Sure, which is why I stuck to the three most common body types, instead of saying "we should have more beautiful angels with bulging left eyes and Igor humpbacks".
Our idea of what is "attractive" shifts with time. Compare what the Ancient Greeks thought was attractive to what we find attractive now. Moreover, pageants don't necessarily speak for the "vast majority"—they speak for the majority of people who follow beauty pageants, who tend to be more sharply influenced by ideas perpetuated by society and media of the "ideal".
The ancient greek would have found a woman with a WHR of 0,7, a symmetric face, a long neck, and large eyes more attractive than a similar woman with none of these traits. Evolution does that.
Umm Chris, given that this was a single line of a rather long posting, could you please go for an edit instead of a full-scale deletion next time?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm Chris, given that this was a single line of a rather long posting, could you please go for an edit instead of a full-scale deletion next time?
Please see the email registered to your paizo.com account. We do not edit posts as a method of moderation.
"Attempts" is a key word when discussing the muse art. I think you're on point with the "large woman" theory.
Meanwhile, the muse that appears in the entice fey art is right back to standard.
There was a bit of text that apparently was scrubbed from the Muse bestiary entry, which states that they model they shape there appearance to the standards of beauty of any given person that views them. So an a man might see a voluptuous human woman, while an elf would see a woman with a waifish figure.
To be honest, I actually prefer angels and such to be inhuman and not really fall into any sort of humanoid ideal of beauty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ancient greek would have found a woman with a WHR of 0,7, a symmetric face, a long neck, and large eyes more attractive than a similar woman with none of these traits. Evolution does that.
I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I think you might be arguing a point I've never really even commented on.
If we're going to argue the big "beauty is evolution/cultural/personal" thing, though, I'll state my highly controversial stance: It's a mix of all of the above. So people trying to assume I'm saying it's definitely not any of those things should probably move on.
Power up true seeing and you may see something super weird. Christian mythology is full of burning wheels, serpents with thousands of eyes, animal headed winged wierdos, the works.
Sandalphon is one of my favorites. Not as WEIRD per se as some others, but "mind bendingly tall" is still pretty out there.
Where's the kaiju sized angels?
The issue of different body types in PF art is exacerbated, in my opinion, by the "official" art style, which exaggerates endo/ecto differences to an absurd extreme. (Come to think of it, why do so many people's feet seem to be many times larger than their heads?) Some of the "ugh, unattractive!" reaction may be visceral, based on the bizarreness of the extremes. A more "realistic" style would have fewer 4-foot tall people who weigh 600 lbs, or 7-foot women who weigh less than 100; with the depictions falling into a more narrow range, the ability to present all body types as "attractive" increases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, a few people are taking the subtitle a bit literally. This isn't just about celestials. Celestials are just a good example, though I actually think fey might be a better one. People are also bringing up angels like astral devas, solars and planetars that—and this is very important—never claim to be beautiful in their descriptive text. That indicates to me that they haven't read through my point very carefully, or kind of "Flanderized" my meaning into being some sort of bland statement about angels themselves. Now, in fairness, angels are described as being "blessed with extraordinary beauty" in the text for the overall creature subtype, but I wasn't looking at that when I posted this thread. That text often doesn't reach the artist, I expect—the artist most likely gets the descriptive text for the creature and a few notes on the side, rather than the entirety of the subtype's flavor text.
My focus is on all monsters. Angels are a tiny subgroup of that. Consider the fey, the succubi and erinyes, and, for thet matter, the AP creatures.
I welcome those who can reference Pathfinder art of "beautiful" creatures who don't match the standard "slender big-bosomed" body type. This is a discussion, not an attack, after all. With that said, Andrew, a number of your links don't work. Use the [url=http://address.com][/url] BBCode tags so the links don't break.
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since she came up in another thread... Bestiary 5's glaistig might be appropriate. She looks a bit broader and less bosomy, for what it's worth.
(Once I have full access to my PDFs again, I might be able to dredge up more.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
WHAT'S WITH ALL THE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES BEING PORTRAYED AS BEING ATTRACTIVE
Are you now saying only hyper-slender women are attractive? I know that the fashion magazines and beauty contests have more-or-less decided that for themselves, but is theirs the Ultimate Authority you would brandish to evidence that claim? Or is this solely your own opinion?
You seem to be really resistant to the idea that people are born with different bone structures and different metabolisms, as well as the idea that anyone might find curvy people good-looking. That's not actually a particularly widespread opinion. Look at Shelyn. Look at Adele and Meghan Trainor. Look at the hourglass figure's popularity. There is actually a very wide diversity of tastes when it comes to physical appearance, and, rather importantly, it's possible to depict more than one type of appearance as being attractive at the same time.
