RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I pretty much used my "i know it when i see it" definition. Just as with pornography vs. erotic art, that is a very subjective distinction. Therefore, without trying to justify each and every decision:
Cover image: The chosen angle seems to maximize the amount Seoni's breast visible, they more or less "pop into the viewers face". In addition, the several times overarched back looks a little to close to some pinup poses, and her hips... well, lets just say it would have been a good idea to find some kind of angle where the impractical dress of Seoni was not quite as prominent. ;)
Off on a tangent: I think there was one or two images of Seoni not tagged as suggestive, but it was strongly a minority. It might have something to do with the decision to have her wear about 3 square feet of cloth ;) Not saying that i disagree absolutely with that kind of dress (She's hot), but i call it as i see it.
Regarding p70, i do not deny that it tingles the "femme fatale" / seductress angle. I was not so concerned with the context, merely the count of what appears how frequently. Just what this kind of picture means is an even thornier subject, and i think social scientists are still bashing in each others heads over it, so i doubt we can solve it on this thread. Regarding not tagging the male devil as suggestive, i must admit i thought about it, but decided against it for several reasons. First, the devil is not drawn to be a particularly attractive being. Mountains of muscle, but not really in any well-proportioned way. Secondly, he is far from the focus of the picture, that is very clearly the "kiss of death" in the foreground. Thirdly, the pose with burning, clenched fists is not any kind of "come here", but rather repulsing and warding off.
And no, i did not do that count at work. I did it waiting for my tabletop group to arrive after announcing a "slight delay"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I would agree with Galbraithe -- whether I want to or not -- that counting suggestive poses is far too subjective. Also, as images of women are sexualized by a society that hypersexualizes them, a man and woman in the same pose would be categorized differently.
I used a much blunter tongue-in-cheek count which was either 'fully-clothed' or 'naughty-naughty' (which included pretty much all your other counts).
In the end, we have both come up with similar results.
As for Galbraithe's question of what "this sort of Wethhamian [sic] counting" can do, it can clarify what people are talking about and give grounds for dismissal of the claim that Pathfinder is ridden with sex-kitten cheesecake images. Other than Seoni, it just ain't there.
A lot of the bile earlier in this thread was because people were throwing abstracts at each other. This little count makes it a little more concrete.
Besides, counting stuff lowers testosterone levels making men more docile and agreeable, something this thread needed. I have no scientific proof of the counting/testosterone relation but look at every television depiction of an accountant ever. Television wouldn't lie to us, would it?
I would agree with Galbraithe -- whether I want to or not -- that counting suggestive poses is far too subjective. Also, as images of women are sexualized by a society that hypersexualizes them, a man and woman in the same pose would be categorized differently.
I used a much blunter tongue-in-cheek count which was either 'fully-clothed' or 'naughty-naughty' (which included pretty much all your other counts).
In the end, we have both come up with similar results.
As for Galbraithe's question of what "this sort of Wethhamian [sic] counting" can do, it can clarify what people are talking about and give grounds for dismissal of the claim that Pathfinder is ridden with sex-kitten cheesecake images. Other than Seoni, it just ain't there.
A lot of the bile earlier in this thread was because people were throwing abstracts at each other. This little count makes it a little more concrete.
Besides, counting stuff lowers testosterone levels making men more docile and agreeable, something this thread needed. I have no scientific proof of the counting/testosterone relation but look at every television depiction of an accountant ever. Television wouldn't lie to us, would it?
<throws second bucket of water on Tarren Dei>
Sorry. Thought you were a doppleganger when you agreed with Galbraithe. lol.
Actually the societal context point is a cornerstone to our debate. We look at images through colored lenses. Gailbraithe's link to the Wethhamian [sic] history points this out nicley. Especially when you consider the timeline 1954 and McCarthyism. Fear mongering was widespread. Today the power of sexual images is heightened by the vast number of mediums in which we view them. It's easy to become numb to images so the art has to be eye-catching. Even to the point of being impractical.
We can look at the same images and react quite differently than the person next to us. Breaking those images down to scientific levels is challenging, but can be done to a certain degree.
Paizo is doing a good job with this ... providing beautiful images of many Scantily Clad Females.
... but they need to do more!
