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.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Now I would like to know a word in the English vocabulary to describe something as of been of a gender attribute without he sexual implications, sexualisation has fallen to that and we cannot use it to the common speak without meaning "sexy".

The word we should be using here is "gendered," I think.

 Alpharius wrote:
A lot of dumb, stupid, off topic and otherwise generally crappy posts have been deleted.

It IS possible to have a serious discussion about this topic - and the OP has legitimate reasons to want to have the discussion.

Posts that attempt to troll and/or derail in here will see the user in question move directly to suspension - we'll be skipping the warning phase.

Hopefully, that is clear enough?

Well, that was fast...

It is definitely interesting to get input from those outside of the "Infinity" community chime in. This post wasn't made because someone went overboard or even what I'd consider PC Police. The discussion was derailing the other thread so I thought it would be nice to take a different approach and I think there was a difference of opinion, instead of being offended one way or another. I am trying a different spin of understanding the dynamics behind the posing. I don't think anyone was really triggered in a political type, "This must change" type of attitude over that particular pose. I mean there are probably ones that warrant that but it wasn't that.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Knowing Infinity's history of sculpts, it is hard for me to accept that the figure wasn't intentionally sculpted to give the viewer a little titillation (which is fine). Otherwise the sniper would be posed realistically at rest, or just not swaying her hips. or even actually, you know, sniping. I guess the lack of agency on the model's part is what pushes this into sexualized territory for me. You could just as easily snip the gun off the figure and have a "pin-up" miniature. The only way I know she is a sniper is her giant gun, which seems secondary to her hips.

This is something that as a game designer and someone who has concept art as well as sculpts made is difficult to do. I don't particularly think it was meant to give a little titillation but that is just my opinion. Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.

When I have sculptors or artists working on things, I tend to have 3-5 examples of what I'd consider good poses. I also give them 3-5 examples of what I'd consider bad poses. They are usually current miniatures, although sometimes they are images from TV, movie or real-life references. I tend to give them creative freedom beyond that. That isn't how everyone works, but I don't intentionally go into as "make this look sexy". We tend to go into the design phase of "make it cool" while keeping functionality and realistic in the background but not too far background. The hard part comes trying to make it stand out.

I am not sure if this fan art or not, but I can see the Major doing some of those dumb poses.

Yeah not sure if is fan art. But I don't consider those bad poses. Her backside, turn around shooting pose at least has her legs equally in a balanced shooting stance. She doesn't have her legs in some awkward, caught doing the 'pee-pee' dance. Although one of the poses is in a sexualized manner, it isn't an awkward or strange looking pose. She looks balanced, comfortable and functional. The only part that seems over sexualized is her outfit, but that is a different discussion.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.

How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?

 Dark Severance wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.

How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?

I really wish I knew what model those binoculars came from because I love the mini but as a sniper she doesn't see much use. As an FO she'd see the table every single game.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Knowing Infinity's history of sculpts, it is hard for me to accept that the figure wasn't intentionally sculpted to give the viewer a little titillation (which is fine). Otherwise the sniper would be posed realistically at rest, or just not swaying her hips. or even actually, you know, sniping. I guess the lack of agency on the model's part is what pushes this into sexualized territory for me. You could just as easily snip the gun off the figure and have a "pin-up" miniature. The only way I know she is a sniper is her giant gun, which seems secondary to her hips.

This is something that as a game designer and someone who has concept art as well as sculpts made is difficult to do. I don't particularly think it was meant to give a little titillation but that is just my opinion. Now I do think it was overemphasized to be feminine, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The issue of "why not make her like everything else" is the concern. When you have a miniature line that for example has 20 different female characters that are snipers... how do you make them all stand out from each other? If they were all either sniping, in a crouched shooting position, resting the rifle in a resting stance, etc then they'd all look the same. After about 2 resting poses, a couple shooting, maybe a running almost every 'practical' pose will start to look like the others. So how do you make it different, cool and still be unique. That is the hard part is finding that right balance.

