Armor designs for females?

[Talakeal]

Who said that they were synonymous?

No one directly said that, but people keep saying things in the vein of "If I wanted to see scantily clad people I would just watch porn!" or "The emphasis on physical beauty degrades the work into soft core pornography!"

This impression largely comes from the blatant, deliberate, and continuing misrepresentation of one side's arguments by the other side. When one side constantly has to take their own goalposts and put them back where they originally planted them, because the other side has been trying to put them somewhere else... it looks like both sides are moving goalposts.

In my experience deliberate straw manning is pretty rare outside of a few very obvious (or very skilled) trolls. I think misunderstandings are far more common, especially when communicating in this manner without tone of voice or body language (not to mention a tendency people have to zone out while reading large blocks of text) are missing.

See signature. It's not about absolute fidelity to reality, it's about internal consistency, internal coherence, and the sense that the setting could be a real place and time, and that the characters could be real people.

If a character is in situation and context where they're wearing armor, then having them wear armor that is useless or even actively counterproductive, is damaging to the sense of verisimilitude.

Ok, yeah, I am aware of the difference between realism and verisimilitude, I should have used more precise language rather than using one as shorthand for the other.

Now that you have me thinking about it though, where do you draw the line?

For example, are you ok with fantasy creatures being handwaved in standard fantast? For example dragons flying and breathing fire or giant spiders being able to breathe and walk up walls? If so, why doesn't a similar handwave work for fantasy armor (and weapon) designs?


Would you have a problem with a fantasy setting where it made sense?

For example, say I make a campaign world where:


It is very hot and tropical. Heavy clothing (or armor) cannot be worn for long periods of time, and the society has no taboos against public nudity.

It is a fiercely matriarchal culture. Woman are expected to dress in a manner that shows off their virility, while men are often treated as property and are told to keep covered as a sign of ownership.

For whatever reason the weapon's technology vastly outperforms the defensive capabilities of armor. Maybe metal is too rare to make full suits of armor but still plentiful enough for weapons, maybe we have a situation like Star Wars where laser weapons (or the magical equivalent) render even the heaviest armor useless, maybe people are protected by Chi energy (or force fields) that are deactivated in the presence of a lot of metal. In any case, it is always a better idea to avoid an attack than to be hit and armor will impede the latter without really helping with the former.

Certain silly design elements have cultural or religious significance. Maybe random spikes, nipple pasties, high heels, or those stupid metal wrist covers are signs of status in the same way that many religious leaders in our world wear oversized and overly elaborate hats, shawls, collars, etc.

Yeah, they can be attractive; but why do they also have to look like strippers at the same time? I mean... that distracts from the martial prowess bit...
I guess men are just that horny? Testosterone can be a bitch, I sympathise.

I would personally prefer them to dress like athletes, not strippers.

But, as I said way back when, ancient athletes attire (or lack thereof) would look pornographic to modern audiences, and modern active wear would look anachronistic, so we have to create these weird hybrids when imagining what athletic women would wear in an ancient world that didn't have the same mixture of misogyny and prudishness as our own.

[Zanos]

Armor spikes are completely practical. Where else are you going to mount the severed heads of your fallen foes?

[S@tanicoaldo]

But, as I said way back when, ancient athletes attire (or lack thereof) would look pornographic to modern audiences, and modern active wear would look anachronistic, so we have to create these weird hybrids when imagining what athletic women would wear in an ancient world that didn't have the same mixture of misogyny and prudishness as our own.

Nude =/= pornographic

Besides:



That woman with the bow and the dogs, beated hercules in wrestling, what's your point?

She is not nude nor she is dressed in a pornographic way.

[Lord Raziere]

For example, say I make a campaign world where:

It is very hot and tropical. Heavy clothing (or armor) cannot be worn for long periods of time, and the society has no taboos against public nudity.

It is a fiercely matriarchal culture. Woman are expected to dress in a manner that shows off their virility, while men are often treated as property and are told to keep covered as a sign of ownership.

For whatever reason the weapon's technology vastly outperforms the defensive capabilities of armor. Maybe metal is too rare to make full suits of armor but still plentiful enough for weapons, maybe we have a situation like Star Wars where laser weapons (or the magical equivalent) render even the heaviest armor useless, maybe people are protected by Chi energy (or force fields) that are deactivated in the presence of a lot of metal. In any case, it is always a better idea to avoid an attack than to be hit and armor will impede the latter without really helping with the former.

Certain silly design elements have cultural or religious significance. Maybe random spikes, nipple pasties, high heels, or those stupid metal wrist covers are signs of status in the same way that many religious leaders in our world wear oversized and overly elaborate hats, shawls, collars, etc.

