Titan Forge Chaos Cultist proxies (NSFW)

[Necron2.0]

CAUTION: Ahead lay boobies

> Demon Assassins < (http://titan-forge.com/sci-fi_miniatures_demon_slayers_demon_assassin_squad)

[YorkNecromancer]

I do not like these sculpts.

I find them simultaneously crass and boring.

Pass.

[ElectricPaladin]

I do not like these sculpts.

I find them simultaneously crass and boring.

Pass.

I have to concur.

"Hey girls, you know what would be great? When we go to fight daemons, let's do it our tits out. I mean, literally, let's cover everything except our boobs. That'll go over great. It's not like we'd be exposing a soft or vulnerable or sensitive body part or anything. And since none of us are smaller than a generous D, there's no way that all that bouncing around will be uncomfortable or impair our balance."

Seriously?

[Sly]

I have to concur.

"Hey girls, you know what would be great? When we go to fight daemons, let's do it our tits out. I mean, literally, let's cover everything except our boobs. That'll go over great. It's not like we'd be exposing a soft or vulnerable or sensitive body part or anything. And since none of us are smaller than a generous D, there's no way that all that bouncing around will be uncomfortable or impair our balance."

Seriously?

Well, you're right.

But on the other hand, you're also wrong, because it IS Chaos, after all. It's not like their followers are all that big on cause and effect, logical thinking, etcetera.

Half naked chicks as a Slaanesh cult for Chaos works for me, in concept. These miniatures, specifically, not so much, but more because the detail is good but the posing doesn't impress me, rather than because they're charging at enemies with their flashers flashing (their lasguns, what else? :p)

[ElectricPaladin]

Well, you're right.

But on the other hand, you're also wrong, because it IS Chaos, after all. It's not like their followers are all that big on cause and effect, logical thinking, etcetera.

Half naked chicks as a Slaanesh cult for Chaos works for me, in concept. These miniatures, specifically, not so much, but more because the detail is good but the posing doesn't impress me, rather than because they're charging at enemies with their flashers flashing (their lasguns, what else? :p)

You are clearly not a boob-haver. I have it on fairly good authority that nobody - but nobody - with knockers that knocky is going to be running around and fighting with them, well... knocking about. Maybe here or there you might find a rather flatter lady who decides to go topless as a tribute to her deviant decadent deity, but this? This is just asking for it. Not in the sexual assault sense. In the "oh no I was pulled off balance by my wobbly bits and fell over and then a Grey Knight shot me 76 times in the torso" sense, or the "jeez that last dodge really hurt, thus I am distracted for a key moment while a more reasonably dressed Sister of Battle cuts me into three pieces with a chainsword" sense.

[Houghten]

You know something's gone wrong when a Sister Repentia is considered "more reasonably dressed."

[DWest]

Point the first: 11 Euro per lady? What, is this studio secretly owned by FW and trying to make their prices look like a bargain by comparison?
Point the second: you do have to exaggerate a bit to get the point across at 28mm. So they're probably not intended to be literally as heavily endowed as they appear. It does seem somewhat excessive though, and not in a manner pleasing to the Dark Prince, just overdone.
Point the third: I would actually like to see some cultist-type figures who fight completely in the nude. Not for the titillation, but for the sense of "I don't wear armor, or even clothes, because nothing you can do to me scares me half as much as what I'll go home to if I live through this."

[ElectricPaladin]

Point the third: I would actually like to see some cultist-type figures who fight completely in the nude. Not for the titillation, but for the sense of "I don't wear armor, or even clothes, because nothing you can do to me scares me half as much as what I'll go home to if I live through this."

That's fine, but I'd like to see it clearly done for realism, rather than titillation. Half-naked, scabbed and covered in scars. Emaciated. This is clearly 28mm porn.

[Necron2.0]

Not wanting to call BS on this, but ... BS!

... especially considering that this (http://www.paintingclinic.com/temp1/cauldronphoto1.jpg), this (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3510225a_3xl.jpg), this (http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics10/img4405e54eef488.jpg), and this (http://www.spikeybits.com/media/2b/a20791f143df0599eea4df_l.JPG) are pretty much standard template for the game. Again, I was looking at these as possible female chaos cultist proxies, for those who might be interested in that sort of thing. They would, of course, need some kit-bashing. I'll agree that the price may be a bit OT, but personally I tend to not pay attention to that.

