Why they have to be afraid of something?
On another note: I was terribly, TERRIBLY disappointed with the art in the Inner Sea Gods hardcover. Besides the Calistrian cleric and some evil female clerics (why evil?) most of the women dressed in stuff so concealing I asked myself: Are these women afraid of showing that they are women?
Well you know I HAVE to prove I'm a man by dressing skimpy all the time. That's why I don't go anywhere without my banana hammock.
So of course a woman should be wearing something similar.
Of course sometimes it's cold, or I would like to dress with more clothes but I don't want people to think I'm afraid so all my tuxedos and armor have to expose my banana hammock.
Well you know I HAVE to prove I'm a man by dressing skimpy all the time. That's why I don't go anywhere without my banana hammock.Why they have to be afraid of something?
On another note: I was terribly, TERRIBLY disappointed with the art in the Inner Sea Gods hardcover. Besides the Calistrian cleric and some evil female clerics (why evil?) most of the women dressed in stuff so concealing I asked myself: Are these women afraid of showing that they are women?
First: You don't have to dress skimpy to show you have a female body. Really.
Second: The last time I dressed like that I was fifteen years old, in puberty, and completely unsure of my body. Now, almost fifteen years later I can dress form-huggingly (is that a word?) WITHOUT (<--important) showing too much skin and still show my feminine curves. I don't know if others think of that as sexy, nor do I care, but I like it, because I feel mostly comfortable in my own skin. Which I didn't, at fifteen years of age.
And just like that, although I have thought about not posting on the paizo board again, I have to do it, with a question:
Why does everyone think that sexy has ANYTHING to do with how much of the body is covered, or precisely, how less? Is that the only thing you can think of when imagining sexy men and women? Bare skin? Really?
I've never figured it out either. At some point, someone connected "moral" with "conservative clothing" and it's only gotten worse.
Really, I don't want to live in any place where sexiness is measured by the amount of skin I choose to show and where I AS A WOMAN MYSELF get told by OTHER WOMEN what is sexist or proper and how I am sexist when I enjoy sexy (yes, and most often, nude) artwork of women. THAT is sexist. And saying that muscular men in the media (you wouldn't want to hear women around here talking about these men) are MALE power fantasies... that's just... wow.
You have found some psychopathic anti-sexual feminists; we have many in the US and they hide themselves among semi-reasonable feminists.
|
Valeros the Fighter - forehead, face, ears, neck, elbows, and upper forearms, fingers
I know this is neither here nor there, but speaking as a straight male, Valeros looks so much cooler mythic than in the original artwork. CRB Valeros is very meh - compare him to Seelah: both are covered, but Seelah's pose and expression tell a story. The look in her eyes says this is a woman who's resolute and determined. Valeros' expression says this is a man who just passed gas and is leaving the table before anyone thinks to blame him.
Mythic Valeros, on the other hand, looks like someone prepared to fight. He's daring you to attack.
Showing skin is not always sexual - I think that's important to remember. Of course, that might just be my privilege as a man that I can say so without the associated baggage of what message it may be portraying about my gender.
I was going to say something in response to Sitri's post, but Abraham spalding beat me to it and said it way better than I could've, so . . . *slow clap*
Thejeff: And from there, the argument has grown to include PRECISELY EVERY SINGLE piece of artwork depicting half-naked men, thereby making ONLY art of half-naked females worth discussing. How convenient.
Really, I don't want to live in any place where sexiness is measured by the amount of skin I choose to show and where I AS A WOMAN MYSELF get told by OTHER WOMEN what is sexist or proper and how I am sexist when I enjoy sexy (yes, and most often, nude) artwork of women. THAT is sexist. And saying that muscular men in the media (you wouldn't want to hear women around here talking about these men) are MALE power fantasies... that's just... wow.You have found some psychopathic anti-sexual feminists; we have many in the US and they hide themselves among semi-reasonable feminists.
Thankfully, I haven't have the pleasure meeting one of them in person, in real-life, but all the things I have read on forums and the like, it is really disturbing. I have absolutely no idea where that came from.
Regarding your first answer, about the clothing: I think a fully leather-clad female rogue in form-hugging clothes with the proper attitude is really, really sexy. A female rogue in something that resembles more a bikini, in which she totally looks lost in, is not sexy.
And by the way: there are quite a few men out there, who think of nun habits as the ultimate thing. In hotness. Yes. That's why nun costumes are sold in erotic catalogues. Two pages after the butterly ouvert panties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thejeff: And from there, the argument has grown to include PRECISELY EVERY SINGLE piece of artwork depicting half-naked men, thereby making ONLY art of half-naked females worth discussing. How convenient.
