one case vagina" kind of models. I thought I might convert an officer to look like a pimp, an old convertible Caddy model into a pimp-wagon (AKA Taurox) and have these galls be his "stable", or Command squad.

Could be a good laugh from friends. Probably need to hide it from my wife though, LOL.

Sounds like an entertaining proposition - I say go for it - just don't answer questions when the wife finds out

I think any debate about "taste" can be thrown out the window on this one; you spent the money on them - don't be ashamed to flaunt them in all their painted glory on your miniature's shelf because other people wouldn't buy/hold onto them. A bit of naughty TandA in model form never really hurts anybody, if you ask me, provided they [the people who made the model] are not trying to be serious about the sculpt.

That being said, I would avoid taking them to blind games/games with people you don't know to avoid any unnecessary attention.

G.A

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Think it depends on the dual context of setting and content:

-gaming store with a bunch of kids, probably easier to just avoid any conflict.

-is it just gratuitous nudity or does it fit? If it's nicely done, yeah, I'd probably be fine with it, across the table or on my side. Boobs because boobs? Probably not.

I mostly agree w/ Jimsolo.

Conflicted over Kingdom Death, because there's a ton of the line and game content I like, but there's a lot of just plain stupid pinups and a few that are distasteful. My personal compromise has been to more selectively buy their minis, and if I paint a pinup, I've generally sculpted/converted it to be a more fully-clothed fighter than some weird, bikini-wearing victim who we're fielding in the game. Also, more skin on guys for balance.

The pinups are not part of the game, i have the base set, and all the survivors look IMO not titillating (the first survives have almost no clothes but they are trying to survive)

Rapists get sent to jail, if people see someone getting abused they step in to stop it or call the cops.

That's not a rape culture, stop buying into third wave feminist lies.

hobojebus wrote:
Rapists get sent to jail, if people see someone getting abused they step in to stop it or call the cops.

That's not a rape culture, stop buying into third wave feminist lies.

Dude...just no. Rapists get away with it all the time. People frequently know abuse is happening and justify noninvolvement.

And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.

Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.

Well, in direct response to the OP's question and not going into my thoughts on morality and culture, I would probably paint them in body suits, as previously mentioned, and no need to 'file off' the nips, as it was also said. This would still keep them conventionally safe, but in the seductive, fantasy manner to which they were made and to be enjoyed.

To be fair, I am sure there are people that get offended by big, muscular brutes, simply because they have a right to get offended.

I had got into lively discussions about the merit of painting miniatures and how we may or may-not be artists.
Art typically wants to evoke emotion.
The nude form has been explored for centuries as a muse for art.

The models the OP has may be good, it may be a worthy endeavor to paint them well just for that sake alone.
For the uninitiated, there is a big difference to painting up a "sculpt" and painting a "little toy soldier dolly".
It is painful to paint-up a model you are proud of and it is completely ignored for the subject of the sculpt.
Army gear and nude can only be viewed with humor, so yeah, if the audience is your friends it may be well received.
I am still trying to come to terms with the "zombie prostitutes" in Malifaux.

I figure there is no "shame" to painting and displaying these models, if they become your primary showcase however, you may want to examine your motivations.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Stormwall wrote:Paint the skin portions in black, that way they are dressed in what could be construed as a black undersuit for normal armour, etc.

You could always greenstuff on armour too.

Or you could, you know, not be a prude.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.

 Spinner wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Stormwall wrote:Paint the skin portions in black, that way they are dressed in what could be construed as a black undersuit for normal armour, etc.

You could always greenstuff on armour too.

Or you could, you know, not be a prude.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.

Obviously, you run in small-minded, prudish, and probably anti-intellectual circles.

Jimsolo wrote:And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.

People are so absolutely sure that rape culture exist - I mean, rapes happen all the time. ALL THE TIME! - but when pushed to actually provide any real evidence for it, they shut up and leave the discussion faster than an anorexic at an all you can eat buffet.

The fact is, there is NO - I repeat NO - scientific evidence that rape culture is "a thing". It can not be measured, it can not be predicted. You can not say for sure that your actions (say, covering a naked miniature) will improve or worsen rape culture (after all, a more repressed society makes it easier to hide misdeeds behind closed doors). So if you can't see it, and nothing you do can change it in any noticeable fashion, does it really exist? No, god dammit, it doesn't.

Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.

Willfully ignorant is spouting rape culture as if it were fact without having done ANY reading on it at all.

Spinner wrote:I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.

Are you kidding? I once saw Showgirls being shown on Logo, a gay and bisexual orientated cable channel. And what they did was have animators go in and draw black bikinis on all the naked girls (poorly). Not only that, but they removed sex scenes and over dubbed cursing (poorly). This is what was shown on American television:



Yeah, that's fething prudish. It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. When I lived in Japan, they showed Showgirls on late night tv almost completely unedited (they did blur genitals in a few scenes). All the boobs, butts, bush, sex scenes, and cursing in the movie, shown subtitled in Japanese. How is it that basic television in Japan has more respect for our art than we do?

 Sqorgar wrote:

Spinner wrote:I think this is the first time I've ever seen what sounds like a skin-tight black suit be referred to as 'prudish'.

Are you kidding? I once saw Showgirls being shown on Logo, a gay and bisexual orientated cable channel. And what they did was have animators go in and draw black bikinis on all the naked girls (poorly). Not only that, but they removed sex scenes and over dubbed cursing (poorly). This is what was shown on American television:



Yeah, that's fething prudish. It is also one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. When I lived in Japan, they showed Showgirls on late night tv almost completely unedited (they did blur genitals in a few scenes). All the boobs, butts, bush, sex scenes, and cursing in the movie, shown subtitled in Japanese. How is it that basic television in Japan has more respect for our art than we do?

I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.

Also, I think that's purple, not black.

 Jimsolo wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Rapists get sent to jail, if people see someone getting abused they step in to stop it or call the cops.

That's not a rape culture, stop buying into third wave feminist lies.

Dude...just no. Rapists get away with it all the time. People frequently know abuse is happening and justify noninvolvement.

And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.

Nudity in miniatures isn't necessarily a part of that, but pretending that it's never part of that, depending on context, is willfully ignorant.

Bank robbers get away we don't live in a bank robber culture, or a mugging culture, or a speeding culture, bad things happen but they are not mainstream and are not accepted we convict and imprison criminals.

I have never been told it's okay to treat women as objects, I've been taught to protect them, open doors for them and to never hit them, I'm a child of the eighties and so predate pc culture and never learned this supposed lesson.

Also men get used in the exact same way in advertising ever seen a coke advert where women drool over a topless man, sex sells pretty people of both genders get used in that fashion.

Also the only people to ever call women objects are tumblr feminists, usually out of jealousy.

 Spinner wrote:
I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.

The point is, it is tacky and prudish, and it takes away from the original intent of the artist (and while Showgirls isn't a great movie, I dare anyone to say that Paul Verhoeven isn't an artist).

Rather than simply not showing Showgirls and instead picking a film more appropriate to the prudish standards of... I'm not sure who. It's on cable so there are no broadcast nudity standards and it is a gay channel, so I doubt a little bit of sexuality is going to offend their advertisers (and other shows on Logo showed nudity), so I have no idea why the film was changed this way - anyway, the point is they wanted something inappropriate (Showgirls is NC-17), and they wanted it to be appropriate (a PG), and they created this tasteless abomination as a result.

So yeah, taking a nude model and painting it in a bodysuit (possibly sanding off the nipples, as mentioned earlier) is prudish, and it puts you in the same puritanical basket as whatever idiot thought of this epic failure in decision making.

Also, I think that's purple, not black.

It's purple in that scene because they are trying to match it up to a bra she wore earlier in the same scene. In most of the other scenes, it is a black bra (and black panties) because it is less obvious that it was done by a kid with a crayon.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I think we had different pictures in our heads of what the painted model would look like.

The point is, it is tacky and prudish, and it takes away from the original intent of the artist (and while Showgirls isn't a great movie, I dare anyone to say that Paul Verhoeven isn't an artist).

