On sex appeal in 40K, how much is too much, and "sexy" miniatures.

[Evil Eye]

I'm glad this thread has gone as smoothly as it has, and would like to thank everyone for staying civil and constructive, and for raising good points.

 

One thing I think is worth raising, especially with the very good point raised about the double standard on attitudes to violence versus sex or nudity, is the degree of what's being depicted in miniature form (to stay on topic and not open a whole can of worms re: social norms), which I think can be categorized in three stages for each.

 

As far as violence and gore on miniatures goes, there's three main categories of depiction- Average, Acceptable, and Abominable.

Average is stuff like skulls absolutely everywhere. Everyone knows what a skull looks like, and having a trophy rack filled with various skulls is nothing new or shocking. Unless it's the Lord of Skulls, of course, which takes craniophilia to a ridiculous degree and ends up being shocking by virtue of how silly it looks.

Acceptable is more extreme content that's still within the realms of making sense in the context of 40K's grimdark nature and, whilst definitely more shocking, is fine when executed well and for the purposes of horror. Things like more, uh, fresh parts on a trophy rack, Nurgle daemons with their intestines spilling out, etc, make sense within the context of 40K (hence their presence on official miniatures) and whilst definitely nasty, aren't indicative of a sick mind.

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

For nudity/sex, you can once again divide it into the AAA system. Average is something very tame like a generally attractive woman in a form-fitting or mildly revealing outfit, that makes sense in the over-the-top context of 40K. 5E Lelith Hesperax, whilst definitely at the upper end of "revealing" falls squarely into this category, as she is clearly a fighter and her risque outfit is totally fitting with the fluff of her as the creme de la creme of Wyches, who literally make performance art out of combat and also get a major thrill out of ever more daring raids and death-defying/dealing stunts of carnage. Likewise the bustier-style armour on Sisters of Battle actually makes sense to some degree as a female counterpart to the sculpted muscle armour of Blood Angels; both are forms of "heroic armour design" styled after the human form itself for artistic, ceremonial or intimidation purposes, which dates back to antiquity IRL, and would almost certainly have produced boobplates were women more common as combatants in societies that used it. Ironically, if the Orks had sexual dimorphism at all and weren't an asexually reproducing exclusively male race who would likely consider sexuality "mukkin' about" at best and mildly uncomfortable at worst ("Umm, Makari, wot are doze 'umies doin' behind da bike hut? It'z givin' me da heebie-jeebiez, which is sayin' sumfink when I'z da prophet of Gork and Mork!") they'd likely be incredibly likely for their females to be quite, um, forward about their perceived sex-appeal, especially given the race was originally conceived as a mockery of football hooligans and proto-chavs of the late 80s. Fortunately for our sanity female orks do not exist, and so we are spared "da gurlz lettin' it all 'ang out". 

Acceptable would be actual nudity or implied in-universe sexuality that still fits within the setting's boundries. Juan Diaz' Daemonettes and the FW Keeper of Secrets, whilst having fully-visible breasts on show, are fully acceptable as they're literally personifications of vice and perverse desire, and "practicality" kind of goes out the window with creatures whose very existence flouts the rules of reality. One could argue there should be more Slaaneshi sculpts catering to excesses other than lust, and I wouldn't disagree at all, but in the context of what Slaanesh represents and how daemons work a nearly-naked succubus monster with some very clearly erotic anatomy contrasted against vicious claws and fangs is completely on topic. Wyches and Chaos or Genestealer cultists of various stripes could absolutely be depicted more underdressed than they usually are by GW (both often have bare skin anyway), Sisters Repentia used to be near-nude for non-sexual purposes (they go into battle clad only in parchments detailing their oaths of penance, as they're actively seeking redemption through either death, hardship or suitably heroic deeds) and I'd argue the new ones are far too sanitized. The older depictions weren't even especially sexy, given the shaven heads, scars and self-mutilation they often sported; the new ones look more like Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team got caught off-guard by a heretical uprising mid-change and had to quickly take the field with some spare eviscerators. And as for Necromunda, even aside from House Escher being an Amazonian combat-drug addicted mafia with a prediliction towards mid-90s fashion trends, it goes without saying that the scummiest hive world in the galaxy is going to have some practicioners of the World's Oldest Profession as hive scum, who like everyone in that damnable hive will be armed and probably be drawn into combat at some point; in fact, a bordello seems like quite a likely spot for a gang brawl ("We told your boys not to come here again! If you don't scram RIGHT NOW we'll be coming out there with shotguns and blow you punks away, and I'm not talking about our usual service!" or "You damnable strumpets better clear out of this joint, the Emperor does not approve of your line of work! We're making this building into a chapel!"). A bit nasty for some groups, perhaps, but hardly an unlikely event in Necromunda and actually quite fitting with the grittier and decidedly less heroic tone of the sub-setting. And also hardly any worse than the corpse-starch industry...shudder. 

Abominable would be cringeworthy cheesecake that has no business on a battlefield whatsoever and was clearly only made because the creator was a bit, uh, pent up at the hobby table- actual copulation, nudity or sexual anatomy in a faction with no business featuring it. Asdrubael Vect actively indulging in the services of his concubines aboard his Dais mid-battle (simply having them lounging about in states of undress is no big deal, and entirely appropriate for the character, but having them polishing his, uh, dark lance is a big fat no from me), Sisters sporting cleavage on their power armour, a Keeper of Secrets which is clearly just a 3D printed sexy statuette painted purple, models that are clearly pandering to various fetishes (for actual jollies rather than exploiting them for horror purposes)...you get the idea. I will say, though, that for the most part I'm more likely to just roll my eyes at most of the stuff in this category, unless it went into actively disturbing territory or crossed over with the Abominable category of gore/violence. An Inquisitor modelled about to perform a summary execution of a child suspected of heresy in front of their parents is quite frankly sickening, whilst a guard army whose uniform consists entirely of Shimakaze cosplay is merely embarrassing or cringeworthy at worst- though depending on the attitude of the player, the execution of the models and the intended reaction, possibly quite funny and acceptable if intended as a joke rather than as a "serious" depiction of a 40K force. It's not like GW has never made intentionally over-sexualised models for comedic purposes before either; see Blood Bowl's cheerleader sculpts, which fit right in with the exceptionally goofy fluff of the setting (itself an alternate timeline for WHFB) and are hilarious to behold.

 

(Man, someone- myself even- should REALLY write a homebrew Blood Bowl 40,000 game. It'd be pretty funny.)

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

Edited February 14 by Evil Eye
Accidental double-post. Whoopsie-doodle!

[ZeroWolf]

6 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I'm glad this thread has gone as smoothly as it has, and would like to thank everyone for staying civil and constructive, and for raising good points.

