|
Also worth noting: A succubus wants to taint people's souls. She wants them to do bad things. Dominating someone doesn't do that, simply because the target is not the one doing these things. If a pure hearted person is dominated into killing his family, it will torture him, but it won't taint his soul.In Pathfinder I don't think that is accurate.
From the bestiary:
"Demons exist for one reason—to destroy. Where their more lawful counterparts, the devils of Hell, seek to twist mortal minds and values to remake and reshape them into reflections of their own evil, demons seek only to maim, ruin, and feed. . . . It is the prolonging of mortal pain and suffering that fuels a demon's lusts and desires, for it is partially from mortal sin and cruelty that these monstrous fiends were born."
I don't have Demons Revisited in front of me so I can't say more about their non core extra descriptions but as core succubus demons are portrayed they'd be perfectly happy torturing someone without tainting their soul.
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle. The Mind Control Mojo is for if none of that works (and so she fulfills a particular combat role), not a first option.Evil monsters being able to magically compel people to do things if seduction doesn't work, seems reasonable enough. It should probably not be the norm among non-Evil seductive creatures, certainly, but it's not inherently a bad idea for Demons to be, well, pretty damn awful.
In the PRD here is their entire flavor text and the reference to subtlety:
"Among the demon hordes, a succubus can often rise to incredible heights of power through her manipulations and sensual charms, and many a demonic war has raged due to the subtle machinations of such creatures. A succubus is formed from the souls of particularly lustful and rapacious evil mortals."
So the...
I agree. I was also kind of curious where this idea that mythological succubi where creatures of seduction at all. They came to men in their dreams, causing them to drea of sex, (while sometimes also physically having sex with their sleeping bodies), and drained their life and/or corrupted their souls. Some cases had them stealing his seed as well. There are a few stories of people controlling a succubus to use against others, and another big aspect of their lore was that they sometimes murdered young children along with Lilith, angry that they could not have normal children themselves.
Another interesting thing is that succubi had some sort of fairly obvious deformities indicating they are not human, (a goats tail, hooves, bird legs and feet, fur, or very dirty dripping lady parts). They where more like harpies, and not at all attractive up close.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if there was a game company that characterized all darker skinned humans as brutish, sexually aggressive, criminal, etc. Nothing inappropriate with that, I mean any GM can change it if they and/or their group are not comfortable with it after all.
This message is approved by the Rule Zero Fallacy Alliance.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say these things for a good reason. Now I am not intentionally going to be flippant about male self image problems, because they do exist and it isn`t healthy. But more severely are female body image problems. It is near epidemic in our society. The unrealistic view of female body image is causing women to kill themselves literally, it is a horrible problem. And I know this is just my opinion but hyper sexualized and hyper optomalized images of women doesn`t help. I am asking for more realistic interpretations for a good reason is all.***
2) All women seem to be hugely busty or always (with few exceptions) slim perfect or near perfect specimens.
***
Sorry to cut out the bulk of your post but this was the piece I wanted to address.
It's not just the women who meet this criteria, it's true of the men as well. From the Sean Connery iconic wizard (serously, I know quite a few ladies who really dig Ezren),the rippling abs of the iconic monk, to the permanent 5 o'clock shadow and Kevin Sorbo hair of the iconic Fighter, most of the male iconics are portrayed as attractive figures as well.
I think that has more to do with the fact that artists like to draw these stylized figures. Generally, when an artist does something they want it to be attractive and possibly edgy, unless the point is to achieve the opposite effect.
Not everyone wants to envision their fantasy character as being dumpy and flawed like the rest of us. I remember a friend of mine once saying that the reason she never played Horde characters in WoW was because "I'm dumpy and clumsy in real life, why would I want to be that all over again in a game where I can be anything?". So I think there's both a market and a demand for these physically impressive characters.
I think Paizo actually has done a very good job of portraying characters who, while perhaps peak physical specimens, are at least realistically proportioned with achieveable builds. The women anyways. Frankly I think the standards set by Seltyiel and Sajan are far more unrealistic and unachievable than any of the female iconics or NPCs who aren't some kind of sex monster.