That's the point. I walk through my shopping centre and look at all the half naked, often well-hung, tattooed men in nothing but tight shorts, in commercials for after-shave and the likes. Absolutely not sexist. Not in the slightest. At least to me. And they look wonderful next to the female underwear models three stores further. Are they sexist, because they depict female? I hope not.
And I don't think you can take Conan, who has some years now under his belt, and use him in modern day discussions.
Then I'll go some centuries back in history and compare Apollo's statue to a statue of Aphrodite in her linen towel. What's more sexist? By the way, Apollo was completely naked, Aphrodite didn't even show her nipples.
Ceres Cato It was sarcasm... sorry if I broke the meter.
Why/what does sexiness have to do with anything really?
It's not indicative of intelligence, strength, health, agility, skill, power, success, or anything else with the possible except of personal hygiene.
Honestly it's all about looks which are only skin deep. Of course when you think about it so is live cause if I get the blade under the skin... well...
Honestly I don't care. While I can generally find something amazing about any body (and anybody) that's because people are amazing things mechanically, aesthetically and in sheer ability.
At the end of the day the dress or lack of there is generally only indicative of what the person has on layered (or not) their body with and possibly what their immediate intentions for the future are.
Ceres Cato It was sarcasm... sorry if I broke the meter.
Why/what does sexiness have to do with anything really?
It's not indicative of intelligence, strength, health, agility, skill, power, success, or anything else with the possible except of personal hygiene.
Honestly it's all about looks which are only skin deep. Of course when you think about it so is live cause if I get the blade under the skin... well...
Honestly I don't care. While I can generally find something amazing about any body (and anybody) that's because people are amazing things mechanically, aesthetically and in sheer ability.
At the end of the day the dress or lack of there is generally only indicative of what the person has on layered (or not) their body with and possibly what their immediate intentions for the future are.
I am really sorry that I haven't understood your sarcasm. In this whole discussion answers like these are most often than not serious. But thanks for the clarification.
On most of your points I agree wholeheartedly with you (especially the amazing part) but I think there are many things in our lives (or in mine, at least) that can be sexy without having anything to do with looks.
For example, when my husband started crocheting, I though it was somehow dead sexy when he did that.
Maybe sexiness isn't indicative of intelligence, strength, etc. but all these things can be sexy. And I think you can display a general amount of sexiness when you possess any characteristic property of a talent of what you are sure of.
Agreed. The skin thing is something of a proxy and something of a distraction.
The issue is sexual objectification and it's usually far more about art style and posing than about inches of bare skin. The "I'm twisting so you can see my boobs and butt at the same time" pose is the classic example.
Paizo's usually very good about the character design. They occasionally slip up on the artwork, but I think I've heard that a lot of that comes from the artists who are used to customers wanting such pictures.
Oh, yes, the twisting pose. That's weird. I don't like it as well. Agreed.
However, I think there should be more action poses (not in the class artwork, that's not possible) where anyone, male or female alike, can show (off) their bodily prowess. And their goodies as well. If it is anatomically possible. And sometimes it is.
Well I guess I can see that -- any trait can certainly be attractive (well, maybe not any trait but I get the idea).
I think it's because I read what was quote of you from Nicos and took that on its own. By itself and the throw away line of "concealing" I read it as "covered" or "not exposed" which let to the sarcasm/snark about being exposed and such.
But again in retrospect it looks more like I missed a beat an misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Good for you, and good for the other women who dress just the opposite just becuase they want. The issue, IMHO, is variety, and I think paizo have provided a little for everyone.
You're right, variety is the key. You know, I don't think the issue (for me, at least) is that it's problematic that women dress in a way that conceals in part or completely their curves. That's okay. The issue I had with the Inner Sea Gods Hardcover (and I flipped a fair number of times through its pages before deciding to not buy it) is that I was disappointed that some worshippers depicted where not at all what I had hoped for. Besides the Calistrian and Urgathoan I believe I remember that the other women were dressed... quite unappealing. And sometimes not in a way I thought of as appropriate. Desna comes to mind, if I remember correctly.
@Abraham Spalding: I hope we're good now :)
Well, not sure why every female/male in paizo art have to be attractive either.
because every monster with high charisma is butt ugly so we need low charisma attractive iconics to balance... well iconics and npcs.