If you don't want me to take what you say as if you meant it, than maybe you shouldn't say things you don't mean or don't exaggerate too much while trying to make a point.
Actually, the issue is that you're fixated on a subtitle. Subtitles like that are generally casual and/or simplified: Look at Doctor Strangelove for an example. The problem is that you took the title and then apparently ignored everything else I said, which, yeah, I'm finding frustrating. It seems like you came here looking for a fight. Your nitpickiness and insistence on 'scolding' me for my word choice kind of supports that impression.
Now, to be clear, I was using "angel" in the contemporary sense, not the game sense, so I recognize there may have been some miscommunication there. In that sense, azatas are angels. They are arguably the most sexualized celestials in the Bestiary, and they do gravitate towards slenderness, so yeah, they're a pretty good example. I'll title this "What's With All The Skinny Azatas?" next time. Or I'll just skip the subtitles, actually. They seem to be a distraction.
Moving on. As long as we're talking about evolution, I might as well point out that size and curvaceousness are actually quite desirable traits on that front. Big hips are childbearing hips, after all, and big chests make good football quarterbacks. The fixation on being as thin as possible is hardly a societal constant—like the fixation some cultures have with tiny feet, it's a norm that's just very widespread in some areas, and it's arguably become even moreso in recent years thanks to America, home of Cosmo and the Barbie doll, becoming such a cultural juggernaut. But even we have changed. Now, consider Sleeping Beauty. Few people these days would see anything negative with Aurora's slender form, but when the movie came out, many actually saw the angular features of the characters to be a negative, and she was seen as significantly less attractive than Disney heroines like Snow White and Cinderella. We liked "doll faces". Roundness and softness were traits we celebrated.
This, of course, changed. This year, Moana has been lauded as a major step forward simply because her thighs weren't quite as skinny as Rapunzel's. The times do change, and our norms change with them. Now I think we're approaching another shift.
You've gravitated towards ideas of objectivity here—that there is a single objectively "attractive" appearance, and all deviations from that appearance are lesser variants. I think most people here would disagree. Yes, there might be one look that is currently most broadly popular, and I'm certainly not saying we need morbidly obese nymphs, dangerously anorexic succubi, and unhealthily muscular lillends. I'm suggesting that a greater variance in body types (or whichever term you prefer) would better reflect a modern drive to improve our cultural standards to reflect more varied opinions and tastes.
To put it in contemporary terms, I'm sure plenty of the good people of Golarion are all about dat bass, and grow weary of all the treble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and on a more friendly note, welcome to the forums! Hope you stick around. We're not all about arguments and overanalyzing hot monster pics with our hot monster takes. ;)
|
.... Because being lithe makes it easier to be graceful and tends to mean being more delicate, both traits associated with beauty. Animals described as being beautiful are usually the slender and graceful (peacocks, cats, cranes, deer, rabbits, foxes, butterflies, swans) with exceptions being those that are just...
You will say that owls, tigers, lions, gorillas, eagles and other big beasts are ugly?!?
I don't think so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How dare this thread impugn the proud and noble blobfish.
Kind of hard to me to think of much specific monsters that easily fit within the specific requirements of this thread.
Those that come to mind include:
The Muse and the Silenus from Bestiary 5 (Not sure I would count the Glaistig, since it's just a tad too inhuman to really get a sense of body type)
Female giants may also count, although I suppose it depends on if you consider giants purely monstrous or not. Giants revisited does have a burly but attractive Frost Giant woman. Although the female cloud and storm giant NPCS definitely lean towards the typical RPG sexy female look.
With the races, Dwarves/Halflings usually trend to this stockier/plumper builds, and half orcs towards more muscular physiques.
Power up true seeing and you may see something super weird. Christian mythology is full of burning wheels, serpents with thousands of eyes, animal headed winged wierdos, the works.
Sandalphon is one of my favorites. Not as WEIRD per se as some others, but "mind bendingly tall" is still pretty out there.
Where's the kaiju sized angels?
They're in anime, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
welcome those who can reference Pathfinder art of "beautiful" creatures who don't match the standard "slender big-bosomed" body type.As long as we're talking about evolution, I might as well point out that size and curvaceousness are actually quite desirable traits on that front. Big hips are childbearing hips, after all, and big chests make good football quarterbacks.Sorry about posting again in such rapid succession, but my eyes must have skipped that sentence and it left me a little confused. Are you arguing for fewer or more art with big breasts?
