Very cool... I actually have pictures that would appropriate for the thread, but I don't know if it's my place to post them here.Seemed appropriate for the thread, however not entirely appropriate for all viewing audiences: Cheesecake ArmorCrafting
Photos inside are rather distracting
Damnit, you're holding out on me. You could do it from the 4WFG FB page. :P
Damnit, you're holding out on me. You could do it from the 4WFG FB page. :P
Unfortunately not. We don't have the rights to them. :)
I find it pretty funny that some guys flipped out over that pic- probably many of the same guys screaming 'MOAR CHEESECAKE' and calling me a prude for not loving all those sex kittens with swords.
:)
Yeah, that's probably why I like Spartacus: Blood & Sand and Spartacus: Gods of the Arena so much. All the naked women kissing. I did write Starz a letter though, and told them to put more clothes on the guys, and don't let the guys kiss because that's icky.
;P
Have I mentioned how much an energy drink burns when in contact with nostrils? If not, I'm telling you now. Heh.
Damnit, you're holding out on me. You could do it from the 4WFG FB page. :PUnfortunately not. We don't have the rights to them. :)
Let me restate this. Just pony up the link. Don't leave a drow hangin'. :P
Have I mentioned how much an energy drink burns when in contact with nostrils? If not, I'm telling you now. Heh.
My job here is now complete...
I didn't say that notion was the 'driving force' behind the creation of the drow. I don't like the drow because they are reflective of the common cultural notion that female sexuality (particularly when combined with power) is dangerous and/or evil.
It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.
It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.
I don't really view drow as matriarchal. I see them a psychopathic society with domineering women in power. If drow males gained the upper hand, it would be the reverse, but still psychopathic, still the same.
Besides, if the games included a culture where men dominated and brutalized women in the way drow women do men, it would be nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. But as it is, with the female drow in charge, it is nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. Wait...
|
Besides, if the games included a culture where men dominated and brutalized women in the way drow women do men, it would be nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many.
That's pretty much how orcs are written in Golarion, according to their Companion book.
Go figure, when I started working on non-evil cultural alternatives for orcs, the gender divide was the first thing to go. But if I were to do the same thing for drow, I'd probably keep the matriarchy and turn it into something more positive. Not sure if that says more about me or more about gender discrepency in most game fantasy settings.
That's pretty much how orcs are written in Golarion, according to their Companion book.
Completely unfamiliar with that book, as I don't run games in Golarion. That's interesting, too, as my orcs tend to be more like Klingons in their culture - with both males and females about equal in physical power, and females having an upper hand in intelligence.
Go figure, when I started working on non-evil cultural alternatives for orcs, the gender divide was the first thing to go. But if I were to do the same thing for drow, I'd probably keep the matriarchy and turn it into something more positive. Not sure if that says more about me or more about gender discrepency in most game fantasy settings.
My drow are still psychopathic drow, with women in charge, but not really a matriarchy. There was a rebellion a few hundred years ago by both male and female drow, and several thousand of them came to the surface (well, they were forced out of the underdark, really) and founded a city in a goodly kingdom. Those drow are now pretty much LN as a culture, with males and females sharing power, but it is a true matriarchy with caring mothers, no slave males, and proud lineages descended through the mother.
::Drive-thru clerk voice::
Welcome to Just Cheesecake, where we just sell cheesecake. How many cheesecakes would you like to order?
It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.I don't really view drow as matriarchal. I see them a psychopathic society with domineering women in power. If drow males gained the upper hand, it would be the reverse, but still psychopathic, still the same.
Besides, if the games included a culture where men dominated and brutalized women in the way drow women do men, it would be nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. But as it is, with the female drow in charge, it is nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. Wait...
