Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs

[Zelda Themelin]

I agree with TanithT about porn.

And problem with that is, that most of porn isn't really good/cool/truly sexy/and has ugly people IMO. And thus makes really not such good ground for art for rpg:s. Erotic art in the other hand works as better inspiration. Some artists can handle porn-art but they get better money elsewhere whan drawning pictures for rpg.

I give you example of fail. Book of Erotic fantasy. It fails in many ways, have couple of nice spells, stupid items (since they imitate real life and forget about magic). But worst part when you flip the book is art. It's based on real photos manipulated little bit. I hoped that troupe would be gone. I hated it since Immortal rpg. Damn they were ugly. IMO of course but I've seen better erotic pics in rpg books that didn't try so hard. Funny thing.

And google certainly finds fantasy ladies, that sport much flesh. And that is probably since many people not generally interested in fantasy are interested in that fantasy.

However I think it's bit hypocritical to say fantasy art is so demeaning and sexualized. Have you seen covers of romance novels for woman. You know ones with hot man and women intimately close. Woman wearing some skimpy dress/nightgown and man chest naked. And stories are about "I have to have my man". My sister reads lot of those books, and she is most annoyed about flowery telling of sex-scenes "and they soared like eagles..." crap like that.

Oh well, can't please us all. Between that, and hell and lego friends.

 

[Janx]

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

Slainte,

-Loonook.

I'd XP'd you but I liked something else you said earlier. There's also no Respect button, or I'd click that on your post instead.

I have no experience with what Loonook posted about. But I'm informed enough to know Rape is a pretty serious topic and quite traumatic. I think this forum has a "please don't talk about Rape or use it as an example" clause. I think we hit that point.

[note, I'm using the generic you, not as a specific person in this next wall of text]

I think some people have experienced terrible things that do make them more sensitive to things. While everybody tries to have an "all viewpoints are good" attitude, I think some are more valid than others.

If you been through something rough, I think it's totally valid to be sensitive to certain things. After all, you've seen that which most people haven't.

Conversely, if you haven't been through any thing rough, and you think every piece of fantasy art is offensive, maybe you're a little too sensitive. (I am exagerating, I don't think anyone in this thread actually holds an extreme opinion on art).

There's no way to change someone's sensitivity dials, but I do think that when you run up against surprise from others at your reaction to something, that a self-reflection is needed on are you reading more into things than were intended by the speaker/writer/artist.

Consider it this way. Artists make art. Usually in their studio. Then they sell it to people who want to publish it, in the gaming books for instance. The art director isn't likely calling up Frazetta saying "I need 3 different paintings with a warrior, rogue, and a wizard. Oh, be sure to include a helpless female in each, our target market loves that stuff!"

The art director is instead perusing samples and picking ones he thinks look good and fit the theme of the book. He may not be thinking too much about how the female is portrayed negatively, and in fact, may not even consider it negative or positive. There's a hero, who happens to be male, rescuing somebody. The rescuee is attractive, which makes us think of what might happen next between the pair.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yes, well, I already said that completely eliminating sexual content entirely is absurd. Flat and complete prohibition is a non-starter. That removes the "every" argument.

The questions are instead more about how much is too much, and when and where is it appropriate?

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?

Well, here's a question, then...

Are you familiar with the Esther Friesner, "Chicks in Chainmail" books? If so, what do you think of the cover art, given the content of the books?

 

[billd91]

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?

<snip>

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

The chip you have put on your shoulder throughout this thread is preventing you from reading what she's saying. She qualifies the statement you quote by saying:

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.[emphasis mine]

And she's correct.

 

[TanithT]

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?

No. Once again, you're not responding to what I actually said.

The fact that our formative experiences and thus our reactions and feelings are likely to be different does not make either of us wrong, or bad. Bad is when we choose to invalidate or dismiss someone else's experiences because we don't happen to share them.

Most American men do not grow up having to carefully weigh the consequences of talking to any male stranger and worry about each and every one. But that can be as much a function of geography and race and class as it is of gender. Or a function of accident; bad things can happen to anyone, and there are no absolutes that will protect you. Most never means all.

I'm not invalidating or dismissing your experiences. I'm saying that mine may possibly be different from yours, and here's what it actually feels like to be me. You certainly have the right to do the same thing, but not to invalidate mine because yours are different. That's all I'm saying. Please don't read any more between the lines, because it's just not there.

Anyone has the right to depict art.

And anyone has the right to say that they don't particularly want porn as the default setting for their RPG source material, not when it's a detriment to how the source material is actually supposed to function and the mostly nonsexual storylines you want to support.

I mean, there's always the Book of Erotic Fantasy if you WANT to run an adult campaign. Which sounds pretty cool to me. But if you don't happen to be playing a sexually oriented campaign because you're focusing on a really neat political intrigue storyline, sexing up the female characters by default is not a net asset in your source material.

 

[Janx]

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.

Isn't this a variant of the StormWind Fallacy. That a sexy PC can't also have a good story and personality?

I think better phrasing of your intent might be:
emphasis on looking sexy versus being functional and practical

I'm easily sold on the actuality that good armor for women is probably ugly, plain, and androgenous.

That doesn't make for fun art to make or look at.

 

[Halivar]

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?

I totally did not even think about that when I wrote my post.

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.

Ok, I'll concede on that point.

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?

That's a good question. I guess the answer must be subjective. I detest the presence of blatantly pornographic images (BoEF is one item I particularly loath), but I cannot tell you where the line is between that and "sexual" art that is acceptable for mainstream enjoyment.

It's just my gut opinion that WotC, at least, has not put out anything I would object to having around my children (if I had any).

 

[Alzrius]

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.

I'm curious, where does magic armor fit in regards to this particular dynamic?

Presuming that the artwork in D&D books is meant to portray an accurate representation of the game rules, rather than how things work in real life, then (even leaving aside the issue of armor's stats not be compromised by its stylistic shape), could it not be said that adding "plusses" to the armor - with the attendant increase in the armor hardness and hit points (in 3.X terms) - fixes those problems, making it as protective or even more protective than "realistic" armor would be?

In other words, is there no room for understanding/assuming/guessing that there's magic involved, and that that changes things?

 

[Umbran]

In other words, is there no room for understanding/assuming/guessing that there's magic involved, and that that changes things?

I think there's very little room for that.

If the art makes clear that the magic is present - like with the magical tattoos - I think we are good. But, invoking invisible magic that may or may not be present to justify skin will sound like weak rationalization, and rightfully so.

It would be like saying, "Yeah, that scantily clad woman is wrapped around Conan's leg there, but that's just to lull the dragon into a false sense of security. Actually, she has a massive sword of her own off frame, and in two seconds she's gonna go get it and cleave it's head off!"

No, that isn't gonna work at all...

 

[Umbran]

I'm easily sold on the actuality that good armor for women is probably ugly, plain, and androgenous.

That doesn't make for fun art to make or look at.

Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?