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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Maybe she wants to screw up her back so she can get sent home from Space 'Nam?

Might explain her hand on the barrel, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It tells a story. She ain't no fortunate one.

That there is a million dollar wound, straight through your hand without hitting a single bone. If it wasn't for the powder burns on your palm, I'd say you were shot by a sniper.

Oh you are a sniper.

Here's your 247, get out of my office.


I don't think it's a titillating sexualized pose, but the lack of muzzle discipline (hand on a suppressor, over the muzzle) in the model screams "conscript" not "trained sniper" to me.

Jane Fonda in the Negaverse?

Sometimes, if all you've got is The LULZ, well, maybe it doesn't need to be posted?

Someone wrote a thing that I will try to summarize because I can't be arsed to find it.

They tended to dislike the "strong female characters" that were badass fighters and were worried that it was some kind of internalized misogyny. Then they watched the new Mad Max, and didn't get that same feeling at all, and realized that the thing that bugged them about the fighting styles of characters like Black Widow was that it was "fighting" choreographed to emphasize that this character is a woman, and look at how sexily she can beat people up, whereas Furiosa was brutal, efficient, and allowed to be ugly while she fought.

That said, mini's are an inch tall, and can blur together on a table top unless they are exaggerated at least a little. It's a pointlessly feminized pose, but not really sexualized. But I agree with the people talking about the context of the pose, comparing the sniper vs the binoculars.

Treating your gun like that? It's a disgrace man or woman a delicate piece of equipent like that should be treated with more care.

Oh Odin help me! If People manage to anything sexual about that figure they need to seek help, for their represed sexual issues.

An important thing to remember when comparing game or movie characters with sculpts, is that sculpts do not benefit neither from the animation nor the story arc of these mediums, they are static likewise in comics while the characters are static they ahve an arc.

You cannot pull a Samus Aran in a miniature for example.

Without going on a long-winded tangent, for me it boils down to: it's their product, their sculpt, their decision.

Don't like it? Piss off.

It took me a while to decide which way to jump off the fence.

In my infinite wisdom, it's my view that the pose is not sexualised, but that the paintjob is. Google the model, and there's an unpainted "as supplied" on a blog.

That said, its theoretical for me: I don't actually like the model, and wouldn't buy it. YMMV

I think the OP is putting too much thought into a wargame miniature. Granted I'm not going to throw down cash for a tits out mini, but I'm not going to refrain from buying a mini like the OP is having a breakdown over. Or even care if it shatters some bodies sensibilities.
And 2018 has nothing to do with it. Have you seen how easy it is to get port. Of all kinds. And you think sexualization is out of fashion! Lol.

In context the OP is not having a breakdown over a miniature, others outside the thread had, OP has his own new miniature company and validly asks what people think about the subject.

Nah I think it's fine. Looks like a touch exaggerated version of how a woman would stand, which might come across a bit "sexualised" when the model is blown up to 5 times its actual size on a computer monitor but would look normal on a table top. Both men and women often stand with one leg locked straight and the other slightly bent or not locked, but due to the proportions of a woman it makes her hips stand out more than a man.

You guys can be the ones to tell Roza Shanina she needs to pull her hips in...

You cant set a general norm on these kind of things as every single human as their own preferences on the subject at hand.

However it is easyer for a small to medium reputation known company do get away with these things then the big companys can.
So i would dare to say that for the players of infinity, majority of them would not think that is a sexualized pose(me included) when you see some of the other poses their female models have.

The pose is fine.

 Galas wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Men and women are biologically different. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are overall differences between the sexes both physiologically and psychologically which have a biological component. Therefore, any somewhat realistic portrayal of men and women is going to include portrayals of those differences, which is only sexualized in the sense that men and women are sexualized.

There is definitely a line to be crossed into what is sexual, especially if it's exploitative, fetishistic or fantastical. This particular example doesn't appear to be any of those.

Yeah, it's worth remembering that "impressive" or even "attractive" doesn't have to equate to being sexualised.

One thing I find interesting is that portrayals of men are almost never criticised for being sexualised--they have to be exaggerated to the point of comedy before the word comes to anyone's lips. I think it's one of those things that when you examine where the assumptions come from, you realise just how much cultural conditioning we all carry round with us about what men and women "should" present themselves as.

To be honest , "sexualized" males aren't a common sing out there.

