D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Rechan]

Why, then, the assumption that the female version is? I find that assumption easily as sexist as a theoretical (and not demonstrated) inclusion of tons of cheesecake and no beefcake would be.

Because of the audience the game is trying to appeal to?

There was little reason to present them in their skivvies.

 

[Arkhandus]

I don't see how nudity is not kid friendly, any more then crushing skulls is.

anyway, i hope you didn't take any of my as posts snarky.

Violence is a natural part of life from the get-go. Kids get into fights, as do adults. Minor violence is not abnormal for children, and not abnormal for them to be exposed to (action cartoons, for example).

Sexuality is purely an adult matter. Children have no natural tendencies regarding the subject until they've matured physically into adults. And children should not be exposed to it while still in their childhood. Doing otherwise would only have repugnant consequences, and no positive consequences. Whereas teaching children martial arts, for example, allows them to defend themselves but does not necessarily make them dangerously violent.

About as rational and objective an explanation I can come up with. In a less rational sense, it's just a matter of politics, religion, and changes in society. Which aren't really topics for EN World.

 

[Hairfoot]

Sexuality is purely an adult matter.

Nudity is not explicitly sexual - something Europeans seem to have grasped, but eludes us the English-speaking world. But, as you say, not a topic for ENworld.

 

[Snapdragyn]

There was little reason to present them in their skivvies.

Of course there is - to show the physical differences between the sexes of the different species, as opposed to the clothing differences.

Nudity does not equal sexuality. The (in the RW human) body is natural, & showing it in an appropriate non-sexual manner does no harm to children - unless you'd care to take the highly Eurocentric (heck, Anglocentric) stance that cultures where nudity is frequent are damaging their children. Should we ban biology textbooks now in order to save children from the 'titillation' of science?

Seriously, the extreme prudery of this particular example has completely destroyed any empathy I once had for this debate. Bring on the flesh (male especially, plz), I'm done.

 

[Dacileva]

Because of the audience the game is trying to appeal to?

That's a tautology, not to mention an unproven assertion.

There was little reason to present them in their skivvies.

Other than, perhaps, what I said in the very next paragraph after what you quoted:

The races pictures are wearing the minimal clothing for modesty specifically to demonstrate physical differences between average members of the races. The female outfits in those pictures struck me more like bathing suits or athletic exercise outfits than like bras.

 

[Rechan]

That's a tautology, not to mention an unproven assertion.

Saying it isn't is also an unproven assertion.

Other than, perhaps, what I said in the very next paragraph after what you quoted:

Because it's impossible to discern the difference between a gnome and a human unless they're shirtless or in bras, right?

We manage to figure out how these giants differ physically without needing them in swimsuits.

 

[Wik]

Violence is a natural part of life from the get-go. Kids get into fights, as do adults. Minor violence is not abnormal for children, and not abnormal for them to be exposed to (action cartoons, for example).

Sexuality is purely an adult matter. Children have no natural tendencies regarding the subject until they've matured physically into adults. And children should not be exposed to it while still in their childhood. Doing otherwise would only have repugnant consequences, and no positive consequences. Whereas teaching children martial arts, for example, allows them to defend themselves but does not necessarily make them dangerously violent.

About as rational and objective an explanation I can come up with. In a less rational sense, it's just a matter of politics, religion, and changes in society. Which aren't really topics for EN World.

Whoa. What?

I'm in an anthropology class, and I think pretty much everyone in the class, and any anthropology, would clearly state that sexuality is clearly *NOT* an adult matter. What you are describing, by the way, is a purely western attitude towards sexuality.

Children have no natural tendencies regarding the subject until they've matured physically into adults

Really? In our own culture, where there are "dirty feeligns" towards sexuality in general, children still engage in sex games. We're talking "playing doctor" and all that. Odds are you've done it - most people have as kids, though we're embarrassed to speak about it. Kissing games behind the bushes, or whatever else. Kids do it.

In other cultures, this becomes much more overt. There can be a lot of latent sexuality in children. These tendencies are learned from observation, true - but then again, so is violence. So I don't get that.

