Post by glennwilliams on Nov 29, 2010 9:43:57 GMT -7
Apparently some designers think nudity is a form of armor. Generally, I agree with you.
I'm watching two anime series right now, X'amd and Canaan. Bare midriffs abound (but with long trench coats--weird). Then there's Major I-can-wear-a-leotard-work Kusanagi. OK, Motoko gets a pass just because she's Motoko.
Where I object is figures designed as fighters, all belonging to the Order of the Brass/Kevlar Bra, because apparently a bra provides protection for the stomach--who knew? Entirely too many such figures kind of play to the lowest common denominator, that acne-endowed, gawky junior high kid in all of us. Personally, I don't buy those kind of figures just because I think they're silly.
My point of view (explained in short, elementary sentences as i'm not able to do better than this )
1) Exposed skin Yes, i noticed some skin exposed here and there. I'm not too much worried about it: some classic, high-fantasy drawings and movies (think at Conan the Barbarian and to the most of the old illustrators -Frazetta, Segrelles, Vallejo, etc) are fond on female warriors in chainmail bikinis. Yes, it is absurd, and I may have been used to it, but i see it as a wanted exaggeration: as most men are hypertrophic to emphasize strenght, most women are hyper-sensual to emphasize ... somewhat that in a chauvinist world allows she to survive and climb society layers. Beauty it's a "weapon", after all
2) Anatomy evidence: Yes, i've noticed some "hard-nipples" here and there. While i see that it is a sort of artistic trend and style, that things happens usually when there's some sort of excitement, so it "hurts" me a bit, 'cause i wonder from WHAT that girls are having excitement.
So, i see 1) as a subtle trick to "induce" in the observer the "personality" of a female character (how much Charisma she have? How much she's submissive towards a world ruled by males?) and 2) as a "more violent" way to draw attention.
The environment for which the figures are designed do matters: As example, partial nudity is, imho, not needed in a LoTR setting, while some sort of skin exposed may be coherent in a dark-future/cyber-punk setting.
I know that the line between the "acceptable" (or even "needed") and the "too much" is drawn by each of us in a different place, so what i'm saying here are just my opinions and i want to be clear that i don't want to run down on any artist style.
Post by josedominguez on Nov 29, 2010 11:38:11 GMT -7
I find that if I don't like something I don't buy it, that seems to work really well. By not buying or downloading anything I don't want to look at, I don't have to look at it.
I don't want to come across as too flippant, but there's room for everything out there.
As for the bare midriff thing, it's common enough in the real world, so I'm fairly sure that come the apocalypse it'll still be going strong.
The biggest market in wargaming is the section that doesn't have a girlfriend or wife yet. This stands to reason as once you have either of those, you aren't going to be spending much money on miniatures.
We don't need nudity in paper miniatures in the same way that we don't need Space Marines. You don't have to like it, but without it you wouldn't have half as many gamers
I for one don't mind nudity. To elaborate, I don't mind chainmail bikinis if they look good, but I don't need them for a female to look the poart of a good warrior.
I think the argument runs both ways - a female should not need to cover herself if she feels comfy in a bikini, just as she should not need to expose herself if she wants to wear plate mail. That being said, I look as minis as little characters - that means they made their choices and probably have a good reason for their wardrobe. Now if I have a NPC that would chose "prude" clothes I'll chose a modest mini. If I want a cocky (no pun intended) female fighter, she'll probably be porteayed by a slave bikini-esque mini.
I think my point is that it adds diversity. We should not rule out anything miniature-wise, we might need it some day and not see it coming. Modest clothes simply don't suit a Succubus .
One thing I have to say though is that Padme's change in clothing was not only uncalled for (I don't find her attractive, that might be a reason) but it also made no sense - if the Nexu had torn her clothes, the rest should be covered in blood from the slash. Leia's slave bikini made sense to me as something Jabba would make her wear. Anyway...