When I have sculptors or artists working on things, I tend to have 3-5 examples of what I'd consider good poses. I also give them 3-5 examples of what I'd consider bad poses. They are usually current miniatures, although sometimes they are images from TV, movie or real-life references. I tend to give them creative freedom beyond that. That isn't how everyone works, but I don't intentionally go into as "make this look sexy". We tend to go into the design phase of "make it cool" while keeping functionality and realistic in the background but not too far background. The hard part comes trying to make it stand out.

I think I understand your perspective, though it seems that you are suggesting in order to make things "stand out," in this case for a hypothetical 20 different sniper sculpts, the sculptors need to make things "cool" and that becomes sexualize the models. If the "normal" i.e. "functional" poses get used up immediately and you still need to sculpt additional snipers, then they have to be punched up a bit and made unique enough to sell? Do I have that correct? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but defaulting to exaggerated sexual features, and or suggestive poses seems like a lazy way of handling the problem of creating variety. Not saying that is what you and your company are doing, but in the case of the sniper you referenced in the OP, it seems more the case of using sexuality to sell the model and make it "unique" rather than finding a creative way to create yet another sniper pose. Again, you even said yourself the way the model is standing with her rifle is unrealistic.

For your other point about sculptors and artists, you do realize that those sculptors and artists are bringing their own biases and preferences into the mix, though, yes? Part of the problem some people have with our industry is the ingrained sexism especially in the art and miniatures, and so it stands to reason that artist, writers and sculptors would bring their own baggage to the table when working on projects. There may not be an intention to create something "sexy" when it should be representing a soldier but the project becomes sexy through conscious or unconscious means through the hands of the artists.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I am not sure if this fan art or not, but I can see the Major doing some of those dumb poses.

Yeah not sure if is fan art. But I don't consider those bad poses. Her backside, turn around shooting pose at least has her legs equally in a balanced shooting stance. She doesn't have her legs in some awkward, caught doing the 'pee-pee' dance. Although one of the poses is in a sexualized manner, it isn't an awkward or strange looking pose. She looks balanced, comfortable and functional. The only part that seems over sexualized is her outfit, but that is a different discussion.

How is the image with the Major's buttocks front and center and her turned backwards much different than this figure?


To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."

 Dark Severance wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.

How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?

Jumping in here, because that modification looks much better to me. Her hand is on her pistol, and her cocked hips are less of a focus because she looks like she is actually in a pose someone would make, unlike the sniper pose which, as you admit, no one would stand with a rifle in that manner.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.

How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?

I really wish I knew what model those binoculars came from because I love the mini but as a sniper she doesn't see much use. As an FO she'd see the table every single game.

Cheapest way to do it is get the Briscard with Heavy Rocket Launcher. The Briscard's version is left-handed though.
The other alternative is the Maverick(dismounted) model that was a limited edition with the USARF army pack.

If you're feeling really gutsy, go for the Marauders. The HRL Marauder has right-handed binoculars.

 Ratius wrote:
Im a male.
I stand like the sniper girl all the time.
My back is fubar'd cause of it.
Don't do it gentlemen.

I'm a male and was once upon a time a part time sniper...

The answer to the question is no. As was said by my counterpart- DON'T Try it at home.

To be entirely honest the Panzerfaust Ghulam lady is an old sculpt from a new sculptor (back then), I am more impressed the new back then CB took the risk to allow him to have one of his work published by a real company and the improvements on his sculpting under CB's guidance show on this figure, more impressive if from what I recall was an American sculptor so things were probably done by email.

There are many things to consider on a pose, casting, parts, angle and profile, back then CB was relying in traditional sculpting photos were the main way to access a model and photos can be deceptive, especially on pose and scale, some big scale variations were because of this, now with digital sculpting things can be checked easier.

Now on your other comment, No I do not think people "have an issue with our industry" all complains I see are from people who are already playing citing sources out side, our hobbies are mostly a niche of a niche, not many outsider see, care, or bother to look into, to have an issue with.