 

One thing I think is worth raising, especially with the very good point raised about the double standard on attitudes to violence versus sex or nudity, is the degree of what's being depicted in miniature form (to stay on topic and not open a whole can of worms re: social norms), which I think can be categorized in three stages for each.

 

As far as violence and gore on miniatures goes, there's three main categories of depiction- Average, Acceptable, and Abominable.

Average is stuff like skulls absolutely everywhere. Everyone knows what a skull looks like, and having a trophy rack filled with various skulls is nothing new or shocking. Unless it's the Lord of Skulls, of course, which takes craniophilia to a ridiculous degree and ends up being shocking by virtue of how silly it looks.

Acceptable is more extreme content that's still within the realms of making sense in the context of 40K's grimdark nature and, whilst definitely more shocking, is fine when executed well and for the purposes of horror. Things like more, uh, fresh parts on a trophy rack, Nurgle daemons with their intestines spilling out, etc, make sense within the context of 40K (hence their presence on official miniatures) and whilst definitely nasty, aren't indicative of a sick mind.

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

For nudity/sex, you can once again divide it into the AAA system. Average is something very tame like a generally attractive woman in a form-fitting or mildly revealing outfit, that makes sense in the over-the-top context of 40K. 5E Lelith Hesperax, whilst definitely at the upper end of "revealing" falls squarely into this category, as she is clearly a fighter and her risque outfit is totally fitting with the fluff of her as the creme de la creme of Wyches, who literally make performance art out of combat and also get a major thrill out of ever more daring raids and death-defying/dealing stunts of carnage. Likewise the bustier-style armour on Sisters of Battle actually makes sense to some degree as a female counterpart to the sculpted muscle armour of Blood Angels; both are forms of "heroic armour design" styled after the human form itself for artistic, ceremonial or intimidation purposes, which dates back to antiquity IRL, and would almost certainly have produced boobplates were women more common as combatants in societies that used it. Ironically, if the Orks had sexual dimorphism at all and weren't an asexually reproducing exclusively male race who would likely consider sexuality "mukkin' about" at best and mildly uncomfortable at worst ("Umm, Makari, wot are doze 'umies doin' behind da bike hut? It'z givin' me da heebie-jeebiez, which is sayin' sumfink when I'z da prophet of Gork and Mork!") they'd likely be incredibly likely for their females to be quite, um, forward about their perceived sex-appeal, especially given the race was originally conceived as a mockery of football hooligans and proto-chavs of the late 80s. Fortunately for our sanity female orks do not exist, and so we are spared "da gurlz lettin' it all 'ang out". 

Acceptable would be actual nudity or implied in-universe sexuality that still fits within the setting's boundries. Juan Diaz' Daemonettes and the FW Keeper of Secrets, whilst having fully-visible breasts on show, are fully acceptable as they're literally personifications of vice and perverse desire, and "practicality" kind of goes out the window with creatures whose very existence flouts the rules of reality. One could argue there should be more Slaaneshi sculpts catering to excesses other than lust, and I wouldn't disagree at all, but in the context of what Slaanesh represents and how daemons work a nearly-naked succubus monster with some very clearly erotic anatomy contrasted against vicious claws and fangs is completely on topic. Wyches and Chaos or Genestealer cultists of various stripes could absolutely be depicted more underdressed than they usually are by GW (both often have bare skin anyway), Sisters Repentia used to be near-nude for non-sexual purposes (they go into battle clad only in parchments detailing their oaths of penance, as they're actively seeking redemption through either death, hardship or suitably heroic deeds) and I'd argue the new ones are far too sanitized. The older depictions weren't even especially sexy, given the shaven heads, scars and self-mutilation they often sported; the new ones look more like Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team got caught off-guard by a heretical uprising mid-change and had to quickly take the field with some spare eviscerators. And as for Necromunda, even aside from House Escher being an Amazonian combat-drug addicted mafia with a prediliction towards mid-90s fashion trends, it goes without saying that the scummiest hive world in the galaxy is going to have some practicioners of the World's Oldest Profession as hive scum, who like everyone in that damnable hive will be armed and probably be drawn into combat at some point; in fact, a bordello seems like quite a likely spot for a gang brawl ("We told your boys not to come here again! If you don't scram RIGHT NOW we'll be coming out there with shotguns and blow you punks away, and I'm not talking about our usual service!" or "You damnable strumpets better clear out of this joint, the Emperor does not approve of your line of work! We're making this building into a chapel!"). A bit nasty for some groups, perhaps, but hardly an unlikely event in Necromunda and actually quite fitting with the grittier and decidedly less heroic tone of the sub-setting. And also hardly any worse than the corpse-starch industry...shudder. 

Abominable would be cringeworthy cheesecake that has no business on a battlefield whatsoever and was clearly only made because the creator was a bit, uh, pent up at the hobby table- actual copulation, nudity or sexual anatomy in a faction with no business featuring it. Asdrubael Vect actively indulging in the services of his concubines aboard his Dais mid-battle (simply having them lounging about in states of undress is no big deal, and entirely appropriate for the character, but having them polishing his, uh, dark lance is a big fat no from me), Sisters sporting cleavage on their power armour, a Keeper of Secrets which is clearly just a 3D printed sexy statuette painted purple, models that are clearly pandering to various fetishes (for actual jollies rather than exploiting them for horror purposes)...you get the idea. I will say, though, that for the most part I'm more likely to just roll my eyes at most of the stuff in this category, unless it went into actively disturbing territory or crossed over with the Abominable category of gore/violence. An Inquisitor modelled about to perform a summary execution of a child suspected of heresy in front of their parents is quite frankly sickening, whilst a guard army whose uniform consists entirely of Shimakaze cosplay is merely embarrassing or cringeworthy at worst- though depending on the attitude of the player, the execution of the models and the intended reaction, possibly quite funny and acceptable if intended as a joke rather than as a "serious" depiction of a 40K force. It's not like GW has never made intentionally over-sexualised models for comedic purposes before either; see Blood Bowl's cheerleader sculpts, which fit right in with the exceptionally goofy fluff of the setting (itself an alternate timeline for WHFB) and are hilarious to behold.

 

(Man, someone- myself even- should REALLY write a homebrew Blood Bowl 40,000 game. It'd be pretty funny.)

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

I'm glad this thread has gone as smoothly as it has, and would like to thank everyone for staying civil and constructive, and for raising good points.

 

One thing I think is worth raising, especially with the very good point raised about the double standard on attitudes to violence versus sex or nudity, is the degree of what's being depicted in miniature form (to stay on topic and not open a whole can of worms re: social norms), which I think can be categorized in three stages for each.

 

As far as violence and gore on miniatures goes, there's three main categories of depiction- Average, Acceptable, and Abominable.

