"Defining Objectionable..." Topic

This is a link to a post made to TMP, featuring a 1:32nd scale female nude: TMP link

One of our readers complains:

OBJECTIONABLE PICTURE – clearly not wargaming related or a wargaming diorama

Now, it is true that our FAQ states that nude photos…

…must be hobby related, such as a wargaming model or diorama.

Now, you could possibly argue that the model is 1:32nd scale (a wargaming scale), or that the rule should be amended to allow art figures which are not pornographic.

What do you think?

A couple thoughts come to mind:

1) Is this The Miniatures Page or The Wargaming Page?

2) A nude body is objectionable, but making games about the annihilation of humanity is not. Kind of a curious thing.

Honestly, you make the rules, do what puts peace in your heart.

What do you think?

well….as i'm very happy and lucky to be labelled sexist by some..and, above all, as i strongly prefer to play with life versions of this kind of models i think that a plastic/resin/wargame/toy soldier/digital version like the one posted is strongly OBJECTIONABLE

> 1) Is this The Miniatures Page or The Wargaming Page?

From the header
"The Miniatures Page: A web magazine for miniature wargamers"

It's on the NSFW board.
How is it any different from the many pixie, fairy, slave,elf, etc figures posted there all the time?

If she had pointy ears would that make it okay?

If she was wearing a Napoleonic hat would that make it okay?

If there was a figure like this in a painting by a great master would that make it okay?

How is a 1/32nd scale figure, a popular wargame and diorama scale, less okay than the giant 77mm figures that almost no one wargames with and few use for dioramas?

While I would never buy such a figure, I don't care if they are posted here. I think some people have too much time on their hands and worry too much about things that don't matter.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I don't find miniature sculptures, 1:1 scale statues, or larger than life statues of the female form to be objectionable, in most cases, whether clothed, or not (Roseanne Barr, and a few others, excluded).

Clearly, some do

Far more objectionable are some of those really gross creature statues people come up with, after what appears to be a bad trip on acid, or other hallucinogens, and they've decided to create an over the top, revolting creature in miniature.

Can I complain about the postings of those too?

They're really gross, and shouldn't see the light of day, in my personal opinion, but I put my head down, and soldier on, doggedly, since clearly at least a few people seem to love that stuff.

I suspect we're headed down the slippery slope again, as we try to appease the whiners and complainers who've apparently got nothing better to do than conduct their jihads here.

My personal bias is to tell the people to get stuffed, if they click on a NSFW posting, then decide they shouldn't have, and don't like the content posted there-in.

Mako11

I agree.

I posted elsewhere on the question of whether Bill's new rule would find itself redundant, I guess this is the test case.

I see the one of the girl on the couch had disappeared though, so case law is growing :)

To do about nothing

Objectionable? Eye of the beholder. Unnecessary? Absolutely.

Hey Bill, is there a way to install a button on the Nude and Semi-Nude figures board which could apply, electronically, the equivalent of black tape across the perceived naughty bits, just so certain sensitive viewers need not be traumatized?

I would assume that the easily offended types would not go to the Nude and Semi-Board board anyway.

Thanks Dynaman. I sit corrected.

Nudity itself doesn't upset me, but her pose is, well, kind of ty. The only redeeming value I could see was that the text linked to discusses this being state of the art for 3D printing, explaining some of the things necessary to get a figure to look like this.

As has been mentioned many times on TMP, I don't have to look at her if I don't want to. So, I don't--problem solved.

Grelber

Oh, my! I got bleeped! That's never happened to me before!

Dang. I put a joke on there,and I can't remember what it was.

79th PA nails it. What would one expect to see on a board named … "Nude and Semi-Nude-NSFW"? On the post in question, the sculpting was superb and really shows what can be done with the hobby.

I see the one of the girl on the couch had disappeared though

Didn't get my PMs, David?

Yes, the actual 3D model is, shall we say, extremely bottomless. So my judgment is that it was out of bounds for TMP.

Hey Bill, is there a way to install a button on the Nude and Semi-Nude figures board which could apply, electronically, the equivalent of black tape across the perceived naughty bits, just so certain sensitive viewers need not be traumatized?

