Thank you Rich

[Paseo H]

Just going along with the "staples of the genre" without thinking them through and considering the messages they're sending is...well, thoughtless. By definition.

Thanks, you're awesome too.

I'm also a fan of chainmail bikinis, in the context of a pulp fantasy Frazetta riffing kind of story or illustration. The problem arises when chainmail bikinis and midriff-baring tops are the default for female characters in fantasy—when they all seem to wear them, without much thought put into why. A conscious decision to give a Frazetta shout-out with one character design is one thing; putting most of your female characters in skimpy outfits just because it's the default is another. That sends a message to female fans that there's only one thing they're valued for.

If 90% of female fantasy warriors wore sensible Joan of Arc armor, without boob cups and impractical cut-outs, I doubt you'd get as many complaints about the 10% dressed like Red Sonja.

Oh come off it. Respect everyones intelligence to know that a bit of sex appeal 'by default' is not the same as turning the fantasy/sci-fi in general into Gor.

[ti'esar]

(Gotta admit, I'm a little surprised at the number of people taking the time to speak out against the pleasant, personal thank-you to the author that started this thread. If Rich, looking back, noticed that Haley had an arguably offensive flaw that he did not intend to put there, because he just didn't think too hard at the time about the words he was putting in her bubbles, there's nothing wrong with taking one frame of one comic to issue a mea culpa. If it was intended from the start to be part of Haley's character that she had issues with hypocrisy and slut-shaming and sexist language, then, sure, it would have been better for her to overcome them organically. But it wasn't; it was an oversight, and Rich felt bad enough about it to pony up an in-comic apology. That's a classy way to handle the issue, and, as I say, I'm surprised at the number of hackles it raised. Especially in a comic that breaks the fourth wall nine ways from Tuesday.)

Seconded. Frankly, I'm not sure why anyone is arguing about this at all - apart from anything else, it's Rich's comic and he's made his position clear - but it seems like the main thread would be a much more appropriate place for it instead of a thread meant solely to express someone's thanks.

[Porthos]

(Gotta admit, I'm a little surprised at the number of people taking the time to speak out against the pleasant, personal thank-you to the author that started this thread.)

You and me both, brother. But, then again, I'm a little surprised at how much its monoplized the main discussion thread.

=====

There are posts in this thread that I'd love to address. But in the spirit of the thread, I'm gonna leave them be. After all, that's the way these converstations turn into the Energizer Bunny.

[jere7my]

Oh come off it. Respect everyones intelligence to know that a bit of sex appeal 'by default' is not the same as turning the fantasy/sci-fi in general into Gor.

Er, I'm not sure who mentioned Gor. I've been following fantasy artwork for thirty years or so, and I feel pretty confident in saying that sexed-up costuming is the norm for female characters, and not for male characters. There are exceptions in both directions, but the preponderance of evidence is toward boob cups and teeny bikinis.

Chainmail bikinis were introduced to the genre by artists like Frazetta and Vallejo, who were illustrating Conan stories in which Conan, being a barbarian, was just as seminude and hunky and sexualized as the women. His lack of armor was a deliberate, story-driven contrast with the more civilized peoples he was fighting beside and against. But it was the scantily-clad ladies who caught the attention of the primarily-male fanbase, and they became a "staple of the genre" much more than the loincloth-wearing barbarian. Even when it made no story sense, they continued to wear armor with cutouts and cleavage. Female warriors' looks could have branched off from realistic-medieval (Joan of Arc) or Tolkienian (Eowyn), but because cleavage sells books the chainmail bikini grew (or shrank) to dominate fantasy illustrations of women.

Now, as I said, there's not a thing wrong with enjoying the occasional pulp fantasy chainmail bikini. I had a crush on half of Elmore's female characters when I was a tween. The problem arises when there are so many sexualized female characters, and so few sexualized male characters in comparison, that the genre begins to feel unwelcoming to women. No matter what a female character's story role is, it's seen as acceptable to sex her up, which is not done to male characters nearly as often. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sex appeal, but making sex appeal the first thing you notice about 3/4 of the female characters in fantasy? That's a problem.

[Porthos]

Er, I'm not sure who mentioned Gor. I've been following fantasy artwork for thirty years or so, and I feel pretty confident in saying that sexed-up costuming is the norm for female characters, and not for male characters. There are exceptions in both directions, but the preponderance of evidence is toward boob cups and teeny bikinis.

Chainmail bikinis were introduced to the genre by artists like Frazetta and Vallejo, who were illustrating Conan stories in which Conan, being a barbarian, was just as seminude and hunky and sexualized as the women. His lack of armor was a deliberate, story-driven contrast with the more civilized peoples he was fighting beside and against. But it was the scantily-clad ladies who caught the attention of the primarily-male fanbase, and they became a "staple of the genre" much more than the loincloth-wearing barbarian. Even when it made no story sense, they continued to wear armor with cutouts and cleavage. Female warriors' looks could have branched off from realistic-medieval (Joan of Arc) or Tolkienian (Eowyn), but because cleavage sells books the chainmail bikini grew (or shrank) to dominate fantasy illustrations of women.