Allow me to respond with a hypothetical of my own:
In a perfect world, there would be no confusion what is sexist, there would be no sexism, no confusion over what is bad or good, and no need to send signals that one is supporting feminism or at least anti-sexism, no confusion over what is necessary to support feminism, no disagreement over what it should be, it would just be something we all cooperate and agree upon, there would be no one ignorant enough to impulsively declare that sexist anyways because they don't care for your justifications and don't care what reasons you make for that happen. In a perfect world, you could have this without anyone making a problem over it, and we could still have whatever we want. There would simply be confusion and answer would be easily as saying "yes you can have this setting, no need to worry about anything."

Do we live in a perfect world? No. We have people who are confused over what the ideology is, what it represents, we have people still believing in ignorant things, still confused over what is ignorant and is not, what is opinion and what is not, we live in a world where we aren't just in disagreement over our opinions we are in disagreement what is acceptable sources to solve or base those opinions on. We live in a world where a minority of people honestly believe things proven to be wrong centuries ago. We live in a world where they might reject your world simply because you included chi because that is too "weeaboo" rather than anything involving sexism or feminism, and so on. We live in a world that is increasingly polarized and fractured in its views by the very medium we are using right now.

That doesn't mean you can't do that, but you have to prepared for people rejecting it anyways, for reasons you don't even consider, and your responsible for what you put out. If you don't consider the reactions people will have to it, thats on you. and if the reaction is bad, well yeah you can go "well thats the fan reaction I don't have responsibility" and thus do nothing about it, but thats just passing the buck to a fanbase that won't ever change, because fans don't change, once they are there they just perpetuate their own warped view of the work, that often ends up not being completely accurate to the work or its intentions in question. There can be numerous reactions to what you just posted, some ignorant some more knowledgeable. Some more accepting, some less. You don't know whether that will be positive or negative until its out, and by then its too late.

So what reaction are you going for? Are you trying to shock, not shock me? What are you trying to say? Whats the point of the setting? What message are you trying to send? Whats the intention of the work, because even "its all in good fun" is a message your sending. Like it or not, there is no guarantee everyone will get that message, interpret that message positively even if they do get it, or like the fact that its that message at all even if they acknowledge that its meant to be positive. Are you trying to subtle with your views or not? Does it come with a disclaimer about your actual views? Where are going with this? Whats the actual story being told here? Why are you doing this? If there is no point to what you made, and you just made it for the love of making, well you have to take responsibility for its existence anyways for good or ill. If someone finds and points some legitimate problem they have with the setting, what will you do? Will you blow them off? Apologize and clarify your views? change the setting in a later installment? Whats your point in showing this to me, what are you trying to SAY? This is a thing you communicating to me, what does it EXPRESS? If your change is disliked by other people when you do it, what will you do then? What will you do if you don't change it all and thus let peoples criticisms stand and tear apart the setting for it? This setting could be very controversial, are you prepared for what it might spark? What if there is flame wars over it? What if people constantly pester you over the setting oddities and ask questions about things you even thought about?

What reactions, what fans, what opinions, what challenges are you willing to face and endure for this setting to work? How far are you willing to work for it? Whats your intentions for it, and how much are you going to invest into it? What things are worth this setting? How much is it worth the potential upsides vs. the potential downsides? How much is it worth potentially offending one group you might like vs. appealing to one you don't like? How much is it worth appealing to only the group you like at the expense of becoming an echo chamber? How much is it worth changing the setting for more money? What if it turns out that your setting will only make more money if you take away the things you like about it and make it unique? Is it worth making less money just so your setting can stay true to your vision? What will you accept as valid criticism about your vision? If the answer is none, why do you think its good to share it if your not going to let it develop from the interaction with other people? What parts of the setting are you willing to defend and keep no matter what? what parts of the setting are you willing to sacrifice? How much is it worth trying to preserve as much of the setting as you can at the risk of coming across as stubborn and married to the status quo? If the men carried out a bloody revolution that went too far and carried atrocities upon the women, would it ruin the setting?

Whats the point your trying to make, what criticisms will you accept of that point, and what are you willing to keep or sacrifice to make the point? What responsibility will you take for this? And if your point is nothing, your acceptance of criticism is nothing and your willingness to sacrifice for any of this is nothing, why did you speak up at all?

[S@tanicoaldo]

For example, say I make a campaign world where:


It is very hot and tropical. Heavy clothing (or armor) cannot be worn for long periods of time, and the society has no taboos against public nudity.