The fact that one needs to buy a product that needs cleaning, assembling, painting, then make terrain to finally play the game is more of a barrier than female models looking female and male models looking male, witch kinda is the point in making the models look different, for further explanation why this is the case especially from a business and economic standpoint, look at the previous discussion about the same issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

The other alternative is the Maverick(dismounted) model that was a limited edition with the USARF army pack.

I think these are the parts of that conversion.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
For your other point about sculptors and artists, you do realize that those sculptors and artists are bringing their own biases and preferences into the mix, though, yes? Part of the problem some people have with our industry is the ingrained sexism especially in the art and miniatures, and so it stands to reason that artist, writers and sculptors would bring their own baggage to the table when working on projects. There may not be an intention to create something "sexy" when it should be representing a soldier but the project becomes sexy through conscious or unconscious means through the hands of the artists.

I think you may have misunderstood or I might not have explained it correctly. There are different methods to make something stand out, it doesn't have to just be 'cool'. Not to mention what one person might think as cool, another person wouldn't. The cool part was more in reference that Infinity miniatures tend to use the "rule of cool" as an excuse or as a primary reason some of their sculpts are the way they are. That tends to be the primary purpose, sometimes that may translate to exaggerate or can be considered sexualized but that tends to fall upon artist preference.

I don't know the process, in relation to how CB does their models, how much leeway the sculptors have with them vs how much influence is directly from CB themselves. I am not saying they need to be punched up a bit, but I do think that they tend to take the lazy or easy approach. It isn't necessarily a bad or a good thing but it can result in some really bad poses.

I was giving an example of what I do to not saying it was the correct method. But explaining that I do give sculptors and artists their own leeway to bring their own preferences. I do try to influence it indirectly or at least curb it by showing bad and good examples with references. Given my budget though my concept art tends to be front and back images that is usually unposed, this is to give clear detail of the character. Most of the posing I tend to rely on the 3d sculptor. I want to challenge them to do new and creative ways to push the boundaries without necessarily taking the easy way out. Again I don't know if that is what happened. It is what seems like could have happened. Just because something is unrealistic doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
To me both the model and drawing share a very similar pose that focuses on the subjects buttocks over every other aspect of the subjects. Yes, the Major doesn't have the Raging Heroes bent knee pose like the Ghulan Infantry trooper, but both are still thrusting their rears out for the viewer. Neither suggests to me "professional soldier."

The difference between the Major's image and the figure referenced is because one is "thrusting" their rear out and she is not. The Major is not thrusting hers out, her feet are evenly spaced apart and she is turned looking over her shoulder. It would be different if she was bent over while looking over or faced behind her, but she is in a square balanced stance. The infantry trooper isn't in a movement or motion that makes sense, her rear is actually being thrust out unnaturally.

It is more of a case of unnatural vs natural. Just like swapping out the sniper rifle for the binoculars, it looks more natural despite the pose itself didn't change.

Jumping in here, because that modification looks much better to me. Her hand is on her pistol, and her cocked hips are less of a focus because she looks like she is actually in a pose someone would make, unlike the sniper pose which, as you admit, no one would stand with a rifle in that manner.

Her hand on the pistol wasn't modified at all in the alternate version, they just changed her right arm. Her hand is in the same position, her hips in the same position and the only difference was the rifle was removed and her right hand was swapped with bincoulars. Now she may look more natural or that her hip stance had changed but that is becuase the angle of the two images are different (but they are the same pose).

The right arm with the bincoulars would be from this:




For reference, he is a better shot from different angles of the sniper:

The modified pose looks less stereotypical to me. With the huge gun, the pose looks passive, as if she isn't using the gun expressly so she can stand like a woman. With the binoculars, the pose looks more natural--even though it is the same pose--because the context lends itself more to "just standing around".

Aha, I have that Maverick.

Model's fine, but the context is that the person in battle should be alert, not at ease.

I think sexualization is a far greater problem outside of the hobby -- and it's not just men looking at women. : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2232842/Women-spend-time-checking-OTHER-WOMEN-men-clothes-figures-hair-interested-in.html

It isn't a particularly sexualized pose.
It is designed to draw attention that the figure is a woman, which is fine from a design stand point, but I'm sure hypothetical someones at either extreme of any argument about it will find that to be offensive.

