| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but given that it's an issue that I suspect isn't going to be limited to the Mummy's Mask AP, and isn't specifically related to the AP so much as it is to the cover of one of the volumes, Adventure Path General Discussion it is!
Fair warning, this is going to be a long post. I'm going to spoiler the background for why this thread has been created to try and make it a bit more manageable to read.
Jim Groves asked for input on the matter. After putting together my interpretation of the situation and posting it, I went to bed. On checking in this morning though, the moderators had been by and removed whatever discussion may have taken place since then, as well as the original post, Jim's request and my response, suggesting that the product discussion thread may not be the best place for it. I think that's a fair call on their part, so I asked for the text from my removed response, and am reopening the discussion here, since I couldn't see that anyone else had started a new thread yet.
So, let's kick this off. Below is a (slightly modified) repost of my original response to the discussion from the Secrets of the Sphinx thread. I've removed the quoted text of the original post that prompted it, as I don't want to identify the poster without their okay. Other than that I've just cleaned up the content a little to make my points a bit clearer.
Tinkergoth's Original Response:
"Obviously I can't speak for him, but I think I can kind of see where *NAME REMOVED* is coming from. I don't find it personally offensive, and I don't think it's anywhere near as sexualised as some of the previous cover portraits on AP volumes have been. Areelu Vorlesh's City of Locusts' picture springs to mind, as it fair screams 'sex and violence' at the reader. That said, the cover (Link to image) also isn't exactly a portrait of subtlety, given the classic provocative feminine pose (it looks less like she's using the staff for support like Gandalf might, and more like she's leaning into it like a dancer on a pole), the gracefully posed bare leg and the rather obvious case of underboob.
Additionally, the fact that the dress/robe/whatever it is appears to be specifically designed to NOT cover her breasts probably isn't helping the situation. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what the picture is showing, but it looks like the only reason we're not getting a full frontal view of her chest is that her hair is covering it. I could be wrong, and that could be another part of the costume that happens to be in another colour, but my mind immediately processed it as hair draped forward artfully over her chest
I imagine the primary complaint is similar to the complaints that arise about posing for female characters in comics, in that they always seem to be deliberately provocative, no matter what the situation is (and in many cases physically impossible without some severe contortionist skills, but that's besides the point), whereas male characters just get your classic heroic poses. Same deal goes for costumes, you rarely see guys in loincloths or revealing clothing, but it happens a lot for women, again with no regard for situation. Given that I can see *NAME REMOVED* has made a counterpart comment on the thread for The Slave Trenches of Hakotep, pointing out that perhaps the male character should be sexualised more to appeal to female readers, I think this is a fair guess at what point he's making
Like I said, this doesn't really bother me personally, since I happen to like artwork of pretty people, be they female or male (in fact, feel free to roll on the Equal Opportunity Scantily Clad Heroes of Golarian calendar Paizo!), but I can see where others might have a problem with it. As mentioned above though, I consider this one to actually be pretty tame compared to others. It has all the elements of being a really sexual image, but somehow doesn't entirely come across that way to me (and before anyone says it, no, it's not because of the mask. Can't quite explain it). I guess it really is a case of YMMV.
Hope that's of some help Jim.
*NAME REMOVED*, feel free to jump in and correct me if I've misunderstood anything you were trying to say."
So that was my take on the matter. Does anyone have anything (constructive) to contribute to the discussion?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems based on actual clothing used in Ancient Egypt.
That said, different people have different standards.
In my opinion that dress is not particularly scantily clad.
That is not particularly scantily clad.
My actual use of the term scantily clad was only in reference to my wanting to see a pinup calendar of ALL the iconics. Sadly, I know that isn't going to happen.
In regards to considering the portrait to be scantily clad...
Personally, I agree, it isn't that bad. It's certainly no Boris Vajello or Brom artwork. But at the same time, I can see why it could offend/irritate some people.
Paizo have a reputation for writing products that show equality for men and women regardless of their sexual identity in their setting, and as a company that promotes and encourages this same inclusivity in the gamer community. This is an attitude that is laudable, something I think they deserve all of the love for. I also don't think this attitude is incompatible with sexy artwork in their products, as long as it doesn't cross the border from Sexy-but-appropriate Land into Okay-this-is-just-softcore-porn Country, and we get some pretty guys as well, but I know that some people don't feel the same way.
