LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!

[Mono Vertigo]

I suppose "People can't just grow penises and vaginas all willy-nilly, that's science fiction or magical thinking" would be unprofessional conduct,

Since I can't see myself asking my superior if it would be okay, it probably is.
Also, it's... a lot more complicated than that (see: all trans people who undergo bottom surgery), so I'm not going to dismiss it outright as science fiction (that'd be like dismissing a kid for thinking fish can drown in water, when that's actually technically true), but I'm not going to give more details as to how it's supposed to happen either.

and a simple "it's no one's business what's in someone else's pants," would lead to further unpleasantness?

That's actually what I'd like to reply, but I'd also like to explain why it's wrong to speculate about somebody else's genitals, else it's not likely to stick as a lesson.

I'd suggest you look at whether this silly pre-teen speak might do any harm to the person they were talking about; only you can tell, from the tone of the conversation, and what was actually said. If that's the case, you might want to just report the existence of the rumor to the school headmaster?

And if you hear this again, I would simply go "hey, this is a very personal and private thing, I'm sure you guys wouldn't like people to talk about you like that, right?" In any case I would stay away from discussing the science and the specifics.

Definitely keeping an eye (well, ear) on this speculation and those specific girls, yeah, because it has the potential to seriously suck for the victim. If it turns out to be a rumour that's spreading around, I will indeed report it to my superior.

That's a simple but good one, yeah, I'll remember this.

[golentan]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

[SiuiS]

Is it relatively common for a couple comprised of bisexual women or a bisexual woman and a lesbian to refer to their relationship as a lesbian one or is that the sort of thing that's subtly signalling that a woman or women who previously identified as bisexual now identifies as lesbian instead?

Would it be rude to ask such for clarification, if they had previously identified themselves as bisexual to one's self but now at least seem to be potentially identifying as lesbian?

A lot of people who don't want to get into the social aspects beyond "this is me, the end" default to prescriptive language. If two women are having sex, that's lesbian sex, the common knowledge goes, regardless of whether those women are lesbians, because that's what lesbain sex is – sex between two women.

Whether that's accurate or not, it's widespread. It is also immediately understandable, and people in situations that will be judged often default to language that the audience will understand over language that's precisely correct. It's embarrassing when the audience turns out to be more intelligent or aware or educated than expected, but the lowest common denominator is frequently appealed to just because giving it your all every time all the time is exhausting.

I do think asking would be rude unless you have a deep enough rapport that they would excuse such a thing.

Where did you come across that term?

Think it's been covered, but I do believe it's just BLake+shEILA or SHeila+blAKE.

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

I do not think objectification is necessarily better than when done by the same sex, because sex doesn't speak of mindset. Objectification is, in the usual sense, done by those who are attracted to the sex of the person.

I do not think objectification is always bad though, because a certain amount of abstraction is just a necessary component of the human mind. As long as one is aware that it's an objectification and not the true way of things, it's acceptable.

Edge cases of course can change the flow of that.

[Lanaya]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

I do object to it less emotionally, but I don't see any good rational reason for that. I guess it's similar to the idea that members of a group are allowed to make discriminatory jokes about that group, or use slurs that are generally targeted at themselves, but when someone outside the group does the same it's not okay. But it's still probably an irrational emotional reaction on my part.

[Coidzor]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

Spoiler: Probably an irrelevant perspective, but, y'know

Show

I think ti's mostly just that it's "better," in the sense that it's not quite as bad due to lacking a whole lot of the physical violence risk/fear of violence when it's objectification by women as opposed to objectification by men.

Granted, my only experiences with objectification have been when either I deliberately was performing in a sexual manner, which is a bit different because it becomes more of a game that everyone is playing along with for the most part, or when I've been catcalled, mostly when I was younger and didn't have a beard.

It's a lot more unpleasant to get catcalled by grown men when one is a 14 year old boy* than to be catcalled by older women, especially considering the women only did it when they were silly drunk for the most part, which has a whole lot of other factors bound up into it, such as that socialization is that men become more dangerous when drunk whereas women become less dangerous and actively are vulnerable, because of rape culture.

