KnowTheToe
First Post
Templetroll said:
CamelToe, the fact that your name and .sig line don't elicit outrage is astonishing to me.
I wonder the same thing.
Last edited:
Mialee's FASHION PLATE MAIL #1
- Thread starter Mialee
- Start date
I wonder the same thing.
On a more serious note...
While I am sure that the Avalanche covers have attracted some to buy, they have actually had the opposite effect with me. I am a happily married man and I love the female form as much as
the next guy. I don't mind an occassional scantily clad woman, much as I am sure that women don't mind an occassional scantily clad man.
But avalanche takes it too far. Every cover seems to have to have pictures like that. It is almost like that is what they are selling. The cover. Even if I was interested in the product, taking that up to the counter for purchase will surely elicit the "hmmm, we know what this guys is buying them for." It also makes the setting book itself hard to take seriously. I mean if they need to do that to stand out to sell their product, rather than be known for their comprehensive and well written gaming stuff... Avalanche may put out some useful products, but I'll never know because I have never felt the urge to purchase one.
Mongoose seems to feel the need to put at least one bare breasted filly in each of their supplements to. While it annoys me, their products are generally very good, and so I purchase them. But even then, it just has a "roll my eyes" effect. And I think "ahhh, there is the gratuitous boob shot for the teenage boys."
Razuur
While I am sure that the Avalanche covers have attracted some to buy, they have actually had the opposite effect with me. I am a happily married man and I love the female form as much as
the next guy. I don't mind an occassional scantily clad woman, much as I am sure that women don't mind an occassional scantily clad man.
But avalanche takes it too far. Every cover seems to have to have pictures like that. It is almost like that is what they are selling. The cover. Even if I was interested in the product, taking that up to the counter for purchase will surely elicit the "hmmm, we know what this guys is buying them for." It also makes the setting book itself hard to take seriously. I mean if they need to do that to stand out to sell their product, rather than be known for their comprehensive and well written gaming stuff... Avalanche may put out some useful products, but I'll never know because I have never felt the urge to purchase one.
Mongoose seems to feel the need to put at least one bare breasted filly in each of their supplements to. While it annoys me, their products are generally very good, and so I purchase them. But even then, it just has a "roll my eyes" effect. And I think "ahhh, there is the gratuitous boob shot for the teenage boys."
Razuur
Templetroll
Explorer
Re: Re: Question
*slaps hand to head* Arrgh, a 'joke thread'?!? This humor thing always gets me confused.
b) I thought this was a "women in gaming art" thread even if we haven't been as entertainingly satirical as Mialee was to start it off.
KidCthulhu said:
Jeesh, this is a joke thread people, so a) loosen up and b) if you want to get the "women in gaming art" thing started, make another thread.
David, if you were joking, use a smiley
*slaps hand to head* Arrgh, a 'joke thread'?!? This humor thing always gets me confused.
b) I thought this was a "women in gaming art" thread even if we haven't been as entertainingly satirical as Mialee was to start it off.
reapersaurus
Explorer
Fantastic work, Mialee.
Truly you've found "Teh Funney".
Truly you've found "Teh Funney".
David Argall
First Post
objections to objectification
"David, if you were joking, use a smiley"
Actually I've never got around to figuring out how to use them.
"I'll get off my soapbox if you were joking, really."
Naw, much more fun to join you on it.
" Objectification means to treat something as an object."
Now the problem to objecting to this is that everything must always be treated as an object. No exceptions. We think in objects and the basic rules of logic are in dealing in objects. You are an object, or more precisely a variety of objects depending on the subject at hand.
"treat someone of the female gender as an OBJECT as opposed to a person. "
A person is an object, a different level of abstract than the object "female", but both terms are object terms. Nor would using "individual" or "whole person" change that. They just are more detailed objects.
"So the objection is to being treated like a jiggly meat puppet for your right hand, not to being a female."
which is not an objection to being objectified, merely to the choice of objects.
But back to our fashion show.
May I nominate Ilsa the archer as the most unready for combat? My bet is that she will be on her rear as soon as she shoots [The recoil of a bow isn't that much, but she is balanced on her toes.], which will likely be much to the amusement of the male chauvinist pig who will likely also see her arrow hit the dirt rather than him. [Of course my eyes have trouble focusing on the placement of the arrow, but it looks like the arrow is under the bow, which means the only way to keep the arrow from falling into the ground is to cripple a couple of fingers.]
"David, if you were joking, use a smiley"
Actually I've never got around to figuring out how to use them.
"I'll get off my soapbox if you were joking, really."
Naw, much more fun to join you on it.
" Objectification means to treat something as an object."
Now the problem to objecting to this is that everything must always be treated as an object. No exceptions. We think in objects and the basic rules of logic are in dealing in objects. You are an object, or more precisely a variety of objects depending on the subject at hand.
"treat someone of the female gender as an OBJECT as opposed to a person. "
A person is an object, a different level of abstract than the object "female", but both terms are object terms. Nor would using "individual" or "whole person" change that. They just are more detailed objects.
"So the objection is to being treated like a jiggly meat puppet for your right hand, not to being a female."
which is not an objection to being objectified, merely to the choice of objects.
But back to our fashion show.
May I nominate Ilsa the archer as the most unready for combat? My bet is that she will be on her rear as soon as she shoots [The recoil of a bow isn't that much, but she is balanced on her toes.], which will likely be much to the amusement of the male chauvinist pig who will likely also see her arrow hit the dirt rather than him. [Of course my eyes have trouble focusing on the placement of the arrow, but it looks like the arrow is under the bow, which means the only way to keep the arrow from falling into the ground is to cripple a couple of fingers.]
Re: objections to objectification
HAW HAW!!! You must be kidding, "David Argall", if that IS your REAL NAME. I think of you all as the HAPPY VOICES talking in my head. This logic has yet to fail me.
I'm OBJECTIFYING the SUBJECT AT HAND RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do, BAY-BEE!!!11!!
Dear Dr Saunders, today I bought the most detailed object....
... unfortunately, because I chose the wrong object, I have now broken out in a horrible itchy rash all over....
David Argall said:
HAW HAW!!! You must be kidding, "David Argall", if that IS your REAL NAME. I think of you all as the HAPPY VOICES talking in my head. This logic has yet to fail me.
I'm OBJECTIFYING the SUBJECT AT HAND RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do, BAY-BEE!!!11!!
Dear Dr Saunders, today I bought the most detailed object....
... unfortunately, because I chose the wrong object, I have now broken out in a horrible itchy rash all over....
Similar Threads