Average is stuff like skulls absolutely everywhere. Everyone knows what a skull looks like, and having a trophy rack filled with various skulls is nothing new or shocking. Unless it's the Lord of Skulls, of course, which takes craniophilia to a ridiculous degree and ends up being shocking by virtue of how silly it looks.

Acceptable is more extreme content that's still within the realms of making sense in the context of 40K's grimdark nature and, whilst definitely more shocking, is fine when executed well and for the purposes of horror. Things like more, uh, fresh parts on a trophy rack, Nurgle daemons with their intestines spilling out, etc, make sense within the context of 40K (hence their presence on official miniatures) and whilst definitely nasty, aren't indicative of a sick mind.

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

For nudity/sex, you can once again divide it into the AAA system. Average is something very tame like a generally attractive woman in a form-fitting or mildly revealing outfit, that makes sense in the over-the-top context of 40K. 5E Lelith Hesperax, whilst definitely at the upper end of "revealing" falls squarely into this category, as she is clearly a fighter and her risque outfit is totally fitting with the fluff of her as the creme de la creme of Wyches, who literally make performance art out of combat and also get a major thrill out of ever more daring raids and death-defying/dealing stunts of carnage. Likewise the bustier-style armour on Sisters of Battle actually makes sense to some degree as a female counterpart to the sculpted muscle armour of Blood Angels; both are forms of "heroic armour design" styled after the human form itself for artistic, ceremonial or intimidation purposes, which dates back to antiquity IRL, and would almost certainly have produced boobplates were women more common as combatants in societies that used it. Ironically, if the Orks had sexual dimorphism at all and weren't an asexually reproducing exclusively male race who would likely consider sexuality "mukkin' about" at best and mildly uncomfortable at worst ("Umm, Makari, wot are doze 'umies doin' behind da bike hut? It'z givin' me da heebie-jeebiez, which is sayin' sumfink when I'z da prophet of Gork and Mork!") they'd likely be incredibly likely for their females to be quite, um, forward about their perceived sex-appeal, especially given the race was originally conceived as a mockery of football hooligans and proto-chavs of the late 80s. Fortunately for our sanity female orks do not exist, and so we are spared "da gurlz lettin' it all 'ang out". 

Acceptable would be actual nudity or implied in-universe sexuality that still fits within the setting's boundries. Juan Diaz' Daemonettes and the FW Keeper of Secrets, whilst having fully-visible breasts on show, are fully acceptable as they're literally personifications of vice and perverse desire, and "practicality" kind of goes out the window with creatures whose very existence flouts the rules of reality. One could argue there should be more Slaaneshi sculpts catering to excesses other than lust, and I wouldn't disagree at all, but in the context of what Slaanesh represents and how daemons work a nearly-naked succubus monster with some very clearly erotic anatomy contrasted against vicious claws and fangs is completely on topic. Wyches and Chaos or Genestealer cultists of various stripes could absolutely be depicted more underdressed than they usually are by GW (both often have bare skin anyway), Sisters Repentia used to be near-nude for non-sexual purposes (they go into battle clad only in parchments detailing their oaths of penance, as they're actively seeking redemption through either death, hardship or suitably heroic deeds) and I'd argue the new ones are far too sanitized. The older depictions weren't even especially sexy, given the shaven heads, scars and self-mutilation they often sported; the new ones look more like Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team got caught off-guard by a heretical uprising mid-change and had to quickly take the field with some spare eviscerators. And as for Necromunda, even aside from House Escher being an Amazonian combat-drug addicted mafia with a prediliction towards mid-90s fashion trends, it goes without saying that the scummiest hive world in the galaxy is going to have some practicioners of the World's Oldest Profession as hive scum, who like everyone in that damnable hive will be armed and probably be drawn into combat at some point; in fact, a bordello seems like quite a likely spot for a gang brawl ("We told your boys not to come here again! If you don't scram RIGHT NOW we'll be coming out there with shotguns and blow you punks away, and I'm not talking about our usual service!" or "You damnable strumpets better clear out of this joint, the Emperor does not approve of your line of work! We're making this building into a chapel!"). A bit nasty for some groups, perhaps, but hardly an unlikely event in Necromunda and actually quite fitting with the grittier and decidedly less heroic tone of the sub-setting. And also hardly any worse than the corpse-starch industry...shudder. 

Abominable would be cringeworthy cheesecake that has no business on a battlefield whatsoever and was clearly only made because the creator was a bit, uh, pent up at the hobby table- actual copulation, nudity or sexual anatomy in a faction with no business featuring it. Asdrubael Vect actively indulging in the services of his concubines aboard his Dais mid-battle (simply having them lounging about in states of undress is no big deal, and entirely appropriate for the character, but having them polishing his, uh, dark lance is a big fat no from me), Sisters sporting cleavage on their power armour, a Keeper of Secrets which is clearly just a 3D printed sexy statuette painted purple, models that are clearly pandering to various fetishes (for actual jollies rather than exploiting them for horror purposes)...you get the idea. I will say, though, that for the most part I'm more likely to just roll my eyes at most of the stuff in this category, unless it went into actively disturbing territory or crossed over with the Abominable category of gore/violence. An Inquisitor modelled about to perform a summary execution of a child suspected of heresy in front of their parents is quite frankly sickening, whilst a guard army whose uniform consists entirely of Shimakaze cosplay is merely embarrassing or cringeworthy at worst- though depending on the attitude of the player, the execution of the models and the intended reaction, possibly quite funny and acceptable if intended as a joke rather than as a "serious" depiction of a 40K force. It's not like GW has never made intentionally over-sexualised models for comedic purposes before either; see Blood Bowl's cheerleader sculpts, which fit right in with the exceptionally goofy fluff of the setting (itself an alternate timeline for WHFB) and are hilarious to behold.

 

(Man, someone- myself even- should REALLY write a homebrew Blood Bowl 40,000 game. It'd be pretty funny.)

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

I'm glad this thread has gone as smoothly as it has, and would like to thank everyone for staying civil and constructive, and for raising good points.

 

One thing I think is worth raising, especially with the very good point raised about the double standard on attitudes to violence versus sex or nudity, is the degree of what's being depicted in miniature form (to stay on topic and not open a whole can of worms re: social norms), which I think can be categorized in three stages for each.

 

As far as violence and gore on miniatures goes, there's three main categories of depiction- Average, Acceptable, and Abominable.

Average is stuff like skulls absolutely everywhere. Everyone knows what a skull looks like, and having a trophy rack filled with various skulls is nothing new or shocking. Unless it's the Lord of Skulls, of course, which takes craniophilia to a ridiculous degree and ends up being shocking by virtue of how silly it looks.