No, but anyone who has their 'adult filter' turned on will not be able to see the pictures if they are marked as 'adult'.

OK…

Let's see if we can nail down what should be prohibited, then.

* images/models intended as pornography and/or depicting intercourse
* images that are overly violent or promoting victimization

What else?

For TMP4.0 I propose the following:

- Everyone must re-sign up, and decide whether they can handle seeing "naughty bits", or not;
- if/when they click on it, and they've said no, just because we know that is gonna happen 'cause they can't resist, the keyboard operator gets a little electrical shock;
- every additional time they click on one again, they get a larger shock, until it escalates to the power to knock them unconscious – not a technical guy, so will leave that to others to figure out.

Yes, of course, the masochists are going to love it, but we are here to please, are we not, so………

For the record, I'm not really a fan of zombies, but I suck it up, since I know some like it, and I just pass on by.

What does it matter what "we" think is objectionable?
You're the one who will enforce it.

Have no problem with nudes of 1/32nd or smaller…they can be used in some sort of wargame or other. For the larger ones up to say 1/16, (random number) it is still painting a miniature, very much part of wargaming. Censorship is something that greatly bothers me though. Don't like it?…simple… dont look.

After all where do we draw the line then? bare breasts?…tight clothes?…unflattering attire?…..slippery slope here.

In my opinion this is objectionable.

On balance very little of it is relevant to Wargamers.

Wargamer related:
3D printing
Has a scale, albeit obscure for gaming imo (I know I'm wrong 1/32 is used all the time)

Unrelated:
Nudity that is not incidental to war (e.g. the naked barbarian, warrior goddess, etc)
Nudity that is posed in a pornographic manner (soft porn)
Nudity for the sake of nudity

Wait til Tango posts the man junk. You all will be changing your tune.

Runs counter to editors goal of creating civil posting and avoiding sexism.

My moral compass is my own and I make no judgement on anyone else's.

I don't have a problem avoiding the red light district if I choose but having an anything goes policy as long as it's tagged is criticism and accusation waiting to happen.

As long as you are willing to hand out ammunition to your detractors knock yourself out, you could even create sub boards.

There is no such thing as an objectionable image. If people object to an image or are offended by it, that is on them, not the image.

There are places for things. WWII stuff goes in the WWII boards. Nude girls or guys go in the former Needs More Boobies board.

I'd vote for the editors moving things posted in the wrong place to the right place but leaving actual removal of images up to people themselves who can turn off boards at which they are scared to look for whatever reason.

"Wait til Tango posts the man junk. You all will be changing your tune."

This is obviously bull crap. The man junk has been posted plenty of times by plenty of people. There are all kinds of wargaming figures out there with man junk showing. I would imagine that more of them have been painted by people on this site, by a few orders of magnitude, than the women ones. I have no idea how many little naked men I've painted. Naked women: probably less than a hundred.

"Let's see if we can nail down what should be prohibited, then.

* images/models intended as pornography and/or depicting intercourse
* images that are overly violent or promoting victimization

What else"

We shouldn't ban either of these, especially not the second.

How on earth can you ban the second.

So if I have a picture of a woman being flayed alive that is not okay, but another picture of two lines of soldiers about to render each other into piles of lifeless fleshy lumps, that is fine and dandy.

Ridiculous. If you think it is okay to have a picture of thousands of men about to die in a battle but not okay to show one person about to be executed you need to have your head examined.

The next discussion I'm expecting is if photographs of wargaming units depicting dead models in the ranks should be objectionable because all wargaming units should have soldiers with happy faces and singing "We are going to War".

If images are in the wrong groups, correct. Otherwise be extremely cautious with censorship.

There are all kinds of wargaming figures out there with man junk showing.

The image is not a wargaming figure.

This isn't about censorship. It's about what's appropriate. Nobody is banning images. You can go to Shapeways and find the rest of the designers work if you like. I looked, I'm not offended, they even had a similar women with horns.

