<====Owned.
Does that say "all men"?
Girl gamer here. Things like the cover to Curse of the Crimson Throne Ch. 1 make my heart happy. It's a little thing to most of you, but it's a big deal to me. A little cheesecake here and there is okay but please don't go back to the bad old days. It really does make a big difference in making the hobby welcoming for girls.
QFT.
Exactly. I'd like to keep it that way for my girls.
Paizo really is cool and I like the Paizo girls as they are. You ladies probably realize this, but if you don't I'm pretty sure that a lot of the posts in here are made tongue in cheek. We love women and this is our tactless way of saying it.
Please don't let us offend you, but rather revel in the worship!
Owned.
Does that say "all men"?
*gives a muffin* :P
|
actually, I stand corrected. The swimsuit spread for the PFRPG Alpha chapter was insiping - and finally answers that age-old question for each race - "boxers or briefs?"Or Skirts, thankfully they convinced the half orc not to go commando.
Mmm...the Gnome girlie. I just love short girls with funny-colored hair. My 'Lidda Crush' has finally been replaced.
-Uriel
|
|
For everyone grumbling about the embarrassment factor in your game...
I play Confrontation (Miniatures game), and just imagine trying to explain to the mother of a suddenly *very interested* 12 year old at a game's demo that you have the Fiannas in your army because they are a great unit...
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/liste_produits.cfm?type=513&co de_lg=lg_us&num=9
(Too tired to *Link*, sorry)
Ok, they aren't really that great of a unit, and several of our players have asked Nick (The guy who plays them) to tone it down a bit for the kiddies...
At least my Orcs don't have any 'Warrior-Babes', that would look...er, not right.
-Uriel
For everyone grumbling about the embarrassment factor in your game...
I play Confrontation (Miniatures game), and just imagine trying to explain to the mother of a suddenly *very interested* 12 year old at a game's demo that you have the Fiannas in your army because they are a great unit...
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/liste_produits.cfm?type=513&co de_lg=lg_us&num=9
(Too tired to *Link*, sorry)
Ok, they aren't really that great of a unit, and several of our players have asked Nick (The guy who plays them) to tone it down a bit for the kiddies...
At least my Orcs don't have any 'Warrior-Babes', that would look...er, not right.
-Uriel
Wow. Just... wow. Why does the "soldier" have one foot behind the other like a 3 year old and the sword "hidden" behind her back? I mean, it's one thing to have a mini with that, uh, costume and body type, but usually they at least look like they're doing something.
Good example of what we're talking about.
|
I think "juvenile" and "pathetic" are the messages being sent, actually.
Then again, I'm not one for overt sexual objectification in my hobbies.
Some men are attracted to women, and I'm not aware of that being a crime quite yet. If the man was truly 'juvenile,' he would be too young to appreciate such things.
I've got a female friend who gets calendars of shirtless dudes, and I don't consider her juvenile or pathetic, but perhaps I'm just more tolerant than some.
|
This whole thread is one massive example of messageboard predictability.
The Original Poster makes some comment about needing more women to be objectified. Like chum to the sharks.
Dozen of male posters chime in to say they agree.
Later, a few posters comment that this objectification and the hobby doesn't need to tarnish itself with more of it. A few comments about having eye candy for both genders. Another comment about not needing any eye candy...
And we're here.
Same ol' thread played out hundreds of times.
And.. nothing will change. Not one thing. Editorial will not put in any extra scantily clad women than they do already. They won't take any out- because it sells. They'll stick to levels they are at right now.
Nothing will change. And nothing has been learned, other than no matter where anyone stands on this debate, we all salivate when the 'controversial thread' bell is rung.
Alternatively, this is a teachable moment.
You seem to have an idealized understanding of how advocacy and/or education work, which is that making your point once or even hundreds of times should do the trick, or else it's not worthwhile. As a teacher, I can tell you that the majority of the effect of education is gradual rather than dramatic and plays itself out over thousands of days.
In addition, you seem to mistake the notion that because sexism is prevalent, it is not fixable. Any look at history since Seneca Falls in 1886 would indicate that it is gradually fixable with a great deal of work. The fact that there are hundreds of threads like this indicates how important the task of fighting sexism is, not that it is hopeless.
Sexism, like poverty, may always be with us, but that does not make the fight meaningless. It makes it more meaningful.
Your world-weary post seems to think that we ought to fight only the fights that you can win, lest you get bored. Perhaps, instead, you should learn from Dungeons and Dragons: You should fight the fights that need...
funny no one said they wanted sexism in the RPGs either. I think people assume a lot and read into things more than exists. No one ever said that men are superior to women. Not once that I can see. Maybe I missed one.
|
|
I think "juvenile" and "pathetic" are the messages being sent, actually.
Then again, I'm not one for overt sexual objectification in my hobbies.
Some men are attracted to women, and I'm not aware of that being a crime quite yet. If the man was truly 'juvenile,' he would be too young to appreciate such things.
I've got a female friend who gets calendars of shirtless dudes, and I don't consider her juvenile or pathetic, but perhaps I'm just more tolerant than some.