Acceptable is more extreme content that's still within the realms of making sense in the context of 40K's grimdark nature and, whilst definitely more shocking, is fine when executed well and for the purposes of horror. Things like more, uh, fresh parts on a trophy rack, Nurgle daemons with their intestines spilling out, etc, make sense within the context of 40K (hence their presence on official miniatures) and whilst definitely nasty, aren't indicative of a sick mind.

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

For nudity/sex, you can once again divide it into the AAA system. Average is something very tame like a generally attractive woman in a form-fitting or mildly revealing outfit, that makes sense in the over-the-top context of 40K. 5E Lelith Hesperax, whilst definitely at the upper end of "revealing" falls squarely into this category, as she is clearly a fighter and her risque outfit is totally fitting with the fluff of her as the creme de la creme of Wyches, who literally make performance art out of combat and also get a major thrill out of ever more daring raids and death-defying/dealing stunts of carnage. Likewise the bustier-style armour on Sisters of Battle actually makes sense to some degree as a female counterpart to the sculpted muscle armour of Blood Angels; both are forms of "heroic armour design" styled after the human form itself for artistic, ceremonial or intimidation purposes, which dates back to antiquity IRL, and would almost certainly have produced boobplates were women more common as combatants in societies that used it. Ironically, if the Orks had sexual dimorphism at all and weren't an asexually reproducing exclusively male race who would likely consider sexuality "mukkin' about" at best and mildly uncomfortable at worst ("Umm, Makari, wot are doze 'umies doin' behind da bike hut? It'z givin' me da heebie-jeebiez, which is sayin' sumfink when I'z da prophet of Gork and Mork!") they'd likely be incredibly likely for their females to be quite, um, forward about their perceived sex-appeal, especially given the race was originally conceived as a mockery of football hooligans and proto-chavs of the late 80s. Fortunately for our sanity female orks do not exist, and so we are spared "da gurlz lettin' it all 'ang out". 

Acceptable would be actual nudity or implied in-universe sexuality that still fits within the setting's boundries. Juan Diaz' Daemonettes and the FW Keeper of Secrets, whilst having fully-visible breasts on show, are fully acceptable as they're literally personifications of vice and perverse desire, and "practicality" kind of goes out the window with creatures whose very existence flouts the rules of reality. One could argue there should be more Slaaneshi sculpts catering to excesses other than lust, and I wouldn't disagree at all, but in the context of what Slaanesh represents and how daemons work a nearly-naked succubus monster with some very clearly erotic anatomy contrasted against vicious claws and fangs is completely on topic. Wyches and Chaos or Genestealer cultists of various stripes could absolutely be depicted more underdressed than they usually are by GW (both often have bare skin anyway), Sisters Repentia used to be near-nude for non-sexual purposes (they go into battle clad only in parchments detailing their oaths of penance, as they're actively seeking redemption through either death, hardship or suitably heroic deeds) and I'd argue the new ones are far too sanitized. The older depictions weren't even especially sexy, given the shaven heads, scars and self-mutilation they often sported; the new ones look more like Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team got caught off-guard by a heretical uprising mid-change and had to quickly take the field with some spare eviscerators. And as for Necromunda, even aside from House Escher being an Amazonian combat-drug addicted mafia with a prediliction towards mid-90s fashion trends, it goes without saying that the scummiest hive world in the galaxy is going to have some practicioners of the World's Oldest Profession as hive scum, who like everyone in that damnable hive will be armed and probably be drawn into combat at some point; in fact, a bordello seems like quite a likely spot for a gang brawl ("We told your boys not to come here again! If you don't scram RIGHT NOW we'll be coming out there with shotguns and blow you punks away, and I'm not talking about our usual service!" or "You damnable strumpets better clear out of this joint, the Emperor does not approve of your line of work! We're making this building into a chapel!"). A bit nasty for some groups, perhaps, but hardly an unlikely event in Necromunda and actually quite fitting with the grittier and decidedly less heroic tone of the sub-setting. And also hardly any worse than the corpse-starch industry...shudder. 

Abominable would be cringeworthy cheesecake that has no business on a battlefield whatsoever and was clearly only made because the creator was a bit, uh, pent up at the hobby table- actual copulation, nudity or sexual anatomy in a faction with no business featuring it. Asdrubael Vect actively indulging in the services of his concubines aboard his Dais mid-battle (simply having them lounging about in states of undress is no big deal, and entirely appropriate for the character, but having them polishing his, uh, dark lance is a big fat no from me), Sisters sporting cleavage on their power armour, a Keeper of Secrets which is clearly just a 3D printed sexy statuette painted purple, models that are clearly pandering to various fetishes (for actual jollies rather than exploiting them for horror purposes)...you get the idea. I will say, though, that for the most part I'm more likely to just roll my eyes at most of the stuff in this category, unless it went into actively disturbing territory or crossed over with the Abominable category of gore/violence. An Inquisitor modelled about to perform a summary execution of a child suspected of heresy in front of their parents is quite frankly sickening, whilst a guard army whose uniform consists entirely of Shimakaze cosplay is merely embarrassing or cringeworthy at worst- though depending on the attitude of the player, the execution of the models and the intended reaction, possibly quite funny and acceptable if intended as a joke rather than as a "serious" depiction of a 40K force. It's not like GW has never made intentionally over-sexualised models for comedic purposes before either; see Blood Bowl's cheerleader sculpts, which fit right in with the exceptionally goofy fluff of the setting (itself an alternate timeline for WHFB) and are hilarious to behold.

 

(Man, someone- myself even- should REALLY write a homebrew Blood Bowl 40,000 game. It'd be pretty funny.)

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

I'm glad this thread has gone as smoothly as it has, and would like to thank everyone for staying civil and constructive, and for raising good points.

 

One thing I think is worth raising, especially with the very good point raised about the double standard on attitudes to violence versus sex or nudity, is the degree of what's being depicted in miniature form (to stay on topic and not open a whole can of worms re: social norms), which I think can be categorized in three stages for each.

 

As far as violence and gore on miniatures goes, there's three main categories of depiction- Average, Acceptable, and Abominable.

Average is stuff like skulls absolutely everywhere. Everyone knows what a skull looks like, and having a trophy rack filled with various skulls is nothing new or shocking. Unless it's the Lord of Skulls, of course, which takes craniophilia to a ridiculous degree and ends up being shocking by virtue of how silly it looks.

Acceptable is more extreme content that's still within the realms of making sense in the context of 40K's grimdark nature and, whilst definitely more shocking, is fine when executed well and for the purposes of horror. Things like more, uh, fresh parts on a trophy rack, Nurgle daemons with their intestines spilling out, etc, make sense within the context of 40K (hence their presence on official miniatures) and whilst definitely nasty, aren't indicative of a sick mind.

