Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

81 - 100 of 105 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
It's interesting to see that people are equating the fact that we accept violence in a fantasy setting, as a reason we should accept rape in a fantasy setting.

We all play wargames where we roll dice to see if we maim, murder and mutilate our opponents - so would we all be ok if GW brought in rules so we could rape our opponents army as well?

I'm sure many forum members play computer games where you can shoot, stab, decapitate and slaughter other characters - but I doubt there's many who play games where you rape the other characters.

Fantasy and sci-fi are fundamentally meant as escapism, where we disconnect real life from the actions and motivations of the characters we play or read about. Rape is much more than an action, it's psychological and deeply rooted in emotion and empowerment, and hence it's difficult to disconnect our real life feelings from a character in a game or story.

I'm not saying rape has no place in fantasy or sci-fi, it absolutely does, but it needs to be handled sensitively and effectively, and it should be necessary to the narrative to warrant it's inclusion.

I've only read a few black library novels, and i'm not a huge lore buff, but my view of 40k is it's a pretty 12A-15 kind of place. With this in mind i find it difficult to see this diorama as anything more than a bunch of models stood around, and a very ham fisted(though fantastically presented) attempt at conveying a deplorable act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
I don't know if this was the point you were trying to make, if not I apologise, but rape is not beautiful. This is not a scene about sex, this has nothing to do with sexualisation. It's about rape, which is NEVER ok.


It might not have a place in our day to day hobby (such as being on display in a FLGS, or being on your gaming table.) But it very much does have a place.

Disgustingly, rape is still a topic that most people shy away from and ignore. It's easier to ignore it than it is to address it.

I don't know what the artists original intentions for this piece were. And I don't care. This piece gets in your face and screams "rape is still a thing you know. Just becuase it makes you uncomfortable and you prefer to ignore it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen." and, in my opinion, that's a good thing. Because people (and I don't just mean victims here, becuase talking about it for them is a much more complex issue) should talk about rape.
I was talking about general repression and fear of our own sexuality. In no way do I condone rape. I was making a comparison that in our society for a long time we have been shying away from freely expressing anything remotely sexual, while in comparison promoting violence. Of course its wrong to outright show porn in public media , but violence in any media is by far more accepted than a physical act of love.
However so far, each newer generation has been more open to wider range of ideas (at least in general). Look at this example, a male organ had to be covered up on a statue because it was apparently inappropriate? While its an old example from few hundred years ago it still happens.
Its been studied while without much effect that sexual repression ,illiteracy and denial can lead to sexism and sexual abuse.

To bring up a same topic of sexism that is being discussed here. What would be your reaction if you replace the Eldar with a Guards man, and Guards with Eldar woman? The reaction would be completely different, people would say "Guards dream come true" or something along those lines.

The original intentions of the work dont matter and only should to the creator. If we cared about the original intentions we should not wear any Adidas cloths since they used to make uniform for Nazi army, or drive Mercedes or Porsche since they made tanks that were used to fight Allies.
We should only care about the work itself and what ideas it represents to us. Its the same when people judge an actor or a singer by his personal life based on some gossip. What do you care what he does in his own time?
That is blatant hypocrisy.
Watch this and tell that its not a good representation of how one sided a world can be sometimes.

Young children can play with pens and pencils as well, does that mean we shouldn't draw the same scene on paper? :scratchhead: It's not as though he's displaying it on a shelf in his local store. I'm also not sure what you mean by "younger minds" - do you mean people under 15? Because that's the age our society tells us we're allowed to see naked boobies (although it's perfectly ok to have singers wearing roughly 30 square centimeters of clothing prance about on MTV grinding their crotches into other people all day long)? Is it the nudity that bothers you, or the "darkness" of the scene? If it's the "darkness" then, if the younger minds are into this hobby, then they know that "darkness" is part and parcel of 40k and WFB, as shown by some of the linked artwork from GW's own books of a guardsman having his entrails feasted on by Ripper Swarms and so on. The linked diorama is much MUCH less explicit than that.
The argument about "it will hurt children" generally doesn't hold true and only brought up when one doesn't have any other argument to defend his point.
If it hurts children why do you let them play this game to begin with? Why do you let them go to the mall where they sell alchohol, cigarets,medical drugs? Where they can see advertisements with almost naked man/woman? Why do you let them watch TV, listen to music, read books, go to museums. By the logic "this can hurt children", they should be kept in a closed box where they can see nothing, hear nothing, talk nothing.

If your child got hurt from a lack of comprehension it is because of bad parenting or more likely absolute lack of it. Most children are smarter than most parents make them out to be, a lot of times protecting children mentally leads them to be underdeveloped or lacking in knowledge about most basic things like sex. Teach children what it is and how to handle it rather than deny the fact that it exists.
It is a young mind that is most susceptible to influence.

Funny enough it is people who outright deny this work, and call it "shit" give the shortest reply and lack of any opinion why. Now we can see who is close minded.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
The argument about "it will hurt children" generally doesn't hold true and only brought up when one doesn't have any other argument to defend his point.
If it hurts children why do you let them play this game to begin with? Why do you let them go to the mall where they sell alchohol, cigarets,medical drugs? Where they can see advertisements with almost naked man/woman? Why do you let them watch TV, listen to music, read books, go to museums. By the logic "this can hurt children", they should be kept in a closed box where they can see nothing, hear nothing, talk nothing.