Really, I don't want to live in any place where sexiness is measured by the amount of skin I choose to show and where I AS A WOMAN MYSELF get told by OTHER WOMEN what is sexist or proper and how I am sexist when I enjoy sexy (yes, and most often, nude) artwork of women. THAT is sexist. And saying that muscular men in the media (you wouldn't want to hear women around here talking about these men) are MALE power fantasies... that's just... wow.You have found some psychopathic anti-sexual feminists; we have many in the US and they hide themselves among semi-reasonable feminists.[...]
Regarding your first answer, about the clothing: I think a fully leather-clad female rogue in form-hugging clothes with the proper attitude is really, really sexy. A female rogue in something that resembles more a bikini, in which she totally looks lost in, is not sexy.
This takes me back to a few Farscape episodes:
"Yeah...I'll finish this one."
Definitely attitude.
It's a crime against humanity that we couldn't get a Wonder Woman movie while she was still considered young enough to do the role.This takes me back to a few Farscape episodes:
"Yeah...I'll finish this one."Definitely attitude.
Never gave a flying, radioactive s~*+ about Wonder Woman, but I would absolutely watch it under these conditions.
This takes me back to a few Farscape episodes:
"Yeah...I'll finish this one."Definitely attitude.
Ooh, she looks determined, I like that!
I've always wanted to watch Farscape, but it aired on one of these TV channels over here where every 20 minutes there's a five minute commercial break. I hated these.| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other than simply not liking it, I don't think I have seen an opposition opinion that has lacked hypocrisy.
A bit of an exaggeration.
Many exposed men with what I imagine to be sex appeal get printed in the new iconics lineup.
I don't know what new Iconics you've been looking at, but the only new male Iconic showing a significant amount of skin is Crowe, the Bloodrager.
Here, look:
Quinn, the Investigator
Oloch, the Warpriest
Crowe, the Bloodrager
Hakon, the Skald
Zaim, the Slayer
By what stretch of the imagination is that "many exposed men"?
People have threads wanting more instances of homosexuality. Most people on the boards are supportive of the idea, the few that aren't have the decency to be honest and say they can't really argue why they don't like it other than the fact that they don't. Material gets published with homosexuality in a positive or neutral light.
People want more transgender material. Material gets published.
People want depictions of sexy women. Material has already been published.
And as many have pointed out, there have been instances of homosexuality in Pathfinder products since the beginning.
Also, as I said before, being transgender is not a sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with sexuality. Seriously, please stop conflating the two.
Women who share this want of material are ignored while people keep spouting off that this is a desire of piggish men.
I look through the thread and I see people engaging with those women who want to see depictions of sexy women. Look at the posts right above this one. Here is one example.
A high ranking staff member comes in and sarcastically dismisses the concern.
If you're referring to this post, please take a moment to reread it. He was expressing weariness with discussions going either way: "A thread about whether our art is too sexy or not sexy enough" is what he referred to it as.
Nonsense about realistic battle gear is cited as evidence the women should be dressed in their massive, frumpy layers,
Um, much of Pathfinder revolves around combat. Suggesting that characters be dressed appropriately for combat is not nonsense.
despite the same standards not being expected of the men
Have you seen how most of the male Iconics dress, both old and new? Outside of Sajan, Seltyiel, and now Crowe, there's not a lot of male skin on display.
.....or the 32423143 other things in the game that split from realism.
No one's calling for a fully realistic game. The argument about appropriate battle gear for women is about criticizing things that are distracting for many players, that make it more difficult for them to engage in the necessary suspension of disbelief required for a fantasy setting, and that make them feel unwelcome. The argument also engages with longstanding tropes of fantasy art where women are depicted as vulnerable, sexual objects the exist primarily as prizes for men.
Who exactly is the group of privilege here?
Seoni, Alahazra and Feiya are not going to disappear or suddenly be forced to wear more clothes than they already do. (Feiya's one of my favorite Iconics, by the way. And going to questions of sexiness in the new female Iconics, I think Jirelle's looking pretty good, myself. But hey, what do I know?)
And there is still plenty of artwork in Paizo's already-existing products that display sexy women, sometimes without much on. Page through the NPC Codex, for example, to see a few. Your tastes have already been served, and will most likely continue to be served. Why object when others are simply asking for the same privilege?
(Particularly when, by and large, your tastes are already catered to by the larger fantasy RPG market, and by much fantasy art in general.)
I really couldn't hope to count the number of hours of enjoyment I have gotten out of this game. But I can safety say as a matter of principle, I have never been more disappointed by it.
