What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Justice and Rule]

Kinda my point.
The poster they are responding to made the comparison. Why not deconstruct it to explain why it was wrong? Assuming they understood the other viewpoint, when they made the comparison to begin with, would seem to indicate they do not.

Your point is bad because the comparison is obvious and really shouldn't need to be addressed, in the same way I shouldn't have to address how the sun and my fridge light are not the same. It's just not a good point and, roughly speaking, shouldn't really need to be addressed as much as the other person expand on it in a meaningful and useful manner to show why it matters.

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Perhaps because in order to be queer content, it has to allow for expressing sexuality. If you don't express sexuality then it is assumed everyone is straight, in an oddly fantasy asexual world.

I think you basically answer your own question: to express their queerness, you kind of have to express and explore their sexuality. That's part of the point of it, to be able to be comfortable doing those sorts of things when they might be in a place where they normally can't.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think you basically answer your own question: to express their queerness, you kind of have to express and explore their sexuality. That's part of the point of it, to be able to be comfortable doing those sorts of things when they might be in a place where they normally can't.

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

Is the problem because it's a heterosexual relationship, or it's because it's being done largely to the benefit of the male side and less so to the female? I mean, are people getting angry about a heterosexual romance game that I'm unaware of?

 

[Faolyn]

Evoking an emotional response, challenging a held notion, confronting you with something uncomfortable, etc,
Art doing as art does in general.

Better response would be to point out the differences and why it is a poor comparison for this instance. Especially since the other poster feels they are not different enough to justify that point.

Differences? Different levels of immersiveness, different audiences, different purpose, different forms of media...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The article you post really isn't about "sexy art", though. The examples they mention can be sexy, but largely speaking it's about the sexlessness of things, that there just isn't sex in mainstream movies anymore when it used to be incredibly prevalent. I think the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese as great examples being used: they aren't in skimpy outfits, but the act of having sex helps humanize them and help make them feel like relatable adults. That's why Marvel films feel so weird: no one seemingly entertains romance, no one feels sexy despite being beautiful. But to do these things, you don't need what people are referring to as "erotic art" necessarily, and erotic art won't necessarily do it right, either.

And I think that also something that is a bit different between RPGs and movies: you're much more deeply involved in an RPG than you are as a spectator in a movie. Watching someone have in a movie make love is very different than trying to have romantic scenarios at the tabletop. The interaction makes things different for the player, and definitely for women who actually want to play the game.



That is so generalized as to be almost useless. Just about anything, including things that we wouldn't consider art, can do that.



I mean, is it not obvious that music videos are far more controlled and thus really not comparable to interactive fiction that involves people i.e. watching is very different from doing? I feel like this doesn't really need to be spelled out to be immediately understood.

I think the difference if opinion is more about how some people here consider the interactive element of RPGs to have far more or less weight than other people here. That difference is the basis for a forest of disagreements.

 

[Faolyn]

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Perhaps because in order to be queer content, it has to allow for expressing sexuality. If you don't express sexuality then it is assumed everyone is straight, in an oddly fantasy asexual world.

Horny bards are "bad" inasmuch as the bard's player is often disruptive to the game in one form or another, whether it's demanding to seduce the dragon, going into too much detail about their sex lives, using force/enchantment magic, or playing that trope out of "it's what my character would do" laziness.

I don't think anyone has said that the straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid is inherently a bad thing.

Personally, I find Monster Hearts to be incredibly creepy, since I'm an adult who would be expected to RP (even in a completely fade-to-black manner) a teenager's sex life.

Thirsty Sword Lesbians is about romance more than sex (it doesn't have a sex move, unlike some PbtA games), and is very much about consent as well.

I don't think RPGs are "oddly asexual." I think it's a mix of sex/romance not usually being part of the plot, and thus boring to people who prefer to go forth and slay monsters; people not wanting to RP romance (often awkwardly) with their friends because they find it weird; and people being weirded out by having to watch other people awkwardly RPing a romance.

I had an in-game romance with another PC ages ago that for some reason really bothered some other people at the table, even though our romance consisted of things like the GM asking what we were going to do in town and my partner and I saying "we go for a nice dinner" and never discussed anything more physical (either in the game or outside of it) than holding hands. I could never tell if it was because the other player and I were both women (although she had a male PC) or if it was we were both playing orcs.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think the difference if opinion is more about how some people here consider the interactive element of RPGs to have far more or less weight than other people here. That difference is the basis for a forest of disagreements.

I mean, I feel like any argument from the status quo regardless of "interactivity" is going to see less harm in things compared to one that wants to change it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I feel like any argument from the status quo regardless of "interactivity" is going to see less harm in things compared to one that wants to change it.

