Dear Paizo, Cheesecake is offensive and unnecessary

Is it just me that finds such incredible cheesecake offensively condescending and damaging to the hobby as a whole? Why should we, as a group, continue to perpetuate the idea that women exist first as sexual objects and only second as actual people?

Art such as this, or this.
This needs to go away. This is not doing anything positive to the hobby.

What these images say to me is that I'm so incapable of any sort of nuance that I have to have sexuality thrust into my face, like Frazetta was still relevant and acceptable, and that I'm so easily led by my genitals that a bunch of skin in an incredibly infeasible and misogynistic outfit is, by default, what appeals to me. And that I'm incapable of viewing a female adventurer as a person if they're wearing practical clothing. Even the most beefcake Iconic wears pants.

I resent that. I like the Golarion world, I like the strong females within, like Sarenrae and Iomedae. I hugely dislike being pandered to like I'm some socially stunted idiot who can only find women attractive if they dress like strippers.

Stuff like this needs to continue, while the other, offensive art dies a slow, painful death.

Ameiko: Awesome without a serpent trying to bite her nipple off or a hugely distorted face.

Seelah: My favorite Iconic, without question. If only she'd lose the boobplate.

Though I will say that boobplates need to f&%#ing die, too. There is more than enough room in a breastplate for breasts. Accentuating them is either for ceremonial armor or for perverts.

Lemme find our last discussion of this topic for you. You might find it enlightening.

Lemme find our last discussion of this topic for you. You might find it enlightening.

I wouldn't doubt it that it is the same person.

I'm not going accuse anyone of sockpuppeting.

Previous discussion.

thenorthman wrote:

LOL....

It can go both ways but I don't see any male photos that you object too.

Thank you for proving my point handily; even when it goes "both ways," it's not as needlessly pandering toward sexuality for men. The Iconic Necromancer shows off his f&#*ing abs. He still wears clothes that could be considered even vaguely practical. Seoni and Feiya do no such thing and are nothing but pandering nods towards a stunted sexuality assumed in the playerbase.

Hate to break it to you but every culture historically the women do wear dresses. SOme show more skin some not as much but it is a historical fact. I don't say they have to, in fact my wife has only wore a dress maybe five to six times I have been married to her since May 20th, 2001.

Yet no matter what I say well change your mind....but I do find these threads funny.

Yeah, old threads are cool and all but why should rampant objectification of women be acceptable just because some people want it.

Why should misogyny be acceptable because it's rampant?

There is a huge difference between a character who is attractive and a character who is made to be shallowly attractive because they don't wear clothes.

Have you looked at the iconic cleric?

Have you considered that how the characters dress might have more to do with their culture than 'rampant objectification'?

What's sockpuppeting?

What's sockpuppeting?

Sockpuppeting

Steve Geddes wrote:

What's sockpuppeting?

Sockpuppeting

Hmm... I miss the twentieth century. I knew what was going on then. :(

What these images say to me is that I'm so incapable of any sort of nuance that I have to have sexuality thrust into my face, like Frazetta was still relevant and acceptable, and that I'm so easily led by my genitals that a bunch of skin in an incredibly infeasible and misogynistic outfit is, by default, what appeals to me. And that I'm incapable of viewing a female adventurer as a person if they're wearing practical clothing.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume that it's all for your benefit. You're taking it incredibly personally.

Have you looked the iconic cleric?

Have you considered that how the characters dress might have more to do with their culture than 'rampant objectification'?

As much as I don't want to wade into this conversation, these "justifications" are silly. The "culture" you reference is make believe, something concocted by a (mostly male) writing staff to please themselves and their perceived fan base. Yes, they are vaguely recognizable in some cases as "Egyptian" or "Northern European" analogues, or what have you, but nothing *has* to be the way it is. It is that way because the people at Paizo *chose* for it to be that way.

This is about business, pure and simple. Not "authenticity". Not "creative license". Business. It's because they know they can sell books by peddling sex to the boys who buy their games, and they know they'll never have to answer for their decisions because as soon as someone brings it up, the ravening hordes arise en masse to shout down the rest of us.