A while ago (and I'm kicking myself for not bookmarking it or following the blog now), I found a blog entry that sang the praises of Paizo for everything about their setting, but then proceeded to tear apart the "inappropriate" art of Wayne Arthur Reynolds. Given that I've never really had an issue with WAR's art, especially compared to some other artists I'm familar with, I thought it was a perfect example of how subjective this sort of thing can be. If I remember when I get home, I'll see if I can find the blog and post a link to it.
EDIT: Bah! Of course you edited while I was typing. :P
That's another excellent point. Does accurate representation of the source make it "okay"? I know Golarian isn't meant to be an Earth expy, but it's very clear that certain regions are heavily based on historical cultures of our world, and that often seems to include the traditional clothing as well. So in that regard, I consider the clothing to be fine, but we keep coming back around to the fact that this is all subjective based on our own viewpoints, and others are always going to have their own views.
If you take a look at my response to Lord Fyre, you'll see that I agree that Paizo's attitude and track record are above reproach in that regard. I also don't have an issue with the cover myself, I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss.
It's always worth allowing people to voice their concerns and discuss them in a free and open way*. It helps foster understanding of other people's viewpoints. In Paizo's case specifically, it also lets them gather valuable information about how their fanbase feels regarding aspects of their work.
*Within reason of course. I'm not advocating going down to your local *insert relevant hate group here* gathering and engaging them in a free and frank discussion of views, because a) they're probably not going to listen anyway, and b) it's a good way to get curbstomped.
EDIT: Seriously? Man, everyone is editing their posts while I'm typing today... or in this case, just outright deleting the one I'm responding to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im not getting into this after all, better things to do:)
If you take a look at my response to Lord Fyre, you'll see that I agree that Paizo's attitude and track record are above reproach in that regard. I also don't have an issue with the cover myself, I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss.
Disagree. I don't think Paizo's covers are sexy enough. ;P
EDIT: Seriously? Man, everyone is editing their posts while I'm typing today... or in this case, just outright deleting the one I'm responding to.
Yes. In fact, I am editing this post right now.
Personally, while overly sexualized artwork can be distracting, I'm far more concerned with the depicted characters evoking strong senses of who they are. I want to *see* that they are powerful, evil, strong, noble, kind, warm, cold, brave, or craven.
The two covers for Second Darkness #1, Shadows in the Sky handle this well. The standard cover is a drow, sexualized as they often are, but decidedly deadly looking and that is the emphasis (I feel). The alternate cover is an elf, boldly regal and powerful looking, a bit more subdued on the sexy side.
How does Paizo do on this (showing *character*)? Good. Could be better, but solid good.
How do they do on not over-doing the sex-to-sell? Well, not great.
How do they do on balancing these two gender-wise? Better than almost everyone else, but that isn't saying all that much.
EDIT: Seriously? Man, everyone is editing their posts while I'm typing today... or in this case, just outright deleting the one I'm responding to.Yes. In fact, I am editing this post right now.
Curse you Lord Fyre!
Personally, while overly sexualized artwork can be distracting, I'm far more concerned with the depicted characters evoking strong senses of who they are. I want to *see* that they are powerful, evil, strong, noble, kind, warm, cold, brave, or craven.
The two covers for Second Darkness #1, Shadows in the Sky handle this well. The standard cover is a drow, sexualized as they often are, but decidedly deadly looking and that is the emphasis (I feel). The alternate cover is an elf, boldly regal and powerful looking, a bit more subdued on the sexy side.
How does Paizo do on this (showing *character*)? Good. Could be better, but solid good.
How do they do on not over-doing the sex-to-sell? Well, not great.
How do they do on balancing these two gender-wise? Better than almost everyone else, but that isn't saying all that much.
Agreed. The most important thing for me is that the artwork gives that strong depictation of who they are and what they represent. I think the cover of The Half Dead City is effective in that regard. I look at that NPC (who's name I sadly can't recall right this second) and get a sense of someone who's arrogant, used to getting her own way, and ready to stab anyone who gets in her way.
In general I'd say I'm pretty happy with how Paizo portrays their characters on the covers. Rasputin certainly lived up to the "mad monk" idea in his portrait. Those crazy, crazy eyes... Barnabas Harrigan on the cover of The Wormwood Mutiny is another good one, he screams "cut throat pirate".
