|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the clothing Lyrie is wearing is so objectionable, why are we hearing about this now? Her mini preview was released about five months ago to much praise.I suspect this is because not everyone pays terribly close attention to the minis blogs, and also because her boobs weren't right in the middle of a product cover staring us in the face.
It's kind of funny, I didn't see boobs in my face until it was mentioned on these boards. My first, and only, thought about Lyrie was "ugh, I hate her hair". But now that someone had to go and shatter my innocence, I do notice her boobs, but I don't think they are distracting from the rest of the picture, nor are they in my face.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have to agree with theJeff and GeraintElberion: It's the context.
Like Geraint said, if you want to show a woman whose personality or job is that she uses sex to get ahead--fine, she can be as porny as you want. Want to illustrate a fey who lives in the wilderness and doesn't culturally wear clothes? She should be illustrated naked.
The problem is that this character is not a prostitute, or a priestess of Calistria, or a creature of the wilderness. She's a woman living in a pseudo-medieval town. If a real woman wore that in the Medieval era, she'd be raped or beaten.
The problem, in general, is that artists think it's okay to objectify women in the very center of the cover of a product that is not specifically a porn magazine. This is never done to illustrated men in RPG products. It is always done to women.
So this means that (1) our culture still believes that women are valuable people only if they cater to male ideals--they either have to be a sex symbol or a man-in-woman's-body, and there is no in-between, while men can be valuable in many ways--and (2) artists like this assume that mostly men will be reading this product, and thus they need to appeal to the male gaze, which assumes that (3) male RPG gamers are shallow and horny. So it's not just objectifying one woman, it's degrading the hobby and stereotyping male gamers.
Sorry for the rant, but I think this is important.
I find this above rant far more offensive than the imagine quite frankly. Not everyone that enjoys the occasional "Cheesecake Art" is some shallow, misogynistic pervert. Among my group of gamer friends, we have a fair amount of females with us and looking at this Players Guide, none of them felt objectified or worthless. You know why?
First, for every one of these types of art, there are so many more depictions of women in Pathfinder in a bit more modest clothing. Tels you mention Amiri being your least favorite because she isn't covering her vital spots, yet she wears much more than many fantasy depictions of a male barbarian. For one thing, she actually has a shirt... ;) Paizo really goes out of their way to appease all kinds with their artwork. I feel like pointing out every sexy art like the screaming masses blindly crying heretic shows a bit of immaturity.
Second, you assume that only us "shallow and horny men" are the only ones that like this art. Believe it or not, us "shallow and horny men" aren't the only ones that appreciate sexy art. There are many women out there that like the style of women Pathfinder has put out. Hell, I remember a female artist with League of Legends answering some questions and when the topic came up about drawing sexy women, even she said that she enjoyed drawing the occasional eye candy. All people of all genders love seeing eye candy, not just us "shallow and horny men".
Lastly, not every woman out there is going to feel objectified by this artwork, just like not every guy appreciates shirtless, chiseled-jawed macho men in media. Why assume that all women find this objectifying? Why assume they are so fragile that they would be offended by this? Isn't that in of itself a bit hypocritical? The answer is yes, and I say that as a fellow hypocrite that feels the same way about how men are portrayed in anime... but that's a story for another time. Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean others do.
Now there is artwork out there that really does little in the way of being classy eye candy. There is plenty out there that really do cross the line and I do agree with you on that. But this isn't it. I'm afraid I disagree with you.
|
Odraude, I did not intend to offend you. In fact, I think I stated that I don't think male gamers are all shallow and horny--I think that's a misconception the art plays into.
It's not that the eye candy bothers me in itself, as I said. It's that the eye candy is so one-sided (i.e., only applies to women), in the gaming industry, in advertising, in movies and novels, basically everywhere in our society.
And I do think Paizo does a better job than other companies at this. I applaud their portrayal of Seela and Lini, to name just a couple. But it could get better. So it's not that this one piece of art crosses the line in a horribly offensive, I'm-never-buying-from-Paizo again sort of way. Because in reality, it's not the worst thing I've ever seen--but it does play into stereotypes and helps reinforce the problem of gender inequality in our society. And every single tiny piece of cheesecake adds to that in a tiny way. So until we achieve equilibrium, I'm not going to be okay with this sort of thing. Pointless cheesecake is not helping anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that this character is not a prostitute, or a priestess of Calistria, or a creature of the wilderness. She's a woman living in a pseudo-medieval town. If a real woman wore that in the Medieval era, she'd be raped or beaten.