As a man, women don't really register as threats to me, but I know that men do register as threats to women, so I can definitely see how it's considered safer and "better" when women objectify one another, though that doesn't make it so that such behavior is automatically not problematical, either. And some men still register as threats to me, even laying aside sexuality, and I know that I register as a threat on some level to other men just going by things like facial hair and stature. So being objectified by a man who was over 6'4" and built like a brick **** house(I believe that's the expression I'm looking for here) would make me much more uncomfortable than being objectified, even by a woman who was about my size or larger without going into gigantism** territory

Not really sure what I could say more to help in terms of putting together a general rule though, given that I generally am on the side of the equation where I have to refrain from objectifying women rather than figuring out how to negotiate being objectified or to take control of it back so that it's no longer objectification but that other thing, owned sexuality or whatever the proper term is. ...What is the proper term?

*This comes up a surprising amount of the time. I hope I haven't started sounding like a broken record about it or anything. If I have, I apologize. I may have to examine if it's given me any lingering issues or if it's just because it's the only aspect of my experience that really allows a glimmer of understanding.

**Honestly not sure what I'd make of a woman with gigantism, honestly.

[Ifni]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

I feel like objectification is pretty much always a bad thing. (Note I am here defining objectification as viewing, treating or presenting another human being as an object, not a subject; something to be acted on, not a person with agency of their own. It's not the same as attraction or lust.) But I feel like it is worse when there's a gradient of power or privilege, with the person doing the objectifying in a higher position - whether that power/privilege gradient is adult > child, or man > woman, or cis > trans, or majority-racial-group > minority-racial-group, or billionaire > housekeeper, or teacher > student, or whatever. It's worse then because it's more likely to be part of a pattern (and that's harder to cope with than individual incidents), and the target is more likely to have no real recourse to stop it, and to feel unsafe about speaking up or otherwise resisting.

As an ace/aro woman with no discernible leanings toward either gender, I would much rather deal with a creepy leering lesbian woman than a creepy leering straight man. The latter is a relatively common hazard and has a not-negligible chance of becoming physically dangerous (and if it does get to that point or beyond there are not really any good options). The former is both much safer physically (even though I am short and skinny and a moderately tall+strong woman could probably beat me up just as easily as an average guy) and so rare that my reaction would more likely be a surprised, "Huh. That happened." rather than "Oh no, not again".

So... yeah, I guess I do think men objectifying women is somewhat worse than women objectifying women. I am not so sure about the other way around (men objectifying men vs women objectifying men), because I've never been male and in that position, and neither gay guys nor women are generically in a position of power/privilege relative to straight men (of course, factors like age/status may come into play), so I'll listen to Coidzor on that one.

[noparlpf]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

I think that on the individual level it's about the same, but within the context of our society, women objectifying women is nearly as bad as men objectifying women. And both are worse than anybody objectifying men. Just because the objectification of women by anybody is hugely institutionalised in our society.

[SiuiS]

I think that on the individual level it's about the same, but within the context of our society, women objectifying women is nearly as bad as men objectifying women. And both are worse than anybody objectifying men. Just because the objectification of women by anybody is hugely institutionalised in our society.

Ah, well put.

[Jormengand]

I think that on the individual level it's about the same, but within the context of our society, women objectifying women is nearly as bad as men objectifying women. And both are worse than anybody objectifying men. Just because the objectification of women by anybody is hugely institutionalised in our society.

You say that as though we all live in one society. Where I am, it's a lot more girls regarding boyfriends as status symbols rather than people, whereas talking to a guy, you almost never even hear about his girlfriend unless there's particular gossip regarding something she's done. When you do start talking about her, the conversation almost never approaches how attractive she is, and if he is singing her praises it's usually because she's a nice person.

Of course, this is largely because objectifying men is considered Totally Okay Because Sexism Against Men Isn't Real, but OTOH people have grokked that objectifying women is Bad, Children.

[Mina Kobold]

You say that as though we all live in one society. Where I am, it's a lot more girls regarding boyfriends as status symbols rather than people, whereas talking to a guy, you almost never even hear about his girlfriend unless there's particular gossip regarding something she's done. When you do start talking about her, the conversation almost never approaches how attractive she is, and if he is singing her praises it's usually because she's a nice person.