I think one of the reasons that we still get the "sexy", for want of a better term, art more often than not, is that it's often what artists like to draw. Give someone a basic description of a character, it's probably going to end up attactive. Even if it has scars and so on, they'll often add to the allure by being something exotic, rather than being disfiguring. Not saying this is always the case, but it's something that would make sense to me. Even Irabeth, the no-nonsense Half-orc Paladin isn't what I'd call unattractive (not that all orcs/half-orcs should be hideous, but I saw the character profile before I saw the artwork, and pictured her very differently).
Add that to the old "Sex Sells" argument, which is still true, and it starts to make sense. That said, I think something Paizo has done, by choosing certain artists, and giving clearer direction on what they want, is moved away from the old "This would look ballin' on the side of a van with flames and dragons and stuff" HIGHLY sexualised fantasy pinup art style that so many people seem to think of when you mention fantasy art, and taken it more to "these people are attractive, and yes even sexy, but look like they're capable of actually going on an adventure too" territory. Which is a positive move.
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The oracle, really?
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The cleric, really?
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The oracle, really?
Out of the iconics, the only ones I'd say really push the boundaries are Alhazara (spelling?) the Oracle, and the mythic version of Lirianne the Gunslinger, who I feel went from being a hard-as-nails action girl to looking like Gunslinger Barbie. Seoni is a situational case for me, depends on the artist who's drawing her at the time.
Again, as I've said, none of them bother me, but those are the ones that I looked at and thought "Hmmm... could be trouble".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The oracle, really?
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The cleric, really?
Man, mythic Kyra though... dat trenchcoat. Trenchcoat wearing holy warrior is now one of my favourite character concepts. Gives her a more ready to kick butt and take names attitude.
I actually find paizo to be really terrible art wise, especially with the iconics
The oracle, really?
To me,'if they aren't one of the original 12, they aren't an iconic. Besides, why worry about the Oracle when there's the Witch...
The problem this thread will run into is that opinions on both sides are going to be strongly held.
Sooner or later, this will become a flame war.
The problem this thread will run into is that opinions on both sides are going to be strongly held.
Sooner or later, this will become a flame war.
I like to hope that it won't, but I'm an optimist at heart, no matter how many times it goes wrong I always hold out hope that the next time will be different.
I'd give a pass to Arlee Vorlesh's cover. To me, It makes sense for the character to be scantily clad since IIRC she is part Succubus, and a possible future demon lord of such if Nocticula gets full god hood.
Without knowing the character's origin it's hard to judge, but this does seem pretty fanservicy. Also having just seen the cover, the combination of standard king tut like burial mask with sexy attire is really creeping me out
I'd give a pass to Arlee Vorlesh's cover. To me, It makes sense for the character to be scantily clad since IIRC she is part Succubus, and a possible future demon lord of such if Nocticula gets full god hood.
Without knowing the character's origin it's hard to judge, but this does seem pretty fanservicy. Also having just seen the cover, the combination of standard king tut like burial mask with sexy attire is really creeping me out
Oh yeah. Context works perfectly for her portrait, but think of it from the point of view of someone who doesn't know the details. Say they just picked it up in a store to look. Not saying it's a problem, just giving it as an example of one of the more potentially objectionable covers.
I think the cover of The Half Dead City is effective in that regard. I look at that NPC (who's name I sadly can't recall right this second) and get a sense of someone who's arrogant, used to getting her own way, and ready to stab anyone who gets in her way.I can't look at it without thinking "I really want that hat" before anything else.
True. It really IS a fabulous hat. After I finish being dazzled by the hat though, then I think the artwork is still really effective.
Man, mythic Kyra though... dat trenchcoat. Trenchcoat wearing holy warrior is now one of my favourite character concepts. Gives her a more ready to kick butt and take names attitude.Kyra's mythic look is my favourite mythic look. Nearly equaled by Valeros channeling his inner Conan, but damn if the trenchcoat + sword + holy fire doesn't come together in a fantastic image.
I kind of like Mythic Ezren, because from the look of those biceps he's apparently just been chugging potions of Bull's Strength like cola. Mythic Freiya as well, she takes the elegant gothic look and makes it her own... and her fox appears to have either a) been getting into Ezren's stash of potions, or b) been replaced by a badger that's been painted to look like a fox.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Tinkergoth,
Thanks for the invite. I exchanged some correspondence with the original party who voiced the concern.
