|
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.
I have to ask you the same question I asked Malaclypse: Did you read all 8 pages? If you didn't, that's not a big deal; but if you did, I don't see how you could believe that what you wrote here represents what has actually been argued in this thread. Over and over again people have said "sexiness is fine," "cheesecake is fine," and "porn is fine."
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.
Again, I don't think this is at all what has been argued in this thread. If your post is an argument against some sort of straw-feminist I disagree with it, but hey, whatever. But if your statement is a response to the things said in this thread, I'm completely lost.
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
The argument in this thread hasn't been that there can be no questionable morals (even if wearing "exotic outfits" somehow implied that you are a "bad example" which again, I don't think was ever implied on this thread.) The argument has largely been that there is something wrong with defaulting to the male knight bedecked in heavy steel while the female knight is wearing plate pasties and a chain mail thong.
Where are our ripped male iconics wearing six square inches of strategically draped leather? /hyperbole
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character. Dressing Seelah in the same manner as Seoni would be pretty obnoxious, because Seelah is a front line warrior. Seoni isn't depicted in armor because she doesn't wear armor and probably wants to stay as far away from where the sharp bit of metal are actually swinging as possible.† Sexiness works for Seoni. But not making every iconic into eye candy isn't some "new puritanism" and it isn't repressive and it isn't "desexing." It's displaying some variety, which should be ok.
2) Saying Seoni "probably wants to stay as far away from where the sharp bit of metal are actually swinging as possible" is not meant to imply she's a coward. If you can use your phenomenal cosmic powers to blast your enemies to bits from 400 feet away, why take a chance? I sure as heck wouldn't.
3) I've been very happy with Paizo's art. I love that they have badasses as well as eye candy. I love that the iconic art seems to try to cater to "why would it be awesome to be this character" rather than "man, it would be awesome to be dating that character." I'm not unhappy that they newest batch shows less skin, but I'm not unhappy that many of the older iconics showed a lot.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I clearly have expressed myself badly.
I have to point out at the meaning of a couple of things I said at the start.
1) I'm sorry for jumping in after 8 pages. as in ... Jumping in after 8 pages ad cherry picking pieces of replies from the few first topics.
(btw yes, I did read the whole thing. Maybe my attention started to wander off around page 6 or 7 but I did)
2) there have been in general a crusade in the name of gender equality that really feels like a crusade for erotophobia.
I didn't meant in the Paizo forums or in this topic. by "in general" I meant in the world. Well.. in the gaming culture actually.
So, yes, I guess mine is an argument against some sort of straw-feminist.
But really, is not so straw, is just outside the topic but talking about the same issue.
For example...
This is a link about some illustrations correction made for pathfinder iconics.
Is there something wrong with the final result? Not at all.
There was something wrong with the initial image? Not at all...
Nonetheless this is seen as "yay, progress for gender equality" while to me looks like "Yay, progress for erotophobia"
Again, nothing wrong with the final result, it's not like I despise how Reiko and Lirianne turned out.
And I totally understand that if you have the illustration of a male fighter as a man in watertight armor while the female counterpart is wearing chainmail bikini while poledancing with her lance things have gone down the road of the exploitative and unreasonable.
What worries me is that the first pictures have been deemed wrong.
That is taking a non issue and blowing it way out of proportion.
As a matter of fact I avoided pointing out the opposite side of the argument because I believe in variety. I believe in a balance of sensitive clothed female characters and no-nonsense characters dressed up for battle with flamboyant characters with a flair first, practicality after sort of attire.
But if someone was to really examine those things, what should I think about Arueshalae?
Succubi are defined by sexuality.
And here we have a couple of iconic succubi which by the way are evil.
Succubus
Nocticula
But wait .. there is a good succubus, Arueshalae
Making a double exception on the succubus as both good and overly dressed kinda feels judgmental.
As in sexually open character, or even just, character revealing skin = evil.
Coupled with some designs sent back for "corrections" I feel it kinda is an issue.
That the push towards sensitive illustration is not going towards outfits that follows logic or stopping female exploitation but rather towards erotophobia extremism.
Do I think Paizo is falling for the trap?
No
Mainly because I have read many statement that speak about creating a balance between the two female imagery without exasperating either of the two.
But I can understand people that missed those statements and that looking at the new Iconics may think "this is a trend, I am afraid there will be no space for Seoni-like illustrations from now on"
The argument has largely been that there is something wrong with defaulting to the male knight bedecked in heavy steel while the female knight is wearing plate pasties and a chain mail thong.