If your child got hurt from a lack of comprehension it is because of bad parenting or more likely absolute lack of it. Most children are smarter than most parents make them out to be, a lot of times protecting children mentally leads them to be underdeveloped or lacking in knowledge about most basic things like sex. Teach children what it is and how to handle it rather than deny the fact that it exists.
It is a young mind that is most susceptible to influence.
There is a world of difference between teaching your kids about sex education and letting them casually come into contact with rape references in a situation where they can be trivialised in the same way violence and death are.

My daughter is 4. She already knows about how babies are made and grown, and the difference between boy and girl genetalia. Does that mean I'd be willing to teach her about the horrific psychological trauma that is rape, and how she's likely to come across it at least once in her life? Hell no. Not til she's much older.

There is a time and place for all these things. And in a situation where it becomes trivialised is not the place to learn them, as that lessens the lesson. Trivialising violence and death is one thing, especially given we're talking about *war* games. Trivialising one of the deepest and most fundamental psychological traumas you can inflict upon another human being (both male or female) is another.

There is a lot of crap out there I want to shield my kids from. And I know that eventually they'll come in contact with it, and hopefully I'll have taught them enough to be able to deal with it. That doesn't mean I want to be playing Monopoly with them and have a "you were caught raping a girl in a back alleyway, go straight to jail" card come up.

There are good reasons things like rape are left out of games. We've been over many of them in this thread already. I wasn't wheeling out "it'll hurt kids" as a last ditch thing, it's the simple truth. There are many things out there that will hurt kids - hiding them from it won't do them any good, but is slamming it in their faces in a *game* going to be better? I think not...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
It's interesting to see that people are equating the fact that we accept violence in a fantasy setting, as a reason we should accept rape in a fantasy setting.

We all play wargames where we roll dice to see if we maim, murder and mutilate our opponents - so would we all be ok if GW brought in rules so we could rape our opponents army as well?

I'm sure many forum members play computer games where you can shoot, stab, decapitate and slaughter other characters - but I doubt there's many who play games where you rape the other characters.
It's not about "acceptance" as far as I can see. No-one is saying that it is (or should be) a part of our active participation in the hobby - no-one has yet argued that they want to be able to rape someone's Howling Banshee with their Dark Eldar Kabalite in Kill Team. Likewise I don't think many shooter fans would appreciate rape being added to the next Crysis game (or whatever).

However there is also the fact that sex appears to simply not happen in 40k, like at all. Despite having a literal god of sex. Which is either sad or hilarious, depending on your point of view. Hand in hand with that lack of sex goes a lack of rape, which is rather far fetched in a fictional setting which has dozens of races, not to mention countless human factions all viciously trying to eradicate and brutalise each other. It's simply not internally consistent that we should have a made up universe that is so "Grimdark" but where Rape doesn't happen. There's a difference between acknowledging something's existance and glorifying/promoting it.

Fantasy and sci-fi are fundamentally meant as escapism, where we disconnect real life from the actions and motivations of the characters we play or read about. Rape is much more than an action, it's psychological and deeply rooted in emotion and empowerment, and hence it's difficult to disconnect our real life feelings from a character in a game or story.
I don't really see the moral difference between reading about somebody raping someone else, and someone strangling another person with barbed wire (which is mentioned in the HH series). They both appear on the surface to be equally brutal and horrific acts that no sane person would ever want to experience or read about. The *only* reason Rape is more shocking than murder is because society freely talks about murder every single day - there is nothing intrinsic in the act to make it more or less reprehensible than any other crime/sin/whatever.

I'm not saying rape has no place in fantasy or sci-fi, it absolutely does, but it needs to be handled sensitively and effectively, and it should be necessary to the narrative to warrant it's inclusion.
From my point of view, this diorama is incredibly sensitive, by conveying with a minimum of explicitness exactly the emotions present in a Rape scenario from the victim and the perpetrators and even bystanders - you can see contempt for the woman, the rage for the enemy, the fear and helplessness of the Eldar, and the disgust and doubt of the bystanders. I defy you to find a better or more masterfully encapsulated depiction of Rape in any art form.

There is a world of difference between teaching your kids about sex education and letting them casually come into contact with rape references in a situation where they can be trivialised in the same way violence and death are.
I'm curious as to how you think this diorama trivialises rape. Through the choice of models and sculpture as the medium for the message? How is it any different to other art forms or television?

There is a time and place for all these things. And in a situation where it becomes trivialised is not the place to learn them, as that lessens the lesson. Trivialising violence and death is one thing, especially given we're talking about *war* games. Trivialising one of the deepest and most fundamental psychological traumas you can inflict upon another human being (both male or female) is another.
So you're drawing a line between what it's ok to trivialise, and what it's not acceptable to trivialise, based on the theme of the game you happen to be playing at the time? It's ok to trivialise genocide, because we're playing a game where we kill each other - which inherently implies that were I to create a game about rape, then it would be equally fine to trivialise rape, and unacceptable to trivialise genocide within the context of that game. That sounds pretty absurd to me.

The only way the argument makes sense is by doing two things: By attaching a different moral weight to Rape over things like murder and torture (which I dispute), AND by removing the association between the act and the game in which it is presented - the trivialisation of a crime is not conditional upon the context in which it is performed. Trivialisation of crimes of any type is either morally acceptable to you, or it is not. Saying that it's acceptable to trivialise some crimes and not others, or to accept trivialisation in certain contexts but not others, holds no water as an ethical argument at all.

