I've seen a few episodes of Sekirei before sighing from boredom and dropping it. The fighting sucked, the characters lacked both dimension and originality, and it's like the only reason the show exists is to tease the audience with fan-service.
If I want sexual content, I have a cute wife and a few websites to turn to. Not that there was any sexual content in Sekirei... the whole thing was one giant tease, and eye-rollingly naive.
That said, I have to say that the rules are kind of ho-hum. The SLAs and such don't capture the power level of the characters (I mean +4 to strength is super strong?!)
Anime and D20 don't mix, not unless you discard balance altogether and go for broke. Mitsubi had a strength of 19 when asleep, go up to the mid-20s to 30s the rest of the time, and when she did her kissy-thing it would probably crank up to the 50s or higher. Bull Strength that is not.
I actuall disagree this is any more OK than bashing on homosexuality, colors, etc. In a games. You degrade women into sex dolls and say it is OK for gameplay. It's both sick and sad. The OP deserves a bashing.
Thalin wrote: I actuall disagree this is any more OK than bashing on homosexuality, colors, etc. In a games. You degrade women into sex dolls and say it is OK for gameplay. It's both sick and sad. The OP deserves a bashing. Ummm ... you realize that this is possible right now? (Summoner Class)
If you have Ultimate Magic, consider some of the abuses of the Angel, Demon, Devil, Fey, Genie, and Merfolk Eidolon models ( UM pp 74-76)
And hold person; or just good old chains. But that's not something one should get into in game settings; again, like any other practice, sexism shouldn't be a part of a gaming fantasy world. He'll both cause bad feelings to any women who happen to want to play with him (and who hopefully are fairly limited in his area), and bring the "creepiness" back to gamers (we as a sub-group have been fighting that stereotype for too long).
There are just grounds not meant to be covered, and rape / sex dolls is very high on that list.
Thalin wrote: There are just grounds not meant to be covered... This depends entirely on the group; some people have no problems with elements that would send other gamers into a voice-cracking chip-spitting frenzy.
Which do you lot prefer: Fire or shotgun? Now this isn't for the OP but for the idea.
Fire lasts longer, but "there are few problems that can't be solved by a shotgun to the face." Also it is very satisfying.
It reminds me of the time that my Dad accidentally ordered the Book of Erotic Fantasy. We ended up cutting out the gestation chart and the cross breeding chart, photo-copied them and threw the thing out. It was hard to. As much as we didn't like the book we are both long time gamers, decade+ for me and 25+ for him, so cutting up a game book even a bad one was just so contrary to us...
OK start going off in another direction there sorry. Any shotguns, a fix for many problems.
Wow! That's just...creepy.
The NPC wrote: It reminds me of the time that my Dad accidentally ordered the Book of Erotic Fantasy. We ended up cutting out the gestation chart and the cross breeding chart, photo-copied them and threw the thing out. That's...insane. What was wrong with just copying the pages and giving the book to someone? Warped.
HarbinNick wrote: just like I wasn't wild about being taken for gay in my dance class. I didn't do dance but I did gymastics and field hockey (both were seen as 'girl' games) in High School. Thing was I spent large amounts of time with lots of girls. The guys playing rugby spent lots of time with, er, other guys... I'll let the reader decide what was the smart activity.
Well played Sir for the dance class,
S.
I'll summarize the general consensus on anime pathfinder. This s*#@ looks retarded and I don't want to role play romantics. especially considering the fact that most races and characters created in anime have lame motives and reasoning behind their actions. Most people know anime isn't about the plot rather it's about the art.
Lord Fyre wrote: stringburka wrote: Dapifer wrote: I don't see a sex slave race anywhere. I see beautiful anthropomorphic pokemon, you can have a problem with that as well, but that's no "sex slave race". They are a "sexy new element" whos sole purpose is be "submissive and worshipful towards [their masters], living only to please their [masters]"
(hooked parantheses are my clarification of the sentence, but doesn't change the meaning of it as can be seen if comparing.
Yes, they are a sex slave race. You don't even need to read between the lines.
EDIT: You can call them a pokemon if you want, but pokemon 1. have more free will and 2. aren't there to be "sexy" by any means. I think pokemon bestiality would be recieved quite badly by most. Would it be gauche at this point to mention Pokégirls? Note: VERY NSFW.
Not only is the world stranger then we understand, it is stranger then we can understand.
Humans (in general) are just perverts. I do love Pokegirls.
Mark Thomas 66 wrote: Wow! That's just...creepy. Hey, fancy meeting you here!
snobi wrote: I'd like to roll d20 to hit that. casts true strike
Black_Lantern wrote: I'll summarize the general consensus on anime pathfinder. This s~!@ looks retarded and I don't want to role play romantics. especially considering the fact that most races and characters created in anime have lame motives and reasoning behind their actions. Most people know anime isn't about the plot rather it's about the art. You are entitled to your opinion, but I would avoid saying you speak for a majority of people.
Necromancer wrote: The NPC wrote: It reminds me of the time that my Dad accidentally ordered the Book of Erotic Fantasy. We ended up cutting out the gestation chart and the cross breeding chart, photo-copied them and threw the thing out. That's...insane. What was wrong with just copying the pages and giving the book to someone? Warped. We literally had no else we could could give it to and we didn't want the thing around. Frankly we found the thing repugnant.
Black_Lantern wrote: Most people know anime isn't about the plot rather it's about the art. Indeed, there's no plot in anime at all.
Your summary sucks.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Black_Lantern wrote: Most people know anime isn't about the plot rather it's about the art. Indeed, there's no plot in anime at all.
Your summary sucks. Don't forget chobits which although creepy as hell revolves around the issue of "does a robot that does everything a real woman does including emulate love become a person?" and if you say that's not a plot remember that little Italian wooden puppet?