It is a fiercely matriarchal culture. Woman are expected to dress in a manner that shows off their virility, while men are often treated as property and are told to keep covered as a sign of ownership.

For whatever reason the weapon's technology vastly outperforms the defensive capabilities of armor. Maybe metal is too rare to make full suits of armor but still plentiful enough for weapons, maybe we have a situation like Star Wars where laser weapons (or the magical equivalent) render even the heaviest armor useless, maybe people are protected by Chi energy (or force fields) that are deactivated in the presence of a lot of metal. In any case, it is always a better idea to avoid an attack than to be hit and armor will impede the latter without really helping with the former.

Certain silly design elements have cultural or religious significance. Maybe random spikes, nipple pasties, high heels, or those stupid metal wrist covers are signs of status in the same way that many religious leaders in our world wear oversized and overly elaborate hats, shawls, collars, etc.



I would personally prefer them to dress like athletes, not strippers.

But, as I said way back when, ancient athletes attire (or lack thereof) would look pornographic to modern audiences, and modern active wear would look anachronistic, so we have to create these weird hybrids when imagining what athletic women would wear in an ancient world that didn't have the same mixture of misogyny and prudishness as our own.

Are ok with me making a fantasy setting where there is a race of fey creatures who are lazy, feed on water melons and chicken. They also have pitch black skin and huge red lips? It's my fantasy, my creation, my art, my views, why should I be prevented from creating such fantasy race?

[Zanos]

Are ok with me making a fantasy setting where there is a race of fey creatures who are lazy, feed on water melons and chicken. They also have pitch black skin and huge red lips? It's my fantasy, my creation, my art, my views, why should I be prevented from creating such fantasy race?

I'm not going to stop you from doing that, but I'm not going to buy it, play it, or tell other people to play it. If they ask me for my opinion on it, I will tell them I don't like it and that if they value my opinion that they would probably not enjoy it.

I will not attempt to get your work censored, as worthless as it might be. I will not harass people who do purchase it, or boycott outlets that carry it.

[Max_Killjoy]

No one directly said that, but people keep saying things in the vein of "If I wanted to see scantily clad people I would just watch porn!" or "The emphasis on physical beauty degrades the work into soft core pornography!"

I think the concern has been "emphasis on (supposed) sexiness over everything else degrades the work into soft core porn".

While I think over-emphasis on physical beauty is its own semi-related problem, I don't think the two are synonymous.

Ok, yeah, I am aware of the difference between realism and verisimilitude, I should have used more precise language rather than using one as shorthand for the other.

Now that you have me thinking about it though, where do you draw the line?

For example, are you ok with fantasy creatures being handwaved in standard fantast? For example dragons flying and breathing fire or giant spiders being able to breathe and walk up walls? If so, why doesn't a similar handwave work for fantasy armor (and weapon) designs?


Would you have a problem with a fantasy setting where it made sense?

For example, say I make a campaign world where:


It is very hot and tropical. Heavy clothing (or armor) cannot be worn for long periods of time, and the society has no taboos against public nudity.

It is a fiercely matriarchal culture. Woman are expected to dress in a manner that shows off their virility, while men are often treated as property and are told to keep covered as a sign of ownership.

For whatever reason the weapon's technology vastly outperforms the defensive capabilities of armor. Maybe metal is too rare to make full suits of armor but still plentiful enough for weapons, maybe we have a situation like Star Wars where laser weapons (or the magical equivalent) render even the heaviest armor useless, maybe people are protected by Chi energy (or force fields) that are deactivated in the presence of a lot of metal. In any case, it is always a better idea to avoid an attack than to be hit and armor will impede the latter without really helping with the former.

Certain silly design elements have cultural or religious significance. Maybe random spikes, nipple pasties, high heels, or those stupid metal wrist covers are signs of status in the same way that many religious leaders in our world wear oversized and overly elaborate hats, shawls, collars, etc.

This thread has seen repeated conflation of "armor that doesn't work as armor", "the specific context is not one in which the character would be wearing armor", and "the setting doesn't feature armor".

In most of those cases you describe, the character wouldn't be wearing armor, or wouldn't be wearing it some contexts, which is not synonymous with wearing armor that is blatantly non-functional as armor.

I'm not sure how boob windows and plate armor bustiers and stealthed-in fetish gear really serve to enhance the setting and gameplay in the way that fantastic creatures might. Dragons need a little leeway to be dragons... armor doesn't need "playfully" exposed skin to be armor.

I would personally prefer them to dress like athletes, not strippers.