And you don't see that as sexist or enforcing a double standard? You literally just said "It's not as important for males depicted in art to be as realistic as females, because female body image is more important". You couched it nicely, but that's what you said. When I look at the Paizo art, do you know what I see? I see women of all shapes and sizes, some with slim builds, some voluptuous, some busty, some not. But every single man is either a rippling beefcake or a remarkably fit older gentleman with piercing eyes and a wise demeanor. I think a lot more attention is paid to making women in the Paizo materials achievable and realistic than any of the male characters. I know women who are a close physical match for pretty much every single one of the female iconics (yes, including Amiri). I have yet to meet a single guy who looks anything remotely like any of the male iconics (except Balazar; there's a dude I always see down by the Westlake Center who looks weirdly like Balazar), and I know guys who torture themselves trying to get muscles their bodies will never give them, who have had their lives shredded by women with unrealistic expectations of what a normal guy looks like, who've been driven to steroids to try and get the muscles that are depicted on television and in art, etc.
To add insult to injury, the handful of "realistic" males are often caricatures in the opposite direction, these massively overweight Mirt the Moneylender types with great jiggling jowls and bloated bellies.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder about the validity of "free will." The brain is a meat computer that processes stimuli and makes you do stuff.
One male creature is "hot" and tall and sexy and "smells nice" (i.e., emits pheromones that activate desire in females). He knows chicks dig him, and uses that. We call what he does "seduction." A second male uses illusion magic to appear tall and sexy and enchantment [charm] spells to simulate the pheromones, and now all the sudden it's 50/50 whether it's seduction or rape. A third male bypasses the illusion magic and uses strong, direct [compulsion] spells; everyone agrees that he's a rapist. But in reality, all three of them are doing the exact same thing; the differences are in appearance and technical details, not in fundamental methodology.
Uh, wow, no they're not.
If a guy is good-looking and sexy and smells nice, I still may not choose to sleep with him. Maybe I'm not in the mood, maybe I don't sleep with people I haven't known for a while, maybe even though he's good-looking and smells nice, he says something that makes me not like him, etc. I have a choice in the matter.
Dude using illusion or charm spells to appear attractive? Depends on how charm works in your mind, but if all it's doing is making him appear more, well, charming? Same deal. You can be the most charming, attractive, lovely-smelling dude in the world. If I have a migraine, I'm not going to be interested. If I just had someone in my family die and am out for a night of support with my friends, I'm not going to be interested. There are still hundreds of factors that influence whether someone's interested in someone else, and only some of those have to do with how a guy comes across. (Using illusion spells to appear to be, say, someone's husband or wife is a different story -- that puts it in the nonconsensual camp for me, because consenting to sleep with one individual is not the same as consenting to sleep with anyone.)
On the other hand, if the guy uses a dominate spell, I don't have a choice. It doesn't matter if I'm not in the mood, it doesn't matter if my grandpa just died and I'm grieving, it doesn't matter if I have a migraine. I'm not longer making a choice; I'm being forced.
So no, they are absolutely not doing the same thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ones who think PF was hypersexualized, definatly do not knew Scarlet Blade MMO.... That was unrealistc and hypersexualized.
PF was not a problem in this matter imho. If a person pursue a image that is unhealthy or unachievable, the person is the problem, and the person must seek psychological threatment (I´m not intend to be trolling or insulting here). And the problem is not a draw or sculpture that are unnatural diferent. Nobody tried to be a Picasso paint afterall.
"Some people lean to see horns in the horse head."
If a person have a problem with sexualization, it lean to see the problem in the places where there is none too. Remember all the bullcrap cases of people seeing sexual/demonic simbols in Disney's cartoons. The same case.
In my vision, all those problematic appeal are a matter of viewer not the art. Sex is not an abomination over us, it a natural trait of us all, men or women. The problem is not accept how the other see it. Men like boobs, Women like romanticism.
Well I normally see dragons in clouds, not naked woman. And see great arts (not sexual related) in PF arts (male and female ones).
Take it easy, boys and girls.
I wonder about the validity of "free will." The brain is a meat computer that processes stimuli and makes you do stuff.
One male creature is "hot" and tall and sexy and "smells nice" (i.e., emits pheromones that activate desire in females). He knows chicks dig him, and uses that. We call what he does "seduction." A second male uses illusion magic to appear tall and sexy and enchantment [charm] spells to simulate the pheromones, and now all the sudden it's 50/50 whether it's seduction or rape. A third male bypasses the illusion magic and uses strong, direct [compulsion] spells; everyone agrees that he's a rapist. But in reality, all three of them are doing the exact same thing; the differences are in appearance and technical details, not in fundamental methodology.