Maybe you only brought it up because you feel that I am opposed to big breasts because I mentioned the azatas that don't quite fit your description of "the standard "slender big-bosomed" body type." I only brought that up because your statement made it seem every creature described as beautiful had this Jessica Rabbit-like physique.
All those broad chested female quarterbacks MUST have been what he was talking about.
Right?
A brief clarification: "Big-bosomed" was a qualifier, not the core statement (a slender build actually often runs counter to a large chest, so I wanted to be clear that I was not considering that particular feature a disqualifier for a character to be considered slender). I was hoping the context of the thread would make that clear, but I apologize for the confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This point may have passed a while back but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Countries don't exist in vacuums, and the idea of a beauty pageant as it appears in contemporary society did not simultaneously spring up everywhere as a form of parallel evolution. Thus, using their similar results as an argument for a certain beauty standard is really not taking into account globalization or even smaller scale transfers of values and practices.
I think there is merit in the historical art examples you've chosen to compare, but my point was about the cross-cultural implications of beauty pageants.
I will add, however, that I'm looking at the art you mentioned next to the winners of these pageants and they seem pretty far apart. Not sure if that's the case you're trying to argue, though.
Also, I want to mention that ideality and reality have a dynamic relationship, with both playing off one another. Many scholars would even argue that prying them apart (much like prying apart the social and the biological) is ultimately impossible. It's no surprise that beauty standards are one of the go-to examples in explaining concepts such as Baudrillard's hyper-reality, as well as many interactionist perspectives.
(Edited for clarity)
All "beautiful" female beings/creatures have similar body styles for the same reason that Clyde Caldwell was popular for D&D art in earlier editions: owing no doubt to it's origins as a male dominated hobby, the artwork is influenced by the male gaze (despite the player base having widened).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That art style doesn't automatically speak for all male gamers by a longshot.
Been skimming through this thread, and I think some of the concern here is pretty legit, but there are also signs that it's been looked at for a goodly while...
Imjrika, Shardra, Aowyn, Kes, Seelah, Kyra, Amiri, Jirelle are all Iconic heroes that are 'average' or heavier-set/muscular at a quick glance.
Most of the art I've seen for them hasn't deviated from that, aside from the odd commission or two?
What did I just say about over exaggerating. Where did I at any point say only hyper-slender women are attractive? I said there is a reason why being slender is often associated with beauty.WHAT'S WITH ALL THE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES BEING PORTRAYED AS BEING ATTRACTIVEAre you now saying only hyper-slender women are attractive? I know that the fashion magazines and beauty contests have more-or-less decided that for themselves, but is theirs the Ultimate Authority you would brandish to evidence that claim? Or is this solely your own opinion?[/b]
Okay, but the point of this thread has never been, "Why are skinny people treated as though they're beautiful?"
The point has been, "Why are only skinny people treated as though they're beautiful?"
Let's not get off-track here.
Now I went over why the first statement is wrong
Actually, you just explained where some of the subjective values I spoke of come from. I'm not convinced you disproved what I said.
Now I went over why the first statement is wrong. The second statement is phrased in a matter difficult to disagree with, but I feel I went over why using those three body types doesn't really support your point. Perhaps you didn't make these comments to be taken so on point, and I do apologies if I am coming across as being strict, but I honestly feel this is a better way to handle this discussion. Else it easily swerves off into accusations of what we feel the other person is saying instead of what they are actually saying, which just leaves people confused and angry. I already fear I might've begun heading in that direction.
Oh, we both have. Tone doesn't always convey perfectly, and I took a lot of your posts as being more hostile to the thread premise than they might have been. I do apologize for what misunderstandings I have caused and contributed.
That art style doesn't automatically speak for all male gamers by a longshot.
What's funny is that this is technically more the point of the thread than Scythia's post, even though both are relevant and I strongly agree with both. Oversexualization of women in gaming is also a huge problem, but this thread would exist even if all women in Pathfinder dressed in burlap robes (albeit with somewhat more difficulty in finding examples). The point isn't really the preferences of those attracted to women, of course, but that does end up being a tangential matter in a conversation that sort of hinges on ideas of attractiveness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really this whole thing can be averted by using more descript words than just "beautiful". You do have a point that "beautiful" can mean many different things depending on the context and will paint a different visual picture to different people. We may argue how much so, but I no longer believe that's the point you are trying to make. So maybe using descriptors like "svelte", "lithe", "hearty", "buxom", "robust", "strapping", "plush", and "plump" can all provide a pleasing description while providing a more detailed and varied build than just "beautiful". After all, isn't the point of the description is to paint a cohesive image of the subject between all players?
I'm partial to "zaftig" myself. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |