Armor designs for females?

[SaurOps]

Still sparsely on the forums until the coming week when I'm off from work but I read something in the thread that, as a student of art, reminded me of something else.



[URL="https://whenthenextdaycomes.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/case-study-art-during-the-stalin-era-in-the-u-s-s-r/"]Link for convenience



Such happy. Much rightness. So innocence.
[IMG]http://www.science-at-home.net/gallery/art/albums/userpics/normal_Boris_Wladimirskij-Rosen_fuer_Stalin.jpg

EDIT:

Deep inside. Every one. Not bad, just guilty. Much faith. Natural is evil. Go truth. Join and be saved.

EDIT 2:[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_art"]Soviet Art

This is a massive distortion of wanting boob window armor to stay in the bedroom and off of adventurers in locations that they know to be strange and dangerous. We don't praise the characters of the most recent Alien/Prometheus outings for engaging in similar behavior by taking off their helmets on strange planets, so why try to justify not-armor in a dungeon, unless it's one that you built for safe, sane, and consensual purposes?

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a massive distortion of wanting boob window armor to stay in the bedroom and off of adventurers in locations that they know to be strange and dangerous. We don't praise the characters of the most recent Alien/Prometheus outings for engaging in similar behavior by taking off their helmets on strange planets, so why try to justify not-armor in a dungeon, unless it's one that you built for safe, sane, and consensual purposes?

Massive distortion is all that one has in their quiver, sadly.

[Ashiel]

This is a massive distortion of wanting boob window armor to stay in the bedroom and off of adventurers in locations that they know to be strange and dangerous. We don't praise the characters of the most recent Alien/Prometheus outings for engaging in similar behavior by taking off their helmets on strange planets, so why try to justify not-armor in a dungeon, unless it's one that you built for safe, sane, and consensual purposes?

See that thing flying way up there? That's the point, and you missed it.

(This, of course betrays the fact that Ashiel is somewhat right and I won't be happy until fans of skeevy content can't get what they want - because I still can't manage to think of a reason to enjoy these things that does not, in some part, rests on sexist thinking (That pretty much everyone of us, including me, still has ingrained in us somewhere, and does not make one a bad person just for the fact), and I think this sort of thinking should best be phased out as soon as possible.

Because as I said before, this is just moral authoritarianism.

We're dealing with a mindset that won't be satisfied unless others are doing without what they like, because they feel like they and everyone else must be saved from some nebulous evil, because they just don't understand the real truth like the person wanting to take away a particularly style of art that they enjoy. It should all be phased out, to lead to a world of rightness.

Not only does that match Stalin's Soviet Russia, in that you have an ideology that wishes to wipe away the unsanctioned artistic expressions it does not see as conductive to the idealized society, it's also very religiously dogmatic, in that it makes assumptions that evil is simply there in the hearts of these people and there's nothing they can really do about it except repent and join you, because if they don't, they're either misinformed, confused, or intentionally evil themselves and trying to lead others astray.

Sorry, it doesn't matter what box you package it in, **** smells like ****. As I noted before, we've spent decades dealing with people like Patricia Pulling, Jackthompson, and Anita Sarkeesian. After a while it gets old man. Just so very old. Especially when there are mountains of art to find illustrations for your tastes.

Or here's a novel idea...

[Arbane]

Sorry, it doesn't matter what box you package it in, **** smells like ****. As I noted before, we've spent decades dealing with people like Patricia Pulling, Jackthompson, and Anita Sarkeesian. After a while it gets old man. Just so very old. Especially when there are mountains of art to find illustrations for your tastes.

I am confused. What has Anita Sarkeesian done, besides pointing out the sexist cliches in videogames (and as a result, been on the receiving end of a tsunami of screaming hateful nerdfury from misogynistic gaming fanatics)?

And if you seriously think kvetching about boobplate being sexist and un"realistic" is somehow 'totalitarian', it's staggeringly ineffective totalitarianism, as my Tumblr 'fantasy art' tag indicates that boobplate is still flourishing in its native environment.

For gaming books, trying not to actively annoy half of the population is probably good business sense. If you need fantasy-themed porn THAT much, well, the Internet is a big place.

[Floret]

@LiquorBox: I will respond to you, but that will take... some time to write up, and I thought some other points required a quicker response.

Still sparsely on the forums until the coming week when I'm off from work but I read something in the thread that, as a student of art, reminded me of something else.

(This, of course betrays the fact that Ashiel is somewhat right and I won't be happy until fans of skeevy content can't get what they want - because I still can't manage to think of a reason to enjoy these things that does not, in some part, rests on sexist thinking (That pretty much everyone of us, including me, still has ingrained in us somewhere, and does not make one a bad person just for the fact), and I think this sort of thinking should best be phased out as soon as possible. So far, the point in favour has not been "no, actually there are a number of reasons to enjoy this beyond that"; but simply "Let people enjoy what the want", which doesn't really counter any of the points. As long as people enjoy these things, they do have reason to exist, but from my current standpoints and knowlege, my problem is that people enjoy these things; or rather that the reason people enjoy these things exists. If that makes any sense?
So, I guess there is a question in there: Are there reasons people enjoy these things that are not rooted in somewhat sexist thinking? Which ones? I'd love to hear - being able to feel more comfortable with the current state of media would be a good thing!
Even without that, I can accept there being people and things I don't like in the world, however. It's part of life. I will do what I can do to try and change it, without causing collateral damage (As censorship, if I could do that, would definitely cause).)

Please, can we stop cutting off quotes in the middle to make them say (more) what we want them to say?
Because, let's note what I said AFTER the part that you quoted, shall we? I think two points are somewhat relevant.
1. "If there is a reason for these things that is not sexism, please tell me and correct my misconception. I want to feel comfortable with the current state of affairs but simply cannot with my current view on things."
2. "I am willing to accept the world being a non-ideal place if the alternative is censorship."
Now, the second point is, I think, all I need to say to your accusation of authoritarianism. I am not willing to impose my ideal onto others beyond explaining them, and why I think the world might be better that way. If I fail to convince them, that is my problem.
But: People's tastes aren't some nebulous higher good beyond criticism. "People just like it" is not an argument, people like a lot of terrible things. There are probably people out there that unironically enjoy FATAL. Doesn't mean that game doesn't deserve everything it gets.
Beyond that "It should be legal to be able to do this thing" is not enough reason for doing something. It might be legal to throw your houseplants out of the window, if you don't inflict harm on anyone by doing it (And possibly clean up afterwards). I'd still argue the statement "It is generally a bad idea to do that" holds true.
So, I repeat myself: I work under the assumption that sexism is a bad thing, and society would be better off without it (A). So far, I have been convinced that these kinds of depictions fall in line with sexist assumptions, and (in very, very minor ways) repeat them, and spread them (B). From this follows, that those kinds of depictions are probably also not a good thing, and society would probably be better off without them. Since I so far have the impression you agree with (A), but not with (B): Please tell me where the problem with it is, and what other foundation or reason there is for these things not in line with sexism?

It just seems kind of weird and contradictory to me.

In the previous thread you seemed to say things like "It isn't rape to seduce a fictional character, because even if the controlling player doesn't consent to sex, the CHARACTER does."

And in this thread you seem to be saying things like:

"It is not ok for a fictional character to wear sexualized clothing because, unlike a real person, a fictional character cannot give consent, and thus their choices are purely those of the creator."

Well... sort of. Yes, I am saying things that one could parse this way.
But see, the thing is, while a fictional character not being able to "decide" to wear something (And that is instead put upon them by the creator). Furthermore, the character has no Doylist consent, none that can be violated by real people, because on a Doylist level, the character isn't a person, but a bunch of ideas, maybe a painting, maybe some words.
So... no, a real person cannot rape a fictional character. How would they? In the same way that it is impossible to rape an idea, a painting, or words. They aren't an entity that can give consent on a Doylist level, because they fail to be an entity on that level. But every decision made for them is ultimately decided on that level. (On a Watsonian level, I'd argue the seduction isn't rape, because a successfull seduction just... isn't rape.)
Or are you arguing that by seducing a character in-game, you are, by proxy, raping their player, if they do not consent to the character being seduced? To that, I would say... No, just because a character can't make decisions for themselves (if viewed on a Doylist level), the creator does not become the character, and what happens to the character does not actually happen to the creator.
(Now, you might well be violating the player's agency over their character, but that is another discussion for another thread)

It is indeed rare for a protagonist to display this kind of power, or society tends to picture heroes as using violence / physical means to overcome problems, but it isn't unheard of. IMO the best games are those that allow a social character to triumph in ways that a physical one could not, most of the classic Black Isle games follow this paradigm and are awesome because of it.

Sure, it is a great thing, if it happens. (One of the reasons I argue for Social mechanics in RPGs having mechanical teeth )

[Tobtor]

See that thing flying way up there? That's the point, and you missed it.


Because as I said before, this is just moral authoritarianism.

We're dealing with a mindset that won't be satisfied unless others are doing without what they like, because they feel like they and everyone else must be saved from some nebulous evil, because they just don't understand the real truth like the person wanting to take away a particularly style of art that they enjoy. It should all be phased out, to lead to a world of rightness.

Not only does that match Stalin's Soviet Russia, in that you have an ideology that wishes to wipe away the unsanctioned artistic expressions it does not see as conductive to the idealized society, it's also very religiously dogmatic, in that it makes assumptions that evil is simply there in the hearts of these people and there's nothing they can really do about it except repent and join you, because if they don't, they're either misinformed, confused, or intentionally evil themselves and trying to lead others astray.

Sorry, it doesn't matter what box you package it in, **** smells like ****. As I noted before, we've spent decades dealing with people like Patricia Pulling, Jackthompson, and Anita Sarkeesian. After a while it gets old man. Just so very old. Especially when there are mountains of art to find illustrations for your tastes.

Or here's a novel idea...