Well, I guess that's up to you. Look, your tastes have already been served. They will most likely continue to be served in one form or another. You just need to make room for other people with different tastes, as Paizo has done. If the thought of Paizo catering to a diverse market (that includes within it straight men who like the kind of thing you like) is a source of disappointment to you, I'm not sure what to say.
What, exactly, do you want to see happen here? What are you asking for?
This takes me back to a few Farscape episodes:
"Yeah...I'll finish this one."Definitely attitude.
Ooh, she looks determined, I like that!
I've always wanted to watch Farscape, but it aired on one of these TV channels over here where every 20 minutes there's a five minute commercial break. I hated these.
It's worth tracking down. Hulu has a bunch of it, up but I think it's on Hulu+. Netflix sometimes has it (if that's available where you live), and there have been DVDs released.
An in addition to Aeryn Sun (easily one of the best female characters in sci-fi), I expect that you'd really love Chiana, who seems very much like the sort of character you've been talking about in this thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This takes me back to a few Farscape episodes:
"Yeah...I'll finish this one."Definitely attitude.
Ooh, she looks determined, I like that!
I've always wanted to watch Farscape, but it aired on one of these TV channels over here where every 20 minutes there's a five minute commercial break. I hated these.It's worth tracking down. Hulu has a bunch of it, up but I think it's on Hulu+. Netflix sometimes has it (if that's available where you live), and there have been DVDs released.
An in addition to Aeryn Sun (easily one of the best female characters in sci-fi), I expect that you'd really love Chiana, who seems very much like the sort of character you've been talking about in this thread.
Yeah. Have to admit that, for all that I've always been an Aeryn/Claudia fan, Chiana is completely aware of & owns her own sexuality.
Question: Why does the Pulse Rifle that Aeryn Sun is using have a pistol grip, a trigger for hip fire, and scope?
Question: Why does the Pulse Rifle that Aeryn Sun is using have a pistol grip, a trigger for hip fire, and scope?
Possibly a salvaged and reconstructed weapon?
And I don't think you can take Conan, who has some years now under his belt, and use him in modern day discussions.Half-Naked Conan , like Chain Bikini Red Sonja, is mainly a Marvel Comics construction, In the Howard stories, Conan DOES wear armor, tending towards chain mail in his days as a Warrior King, whereas Sonja of Rogatine is a pirate that tends towards a leather jack and uses pistols.
Granted, I only know Conan and Red Sonja from the films with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Brigitte Nielsen. Watched them with my mother when I was eight or ten years old.
And I guess Marvel Comics, as far as I'm aware, are a whole different matter.
Question: Why does the Pulse Rifle that Aeryn Sun is using have a pistol grip, a trigger for hip fire, and scope?
It may be that the weapon has different weapon settings, perhaps it can be used as she is using it in the pic and also on another setting used as a sniper rifle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Peacekeeper's pulse rifle is meant to be an all-purpose death machine (which meant it shipped with every accessory). They were always described as a kind of assault rifle, but could easily switch into this minigun-lite mode seen in the previous image.
Much as I'm enjoying it, I'm guessing the Aeryn Sun discussion should move over into a Farscape thread?
Tell that to Firefly fans.The Peacekeeper's pulse rifle is meant to be an all-purpose death machine (which meant it shipped with every accessory). They were always described as a kind of assault rifle, but could easily switch into this minigun-lite mode seen in the previous image.
And I don't think you can take Conan, who has some years now under his belt, and use him in modern day discussions.Half-Naked Conan , like Chain Bikini Red Sonja, is mainly a Marvel Comics construction, In the Howard stories, Conan DOES wear armor, tending towards chain mail in his days as a Warrior King, whereas Sonja of Rogatine is a pirate that tends towards a leather jack and uses pistols.
Marvel(and Dark Horse after them) was just following in Frank Frazetta's lead.
wow....that is a BUNCH of text. It is telling that we live in a society that seems to either totally objectify sexuality , or brutally deny it altogether. We are messed up about this. Neither extreme is healthy. NEXT TOPIC PLEASE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much as I'm enjoying it, I'm guessing the Aeryn Sun discussion should move over into a Farscape thread?
There's an existing one that can be necro'd.
THAT'S Lirianne? That outfit reminds me of Miranda from Mass Effect 2.
So, look: it's fair to like or dislike the new iconics for any number of reasons.
But.
To have variety, the spectrum that female characters fall on doesn't have to be "stripperific" to "conservative." There are all sorts of other spectrums they could be on.
