Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs

[TanithT]

Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish? It seems (to me) to be a very puritanical, very prudish way of thinking about it. Either that, or we just have really, really dirty minds.

It's not a sexual fetish, although it certainly can be. And there's nothing wrong with that; I'm very much pro-porn for porn's sake. Consenting adults should get to enjoy any form of sexual activity or depiction that they like with other consenting adults.

The key word here is consenting. There are some fairly unpleasant social consequences for an assumed default setting of "female = always sexual", and that's where the actual problem is. The problem is not with porn, but with not being able to tell the difference between sexual imagery and female imagery.

Want to draw a female having sex, being sexy, or just posing nude just because you think her shape is beautiful? Cool beans. Enjoy. Have fun. It's cool. I mean that.

Take that same drawing and present it as the default female model in RPG source material? Not cool. If what I am looking for is a character image that tells an inspiring story or shows more interesting stuff about a character than OMGBEWBIES, I'm gonna be pissed. Because while porn and artsy nudes are cool and all, it makes epically crappy female character source material. Because it focuses on the OMGBEWBIES to the exclusion and detriment of the human stories these characters have to tell, it doesn't work for me.

To countenance that RPG art (designed for aesthetic purposes) is sexist because it relies on positive reactions to the female form is sexist and wrong requires that I reject, on the same premise, every odalisque ever painted, most classical-style garden statues, much of modern art photography, etc. etc. etc. I can't go along with that.

Nope. That's absolutely not what I'm saying at all.

TL;DR, porn is cool but it's really not a good automatic default setting for female RPG source material.

 

[Janx]

Okay, but have you asked yourself *why* she's in a skimpy outfit? Is there any reason for this other than BEWBIES? Cuz when there is, I really have no beef.

because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn. She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.

Or she's wearing skimpy outfits because she chose it off the rack. Go to the mall, or just about anywhere. Many of the outfits worn by the females aren't chosen for their practicality or durability. So it is quite possible that a female adventurer MIGHT choose cleavage armor over a proper piece of plate.

And actually, a woman MIGHT tactically choose full plater cups (assuming a proper fit) over a man's plate for comfort, appearance, and psychological impact (a male enemy might spend a little more time oggling your armor, than hitting you). I would agree that faux armor that's really lingerie is stupid. But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.

Uh, Frazetta. And his multiple stylistic imitators. Yeah, if you took a poll, you'd get pretty overwhelming agreement that the female dress and behavior and body language cues are submissive and powerless while the males are almost uniformly depicted as powerful.

When was the last time Frazetta's art was used in a modern RPG? Rhetorical question, I'm sure somebody will have a link to his latest work from last week...

Frazetta and his work is from the era of the weak female in need of rescue. Complaining about him is like complaining about not having the right to vote. We all agreed and passed that ammendment already. There's still men who smack their wives around, but we don't much like them either.

What has WotC done wrong lately? Have they used any Frazetta or Elmore paintings (who mostly paints his wife with various hairstyles)?

I have no doubt there's plenty of sexualized content, women who look really good in revealing outfits. But they're no longer sitting at the feet of strong males with abs of steel and beltlines just above their junk.

I can't say if all the sexualization in media is good or bad. But sexualization today does not always equal weak, submissive women.

 

[Kaodi]

Schroedinger's Rapist is not likely to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and quite likely your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances. You may not understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you. It's not your reality. You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

That article is good, and informative, but that does not prevent me from thinking that the title (and description of the phenomenon) is an offencive misnomer. Schroedinger's Cat is a feline that cannot be identified as alive or dead. If " Shroedinger's Rapist " were truly following the same linguistic structure, it would basically be saying that every man is a rapist and the question is whether he is going to attack you or not. I know there are some fringe militant radical feminists who think that, but as I can tell that is notthe authors intent, I think the phenomenon would be more properly called " Schroedinger's Stranger " .

 

[Umbran]

Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish?

Note that "fetish" has several possible meanings and connotations in this context, some of which you probably don't want to invoke. Would "object" or "focus" serve your purposes better?

EDIT: To countenance that RPG art (designed for aesthetic purposes) is sexist because it relies on positive reactions to the female form is sexist and wrong requires that I reject, on the same premise, every odalisque ever painted, most classical-style garden statues, much of modern art photography, etc. etc. etc. I can't go along with that.

Well, here's the thing...

Humans are sexual creatures. So, we will create art with sexual content. To suggest that we should never create art on a topic so important to human experience I would say is patently absurd. So, while I think you have to go a long way to argue that odalisques *don't* have a sexual component, I don't think that makes them evil.

