Male beauty, female beauty, and Pathfinder deity diversity

[Jeff Erwin]

Mojorat wrote:

Does anyone have any folkloric imagery of mythologies that had gender swapping dieties? All I could find for loki was marvel stuff as a super villainess. Loki is one of the most familiar gods for this but until I read this thread I realized I had no idea what female loki looked like.

Mohini - an avatar of Vishnu (generally male) - is a female avatar. She sleeps with Shiva, and they have a child, Shasta/Ayyapa/Aiyanar, who is a patron of gender-queer people. Shiva him/herself has an avatar which is a merger with Parvati/Shakti called Ardhanarishvara (Half-man Lord). This deity is male on one side and female on the other. These are probably among the more widely worshipped gender fluid gods today.

PS. These are also fairly attractive to me, and I think curvy, sensual beings are fine. But note the men are also sensualized in South Asian art.

[Jessica Price]

Little late to the party, and I actually agree very strongly that we need more eye content for those who enjoy looking at men, and that we should be treating the sexuality of male deities as parts of their characters equally important to that of female deities.

All of that said, I'd like to reiterate the point that a lot of the stuff out there about the sex lives of female deities is either fan speculation, or messageboard comments in response to fan questions. While I think there is an imbalance in the material as presented in books, if more people start asking about the love lives of male deities, you're probably going to get more information about them. :-)

[Mikaze]

Jessica Price wrote:

if more people start asking about the love lives of male deities, you're probably going to get more information about them. :-)

!!!!

What is the strangest place Cayden Cailean has woken up in?

Was Dou-Bral originally a god of a more selfish form of love or perhaps an "edgier" form of love than Shelyn, possibly making him more vulnerable to getting Zon-Kuthon'd?

Were Erastil and Fandarra an item way back in Golarion's more primitive era?

Tsukiyo seems to be portrayed as a dedicated husband, going with his seeming "Japanese Osiris" roots, but is he perhaps a more wildly romantic figure than one might expect? That is, considering his Darkness and Madness aspects, do his moods, forms of love and romanticism change with the phases of the moon? Possibly being a melancholic, Byronic figure with one phase and an energetic, almost manic-Gomez Addams* "wildly and happily in love" figure with the next?

Does Lymnieris ever enter into dalliances with Calistria or her servants, or are they too ethically opposed for it to ever work out?

...has Ragathiel ever visited Lymnieris?

Has Cernunnos ever visited Lymnieris?

Have Ragathiel and Cernunnos ever visited Lymnieris at the same time?

....

Does...anyone know any available artists?

Do Asmodeus and Sarenrae actually have a thing going on, either now or in the past? Inner Sea Gods does note that "their rivalry is passionate and goes beyond their struggle over mortal souls."

*It has been suggested, without any irony whatsoever, that Gomez and Morticia Addams were the first truly emotionally healthy and passionately in love married couple shown on television.

[Rysky]

Mikaze wrote:

Does Lymnieris ever enter into dalliances with Calistria or her servants, or are they too ethically opposed for it to ever work out?

Actually as basically the the Empyreal Lord of Consent I can see them getting along fine. I wouldn't be surprised if his and her followers operated out of the same Dance HallBrothel.

Mikaze wrote:

Have Ragathiel and Cernunnos ever visited Lymnieris at the same time?

Way to be subtle Mikaze :3

Mikaze wrote:

Does...anyone know any available artists?

What kind of style are you looking for?

[Mikaze]

Rysky wrote:

Way to be subtle Mikaze :3

WITH CATLIKE TREAD I POST...

Rysky wrote:

What kind of style are you looking for?

...honestly, looking back upthread and actually thinking about paying it forward for equal fanservice for all, an art style along the lines of this NSFWish example that can be done tastefully might be a suitable gift for the community...

[Rysky]

Mikaze wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Way to be subtle Mikaze :3

WITH CATLIKE TREAD I POST...

Rysky wrote:

What kind of style are you looking for?