Rather than simply not showing Showgirls and instead picking a film more appropriate to the prudish standards of... I'm not sure who. It's on cable so there are no broadcast nudity standards and it is a gay channel, so I doubt a little bit of sexuality is going to offend their advertisers (and other shows on Logo showed nudity), so I have no idea why the film was changed this way - anyway, the point is they wanted something inappropriate (Showgirls is NC-17), and they wanted it to be appropriate (a PG), and they created this tasteless abomination as a result.

So yeah, taking a nude model and painting it in a bodysuit (possibly sanding off the nipples, as mentioned earlier) is prudish, and it puts you in the same puritanical basket as whatever idiot thought of this epic failure in decision making.

I really, honestly have to disagree with this, for the simple fact that modeling is extremely interactive. People convert things or use different paint schemes all the time; would it go against the 'intent of the artist' to slap some spiky bitz on a Tactical Marine model, paint a Chaos symbol or two on it, and call it a Chaos Space Marine? It's not a question of going into an art gallery and demanding all the naughty bits on the sculptures be chiseled off, it's an alternate paint scheme and tiny conversion for a miniature soldier who has inexplicably shown up to the battlefield without her clothes.

(Incidentally, that's my issue with pinup models - they look absolutely ridiculous. What are you doing bent over like that in a war zone, and where the hell is your flak armor? Get back to basic training, trooper! )

There's nothing wrong with changing something about a model if you don't like it, or think you can make it look cooler; people do that all the time. It's like using a Lego set to build something different than what's shown on the box. Modeling kits and miniatures are a great way to express creativity.

Come to think of it...would someone still be a prude if they sanded the nipples and painted the miniature with a bodysuit because they liked bodysuits?

problem is you bring up a debate about models and yet no pictures of said models so how is one to properly debate such models?

Art is highly subjective, on that I agree.

And with a case like nude (or nearly nude) models, I'd follow my usual standards for comedy and other such potential controversies; know your audience.

Among friends? Not a problem. At a public tournament or game shop? I'd probably leave them at home or tucked in a case.

Sounds like they could make fine/fun alternate figures in the right setting, perhaps a challenge to paint up well, or as suggested here a challenge to ones sculpting skills.

Challenges of how 'prudish' people are being aren't helpful, showing respect for ones fellow gamer isn't a high bar to clear and changing North American views on sex, sexuality, and nudity is a war one doesn't necessarily have to fight out on the miniature battlefields at 28mm scale (or whatever).

Personally, I'd probably paint them up in a theme of some sort that made it less obvious they were nude. The 'skin tight stealth suit' kind of look, perhaps. Something I could put to use in general company without drawing obvious attention to the figure, of course assuming this was remotely feasible (ie: they're just nude, not nude and in obvious cheesecake/pinup poses).

I've seen some impressively painted nude figures for a variety of games. Actual nudity doesn't bother me. But I can also respect that there's broader interests at play than just *my* personal level of comfort, and would either paint them for that baseline 'in the wild' scenario, or go with a less considerate scheme and keep them to home/friendly group games only.

I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?

 Sqorgar wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:And men who grow up in a culture that tells them it's okay to treat women like objects, to sexualize them without regards to their humanity, and to disregard their discomfort with being treated this way are more likely to justify their own acts of sexual harasment/assault, if they even realize what they're doing is wrong.

People are so absolutely sure that rape culture exist - I mean, rapes happen all the time. ALL THE TIME! - but when pushed to actually provide any real evidence for it, they shut up and leave the discussion faster than an anorexic at an all you can eat buffet.

You apparently missed the whole hullabaloo in California where the dad's public apologism for his son included describing the rape as, 'twenty minutes of action.' Or for another good example, a couple years back when a girl was raped at a party, and the geniuses shared video of it, they had plenty of defenders saying it wasn't their fault, they weren't to blame, it was all on the girl.

Eat up, boyo.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?

excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.

 Bookwrack wrote:

You apparently missed the whole hullabaloo in California where the dad's public apologism for his son included describing the rape as, 'twenty minutes of action.' Or for another good example, a couple years back when a girl was raped at a party, and the geniuses shared video of it, they had plenty of defenders saying it wasn't their fault, they weren't to blame, it was all on the girl.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. You are omitting the other 119.4 million adult men in the country that somehow managed to not rape the other 125.9 million adult women. The reasons why you know about those two cases is precisely because they were noteworthy and not business as usual. Man bites dog and all that. Your "evidence" of rape culture is actually just evidence of selection bias.