But if you want overtly sexualized miniatures of women to argue about, you can definitely find some in the Infinity catalog.

 Alpharius wrote:
I don't find it overly or even overtly sexual.

HA. Forget overtly sexual. It's not even covertly sexual.

We're looking at figures that are 30mm tall. Many of them wearing masks. If a sculptor wants to make it obvious it's female, there's limited options. Pose it to show a narrow waist and larger hips, make the chest oversized, or go with really long hair.
That particular model is no more sexualised than showing hunky barbarians with 6 packs, surely.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
We're looking at figures that are 30mm tall. Many of them wearing masks. If a sculptor wants to make it obvious it's female, there's limited options. Pose it to show a narrow waist and larger hips, make the chest oversized, or go with really long hair.
That particular model is no more sexualised than showing hunky barbarians with 6 packs, surely.

I agree.
The model's pose is clearly gendered: even if you hide the torso and the face, you know the model represents a female from the pose alone.
However, there's nothing sexual about it. There is nothing about it that evokes a sexual act (as opposed to the Major's model bending over…).

Absolutely not, none of these are

 Dark Severance wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It's a pretty cool pose (I don't care for the rifle itself, but person is well done) without being exploitive, and to me that's providing more positive representation than negative.

How about this alternate modification to it, since you didn't like the rifle?

Does that change the 'perception' of the pose by removing the rifle and replacing it with something else?

When I said I didn't like the rifle, I meant literally just the rifle itself. The barrel makes it look like someone put a comically large silencer on the end of a combi. That's the only thing I don't like, but its still a nice conversion.

I say it is, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, it's a pose chosen to accentuate the female characteristics, and one we don't see male equivalent sculpts in.

Now, that doesn't mean it's the sculptors 'favourite five-tissue-fantasy', but it remains sexualised, as it's designed to draw said attention.

Its all also on context and comparison ot theme and other minis in the range.

theres alot of room for yes and no in the answer and this could vary quite far. Depending on themes, settings and game type this can influence it.

We say yes and no but sometimes due to size, a degree of sexulised features amd exageration are needed to emphasis the female nature of model as in a perfectly realistic world, a female in armour, and helmet. would be hard pressed to tell bar being slightly slimmer build and minor diffrences to armour form.

It's clearly meant to be a sexy pose, and most people will get this association at first glance. However, the miniature also looks very cool and dangerous and could be the hero of any action movie. In my opinion, whether the sexualized pose is a problem mostly depends on the overall setting. Infinity generally has an anime style going and many miniatures have impractical and/or titillating poses (from both genders), it's a defining feature of the game.

Of course people are people and everybody is outraged on the internet, but that's another problem.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I say it is, and I'll explain why.

Simply put, it's a pose chosen to accentuate the female characteristics, and one we don't see male equivalent sculpts in.

Now, that doesn't mean it's the sculptors 'favourite five-tissue-fantasy', but it remains sexualised, as it's designed to draw said attention.

This is actually something I'd like to focus on as a discussion point. I find it interesting from a sociology standpoint but for other reasons as well. I got into making miniatures because my wife didn't like any of the male miniatures. They traditionally are what is labeled "male fantasy" where they are bulking barbarian looking, with scars, beards, etc. Now that isn't saying she speaks for what all women find attractive but none of them were hot in her opinion. To get her interested in gaming, I had to find miniatures that interest her even in gaming this held true because she played Horde because of Blood Elfs. That said men and women find things differently from different point of views.

I find it interesting that because something ' accentuates the female characteristics' that qualifies it as sexualized. There are different women who wear certain outfits be sexualized, but traditionally and socially speaking they don't wear those clothes because of that. It can be a secondary reason but the primary reason is they like it for themselves. Men traditionally are different and think jeans and shirt is acceptable so the viewpoints are different.