But, as I said way back when, ancient athletes attire (or lack thereof) would look pornographic to modern audiences, and modern active wear would look anachronistic, so we have to create these weird hybrids when imagining what athletic women would wear in an ancient world that didn't have the same mixture of misogyny and prudishness as our own.

I think even ancient athletes might have appreciated the practical aspects of modern athletic wear, separate from any discussion of prudishness or misogyny.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I'm not going to stop you from doing that, but I'm not going to buy it, play it, or tell other people to play it. If they ask me for my opinion on it, I will tell them I don't like it and that if they value my opinion that they would probably not enjoy it.

I will not attempt to get your work censored, as worthless as it might be. I will not harass people who do purchase it, or boycott outlets that carry it.

Thanks god people are not like you otherwise we would not be able to watch looney toons... Like ever.

But thankfully people sat down discussed, criticized and showed their point of view, now we can enjoy funny cartoons and they are not horrible anymore...

You know how many people lost stuff or were negatively affected with all this? NONE!

[Dragonexx]

Are ok with me making a fantasy setting where there is a race of fey creatures who are lazy, feed on water melons and chicken. They also have pitch black skin and huge red lips? It's my fantasy, my creation, my art, my views, why should I be prevented from creating such fantasy race?

Go right ahead. I've said repeatedly, that the only people you need to please are the people you play with. I probably wouldn't play that game, but I don't care if you and your friends do.

For the record (for weirdos who seem to care about such things), I am black.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Go right ahead. I've said repeatedly, that the only people you need to please are the people you play with. I probably wouldn't play that game, but I don't care if you and your friends do.

For the record (for weirdos who seem to care about such things), I am black.

Haven't we moved past personal games and are now talking about art and media in general?

[Zanos]

Thanks god people are not like you otherwise we would not be able to watch looney toons... Like ever.

But thankfully people sat down discussed, criticized and showed their point of view, now we can enjoy funny cartoons and they are not horrible anymore...

You know how many people lost stuff or were negatively affected with all this? NONE!

I vote with my wallet and my viewership. If you don't like something, don't consume it. Consume things you like instead.

[Lord Raziere]

I vote with my wallet and my viewership. If you don't like something, don't consume it. Consume things you like instead.

How do you know you don't like it if you don't consume it?

[Max_Killjoy]

How do you know you don't like it if you don't consume it?

While I think that changing things goes a bit beyond silently voting with your wallet, it's also entirely possible to know you won't like something without "consuming" it. There's a big difference between a sniff, a look, and a quick taste; versus sitting down to eat the whole thing.

[Lord Raziere]

While I think that changing things goes a bit beyond silently voting with your wallet, it's also entirely possible to know you won't like something without "consuming" it. There's a big difference between a sniff, a look, and a quick taste; versus sitting down to eat the whole thing.

Well I agree with going a bit beyond silently voting with your wallet. I guess there is a difference, but its not like I know since my family makes me sit down to eat the whole thing for new foods rather than just accepting the quick taste. But its not like expanding your horizons is a bad thing, if you met me before I played Undertale, I would've said I like action games and don't care for pacifist solutions. If you met me before I played Dark Souls 3, I would've said I don't like settings that dark and difficult, but here I am now and I like both for what they are. The only way I changed and grew because of it is by taking the risk and finding out what they're like for myself. The quick taste only gets you so much.

Point is you need prior experience to know what you like and don't like. and sometimes you need to try new things to expand that experience. When to do so is a matter of judgement, and opportunity.

[Donnadogsoth]

The fact that I have a sex drive is a mix of biological factors, that came about through evolution in addition to cultural ones, yes. I wouldn't call that idea Evopsych.

Your sex drive comes to you courtesy of evolution. That sex drive can be dented, warped, altered, or even erased by circumstance, but the only reason you have it at all is because your parents had it, and their parents had it, unto time immemorial.

And... what biological exuberance do I display?

I thought you said you were queer. Generally don't get babies that way, though increasing numbers of queer people who want to have children are solving this problem in various ways.

If you are arguing with fertility, stick to arguing with fertility. Do not bring in other points that people select for in partners; if you want to argue fertility, argue. for. fertility. What men look for in mates correlates rather poorly with indicators of fertility, beyond maybe "health", but then again our culture makes that synonymous with "slender" which it really, really isn't and... No. If you want to argue nature, argue nature. But if you mix in expressions of cultural beauty standards as an example of nature, you are just getting ridiculous.
And, no, men do not look for women capable of continuing their genes. They look for women they are attracted to, and those are not the same thing. One last thing: Virginity is not an indicator of fertility. How... how would it even be? That doesn't even make sense if I'd accept your conceipt that looking for partners is about looking for genepools.