Heh - imagine what they would do in a medieval town if she started throwing fireballs around or talking to animals... maybe we should get such evil sorcery out of the game too lest we give people the wrong impression.
I totally get where you are coming from and commend you for being so even keeled on the subject, but personally I'm fine with attractive or scantily clad women in my, uh... fantasy. This is the kind of thing that can be FAR too over-analyzed when ultimately we're talking about escapist enjoyment targetting a predominantly male audience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is hideously medieval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like it do not buy it or look at it. Easy
1. It is free;
2. How is one supposed to know one doesn't like it without looking at it?;)
And for the record, I don't get the issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like it do not buy it or look at it. Easy
This is a problematic attitude. We do have a choice what we want to buy or look at--for example, I can not visit porn websites or buy magazines that objectify women. That's fine. But if you want to be a gamer, you have to buy RPG products, and it would be sad if all people offended by this kind of thing just stopped buying gaming products. Not to mention that that's not really fair to those of us who really enjoy gaming, and therefore have to look at this kind of thing.
Now, if there was an alternate cover, or you could buy a lite version of every pdf, then maybe your comment would be reasonable.
|
...lots...
I don't think it works to look at this as individual moments.
It's about whether or not Paizo feels the need to contribute to...
Actually
I think
Tatsuya Ishida
Expresses it
rather better
than I could
I guess its
about whether you
want to accept
and contribute to
a certain side of
culture or rise above it.
I'v just been thinking
about unstated privilege
and how pervasive
these things can be.
Maybe I'm just this guy
I don't know
Maybe we just need more Fun Maculism!
|
|
If you don't like it do not buy it or look at it. EasyThis is a problematic attitude. We do have a choice what we want to buy or look at--for example, I can not visit porn websites or buy magazines that objectify women. That's fine. But if you want to be a gamer, you have to buy RPG products, and it would be sad if all people offended by this kind of thing just stopped buying gaming products. Not to mention that that's not really fair to those of us who really enjoy gaming, and therefore have to look at this kind of thing.
Now, if there was an alternate cover, or you could buy a lite version of every pdf, then maybe your comment would be reasonable.
So you are forced to buy or look at this stuff?
I do not like Justin Bieber or Katy Perry. I do not buy or listen to their music. No difference.
If it is something you absolutely have to have I guess you need to live with it.
|
Let me preface this by saying I think this is a valuable topic in the overall scheme of RPG art. If we want more players of different populations in the hobby, and I believe the answer to that is yes, then we need to be more sensitive to their wants and needs.
That said, having some titillating art is fine in my estimation as long as its balanced with that in the opposite direction. And I feel that Paizo is VERY much on top of that issue, and has done an amazing job throughout the life of the company. I find the calls to stop that type of art all together far too reactionary, and frankly immature. This is said not to bait anyone, or cause a reaction, but it is honestly my opinion.
Cheesecake, and in relation, beefcake art in and of itself is a fun genre of art. It's not inherently bad or evil or derogatory, UNLESS it's the only or majority of the art presented in a game.
A final thought, I'm a gay man. I'm pretty centered overall and think of myself as pretty well humored. I can take the occasional gay joke for what it is: a joke. I say this to add that perhaps calling out EVERY perceived slight can be detrimental to the overall cause. There are jokes, or artworks, that are presented in good nature and good humor and without intent. Granted, intent is not always readily apparent, but in this case, considering Paizo's excellent track record when it comes to representing persons of color, different sexualities, atheist characters, different genders, I think they deserve a wide berth in these matters.
Thanks for your time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She's a woman living in a pseudo-medieval town. If a real woman wore that in the Medieval era, she'd be raped or beaten.
A real woman in the medieval era would not be able to set men on fire for trying. The setting may be medieval but the social politics have always been more modern.
Frankly the problem with what you're saying here is that you seem to feel that women should only be shown trying to be attractive if they are desperate for a man. There are plenty of people out there in the world beyond your front door who would wear an outfit like that and not think it was obscene. (Most of them would be women).
Is it wrong for a woman to be comfortable dressing how she likes when she has the power to roast men alive?
The problem, in general, is that artists think it's okay to objectify women in the very center of the cover of a product that is not specifically a porn magazine. This is never done to illustrated men in RPG products. It is always done to women.
Not many but enough to disprove never.
