| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am specifically not saying that it is bad if you actually happen to be a straight white manly male. You're just lucky because you get to play the game on the lowest difficulty setting.
I have a slight problem with this phrase that seems to have become a meme of late.
I dare you to tell a quadriplegic straight white male that he's playing on the "lowest difficulty setting". Or a straight white male that can't sleep because of PTSD from endless childhood abuse.
To which you might say, "yeah, but I meant *all other things being equal*". That a quadriplegic straight white male still has it easier than a quadriplegic lesbian black female. Which is probably true, yes. No argument on that.
But he's still worse off than a lesbian black female Ivy League lawyer/Olympic athlete/social dynamo.
My point is that you shouldn't cherry pick the couple of attributes where somebody has an advantage, and judge the entirety of him and his "difficulty level" based on just those few fortunate attributes, without taking the big picture of the whole person.
In D&D/PF terms, it's like saying that somebody with Str 14 and Cha 14 is playing the game on easy mode. Without even taking a look at his Dex, Con, Int, Wis.
You can't take two or three attributes of a person and say that he's playing on easy mode without looking at the whole person.
Lots of straight white males are pretty messed up, and far from lucky.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am specifically not saying that it is bad if you actually happen to be a straight white manly male. You're just lucky because you get to play the game on the lowest difficulty setting.I have a slight problem with this phrase that seems to have become a meme of late.
I dare you to tell a quadriplegic straight white male that he's playing on the "lowest difficulty setting". Or a straight white male that can't sleep because of PTSD from endless childhood abuse.
To which you might say, "yeah, but I meant *all other things being equal*". That a quadriplegic straight white male still has it easier than a quadriplegic lesbian black female. Which is probably true, yes. No argument on that.
But he's still worse off than a lesbian black female Ivy League lawyer/Olympic athlete/social dynamo.
My point is that you shouldn't cherry pick the couple of attributes where somebody has an advantage, and judge the entirety of him and his "difficulty level" based on just those few fortunate attributes, without taking the big picture of the whole person.
In D&D/PF terms, it's like saying that somebody with Str 14 and Cha 14 is playing the game on easy mode. Without even taking a look at his Dex, Con, Int, Wis.
You can't take two or three attributes of a person and say that he's playing on easy mode without looking at the whole person.
Lots of straight white males are pretty messed up, and far from lucky.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrote a piece on this topic awhile back.
Jessica, thank you for the link. Looks like an interesting read!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Paizo has dialed back the sexiness of it's female iconics.
Boo hoo.
These guys have always been about inclusiveness, and that extends to telling woman that they don't have to be a sex fantasy to play the game.
@Lord Frye
No one has said having sexy art in fantasy is badWrongFun .
What is badWrongFun is sending the message that there is only one way women should be depicted in fantasy.
|
|
I can't possibly agree with that. How do the silly hat and the huge open robes stay on? If you tap her head will she fall over? How does she walk let alone go through doorways? The hat and robes are like 40k puldrons level of impractical.
Total side note, but I've actually asked the folks at Paizo about that hat. It's not solid metal or anything (I believe it's hardened leather painted that color), which makes it a lot more plausible.
As a *sexuality* *gender*, I would rather all people in my fantasy, male, female, goat demon, and drider be either incredibly badass and sexy (that's an and for a reason) or incredibly nightmarish and disturbing. I would rather have no one of the sensible middle ground because that's not fantasy. I want my women to all be Femme Fatales and I want my men to all be Don Juans. I would want them to look as sexy and badass as possible. All dialed up to 11. I don't want armor on my men unless they can look like a rugged and sexy hunk while wearing it, and likewise (although I'd replace rugged and hunk with something else to describe them) for the women. Who cares about sensibility, this is a fantasy about being badasses and my badasses are all incredibly hot and wear whatever they want and look sexy while doing it.
Where do I fall on this conversation? It's interesting and my first foray into this specific topic and I want to contribute my seemingly rare point of view.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it depends on the particular image to determine if the clothes or the pose are the most important. I will agree that the character doesn't look like a candidate for the Hawkeye Initiative. Still the mid-drift being unarmored serves exactly no purpose but to be appealing to the male (or other individual who finds the female form attractive) eye.