However, if someone has problems with their state of undress, I would suggest they avoid the likes of Hasslefree, Kingdom death, Bane Lords, Brother Vinni's, Kabuki, CMoN Exclusives, Tin Man Miniatures, Raging Heroes, Agora Miniatures, Dark Sword Miniatures, Reaper ... and this limiting it to just those that aren't blatantly obscene. If someone is not down with nudity, well cool beans - I can get behind that. Sad truth is sex sells - the most successful individual minis out there are of half-dressed or undressed females.

[Houghten]

Wait, I'm confused. An expertly converted Reaper Dryad is standard template for the game? Kingdom Death isn't blatantly obscene?

---

It's not that they're half dressed. It's that they're dressed in a manner that makes no sense.

[ElectricPaladin]

Sad truth is sex sells to straight guys, so it's perfectly fine for our hobby to objectify women and idealize men because we're after all, we're all overgrown man-childs who live in our parents' basements and actively resent the idea of females or gay men joining our hobby.

Fixed it for you.

[YorkNecromancer]

Quote Originally Posted by Necron2.0
Sad truth is sex sells to straight guys, so it's perfectly fine for our hobby to objectify women and idealize men because we're after all, we're all overgrown man-childs who live in our parents' basements and actively resent the idea of females or gay men joining our hobby.

This. This a thousand times.

As for


If someone is not down with nudity, well cool beans - I can get behind that.

You've not understood the problem. It's not nudity. As an adult man heading towards middle age, I have seen my fair share of naked women. It is great when I'm lucky enough to see a naked woman. I feel privileged and deeply lucky, not ashamed or in any way negative about them or me. So, just to be clear: I'm absolutely fine with nudity.

However, I am not fine with the relentless, misogynist objectification of the female body, which is all these crappy models are.

Nudity is not the same as objectification.

If you have a look through the descriptors for objectification:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/
you will note that those which apply to appearances directly apply to this model and models like this:

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes - 'Look at this sculpt's boobies; the naked female body makes me happy, and that's all that matters to me.' I don't want to be a guy who thinks or behaves like that, because dudebros like that are not good people.

violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity - in Western cultures, a woman does not display her breasts in public due to social taboos and boundaries. These figures clearly lack those boundaries, almost certainly because the sculptor is male and wants to see them.

denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. 'You people who are complaining are just too sensitive; this isn't a problem for me, so logically that means it isn't a problem.'

reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts - Only the breasts are exposed - the female figure is reduced to nothing but those parts which give most pleasure to a viewing heterosexual, cisgendered male.

reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses - There is no need for the breasts to be bare; the rest of the figure is armoured. The only reason for bare breasts is the scopophilia pleasure aroused in a viewing heterosexual, cisgendered male.

You quote other vendors and sculptors who sell similarly naked figures, and you're right. I don't buy from them. I don't like objectification. I like naked women. I think the female body is one of the most beautiful things to exist on this entire mortal sphere we all share. But just because I like naked women, doesn't mean I am not sick to my back teeth of being told this rubbish, clearly designed to sell to the lowest-common-denominator, is acceptable. That as a man, all I want to see is women, naked and ready for my pleasure. That the only way I can imagine a woman is beneath me, subservient, existing only for my pleasure, nothing more than a collection of aesthetically pleasing body parts for me to get off to.

That I'm so pathetic, I literally can't think of or relate to a woman unless it is sexual in some way.

Bollocks.

I am better than that, and I like to think the community is too. Crap like this just drags us all down.

[Necron2.0]

Sad truth is sex sells.


Fixed it for you.


And I fixed it for you. ;)

As for the rest ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65mtE2TN1w

Like I said, they're proxies for figures that, per fluff (http://th07.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2012/240/b/d/embrace_chaos_by_a6a7-d5cqhom.jpg), were meant to look that way. If you can't handle it, that's your issue to work through.

[YorkNecromancer]

If you can't handle it, that's your issue to work through.