I'm only guessing here. I don't feel objectified by these pictures, if only because I will never look anything like them.
|
|
The problem, in general, is that artists think it's okay to objectify women in the very center of the cover of a product that is not specifically a porn magazine. This is never done to illustrated men in RPG products. It is always done to women.Not many but enough to disprove never.
I'm only guessing here. I don't feel objectified by these pictures, if only because I will never look anything like them.
Okay, but you have to look at the intent of those pictures. Those men are showing their muscles--they're showing how awesome they are. If we just had women with bared midriffs, arms, and shoulders (like Amiri), then I would say that's fine, because those women are also just baring their muscles--the artist is showing how awesome they are. That doesn't count as cheesecake or beefcake, then, and doesn't objectify the subject, and thus isn't relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped posting in this thread once I realized no matter what I posted, parts were going to be ignored to favor their argument.
Also, it seems that I am not allowed to have my viewpoint that most art in the gaming industry today, when concerning women, portrays them as sex objects.
Apparently, if I think the gaming industry is portraying females as sex objects, I myself must be a sexist and therefore, not worthy of commenting. Only those that don't think the portrayal is sexist, are allowed to comment on whether or not it is sexit. But since they don't think it's sexist, then obviously, the won't comment and say it is sexist.
It seems that/I am in/the minority on/the subject of/sexism in gaming.
But I'm not as alone as I think.
Either way, I won't continue posting in this thread. I'm not allowed to express my viewpoint, because otherwise I threaten the continuation of the eye candy of others. And that just can't be allowed. Women must be portrayed as sex objects in meida, otherwise people might pay attention to the fact a lot of the games they play are crappy and are only selling because of the eye candy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...lots...I don't think it works to look at this as individual moments.
It's about whether or not Paizo feels the need to contribute to...
Actually
I think
Tatsuya Ishida
Expresses it
rather better
than I could
I guess its
about whether you
want to accept
and contribute to
a certain side of
culture or rise above it.
I'v just been thinking
about unstated privilege
and how pervasive
these things can be.Maybe I'm just this guy
I don't know
Maybe we just need more Fun Maculism!
I actually think he explains it fairly badly. Many of that has broad generalizations of people that look at sexy art that are simply not true of every single person.
The line between sexualized artwork and artwork that is sexually objectifying is a blurred one that exists in different points for different. That's fine to have differing opinions on the matter because it keeps the company grounded because they have to look at differing viewpoints and it can keep them from oversaturating one gender. However, I feel like one shouldn't force shame on people that like to look at sexy art or appreciate a beautiful body, whether it's artwork of a guy or girl (or anything in between or otherwise). There are a great deal of people, both men and women, that like to look at this artwork without sexist intent, but because they simply find it visually appealing. I feel that this kind of shame of the human body might force a different type of objectification that is just as wrong as oversexualization. This other end of the spectrum being iconic women only like the Cleric (completely covered up) or only like the Paladin (completely covered in full plate).
When I grew up learning how to draw people, I learned to appreciate the beauty of the human body for both sexes. I learned to embrace one's sexuality and surprisingly enough, learned to not degrade one gender over the other because of this appreciation. I personally do not feel that women are emotionally weak or beneath me and I do not appreciate being told I do because I like looking at the female body.
I also learned that there is such thing as offensive art and objectifying people in art was more than just cleavage and bare guy's chest. It was about pose, expression, and the entire scene of the artwork, the most common being the classic damsel in distress. You can see a great deal of this in many fantasy novel artwork from the old days. For the cover of the RotRL book, I do not see a submissive pose for the woman, nor the expression of distress or weakness on her face. She has a much more serious, neutral face that somewhat foreshadows how dangerous she is (which, she really is having played RotRL). I do not see her as weak and pathetic. I see her as a potential villain we might have to deal with in the game.
I'm not using the excuse "Everyone is doing it." or "It's only one so it's fine." The truth is as Winter Born said. It's a fun genre of art that can and has been taken to extremes. I just don't agree that this is an extreme and I don't believe in flat-out banning this art.
Odraude, I did not intend to offend you. In fact, I think I stated that I don't think male gamers are all shallow and horny--I think that's a misconception the art plays into.
It's not that the eye candy bothers me in itself, as I said. It's that the eye candy is so one-sided (i.e., only applies to women), in the gaming industry, in advertising, in movies and novels, basically everywhere in our society.
