Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5865584" data-attributes="member: 22424">While that's true, the idealism works differently for the two sexes. The female characters tend to be idealised to project sexiness - exaggerated curves, posed specifically to highlight key areas (sometimes contrary to the limits of anatomy), and so forth. Basically, they're a male fantasy.The male characters, on the other hand, are idealised to project power - they're tall, with exaggerated muscles, carrying over-large &quot;weapons&quot;, and are either scarred or scowling badasses. Those are also a male fantasy.(Indeed, for a really good example of this, just look at the 4e PHB cover - the male character is fully armoured and posed for combat; the female character is twisted precisely to highlight T&amp;A.)Believe it or not, this was actually addressed quite recently over on <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-ridiculously-sexist-superhero-costumes_p2/" target="_blank">Cracked</a> - if you scroll down to the section on Namor. But be wary - although there's no nudity, I would suggest that a lot of the artwork there is borderline NSFW.Don't get me wrong - I don't have anything against either idealised bodies or male fantasies. But if they're going down that route, there should be balance - let's have significant representation of badass female adventurers, and let's have the 'sexy' male characters as well.I don't disagree. A lot of the D&amp;D art (and, actually, D&amp;D itself) seems to have fallen into a groove of being overly neat, overly serious, and generally less fun. So, yeah, let's look to the older style of the 1st Ed books, and let's look to Frazetta, and let's look to other media.And, for that matter, I have no issue with there being nudity in the books either, if that's the direction WotC want to take. (Though somehow I doubt that they would!)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5865584, member: 22424"] While that's true, the idealism works differently for the two sexes. The female characters tend to be idealised to project sexiness - exaggerated curves, posed specifically to highlight key areas (sometimes contrary to the limits of anatomy), and so forth. Basically, they're a male fantasy. The male characters, on the other hand, are idealised to project power - they're tall, with exaggerated muscles, carrying over-large "weapons", and are either scarred or scowling badasses. Those are [i]also[/i] a male fantasy. (Indeed, for a really good example of this, just look at the 4e PHB cover - the male character is fully armoured and posed for combat; the female character is twisted precisely to highlight T&A.) Believe it or not, this was actually addressed quite recently over on [URL="http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most-ridiculously-sexist-superhero-costumes_p2/"]Cracked[/URL] - if you scroll down to the section on Namor. But be wary - although there's no nudity, I would suggest that a lot of the artwork there is borderline NSFW. Don't get me wrong - I don't have anything against either idealised bodies or male fantasies. But if they're going down that route, there should be balance - let's have significant representation of badass female adventurers, and let's have the 'sexy' male characters as well. I don't disagree. A lot of the D&D art (and, actually, D&D itself) seems to have fallen into a groove of being overly neat, overly serious, and generally less fun. So, yeah, let's look to the older style of the 1st Ed books, and let's look to Frazetta, and let's look to other media. And, for that matter, I have no issue with there being nudity in the books either, if that's the direction WotC want to take. (Though somehow I doubt that they would!) [/QUOTE]

Verification