...honestly, looking back upthread and actually thinking about paying it forward for equal fanservice for all, an art style along the lines of this example that can be done tastefully might be a suitable gift for the community...

Oh well that was no fun, the artist's name was already in the pic, but commissions are closed. Will investigate for similar artists.

Edit: On initial scouting all I could come up with is Anoki from DA and HF. Her works have the same feel as Kir-tat but she uses watercolor instead of cell. Continuing to look.
Edit2: Link nsfw-ish.

[Mikaze]

quick glance

tilts head

Y'know...her style is different, but it might be a really good match for Lymnieran trappings...

Thanks for the pointer!

edit-okay, some of it may be a bit much or too far afield, but the more subdued pieces might be on target.

[Rysky]

Np :3

[The NPC]

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

[Mikaze]

The NPC wrote:

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

Pharasma stands out as highly likely, honestly. Iomedae too.

Tacticslion also compiled a list of candidates among the Empyreal Lords here. :)

[The NPC]

Mikaze wrote:

The NPC wrote:

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

Pharasma stands out as highly likely, honestly. Iomedae too.

Tacticslion also compiled a list of candidates among the Empyreal Lords here. :)

Oh, those are good points. I kind of forgot about Pharasma for second. Maybe because nothing was dying? Hmm...

Thanks :)

[Rysky]

The NPC wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

The NPC wrote:

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

Pharasma stands out as highly likely, honestly. Iomedae too.

Tacticslion also compiled a list of candidates among the Empyreal Lords here. :)

Oh, those are good points. I kind of forgot about Pharasma for second. Maybe because nothing was dying? Hmm...

Thanks :)

It's because she's such a workaholic... Note to self: keep an eye out for any artwork where Pharasma gets a desk.

[Jeff Erwin]

The NPC wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

The NPC wrote:

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

Pharasma stands out as highly likely, honestly. Iomedae too.

Tacticslion also compiled a list of candidates among the Empyreal Lords here. :)

Oh, those are good points. I kind of forgot about Pharasma for second. Maybe because nothing was dying? Hmm...

Thanks :)

The goddess of childbirth is a singleton? Well, if she's a midwife sort, she might well be.

[Alzrius]

SRS wrote:

The vacuity is intentional. It accomplishes two things. 1. It makes the women appear available, because they are the type that overflow with lust. 2. It makes them seem menacingly hungry, but unintelligent enough to yield to the powerful male viewer.

In all honesty, this sort of sentiment strikes me as far more offensive than any of the pictures linked to so far. SRS, unless you're the creator of that artwork, how exactly do you know what the artist's intent was?

Simply put, you don't. You've assigned motivation to the artist, and through that, an objective interpretation of the picture, all based on absolutely nothing. That makes your statements completely misrepresentative, which is bad enough, but its misrepresentation also assigns poor (by which I mean "likely to be offensive") intent to the artist, which is even worse.

This kind of falsification doesn't help the debate; it inhibits it. If you find that a picture is evocative of something, just say that that's how you personally view it. Don't try and say that must be what the artist was going for all along.

[Lamontius]

and every art history major is now doubting their choice more than ever

[Wrong John Silver]

Although I'm not challenging SRS's interpretation of the drow art, I would like to point out that "menacingly hungry, but unintelligent" is not at all attractive to myself, a lot of the other posters, and quite likely (please correct me of I'm wrong) SRS himself (regardless of gender of the subject).

[Jessica Price]

The NPC wrote:

Which of the female gods are particular about their partners or decline sex altogether and are not looked down upon for being prudish or reinforcing female oppression?

I understand that might come off as hostile in text and I don't mean it to. Its just that paizo generally leans towards the free love side of things and in my personal experience such sentiments lead towards opinions like the ones i'm asking about.

If you're using "free love" in the sense that the movement that claimed the name defined it (that is, that infidelity is only the business of the people involved and their partners, that sexual coercion is unacceptable, and that everyone, male or female, has a right to use their bodies however they please assuming all involved parties have consented, I think that's probably true.