And children should not be exposed to it while still in their childhood.

I don't mean to sound rude, and I apologise if I do, but a comment like that smacks of someone getting up on a soapbox and proselytizing.

that's your opinion, and I can understand it (and partially agree to it, even), but understand that it's not universal to humanity. Hell, it's not even universally applied to North America. That doesn't mean I condone eight-year olds having sex - that's not the point. But "sex" and "sexuality" are two different things.

And, realistically speaking, we sexualize our children before they even speak. That's why you give pink balloons when a girl is born, and blue balloons when a boy is born. It's why Junior has a toy truck, while Daddy's little girl gets a pink bow. And it's why little girls start wearing make-up, or going clothes-shopping, or wearing tiny little dresses, at a very young age. And that's not an inherently bad thing (just like, as you said, teaching martial arts isnt' inherently bad).

Doing otherwise would only have repugnant consequences, and no positive consequences.

Again, no. In the !Kung tribe (and many other hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Semai), for example, children learn sex games, and play sex games, amongst themselves, starting even before the age of six. They "have sex" (play at having sex) before they're ten. Are there any repugnant consequences? Not really.

Positive consequences?

For starters, there's no "shame" associated with entering adulthood (especially for girls) and there's no sexual mores attached to behaviour. Sex is just another part of being an adult, and that's how they view it. It's no different then when you mimic your parents by having a job, or cooking dinner, or anything else.

It also makes things like your wedding night a lot less stressful. And it's been shown to improve confidence of children all around.

I think that you're getting "sexuality" and "sex" confused. Children having actual "sex" is probably a bad thing, no doubt (especially if it's an adult doing it to them). But realize that all children are sexualized, and that it's not inherently a bad thing.

Sorry for singling you out, there, but I'm an anthropology major, and "This is the way it is" comments really tick me off.

If you're looking for some interesting comments on the matter, check out Marjorie Shostak's Nisa for a lot of talk about sexualization of children (and it's positive and negative effects). Robert Knox Dentan's The Semai: A nonviolent people of Malaya also has quite a bit of information on sex play among children, that are even more overt than that found in the !Kung (but are less detailed in the actual book).

 

[Clavis]

For real fun, you'd make it with four different covers:

Cover one - "Realistic" 2E-style, with sensible, "historically accurate" (hah) armour and weapons, and everyone looking very sensible and prepared, non-action poses.

Cover two - Dungeonpunk bondage armour, more scrollcases, wands and extra daggers than you can shake a portable hole at, and characters in "action" poses.

Cover three - "Shrieking anime" characters and style. No-one looks a day over sixteen, eyes are big, mouths small, swords giant, etc.

Cover four - Conan and his babes. Maybe Conan's on a throne looking sternly at us, or maybe he's fighting some monster and the babes are hiding behind him, or posing seductively, or fighting him in skimpy armour, or something.

Cover four would be my choice. Sword & Sorcery all the way!

And I don't think it would have any effect either way on the amount of females who purchase PHBs. IMHO women are neither turned on or off by sexy fantasy art. If they don't play D&D its for reasons other than the art, such as the overly complex rules, and bad social reputation of its players.

So bring back the sexy! (But not Justin Timberlake.)

 

[Av3rnus]

Cover four would be my choice. Sword & Sorcery all the way!

And I don't think it would have any effect either way on the amount of females who purchase PHBs. IMHO women are neither turned on or off by sexy fantasy art. If they don't play D&D its for reasons other than the art, such as the overly complex rules, and bad social reputation of its players.

So bring back the sexy! (But not Justin Timberlake.)

Well, it occurs to me that perhaps ogling the scantily-clad babe illustrated on a book cover might contribute a little to that "bad social reputation".

Not that I don't appreciate good fantasy cheesecake, mind you, but my desire to look at half-naked girls need not assert itself all the time. A bit here and there is okay, but too much art like that on the products is bound to cast some negative aspersions on the guys who buy it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

...

All good things in moderation, as they say.