Of course, this is largely because objectifying men is considered Totally Okay Because Sexism Against Men Isn't Real, but OTOH people have grokked that objectifying women is Bad, Children.

Anecdotal evidence is not a good way to discern societal patterns, in my experience. I have heard far more men talk about how many women they have "done" than women talk about their boyfriends' appearances or as status symbols. I have also heard far too many men tell me that games have to have women with as large breasts and as few clothes as possible, because "sex sells" (notice that they assume all sex is about women being available to men, they claimed that men in g-strings would be completely different for unexplained reasons). Coupled with the fact that this:

Spoiler: Panel from Avengers Comic

Show

And this

Spoiler: Cover of Avengelyne Comic

Show

Are considered nothing out of the ordinary and are supposed to be women who are involved in supervillainy and superheroics, while this:

Spoiler: Ice Mage Beefcake Picture

Show

and this:

Spoiler: Similar

Show

Only exist as pictures to counter the mainstream images, I find it hard to believe that the culture around you is so completely different that men are objectified as a cultural thing while women are praised for their personalities and that the reason is that men are the true victims of sexism. Indeed, sexism harms everybody, including men, and in particular because men tend to be expected to do everything to never be anything like women (as evident by the amount of insults which amount to being compared to girls), but sexism is not an equal opportunity bigotry. Even if everybody around you did talk about boyfriends as status symbols (Which I find more reminiscent of the way finding a rich husband was considered the proper way for a woman to gain status than of objectification, personally), they are still going to be earning more money for the same work, be more likely to get promoted, be assumed to know more than any woman present, and are not going to be subjected to daily catcalling, not going to be shamed for not having sex or for having sex at all, will not be told their gender makes them unable to do "important" jobs and skills, and will not have to deal with the vast majority of media portraying them as the Other.

This doesn't mean treating a SO as a status symbol is not bad, and that it is not a good thing that the men around you don't evidently tend to treat women as sexual conquests without personalities. It just means that the fact that the cultural pattern and system is still there even if it does not cause everybody to act exactly alike and local fluctuations exist. We are not disputing that women can be objectifying of men, or that men can treat women as people, we are talking about the effect of historical influences and the general culture's influence on general power dynamics and patterns, and how that may mean that the straight women who do objectify their boyfriends don't have the same influence as the constant barrage of advertisements and norms that say that women are objects by default.

[Lissou]

Okay, got a weird question. Do people think that objectification is better if it's done by a member of the same sex?

I think objectification is bad when it's not consented (and a lot of fun when it is). However I think the difference are more about outside things such as the society we live in as we don't live in a vacuum. I think people of all genders would tend to be more nervous about being objectified by a stranger if that stranger is male, because that's more threatening, regardless of how welcome such objectification might be in some contexts (such as a relationship, and I include one-night stands in there).

[Zrak]

I have also heard far too many men tell me that games have to have women with as large breasts and as few clothes as possible, because "sex sells" (notice that they assume all sex is about women being available to men, they claimed that men in g-strings would be completely different for unexplained reasons).

Perhaps it's optimistic, but I'd guess the misrecognition here is not the idea that sex is inherently about women being available to men, but the idea that video games are a medium for straight males; sex sells and sexualized women thus sell to straight men. Obviously, this is its own problem, but it's nonetheless indicative of a considerably less horrifying worldview.

[Men are] not going to be shamed for not having sex

Are you serious?

[Marnath]

not going to be shamed for not having sex or for having sex at all,

As a 27 year old man who's never dated or anything, I can confirm that this part is really untrue. At least in my country. I only rarely have to deal with the topic because I keep to myself, but every single one of the rare times when I have had to mention having no interest in sex I've been judged for it. Every time. You should hear the accusatory tone in their voice when they ask "Why not? " I usually don't reply other than to raise an eyebrow and give them my best "are you stupid or something?" expression. I'm really good at that.

[Mina Kobold]

Perhaps it's optimistic, but I'd guess the misrecognition here is not the idea that sex is inherently about women being available to men, but the idea that video games are a medium for straight males; sex sells and sexualized women thus sell to straight men. Obviously, this is it's own problem, but it's nonetheless indicative of a considerably less horrifying worldview.

That was the intended implication, that they probably were aware that sex existed that was not centred on straight men, but that they thought only that kind was important for video games and anything else needing marketing. Apologies for the vagueness. The thing is, they neither demonstrated that sex sells (the few studies I've seen suggest it doesn't), that only straight men should be targeted by video games (which makes little sense since women are over 40% of players and enough are gay, bi, or pan to have organised events just within the USA), or that selling a woman as an accessory to look at would be sexually interesting enough for straight men to buy a product because of it. That was just how the world worked, and it was ridiculous to think otherwise.

That is somewhat less horrifying than expanding it to mean that all sex is necessarily about objectifying women, but it's not a lot better and it is very much still horrifying even if it could be worse.

As a 27 year old man who's never dated or anything, I can confirm that this part is really untrue. At least in my country. I only rarely have to deal with the topic because I keep to myself, but every single one of the rare times when I have had to mention having no interest in sex I've been judged for it. Every time. You should hear the accusatory tone in their voice when they ask "Why not? " I usually don't reply other than to raise an eyebrow and give them my best "are you stupid or something?" expression. I'm really good at that.

Apologies, that was a mistake. I was referring to the prude/sl*t dynamic that is usually aimed at women. With men, the general idea is either bafflement at why a man would not try to get sex or mockery of a man's inability to get sex, whereas the trend I was thinking of was the idea that woman who does not have sex with men is bad for not giving them sex (prude) and a woman who does have sex at all is considered dirty and "used". It's a Catch-22 for women, but it does indeed also get aimed at men if they don't try to stay within the cultural ideals of masculinity.

Sorry for missing that mistake. Men do indeed get shamed if they don't have sex, and I should have specified that men generally wouldn't get shamed for not giving sex to someone. ^_^'

[Marnath]

Apologies, that was a mistake. I was referring to the prude/sl*t dynamic that is usually aimed at women. With men, the general idea is either bafflement at why a man would not try to get sex or mockery of a man's inability to get sex, whereas the trend I was thinking of was the idea that woman who does not have sex with men is bad for not giving them sex (prude) and a woman who does have sex at all is considered dirty and "used". It's a Catch-22 for women, but it does indeed also get aimed at men if they don't try to stay within the cultural ideals of masculinity.

Sorry for missing that mistake. Men do indeed get shamed if they don't have sex, and I should have specified that men generally wouldn't get shamed for not giving sex to someone. ^_^'

I appreciate the clarification. :D

[Zrak]

That was the intended implication, that they probably were aware that sex existed that was not centred on straight men, but that they thought only that kind was important for video games and anything else needing marketing. Apologies for the vagueness. The thing is, they neither demonstrated that sex sells (the few studies I've seen suggest it doesn't), that only straight men should be targeted by video games (which makes little sense since women are over 40% of players and enough are gay, bi, or pan to have organised events just within the USA), or that selling a woman as an accessory to look at would be sexually interesting enough for straight men to buy a product because of it. That was just how the world worked, and it was ridiculous to think otherwise.

I guess it's important to make the distinction between whether they believe this or simply acknowledge that marketing departments seem to believe this. Because on the one hand, I think they're right about the basic reason women in video games (or comic books or beer commercials) are portrayed as they are; whether this reason is grounded in reality or not is independent from whether or not it is the reason for the portrayal. I think the nuance between recognizing the reasoning behind an unfortunate trend and accepting that reasoning is often lost in this type of conversation. In other words, I would agree that women are portrayed as they are in video games because "sex sells" without agreeing that sex — at least that kind of sex — actually sells.

I think what's more troublesome even than refusing to question whether or not sex sells, even with the troubling presumptions about male sexuality and entirely invented demographics that refusal entails, is the fact that they don't question the notion that whether or not something "sells" is more important than whether it is right or wrong. I mean, if somebody looked at the numbers and hypersexualized objectwomen really did move product, that doesn't suddenly make everything okay.

[Serpentine]

Oh hey, by the way, I asked Dr Mum about what someone would be like if they had no testosterone and oestrogen at all. Her answer was, from memory, "aside from dead, I'm not sure. It's complicated".
So yeah. Dead.

