[Dragon] Lord, the cheese...

[S'mon]

The fundamental point here is that different cultures have different values. That does not mean those values should be ignored as invalid because we recognize how subjective they are.

I agree with that - and I'd agree that a culture's media necessarily reflects its values, for good or bad.

I currently live & work in a particularly odd culture, London. When I go to work, I pass a mosque thronged with muslim men in traditional Afghani-type dress with turbans and long beards, and muslim women completely covered in black hijjab(sp?), with just the eyeslits showing. Above what almost looks like a scene from Taleban-ruled Kabul, are the advertising posters of the British media - huge pictures of naked buttocks advertising toilet paper, big ads for the strip clubs that have recently arrived from across the Atlantic, naked & near-naked pics of countless models. The contrast always weirds me out.

Edit: The women don't actually go into the mosque, only the men do. Apparently the women have to worship at home.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Thanks Bran! I'd like to think I am trying to look at this subject with as much dignity and common sense as possible!

I can see that the Europeans have a different view of pornography and sexuality than we Americans do. That's ok, really, and it doesn't mean that we, as Americans, are wrong, or need to change our views.

However, just as much as we should be proud of our own cultural views, for to us, they are quite satisfactory and justified, it just seems to me that the concern over the Dragon covers seems to be an over-reaction. The covers are not Playboy, and in the bargain, there is and should be a distinction between viewing the naked human body in whatever form of undress and outright pornography. As my earlier post pointed out, there is a huge difference, and when seen in the proper presentation and context, even children can understand it.

Thus, to point, what is so bad about the Dragon cover? If a child or your wife views the cover--what exactly is being communicated by the image of the cover? Is the context understood? If the context is understood--in this case, this is a Succubus, a creature of evil and enticement from an evil plane--then the cover isn't really offensive at all, and in fact, considering that we are dealing with Dragon magazine, after all, the cover is quite appropriate and makes good sense. The cover *fits* the subject matter of the magazine, and the genre. Scantily clad Succubi are *part* of the genre. Wives, children, and others alike, if they are int the hobby, should be able to understand this. If someone isn't a part of the hobby, the context of the picture can easily be explained.

Am I making sense?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[buzz]

Am I making sense?

Not to me.

I think the cover has only the most tenuous connection to its associated article, and even less to the rest of the content of this issue. And I don't know if we even want to go into what is "communicated" by the cover, i.e., that a handy visual shorthand for the temptation of evil is to depict a sexually attractive woman. And never mind that half of the 5-page article was about *redemption*.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think I've encountered a succubus maybe once in 20+ years of playing D&D. Sexual temptation as a facet of evil (i.e., sex = sin) is not an idea that is germane to the game of D&D or an inherrent part of the magazine. It's a convenient excuse to put hot chicks on the cover and sell some magazines. I realize that "chainmail bikini-sim" comes part-and-parcel with the fantasy genre, but, thankfully, that's starting to change.

Anyway, even if there was a good reason to have a sexy succubi on the cover (like say, there was actually anything, ANYTHING, about succubi in the issue itself), there were probably a 101 classier ways to depict one than this.

As I've been saying, I have no objection to (nor am offended by) sex. I just would prefer if the sex depicted on the cover of one of my favorite magazines didn't make me look like a freaking dork.

(And again, the content of this issue is great. I'm just spouting off about the cover, fwiw.)

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Then why in the hell do you care what I would prefer?

You said, "It would be convenient for you if all the people who didn't want this low brow content would just walk away, wouldn't it?", I'm saying it is neither convenient nor inconvenient. In fact, what you said was a total non-sequitur.
I was under the impression you just weren't understanding me, now I am sure that you are just being difficult and antagonistic.

I think somebody needs a time out. Threads like this get cluttered enough without the senseless back and forth of bickering.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

As I've been saying, I have no objection to (nor am offended by) sex. I just would prefer if the sex depicted on the cover of one of my favorite magazines didn't make me look like a freaking dork.

I guess the thing is, some of us don't see where the cover is all that sexy. She's wearing more than someone would at the beach, and the look on her face isn't as 'come-hither' as it is 'sinisterly-appraising'.
Unless toothpick arms are one of those qualities that reduce mortal men to quivering piles of hormones.