That's fantasy so I guess that's ok?
How would you feel about it if it was actually printed and someone took a photo? How about if it was painted?
How about if it was a statue in a fantasy skirmish?
How about a nude magazine clip with someone stating they are going to sculpt this someday?

Bill will have to decide what is appropriate for what he is catering too. Anything miniatures or miniature gaming. I think he can do both with typical miniatures but I am not so sure with nudes.

I produce quite a few figures which are nude or partially nude in my Fantasy Egyptian range – although in 28mm not 1/32 scale. I use them for wargaming, collecting and RPGs and have never had an issue with these types of figures. In some instances the figures are based on historically accurate depictions of Egyptian females – dancers, musicians and slave girls who are frequently naked, and even those wearing dresses or skirts often depicted with one or both breasts exposed. There are others which I produce because the figures are used in exotic settings such as Tekumel, Hyboria or various Pulp and Fantasy worlds. Despite this I do get random people who complain about 'T&A' and how it is morally reprehensible that I produce such figures which they say have no use to gamers or collectors and will corrupt their children. These tend to be religiously inspired people. The other group I get who howl in rage against my nude or partially nude figures are so-called feminists. This group of individuals usually complain that my miniatures are 'disgusting' and 'unrealistic' because they portray women in a degrading manner through nudity. I don't mind the complaints actually – they are amusing to read and reply to. My mantra to these people is simple: 'If you do not like these miniatures – move on'

This is a simple enough fix, just have a non-wargaming figures board where people can go to look at good sculpts and painting.

Wait! Are you saying that in the Nude and semi-Nude Figures board, miniatures representing naked people are shown? Shocking! I tell you, shocking!

I don't know if it is something cultural, but I can't care less if a miniature shows a naked woman. Actually, my only concern would be the quality of the sculpture/painting job.

So, firmly at a F1.0, but I predict rising to F2.0 by the end of Saturday……..

"The image is not a wargaming figure."

That is irrelevant. You said we would all get our panties in a twist if Tango started posting pictures with the "man junk" showing. I don't think we will. Adults can handle seeing naked people, just as they do with wargaming figures.

Plus how do you define what can and cannot be used as a wargaming figure.

As Samnite said above, lots of things can be used for wargaming that might not have obvious uses as wargaming figures.

I use a lot of civilian figures in my infinity games. Say I wanted to set a game in a strip club.

I don't have any gangster figures but that is certainly a viable setting for a game like that.

I have no problem with the sculpt in question (beyond being an "Escher Girl" ie twisting her spine in a way which is not humanly possible), as it is in a reasonable scale. It might be useful for someone.

But Tango's posts lately have been full of 1:4 and 1:6 models which I wouldn't call miniatures but rather dolls or statuettes. This isn't The Dolls Page or The Statuettes Page.

If she had greaves and an oversized axe that was unwieldy no one would care.

Personally, i see it as an example of sculpting; im not leering at her like a porn freak. I like to see how realistically anatomy can be sculpted, nothing more, nothing less. I see no problem with it, or similar. What would make it objectionable and totally unacceptable would be the depiction of some sort of sexual servitude/degradation. I dont see that here.

A nude body is objectionable, but making games about the annihilation of humanity is not. Kind of a curious thing.

this sums it up.

Also, It is NOT possible to accidentally stumble upon these images. They are CLEARLY always labeled. AND these are not even sexual or pornographic. You can go into (and clearly some people on this board need to,) an art museum and see such things.

I would suspect that all the objections are from Americans. I'm curious if I am correct.

I come here to find new miniatures and painting techniques. I play rpg's not wargames. Some of the cheesecake minis on the board make me scratch my head at times. These "scantily clad maidens", are normally marked NSFW or on the Nudes & Semi-nudes board. I don't think the objection holds water as boards can be blocked or ignored.

It's part of the hobby and I'd call it a non-issue.

@Pictors

It was relevant because you had made it part of your argument.

When I said man junk I wasn't talking about a naked Celt or Greek. I failed to paint the picture well. I was trying to portray what people might have thought about close ups and focal points as are the breasts in the image. Hips thrust forward Dirk Diggler man junk all out there. Not my thing.

