Help support TMP


"Most Pornographic Figure" Topic


65 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board



11,469 hits since 16 Oct 2006
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

MWright Inactive Member16 Oct 2006 11:22 p.m. PST

I followed the link about the MOAB painting contest and was surprised by the figure in the front centre of the @nd place in Best unit. Is that figure, its the Maidenhead Light Infantry Musician, the most pornographic figure you've seen or what?
Mind you I am thinking of buying a unit of these babes for a skirmish game! But I don't know how the wife would feel about that one!!

MWright Inactive Member16 Oct 2006 11:25 p.m. PST

Sorry you will find it here!!! I'm so embarrased.
link

Jedispice Inactive Member16 Oct 2006 11:31 p.m. PST

Hm… Foundry has some anatomically correct elves as well, but I agree that the pose makes her more… interesting. I've seen worse conversions in various Slaanesh armies in Warhammer, but that has to be one of the top erotic mainstream 28mm figures available.

Avalokitesvara Inactive Member16 Oct 2006 11:40 p.m. PST

I had trouble even understanding which one you meant. Your threshold for "pornographic" seems pretty low…
She's seminude and has spread legs. Doesn't make "pornography" in my eyes.
In fact I'm surprised there are virtually NO 28 mm figures out there having intercourse. Not that I would be particularly interested but I think there WOULD be a market, though perhaps not among gamers.

Lonkka Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:11 a.m. PST

freebooterminiatures.com
Sorry no direct link so follow these instructions:
Shop/Miniaturen/Chaos/CHA 002 Chaos Dämonin

Very reminiscent is also DAG4007 Brood Gazelle
link

both are apparently by master Klocke.

I like both but then again I'm a dirty old man…

Phil Walling Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:12 a.m. PST

Definatly not pornography.. well maybe soft porn…. nice minis though… i rather like the wicked elves…

Phil

Personal logo combatpainter Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2006 12:18 a.m. PST

Take your pick here


link

bandit86 Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 12:19 a.m. PST

Oh god No there are some made but I think its Excaliber that are really porn. yes its excaliber
link

Connard Sage Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:28 a.m. PST

Blimey, it's like being back behind the bike sheds

No wonder people say wargamers are emotionally stunted…

vampire Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:31 a.m. PST

hmmm see, to me "porn" equals sex. I got into a heated arguement with the bestter half when a current affar show showed the king of some african state choosing his 100th wife or some such, and all of the women were topless. To me, that's just not sexual. To her, it was porn. same thing here. If it ( the feral elf) was an historical figure, i doubt anyone would bat an eye. Nudity was totaly a part of history, and warfare, for hundreds of years. There is often nothing pornographic about nudity, and someone wearing lots of clothes can be pornographic. so i think the elf is fine.
My 2 cents

MWright Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:41 a.m. PST

When I said Porn it was tongue in cheek and designed to get a response. Guess I succeeded. I ment she is rude! BTW my say said no way I was allowed to buy her. :(

MWright Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:42 a.m. PST

Sorry!! My wife said..

Lowtardog17 Oct 2006 12:49 a.m. PST

Well they are Maidenhead Miniatures!!!

Karellian Knight17 Oct 2006 1:00 a.m. PST

I see Elves use razors.

vampire Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 1:20 a.m. PST

@MWright sorry if i was too intense, Like i said i had a fight about something similar…I'm buying a unit just to make a point to her :)

MWright Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 1:32 a.m. PST

To vampire – its OK. A sense of humour can be hard to convey when you're not face to face. Glad to see you supporting an Aussie company!

Personal logo David Manley Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 1:51 a.m. PST

I think the award of this accolade must go to Mr Tuffley's "Gentlemen's Collectables" range (GZG). Matthew Hartley and I have plans for a game using them which we keep threatening Steve Blease with developing abd bringing to Bifrost :)

Stealth100017 Oct 2006 1:53 a.m. PST

It amazes me how easy wargamers are to be aroused or offended by nudity (I am not saying anyone on this thread is and the comment is not aimed at MWright as you are talking about the pics in a light hearted way) but if we look round at the world there is so much erotic stuff and sexually explicit material that the fundamentalist attitude of some wargames I have met (again do not take this to be anyone here) is to me shocking. I feel that some are more puritanical than a Muslim in a Burka.

