I do not recall Frank Frazetta painting Arnold.
You uh.
You do know Conan exists outside of the movies, right?
...and even if Frazetta was the only artist painting homo-erotic fantasy art, HE'D STILL be painting homo-erotic fantasy art.
It's like guys watching WWE and claiming it's 100% hetero and alpha as all heck. What you really have is scantily clad cheesecake men sweating and heaving on top of each other in what we know is really a pantomime, filled with soap opera antics.
If they were really fighting then that would be one thing, but they aren't.
So the poses in fetish porn are inherently exploitative? How?
Rather than having to spend a significant portion of my time having to explain to you in detail why this is so, we would first have to both understand the subject matter. Once you are familiar with fetish porn and have some idea of what it is, we can debate the matter.
"Having [someone] on" means to be messing with someone or wasting their time.
Maybe where you are, but see thats the trouble with words, meanings can be taken several ways depending on differences of comprehension or even geography. I took it as a verb, and by extension an offer...
A picture paints a thousand words though.
The evidence was supplied.
But you refuse to look.
Yea! Another cheescake/sexism thread on the paizo forums! Who are we oppressing today? White/hetero guilt for everyone! <blows party favor mockingly>
Firebomb, yea! <blows party favor mockingly ......again>
I'm just waiting for this to get firebombed when the mods wake up and see it. :P
It should be.
This thread has spun WAY off topic (and out of contol).
What are the rules on gay muscle porn threads?
I ask merely for information.
Come brothers and sisters! Let us tape down our boobies, tuck our genitals between our legs. Grow our downstairs haircuts to unruly proportions! Then we can storm the white hetero castle with trebuchays loaded with guilt! We will then stand proud as a army of androgynoids! Who's with thou? <blows emo fan fair trumpet ....sadly >
|
You are free to explain how masculine poses that emphasize strength, power, and individuality are exploitative and demeaning.
Do a google image search on the words 'gay muscle porn'. If you are still having trouble with understanding how the 'masculine poses' are exploitative and demeaning then come back and we can explain.
You're welcome.
Hmmmmm.
Maybe I should have submitted an article to this year's 'Scandinavian' issue of Wayfinder, based round 'Tom of Finland'?
|
The masculine ones are "Look how powerful and manly I am. Raaaar.". The feminine ones are "Look how pretty and sexy I am. giggle". Different things.and the masculine ones are not?This is what it would look like if "beefcake" and cheescake were made equal.That fails by trying to apply feminine poses to males not the true broad chest showing, muscle demonstrating poses look at how masculine i am poses that ARE in the comics and just as silly....Yeah, that's sorta the point.
I mean...did you...did you miss what I was saying completely? The whole point is that "feminine" poses are really dumb and exploitative.
I'm not really sure if you're trying to be ironic, or if you're actually saying that they aren't just as ridiculous.
|
I'm just waiting for this to get firebombed when the mods wake up and see it. :P
Well we can chant their names 3 times fast and see if it works. You could also try flagging every post, but honestly the only rule broken is Wheaton's Law. Honestly if that was a hard fast rule then I broke it with the popcorn post. You could also just start smrfing the thread, but then that would bring out the tears and there is only so much cry baby antics I can handle in one day.
So I take it nobody wants to join the army of the androgynoids? Damn, I shave my chest hair for nothing then!
Working off that assumption I can't see how that can be used to make an argument that masculine poses are inherently demeaning. The fact that masculine poses can be demeaning in a particular context does not make masculine poses demeaning by default.
That wasn't the argument though.
It was stated that the feminine poses are demeaning etc, which was challenged with the comment that the male ones are just as demeaning. It was in turn stated taht the masculine ones were not.
It was my intention to illustrate that the so called masculine poses were actually little different.
The poster was simply stuck on the concept of male/female sexuality, and thought men in porn look more soft etc, but men aimed at hetero men are all emotional strength and masculinity. Actually those same beefy rough trade guys are used in those poses to thrill and titilate your local bears.
Powerflex and strained face take on a whole new direction all of a sudden.
Personally I don't find it all demeaning, ProfCirno does.
So I take it nobody wants to join the army of the androgynoids? Damn, I shave my chest hair for nothing then!
You can always post up the images for ProfCirno and Man In Black so they can check if they are demeaning.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I learned from this thread is that Shifty is the man to go to for gay muscle porn.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone really knows what 'exploitative' means at all.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone really knows what 'exploitative' means at all.
Context is everything.
I'm starting to wonder if anyone really knows what 'exploitative' means at all.Context is everything.
Agreed.
How did we go from talking about women wearing metal over their skin to men wearing none, and now the WWE and Conan being– O_o;
Actually you know what? Nnneeevermind...