...*Dying of a gut wound* "I might not live, but I definitely looked tough not doing it."
How about the crazy idea that characters dress appropriate for their life style and current situation and not worry about appearing "sexualized" or "empowered"?
WAR's explanation of the reason for Amiri's bare midriff is that armor in that area would restrict her movement, which is especially important since she uses such an unbalanced and unwieldy weapon. Speaking of which, he goes on to explain that, her stomach area is not actually "exposed" during combat, because while she is fighting she will be holding that huge sword in a guard position. Given its size and its reach, it is as protective as armor would be.
Make of that what you will.
As a *sexuality* *gender*, I would rather all people in my fantasy, male, female, goat demon, and drider be either incredibly badass and sexy (that's an and for a reason) or incredibly nightmarish and disturbing. I would rather have no one of the sensible middle ground because that's not fantasy. I want my women to all be Femme Fatales and I want my men to all be Don Juans. I would want them to look as sexy and badass as possible. All dialed up to 11. I don't want armor on my men unless they can look like a rugged and sexy hunk while wearing it, and likewise (although I'd replace rugged and hunk with something else to describe them) for the women. Who cares about sensibility, this is a fantasy about being badasses and my badasses are all incredibly hot and wear whatever they want and look sexy while doing it.
Where do I fall on this conversation? It's interesting and my first foray into this specific topic and I want to contribute my seemingly rare point of view.
Your seemingly rare point of view probably places you in the majority. On the other hand, try telling people they have to justify all that hotness with an ability score and let the wailing commence.
Additionally, no artist should have to justify bare ANYTHING on a barbarian.
And Paizo has some rocking artist. I think you guys do great work, as well as the rest of you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make of that what you will.
*Looks at almost all armored males.*
Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt
Have we seen a single male icon with his man-bits blazing the way some of the female's have had boob overflow going on... No we have not. Fantasy art is sexist enough we barely notice it anymore.
|
|
Make of that what you will.*Looks at almost all armored males.*
Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt
*Notes that only two males have huge two-handed weapons like Amiri does, and the fact that one of them lacks a shirt entirely and the other one is a devout Gorumite necessitating heavy armor*
Yes. Right.
I'm not arguing that's historically accurate or realistic (I lack the credentials to comment either way), but it doesn't seem to be especially gendered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Penis and testicles are less represented than breasts in lots of art types, not just fantasy art. It's not some sort of fantasy quirk, it's just a symptom of a much broader societal issue.
You said that better than I managed in my post. It's NOT JUST fantasy, but I think because the fantasy genre has a lot of strong female players in it that it's a good place to make a point on this. I'm saying this as a guy who is pretty embarrassed by the unintentional sexism in my early DMing. It was largely falling into the trap of thinking historical medieval society in any way needed to inform the genders in a fantasy society.
Have we seen a single male icon with his man-bits blazing the way some of the female's have had boob overflow going on... No we have not. Fantasy art is sexist enough we barely notice it anymore.I can just about guarantee that we will never see this.
IO9's take on the male version of the boob window
Think that looks silly, creepy or disturbing, and that it is ridiculous for him to be running around like that with his parts overfloweth and peeking out for no good reason?
Yep. Me, too. And that's why I don't buy very many gaming books and supplements. The art in them mostly looks stupid, and I don't want to play stupid characters who are adventuring while suicidally ill-equipped. There are exceptions, but they're pretty rare.
I wasn't pontificating that male characters SHOULD be wearing that kinda dumb gear, just highlighting how dumb it is that female characters often are
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See that doesn't work for me personally. Power Girl looks like a sexy badass who kicks ass and takes names. The male version looks like a weirdo and isn't sexy at all. What makes men sexy != what makes women sexy so just transplanting the outfits is obviously going to look weird.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?
I actually like how Kess looks. Her bare midriff doesn't make me feel that she is being sexualized and I am fine with her lack of visible cleavage. The way that she is dressed and equipped feels very much like a boxer with leather armor instead of shirt.
Now it doesn't make too much sense to me boxing style/dress would be effective in battle against an orc with a greataxe or a dragon, but no more than a duelist rapier style in the same situations. The way she was equipped screamed fantasy boxer to me.