You speak of things with such authority, as though science wasn't still fervently debating and seeking evidence one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I say these things for a good reason. Now I am not intentionally going to be flippant about male self image problems, because they do exist and it isn`t healthy. But more severely are female body image problems. It is near epidemic in our society. The unrealistic view of female body image is causing women to kill themselves literally,***
2) All women seem to be hugely busty or always (with few exceptions) slim perfect or near perfect specimens.
***
Sorry to cut out the bulk of your post but this was the piece I wanted to address.
It's not just the women who meet this criteria, it's true of the men as well. From the Sean Connery iconic wizard (serously, I know quite a few ladies who really dig Ezren),the rippling abs of the iconic monk, to the permanent 5 o'clock shadow and Kevin Sorbo hair of the iconic Fighter, most of the male iconics are portrayed as attractive figures as well.
I think that has more to do with the fact that artists like to draw these stylized figures. Generally, when an artist does something they want it to be attractive and possibly edgy, unless the point is to achieve the opposite effect.
Not everyone wants to envision their fantasy character as being dumpy and flawed like the rest of us. I remember a friend of mine once saying that the reason she never played Horde characters in WoW was because "I'm dumpy and clumsy in real life, why would I want to be that all over again in a game where I can be anything?". So I think there's both a market and a demand for these physically impressive characters.
I think Paizo actually has done a very good job of portraying characters who, while perhaps peak physical specimens, are at least realistically proportioned with achieveable builds. The women anyways. Frankly I think the standards set by Seltyiel and Sajan are far more unrealistic and unachievable than any of the female iconics or NPCs who aren't some kind of sex monster.
Slight over reaction on your part I am afraid. I do think male body image is an important issue. However it was not the subject of this thread, tangents such as these tend to get politely told to start a new thread or get deleted, which is why I came across as flippant, and chose to focus more on the issue at hand close to the topic of the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say as someone with very little athletic ability, I can still appreciate how breasts are problematic when you are trying to move around, let alone stretch plate armor over them. I guarantee you there are plenty of versions of "Armor of Breast Reduction" out there in Pathfinder World, to say nothing of Witch hexes along the lines of "Curse of Debilitating Breast Enlargement". What is really interesting is that somehow the creators of these products don't realize most young men with any degree of heterosexual inclination (if that is who they are appealing to) really don't care how big the breasts are as long as they are there! And can we talk about the lady with the cones of doom on page 203 of the Core Book? Ok, are those things going to spin around and hypnotize you or what? Start shooting sparks and play music? Perhaps this is some sort of insidious enhancement-"Chest of Hideous Laughter"? I'm beginning to think a lot of these artists were bottle fed. Every heard of the famous Betty Grable pin up picture? She was the fantasy of a zillion GIs because of that picture and all you saw was her from behind. I admit culture has changed a lot since then, but men have not.
I will say I am SO encouraged to even see this discussion going on in such a well thought out and concerned manner. Now we will see what Paizo brings back to us as consumers.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slight over reaction on your part I am afraid. I do think male body image is an important issue. However it was not the subject of this thread, tangents such as these tend to get politely told to start a new thread or get deleted, which is why I came across as flippant, and chose to focus more on the issue at hand close to the topic of the thread.
I don't think it's a tangent or off topic at all, nor do I think there was any over-reaction. The OP talks about the hyper-sexualization of women in Pathfinder and claims that it is lopsided, without true male equivalents.
I'm saying the opposite is true. I'm saying that while almost every figure in the Pathfinder artwork is a stylized or idealized figure, the women tend to be much more achievable and realistic.
***In a world that purports to be free of the gender inequality that strangles the real world, Golarion is remarkably geared towards what straight, heteronormative men want to see.
***I know the real answer, of course; men as sexual objects is an extremely uncomfortable subject for these writers, so there’s an AP like City of Locusts full of pin-up girls and stuff only purely hetero men would be interested in.
***The impossibility of men in positions of sexual subservience, or being viewed as sexual objects, continues throughout all of Paizo’s materials.
These are all things stated in the OP of this thread and I, frankly, feel like this is the OP projecting an agenda onto Paizo with wild generalizations that are not true.