FWIW, there's a BIG difference between porn and erotica. It's really quite insulting to a lot of artists to lump the later in with the former.
|
|
How did we go from talking about women wearing metal over their skin to men wearing none, and now the WWE and Conan being– O_o;
Actually you know what? Nnneeevermind...
FWIW, there's a BIG difference between porn and erotica. It's really quite insulting to a lot of artists to lump the later in with the former.
I am sure there is, yet the debate has been for quite some time as to where you draw the line. As has been shown on this thread, one persons line can be quite far from what anothers happens to be.
There is no single line that works as this is subjective.
As a straight female I’m probably blind to the finer points of male desire, if any exist (lol)... However, it seems to me in this day and age where it is so easy and inexpensive to get whatever type of porn/erotica you like, the ‘sex sales’ cliché is more hype than truth. Yeah, I can imagine an awkwardly proportioned femmebot in a furry bikini selling more books back when a boy’s other options were dad’s stash or worse - creepy ‘found in the woods/bathroom’ porn mags. But now? I don’t see it. I think that people are caught in an outdated paradigm. Well, that combined with less clothes/equipment/armor = easier to draw = cheaper art.
As for meathead-man art? Sorry fellas, that’s on you too. Hey, with privileges comes responsibility. You got the privilege of being the chosen target market. You get the blame for chainmail bikinis AND chainmail speedos, shoulders broader than mactrucks, and legs thicker than oak trees. Don’t even try and put that bs on us. The fact that your go-to evidence is GAY porn should tell you something... yeah.
My main point though is this: Sex may sell beer and cars, but excessive 2D cleavage is not going to get people into TTRPGs. And though in the past it may have enticed young men to buy a book, those days are gone. So you can continue to alienate woman and parents, or you can take their money.
Besides there are plenty of decent excuses to include drawings of half naked people in the books... orks, fey creatures, merfolk, sorcerers even. But pasties as fullplate isn’t fooling anyone. Ooo oo oo, if that means it has no dex penalty, I can sleep in it without fatigue and don it as a move action, I change my mind... Chainmail bikini for the win! Ha Ha Nipple blocked again!
Edit: The line is easy to see when you switch the genders. If a man looks ridiculous in the clothing/pose/whatever it is over the line.
My main point though is this: Sex may sell beer and cars, but excessive 2D cleavage is not going to get people into TTRPGs. And though in the past it may have enticed young men to buy a book, those days are gone. So you can continue to alienate woman and parents, or you can take their money.
Back in the day this is what made me want to pickup a book ;). But, the point is well taken.
To veer away somewhat from the muscle pr0n aspect of the discussion:
Objectification does seem to be one of the real core issues here: while I may desire to be in some situations to be "objectified" by my spouse. I am baffled that an increasing segment of the market is not thrilled by titillation images yet this is either not being conveyed to the artist; OR, as humans often engage in exaggerated self importance, are we really just a small portion of the overall gamer population? And most of the population still really want cheese/beefcake?
Golden opal, what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender?
Golden opal, what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender?
Cuz few men look good in a bikini or one piece or dress. Likewise, i would have a hard time finding women who wanted to wear swim trunks and nothing else.
Golden opal, what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender?Cuz few men look good in a bikini or one piece or dress. Likewise, i would have a hard time finding women who wanted to wear swim trunks and nothing else.
I disagree about few men looking good in a dress. the one piece/ bikini I am not so sure about as I have seen so few examples. (no really if I want to i know how to google search)
But what about that old chestnut of the woman wearing a man's button up dress shirt?
|
|
Golden opal, what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender?Cuz few men look good in a bikini or one piece or dress. Likewise, i would have a hard time finding women who wanted to wear swim trunks and nothing else.
I seem to remember a cartoon where the guy comes out wearing a dress as armor, his heavily armored buddies are looking at him like he is insane, he replies "It protects as +5 plate mail with no dex penalties, so yeah it looks dumb but I am wearing ti anyway." Or something to that affect. Since I am at work, I can't look it up and post a link.
I removed some posts that were just jabs to get in the last word.
what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender? Cuz few men look good in a bikini or one piece or dress. Likewise, i would have a hard time finding women who wanted to wear swim trunks and nothing else.
I see where you are coming from here. I should add the caveat “Assuming it fits”. But also remember, I didn’t say ‘looks good’, that is much more subjective than ridiculous/not ridiculous. It’s like if I wore a bikini that was way too big for me. It wouldn’t just be unflattering. It would look silly. The giant triangles stretched flat and reaching around my back. The baggy bottoms tied in big knots on both hips, but still hanging down in the back... That’s not only unattractive. That is mockable.