No.

Check your privilege.

Crap like this is a problem in society generally and the gaming community specifically. Telling us 'it's just a game, it's not serious, don't take it so seriously'?

Patronising and wrong.

Seriously, this is BOLS, not 4Chan. If you thought you'd be able to post something like this here and not get called on it?

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?32827-A-Crash-Course-in-Feminism-Mk-II-%28or-why-everyone-should-be-a-feminist%29

No.

Models like these are a problem - however small and insignicant that problem may be to you, it's still a problem - and denying that? Telling people who find it problematic to basically shut up? Is part of the same problem.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm going to try to follow up the Necromancer's comment with an explanation of privilege, because your comments lead me to believe that you probably don't know what that is.

Privilege is, basically, a catch-all term for all the ways that various parts of the world are set up to favor certain people. For example, to pick one that is pretty obvious in America, we got this huge community of Black people who were brought over, tormented and traumatized, then kept in poverty and disenfranchised, and now still have to contend with various rules and customs that stack the deck against them and in favor of the White majority. One great - and totally obvious - example is the differing sentencing guidelines for crystalized ("crack") and powdered cocaine. Guess which one is more common in the Black community? Crack. Guess which one carries stiffer penalties? Crack. Guess which one has a worse effect? Oh, right... neither...

Anyway, the privilege enjoyed by White people in America (and the complementary detriment suffered by Black people) is pretty freaking obvious, but the situation with female people is a lot more subtle, because us male people insist on seeing them as part of the system. It's easy to look at someone from a different color and with a different skin tone and say "that poor ******* has been kept out of the system of benefits that make my life easy - damn, that's unfair." It's harder to look at your mother, your sister, your wife and realize what the world has done, is doing, to them.

One particularly glaring and obnoxious example of privilege - which you have given us a prime example of - is that you can say "take it easy." You can do this because of the weight of history and societal expectations is behind you. We are living and playing in a society that is - as I flippantly referred to earlier - deeply hostile to female people joining us.

Oh, sure you're not saying "**** you, you *****, I don't ****ing want to play with you, ****, go make me a sandwich." That would be horrible.

What you are saying, though, is "this thing that you are pointing out makes female people uncomfortable about joining our world? That's just the way it is. Mellow out! Why are you always angry all the time. That's just the way it is."

There are a lot of things that are 'just the way it is.' Cancer is 'just the way it is.' War is 'just the way it is.' Poverty? Murder? Tragedy? Hey man, mellow out, the world is built that way.

Of course, that's not satisfying. We all strive to make the world a better place. We have legitimate complaints against this kind of sculpting and the environment it creates in our shops, clubs, and cons.

Now, if you disagree with us, feel free to explain why. Do you think that this sort of sculpting is actually ok? Not in a "well, I can't do anything about it!" sort of way, but do you think it actually has merit, is valuable? Do you think that I'm mistaken in saying that it would make female people uncomfortable and drive them out of our community? Those would be arguments.

But saying "chill out, stop being so upset" is, frankly, beneath you. It shows that you haven't thought this through. You don't tell someone to chill out about an injustice that impacts them in their life on a daily basis, even a relatively minor and specific expression of that injustice (see, I know that topless minis don't make anyones life hard on a daily basis - but they are related to the plight of female people in our society, and thus bring up the crap they deal with all day, every day). Seriously - who the hell does that?

"Oh, I know that you get punched in the face every day for being a redhead," said the blond, "but I don't see why you are so upset about it. Chill out!"

"Oh, I know that you have to look at and experience examples of racism every day," said the White guy, "but calm down. Why are you so angry all the time?"

"Come one," says the dude, "sex sells and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Mellow out."

Think about it. Grow some empathy. Check back when you've done that.

[YorkNecromancer]

Hey, ElectricPaladin?

*brofist*

[ElectricPaladin]

Hey, ElectricPaladin?

*brofist*

*brofist*

*sunglasses*

[Sly]

Now, if you disagree with us, feel free to explain why. Do you think that this sort of sculpting is actually ok? Not in a "well, I can't do anything about it!" sort of way, but do you think it actually has merit, is valuable? Do you think that I'm mistaken in saying that it would make female people uncomfortable and drive them out of our community? Those would be arguments.