If you're using "free love" as it's come down in pop culture since the 60s and 70s to mean "promiscuity," I don't think that's true.

I don't see Sarenrae being promiscuous, or Iomedae for that matter (for that matter, my understanding of Iomedae is that she's probably super-choosy), and I haven't heard anything from any of the developers that suggests it. "Not in a committed relationship" also != "promiscuous" or "not choosy."

I think there is an assumption that when you're an immortal, over the aeons of your existence, you're likely to have more than one partner, either out of boredom, or because it's kind of counter to your sovereignty as a deity to bind yourself into any permanent partnerships. (I mean, the material on deities treats alliances between them much the same way -- "these two deities tend to be allies because they think similarly," not "these two deities have a formalized, binding, permanent alliance.")

[Cerberus Seven]

Wrong John Silver wrote:

Although I'm not challenging SRS's interpretation of the drow art, I would like to point out that "menacingly hungry, but unintelligent" is not at all attractive to myself, a lot of the other posters, and quite likely (please correct me of I'm wrong) SRS himself (regardless of gender of the subject).

Seconded. Frankly, I had trouble picking out what their expressions are supposed to convey. Hunger? Grumpiness? Constipation? Doesn't do wonders for peaking interest sexually, really.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

My wife thinks they are male faces on female bodies that the artist gave the stereotypical stoic male warrior expression because he (I'm assuming the artist is male) has no familiarity with how female facial expressions work and couldn't be bothered to learn since obviously nobody is going to be looking at their faces when there are boobs and butts and bare legs to look at amirite?

[Wrong John Silver]

They do resemble an 80s hair band (it was an 80s picture, I believe), but I can remember both that hair and that expression used in advertisements back then. Looked terrible back then, too.

[Tinalles]

A very interesting discussion. Hetero male myself, but I'm GM'ing a solo campaign for a hetero female, who put in a request for "more beefcake" in my selection of NPC portraits. As a result I have now spent waaaay more time than I ever anticipated scouring Deviantart for pictures of attractive men. This one was well-received (safe for work).

And on a related note, I was disappointed to see that Desna still hasn't got any clothes in Inner Sea Gods. She's actually wearing less than Calistria. It's silly on the face of it, and doesn't even match the accompanying description of her wearing "billowing gowns".

One would think she'd have enough sense to get dressed before going out to battle the terrible beings in the long dark between the stars. At least a pair of boots or something. Travel is tough on the feet.

[Deadmanwalking]

Tinalles wrote:

And on a related note, I was disappointed to see that Desna still hasn't got any clothes in Inner Sea Gods. She's actually wearing less than Calistria. It's silly on the face of it, and doesn't even match the accompanying description of her wearing "billowing gowns".

One would think she'd have enough sense to get dressed before going out to battle the terrible beings in the long dark between the stars. At least a pair of boots or something. Travel is tough on the feet.

Desna's true form isn't remotely human (or elven) looking...it's implied to probably be some kind of giant space butterfly. So...travel is more tough on her wings than feet, and wearing clothes to fight is unnecessary. She's basically the friendly version of the "utterly inhuman being from beyond the stars" trope.

She should still probably be wearing a bit more, don't get me wrong, but it's not a giant logical hole that she isn't.

[Mystic_Snowfang]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Tinalles wrote:

And on a related note, I was disappointed to see that Desna still hasn't got any clothes in Inner Sea Gods. She's actually wearing less than Calistria. It's silly on the face of it, and doesn't even match the accompanying description of her wearing "billowing gowns".

One would think she'd have enough sense to get dressed before going out to battle the terrible beings in the long dark between the stars. At least a pair of boots or something. Travel is tough on the feet.

Desna's true form isn't remotely human (or elven) looking...it's implied to probably be some kind of giant space butterfly. So...travel is more tough on her wings than feet, and wearing clothes to fight is unnecessary. She's basically the friendly version of the "utterly inhuman being from beyond the stars" trope.