And at least in the first case, the Brock Allen Turner was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault, given a six month sentence in prison (plus three years probation), and had to register as a sex offender. His Olympic aspirations were also shattered due to the Olympics' zero tolerance policy on sexual misconduct. This guy's entire life was ruined. That hardly sounds like an example where rape is "normalized". Seems like it was punished pretty severely as dangerously abnormal behavior.

In the Steubenville rape case, two minors (football players) were convicted of rape, three adults of obstructing justice, and the Superintendent of schools being charged with hindering the investigation. An actual conspiracy, but the reason for the conspiracy wasn't a normalization of rape. They knew rape was bad (like like the Penn State coaches who covered up their scandal), but they didn't want the fallout of the actions to affect their football team. And covering up for the misdeeds (even stupid things like stealing crab legs) of football players has a long and storied tradition in our society. We don't have a rape culture. We have a football culture. I promise you that nobody would've been defending those rapists if they were on the Chess team, and you'd be seeing the exact same response if they had been video taped beating a homeless man. And the other people at the party weren't helping because rape was normal and that they were implicitly supporting the act, but because of a well documented behavior called the Bystander Effect.

I have one for you. A young woman at the University of Virginia accused several members of a fraternity of raping her. Rolling Stone did an article on it "A Rape on Campus", causing public pressure on the university, leading to the university suspending all Greek organizations. The story of the rape was made up, but because people buy into the stupidity that is rape culture and the idea that all fraternities are just rape factories, the wholly unbelievable story was bought in its entirety with no critical eye to the "victim's" statements. Anyone who dared question the veracity of her claims was said to be blaming the victim and contributing to rape culture - when it was, in fact, the people who believed the victim unconditionally that were doing so.

But like I said, the plural of anecdote isn't evidence. The point is, you have anecdotes. I have anecdotes. You can spin them one way. I can spin them another. There needs to be an objective standard by which you can measure rape culture - by which you can determine whether one's actions or beliefs make it better or worse. There is not an objective standard, so all we are left with is anecdotes and confirmation bias as evidence - and they are anything but trustworthy.

At this point, I suggest anyone getting ready to post in this thread go here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

and refresh themselves on the rules of the site.

There are only 3, but they're all important.

Or maybe just use decency and common sense. If you're gaming with buddies, whatever. If you're going to an LGS or tournament, bring proxies. If there are no kids around, ask the others if they are cool with you using the models. If they are, great. If not, keep them in the box.

Problem solved, move on.

Asterios wrote:
problem is you bring up a debate about models and yet no pictures of said models so how is one to properly debate such models?

Sure.

A couple of my affronts to artistic expression and common decency, or whatever I was being accused of:



Bottom center got her bikini turned into a shift, and got a knife. The other humans are from the same theme, and haven't had their clothes altered.

Original:




This one got an exaggerated shadow instead of a panty shot. The horror.

Asterios wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?

excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.

The OP's description of the models is sufficient. If you want to see naked ladies there's plenty of places on the Internet for that sort of thing.

I think I would happily submit that something like the ESRB rating may be a good guide for what audience the model may be suitable for:It may be worth keeping in mind the blood dripping sword with the decapitated head held aloft may not be suitable in some instances as well.
Note the "Adults Only" applies to 18 years and higher.
I assume we are trying to target "Teen" for public game-play.
Just a thought.
Now showing these models to adults and determining if they are in "good taste" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I promise I will not be holding back much when the scenario calls for the models of a hot princess and the beefcake prince to be saved.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I don't understand you people who say they'd paint up the squad for a laugh? What's funny about a squad of women who are nude for no apparent reason?

excuse for excuses sake, they were in the shower heard a ruckus jumped in their boots and grabbed their bolters, or they were in bed or any number of reasons, me personally i'd like to see the models before giving an opinion, who knows the OP's eyesight might be faulty.

The OP's description of the models is sufficient. If you want to see naked ladies there's plenty of places on the Internet for that sort of thing.

but his definition is vague, my point is without seeing the actual models I cannot make an opinion one way or the other.