There's an obvious economic reason for that. Paizo as a company has to be profitable first; which might explain the above situation.
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .
Where are our ripped male iconics wearing six square inches of strategically draped leather? /hyperbole
Probably on the cover of romance novels where the target audience consists of mainly females.
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character.
I am not sure why you feel this is anything else but an economic issue. Paizo obviously has to create artwork that appeals to their customer base. This thread shows that they did not succeeded with it as well as with previous releases.
Additionally, I don't see why illustrations for fantasy characters that fight fantasy monsters should make sense for the character, irrespective of gender. Just look at all the great artwork by WAR - how would anyone ever fight with all that stuff sticking out everywhere...it's totally unrealistic and pointless, but it looks great and makes for evocative and inspiring images.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument has largely been that there is something wrong with defaulting to the male knight bedecked in heavy steel while the female knight is wearing plate pasties and a chain mail thong.There's an obvious economic reason for that. Paizo as a company has to be profitable first; which might explain the above situation.
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .
Personally, I'd be surprised if those were the numbers.
But regardless, this seems relevant to the conversation.
|
|
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .
I wouldn't considering that I never had less than 2 girls at my table.
This when playing D&D/Pathfinder. Playing Vampire females almost always squarely outweighed the males.But I have to say, the fact that you don't believe those numbers doesn't surprise me a lot. If that's the attitude around your table, I can imagine a distinctive lack of girls around it.
Paizo has the exact numbers, but I would be very surprised if spending for Paizo products from males accounts for less than 80% of their sales (probably even a lot more) .I wouldn't considering that I never had less than 2 girls at my table.
This when playing D&D/Pathfinder. Playing Vampire females almost always squarely outweighed the males.
You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products.
I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money).
Small sample size, I know, but still..
Also, I was specifically talking about Paizo products; D&D fantasy rpgs. It might very well be different for Vampire...
But I have to say, the fact that you don't believe those numbers doesn't surprise me a lot. If that's the attitude around your table, I can imagine a distinctive lack of girls around it.
Your assumptions are wrong - not that it matters, though.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products.
I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money).
Small sample size, I know, but still..
A very small sample size. I spend more money on RPGs,and on Paizo products in particular, than my husband, than either of my sons, and at least as much, if not more than most of my male friends. Further more, my female friends tend to buy their own stuff as well.
So, now that we've each listed our own small sample size, where does that leave us? Zeroed out?
You mix up two things: people who play rpgs and people who regularly buy rpg-related products.
I guess about 1/4th of my male friends who play RPGs spend more than 30-40$ / month for rpg materials. None of the females in my groups spend that much for rgps in a year (and that's not because they wouldn't have the money).
Small sample size, I know, but still..
A very small sample size. I spend more money on RPGs,and on Paizo products in particular, than my husband, than either of my sons, and at least as much, if not more than most of my male friends. Further more, my female friends tend to buy their own stuff as well.
So, now that we've each listed our own small sample size, where does that leave us? Zeroed out?
Not really.
Do you really spend more than both your husband and your sons combined? But even if you do: You mention that you spend 'at least as much' as 'most' of your male friends, while your female friends 'tend to buy their own stuff as well'. This implies that male spending is higher:
First, the market is not evenly split; males are the majority. This means that (lets assume) you have 10 friends that are into RPGs, chances are at least six of them are males.
Second, in the group that spends less than you are both males and females (husband, sons, female friends, some male friends).
In the group that spends about the same amount as you are males and you, the single woman.
Finally, the group that spends more than you only consists of males.
Either your were very unclear in how you phrased your post, or our now already larger sample gives us the following results:
My sample: Male spending dominates clearly.
Your sample: Male spending dominates clearly.
So..how does this zero out?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there something wrong with the final result? Not at all.
There was something wrong with the initial image? Not at all...
I'm gonna have to disagree. Assless chaps have their place, certainly, but on Lirianne they should be emphasizing her spaghetti-western pistolero aesthetic. Which is to say, the chaps should be in addition to pants, not taking the place of them. The initial image is needlessly naked.
As for Reiko: are you seriously saying that there's nothing a little needlessly sexualized about an outfit that covers literally her entire body except her eyes, but has a cleavage window?
Making a double exception on the succubus as both good and overly dressed kinda feels judgmental.
As in sexually open character, or even just, character revealing skin = evil.
Coupled with some designs sent back for "corrections" I feel it kinda is an issue.