There is a lot of crap out there I want to shield my kids from. And I know that eventually they'll come in contact with it, and hopefully I'll have taught them enough to be able to deal with it. That doesn't mean I want to be playing Monopoly with them and have a "you were caught raping a girl in a back alleyway, go straight to jail" card come up.

There are good reasons things like rape are left out of games. We've been over many of them in this thread already. I wasn't wheeling out "it'll hurt kids" as a last ditch thing, it's the simple truth. There are many things out there that will hurt kids - hiding them from it won't do them any good, but is slamming it in their faces in a *game* going to be better? I think not...
I absolutely agree 100% with protecting children from certain aspects of life until they are of an age to not be mentally scarred by it, and this argument would certainly be valid and the first basic line of defence... if GW were to openly and widely introduce Rape into their fiction/fluff/models etc. 40k could not sustain it's market to people under 18 if they did so, and it would be wrong to allow children/minors to play it or read their material.

However the case we are examining is not a case of Rape entering the mainstream consciousness of 40k across the world. It is a single model, on a single website, which can only be found through directed searches. You can find simulated rape pornography much easier than you could find this diorama through google. To say that this is inappropriate for children to see is to both state the obvious and simultaneously completely miss the point of the piece. The point isn't to show 11yr olds what rape looks like. In my opinion, I think the point of the piece is to bring up a fundamental examination of the hypocrisy of the 40k universe, and the adults who engage in the hobby, as well as draw attention to instances of Rape in the real world. Of course I don't know and haven't spoken to the creator, so that is just speculation on my part. But I am certain that it was not aimed at children, and therefore the argument that it is not suitable for children doesn't bear any weight in this instance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
There is a world of difference between teaching your kids about sex education and letting them casually come into contact with rape references in a situation where they can be trivialised in the same way violence and death are.

My daughter is 4. She already knows about how babies are made and grown, and the difference between boy and girl genetalia. Does that mean I'd be willing to teach her about the horrific psychological trauma that is rape, and how she's likely to come across it at least once in her life? Hell no. Not til she's much older.

There is a time and place for all these things. And in a situation where it becomes trivialised is not the place to learn them, as that lessens the lesson. Trivialising violence and death is one thing, especially given we're talking about *war* games. Trivialising one of the deepest and most fundamental psychological traumas you can inflict upon another human being (both male or female) is another.

There is a lot of crap out there I want to shield my kids from. And I know that eventually they'll come in contact with it, and hopefully I'll have taught them enough to be able to deal with it. That doesn't mean I want to be playing Monopoly with them and have a "you were caught raping a girl in a back alleyway, go straight to jail" card come up.

There are good reasons things like rape are left out of games. We've been over many of them in this thread already. I wasn't wheeling out "it'll hurt kids" as a last ditch thing, it's the simple truth. There are many things out there that will hurt kids - hiding them from it won't do them any good, but is slamming it in their faces in a *game* going to be better? I think not...
Yes you are absolutely right, there is no place for rape in 40k as a game for children or in any game for children at all. Child's innocence should be preserved until they figure it out by themselves and grow out of it.
Nowhere do I say it is fine to slam them with it in the face is and should be better that way.

When I was a child I spent most of my time alone since my parents were always busy trying to provide for the family it was a hard time for us I learned most of the real world "problems" from books,TV and newspapers or just saw it in with my own eyes.
Life in 3rd world post soviet country was tough, alcoholism and poverty were and are a commonplace. I never believed in Santa or magic and my parents never had to explain it to me. I was raised knowing that a world is not all rainbows and chocolate but that everyone is capable of evil and that it lurks in every corner and should I not be careful something might happen. I dont think I ever had a sex talk or what is death talk with my parents at least not that I remember of. The best thing is, I was treated like an adult with a mind and body of a child.

Maybe it is difference of the time and worlds that we live in but I never had anything triviliased for me, I took it at a face value. By the age of 6 as far as I remember I already knew of murder, rape, and torture, how bad they were and how evil it was.
In no way I am judging you as a parent or condoning any actions you do or dont. I am simply presenting my point of view on the subject at hand since you brought up your experience of parent to child relation ship.

I grew up watching Bruce Lee movies, Jackie Chan, Shwartzneger and all those hyper violent movies of 80s and 90s, but sex was a taboo. Yes I understand why rape is, but just a general act of sex?
However here is a problem which I am facing why is violence so desensitized? Why can one trivialize violence what are the motives for that ?
And no I do not say lets trivialize rape.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,976 Posts
I think having this issue raised on occasion within your own comfort zone is precisely the shock value the issue requires.

Rape as a theme isn't exactly saturated within the bounds of 40k, just vaguely hinted towards in slaaneshi and dark eldar lore.