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

For nudity/sex, you can once again divide it into the AAA system. Average is something very tame like a generally attractive woman in a form-fitting or mildly revealing outfit, that makes sense in the over-the-top context of 40K. 5E Lelith Hesperax, whilst definitely at the upper end of "revealing" falls squarely into this category, as she is clearly a fighter and her risque outfit is totally fitting with the fluff of her as the creme de la creme of Wyches, who literally make performance art out of combat and also get a major thrill out of ever more daring raids and death-defying/dealing stunts of carnage. Likewise the bustier-style armour on Sisters of Battle actually makes sense to some degree as a female counterpart to the sculpted muscle armour of Blood Angels; both are forms of "heroic armour design" styled after the human form itself for artistic, ceremonial or intimidation purposes, which dates back to antiquity IRL, and would almost certainly have produced boobplates were women more common as combatants in societies that used it. Ironically, if the Orks had sexual dimorphism at all and weren't an asexually reproducing exclusively male race who would likely consider sexuality "mukkin' about" at best and mildly uncomfortable at worst ("Umm, Makari, wot are doze 'umies doin' behind da bike hut? It'z givin' me da heebie-jeebiez, which is sayin' sumfink when I'z da prophet of Gork and Mork!") they'd likely be incredibly likely for their females to be quite, um, forward about their perceived sex-appeal, especially given the race was originally conceived as a mockery of football hooligans and proto-chavs of the late 80s. Fortunately for our sanity female orks do not exist, and so we are spared "da gurlz lettin' it all 'ang out". 

Acceptable would be actual nudity or implied in-universe sexuality that still fits within the setting's boundries. Juan Diaz' Daemonettes and the FW Keeper of Secrets, whilst having fully-visible breasts on show, are fully acceptable as they're literally personifications of vice and perverse desire, and "practicality" kind of goes out the window with creatures whose very existence flouts the rules of reality. One could argue there should be more Slaaneshi sculpts catering to excesses other than lust, and I wouldn't disagree at all, but in the context of what Slaanesh represents and how daemons work a nearly-naked succubus monster with some very clearly erotic anatomy contrasted against vicious claws and fangs is completely on topic. Wyches and Chaos or Genestealer cultists of various stripes could absolutely be depicted more underdressed than they usually are by GW (both often have bare skin anyway), Sisters Repentia used to be near-nude for non-sexual purposes (they go into battle clad only in parchments detailing their oaths of penance, as they're actively seeking redemption through either death, hardship or suitably heroic deeds) and I'd argue the new ones are far too sanitized. The older depictions weren't even especially sexy, given the shaven heads, scars and self-mutilation they often sported; the new ones look more like Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team got caught off-guard by a heretical uprising mid-change and had to quickly take the field with some spare eviscerators. And as for Necromunda, even aside from House Escher being an Amazonian combat-drug addicted mafia with a prediliction towards mid-90s fashion trends, it goes without saying that the scummiest hive world in the galaxy is going to have some practicioners of the World's Oldest Profession as hive scum, who like everyone in that damnable hive will be armed and probably be drawn into combat at some point; in fact, a bordello seems like quite a likely spot for a gang brawl ("We told your boys not to come here again! If you don't scram RIGHT NOW we'll be coming out there with shotguns and blow you punks away, and I'm not talking about our usual service!" or "You damnable strumpets better clear out of this joint, the Emperor does not approve of your line of work! We're making this building into a chapel!"). A bit nasty for some groups, perhaps, but hardly an unlikely event in Necromunda and actually quite fitting with the grittier and decidedly less heroic tone of the sub-setting. And also hardly any worse than the corpse-starch industry...shudder. 

Abominable would be cringeworthy cheesecake that has no business on a battlefield whatsoever and was clearly only made because the creator was a bit, uh, pent up at the hobby table- actual copulation, nudity or sexual anatomy in a faction with no business featuring it. Asdrubael Vect actively indulging in the services of his concubines aboard his Dais mid-battle (simply having them lounging about in states of undress is no big deal, and entirely appropriate for the character, but having them polishing his, uh, dark lance is a big fat no from me), Sisters sporting cleavage on their power armour, a Keeper of Secrets which is clearly just a 3D printed sexy statuette painted purple, models that are clearly pandering to various fetishes (for actual jollies rather than exploiting them for horror purposes)...you get the idea. I will say, though, that for the most part I'm more likely to just roll my eyes at most of the stuff in this category, unless it went into actively disturbing territory or crossed over with the Abominable category of gore/violence. An Inquisitor modelled about to perform a summary execution of a child suspected of heresy in front of their parents is quite frankly sickening, whilst a guard army whose uniform consists entirely of Shimakaze cosplay is merely embarrassing or cringeworthy at worst- though depending on the attitude of the player, the execution of the models and the intended reaction, possibly quite funny and acceptable if intended as a joke rather than as a "serious" depiction of a 40K force. It's not like GW has never made intentionally over-sexualised models for comedic purposes before either; see Blood Bowl's cheerleader sculpts, which fit right in with the exceptionally goofy fluff of the setting (itself an alternate timeline for WHFB) and are hilarious to behold.

 

(Man, someone- myself even- should REALLY write a homebrew Blood Bowl 40,000 game. It'd be pretty funny.)

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

Off topic but I'd  be up for a 40k Blood bowl

[TheMawr]

24 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

Off topic but I'd  be up for a 40k Blood bowl

 

Lets go for a different sport

 

40k waterpolo

 

[Evil Eye]

45 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

Lets go for a different sport

 

40k waterpolo

 

All jokes aside, a Blood Bowl style AU for a 40K racing game would be amazing. Basically a multifaction version of the Gorkamorka race scenario (did I misremember that being a thing?).

[skylerboodie]

45 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

All jokes aside, a Blood Bowl style AU for a 40K racing game would be amazing. Basically a multifaction version of the Gorkamorka race scenario (did I misremember that being a thing?).

Check out this month's White Dwarf. 

[phandaal]

Apropos of this topic, here are two STLs I received today as free Valentine's Day gifts. I feel both are very tasteful in their presentation while still giving us a high degree of sex appeal:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

You are all welcome for this valuable contribution.

[Evil Eye]

Close, but a Dwarf cupid would be using a crossbow, surely!

[Magos Takatus]

I didn't mind the new Sisters Repentia models but that remark about the Our Martyred Lady's volleyball team has me dying. 

 

I must be quite lenient with this sort of thing because I find people seriously using the words "cringe" and "ick" far more objectionable than the depictions that they are objecting to. 

 

I have to agree with Evil Eye especially in the treatment of sex verses violence, I think I'd rather put up with a slightly cheeky model with some nudity than to see what Conrad Curze gets up to in his spare time... Yet some people are perfectly okay with scattering body parts and pots of Blood for the Blood god everywhere...