I really don't care please don't get all excited over my opinion. Bill asked about appropriateness. The editor asked I gave a reply. Bill can take the whole board, move it to the Lounge and rename it "Tango's Peepshow" for all I care.

Samnite, good response. May not be workable exactly like that for Bill's public forum though.

yeah…for the most part we should all be adults here, lets act like it. If nudity bugs ya, move on…not once was your arm twisted to enter this board… Sometimes it gets a little out of hand on here, like all Japanese statues and stuff but I just roll on by…you can too…

On Tac Cmd a while back one manufacture would post pics of their models for sale. And they included some very well sculpted total nude or near nude females from a number historical periods. Many sculpted as prisoners. I and many others found this completely objectionable. For a number of very good reasons. And the Webmaster/owner had the manufacture cease this type of posting/advertising.

How is this any different from any of the other nude or semi nude harem girls, or the t&a of kingdom death? Or a those huge 75mm and up gals that clearly are meant for bedroom imagination and not gaming. Would I buy this mini, most likely not. And, what if Michelangelo's David is shown at 1:32. It's the NSFW board. Not the Disney fun board. At least t.m.p. and it's members have enough sense not to post truly objectionable material and if you need a list then you shouldn't be here at all.

I think we had this discussion a couple of years ago, though this one is a lot more polite.

The NSFW board is pretty much as labeled. It keeps NSFW stuff in one place. No one is required to visit it. If others find it useful, it doesn't really affect those who don't. It would be strange if someone new to the forums could even find it unless directed there.

Though I do not make use of the NSFW, I don't like being told that I cannot make use of it.

That being said, the content of the comments at the link which Bill gave in the OP is pretty juvenile. If so-called adults can't handle the toy, perhaps it should be taken away. Preferably, the editors could simply delete threads as dumb as that one.

Anyone who complains, tell them to turn on their Adult Filter, case closed.

I am not easily offended and I have my Adult Filter on anyways. I had to go to the linked page to see what the hubbub was about.

I use a lot of things that many people would say have no use in wargaming on my tabletop. I would not like to have that as a criterion.

As far as no pornography, I agree. It is not a "count the number of times the f-word is said and divide by the number of hours to get a quotient" thing. It is a subjective call on whether or not the piece is prurient and of no redeeming value. It requires a mature, thinking adult to decide. People will naturally disagree. And then they have to try to work it out civilly. That's part of being a grown-up.

As far as violence or victimization, it has been said above, but bears repeating … TMP is about miniature games of war. Oppression and victimization is part of the very nature or war. Usually, both sides claim it is being done to them. Again, it shouldn't be prurient. If you have an image that fits with the genre referent, that's fine. Gore for gore's sake is no different that sex for sex's sake. Again, an adult decision/conversation.

For my info (and lack of a memory), isn't the adult filter on by default and you have to opt into the NSFW (which was NMB) board?

Isn't all this filter stuff in place for the sake of people browsing at work?

Most sites tend to have a "If the upper or lower gibblies are showing, put a NSFW tag on it", which seems like a reasonable enough standpoint.

I agree with Mako11. If a maker were to produce 90mm or larger grotesque figures of casualties of war, men blown apart by mortar bombs, crushed by tanks, the skin blasted off their faces by flame throwers, the poor sensitive souls who are offended by the female form would eat them up.

But the slightest hint of sex – oh no! That's objectionable.

I also would like to point out that in virtually ALL of the threads that appear on the Nude and Semi-Nude Board, the products are regularly panned and criticized, sometimes most savagely for the ridiculous nature of the poses and proportions of the models. It's a tough crowd to please here.

Whole new meaning to going out with a model -mega lols.
I've never been out with a model…

No problem for me. I like seeing the sculpts and paint jobs. Hard to find models pornographic in my humble opinion. It is on a NSFW board so please don't start censoring further Bill.

Uk v US thing maybe. Violence ok but bare flesh not?

As I and others have said before … no one is forced to go to any board or any thread …

Hmmmm, the tropical depression was a bit weaker than anticipated, but clearly, we are nearing F2.0 strength………

The board is clearly labeled. The language used is more of an issue than the pictures, in general.