Having one instance like this crop up every now and then I feel is a good thing. It ensures we don't forget, we don't just brush it aside. But it doesn't dominate this hobby or others by any means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
I don't really see the moral difference between reading about somebody raping someone else, and someone strangling another person with barbed wire (which is mentioned in the HH series). They both appear on the surface to be equally brutal and horrific acts that no sane person would ever want to experience or read about. The *only* reason Rape is more shocking than murder is because society freely talks about murder every single day - there is nothing intrinsic in the act to make it more or less reprehensible than any other crime/sin/whatever.
I would disagree that it's the only reason - I find rape more shocking due to the intent and motivation behind it. Murder can be motivated by so many things, and it can be painted as heroic, justified or necessary, especially in a fictional setting. You cannot apply the same motivators to rape in any setting, which is why I think the two should be considered separately.

I'll agree that some of these views are enforced by society, but do not stem from it.


I defy you to find a better or more masterfully encapsulated depiction of Rape in any art form.
If you feel this diorama encapsulates rape for you, then i won't argue with you. I'm just saying that personally i find it quite bland and unnecessary. It's broaching a subject that has no place in 40k, which as you say is a virtually sex-less environment.

When i think of art which depicts rape, i'd think of something like Irreversible, which i found difficult to watch and made me sick to my stomach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
the logic "this can hurt children",
This is hypocritical in itself to say. Nowhere in Warhammer 40k, in the 7 years I've played this Hobby, have I seen Rape mentioned or disucssed in Literature, Movies, Video Games, and Rulebooks. It is only vaguely mentioned in reference to the henious acts of Slannesh Followers, Choas Worhsipers, Dark Eldar, and Pirate Raiders. Rape has never, nor ever will be, a part of Warhammer 40k because 40k is built around a battlefield of tactically (or through Literature) slaughtering your opponent. We Nerds/Hobbyists don't care about Rape, and honestly don't wanna hear it.

When you spark discussions such as this you are honestly doing the same thing all other Liberal Academic's/Politicians do; cause a fight for no reason. No one Cares, Gives a Shit, or Wants to Hear about it! What was a simple observation about a remark turned into a ridiculous, and unwanted, discussion on the stupidity of "what could be." Serious, be ashamed, both of you.

Its the same when people judge an actor or a singer by his personal life based on some gossip. What do you care what he does in his own time?
If he's a role model to my son/daughter who will hear and imitate what they say/do then yes....there business is my problem. If Justin Bierber is gonna become a drugged up thrill seeker that is his business until it affects my kids. Fine, no more Bieber for the kiddies. Perhaps if Mrs. Spears had decided to become a role model I would not object, but she turned into a crack slut. Ok, her problem, until my neighbors daughter starts to try such things because she saw "Britney Do it," and eventually get pulled into County for Drug usage and UnderAge Eplopement (at the time I thought this the most reidiculous term I had ever heard).

So Yes, I blame them and criticize them when they fuck up. Especially when your drag racing down public avenues and putting people's lives in potential harm, or when you do drugs and go partying that inspires an entire egenration of young females to follow suits. If you want to step into the spot light that is fine, just realize your now a Celebrity; and Celebrities are Business. Don't have a good reputation, your income suffers, and I certainly will criticize you if it affects what I hear and say everyday.

we have been shying away from freely expressing anything remotely sexual, while in comparison promoting violence.
"Shying Away?" You had better get your head examined because the last time I looked I saw several sexual references around me. The barely clad olympic skaters, the girl on the billboard promoting Victoria Secrets, Swimsuit models on Fox News articles, oh and a lovely pictures of a half-naked nudists sticker on some dudes truck. Sexual References are everywhere, it is part of the American culture and has been saturated into our daily lives since the "60's;" and the Sexual Revolution. While I'm not condoning it in any way we cannot sit here and claim to be helping the children when we let society bombard them everyday with Pictures, Media, and fellow human interaction with our sexually charged society. Times change, the "Level of Appropriateness" changes, the transmission of sexual references and pornagraphic material change, but sexual refences themselves stay the same. Sexy naked ladies/men for your viewing entertainment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
This is hypocritical in itself to say. Nowhere in Warhammer 40k, in the 7 years I've played this Hobby, have I seen Rape mentioned or disucssed in Literature, Movies, Video Games, and Rulebooks. It is only vaguely mentioned in reference to the henious acts of Slannesh Followers, Choas Worhsipers, Dark Eldar, and Pirate Raiders. Rape has never, nor ever will be, a part of Warhammer 40k because 40k is built around a battlefield of tactically (or through Literature) slaughtering your opponent. We Nerds/Hobbyists don't care about Rape, and honestly don't wanna hear it.

When you spark discussions such as this you are honestly doing the same thing all other Liberal Academic's/Politicians do; cause a fight for no reason. No one Cares, Gives a Shit, or Wants to Hear about it! What was a simple observation about a remark turned into a ridiculous, and unwanted, discussion on the stupidity of "what could be." Serious, be ashamed, both of you.
You don't care about rape? You don't want to hear about it? Nice attitude, and well done for placing your potentially offensive opinion in the mouths of an entire section of the population that includes myself. I happen to care about rape. I happen to think it's a disgusting double standard that we "shouldn't talk about it" in the context of a hobby which revolves around murder, genocide and bigotry, and that double standard is only able to be established for two main reasons - that the hobby is marketed to young children, and that society has a tacit "don't mention the war" policy towards Rape in general.

If anyone should be ashamed, it should be you, for taking it upon yourself to speak for everyone else without their consent, to assume that you are in the right, and to tell other people that they have no right or reason to discuss different points of view on a controversial topic in a civil and adult fashion.