And I do think Paizo does a better job than other companies at this. I applaud their portrayal of Seela and Lini, to name just a couple. But it could get better. So it's not that this one piece of art crosses the line in a horribly offensive, I'm-never-buying-from-Paizo again sort of way. Because in reality, it's not the worst thing I've ever seen--but it does play into stereotypes and helps reinforce the problem of gender inequality in our society. And every single tiny piece of cheesecake adds to that in a tiny way. So until we achieve equilibrium, I'm not going to be okay with this sort of thing. Pointless cheesecake is not helping anything.
Except that Paizo has been making great strides towards equilibrium. I again point to the Rival Guide as a great source for artwork of all kinds. It has a great deal of artwork of women in non-sexualized poses and outfits that greatly outnumbers the cheesecake art. As I recall (at work so I don't have the book on me to verify), the only really sexualized artwork was a summoner and a drider. Much of the other artwork had women in everyday adventurer gear, chainshirts, robes, etc. In addition, it has bare chested men, feminine and pretty men, pantsless men, and mean looking men. It has all types for all folks and I think that is good.
As for the remark on guys feeling awesome when seeing muscular dudes, that is true for some guys, just like it is true that some women feel awesome when seeing sexy females. But there are also guys that dislike or are tired of the bare chested Fabio look you see in some media. I remember seeing a lot of groans when we did classes on older fantasy novels and seeing bare chested, loincloth wearing Conan or John Carter or Elric. Some of it was from body image issues, some from the whole "That's not realistic, he'd have to wear armor!" outlook, some from simple "Ewww naked dudes", and some from a similar point of view as yourself.
I for one understand your issue because I have a similar one with every hero in video games and RPGs having to be a chiseled face, Caucasian male and minorities usually being left as side characters or villains, usually as racial caricatures or comedy relief. Or my view on anime and males portrayed in that. I rallied fairly hard in vain on the League of Legends boards for more races of color in the game, as of the 100+ champions and 75+ humans, only three were non-Caucasian or non-Asian. Not to mention how much of the Chinese artwork for the game had the character's whitewashed for no honest reason I could come up with. I feel that these things need to be said and change needs to be done in our hobbies. However, I honestly think that doing the reverse, that is stopping all cheesecake art or having only minority main characters, isn't the right way to do things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped posting in this thread once I realized no matter what I posted, parts were going to be ignored to favor their argument.
Also, it seems that I am not allowed to have my viewpoint that most art in the gaming industry today, when concerning women, portrays them as sex objects.
Apparently, if I think the gaming industry is portraying females as sex objects, I myself must be a sexist and therefore, not worthy of commenting. Only those that don't think the portrayal is sexist, are allowed to comment on whether or not it is sexit. But since they don't think it's sexist, then obviously, the won't comment and say it is sexist.
It seems that/I am in/the minority on/the subject of/sexism in gaming.
But I'm not as alone as I think.
Either way, I won't continue posting in this thread. I'm not allowed to express my viewpoint, because otherwise I threaten the continuation of the eye candy of others. And that just can't be allowed. Women must be portrayed as sex objects in meida, otherwise people might pay attention to the fact a lot of the games they play are crappy and are only selling because of the eye candy.
On the contrary, I think you are right about the industry as a whole. I just think you are wrong about this particular image.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets see, anyone remember any of the adventuring women in Conan the Barbarian or Conan the Destroyer? Or for that matter any of oh...a hundred movies of the sword and sorcery genre? Scantily clad warrior women is nothing new. Honestly, who cares? She is far more clothed than many of those women.
- Gauss
There's something in these articles that I actually find much more distressing than Cheesecake Art actually. That's the general sexism and racism in video gaming nowadays. I don't know it if it's because of gender and race portrayal in games or the simple anonymity of the internet or some other reason I simply cannot fathom, but there is this increased acceptance of using racial slurs and threats of rape on the internet and games doing little to curb either one. As much as I ragged on League of Legends in my previous post, one thing I am happy they did was the Tribunal system and a zero tolerance policy for things like that. It met with a huge amount of criticism from people that felt they had the right to hate on Brazilians and women gamers, but I'm glad Riot Games stuck to their guns...
I feel though that in tabletop gaming, I've noticed the opposite trend of gamers becoming a bit more adjusted socially and accepting of female gamers in general. There are still the barflies and creeps that hang about, but overall my experience has shown me it's getting better.