But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not.
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to have variety of appearances for women is to differ in the amount of sex appeal they display. It's like saying the only way for a bunch of women to look different is through different hair color, and implies that the only important thing about the way any of the female characters look is how sexy they are.
I don't read that at all.
Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.
I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, look: it's fair to like or dislike the new iconics for any number of reasons.
But.
To have variety, the spectrum that female characters fall on doesn't have to be "stripperific" to "conservative." There are all sorts of other spectrums they could be on.
But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not.
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to have variety of appearances for women is to differ in the amount of sex appeal they display. It's like saying the only way for a bunch of women to look different is through different hair color, and implies that the only important thing about the way any of the female characters look is how sexy they are.I don't read that at all.
Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.
I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?
Did you read all 8 pages? The conversation is no longer exactly what it was when the OP started it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, look: it's fair to like or dislike the new iconics for any number of reasons.
But.
To have variety, the spectrum that female characters fall on doesn't have to be "stripperific" to "conservative." There are all sorts of other spectrums they could be on.
But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not.
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the only way to have variety of appearances for women is to differ in the amount of sex appeal they display. It's like saying the only way for a bunch of women to look different is through different hair color, and implies that the only important thing about the way any of the female characters look is how sexy they are.I don't read that at all.
Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.
I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?
Nope. And the attempt at pop psychoanalysis isn't helping your argument.
But this thread is called "New Iconics Desexed". It seems natural that the spectrum mentioned in the thread title is discussed while others are not.So, look: it's fair to like or dislike the new iconics for any number of reasons.
But.
To have variety, the spectrum that female characters fall on doesn't have to be "stripperific" to "conservative." There are all sorts of other spectrums they could be on.
I still feel this is a poor title for this thread, because to "sex" something is to determine its biological sex through observation of the form, specifically genitalia. It's an actual verb, and "desexing" the New Iconics would naturally involve removing all characteristics which could indicate them as one biological sex or another.
Nope. And the attempt at pop psychoanalysis isn't helping your argument.
I don't read that at all.Yes, this thread focuses on the sex appeal, but no one says that there aren't many other, equally valuable distinctions.
I can understand that this issue is important to you, but maybe you are projecting a bit?
Yeah, probably not.
I just found it unlikely that you actually subscribe to such a ...well... simplified view of the matter. But having read up on your other posts in this thread, it seems I was wrong, so.... nevermind.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well.. I'm Jumping in after 8 pages but...
I can understand Sitri's feelings.
There have been in general a crusade in the name of gender equality that really feels like a crusade for erotophobia.
Women showing skin or giving the slightest hint about being even remotely interested in sex has been seen as a terrible offense towards all females.
Now... I don't think there is anything wrong with the new iconics, especially Jirelle, I really like her outfit.
But then we see coming the promoters of the "there should be no skin exposure in a fantasy game" and "people wanting a sexy sorceress illustration represent everything that is wrong in our culture"
NO
I am sorry but I find that view deeply wrong for multiple reasons.
First of all because there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. It's a stupid stupid taboo made even more stupid by the comparison with the rather lax attitude towards violence. Because I'm pretty sure that a scantly clad female barbarian would certainly attract way more hostility than the same barbarian, fully clothed, dismembering an enemy in a pretty graphical illustration.
A half-naked body it's a human (well... usually humanoid at least) body, there is nothing evil or exploitative about it. Art have been full of completely naked bodies in times of great sexual prohibition.
Suggesting that someone should be ashamed of using an illustration even vaguely suggestive means putting yourselves and your moral compass way behind the middle ages.
Second, because an exploitative medium would not put a finite number of suggestive females, all females would be naked femme fatales reinforcing the assumption that i is indeed their role in the setting.
Clearly is not what Paizo showed until now. We have tons and tons of fairly unattractive but competent female characters.
Third. Let's assume for a moment that being open about sexuality, or even just having a kinda exotic outfit is something bad and makes you a slut and an obvious bad example of woman. (it doesn't FYI)
So what? The Pathfinder setting should not have room for questionable characters? We can have depictions of necromancers raising the dead and barbarians brutalizing people, but the moment we offer as a character a girl that is not overdress is a scandal and the setting should never have room for such a character?
All in all.. I like the new iconincs and I don't see them as a turn towards a puritanical view.
Some comments on this topic, I liked them less, and I really hope Paizo is not going to appeal to bigots and obscurantists when planning their future steps. I have confidence they won't