Sexism is real. If anything, it's even more pronounced in the gaming community. And no one who can change it really seems to care.

Darwinism wrote:

What these images say to me is that I'm so incapable of any sort of nuance that I have to have sexuality thrust into my face, like Frazetta was still relevant and acceptable, and that I'm so easily led by my genitals that a bunch of skin in an incredibly infeasible and misogynistic outfit is, by default, what appeals to me. And that I'm incapable of viewing a female adventurer as a person if they're wearing practical clothing.

Perhaps you shouldn't assume that it's all for your benefit. You're taking it incredibly personally.

What's it meant for, then? Who is it meant to target?

It is that way because the people at Paizo *chose* for it to be that way.

...

Sexism is real. If anything, it's even more pronounced in the gaming community. And no one who can change it really seems to care.

Again, you would have them rewrite their campaign setting to remove all misogny and sexism? Gender equality throughout every nation?

Or would you rather have that but never illustrate the consequences? Or worse, make illustrations that do not show the logical consequences of such things?

It's because they know they can sell books by peddling sex to the boys who buy their games, and they know they'll never have to answer for their decisions because as soon as someone brings it up, the ravening hordes arise en masse to shout down the rest of us.

I've never been to a paizo meeting, but I bet this isn't the reason.

(please read this post in a soft, soothing voice..)

Sexism is real. If anything, it's even more pronounced in the gaming community. And no one who can change it really seems to care.

Hmmm, I wouldn't of accused the gaming community being "even more pronounced".

Interesting...sports, TV shows, movies, actor's, actress's, models.....the gaming community is much larger than I thought.

The Iroquois, one of the Native American societies with the most contact with European settlers, hadn't changed almost two centuries of continuous contact with Europeans? Are you joking?

Well then what about the historical culture dresses they have. It is not something new.

The only thing I can come up on my own is some of the dresses in Muslim societies but in all reality they are still dresses.

As much as I don't want to wade into this conversation, these "justifications" are silly. The "culture" you reference is make believe, something concocted by a (mostly male) writing staff to please themselves and their perceived fan base. Yes, they are vaguely recognizable in some cases as "Egyptian" or "Northern European" analogues, or what have you, but nothing *has* to be the way it is. It is that way because the people at Paizo *chose* for it to be that way.

And they chose it, because it allows for easier access to potential readers.

"Oh, look, this setting has a country based on Ancient Egypt! Cool! I can have pyramids guarded by walking skeletons and chariots and scarab swarms and giant statues with jackal heads..."

As opposed to trying to come up with something totally unfamiliar, and unconnected with any real-world culture, that fails to sell because the potential readers have no frame of reference.

There's a reason hardly anyone plays Skyrealms of Jorune.

Renee_in_Mich wrote:

Sexism is real. If anything, it's even more pronounced in the gaming community. And no one who can change it really seems to care.

Hmmm, I wouldn't of accused the gaming community being "even more pronounced".

Interesting...sports, TV shows, movies, actor's, actress's, models.....the gaming community is much larger than I thought.

Ah, the classic, "Because it's happening elsewhere, we're not at fault," defense.

Only we are, as a whole, at fault. Fantasy art, even more than TV shows, movies, and whatnot are far more objectifying on average. Video games are the only other area that comes close and, often, exceeds tabletops.

Why should it be acceptable just because someone else does it?

thenorthman wrote:

Renee_in_Mich wrote:

Sexism is real. If anything, it's even more pronounced in the gaming community. And no one who can change it really seems to care.

Hmmm, I wouldn't of accused the gaming community being "even more pronounced".

Interesting...sports, TV shows, movies, actor's, actress's, models.....the gaming community is much larger than I thought.

Ah, the classic, "Because it's happening elsewhere, we're not at fault," defense.

Only we are, as a whole, at fault. Fantasy art, even more than TV shows, movies, and whatnot are far more objectifying on average. Video games are the only other area that comes close and, often, exceeds tabletops.

Why should it be acceptable just because someone else does it?

Ahh the not listen/reading defense.