I think that the figures, for use in 40k, are okay. Poor figures, and I would really not be okay with them in a RPG environment or maybe some other games.
However, 40k is set in a universe that is by many standards horrific. Besides even obvious horrors such as Plague Hulks and other daemonic models, there are the horrors that are more human in nature such as Sisters Repentia, Penitent Engines, Daemonhosts, the Black Ships, etc. They are literally or representative of moral failure and evil even in the basic human society, to say nothing of heretical chaos-worshipping cults. We have miniatures where the scattered bodies of enemies, cut apart by chainsaws, are placed on the bases for effect. And other miniatures lovingly converted to have more tentacles, more fangs, claws, and/or decaying flesh.

It is a game rife with examples of unpleasantness, set in a universe even more so.

Now, if you are offended by the miniatures, that's fine. I can understand that. However, I do not see how you can be offended by them and still play 40k, unless you really try to avoid quite a lot of other miniatures. We saw three examples (two of them stock) earlier in the thread, and frankly, they are quite mild compared to other work that I've seen.

I'm personally offended by a good deal of the Kingdom Death miniatures. But I also do not play that game, or collect the miniatures. It wouldn't make much sense for me, unless I were to say "the game is so good, and the rules are so well done, that I play it despite the unpleasant miniatures". Is that the case with you and 40k? And if not, then why are these examples of a relatively mild vice (objectification) objectionable, and not something like the special edition Ogryn Berzerker that is about to whack the head off from a DKoK trooper? Or the Plague Ogryn holding its guts in one hand while shuffling forward? Or the slave girls on Vect's dais? Or all of the skulls of opponents on the trophy racks of Chaos characters?

It's a dark and evil universe, with dark, evil, and morally unpleasant personalities, races, and groups. I have seen Cultist squads painted with blood splashed, and slashed bodies on the bases, why are Cultist squads with exposed boobs worse? In concept, of course, though in practice these particular miniatures are, as was stated earlier, overly top-heavy. I personally WOULD run a squad of half-naked girls as Cultists in a Slaanesh army, or as Death Cult Assassins in a Sororitas army. Hopefully less top-heavy, and painted with appropriate signs (chaos symbols or the fleur-de-lis), but still with the same concept of armed girls showing boobs. The concept is simple: these boobs? They're not shocking. The idea that we are indoctrinated to go forward happily to kill things and die without care, that's what should be shocking you. But you're focusing on our breasts, while we try to eviscerate you.

[ElectricPaladin]

So first of all, thanks, Sly, for engaging with the situation rather than dismissing it. We can disagree - or maybe we'll come to agree, I don't know - but as long as we both decide to engage with the conversation, we have a chance of meeting in the middle. Or, at least, we can discourse civilly and come out the wiser for it.


I think that the figures, for use in 40k, are okay. Poor figures, and I would really not be okay with them in a RPG environment or maybe some other games.

However, 40k is set in a universe that is by many standards horrific. Besides even obvious horrors such as Plague Hulks and other daemonic models, there are the horrors that are more human in nature such as Sisters Repentia, Penitent Engines, Daemonhosts, the Black Ships, etc. They are literally or representative of moral failure and evil even in the basic human society, to say nothing of heretical chaos-worshipping cults. We have miniatures where the scattered bodies of enemies, cut apart by chainsaws, are placed on the bases for effect. And other miniatures lovingly converted to have more tentacles, more fangs, claws, and/or decaying flesh.

It is a game rife with examples of unpleasantness, set in a universe even more so.

Now, if you are offended by the miniatures, that's fine. I can understand that. However, I do not see how you can be offended by them and still play 40k, unless you really try to avoid quite a lot of other miniatures. We saw three examples (two of them stock) earlier in the thread, and frankly, they are quite mild compared to other work that I've seen.