No, virginity by itself is not an indicator of fertility, since a female can be virginal at any age. But, a woman who is portrayed as healthy, pretty, and with fertile traits (breasts, hips), will be all the more desirable on average. Bundle these things together and we have the greatest attractant to the greatest number of men, and this attraction is mostly due to the human desire to reproduce. My goodness, what do parents say when they have a baby? “He has your nose” “She has your eyes” etc.--people pick mates that will be good mates, that they want to be the mother or father of their children. It would be unreal if people didn't consider their choice of mate when considering their possible offspring.

(a) Are you arguing that all cosmetics companies sell is appealing to natural urges? Because that makes no goddamn sense. It is impossible for there to be a natural urge to have your nails painted. Or painted-on eyebrows. Or pretty much any cosmetic product.
And you yourself are arguing for this to be about culture.

Cosmetic marketters seek to inflame instincts already present.

(b) Let me stop you right there. You are, right now, legitimately arguing, that the perfect image of fertility, that it is completely natural for any man to be attracted to, is*FIFTEEN YEARS OLD? You are arguing that*literal pedophilia*is not only acceptable, but NATURAL?

Calm down, no one's advocating or defending paedophilia or condoning acting in any criminal manner. Being marriageable at fifteen only seems young if you live in the US, where age of marriage is often 18, but, that's not universal. Canada used to be 14, recently upped to 16. It's 14 in Germany according to Wikipedia. It's 13 in Argentina(!). Do we then live in a world catering to paedophiles? No. These laws by turns recognise that 13-18, or, loosely, 15, is the time when people become fertile, become sexual, notice the opposite sex seriously, and have often matured enough to begin to approach sexual relationships. It's also, unsurprisingly, when people are in their flower of beauty.

To use a macabre analogy, look at a stereotypical evil cult that is going to sacrifice someone to its evil god. Whom do they traditionally pick? A menopausal woman? An old man? No, they pick someone who is in their flower of beauty and fertility—someone most valuable to the tribe—a real sacrifice to lose--like a 15-year-old girl. That's what is instinctively the most valuable person to pick.

And, outside of all custom, law, and knowledge of her numerical age that might trigger a backpedalling response, given their dithers most men would rate teenage girls as being the most beautiful of all. There are plenty of exceptions, not all women attain their full beauty immediately; some old women are more pulchritudinous than when they were young, but archetypically, generally, teenage girls are what men—not paedophiles, who lust after children, but ordinary heterosexual men –find most attractive, and what women would most like to look like (complicating factors like “used to oneself” or “look better with some character” etc., aside).

And, no, it is not, and (beyond this argument being disgusting) it has never been the natural image of beauty (Not that there would be one, it has always been cultural), much less fertility. To top it off, "just after starting to menstruate" is actually a terrible age for fertility, and women become of proper child-bearing age (with less risks of complications, or death in childbirth) when menstrual cycles have stabilised in their twenties. Technically being able to concieve before that does not make them more fertile, or look that way.)

You're overcomplicating it. Men naturally see breasts and think, instinctively, that this person is fertile.

2. I argued that, since everyone, even people noone wants to look at, wear just as revealing clothing on the beach, for any variety of reasons, it is more likely that these reasons are the ones for attractive women to do the same thing. You have so far avoided answering this.

Because it's wrong. Women who aren't insane or stupid will know that their bare skin is a mild sexual signal to men young and old. And, why stop there? Why not make other sexual signals, go naked and expose oneself to everyone while making disgusting...you get the idea.

3. The fact that men are attracted to something, and lust after something, is no evidence, proof, or in any relation, to the question whether or not something was done*because of that fact. "Men are into women doing this" is not a sufficient argument to prove "women are doing this for men".

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.

4. Men are perfectly able to control themselves and not send lustful gazes everywhere. I mean, I am bisexual, and on top of that attracted to rather many people. I still manage to not stare lustfully. Even in locker rooms. Even when there are attractive, naked people walking around me. It is possible to have selfcontrol.

There is nothing wrong with noticing people and enjoying their appearance.

It might be an occupational hazard (for something young, attractive women didn't actually choose); but it is only so because culture normalises this kind of behaviour.

Culture that de-normalises male appreciation of feminine beauty is sick.

I know men. And I have been on the internet.
You have correctly identified the problem with oversexualised characters. Now imagine the problem women face when looking at female characters that don't look like they're about to kick ass, but rather about to enter a beach fashion contest.