But, on the other hand, there's a time and place for everything. Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?

 

[Umbran]

But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.

Sexy armor is a myth.

Armor requires padding underneath. Once you've got that padding on, the body's natural curves are pretty much eliminated. Also, according to my lady friends who make a habit of wearing armor during physical activity, a woman does not want parts bouncing around - that's *painful* - so they would typically be bound down, rather than accentuated. End result, women and men in armor are both "human shaped".

And armor with curves enough to look sexy also has curves enough to help guide weapons in towards the body, rather than deflecting them away. And that'd just be dumb...

 

[Janx]

But, on the other hand, there's a time and place for everything. Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?

Great question, which ties back to my original point that RPGs ain't the only one, and aren't even likely the instigator.

Just about all current fiction for young adults and up has sexualized content.
It probably even seeps into younger material.

 

[Loonook]

I'll also repeat something else I said in another post. Chances are pretty good that you and I had different formative experiences in life, because society tends to do that by things like race, class and gender. Your different experiences and perspective does not make you wrong or bad, but they probably are pretty substantially different.

Schroedinger's Rapist is not likely to be an important part of your fundamental reality of day to day life, and quite likely your "creep alarm" has never needed to be quite as fine-tuned due to this different set of circumstances. You may not understand why women are so sensitive and why they 'overreact' to stuff you don't even notice or consider a big deal, because, it's just not for you. It's not your reality. You don't see it, so it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

And here's where you lose me. None of us could possibly understand the experience of violence and assaults on our sexuality, or the concept of fearing for our lives around a portion of the populace?

I lived in bad neighborhoods. I grew up in bad circumstances. And I was a victim of sexual assault.

As a survivor, I take a pretty big dose of offense to that. Of course I could not possibly understand the constant anxiety of victimization, check my locks every night, sleep with a weapon in proximity, learn to protect myself, have night terrors, or generally have issues associated with mental, physical, and socio-psychosexual abuse.

It took a very, very long time, up until the last few years, to come to terms with what I went through in a society that would consider it a non-issue. But my stigma is not my 'victimhood'... I reclaimed my ability to act. I spoke out, worked through my issues, help others who have dealt with the same through survivor networks. Even then the stigmatization is rampant. Do you know how difficult it is to work as a male crisis counselor? I did it for three years... And was the constant butt of jokes in a community that allegedly embraces those who have been victimized and believes in growth.

So, again, and for the last time: Anyone has the right to depict art. Art is not some horribly disruptive energy, and societies depicted in fantasy hold up a mirror to our own. And I must say... Having to justify my ability to speak out on an issue due to the fact that I have been through the flame and come out scorched but alive? Not exactly conducive to discussion.

And I know there are those on this board, just statistically, that share my story. It isn't an uncommon thing; rape is a crime of power and corrupts ones feelings on their bodies, their sexuality, and their place in the world. But bringing up this sort of topic is offensive to me, and other survivors whose suffering is somehow diminished by our gender.

Of course, I couldn't understand it. I'm just a dude, right?

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Janx]

Sexy armor is a myth.

Armor requires padding underneath. Once you've got that padding on, the body's natural curves are pretty much eliminated. Also, according to my lady friends who make a habit of wearing armor during physical activity, a woman does not want parts bouncing around - that's *painful* - so they would typically be bound down, rather than accentuated. End result, women and men in armor are both "human shaped".

And armor with curves enough to look sexy also has curves enough to help guide weapons in towards the body, rather than deflecting them away. And that'd just be dumb...

You're probably right. But given that artists jumped right to lingerie armor and skipped Sexy But Covering Armor, I don't think artists or real people even gave the matter that much practical thought.

Let's imagine a world with modular art technology. We can take any picture and flip the woman's armor from lingerie, to shapely but coveringly effective, to Plain and Practical.

barring the frazetta art where the woman doesn't need armor because she has a muscle bound man standing over her who is also likely to be unarmored.

Which modes of these fantasy art pieces are going to be most interesting, and appealing to viewers, both male and female.

I suspect that if every fantasy art had women in their proper Plain and Practicals, even women would find it androgenizingly dull and uninspiring.

 

[Mallus]

Let me make it a little easier for you with two words: Frank Frazetta. Not all fantasy art looks like that any more, but he was one of the major first contributors to the genre and his iconic influence can still be seen.

Two things: not all of Frazetta's depictions of women are the same. He painted (nearly?? )as many warrior women bravely, albeit mostly-nakedly, squaring off against threatening monsters, as he did slave girls and subs.