I'm personally offended by a good deal of the Kingdom Death miniatures. But I also do not play that game, or collect the miniatures. It wouldn't make much sense for me, unless I were to say "the game is so good, and the rules are so well done, that I play it despite the unpleasant miniatures". Is that the case with you and 40k? And if not, then why are these examples of a relatively mild vice (objectification) objectionable, and not something like the special edition Ogryn Berzerker that is about to whack the head off from a DKoK trooper? Or the Plague Ogryn holding its guts in one hand while shuffling forward? Or the slave girls on Vect's dais? Or all of the skulls of opponents on the trophy racks of Chaos characters?

It's a dark and evil universe, with dark, evil, and morally unpleasant personalities, races, and groups. I have seen Cultist squads painted with blood splashed, and slashed bodies on the bases, why are Cultist squads with exposed boobs worse? In concept, of course, though in practice these particular miniatures are, as was stated earlier, overly top-heavy. I personally WOULD run a squad of half-naked girls as Cultists in a Slaanesh army, or as Death Cult Assassins in a Sororitas army. Hopefully less top-heavy, and painted with appropriate signs (chaos symbols or the fleur-de-lis), but still with the same concept of armed girls showing boobs. The concept is simple: these boobs? They're not shocking. The idea that we are indoctrinated to go forward happily to kill things and die without care, that's what should be shocking you. But you're focusing on our breasts, while we try to eviscerate you.

Here's my response:

It's one thing to make a visual that is dark or edgy, but when you're doing it in such a way as to alienate 51% of the population, your choices should be examined. If you read what the Necromancer and I am saying a little more carefully, you'll see that we aren't objecting to a little titillation, or to the idea that a little sexiness can have a place in a dark fantastic setting - it's the objectification that bothers us. You can follow the Necromancer's links to see the difference.

It's that 51% that really bothers me, though. I mean, come on - you're telling me that boobs flopping around is the only way to express the gritty darkness of this world? You're telling me you can't find a way that isn't alienating to an entire group of people who are - purely coincidentally, I understand - frequently pushed out of geek circles?

Really? You expect me to believe that this is a coincidence? That it's entirely unavoidable?

[Necron2.0]

Check your privilege.


Checked it and yup, I am privileged. Gifted too. Damn, it's good to be me.

'Course, you guys probably just loved this one (http://www.coolminiornot.com/266249) to pieces. It's not something I would have done, but hey ... it is perfectly representative of 40K, both in terms of fluff and in terms of the aesthetic of the larger community.

[Houghten]

If you can read ElectricPaladin's and YorkNecromancer's posts and honestly come away with the idea that they'd love a detailed, lavishly converted diorama of a rape scene, then we're not working with the same universe's logic.

And if you're dishonestly claiming it, then, well, I don't know why I'm even entertaining the possibility of finishing this po

[Necron2.0]

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/052/6/f/90_1__by_necron2_0-d77fzy8.gif

As for finishing ... well go ahead. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm entertained. I will confess, It amuses the hell out of me when there are people reveling in a game based on themes of brutal violence, sadistic torture, rape (yes, rape - read a book), systemic oppression and death … and they’re clearly happy with it. Yet you show a nipple and they @#$!ing flip out. “<*GASP*><*SHOCK*> My GAWD man!! Think of the children!! Where’s your humanity?!!”

Are you @#$!ing kidding me?

It’s like they cannot even see the blazing astronomicon of hypocrisy coming off them.

[ElectricPaladin]

I'm not a hypocrite. My logic is entirely coherent and quite well thought-out - I just disagree with you. Allow me to clarify:

I have no problem with sexually titillating material in a game targeted at adults.

I have no problem with nudity in miniatures wargaming.

I have no problem with mixing themes of subjugation, dehumanization, and sex in a suitably dark setting.

My problem is that these themes are already applied extremely unevenly in this setting and - as it turns out - your logic. I see bare and bouncing boobies, but I see no chiseled chests, tight butts, and enormous packages. You want to talk about darkness? Why is it that it's all male guardsmen - we know from the fluff that IG regiments are integrated - and a female Eldar? How come those naughty guardsmen aren't about to have their way with some slender Eldar male? Why is it that the Dark Eldar captives are both buxom ladies and there are no muscular Astartes humiliated by their chains? Why is it that when the Inquisition tries to murder a mixed group of males and females it turns into a protracted conflict with the Space Wolves (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Months_of_Shame#.UwfuzEJdUec), but when the Grey Knights murder and desecrate a bunch of Sororitas that is just Thursday (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Khornate_Knights)?