I certainly am not the demographic they're targeting with Sajan's rippling abs, Ezren's piercing eyes, or the fact that Valeros looks like a cross between Kevin Sorbo and a scruffy Keanu Reeves, and Seltyiel is pretty much every Twilight junky's wet dream. I think it's inaccurate, and possibly disingenuous, to claim that women are always sex objects but men never get that treatment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'm beginning to think a lot of these artists were bottle fed...Hey, the artists draw and paint what they are commissioned to draw and paint. When the customer says "draw cherries," you draw cherries. When the customer says "draw muskmelons," you draw muskmelons. And then you get paid.
I agree that it gets out of control in some cases, but let's not blame the innocent employees. ;)
In response to previous queries, Pazio have said "Artists like drawing boobs". Apparently, the images do not always line up well with the intention, and sometimes not with the specification. Apparently, where not specified, artists tend to draw muskmelons to use your imagery.
|
Design Manager
|
In response to previous queries, Pazio have said "Artists like drawing boobs". Apparently, the images do not always line up well with the intention, and sometimes not with the specification. Apparently, where not specified, artists tend to draw muskmelons to use your imagery.
I could be misremembering this, but I feel like someone once told me that it's easier to draw large breasts and still work in detail on things like armor, clothing, etc. without losing the breasts in the accompanying art.
I typed that out, read it, and immediately thought "I just wrote that and it doesn't sound right".
Still, I have no idea if it's a prediliction of the artists or if there really is some artistic benefit to having more surface area to work with.
You speak of things with such authority, as though science wasn't still fervently debating and seeking evidence one way or the other.I wonder about the validity of "free will." The brain is a meat computer that processes stimuli and makes you do stuff.
See bolded. I'm also playing devil's advocate to every other participant in the thread, as the whole thing assumes that the existence of free will is totally settled with a "yes."
I have a choice in the matter.
If contra-causal free will exists, I totally agree. However, that issue is not settled. If our brains simply take signals and tell us what to do, we actually don't have a choice.
Whatever mechanism has resulted in saying 'no' it's still someone else ignoring that 'no'.
Yeah, if there was a game company that characterized all darker skinned humans as brutish, sexually aggressive, criminal, etc. Nothing inappropriate with that, I mean any GM can change it if they and/or their group are not comfortable with it after all.
This message is approved by the Rule Zero Fallacy Alliance.
Inappropriate? Perhaps. A problem? Nope. We saw multiple upon multiple pages in various race and world building and "why you are a bad GM" threads about how you can ignore the text and drow don't have to be evil, monstrous humanoids don't have to be brutish and so on. I am amused and confused how that is totally fine in those threads but not here.
The dislike of the art isn't a problem. It's a dislike. The dislike of the sex of the eyecandy is a dislike. Flirting NPCs. Dislike. These are not problems, they are things we'd like to see changed but aren't -- or hopefully shouldn't be -- the sort of thing that is killing your desire to play a game. These elements are changeable with minimal effort.
The Rules Zero Fallacy Alliance bit? Isn't this the sort of thing that we're asking people not to do on the thread regarding needling and starting problems just to start problems?
Since the discussion started on Wrath of the Righteous, I decided to page through The Midnight Isles and give my sexy rating of the character art:
If only this thread were about the art.
Xeose4, I read your entire post and find your argument well stated. I, however, do not agree with the solution you have suggested. I feel sexuality is part of human nature and should not be excluded from Pathfinder.
I am a hetero male in my 40s and I still enjoy looking at women, everywhere and at most every opportunity. But with that said, I do not have a problem with men being portrayed in the same manner. So instead of excluding the content and pretending that it does not exist in our world, I would vote to include more men. After all, I prefer my gaming sessions to be uninhibited by conservative values.
Thanks! I actually completely agree with you. I exactly what you say, including being uninhibited by conservative values, but I know you're not the only person to have read my first post that way : \
The benchmarks for "Fanservice" seem to be very different for women and men. Is the consensus just that anything with large boobs serves as "hyper-sexualized" while nothing short of the hyper-specific type of male image that appeals to you personally will serve as "Fanservice" for the females?
Certain types appeal to different people more than others. I personally don't like the bishie-boys that Mikaze has mentioned, but that's okay and I can still recognize it as appealing and sexy to people who are not me. The point is as I described earlier; is the intent to make the character sexy, or is it simply incidental? Some body parts, like boobs, have strong sexual connotations, regardless of what they're attached to (like a crazy skeleton chick like Urgothoa), while others (male chests) do not have the same connotations unless attention is specifically drawn to them in that way (say, a "pec-window" in Ezren's , the iconic wizard, tunic; completely superfluous and unnecessary, specifically done to highlight a part of his body and nothing else).