Having taken a little flack for a some very tame pictures on the front cover of a rules set I just wondered why this is. In most male orientated hobbies the female form is far less controversial. I wonder if it could be an age thing or a cultural thing. I personally have never found nudity to be offensive or particular arousing but quiet beautiful. I can only conclude that my own cultural view point and experience are out of step with a lot of wargamers. By the way most Fantasy gamers & role-players I have met seem far more open minded. I do wounder if it is an age thing?

Sorry for the thread hijack and I mean no offence to anyone by my comments.

Tony

occultwars.com

Personal logo David Manley Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 1:54 a.m. PST

Oops – forgot the link

link

I think there are one or two more "extreme" models available as well :)

Lowtardog17 Oct 2006 2:06 a.m. PST

Those are some freaky looking minis, I suppose the toon with "ladies companion" is a bit OTT

To be honest whatever floats peoples boats doesnt bother me. I think Tony has a point however as an international forum there are bound to be all levels of taste, beliefs and morale stances on this sort of subject plus some who like to wrankle (yes wrankle) for the fun of it

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 3:24 a.m. PST

Peaso should not be forgotten here, either:

link

Personal logo Sue Kes Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 3:26 a.m. PST

I don't find nudity offensive but I find it a bit sad that some men's reaction to pics of a naked woman stays pretty much "behind the bikeshed" (good one!), even as they grow old enough to know better. All that sBleeped text/nudge/giggle stuff is a bit tedious!

What I do take strong exception to is the depiction of women in any way which demeans them, shows them as victims or generally treats them as objects to be used. That, to my mind, is one form of pornography and totally unacceptable. On the whole, I can't manage to see these lasses as victims …

I don't like the few models which show extreme violence to helpless males or females, for that matter.

Now, this is my general observation, not a tirade aimed at any of my fellow posters on this thread. One of the reasons I so enjoy coming to TMP is that the whole atmosphere here is friendly, adult and fun, and I would be very surprised indeed to discover that any of the members harbour unacceptable attitudes to women or have any other nasty habits (!)

So, if it gives you a thrill to paint in loving detail the genitals of the opposite sex (got the indepth knowledge to do a good job, have you?!) go ahead! Just take it on the chin if your wife wants to know who it's a portrait of …


Sue K.

Personal logo Sue Kes Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 3:28 a.m. PST

By the way, why do men get all shuffly when we (women) buy or talk about anatomically detailed male figures?

Ah, the differences between the sexes is a constant source of amusement!

Sue K.

Mrs Pumblechook Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 3:47 a.m. PST

The most pornographic minis I have seen can be found at this shop

link

Can't do a direct link because of frames, but go to the shop and select Excalibur Erotic…

Goldwyrm Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 4:02 a.m. PST

Nobody complaining yet about how most of the figures depict or allude to violence? ;-)

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 4:15 a.m. PST

I thought that was what suekes was complaining about, sort of.

I figure most of the male figures in this hobby allude to violence, what with them carrying around guns, swords or human skulls or all three. Is the implied violence to women worse somehow?

Goldwyrm Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 4:47 a.m. PST

I was generally observing how folks can zero in on nude figures, but ignore the violence aspect of what gaming figures represent, not specifically violence to women or violent women. Just an observation on what offends some vs. others.

I have no problem with the subject figures, but I personally wouldn't use them in a demo game for kids.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 5:19 a.m. PST

Goldwyrm,

I've found that that seems to be a trend in a lot of things in the US (and I'm not US bashing here.) But it seems that you can show horrific amounts of violence but a tiny little view of a nipple gets out and it's the end of the frickin' world.

I don't understand it personally. Also you can see it in which words are considered bad on the radio or TV. Most have to do with elimination of waste or sex.

Words like eviscerate, behead, kill, maim, torture are all totally cool. Not that I'm saying those words should be banned, mind you. They are terribly useful, as are most words. The single exception being proactive. That word sucks.

Weird, huh?

Personal logo Wyatt the Odd Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2006 5:54 a.m. PST

Delving into the pile of unpainted lead, we find these from Citadel's early days: link

Obviously not safe for work. Just a shade beyond kinky.

Wyatt

vojvoda Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 5:56 a.m. PST

Well I find the Christ on the cross to be much more offensive in wargame figures then BBW.
VR
James Mattes

Rod Langway Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 6:22 a.m. PST

Well, my simplistic take on this, given many years of observation, is the element within this hobby that is socially inept when it comes to the opposite sex.