Paizo is doing a good job with this ... providing beautiful images of many Scantily Clad Females.
... but they need to do more!
I can't wait for the genius-INT Intellect Devourer shot - the one with the brain cracking out the skull of a Scantily Clad Female's face, with horrified expressions on the iconics facing the baddie, perhaps in a mirror behind the female in question.
Better still, cracking out of Seoni's face! ^_^
(rolls to a complete stop)
(drools out of tear duct)
(...and rolls onto the next thread)
Well Jenny should have her Seoni costume soon..that should keep a lot of people happy.
Well Jenny should have her Seoni costume soon..that should keep a lot of people happy.
I know I'll be happy to be done working on it! :P
Constitution check to avoid non-lethal damage:
BEST THREAD EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
What we need is a swimsuit edition. One that doesn't discriminate against gender, race or species (displacer beast in a thong).
Of course, for the prudes, we need to only display strong female characters in the standard books (Seloni in a power suit).
For the homophobes, no scantily clad men in the standard books (gladiators wear censored bars).
I think that should do it ;>
Well Jenny should have her Seoni costume soon..that should keep a lot of people happy.I know I'll be happy to be done working on it! :P
Constitution check to avoid non-lethal damage: 1d20 + 5
Git wit it! Git wit it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why was necromancing this post necessary?
You know, in the recent female gamers thread in "Gamer Life," there was a poster who was talking about how threads like this kept her largely lurking here rather than participating.
As I was all, "No, really, Paizo's very female friendly, they'd never REALLY talk about something that talked about women in a demeaning manner and get away with it."
Thanks for making me look like an ass, guys.
And to be fair, the thread as a whole isn't just talking about women in the demeaning manner, we also get people trying to stop it--and then we get the flamewar that ensued. Joy.
For the record, I'm ALL for a bit of cheesecake, female and male alike, but I don't usually feel the need to announce this to the rest of the universe, because I care about whether someone (of any gender identity or background, etc.) would take it the wrong way and therefore feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in this community.
I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell for this because I'm a horrible killjoy and I ruined gaming forever and why am I, an icky cooties-bearing girl (oh, and a "prude" because let's stay classy here :P ), here anyway, but I just had to say it. Deal.
Why was necromancing this post necessary?
No, it probibly wasn't. ;)
Thanks for making me look like an ass, guys.
We felt that part was a public service. ;D
Why was necromancing this post necessary?
You know, in the recent female gamers thread in "Gamer Life," there was a poster who was talking about how threads like this kept her largely lurking here rather than participating.
As I was all, "No, really, Paizo's very female friendly, they'd never REALLY talk about something that talked about women in a demeaning manner and get away with it."
Thanks for making me look like an ass, guys.
And to be fair, the thread as a whole isn't just talking about women in the demeaning manner, we also get people trying to stop it--and then we get the flamewar that ensued. Joy.
For the record, I'm ALL for a bit of cheesecake, female and male alike, but I don't usually feel the need to announce this to the rest of the universe, because I care about whether someone (of any gender identity or background, etc.) would take it the wrong way and therefore feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in this community.
I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell for this because I'm a horrible killjoy and I ruined gaming forever and why am I, an icky cooties-bearing girl (oh, and a "prude" because let's stay classy here :P ), here anyway, but I just had to say it. Deal.
I'm the guilty party. I was having fun with an 'alias'. I was blindly (?) going through certain threads at random based on a search queue, so it's not like female threads got targeted on its own. :P
I would rather play a loin-cloth clad, muscles rippling barbarian than a Plate armored fight if I could get a decent AC out of it. If I could get a hold of a loincloth +5 AC and ditch the shield for a codpiece +2 I would!
[threadjack] why are northern barbarians so often depicted as clad in loincloths -such as Conan- it's COLD up there! [/threadjack]
Bracers of Armor and a 20 Dex...
Meh.
I like my women smart and smartly dressed.
A truly attractive woman is one that can be covered almost entirely in clothing and still make you nervously adjust your collar.
Why was necromancing this post necessary?
You know, in the recent female gamers thread in "Gamer Life," there was a poster who was talking about how threads like this kept her largely lurking here rather than participating.
In fact, this was the specific thread I was thinking of when I posted that...