Men are idealized, females are sexualized. The stories and images of the males make you want to be them. The stories and images of the females make you want to look at them. If this setting were a dark sexy fantasy where all the main characters - male and female - were sexy and half-clad all the time... well, that's fine. If this setting were a grim, hard-bitten sci-fi where all the main characters - male and female - were consummate badasses... well, that's fine, too. But a world where the male characters are presented heroically, pseudo-realistically, as badasses that you want to inhabit, while the female characters are presented as eye candy you want to look at...

Well...

What's that word again? It means saying one thing but actually meaning another? No, not double standard, though that could work, too...

Ah, yes. That's right.

Hypocrisy.

Anyway, you're fond of images, so let me see if I can rustle some up for you.

The thing is that this:

http://31.media.tumblr.com/2171cdc826ff210091ec288f0cf7b8ef/tumblr_n1cot19IQ81qh1x0oo1_1280.png

And this:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a1976a68ed08be6a9213e298591d8527/tumblr_mqynew2qOo1rwaafuo1_1280.jpg

Aren't the same thing.

The first one really belongs in the same setting as this:

http://31.media.tumblr.com/2774880a811e172b2b243703aa1f1ccc/tumblr_n1a643BG6U1r1j76no1_1280.png

And the second one belongs in the same world as this:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/91ae3a3d510f5c5086465807b8563301/tumblr_n1a3vwsweO1r1jih5o1_1280.png

Do you see what I mean?

One final point.

You mentioned the infamous IG/Eldar Rape Diorama as an example of the darkness that "belongs" in the world of Warhammer 40k. Not only was that pretty much a textbook definition of a micro-aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression) - hey, you are challenging my right to look at half-naked ladies in my chosen hobby and I think one of you might be a girl, so here, look at some rape! - but it's total bollox. I admit that I'm only a couple of years into this hobby, but I've been reading codices and diving into Lexicanum and reading the books - I've already worked my way through the Blood Angels Omnibus, some Ciaphas Cain, and most of the Ravenor series - but there is not an awful lot of rape in this world.

In fact, I haven't encountered any.

Chaos Space Marines don't rape anybody, because they - like ordinary Space Marines - are pretty much sexless. If Daemons rape anyone, it's the Daemonettes and their roofie-aura, and in the fluff, that's typically directed against men, not women; the rest of Daemonkind is too inhuman, and most of them don't have any junk anyway. That's not how Tyranids breed and Orks don't really breed at all. The Imperial Guard has been conditioned to treat alien enemy combatants as terrible abominations, not the targets of sexual violence. Can you see the Tau raping anyone? The Shas'O who finds out that's going on in his regiment is going to shoot those deviant mother****ers right in the face. How is that compatible with the Greater Good? The Eldar? They spend all their time resisting their passions, not giving into such heinous desires.

The Dark Eldar? Ok. You got me. The Dark Eldar are probably pretty rapey.

But basically... in this world of darkness and depravity, there's remarkably little sexual assault. You were the one to bring that into the equation.

How does that make you feel about yourself, huh?

[YorkNecromancer]

Yet you show a nipple and they @#$!ing flip out.

*headdesk*

Okay, to reiterate: NUDITY IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE RELENTLESS OBJECTIFICATION OF THE FEMALE BODY IS THE PROBLEM. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

I have no problem with naked ladies. Please stop saying I do.

Look, will comics help?

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2011-12-02-sexy.png

The issue is one of systemic sexism. To understand, watch this, only replacing the word 'racism' with 'sexism'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjGQaz1u3V4


Think of the children!!

Oh please.

You're not arguing against me or ElectricPaladin; you're arguing with a Straw Man. This has nothing to do with protecting children, or protecting women. It's to do with showing basic respect for 51% of the population.

As for the rape diorama?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Is all I have to say about the issue of rape in war.

It's not something I want in 40K, and I seriously question not only the taste, but the sanity of the person who does. 40K is not a remotely appropriate place for such material.


It’s like they cannot even see the blazing astronomicon of hypocrisy coming off them.

Ad hominem arguments? Really?