 

I suppose we could combine the worst of both elements and depict the inside of the servitor factory depicted in that short story... nightmare fuel right there.

Edited February 15 by Magos Takatus

[Pacific81]

There was an ongoing battle in the Infinity community for years about where the line should be. That game has some very strong Japanese anime influences, where high heels are often combined with tight leather trousers, powered armour and a big gun. But there were some (I will say a very loud minority) who didn't want any sexualisation in the miniature range at all and constantly railed against each new release that could be deemed 'cheesecake'. But I think most realised it was an integral part of the setting and aesthetic - and if you didn't like miniatures like that, there were plenty of other options.

 

It's a difficult one - I guess trying to keep to that overall 40k aesthetic is probably where I would draw the line. Warrior nuns are absolutely fine and most of the 3rd-party minis I have seen fall within boundaries. But, perhaps not if they are wearing a thong

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

1 hour ago, Pacific81 said:

There was an ongoing battle in the Infinity community for years about where the line should be. That game has some very strong Japanese anime influences, where high heels are often combined with tight leather trousers, powered armour and a big gun. But there were some (I will say a very loud minority) who didn't want any sexualisation in the miniature range at all and constantly railed against each new release that could be deemed 'cheesecake'. But I think most realised it was an integral part of the setting and aesthetic - and if you didn't like miniatures like that, there were plenty of other options.

 

It's a difficult one - I guess trying to keep to that overall 40k aesthetic is probably where I would draw the line. Warrior nuns are absolutely fine and most of the 3rd-party minis I have seen fall within boundaries. But, perhaps not if they are wearing a thong

Once a specific look has been established there is no way it should be changed to appease the tourists in the hobby.

 

I remember a post on the bolter sound forum many, many years ago. At first I thought it was a troll post because of it´s absurdity but as it dragged on it became apparent that this was perhaps true after all:

A dad bought a box of witch elves for his young son. His son was flustered because of the lack of clothes on the models. So the dad encouraged the son to paint the skin as if it were cloth.

And an analogy to life: If you go to the beach then don´t complain that the people wear only swimsuits. Some people.

[Evil Eye]

26 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Once a specific look has been established there is no way it should be changed to appease the tourists in the hobby.

 

This is how I feel. The answer to "Well I would play [X] but the amount of [Y] is really offputting" the correct response is "Have you tried playing something else?". So many things have watered down their core appeal in order to attract a wider audience and it never ends well.

[Antarius]

Any major company will produce the product that they think will sell to the most people, so it’s not really the so-called tourists’ “fault” to begin with. But I guess that whole line of discussion is sort of off-topic.
In any case the people (myself included) that aren’t really into “sexy” minis seem to mostly be against them precisely because they don’t fit the established setting.

[TheArtilleryman]

44 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

This is how I feel. The answer to "Well I would play [X] but the amount of [Y] is really offputting" the correct response is "Have you tried playing something else?". So many things have watered down their core appeal in order to attract a wider audience and it never ends well.

 

Personally, the reason why I can get a bit protective over the IPs that I am interested in with relation to this issue, is because it isn't so simple as to say "play something else." Fantasy/sci-fi settings without oversexualised female characters are the exception rather than the norm, and so finding good content without this is extremely difficult - and sometimes impossible. The MMORPG example I gave earlier is one of the biggest culprits for this - most are eye-rollingly full of this kind of thing, and those that are not are absurdly hard to find. Even when you do find them, they are rarely that good.

 

EDIT: I had a bit of an epiphany in this regard some years ago when I was playing Skyrim. My wife pointed out that it was a bit weird that I had just killed a nearly naked woman (a bandit of some kind) and then looted all her armour, leaving her dead on the floor in her underwear. I sat there for a time and thought: “you know what, that is a bit of a weird thing to have ‘fun’ doing.” Game never felt the same after that. Did you know, there are thousands of mods for that game that add more nudity, but almost none that put more clothes on people?

 

This is why I would prefer it if settings that have so far got things more or less right in this regard stay that way. 

 

Several people have mentioned "why do we accept violence but not sex" and that always comes up. Yes, the setting is violent. That's at the core of the setting. I too would be uncomfortable with a model that depicted sex without consent, or the actual act of murdering babies, or whatever. But the truth is nobody is going to think me a dirty old man (I'm not that old lol I'm only 40) for having a spiky model with skull on it and blood on a sword. They would, however, think I was a dirty old man if I had an army of string-bikini or bare-chested female warriors.

Edited February 16 by Jolemai

[Domhnall]

This turned into more of a ramble than originally planned so TL:DR: Violence is generally accepted as fighting has always been a group effort, Sex is a personal matter, and therefore anything that could be titillating is viewed down upon. 

 

My personal take on the "why do we accept violence but not sex" is that as a species in history, there are 3 main things (simplifying this massively!) we did to stay alive: We hunted (and gathered), we ate what we hunted (and gathered), and we procreated to create new little humans. 
 

Of those 3 things, 2 of them were done communally, and only 1 was done in private between mating pairs (again, simplifying this greatly). 

1. Fighting comes under the hunting category, because folks needed to train or expend excess energy etc, and largely became a thing on it's own, but still more often a communal thing eg Millions will pay to watch a boxing match.  

2. Eating/drinking has always been a communal thing, feasts, dinners parties, going for a pint down't pub, there are loads of people there. etc
3. That's just between me and my wife thank you very much! Whenever this one gets away from being private, or becomes a group activity, that's considered a bit dirty, vulgar, perverted (different countries have varying degrees of exactly where the line is, but that's beyond the scope of this). 

 

So, how does this relate to tabletop games/video games? 

1. Fighting is obvious. It's the biggest part of the game, either tabletop wargaming, or RPG games. It's why most of us play to defeat an opponent, or fight the Big Bad and his minions. It's a thing we've always done with others and is "acceptable". We also enjoy watching the hero of a film kill a hundred bad guys (even knowing that would be wrong, and probably end up in prison) because it's the deep seated desire to 'do the right thing' and punching people to death is completely not over reacting because they shot first....

 

2. How many D&D sessions start in a pub/tavern/inn? Other than that, eating/drinking don't really translate well to the tabletop (other than the odd Ogre eating a party member). 

 

3. How do you incorporate sex into a tabletop wargame or RPG and it not be a bit forced, or cringe, or just bizzare. Think the long running joke of the bard seducing the x, y, z creature. You'd quite happily describe in detail how the barbarian punched the thug in the face, then rammed the butt of his axe into his abdomen and as he folded over crunched the thugs nose with his ascending knee... but would you even want (like, serious!) to go through the bard describing exactly how he did the seducing, and what happened after? No! It's assumed he goes off and does ...'stuff'... that's private information we just don't need! Not to mention if the film hero "had his way" with the bad guys rather than punching them, that'd be a far darker film than just an action romp...

