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

[Derren]

So now that this is over, here some on-topic fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGh0EMmMC8

Quite a good example why I think skimpy armor is silly (and yes, that applies to men, too).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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).

It is irrelevant because the purpose of the art in an RPG is to sell the idea of what it is like to adventure in a realm full of dungeons where dragons may lurk, not sexual arousal. This is D&D we're discussing, not 50 Shades of Grey Elves or Behind the Green Dwarves.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Sanitizing art to avoid offending people is morally no different than burning books.

Morrus, this will be my last post here, but I will post the article I came across since apparently some of you think it's creepy that some of us, you know, read.

People referring to a scientific study as "creepy" says more about them, that I. It's certainly pointless for me to continue debating this, for one, it's not my field (nor any of yours' obviously, considering how blithely ignorant of the topic you all are), and I don't call it censorship when mods step in and assert their own opinions are more valid than mine, I call it water cooler bullying, which is, to answer your question, why I ignore it.

You are not the boss of me. Delete this account, thanks. I won't make a new one.

 

[TanithT]

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.

I also am fairly sure that I have seen the studies he's vaguely referring to, and I agree they are being misrepresented in a creepy manner to imply that women have no agency and that he knows better than us what we actually want and need. Also they are irrelevant to this discussion.

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'.

Sexual art is a complete non concern to me, or a potential positive. I am a huge fan of the Oglaf comic. I would buy an adult gaming supplement with lots of nudity and sex if there was enough in it that appealed to the heterosexual female or gay male gaze. What I won't buy is gaming material that shows women as helpless, powerless, frivolous, foolish or ineffective sex objects while men are well equipped adventurers.

It does get to looking a little silly and juvenile if you put giant bewbs on every other monster in the bestiary just because, OMGboobies. But if it's not done excessively enough for that trope to get old, it's not a problem to show in the art if you can justify why it's there in a worldbuilding context. Also keep in mind that it's going to make exactly as much sense to paste giant wangs on other critters that don't normally have such anatomy, so quite reasonably those ought to be expected as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you deign to continue (or start) reading, Gorgoroth:

Sanitizing art to avoid offending people is morally no different than burning books.

1) it isn't "sanitizing" art to avoid offending people when the art in question is being commissioned for the purpose of selling a product. That is called "buying art that is suitable for the desired purpose." Said purpose is related to selling a product by helping visualize worlds in which monsters & magic exists. If you want, I can teach you an actual graduate level course on the subject- it IS my field. (It will cost you a few hundred for materials and my time, but...)

2) The science isn't creepy, your misinterpretations- pointed out by someone who knows the studies quite well- are what is creepy.

I don't call it censorship when mods step in and assert their own opinions are more valid than mine...

Nobody did that. What the moderators DID say is that you are arguing against positions that nobody in the thread has posited. You are not debating, you are engaged in rhetorical shadowboxing.

What I won't buy is gaming material that shows women as helpless, powerless, frivolous, foolish or ineffective sex objects while men are well equipped adventurers.

Hear, hear!

 

[Mike Eagling]

Sanitizing art to avoid offending people is morally no different than burning books.

Morrus, this will be my last post here, but I will post the article I came across since apparently some of you think it's creepy that some of us, you know, read.

People referring to a scientific study as "creepy" says more about them, that I. It's certainly pointless for me to continue debating this, for one, it's not my field (nor any of yours' obviously, considering how blithely ignorant of the topic you all are), and I don't call it censorship when mods step in and assert their own opinions are more valid than mine, I call it water cooler bullying, which is, to answer your question, why I ignore it.

You are not the boss of me. Delete this account, thanks. I won't make a new one.

Point. Missed.

 

[Mike Eagling]

What I won't buy is gaming material that shows women as helpless, powerless, frivolous, foolish or ineffective sex objects while men are well equipped adventurers.

Depicting a woman this way isn't necessarily bad but depicting all of them that way is, frankly, archaic.

Obviously, the opposite is also true: depicting all men as ubermensch heroes is equally ridiculous.

 

[Obryn]

Sanitizing art to avoid offending people is morally no different than burning books.

It's certainly pointless for me to continue debating this, for one, it's not my field (nor any of yours' obviously, considering how blithely ignorant of the topic you all are), and I don't call it censorship when mods step in and assert their own opinions are more valid than mine, I call it water cooler bullying, which is, to answer your question, why I ignore it.

You haven't considered a single argument in this thread. Not a single one. You're not responding to anyone's actual arguments, just strawmen of your own construction. You're going on tangents about female arousal (which isn't the point), art censorship (which isn't happening), how good naked people are (which they are, just not everywhere at all times), and speech censorship (which likewise isn't happening; disagreement is not censorship). It's been really, really bizarre - almost like performance art to show the true nature of message board posting, where you're not actually bothering to understand anything anyone else is saying and making 1,000-word posts responding to strawmen.

You are not the boss of me. Delete this account, thanks. I won't make a new one.

They don't delete accounts. I believe the standard response is, "make up some random text for your password in a notepad, then change your password to that, and close the notepad."

-O

 

[TanithT]

I will post the article I came across since apparently some of you think it's creepy that some of us, you know, read.

No, it's creepy when someone keeps talking to themselves and arguing vehemently against positions that nobody is actually taking.

The article to which you're referring is a pretty simplified summary of some fairly complex findings, none of which translate quite into what you're claiming. That's one of the problems with science; laypeople jump to conclusions way faster than tends to be justified by the parameters of an actual study. It makes scientists facepalm a lot.

If your argument is that women have strong sexual desires and want to be visually stimulated, that should actually be a huge point in favor of giving us a bigger share of the gaming porn. By this logic, we should see much more ding-doodle and much less jubbly in the artwork. And hot elfboys making out with each other. Yum.

As fun as this would be, I don't think that turning the core D&D rulebook into anyone's porn, yours or mine, is a brilliant idea, especially at the expense of character and game development. Leaving the basic rules marketable to all ages and orientations while allowing adults to have their own gaming supplements and fantasy porn of whatever adult flavor they want makes a lot more sense.

 

[Morrus]

I think this thread is done. Gorgoroth has decided to leave, and I see no benefit in folks piling on him in his absence. The thread seems to be pretty much over other than that, so I'll swing it shut and we can go back to talking about our games.