I am reminded of the time an issue of Dragon magazine had a picture of a barbarian on the cover. In traditional "Conan" homage, he was wearing no shirt, very muscular, skin glistening with sweat. The outrage was so loud, it will someday bounce back from outer space! Kidding, but really. Paizo was in charge of Dragon at the time, so they got flooded with letters about how offensive it was, how gamers were too ashamed to purchase the issue because there was a BARE-CHESTED MAN on the cover. Gamers do not want to see this!!! Paizo's response was pretty much laughing at the people who were perfectly ok with girls in chainmail bikini but a man gets the same treatment, and they cry foul.
Now, as for the new RotR cover... I think the outfit is kinda tacky... offensive though? Not really.
OH and only semi-off topic but maybe totally... you should check out the "Chicks in Chainmail" series. It's a series of short stories by female fantasy artists (at least the first two (Chicks in Chainmail and The Chick is in the Mail) were women only, haven't read Chicks and Chained Males or any later ones), poking fun at the chainmail bikini stereotype.
I stopped posting in this thread once I realized no matter what I posted, parts were going to be ignored to favor their argument.
Welcome to the Internet...and life. Seriously. If you go through life expecting logic to influence people, you're going to be very disappointed. Sad but true.
But moving on, you are allowed to express your viewpoint...just be prepared for people to disagree with it. Personally, I'm fairly ambivalent about the whole thing -- compared to pretty much every other form of popular media, this seems pretty tame.
Lets see, anyone remember any of the adventuring women in Conan the Barbarian or Conan the Destroyer? Or for that matter any of oh...a hundred movies of the sword and sorcery genre? Scantily clad warrior women is nothing new. Honestly, who cares? She is far more clothed than many of those women.
- Gauss
The problem with comments like this is, to people who find this image sexist, you are basically saying "this sexism is ok because it is less sexist than other things"
I think Paizo does a pretty good job with their art, certainly better than some companies. I do think this outfit...is a bit silly. Presumably she is going to have a costume malfunction every time she bends down to look at an artifact.
The answer is always more art; the corollary to that is the answer is never less art. If you start to think that less art is the answer, start over. That’s not the side you want to be on. The problem isn’t that people create or enjoy offensive work. The problem is that so many people believe that culture is something other people create, the sole domain of some anonymized other, so they never put their hat in the ring. That even with a computer in your pocket connected to an instantaneous global network, no-one can hear you. When you believe that, really believe it, the devil dances in hell.
I share a certain disdain for the low-brow manifestations of geek culture, but my position is nuanced. It's all about context and quality. Sex doesn't bother me, sex written in a stupid, puerile manner bothers me, and not on moral but aesthetic grounds.
Tycho's statement, above, shook me to the core when I read it, causing me to revisit my entire perspective on trashy things (which is not the RLPG cover, IMO). It is worth reading the entire post for the context.
Also, anyone who protests any garment in a Pathfinder product on the basis of what is or is not "medieval" is probably fundamentally misapprehending the nature of the product. This goes for Monks, Gunslingers, and Andoran Knights as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, we should agree to disagree and let it die.
|
I think Paizo does a pretty good job with their art, certainly better than some companies. I do think this outfit...is a bit silly. Presumably she is going to have a costume malfunction every time she bends down to look at an artifact.
Malfunction? I don't think so. Those bands aren't there to conceal anything - they're there to hold her cloak in place. When she takes the cloak off, she'd be naked from the waist up. Presumably that's her choice - it would certainly provide a distraction (at least against the average male human opponent).
In several parts of the world that wouldn't be a problem (and, as I've already mentioned upthread, I've seen a more extreme example than that shown in the artwork walking down the street, let alone on the beach).
I think Paizo does a pretty good job with their art, certainly better than some companies. I do think this outfit...is a bit silly. Presumably she is going to have a costume malfunction every time she bends down to look at an artifact.Malfunction? I don't think so. Those bands aren't there to conceal anything - they're there to hold her cloak in place. When she takes the cloak off, she'd be naked from the waist up. Presumably that's her choice - it would certainly provide a distraction (at least against the average male human opponent).