On a side note, getting married did not really change my views on miniatures - or girls in general. The only difference is that I don't want to have those that I think look pretty anymore .
Hmm, I guess I will just have to pipe in. As an artist I studied art by drawing naked models. That's how you learn to draw anatomy, much as your doctor needs to see your birthday suit to do their job so nudity has never ever been an issue for me. That said, I understand the sexism endemic in sci fi and fantasy media that can be a real turn-off for female and male fans alike. I tend to not go out of my way to draw excessive skin on male or female drawings, but it's mainly because it's not as genre specific to what I need. I agree that there is a double standard about violence or gore. I would sooner my kids saw full frontal nudity than violence in the media. I guess the Orion slave girls in an upcoming set won't sit well, but that's ok really. Whatever floats yer boat as it were. Skin and sexuality has a place in the genre, I am not choosing to create much of that myself, but it does not put me off in the slightest. I'm also a socialist-liberal Canadian so that may explain it.
Post by nikloveland on Nov 29, 2010 20:46:12 GMT -7
Hmmm... this seems to be a rather hot topic. I suppose I better chime in. I think a lot of good points have been made (and probably more will come). Media, and the opinions around it, are very diverse. I think diverse paper minis help to grow the hobby and makes it more interesting. That's not to say nudity will be supported. I would like to keep the forums/website and the hobby in general as family friendly as possible. I just have a hard time censoring artwork someone has worked hard at.
That being said, if anyone does find erotic material on the forums, please report it and we (the moderators) will try to fix the situation. I think the forum members do a good job being judicious and I have not run across anything that I feel needs attention (and nor do I hope to).
If all else fails, these are paper. You can take a marker and make a modest dress on most of them. My wife has done this for a few of my games and it works out ok (Descent & God Dice if you must know).
I also find this an interesting discussion. Looking at the female minis I have personally made lately, every one of them (even the ones that would be considered more modest) have exposed midriffs. The reason ranges from the understandably plausible (my most recent are a sect of women that use dance as a method for honing their skills in combat) to the vague (all the wood folk come from a temperate climate where clothing tends to be scant anyway…or whatever). Funny that I never made the decision to make all of them bare midriffed, yet I decided to make each of them that way as I was drawing them (I guess I like a bare mid section)
In any event, as mentioned previously, it is a matter of personal preference. There are those that prefer fully clothed and those that prefer less clothing. Though I think most of us would fall into the “I appreciate an appropriate amount of clothing” category. So the enchantress, belly dancer, serving wench and succubus miniatures are likely candidates for scant clothing, while the queen, priestess, scholar and police officer minis are good candidates for being fully clothed.
It does also seem that near naked women have been depicted frequently in the fantasy and sci fi genres (as others have mentioned here). Which may be a disservice to a hobby that could use more women… still I can’t help but enjoy a good chain mail bikini
I would like to mention however that a bare midriff and cleavage, and even hard nipples doesn’t really strike me as being nudity. Certainly I would agree it can be suggestive, and I could see how those of you with children might want to censor it a bit (me I’m married with no kids, so I’m not certain where you wan to draw the line). However, I haven’t seen anything on Onemonk that remotely competes with stuff that is common on prime time television or music videos (let alone magazines, the internet, beer commercials and comic books).
In the end my two cents: I wouldn’t say those of you who advocate more clothing on female minis are prude, and I’m all for more variety of minis. But on the overall scale of things I would suggest the minis here are rather tame.
I thought I'd add a few cents regarding my views when it comes to my daughter. She's 2.75, so probably not really old enough for this to be an issue, but I want her to grow up knowing what girls (and boys) look like - not by actively showing it to her, but by not shielding her from it.
Obviously, there are things I do not want her to see at a young age. But I find it easier to explain to her a naked woman on screen (for the sake of reference) than a person getting shot or worse. You can always say that a naked person got their clothes dirty or wants to cool down. She'll understand that. But I don't see explaining to her why a person just got their hands chopped off while their head exploded.