Unfortunately it appears that some people do want it to be a crime. At the very least it appears to admit that you are attracted to women should be a crime.
Now, ironicly, if I had said more scantily clad men, I do believe no one would have objected... funny cause now that i think about it, the guys and dolls up front that DID say that never were villianized... seems sexism is a bit prejudiced. :) perhaps those villifying scantily clad females just prefer scantily clad men.
And this is my last bloody post on this topic. Too bad it is morally wrong to like women. Hope the rest of you get your scantily clad men.
I always feel such sorrow for these straw men, beaten to a pulp, their anguished cries unanswered, their feeble sobs unheard.
We need to form a coalition to Save Straw Men. Perhaps a nudie calendar could fund this new organization? Or would that just be photographs of bales of hay passively lounging about in revealing poses? And should they wear "daring" BDSM gear?
Paizo really is cool and I like the Paizo girls as they are. You ladies probably realize this, but if you don't I'm pretty sure that a lot of the posts in here are made tongue in cheek. We love women and this is our tactless way of saying it.
I get that that's true for some of the posters here, but it's good to get such things voiced. It's appreciated.
And, incidentally, I'm a man, baby!
And, incidentally, I'm a man, baby!
Nay, you're a mouse! And your best laid plans will go awry!!
Now, ironicly, if I had said more scantily clad men, I do believe no one would have objected... funny cause now that i think about it, the guys and dolls up front that DID say that never were villianized... seems sexism is a bit prejudiced. :) perhaps those villifying scantily clad females just prefer scantily clad men.
Ah. So now the father asking for parity, equality and restraint in representation is gay. Nice. Or perhaps you mean me, because I happen to agree with him?
I'm applying the principles of Stetson Kennedy's "Frown Power" campaign to gender. Basically, he got people to frown pointedly at racist jokes and speech to indicate that it's not funny and it's not socially acceptable. He argued that racism got a lot of its power from the every day support offered by ignorant people or people who didn't know the implications of what they were saying.
In short, asking for more boobies is not a crime. It's just lame and immature and sexist.
And I :-( at you.
|
|
I always feel such sorrow for these straw men, beaten to a pulp, their anguished cries unanswered, their feeble sobs unheard.
While the mocking and derision really adds to the tone of the thread, thanks for that, how is the argument a straw man, when it has been clearly stated that men who enjoy looking at women are 'juvenile and pathetic?'
And I notice you ignored the bit about scantily-clad males. Do you find Frazetta artwork or the covers of some of the John Carter novels to be degrading or objectifying towards men, or secret confirmation that the artist wants to subjugate men, just as picture of scantily-clad women have been decreed in this very thread to be a sign of men wanting to degrade or subjugate women? Or are they just dudes with no shirts on, showing off their muscles?
If it's acceptable for men to be comfortable with depiction of men, how do you, as a male, justify having to leap in and protect those poor helpless womenfolk from being exploited? Isn't this the 21st century, and shouldn't they be allowed to be offended on their own behalf, to decide what clothing they can and cannot wear, and whether or not their choice of attire says anything about 'what kind of woman they are,' without us leaping to protect them and tell them what they should think is offensive, like a Saudi husband telling his wife that letting another man see her ankle is dirty and wrong, and that she should be ashamed of her body? Because that's where this goes. First you tell the women (blacks, gays, whatever) what they should and shouldn't find offensive, and that leads, naturally, to telling them what they should and shouldn't be *doing* (well, obviously a woman who dresses like that doesn't respect herself, or is a tramp, or there's something wrong with her!) and saying and thinking.
Moralizing is moralizing. And *I* can't tell people what to wear, or what to find offensive, or whether or not they can decide, based on someone's dress, whether or not she's a trollop, but I can decide for myself that I'm above that sort of thing. I don't care for some clothing styles. I cringe when I see eight-year old girls wearing low-riders that show the world whether or not she's old enough to shave. I'm not a big fan of baggy jeans and guys showing off their @$$crack. But I'm not the one who gets to make their decisions for them. [And don't even get me started on hairstyles these days. Darn hippies! Get offa mah lawn!]
But I'm not gonna judge someone based on finding other people, or either or both genders, attractive, and liking to look at pretty pictures of them. It seems pretty darn healthy and natural to me, and repressing such things and trying to convince people that they should be ashamed or feel dirty or that they are sinners for appreciating the human body seems, again, to me, unhealthy.
I guess the short, short version is that I'm not going to judge a book by it's cover, whether it's a literal book from Paizo or a metaphorical book representing a person.
|
Girl gamer here. Things like the cover to Curse of the Crimson Throne Ch. 1 make my heart happy. It's a little thing to most of you, but it's a big deal to me. A little cheesecake here and there is okay but please don't go back to the bad old days. It really does make a big difference in making the hobby welcoming for girls.
My Monday night game for the last year and a half has been more women then men.
It took forever to find a figure for My fiancee's half-elf pirate/rogue that didn't suggest she was going to die from a boarding axe to the gut. Then there's the lesbian wood-elf...
and finding decent art work of female Dwarfs... Dear Gods...