Ashiel: you a far out of line. This thread when from bad to horrible really quickly. I didn't think it could go down from being called a "feminazi", But a whole post arguing that people disagreeing with you are in effect totalitarian Stalinists (and not just a a short throwaway, but a whole post, well actually two).

I tink this will be the last of this thread for me. I would like point out that NONE of us have argued that the government should go in and forbid specific kinds of art, but that we have used our freedom of speech (which I, for one, love) to ARGUE with words that we dislike something in our present stage of out common hobby, and would like that to change (the portrayal of female armour specifically and also female depictions in general).

If you consider disagreeing with you makes people Stalinist and feminazist etc, I think we are done arguing. You are now on my (very short) ignore list. Maybe you consider that totalitarian, but so be it. I consider it reasonably as we will never agree, if you consider opposite opinions to to your own to automatically be equal to some of the worst regimes in history.

[Lord Raziere]

Well said Tobtor! There is no useful discussion from someone who thinks that these complaints are equivalent to Totalitarianism. Ashiel by doing so, seems to be just as much of a crusader as the one she speaks against. There are probably people out there who think that any skimpiness is bad and must be covered up and probably just as demonizing of the opposition, but two wrongs don't make a right, and two people calling each other the enemy do not make a better world.

I think we can call this thread a success, ladies and gentlemen, between bio-essentialism, a sexy pic freedom crusader who believes that we're totalitarian and another person who unironically used the term "feminazi" I think we adequately demonstrated why this issue still needs work and why we must keep working for reasonable, responsible depictions of female armor appropriate to the situation. You think we don't need to talk about such things, and then we talk about them and its revealed why we talk about them. There are still people with misconceptions about this issue and beliefs that can only lead to conflict which is counterproductive to solving this.

In conclusion I'd say:
While there are some certain niche works where skimpiness is the norm and the point, the general rule is that armor is armor, not fashion. and armor need to protect one by covering up, thats the point. This has nothing to do with realism- a cartoonish overly heavy piece of armor with big pauldrons is just as protective as the most realistic ones considering the silly unrealistic universes they reside within. While its ok for a character to be depicted as skimpy and sexy, protective armor is not a cultural thing, its objective about whether you live or die, and I'd much rather see someone live through battle in cool looking armor then take it off out of battle then be sexy when they're not trying to survive- with good armor, the person has TWO possible looks rather than one, and thus more depth, more focuses than just sexiness, more ways to express themselves. Thus can reasonable armor actually increase freedom in fantasy than restrict it, as you are free to show that they are sensible enough to wear it when need be, yet still enjoy life in skimpier wear when they don't have to. While it is important to show one enjoying life and wearing what they like, its also important to show someone being sensible enough to survive long enough to do so.

[Ashiel]

I am confused. What has Anita Sarkeesian done, besides pointing out the sexist cliches in videogames (and as a result, been on the receiving end of a tsunami of screaming hateful nerdfury from misogynistic gaming fanatics)?

Being a sexist, lying, con artist is a good start.

[Donnadogsoth]

Well said Tobtor! There is no useful discussion from someone who thinks that these complaints are equivalent to Totalitarianism. Ashiel by doing so, seems to be just as much of a crusader as the one she speaks against. There are probably people out there who think that any skimpiness is bad and must be covered up and probably just as demonizing of the opposition, but two wrongs don't make a right, and two people calling each other the enemy do not make a better world.

I think we can call this thread a success, ladies and gentlemen, between bio-essentialism, a sexy pic freedom crusader who believes that we're totalitarian and another person who unironically used the term "feminazi" I think we adequately demonstrated why this issue still needs work and why we must keep working for reasonable, responsible depictions of female armor appropriate to the situation. You think we don't need to talk about such things, and then we talk about them and its revealed why we talk about them. There are still people with misconceptions about this issue and beliefs that can only lead to conflict which is counterproductive to solving this.

In conclusion I'd say:
While there are some certain niche works where skimpiness is the norm and the point, the general rule is that armor is armor, not fashion. and armor need to protect one by covering up, thats the point. This has nothing to do with realism- a cartoonish overly heavy piece of armor with big pauldrons is just as protective as the most realistic ones considering the silly unrealistic universes they reside within. While its ok for a character to be depicted as skimpy and sexy, protective armor is not a cultural thing, its objective about whether you live or die, and I'd much rather see someone live through battle in cool looking armor then take it off out of battle then be sexy when they're not trying to survive- with good armor, the person has TWO possible looks rather than one, and thus more depth, more focuses than just sexiness, more ways to express themselves. Thus can reasonable armor actually increase freedom in fantasy than restrict it, as you are free to show that they are sensible enough to wear it when need be, yet still enjoy life in skimpier wear when they don't have to. While it is important to show one enjoying life and wearing what they like, its also important to show someone being sensible enough to survive long enough to do so.

I was going to respond to your "I can hold my peace no longer" post, but, I waited. I'm not sure this thread will get the wind-down it deserves. So, I shall add the following.

