D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Lonely Tylenol]

Compare these two pictures:

Does the one on the left take anything away from the picture?

Does the one on the right add anything to the picture?

Depth. The perspective on the left is flattened by the lack of contrast.

Also, that looks like a photoshop. I can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few photoshops in my time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Uh, Steve?

In the Races Chapter, there's a picture that shows a female version of all the races in nothing but their bra and pants.

Yeah, the next page has men bare chested or in shirts, but that's not intented to tittilate.

What makes you think that the drawings of the females was intended to titillate? They're just sort of standing there, wearing more than the men are.

Or is any drawing of a partially clothed female intended to titillate? That seems like a double-standard, and a sexist one, to boot. The women up here in Canada won the right to go out in public bare-chested like any man. The argument against is that women's bodies are automatically sexualized regardless of the context, so any bare-chested woman is obscene. That argument was rejected, and rightly so.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It's funny; all this banter about how wrong the armor is, when that shield is just as useless. But of course people aren't really arguing about the realism of the armor anyway; it's merely window-dressing to argue puritanical attitudes towards the subtext of female sexuality.

Yeah, it's handy isn't it? There's so much wrong with the equipment on just about every character in D&D art, it's laughable. But we don't care because the equipment isn't there to be useful, but to act as props that support an image of cool, exciting adventure. However, when someone's got an axe to grind, they ignore the axes and go straight for the breastplates, if you know what I mean.

 

[Dacileva]

Saying it isn't is also an unproven assertion.

You assume it's sexual because of the audience it's catering to.
You assume the audience it's catering to because it's sexual.
Tautology, and unproven.

There. Mine's no longer unproven (I had thought the proof was self-evident, when I referred to your comment as a tautology).

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.

Because, of course, giants are proportionally just as similar in physical shape as humans, elves and half-elves, or as gnomes and halflings. Not to mention that people are expected to play PCs, rather than giants. The majority of focus will (and should) be on those elements that are likely to be most common in games.

There is sexualized female art in the D&D books.

There is sexualized female art in most art.

The PH race pictures are not indicative of this, except to a Victorian (who were pretty out-there deviant sexually anyway, as long as no one talked about it).

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I hope we see more top-heavy women in little to no clothing in 4E.

 

[Rechan]

Yes. It takes away the artist's conception.

It is the picture as it was originally inteded by the artist. Your question is illogical as it presuposes that the left one existed first.

... So?

"She's got huge hooters we can see" is an a Conception now?

It's funny; all this banter about how wrong the armor is, when that shield is just as useless. But of course people aren't really arguing about the realism of the armor anyway; it's merely window-dressing to argue puritanical attitudes towards the subtext of female sexuality.

1) How is the shield useless?

2) Um, apparently you havn't been paying attention to the argument. No one has said "No skin at all". You would be right it would be "Puritanical"* if the argument was no skin.

*Despite what you think, the Puritans actually were pro-sex. Pro-sex inside of marriage, but pro-sex. The word you are looking for is Victorian; the Victorians were so obsessed with covering things up, they put skirts on tables and chairs so that no one would see a Table leg, think of a Woman's leg, and then rape someone.

 

[Rechan]

You assume it's sexual because of the audience it's catering to.
You assume the audience it's catering to because it's sexual.
Tautology, and unproven.

And you're assuming it's non-sexual. Your point?

Because, of course, giants are proportionally just as similar in physical shape as humans, elves and half-elves, or as gnomes and halflings.

Did you look at the picture? The difference in Giant sizes was practically the difference between Human, Dwarf and Half-orc.

Not to mention that people are expected to play PCs, rather than giants. The majority of focus will (and should) be on those elements that are likely to be most common in games.

Which is imparitive that they see the bare chests.

The PH race pictures are not indicative of this, except to a Victorian (who were pretty out-there deviant sexually anyway, as long as no one talked about it).

I disagree, but okay.

 

[Rechan]

What makes you think that the drawings of the females was intended to titillate? They're just sort of standing there, wearing more than the men are.

Emphasis mine.

The men are wearing more than the women.

The human and half-elf has full shirts on. The Dwarf, Elf, Gnome and Halfling have full vests; the only bared skin are their arms. The Half-Orc is the only one who has a bare chest.

So, explain why the women are wearing less clothes than the men, if both pictures are intended to be even?

 

[Mad Mac]

Emphasis mine.

The men are wearing more than the women.

The human and half-elf has full shirts on. The Dwarf, Elf, Gnome and Halfling have full vests; the only bared skin are their arms. The Half-Orc is the only one who has a bare chest.

So, explain why the women are wearing less clothes than the men, if both pictures are intended to be even?

I don't mean to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment here. You're not helping your arguement by picking really bad examples to stake a position on. The thing with the races sketch in the PHB, is that it's just not sexy. As a guy, it's really easy to say that something isn't titilating, when frankly, it just isn't titilating. If that is (And I'm pretty sure it isn't) what Wizards was going for in that picture, than the art director did a terrible job of it. Nobody is ogling the Half-Orc gal in the metal bikini, believe me. Or even the Gnome with the poofy pant things or whatever.

To accept your hypothesis, we guys have to believe Wizards were trying to sex it up in this pic but were crippled by a dire shortage of artists who are good at making half-dressed women look sexy. This is rather hard to accept.

Also, the left/right PHB covers. I don't have a problem with the armor design on the left, but the picture on the right is instantly more eye-catching, mostly as a result of the greater color contrast. And eye-catching is the point of cover art, in the end. If it gets someone to stop and pick up the book, it's served it's purpose.

And one last thing. The least dressed Iconic in 3rd edition was Mialee. Also not sexy. She looks like a alien grasshopper. Sexiest iconic (imo) is Lidda, and she's almost always fully dressed. Vadania comes close though.

 

[Rechan]

I don't mean to butt in, but I feel compelled to comment here. You're not helping your arguement by picking really bad examples to stake a position on. The thing with the races sketch in the PHB, is that it's just not sexy. As a guy, it's really easy to say that something isn't titilating, when frankly, it just isn't titilating.

But my question is: if it isn't meant to titilate, then why are the men More dressed than the women? Men can get away with being shirtless; so why aren't they?

I'm aware that the pictures aren't attractive. But it's an example of a double standard. Even in a picture not attempting to be eye candy, they're still showing comparatively more skin. It illustrates a mindset.