D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Umbran]

Really, how? Women are more visually stimulated than men are, completely negating what 99% of the people in this thread are assuming (that men are more visual, buncha pervs! therefore removing nudity will displease us more).

Well, at the moment we have two unsubstantiated assertions - you saying that women are "stimulated", and another saying that women may be physically stimulated, but that does not extend to their emotional state.

I think continuing with unsubstantiated assertions about what does or does not "turn them on" is inappropriate. Cites, gentlemen, or the point will be considered personal opinion, not scientific fact.

Or, you could, you know, listen to the women who have already posted in the thread, and how they seem to feel that sexual art is a secondary concern to them, as compared to art that represents them with respect. Just sayin'.

 

[Morrus]

Really, how? Women are more visually stimulated than men are, completely negating what 99% of the people in this thread are assuming (that men are more visual, buncha pervs! therefore removing nudity will displease us more).

OK, [MENTION=6674889]Gorgoroth[/MENTION], that's enough. You're really irritating a lot of people now. And not in the way you're telling yourself you are.

To be UTTERLY clear (although you've been told this a dozen times and ignored it) that is because 99% of people in this thread do not hold even vaguely the position you repeatedly ascribe to them. Neither do they hold the other positions you keep ascribing to them and then arguing with yourself vehemently about.

Nobody has said that. Nobody thinks that. Nobody. Especially not 99% of people. Nobody. You are arguing with imaginary people in your head, because whoever it is that hold the positions you're railing against, they sure as heck aren't posting in this thread.

Now, I know you'll wander off and tell yourself that this warning is because we're trying to censor your opinion or some such nonsense. And if that makes you feel better about it, I guess you can do that; that's fine - it's how people usually handle warnings for behaviour. But for the sake of clarity, it's because you are repeatedly ascribing positions to people who do not hold those positions - and that's obnoxious behaviour.

Please stop doing it. Once more, you'll be asked to leave the thread. You're welcome to express your opinion; folks are welcome to disagree with you. You are NOT welcome to ascribe positions to people when they do not hold those positions.

I hope that's clear.

 

[billd91]

I think continuing with unsubstantiated assertions about what does or does not "turn them on" is inappropriate. Cites, gentlemen, or the point will be considered personal opinion, not scientific fact.

And even with citations, they would likely be irrelevant since we're not discussing trying to sexually arouse women with game product art.

 

[El Mahdi]

You're confusing "equal" with "identical". They're two different words. My wife is my equal; she is not identical to me.

I couldn't give XP because I need to spread it around some more, but my wife wanted me to congratulate you on this. I agree also. Very Well Said!

 

[Umbran]

And even with citations, they would likely be irrelevant since we're not discussing trying to sexually arouse women with game product art.

Yes, well, he's been somewhat impervious to statements that what he's saying is irrelevant. I was hoping that showing it to be hearsay might be more effective. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

Maybe the combination of irrelevant, unsupported, and just plain incorrect will eventually get the point across.

 

[urLordy]

I learned one lesson here: that it can be a pretty effective strategy to shout "I'm being censored!" and then others will give you extra allowance just to try to prove to you that no censorship is going on.

 

[innerdude]

Really, how? Women are more visually stimulated than men are, completely negating what 99% of the people in this thread are assuming (that men are more visual, buncha pervs! therefore removing nudity will displease us more).

That attitude is antiquated and chauvinist, and not scientifically accurate either. Repeating falsehoods should be debunked in the meme-sphere so that we can, you know, actually evolve as a society not beholden to old biases and bigotries, instead of arguing in circles and achieving nothing. This is why, when I want to learn about human nature, I usually do it by reading scientific journals than people's opinions on message boards. Forgive me for bringing up science, I guess that's a no no here.

Injecting a little reality into the discussion is hardly irrelevant. If you're talking about being inclusive to all gender's interests and biases, it's kind of silly to ignore what they actually want (not what they merely say they want...people lie, you know, even to themselves).

Okay fine, you're right. Women can be visually "turned on." But the whole point of this discussion is that a woman could simultaneously be "turned on" by an artistic depiction, and still EMOTIONALLY be upset / uncomfortable with the way that piece of art PORTRAYS THEIR GENDER as a whole--messages about the assumed roles of dominance / subordination, male wish fulfillment, and emotional and intellectual competence of women.

You don't get to control everyone's responses to art, despite the fact that you think your artistic tastes are so much more valid and worthy than everyone else's.

 

[Umbran]

I learned one lesson here: that it can be a pretty effective strategy to shout "I'm being censored!" and then others will give you extra allowance just to try to prove to you that no censorship is going on.

I would not recommend relying on such a strategy for protection.

 

[Nellisir]

Cites, gentlemen, or the point will be considered personal opinion, not scientific fact.

I didn't cite because I was replying to Gorgoroth, not trying to make a point in general. I'm 99% certain I know the study(ies) he's talking about, and frankly, he's misrepresenting them to really creepy degree.

Here's a summary of a meta-study to get you started: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100104114601.htm, and here's the study itself: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9

 

[urLordy]

I would not recommend relying on such a strategy for protection.

Sure, it's more like a +2 bonus to saving throws vs banishment for the first 1d6 rounds, than actual immunity.