I understand the reasons for why the thread was shut down, but I have sort of lost the momentum of the discussion. Please, by all means, carry on! :)
Hey Tinkergoth,
Thanks for the invite. I exchanged some correspondence with the original party who voiced the concern.
I understand the reasons for why the thread was shut down, but I have sort of lost the momentum of the discussion. Please, by all means, carry on! :)
No worries Jim. Work's kind of dead here at the moment, so this is at least giving me something to think about while I wait for the inevitable heat death of the universe... or to go home. Whichever comes first.
Is this thread even for real? I came in really planning to keep an open mind. Then I clicked on the image link. THAT is the cover you're tripping about?! It looks more national geographic than playboy.
"Underboob".
SMH
Is this thread even for real? I came in really planning to keep an open mind. Then I clicked on the image link. THAT is the cover you're tripping about?! It looks more national geographic than playboy.
"Underboob".
SMH
Okay. Did you read my post? Not just skim it to see if you can have a go? I have said repeatedly, I don't have a problem, with any of the covers. I'm just trying to see things from another person's view point, and to provide an opportunity for people to discuss their thoughts on it. No one else seems to have an issue worth this.
And yes. Underboob. Much like cleavage or sideboob, but, you know, under. A 2 second Google search will find that it's fairly widespread term.
So no, I'm not tripping over that cover. Just trying to facilitate a rational discussion over concerns that someone else raised.
I know right - that scorpionette on the left of Secrets of the Sphinx is totally fanservice. What is that she's wearing - rope? Dis-gusting. ;)
As for the actual serious question regarding the NPC depicted? Looks graceful and in-character for a succubus. Brings to mind Hurrell's glamour photography from the 1920's - all she needs is a cigarello...
Is this thread even for real? I came in really planning to keep an open mind. Then I clicked on the image link. THAT is the cover you're tripping about?! It looks more national geographic than playboy.
"Underboob".
SMH
Okay. Did you read my post? Not just skim it to see if you can have a go? I have said repeatedly, I don't have a problem, with any of the covers. I'm just trying to see things from another person's view point, and to provide an opportunity for people to discuss their thoughts on it. No one else seems to have an issue worth this.
And yes. Underboob. Much like cleavage or sideboob, but, you know, under. A 2 second Google search will find that it's fairly widespread term.
So no, I'm not tripping over that cover. Just trying to facilitate a rational discussion over concerns that someone else raised.
I'm sorry man, I'm trying to quit smoking this week. You're right I totally skimmed. I don't even know why that pushed my buttons anyway. I just really want a cigarette. Lol.
But how is she leaning on the staff like a stripper pole? That was the part that made me flip out.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flipside of "Duh, of course she's drawn sexy; she's a succubus" is "Why are there so many succubi and so few incubi (for example) on AP covers?"
Dot for when time have. I have opinions about fanservice, cheesecake/beefcake equality, and Egyptian dress and I want to show you them.
;)
Looking forward to it. I did think while creating the thread that it had a fairly high Mikaze-factor. Thought you'd show up sooner or later :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The flipside of "Duh, of course she's drawn sexy; she's a succubus" is "Why are there so many succubi and so few incubi (for example) on AP covers?"
Yes, that is the inescapable truth. My non-gamer friend and her daughter joined my game last year, and the mom literally ended up filing the boobs off her mini because she couldn't find one that wasn't in that sexualized/idealized style or whatever you want to call it. That is where I see a problem.
Is this thread even for real? I came in really planning to keep an open mind. Then I clicked on the image link. THAT is the cover you're tripping about?! It looks more national geographic than playboy.
"Underboob".
SMH
Okay. Did you read my post? Not just skim it to see if you can have a go? I have said repeatedly, I don't have a problem, with any of the covers. I'm just trying to see things from another person's view point, and to provide an opportunity for people to discuss their thoughts on it. No one else seems to have an issue worth this.
And yes. Underboob. Much like cleavage or sideboob, but, you know, under. A 2 second Google search will find that it's fairly widespread term.
So no, I'm not tripping over that cover. Just trying to facilitate a rational discussion over concerns that someone else raised.
I'm sorry man, I'm trying to quit smoking this week. You're right I totally skimmed. I don't even know why that pushed my buttons anyway. I just really want a cigarette. Lol.
But how is she leaning on the staff like a stripper pole? That was the part that made me flip out.
