I don't think there is anything wrong with art aimed at straight men, straight women, gay audiences, etc (they all buy books after all). But I have to ask, what on earth is anyone finding sexy in the 1E MM?
The Succubus is maybe the one thing I can see peopel saying that about because of the pose but it still looks like it was drawn on a middle school binder:
I'd say that was definitely aimed at young men. And I would even guess the model may have been taken from a sexy poster or mens magazine. However it is also a succubus so it seems thematically appropriate to have it be this kind of depiction.
You don't have to guess. If you read the whole discussion before responding you'd have seen where I repeatedly mentioned that Dave Sutherland took the pose from a Playboy pictorial, and linked to an article about it.
I do think there is definitely a sense the art is for a male audience in these early books. Which is what I would expect, since it was mostly a male audience at the time. Again, I don't think that is bad to cater to your audience. But I also think you can include things for other people if you are trying to draw in more fans, and you don't want to cater exclusively to one demographic. One thing I have learned publishing is women like sexy art too (and not just women like sexy art featuring men). Most of my stuff is a far cry from sensual. But there have been times on occasion when a book theme seemed to need that style, or where a particular image seemed like it should be more in that direction (again nothing super outrageous but fitting the genre).
Again, if you actually read the discussion before responding, you'd see this is ground we've already covered.
No one's objecting to sexy art (as a general rule, a few letter writers to Dragon in the 80s and Jim Ward's Angry Mothers from Heck excepted).
We're talking about an overall culture in gaming which made women less than welcome, and in which editorial policy was generally to dismiss their concerns when women wrote in to make constructive suggestions, complain, or express concerns.
Pinup-style art is just a data point in the overall picture.
I don't have the 77 mm to scan through but it's probably not a bad idea to look for entries like raksasha lizardman and similar.
I did find
....
It's a fairly safe bet that almost any bit of artwork of those two (and a sizable chunk of friends) were thought about more than once by the younger versions of folks who fall outside the umbrella of "straight dude". What's awkward is how blatantly obvious it is in modern d&d when it's the only stuff fitting into that sex appeal box[/Spoiler]
Sorry if I was unclear. I was speaking to intent and design. While hormonal young dudes can get worked up over a LOT of different things, I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case that the art for the Lizardman or Rakshasa were intended to be titillating. There are no signs of such in the composition or design. The poses, angles and perspectives aren't designed to accentuate or show off secondary sex characteristics. They're not poses which imply anything erotic at all, in distinct contrast to DCS' borrowing a Playboy pose for the Succubus.
While I agree that there is a difference,
neither of them is bad when it happens. These discussions seem to exist in this weird & evershifting state of smeared time, where stuff from anywhere between the very first bits of tsr's line art up to an "always will be" point in the future as fair game for a specific flavor of complaint, with a strange & immediate dash back to the lowest low budget line art of 1e "
drawn on a middle school binder" if someone makes any kind of "
welll....." type point
while referencing the "always will be" door opened a couple posts prior.
I'm confused about your point.
I think I (and several other people in the thread, but you may not be seeing all of it) have been clear that...
A) Sexy stuff isn't a problem on its own. The problem is when only one segment of the audience is catered to, and it contributes to an unwelcoming environment for other parts of the audience. This is related to discussions of representation, too.
B) The issue
has gotten better over time. Roger E Moore, as previously cited, in his editorial tenure at Dragon, took the issue more seriously and was less dismissive than Kim Mohan. Who was better than Tim Kask*. Who in turn was less obnoxious than Gary was about women gamers and their concerns. "Cheesecake" art is less prominent and less monotonous than it once was. Bare chested crude drawing of an Amazon in 1974 OD&D or the naked woman hanging from a chain above a snake in 1975 Greyhawk, to Clyde Caldwell's artistically more sophisticated but still almost always pinup-style portrayals of women through the 80s up at least to 1989's White Magic cover art for Dragon #147 which he recruited a swimsuit model (IIRC) to pose for. But you can definitely see the art direction shift in 2E. And over the last three decades we've seen characters in official products displayed and shown on a much more egalitarian basis. There's still room for improvement, but things
have changed over time.
*(who apologized, but made the mistake of running Lakofka's laughably terrible article about women adventurers which got them and Gary hanged in effigy in a famous piece of fan art).