That the push towards sensitive illustration is not going towards outfits that follows logic or stopping female exploitation but rather towards erotophobia extremism.
I don't think you have a good case for sexualized art = evil in the setting and books as a whole. A succubus is a sexual creature, yes, but is also very explicitly a demon who uses sex appeal as a tool of manipulation. Thus, it seems like a succubus who would turn to good and fight against demons would probably leave behind the evil act of sexual manipulation. That said, I think that dealing with succubi in general is a complicated issue of the representation of female sexuality, and I'd rather not grapple with all those implications right this minute.
@ Malaclypse: You seem to be putting a lot of effort into showing that men spend more money than women on RPG materials on what you have admitted is a small and unrepresentative sample size. I would encourage you to question why you are so invested in showing that your admitted speculation about gender-based RPG purchasing is more correct than someone else's experience which contradicts your own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I really do spend more than my husband and my two adult sons combined. I asked the spouse, just to make sure I wasn't overstating. He assured me that I do, and wasn't quite sure how I could even doubt it. I would guess that at least 50% of the time, if they've got something, I either bought it for them, showed it to them, or gave them my old one.
Apparently, I did word it very poorly, as what you took from it is not only not what I meant, but also not anywhere near to the actuality. I never meant to imply that I spend more on gaming than all of my female friends, as that is simply not the case.
The line, btw, wasn't to spend as much as I do, but to spend as much as your 1 out of 4 of your male friends ($30-$40 a month). So if I, and at least 1 of my female friends spend the same as or more than the $30-$40 that your friend does, how does that not even out? What about two of them? Three? How many of us do there need to be before we zero out your one friend out of four? What if we spend twice as much as your one friend? Because unfortunately, I know that I do.
As for who spends more than me; I'm sure there must be someone, so I left room for a question there. In fact, I hope there is someone because I would rather not be "that person" that spends too much on gaming stuff.
However, I truly don't know if that friend is male or female. I can think of two right off the top of my head, one female and one male, that probably do, because while I spend a fair amount, and over twice your 1 in 4 friend above, they both tend to have more things on hand to use than I do. It's hard to say for sure, as one of them is in the industry and may in fact get their stuff for free while the other is not and so probably pays full price, though they are very good at shopping for things used. So, I would call the group of "people that spend more than me" a wash.
Since I've acknowledged that I didn't mean that I necessarily spend more than all of my female friends, and that our original goal line wasn't spending more than me anyway, but to spend as much as your 1 in 4 friend above, I don't think we can assume that male spending dominates so much as to make taking female consumers into consideration unnecessary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, @Scarletrose, my apologies for misunderstanding you. I still vehemently disagree that feminism supports some sort of erotophobia, but discussing that would be off topic.
I do, however, kind of agree with you on the eroticism and evil bit. I hadn't really thought about it until you brought it up. But even in the ACG, the most scantily clad character presented is the Divine Commander Warpriest (page 129) who at least appears, to me, to be riding a fiendish mount.
I am not sure why you feel this is anything else but an economic issue. Paizo obviously has to create artwork that appeals to their customer base. This thread shows that they did not succeeded with it as well as with previous releases.
Additionally, I don't see why illustrations for fantasy characters that fight fantasy monsters should make sense for the character, irrespective of gender. Just look at all the great artwork by WAR - how would anyone ever fight with all that stuff sticking out everywhere...it's totally unrealistic and pointless, but it looks great and makes for evocative and inspiring images.
This was also discussed earlier in the thread. "Sex sells" is not a very good defense. The fact that advertising can be "sexy" does not in any way imply that advertising must be "sexy."
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."
Finally, for the sake of sport, lets assume that your WAG about male to female purchasing ratios of PFRPG products are accurate. By focusing on sexualization and objectification of women, we are telling 20% of the market that their dollars are welcome, but they, themselves…a little less so†. That'll tilt things even more in favor of how much money is spent by men than by worm on PFRPG, but only by diminishing their total customer base.
I suppose that there is a certain percentage of men that won't play unless there's at least X% of cheesecake in every item, but I don't believe that their numbers are equal to even 20% of the market.
So, from a purely economic stance, which do you exclude? The few people who are damaged enough that they won't buy something if there isn't a constant supply of T&A? Or 51% of the population?
If you disagree that, on economic terms, it's better to court your entire audience than to court part of your audience in a way that's exclusionary toward a significant minority of your customers then your understanding of "economic matters" and mine are so wildly divergent that I don't think that fruitful communication will be possible.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there something wrong with the final result? Not at all.