There are quite a few beastiary entries, particularly regarding the all-female creatures I listed that were introduced opposite the fossegrim, that are clearly meant to make the female creature sexy and/or imply actual nudity. Other than the fossegrim, there aren't male equivalents.
These are all things stated in the OP of this thread and I, frankly, feel like this is the OP projecting an agenda onto Paizo with wild generalizations that are not true.
I certainly am not the demographic they're targeting with Sajan's rippling abs, Ezren's piercing eyes, or the fact that Valeros looks like a cross between Kevin Sorbo and a scruffy Keanu Reeves, and Seltyiel is pretty much every Twilight junky's wet dream. I think it's inaccurate, and possibly disingenuous, to claim that women are always sex objects but men never get that treatment.
Moreover, new seductress creatures, like the jorogumo (attractive spider woman specifically mentioned to copulate with human males), huldra (attractive woman with a wooden hole in her back), and the lampad (underground nymph) are all new additions that expand on the theme of "female seducer creature", while there still isn't a new one male. Add to that things like adding a half-succubus template to an int-based archvillain who worships a giant insect - much less the creation of a half-succubus template when alu-fiends already exist - suggests that there is continuous expansion of, and elaboration upon this "beautiful female seducer" still without anything given to the other side... ... but the Bestiary 4 added the Swanmay, Lampad, Vouvire, 3 mew types of hag, the Huldra, Rokurokubi (again explicitly mentioned to take human male lovers), Oceanids, Leanan Sidhe, and the changeling (which has been discussed before in the thread, I know). That's compared against the fossegrim (whose only blurb is he "enjoys drowning people"). It's not exactly closely balanced if the only three male creatures people can continuously cite are the same 3, spread across 4 beastiaries with that kind of ratio. And there's no sexually dimorphic race favoring the male side, which isn't even ancient myth.
This wasn't addressed to you originally, but I feel it's similar:
... provide me with one, single example of a male pathfinder deity needing to cover his privates due to nudity, if you think that men are so sexualized. Additionally, feel free to provide a single instance of a male species lusting over/in sexual subservience towards/any species described by their sexual relations with women/non-hetero partners, instead of in the strict context of how they interact with straight males.
HaHA! I can't imagine a more perfect example of how different the context of "shirtless male being incidentally attractive" and "clearly meant to emphasize the body" are!
Personally, I do think that Sajan and Seltyiel are both very attractive. However, despite their 'revealing" outfits, male chests - especially bare male chests in the context of "two male melee fighters" is not sexual. As unfair as it may seem to some people, they're not done with the intent of making their bodies sexual objects.
Here's an example: Female! Sajan dresses exactly the same. Pants above her hips, little strange arm... booties... whatever, and goes around shirtless - but with breast-bindings that completely cover her upper chest, leaving no pronounced cleavage, no exposure above OR below, and in short, making her look completely non-sexualized in that area. That someone might still find her attractive is incidental: she is effectively dressed as-expected for an NPC of her type (that being a melee-intensive monk).
Merisiel's boob-window is out of place, both in the context of the character and her outfit. She is dressed in otherwise unremarkable dark leathers that are tight, but not-particularly so. Having her boob window is like turning Sajan's pants into leg-booties similar to those on his arm and just giving him some nice blue undies to keep the goods from spilling out (not that I would ever complain in any way about that, though I know I'd be the dissenting opinion). Booby/booty windows, so long as it's even somewhat equal, I'm cool with it.
That's not to say that male chests can't be sexualized - as Pres Man already helpfully illustrated - but rather that they require slightly more context in order to do so, unlike female anatomy. Seoni displaying magnificent cleavage is magnificent cleavage first, always, regardless of situation. Seltyiel's vest torn open due to a fireball is simply him taking armor damage. There is no attention to his body. Seltyiel pulling open his vest for no reason other than to pull it open, however, is emphasis on the beauty of his body. Significant difference between representation of the two sexes. Sometimes, yes, it is very unfair, but that is the context of the society we live in.