I'm not sure why bare midriff tells me she is a boxer more than if she were covered up. Maybe for the same reason I would imagine a male boxer more bare chested (like Crowe) despite armor. However I'm not certain why there some female boxers have a bare midriff and some do not so I could imagine that answer being still to sexualize them there, but I'm not certain about that.
So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?
In this example, is the armor +1 enhanced or higher?
I honestly think you're probably influenced by the resemblance to real female MMA outfits with regards to the midriff. That and the power abs. Kess's sexualization issue really isn't with her belly though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?In this example, is the armor +1 enhanced or higher?
That'd cause the armor to resize but retain large thematic elements. So the boob window would remain but the specific sizing would change to reflect the man's different frame.
So since someone started talking about game mechanics, let me ask this. Since armor isn't gender specific (even full plate is individual specific, not gender specific), if a female foe is killed and male character takes her armor and dons it, does it still have the boob window and/or missing midriff or does the fantasy powers make those cover up?
Full Plate: This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4 × 100) gold pieces.
You'll have to have to go visit an armor smith to get the window patched/cut out before you can use it.
I honestly think you're probably influenced by the resemblance to real female MMA outfits with regards to the midriff. That and the power abs. Kess's sexualization issue really isn't with her belly though.
That is quite likely, although I am not really interested in MMA or boxing so I'm probably pulling from the little imagery I have from whatever fighting scene that might be.
Have we seen a single male icon with his man-bits blazing the way some of the female's have had boob overflow going on... No we have not. Fantasy art is sexist enough we barely notice it anymore.I can just about guarantee that we will never see this.
IO9's take on the male version of the boob window
Think that looks silly, creepy or disturbing, and that it is ridiculous for him to be running around like that with his parts overfloweth and peeking out for no good reason?
Yep. Me, too. And that's why I don't buy very many gaming books and supplements. The art in them mostly looks stupid, and I don't want to play stupid characters who are adventuring while suicidally ill-equipped. There are exceptions, but they're pretty rare.
Wait a minute, are you actually comparing boobs to penis? Because that's really creepy. As if men had nothing sexy to show than their genitalia, that - speaking of which - aren't visible in ANY female paizo artwork I've ever seen (and for a good reason, that).
This would be a more fitting example, though it still has any delicate parts covered. Sexy (kind of), pointless, but not creepy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any issue with the way the new iconics are portrayed. I would prefer more Jirelle's to Seoni's, given that Seoni's outfit might be sexy, but seems like the least practical thing ever to wear for adventuring.
Actually, Seoni's outfit makes decent sense for a sorcerer to me. Every caster I've ever played wore robes until late levels when you could buy mithril light armors that had 0 ACP and a Spell Failure chance of (pretty much) nill.
You could make the case it is still unnecessarily sexual - there's probably not a great reason to bare that much skin when you're wading into combat, although my understanding is the outfit does fit the Varisian culture. (I'm not super familiar with Golarian, but Varisians are meant to be Roma equivalents, right?)
Overall, I'm of a split mind on this. On the one hand, it's hard not to wince at sexual depictions of women when you consider how our hobby is perceived by the outside world. There's especially the danger of making it unappealing to women* - who, more than just being invaluable for their perspective, are ultimately essential to the survival of any product. TTRPG's will not survive without a strong female player base. That's a fact.
On the other, it's sexist in of itself to say that a woman must never be presented as sexual. To say nothing of the commentary it makes to insist that a woman who displays her body or sexuality has no value beyond her physical appeal to men. But it's very difficult to find the line between sexual agent and sexual object and clearly delineate it. Read any argument over Amiri to see this in action.
And then of course there's the whole can of worms about male vs female sexual depictions. Can you really compare exposed breasts to exposed penises? Is there a difference between a chiseled man in artwork and a curvaceous woman? How is the specific way the characters are presented, even if both show a similar amount of skin, still clinging to the archetypal male power fantasy?
Sorry, there's really no good answer to this. I think Paizo has done as well as they can by having several women in the design team who have a level of artistic control over what is published (I remember Jessica Price mentioning something about a female Trox depiction for Bestiary 4 she had specifically denied.) but you're never going to find the perfect balance.