I have seen a few of these people get far too excited for comfort over certain figures, cover art on books, etc., and it is a bit disturbing, if not downright a bad reflection on the hobby as a whole.

Then you have companies like Excaliber that just seem to get off on making lewd subjects just for the sake of making lewd subjects….

Tasteful nudity is one thing (Say GZG's "Gentleman's Collectibles" as one example), while some sculpts have me wondering just who the market is for….

Everyone's mileage may vary, depending on a number of factors….

Personal logo combatpainter Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2006 6:45 a.m. PST

I am totally offended by this thread but I love these though

link

alizardincrimson2 Fezian Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 7:22 a.m. PST

I think I saw one naked male in all those links.
the goblin-ish things don't count
*pout*

I think we ladies need more erotic male minis to paint!

ALizardInCrimson
Nora

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 7:28 a.m. PST

This does somehow have the sense of a bunch of twelve year olds in a locker room.

Allen

Lucius17 Oct 2006 7:33 a.m. PST

I think that the whole discussion is a little misguided – even though the topic label is "pornography", pornography has nothing to do with it. The real underlying objection is "creepyness".

To re-cap from a previous thread, here's how our mainstream friends and co-workers look at it:

Grown man playing with toy soldiers – odd, but acceptable, and possibly even charming.

Grown man playing with toy naked women – creepy.

Making it into a sex vs. violence issue misses the point. The real contest is between "creepy", and "non-creepy".

Personal logo GuruDave Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 7:50 a.m. PST

I am personally offended by the poor quality of many of these miniatures. The anatomy of many of them are way off, and the painting isn't very good either. We deserve better!

Connard Sage Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 7:55 a.m. PST

This does somehow have the sense of a bunch of twelve year olds in a locker room.

Allen

My point exactly

Although I have no wish to add to my perceived geekiness amongst my friends by collecting bits of metal in the shape of a naked female (yes folks, these 'incredibly anatomically correct' little vixens are just over an inch high, phwooar), if I did, and my wife objected on the grounds of "immorality","pornography" or just plain prudishness as some other's wives have, then I think it would be time for both of us to seek professional psychiatric help

I suspect she would just laugh and tell me to get a life.


Which is just as it should be

Personal logo Wyatt the Odd Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Oct 2006 8:16 a.m. PST

I was going to suggest the old "Phoenix Phollies" 90mm(?) figures, but those are merely erotic (and not very good gaming pieces). The very long out of production "Buccaneer" miniatures that featured female figures depicted in pieces of historical uniforms fall into this range as well.

There are actually two lines that I can think of that are actually porn. There's the softcore "Mascot Miniatures" 90mm line – several miniatures of which "do the nasty" when placed appropriately. And then there's a short-production range of "snuff" figures in 28mm which are more brutal than should be described herein.

Now, back to the question at hand – I have a set of the Mascot Aztecs. Girls almost wearing Aztec warrior garb. I decided to paint those up about 15 years ago. My wife, who minored in Meso-American studies helped me get the artwork on the shield and club right. She then put it in the display case: (Not safe for work) picture

Wyatt

Connard Sage Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 8:22 a.m. PST

This must be NWS too then

link

For God's sake people, get a grip

Meiczyslaw Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 8:48 a.m. PST

I was digging through my unpainted lead recently, to find a few figures that a friend could use as Dregs for his Undead warband (Mordheim). I found three figs that I thought were perfect -- sniveling little wretches, armed with bows, and dressed in rags.

(I don't know what they were originally supposed to be. They're labeled "Ral Partha 1979" on the bottom, and look like they might be goblinoid. If true, I'm about to break the record for longest time to paint a figure by a year.)

So I'm in there painting them, and I suddenly realize that one of them is not wearing any pants, and his dangly bits can be seen under his leather corset.

Part of me thinks that it's inappropriate -- primarily because it's unexpected nekkid-idity. But the ghouls are only wearing loin cloths, so it's not really out of place. Just surprising.

(Sorry. I'm not sure I have a point. Just sharing.)

