Yes, I am serious. Prudery is the surface manifestation of deeply ingrained bigotry. And I maintain, some of the biggest prudes are also the worst hypocrites with their own skeletons. My wisdom over the years has taught me to ignore liars completely.
I am not a hypocrite when I say I want fewer pieces of cheesecake art in D&D books. I am not a bigot out to put women in garb that covers them from the top of their heads down to their ankles. What I'm saying (and I believe others in this thread and others like this one across the internet are saying) is that in a game where you play as explorers of dark places filled with angry critters, the art should portray that reality in what those characters wear. You know, more of this:
http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/
Less of this:
http://w.mawebcenters.com/static/ec...6319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/s/a/savant.jpeg
Human beings are sexual though, both men and women. It's the basic truth of the matter. Art should reflect that, we are all animals who find various aspect of each other either attractive or repulsive. But neither did I say we need or should want outright pornographic art in the rules books (because, frankly, some DMs already have enough of a hard time keeping their player's focus!!)
I'm neither a prude, nor a hypocrite, so I wouldn't have any such problem. D&D is not a child's game, children play with iPads these days, and have ready access to far more filthy material a few clicks away. Nobody's tender young mind is going to be blown to hell from seeing a nipple (sheesh).
Nobody in this thread is advocating for removing any mention of sexuality in D&D (heck, I'm all for
diversifying the portrayal of romantic relationships in D&D so that it includes same-sex couples). I simply think, most of the time, it isn't genre appropriate to have illustrations depicting that (when it is, by all means, fire away).
I started playing this game when I was 11. If I ever have kids, chances are they'll sit at my table at around that age. I don't want to turn my (potential) daughter away from a game I love because she can't find a picture that represents the image of a character she has in her mind.
Tasteful nudity would (should) even be OK, but that's not even what I'm advocating. I want art to have a variety of subjects represented, from the seductive succubus to the swarthy pirate. Denying attractive model's attractiveness is removing one of the central themes of art, in general though, and that's as old as the human race. Painting beautiful art of attractive models is hardly new or controversial.
Again, context is everything: that succubus is a-okay, and so's that pirate. But Seoni's "dress" (robe?), for exemple (
http://www.black-book-editions.fr//contenu/image/Images_divers/JDR_Pathfinder/Icone_PF2_Seoni.jpg) is inappropriate for a woman who goes down into dark, underground ruins where she's liable to get stabbed, punched, clawed, bit by a host of critters. I'm fine with everybody looking attractive and pretty, just be practical with your apparel when it's required.
I feel sad for the human species if we are so easily offended at the prospect of seeing beautiful or disturbing subjects portrayed in art. It's art, nobody ever died from opening their eyes (and their minds).
Nobody's being offended. The only reason any of us are advocating for greater diversity in art and actual equal portrayal of men and women in art and prose is so that it more accurately portrays the reality of the game world and so that the game appeals to a wider audience who might be turned away from it otherwise.
It's time D&D stepped away from being the sole province of straight, white males, period.
However, I recognize that as much fun as it would be to have D&D cater to my personal tastes in who gets sexualized, it's not really appropriate to depict people who are supposed to be adventurers in a way that trivializes them into sexy objects for my viewing pleasure who aren't good for much of anything else.