 

So the only reasonable thing we have to convey 'sex' in any game media like video games or tabletop games is "sexy bodies". They will still be viewed by others as something a bit "shameful" because of the stigma that such things should be private (again, mileage varies depending on culture you grew up with). However, sex does sell (ooh, jiggle physics!)... so setting your stall out with sexy bodies is perfectly fine as long as that's in keeping with the world you are building, and I will admit to having played and enjoyed (not that way!) playing such games, but sometimes feeling that it's being a bit rude (in the style of 'Rik Mayall in Bottom' kind of way). 

[Alby the Slayer]

21 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Several people have mentioned "why do we accept violence but not sex" and that always comes up. Yes, the setting is violent. That's at the core of the setting. I too would be uncomfortable with a model that depicted sex without consent, or the actual act of murdering babies, or whatever. But the truth is nobody is going to think me a dirty old man (I'm not that old lol I'm only 40) for having a spiky model with skull on it and blood on a sword. They would, however, think I was a dirty old man if I had an army of string-bikini or bare-chested female warriors.

 

On 2/14/2025 at 6:56 PM, Evil Eye said:

 

Abominable is stuff that, whilst maybe context-appropriate within a 40K battlefield, is so utterly grotesque that anyone capable of modelling it to completion is probably more than a little disturbed. Graphic torture depictions (which even modern GW has skirted close to on occasion; the Infernal Enrapturess, whilst a very cool model, is wince-inducing to look at) or blatant sadism captured in miniature crosses the line of "This is a battle in a grim and bloody future" over into "The modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". For example, if someone were to model a diorama of a Dark Eldar pirate gutting a baby whilst his screaming mother watches helplessly, whilst that is absolutely something that the murderous knife-eared scum would probably do, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for bringing such a wantonly cruel creation into being- as a father myself, typing that sentence up made my stomach turn. Whilst as a great proponent of freedom of speech I'm not going to be calling the police on the sculptor over something incredibly tasteless but ultimately victimless, I definitely wouldn't be spending much time around them in future.

 

-------

 

So yeah, whilst I think there is more potential for nudity or sexually-charged miniatures to be worthy of ridicule, I actually find the upper excesses of depictions of violence in miniature form FAR more distasteful, even if they are technically more fluff-appropriate.

 

It's a very interesting topic and very subjective. Subjective as such is morality.

 

I find very insidious and morally objective (meaning absurd) that art can be censored. It can lead to a very dangerous and short-sighted state of mind.

 

For me, everything is allowed in art. Everything. Even for just only shock-value or for something considered just like trying to send an important message.

I also think that a warning to what you are about to see is also necessary, for you can't use art as an excuse to expose minors or sensible people to something "abominable".

 

So in this regard, If I'm about to play against a particular graphic Drukhari army that was considered ok for the tournament organizers, and I don't want to cause it's too much for me and I was informed that could happened in this particular tournament, it's my problem.

But If I want to post a great diorama I made with depiction of the most depraved thing that could happen in the 40k universe, I have the permission to do it in a particular place and I post it a warning "18+graphic extreme content", and you find it tasteless and inhuman, immoral, it's your problem.

 

Censoring art so that mature adult men/woman/or else cannot see is just that. Censorship. 

And as said, can lead to a very dangerous way of thinking. Who is to said, in 25 years skulls on a spike miniature will be considered obscene and abominable?Punishable by law?

 

I created and painted some miniatures I know I can't probably post anywhere because of the mentality of objective morality. But I don't consider myself a :"modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". No offense taken .

 

And this is, speaking about sex or violence in minis depictions, refer to the 40k lore for me. I don't like over-sexualized minis just for sake of it, or sexualized tau, necron, nids and such, where there was no sexuality to even begin with. If you like it, good for you.

 

That said, if one would argue about what is art, well that is another can of worms by itself.

 

[TheArtilleryman]

35 minutes ago, Alby the Slayer said:

 

 

It's a very interesting topic and very subjective. Subjective as such is morality.

 

I find very insidious and morally objective (meaning absurd) that art can be censored. It can lead to a very dangerous and short-sighted state of mind.

 

For me, everything is allowed in art. Everything. Even for just only shock-value or for something considered just like trying to send an important message.

I also think that a warning to what you are about to see is also necessary, for you can't use art as an excuse to expose minors or sensible people to something "abominable".

 

So in this regard, If I'm about to play against a particular graphic Drukhari army that was considered ok for the tournament organizers, and I don't want to cause it's too much for me and I was informed that could happened in this particular tournament, it's my problem.

But If I want to post a great diorama I made with depiction of the most depraved thing that could happen in the 40k universe, I have the permission to do it in a particular place and I post it a warning "18+graphic extreme content", and you find it tasteless and inhuman, immoral, it's your problem.

 

Censoring art so that mature adult men/woman/or else cannot see is just that. Censorship. 

And as said, can lead to a very dangerous way of thinking. Who is to said, in 25 years skulls on a spike miniature will be considered obscene and abominable?Punishable by law?

 

I created and painted some miniatures I know I can't probably post anywhere because of the mentality of objective morality. But I don't consider myself a :"modeller is probably either a menace to society or suffering intense trauma (or both)". No offense taken .

 

And this is, speaking about sex or violence in minis depictions, refer to the 40k lore for me. I don't like over-sexualized minis just for sake of it, or sexualized tau, necron, nids and such, where there was no sexuality to even begin with. If you like it, good for you.

 

That said, if one would argue about what is art, well that is another can of worms by itself.

 

Interesting post. I do get what you’re saying and there is a place for most things in art, depending on the audience and context. Art will always be subjective though, and people should be able to choose what they go to see and what they don’t.
 

From my angle, I didn’t see this as talking about censorship per se, but rather just people’s opinions about what they prefer to see in the hobby. It also depends on whether you see this hobby as art, or a game, or an activity to do with other people socially, etc. The context is important. As you say, you could create a very explicit piece of art but you’d slap a warning on there so people can choose to go look or not. Same with an 18 rated movie. Same with an Eminem album or whatever - it will say “explicit lyrics” and you can choose not to listen. You’re not excluding yourself from music entirely if you choose to do so as you can listen to a billion other songs instead.
 

There’s only one Warhammer … well OK there’s more than one, but you know what I mean … and it isn’t 18 rated. It’s recommended for ages 12 and up. Perhaps it’s worth considering that in all this too - I hadn’t actually thought of that before.

[Evil Eye]

@Alby the Slayer I completely agree; I'm vehemently anti-censorship and definitely a free speech advocate. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" and all.