The other thing is he's a good artist, even when his subjects are the most problematic (see: clingy Dejah Thoris). I think you nail it when you mentioned Frazetta's many imitators. The problem isn't a single artist and their skin-heavy vision, it's when that becomes prevalent/dominant, and crowds out other, potentially less- or differently-sexualized art.

Okay, but have you asked yourself *why* she's in a skimpy outfit?

Sometimes, the answer is just "boobies".

Is it stupid for her to be (un)dressed that way?

Issues of over-sexualized fantasy art aside, some people don't find the realism-based argument persuasive. They like absurd images. I dressed a D&D character in a loincloth, leather jacket, and tricorne hat, which was entirely approapriate for a barbarian pirate. I did this because imagining it brought me pleasure.

Is she wearing high heels in the dungeon, and they aren't +5 and vorpal? Heck, even if they are.

Combat heels do annoy me a wee bit. Until Bayonetta, that is, which made them wonderful by equipping them with machine guns.

Yeah. Gratuitous. And insulting, both to the character being depicted and the intelligence of the viewer.

But some people aren't insulted by ridiculous images, even overtly sexual ones. I understand your dislike for them, but it's not fair to characterize people who aren't bothered by them as unintelligent.

More subtly, and much more subjectively, do I think the artist is focusing on a more sexy appearance not because it makes sense, but because it's the automatic default for depicting a female character?

Makes sense to who? And what kind of sense?

I agree there trouble with certain depictions becoming the 'default mapping'. And by 'trouble' I mean cliche. If there's going to be sexualized images in commercial art -- and there will be-- I'd like to see, well, more kinds of sexuality depicted.

Say like in Spartacus on Starz. Note: I am not an employee of Starz.

Porn is cool. It's the pornification by default of female RPG character imagery that has bad social consequences, because that assumption of a default sexy setting in inappropriate places is what tends to spill over onto the gaming table, and onto real people who are not at that table to be sexualized.

This is interesting. It suggests a lot of compartmentalization is going on: sex depicted in outright pornography is okay; viewers will keep that segregated in a relatively airtight mental container labeled 'porn'. But sexual imagery in game books will 'spill over' onto the gaming table/into real life interactions.

Why are certain commercial sexual images (most interestingly, the ones found outside of the sex industry) more damaging than others? I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious.

 

[TanithT]

because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn. She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.

Well, pretty much my response is what Umbran said.

there's a time and place for everything. Is a mass-market RPG product the right place and time for sexual art?

Yep. This. Porn is cool. Porn in my RPG source material is not so much, because it doesn't well serve the purpose it's supposed to be designed for. Eg, to actually be RPG source material. Because OMGBEWBIES may be sexy and stuff, but it doesn't help to tell a good nonsexual story.

And actually, a woman MIGHT tactically choose full plater cups (assuming a proper fit) over a man's plate for comfort, appearance, and psychological impact (a male enemy might spend a little more time oggling your armor, than hitting you). I would agree that faux armor that's really lingerie is stupid. But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.

Okay. Speaking as a former female SCA fighter, really big boobie cups are bloody dangerous in a fight because of the physics of how a weapon is likely to intersect with them. Face helm bounceback is going to be the least of your problems. The best design for a well endowed female fighter is generally a "uniboob" slant that is both comfortable and less likely to be a blade trap where you really don't want a blade trap. It's not super sexy, but it's a whole lot less likely to get you hurt.

In the SCA group I grew up in (Caid), the safety marshals would not pass most of the "female armor" with visible cleavage, for damn good reasons. Like, safety and liability. The crap you see in most of the pictures? Will get you hurt. Ornamental is nice, armor that works is nicer.

What has WotC done wrong lately?

If you seriously care, pick a random modern RPG sourcebook with PC, NPC and monster races of both sexes, and take a really hard look at all the pictures, writing down how many of each could be categorized as putting more of an emphasis on looking sexy than on making sense for the situation, or telling a good character story.

I can't say if all the sexualization in media is good or bad. But sexualization today does not always equal weak, submissive women.

Softporn as the automatic default setting for female imagery has social consequences, and that's a totally separate issue from the sexual imagery itself. It's not that sex is bad, it's that there are other human stories to be told, and sometimes those stories have female characters.

We do see a lot less Frazetta these days, and not as much overtly submissive female imagery. But if you compare and contrast a woman standing in a bikini with a soft smile on her face to a muscular man in armor holding a weapon and looking serious, which image is that of a powerful character? What words and personality traits would you associate with the people each of these images?

The bikini clad woman may not be on her knees, or in bondage, but I think it's pretty clear who has the power in that depiction. It's not her.