Now, as I said, there's not a thing wrong with enjoying the occasional pulp fantasy chainmail bikini. I had a crush on half of Elmore's female characters when I was a tween. The problem arises when there are so many sexualized female characters, and so few sexualized male characters in comparison, that the genre begins to feel unwelcoming to women. No matter what a female character's story role is, it's seen as acceptable to sex her up, which is not done to male characters nearly as often. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sex appeal, but making sex appeal the first thing you notice about 3/4 of the female characters in fantasy? That's a problem.

Ok, I give.

My only contribution to this sub-topic:

http://www.jimchines.com/cover-posing/

He makes a point, I think.

Note To All: I suggest reading it in full, especially since he isn't knee-jerk about the topic - but, as I said, I think he makes a point about the imbalance that jere7my talks about.

==

And with that off my chest, I'm done.

[oppyu]

It's not surprising that many people don't feel the same way the Giant does. It is a surprise that they feel so... vehemently about it. It's one thing to disagree about the harmful effects of slut shaming, it's another thing entirely to seemingly argue in favour of it.

[ti'esar]

It's not surprising that many people don't feel the same way the Giant does. It is a surprise that they feel so... vehemently about it. It's one thing to disagree about the harmful effects of slut shaming, it's another thing entirely to seemingly argue in favour of it.

To be fair, I think a lot of them are more bothered by the idea that morality should trump verisimilitude - Rich's position is actually more nuanced than that, but I can see where the misinterpretation could come from.

[Ulysses WkAmil]

It's not acceptable to use "lazy immigrant" as a generic insult for hispanic people, however obviously false the accusation is in any specific case. The same is true for "slut."

(Gotta admit, I'm a little surprised at the number of people taking the time to speak out against the pleasant, personal thank-you to the author that started this thread. If Rich, looking back, noticed that Haley had an arguably offensive flaw that he did not intend to put there, because he just didn't think too hard at the time about the words he was putting in her bubbles, there's nothing wrong with taking one frame of one comic to issue a mea culpa. If it was intended from the start to be part of Haley's character that she had issues with hypocrisy and slut-shaming and sexist language, then, sure, it would have been better for her to overcome them organically. But it wasn't; it was an oversight, and Rich felt bad enough about it to pony up an in-comic apology. That's a classy way to handle the issue, and, as I say, I'm surprised at the number of hackles it raised. Especially in a comic that breaks the fourth wall nine ways from Tuesday.)



There has been some reclaiming of the term—e.g., the SlutWalk protest marches and the (brilliant) woman-run burlesque ballet Nutcracker parody The Slutcracker.

You have a very good point there, intention does play a large role in the situation. I'll concede there, I apologize if I sounded intolerant in any way through my posts, I felt adding balance was necessary.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I just disliked it because it came off as Rich possessing Haley and using her to deliver an Important Message that he wanted to say himself.

Same reason I disliked http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

Perhaps they wouldn't read that way to me if I wasn't aware of Rich's personal opinions on the subjects beforehand, but I am, and I can't unsee the context there.

[Paseo H]

Er, I'm not sure who mentioned Gor. I've been following fantasy artwork for thirty years or so, and I feel pretty confident in saying that sexed-up costuming is the norm for female characters, and not for male characters. There are exceptions in both directions, but the preponderance of evidence is toward boob cups and teeny bikinis.

Chainmail bikinis were introduced to the genre by artists like Frazetta and Vallejo, who were illustrating Conan stories in which Conan, being a barbarian, was just as seminude and hunky and sexualized as the women. His lack of armor was a deliberate, story-driven contrast with the more civilized peoples he was fighting beside and against. But it was the scantily-clad ladies who caught the attention of the primarily-male fanbase, and they became a "staple of the genre" much more than the loincloth-wearing barbarian. Even when it made no story sense, they continued to wear armor with cutouts and cleavage. Female warriors' looks could have branched off from realistic-medieval (Joan of Arc) or Tolkienian (Eowyn), but because cleavage sells books the chainmail bikini grew (or shrank) to dominate fantasy illustrations of women.

Now, as I said, there's not a thing wrong with enjoying the occasional pulp fantasy chainmail bikini. I had a crush on half of Elmore's female characters when I was a tween. The problem arises when there are so many sexualized female characters, and so few sexualized male characters in comparison, that the genre begins to feel unwelcoming to women. No matter what a female character's story role is, it's seen as acceptable to sex her up, which is not done to male characters nearly as often. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sex appeal, but making sex appeal the first thing you notice about 3/4 of the female characters in fantasy? That's a problem.

So, what do you suggest? Perhaps there could be some sort of organization that could mandate some guidelines to put a stop to it? It worked for comics, way back when.

[oppyu]

Yes, because criticism equals censorship. Everyone who ever complains about any creative media is basically advocating an Orwellian nightmare state.