I guess what I'm asking is... do we come to this conclusion because we are looking at it from a male point of view? Do women find it sexualized for the same reasons? Granted there are definitely miniatures out there that both can agree are and I'm not saying they don't exist. But we make an assumption that it was done to draw attention which seems to be mean sexualize instead of differentiating between counterparts. And because they don't see a male equivalent, despite we know that men and women stand and walk differently that reinforces that belief.

I may not be saying what I'm thinking correctly but I'll start with that.

It might be worth comparing to some other models. I think the Feminist 40k Facebook group has some great examples of what's exploitative and what's not; similarly Victoria Miniatures would be a good comparison for what's not sexist.

There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.

They traditionally are what is labeled "male fantasy" where they are bulking barbarian looking, with scars, beards,

Yeah but most girls love those type of models. They snap them up dead quick.
I want to see more skinny, pimple faced, glasses-wearing male models.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s

You should check again on the combat heel thing. Actually, you should check again on just about everything you said here. They aren't toned down at all compared to the previous models. If anything, they are much sexier (especially if you are into some snu snu)

Love me some snu-snu...

 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

The escher range is interesting. They previously were a very sexualized model line but GW seems to have attempted to find a balance between keeping the relation to the previous models while toning things down a bit. The breasts are proportionally smaller, more in fitting with women who dont' have much of any body fat.The still have the boob armor (altough in this case I'm not certain it's even armor in the first place) For a gang determined to show their midriffs, they are way less sexualized than SOB. They even got rid of the stupid combat high heels meme that plagued gaming miniatures since the 60s.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.

You mean the heels they or the SoB never had?
Also, today I learned Warhammer has been around since the 60s, and not the 80s /s
Also, you are aware that the model in the OP is not GW mini, right? Its from Infinity, a Corvus Belli game.

This mini has no combat heels. Many other Infinity minis have them though.

Nurglitch wrote:
Love me some snu-snu...

Dude, careful. it'll be the death of you.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.

Sure I am not going to deny that there are definitely sexualized poses with GW or other lines. We know that there definitely are such poses. Nor are we saying that it is PC or that it isn't exaggerated or accentuating the female attributes of the character.

It has more or less turned into the discussion of, does exaggerating or emphasizing feminine attributes mean that it is sexualized? Does making something clearly distinguishable between a masculine and feminine character mean sexualization or I guess really exploitation? And does a pose that exists only in female characters and does not have a male in that same pose, mean that it is sexualization?

 Dark Severance wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
There's no doubt that GW has had trouble with sexualized poses, but I don't really see it in the escher sniper. They aren't thrusting their chest out or butt backwards in a weird way and a sniper standing with their almost as big as they are gun is a common miniature trope.

I'm not going to claim that this are PC or anything, but they strike an interesting middle ground and I'm curious if this is enough to make female players not feel awkward about fielding them or seeing their boyfriends obsess over them.

Sure I am not going to deny that there are definitely sexualized poses with GW or other lines. We know that there definitely are such poses. Nor are we saying that it is PC or that it isn't exaggerated or accentuating the female attributes of the character.

It has more or less turned into the discussion of, does exaggerating or emphasizing feminine attributes mean that it is sexualized? Does making something clearly distinguishable between a masculine and feminine character mean sexualization or I guess really exploitation? And does a pose that exists only in female characters and does not have a male in that same pose, mean that it is sexualization?

The pose emphasizes her quality of being a woman over her quality of being a sniper. She is not lining up a shot, spotting a target, or even sneaking to a good vantage point. The pose says that her being a woman is at least as important for the viewer to notice as her being a sniper. Whether this is a bad thing or not is likely up to each individual beholder. For me, I hate every sculpt of a person with a gun in a combat zone who is not in some way ready to shoot or participate in combat. Emphasizing her hips is secondary to me that she is just standing there posing with her huge gun presumably in the middle of a field mission. The fact that the reason she is posing like an idiot is so that we can tell she's a woman just makes it feel more like an unfortunate stereotype to me, even if that was not intended by the sculptor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To sum up: not so much sexualization as stereotyping by gender.