The scout is a squat middle aged dude crouched in a tree. The kilt wearing guy is fully clothed and armed, showing nothing. The grass skirt dude is probably the closet thing to "sexy" depicted here, since you can see his torso. His pose is not helpless, submissive or even sexually inviting, however. There is nothing overtly sexual about a shirtless guy who is presenting no sexual cues.
If you think there is, heaven help you on the beach, cuz you're just not going to be able to control yourself.
Thanks for another attack about my ability to control myself. I must just be going about doing horrible things...
I actually grew up in the Pagan community, so in my lexicon skyclad mostly means "it's summer". Nude werewolves make perfect sense, but nude and sexualized are utterly different things. Which I guess is something you learn if you actually do a lot of the skyclad thing.
Of course, but if I depicted a woman sky-clad in any works it is going to be construed as sexualized? Well, where would I get this idea...
So by your way of thinking, people who are called to spiritual service or who have other reasons to be asexual aren't really women, or men?
Um, if you really can't see what's wrong with that, your problems are worse than pretending you've asked questions you never actually got round to and then arguing about the answers as if you'd really asked them.
Yeah... and when we have a holy warrior who is quite obviously ignoring a section of the human condition when it doesn't seem to be part of their faith to do so, and there is no discussion... That seems quite strange. Of course, Aquinas and a few other authors of the early Church could cover this, or we could discuss the Brahmacharis . . . but sadly, the whole no religion thing and the thread is being viewed.
[/quote]
In short, your example is one of a holy warrior who is never tempted, nor drawn upon. Even Galahad was tempted, but creating an entire work where a beautiful woman who is in her maturity does not have any leanings or crises of faith? Again, the lady knight seems quite different and above her male counterparts in literature.
Ding ding ding. We have a winnah.
Did you know that the character of Ripley in the Alien series was originally written as male? Nothing was actually changed other than the name when they decided to make her female, and IMO that was one of the great strengths of the movie. It was a human story in the end, not one that belonged exclusively to any gender.
Paksennarion's tale is much the same - her story is that of a soldier, a paladin called to Gird's service, albeit slowly and skeptically, who also happens to be a woman. The fact that her story is not "a woman's story" in a way that includes sex and romance and very many female-specific issues is what makes it stand out, for me. It's a human story, and that's what's important.
The take-home message here is that women are human - we are not so different from men than we can't do the same things or have the same feelings and experiences. And that's a message I value and appreciate.
And Ripley spent all of what, a week on the Nostromo? She has a daughter, by the by, and quite an interesting back story beyond the books... But as a 2 hour long film does not make the same oomph as years upon years of a Hero's Journey in which they do not seem to face any crisis of faith.
Sex and romance are female-specific virtues? Yeah... Don't tell that to
- Harry Dresden or Michael Carpenter.
- John Taylor.
- Tyrion Lannister, Renly Baratheon, or Rhaegar Targaryean.
- Lancelot du Lac or Arthur Penndragon.
- Croaker
- Odysseus
- Ezekiel Rawlins or Mouse.
I parsed down my list over the last fifteen minutes, but it fits.
These individuals, who had lovers as varied across the spectrum of womanhood are eminently enhanced by their romance, that ranged from a flight of fancy to an all-out every-book thing. Some had happy endings, some had terrible endings, some involved sex, some were longing from afar. Each has his own unique view of how things turned out, and how it affected them. The romance of each was integral to their story and how it played out.
They seem to have a Y chromosome. Stating that a virtue like romance or sexuality is unique to the woman's point of view is strange to me. They range the gamut from the white knight to the antihero, a couple of them could be construed as paladins (of which two of them are most definitely within a faith of chastity and celibacy and take their own routes about it).
Women are humans. As are men. And Ripley's story is as sexless as Pak's... Just that these individuals, who have stories that span about as long or longer, are more fitting.
I want a story where a woman can be a woman in a full suit of plate, a scanty robe, or a suit of clothes. And the ones I cite, for the most part, have the historical forms of each of these. But in a world where Pak exists there may be a Danny Flint, and vice versa. And if I see 100 images of sorceresses and one of them is salacious, who am I to judge the art department? Because I can bet that out of a hundred images of bravos across the same cultures I'll find one handsome, strapping young man who flaunts what the gods gave them.
And THAT IS OKAY. Making any game confine itself to a single worldview chokes the game. All Paladins must be chaste is silly when chastity itself is defined before our confusion with complete abstinence as a tempering of one's own carnal nature with faith.
Stop here. Just, stop. The 'argument' that I suspect you believe I am trying to make does not exist. At least, I really don't think I'm making it.
Addressed above. The world is never perfect, and shouldn't be. In most of the worlds we live in as readers or players there seems to be a complete lack of diversity in the human genome beyond a palette swap. Black and White morality is not the way of the world, and the same can be said for depictions of any form of prejudice in gaming.... And if we play in a Medieval society there will be certain things that are different, as we would see in a far Future society, or a Stone Age society.
I have yet to claim that I support impractical armor. But I do not support implausible cultural identities.
This is relevant to my not wanting my RPG characters to always be depicted as foolishly, impractically dressed, gratuitously sexualized for no good reason, or powerless/submissive, how?
Because your RPG characters don't need to be? Define your world as you wish. Personally I'll prefer the world in which I play, and you can prefer the one you play in. I can find a dozen fully-armored women in a google search...
It took me over an hour to find a woman who had a skin color darker than Tanned. I scoured the Net for the character, my books, everything else.
Nada.
There are plenty of interpretations. I look at the PHB 3.x and the first full-scale set of images of men and women to compare? Just in the class descriptions... All depicted with pretty practical armor. Ember wears a halter top, you can see her breasts...
But it seems they are actually being held in place. As an individual who has done work needing to secure parts of yourself while doing martial arts I feel her pain. She wears the medieval equivalent of a sports bra... Is she sexualized?
Or the Paladin in scale, wearing skin-toned leathers (unless she has spikes growing out of her arm) and stands countrapposto.
Meanwhile Hennit looks like a leather-loving sorcerer with a bare chest covered in tattoos.
And it is still changing. In the years since there have been plenty of 'retro-clones' mimicking the old style, but even then the art is much more tame. This chestnut seems to come up quite a bit, and really doesn't hold up as an 'all the time' or even 'most of the time' proposition.
When fan service stops on all sides give me a call. I'll stop my responses per recommendation.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