Actually quite often anime art is quite bad...Excel saga was funny but quite quite simple to produce. In fact they mock it themselves with the "now we lost our budget so we have to voice over a clip show!" line.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Black_Lantern wrote: Most people know anime isn't about the plot rather it's about the art. Indeed, there's no plot in anime at all.
Your summary sucks. nice list ;)
HarbinNick wrote: Don't forget chobits I didn't. Just couldn't include it in THAT lineup.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dapifer wrote: A slave is forced to do things against his/her will, as far as I can tell this 'sekirei' folk enjoy being like pets, they feel love for their master, much like a dog would feel about it's owner, you wouldn't call a dog a slave. This shows a profound lack of understanding about basic sexual implications. Many rape fantasy stories, perhaps even most, portray the victim as enjoying the act. It's a matter of the rapist giving the victim what she (and it's almost always a she) really wanted all along, so it's not really a violation at all. Perhaps not even rape (e.g. “it's not rape if they enjoy it/you can't rape the willing”).
While these fantasies are not wrong per se (assuming the fantasiser knows it's fantasy), the implications of it are far more damaging (and insulting) than portrayals of 'actual' rape. Many studies show that exposure to the “NO!, NO, no, no...... yes, YES!”-dynamic increases rape myth acceptance, tolerance of interpersonal violence, and hostility towards women far more than exposure to rape scenes where the victim is clearly not happy about the outcome.
In regards to willing slavery (which, as you say, isn't really slavery), the same dynamic appears to hold true. Many people find it far more hurtful and insulting when slavery is described as something the victims want, and the unfortunate implications are much stronger when we're talking about an entire race meant to be slaves, as opposed to individuals choosing, or being appointed, to serve someone (which is the usual method of gaining companions). And that's not taking into account that people have willingly submitted themselves to slavery in the real world, which doesn't make it any more right. Also, Gor.
Dapifer wrote: From what I can gather this is a different race, they are not human, they are 'sekirei', they are closer to augmented animal companions or paladin mounts. They just so happen to be humanoid and somewhat attractive, so sex is not off the table. They don't happen to be humanoid, they're made to look completely human except for a pink crest between their shoulder blades. And sex is not “not off the table” it's their main purpose.
Dapifer wrote: I see how this could offend some people, but come on, this is something akin to what you would find in Book of Erotic Fantasy and the like. It's harmless words on a paper that some people find funny/fun. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
I agree with TryOmegaZero in the sense that a bunch of sweaty dudes playing romance with each other is not my idea of a good game night, but hey, it must be someone's cup of tea or else books like Erotic Fantasy and the like wouldn't exist, so what's wrong with them having their fun? Why can't they?
Keep in mind that female gamers do exist, and that some couples play one on one, so this kind of material could be of their interest.
Actually, Book of Erotic Fantasy is miles above this. It was just as mechanically wonky, and in some places just as immature and needlessly graphic, but it had one redeeming quality which easily puts it in the top when it comes to RPG material: It didn't treat sex as the act of men and women coming together to work on the common goal of satisfying the man. Most male gamers (and perhaps even most people in general), and thereby most RPG material, seem to have severe difficulties comprehending that women have a sexuality which goes beyond a need for men to like them. Not surprising given how our society treats female sexuality (i.e. it hardly ever mentions it), but still just as frustrating.
Our culture centres around men to such an extreme degree that sexuality often comes to be synonymous with male desire, and sexiness synonymous with whatever men desire. RPGs are worse. Open a D&D book, any of them, and you can be almost certain to see a majority of male characters, male pronouns, and assumptions of maleness, and be even more certain that the images of female characters that are represented will be more humanoid, more physically attractive, more scantily dressed (especially in a sexy way), and more likely to pose in a way that draws attention to their sexiness (if specific female characters are referred to, they will not only be less numerous than the male ones, but also be more likely to be of lower level and even have lower ability scores, and for some reason be less likely to be of an evil alignment – at least this holds true for the books I looked in). The Pathfinder core book is the first d20 book I've seen with more female than male iconics. It still fails miserably when it comes to balance in sexiness, but a good deal of that is probably just that Wayne Reynolds seems to be incapable of making sexy men.
Anyway, the above is not meant to be this giant rant about the evils of mainstream society, but just to explain that as a female gamer who don't mind sexuality in RPGs at all, the vast majority of 'sexy' material is not made with people like me in mind, and doesn't hold a lot of appeal. On the other hand, I've experienced more than my fair share of having it directed at me in a less than friendly way – male characters committing rape without the players asking anyone if it was an element they wanted in their game, having my character impregnated against my will, having my character indirectly threatened with sexual slavery (again, without the DM asking if it was an element I was comfortable with), and being told that since the D&D world was 'medieval', it meant that aggressive and insulting sexual slurs was just something I had to live with if I wanted to play a female character.
And precisely because I actually like when elements of sex and romance are included, the last thing I want is something like what the OP described. It's not only mechanically unsound, but the whole concept is just the tired old fantasy of beautiful women being submissive so that a guy can get off. There's the theoretical possibility that the object of desire can be male, and the subject female, but the source material is male-centred, the gendered pronoun used in the article is female (even though it's grammatically incorrect), the example character is female (bonded to a male master), and there are three images featuring a total of seven girls and no guys. It's cliché, and so far, I have heard of exactly zero female gamers who're interested in this kind of stuff.
Dapifer wrote: And I used the term Pokemon loosely to mean "generic bonded creature under your control", I might as well call them "Humanoid Eidolons". I think making them a humanoid race of primarily women who're made to be sexually submissive is well beyond what's otherwise described in the rules. The summoner in my group explained his eidolon as an extraplanetary creature who wants to experience the material plane but can't leave by itself, and has made a deal with the summoner to assist him in return for him calling it there. That's possible because the descriptions are vague enough to let people make up their own story. Even companions who're more specifically explained don't come with the same unfortunate implications. Paladins receive their mounts to aid them in their crusade against evil, and druids' animal companions are animals, not intelligent creatures.