There are many cultures were men wear dresses/skirts and look totally normal – pretty much anywhere outside of ‘the west’. Even if you take something really feminine, like a wedding dress, as long as it is fitted to the man’s body, it looks fine. One piece swimsuit = Unitard. Men wear these all the time for sports/biking/ect, but I guarantee you not for sword fighting :)
I don’t know what to tell you about your swim trunks dilemma except use a little imagination. Maybe you live in a cold climate or something... Women wear ‘board shorts’ around here all the time. Sure they wear tank tops with them but that is due to modesty/laws/comfort, not because they would look comical if they went shirtless.
The bottom line is being an attractive female doesn’t make wearing a bikini into battle anything but ridiculous. I mean, street hookers wear more clothes than some fantasy warriors according to popular artwork. It is also not an acceptable excuse to draw people contorting themselves into awkward/impossible positions and postures so the artist can get her boobs and butt in frame while she casts a spell. If you put an male hero into the same posture you realize how stupid it looks because your eye hasn’t been trained by our culture to accept that men’s bodies aren’t governed by physics. Well... except the shoulders so broad his spine would snap thing, but again you men did that to yourselves.
Meh. I'm thinking a lot is in the eye of the beholder - I wouldn't look good in a wedding dress no matter what you did to me or it.
what about clothes that were made specifically for a specific gender? Cuz few men look good in a bikini or one piece or dress. Likewise, i would have a hard time finding women who wanted to wear swim trunks and nothing else.I see where you are coming from here. I should add the caveat “Assuming it fits”. But also remember, I didn’t say ‘looks good’, that is much more subjective than ridiculous/not ridiculous. It’s like if I wore a bikini that was way too big for me. It wouldn’t just be unflattering. It would look silly. The giant triangles stretched flat and reaching around my back. The baggy bottoms tied in big knots on both hips, but still hanging down in the back... That’s not only unattractive. That is mockable.
There are many cultures were men wear dresses/skirts and look totally normal – pretty much anywhere outside of ‘the west’. Even if you take something really feminine, like a wedding dress, as long as it is fitted to the man’s body, it looks fine. One piece swimsuit = Unitard. Men wear these all the time for sports/biking/ect, but I guarantee you not for sword fighting :)
I don’t know what to tell you about your swim trunks dilemma except use a little imagination. Maybe you live in a cold climate or something... Women wear ‘board shorts’ around here all the time. Sure they wear tank tops with them but that is due to modesty/laws/comfort, not because they would look comical if they went shirtless.
The bottom line is being an attractive female doesn’t make wearing a bikini into battle anything but ridiculous. I mean, street hookers wear more clothes than some fantasy warriors according to popular artwork. It is also not an acceptable excuse to draw people contorting themselves into awkward/impossible positions and postures so the artist can get her boobs and butt in frame while she casts a spell. If you put an male hero into the same posture you realize how stupid it looks because your eye hasn’t been trained by our culture to accept that men’s bodies aren’t...
The bottom line is being an attractive female doesn’t make wearing a bikini into battle anything but ridiculous. I mean, street hookers wear more clothes than some fantasy warriors according to popular artwork.
Whish is in turn significantly more than a lot of men have worn into battle... look at the Celts, they only wore body hair and blue paint into battle. Greek wrestlers in competition wore a suit of olive oil
If you look at Liberia in the modern age, you still have guys like General Butt-Naked running abhout in firefights only wearing his AK47 (true story).
So a woman warrior in a leotard is perfectly a-ok.
The bottom line is being an attractive female doesn’t make wearing a bikini into battle anything but ridiculous. I mean, street hookers wear more clothes than some fantasy warriors according to popular artwork.Whish is in turn significantly more than a lot of men have worn into battle... look at the Celts, they only wore body hair and blue paint into battle. Greek wrestlers in competition wore a suit of olive oil
If you look at Liberia in the modern age, you still have guys like General Butt-Naked running abhout in firefights only wearing his AK47 (true story).
So a woman warrior in a leotard is perfectly a-ok.
golden opal, your thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, running into melee battle in nothing but paint sounds perfectly reasonable... I really can’t see why that strategy was only reportedly employed by a select group of one culture’s warriors for a short time in history when they were unable to afford armor. I really can’t.
Good thing “the devil” granted General Butt-Naked the common sense to bring it back. Who needs armor when you can have a quick lunch of sacrificial child and be protected just as good. Am I right?
-
Seriously though, you know you are stretching it. But it is good to know gay porn isn’t the entire basis of the opposing point of view. There is also oiled wrestling. The unreasonable armor art is done for the pervy aesthetic and ease of drawing. The few and far between historical accounts of warriors not wearing armor into battle by choice are a weak excuse hastily pulled out after the fact, not inspiration. You know it and I know it.
Sure, running into melee battle in nothing but paint sounds perfectly reasonable... I really can’t see why that strategy was only reportedly employed by a select group of one culture’s warriors for a short time in history when they were unable to afford armor. I really can’t.