That is not what I said. It was said that the gaming community it is very prominent and I was just pointing out that is not the case.

What is or is not too sexual is subjective. Most people I know appreciate the art that is provided by paizo. I am not saying cleavage or well endowed women in general are mandatory in order to be sexy, but it doesn't hurt the effort.

I don't know about you, but my first thought on seeing the Osirion sourcebook is not "Oh, good, I now have explicit permission to rub my female players' noses in their inferiority to my virile omnipotence, and proclaim the overlordship of the phallocentric oligarchy."

If that was your first thought, then that speaks volumes about you.

It is an interesting (but not at all new or even recent) kink to find fully-clothed women more attractive.

In modern days, it might be expressed as a matter of respect for women as human beings equal to men while it was previously termed as "a proper woman is the image of decency and modesty", but the end result is pretty much the same.

Have you seen actual period breastplates? They're built to deflect blows away from the center of the chest; boobplates only function to accentuate sexuality. That's my problem; sexuality is first, practicality is second. But only with women, it seems.

That's funny, because according to your agenda, that all historical women were second-class citizens, kept as chattel by their penis-waving warmongering patriarchs, any 'actual period breastplates' weren't made for women, were they?

You're trying to have it both ways.

You have to either accept that any averagely-proportioned women need a different design of armour, or you have to accept that women have been fighting alongside their men throughout history in the same design of armour, thus making your defence of the poor downtrodden weaker sex unnecessary.

And maybe you can try to tell the female player in my game that she is a pouting, panting, lust-object and simple-minded, gender-traitor, since she asked for such a feature in the artwork of her character?
Then I can sit back with my popcorn, while she punches you in the head for patronising her.

I'm waiting for someone to shout 'House', since the OP has ticked off quite a few of the usual boxes on the Bingo card.

Ahh the not listen/reading defense.

That is not what I said. It was said that the gaming community it is very prominent and I was just pointing out that is not the case.

Oh no, I know it's everywhere. I've worked as a sexual assault/rape crisis first responder. Hell, I *live* it. I know how prevalent it is.

But it's hugely pronounced in the gaming community. There's almost no product you can point to and say "there, that one is okay"...rpgs, video games, even board games a lot of the time, depend on it. And it's not terribly surprising considering how skewed the community is towards its male population (not necessarily in terms of actual numbers, although it's obviously predominantly male), but in how games/imagery/services are targeted. You would be surprised at the frequency of sexual assaults occurring at gaming conventions (most of which go unreported)...and once you realize that stuff is happening, or especially if you're someone who has experienced it, you start to see everything in a different light. Makes your Pathfinder cheesecake seem not quite so harmless. Makes walking through the dealer hall of any big convention elbow-to-elbow with a bunch of strangers ogling "booth babes" downright terrifying.

I think any 'booth babe' should be perfectly capable of outrunning or fending off the typical Con-going gamer, since they'd be out of breath if they had to jog a few yards. Nor would they want to leave their 500 lb rucksack of Magic cards behind.

Again, you would have them rewrite their campaign setting to remove all misogny and sexism? Gender equality throughout every nation?

Or would you rather have that but never illustrate the consequences? Or worse, make illustrations that do not show the logical consequences of such things?

Still waiting for an answer here.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Again, you would have them rewrite their campaign setting to remove all misogny and sexism? Gender equality throughout every nation?

Or would you rather have that but never illustrate the consequences? Or worse, make illustrations that do not show the logical consequences of such things?

Still waiting for an answer here.

I don't understand the question. Nothing about Pathfinder illustrations hints at any kind of social commentary about gender, misogyny, or sexism. They're not depicting the logical consequences of those things, they simply *are* the logical consequences of them.

And that logic goes:

Boys like to look at scantily-clad women.
Boys buy role playing games.
Ergo roleplaying games must include depictions of scantily-clad women.

Many game companies consider this a best practice of sorts, in fact.

Okay, let's look at it like this.

Slavery exists in the setting.
Slavery is bad.
Do we not show illustrations of slavery because it is bad?

[Mr Mackey voice]Hitting people with swords is bad, m'kay?[/Mr Mackey voice]