1. So long as men like women, they will like looking at images of fertility.
2. So long as men have territorial goals and frustrations, they will like looking at power fantasies.
3. So long as women like men, they will like displaying their fertility.
4. So long as RPGs exist there will be gaming art.
5. So long as they are not crushed by legal and social rules, artists will produce art depicting fertile women.
6. So long as artists depict fertile women in danger, some or many artists will produce art depicting fertile women who are also power fantasies.

The modern scientific, verisimilar, rational mental framework that's on display in this thread is based on the principle of sufficient reason, that everything must have a reason for being the way it is and not another way. This is not a bad thing in of itself; I agree with the principle. But, it forces some reflection when sought to be applied to something like fertile power fantasies, in order to delaminate our options out of the mists of our psychological naïvete. And, so, we see our options are fourfold:

Option 1. Slap sensible armour on all the women combatants.

Option 2. Declare revealing and combat-insensible armour to be magical.

Option 3. Set the action in environments where skimpiness makes literal sense.

Option 4. Reject verisimilitude in favour of mythic, archetypal, psychological explanations.

Take your pick, and let me take mine.

Thanks for the interesting debate.

[Ashiel]

Ashiel: you a far out of line. This thread when from bad to horrible really quickly. I didn't think it could go down from being called a "feminazi", But a whole post arguing that people disagreeing with you are in effect totalitarian Stalinists (and not just a a short throwaway, but a whole post, well actually two).

If you're going to respond to my posts, respond to my posts. I didn't say anyone was a totalitarian Stalinist. I'm drawing a very real parallel with the mindset. It's a very human mindset. Yet it follows the same general flow. It's a sort of pattern that manifests itself in things, including totalitarian regimes.

It's the mindset that I have an issue with. It's the mindset I've seen, in one form or another, many times over the course of my life as someone tells someone else what they should or should not consume for entertainment based on their ideology and an unwillingness to simply live and let live.

If you want to block me for that, go ahead.

[Max_Killjoy]

I was going to respond to your "I can hold my peace no longer" post, but, I waited. I'm not sure this thread will get the wind-down it deserves. So, I shall add the following.

1. So long as men like women, they will like looking at images of fertility.
2. So long as men have territorial goals and frustrations, they will like looking at power fantasies.
3. So long as women like men, they will like displaying their fertility.
4. So long as RPGs exist there will be gaming art.
5. So long as they are not crushed by legal and social rules, artists will produce art depicting fertile women.
6. So long as artists depict fertile women in danger, some or many artists will produce art depicting fertile women who are also power fantasies.

Man, evolutionary psych just won't loose its hold on pop-sci.

There's an element of the pop-science press who loves to repeat that sort of "biology is destiny" and "reproduction drives all men to Y and all women to X" crap as if it's fact, so it's hard to blame people for repeating it as gospel trust, but it's just not true. Evolutionary psychology is largely a collection of just-so stories and rabbit holes, with more than its share of people who will react with outrage and accuse you of being "anti-science" or "a creationist" if you don't go along with their claims.

Some suggested reading on the topic -- seriously, before you repeat that "men, women, fertility" thing again somewhere, at least consider what's said in these.

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


Whenever you see someone, even a "scientist", start making absolute universal claims about what men like and what women like, based on just-so stories about things that they're asserting to know about our ancestors, go find the biggest grain of salt you can... I'd suggest a solid crystal of at least a pound in weight.

Our lives, our thoughts, and our behaviors, aren't actually all about power and fertility and reproduction, and anyone who claims that they are, is seeking easy simple answers to hard complex questions.

[ImNotTrevor]

Man, evolutionary psych just won't loose its hold on pop-sci.

Some suggested reading on the topic.

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


Whenever you see someone, even a "scientist", start making absolute universal claims about what men like and what women like, based on just-so stories about things that they're asserting to know about our ancestors, go find the biggest grain of salt you can... I'd suggest a solid crystal of at least a pound in weight.

Our lives, our thoughts, and our behaviors, aren't actually all about power and fertility and reproduction, and anyone who claims that they are, is seeking easy simple answers to hard complex questions.

*listens to the sound of someone missing the point of a post and feeling self-righteous about it*

"You shall not put words in my mouth. Now shut up and swallow these words!"

[Max_Killjoy]

Well said Tobtor! There is no useful discussion from someone who thinks that these complaints are equivalent to Totalitarianism. Ashiel by doing so, seems to be just as much of a crusader as the one she speaks against. There are probably people out there who think that any skimpiness is bad and must be covered up and probably just as demonizing of the opposition, but two wrongs don't make a right, and two people calling each other the enemy do not make a better world.

I think we can call this thread a success, ladies and gentlemen, between bio-essentialism, a sexy pic freedom crusader who believes that we're totalitarian and another person who unironically used the term "feminazi" I think we adequately demonstrated why this issue still needs work and why we must keep working for reasonable, responsible depictions of female armor appropriate to the situation. You think we don't need to talk about such things, and then we talk about them and its revealed why we talk about them. There are still people with misconceptions about this issue and beliefs that can only lead to conflict which is counterproductive to solving this.

Sometimes you just have to keep them talking long enough to destroy their own position.