And I am a hypocrite if I find sexualised violence in my escapist fun distasteful and unpleasant? (Which this sculpt isn't, incidentally; it's objectification, as I've already covered). For being able to tell the difference between real-life horror and a fictional universe where men fight with chainsaw swords? That's hypocrisy is it?

Look, I have friends who were rape victims. Notice that word 'friends' is a plural. And I can tell you now, it's more than you can count on one hand. Friends I have sat with in the hospital while they waited to see if they were pregnant or infected after a knife point attack. Friends I have sat with as they cried, unable to hold them, because all a hug did was take them back to their attack.

That's the result of violence.

You want to talk to me about how I'm a hypocrite for not liking violence?

Grow up.

40k is a children's game. It is no more violent than Tom and Jerry. It's escapist fun. The inclusion of sexual exploitation? Not welcome. I don't like it anywhere. You do? Fair enough. Expect to get called out about it when you post things online.

Not all of us think it's acceptable.

Look, here's the thing:

I like games.

I want everyone to be able to enjoy them without feeling uncomfortable, including women. Including women who may have been victims of sexual assault, of whom there are many.

Sculpts like the initial models posted here DO NOT HELP WITH THIS. They actively turn away many possible gamers.

We as a community? We need to be better than this.

[Ian Mulcahy]

Checked it and yup, I am privileged. Gifted too. Damn, it's good to be me.

'Course, you guys probably just loved this one (http://www.coolminiornot.com/266249) to pieces. It's not something I would have done, but hey ... it is perfectly representative of 40K, both in terms of fluff and in terms of the aesthetic of the larger community.

Just to chime in here-- so what you're saying is that a diorama that depicts a violent gang rape is perfectly representative of 40k- something that you spend time, money, and effort on as well as take pleasure in taking part of. That's not the kind of thing I would want to be a part of, which is why there are a great deal of movies I just don't see. Mature themes does not mean it has to include nudity and sexual violence.

I don't see that as representative of our game. Humanity fights against the darkness that surrounds it and threatens to subsume and overwhelm it. And its a world with space knights who can cut tanks in half with their mind, with vikings and romans and elves and anime mecha are all fighting each other.

Would I be offended if you put those models on the table? Nah, there's bigger issues in my life. But I sure wouldn't buy them. And telling everyone else to lighten up and that its perfectly acceptable is simply saying "Your thoughts and opinions are different than mine, so I will mock them and state that mine is the only valid opinion."

[Sly]

"My problem is that these themes are already applied extremely unevenly in this setting and - as it turns out - your logic. I see bare and bouncing boobies, but I see no chiseled chests, tight butts, and enormous packages."

"I mean, come on - you're telling me that boobs flopping around is the only way to express the gritty darkness of this world? You're telling me you can't find a way that isn't alienating to an entire group of people who are - purely coincidentally, I understand - frequently pushed out of geek circles?"


I think that you're taking this SPECIFIC example of miniatures and generalizing it too much. I do not think that only female cultists would be running around with bare chests, nor do I think that female miniatures are the only examples where a lot of skin is showing. I do have some barbarian / Conan miniatures that are wearing only skimpy loincloths, and if I found a nice-looking set of nearly naked martial artists wielding cool weapons, I think that they would make fine Cultists. Or Death Cult Assassins. And, equally, so would female warriors showing a lot of skin including boobs.

And I do think that there are miniatures that represent both genders in that style, and I do think that both genders fit into the universe. Nor are they the only kind of cool and thematic Cultist miniatures... while naked men/women running into battle splashed with blue warpaint would fit either Slaanesh or Khorne, I could easily see miniatures dressed like ninjas as Tzeentch followers, or with turbans, or wearing gas masks and following Nurgle, and they would also fit the universe. So I'm not trying to say "Yeah, this is the definitive way to represent Cultists".