I also don't feel capable of explaining to her why the later is acceptable and sometimes even "cool" while the former is not, because I don't understand it myself. I for one would rather be naked than mauled to dead if given the choice.
We had a similar discussion recently at a german Star Wars forum-based roleplay. The thing was that some of our Sith players go to great lengths describing their violence, with torture chambers and mass slaughter. But when one of them goes for a steaming affair (a concensual one at that), people start complaining.
Personally, I think that the overall problem are people who think that youngsters are overly influenced by what they see, and deny them the ability to make distinctions of their own. But... I'm drifting off topic, so...
Post by cowboyleland on Nov 30, 2010 6:22:37 GMT -7
Slightly off topic, but I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness of this thread. It kind of makes it OK that I spend so much time here. All the typing I did yesterday made my 12 year old son ask what I was doing which lead to a good discussion of art and nudity and violence in our culture. I love it when parenting and gaming come together ;D
To me its all aesthetics. I have a wife and three kids at home, and a fair collection of plastic and metal figurines from various sources. Does a chainmail bikini (or less) make sense from a practical perspective, no. Do I like that figurine a little better for it... yeah, but I won't make excuses for it.
There is clearly a line where historical armour and 'fantasy' armour cross. Jean D'Arc would have been virtually indistinguishable from a man (except perhaps stature) in her armour, and how 'busty' are female cops in their kevlar? In a wargame, however, or rpgs, you kind of want to be able to tell the difference. Is it critical? No, but if it suits your own preference, go with it. If not, well, don't use the figurines that are too far along the 'sexy' scale for you.
I certainly don't let my kids play with my Reaper Sophie figurine, but that didn't prevent me from getting it. I don't let them play with my swords either.
As an aside, my wife has purchased (any painted) more scantily clad figurines than I have... not that I am complaining.
For updates on all my design projects, or to download any of my releases, please visit my site, TCF Gaming
Post by josedominguez on Nov 30, 2010 13:44:27 GMT -7
It's hardly the masses...... and it's still a good topic.
It all depends on how you look at it, in most countries violent images are censored much less than 'erotic' images. It's a wierd case of double standards. The rather excellent zombie hunters produced by Darkmook have been mentioned as good examples of artwork that doesn't have to rely on bare midriffs and breasts to sell minis. So are they OK for kids? Personaly I think my daughter would be more disturbed by the blood splattered teenage hunter or the zombified characters with their arms chewed off than the site of someone's navel or sideboob. If 'erotic' images are a worry, then I think we should sort out the perfume ads before we worry about fantasy art.
I'm off to find a bra for the Venus de Milo
Anyway, it's still an excellent discussion.... how many of us worry more about a bit of nudity than they do about violent images? I know the censors do, has it rubbed off on us too?
Post by stephengroy on Nov 30, 2010 20:15:52 GMT -7
Ah! There’s my trusty soap box! Being a first edition guy, I have been playing RPGs off and on since 1981. My ideas have always been aligned with the first edition line art and early miniatures – orcs shouldn’t worry about pants, thank Ral Partha, and female creatures needn’t worry about clothing. Sylphs, sprites, and other fey wearing clothing is laughable. Most women in cultures based on fantasy versions of Egypt, Sumer, Greece, and Rome should be allowed to go topless. The most heinous infraction however is reserved for female infernals. There is no conceivable reason that succubae, mariliths, and erinyes, need to cover up. Their raisons d'être are to tempt and corrupt through their feminine wiles. Lamiae, gorgons, gynosphinx, also should let themselves breathe easier. Demihuman morality/modesty makes no sense in their cultures. Vampiresses and werecreatures also should be portrayed in dishabille, once in a while. Just my two bits.