There was something wrong with the initial image? Not at all...I'm gonna have to disagree. Assless chaps have their place, certainly, but on Lirianne they should be emphasizing her spaghetti-western pistolero aesthetic. Which is to say, the chaps should be in addition to pants, not taking the place of them. The initial image is needlessly naked.
As for Reiko: are you seriously saying that there's nothing a little needlessly sexualized about an outfit that covers literally her entire body except her eyes, but has a cleavage window?
And I think I disagree back, but first of all we should be clear on what I am saying.
There are things done right and things done wrong clearly, but is not black and white.Reiko wearing a martial art Gi (which is usually V-shaped) to me is not really an offense.
Expecially considering the pose. She is really not flaunting anything.
I mean, search Kunoichi on google to see what the average image of a Kunoichi is.
I really don't see any reason to find Reiko offensive.
As said before .. there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.
Maybe the right way to do it is the covered up image we have now.
The wrong way to do it would be something like this
And the first draft of the image while maybe not "the right way" it definitely falls under acceptable.
The same with the gunslinger.
I feel the first image is more than acceptable. It really doesn't scream exploitation to me.
This does.
For the succubi part...
First of all understand that describing a succubus as "a demon that exploits her sexuality" is an understatement.
A succubus is nourished by sexual energy.
A succubus that does not try to seduce, is a succubus who does not try to survive.
I don't think is a complicated issue of the representation of female sexuality. First of all because there are incubi.
The problem if anything, is the under representation of incubi that would serve as the exact male counterpart of a succubus.
Second, because there is really nothing wrong with what they represent.
They are the epitome of sexuality. There is nothing wrong with that, at least until they are not the only female representation of a setting.
They are what they are, that doesn't diminish every other female figure.
(I would say they doesn't diminish their own figure either)
Are they evil? Usually yes.
Are they evil because they manipulate people with sex appeal?
hell no... if you think so, clearly we have two very different moral compass.
They are evil because they have no regard for the people they seduce.
They are pretty happy to use them, abuse them and turn their life miserable, for their profit, but sometimes even just for the fun of it.
They are evil because they are controlling, sadistic and egoists.
Not because seducing is evil.
I would point out that nymphs do the same and are considered good but that's beyond the scope of a game, it's about considering sexuality and seduction something evil, something to be hated, in other words: erotophobia
@The Shining Fool: No need to apologize, re-reading my post I° think it was my fault.
You have to understand that if you asked me 5 years ago I would have said to you that I am a feminist.
Then something changed (or maybe it never did, maybe I was unable to see it before) and where there should have been a struggle for gender equality I started to see widespread misandry.
Granted that every movement, no matter how noble, is bound to have a couple of idiots in it. I started to feel feminism was no longer something I was comfortable with.
Not that I had a choice in the matter since, being born male, apparently I cannot be a feminist anymore, all I can be is an ally, which to me sounds like "you may support us but you will never be one of us, you are one of them".
Erotophobia is another one of those things that shouldn't really be in the feminism movement, but I feel it became part of it now.
I can tell you I personally know feminists who would judge Seelah oversexualixed for wearing a boob plate. I would love to say that I am joking or exaggerating, unfortunately I am not.
I can't tell you what a movement that does not accept me as part of it stands for as a whole.
All I can say is what a lot of pretty vocal members of that movement stands for.
I now define myself simply as an advocate for gender equality.
All I can say is that I don't see an argument about few inches of skin as something positive for the cause.
As a matter of fact I think it kinda promotes slut-shaming.
...
I am assuming you did not see that this was a lower bound, not an upper bound.
Actually, I originally wrote 50-100$, but I updated it because one of the guys that use to spend the most on rpg stuff has an OSR phase and now buys all these indie games instead).
But it doesn't even matter so much; only Paizo could release numbers but I doubt they will because it most likely would probably just infuriate a vocal minority and lead to bad publicity.
I don't think we can assume that male spending dominates so much as to make taking female consumers into consideration unnecessary.
Of course it does not; what a horrible idea. You seem to imply that targeting can only be on either males or females, that those are in direct opposition - because otherwise your statement does not really make sense (to me).
This was also discussed earlier in the thread. "Sex sells" is not a very good defense. The fact that advertising can be "sexy" does not in any way imply that advertising must be "sexy."
I agree fully.
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
Or 51% of the population?