This, in contrast, is just a bunch of programmed sex slaves who have no other purpose than serving someone for no reason at all. It's wanking material, plain and simple. And the OP seems to acknowledge this, which is nice. It's less nice that some people seem to have trouble understanding that something like this is only usable in very specific situations, mostly when a certain type of guys want to wank together with other guys but for some reason don't want to look at porn. In that context, it's not particularly sexist or otherwise problematic, but take it out of that specific context, and it almost certainly will be.
Hmmm, I just realised the same idea (beautiful whose only purpose is to serve men sexually) has already been done much better and funnier before (warning NSFW):
http://www.goblinscomic.com/tempts-fate-4/
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Wow. Talk about a can of worms.
The original post... Meh. Doesn't float my boat.
But I've seen far, far worse. Look at the Thrallherd for example. You get hordes of willing slaves who want nothing more than to serve you in any way you desire. They'll even die for you. And should they die another poor soul willingly replaces them 24 hours later. Does this mean that anyone who plays a Thrallherd is automatically creating a harem of sex slaves? Because they're definitely obedient and submissive to the Thrallherd.
I don't think the OP deserved getting jumped on because what he posted does not automatically mean sex slaves.
Hear me out.
The game has lots of pervertable stuff in it. It all depends on how players and GMs apply them. Succubi, enchantment spells, and so on give far too much to work with if you're so inclined. I mean, there's a spell called Unnatural Lust for Pete's sake.
But just because something is pervertable doesn't mean all uses are sexual. As was posted above, Eidolons can be sex slaves, but the class doesn't require it. That's the players choice. Unnatural Lust doesn't mean the game becomes XXX rated or the players sexists or rapists. It's all how it is used.
Keeping that in mind, the same can be said of other more sexually oriented supplements. There was lots of stuff in the BoEF that could be implimented without sex having to enter the game. The Imagist and the Kundala classes, as well as a good number of PrCs, spells and items. You could use all of these without overtly introducing sex into the game, or even changing much flavour.
Sisters of Rapture is the same, though requires a minor change here and there.
That brings us to these Sekirei things the OP linked to. Yes, they're blatant T&A potential. They're described as submissive and obedient.
But where does it say they are sex slave.
This is where approach comes in. They're not really different from (improved) familiars, animal companions or Eidolons, which are obedient to their masters in all things. The better example of course is found with the Eidolons and the Thrallherds believers and thralls though.
The game has intelligent humanoid servants who are utterly obedient (and female). The Sekirei thing is presented in a way that is supposed to titillate but it doesn't require sex and doesn't encourage it either. It is possible to use the feat and creatures in the game, as written, without sex ever coming up, only having to change the text of the Norito ability from kiss to touch (if even that).
Willing and obedient bonded "slaves" are available to lots of the classes. It's how they're approached that decides what they are. Is a race of female creatures who willingly bond with geeky masters male wish fulfillment? Yes. That's sort of the whole point of the hare genre of anime. But there are also female protagonists with male harems in that genre too. Wish fulfillment is not a male only option.
Again, it's the approach of the group and the players that decide where something goes. There's far worse already in the game. It depends on where you want to focus.
Tobias wrote: That brings us to these Sekirei things the OP linked to. Yes, they're blatant T&A potential. They're described as submissive and obedient.
But where does it say they are sex slave.
This is where approach comes in. They're not really different from (improved) familiars, animal companions or Eidolons, which are obedient to their masters in all things. The better example of course is found with the Eidolons and the Thrallherds believers and thralls though.
The game has intelligent humanoid servants who are utterly obedient (and female). The Sekirei thing is presented in a way that is supposed to titillate but it doesn't require sex and doesn't encourage it either. It is possible to use the feat and creatures in the game, as written, without sex ever coming up, only having to change the text of the Norito ability from kiss to touch (if even that).
Willing and obedient bonded "slaves" are available to lots of the classes. It's how they're approached that decides what they are. Is a race of female creatures who willingly bond with geeky masters male wish fulfillment? Yes. That's sort of the whole point of the hare genre of anime. But there are also female protagonists with male harems in that genre too. Wish fulfillment is not a male only option.
Again, it's the approach of the group and the players that decide where something goes. There's far worse already in the game. It depends on where you want to focus.
Thank you Tobias, you expressed what I wanted to say in a more articulated way, I agree whit everything on your post, but this quote here is essentially what I was trying to say with my previous posts.
Tobias wrote: I don't think the OP deserved getting jumped on because what he posted does not automatically mean sex slaves.
But where does it say they are sex slave.
The guy took a fictional sex slave race from some Manga or Anime or whatever, slapped a halfhearted attempt at game stats on it, and you're telling me that, because you could use the stats for something else, there are no sex slaves anywhere in the mix?
That's like taking the cyclops stats, saying that you personally envision them with two eyes, and saying "So there's therefore nothing feom Greek mythology here! None at all! Nope! None!"
Kirth Gersen wrote: Tobias wrote: I don't think the OP deserved getting jumped on because what he posted does not automatically mean sex slaves.
But where does it say they are sex slave.
The guy took a fictional sex slave race from some Manga or Anime or whatever, slapped a halfhearted attempt at game stats on it, and you're telling me that, because you could use the stats for something else, there are no sex slaves anywhere in the mix?
That's like taking the cyclops stats, saying that you personally envision them with two eyes, and saying "So there's therefore nothing feom Greek mythology here! None at all! Nope! None!" Well, this was the first time I heard about this anime. So give me a sec to check up on it.