Can't argue that, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't think RPGs are "oddly asexual." I think it's a mix of sex/romance not usually being part of the plot, and thus boring to people who prefer to go forth and slay monsters; people not wanting to RP romance (often awkwardly) with their friends because they find it weird; and people being weirded out by having to watch other people awkwardly RPing a romance.

I had an in-game romance with another PC ages ago that for some reason really bothered some other people at the table, even though our romance consisted of things like the GM asking what we were going to do in town and my partner and I saying "we go for a nice dinner" and never discussed anything more physical (either in the game or outside of it) than holding hands. I could never tell if it was because the other player and I were both women (although she had a male PC) or if it was we were both playing orcs.

I mean, it feels especially weird given that the biggest RPG stream right now (Critical Role) has basically had romances as character focal points and haven't at all shied away from that stuff at all. No one is complaining about heterosexual romances in that.

Can't argue that, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I mean, I think it means it's not really as relevant as you think.

 

[Faolyn]

Okay then perhaps my question should be why does it seem more of a problem when it is heterosexual relationships expressed in RPGs?

The problem isn't heterosexual relationships. The problem is putting out fanservice art.

There was, apparently, an erotic adventure yanked from, or heavily censored on, DM's Guild, despite having art (geared for gay men) that wasn't really worse than art produced in WotC's own 3x books--which were of the "sexy babe for male eyes" variety.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Oddly perhaps, queer RPGs are one of the places people seem fine with sexual content in an RPG. Thirsty Sword Lesbians fine, Horny Bards bad. Monsterhearts, good; straight fighter hooking up with the barmaid, bad.

Perhaps because in order to be queer content, it has to allow for expressing sexuality. If you don't express sexuality then it is assumed everyone is straight, in an oddly fantasy asexual world.

That is true, but it's not good thing, including not for queer people.

And it's worth noting there are even some LGBTQ+/queer people, largely in that "22-y/o minor" category who kind of want to try and make it so even queer RPGs and the like don't allow any expression of sexuality beyond, like maybe stating your orientation on the character sheet, which is kind of wild.

I do see some of the factors that have lead here - not least the fact that it's very easy for stuff to be creepy or cringe, and indeed, a ton of "RPG Horror Stories" involve precisely that kind of expression of sexuality - and many tables just don't have much of it, or even none - so there hasn't been much resistance to it gradually being pushed out (though I feel like stuff like Apocalypse World and so on does resist it - but that's 10+ years old at this point). And we all love to mock ol' Ed Greenwood and his kind of '70s free love take on the FR, because it's pretty funny, but at the same time I respect him for actually acknowledging that these are humans, not some strange sexless beings.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah and unfortunately it's coming at art from both sides of the political spectrum. On one side, it's being used as a tool to try and relitigate the LGBTQ+ debate (which was basically over, for the most part)

Boy, if only that were actually true

 

[Irlo]

How is this different from sitting down at a table of strangers to play a heist scenario that you didn't write and are told to run/play if you want to participate? If you don't like something, you aren't going to want to have to play it.

This might help explain the depth of difference between personal preferences in types of gaming and the unwelcoming message sent by the inclusion of slavery in gaming materials.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The article you post really isn't about "sexy art", though. The examples they mention can be sexy, but largely speaking it's about the sexlessness of things, that there just isn't sex in mainstream movies anymore when it used to be incredibly prevalent. I think the example of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese as great examples being used: they aren't in skimpy outfits, but the act of having sex helps humanize them and help make them feel like relatable adults. That's why Marvel films feel so weird: no one seemingly entertains romance, no one feels sexy despite being beautiful. But to do these things, you don't need what people are referring to as "erotic art" necessarily, and erotic art won't necessarily do it right, either.

And I think that also something that is a bit different between RPGs and movies: you're much more deeply involved in an RPG than you are as a spectator in a movie. Watching someone have in a movie make love is very different than trying to have romantic scenarios at the tabletop. The interaction makes things different for the player, and definitely for women who actually want to play the game.

I feel like you're really working extremely hard here to try and make a differentiation to rationalize your own personal biases, rather than making a genuine argument.

"Sexy art" doesn't mean actively erotic art, i.e. pornography or the borderline of it, either - the sexlessness absolutely is entering into fantasy art in the West, and indeed it's been an increasing part of things for a decade, easy, maybe two. You have a lot of people who are beautiful, but they're making a huge effort not to be hot. God forbid anyone be hot. But you trying to isolate this as "erotic art" is representative of the problem. It's a continuum, a spectrum, not an either/or situation.

And the deeply involved thing is 100% irrelevant to this argument re: art, not sure why you're even bringing it up except to try and move on from a debate where your position doesn't make much sense.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Boy, if only that were actually true

I get what you're saying, but it was so much closer to being shut down like, 8 years ago, than it is now. In the UK, which admittedly used to be more advanced than the US on this kind of thing (and still is on the LGB side of things, just not the TQ+ anymore, entirely thanks to JK Rowling in the UK), it was almost entirely shut down. Even 4 years ago it was a hell of a lot quieter, and things were just improving in literally most places in the West, including the US and UK. There was still progress to be made but pushback was getting weaker and weaker. That started to change with some drastic changes in tactics and funding approaches from literally billionaire bigots (and I'm not even talking about JKR there though if the shoe fits), but that's a whole other discussion.