This is not a sexualized male, as much as people likes to put him as a example of it:

Spoiler:

THIS are sexualized males.:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Is easy to spot the difference. If you see a semi naked male and think "Wow, I want to be like him"; he isn't sexualized. If you see one and think "Wow, thats some weird stuff", then its sexualized.

Now I'll say that I have 0 problems with sexualization and even if I find the miniature a little "eye catching", I really like it. I was just answering to the "Portrayals of men are almost never critisied for being sexualized". Thats because the portrayal of sexualized men is very, very small.

If you're going to make that argument, they're all sexualised males, just in different ways. The former is a buff dude sexualisation and the latter is a pretty boy effeminate sexualisation.

I don't know where this idea came from that sexualised males had to look almost creepily effeminate (like that weird scary batman comic thing that occasionally pops up in these discussions), it might be a specific woman's creepy fantasy to be with a batman who looks like a bug eyed pansy but it's not a global representation of women find attractive.

I wouldn't say it's sexualized, beyond the apparent belly-shirt (though from seeing the other minis, is that an element of their uniform?) I'd surely say it's a bit sexist, which I think is the point that the original quoted person is making... But calling that a 'pole dancer' is an exaggeration.

The pose is fine, I think. It emphasizes the feminine aspect of the miniature (generally stuff like that is hard to do without going overboard in 28-mm-Miniatures, which is probably one of the reasons why you hardly ever see black or asian characters: you're supposed to see that they possess these features, but it is very difficult not to get into the realm of racist caricature, even unintentionally). At least she doesn't have the "I've got to pee"-pose that's so common in anime-inspired miniatures.

I hope nobody mentions the Darkland's Ysian Melusines...

Oh no! Whoops!

*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.

 Frankenberry wrote:
*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.

People just want to be offended. I suggest they eat a Tide Pod, but that is me.

Let's try and make substantive contributions to the debate.

Thanks...

I think that Infinity has a gak-ton of overtly sexualized female miniatures, many in some quite weird ways.

I would not say that sniper is one of them, actually I'd say it's one of the better ones in that regard. No weird molded boob armor (just cloth and a "generous" bosom), no combat heels, no weird "ass&tits on show" pose... only thing I can fault there is that's a weird way to treat a rifle, and that the quartermaster seems to have given her a vest three sizes too small.

I mean... priorities.




EDIT: Whoops, wrong mini. Fixed.



That's literally from a 1-minute GIS.

Sigh..Infinity. Making you ashamed to be seen in public with your figures since 2005.

It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

The figure in question isn't terribly sexualized and outside of a couple game systems the trend is towards less obvious sexualization. Which is probably a good thing, as gamers are more likely to be family people these days and the number of women in the hobby go up. It's going from a cheap technique to get lonely gamers to buy figures they don't need to an easy way to drive away customers who are likely to buy figures for themselves, their spouse and their soon to be indoctrinated 10 year old kids. Of course, this is moving someone's cheese, so the intenret will be in a flame war about it for the next couple decades.

 Frankenberry wrote:
*beats head into desk repeatedly*

When will this nonsense stop being a thing? No it isn't sexualized, or whatever the stupid ass word means. It's a soldier at ease with her weapon in a game set in the future, where armor is built to fit the form because IT CAN BE AND STILL BE USEFUL.

This sort of gak really needs to stop, seriously.

beowulfhunter wrote:
People just want to be offended. I suggest they eat a Tide Pod, but that is me.

I don't believe having discussions on if something is sexualized or exploitation isn't a bad thing to have. It was meant to be intellectual. I also don't believe anyone was truly offended, this wasn't a SJW response or someone outraged.

The miniature itself was an example but the real qualifying statement about if something was "sexualized" was, "Since males aren't in the same pose, then the conclusion is it must be sexualized" which I didn't agree with. Overall I think the majority of people are in some sort of agreement that it wasn't over the top but it does emphasize the female qualities, which is not technically bad or good.

Now some insight on the pole dancer statement. I have been told that the origins of that statement was because of discussions with the sculptor who had said he sculpted the model after looking at reference photos of pole-dancing classes and that he was told to 'make it sexy'. I don't know if that is true but I also don't have a reason to doubt it, but that is why the statement came about not particularly because that person immediately saw a pole dancer.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.