In conclusion I'd say:
While there are some certain niche works where skimpiness is the norm and the point, the general rule is that armor is armor, not fashion. and armor need to protect one by covering up, thats the point. This has nothing to do with realism- a cartoonish overly heavy piece of armor with big pauldrons is just as protective as the most realistic ones considering the silly unrealistic universes they reside within. While its ok for a character to be depicted as skimpy and sexy, protective armor is not a cultural thing, its objective about whether you live or die, and I'd much rather see someone live through battle in cool looking armor then take it off out of battle then be sexy when they're not trying to survive- with good armor, the person has TWO possible looks rather than one, and thus more depth, more focuses than just sexiness, more ways to express themselves. Thus can reasonable armor actually increase freedom in fantasy than restrict it, as you are free to show that they are sensible enough to wear it when need be, yet still enjoy life in skimpier wear when they don't have to. While it is important to show one enjoying life and wearing what they like, its also important to show someone being sensible enough to survive long enough to do so.

Yeap.

There's nothing wrong with a character who is authentically in-character sexy, being sexy in situations where being "sexy" isn't also a huge increase in the chances of failure or death.

[Dragonexx]

Or as I said before, the simplest explanation is to just do whatever you have fun with. It is a game after all, and trying to police what other people do in their games is stupid and egotistical.

[Max_Killjoy]

Or as I said before, the simplest explanation is to just do whatever you have fun with. It is a game after all, and trying to police what other people do in their games is stupid and egotistical.

Then come back and complain when that's what's actually happening.

[Dragonexx]

I've been drifting in and out of this discussion for a while once it started to get stupid, so what the hell is going on anymore?

[Liquor Box]

Ashiel: you a far out of line. This thread when from bad to horrible really quickly. I didn't think it could go down from being called a "feminazi", But a whole post arguing that people disagreeing with you are in effect totalitarian Stalinists (and not just a a short throwaway, but a whole post, well actually two).

I tink this will be the last of this thread for me. I would like point out that NONE of us have argued that the government should go in and forbid specific kinds of art, but that we have used our freedom of speech (which I, for one, love) to ARGUE with words that we dislike something in our present stage of out common hobby, and would like that to change (the portrayal of female armour specifically and also female depictions in general).

If you consider disagreeing with you makes people Stalinist and feminazist etc, I think we are done arguing. You are now on my (very short) ignore list. Maybe you consider that totalitarian, but so be it. I consider it reasonably as we will never agree, if you consider opposite opinions to to your own to automatically be equal to some of the worst regimes in history.

I think you are exaggerating Ashiel's post. Her post did not refer to "people disagreeing with her" as "totalitarian Stalinists". Instead she referred to one single person as having a moral authoritarian attitude toward this issue.

Keep in mind that in the post Ashiel had quoted Floret* had said "Ashiel is somewhat right and I won't be happy until fans of skeevy content can't get what they want". Authoritarian means requiring a strict adherence to the rules at the expense of personal freedom. It seems to me that the thrust of Floret's statement is that she prefers that "fans of skeevy content" adhere to her own moral code at the expense of their freedom to enjoy conduct which Floret considers skeevy. So on the face of it, it appears to me that Ashiel's words "moral authoritarian" are consistent with Floret's own statement (which was framed as confirmation of an earlier similar allegation by Ashiel).

You may argue (as Floret kind of does) that moral authoritarianism is justified in this particular case, because there is no good reason to allow the sort of media she thinks is skeevy. But that does not mean that the words Ashiel used were so off the mark as to justify your response.

The later reference to authoritarianism being similar to what occurred in Soviet Russia, I think was to reinforce Ashiel's opinion that forcing people to adhere to what some authority sees as morally correct is a bad thing.

In that regard, it might be fair to say that Ashiel's words were somewhat provocative, and she could have come up with a much softer way to make the same point - but that criticism would fit many (probably most) in this thread on both sides of the argument.

* To be fair to Floret, she has said in other posts that she does not advocate censorship as a means to keep the skeevy content from its fans, in both that post and others. But in fairness to Ashiel, the reference to censorship in that post was at the end at could possibly have been misread as advocating censorship.

Can I suggest we not take offence to quickly in a thread about a topic that is polarising and nuanced, and thus one where people are sometimes going to get a little frustrated with others who do not agree with a point we see as obvious. Instead can we treat the people who disagree with us in this thread as intelligent (as I am sure the majority are), well meaning people (as I am sure the majority are), who merely have a different perspective to us,We might be able to get some of those who disagree with us to see another side of issue, or better yet, learn to see another side ourselves.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've been drifting in and out of this discussion for a while once it started to get stupid, so what the hell is going on anymore?

Unless it's buried in one of the walls of text, I don't think anyone has suggested telling other people how to run their separate gaming tables. So that's one thing that's not going on.

I don't think anyone is advocating goverment censorship.

I don't think anyone is advocating the total end of all sexually charged artwork.

[SaurOps]

See that thing flying way up there? That's the point, and you missed it.