What I'm saying is that, among many other disturbing details in the universe, are many dark and disturbing Chaos-worshipping cults. And, among some of these cults, having naked or nearly naked warriors, whether male or female, rushing into battle, painted or with uncovered bare skin, wearing bondage-style spiked leathers or not, etcetera, would be fitting. And that, given that you accept the dark and insane premises involved in the universe, it doesn't make much sense to specifically cry out about the naked girls, but not about the men wearing masks and having body parts rotting off, swinging morningstars with body parts impaled upon the spikes. In other words, by accepting the universe that you are playing in, you really should be accepting that there is a lot of craziness, unfairness, violence, insensitivity, etcetera, in that universe. And half-naked women, which I agree ARE insensitive and inappropriate in a normal culture, do fit reasonably into a universe of insanity and chaos worship.

Therefore, really, the point should be: do we really see the use of these miniatures as reasonable in a more normal fantasy setting, or are they only reasonable in a universe where there are clawed fiends with multiple pairs of female breasts hanging out, and tongues long enough to act as a noose? Because I personally really see half-naked miniatures as reasonable for use in 40k, given the pus-drooling miniatures, the breasts hanging out, the claws, the violence, etc, already in the universe. Leaving aside that these specific versions are not that great. Now, if the question is whether I'd want this kind of miniatures in my RPG fantasy settings, that may be a different matter. Or, if they were used, I would expect them to be used specifically for something as insane and weird as chaos worshippers in 40k, rather than as an example of normal female warriors in the setting.

[Sly]

40k is a children's game. It is no more violent than Tom and Jerry.

Eh, this is where my opinion is completely different.

I see 40k as an adult's game, and VERY violent. And worse than violent, because BattleTech is a very violent game. But BattleTech has reasonable opponents in it. Not opponents that want to eat you and your entire planet right down to the mold. Or that were designed for battle and think that there is nothing more fun in the world than running forward into a loud fight, shooting the loudest weapons that they can build. Or that worship multi-dimensional entities that want to turn the entire universe into an orgy of slaughter, or decay, or torture (I'm not sure what Tzeentch can be said to really want, except that it will change in the next minute). And that's leaving aside the actual servants of those said entities, and not even mentioning Necrons.

40k is one of, if not the most dark and depraved sci-fi setting that I have read. Pretty much every other envisions at least some area where there is peace, on the premise that peace is inherently beneficial, and thus some race would pursue it as a means of advancement. But the 40k universe specifically has every race willing to fight everyone else, including itself, and often with no quarter given, expected, or even possible. Races and governments see their fights as literally for survival, and have no compunction about using the worst methods to fight or to control their populace or that of opponents. Given how chaos can spread in the human empire, they're not even unrealistic in their paranoia.

I can see how 40k could be watered down and have its worst aspects glossed over for a young audience. But that is not how the universe is designed or presented. It is grimdark^2, and IMO, if it's not censored, it's certainly NOT for kids.

[YorkNecromancer]

40k is one of, if not the most dark and depraved sci-fi setting that I have read.

Exactly why it falls into Tom and Jerry for me; it's just too stupid. Don't get me wrong, I dearly love it exactly for that, but it's just sooooooo over-the-top...

It's a personal taste thing, totally, and 40K can work as a serious setting, it really can - assuming you can stave off the audience apathy the relentless darkness naturally engenders. But fundamentally, it's a game from the eighties made by a bunch of guys who were , at heart, really quite silly, who saw the covers of Iron Maiden's every album and said to each other 'THAT. That, but a game'. Doesn't mean it's bad; does mean it's kind of stupid. Kind of really stupid.

Chainsaw swords? Really? What about the issue of kickback? Or the fact that the whole idea of using swords in a universe where guns exist is basically a recipe for getting super thoroughly shot to death?

Cool? Yup. Awesome? Frequently.

But not credible, sensible, or mature.


But the 40k universe specifically has every race willing to fight everyone else, including itself, and often with no quarter given, expected, or even possible.

That was the only part of 40K that ever felt real to me; the fact that no side was worth cheering for in the traditional sense, that they were all a bunch of butchers fighting for themselves and that any justification was roughly equivalent to a mugger explaining why he's not sorry he stabbed you just to get the change from your pocket.

As an honest-to-god pacifist, 40K is pretty much how I see the majority of wars and conflicts; individual soldiers may be capable of great personal goodness and heroism (I know several very good servicemen and women, and have lost some as well). But the armies and causes they fight for?

Nope.