 

I should also make it clear my comment on not wanting to play against truly grotesque miniatures is purely a statement of preference and opinion, not that miniatures I find distasteful should be banned and their creators arrested (which to make absolutely clear would be absolutely draconian and I would fiercely oppose). Speaking as someone who frequents Cults3D and other STL sites a lot, there's a lot of things on there I really don't care for and wouldn't purchase in a million years, but unless there is a really good reason for it (which is more likely to be a trojan hidden in the files of a seemingly innocuous model) I would never advocate for a model to be removed from the storefront because of my own personal tastes. Hell, I wouldn't even want someone who brought a somewhat tasteless model/army into an FLGS barred from the store; if they were clearly doing so to be a pest and annoy other players that's one thing (though such people are more likely to do so with unpainted netlist armies and rules-lawyering) but if someone brings in an army they put honest work into, simply wanting to show it off in good faith, then whilst I might politely express my distaste for it depending on the context (and even then it very much depends, I'm just as likely to make light of it- "Those Sisters must be a bit cold!"- or just say nothing at all) I'm not going to be a dick about it unless they're being a dick themselves. Honestly in terms of expecting a good time in the store, I'd rather play against a decent, friendly guy with a well-painted femboy SMisters of Battle army (lead by Canoness Astolfo) than a bad sport running the latest tourney-breaking list with unconverted minimum-effort models. The former may be considerably less fitting in with the 40K setting, but you're much more likely to enjoy the game.

 

As a final note on armies or models converted and/or painted out of spite/to annoy people, I've found it far more common, and far more irritating, for such people to make their models into sociopolitical statements as a means of attracting controversy. An army which proclaims its owner's love of boobs might be cringeworthy but an army which proclaims its owner's hate for some politician and everyone that voted for them is arguably worse.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

The likelihood of a player coming to a store or event with an army composed of nothing but cheesecake models goes against zero. It´s far more common to face a WAAC list or that your opponent is a smelly Nurgling rather than face the miniaturization of Hugh Hefner´s wet dreams.

[Antarius]

I know I might be flogging an expired servitor at this point, but I do feel the need to reiterate that no matter how we slice it, macabre imagery is a key component of the setting - in fact, I would go so far as to say it is probably the primary thing that defines the setting and (used to) set it apart from other sci-fi franchises.
 

So, while I am broadly speaking in agreement with the point that “violence is worse than sex” as a statement about the real world and media in general (although I think there is an argument to be made that mainstream media is actually quite sexualised in a lot of ways), I do not think that’s in any way, shape or form a persuasive argument for “sexiness being better than violent imagery” in the context of a wargame setting.

 

”Would you show this model to your grandma/a 12-year old/a random bystander” is an argument that I think holds more water, because if you venture out into (hopefully) polite company with your hobby, then it’s not the same thing as creating an “art project army” for yourself and your personal gaming group. Just like I tell horrible jokes to people I know - and who I know appreciate that sort of thing - but I don’t tell them at work. But I do still think that Warhammer 40.000 is a setting that is macabre and violent at its core, so I don’t think avoiding such imagery is possible or even desirable.

Edited February 18 by Antarius

[Marshal Rohr]

Any sexual themes in Warhammer are too many. Not because of Puriteen motivated anti-sex movements, but because the people that take it too far are the only people doing sexual themes. With great power comes great responsibility and Warhammer fans have proven over and over they just want green stuff boobs and dongs. Trench Crusade actually manages to walk the line of sexual themes without crossing over into redditor fantasy. 

[TheArtilleryman]

27 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Any sexual themes in Warhammer are too many. Not because of Puriteen motivated anti-sex movements, but because the people that take it too far are the only people doing sexual themes. With great power comes great responsibility and Warhammer fans have proven over and over they just want green stuff boobs and dongs. Trench Crusade actually manages to walk the line of sexual themes without crossing over into redditor fantasy. 

I pretty much support your comment but I would temper it by saying that in my experience it is only a small minority of Warhammer fans who want to do this. The reason the hobby itself should not increase the amount of sexuality is because then we all would have to put up with it, and that, I think, would put off a lot of people.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

I just took a look in one of my smaller glass cabinets and discovered Inquisitor Greyfax. Although she is clad in power armour her silhouette is still quite feminine. When I compare her to the new Lotarra it´s a difference of night and day. It is said Gee-Dubbs lost the ability to craft female faces and it really shows when you look at the Cpt. of the Conqueror.  Today Greyfax would be a Wargames Exclusive model for sure.

[phandaal]

53 minutes ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I just took a look in one of my smaller glass cabinets and discovered Inquisitor Greyfax. Although she is clad in power armour her silhouette is still quite feminine. When I compare her to the new Lotarra it´s a difference of night and day. It is said Gee-Dubbs lost the ability to craft female faces and it really shows when you look at the Cpt. of the Conqueror.  Today Greyfax would be a Wargames Exclusive model for sure.

 

John Blanche recently did a Kickstarter:

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnblanchepresents/morderin-by-john-blanche

 

One is closer to what you see in Modern GW. The others are definitely on the "sexier" side of feminine portrayals. Not exactly Wargames Exclusive material (not enough skin) but you can see some of the same themes reflected in both.

Edited February 18 by phandaal

[TheNicronomicon]

28 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

John Blanche recently did a Kickstarter:

 

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/johnblanchepresents/morderin-by-john-blanche

 

One is closer to what you see in Modern GW. The others are definitely on the "sexier" side of feminine portrayals. Not exactly Wargames Exclusive material (not enough skin) but you can see some of the same themes reflected in both.

I actually find the Battle Louboutins more offensive & insulting than anything else on those models. You need good ankle support and to be able to plant your feet if your'e gonna fight AAAAAARRRRGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! 

Ahem. Anyway. 

(And yes, I know high heels started as shoes for cavalrymen to help keep them in their stirrups and were then adopted & exaggerated by court dandies; so if she were on a cussed horse, I'd be less annoyed by it. Even a lower heel, if you really needed to emphasize the length and curve of her legs, can get you the sex appeal and keep things remotely practical. And yes, "practical" may be a silly concept in a game where you can get an 8' dude in power armor with a jet pack and laser-sword who is also not even close to the scariest thing on the battlefield, but it's still the kind of thing that shatters immersion)

[Robbienw]

20 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

I just took a look in one of my smaller glass cabinets and discovered Inquisitor Greyfax. Although she is clad in power armour her silhouette is still quite feminine. When I compare her to the new Lotarra it´s a difference of night and day. It is said Gee-Dubbs lost the ability to craft female faces and it really shows when you look at the Cpt. of the Conqueror.  Today Greyfax would be a Wargames Exclusive model for sure.

 

I think that might just be because they are made by different sculptors.  The studio sculptors tend to stick around for a long time, the sculptor of Greyfax may well still be there.  GW female face have always varied between hit and miss.