The thing is that game settings have examples out the wazoo of patriarchal societies falling at every point on the ethical and moral spectrum. There are benign patriarchies and evil patriarchies, and everything in between. That's because patriarchy in D&D societies tends to be the default. To the best of my knowledge, the drow are the only example of a matriarchy in standard published D&D settings. When there IS only one example, then what that one example says about matriarchal culture must be given an awful lot of weight in the analysis of how a particular social structure is viewed by the gaming community, no?
The thing is that game settings have examples out the wazoo of patriarchal societies falling at every point on the ethical and moral spectrum. There are benign patriarchies and evil patriarchies, and everything in between. That's because patriarchy in D&D societies tends to be the default. To the best of my knowledge, the drow are the only example of a matriarchy in standard published D&D settings. When there IS only one example, then what that one example says about matriarchal culture must be given an awful lot of weight in the analysis of how a particular social structure is viewed by the gaming community, no?It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.I don't really view drow as matriarchal. I see them a psychopathic society with domineering women in power. If drow males gained the upper hand, it would be the reverse, but still psychopathic, still the same.
Besides, if the games included a culture where men dominated and brutalized women in the way drow women do men, it would be nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. But as it is, with the female drow in charge, it is nearly universally derided as sexist and misogynistic by many. Wait...
It does.
Consider Golarion, for example. Both Orcs and Drow, as evil cultures, should be examples of what happens when a Patriarchy or Matriarchy is carried to an extreme (much like Afghanistan is in RL).
But there are several examples that are far less extreme. Taldor, Cheliax, even Varisia, are examples of relatively benign Patriarchal societies. Qadira is a special case - while the culture is matrilineal, it is still a patriarchal society.
Golarion's Elves are interresting. Given that the chief Elven Diety, Calistria, is the goddess of Lust, the Elves should be matriarchal and matrilineal. It is the only way such a culture would remain stable - and for all thier Chaotic tendencies, elves like stability.
Okay. I miss messageboarding yesterday because I need to go to the dentist. I take a day off of work because I'm expecting some oral surgery. I get to the dentist only to discover that their computers are down, and they couldn't do anything for me. I go home feeling I've wasted the day and go to bed. Then I get up in the morning and check out the messageboards to discover- I MISSED THIS THREAD?!??!?!?!?! The highs, the lows, the Lindisty, the Moorluck, the links to MOAR CHEESECAKE!!!!!
*sigh*
Anyways, I loves cheesecake. So very, very much. I understand that it may not be for everyone, but so long as my access to and love of cheesecake is not compromised, criticized or condemned, I have no problem.
In terms of feminism, I had bad experiences in college with my rather messed up(if memory serves) women's studies professor, who either wanted to start a fight or make peace(or maybe that was just me). She didn't seem to have a problem with cheesecake much, but she was a strange egg. The only thing I picked up from that class was that women and men are highly unique individuals. Which I knew before, but some people are more militant/angry about it than others.
Okay. I miss messageboarding yesterday because I need to go to the dentist. I take a day off of work because I'm expecting some oral surgery. I get to the dentist only to discover that their computers are down, and they couldn't do anything for me. I go home feeling I've wasted the day and go to bed. Then I get up in the morning and check out the messageboards to discover- I MISSED THIS THREAD?!??!?!?!?! The highs, the lows, the Lindisty, the Moorluck, the links to MOAR CHEESECAKE!!!!!
*sigh*
*shoulderpats* There, there. I'm sure there will be other cheesecake threads for you to play in, and this one may not have completely run its course yet, anyway. :)
If you're really upset at missing the fun, you could, for instance, toss out your own definition of cheesecake, or comment on the definitions that some of us have already provided. I'd be interested to know what you think, anyway.
I find it pretty funny that some guys flipped out over that pic- probably many of the same guys screaming 'MOAR CHEESECAKE' and calling me a prude for not loving all those sex kittens with swords.
:)
Yeah, that's probably why I like Spartacus: Blood & Sand and Spartacus: Gods of the Arena so much. All the naked women kissing. I did write Starz a letter though, and told them to put more clothes on the guys, and don't let the guys kiss because that's icky.
;P
LOL!
Never seen the show, but I'll take your word on it.;)
That's a very bizarre assumption that the two are even related, Ewan. I'm not sure why you would even draw a connection, honestly.
Huh, well, I'm not sure why you called me a liar in the other thread. I guess we don't understand one another very well, do we?
Perhaps you should just ignore my posts, as you seem to get riled up by them.
Since it was brought up a while back, I would like to cast my vote for more drow beefcake art. The more homoerotic, the better.
That is all.
My brothers who aren't into mothers need titillation as well.
Since it was brought up a while back, I would like to cast my vote for more drow beefcake art. The more homoerotic, the better.
That is all.
Great idea!
I'm sure that it would convince even more guys to join me in my call for less 'sexy stuff' in poses and costuming. The same dudes who groaned about that rather tame Dragon cover would probably go into convulsions over overtly homoerotic drow-boy art.:)
This is a tangent on matriarchies in D&D.
Amazons have appeared in some settings/sourcebooks. I've seen them nmore often in rules sources than setting material. In particular, I am thinking of the Complete Fighter for AD&D 2E.
The City of Hardby in the WoG setting is ruled by women, and traditionally so. There seems to be something of a matriarchal/amazonian vibe there. Not that the men are a bunch of wimps. It's not an evil city.
Matriarchies may be rare in published D&D stuff, but they are pretty much nonexistent in the real world. That's something to bear in mind.
And androgynous transsexuals. They're seriously underrepresented.
Attica! Attica!
And androgynous transsexuals. They're seriously underrepresented.
Attica! Attica!
That's not true! Androgyny has become quite popular in recent years, it's only a matter of time before it gets more play in gaming.
That's not true! Androgyny has become quite popular in recent years, it's only a matter of time before it gets more play in gaming.And androgynous transsexuals. They're seriously underrepresented.
Attica! Attica!
And then there's hypergamy. But they're overly represented.
Not to open another can of worms, but it's rare to see polygamy in D&D as well. You're more likely to see polygyny (such as the harems in Casmaron in Golarion for instance) than polyandry.
I have an explanation for that.
Polayndry is very rarely found in real world human societies. Most people have probably never even heard of it. Polygyny is far more common. It's very rarely seen in the literary, historic, folkloric, mythological, and pop culture sources of the game.
I´m getting the impression that many women do not object to sexuality in RPG books per se, but the depiction of women in either the "helpless princess" pose or the "evil seductress" trope.Yes. A thousand times yes. What you say here sums up my position exactly, so I'll just cosign this. It's not about wanting to eliminate sexualized images of women from fantasy art, it's about wanting to see more diversity in how both women AND men are portrayed in fantasy art.
It seems to me that in many published adventures women are either serving wenches or evil witches bent on getting men to obey through sexuality, if they are depicted as attractive. Why is it that men exercise their power through violence and women through sexuality when portrayed in games?Thank you for noticing this and for asking the question.
And this is my gripe, re: Cheesecake vs. Beefcake. I'm not opposed to women being aware of their physical attractiveness or exploiting it when it makes sense, but I hate the passivity of women in classic cheesecake. In beefcake, the men use their sexuality, but they usually maintain their control of it, ie they aren't passive objects.
And this is my gripe, re: Cheesecake vs. Beefcake. I'm not opposed to women being aware of their physical attractiveness or exploiting it when it makes sense, but I hate the passivity of women in classic cheesecake. In beefcake, the men use their sexuality, but they usually maintain their control of it, ie they aren't passive objects.I´m getting the impression that many women do not object to sexuality in RPG books per se, but the depiction of women in either the "helpless princess" pose or the "evil seductress" trope.Yes. A thousand times yes. What you say here sums up my position exactly, so I'll just cosign this. It's not about wanting to eliminate sexualized images of women from fantasy art, it's about wanting to see more diversity in how both women AND men are portrayed in fantasy art.
It seems to me that in many published adventures women are either serving wenches or evil witches bent on getting men to obey through sexuality, if they are depicted as attractive. Why is it that men exercise their power through violence and women through sexuality when portrayed in games?Thank you for noticing this and for asking the question.
Hnn. An interesting point. Very interesting indeed.
|
Not to open another can of worms, but it's rare to see polygamy in D&D as well. You're more likely to see polygyny (such as the harems in Casmaron in Golarion for instance) than polyandry.Polayndry is very rarely found in real world human societies. Polygyny is far more common. Why would we expect something as rare and obscure as polyandry to show up often in D&D PF settings, or even to show up at all? Most people have probably never even heard of it. It's very rarely seen in the literary, historic, folkloric, mythological, and pop culture sources of the game.
Because it does exist in numerous cultures and has happened numerous times over the course of human history. Places such as Tibet, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Polynesia, Sub-saharan Africa, and even here in the united states (ever seen the movie "Paint Your Wagon"?) and still exists to this day.
|
|
And this is my gripe, re: Cheesecake vs. Beefcake. I'm not opposed to women being aware of their physical attractiveness or exploiting it when it makes sense, but I hate the passivity of women in classic cheesecake. In beefcake, the men use their sexuality, but they usually maintain their control of it, ie they aren't passive objects.I´m getting the impression that many women do not object to sexuality in RPG books per se, but the depiction of women in either the "helpless princess" pose or the "evil seductress" trope.Yes. A thousand times yes. What you say here sums up my position exactly, so I'll just cosign this. It's not about wanting to eliminate sexualized images of women from fantasy art, it's about wanting to see more diversity in how both women AND men are portrayed in fantasy art.
It seems to me that in many published adventures women are either serving wenches or evil witches bent on getting men to obey through sexuality, if they are depicted as attractive. Why is it that men exercise their power through violence and women through sexuality when portrayed in games?Thank you for noticing this and for asking the question.
Power is sexy, and thus sells. Most of the beefcake poses aren't going to have them in submissive positions. It's a good point you brought up!
Because it does exist in numerous cultures and has happened numerous times over the course of human history. Places such as Tibet, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Polynesia, Sub-saharan Africa, and even here in the united states (ever seen the movie "Paint Your Wagon"?) and still exists to this day.Not to open another can of worms, but it's rare to see polygamy in D&D as well. You're more likely to see polygyny (such as the harems in Casmaron in Golarion for instance) than polyandry.Polayndry is very rarely found in real world human societies. Polygyny is far more common. Why would we expect something as rare and obscure as polyandry to show up often in D&D PF settings, or even to show up at all? Most people have probably never even heard of it. It's very rarely seen in the literary, historic, folkloric, mythological, and pop culture sources of the game.
Those are all very minor, marginal cultures. This is exactly what I mean by obscure and rare. Those cultures aren't important, very numerous, or particularly influential on a world scale. They are VASTLY outnumbered by the monogamists and by cultures that accept polygyny and/or concubinage. The vast majority of Indians, Africans, etc do NOT practice polyandry and never did practice it.
Constrast this with the history and contemporary reality of polygyny. Think about the powerful romantic image of the 'harem.'
|
|
Because it does exist in numerous cultures and has happened numerous times over the course of human history. Places such as Tibet, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Polynesia, Sub-saharan Africa, and even here in the united states (ever seen the movie "Paint Your Wagon"?) and still exists to this day.Not to open another can of worms, but it's rare to see polygamy in D&D as well. You're more likely to see polygyny (such as the harems in Casmaron in Golarion for instance) than polyandry.Polayndry is very rarely found in real world human societies. Polygyny is far more common. Why would we expect something as rare and obscure as polyandry to show up often in D&D PF settings, or even to show up at all? Most people have probably never even heard of it. It's very rarely seen in the literary, historic, folkloric, mythological, and pop culture sources of the game.Those are all very minor, marginal cultures, though. They really aren't important, numerous, or particularly influential. The vast majority of Indians, Africans, etc do NOT practice polyandry and never did practice it.
Constrast this with the history and contemporary reality of polygyny. Think about the powerful romantic image of the 'harem.'
Woah! Going the ethnocentrism route, I see. Describing cultures as marginal? Really? Mongolia was never influential? India isn't influential and never has been? 0_o
No, what I'm saying is that Polyandry exists and that polygamy exists. They're underrepresented compared to the number of societies that practiced them. These aren't short term solutions either, they're an ingrained part of many cultures and have been for thousands of years. Why not allow cultures (especially in, say, a Tian Xia book) incorporate such things?
Those are all very minor, marginal cultures, though.
<sarcasm>I'm sure those cultures don't matter at all to the people who live in them.</sarcasm>
Just because something isn't 'the majority' doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant or irrelevant.
(But then, that's pretty much what a lot of these conversations revolve around. Yes, women (and LGBT folks, and people of color, and kinky folks, etc.) are minorities in gaming culture. That doesn't mean our opinions and voices are unimportant or invalid.)
Woah! Going the ethnocentrism route, I see. Describing cultures as marginal? Really? Mongolia was never influential? India isn't influential and never has been? 0_oThose are all very minor, marginal cultures, though. They really aren't important, numerous, or particularly influential. The vast majority of Indians, Africans, etc do NOT practice polyandry and never did practice it.
Constrast this with the history and contemporary reality of polygyny. Think about the powerful romantic image of the 'harem.'
Wow! Showing a total ignorance of Indian culture, religions, and history? Show me where most Indian cultures have ever practiced polyandry? No, not some out of the way hill tribes, but the Hindu majority or the Muslims? It's flat out forbidden for Muslims, BTW.
And yes, some cultures may fairly be described as marginal. Some cultures are very small, have limited influence in the outside world, are dying out, are very poor in material terms, etc. I'm sorry that you can't handle the reality of our world, but not all cultures are equally powerful, sucessful, numerous, or influential. That's not 'ethnocentrism' that called 'acknowledging reality.' Ethnocentrism would be the beleif that my culture is inherently better than all others- a belief that I did not state. You might want to rephrase your words.
|
|
Wow! Showing a total ignorance of Indian culture, religions, and history? Shopw me where most Indian cultures have ever practiced polyandry? No, not some out of the way hill tribes, but the Hindu majority or the Muslims? It's flat out forbidden for Muslims, BTW.And yes, some cultures may fairly be described as marginal. Some cultures are very small, have limited influence in the outside world, are dying out, are very poor in material terms, etc. Sorry that you can't handle the reality of our world, but no, not all cultures are equally powerful, sucessful, numerous, or influentia. That's not 'ethnocentrism' that called 'acknowledging reality.' Ethnocentrism would be the beleif that my culture is inherently better than all others- a belief that I did not state. You might want to rephrase your words.
Most? Who said anything about most. All I have to do is show that they do exist in RL and ask where the representation for it is in a fantasy setting. Besides, it's sure nice to belittle people's cultures as marginal when they're ancient, world spanning, or part of their religious history (such as in the Mahabarata if you're looking for a Hindu reference since I'm ignorant of Indian history. Pandava brothers. Look it up.)
It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.
I didn't say that notion was the 'driving force' behind the creation of the drow. I don't like the drow because they are reflective of the common cultural notion that female sexuality (particularly when combined with power) is dangerous and/or evil.
What about the priesthood of Lamashtu and any of the societies where they tend to have sway (e.g., gnolls, except the iconic Adventure Path gnolls, sigh.)? I mean, they settle issues of seniority by comparing childbirth scars. Men don't tend to win those.
|
|
I think it raised some hackles because "minor" and "marginal" are nebulous terms that don't imply concrete criteria, and thus feel arbitrary.