All good man, I can understand the quitting thing. Stick with it... I went cold turkey on coffee at age 21 after drinking minimum 5 strong cups a day from age 17. I spent the next month and a half resisting the urge to strangle anyone who spoke to me, and had regular headaches for a couple of months after that. I was okay after that for the most part, and started drinking it on an occasional basis, but still find myself wanting to order another cup right after I finish one. Not as bad as smoking, I know, but still...
As for the pose. It's just how my mind processed it. She doesn't look like she's leaning on it for support, or even just holding onto it casually, at least to me. The hand way the arm is curled around it, the hip pushed out to the side with one leg cocked forward (is cocked the right term there? I dunno, can't think of anything else), all gives me that impression. It's not a definite "Hey, she looks like a stripper", just one way it could be viewed. Honestly, the reason I see it like that is most likely that I have friends who are dancers, and over the years I've seen them practice their routines (many of which start or finish with a similar pose) enough that the connection was made automatically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AP #80: Empty Graves has what I would consider a fairly "sexy" pose; along with his full (well muscled) chest exposed for our viewing pleasure.
I think the cover in question gives a greater sense of being regal/disdainful than "come and get me"; though I guess the most sexualised aspect of the image would be the way he outfit actually falls against her body.
Opinions will be opinions; I like sexy heroes and villains - as long as it doesn't detract from their character and they aren't TOO prolific (both of any one gender/sex and also in general)
AP #80: Empty Graves has what I would consider a fairly "sexy" pose; along with his full (well muscled) chest exposed for our viewing pleasure.
I think the cover in question gives a greater sense of being regal/disdainful than "come and get me"; though I guess the most sexualised aspect of the image would be the way he outfit actually falls against her body.
Opinions will be opinions; I like sexy heroes and villains - as long as it doesn't detract from their character and they aren't TOO prolific (both of any one gender/sex and also in general)
Yeah, he is a pretty nice bit of beef cake.
Oh yeah, the attitude that shines out of the image is probably what led to my saying that all the pieces of an overly sexualised image are here, but it doesn't really come across that way in my initial reaction.
Variety is definitely key. All super hot heroes and darkly gorgeous villains will make things boring, as well everyone being plain old schlubs. You need that variety so that people stand out in their own ways.
I'll be away from the thread for a few hours, got a free screening of Belle to go see, but I'm really looking forward to coming back and seeing what's been happening in the mean time. Been some good points made so far I think.
|
I was the "original poster" who made a fuss about the artwork, and I'd like to chime in. To start with, I'll quote Majuba, who I think said something very important:
Personally, while overly sexualized artwork can be distracting, I'm far more concerned with the depicted characters evoking strong senses of who they are. I want to *see* that they are powerful, evil, strong, noble, kind, warm, cold, brave, or craven.
The two covers for Second Darkness #1, Shadows in the Sky handle this well. The standard cover is a drow, sexualized as they often are, but decidedly deadly looking and that is the emphasis (I feel). The alternate cover is an elf, boldly regal and powerful looking, a bit more subdued on the sexy side.
The thing with the cover art for Secrets of the Sphinx is, that it's not only a scantly clad woman, it's a woman who is standing in SUCH an absurd pose that I find it unacceptable. I mean look at that for a moment. That is not how a human handles itself. As Majuba mentioned, sometimes a portrait would be sexy, but in a telling way - that dark elf chick is a deadly, graceful assassin. But what can you tell about the woman from the cover of Secret of the Sphinx? NOTHING. Because her humanity is completely denied from her. It's not really a body language we know to interpret as anything other than "sexy", because no human ever stands like that naturally, ever.
AP #80: Empty Graves has what I would consider a fairly "sexy" pose; along with his full (well muscled) chest exposed for our viewing pleasure.
Sure, that guy is attractive and certainly exerts a sexual vibe. However, you can see that his stance is confidant, even cocky. You can tell that maybe the reason this guy isn't wearing a shirt is that he knows exactly how he looks, and is going to use it to intimidate or impress you. In short, he looks like a human. I'm sure if you would have replaced his face with a mask, he'd still look human. The lady from Secrets of the Sphinx isn't.
And it's not at all impossible to include pretty women in your cover art without totally disrespecting them. In my original post, I mentioned that the standard I measure Paizo against is the art from Magic: The Gathering. Here are a couple of examples: one, two.