"Shying Away?" You had better get your head examined because the last time I looked I saw several sexual references around me. The barely clad olympic skaters, the girl on the billboard promoting Victoria Secrets, Swimsuit models on Fox News articles, oh and a lovely pictures of a half-naked nudists sticker on some dudes truck. Sexual References are everywhere, it is part of the American culture and has been saturated into our daily lives since the "60's;" and the Sexual Revolution. While I'm not condoning it in any way we cannot sit here and claim to be helping the children when we let society bombard them everyday with Pictures, Media, and fellow human interaction with our sexually charged society. Times change, the "Level of Appropriateness" changes, the transmission of sexual references and pornagraphic material change, but sexual refences themselves stay the same. Sexy naked ladies/men for your viewing entertainment.
I don't believe that he's denying sexual material is available, but rather protesting the double standard of the media when it comes to how much and what types of each we can see.

As an example, we are not allowed to see naked breasts until we hit the 15 Age Rating (in the UK) and we can't see any full frontal male/female nudity until the 18 Certificate, and I *think* we are still not allowed to see an erect Penis at all - I could be wrong.

In comparison, we can watch torture, emotional brutalization, jellied babies being eaten, and someone getting their face smashed from a convex shape into a concave curve with a bottle in a 12A certificate (Pan's Labyrinth).

This is despite the fact that we are allowed to actually have sex at 16, and all have either Penis or Vagina/Breasts ourselves, and have definitely seen such body parts on other people (even if it's just your mum or dad when you were small). If you were to ask me which was more damaging to a young child - a love scene or a violent scene, I would choose the violent scene every time. I don't think our bodies are anything to be ashamed of, and neither is sex. On the other hand I don't want any children I might have to grow up thinking that violence is a valid way to solve problems, for example.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
@Sethis - before I make any reply, can you please clear up a confusion for me. The bits of my post you quoted were referring to rape in 40k and other games as a whole, but your responces seem to be both about as a whole and the diorama specifically. Would you like me to respond in regard to the diorama, or to the general subject of rape in games?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
This is an interesting debate, but like Silvertabby i'm getting rather confused as it seems to be spiraling out in all kinds of directions.
@Sethis - i'm interested to hear your views on my previous comment.

As an example, we are not allowed to see naked breasts until we hit the 15 Age Rating (in the UK) and we can't see any full frontal male/female nudity until the 18 Certificate, and I *think* we are still not allowed to see an erect Penis at all - I could be wrong.

In comparison, we can watch torture, emotional brutalization, jellied babies being eaten, and someone getting their face smashed from a convex shape into a concave curve with a bottle in a 12A certificate (Pan's Labyrinth).

This is despite the fact that we are allowed to actually have sex at 16, and all have either Penis or Vagina/Breasts ourselves, and have definitely seen such body parts on other people (even if it's just your mum or dad when you were small). If you were to ask me which was more damaging to a young child - a love scene or a violent scene, I would choose the violent scene every time. I don't think our bodies are anything to be ashamed of, and neither is sex. On the other hand I don't want any children I might have to grow up thinking that violence is a valid way to solve problems, for example.
Pan's Labyrinth is a 15 cert, and there are several 12A films with naked breasts, and 15 films which feature full nudity. the system is far from perfect but mostly it takes into account context, setting and character depictions when assigning these ratings.

I disagree that a love scene would always be the less damaging choice - depending on the development of the child it can be difficult to process & comprehend scenes of a sexual nature, as people usually develop feelings of attraction much later than they encounter violence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
@Sethis - before I make any reply, can you please clear up a confusion for me. The bits of my post you quoted were referring to rape in 40k and other games as a whole, but your responces seem to be both about as a whole and the diorama specifically. Would you like me to respond in regard to the diorama, or to the general subject of rape in games?
If you'd like to address both then I'm more than happy to read whatever you would like to say. I took from your posts that you had issues both with the diorama itself and the presentation of rape across the hobby, and that one was potentially symptomatic of the other, so if you'd like to clarify your stances on both the diorama itself and how your opinion of it meshes with your stance on the hobby and the subjects raised by it, then I'm sure that'd be helpful.

Pan's Labyrinth is a 15 cert, and there are several 12A films with naked breasts, and 15 films which feature full nudity. the system is far from perfect but mostly it takes into account context, setting and character depictions when assigning these ratings.

I disagree that a love scene would always be the less damaging choice - depending on the development of the child it can be difficult to process & comprehend scenes of a sexual nature, as people usually develop feelings of attraction much later than they encounter violence.
I agree that there are examples that contradict my layout of the rating system - I personally don't know that much about how specifically they assign these things, but I believe my point in general about the disproportionate weight given to sex over violence in the media still stands. You can have as much varied and horrific violence in your film as much as you want, and skim by with a generally low rating (normally 15s, although I have seen some things in 12As that I would certainly not want any child of mine to witness), while even relatively harmless nudity/sex gets slapped with a much higher class of rating. Given that sex is generally propositioned as an expression of love, while violence is an expression of hate, it seems to me that we've got it the wrong way round. Even if, as you say, a younger person doesn't understand sexual attraction, then I believe that they are less likely to be damaged by the exposure to it (being given a mild case of "Daddy, why is that man and that woman doing that thing?" or possibly "Urgh, why would you touch a girlie?") compared to the nightmares/trauma etc of seeing someone getting their brains splatted all over the screen in 3D.