Matakishi Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 8:49 a.m. PST

I love these threads, they always start to drag the repressed psychopaths out of the woodwork :)

Lucius, if you're so embarrassed about playing with toy soldiers why do you do it? It's not just you is it, there's lots of people who seem to want to keep their hobby secret, how pathetic is that? Is your life governed by what others think about you? Now THAT'S really creepy.

sturmkraehe Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 8:53 a.m. PST

Given that miniature sculpting is an artform unto its own with strong influences from artistic sculpting I am not surprised that we'd find female nudity modelled frequently. In fact, I am surprised we don't see more of it. However, the quality of some of these models begs the question…why bother? I guess I have been spoiled by Rakham's quality. I was very impressed by Pegaso's offerings (and paintjobs). The bondage/S&M theme seems to be repeated often, particularly in the poorer quality figures which also begs the question…at what point are some miniature enthusiasts willing to give up quality for titillation and why is this particular titillation so recurrent?

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 8:54 a.m. PST

"I think we ladies need more erotic male minis to paint!"

Then you need to start checking out any Greek or Celtic lines out there. Maybe you won't find them erotic but they are naked with big bulging muscles.

vojvoda Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 9:34 a.m. PST

Pictors Studio wrote:

Maybe you won't find them erotic but they are naked with big bulging muscles.

Well I dont but it would depend on what side you butter your bread!

There are many lines in both 15mm and 25/28mm that have naked Greeks and Bronze Age Warriors. Why folks get panties in a bunch over gender is beyond me. Male, Female or other figures are just that figures.

FTR No Amimals were harmed in the posting of this thread….
VR
James Mattes

Lucius17 Oct 2006 12:13 p.m. PST

Matakishi –

Who said I was ashamed about playing with toy soldiers? I'm not. My painting table is in the front room of my house.

I really, really, really, don't care what you paint, or play with. I'm just saying that there is a very real "ick" threshold that's out there, since some folks seem to be oblivious to it. The "ick" factor affects a lot of people. You can call them Philistines, or repressed, or less highly evolved, or puritanical, or whatever. But their opinions are real, and they have nothing to do with pornography, per se.

And would I paint up, and play with, say, the Citadel miniatures, above? No. Not because they are nekkid, but because, well, they just creep me out.

Amazon Miniatures Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 12:20 p.m. PST

Many interesting comments here. While we got some critisism for our Guns & Girls link and our Slaves range link the fact that we continue the theme means that at least some of you are buying them.

Actually the Slaves & Captives ranges actually started out as male slaves with various versions to push, pull and carry things around the battle field. It was when we produced some female additiobs to the range that sales took off!

Paul

Farstar Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 1:45 p.m. PST

I don't know what they were originally supposed to be. They're labeled "Ral Partha 1979" on the bottom, and look like they might be goblinoid.

The old Partha Greco-Roman orcs, probably the big brothers of the ones you have, were also "regimental", though they only just dangled into casual view.

The other one that comes to mind was from Reaper about two years ago. The caveman dragging potential new mate. Not much clothing on the male, and not a thing on the female. The first five people I watched pick this off the rack ALL looked, did the double-take, then turned the blister sideways to view the female straight on…

Personal logo Jlundberg Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2006 2:43 p.m. PST

I guess I am getting older. I find the semidressed hasslefree figures more alluring than the gynecological models. I have teh bikini Libby that I use as a "model" being filmed by the pulp figures film crew for gangster games.
I find nothing interesting in the bondage or fetish figures and the cruder figures are even kind of boring. The Pegaso types might be worth having in a "guy" room, the rest are yawn inducing.

Farstar Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 4:55 p.m. PST

But it seems that you can show horrific amounts of violence but a tiny little view of a nipple gets out and it's the end of the frickin' world.

Especially silly since *everyone* has them.

I find the semidressed hasslefree figures more alluring than the gynecological models.

There is certainly a line to be drawn between "beautifully nude" and "shockingly naked", but where that line falls is up to the observer and their attitude toward the gender of the observed…

The Gonk Inactive Member17 Oct 2006 6:40 p.m. PST

There was a few years back an eBay auction with a miniature of a guillitine slicing off breasts and a basket of sliced breasts. I think 99.9% of us find that in extreme bad taste. We all have our line. I'm not telling you where your line should be, and if you don't like where my line is Bleeped text you. All this bickering about pornography and repression is worse than one person not wanting to see it. Get a grip.

Pages: 1 2