*ding*... *ding*... *ding*...
Hmm... I haven't found anything about how they are sex slaves in the series. They seem to be a cross between Chobits, Love Hina and Fate/Stay Night, used for fighting rather than anything carnal.
In fact, it seems that it was aimed at around the same age group as the rest of those series.
So yeah, your cyclops example is excellent. Source material doesn't have them as a race of sex slaves, so saying that they are is like saying cyclops' have two eyes.
Tobias wrote: Well, this was the first time I heard about this anime. So give me a sec to check up on it. I'll admit that I haven't read the series firsthand; rather, I followed the OP's link and read how this was "all about sex." Obviously, he meant it to be entirely platonic; all the references to sex on the page are a clever ruse just to fool rubes like myself.
Farva: "I got you good, you f---er!"
Thorny: "Gee, a bar of soap. That's hilarious."
Captain: "Oh, gimme the g!~@*%n soap!" (stuffs bar in mouth).
Kirth Gersen wrote: Tobias wrote: Well, this was the first time I heard about this anime. So give me a sec to check up on it. I'll admit that I haven't read the series firsthand; rather, I followed the OP's link and read how this was "all about sex." Obviously, he meant it to be entirely platonic; all the references to sex on the page are a clever ruse just to fool rubes like myself.
Farva: "I got you good, you f---er!"
Thorny: "Gee, a bar of soap. That's hilarious."
Captain: "Oh, gimme the g%~!$+n soap!" (stuffs bar in mouth). So it's either an utterly platonic relationship or depraved sex slaves. Nothing in-between whatsoever? Right...
The stuff in the link talked about adding sexual fantasy to the game. But like any aspect of a game it can vary in just how it is presented. Titillation and fan service are not the same as full blown sex and not all sexual fantasies go straight to hard core.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hey guys, I want to thank everyone...well, okay, not everyone, but most of the people here for making a positive contribution to this thread. ;-)
I've been offline for the last two days, so I wanted to go back and answer a lot of the comments that people have posted.
stringburka wrote: What? I haven't removed any accusatory parts that I know of. I haven't made any such parts to begin with that I know of. The only accusatory post directed at a person I've seen was the 3rd reply of the thread. I was referring to where you called what I wrote sexism, and then go on to say that it shouldn't be tolerated. I thought that part had been removed; my mistake.
To be clear, I do agree that sexism is bad; I just don't think that my post is sexist against women (more on this below).
Malevolent Blob wrote: Does that mean we can make them fight? In fact, the Sekirei manga tends to revolve around the sekirei fight. They're all forced (with their human masters) into a battle royale. That part of it is sometimes played for laughs, and sometimes for titillation, but it's also pretty serious at times too - in the early stages, these fights are to the death.
Malignor wrote: I've seen a few episodes of Sekirei before sighing from boredom and dropping it. The fighting sucked, the characters lacked both dimension and originality, and it's like the only reason the show exists is to tease the audience with fan-service. To be fair, the anime was noticeably worse than the manga...but for the most part, you're right. There is plot and characterization, but not that much of either. The T & A is what really carries the series.
Malignor wrote: If I want sexual content, I have a cute wife and a few websites to turn to. Not that there was any sexual content in Sekirei... the whole thing was one giant tease, and eye-rollingly naive. I'm not sure about the context of calling it "naive," but you're right to say that it was fairly soft-core. It's titillation, not porn, after all (though given just how many times bare breasts appear, that's a thin distinction).
Malignor wrote: That said, I have to say that the rules are kind of ho-hum. The SLAs and such don't capture the power level of the characters (I mean +4 to strength is super strong?!) That's a legitimate critique.
The +4 to Strength is because it's staying within the limit of spells level 0-3 for normal sekirei. If I'd really wanted to pump the bonus up, I'd have used the spell template for enhancement bonuses to ability scores found in The Practical Enchanter (the sister supplement to Eclipse) and given her a third-level version of bull's strength, which would have been +6 instead of +4.
However, I was already introducing a lot of new material, and so I didn't want to add even more just for an extra +2 to Strength. As it is, she starts out with a 15 to her Strength score, and the bull's strength gets it to 19, which is pretty far beyond your typical Strength 10 and 11 NPCs. Add into that that she does quadruple damage against inanimate objects, and can boost her Strength with her norito, and I think she does a pretty good job of being a physical powerhouse.
The NPC wrote: Which do you lot prefer: Fire or shotgun? Now this isn't for the OP but for the idea. So you're not threatening me so much as threatening the author of the original manga? @_@
Erato wrote: While these fantasies are not wrong per se (assuming the fantasiser knows it's fantasy), the implications of it are far more damaging (and insulting) than portrayals of 'actual' rape. Many studies show that exposure to the “NO!, NO, no, no...... yes, YES!”-dynamic increases rape myth acceptance, tolerance of interpersonal violence, and hostility towards women far more than exposure to rape scenes where the victim is clearly not happy about the outcome. *sigh* I was wondering when someone would bring up this old chestnut again.
This is another variant of the old "porn promotes bad thoughts in people" argument. It's been around since there was porn, and it's never been proven - such "studies" that claim they do prove it are either poorly conducted, trying to twist the facts to suit a preexisting conclusion, or just don't exist.
I don't particularly want to retreat this particular topic, but I did feel the point had to be addressed. For what is probably the best debate on this particular topic you're going to find on the internet, I refer you to Zak Sabbath vs. Greg Christopher.
Tobias wrote: The stuff in the link talked about adding sexual fantasy to the game. But like any aspect of a game it can vary in just how it is presented. Titillation and fan service are not the same as full blown sex and not all sexual fantasies go straight to hard core. Well said. Reading the original manga (seriously, don't watch the anime - the manga is better) shows that while there is a sexual dimension to things, it's all titillation; there's no out-and-out sexual slavery that we see.
For that matter, it's not all "males dominating females" either. We see male humans with female sekirei, female humans with male sekirei, male humans with male sekirei, and female humans with female sekirei. The relationships range from platonic romance to working business relationships to a sexual relationship of equals, and more.
To be fair, I don't play any of that up in my blog post; but then, I wasn't trying to do a review of the interpersonal dynamics in the manga. I was focusing on what is clearly it's biggest draw (sexy servitors) and giving it Pathfinder rules. Nothing less, nothing more.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote: *sigh* I was wondering when someone would bring up this old chestnut again.
This is another variant of the old "porn promotes bad thoughts in people" argument.
Really? Even though I didn't mention porn at all, let alone said it was bad? And even though I was not discussing explicit sex vs. no sex, but rather the implications of willing slavery vs. unwilling slavery? And this from a guy who's so uptight and conservative that he considers bare female breasts to be enough to almost push something into porn? Your prejudice is showing.
Alzrius wrote: It's been around since there was porn, and it's never been proven - such "studies" that claim they do prove it are either poorly conducted, trying to twist the facts to suit a preexisting conclusion, or just don't exist. You do not understand what I'm talking about. You have a very specific perspective and it doesn't occur to you that anyone else doesn't share it. You distinguish between sex/sexiness and lack of sex/sexiness, and measures it according to how explicit it is. Please try to understand that not only is it not my focus, it is not even a priority.
The studies I refer to did not measure the effects of explicit sex, or porn if you will, they measured the difference in reaction between people exposed to descriptions of consensual sex/romance, forced sex/romance in which the victim is clearly distraught, and the “NO!, NO, no, yes, YES!” dynamic. I even recall one of them specifically used a romance movie that was rated suitable for children. I would be interested in some studies measuring the effect of portrayals of willing and enjoyable BDSM too, to get a more nuanced picture, but regardless of that, it's still a completely different phenomenon than the effect of wanking material in general.
Also, I wasn't even talking about your wanking material to begin with, I was answering the argument that portrayals of willing slavery are inherently less problematic or insulting than portrayals of unwilling slavery, because it's an area I happen to some experience in. That's it.
Alzrius wrote: I don't particularly want to retreat this particular topic, but I did feel the point had to be addressed. For what is probably the best debate on this particular topic you're going to find on the internet, I refer you to Zak Sabbath vs. Greg Christopher. I'm not interested in your particular topic either. I don't know if you're from the USA, but generally, I don't like talking porn with American progressives because few of them appear to have any perspective beyond “Sexual services directed at (straight) men=good, everybody who dislikes anything which includes fanservice for (straight) men for any reason=nasty prudes who need to be put in their place by being told how stupid they are.”
It might just be that conservative censorship has made them all defensive, but describe a (fictive) harem filled with women who're lorded over by a patriarch and covered up completely because of modesty issues, and US progressives will fall over themselves to condemn it as misogynist. Describe the same harem, but give the women tiny metal bikinis and make it clear they have a lot of sex, and many of the same progressives praise it for being edgy and sexy (as long as the women are young and pretty, otherwise it's suddenly not edgy but disgusting), and assume that everybody who has a problem with it must have an issue with sex or porn. It's like the amount of asscheeks shown is what gets to decide what's progressive and not, and the “lorded over by a patriarch” part doesn't enter into it.
So really, I can't relate to your perspective at all (and a good thing I can't, believing my own breasts to be genitals and perceiving every instance of me not hiding them as tantamount to porn would probably drive me crazy), and until you're willing to discuss something other than nudity and perceived porn, I'm not going to consider you as having addressed any point I made at all.
Erato wrote: It might just be that conservative censorship has made them all defensive, but describe a (fictive) harem filled with women who're lorded over by a patriarch and covered up completely because of modesty issues, and US progressives will fall over themselves to condemn it as misogynist. Describe the same harem, but give the women tiny metal bikinis and make it clear they have a lot of sex, and many of the same progressives praise it for being edgy and sexy (as long as the women are young and pretty, otherwise it's suddenly not edgy but disgusting), and assume that everybody who has a problem with it must have an issue with sex or porn. It's like the amount of asscheeks shown is what gets to decide what's progressive and not, and the “lorded over by a patriarch” part doesn't enter into it. What?
I don't think this is a progressive/conservative issue. It's about what people see as pornography. And I've never seen anyone who was against something like Love Hina but for something like Gor, so you might want to give some specific examples. Of course, I also don't think it's fair to categorize either side of the political spectrum because of a few hypocrites. It just distracts from the issues and keeps people from listening to one another.
As I mentioned in other posts, there are degrees between titillation and hardcore porn. There are also examples of
For example, does the wizard truename ability encourage domination of others? How about if a male wizard gets the truename of a succubus? Or a female wizard an incubus?
How about Improved Familiar or Eidolons? Both are intelligent and utterly willing to do whatever their masters want. They can even be humanoid in shape or gendered.
Is a player who makes his Eidolon a comely female humanoid in shape automatically enacting some sort of rape/domination fantasy since his Eidolon is obedient to him? Because the situation is the same as with the creatures in the OP's article.
My point is there are shades. A bared breast does not necessarily equal porn or exploitation, otherwise the vast majority of the great works of western art should be kept from children since they are actually nothing more than filth. Willing bonded servants in fiction are not automatic happy sex slaves.
Yes, the whole "No! Don't! Stop! No, don't stop!" dynamic is something else. But you have to add a few layers of implications before you get to that point in the OP's example, and the source material doesn't have any of that. In fact, the way that genre usually goes is the protagonist being utterly incapable of taking advantage of the willing female and going out of his way to protect her even though he has no powers and/or is weaker than her. The fantasy has nothing to do with "They actually like it" and is instead "Young, geeky guy being able to be the responsible, manly protector of the stronger but emotionally vulnerable girl" It may be sexist, but it doesn't encourage rape. If anything it can be said to encourage guys to rise above their base urges and to strive for something more rewarding that simple physical pleasure.