In several parts of the world that wouldn't be a problem (and, as I've already mentioned upthread, I've seen a more extreme example than that shown in the artwork walking down the street, let alone on the beach).
and sometime schools (even pre-colege), a lot of kids can end up wearing "sexy" clothing, many parents blames TV, video games, comic books, etc... to avoid thinking/admiting they are bad parents.
|
|
Okay, but you have to look at the intent of those pictures. Those men are showing their muscles--they're showing how awesome they are. If we just had women with bared midriffs, arms, and shoulders (like Amiri), then I would say that's fine, because those women are also just baring their muscles--the artist is showing how awesome they are. That doesn't count as cheesecake or beefcake, then, and doesn't objectify the subject, and thus isn't relevant.The problem, in general, is that artists think it's okay to objectify women in the very center of the cover of a product that is not specifically a porn magazine. This is never done to illustrated men in RPG products. It is always done to women.Not many but enough to disprove never.
I'm only guessing here. I don't feel objectified by these pictures, if only because I will never look anything like them.
I call bull on this. "Awesome"??? Muscles on men are sexy. These men are ruggedly handsome, lithe, muscly and sexy. They are showing off their attractive features. "Doesn't count as beefcake"? What the heck do you think beefcake is for crying out loud?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."
-- Tom Lehrer
The problem with comments like this is, to people who find this image sexist, you are basically saying "this sexism is ok because it is less sexist than other things"Lets see, anyone remember any of the adventuring women in Conan the Barbarian or Conan the Destroyer? Or for that matter any of oh...a hundred movies of the sword and sorcery genre? Scantily clad warrior women is nothing new. Honestly, who cares? She is far more clothed than many of those women.
- Gauss
Perhaps but the other point (perhaps it was hidden too well) is that this is not about 'medieval genre appropriate' since the genre is in fact not medieval but is the Sword and Sorcery genre. As such, these outfits are appropriate.
- Gauss
Definitely, the best solution is for all Paizo art to depict characters with no obviously classifiable male or feminine features (maybe someone like "Pat" from Saturday Night Live?).
Then dress them all up in voluminous burlap bags and give them all BIG SWORDS.
Hopefully, this way no one will be offended, or be able to determine whether a character is male or female, which is sexist and objectifying.
A safe neutral/ambiguous/tan skin tone is advised for any visible facial features, no racially divisive pale or dark skin tones, please!
No one will be offended.
Except for people with SMALL SWORDS.
Who cares if they complain?
|
|
But you can't have big swords. That's just inneuendo. Nope, gotta cut 'em.
Oh, and no small swords. Also innuendo, and may hurt self-esteem. Get rid of those too.
And swords all together, just a sex symbol, gotta lose 'em. And clubs too, could be a toy. And polearms, it's got the word pole in it, could have something to do with strippers.
Oh, and no fully clothed people either. A burlap sack could have a fetish. And of course no nudes.
Let's get rid of undead too. Darn necrophiliacs.
Is that a wolf in that picture!! How dare you insert such a brazen image! Toss it now.
A tree? What do you think we're selling here? Can't you please think of the children!
Wait, I think I see a foot there. NO FEET!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have any of the people whining about this art READ the flipping adventure?? Lyrie is essentially trying to seduce/win over Tsuto, while herself being pursued romantically by Orik.
A) her outfit is not "fanta-porn" in the first place
B) her outfit is consistent with all previously seen on her
C) she has an in-character reason for dressing that way.
Go be professionally offended somewhere else.
See my point A) above.
|
|
Again, it's not the outfit. Or not just the outfit.
It's the art.
The outfit in the original adventure is at least as risque, but the picture isn't drawn to emphasize her breasts.
Think of the difference between a photo of a buxom girl standing in a shirt that shows a hint of cleavage and another photo of the same girl in the same shirt, but this time she's bent over and the camera's looking right down her shirt showing most of her breasts. Both the same girl in the same clothes, but one is soft porn and one isn't.
Not necessarily. It's soft porn if the only reason the picture was taken is to show her breasts; if she's bending over for some genuine purpose, the photograph is mostly about whatever she's doing, and she'd be doing it whether or not there's a camera there, it isn't. It is, at worst, slightly tasteless reporting.
Of course if you then take that photograph, crop it to emphasise the cleavage, and post it to a public forum to complain about rampant pornography in the media, don't be surprised if people think that says rather more about you than it does about the photographer/publisher.
If it's front and center on the cover of a publication, without some strong reason to think otherwise I'm going to assume it was put there to sell the publication on the theory that sex sells.
I don't think that's fair, really.
I'll bet they just chose the positions based on how the poses worked in the layout.
Don't be so cynical.
I don't really have a strong opinion about this except to say that I saw a woman showing more cleavage yesterday at Ruby Tuesday's.