As I was all, "No, really, Paizo's very female friendly, they'd never REALLY talk about something that talked about women in a demeaning manner and get away with it."
Thanks for making me look like an ass, guys.
Nah, you don't look like an ass. I wouldn't take behavior you have no part in as a reflection on you personally in any case. :)
I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell for this because I'm a horrible killjoy and I ruined gaming forever and why am I, an icky cooties-bearing girl (oh, and a "prude" because let's stay classy here :P ), here anyway, but I just had to say it. Deal.
For what it's worth, *I* appreciate you speaking up about this. But you probably knew that already.
Thanks, Lindisty. :)
I am sure one of my ancestors was a troll and I love argument and debate as much as the next sentient being.
This thread runs in circles, neither side is willing to give the other a millimetre (I dont work in inches - inches are for people with 6 digits on each hand).
Lets let it rest in peace.
Ah, cheesecake. Good AND good for you!
|
Why was necromancing this post necessary?
You know, in the recent female gamers thread in "Gamer Life," there was a poster who was talking about how threads like this kept her largely lurking here rather than participating.
As I was all, "No, really, Paizo's very female friendly, they'd never REALLY talk about something that talked about women in a demeaning manner and get away with it."
Thanks for making me look like an ass, guys.
And to be fair, the thread as a whole isn't just talking about women in the demeaning manner, we also get people trying to stop it--and then we get the flamewar that ensued. Joy.
For the record, I'm ALL for a bit of cheesecake, female and male alike, but I don't usually feel the need to announce this to the rest of the universe, because I care about whether someone (of any gender identity or background, etc.) would take it the wrong way and therefore feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in this community.
I'm sure I'll be flamed to hell for this because I'm a horrible killjoy and I ruined gaming forever and why am I, an icky cooties-bearing girl (oh, and a "prude" because let's stay classy here :P ), here anyway, but I just had to say it. Deal.
I'm the guilty party. I was having fun with an 'alias'. I was blindly (?) going through certain threads at random based on a search queue, so it's not like female threads got targeted on its own. :P
Please,.....please.
leave the threadniekrowmauncy to the experts.There are infinitely worse threads than this; I wouldn't want something untoward to happen.
Please,.....please.
leave the threadniekrowmauncy to the experts.
There are infinitely worse threads than this; I wouldn't want something untoward to happen.
Can't make any promises, but I'll make sure the eye rolls accordingly.
Now see, this one woulda been a friggin all I could eat buffet. :/
tsk tsk
more flesh in the art....
I don't think cheesecake art is necessary.
Look at the picture of Queen Ileosa on pg. 56 of 'Edge of Anarchy' or Lady Andaisin on pg. 55 of 'Seven Days to the Grave'. Both are fully clothed, yet beautiful.
tsk tsk
more flesh in the art....
+1.
With a caveat or two. I'm a guy but I can see things from both sides. I think women in art should be displayed as the way they are. I don't want to offend anyone bu this next statement but sorry to say ladies there are still plenty of women out there that fit the classic helpless maiden stereotype.
They happen to love it when they can shake a thing or two and get a man to act like a drooling fool willing to do whatever they say in order to get rewarded later(I'm not gonna bring up the pavlovs dogs) and if thats the type of woman the artist is trying to depict then she is going to be big busted and scantily clad.
Personally I'm with a few other folks on this thread in that we need more scantliy clad loin-clothed big muscled guys.
From what I remember most of the depictions of women in fantsy art have made sense. The classic sacraficial virgin,the powerfull witch,the amazon warrior, they all were scantily clad for diffrent reasons but they all made sense. the sacrafice for obvious reasons,who wants to go through a bunch of wrappings to get to the meat, the witch: armor messes up casting,silks are confortable. The amazon, lower upper body strength means less heavy armor, more reliant on dex. I can however in no way defend the red sonja chain mail bikini. I think I would laugh myself to tears if some woman took the feild against me in my 12 guage full plate and she wore nothing but chainmail with no padding underneath. Then again no marshall that wanted to keep his card would allow such a thing either.
Anyway I can see that some fantasy art an be taken as a touch sexist but to me by in large it is just something the artist dreamedup not a socio/political statement on western culture.