...Wait a second, you, the person who argues for human interaction to be a great deal about procreation, and that the brain is wired to search for procreation material... argues that the brain is also wired in a way that discourages interacting with the things that are actually necessary for procreation? That the bits you need to want most for procreating (what, according to you, we are wired to do) are actually actively repellant without acclimatisation?
That seems counterintuitive at*best.

You'll know that sexual encounters are not uncomplicated affairs, however breezy the media likes to portray them as. Men and women constitute mysteries, because reproduction is heavy stuff and needs to be approached with care. And, that's why Batman comics aren't orgies with explicit art.

Well, to be fair, no one can fight like movie characters fight anyway, so it's all BS isn't it? If it's all BS then why not look like strippers?

Because depending on the movie, game or setting they might actually, and because looking like strippers increases the BS-factor by quite a bit.
Even if everything is BS, some things are*less*BS.

Touché.

And how is that forbidding it? I mean, if people, after reflecting on it, realise they don't want to see it, who are you to tell them otherwise?

Culture can reinforce, or squash instincts both healthy and unhealthy.

2. Why? Why can I not criticise art for the shortcomings I percieve it has, as long as I do not advocate for it to be mandated to change by law?

You are free to criticise. I am saying that squashing the instincts artists have is pointless at best, deleterious to D&D culture at worst.

3. No, but from cultures that didn't have access to metallurgy, mining and resources in a capacity and level necessary to produce useful armor; nor to the clothproduction that would make cloth armor feasible. It's a cultural situation, not a purely environmental one.

They had wood didn't they? The Zulus had shields. They could have built an approximation of samurai armour if they wanted. They never felt the need to develop these things.

You thinking something isn't an argument; when numerous cultures throught the ages have had very different ideas of how to rate the beauty of overweight women. An hourglass figure doesn't have anything to do with fertility, no matter how often you claim that (And if you are convinced that it does, please provide proof).

No need to be testy. But, on the contrary, if you'd care to provide any examples of cultures where obese or morbidly obese women were the beauty standard par excellance, I'd like to see them. Ruben doesn't count. Nor does who-knows-what -they-meant Paleolithic "fertility idols".

2. Good to know. But one question: Why? Why is there need for someone to defend this?

Because I believe in human sexual dichotomy and the archetypal/symbolic nature informing much of culture. I think that evil cults sacrificing virgin girls makes artistic sense, even if there are other versions that involve killing a king, or felling a magic tree. I think damsels in distress is a relevant trope to our world, that will become ever more relevant as things spiral into the second century of industrialised catastrophe. I think the hero as a power fantasy and the hero as a romantic/sex fantasy are two overlapping concepts, and it won't do to pretend that outside of a brutal cultural hammer “hero” will ever fully mean “man or woman of martial virtue” or similar formulation. I think it matters to retaining Tradition in the face of the culture-wreckers who are chipping away at it in a time (of fabulous and terrifying change) when the stability of tradition is badly needed. That's why we need the 1st ed. DMG defended.

And, if I may have one request: Please take more care with your quotes. This lack of clarity what is a quote, and from whom it is is really annoying to work with.

Sorry about that, I was in a hurry and didn't post the cleaned up version.

[Amazon]

If you don't like something, don't consume it. Consume things you like instead.

What happens when you like the thing but dislike one aspect of it? Do I have to stop doing the thing I love or just shut up and keep submitting myself to something that I perceived as harmful?

Can't I notify the creator, establish dialogue and hope for an improvement?

[Zanos]

What happens when you like the thing but dislike one aspect of it? Do I have to stop doing the thing I love or just shut up and keep submitting myself to something that I perceived as harmful?

Can't I notify the creator, establish dialogue and hope for an improvement?

Well, you don't have to ask me for permission to do anything. You're an individual.

If you're asking for my perspective, then there's a difference between giving a developer honest feedback and lambasting them for not kowtowing to what you like.

[Amazon]

If you're asking for my perspective, then there's a difference between giving a developer honest feedback and lambasting them for not kowtowing to what you like.

And who is doing that?

[Dragonexx]

Nobody is accusing anyone.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're overcomplicating it. Men naturally see breasts and think, instinctively, that this person is fertile.

This is of course why different men have very different, um, tastes in such things.

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.

So a woman hanging out at a private pool with female friends, or in her own fenced-off back yard is, what.. "subconsciously" hoping that a male will show up and find her a desirable mate?

Culture that de-normalises male appreciation of feminine beauty is sick.

Female beauty, or some presently / culturally normative "feminine" beauty that evo-psych mistakes for "the result of evolution"?