[Icewraith]

I guess it's important to make the distinction between whether they believe this or simply acknowledge that marketing departments seem to believe this. Because on the one hand, I think they're right about the basic reason women in video games (or comic books or beer commercials) are portrayed as they are; whether this reason is grounded in reality or not is independent from whether or not it is the reason for the portrayal. I think the nuance between recognizing the reasoning behind an unfortunate trend and accepting that reasoning is often lost in this type of conversation. In other words, I would agree that women are portrayed as they are in video games because "sex sells" without agreeing that sex — at least that kind of sex — actually sells.

I think what's more troublesome even than refusing to question whether or not sex sells, even with the troubling presumptions about male sexuality and entirely invented demographics that refusal entails, is the fact that they don't question the notion that whether or not something "sells" is more important than whether it is right or wrong. I mean, if somebody looked at the numbers and hypersexualized objectwomen really did move product, that doesn't suddenly make everything okay.

One slight complicating factor in the video games and especially comic book industry are the ins and outs of drawing.

Most of us are in daily contact with enough other humans that we have a good idea of what an attractive person looks like. There have been a few studies correlating symmetry and proportion of features with attractiveness in different societies (IIRC).

So, attractive people are actually more challenging to draw. To draw a less attractive person all you have to do is try to draw an attractive person and get something slightly off about the face or the body proportions. The skintight costumes are a consequence of the drawing process- first you draw the structure, then you draw the body, then you draw the clothes on top of the body. If you put a lot of work into the body, just to erase most of the detail and draw clothes on top of it, it feels like a lot of wasted effort. But if you don't go to those lengths, if you just draw the clothes without drawing the body first you will invariably mess it up. The skintight costume preserves most of the detail work in constructing an anatomically "correct" (I'm talking about the presence and connectivity of muscles and other major features here, not necessarily their size or the details of private bits) body and saves the artist a ton of time.

The other consequence of the drawing process is that every time you draw a character with clothes on, you basically draw them naked first. I don't know about everyone else, but if I had to spend most of my time drawing imaginary naked people and then putting clothes on them, my character designs would either swing towards extremely attractive (which is hard to actually draw right and therefore a sign of skill) or grotesque (which is fun, but can be a pain in the butt to have to draw repeatedly from different angles). Artists want their work to be distinct (so people can tell it's theirs) and they want people to actually like their work (so they can live off being an artist). Drawing lots of outright unattractive characters risks turning more people away, drawing lots of average looking characters makes it harder to be distinct from lower quality artists (who are trying to draw attractive characters and not succeeding as well) and real life (which is an art style unto itself).

One final point- on top of the other issues with drawing attractive and unattractive characters, an attractive character is an achievable goal. When you're learning to draw, if you try to draw an attractive character and it actually comes out attractive, you know you didn't screw it up. If you did screw it up, it's easier to pinpoint why. If you try to draw an average looking character, it's harder to tell where you screwed up unless you screwed up so bad it came out unattractive. If you try to draw an unattractive character you're trying to figure out degrees of deviation- did I make this or that feature off enough? Are the lips unattractive because I drew them badly (lips are hard) or because I drew them how they should be for this character?

So to make an analogy, attractive characters are like pole vaulting. There's a high bar you need to exceed in order to know you drew it right. With a less attractive character, the bar is set lower but there's another bar you're trying not to hit at the same time. With an ugly character, the bar is set even lower but you have an even narrower zone you're aiming for instead of a single bar. With a grotesque character you're doing the limbo, but you only have one bar to worry about again and the limbo can be fun. When it comes to art and character designs, people seem more impressed with and interested in the highest jumps and the lowest limbos, and artists strive to make the highest jumps and lowest limbos, so anything having to do with character design tends towards the extremes.

[Serpentine]

Two problems with that logic:
1. If true, it should apply just as much to male characters. Although there are cases where it does apply to them (old spandex superhero designs come to mind), it's far, far less common.
2. I've read about at least one place that pretty much solves the problem by just getting illustrators to colour spots in. That's it. Move a line, colour a patch in, and suddenly you've gotten rid of an unnecessary boob-window and a silly bare midriff for an outfit that is, if still not really practical, at least a lot less gratuitous.