You may not appreciate the beauty of Seltyiel or Sajan, but their attractiveness is incidental to the fact that they're both melee/physically-oriented classes and showing off strong bodies is meant to convey that. Male chests just don't have the same sexual connotations as breasts do, which is why male chests are acceptable in public and breasts are not. Also, if you think a "piercing stare" is the sexiness equivalent of a chick rocking great cleavage and excellent bare legs... I mean, you should then state that Iomadae and Nocticula are being "equally sexy" there.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may not appreciate the beauty of Seltyiel or Sajan, but their attractiveness is incidental to the fact that they're both melee/physically-oriented classes and showing off strong bodies is meant to convey that. Male chests just don't have the same sexual connotations as breasts do, which is why male chests are acceptable in public and breasts are not. Also, if you think a "piercing stare" is the sexiness equivalent of a chick rocking great cleavage and excellent bare legs... I mean, you should then state that Iomadae and Nocticula are being "equally sexy" there.
If the table-talk of my sister and her entourage of lady-friends is any indication, you are dead wrong on this. The things they say about some sexy pecs and ab muscles outweigh any sort of commentary on breasts made by my male companions, both in frequency and in provocativity.
"Good abs make bad girls", "He should be nicknamed Cambell's because he's MmmMmm-good", "I see his chest and I forget to breathe", etc.
Also, you're wrong on a few other levels as well. Seltyiel is a dex-based character. His character sheet lists him at only a slightly above average Strength (12). Meanwhile Ezren who has a slightly below average Strength and is an older fellow, is also a sexy muscled Dos Equis guy with a staff.
Finally, the unacceptability to bare your female-breasts is just pure old fashioned sexism that's become ingrained in our society, and the good news is that it's fading away. There are a number of states in the US that have no laws against women walking around without covering their chests, including (to my knowledge) Iowa and New York. Meanwhile a bit further south, there is a common standard for businesses and other locations to post "No shirt, no shoes, no service", which applies for both sexes (some dude walks in without a shirt means he gets turned away; whether that's a good idea or not is a different matter).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry... but if Seltyiel and Sajan are out, then so are Seoni and Merisiel. They are not attractive. They have breasts. Of course, they are female, so it would be weird if they didn't. But, leather needs to breath and casters' robes need to allow free movement. So, in that context...
I love that subtlety, pose, expression, background, and even personality all play a role in masculine sexuality.
Apparently, all of us straight guys are sitting here slobbering, scratching our crotches, and shouting, "I like boobies!"
I have a choice in the matter.If contra-causal free will exists, I totally agree. However, that issue is not settled. If our brains simply take signals and tell us what to do, we actually don't have a choice. ** spoiler omitted **
Kirth makes some valid points I think. My friend Lacy (who is not a guy by the way) swears by the power of pheromone-laced scents, because she says there's an obvious and noticeable change in the way people around her act when she's wearing them, and my friend Kirsten has used similar products as well. The only reason these products exist is to increase the sexual arousal of someone you're interested in having sex with, in an attempt to sway their decisions about having sex with you, because if they aren't interested, this will help make them interested.
Which the very idea of is not unlike casting charm person to make them more pliable and likely to have sex with you, or even making the opposed Charisma check to make them do something they wouldn't normally do, which as per charm makes them choose to do (it's not really a choice but they don't realize that it wasn't). Whereas a dominate effect means that you're going to end up fully aware that you don't have any desire to have sex with the person you're having sex with, charms and cheating the biology are far closer in their uses.
And since there's some research that suggests that a lot of what makes us interested or not interested in having sex with people may have less to do with our free will than we think, it's not exactly an unfair suggestion. In either case you are using some form of coercion to get sex out of someone who would otherwise be uninterested.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I am not intentionally going to be flippant about male self image problems, because they do exist and it isn`t healthy. But more severely are female body image problems. It is near epidemic in our society. The unrealistic view of female body image is causing women to kill themselves literally, it is a horrible problem.
Young men commit twice as many suicides as young women. Your point is?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue strikes me as a bit of a Catch-22.
Paizo shows strong female characters in sex-positive roles without shaming. And that's bad for hypersexualizing females.
But if Paizo showed women devoid of sexuality they'd only be casting women into repressive virginal roles or presenting them as chase asexual figures.
Given APs and most related products are written by freelancers, this strikes me as an issue editors and developers might need to watch. The individual writers might not necessarily be as aware of the trends as the fans, thinking they're doing something different when they're really doing the opposite.
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything I would call Iomadae substantially more sexy. Nocticula isn't even a little sexy, she's "wanton". There's a difference.