Pretending that everything humans do is "about sex" is just as belittling, insulting, and ignorant as pretending that sex is some sort of dirty vile thing that we should all be ashamed of.

It's kinda funny how evo-psych with its pretensions of being "purely scientific" and a certain vein of religion with its pretensions of being "purely moral" twist themselves around so hard that they meet up at the asinine assertion that sex purely for reproduction.

[Amazon]

This is of course why different men have very different, um, tastes in such things.



So a woman hanging out at a private pool with female friends, or in her own fenced-off back yard is, what.. "subconsciously" hoping that a male will show up and find her a desirable mate?




Female beauty, or some presently / culturally normative "feminine" beauty that evo-psych mistakes for "the result of evolution"?


Pretending that everything humans do is "about sex" is just as belittling, insulting, and ignorant as pretending that sex is some sort of dirty vile thing that we should all be ashamed of.

It's kinda funny how evo-psych with its pretensions of being "purely scientific" and a certain vein of religion with its pretensions of being "purely moral" twist themselves around so hard that they meet up at the asinine assertion that sex purely for reproduction.

Wow I'm acutally disgusted by Donnadogsoth posts, I hope you grow out of this retrograde phase.

I'm concerned for your health

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow I'm acutally disgusted by Donnadogsoth posts, I hope you grow out of this retrograde phase.

I'm concerned for your health

My health?

[Dragonexx]

Seriously, Donnadogsoth. I was agreeing with you way earlier in the thread, but then you go way off the deep end into bat**** ****ing crazytown.

Evolutionary psychology is a thing, however it is nowhere near as influential on behaviors as you seem to think it is.

[Amazon]

My health?

No, Donnadogsoth health.

[Donnadogsoth]

So a woman hanging out at a private pool with female friends, or in her own fenced-off back yard is, what.. "subconsciously" hoping that a male will show up and find her a desirable mate?

You've just exampled why it's nice for women to have time apart from men, to free themselves from sexual anxiety.

Female beauty, or some presently / culturally normative "feminine" beauty that evo-psych mistakes for "the result of evolution"?

Pretending that everything humans do is "about sex" is just as belittling, insulting, and ignorant as pretending that sex is some sort of dirty vile thing that we should all be ashamed of.

It's kinda funny how evo-psych with its pretensions of being "purely scientific" and a certain vein of religion with its pretensions of being "purely moral" twist themselves around so hard that they meet up at the asinine assertion that sex purely for reproduction.

Freud is important but he is not all-important. The human mind is--or can be--or should be--bigger than its bestial drives, but that doesn't mean those drives aren't large and powerful, whether they're caged in the dungeon of the subconscious or not. You seem to be painting me as if my mind were 100% consumed by evo-psych--I don't even care if evolution put the human mind together or if something else did--to the point of viewing human sexuality as solely in terms of reproduction. This is false and you should have enough good faith to realise it. I am arguing here in favour of archetypal representations in fantasy art, derived from the deep mind. Sexuality enters into it but circumstance can certainly alter how sexuality is expressed.

[Max_Killjoy]

You've just exampled why it's nice for women to have time apart from men, to free themselves from sexual anxiety.

You appear to have said that women cannot wear certain clothing for any reason other than "being appealing", even if they don't consciously realize it.

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.

Freud is important but he is not all-important.

Freud was nothing more than someone who got famous projecting his own issues on the entirety of the human population.

The human mind is--or can be--or should be--bigger than its bestial drives, but that doesn't mean those drives aren't large and powerful, whether they're caged in the dungeon of the subconscious or not. You seem to be painting me as if my mind were 100% consumed by evo-psych--I don't even care if evolution put the human mind together or if something else did--to the point of viewing human sexuality as solely in terms of reproduction. This is false and you should have enough good faith to realise it. I am arguing here in favour of archetypal representations in fantasy art, derived from the deep mind. Sexuality enters into it but circumstance can certainly alter how sexuality is expressed.

Archetypes mean nothing to me. They're nothing but another potential hazard to be avoided in writing / worldbuilding.

[Donnadogsoth]

Seriously, Donnadogsoth. I was agreeing with you way earlier in the thread, but then you go way off the deep end into bat**** ****ing crazytown.

Evolutionary psychology is a thing, however it is nowhere near as influential on behaviors as you seem to think it is.

I think people are tangling my arguments up in "evolutionary psychology" when I (as said above) don't really care where these instincts came from. The point is, human have instincts. Survival, sex, social life, meaning. I mean, does anyone deny that testosterone has a psychological effect? That's genetic in origin. So are the psychological changes associated with the menstrual cycle. So, I don't see how what I am saying--"men like looking at the fantasy art they do because they are wired to"--is so controversial, much less bat**** ****ing insane.