So yeah. Those arguments don't fly with me at all.

[Icewraith]

Two problems with that logic:
1. If true, it should apply just as much to male characters. Although there are cases where it does apply to them (old spandex superhero designs come to mind), it's far, far less common.
2. I've read about at least one place that pretty much solves the problem by just getting illustrators to colour spots in. That's it. Move a line, colour a patch in, and suddenly you've gotten rid of an unnecessary boob-window and a silly bare midriff for an outfit that is, if still not really practical, at least a lot less gratuitous.

So yeah. Those arguments don't fly with me at all.

Those aren't really arguments as much as they are explanations of the superhero comic drawing process from an amateur who learned to draw (fairly well) using those techniques in part (and considered, at least briefly, something in that industry as a possible profession). I think they're places aside from the "sex sells" marketing idea that the unattainably attractive characters and ridiculous outfits seep in, often unintentionally or as a subconscious part of drawing naked people all the time.

Also, part of the imbalance is the simple biological asymmetry regarding breasts. (cis)Men simply don't have a comparable sexual characteristic that you can exaggerate to that degree without becoming pornography. Instead the comics and graphics people give them shoulders you could land an aircraft on, primary muscle groups the size of tectonic plates, and quite often extra muscle groups and tendons on top of those other muscle groups that don't actually exist in the human body. Comic book women have bodies that real people might theoretically attain with implants, strength training, and eating a few hundred calories less per day than they probably should to maintain healthy weight. Comic book men have bodies that real people might theoretically attain via heavy steroid abuse, muscle transplants, and possibly use of the torture device known as The Rack during puberty, as wells as dividing the day evenly between eating, working out, and sleeping. (Women probably get some rack time too as both sexes are usually drawn with an extra head's worth of height compared to realistic proportions with the same head size)

It should be noted I'm mostly talking about anatomy and not outfits here- outfits are a secondary process that happens once the character's body has been drawn. Regardless of whether or not Power Girl has a gratuitous boob window she's still packing weather balloons instead of breasts. Even if all the heroes are dressed up as nuns, the sexy will probably creep in since the artist still had to draw them all naked to get the fabric folds right.

[Coidzor]

Even if all the heroes are dressed up as nuns, the sexy will probably creep in since the artist still had to draw them all naked to get the fabric folds right.

You almost touch upon the heart of the issue here, actually, the history of the people to do it professionally being colossal pervs and having workplaces and cultures that promoted such over any alternative.

[Anarion]

Something interesting to read. The ACS (American Constitution Society) released a brief today on how transgender people are being treated by the legal system in general.
https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default...ping_Point.pdf

The biggest takeaway, it seems to me, is that where you live can have a colossal impact on your potential opportunities if you're transgender. Which probably isn't surprising at all.

[Icewraith]

You almost touch upon the heart of the issue here, actually, the history of the people to do it professionally being colossal pervs and having workplaces and cultures that promoted such over any alternative.

There are other contributing factors to the existence of hypersexualized women in comics and games than "the people making them are all perverts" is what I'm trying to get at (I'm also not arguing that workplaces/cultures aren't an issue). If you flipped a switch and turned all the misogyny and associated things in those industries off, while you would see a reduction in boob windows and female characters that mainly exist as window dressing you might not see a cessation.

1: The technicalities of drawing clothed people well essentially requires you draw them without clothes first, and promotes the use of skintight costumes especially when you're drawing the same costume over and over from different angles. I was exploring possible contributing factors in how we draw things, resulting in sexier characters.

2: Comics and games are our versions of fairy-stories, tall tales, myths, etc. The people and places in these stories are generally real life amplified, and this isn't a modern development. The trickster warrior who travels the world fighting weird villains, surviving deathtraps, and sleeping with the majority of the notable women he meets didn't start with James Bond, it goes back (at least) as far as Odysseus. Even if the costumes get toned down and the female characters stop being portrayed as sluts, the anatomical distortions probably won't go away because we're still drawing or creating larger-than-life characters. Using heroic proportions for heroic characters isn't something the comic book industry invented, it's something that has been going on for a long, long time.