She should still probably be wearing a bit more, don't get me wrong, but it's not a giant logical hole that she isn't.

Maybe she's a naturist?

[Tinalles]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Desna's true form isn't remotely human (or elven) looking...it's implied to probably be some kind of giant space butterfly.

Interesting. It would make a certain amount of thematic sense, but I've never heard of an extra-terrestrial origin for her before. Where does that show up?

[Lamontius]

this is pretty interesting but I think I am going to go do shots and throw random things out of windows with Besmara, Cayden and Kurgess instead

brb

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Leafing through the ARG I found that most of the ladies looked awesome and probably attractive to someone who would be into ladies, whereas the men did indeed for the most part look unattractive and have rather plain poses compared to their female counterparts. Lots and lots of angry/scowling action or simply ... derpy expressions going on, for a lack of a better word. (Specifically the male ifrit on page 127).

It's not really something that I've thought about before, but at least in that one book the difference is huge and I do actually feel just a little cheated when looking at the art through these new glasses.
Of all the guys in that book, I think the only one who looked attractive to me was the aasimar on page 87, and he too is showing a scowl.

As for what I'd actually like to see, I definitely agree with the ones requesting more happy, welcoming faces. I'm not looking for very bulky builds—something like Cayden Cailean's body type with a pretty, friendly face would be appreciated on my part. Bonus points for long hair.

[The NPC]

After reading Thymus's post the thought occurs to me: Could the artists have been trying to steer away from the Conan power fantasy type picture but in the process neglected to give the other portions of the fan base their Man Service?

[James Jacobs]

Tinalles wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Desna's true form isn't remotely human (or elven) looking...it's implied to probably be some kind of giant space butterfly.

Interesting. It would make a certain amount of thematic sense, but I've never heard of an extra-terrestrial origin for her before. Where does that show up?

It should be part of her writeup in Inner Sea Gods, but it's been a part of her since the very start back in "Skinsaw Murders" where her article first appeared.

[Dustin Ashe]

Are any of the gods married? Do they procreate? Do they have sexual organs? Can they even have sex? Would they want to if they could? Wouldn't there be something even better than sex out there?

Why are we fool mortals even talking about this? When did the pantheon become the stuff off celebrity tabloid?

kidding, kidding

[Mystic_Snowfang]

Dustin Ashe wrote:

Are any of the gods married? Do they procreate? Do they have sexual organs? Can they even have sex? Would they want to if they could? Wouldn't there be something even better than sex out there?

Why are we fool mortals even talking about this? When did the pantheon become the stuff off celebrity tabloid?

kidding, kidding

Yes (Torag and Folgrit), Yes (Bolka, Sheylen, it's rumoured that Ioamde and Apsu had a fling and a child) Yes (well the aforementioned point to yes), Yes (Calistria and Arshea for one example), yes (Once again, with the god children running about...), No (Unless there is divine bacon pizza made of godpigs...)

[Mikaze]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

As for what I'd actually like to see, I definitely agree with the ones requesting more happy, welcoming faces. I'm not looking for very bulky builds—something like Cayden Cailean's body type with a pretty, friendly face would be appreciated on my part. Bonus points for long hair.

Is this paladin of Shelyn closer to the mark?

Turning an eye towards the work of female artists on the blog at the moment, that was the first that came to mind.

[Joana]

For me, no. He's as covered up in shapeless clothing as Kyra without the incredibly expressive face which makes her so attractive.

[Mikaze]

Throwing up some more examples from the blog real quick:

Sadly, no examples of guys by Carolina Eade are on the blog itself, though there are some in the books.

Dhampir guy by Diana Martinez

Another dhampir guy by Diana Martinez

Ragathiel by Eva Wildemann. Admittedly, non-rage faces for this guy are going to be hard to find, but I'm working on remedying that. ;)

Sajan doin' work by Lydia Schuchmann

B&W Tiefling guy in distress by Sara Otterstätter

Older guy by Lindsey Wakefield

...I actually think I've tapped out what can be drawn from the blog at a quick glance.