[Synar]

These statistics :http://pelgranepress.com/site/?p=3501&cpage=1 could also be interesting. (I think they were posted in the main thread.)

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Ok, I give.

My only contribution to this sub-topic:

http://www.jimchines.com/cover-posing/

He makes a point, I think.

Note To All: I suggest reading it in full, especially since he isn't knee-jerk about the topic - but, as I said, I think he makes a point about the imbalance that jere7my talks about.

==

And with that off my chest, I'm done.

Okay, those pictures were hilarious. Where do you get all these links?

[Gwynfrid]

It's not surprising that many people don't feel the same way the Giant does. It is a surprise that they feel so... vehemently about it. It's one thing to disagree about the harmful effects of slut shaming, it's another thing entirely to seemingly argue in favour of it.

A few possible reasons:
- People are attached to Haley after reading her adventures for years. They would like her to "be herself" (ie remain the character she used to be) and to have the freedom of not always being the best person ever, including using whatever insults she wants, especially when fighting for her life. Of course, this disregards the fact that as a character of fiction, Haley doesn't have free will. Still, having real feelings for an imaginary person is nothing new.
- Many loved the jokes in the comic, including those that were, well, slut-shaming and everything. An example is the "treasure type O" barb from Roy to Miko, which most found hilarious at the time. Now they feel they're being told that joke was wrong, so their having fun with it was wrong. And they don't like it. Hence the "can I please just have my escapism?" response. (FWIW, I did find "treasure type O" hilarious, I still do, and I don't think my having fun is wrong, even though I recognize the ways the joke is questionable).
- Some would rather not have to think about gender equality, political debates about sexual orientation, etc. for whatever reason. A few are even wondering that the comic might evolve into a full-time social justice commentary (a fear that I think is vastly overblown).

In my view, the comic's execution wasn't very successful, but I appreciate the intent and I think it's important that the point was made in-comic. The Giant took a risk from an artistic perspective. It didn't work as well as I would have liked, but I commend him for taking that risk in the first place. It was worth it. So... Yeah, thanks, Rich.

[Raphite1]

+1 to what the OP said. Thanks, Rich!

[Graustein]

A few possible reasons:
- People are attached to Haley after reading her adventures for years. They would like her to "be herself" (ie remain the character she used to be) and to have the freedom of not always being the best person ever, including using whatever insults she wants, especially when fighting for her life. Of course, this disregards the fact that as a character of fiction, Haley doesn't have free will. Still, having real feelings for an imaginary person is nothing new.
- Many loved the jokes in the comic, including those that were, well, slut-shaming and everything. An example is the "treasure type O" barb from Roy to Miko, which most found hilarious at the time. Now they feel they're being told that joke was wrong, so their having fun with it was wrong. And they don't like it. Hence the "can I please just have my escapism?" response. (FWIW, I did find "treasure type O" hilarious, I still do, and I don't think my having fun is wrong, even though I recognize the ways the joke is questionable).
- Some would rather not have to think about gender equality, political debates about sexual orientation, etc. for whatever reason. A few are even wondering that the comic might evolve into a full-time social justice commentary (a fear that I think is vastly overblown).

In my view, the comic's execution wasn't very successful, but I appreciate the intent and I think it's important that the point was made in-comic. The Giant took a risk from an artistic perspective. It didn't work as well as I would have liked, but I commend him for taking that risk in the first place. It was worth it. So... Yeah, thanks, Rich.

Just a few points:

- Yeah actually I totally get this first point. It is a bit abrupt a change, although I still applaud it because it's a good change and I can't really see it being done organically in a way that wouldn't distract from the main point of the comic (also that would be giving it more attention than I feel it deserves).
- That joke was pretty funny actually, and not slut-shamey as far as I can see anyway.
- The "please can I have my escapism" thing is fine, but women deserve escapism too, and not to be jarred out of their escapism by gendered slurs being thrown around by our leading lady. And tbh if your escapism depends on something like that being kept in the strip at all costs, well, maybe you should think about that?
- From my point of view view - the view of someone for whom gendered slurs are a reality, rather than something I only see described - the execution was pretty good. It was certainly no less jarring than the numerous other holes in the fourth wall this strip has had and definitely way less jarring than the slurs in the first place. If you like, think of it in the same sense as you might think about a fan-servicey shout-out to a group you happen to not be a part of, like that Final Fantasy bit way back when.

[Porthos]

Okay, those pictures were hilarious. Where do you get all these links?

Thanks.

As for where do I get them? I have an eclectic range of interests, so I tend to see a bunch of different things out there on the wide wide web just through natural browsing habits, and I try to remember the more interesting/insightful ones. Could make a pithy remark or two here (including a self-deprecating one about having too much time on my hands), but when it comes right down to it, that's the main reason.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This is an issue entirely about two panels of comic #959 and should be taken to the discussion thread for that comic, which is already mostly about this anyway.