[Zanos]

It's kinda funny how evo-psych with its pretensions of being "purely scientific" and a certain vein of religion with its pretensions of being "purely moral" twist themselves around so hard that they meet up at the asinine assertion that sex purely for reproduction.

I don't think any evo-psycher other than the strawmen you've created would argue that. Both biologists and psychologists have known for a long time that human sex is important for social bonding and pleasure, and has been for a long time. Reproduction is obviously it's primary purpose, as we are biological animals, but it's not its only purpose.

Archetypes mean nothing to me. They're nothing but another potential hazard to be avoided in writing / worldbuilding.

What's wrong with archetypes? Magic hard to learn in my setting and requires years of dedicated study -> most skilled wizards are reclusive bookworms. That seems fine to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, I don't see how what I am saying--"men like looking at the fantasy art they do because they are wired to"--is so controversial, much less bat**** ****ing insane.

It's controversial because it's a gross oversimplification -- and because it paints men in the same unsavory and animalistic sort of "but they can't help it, that's how they're wired" light that when taken to another order of magnitude makes for some pretty ugly excuses for other behaviors.

I don't think any evo-psycher other than the strawmen you've created would argue that. Both biologists and psychologists have known for a long time that human sex is important for social bonding and pleasure, and has been for a long time. Reproduction is obviously it's primary purpose, as we are biological animals, but it's not its only purpose.

If it's a strawman, it's not my strawman... man.

Spoiler

Show

It Ain't Necessarily So - Evo Psych's "Just So" Stories
Evolutionary Psychology Is Neither | The Evolution Institute
Evolutionary psychology gets evolution wrong.
αEP: The fundamental failure of the evolutionary psychology premise – Pharyngula
Kenan Malik's essay on the flaws of evolutionary psychology
Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology - Scientific American
A Critique of Evolutionary Psychology — The Psychology In Seattle Podcast

All those articles were written in response to actual claims made by actual apostles of actual evo-psych.

[Donnadogsoth]

You appear to have said that women cannot wear certain clothing for any reason other than "being appealing", even if they don't consciously realize it.

I am naïve enough to expect charitable interpretations of what I may or may not have phrased perfectly, complete with umlauts and curlicues. My point is that one unavoidable (outside of tyranny) aspect of the womanly experience is dealing with the male gaze, so that whatever other reasons they may have to wear their bikini--better tan, like polka dots and yellow, want to fit in, etc.--one reason around men, that they would have to be crazy or stupid to miss, is that men like looking at nearly naked women.

Freud was nothing more than someone who got famous projecting his own issues on the entirety of the human population.

Freud came up with the id, which a big world religion needs to function properly, so on those grounds I can't help but agree with him. If you're interested in an investigation and possibly quasi-defence of Freud, you can do worse than investigating Jordan Peterson.

Archetypes mean nothing to me. They're nothing but another potential hazard to be avoided in writing / worldbuilding.

Well, we might be sophisticating ourselves to death. To dump the archetypes, however, really smacks of the Hebraic lineage of thought, if you think about it. The archetypes, seen in Joseph Campbell's works such as Hero With a Thousand Faces have something pagan or heathen about them, a recurring, cyclical nature. The Hebraic line, extending to the present day among a couple of contemporary religions and the civilisation they have made, is very much a movement of unique happenstance. There are great themes and certain cyclical events, but the essence is a movement towards ever increasing order that is paralleled—adopted—by the secular ideas of scientific and social progress. To that we could add the progress of worldbuilding and storytelling. Perhaps the archetypes will find themselves echoing more and more faintly as this progress, er, progresses.

It's controversial because it's a gross oversimplification -- and because it paints men in the same unsavory and animalistic sort of "but they can't help it, that's how they're wired" light that when taken to another order of magnitude makes for some pretty ugly excuses for other behaviors.

I don't think the statement "most men like looking at women's bodies" is a gross oversimplification. And humans are not animals, we can, barring insanity or brain damage, control our destructive impulses. I think you're talking the way you do because we've been talking closely about these issues without standing up and getting a breather to modes of human intercourse that have less to do with thorny issues around sex and instinct. As I like to put it, humans are not fundamentally good, but they are fundamentally worthwhile, they are capable of following the light side, so to speak, and it is not my intention, and I resent any insinuation or charge that it is, to suggest that my understanding of human instincts in any way excuses people's wickedness.