My players want a game they can immerse themselves in, have fun in, and feel good in. Yes, this means there's a metric smurfton of sneak attacks coming from the aforementioned pirate, who is far more likely to stab you than let the city watch take you. It also means we've wandered around in brothels, dungeons, roman-style baths, and woods.
It's fantasy, but it's collaborative fantasy, and that means there must be a place for the loin cloth wearing eunichs, matriarchies, patriarchies, half named barbarian women, modest and reserved halfling cleric girls, pirate captains in leather armor that hate wearing a dress, dwarfs with chamber pot helmets, and poncy elf-men that are more worried about their hair and the shine of their mithril breastplate than whether that NPC was trying to take him home for the night.
~DW
|
|
I always feel such sorrow for these straw men, beaten to a pulp, their anguished cries unanswered, their feeble sobs unheard.While the mocking and derision really adds to the tone of the thread, thanks for that, how is the argument a straw man, when it has been clearly stated that men who enjoy looking at women are 'juvenile and pathetic?'
And I notice you ignored the bit about scantily-clad males. Do you find Frazetta artwork or the covers of some of the John Carter novels to be degrading or objectifying towards men, or secret confirmation that the artist wants to subjugate men, just as picture of scantily-clad women have been decreed in this very thread to be a sign of men wanting to degrade or subjugate women? Or are they just dudes with no shirts on, showing off their muscles?
If it's acceptable for men to be comfortable with depiction of men, how do you, as a male, justify having to leap in and protect those poor helpless womenfolk from being exploited? Isn't this the 21st century, and shouldn't they be allowed to be offended on their own behalf, to decide what clothing they can and cannot wear, and whether or not their choice of attire says anything about 'what kind of woman they are,' without us leaping to protect them and tell them what they should think is offensive, like a Saudi husband telling his wife that letting another man see her ankle is dirty and wrong, and that she should be ashamed of her body? Because that's where this goes. First you tell the women (blacks, gays, whatever) what they should and shouldn't find offensive, and that leads, naturally, to telling them what they should and shouldn't be *doing* (well, obviously a woman who dresses like that doesn't respect herself, or is a tramp, or there's something wrong with her!) and saying and thinking.
Moralizing is moralizing. And *I* can't tell people what to wear, or what to find offensive, or whether or not they can decide, based on someone's dress, whether or not she's a trollop, but I can...
YEAH!
Damn I'm back...
|
|
Random thought;
I like the PHB pictures of Ember. She's kinda scantily-clad, but totally practical, given her role. Seoni, on the other hand, not so much (I love Wayne Reynolds artwork, but he's got some quirks, like having many of his characters so loaded down with gear that they look like walking junkpiles! That and drawing all of his Warforged as size Large...).
|
|
Now, ironicly, if I had said more scantily clad men, I do believe no one would have objected... funny cause now that i think about it, the guys and dolls up front that DID say that never were villianized... seems sexism is a bit prejudiced. :) perhaps those villifying scantily clad females just prefer scantily clad men.Ah. So now the father asking for parity, equality and restraint in representation is gay. Nice. Or perhaps you mean me, because I happen to agree with him?
I'm applying the principles of Stetson Kennedy's "Frown Power" campaign to gender. Basically, he got people to frown pointedly at racist jokes and speech to indicate that it's not funny and it's not socially acceptable. He argued that racism got a lot of its power from the every day support offered by ignorant people or people who didn't know the implications of what they were saying.
In short, asking for more boobies is not a crime. It's just lame and immature and sexist.
And I :-( at you.
:) Sorry but didn't notice you objecting to scantily cald men just women... and nope never said anyone was gay, and so what (and why is being gay wrong)? Just implied some people don't mind having double standards to the sexes :)
And asking for more boobies is not lame, immature nor sexist, it is humorous, something unfortunately it appears most Paizoans lack. And btw still don't see how you guys get sexist out of it. Still looking for the posts where anyone said men are superior to women :)
Let's see, Paizo has had several scantily clad women in their books. Seoni, and Lavender, The Queen come to mind. Even Mammy *shudder* I never noticed not a single upset post about them...
But I still find it interesting no one has objected to scantily clad men :) Sounds like double standards on here to me :)
And asking for more boobies is not lame, immature nor sexist, it is humorous, something unfortunately it appears most Paizoans lack.
It's really only humorous if you're what's considered the "default" sex. Go Patriarchy! Womenfolk are for decoration!
Totally frownable as an attitude. But maybe I ought to just dive back into the Second Wave and leave gaming for the "real men."
|
|
And asking for more boobies is not lame, immature nor sexist, it is humorous, something unfortunately it appears most Paizoans lack.It's really only humorous if you're what's considered the "default" sex. Go Patriarchy! Womenfolk are for decoration!
Totally frownable as an attitude. But maybe I ought to just dive back into the Second Wave and leave gaming for the "real men."
:) So we have had a vote here for a superior sex but one was not specified.