Post by cowboyleland on Nov 30, 2010 21:40:28 GMT -7
To devil's advocate: I'm no historian, but I think Greeks and Roman women of status covered up in public. This might depend a bit on period and there were different rules for slaves, of course. I think you are right about the Egyptians and Sumerians. As for demons, they might believe (or realise?) that leaving a little to the imagination is more tempting than revealing all. Traditional folk tales have the fairies dressed most of the time. I don't know why that would be, but I don't claim to know more about the wee folk than my ancestors did. The Devil rests ;D
Didn't some Celt warriors also go into battle naked (and painted blue)? I'm referring to the men here, but I believe that Celt women also fought, which Caesar used to good effect in his propaganda against the Celts (Look how barbaric they are, they even let their women fight!). I also believe that the ancient Olympics were performed in the nude (again, male competitors here).
As a woman, I don't mind a chesty, midriff exposed mini. The minis we use on the table aren't *supposed* to be 100% anatomically and historically accurate. They're caricatures, and should be, because it makes them visually distinctive.
How about you let the women you game with make up their minds on what they want their minis to look like? I promise you, for every one that rolls her eyes at the chainmail bikini, there's another one that will tell you that sexy can also be strong.
The resposibility of fatherhood is an imposing one. It often stands one up between the world's view and the specific morality of the man in question. As for me, my view is only slightly less stringent than the origional poster as to the apropriateness of current fashions.
It's hard to draw the line and keep things out that should stay out. I'm right there with you on that.
It does not seem possible to make everyone else change their viewpoint, and in fact it is not. What is is possible to do is to inform the folks making miniatures that there is a market for less flashy females, that we would like to have more modestly depicted women (and men) on our game tables.
A couple more notes about how the referenced cultures are not on my list of highest moral example and why I won't be looking to them for excuse of modern excess could be in order. Just because some folks did something in the past, or could be supposed to do something in their fantasy existance, does not mean I need it in my life or on my game table.
That said, this seems to be a much more thought out discussion than I might have looked for, so kudos all around.
Post by josedominguez on Jan 2, 2011 8:22:50 GMT -7
There is so much wrong with the world that the day 'nudity in paper miniatures' appears at the top the list I'll be a happy man.
This argument has gone on in one form or another since 'art' was created. The venus de milo, David, every classic painting with a boob in it has at some point been singled out as innapropriate. In fact, I'm fairly sure that if you look closely at any cave painting, you'll see that someone has scratched the penis off every buffalo. 'Ug, me think boobs on hunter-gatherer women not appropriate, me have to invent writing so me can write letter of complaint'.
If you find some of these drawings innappropriate then I'd steer clear of the rest of the internet. Honestly, we can worry all we want about the odd slightly risque image that appears on an art site, but what are we going to do about the rest of the web? That's my concern, I'm a parent and a teacher (I'm the IT coordinator for my school).... the internet has evolved far faster than any laws or regulations and a glimpse of hand drawn midriff is the least of our worries.
So, stop miniatures with a bit of 'adult' content, ban all other content that could be construed as erotic from mainstream and responsible websites, games, books, TV. That way all you have to worry about is the completely unrestricted filth being piped into our homes. Which is the first time our kids will see any 'nudity' as we've banned anything artistic. Should create a nicely balanced generation of kids.
Just so I can get this in perspective...... we are still all right with the zombies, ogres, wizards, machine gun toting space marines etc... aren't we? Because violence is OK as long as everyone is wearing enough clothing yes?
So, what's more damaging? Bare midriffs and artwork that is less revealing than the paparazzi photos on the front of every paper or zombies, demons, monsters and games that revolve around killing?
My personal view? I've never seen an image on this website which would have gotten say a 12 certificate for 'adult content' if it was acted out in a movie but I've seen plenty that would have achieved an 18 for violence, gore or horror.