This one is not by a female artist, but the body and presentation of seemed worth noting. I imagine the OH GOD! face is going to kill the appeal for most.

Friendly and welcoming faces are hard to find.

[Wrong John Silver]

Okay, so these are actual people, but I'm a supporter of the New York City Ballet, and they, of course, are filled with pretty dancers, male and female. I also think that dancers have that athletic physique that works well for adventurer-types. If I were an artist, I'd be studying them intently to get pictures of how they move down. Incidentally, I also really like the ballerinas' look for women, specifically because they aren't super-busty caricatures.

My wife's favorite is Jared Angle.

If I had to choose one on beauty, I'd likely go with Amar Ramasar.

(Although, to be honest, my crush is Sterling Hyltin.)

Check out the whole list here. Maybe there's a look you like?

[Kumquat, Urgathoian Groupie]

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

Dustin Ashe wrote:

Are any of the gods married? Do they procreate? Do they have sexual organs? Can they even have sex? Would they want to if they could? Wouldn't there be something even better than sex out there?

Why are we fool mortals even talking about this? When did the pantheon become the stuff off celebrity tabloid?

kidding, kidding

Yes (Torag and Folgrit), Yes (Bolka, Sheylen, it's rumoured that Ioamde and Apsu had a fling and a child) Yes (well the aforementioned point to yes), Yes (Calistria and Arshea for one example), yes (Once again, with the god children running about...), No (Unless there is divine bacon pizza made of godpigs...)

Tales have been told that after countless failures, The Pallid Princess once grew a child deep inside her miasmatic womb. However, the child's selfish father wished to have the child all to himself and stole it away from our Mephitic Lady's fetid bosom, secreting it away someplace far from her sight.

We have been searching in vain for it ever since.

I even put pictures of the baby on milk cartons but I haven't heard anything yet :(

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Mikaze wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

As for what I'd actually like to see, I definitely agree with the ones requesting more happy, welcoming faces. I'm not looking for very bulky builds—something like Cayden Cailean's body type with a pretty, friendly face would be appreciated on my part. Bonus points for long hair.

Is this paladin of Shelyn closer to the mark?

Turning an eye towards the work of female artists on the blog at the moment, that was the first that came to mind.

His face doesn't really strike my particular fancy, but we're getting there.

[SRS]

Alzrius wrote:

SRS wrote:

The vacuity is intentional. It accomplishes two things. 1. It makes the women appear available, because they are the type that overflow with lust. 2. It makes them seem menacingly hungry, but unintelligent enough to yield to the powerful male viewer.

In all honesty, this sort of sentiment strikes me as far more offensive than any of the pictures linked to so far. SRS, unless you're the creator of that artwork, how exactly do you know what the artist's intent was?

Simply put, you don't. You've assigned motivation to the artist, and through that, an objective interpretation of the picture, all based on absolutely nothing. That makes your statements completely misrepresentative, which is bad enough, but its misrepresentation also assigns poor (by which I mean "likely to be offensive") intent to the artist, which is even worse.

This kind of falsification doesn't help the debate; it inhibits it. If you find that a picture is evocative of something, just say that that's how you personally view it. Don't try and say that must be what the artist was going for all along.

Nonsense. Criticism is just as valid as artistic intent. In fact, an artist's personal intent is irrelevant for some forms of criticism, and suspect at best. What is perfectly allowed is to view artwork in its context and extrapolate intent. If you think my interpretation is off, then make your case without all the emotional nonsense. Read some professional art criticism in peer reviewed journals.

Put simply, your rules make it impossible to say things like "the artist intended to draw females" and "the artist intended to make them sexy." Seriously?

[SRS]

That paladin is not dressed seductively, his expression isn't seductive, and he's not particularly cute.

[Jessica Price]

Seductive like this?

(Not ours, alas. Also, maybe NSFW for some people -- dude doesn't have any salient parts showing, but he is nude.)

