Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="redrick" data-source="post: 6587135" data-attributes="member: 6777696">Sorry, talking about &quot;male gaze&quot; is maybe a bit of a short-hand, at it leads to conversations like this.Criticizing the &quot;male gaze&quot; in art isn't actually about saying men &quot;gaze&quot; more than women do. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know. It's saying that, overwhelmingly, popular media tends to satisfying the straight male gaze and not the female gaze. Are their beefcake men in fantasy art? On television? On billboards? Absolutely. But there are also lots of men who are decidedly not beefcakey. On the other hand, the representations of women tend to be very limited to women who would visually please straight white men. Or even titillate them. We see all sorts of fantasy art featuring corpulent old men, or even just somewhat plain men, or ruggedly ugly men, or toothless men, or what have you. The only images we see of decidedly unattractive women in our fantasy art (even 5e) are of monsters. What did one of the players say at my table one time? &quot;Ugly bitches die.&quot;So I'm certainly not objecting to images of attractive women in fantasy art. I'm not objecting to images of women wearing the equivalent of friday-night garb. But I am objecting to the dominance of those images, because they help to reinforce the idea that, &quot;these images are here for us.&quot; (And us ain't you.)I use a lot of art for my game. I have a strict no-cheesecake rule when it comes to material that I show to the players. If one of the women playing in our group wanted to use a scantily-clad image for her character portrait, on the other hand, that would be totally fine. It's up to her. For myself, I just don't want to be imposing this standard on the game — women will always be sexy and dressed to show that off.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="redrick, post: 6587135, member: 6777696"] Sorry, talking about "male gaze" is maybe a bit of a short-hand, at it leads to conversations like this. Criticizing the "male gaze" in art isn't actually about saying men "gaze" more than women do. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know. It's saying that, overwhelmingly, popular media tends to satisfying the straight male gaze and not the female gaze. Are their beefcake men in fantasy art? On television? On billboards? Absolutely. But there are also lots of men who are decidedly not beefcakey. On the other hand, the representations of women tend to be very limited to women who would visually please straight white men. Or even titillate them. We see all sorts of fantasy art featuring corpulent old men, or even just somewhat plain men, or ruggedly ugly men, or toothless men, or what have you. The only images we see of decidedly unattractive women in our fantasy art (even 5e) are of monsters. What did one of the players say at my table one time? "Ugly bitches die." So I'm certainly not objecting to images of attractive women in fantasy art. I'm not objecting to images of women wearing the equivalent of friday-night garb. But I am objecting to the dominance of those images, because they help to reinforce the idea that, "these images are here [I]for us.[/I]" (And us ain't you.) I use a lot of art for my game. I have a strict no-cheesecake rule when it comes to material that [I]I[/I] show to the players. If one of the women playing in our group wanted to use a scantily-clad image for her character portrait, on the other hand, that would be totally fine. It's up to her. For myself, I just don't want to be imposing this standard on the game — women will always be sexy and dressed to show that off. [/QUOTE]

Verification