Or perhaps you're just bellyaching and making mountains out of molehills? The fact that you're whining about Anita Sarkeesian seems to strongly suggest this. Someone points out that something isn't alright? The sky is falling! I am being attacked! My hand has reflexively launched itself to the pearls that I am wearing, so as to clutch them!

The section below is highly ironic on account of how much outrage you've been piling on to a shadow.

Because as I said before, this is just moral authoritarianism.

We're dealing with a mindset that won't be satisfied unless others are doing without what they like, because they feel like they and everyone else must be saved from some nebulous evil, because they just don't understand the real truth like the person wanting to take away a particularly style of art that they enjoy. It should all be phased out, to lead to a world of rightness.

Not only does that match Stalin's Soviet Russia, in that you have an ideology that wishes to wipe away the unsanctioned artistic expressions it does not see as conductive to the idealized society, it's also very religiously dogmatic, in that it makes assumptions that evil is simply there in the hearts of these people and there's nothing they can really do about it except repent and join you, because if they don't, they're either misinformed, confused, or intentionally evil themselves and trying to lead others astray.

Sorry, it doesn't matter what box you package it in, **** smells like ****. As I noted before, we've spent decades dealing with people like Patricia Pulling, Jackthompson, and Anita Sarkeesian. After a while it gets old man. Just so very old. Especially when there are mountains of art to find illustrations for your tastes.

One of these things if not like the other. Also, it's possible for porn to not be skeevy. And also be in a section where it is clearly marked as porn. You just have to pick up a different book or file collection to get it, as, again, packaging it with a tabletop game tends to be like multiclassing: you can try to make it work, but it's not the optimum condition. That's why The Scroll of Swallowed Darkness is generally fine where it is, but the remainder of 2nd edition Exalted has serious problems due to an infestation of fanservice.

Or here's a novel idea...

I started practicing with a couple of Loomis books back in 2008. I'm also currently on my tenth sketchbook of practice stuff. So, what was the point that you were trying to make again?

[Arbane]

Being a sexist, lying, con artist is a good start.

Uh huh. Go on.

[1337 b4k4]

There's nothing wrong with a character who is authentically in-character sexy, being sexy in situations where being "sexy" isn't also a huge increase in the chances of failure or death.

The fundamental disagreement here isn't in these statements, its in the statement that they're also nothing wrong with a character who is sexy or being sexy for no reason at all or where it makes no sense either.

Art doesn't have to make sense, or even have internal consistency to be engaging or otherwise entertaining. There's also nothing wrong with finding such art cold, stupid, immersion breaking or even annoying. But your lack of enjoyment from a given piece of art doesn't mean the art is problematic, harmful, dangerous or corrupting.

[pres_man]

Others: We want to see women dressed in clothing and armor that makes sense! We want to see other representations than the boob windows and mid-drifts and all the other nonsense! In fact it should be possible for no one to be able to tell your sex or gender by what you are wearing!

Me: Where do I sign the petition, I totally support more choices for people in games and artwork. And with the greater acceptance of various types of gender identification, giving people choices include asexual choices certainly makes sense.

Others: All of those other depictions are sexist! Anyone who likes them is sexist! Anyone who supports products that they are produced in is supporting sexism and the patriarchy!

Me: Uh ... can't we all just like what we like and not tell others they are sinners for not liking what we like?

Others: shame ... Shame ... SHame ... SHAme ... SHAMe ... SHAME!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is really my issue. This is not being discuss by some as a topic related to personal preference or even how much of the various types of representation should be included, instead it is literally being discussed as if it is a moral issue.

For example:

So, I repeat myself: I work under the assumption that sexism is a bad thing, and society would be better off without it (A). So far, I have been convinced that these kinds of depictions fall in line with sexist assumptions, and (in very, very minor ways repeat them, and spread them (B). From this follows, that those kinds of depictions are probably also not a good thing, and society would probably be better off without them. Since I so far have the impression you agree with (A), but not with (B): Please tell me where the problem with it is, and what other foundation or reason there is for these things not in line with sexism?

That is a moral description. It is presenting that it is immoral (i.e. sexist) to like these depictions being referred to. This is not merely a difference in preference, but a war for the "souls" of the population, especially the youth who must not be "corrupted" (taught to internalize misogyny for example).

People are right though, they are not calling for government action. But there other ways to apply pressure to others besides the government. Calling people [insert]ists and getting others to join in and shaming them for their "sins" is a common way.

Sorry, I don't belong to your "church", your claims of sins don't concern me.
I don't believe art like this is sexist:

Spoiler

Show

Now if you want more diversity in representation, I have got your back and am with you. But if you feel the need to try to shame others for their preferences, sorry, I didn't join your "church" and don't subscribe to your views on "sin".

[Lord Raziere]

@ pres_man and 1337 b4k4:
Just keep beating that strawman you both set up there. I'll be over here when your ready to actually discuss things reasonably.

[Max_Killjoy]

@ pres_man and 1337 b4k4:
Just keep beating that strawman you both set up there. I'll be over here when your ready to actually discuss things reasonably.