[Alzrius]

SRS wrote:

Nonsense. Criticism is just as valid as artistic intent.

I'm not saying that criticism isn't valid. I'm saying that your criticism, made above, isn't valid.

The reason for that is that you're saying you know for a fact that the creator was intending to make the characters in the picture convey a specific presentation, such as sexiness (above and beyond the presumption that that presentation is there to begin with). Worse, you're saying you know what the artist's motivation was.

That's not criticism; that's simply making things up based on nothing at all.

Quote:

In fact, an artist's personal intent is irrelevant for some forms of criticism, and suspect at best. What is perfectly allowed is to view artwork in its context and extrapolate intent.

Leaving aside the inherent contradiction of admitting that it's "suspect at best" to look at an artist's personal intent and then saying that it's "perfectly allowed," you seem to be missing the point. Extrapolating intent from what's shown in the picture is simply guessing, with absolutely no criteria for determining how accurate that guess may be.

Interpreting what's being depicted in a piece of artwork is variable enough on its own. Trying to use that as a medium to divine the intent of creator is basically impossible. Art has always been a heavily opaque medium where communicating a message - if one even exists - between the creator and the viewer is concerned.

Your supposing that you've done just that is the height of disingenuousness.

Quote:

If you think my interpretation is off, then make your case without all the emotional nonsense.

I've already made my case. Attempting to dismiss it with weak ad hominem statements like "emotional nonsense" only shows that you have no real answer for what I've said. That's to be expected, as there's no real way you can defend your guesswork as being in any way analytical.

The fact is, your interpretation of that picture is no more or less accurate than any other interpretation, and trying to say what the artist meant to showcase is a fool's errand.

Quote:

Read some professional art criticism in peer reviewed journals.

Pot calling the kettle black does not a pithy argument make.

Quote:

Put simply, your rules make it impossible to say things like "the artist intended to draw females" and "the artist intended to make them sexy." Seriously?

Realizing that you can't draw conclusions about a person by the art they create is something I take seriously indeed.

[Lamontius]

so wait guy seductive is getting your hair done and avoiding the sun

[SRS]

Wrong John Silver wrote:

Check out the whole list here. Maybe there's a look you like?

Out of that list, I picked these two as the best-looking:

Chase Finlay
Ralph Ippolito

Ralph would be cuter with a smaller nose.

Jessica Price wrote:

Seductive like this?

(Not ours, alas. Also, maybe NSFW for some people -- dude doesn't have any salient parts showing, but he is nude.)

That's the same pic I linked to and discussed on the first page.

[SRS]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

Leafing through the ARG I found that most of the ladies looked awesome and probably attractive to someone who would be into ladies, whereas the men did indeed for the most part look unattractive and have rather plain poses compared to their female counterparts. Lots and lots of angry/scowling action or simply ... derpy expressions going on, for a lack of a better word. (Specifically the male ifrit on page 127).

It's not really something that I've thought about before, but at least in that one book the difference is huge and I do actually feel just a little cheated when looking at the art through these new glasses.
Of all the guys in that book, I think the only one who looked attractive to me was the aasimar on page 87, and he too is showing a scowl.

As for what I'd actually like to see, I definitely agree with the ones requesting more happy, welcoming faces. I'm not looking for very bulky builds—something like Cayden Cailean's body type with a pretty, friendly face would be appreciated on my part. Bonus points for long hair.

It does seem like there is consensus about the faces in particular. However, I think it's also notable that the clothing tends to be designed to be seductive for females and not for males. Even when a bit of skin is shown for males, the bodies tend to be ugly (like that pale guy with no body fat) and the clothing is still bulky overall.

[Mikaze]

Jessica Price wrote:

Seductive like this?

(Not ours, alas. Also, maybe NSFW for some people -- dude doesn't have any salient parts showing, but he is nude.)

I for one would love more like this.

On a completely unrelated note, Lymnieris still hasn't been shown in art yet... ;)