I think there's a knee-jerk reaction to anything that can be labelled 'sexual' and far less of a reaction to violence or gore. I'm constantly horrified when kids I teach talk about 18 cert horror movies which they've been allowed to watch. Their parents wouldn't dream of letting them watch an 18 'adult' movie but somehow SAW is ok. The world needs a sense of reality. I'm not saying we need to go easier on 'nudity' far from it, I just think our acceptance of violent images puts it in perspective. DO we need nudity in paper miniatures? NO Do we need zombies in paper miniatures? NO Do we need paper miniatures? NO
But I really like them, so leave them alone, let the artists create what they want to create and stick with this website, admin won't let anything on that's innappropriate and if your idea of what's appropriate doesn't mesh with their's then find another site...... however, if there's too much nudity on here for anyone I suggest sites which end in .IRN as the Amish don't appear to have a website
Yeah... Thanks, Tommygun! Just what I want to be remembered for!
Oh well, what have I learned from all of this
Life is better if I do this...
Nah. There's a great moment in the movie 1776 where the cantankerous old man from Delaware (IIRC) tells the Continental Congress during the debate for independence, "I never met a subject that was too dangerous to talk about."
I just think skin is not armor. Too many "Chicks in Chainmail" would die from a quick thrust to the belly. Silly, silly, silly. (but oh, doesn't she look good in it!)
Nudity per se in miniatures: If I don' wanna, I don' gotta' buy.
Raise the topics fearlessly, then duck back under cover.
Post by glennwilliams on Jan 3, 2011 0:06:17 GMT -7
I guess I should point out that when the chips were down, I added a "tube top" to my Mayan priestess/assassins in the Tulum series (they're made from licensed clip art which is substantially modified). I chose non-nudity deliberately and covered their breasts--my product, my choice.
Post by josedominguez on Jan 3, 2011 6:41:21 GMT -7
I'm a teacher and would love to live in a world where nobody under the age of 16 heard a profanity, saw a boob or was exposed to innuendo in any form...... unfortunately I don't, so I find being realistic about it and discussing things sensibly works a whole lot better than shielding kids form everything for the few hours I have responsibility for them. They may be off in their bedrooms at home downloading all manner of horror or even doing it on the bus via iphone, but at least I can give them some boundaries and encourage them to judge what is appropriate. I can't protect them via censorship (nobody can, censoring things just makes them taboo and all the more motivating to find). What I can do is teach them what's socially acceptable, rather than making everything something to sneak access to and pass around with friends without any chance of adult control. As for censorship.... the internet destroyed it, we need something new. There are many things that children should not be exposed to, unfortunately, due to the internet simple censorship does not work as it is easily bypassed. I'm sorry, but the only way to protect kids from seeing things they shouldn't be looking at is to take an interest in what they are doing, terrible, I know, but it's the only way
Look around, the world is a mess and anyone can see anything whenever they want...... "oh no, the OneMonk forums will no longer feature bare midriffs" "ah well, I won't bother looking at the internet anymore as that was the most erotic material available"
Does anyone really consider any paper minis a cause for concern? Seriously? If so, name them so we can discuss it...... but really, as Glenn says 'my product, my choice' just use the ones you like and avoid any that you don't. I check every website I use in class before accessing it, this is one of the few 'art' websites that is safe, then again, I had to stop using it a few weeks back when an adult dating site (complete with photos) started advertising on the top banner. So there's no escaping it, we have to give kids the tools to cope, they are going to see these things...... what we have to do is make sure they have a sense of perspective when they do.
And if I'm coming across as anti-censorship, I'm not, my personal view is pretty extreme, the internet is not monitored effectively and in my opinion should not be allowed..... if it was a magazine, movie or TV channel with unrestricted images it would be illegal. Unfortunately, the internet is here to stay, so we have to use it responsibly and hopefully pass this on to our kids. Removing the boobies from hand drawn paper figures is not going to have a significant impact The best approach is the one I use when kids start giggling at something they've spotted (bare breasts on national geographic for example) "yes, those are boobs, they've been around a while..... you didn't discover them".
ANyway, banning something just drives it underground, haven't any of you people seen footloose?