It's perspective. If you want to view it as filth, you will. If you want to see it as completely innocent, you will. Where it falls is probably somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning one way or the other.
Tobias wrote: What?
I don't think this is a progressive/conservative issue. It's about what people see as pornography. And I've never seen anyone who was against something like Love Hina but for something like Gor, so you might want to give some specific examples. Of course, I also don't think it's fair to categorize either side of the political spectrum because of a few hypocrites. It just distracts from the issues and keeps people from listening to one another.
And since the real the issue rarely has anything to do with whether something is pornography or not, that's a problem. I don't know what Love Hina is, and looking it up, it doesn't seem to have (m)any elements of male dominance or female submission, so I don't see the comparison.
Tobias wrote: As I mentioned in other posts, there are degrees between titillation and hardcore porn. There are also examples of
For example, does the wizard truename ability encourage domination of others? How about if a male wizard gets the truename of a succubus? Or a female wizard an incubus?
How about Improved Familiar or Eidolons? Both are intelligent and utterly willing to do whatever their masters want. They can even be humanoid in shape or gendered.
Is a player who makes his Eidolon a comely female humanoid in shape automatically enacting some sort of rape/domination fantasy since his Eidolon is obedient to him? Because the situation is the same as with the creatures in the OP's article.
My point is there are shades. A bared breast does not necessarily equal porn or exploitation, otherwise the vast majority of the great works of western art should be kept from children since they are actually nothing more than filth. Willing bonded servants in fiction are not automatic happy sex slaves.
Looking at it that way, any depiction of living/sentient creatures is inherently sexual and potentially perverted. An image of a man with large muscles? He could totally use his strength to overpower someone and rape them. A woman with a knife? She could totally hold it to someone's throat and force them to have sex with her. A rogue with high charisma? He could manipulate people to have sex with him against their will. A wizard? She could conjure up sex demons, dominate people, threaten to blast them to bits.... etc. These completely normal adventurers are about as potentially sexually exploitative as as your examples.
On the other hand, a spell with the description “the subject immediately transforms into a beautiful humanoid woman who considers the caster her master and will forever after live to serve and please him. She's empowered by kisses from her master” IS sexual, and potentially sexually exploitative (as well as somewhat sexist). There's a difference between a race made with the purpose of being (and I quote here) “sexy servitors”, and the existence of people whose only sexual trait is that they could potentially have sex and/or exploit someone sexually. Also, I don't consider it filth, I consider it trash (and rude). There's a huge difference.
Tobias wrote: Yes, the whole "No! Don't! Stop! No, don't stop!" dynamic is something else. But you have to add a few layers of implications before you get to that point in the OP's example, and the source material doesn't have any of that. The rape example had nothing to do with the OP, I was illustrating why saying “It's not really slavery, because these people live to serve and want it themselves” does not make it inherently more problematic.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I'm torn between my desire not to engage with someone who's very clearly got an axe to grind on this particular issue (and enough time and energy to go on about it at length) and my desire to clear up the twisted ideology they're espousing. For the moment, the latter is stronger.
Erato wrote: Really? Even though I didn't mention porn at all, let alone said it was bad? And even though I was not discussing explicit sex vs. no sex, but rather the implications of willing slavery vs. unwilling slavery? And this from a guy who's so uptight and conservative that he considers bare female breasts to be enough to almost push something into porn? Your prejudice is showing. In answer to your first question, yes, really.
That you didn't mention the word "porn" is a semantic distinction. Your point can be boiled down to saying that there's a kind of sexual fantasy which, when indulged in, promotes bad thinking in people. That's simply not true.
I did, however, crack a grin from the characterization of me as a conservative (particularly in light of this entire thread). The presence of bare breasts alone does not porn make - and I never said that it did - I simply pointed out that while the source material isn't porn, it's close to it, and an example of that is the gratuitous nudity. (Though it is worth noting that nudity alone is enough to qualify something as being softcore pornography.)
Finally, in the future, please try to conduct yourself more respectfully towards other forum members. You'll notice that I never once used hyperbole, sarcasm, or veiled insults towards you, despite you engaging in those towards me. You can disagree without being disagreeable.
The purpose of having a thread to talk about this is to share different points of view, not to attack them. I do think you're wrong, but I'd like to have a civil discussion about the merits and faults of your stance on this. Debate needn't be antagonistic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote:
Erato wrote: Really? Even though I didn't mention porn at all, let alone said it was bad? And even though I was not discussing explicit sex vs. no sex, but rather the implications of willing slavery vs. unwilling slavery? And this from a guy who's so uptight and conservative that he considers bare female breasts to be enough to almost push something into porn? Your prejudice is showing. In answer to your first question, yes, really.
That you didn't mention the word "porn" is a semantic distinction. Your point can be boiled down to saying that there's a kind of sexual fantasy which, when indulged in, promotes bad thinking in people. That's simply not true.
Alzrius, whether we are talking about porn or "titillating fan service," there are sexual fantasies that promote thinking which is harmful to others. While not every man who has a rape fantasy is inherently a rapist, the fact that he has that fantasy suggests that he views women as objects to be dominated. And Erato's main argument here is that a "willing rape" fantasy is particularly harmful to views of women because it glosses over the issue. Moreover, these fantasies have a realistic impact on women's lives. Rape victims are often portrayed as wanting it and later changing their minds, which is enough to get a defendant off in a jury system.
A slightly more concrete example we can look at is slavery. Most of us should be able to agree fairly easily that slavery is wrong. It might occur in our games, but we are usually the ones breaking up the slave rings. There are monsters portrayed as slavers, but they are of an evil alignment. However, if we look back at the real world examples, most portrayals of blacks in America had them as happy slaves. They wanted to serve whites because they weren't smart enough or motivated enough to want anything more. We can talk about slavery just fine, but when images like the Mammy and Sambo are tossed about it is particularly damaging to blacks because they make it seem as if all the pain and suffering involved in their history never was.
Basically, this idea of a woman (or a man for that matter) whose sole purpose is complete devotion and a desire to serve another is an excuse for rape (and slavery). Same as the happy slave is an excuse for slavery. I don't think these things need to be left out of every game, but I think they need to be handled maturely. And the "race" you've presented here as written (and portrayed through the images) is harmful to views of women.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hgsolo wrote: Alzrius, whether we are talking about porn or "titillating fan service," there are sexual fantasies that promote thinking which is harmful to others. I disagree completely.
I don't believe that fantasies are harmful to anyone; fantasies take place solely within the imagination of the person having it. Hence, the only person they affect is the person entertaining them.
Given that, the only question then is if they're harmful to the person having the fantasy. Again, I maintain that they are not - any healthy person should be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Thinking or dreaming about something is entirely different from doing it in real life - a dream doesn't impact anyone, and has no real consequences. Reality does. Anyone who can't follow that train of thought needs professional help; but even in that case, it's not the dream itself that's harmful - it's the fact that that person can't tell the difference (meaning that they'd eventually get into trouble no matter what).
So no, I don't agree that any fictional construct is harmful to anyone's views.
Alzrius wrote: hgsolo wrote: Alzrius, whether we are talking about porn or "titillating fan service," there are sexual fantasies that promote thinking which is harmful to others. I disagree completely.
I don't believe that fantasies are harmful to anyone; fantasies take place solely within the imagination of the person having it. Hence, the only person they affect is the person entertaining them.
Given that, the only question then is if they're harmful to the person having the fantasy. Again, I maintain that they are not - any healthy person should be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Thinking or dreaming about something is entirely different from doing it in real life - a dream doesn't impact anyone, and has no real consequences. Reality does. Anyone who can't follow that train of thought needs professional help; but even in that case, it's not the dream itself that's harmful - it's the fact that that person can't tell the difference (meaning that they'd eventually get into trouble no matter what).
So no, I don't agree that any fictional construct is harmful to anyone's views. The real issue is not an individual person's fantasies, it is the imagery and idea that is being reinforced by things like this. As I said before, it is akin to the imagery used with the happy slave. That kind of imagery was a major obstacle for blacks to overcome. The same thing applies here for women. While you can argue that a Sekirei can be male or female, the fact is you chose to include images of women and speak specifically about women in that post. Women gamers (and women in general) have enough problems, without things like this furthering the notion that they are here solely for male pleasure.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Alzrius wrote: I don't believe that fantasies are harmful to anyone; fantasies take place solely within the imagination of the person having it. Hence, the only person they affect is the person entertaining them. The thoughts which occupy your brain affect the decisions you make, which ultimately affect the people around you.
hgsolo wrote: While not every man who has a rape fantasy is inherently a rapist, the fact that he has that fantasy suggests that he views women as objects to be dominated. I'd be wary of any man who fantasizes about dominating women.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hgsolo wrote: The real issue is not an individual person's fantasies, it is the imagery and idea that is being reinforced by things like this. Again, I don't agree with this. The idea of "reinforcement" suggests that just seeing something will make people believe it. I don't find that to be true, vis-a-vis (as a popular example) the large number of people who don't commit violent crimes despite playing violent video games.
People are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with whatever imagery comes along. A fiction does not reinforce anything.
Detect Magic wrote: The thoughts which occupy your brain affect the decisions you make, which ultimately affect the people around you. The dreams you have don't decide how you act when dealing with other people. So I don't agree with your statement.
You may hate your boss and think about telling them off even if it meant you'd be fired, but that doesn't mean you're going to tell them off.
Detect Magic wrote: Alzrius wrote: I don't believe that fantasies are harmful to anyone; fantasies take place solely within the imagination of the person having it. Hence, the only person they affect is the person entertaining them. The thoughts which occupy your brain affect the decisions you make, which ultimately affect the people around you.
hgsolo wrote: While not every man who has a rape fantasy is inherently a rapist, the fact that he has that fantasy suggests that he views women as objects to be dominated. I'd be wary of any man who fantasizes about dominating women.
I absolutely agree with both points. My above statement had two points associated with it. You do not inherently act upon every fantasy, and while I would not want to associate with a man who has rape fantasies, I would not assume he was a rapist if he admitted to such fantasies (though if he was later tried for rape I'd certainly consider such an admission as a weighing factor). The other point is that there are some women (and some men) who have fantasies of being dominated and there are people who enact such fantasies in monogamous relationships in a safe way.
I live in asia ...the whole "no no Yes, no maybe, he'll think I'm a slut..marry me...I like hello kitty" is so frustrating I mostly drink and play video games. C'est la vie.
Alzrius wrote: In answer to your first question, yes, really.
That you didn't mention the word "porn" is a semantic distinction. Your point can be boiled down to saying that there's a kind of sexual fantasy which, when indulged in, promotes bad thinking in people. That's simply not true.
Of course fantasies can promote bad thinking, I don't see how anyone can deny that. Fantasy and ideology are closely intertwined. That's not to say your fantasies are inherently harmful, just that, imo, they fall too close to certain real world ideologies for me to think they're usually a good thing to share with people who've been the victims of said ideologies. Hence why I said they were probably better for guys to wank to together than for people to just bring into their game without regard for the rest of the players.
