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

[bedir than]

Is it

• Snarfism (TM)
• Snarfism (R)
• Snarfism (C)
• Snarfism (CC BY SA)

 

[MGibster]

I'll note that the D&D PHB from 2024 has sexy images. Look at the Great Old One Warlock on page 163. She's an elf, I think, and she's hawt. But look at what she's wearing and how she's posed. She's not posed in an odd manner in an effort to make her more enticing and is wearing what I think are appropriate clothing. I think the artist deliberately painted a sexy picture but not all women in the book are depicted in such a manner. Look at the Wild Magic Sorceress on page 149. That little lady is having the time of her life doing the Safety Dance. The Oath of Devotion Paladin looks like someone I could trust to protect me, the College of Lore Bard looks like she knows the best jokes, and that Goliath Barbarian looks like she'd cleave me in two. The Goliath Barbarian is pretty close to your classic Conan type look with a sports bra, uh, loin cloth isn't quite right but it's close, and is actually clad in very little. But she doesn't look like a sex object.

The problem was never really a particular work of art in D&D's past. I doubt many women were turned off by the succubus alone, I think they understand context, but like I said in another thread, it's about the depiction of women in the aggregate. Someone might think the succubus is fine, but then you have a woman in plate armor with her butt inexplicably hanging out, or boob windows, or some of the other weird poses/outfits we've seen women wearing.

And that's before you even get into the rules with Strength limits and what not.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but, if someone claims not to understand what the problem is/was with D&D art by now, it's REALLY hard to take that at face value. The really depressing thing is that we've been having virtually IDENTICAL discussions for a couple of decades now and I'm soooooo exhausted of it. The conversations go exactly the same every single time. Someone says, "Hey, the art/writing/space of RPG's has been pretty sexist. It's getting better, but, hey, let's not stop getting better, okay?" Then makes the mistake of adding in an example, which will then be endlessly nitpicked until someone else makes the mistake of making an analogy at which time we'll spend endless time debating the analogy.

All in an attempt to avoid actually just saying, "Yup, things in the past kinda sucked. We are trying to do better. Here's how I'm trying to do better."

I'm just so, so tired of it. Good grief. Claiming that the hobby and genre was sexist in the early years should not EVER be a debate. It's like saying rain is wet.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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)

OMG things I learned today. I missed those two lines in the fluff write-up. 10 years into the game!
Love the switch capability.

 

[Ogre Mage]

One sign I think this problem has improved over the years is the player base went from 10% female is 1979 to 39% in 2023.

It has gotten a bit better with each edition. Back during 1E it was ... problematic.

 

[GrimCo]

It was, is and always will be sexist, as long as there are people involved. Some people are just aholes, some just like to behave like ones in the games. While products can improve and are improving, there will always be tables with players/DMs that are naughty word. No helping there. Best thing you can do is avoid playing with those kind of people. You can sanitize products from problematic materials, but you can't sanitize people behavior at the table.

D&D was niche hobby created by niche subculture aka geeks with primary customer base being geek teen/young adult boys. It played into power fantasy of their customer demographics and art in those products reflected that. With changing of customer demographics, material changed with it. Are there still products that cater to that demographic using overtly sexual imagery? Sure, cause there is still market for that stuff.

 

[Mannahnin]

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

Not the point. The point is the aggregate, and it being just one data point in a big picture.

Even if we just limit our look to the MM, how many pictures are aimed at anyone other than a straight dude? But we're not just talking about one book. We're talking about D&D art in the 70s and 80s (and beyond, though generally less over time), AND the larger picture of how women were treated in the game and how women players' concerns and issues were dismissed or even mocked.

I'll note that the D&D PHB from 2024 has sexy images. Look at the Great Old One Warlock on page 163. She's an elf, I think, and she's hawt. But look at what she's wearing and how she's posed. She's not posed in an odd manner in an effort to make her more enticing and is wearing what I think are appropriate clothing. I think the artist deliberately painted a sexy picture but not all women in the book are depicted in such a manner. Look at the Wild Magic Sorceress on page 149. That little lady is having the time of her life doing the Safety Dance. The Oath of Devotion Paladin looks like someone I could trust to protect me, the College of Lore Bard looks like she knows the best jokes, and that Goliath Barbarian looks like she'd cleave me in two. The Goliath Barbarian is pretty close to your classic Conan type look with a sports bra, uh, loin cloth isn't quite right but it's close, and is actually clad in very little. But she doesn't look like a sex object.

The problem was never really a particular work of art in D&D's past. I doubt many women were turned off by the succubus alone, I think they understand context, but like I said in another thread, it's about the depiction of women in the aggregate. Someone might think the succubus is fine, but then you have a woman in plate armor with her butt inexplicably hanging out, or boob windows, or some of the other weird poses/outfits we've seen women wearing.

And that's before you even get into the rules with Strength limits and what not.

Yup. And when women wrote in to complain or just to make constructive suggestions they were consistently dismissed. The Dragon editors were better than Gary was in Europa in '75, but still dismissive.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not the point. The point is the aggregate, and it being just one data point in a big picture.

Even if we just limit our look to the MM, how many pictures are aimed at anyone other than a straight dude? But we're not just talking about one book. .

The innocence in that bold bit is so sheltered it's adorable. 1 2... Just from those two links at the top of a google search you've got a list so long that I quit copying & erased it when the count was quite a bit over 20 for terms generally used positively to describe people they are attracted to... even with terms like predator prey master & slave on the list.


Most humanoid monsters are male, and a significant chunk of them possess strong bodies that clearly align with a common labels. I was going to steer clear of anything that doesn't have a generally humanoid form, but it's probably not fair to exclude everything that falls under this & that infinitely wide umbrella since it too become fair game under statements like the first sentence of the post immediately above the one I'm quoting.

 

[Mannahnin]

The innocence in that bold bit is so sheltered it's adorable. 1 2... Just from those two links at the top of a google search you've got a list so long that I quit copying & erased it when the count was quite a bit over 20 for terms generally used positively to describe people they are attracted to... even with terms like predator prey master & slave on the list.

This is missing the point so badly that I have to wonder if it's intentional.

But for the sake of the forum rules and polite discussion, let me treat it as sincere incomprehension, requiring clarification.

Which specific pictures in the 1977 Monster Manual would you say were executed so as to be erotically appealing to a person other than a straight man?

You can take as granted that I'm aware of any number of Tumblr-level unusual orientations and preferences and "hear me out"s.

 

[Umbran]

The innocence in that bold bit is so sheltered it's adorable

The condescension will not aid the conversation. Please avoid it.