From what I remember most of the depictions of women in fantsy art have made sense. The classic sacraficial virgin,the powerfull witch,the amazon warrior, they all were scantily clad for diffrent reasons but they all made sense. the sacrafice for obvious reasons,who wants to go through a bunch of wrappings to get to the meat, the witch: armor messes up casting,silks are confortable. The amazon, lower upper body strength means less heavy armor, more reliant on dex. I can however in no way defend the red sonja chain mail bikini. I think I would laugh myself to tears if some woman took the feild against me in my 12 guage full plate and she wore nothing but chainmail with no padding underneath. Then again no marshall that wanted to keep his card would allow such a thing either.
Wait, let me see if I'm reading this right.
Are you saying that it's somehow accurate to portray scantily clad women warriors posed with their backs arched and their legs crossed with a full on pouty-lipped seductive stare while their male counterparts are usually posed in ways that emphasize their strength and combat prowess rather than their sexuality? Do you know women who behave that way in combat? I don't. Why would a female warrior wear less protective armor and be more seductive on the battlefield than a male warrior? Likewise, are you suggesting that a female wizard would, of course, wear robes that barely cover her 'assets' while her male counterpart is usually covered from neck to feet? I'm afraid I don't understand this, either. Why would a female wizard wear more revealing robes than a male wizard? Neither of these examples make any sense to me.
And how does it make sense to have women portrayed as sacrificial victims more than men are, unless one thinks it's normal for women to be victims and men to be heroes? The sexism inherent in that version of 'normality' seems fairly apparent to me.
Anyway I can see that some fantasy art an be taken as a touch sexist but to me by in large it is just something the artist dreamedup not a socio/political statement on western culture.
I tend to think that it's a reflection of the socio-political reality of western culture. Sexism is alive and well in our culture, based on my life experiences, and fantasy art just reflects that mindset in a graphical format. Not that we haven't made great strides toward improvement, both in the real world and in the portrayal of more competent, non-hypersexualized women in fantasy art, but there's still a long way to go, IMO.
|
|
There are two sides to this debate and though I know I'll be flamed from both sides but I'll say it anyway.
Women throughout history have been depicted as second class citizens by societies. Why? Mainly because they are physically weaker than men. Societies of the past have with a few exceptions been patriarchal, and women's roles in them have never been considered equal with that of men, even though some might argue that child-rearing and keeping the home are actually more important, than going out and hunting food or what have you. I argue that both roles were equally important, even though society has not considered it so. Men are naturally more aggressive than women - though in my household that point is debatable ;) - and thus with strength of body could dominate the fairer sex.
Only recently have things changed for the better, with the women's movement and feminism etc. Women have started to become emancipated from their old stereotypes and have been enabled to do just about most things guys can do. Guy's may argue, well only we can do physical labor, true to an extent, but a lot of manual work is now mechanized, and men cannot go through labor (i.e. bear the next generation), so I would say that evens things out. Unfortunately there is still a ways to go with emancipation for women, and we ain't there yet.
Gaming has been a guy thing for a long time and our game has in the past been guilty of portraying women in the two basic stereotypes; the helpless virgin and the evil witch. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that girls, in the past, have not been interested in RPGs. You see it's simple. We all want to be taken seriously for who we are, we do not want to be objectified or stereotyped or anything like that because it is simply dehumanizing. Boys and girls both need role models as they grow up. If I was to be stereotyped as a knuckle dragging lunk, or a violent criminal, or a sexual predator then I might feel rebellious too, yet there are certain men that fit the character. Just as there are women that fit the character of dizzy helpless bimbos or conniving b%@%~es. But that is not all men and it is certainly not all women, it is a tiny subclass of the myriad of different personalities men and women take.
So I am pleased that RPGs nowadays depict women in strong roles alongside men and that Paizo and Wizard's use both he and she as third person pronouns in their texts. I like the fact that women have taken up gaming for its own sake, and have found enjoyment in it's many opportunities to develop character skills and life skills alongside the fun element which goes without saying. I like that I have women gamers in my group, and I like the fact that the guys don't feel threatened by women gamers. It's all for the good, and everyone enjoys themselves cooperating together as a group of individuals, respecting each others differences.
I also think that guy's in general are getting more relaxed about themselves as well, they are no longer the slaves of the patriarchal system either. They no longer have to fit in specific manly roles any more. Women's emancipation has benefited men tremendously and we often forget that. When we free the majority of human beings (i.e. women) then we free ourselves.
I like scantily clad women too, and I know women who like scantily clad hunks as well. So long as we maintain respect for each other, learn to celebrate our dfferences and our sexuality then we are winning. But as we have not achieved this Utopia yet, it is understandable why some women might object to certain depictions of them - they don't want all that they have achieved dragged backwards fifty years. I don't think it will happen in the West, because all of our psyches have changed and are continuing to change. Nevertheless we need to continue to enforce positive role models for women. So let's have some context. Simply drawing pictures of buxom lasses in nothing but a thong in an arctic setting is kind of ridiculous, and I've seen pictures like that. But let's not forget that women and men find each other sexually attractive and deal with it in a grown up fashion, instead of getting bent out of shape over one or two lurid pictures, lets focus on the entire context. If the whole context seeks to objectify or dehumanize women then its a step back, if it isn't and there's plenty of reciprocal pictures of guys in less than full dress, and if its appropriate to the context, then there shouldn't be a problem.
We're all supposed to be intelligent people here. It's as simple as this, women will be what they wish to be, just like men will be what they wish to be. But provided neither gender does something that is illegal then society has no right to judge.
There are two sides to this debate and though I know I'll be flamed from both sides but I'll say it anyway.
This thread is supposed to be a joke. A sarcastic joke.
Those who take this thread seriously need their heads examined, because they are looking for a fight!
This is a fun thread designed to poke fun at old depictions of scantily clad women. Take your attitudes and your arguments elsewhere! Thank you.
|
|
There are two sides to this debate and though I know I'll be flamed from both sides but I'll say it anyway.
This thread is supposed to be a joke. A sarcastic joke.
Those who take this thread seriously need their heads examined, because they are looking for a fight!
This is a fun thread designed to poke fun at old depictions of scantily clad women. Take your attitudes and your arguments elsewhere! Thank you.
No. Get over yourself. Obviously some people didn't get the sarcasm, so your joke is kinda on you. Flame away tough guy ;)
|
|
I like scantily clad women. I do not see the harm in seeing them portrayed in light armor if that. Not evryone is in full plate. Gandalf, Aaragorn and Legoals were all depicted in Fellowship with no armor and survived. A female fighter would not sit there and toe to toe with a man, giant, dragon, whatever. She would be crushed. She would use mobility and footwork whenever possible.
If armor is so important, then how do you explain soldiers surviving battles after gunpowder comes into play. There are many swashbuckling epics that have heroes in little or no armor whatsoever. The three musketeers, Jack Sparrow, Zorro and many others come to mind.
You can have an attractive female character that is scantily clad and still be considered a threat. She may rely more on dodge, mobility and spring attack than power attack or cleave but it can definitly be done.
I like scantily clad women. I do not see the harm in seeing them portrayed in light armor if that. Not evryone is in full plate. Gandalf, Aaragorn and Legoals were all depicted in Fellowship with no armor and survived. A female fighter would not sit there and toe to toe with a man, giant, dragon, whatever. She would be crushed. She would use mobility and footwork whenever possible.
I don't recall Gandalf, Aragorn, or Legolas being dressed in a skimpy or scantily clad outfit.
Also, the same logic could apply to men (why again would a woman be crushed while standing toe to toe with a man?). Ergo, all artwork of men will now have them depicted in leather thongs; I'm sure the fangirls of Valeros will be pleased to know. This one line validates the entire thread, I think.
If armor is so important, then how do you explain soldiers surviving battles after gunpowder comes into play. There are many swashbuckling epics that have heroes in little or no armor whatsoever. The three musketeers, Jack Sparrow, Zorro and many others come to mind.
Plot armor.
Incidentally, they musketeers were a used guns. They were called the MUSKETEERS for god's sake.
You can have an attractive female character that is scantily clad and still be considered a threat. She may rely more on dodge, mobility and spring attack than power attack or cleave but it can definitly be done.
There's a difference between light armor and HEY GUYS LOOK AT THESE BIG OL' BITS. Leather armor wasn't form fitting, it wasn't sexy, it wasn't cleavage exposing. It was horrible, smelly, lice infested, and bulky.