What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Justice and Rule]

Kinda my point.
The poster they are responding to made the comparison. Why not deconstruct it to explain why it was wrong? Assuming they understood the other viewpoint, when they made the comparison to begin with, would seem to indicate they do not.

Your point is bad because the comparison is obvious and really shouldn't need to be addressed, in the same way I shouldn't have to address how the sun and my fridge light are not the same. It's just not a good point and, roughly speaking, shouldn't really need to be addressed as much as the other person expand on it in a meaningful and useful manner to show why it matters.

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Perhaps because in order to be queer content, it has to allow for expressing sexuality. If you don't express sexuality then it is assumed everyone is straight, in an oddly fantasy asexual world.

I think you basically answer your own question: to express their queerness, you kind of have to express and explore their sexuality. That's part of the point of it, to be able to be comfortable doing those sorts of things when they might be in a place where they normally can't.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think you basically answer your own question: to express their queerness, you kind of have to express and explore their sexuality. That's part of the point of it, to be able to be comfortable doing those sorts of things when they might be in a place where they normally can't.

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

Is the problem because it's a heterosexual relationship, or it's because it's being done largely to the benefit of the male side and less so to the female? I mean, are people getting angry about a heterosexual romance game that I'm unaware of?

 

[Faolyn]

Evoking an emotional response, challenging a held notion, confronting you with something uncomfortable, etc,
Art doing as art does in general.

Better response would be to point out the differences and why it is a poor comparison for this instance. Especially since the other poster feels they are not different enough to justify that point.

Differences? Different levels of immersiveness, different audiences, different purpose, different forms of media...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The article you post really isn't about "sexy art", though. The examples they mention can be sexy, but largely speaking it's about the sexlessness of things, that there just isn't sex in mainstream movies anymore when it used to be incredibly prevalent. I think the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese as great examples being used: they aren't in skimpy outfits, but the act of having sex helps humanize them and help make them feel like relatable adults. That's why Marvel films feel so weird: no one seemingly entertains romance, no one feels sexy despite being beautiful. But to do these things, you don't need what people are referring to as "erotic art" necessarily, and erotic art won't necessarily do it right, either.

And I think that also something that is a bit different between RPGs and movies: you're much more deeply involved in an RPG than you are as a spectator in a movie. Watching someone have in a movie make love is very different than trying to have romantic scenarios at the tabletop. The interaction makes things different for the player, and definitely for women who actually want to play the game.



That is so generalized as to be almost useless. Just about anything, including things that we wouldn't consider art, can do that.



I mean, is it not obvious that music videos are far more controlled and thus really not comparable to interactive fiction that involves people i.e. watching is very different from doing? I feel like this doesn't really need to be spelled out to be immediately understood.

I think the difference if opinion is more about how some people here consider the interactive element of RPGs to have far more or less weight than other people here. That difference is the basis for a forest of disagreements.

 

[Faolyn]

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Perhaps because in order to be queer content, it has to allow for expressing sexuality. If you don't express sexuality then it is assumed everyone is straight, in an oddly fantasy asexual world.

Horny bards are "bad" inasmuch as the bard's player is often disruptive to the game in one form or another, whether it's demanding to seduce the dragon, going into too much detail about their sex lives, using force/enchantment magic, or playing that trope out of "it's what my character would do" laziness.

I don't think anyone has said that the straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid is inherently a bad thing.

Personally, I find Monster Hearts to be incredibly creepy, since I'm an adult who would be expected to RP (even in a completely fade-to-black manner) a teenager's sex life.

Thirsty Sword Lesbians is about romance more than sex (it doesn't have a sex move, unlike some PbtA games), and is very much about consent as well.

I don't think RPGs are "oddly asexual." I think it's a mix of sex/romance not usually being part of the plot, and thus boring to people who prefer to go forth and slay monsters; people not wanting to RP romance (often awkwardly) with their friends because they find it weird; and people being weirded out by having to watch other people awkwardly RPing a romance.

I had an in-game romance with another PC ages ago that for some reason really bothered some other people at the table, even though our romance consisted of things like the GM asking what we were going to do in town and my partner and I saying "we go for a nice dinner" and never discussed anything more physical (either in the game or outside of it) than holding hands. I could never tell if it was because the other player and I were both women (although she had a male PC) or if it was we were both playing orcs.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think the difference if opinion is more about how some people here consider the interactive element of RPGs to have far more or less weight than other people here. That difference is the basis for a forest of disagreements.

I mean, I feel like any argument from the status quo regardless of "interactivity" is going to see less harm in things compared to one that wants to change it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I feel like any argument from the status quo regardless of "interactivity" is going to see less harm in things compared to one that wants to change it.

Can't argue that, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't think RPGs are "oddly asexual." I think it's a mix of sex/romance not usually being part of the plot, and thus boring to people who prefer to go forth and slay monsters; people not wanting to RP romance (often awkwardly) with their friends because they find it weird; and people being weirded out by having to watch other people awkwardly RPing a romance.

I had an in-game romance with another PC ages ago that for some reason really bothered some other people at the table, even though our romance consisted of things like the GM asking what we were going to do in town and my partner and I saying "we go for a nice dinner" and never discussed anything more physical (either in the game or outside of it) than holding hands. I could never tell if it was because the other player and I were both women (although she had a male PC) or if it was we were both playing orcs.

I mean, it feels especially weird given that the biggest RPG stream right now (Critical Role) has basically had romances as character focal points and haven't at all shied away from that stuff at all. No one is complaining about heterosexual romances in that.

Can't argue that, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I mean, I think it means it's not really as relevant as you think.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

The problem isn't heterosexual relationships. The problem is putting out fanservice art.

There was, apparently, an erotic adventure yanked from, or heavily censored on, DM's Guild, despite having art (geared for gay men) that wasn't really worse than art produced in WotC's own 3x books--which were of the "sexy babe for male eyes" variety.