*I know a lot of men will also be put off by the inclusion of cheesecake - gay men, religious men, straight men who find it unappealing, etc. But women are the largest affected group, bar none.
|
|
Here's a blog that explains a little about what that feels like.Also.
I am actually now very curious to see several different women draw their version of a sexy Batman. It would be enlightening.
And it's not particularly Roma either, from what I know. Maybe a dancing costume, but not everyday wear. In one of the previous threads on this, someone posted a far more practical, at least Roma and still both sexy and attactive outfit.
Also interested to see that now. Time to climb Mt. OldThreads again.
I'm not directing this to anyone in this thread or on this site, but when I get my hands on the person cretin responsible for first grouping the words male, power, and fantasy into a pejorative meaning "silly little boys' thought process"...
"Power fantasy" has to be one of the most redundant phrases I've seen in recent years. If you can scrape the bile off of the phrase, you're left with the argument of: should we let a perceived majority kink overlap our marketing? That's the real question.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read several threads somewhat lately where people have been complaining about art where some of the women display some level of sexuality. I can't help but think that contributed to the very sterile looking new iconics. If they pull up the brawler's belt a half inch, the entire female lot is ready to go for 1960's prime time television decency standards. Obviously there are some people that are very happy about this, but does anyone besides me find this a bad thing?
It's the inevitable result of the philosophy driving it. Trying to be everything results in being nothing. Things considered 'mainstream' are oppressed with the belief that mainstream's very existence oppresses everything else. It's why, under the aegis of religious freedom, religion is forbidden in public institutions whether it's a manger scene in front of the local library or the inclusion of God in the pledge of allegiance. The phenomenon is evident in many places in modern culture and we're seeing it here - stylized or accentuated male and female sexuality is repressed because somehow it's very existence oppresses gay and transgender individuals... which in turn results in the 'saming' of the sexes or, ultimately, a complete lack of any sexuality whatsoever.
Predictable as the sun rising I'm afraid.
OK, sorry for three posts in quick succession, but this has been gnawing at me since I read it. I didn't want to derail the thread, but the first thing is as infuriatingly wrong as the rest of it that I cannot just let it go without challenging it.
Religion is not forbidden in public institutions. You can read your Bible, pray, talk about Jesus, use public institutions to have private meetings for religious groups if they provide equal access for that sort of thing. (Don't even get me started on schools granting ease of access to religious groups for these purposes and then shutting out atheist or LGBTQ groups.) What we ask is that the tax dollars WE ALL pay for not be used to codify or show favoritism to one particular religion. Give me one good reason why I should pay for a model recreation of a scene from YOUR holy book.
To say Christianity is somehow maligned in a society where 75% of the population is some form of Christian, your churches are granted tax exempt status (often even in the face of obvious politicking - a fact that makes me guffaw whenever a fundamentalist says gay marriage is granting 'special rights' to homosexuals), and all of your major holidays are federally recognized is ignorant to the point of delusion.
And that precious "God" mention wasn't even in the Pledge of Allegience until the 1950's - claim what you will, history is on our side. Even Bellamy's family didn't support the move when Eisenhower and Congress officially recognized the change. They actually changed a secular pledge to be more in line with your beliefs.
I would like to argue with the bit about male/female sexuality being neutered because it offends gays, but I can't. It's so ridiculously wrong on so many levels it can't be argued with - because nobody has given that as a reason for ANY of the artistic decisions. It's an absurd strawman argument you invented.
Why is "power fantasy" redundant? There are certainly other types of fantasies. Given the nature of this thread, "sexual fantasy" is the first that pops to mind.I'm not directing this to anyone in this thread or on this site, but when I get my hands on the
personcretin responsible for first grouping the words male, power, and fantasy into a pejorative meaning "silly little boys' thought process"..."Power fantasy" has to be one of the most redundant phrases I've seen in recent years. If you can scrape the bile off of the phrase, you're left with the argument of: should we let a perceived majority kink overlap our marketing? That's the real question.
Fantasy is an execise in imagination and the fantasizer remains in control of their own imagination.
|
|
The best part is, art featuring prominent focus towards male genitalia would be more historically accurate (don't worry it's SFW) than fantasy tropes are.
Not that fantasy should be limited to what people wore historically, honestly I just want one "bishy uke" to use anime/manga terms amongst the male iconics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make of that what you will.*Looks at almost all armored males.*
Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt
Well, the best analog to Amiri the Barbarian is Crowe the Bloodrager.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether or not any piece of art is sexualized. I'm only combatting the argument that the *only possible reason* for lacking a particular piece of armor is to present sexuality.
I thought that the artist's stated reason for why he drew Amiri the way he did would be helpful information.
Now, I'm not an expert, but I do have done enough medieval combat to know that a helmet, gloves, and boots are the only non-negotiables when it comes to armor. Everything else is a trade off between weight, flexibility, and protection. Personally, I like very little armor -- but a really big shield.
What does that have to do with either what you said or what I asked?Fantasy is an execise in imagination and the fantasizer remains in control of their own imagination.I'm not directing this to anyone in this thread or on this site, but when I get my hands on theWhy is "power fantasy" redundant? There are certainly other types of fantasies. Given the nature of this thread, "sexual fantasy" is the first that pops to mind.personcretin responsible for first grouping the words male, power, and fantasy into a pejorative meaning "silly little boys' thought process"..."Power fantasy" has to be one of the most redundant phrases I've seen in recent years. If you can scrape the bile off of the phrase, you're left with the argument of: should we let a perceived majority kink overlap our marketing? That's the real question.
Fantasy always involves a degree of empowerment.
With sexual fantasies, even in rough, peril, and submissive fantasies, the participant enjoys a strange kind of empowerment--they know (ignoring possible partner assault and accidents) that they're safe and able to revel in a role without actually enduring any unwanted damage or trauma. Lighter forms of sexual fantasy can be described as empowerment via transformation.
Make of that what you will.*Looks at almost all armored males.*
Rrrriiiiggggghhhhhhtttt
Well, the best analog to Amiri the Barbarian is Crowe the Bloodrager.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether or not any piece of art is sexualized. I'm only combatting the argument that the *only possible reason* for lacking a particular piece of armor is to present sexuality.
I thought that the artist's stated reason for why he drew Amiri the way he did would be helpful information.
Now, I'm not an expert, but I do have done enough medieval combat to know that a helmet, gloves, and boots are the only non-negotiables when it comes to armor. Everything else is a trade off between weight, flexibility, and protection. Personally, I like very little armor -- but a really big shield.
Well if Crowe had been drawn first, then I might give his art work some weight. Since it was drawn long afterwards, with people talking about how silly the original female artwork looks, Crowe's artwork might be a real effort to have meaningful armor or it might just be an attempt to justify the previous choice. "See guys can dress like that too. See, not silly at all."
What kind of armor, by the way, only has arms and limbs covered and not the torso? I'm just wondering so that I can perhaps combine it with a breastplate armor for my character and get twice the armor bonus.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR nothing to do with the actual discussion, just answering the question of why Kess immediately makes someone think "Brawler".
I'm not sure why bare midriff tells me she is a boxer more than if she were covered up. Maybe for the same reason I would imagine a male boxer more bare chested (like Crowe) despite armor. However I'm not certain why there some female boxers have a bare midriff and some do not so I could imagine that answer being still to sexualize them there, but I'm not certain about that.
It's probably because that's a slightly armored up version of how boxers (and MMA fighters) who are female actually dress (I especially like the callout on the helmet, which looks like a leather version of amateur boxer headgear and the boots, which are like fur versions of the super high socks you see boxers wear in some movies). Notably, women wear the same clothes men do, with the exception of adding a sports bra style top.
Even if you hadn't really paid attention to it, it has surely subliminally seeped in, it appears in the movie Million Dollar Baby, in every Olympics (including a good chunk of ads for both), and loads of other places.
I try my best to stay out of discussions on what is, I think an otherwise trivial point, I pay very little attention to the iconics to begin with, other than using their backstories as inspiration. However I will say, people use the sexy vs. survivable argument in this kind of thread a lot. Seriously, this is fantasy, physics breaks down at 1st level, do we really need realistic armor? Just some food for thought