Is was mostly the juxtaposition of the two new cover arts from the Mummy's Mask adventure path which annoyed me, really. The fact that both were released at the same time has shown that Paizo CAN be sensible about showing attractive people, they just chose not to do so with females.
Paizo are industry leaders. They took wonderful things upon themselves - inclusiveness of the LGBT community and of non-Caucasians (not sure if there's a more politically correct term I should be using for that... can't think of one, anyway). They hold the superstar competition (the latest winner of which, IIRC, is a woman). They even make sure include a logical amount of women in their products (not to mention employing women as writers and adventure designers, something I don't recall ever seeing from Wizards of the Cost in their D&D department).
Given all that, it's incredibly frustrating to me to see just how far behind the art department is lagging. I can't imagine a girl seeing such cover art and not rolling her eyes in annoyance. I wouldn't be surprised if many women who give a passing glance to a gaming book just see the cover art, decided that this has to be a game for adolescent males, and never give PLAYING the game a second thought.
I think this cover art is immature, offensive, and overall harming to the gaming community. Paizo have recently been very good with this - the WotR covers are to be applauded (I don't mind the one with the half succubus - as others mentioned, succubi are all about unhealthy sex). As far as I recall, Reign of Winter and Shattered Star are great as well. So when something like this... sex toy appears on the cover of a new adventure, after years of mature covers, is upsetting.
|
|
At very least, Paizo has the elementary Christian decency no to show any female nipples in the cover.
You always do know what to say, don't ya.
I don't much appreciate the insinuation that frowning upon the imagery of women who were reduced to sex toys hails from being a prude. I like looking at pretty ladies as much as the next guy. I simply don't think that my "pleasure" from looking at cartoon, adolescent fantasies is worth the bad vibes these covers could give to a woman. As I mentioned in my previous post, my problem is less with the outfit, it's with the pose that woman is standing in. She lacks any character or even humanity. Why would any human ever stand like that? have you ever seen a woman do that? Unless a woman is posing for the cover of a playboy magazine, she wouldn't. Even when she does, that pose is the result of the work of professionals, who toil together for hours to transform her from a human to a sex object.
What portion of the Playboy readership are women, do you think? do you want that male/female proportion to be the same for Pathfinder? If not, surely you'd agree that no good comes from these cover arts.
Again I would like to stress that I think that "hot women on cover art = sex toys on cover art" is a very false dichotomy. I gave examples from Magic: The Gathering in my previous posts. I think those examples are perfect - the women in them are pretty, one is kind of under-dressed, but they don't come across as objects. They are humans busy doing something, they just happen to be pleasent to look at. Here is an even stronger example - Kiora.. Can't say she is wearing all that much, and she sure does manage to flash a lot of thigh there. Kind of hot, despite her being a fish person.
However, unlike this,you can see who she is through that picture - her body language is telling us she is a powerful sea mage doing her business, summoning waves and krakens to do her bidding. She's not just... posing to us. You can imagine taking her portrail, inserting it into a larger picture, and have it make sense. I can't at all say the same for Paizo's art in this case.
As a last disclaimer, just to get this particular point out of the way - I am not religious, and don't believe in any way that a woman should were concealing cloth.
|
|
Lord Snow, have you ever actually seen a woman, or is this pure theorycraft?
apparently more women than you did, I guess. I challenge you to describe a situation (outside of a bedroom) where a woman stands like that, with an anatomically improbable twist to her hips, one leg sliding out of her skirt. Really, find one situation.
I'll be blunt here, actually: I've never seen a woman standing like that even in a porn. Even when women are intentionally, professionally striving to look sexy, this position does not come to them naturally. I guess some strippers can pull this off with ease, maybe.
EDIT: and another exercise. When you have a moment alone in a room, try standing like this woman does. You're probably not wearing a skirt, bust just imagine you do so that you could do the slide-leg-forward thing. Don't forget to twist your hips sideways and backwards at the same time!
After you do that, explain to me just how natural this position is.
2nd EDIT: it's not about "actually seeing women", you know. It's more about "actually seeing humans". No male has any business standing like that either.
Come on guys. Keep it civil. No need for personal attacks. Just remember, Ad Hominem reasoning is not a proper tactic in arguing a point.
Lord Snow: Thanks for chiming in and explaining your position. Didn't want to just throw you into it, so I thought I'd leave your name out of it and let you decide. I think I've got a better idea of where you're coming from now.