Seriously, the same mistake again. 51% of the population are not extremist feminists. Those are a minority.
The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.
The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.
Here are a couple of quotes from one of Shining Fool's earlier posts:
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character.
I've been very happy with Paizo's art. I love that they have badasses as well as eye candy. I love that the iconic art seems to try to cater to "why would it be awesome to be this character" rather than "man, it would be awesome to be dating that character." I'm not unhappy that they newest batch shows less skin, but I'm not unhappy that many of the older iconics showed a lot.
Do those sound "extremist" to you? Does anyone in this thread sound "extremist" to you?
sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
The only thing I get from your post is that you seem to think all women are alike, and they are all like Alice Schwarzer. I disagree with that assessment.Here are a couple of quotes from one of Shining Fool's earlier posts:
If the men default to being "competently" dressed, than their female counterparts should too. Sexy clothing is fine too, but it should make sense for the character.
I specifically quoted and answered this in a previous post on this thread. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this now. Oh well, maybe you just didn't actually read this...
Does anyone in this thread sound "extremist" to you?
Yes, of course.
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
Speaking as a straight, male, sex-positive feminist (with my own problems with extreme and sex-negative feminism)...are you high right now? Or joking? Or something like that?
Because I'm trying really hard not to be insulting (and have no problem with people getting high, or kidding around) but I'm literally flabbergasted at how you can seriously get 'sex negative' from that article without some form of mind-altering chemical being involved.
I mean, that article has about as much to do with sex as a study on underwear prices does...ie. it's tangentially sorta part of the discussion, but not what's actually being discussed at all. And while attitudes like sex-negativity can seep through into unrelated works...that's not happening there. Like, at all.
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.
The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.
Because I'm trying really hard not to be insulting (and have no problem with people getting high, or kidding around) but I'm literally flabbergasted at how you can seriously get 'sex negative' from that article without some form of mind-altering chemical being involved.
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.
I mean, that article has about as much to do with sex as a study on underwear prices does...ie. it's tangentially sorta part of the discussion, but not what's actually being discussed at all. And while attitudes like sex-negativity can seep through into unrelated works...that's not happening there. Like, at all.
Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.
Malaclypse, is English your first language? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being serious. Because if it's not, you are navigating a particularly difficult linguistic and cultural concept very well. If it is, you are failing, badly. Perhaps deadmanwalking is right and you are just currently chemically altered.
You don't seem to know the meaning of the words assumption, hostility, sex-negative, puritan, exclusionary, or extremist. Like I said in my previous comment to you, I don't believe that fruitful communication with you will be possible. Toodles.
@Scarletrose, I would be interested in discussing what you term erotophobia with you, but again, I feel that it may be off-topic. However, I do feel that it might be good for you to explore some different "schools" of feminism. If you are getting the feeling that as a male, you can't be a feminist, I suspect you are hanging out in some rather narrow corners of rad-fem.
|
|
Because I'm trying really hard not to be insulting (and have no problem with people getting high, or kidding around) but I'm literally flabbergasted at how you can seriously get 'sex negative' from that article without some form of mind-altering chemical being involved.I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.
I mean, that article has about as much to do with sex as a study on underwear prices does...ie. it's tangentially sorta part of the discussion, but not what's actually being discussed at all. And while attitudes like sex-negativity can seep through into unrelated works...that's not happening there. Like, at all.Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?
No. That's not how it works. That's how cherry-picking and dishonest communication works.
Malaclypse, is English your first language? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being serious. Because if it's not, you are navigating a particularly difficult linguistic and cultural concept very well. If it is, you are failing, badly. Perhaps deadmanwalking is right and you are just currently chemically altered.
You don't seem to know the meaning of the words assumption, hostility, sex-negative, puritan, exclusionary, or extremist. Like I said in my previous comment to you, I don't believe that fruitful communication with you will be possible. Toodles.
No more arguments, instead just a simple attack on me, my integrity, my language skills, and some insults implying I am drunk or drugged... well, at least you are being honest about your intent here.
Still, I fail to see how this advances the discussion at hand. Too bad.
No. That's not how it works. That's how cherry-picking and dishonest communication works.Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?
So in order not to be insulted by you I should not answer to the text I quote, but instead to something else, somewhere else? What?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.
You're misunderstanding what people are saying.
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.
What many of us are saying is: We'd like a bit of balance in the depictions. No one is objecting to the occasional depiction of sexy women with a lot of skin showing. We just don't want that to be the the only option, or the default option.
