Inappropriate Figures

[Goblin-King]

It's still a miniature

[cynthialee]

Those mini's do not prove me wrong.
THey are an obscure line and not made by one of the big companies. Also there is not a slave in the lot, just horny dudes. Not the same.

[Sjeng]

It proves you wrong in the sense that you said nude males have never been produced... they clearly have been.

I'd say Hasslefree are hardly obscure, and you yourself gave the main reason why the major companies won't make nude sculpts. Those same companies also do not make female nudes or slaves mind you.
But as far as I know, Hasslefree is one of the very few companies, if not the only one, that does. And if you feel they are that obscure, then why worry about it?

I honestly do not see the problem here. Certainly no sexism as other have also argued.

[cynthialee]

Ral Partha and RAFM have both made a number of slave women and naked female prisoners. Those boner sporting miniatures are not the same. Those mini's all portray a male who is not in distress of striped of agency and humanity.
Those mini's are not slaves. Those mini's are just horn dogs who are ready to go. So not the same as a slave woman, or a woman who is in a stockade and naked. Then there is the lady in a sideways crucifix naked.

There is sexism in how the entire industry is run. To deny it is an attempt at preserving your male privilege. Deflecting from the issue is not serving you at all.
I even said don't point to some obscure mini line as proof of refutation of my position. The very miniatures pointed out do not meet the parameters I had spoken to when I pitched my opinion.

Any serious inquiry into the sheer amount of sexism and sexist marketing on the behalf of the gaming industry will reveal a rampant and systematic misogyny and sexism in the industry.
Our miniature makers are not immune from this criticism.

[Big Bene]

To deny it is an attempt at preserving your male privilege. Deflecting from the issue is not serving you at all.

This is unfair debating style. Any argument against your position is automatically turned into a "proof" of said position.

All in all, I would say we need to put the questions clear:
First, about sexual content in general:
- is sexual content or content that may be interpreted sexually "inappropriate" by itself, or should it be rather seen as a natural and beautiful thing?

Then about the represantation of women.
I'd say it's save to assume that women really are more often represented than men in a naked, near naked or otherwise possibly erotic fashion, but:
- Is this a bad thing and why?
- Is it caused by natural functions of the male and female brain, and therefore can't be helped, or is it really a sign of something going "wrong" in the industry / society?
- is it a sign of sexism?
- what do we mean by "sexism"?

Last, about cases of "unrespetful" representation:
- are women more often represented than men in a humilated, enslaved, or otherwise subjunctive way?
- If yes, this would be obviousely not "a good thing", but is it a sign of a general problem? Does it automatically make erotic, but not humilating, representations of women, bad as well?

[cynthialee]

To deny it is an attempt at preserving your male privilege. Deflecting from the issue is not serving you at all.

This is unfair debating style. Any argument against your position is automatically turned into a "proof" of said position.

All in all, I would say we need to put the questions clear:
First, about sexual content in general:
- is sexual content or content that may be interpreted sexually "inappropriate" by itself, or should it be rather seen as a natural and beautiful thing?

Then about the represantation of women.
I'd say it's save to assume that women really are more often represented than men in a naked, near naked or otherwise possibly erotic fashion, but:
- Is this a bad thing and why?
- Is it caused by natural functions of the male and female brain, and therefore can't be helped, or is it really a sign of something going "wrong" in the industry / society?
- is it a sign of sexism?
- what do we mean by "sexism"?

Last, about cases of "unrespetful" representation:
- are women more often represented than men in a humilated, enslaved, or otherwise subjunctive way?
- If yes, this would be obviousely not "a good thing", but is it a sign of a general problem? Does it automatically make erotic, but not humilating, representations of women, bad as well?

Crying unfair argument is the sure sign a raw nerve is struck. It seems unfair because there is no defense of the current paradigm.
There is no possible way to make my accusation without making the accusation. There is systemic and institutionalized male privilege in our entire society. The miniature makers and miniature salesmen are not any different.
There is nothing natural about patriarchy, there is nothing natural about the subjugation of the female form for the sole pleasure of the male gaze. If things were truly equal we would have similar themes for male and female miniatures. But we do not. The entire genre is polluted with male superiority and male privileging. It is systematic and males who seek to preserve the current system can only be seen by the feminist as clutching to privilege in an attempt to prevent social evolution.

As a gamer and a feminist I want true and lasting social change in the game culture. One of the ways it can be accomplished is to stop with the rampant misogyny in the workshop where the miniatures are created. If you make a chained sexy woman, make a chained sexy man. If you have a woman on a rack and naked, make a male version also. Female miniatures should not be limited to the trope of sexy female = good, ugly female = evil. We need to get away from the culture that insists on the hyper masculine equating to automatic good and effeminate men as evil. Our society needs a revamp and the gamming culture is not immune to the criticisms that are being rightfully heaped on it.

[slev]

I'm entirely with cynthialee on this one!

That said, owing to male privilige, many people have never heard the oft argued, quite logical, underlying arguments and definitions us feminists make use of. Thus we still need to continually explain them when making these arguments, and in this we seem to have failed, otherwise Big Bene's post would not have been needed.

[Goblin-King]

It seems to me that it's a pretty big assumption that men and women should necessarily prefer the exact same things just with inverted genders.
You just can't claim that every single difference in male and female preferences and behavior is due to oppression and conditioning.
Equality isn't treating everybody exactly the same. Equality is respecting the needs of everybody.

Female miniatures should not be limited to the trope of sexy female = good, ugly female = evil

Well yes? Ugly, stupid, fat, lazy, smelly etc etc are objectively negative traits. No one actively seeks to become these.
This hasn't really anything to do with genders. That's just simple fairy tale tradition. You distribute negative traits to the evil characters, and positive traits to the hero you want to identify with.
Anyway I think sexy females are equally likely to be either good or evil. Sexy vampire, dark elf, dark queen, assassin, half demon etc.

Finally I don't really think it's fair criticizing men for making products other men like.
When you create something (as an individual or small business) you ideally do it because you love what you create.
It doesn't matter if it's sculpting a miniature, writing a novel, painting a painting or programming a video game...
In other words you make the product for yourself. Obviously that product will most likely appeal to others like yourself.
Equality isn't to demand that people make products that suit a certain demographics (in fact that would be oppression?). Equality is the right for any demographics to make their own product on equal terms.

Also if you argue against this you support Hitler.

[knightkrawler]

I'm with Goblin-King here.
That, and the lack of fairness doesn't lie with the grade of nakedness, for me it's rather the virtual absence of ugly and/or average looking female miniatures.
There is virtually only one body build among human female fantasy miniatures with a variation in boob size. They all have the perfect ass or - and that's where it gets ridiculous - are supposed to have the perfect ass, only the sculptor has failed. I want more variety. Surely, not every female adventurer is smoking hot.

It's like in TV shows. Right now I'm watching Arrow, and it's the most blatant misrepresenting of hot women (and probably men, too, but I'm not into guys - I sure don't like Stephen Amell, the big-faced Tom Cruise with 4 broomsticks up his ass) I've seen in a long time.
Game of Thrones does it right. From the looks, in terms of sheer outer beauty, I like only Sansa, and even that took me some time.

[IvenBach]

Surely, not every female adventurer is smoking hot.

Sarcasm: There has to be a reason why they became an adventurer, they couldn't get a husband. /Sarcasm I do believe you'd see the spectrum of good to ugly in terms of appearance.