I will say that none of the girls I know who game have said anything about any of the Pathfinder AP covers. One of them had a look at the cover for Secrets of the Sphinx today, didn't have an issue with it. Actually the description was "Nice... nice." Not saying that it won't put some people off, just showing an example from personal experience.
As for the pose. Yeah, it's not an easy one. Back when I used to be a lot skinnier, still had hair, and could cross-dress relatively convincingly, we tried to do some glamour shots... poses like that were murder on the joints. Thought I was going to dislocate something on multiple occasions... I wouldn't even say that the girls I know who use it in their routines think it's easy, they just think it's what the guys want to see, and they've got used to it with practice.
At very least, Paizo has the elementary Christian decency no to show any female nipples in the cover.
Slight aside topic here. I've never understood the "nipples are taboo" idea.
It doesn't seem to be as much of an issue here in Australia. I go to burlesque shows on a semi-regular basis (we have a local group who put on a show every 3 months or so, and there's often another group or two that tour through). I've seen them at the Canberra Theatre (Star Wars: The Empire Strips Back. If any of you get a chance to see it, I highly recommend it), at various smaller venues and concert halls around Canberra (usually the locals), and even at the Australian National University Bar (the Suicide Girls Blackheart Burlesque show). None of the Australian groups care about showing nipple, they don't do it gratuitously, but it's not avoided. When the Suicide Girls were here though, they all had black tape Xs over them, and from what I've heard it's pretty much required of them when they tour at home in the USA.
Just can't see the logic myself. I mean, the tiny bikini, or even a nude breast with a pastie on it... what difference does that square inch or so of material actually make?
|
|
Tinkergoth, yeah, I appreciate everything you did to make this conversation happen. My original posts were sarcastic and I often get emotional about this issue, but you took things up and held them together. Thank you both for that and for initially hiding my name (it wasn't needed, but the thought is certainly appreciated).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of what I'd have to say on this matter has already been said, but here's a question... why do we need to be shown the borders of her 'nether regions'? I can understand the clinging fabric on her left leg (viewer's right), since that thigh's being pushed forward - but on her right leg? The one that's just straight up and down? There's no way we'd see that line unless her hips were tilted forward, and even then I'm not sure...
Tinkergoth, yeah, I appreciate everything you did to make this conversation happen. My original posts were sarcastic and I often get emotional about this issue, but you took things up and held them together. Thank you both for that and for initially hiding my name (it wasn't needed, but the thought is certainly appreciated).
No worries. We've all got things that hit our triggers, and it can be good to get a chance to talk about them. Glad to have been of help, and honestly it's been a pretty fascinating conversation for me too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I asked a few of the women in our group what they thought on it.
First response was that it looked like a typical Hollywoodized woman.
Another was that they had seen far worse, it's a lot worse when they show certain anatomical parts being overblown or way oversized and out of proportion.
The next was that they had seen FAR worse and then, that since gaming caters mainly to men anyways, such stuff is typical of male gamers. At least...(I'd put down what they stated about some male gamers, but last time I said something like that it got deleted...sometimes the male majority gets more favoritism towards their comments than when a woman comments on it on these messageboards).
So overall, yes, I think they see it as sexualized, but they've also come to expect such stuff in gaming, and it's no more worse than what Hollywood already does.
This only seems potentially offensive to a few. It's lovely that Lord Snow has an opinion. On an interesting note most people have opinions... kind of the definition of... opinion. It both is and is not offensive only in regards to its subjective matter. This is really a non-issue, vote your beliefs where you lay down your money. If its too offensive, don't buy it. That will send a message. If enough people agree with you, the company will take notice. If not, then you are part of an infinitesimal minority (not even small)and I desperately hope they don't cater to you just because you're a squeaky wheel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at cover #82 and see a woman in Egyptian Garb.
I look at cover #83 and I see a guy what I assume to be Egyptian armor.
I didnt even notice the "underboob" until someone pointed it out. I've seen drawings of women in clothes like that even before this so I guess my mind made the familiar association?
Overall though I think every time this topic pops up I take the detractors at face value when they say that they don't want to remove all "cheesecake" (which in as of itself is subjective) they just want more balance. But it DOES seem that they DO want to remove all "cheesecake" because every time something like this shows up people go all HAM on Paizo and I think it's really undeserved.