D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[Aldarc]

Should be / Can be. And I assume you mean "male gaze" as in "sexy". Which as I've said over and over works for a sex demon. I'm not sure how you aren't getting that in my posts.

That assumption is wrong. Sexy is not the problem. The presumed straight male gaze is the problem. The fact that you are conflating the two is also indicative of the problem.

FYI: You're sounding a bit like Spinal Tap when they didn't get why their cover was problematic, and the joke was on them.

 

[DarkCrisis]

That assumption is wrong. Sexy is not the problem. The presumed straight male gaze is the problem. The fact that you are conflating the two is also indicative of the problem.

Well, one of us definitely has a problem with a sexy sex demon. My apologizes for not seeing the issue in the art of said sexy sex demon. I'll see myself out.

 

[Staffan]

I think that the issue is the same as I have stated before: the suggestion in your posts that succubi should be drawn in regards to the (implicitly straight) male gaze.

IMO, having a sex demon being overtly, aggressively, and possibly uncomfortably sexy is not the problem. I do think 5e did the right thing in making incubi and succubi the same thing instead of distinct beings (and enabling them to switch between forms/sexes/genders), and given the comments in this thread it might be a good idea to make incubi "softer", but if any monster should have a generous portion of cheesecake served it's the succubus.

The problem is when other female or female-seeming monsters (and for that matter non-monster people) are also aggressively sexified. Harpies, lamia, erinyes, dryads, and so on. This is a problem both in that it turns away potential players, and in that it removes nuance. If every female monster is teh sexay, it creates the expectation of female = sexy which makes things boring and the succubus less special.

 

[prabe]

IMO, having a sex demon being overtly, aggressively, and possibly uncomfortably sexy is not the problem. I do think 5e did the right thing in making incubi and succubi the same thing instead of distinct beings (and enabling them to switch between forms/sexes/genders), and given the comments in this thread it might be a good idea to make incubi "softer", but if any monster should have a generous portion of cheesecake served it's the succubus.

The problem is when other female or female-seeming monsters (and for that matter non-monster people) are also aggressively sexified. Harpies, lamia, erinyes, dryads, and so on. This is a problem both in that it turns away potential players, and in that it removes nuance. If every female monster is teh sexay, it creates the expectation of female = sexy which makes things boring and the succubus less special.

Phrased somewhat differently: Succubi/incubi can legitimately always be drawn to suit a Gaze, but that shouldn't always be the Straight Male Gaze.

 

[Aldarc]

Phrased somewhat differently: Succubi/incubi can legitimately always be drawn to suit a Gaze, but that shouldn't always be the Straight Male Gaze.

 

[Mannahnin]

Phrased somewhat differently: Succubi/incubi can legitimately always be drawn to suit a Gaze, but that shouldn't always be the Straight Male Gaze.

Exactly!

The problem was never (or rarely, but see Jim Ward's famous Angry Mothers from Heck editorial, and a few of those letters to Dragon) sexiness.

The problem was the exclusivity. The attitude of a boy's club, where women were made to feel unwelcome in a variety of ways, and any sexy art always and exclusively being aimed at straight dudes was just a part of it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Sexism still IS a thing in D&D. It's MUCH better than it was. But it's still here.

There still are. There have been recent (last few years) things that have popped up in WotC books that have sparked issues. And 'issues' are still prevalent in 3PP products.

Again, better than it was, but we should not state that such things are gone or only a remnant of the past.

Agreed. Just was referring to the discussion about days gone by in particular

 

[Clint_L]

My starting point is that our understanding of right and wrong is contextual and continues to evolve, and that means that all of us are often blind to problems that are obvious to others. I think of our sense of right and wrong as our moral unwelt, and just as I am oblivious to how a bat perceives the physical world, I am oblivious to the way a woman experiences our social world. My relevant senses are not well honed for the task.

So we have to pay attention to the perspectives of others who experience reality different than we do. For a woman, walking down a street at night is fundamentally different than it is for me. For a Black person in America, walking through an affluent suburb is a different experience than it is for me. For a trans person, using the washroom is a different experience than it is for me. I am largely blind to their reality, so I would be foolish not to pay attention when they explain it to me.

And the context continues to evolve, so while we can make progress in fixing problems as we are made aware of them, it's not like we are ever going to stop facing moral problems. Just as we tend to be unaware of a lot of issues that are obvious to younger folks, the same thing will happen to them as they age and their context changes. So the moral issues of the past continue to echo on into the present and future.

That is why I find all of this bother, about a simple foreword acknowledging that material from 50 years contains stuff that is sexist and not what we would publish today, so completely baffling. If you listen to what others are saying about how they experience the world, then it is obvious why elements of this material are problematic. Now I know, and I can act accordingly.

I think we just don't like being told that we are wrong about something. But if you can never acknowledge being wrong, then you can never accomplish anything worthwhile. You can never move forward. This foreword is there to help us move forward.

 

[niklinna]

Well, one of us definitely has a problem with a sexy sex demon. My apologizes for not seeing the issue in the art of said sexy sex demon. I'll see myself out.

Thank you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly!

The problem was never (or rarely, but see Jim Ward's famous Angry Mothers from Heck editorial, and a few of those letters to Dragon) sexiness.

The problem was the exclusivity. The attitude of a boy's club, where women were made to feel unwelcome in a variety of ways, and any sexy art always and exclusively being aimed at straight dudes was just a part of it.

Fair enough, but how many pictures of the succubus did the 1e MM need?