And still a double standard :)
waiting for anyone, anyone at all who thinks scantily clad men are not all right, but I notice so far the double standard still rules :)
ahh hypocrisy I love it :)
|
|
It's really only humorous if you're what's considered the "default" sex. Go Patriarchy! Womenfolk are for decoration!
And, to repeat what has been asked several times, do you consider menfolk to also only be for decoration, when they appear scantily-clad in Frazetta posters? Do you think that the John Carter books are signs of the 'patriarchy' looking down at itself? Or is it only pathetic and juvenile when a woman is scantily-clad?
When someone tells you what is appropriate for a woman to be seen wearing, what is 'exploitive' or what is 'acceptable,' do you feel that this is *not* patriarchal or patronizing or someone trying to 'put you in your place?' 'Cause that's the way *I'd* feel, if someone came and told me that I had to wear X amount of clothing or cover a certain percentage of skin, or else people would think that I'm a naughty person, that the very *sight of my gender* is somehow wrong and offensive, and I should be perhaps hidden away in the kitchen, rather than out there in the public view, like everyone else, accepted for who I am.
Totally frownable as an attitude. But maybe I ought to just dive back into the Second Wave and leave gaming for the "real men."
There are plenty of places where the female body is not to be seen, perhaps covered under an all-concealing burqa. I'd rather avoid that sort of mentality myself and not see the female body (or male, for that matter) as shameful or sinful or something that has to be hidden away.
Some people say sex is bad. I say that they're doing it wrong.
Point = missed.
It's a beautiful thing.
I always feel such sorrow for these straw men, beaten to a pulp, their anguished cries unanswered, their feeble sobs unheard.While the mocking and derision really adds to the tone of the thread, thanks for that, how is the argument a straw man, when it has been clearly stated that men who enjoy looking at women are 'juvenile and pathetic?'
And I notice you ignored the bit about scantily-clad males. Do you find Frazetta artwork or the covers of some of the John Carter novels to be degrading or objectifying towards men, or secret confirmation that the artist wants to subjugate men, just as picture of scantily-clad women have been decreed in this very thread to be a sign of men wanting to degrade or subjugate women? Or are they just dudes with no shirts on, showing off their muscles?
If it's acceptable for men to be comfortable with depiction of men, how do you, as a male, justify having to leap in and protect those poor helpless womenfolk from being exploited? Isn't this the 21st century, and shouldn't they be allowed to be offended on their own behalf, to decide what clothing they can and cannot wear, and whether or not their choice of attire says anything about 'what kind of woman they are,' without us leaping to protect them and tell them what they should think is offensive, like a Saudi husband telling his wife that letting another man see her ankle is dirty and wrong, and that she should be ashamed of her body? Because that's where this goes. First you tell the women (blacks, gays, whatever) what they should and shouldn't find offensive, and that leads, naturally, to telling them what they should and shouldn't be *doing* (well, obviously a woman who dresses like that doesn't respect herself, or is a tramp, or there's something wrong with her!) and saying and thinking.
Moralizing is moralizing. And *I* can't tell people what to wear, or what to find offensive, or whether or not they can decide, based on someone's dress, whether or not she's a trollop, but I can...
Glad someone brought up Frazetta. Brings back many fond memories. [Note that I didn't say mammories. ;-)]
It's kind of a bummer that some have lost sight of the HUMOR element in the OP. The default argument of the lack of armor protecting female characters is the same as for men. Those characters rely on dexterity over armor. Plus if you're opponent is distracted by your figure their aim may be off enough that you can gut them.
Maybe this thread should be renamed to ... more scantily clad Smurfs. Everyone likes Smurfs.
Yes. Please. Moderators, lock and delete this thread.
It is not funny anymore. :(
|
|
BTW Roguerogue... I have the utmost respect for you. Do not think I am trying to attack you, ok. I'm not. In fact of every one who has responded you have more reason to respond like you did than anyone else. And your response is the one I have most respected.
My point (obviously poorly made) is that a woman, no matter how much or how little she is wearing is not a bad thing. Villifying a woman's body as nasty and should be covered up, is, to me a bad thing. A woman should have the freedom to choose how she looks, whether clad in armor or in loincloth. Taking away that choice and that association seems wrong and presumptive to me.
Then it hit me, the duplicity of the arguements. At first there was a wave of calls for scantily clad men. And not one person has YET to object. Anyone who is calling for equal treatment of the sexes must object to scantily clad men as well. Otherwise their argument is hollow and filled with hypocrisy.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And still a double standard :)waiting for anyone, anyone at all who thinks scantily clad men are not all right, but I notice so far the double standard still rules :)
ahh hypocrisy I love it :)
Hi, Krome. I can't speak for anybody other than myself, but I can tell you why I see a distinction between scantily-clad men and scantily-clad women. I see two reasons.
1) Purpose and intent. I suppose that Olympic swimmers are "scantily clad", and so are strip-tease dancers, but I don't have a problem distinguishing between the reasons for the near-nudity: athleticism versus titilation. TSR's infamous "butterfly-woman" calendar was all titilation, and unapologetically so. (Launching a protest by female employees of the company.) There's a difference between that, and, say, Ember the monk.
And I can't say I've seen any pictures of men with little clothing that are intented for titilation. When Pathfinder publishes the "cabana-boy" prestige class, I'll get offended, too.
2)Culture. The "Director's Couch" still exists. The notion that women need to be "hot" and "willing to play the game" to get ahead, the idea that it's okay for men to whistle and make obscene comments to "bodacious" women who walk past, the jury bias suggesting that sexual harrassment and stranger-rape are in part the victim's fault for just being "too pretty"; all of those notions still exist.
Being a man is pretty safe for me. Some men are sexually harrassed at work, but that's considered bizarre. For many women, it's just the way the world works, honey.
I can take a role-reversal "beefcake" pose in a game and not feel at all threatened by it. But if a young female gamer is getting hit on by her professors and T.A. at school, and dealing with crass comments every time she walks by bars downtown, how's about we not tell her that that's the way Golarion works, too, honey.
It is a double-standard, you're right. Our PC's can beat savage barbarians back to their traditional lands and keep civilization safe from their murderous depravations, but if the barbarians are pictured and described as Amerinds, that carries all the wrong resonances. If there's no reason for that description, it should be avoided. And I don't have any problem with that double standard.
Likewise, if the characters who prance around and pose provocatively are all young women (perhaps with funny-colored skin or pointy ears), and there's no reason for that, it should be avoided.
If you want to call that "hypocrisy," I can't stop you. But I disagree. And no smiley-icons.
Oy vey people.
*shakes head*
|
|
And still a double standard :)waiting for anyone, anyone at all who thinks scantily clad men are not all right, but I notice so far the double standard still rules :)
ahh hypocrisy I love it :)
Hi, Krome. I can't speak for anybody other than myself, but I can tell you why I see a distinction between scantily-clad men and scantily-clad women. I see two reasons.
1) Purpose and intent. I suppose that Olympic swimmers are "scantily clad", and so are strip-tease dancers, but I don't have a problem distinguishing between the reasons for the near-nudity: athleticism versus titilation. TSR's infamous "butterfly-woman" calendar was all titilation, and unapologetically so. (Launching a protest by female employees of the company.) There's a difference between that, and, say, Ember the monk.
And I can't say I've seen any pictures of men with little clothing that are intented for titilation. When Pathfinder publishes the "cabana-boy" prestige class, I'll get offended, too.
An April issue of Dragon several years featured a cabana-boy cover. Most issues of Conan, or any other barbarian-esque or fantasy book featured "cabana-boy" covers.
Want to get serious I'll get serious.
Women don't want to be harassed at work, do something about it. Wanna feel you are being treated equal to men, then act like it. I don't wanna hear "but I'm a woman being discriminated against." That is a crutch.
My business tanked a year ago for reasons beyond my control (my wife contracted cancer). I was desperate to keep it alive. I looked for grants to help me through (a female collegue was bragging how she got a grant for the next five years and really didn't even have to work anymore). I searched government and private sites. I found a LOT of grants for women (in fact there is a group here to help women entrepreneurs only), I found several for various minorities. But could not find one single grant for a white male in his late thirties to forties. Sounds like descrimination to me. But what the hell, I closed the business and didn't b~@@& about it. It is life.
You want me to take you serious, don't give me any of the *sniff sniff* "poor me crap". Are there jerks out there, yepo sure are. Deal with them, turn it around and make the sucker pay. Don't play the victim to me.
Historiclly women were descrminated against. And who taught us that? Boys were raised with their mothers during their formative years. The daughters too. Fathers often had nothing to do with children until they were older. So tell me who authored descrimination.
I know far more about this stuff than you think. I do not buy into the simple politiclly correct view that women are weaker and must be catered to and taken care of. Women are as strong as men and just as capable. You want that promotion, fight me for it, then I'll respect you. Same as for a man. Right now all my bosses are women, and I respect them because they earned it. They fought for it. Not only are they my equals, they are my superiors. Not one of them plays the *sniff sniff* "poor me" card.
So you can treat women as fragile and delicate and weak if you want to (and trust me your argument says just eaxactly that). I won't.
and no smilies.
|
|
Wanna know how much I know about this stuff?
As a child I watched my father beat the s&%$ out of my mom in a drunken stupor every weekend.
I swore I would NEVER lay hand on my wife and I will never do so.
Yet my mother never fought back except once (she would even wait for him to get home to beat her). After her beating, he laid down to go to sleep. She told him as soon as went to sleep she'd put an ice pick through his heart. He didn't sleep that night and never hit her again.
yeah I know all about what women have been through.
I also know they have the power to make change if they want to, if they will stand up and have the guts to do it.
So, don't cry victim to me. I have seen victimization and I have seen a victim stand up and FIGHT back.
You want respect in this world you earn it. That is how this world works. Maybe not "right" but that is the facts.
Nope your "poor little women have to be treated differently cause they are frail little women" doesn't hold any water here. If you want to keep them victims, go ahead. That is all that attitude does.
Damn, I hate being serious.
|
|
I entered this conversation in good humor and had fun with the whole "Scantily clad men and women" thing.
Then you want to jump on me for something that was meant as fun and humurous.
I am sorry that you guys lack any sense of humor. I am sorry you feel women are frail inferior and nasty things that must be shunned, hidden away and protected.
Mostly, I feel sorry for you.
Now. I am done with this topic. And I'll say a prayer for you all.
time to kill the thread.
a cooling off period is in order.
Ohh, that tickles!
<giggle>
Let the spell casting begin. Multiple spellcasting feat activated.
-Opens a pit beneath the Malevolent Blob-
-shoves popsickle stick into the jelly mass via fabrication-
-Casts freezing Sphere-
Mmmmm, blob sickle for those hot Vegas days. Mmmmmm.
|
|
Let the spell casting begin. Multiple spellcasting feat activated.
-Opens a pit beneath the Malevolent Blob-
-shoves popsickle stick into the jelly mass via fabrication-
-Casts freezing Sphere-
Mmmmm, blob sickle for those hot Vegas days. Mmmmmm.
You forgot that Blobs have a lower freezing point than water.
"NOM, NOM, NOM"
time to kill the thread.
a cooling off period is in order.
Let me get this straight, Emperor 7. Your response to a person describing how spousal abuse affects his views on gender and sexuality in gaming illustrations is TO TELL HIM TO SHUT UP?!!!
Krome deserves better than that from you.
And an apology.
I miss Mike McArtor. He had the very best art orders.
I still owe him for that classy "Class Acts" illustration of Lidda we got in the last issue of Dragon. You know the one. Page 116.
I'm not sure exactly what it is that I owe him, but it's something good.
time to kill the thread.
a cooling off period is in order.
Let me get this straight, Emperor 7. Your response to a person describing how spousal abuse affects his views on gender and sexuality in gaming illustrations is TO TELL HIM TO SHUT UP?!!!
Krome deserves better than that from you.
And an apology.
If Krome thinks I was out of line I'm definitely sorry. You should be able to tell from my previous posts that I saw (and enjoyed) the humor in his post. (Hence my earlier post pointing out that it was HUMOR.)
Unfortunately I also saw that OTHERS failed to see the humor and were baiting him. And it was working.
He's not alone with his experiences, but thankfully my own weren't to that level. He's also not alone in his sense of humor.
Since I haven't figured out how to PM him privately hopefully this will do, and to soothe any others (like yourself) who have misunderstood my intent at cooling things down/stopping the argument.
This post should not close.
Yes, it is getting a little heated. And yes, what started as a thread for humorous postings has become much more serious. But even with such heated discussions and arguments, and even with such differing viewpoints this post should remain open.
This post has metamorphisized into a place for exploration of the history of fantasy/sci fi art, the differing viewpoints of a plethora of D&D players and the future of artwork in said circles, especially at Paizo.
Some important questions are popping up here, obfuscated behind flairing opinions.
Is the pictation of women (or men) scantily clad for functional purposes permissable?
Indeed, is there even such a thing as "fuctional purposes"?
Is the pictation of women (or men) scantily clad for sensual or sexual purposes permissable?
Is the pictation of women (or men) as sexually aware beings (and dressing as such) permissable?
Personally, I believe the answers to all these questions to be yes. (Barring adult material; this is a product targeted to other age groups alongside adults.) Innuendo has always been a way of communicating such ideas in artwork that is unpercieveable to the younger ages (say 8 years old), suggestive to the middle ages (say, 12) and obvious to the older ages (16 and up). The vast majority of artwork in this medium (especially the iconics) pictate adults. And adults are sexual beings, regardless of personal beliefs, religion or practices. Even virgins are sexual beings, even if they are not sexually active. It is one of the truths of our existence. (For the record, I am an adult male, a christian and a virgin.) True asexuallism in adults is radically rare and all but a birth defect or mental illness.
Respect other posters and postings. Stay calm and polite. But don't be afraid to express your own opinions and reasons for such (respectively, of course). Follow these little pieces of wisdom and this thread can become a place for exploration of the human condition.
And a place for debate on scantily clad women and men. :)
This post should not close.
Yes, it is getting a little heated. And yes, what started as a thread for humorous postings has become much more serious. But even with such heated discussions and arguments, and even with such differing viewpoints this post should remain open.
This post has metamorphisized into a place for exploration of the history of fantasy/sci fi art, the differing viewpoints of a plethora of D&D players and the future of artwork in said circles, especially at Paizo.
Some important questions are popping up here, obfuscated behind flairing opinions.
Is the pictation of women (or men) scantily clad for functional purposes permissable?
Indeed, is there even such a thing as "fuctional purposes"?
Is the pictation of women (or men) scantily clad for sensual or sexual purposes permissable?
Is the pictation of women (or men) as sexually aware beings (and dressing as such) permissable?Personally, I believe the answers to all these questions to be yes. (Barring adult material; this is a product targeted to other age groups alongside adults.) Innuendo has always been a way of communicating such ideas in artwork that is unpercieveable to the younger ages (say 8 years old), suggestive to the middle ages (say, 12) and obvious to the older ages (16 and up). The vast majority of artwork in this medium (especially the iconics) pictate adults. And adults are sexual beings, regardless of personal beliefs, religion or practices. Even virgins are sexual beings, even if they are not sexually active. It is one of the truths of our existence. (For the record, I am an adult male, a christian and a virgin.) True asexuallism in adults is radically rare and all but a birth defect or mental illness.
Respect other posters and postings. Stay calm and polite. But don't be afraid to express your own opinions and reasons for such (respectively, of course). Follow these little pieces of wisdom and this thread can become a place for exploration of the human condition.
And a place for debate on...
Debate is fine. Baiting is not. That's what was going on. And some people think it appropriate to provoke others. Then take perverse pleasure in the result. Kinda like turning the forum into an online Jerry Springer/Dr. Phil ambush. Sad.
The human form has been represented in a multitude of ways over the centuries. Wrapping someone in armor hides that form and alters the experience. When I seem armor/equipment I think reality, unless it's an action scene with an awesome adversary.
Your points are good ones. I would add more - try to understand differing POVs before replying and take a bit of time before doing so. Especially when things are heated.
Scantily clad Smurfs are fair game though! ;-)
Game on!
|
And since the post is still open, I'm happy to post my thoughts.
A little cheese or a little beef is fine by me. Paizo has done a good job of showing characters dressed appropriately for thier occupation. So, women with full plate should be depicted in Paizo products and are depicted in Paizo products. And men in full plate are represented as well.
Men in loin cloths and women in little more than loin cloths can and should be represented as well. Sure, not every woman needs to be the paragon of female beauty and dressed in a way to reveal every detail of her anatomy, but neither should every woman be wearing a long dress/high neck line or other 'covering' garb.
Fantasy should have more attractive people than real life - or at least I don't have a problem with that. If you look through other magazines, you'll see more attractive people than ugly people. It's a fact that people prefer looking at attractive people. A fat person with warts might have the whitest teeth on the planet, but people may not notice it in a Crest commercial because those physical traits attract attention away from the trait to be emphasized - in this case white teeth.
So, having attractive women (and men) isn't a problem. Having all women in submissive positions being saved by the man would be a problem, but that isn't what I see anyone asking for. I'd like to see a few more revealing pictures when it fits with the adventure. I'm far more in favor of scantily clad women who are attractive than more Mammy Graals.
And I don't think I'm juvenile or immature. The art is an important part of conveying the 'sense' of the place. And Golarion is a place where women do have an equal shot as a man, and a woman can be attractive and show herself off without being relegated to life as a harlot. The art should reflect that. Essentially, we should have a modern take on the art, rather than a medieval one. The characters in art in Pathfinder products shouldn't have to be held to a higher standard than the photographs in US Weekly (or some other periodical I don't read that focuses on modern celebrities).
That is okay as far as our culture goes, and when done in a way that emphasizes the important role that these women play in the world, that is a way of including women as well. Whether a woman is attractive or not, she should be able to feel a connection to the world because of a role for strong women. I don't feel I have to look as good as the men in Pathfinder to find it appealing to me.
Sure, it can go too far and 'objectify women', but I think I can trust Paizo to show a little skin without doing so. So, I'll join others in asking for a little more cheese if you can find a way to do so and remain appropriate to the story.
|
|
At the same time, we should encourage and even demand art that protrays the "average-" or "below average-" attractive person as adventurers/heroes. After all, not all male firefighters are "beefy hunks", and not all women who drive their kids to soccer are "hawt". Normal people are the bulk of the population.
Since adventurers (in most cases) make their mark by sword and wits, the majority of adventurers should be average looking schmoes, with the occasional obese/lanking/pimply-faced/etc person. After all, people make fun of Bill Gates all the time, but the fact is he has money and power and his looks didn't get him that - the same can be said for most adventurers (with the occasional sorceress or bard who is a "sexy beast").
My Mongrelfolk Cloistered Cleric feels abandoned by the artistic community of RPGs. He is ugly as all-get-out, but he can talk you in circles and catch you in a lie quicker than anyone. Our party still can't get over that when we go to see a lord, the "face" is the guy who looks like Quasimodo and the Phantom of the Opera combined - but just like those characters, he has something else to offer. And if all else fails: flamestrike (last time I checked, attractiveness did not necessarily affect 99% of an adventurers ability, even a sorcerer can be ugly but charismatic).
So, let's end the real discrimination: keep the beefcake and cheesecake, but give us some ugly old apple pie* too!
*No other connotation intended other than common-ness.
Good points both!
Glad to see this thread evolving.
To add - Art is commonly meant to inspire, and to excite. How this is done varies greatly with subject matter. Strength commonly represented by brawn, courage by standing up to dragon, etc. In a fantasy world there is no end to subject matter. The halfling staving off a worg to protect his/her family with nothing more than a pitchfork. The druid blasting an owlbear to protect a new litter of wolf pups. The treasure hoard to be found at the end of a long struggle.