And the funny thing is, it's the same sort of strawmen I've been seeing directed against anyone who even questions the contextual applicability / sense of a certain strain of artwork for about 20 years... and I'm pretty sure they were out there before that as well.

I don't believe art like this is sexist:

Spoiler

Show

It's too ridiculous to be sexist... if anyone tried to depict any of the characters I've ever created going into combat in that outlandish fetish gear, I'd fire them (or "cease and desist" them) on the spot.

[Satinavian]

Uh huh. Go on.

Oh, no, no, no

Can we please let that controversy out of this thread ? It is bad enough as it is. We really don't need to reopen one of the ugliest collections of flamewars in the whole gaming related internet history.

@ pres_man and 1337 b4k4:
Just keep beating that strawman you both set up there. I'll be over here when your ready to actually discuss things reasonably.

I don't think that is fair.

We have a significant part of the thread tried to establish motivations and goals via visiting questions like
"Would you be happy if an MMO has normal and skimpy outfits and it is left to player choice ?"
"Would you be happy if some (single player) RPGs have realistic armor and others don't, so everyone can have their kind of game ?"
"Where are non skimpy alternatives for fighting games ?"
"Can just anyone like what he likes and be happy ?"
"It it really about the realisticness of the armor or is it about the sexiness and perceived objectification ?"


If you and Floret and Max_killjoy had ever clearly established that you just want options that appeal to your taste and don't care what other games do and if other tastes also get what they want, we wouldn't be here. Floret even admitted that this was not really the case for her but also stated that she sees the problem with trying to get options other people like out of games.

And the other side has pretty clearly stated that they have no problem with more realistic and diverse art appearing as options as long as they can keep the skimpiness in the stuff they actually play. If hat would have been acceptable the thread would have been over long ago.


So no, it is not a strawman. It is what some people think is actually the position of their opponents. And i am honestly not sure how wrong/right they are.


Of course the real problem is that there are only a couple of high budget video games per year. And there can also only be a handfull of successfull MMOs. Everyone would prefer those would cater to their own tastes and that the other tastes be relegated to niche markets. There can't simply be options for everyone in some segments. The markets are not big enough. This is why the fights are so fierce.




Personally i woule like more female representation (i tend to play female whenever possible) and armor to be more realistic, but have no problem with sexy clothing or attractive characters, even if i would like to see more body shapes present. And if i skip a game because of stupid unrealistic armoe, i don't care at all, if the stupidity is "equal".




I also don't think that Ashiels posts are fair or fitting. While the "live and let live" was not really acepted by people unhappy with the current state, they also did not suggest censorship. It seems to be more a case of "Let's tell people how bad it is and they will agree and the skimpyness with leave the mainstream because no one really liked it anyway because there is no reason to like it". Which obviously does not work with people who actually do like it.
So... what now ?

[Ashiel]

I think you are exaggerating Ashiel's post. Her post did not refer to "people disagreeing with her" as "totalitarian Stalinists". Instead she referred to one single person as having a moral authoritarian attitude toward this issue.

Thank you for actually reading what I said, and for the rest of your post.

Now if you want more diversity in representation, I have got your back and am with you. But if you feel the need to try to shame others for their preferences, sorry, I didn't join your "church" and don't subscribe to your views on "sin".

Pretty much this. Thanks.

I started practicing with a couple of Loomis books back in 2008. I'm also currently on my tenth sketchbook of practice stuff. So, what was the point that you were trying to make again?

Spoiler: Represent

Show

[Ashiel]

Oh, no, no, no

Can we please let that controversy out of this thread ? It is bad enough as it is. We really don't need to reopen one of the ugliest collections of flamewars in the whole gaming related internet history.

No worries. It's all on the internet if anyone cares. Anyone curious as to who people like Jack Thompson are can find all the arguments against them easily enough. I've said my piece.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think that is fair.

We have a significant part of the thread tried to establish motivations and goals via visiting questions like
"Would you be happy if an MMO has normal and skimpy outfits and it is left to player choice ?"
"Would you be happy if some (single player) RPGs have realistic armor and others don't, so everyone can have their kind of game ?"
"Where are non skimpy alternatives for fighting games ?"
"Can just anyone like what he likes and be happy ?"
"It it really about the realisticness of the armor or is it about the sexiness and perceived objectification ?"


If you and Floret and Max_killjoy had ever clearly established that you just want options that appeal to your taste and don't care what other games do and if other tastes also get what they want, we wouldn't be here. Floret even admitted that this was not really the case for her but also stated that she sees the problem with trying to get options other people like out of games.

And the other side has pretty clearly stated that they have no problem with more realistic and diverse art appearing as options as long as they can keep the skimpiness in the stuff they actually play. If hat would have been acceptable the thread would have been over long ago.


So no, it is not a strawman. It is what some people think is actually the position of their opponents. And i am honestly not sure how wrong/right they are.


Of course the real problem is that there are only a couple of high budget video games per year. And there can also only be a handfull of successfull MMOs. Everyone would prefer those would cater to their own tastes and that the other tastes be relegated to niche markets. There can't simply be options for everyone in some segments. The markets are not big enough. This is why the fights are so fierce.