Seems that most miniature type games kinda need to emphasize certain aspects of the human form for humanoid models as it doesn't read from 3 feet away.
its kinda why a Cadian in real life would be pretty monstrously proportioned.
that's more of a sculpting technique if anything and is probably drilled into classically trained artists. at the same time..... some of those infinity models. well if that is what the sculptor and painters are into. :/ for the most part pigeon legged women would be a pretty good indicator of a sculptor trying to sexualized a female sculpt. (i think, im not a woman and i dont think iv ever seen a normal woman walk or pose that way that wasnt in some magazine)

though things like pin ups, special editions and basically all of kingdom death are pretty obviously trying to be sexualized for various reasons.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists.

Care to elaborate on that?

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Sigh..Infinity. Making you ashamed to be seen in public with your figures since 2005.

It drives me nuts because the rules are so good, but I don't want to deal with all the softcore porn crap. That could easily become a tangent.

The figure in question isn't terribly sexualized and outside of a couple game systems the trend is towards less obvious sexualization. Which is probably a good thing, as gamers are more likely to be family people these days and the number of women in the hobby go up. It's going from a cheap technique to get lonely gamers to buy figures they don't need to an easy way to drive away customers who are likely to buy figures for themselves, their spouse and their soon to be indoctrinated 10 year old kids. Of course, this is moving someone's cheese, so the intenret will be in a flame war about it for the next couple decades.

- Make a sweeping generalization that is based solely on nothing.
- Points out the merits of the game itself, then quickly backtracks to avoid sounding objective.
- Insults a customer base, then switches to the soapbox in order to again, avoid having to answer for insulting said customer base.
- Finally, ends the entire post with a passive-aggressive comment that nullifies the previous message in total, blaming some nameless/faceless group of angry folks on the internet.

I don't get it, is it just good looking women-figures that you hate or is your ire reserved for the overly-muscled, strongjaw male types as well? Asking for a friend.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
To be fair the majority of the Infinity miniatures are honestly fine. Yes they definitely have a few questionable ones but I'm not sure I'd label it softcore porn, they'd at best be considered PG-13. In many situations you wouldn't encounter or use some of the ones that are questionable in real games, which may be why they are that way to entice purchasing.

I agree that most are fine. The werewolf figures and 90% of the kilted range are figures I dream about painting/playing with. The aliens are pretty cool too. Still, I dream of the day my wife and people like her feel comfortable playing tabletop miniatures . She's a genius at playing them but I can't convince her this isn't a hobby for misogynists. Maybe in 5-10 years.

The background of 40k consists of:

- Cult-worship of skeletal remains
- Xenophobes
- Devil Worshippers
- Devils
- Bioforms with an irrepressible, instinctive urge to consume everything organic
- Green humanoids that assemble weapons out of spare parts to carry out wars of convenience
- Constructs that cheat death through preservation of their souls in jewelry and mechanical shells
- Inquisitions, genocides, destruction of planets, summary execution, mass slavery, oppression

... and that's just for starters. The backgrounds of most other games are a watered down rehash of the same dark future narratives.

If gender stereotypes are what keep your wife away, but she accepts and enjoys the rest, you are dealing with a very flawed individual in need of professional help. I really don't believe that's the case, and anyone with that much of a conscience would be adverse to playing the game.

The fact you are encouraging your wife to engage in this activity, which is clearly dissonant and dysphoric in relation to her expressed sensitivity to gender roles, probably constitutes abuse. Pressuring someone to engage in an activity which they find offensive or actually leads to harm cannot be considered consensual. As a spouse, you have a responsibility to provide safe harbor from activities that could lead to harm, not encourage enthusiastic engagement in it. This is like giving a spouse a gun and encouraging her or him to rob a convenience store, it's wrong because of the trust they put in you to protect them from harm.

I don't know you and understand I don't have enough of the facts to understand exactly what is going on here. But what has been described is disturbing at a lot of levels. Who you invite to play tabletop games matters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Charger's wife hasn't ever actually said anything to the effect of, "table top gamers are misogynists," and that he's ascribing such a viewpoint to her because of some level of cognitive dissonance on his own part. Either he can't reconcile with the fact that his wife doesn't truly enjoy war games and so has to find some way to explain her ambivalence towards them, or he simply doesn't believe that any woman could feel any differently about them because that's what he's been told is the inviolate truth by BuzzFeed and Mashable.

In any case, it is definitely pretty weird to indirectly cast aspersions on the whole of a community to which one belongs themselves, and to do it vicariously through someone else's mouth when they're not around to share their perspective or give it context. Then again, that's exactly what I've come to expect from people who claim to champion entire groups of people they don't even belong to.