I could have sworn Pan's Lab was a 12A - I distinctly remember coming out of the theater saying that I would never allow a 12yr old to see it. I could be mistaken, it was a few years ago. Perhaps the DVD is a 15 when the movie on release was a 12A? Either way, it was just a general example and not the crux of the argument. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
I agree that there are examples that contradict my layout of the rating system - I personally don't know that much about how specifically they assign these things, but I believe my point in general about the disproportionate weight given to sex over violence in the media still stands. You can have as much varied and horrific violence in your film as much as you want, and skim by with a generally low rating (normally 15s, although I have seen some things in 12As that I would certainly not want any child of mine to witness), while even relatively harmless nudity/sex gets slapped with a much higher class of rating.

Sex and violence are actually treated fairly similarly in the 12A & 15 ratings, do you watch many 12A romcoms? The amount of sexual references in some of those films can be quite significant when weighed up against the amount of violence in a 12A action film.

I'll agree that they do step over the mark with violence in 12A, and this is usually in a fantasy setting. King Kong, The Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 all got away with the rating despite over stepping what i would consider acceptable. At the same time, i'd also argue that the sexualisation of younger girls in 12A films also over steps the mark just as much.

Given that sex is generally propositioned as an expression of love, while violence is an expression of hate, it seems to me that we've got it the wrong way round. Even if, as you say, a younger person doesn't understand sexual attraction, then I believe that they are less likely to be damaged by the exposure to it (being given a mild case of "Daddy, why is that man and that woman doing that thing?" or possibly "Urgh, why would you touch a girlie?") compared to the nightmares/trauma etc of seeing someone getting their brains splatted all over the screen in 3D.
If a child is asking those questions, they are not old enough to be watching a film where someones brains are splattered all over the screen - you wouldn't get that passed in anything less than a 15.

The violence in younger films is more prevalent because children can easily understand the characters reasons for fighting. They can identify with the heroes fighting the bad men, the adventurer slaying the monsters, or the brother and sister fighting over the TV control or whatever. It's easy for them to process and less damaging than trying to figure out a concept they have no basis to identify with. You can explain how children are made, and why people have sex to a child - but they will not truly understand until they are able to experience those emotions themselves.


Back on topic, do you think the violence in the 40K universe is at an equivalent level of rape and extreme sadistic and sexual violence? As I said earlier, I haven't really delved into that many BL books so perhaps i am being naive in thinking that GW's 12+ rating is appropriate. I already play small games with my son, and if he does want to get into it more seriously in future i will certainly have to keep a closer eye on it.

p.s - Pan's Labyrinth was definitely a 15 at the cinema, watched it twice :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
Sex and violence are actually treated fairly similarly in the 12A & 15 ratings, do you watch many 12A romcoms? The amount of sexual references in some of those films can be quite significant when weighed up against the amount of violence in a 12A action film.
How do you define "sexual references" and can you give examples? I generally detest romcoms so don't have much experience of them. Would you say that such references are equally threatening to the mental health of a child as the violence presented in films such as you've named below?

I'll agree that they do step over the mark with violence in 12A, and this is usually in a fantasy setting. King Kong, The Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 all got away with the rating despite over stepping what i would consider acceptable. At the same time, i'd also argue that the sexualisation of younger girls in 12A films also over steps the mark just as much.
What do you mean by the "sexualisation of younger girls" in 12As? Can you give examples from films? And also bear in mind that the topic of "sexualisation of children", and the "damaging effects of exposing young children to sex scenes" are two seperate topics and debates - and I think we're straying around the periphery of on-topicness as it is. :)

If a child is asking those questions, they are not old enough to be watching a film where someones brains are splattered all over the screen - you wouldn't get that passed in anything less than a 15.
So all other things being equal, would you say that violence and sex are given equal weight? That the amount of violence in films aimed at prepubescent boys is on par with the amount of sex, and are you happy with the level of explicitness of both? To clarify:

1. Do you think the amount of violence and sex depicted in films are too much, too little, or just right, and do you think that there is an imbalance in the amount of each - for example, way more violence than there is sex (which is my opinion)?

2. Do you think the graphicness of both the violence and sex is appropriate to the age the film is aimed at? I personally can't remember the last time I saw a film that made me think "That film has too much sex/nudity for it's rating" but I can certainly name, like you, a number of films that in my opinion had too much violence.

The violence in younger films is more prevalent because children can easily understand the characters reasons for fighting. They can identify with the heroes fighting the bad men, the adventurer slaying the monsters, or the brother and sister fighting over the TV control or whatever. It's easy for them to process and less damaging than trying to figure out a concept they have no basis to identify with. You can explain how children are made, and why people have sex to a child - but they will not truly understand until they are able to experience those emotions themselves.
I would argue that I understood the concept of sex before I was 11, and was old enough to want to make out with a girl by the time I was 12. Since I think we can agree that PG and U films generally have negligible amounts of sex and graphic violence then we can focus on the pre-adult, post-child age bands of 12A and 15. I'm fairly certain by that point most children understand and potentially seek out intimate contact with other children of the same age, thus making the portrayal of physical affection more acceptable (to me) in a film than the portrayal of murder, torture et al.