 

[WizarDru]

I guess the thing is, some of us don't see where the cover is all that sexy. She's wearing more than someone would at the beach, and the look on her face isn't as 'come-hither' as it is 'sinisterly-appraising'.
Unless toothpick arms are one of those qualities that reduce mortal men to quivering piles of hormones.

Sexy, perhaps or perhaps not. The real issue, at least to me, is that it's sexual. It just strikes me as unnecessary and juvenile, and depicts the rift between "adult" and "mature". I realize they're doing it to sell magazines, and it's their perogative. But as a paying customer, I think Paizo would like to know my feelings on the matter.

S'mon: I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your interpetation of American views, in that there isn't a central guiding one for 'America', but just for large subsets therein. As for the issue of hard-core porn being OK and tittilation not, I think you missed my point. That sort of material has it's place...I just don't think it really needed to be on the cover of Dragon. It seems out of place, contextually. The Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit issue, for example, is all about tittilation. I don't much care for that, either. My point was that if I wanted to lust over pictures of naked women, SI's relatively tame presentation is inadequate to the task. I purchase a magazine that actually gives me what I'm looking for.

That said, as someone who isn't an American, you might have a better view of our potential hypocritical view than we do.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon: I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your interpetation of American views, in that there isn't a central guiding one for 'America', but just for large subsets therein. As for the issue of hard-core porn being OK and tittilation not, I think you missed my point. That sort of material has it's place...I just don't think it really needed to be on the cover of Dragon. It seems out of place, contextually. The Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit issue, for example, is all about tittilation. I don't much care for that, either. My point was that if I wanted to lust over pictures of naked women, SI's relatively tame presentation is inadequate to the task. I purchase a magazine that actually gives me what I'm looking for.

That said, as someone who isn't an American, you might have a better view of our potential hypocritical view than we do.

I don't particularly think it's hypocritical. Personally I like titillation but tend to be repulsed by pornography. I think titillation can occasionally be inappropriate - I sometimes feel uneasy about those giant billboard posters of naked people in public places I mentioned earlier, and not just because I'm surrounded by women in chadours - but on the cover of a magazine seems fine to me, especially a fantasy magazine like Dragon. Obviously other people feel differently, which indicates Paizo is running a risky strategy.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

Sexy, perhaps or perhaps not. The real issue, at least to me, is that it's sexual.

Well, same situation. I don't really see it as being sexual or sexy either one. But that our views differ there shouldn't come as much of a surprise by now.
So, who's surprised the thread hasn't gone into pitchforks and torches mode yet? We must be doing something right or we'd be under lockdown. Not that I didn't think the thread was sort of played out from the start, but at least it hasn't reached that level of ugliness.

 

[Bagpuss]

Sexy, perhaps or perhaps not. The real issue, at least to me, is that it's sexual.

It's a succubus, of course its going to be sexual. Its not like it isn't appropriate, what did you want it to be wearing? A burqa? The issue is about demons and devils, so a succubus is an appropriate cover illustration, sure they could have had a Bebilith or something else but a succubus is probably one of the better known demons.

 

[s/LaSH]

First, a question: What would be suitable as a cover image? Serious question, folks. Positive assertations rather than negative exclusions, if possible.

Second, a clarification. I earlier said 'innocence is overrated', and I stand by that statement. However, I don't mean that jaded, cynical people are somehow better. Far from it, in fact. I believe in parental responsibility to give their children a moral viewpoint on the world, but to know right from wrong you have to know something of wrong, it's unavoidable.

(In a related topic, this is why I disagree with censorship of broadcast DragonBallZ episodes - everyone knows it's about violence, and that's 'cool', but when you've seen some of the results of that violence that they cut out I doubt you'd think that any more. I'm not an expert here, but I suspect DBZ censored causes more damage than DBZ uncensored.)

Parental responsibility - another one of my favourite beefs - I'm glad to see people here actually taking an interest in their children. Just out of interest, would you (the hypothetical group 'you') tell your child why you didn't want them looking at the magazine? I certainly would, were it an issue for me. That way, I'd be teaching my (hypothetical) kid some kind of moral lesson and hopefully enabling them to look at subsequent material in a more critical light. A curt 'that's bad' would be counterproductive, right?

I can see why some people might wish to keep this cover out of the hands of the very young. But I'm of the opinion that discussing any problems you might have with it with them is healthier than unnecessary and seemingly arbitrary sheltering.

So that's my opinion.

PS: I'm Catholic and I've been playing D&D since I was 10. Just so you're aware.