Alzrius wrote: I did, however, crack a grin from the characterization of me as a conservative (particularly in light of this entire thread). The presence of bare breasts alone does not porn make - and I never said that it did - I simply pointed out that while the source material isn't porn, it's close to it, and an example of that is the gratuitous nudity. (Though it is worth noting that nudity alone is enough to qualify something as being softcore pornography.) Just because you might, might be considered progressive in a very conservative country does not mean you're globally progressive. I've decided I'm not going to bother being anglocentric, and by Scandinavian standards, you're very much a conservative.
As a heterosexual woman, I find a nice sculpted male chest far more sexually stimulating than any female breast, so the idea that bare female breasts (and it's pretty obvious that's what you're talking about) is enough to make something border to pornography, while the erotic displays I and almost half the population get turned on by are not, is conservative and sexist. Also, by the standards you're suggesting, Scandinavian public service TV regularly shows softcore pornography to minors. Just saying.
Alzrius wrote: Finally, in the future, please try to conduct yourself more respectfully towards other forum members. You'll notice that I never once used hyperbole, sarcasm, or veiled insults towards you, despite you engaging in those towards me. Yes you did. You ascribed opinions to me that I did not express, put I my posts in contexts they're weren't in before, and expressed a pretty sexist political opinion which many people take offence at (that whatever turns straight men on is somehow inherently more sexual than what turns gay men and straight women on).
hgsolo wrote: Alzrius, whether we are talking about porn or "titillating fan service," there are sexual fantasies that promote thinking which is harmful to others. While not every man who has a rape fantasy is inherently a rapist, the fact that he has that fantasy suggests that he views women as objects to be dominated. I don't quite support this view. I do not believe the fantasy itself is inherently harmful, any more than I believe fantasies about being evil are inherently harmful. That being said, I do agree with your latter statement that the issue is not the fantasy, but the imagery.
hgsolo wrote: Basically, this idea of a woman (or a man for that matter) whose sole purpose is complete devotion and a desire to serve another is an excuse for rape (and slavery). Same as the happy slave is an excuse for slavery. I don't think these things need to be left out of every game, but I think they need to be handled maturely. And the "race" you've presented here as written (and portrayed through the images) is harmful to views of women. Thank you for getting it. Though I was actually talking more of the slavery issue than the rape issue, I just brought up the rape issue because it's an area where the argument “It's OK because s/he wanted it” (which was used about this race) is more readily recognised as harmful.
You could take the sexual aspects out of it, and the idea of a race of beautiful, primarily female, sentient humanoid beings whose only purpose is to serve would still be sexist and have unfortunate implications. You could take the implications of servitude out of it, and the idea of a race of sexy, primarily female, sentient humanoid beings whose only purpose is to find someone to have sex with would still be immature (and pretty boring all things considered) and have sexist implications. You could remove the sexism, and the a race of sexy sentient humanoid beings whose only purpose is to serve and who got special powers from kissing their masters would still have all the other issues.
Of course the OP himself admitted he was basically disregarding all good advice about how to handle sex in games, and was pretty much just catering to the lowest common denominator. That's OK by me, but it seems like some people are saying it's actually a good way (or even just a way) to bring sexuality into a game. Or even worse, that it's a good thing for female gamers. Because the thing female gamers need the most is more material pretending that everybody is a straight man.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erato wrote: Of course fantasies can promote bad thinking, I don't see how anyone can deny that. I deny it.
Erato wrote: Fantasy and ideology are closely intertwined. And this is why I deny it. I don't think that fantasies and ideologies are intertwined. One is a dream, the other is a set of personal beliefs. You can dream about doing things you don't believe in, and would never do in real life.
This is because people have a sense of consequences, responsibility, and morality that prevents them from living dreams they know are harmful, and even from believing in something that they might enjoy as a flight of fancy.
Erato wrote: As a heterosexual woman, I find a nice sculpted male chest far more sexually stimulating than any female breast, so the idea that bare female breasts (and it's pretty obvious that's what you're talking about) is enough to make something border to pornography, while the erotic displays I and almost half the population get turned on by are not, is conservative and sexist. Also, by the standards you're suggesting, Scandinavian public service TV regularly shows softcore pornography to minors. Just saying. You're drawing an unreasonable conclusion from what I said. Just because I posted that X could be considered sexual does not mean that Y could not be. You're saying that because I said bare breasts are sexual in connotation, that somehow what you find arousing is not - that's a false conclusion to draw.
Furthermore, pointing out that nudity is an element of softcore pornography doesn't mean that all nudity is therefore softcore pornography - I never indicated that it did. I simply indicated that something can be considered pornography when it includes nudity as the only sexual element; that doesn't mean that's always true.
Michelangelo's statue of David, for example, is not a sexual work of art.
Erato wrote: Just because you might, might be considered progressive in a very conservative country does not mean you're globally progressive. You're ascribing a political motivation to something that is inherently apolitical (to me, at least). Further, reading personal motivations into someone's writing is a futile attempt - people can write about something without believing in it, and certainly without advocating it.
Erato wrote: Yes you did. You ascribed opinions to me that I did not express, put I my posts in contexts they're weren't in before, and expressed a pretty sexist political opinion which many people take offence at (that whatever turns straight men on is somehow inherently more sexual than what turns gay men and straight women on). I never ascribed any opinions to you that you didn't express - if you think I did, then there's simply a miscommunication going on.
Likewise, I never posted the opinion you are now ascribing to me; at no point have I made any comparison between heterosexual and homosexual desire.
You seem to be reading a great deal into what I'm saying, and I'm trying to tell you that you're misunderstanding me. I think perhaps it'd be best if you stopped trying to draw extrapolations from what I'm saying, and likewise stopped assuming that I'm doing the same to you.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