Back on topic, do you think the violence in the 40K universe is at an equivalent level of rape and extreme sadistic and sexual violence? As I said earlier, I haven't really delved into that many BL books so perhaps i am being naive in thinking that GW's 12+ rating is appropriate. I already play small games with my son, and if he does want to get into it more seriously in future i will certainly have to keep a closer eye on it.

p.s - Pan's Labyrinth was definitely a 15 at the cinema, watched it twice :grin:
I think that the codices and other rules/fluff supplements have a lower level of written violence, but a higher level of artist-portrayed violence than BL publications, so I guess you might weigh them differently based on the medium of expression. I would think that a disturbing picture is more harmful than written prose, but that's purely opinion. I haven't read *that much* BL stuff, mostly sticking to Abnett and the HH series (because I find most of the other authors terrible in the extreme) and I find that mostly they tread within the bounds of what I'd be happy to let my hypothetical 12yr old son read.

To answer the question, I point out that the lack of equivalency is the basis of my argument for the diorama being a valid contribution to the hobby - we are all desensitised to the amount of death and sadism present in the 40k universe, which is why the inclusion of sexual violence shocks us when potentially nothing else could.

Do I think that there are equivalent levels of "traditional violence" and sexual violence in GW's publications? No. There is far more "traditional" violence.

Do I think that this is morally acceptable in the theoretical sense? No, not at all. I believe that societies' reluctance to examine and "deal with" rape is harmful to rape victims, allows perpetrators to go unpunished, and contributes to the inequality of women (an example being the latest sexual misconduct charges being levelled at a Lib Dem MP who is refusing to apologise... with a significant proportion of the party backing him up). In my theoretical perfect world, then sex, violence, and sexual violence are all equally acceptable/unacceptable depending on what your audience is. Instead we have this predisposition to assume that violence is fine, sex is less fine, and sexual violance so far from fine that we avoid it like the plague.

Do I think that anything is going to change quickly or soon, and do I think that we should be adding more sexual violence to Warhammer in order to balance out the already existing sadism and bigotry? Definitely not, and no, respectively. 40k is aimed at a demographic where current laws would prevent it from releasing such material even if they were so inclined, and it would be harmful (if not actually lethal) to the hobby if such a demographic was altered. However that doesn't mean that individual artists/modellers should be prevented/disallowed from creating models and dioramas that have the capacity to make us think about things in a new light, or villified for "harming the hobby" when they do so.

To draw an example, if I were (hypothetically) to run a Deathwatch campaign as a DM (so not even a type of "art", just a gaming session), and had a Slaaneshi cult being investigated by the players which resulted in them finding a room full of rape victims who have been used by the Imperial Guardsmen and Officers who are members of the cult, and even have them walk in while such an act is taking place... is that harming the hobby? Is it damaging anyone? What about if I posted the session notes from each session on my blog? Would that harm the hobby? Just how wide is this line, and how exactly do you decide who crosses it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,548 Posts
hmm...if you look at the details of the eldar female, you can see her eyes are almost directed to the combat knife on the ground and her hand seemingly moving toward the combat knife. does this change anyone's thoughts of the diorama and it's message? is it still a message of something very real and tragic in war or is it just a twisted action scene?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
How do you define "sexual references" and can you give examples? I generally detest romcoms so don't have much experience of them. Would you say that such references are equally threatening to the mental health of a child as the violence presented in films such as you've named below?
I'll use About Time, which isn't too bad - but it's probably the most recent i've seen. It references Oral sex, several sex acts and a striptease, which i would class as threatening and confusing to younger children in the same way that the violence in the films i mentioned earlier would be. For a 12 year old i'd class both instances as acceptable, but younger children can and do watch these films.


And also bear in mind that the topic of "sexualisation of children", and the "damaging effects of exposing young children to sex scenes" are two seperate topics and debates - and I think we're straying around the periphery of on-topicness as it is. :)
Agreed.it's verging off topic and doesn't really need to be discussed.


I would argue that I understood the concept of sex before I was 11, and was old enough to want to make out with a girl by the time I was 12. Since I think we can agree that PG and U films generally have negligible amounts of sex and graphic violence then we can focus on the pre-adult, post-child age bands of 12A and 15. I'm fairly certain by that point most children understand and potentially seek out intimate contact with other children of the same age, thus making the portrayal of physical affection more acceptable (to me) in a film than the portrayal of murder, torture et al.
This is really an inherent issue with the 12A rating, it encompasses too broad a spectrum of ages. For a 12/13 year old i would say the depictions of both violence and sex are mostly acceptable, but for the younger children who do watch these films, there are many instances of both which are unacceptable.

People can, and will take their 6 year old to watch a 12A film. The responsibility here is really with the parent to view the content first and know their child well enough to make an informed decision of what they feel is acceptable. it's difficult to answer your questions with a blanket answer, as all films are different and all children are different. I'd agree that there is more violence prevalent in film than sex, but this is more to do with genre than an imbalanced view of the 2 subjects.

There are certainly films out there that overstep their rating due to sexual content rather than violence - Lars and the Real Girl for example. It's a great film, but it has some very deep & complicated identity and relationship issues for anyone to deal with, especially anyone under the age of 15.