I think this is more to the point:
D&D and Pathfinder are based on fantasy tropes indigenous to Western cultures. As there are very few examples of polyandry in Western cultures, it's not surprising it appears so rarely in fantasy fiction or gaming.
(But, for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing more of that sort of thing. It would be more creative than sticking with the traditional norms.)
To label a culture or a custom as 'marginal' is not belittling, it's just assigning a relative positiion in terms of cultural influence, economic power, geographic spread, etc.
Most Indians of most Indian cultures, ethnic groups, castes, religions, etc do not practice polyandry. For you to suggest otherwise would be incorrect. I think we agree that you aren't trying to do that, right? Good. Move on.
If you want polyandry in the game, put it there! Heck, write an article with a polyandrous society in it, and submit it for publication. If it's good, I'd buy it/read it.
I'm not opposed to including polyandry in the published materials. I simply explained to you why I think it's so darned rare. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Take your political correctness elsewhere, I'm not interested in it.
What about the priesthood of Lamashtu and any of the societies where they tend to have sway (e.g., gnolls, except the iconic Adventure Path gnolls, sigh.)? I mean, they settle issues of seniority by comparing childbirth scars. Men don't tend to win those.It is kind of interresting (disheartening) that the only matriarchal society in most Fantasy settings (including Golarion) is the the Dark Elves.
I didn't say that notion was the 'driving force' behind the creation of the drow. I don't like the drow because they are reflective of the common cultural notion that female sexuality (particularly when combined with power) is dangerous and/or evil.
|
|
I think it raised some hackles because "minor" and "marginal" are nebulous terms that don't imply concrete criteria, and thus feel arbitrary.
I think this is more to the point:
D&D and Pathfinder are based on fantasy tropes indigenous to Western cultures. As there are very few examples of polyandry in Western cultures, it's not surprising it appears so rarely in fantasy fiction or gaming.
Ah, but we do have some examples in the west! The Spartans practiced polyandry, as did some groups of Celts.
|
|
Most Indians of most Indian cultures, ethnic groups, castes, religions, etc do not practice polyandry. For you to suggest otherwise would be incorrect. I think we agree that you aren't trying to do that, right? Good. Move on.
I don't even see the point of this line. I never did claim that most Indians practiced Polyandry, just that there are some groups in India who have or still do practice it. I don't understand what your beef with that is, frankly.
I'm not opposed to including polyandry in the published materials. I simply explained to you why I think it's so darned rare.
Actually, I never did get an explanation for why you think it's rare. You kind of went on a blow up about how other cultures are marginal (thus implying their lesser status).
If you have a problem with that, too bad. Take your political correctness elsewhere, I'm not interested in it.
I'd like a slice of that cheesecake please, with some irony on top.
Ah, but we do have some examples in the west! The Spartans practiced polyandry, as did some groups of Celts.I think it raised some hackles because "minor" and "marginal" are nebulous terms that don't imply concrete criteria, and thus feel arbitrary.
I think this is more to the point:
D&D and Pathfinder are based on fantasy tropes indigenous to Western cultures. As there are very few examples of polyandry in Western cultures, it's not surprising it appears so rarely in fantasy fiction or gaming.
Polyandry as in many men to one woman or groups of people married to each other? For some reason I don't see Celts going for the latter, but I could see the former happening.
I'd like a slice of that cheesecake please, with some irony on top.
There really is no irony, dude. I don't oppose cheescake proliferation for feminist reasons. I just don't like it. You might have missed that.
As for the Indian stuff, you used 'India' in a previous post, instead of 'some cultures on the Indian subcontinet.' You seemed to be implying that I had to accept the importance of a rare custom, practiced by small minorities, or else I would be denying the entire impact of Indian cilizations in history, current affiars, world religions,etc. If that wasn't your intent, then I suggest you edit your post about 'Indian wasn't important?"