Personally i woule like more female representation (i tend to play female whenever possible) and armor to be more realistic, but have no problem with sexy clothing or attractive characters, even if i would like to see more body shapes present. And if i skip a game because of stupid unrealistic armoe, i don't care at all, if the stupidity is "equal".


I also don't think that Ashiels posts are fair or fitting. While the "live and let live" was not really acepted by people unhappy with the current state, they also did not suggest censorship. It seems to be more a case of "Let's tell people how bad it is and they will agree and the skimpyness with leave the mainstream because no one really liked it anyway because there is no reason to like it". Which obviously does not work with people who actually do like it.
So... what now ?

Part of the disconnect is perhaps that I look at a piece of artwork and see it as a window into another world, whereas some others see it as strictly something to be looked at and enjoyed by the viewer.


On armor -- the presentation is often equal-opportunity stupid. Giant shoulder spikes and random sharp bits sticking out... plates that make basic human movements impossible... gaps in protection in the worst places. However, there's an added element of (attempted) sexual titillation that's far more prevalent in depictions of female characters in "armor". If a character is wearing armor, it should be functional, or what's the point?

Is the artist really depicting this "fictional reality" accurately, and if they are, what does all this dysfunctional armor, with the added element sexual display primarily of female characters, tell me about the character and the setting?

"But I want to look at sexy ladies!" As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing sexy about horrible fail-armor regardless of which bits the "armor" might display, imply, or "enhance". It makes the character look like an idiot, and stupid isn't attractive. I don't see how characters getting themselves defeated, injured, or killed is "sexy".

This isn't the same as a character wearing no armor in contexts where that makes sense. Wearing something into combat that weighs you down and wears you out faster but doesn't offer protection to the most vital bits... is actively counter-productive regardless of the context.


On the art as art -- quite often, the artwork in question is just bad from a technical point of view... it displays a poor grasp of anatomy, of composition, of context, and so on. Impossible poses, mismatched anatomy, odd angles, failure of basic perspective, failure to understand and convey the character, failure to understand and convey the situation being portrayed, etc. See, the Power Girl side-by-side posted upthread.


On sexualization -- the problem isn't that characters should never be shown to be as sexual entities. It's that they're so often shown as overtly sexualized in situations where it makes no sense, to the detriment of the character... and this is disproportionately done to female characters.

And this often takes the form of them being turned into objects for the gratification of others, rather than as characters in their own right. This is little different from how actual living women are often portrayed in media as well.

This is not the same as characters having sexual elements that make sense within the context of the character and the setting and the situation. Somehow, criticism of sexualization and objectification is taken as an attack on any content that ever depicts the character as a sexual entity of any sort. Somehow, wanting to not objectify the character is taken as an attempt to "sanitize" or "moralize" the character into an ugly prudish neuter.


On impact -- this artwork doesn't exist in a vacuum. Women in our culture, especially young women and even girls from a very young age, are bombarded with messages that it's their appearance, sexual appeal, how they can be pleasing to others, etc, that makes them worthwhile. They're told that "attractive" and "smart" are competing qualities. In some first-world countries, they're still told that being smart or athletic or accomplished aren't "feminine" or "attractive". They're told that they're horribly flawed, and that only be spending money and "perfecting" themselves can they overcome these flaws, and then "complete" themselves by finding a man.

And young men are sent the message that women exist to gratify and please them, that they exist for their enjoyment.


On the irony -- buried in their fallacious outcry that we want to control what they can draw and look at, and that we want to censor sexiness out of art, is their unspoken assertion that only via the display of skin and body parts can a woman be attractive, and that only "signs of fertility" and "displays of power" can be sexy. In accusing us of trying to take "sexy" out of the artwork, they're also in some cases asserting that only a very narrow range of depictions can be attractive or pleasing.


On control and censorship -- there's a difference between saying something should change or that a particular thing shouldn't be done... and demanding that the force of law and the state by applied to make that change a reality. It's even perhaps a bit saddening that in our current culture, people can't tell the difference between "shouldn't" and "not allowed to".


So -- yeah, I'd love to see pandering, demeaning, objectifying artwork go the way of blackface. I just don't want anyone to have the power to force it to happen, because that same power can be turned against other things just as easily.

[SaurOps]

Represent

I'm afraid that I don't have anything online; hardware wasn't up to the transfer in years past. Also, some other technical skills have eluded me, which brings up another point from when you made the same suggestion many posts ago, and my response to it. Specifically, the first point; you shouldn't need to have to draw in order to get in to an argument about media produced for mass market consumption. Else, no one would be able to.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm afraid that I don't have anything online; hardware wasn't up to the transfer in years past. Also, some other technical skills have eluded me, which brings up another point from when you made the same suggestion many posts ago, and my response to it. Specifically, the first point; you shouldn't need to have to draw in order to get in to an argument about media produced for mass market consumption. Else, no one would be able to.

Ah, yes, I see that they've fallen back on the "I'd like to see you do better" fallacy.