And again, I think that your "shirtless muscled men isn't sexy because they're combat types" is you projecting your own prejudices upon the art. Seltyiel is a battered and abused figure who spent much of his life in prison. Those muscles are pure sexualization and completely unrealistic.
Similarly, monks are almost never beasts with layer upon layer of rippling muscle, they're mystics who spend as much time in meditation as they do performing exercises that prevent that kind of build-up of musculature and instead promote thinness of limb and enhanced mobility. Again, Sajan is an example of pure sexualization.
provide me with one, single example of a male pathfinder deity needing to cover his privates due to nudity, if you think that men are so sexualized.
How about Basiles, herald of Asmodeus. Or Zon-kuthon looking like the end of result of serious S&M taken way too far. Pretty sure he's wearing nothing but a leather vest, loin cloth, and nipple rings.
That's not to say that male chests can't be sexualized - as Pres Man already helpfully illustrated - but rather that they require slightly more context in order to do so, unlike female anatomy. Seoni displaying magnificent cleavage is magnificent cleavage first, always, regardless of situation. Seltyiel's vest torn open due to a fireball is simply him taking armor damage. There is no attention to his body. Seltyiel pulling open his vest for no reason other than to pull it open, however, is emphasis on the beauty of his body. Significant difference between representation of the two sexes. Sometimes, yes, it is very unfair, but that is the context of the society we live in.
So, women's breasts are always sexual, but male bodies are only sexual if they're in the middle of a strip tease? I know several women who would be horrified and angered by this assertion. This is the kind of thinking that starts the road that ends with "Well, she asked for what happened by dressing like that at a bar".
Women have boobs. Some larger than others, some smaller, but they are a fact of existence. Saying that their very existence is an example of artisitic exploitation of women is ignorant and neanderthalic, and actually argues against the points you're trying to make about sexual equality.I hope I'm not offending anyone by having this conversation. I'm just trying to be honest and have a frank discussion about a sensitive topic, and if I'm going to get involved in something I think it's impossible to have a real discussion without blunt honesty. Yes, I'm a guy, so maybe I'm not the one this thread was targeted at, but I think the views I'm espousing aren't just representative of myself, but of most of the people I know, women included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a choice in the matter.If contra-causal free will exists, I totally agree. However, that issue is not settled. If our brains simply take signals and tell us what to do, we actually don't have a choice. ** spoiler omitted **
Irrelevant. I don't care what caused someone to not consent -- it's still not okay to override their consent.
Irrelevant. I don't care what caused someone to not consent -- it's still not okay to override their consent.
I totally agree with your statement. No one is saying it is. What I'm saying is that the source of that consent is itself suspect.
Irrelevant. I don't care what caused someone to not consent -- it's still not okay to override their consent.I totally agree with your statement. No one is saying it is. What I'm saying is that the source of that consent is itself suspect.
Which is utterly irrelevant to whether we have male seduction monsters that aren't rapists, because in a game, where there are no actual pheromones floating around, a player's choice to say yes or no without being compelled is what's important.
Ms. Price, I'm not tryng to be hostile here, only to encourage people to look at other points of view. I'm not even sure I'm right -- but by the same token, I'm not sure everyone else is, either. For example, assuming that humans have a magical agency that overrides all of the physical and chemical workings of the brain seems very much like a religious view, to me.
so wait does this mean that axe body spray makes my decisions for me because of pheromones
in that case, I am going to warn everyone to use old spice instead
For the record, and to clarify, I agree that the player should always control his or her character -- unless the character is otherwise being controlled or coerced. So, yeah, Player A should totally be able to say "My character ignores his awesome smell" -- unless that smell functions like a special ability that forces a save (which would be realistic, maybe, but not at all good for the game). I wouldn't necessarily be sure I'd blithely call the latter a "rape monster ability," because I think that ignores the horrific trauma of actual physical rape. I would consider it an ability that deprives the player of a large amount of agency in a very sensitive subject area, which I would absolutely not want to do.
I think it bears pointing out that we're not making a distinction between meta-narrative events (skill rolls, spells, anything with an effect described in the rules text) and narrative events (trigger warnings required) at present in this conversation.
Edit: To clarify, the rules just work the way the rules work, but the GM should know her play group well enough to suit the narrative to their preferences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
do you see 'instantly gets their bone on' anywhere on these list tables
or just
Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.