Along with that, what we're saying is, if male characters are going to be dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles (wearing armor for a front-line fighter, or example), we'd like to see female characters in similar roles dressed appropriately as well.
And we're saying that we appreciate that Paizo, on the whole, maintains that balance we're asking for. Which is significant given the history of the field.
Finally, we're saying that, a product that depicts women only as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, or as prizes for men to win, sends a message to potential female customers that the product is not made with them in mind. (The article I linked to makes clear why that is a bad idea.)
Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Malaclypse
No, it was a serious question. Do you know what these words mean? You are using sex-negative in a way that no-one else I am aware of uses the term. You are saying that there are extremists on these boards (on the topic of not having all of the iconics sexed out). You have implied that having a variety of women in various styles of dress is puritanical. You have implied that in order for a woman to feel excluded by catering to male sexual interests in advertising, they'd need to be a Alice-Shwarzer-esque extremist.
What can I take away other than that you honestly don't know the meanings of these words?
What can I take away other than you honestly haven't read through this entire thread?
What can I take away other than you are intentionally refusing to take arguments on their whole, and instead are focusing on sentences taken out of context?
I am honestly trying to communicate with you, but I don't understand how you can get to the points you are making. These forums have a lot of non-native english speakers, and I work with a lot of non-native english speakers in my private life. I don't think it is insulting to be asked if this is your mother tongue.
**edit**I do apologize for including the altered state bit. IT was meant to be a joke, but I didn't mark it in any way as to make that clear. I'm sorry.**edit**
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.
You responded to someone citing the article like so:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
When KSF responded like this:
That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.
You said this:
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
There's not a way to read that second bit where you don't call the article sex-negative. So...you are either exceedingly forgetful, to the point where I would seriously suggest professional help of some sort, are not aware of how English works (which seems unlikely given your posts), or are not participating in this discussion in good faith.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have an excellent explanation for your behavior. I'd be pleased to hear what it might be. In fact, please explain, I've agreed with you in other threads and would be pleased for this to all be some sort of misunderstanding where I don't lose respect for you.
Again...really, come on. Did you ever think that I answered to the text that I quoted, not to some other text, written on some other website? I mean, that's how this web discussion forum thing works, right?
When you respond to someone saying "The article is mainstream" with "Sex-negative feminism isn't mainstream." In what manner are you not responding to the article? You are, in fact, engaging in a discussion of said article.
If I go on a website to talk about books, and someone says "Twilight is great." and I say "No, it sucks." I am talking about that book (and may all the Gods help me). And that's exactly the kind of conversation you were having there. Except, y'know, not as accurate on your part as the one making a critique.
So in order not to be insulted by you I should not answer to the text I quote, but instead to something else, somewhere else? What?
Here is what I said:
That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.
Here is what you replied:
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.
That makes it sound like, in that moment, in responding to the text you quoted, you're responding to the article. That's how that reads.
Edit: Ninja'd by Deadmanwalking.
You're misunderstanding what people are saying.
I don't think I am.
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.
Actually, some people did. Not you, though.
Along with that, what we're saying is, if male characters are going to be dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles (wearing armor for a front-line fighter, or example), we'd like to see female characters in similar roles dressed appropriately as well.
But male characters are not dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles - none of the iconcs is. I really like WAR's style, but most of his characters have various things and whatnots sticking out everywhere, with way too many free-moving parts etc.
It's clearly some absurd but cool looking fantasy idea of how a character should look like, combined with the popular D&D trope of characters being walking christmas trees because of all the magic items.
Finally, we're saying that, a product that depicts women only as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, or as prizes for men to win, sends a message to potential female customers that the product is not made with them in mind.
I don't think Paizo ever sold products like that; if they did, I don't know of them. Could you pleae link the books you are referring to specifically?
Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery."
Those statements do not represent that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're misunderstanding what people are saying.I don't think I am.
You are right. You aren't misunderstanding, you are misinterpreting, deliberately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.Actually, some people did. Not you, though.
Please link to an example.
Along with that, what we're saying is, if male characters are going to be dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles (wearing armor for a front-line fighter, or example), we'd like to see female characters in similar roles dressed appropriately as well.But male characters are not dressed appropriately for their adventuring roles - none of the iconcs is. I really like WAR's style, but most of his characters have various things and whatnots sticking out everywhere, with way too many free-moving parts etc.