3: There are female artists that take pains to draw more realistically proportioned women, but there are also female artists that specialize in pin-ups and the kind of erotica that people often assume is the sole province of lonely perverted male artists. Maybe you have to be a bit of a pervert to want to spend that much time drawing naked people and putting clothes on them. There is a stereotype about artists being perverts, and while it's never wise to assume a stereotype with respect to an individual, they usually exist for a reason.

[SiuiS]

I think what's more troublesome even than refusing to question whether or not sex sells, even with the troubling presumptions about male sexuality and entirely invented demographics that refusal entails, is the fact that they don't question the notion that whether or not something "sells" is more important than whether it is right or wrong. I mean, if somebody looked at the numbers and hypersexualized objectwomen really did move product, that doesn't suddenly make everything okay.

Good point.

One slight complicating factor in the video games and especially comic book industry are the ins and outs of drawing.

Again though, "reasonable" and "the right thing to do" don't necessarily have to match. This is reasonable! But is still ethically dubious.

Two problems with that logic:
1. If true, it should apply just as much to male characters. Although there are cases where it does apply to them (old spandex superhero designs come to mind), it's far, far less common.

Simple answer: men who sit around fantasizing about supers won't fantasize about sexy men and so won't draw them that way. Instead of being proof this is wrong, it could simply be proof most artists are straight men.

But yeah. I agree.

Something interesting to read. The ACS (American Constitution Society) released a brief today on how transgender people are being treated by the legal system in general.
https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default...ping_Point.pdf

The biggest takeaway, it seems to me, is that where you live can have a colossal impact on your potential opportunities if you're transgender. Which probably isn't surprising at all.

Interesting. Will quote for when I have a free tab.

[Zrak]

I don't know many comic book artists, personally, but I know a fair amount of illustrators thanks to going to college up the hill from one of the more prestigious art schools in the U.S. From my experience with them, I have to say that Icewraith's description reads a lot more like a rationalization than an actual reason, to me. Most artists I know, illustrators or otherwise, neither suffer from a compulsion to draw solely hypersexualized/"attractive" figures nor an inability to draw clothing without a meticulously detailed figure beneath it. More to the point, the idea that if one must draw imaginary naked people, they should be sexy imaginary naked people is not an explanation for but an example of the exact sort of petulant prurience being decried.

Also, the snarky ******* in me can't resist pointing out the incongruity of using the desire to render accurate figures as a defense of the boneless El-Greco-does-pin-up figures in "sexy" exorcist twist poses. I mean, really, if the skintight outfits are a measure taken to prevent grotesque, malformed bodies, one shudders to imagine the hideous Cronenbergs these professional artists would produce were they to attempt the herculean labor of drawing a woman in, like, a sweatshirt.

[Silus]

Not to break up any fun stuff going on here, but I feel...morally obligated, I suppose, to share that of the 20th of November, it is the International Transgender Day of Remembrance.

[SiuiS]

Crap that's today! Urgh. Need to get a calendar...

[Miriel]

Yep. We did a thing at my university.

[Coidzor]

I'm often at a loss as to how to mark events like the Day of Silence and the recently passed Trans Day of Remembrance, both because I'm rubbish at dates(I still forget birthdays within my family) so I don't remember to plan anything in advance without prompting or at least a reminder and also because I don't really want to do anything that could get me accused of drowning out the voices of others on the subject.

And also because I am kind of rubbish at what to say when it comes to semi-formalized announcements or observances, as it always seems kind of stilted and awkward and lifeless to just go with boilerplate.

...So what should we do?

[SiuiS]

I'm often at a loss as to how to mark events like the Day of Silence and the recently passed Trans Day of Remembrance, both because I'm rubbish at dates(I still forget birthdays within my family) so I don't remember to plan anything in advance without prompting or at least a reminder and also because I don't really want to do anything that could get me accused of drowning out the voices of others on the subject.

And also because I am kind of rubbish at what to say when it comes to semi-formalized announcements or observances, as it always seems kind of stilted and awkward and lifeless to just go with boilerplate.

...So what should we do?

That is a very good question. How does one do days of remembrance?