For me fantasy means being somewhat different than I am in real life. Whether it is being younger, looking like a body builder, living on the edge in an epic struggle of good vs. evil, taking a bold step into the unknown, etc. Fantasy art opens the door to those worlds.
|
|
And I don't think I'm juvenile or immature. The art is an important part of conveying the 'sense' of the place. And Golarion is a place where women do have an equal shot as a man, and a woman can be attractive and show herself off without being relegated to life as a harlot.
And that's my big beef with people who presume to tell others how to dress or what is appropriate to wear or be seen wearing.
The cultures in the really-real world that cover up their women also oppress them and teach them that they should neither be seen nor heard, and that the sight of their bare skin is a bad thing, a sign of promiscuity or 'sluttiness' or an invitation to any man that sees them to throw rocks at them (or far, far worse).
I don't feel comfortable judging people by how they dress, or suggesting that if a woman dresses to show some skin that she somehow 'deserves what's coming to her.' That sort of thinking is horrifically patriarchal and wrong (the sort of patriarchalism is that is currently being promoted by those who oppose any portrayal of women as *women,* made of skin and hair and flesh and bone, just like us menfolk, and not heavily-shrouded masses of black burqa who mind their place, don't talk in public and walk two steps behind), and it's not just an insult to women, but it's an insult to men, to suggest that we are all just animals, and the sight of a bare ankle is going to drive us into a frenzy of lust and that we 'can't help ourselves' because 'look how she was dressed, your honor!'
Indeed, I could even go so far as to suggest that this sort of 'logic,' that women need to cover up because 'men can't help themselves' or because revealing anything other than their eyes from behind a veil means something about what sort of person they are is 'juvenile and pathetic.'
It's all about the real-world for me. Cultures that hide women, because they are dirty or tainted with original sin or temptresses or hussies, are often (by my standards) beastly sorts of cultures with no respect for their women (indeed, they sometimes even seem *afraid* of their women, given how they refuse to educate them or allow them to own property or engage in any sort of legal contract), while the cultures that are most open and unashamed of their women, such as several western European nations, are the ones who have had women leaders and chancellors, as they are not afraid of, or ashamed of, the women among them, since they see more of them than just as black mobile objects hurrying along the sidewalk with their veiled faces downcast.
The progressive culture sees only fellow human beings, all flesh and blood and bone and breath, just like the rest of us. No mystery. No original sin. No forbidden temptations lurking beneath the all-concealing clothing. Nothing that needs to be hidden away, lest it tempt some honest man into sinful thoughts or sinful acts. Just another person, who happens to have bumpy stuff up top instead of dangly stuff in the trousers.
It's kinda weird that the strongest argument for the patriachy position that women should be covered up and wear only approved dress is coming from the first person in this thread to use 'patriarchy' as a pejorative. Men who think like that are not very supportive of women's rights to decide what they want to dress, or their position as equals, believing that they must be 'protected' somehow and their behaviors restricted so that they don't 'get themselves into trouble.'
Women who support that position, that the female body (and, all-too-often, the female voice) is something that needs to be hidden away or restricted, confuse me. It causes the same sort of disconnect for me that I got when I found out that a number of slaves chose to fight on the side of the Confederacy.
|
|
I know the Gor books. Who is Terry Goodkind and tell me more about Objectivism.
Terry Goodkind is the author of the Sword of Truth series of fantasy novels. The first book in the series, Wizard's First Rule, is a powerful novel that has a slightly generic premise but an incredibly original storytelling style and lots of unique twists. One of the reasons that Goodkind frequently gets mislabeled as misogynistic is because of the tendency of rape to creep into the novels as a threat against female characters. It's unpleasant, but with the sort of villains that the heroes face in the series, it would be sort of unrealistic to flinch away from talking about it. Honestly, though, Goodkind's female characters are (with a few rare exceptions) strong, competent, unique individuals, much more so than most modern fantasy series. I recommend reading the series, even though a couple of the books lag a bit.
Objectivism is the philosophical school posited by Ayn Rand and described in her classic novel Atlas Shrugged. Basically, the gist of the philosophy is that reality exists independent from consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is reproduce truth in a form that anybody can comprehend.
The core tenets of objectivism add up to the statement, "Nobody owns me, and I don't own anybody," and holds that selfishness is not actually evil as long as it's tempered with reason. Unfortunately, a lot of objectivists take this to mean that basic courtesy is stupid and they have the right to be as big of a!@$~@+s as they want. They give the movement a bad name, and a lot of people don't care for the fact that objectivism generally rejects faith and specifically opposes the Christian belief in perfect unselfishness. There are a lot of other problems with the philosophy, including the fact that Rand went b$!+&#$ crazy later in life and tried to claim that anyone who didn't exactly agree with her wasn't an objectivist, but the core beliefs aren't too bad.
If you can agree with this statement, even in the abstract, you might be an objectivist: "Man [is] a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Hope that helps.
Jeremy Puckett
So, let's end the real discrimination: keep the beefcake and cheesecake, but give us some ugly old apple pie* too!
*No other connotation intended other than common-ness.
No "Hottest Guys of Roleplaying Calendar" ?