In this case, appropriate refers to the amount of body cover, as well as "appropriate" within the context of the world of Golarion as depicted in Paizo's products. That should be obvious from the many discussions in this thread.
It's clearly some absurd but cool looking fantasy idea of how a character should look like, combined with the popular D&D trope of characters being walking christmas trees because of all the magic items.
Again, that has nothing to do with what's being discussed in this thread.
Finally, we're saying that, a product that depicts women only as sexual objects for the pleasure of men, or as prizes for men to win, sends a message to potential female customers that the product is not made with them in mind.I don't think Paizo ever sold products like that; if they did, I don't know of them. Could you pleae link the books you are referring to specifically?
I did not say Paizo sold products like that. As a matter of fact, my words immediately before the text you are quoting were:
And we're saying that we appreciate that Paizo, on the whole, maintains that balance we're asking for. Which is significant given the history of the field.
This is one of the many things that I and others like about Paizo.
Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery."Those statements do not represent that.
Thank you. We can agree on that at least.
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.You responded to someone citing the article like so:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."
Please don't leave out important bits. I bolded them for you.
I replied to his statement that sexually charged = excludes half of the audience. The view that sexually charged advertising excludes others is a sex-negative feminist view, and as such a minority feminist stance. In order for the exclusion statement to be true, half of the audience (in this context, all women) would have to follow that belief.
I don't believe that this is true. Which actually is what I wrote:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
There's not a way to read that second bit where you don't call the article sex-negative. So...you are either exceedingly forgetful, to the point where I would seriously suggest professional help of some sort, are not aware of how English works (which seems unlikely given your posts), or are not participating in this discussion in good faith.
Or maybe, I only ever responded to his statements. Those that I quoted.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have an excellent explanation for your behavior. I'd be pleased to hear what it might be. In fact, please explain, I've agreed with you in other threads and would be pleased for this to all be some sort of misunderstanding where I don't lose respect for you.
I did not quote the article. I would have if I would have responded to it. I did quote the text that I responded to; Shining Fool seems to found his opinions nicely expressed in that article. That's nice. But I was responding to his statements on this thread.
I really don't see why I have to defend myself for answering what I quoted instead of answering other things.
When you respond to someone saying "The article is mainstream" with "Sex-negative feminism isn't mainstream." In what manner are you not responding to the article? You are, in fact, engaging in a discussion of said article.
But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me.
The sex-negative isn't mainstream was directed, again, at his assertion that sexually charged ads exclude half of the audience. It's right there in the actual post, above my sentence.
|
|
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.Actually, some people did. Not you, though.
Please explain how any of those statements represent a "puritan" view, or "hostility towards non-puritan imagery."Those statements do not represent that.
Wait, so you are simultaneously arguing that you are only addressing the text you are quoting (post 436, above) and you are addressing vaguely defined things said by other people?
Do you not see how this can leave us no recourse but to assume you are not having a discussion in good faith?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me.
You quoted and replied to two sentences that were about the article, and only about the article.
Okay, this is getting pointless. I am tapping out of this subthread of the overall discussion.
Have a nice Sunday everyone, and be excellent to each other.
|
|
But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me.You quoted and replied to two sentences that were about the article, and only about the article.
Okay, this is getting pointless. I am tapping out of this subthread of the overall discussion.
Have a nice Sunday everyone, and be excellent to each other.
Party on, KSF. ;-)
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.Actually, some people did. Not you, though.
Wait, so you are simultaneously arguing that you are only addressing the text you are quoting (post 436, above) and you are addressing vaguely defined things said by other people?
You are indeed correct that it was wrong of me to make that statement without linking to one of the examples in the thread. However, my post was already long and I did not feel like dumpster diving again.
I should have only said: You did not.
Do you not see how this can leave us no recourse but to assume you are not having a discussion in good faith?
Sure, insults again. This time against my motives. Ah well, do what you have to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't. I was not talking about the article but answering statements uttered on this board. Namely, those that I quoted.You responded to someone citing the article like so:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.There's also all of that really good stuff that KSF linked to above, which kind of points out that sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."Please don't leave out important bits. I bolded them for you.
I replied to his statement that sexually charged = excludes half of the audience. The view that sexually charged advertising excludes others is a sex-negative feminist view, and as such a minority feminist stance. In order for the exclusion statement to be true, half of the audience (in this context, all women) would have to follow that belief.
I don't believe that this is true. Which actually is what I wrote:
You assume that most women follow an extremist feminist stance. I really doubt that.