Do I think that this is morally acceptable in the theoretical sense? No, not at all. I believe that societies' reluctance to examine and "deal with" rape is harmful to rape victims, allows perpetrators to go unpunished, and contributes to the inequality of women (an example being the latest sexual misconduct charges being levelled at a Lib Dem MP who is refusing to apologise... with a significant proportion of the party backing him up). In my theoretical perfect world, then sex, violence, and sexual violence are all equally acceptable/unacceptable depending on what your audience is. Instead we have this predisposition to assume that violence is fine, sex is less fine, and sexual violance so far from fine that we avoid it like the plague.
I think i agree with you, and our disagreement is arising from our views on 40k. I don't find the diorama shocking,and i'm not trying to say we shouldn't talk about or acknowledge sexual violence. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't be allowed to make the diorama - I just don't think it's appropriate in my view of 40k.

Like the 12A rating i think 40k encompasses such a wide audience that rape is not an acceptable subject matter, but you are probably correct in saying that the violent images in some books goes too far as well, and i appreciate why you're saying 'we accept this, why don't we accept that?'.

I'll certainly have to have a good look through the codexs in future before letting my kids use them (if they do actually want to play in the first place!)
 

·
JUGGERNUT
Joined
·
2,558 Posts
Here's something interesting. From GW's Legal Page:

WHAT YOU CANNOT DO WITH GAMES WORKSHOP'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Please read the following in conjunction with the What you can do section above and the Specific Examples section below. Other than a few exemptions, Games Workshop is not obliged to let anyone use its IP at all (for example, it's a widely held misconception that you can freely make use of someone else's copyrights, without their permission, as long as it's for your own private use - this is currently not an automatic exemption to copyright), and accordingly we always insist that our IP is treated with the respect that we feel that it deserves.

So, If you are using or want to use our intellectual property and you do not have a written license with us, you must not:

- Use Games Workshop's intellectual property in relation to any commercial activity this includes, for example, paying a printer to print some flyers for you, obtaining sponsorship, or selling non-Games Workshop materials using our trademarks.

- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).

- Use our trademarks in respect of your domain name.

- Use our intellectual property in relation to any third party products or third party intellectual property.

- Alter our trademarks in any way.

- Use any of our IP without appropriately crediting the IP and using the appropriate disclaimers in accordance with this policy (see below).

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is not consistent with the functionality, atmosphere, and parameters of the Warhammer universe as created and owned by Games Workshop

- State that anything that you create using Games Workshop's intellectual property is "official."

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.

- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.
I wonder how they try to enforce that, or if they ever have.
 

·
Critique for da CriticGod
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
A few tangentially related responses to a slew of previous posts.

I would also posit that some of the strongly averse reactions to the diorama come from the tools playing aspect of warhammer 40k. Essentially, that add the army commander we take the 'role' of one side or the other, or one general or the other. This encourages viewers of the diorama to feel either voyeuristic or tacitly identified with the guardsmen. Being placed without permission, in the role of voyeur to a violent sex act in an unexpected context is enough to make almost any viewer uncomfortable.

For much the same reason, fans of shooter video games wouldn't want a rape attack to be added - because the players actions happen in game as the protagonist, then the audience is not just complicit but responsible. I know I would find that horrifying and would never want to play such a game. If such a simulation could even be called a game.

On the topic of film violence, ratings systems are never complete nor are they ever perfectly executed. And even then, they often only serve as a guide line. I quite vividly remember seeing "Saving Private Ryan" in the theater. When the lights came up at the end I could tell that the woman in the row in front of mine had brought a 6 or 7 year old boy. "Saving Private Ryan" is still among the most graphically violent movies I've ever seen. And I find that woman's poor judgement disturbing.

All of that is to say, I think western society hides healthy displays if sexual affection far more than we should. And simultaneously makes violence far too common.

And while I think the diorama might make a salient point about warhammer 40k I can understand how some viewers world be more put off than encouraged to reevaluate their hobby.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
I've deliberately stayed out of this; but this thread is exactly what the guy was wanting.

Exposure.

"No such thing as bad publicity". It's getting him noticed. How many people visited his site to see it? Look at Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin, they produce absolute shite, but because it's recognised, its supported and made popular.

Conversely, look at the violin player who plays at the Carnegie who posed as a homeless person. He had no publicity for that, but made nothing, while the one which was publicised got him thousands of dollars.

Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.

Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done. And that ranges from the government, to painting scenes of rape, let alone filming it; Caligula.

Having seen that film as well; I can say as well that they were right not to show it. It's not actually added to in any way by showing the rape scenes, they were pure smut and titillation to sell and desensitize; it would be like showing Sauron in Lord of the Rings torturing little kittens to show how evil he is. Going by the films, it doesn't actually say "why" he's so bad, after all, just that he is. But you don't always need that to enjoy a film; in the end that's what it's there for.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done...
Really? So unless you prioritise someone's OPINION over another persons, then any time someone protests your actions or tells you that you're wrong... you should stop doing what you're doing?

By this logic we shouldn't have become involved in any conflict, ever.

We shouldn't have made multiple scientific and medical breakthroughs, from positing that the Earth rotates around the sun to the Human Genome Project.

We shouldn't put any diplomatic or economic pressure on countries who brutally suppress and massacre their own populations.

Questioning whether something is right or wrong is a very fundamental part of being a fully functioning human being. Whether you're a "stupid liberal", "sideliner" or whatever you identify yourself as. Always question everything that you are told about who is right, who is wrong, and why. Make a decision for yourself.
 
81 - 100 of 105 Posts
Top