 

[Scribe]

That is true, but it's not good thing, including not for queer people.

And it's worth noting there are even some LGBTQ+/queer people, largely in that "22-y/o minor" category who kind of want to try and make it so even queer RPGs and the like don't allow any expression of sexuality beyond, like maybe stating your orientation on the character sheet, which is kind of wild.

I do see some of the factors that have lead here - not least the fact that it's very easy for stuff to be creepy or cringe, and indeed, a ton of "RPG Horror Stories" involve precisely that kind of expression of sexuality - and many tables just don't have much of it, or even none - so there hasn't been much resistance to it gradually being pushed out (though I feel like stuff like Apocalypse World and so on does resist it - but that's 10+ years old at this point). And we all love to mock ol' Ed Greenwood and his kind of '70s free love take on the FR, because it's pretty funny, but at the same time I respect him for actually acknowledging that these are humans, not some strange sexless beings.

The weird thing, is nobody is asking for books to be crammed to the brim with innuendo, lewd art, or anything of the like. One of the few people I have blocked here cannot seem to help himself from posting that stuff and it IS largely inappropriate.

However that is not what is being asked or looked for, not in the slightest.

What is being stated is "Maybe what you think is a fact, isnt remotely the case, and actually Conan is fine, and so would a female Conan be fine."

Instead we get mental gymnastics, statements of opinion as objective fact, and denial of a shift that is weirdly familiar to a moral panic, over an art direction that is nearly dead amongst multiple other points of discussion, and certainly is dead when one looks at the gorilla in the room that is Wizards. Which is the equivalent of Disney, and turning "Action Hero's into Action Figures." to paraphrase the article linked is exactly what they are doing to RPGs.

Its just such a weird time, when we have all these different forces/views/groups all pulling and pushing with or against the tide, sometimes in conflict, sometimes agreeing, but seemingly unwilling, or unable, to actually step back and see the forest for the trees and they call it progress.

Going to be wild when the wheel turns.

 

[Hussar]

But if the final image is similar can not the viewer, see what they want to see in it.

A straight man viewing Beyonce sees a sexual woman, a woman seeing a picture seeing like the midriff exposed Pathfinder sorcerers sees a fierce, idealised fantasy heroine.

However, while taking two things in isolation may make them seem similar, there is a bigger picture.

When ALL the sexy pictures are 100% semi-naked women and all directed at men, there’s a problem. For every Beyoncé there is an Ed Sheeran.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Going to be wild when the wheel turns.

Yes, and it will turn. Younger Millennials and Gen Z will probably have kids who absolutely loathe the sexless, plastic-y, MCU Funko Pop world their parents and various corporations trying to play it super-safe created. Older Millennials who already loathe that stuff will become crotchety but witty elders about it.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, and it will turn. Younger Millennials and Gen Z will probably have kids who absolutely loathe the sexless, plastic-y, MCU Funko Pop world their parents and various corporations trying to play it super-safe created. Older Millennials who already loathe that stuff will become crotchety but witty elders about it.

Thats actually it. The Action Heros (think of McClane walking on glass in Die Hard, how human he looked and must have felt) vs the absolute sexless plastic, false version of Action Figures we get now. Thats exactly it. Everything is safe, bubble wrapped, fake, plastic, and unquestionably less 'human'.

Its the uncanny valley thing I think for me at this point, and its already happened.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, while taking two things in isolation may make them seem similar, there is a bigger picture.

When ALL the sexy pictures are 100% semi-naked women and all directed at men, there’s a problem. For every Beyoncé there is an Ed Sheeran.

100% agree.

This is part of what the original desexualization of art, films, TV and so on was trying to address - but instead of making so everyone had hot people, anyone could be sexy and so on, they made it so no-one did, and no-one was (except in a sort of repressed way), because that played better with certain groups, and didn't, at that time, create any red flags for more open-minded groups (well, it did for me, but I like Egon Schiele so what do I know? I'm taking the piss out of myself here, not suggesting we have Schiele-style art in RPGs btw lol).

My position is, if an RPG is mostly aimed at adults, and aims to present a corporeal rather than ethereal world, there should probably be room for "sexy" (though not necessarily "erotic") art. Be room is not the same as requiring, to be clear. There will times and places when that doesn't make sense, and times when it super does, but just generally making everything sexless and making everyone look like they're clean and perfect and have never smelled a day in their life and so on is a bit... pathetic. Corporate. Banal.