Right, but after that you said this:
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.sexually charged advertising essentially lets half of your audience that "this is not for you."That article, while feminist, is not an example of an "extremist feminist stance." It's pretty much mainstream feminism.
That's...a pretty direct response to KSF saying the article was mainstream (not that ShiningFool's views were) with what certainly seems to be a direct response to her about the article.
Or maybe, I only ever responded to his statements. Those that I quoted.
Responding to the one you quoted from KSF (which I've both linked and quoted) constitutes responding to the article.
I did not quote the article. I would have if I would have responded to it. I did quote the text that I responded to; Shining Fool seems to found his opinions nicely expressed in that article. That's nice. But I was responding to his statements on this thread.
I really don't see why I have to defend myself for answering what I quoted instead of answering other things
You also directly refuted (or attempted to refute) something KSF said about the article. that's talking about the article.
But I did not ever mention that article. I did not quote any sentence from that article. Really. If I did and forgot about it, please show me, quote me.
You quoted a sentence about the article, not from it...but that's a rather meaningless distinction (given that the statement in question said "That article"). And it's quoted and linked above.
The sex-negative isn't mainstream was directed, again, at his assertion that sexually charged ads exclude half of the audience. It's right there in the actual post, above my sentence
But it's not what you responded to. You responded to a statement about the article, not about what ShiningFool wrote. If you did so without even reading the article...that's really not any better than the other option.
Now looking back at the linked post again, it seems possible you were trying to draw some sort of comparative point between what ShiningFool said and 'not being extreme' without referencing KSF's actual point about the article...but if so you did so extraordinarily poorly. To the point that what you actually said meant something very different from what you meant.
|
|
No one is saying sex is bad. No one is saying sexy art is bad.Actually, some people did. Not you, though.
Wait, so you are simultaneously arguing that you are only addressing the text you are quoting (post 436, above) and you are addressing vaguely defined things said by other people?
You are indeed correct that it was wrong of me to make that statement without linking to one of the examples in the thread. However, my post was already long and I did not feel like dumpster diving again.
I should have only said: You did not.
Do you not see how this can leave us no recourse but to assume you are not having a discussion in good faith?Sure, insults again. This time against my motives. Ah well, do what you have to.
That is not an insult. Seriously dude, how is asking "do you not see how X would make people feel Y" an insult?
Maybe a more general "thanks for the range in female characters, Paizo" thread and a bump for the "more sexy mans plz" threads...
** spoiler omitted **
I second, third, and fourth this motion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sex-negative feminism is not a view that is shared by the mainstream.No one in the thread is being sex-negative. And as TheJeff said, no one is being sex-negative in the article I linked to.The hostility towards non-puritan imagery uttered in this thread makes me disagree with you.
citation, and exact quotes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I second, third, and fourth this motion.Maybe a more general "thanks for the range in female characters, Paizo" thread and a bump for the "more sexy mans plz" threads...
** spoiler omitted **
I'll fifth it. We still have a gender imbalance, and with six more Iconics coming we have an opportunity as well...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second, third, and fourth this motion.Maybe a more general "thanks for the range in female characters, Paizo" thread and a bump for the "more sexy mans plz" threads...
** spoiler omitted **
I'll post some links to one of my new favorite artists I met at Gencon: Nen. She did the artwork for the new Shinobi Clans game, which is beautiful. And her booth was covered in beautiful and alluring women and men in equal measure.
I'm definitely going to be using her work as an example of equality in fanservice tomorrow.
|
|
I second, third, and fourth this motion.Maybe a more general "thanks for the range in female characters, Paizo" thread and a bump for the "more sexy mans plz" threads...
** spoiler omitted **
I'll post some links to one of my new favorite artists I met at Gencon: Nen. She did the artwork for the new Shinobi Clans game, which is beautiful. And her booth was covered in beautiful and alluring women and men in equal measure.
I'm definitely going to be using her work as an example of equality in fanservice tomorrow.
That would be awesome Mikaze, thanks!
I'll fifth it. We still have a gender imbalance, and with six more Iconics coming we have an opportunity as well...I second, third, and fourth this motion.Maybe a more general "thanks for the range in female characters, Paizo" thread and a bump for the "more sexy mans plz" threads...
** spoiler omitted **
So we can expect four men and two women...and hopefully, they won't have to retcon one of the older iconics to cover the transman void (I would rather have a new iconic that fits the bill from the start rather than revising one of them and turning the forums into digital hate for a few hours).