Good thing “the devil” granted General Butt-Naked the common sense to bring it back. Who needs armor when you can have a quick lunch of sacrificial child and be protected just as good. Am I right?
-
Seriously though, you know you are stretching it. But it is good to know gay porn isn’t the entire basis of the opposing point of view. There is also oiled wrestling. The unreasonable armor art is done for the pervy aesthetic and ease of drawing. The few and far between historical accounts of warriors not wearing armor into battle by choice are a weak excuse hastily pulled out after the fact, not inspiration. You know it and I know it.
Actually, this shows up in a number of cultures where the climate was warm enough to support such activity. However, i do think that we are sipping vinegar at this point.
You mean cultures that did not have access to decent armor... but keep trying. I’m sure there are some more b+#!#@! crazy/homoerotic examples out there that are just dying to be held up as justifications...
You mean cultures that did not have access to decent armor... but keep trying. I’m sure there are some more b+~&+@~ crazy/homoerotic examples out there that are just dying to be held up as justifications...
justifications, no. More examples of people running about naked swinging more than one kind of sword on a battlefield? Yes. Ideas on what constitutes decent armor vary wildly by culture and environment. Only one part of my family would have viewed full plate as a good idea -the rest would have thought it foolhardy at best.
Artists consciously drawing/painting models more nude than they should ever be isn't a new practice.
We only need to look at ancient Greece art* and virtually every period since the renaissance. Artists have been actively looking for subjects where nudity - or partial nudity - was socially accepted, which in some rather puritan eras was pretty much narrowed down to Bacchanal and other mythological scenes.
I agree with Freehold DM that not all nudity (including more nude representation of characters who should have been more clothed) is pornography. Beyond the feminist view on fantasy art, there is a certain glorification of the human body (that indeed takes a different direction vis-a-vis the sex of the model) that is neither degrading nor sexually enticing. This is classically done by bringing forth the sensual side of the female subject but as we know, sensuality can easily slip into sexuality; There is indeed, a significant amount of over-the-top, degrading and "cheap" nudity (for both male and female models).
That being said, I think that we are in the right to ask ourselves whether sensuality should take as much place in RPG representation, as a subset of fantasy art. As a fine arts graduate, the classical artist in me doesn't mind so much (and enjoys it to a certain extant), as long as it is done with elegance and respect of the subject. The post-feminist in me wonders if over-sensualisation has its place in RPG art, as this art is used to model this fantastic reality that we emulate when playing the game.
'findel
*we know that Greeks were training naked (the word Gymnasium, from the Ancient Greek term gymnós meaning "naked" supports the nakedness in artistic representation of sports and war), but we have few proofs that they were actually going to war naked. Somehow I doubt it, but many African tribe were going to war not only naked but 'decorated' as well. I believe the Incas had similar customs, but I admit that I don't know much about pre-columbian Americas.
You mean cultures that did not have access to decent armor... but keep trying. I’m sure there are some more b+!#%!$ crazy/homoerotic examples out there that are just dying to be held up as justifications...
The sexualisation of men by media aimed at women is varied and complex - all I am going to say is look at the posters on the walls- From the non threatening hairless Bieber through to New Kids on the Block (any boy band will do) with a range from androgynous through to slighty bad - then to Pit and Lowe in their younger days (dangerous) Cloony, Mortenson,(craggy tough and manly) for more mature women.
The Sexualisation of men occurs it is far less blatant and it is appears to be more balanced around other considerations than the body. Emotion, danger, status, all play a role.
I am just going to go on a rant about the use of historical cultural differences to justify arguments.
Classical Greek culture idealised the masculine form - In Art battle (as well as art about going to the shops) was more than often then not depicted in the nude or "tackle" out.. Even though in war the reality was very different and they wore the best what suited their role...
One of many examples - Iphicrates an Athenian general mastered light and fast hoplite/peltast (javelin thrower) tactics that forced the Spartans in their battles against him to have their youngest and fastest warriors strip naked so they could try and catch his peltasts. The Peltasts threw their darts and ran so that the heavy armoured Spartan Hoplites could not catch them and then stopped and threw darts again.. exhausting the Spartans.
Amongst many cultures there is the concept of the Berserk or the "Ironman" - the former a ferocious psycho who would throw away his protection and rush into battle and the latter who believed that no protection was required as he was impervious to all missiles.
The Romans were terrified by both Celtic and Germanic women who if their side were loosing strip to their wastes cut themselves then take up swords and kill anybody friend or foe who were running in their direction.
It is easy to be dismissive of non western and ancient cultures, It smacks of a paternal/maternalistic attitude that "westerners" hold.
The ancient and non western cultures are far more complex and dismissing them with "oh they just wore what they knew how to make or could afford"... this is both insensitive to those cultures that still exist and disrespectful of those that come before.
EDIT: Ninja'ed by Laurefindels excellent post.