Armor designs for females?

[Ashiel]

We need more Hennet fanart.

Spoiler: He thought belts stacked

Show

Yes we do. My brother also thinks belts stack. It's pretty rad.

[Floret]

Well, that's one of the places where I think our views divide the most. As noted in those stories mentioned in our PMs, I tend to put a lot more stock in the ripples that we as individuals can create within the world and how it shapes society as a reflection of ourselves who in fact make up the society.

I see it as kind of like water in a pool. Lash out at the water and the water crashes back at you. Change yourself in the water and it moves with you and the wake reaches the edges. One is futile, the other is beautiful. The empowerment of the individual is I believe necessary to ensuring the health of the whole society.

Because, as noted in the PM, no level of activism would have changed the minds of those old men. No amount of calling them names could have changed their minds. If anything, it would have only firmed their resolve against me as a problem. But, they fell into my wake and now swim with me. Now when someone says something bad about people like me, they who were against me, now turn and say "Well, y'know, it's not all that bad 'cause y'see, I know this kid..." and now they're continuing that wake.

I realize that it might seem a little metaphysical, and I apologize. It's just what I've seen works. I'd actually use this conversation in this thread as an example. There are multiple posters, myself included, who have already noted that we generally prefer realistic armor on people, but I'll fight you tooth and nail until the end because you and others are trying to enact an authoritarian position on the grounds of your personal morality and/or your personal aesthetic preferences. And to that, I say no. Everyone else has just as much right to enjoy what they enjoy, and it's not your business, nor my business, nor anyone else's business about that.

And before anyone says one side is getting catered to more than the other, I'd like to stop you right there and point out that this thread was about D&D art, and it quickly mutated into being about other mediums because there wasn't enough scanty art to be found from D&D sources. Someone showed a few Elmore pictures and a lady being held by a demon, and then mountains of other fantasy art, including Elmore's art, and other D&D portraits throughout the editions sprang up, showing that not only was the skimpy stuff not a majority but it was largely the minority.

I don't even think our views differ that much. As I explained there, I tend to go the same route, most of the time - and, as I said, aggregates and stuff. Individual actions shape society. Like, seriously, I agree with the vast majority of your first three paragraphs. When it comes to convincing individuals? Individual action does work wonders.
Just... different tools for different jobs. I believe that when it comes to widespread, systemic inequality, activism is needed. When it comes to unjust laws, or law enforcement, activism is needed. In certain issues, individual change might not be enough, not powerful enough, not fast enough. An issue being made visible, and a problem being made clear and impossible to ignore can do just as much change, if done in the right situations. (As I said, I am pretty certain you are vastly underestimating the effects activism has had in the past, as I am assuming that is what you mean by lashing out at the water.)

I for one am not trying to enact an authoritarian position. I am merely voicing and explaining my opinions and views, in the hope that I can convince people (part of the discussion or otherwise reading) of these opinions and views through that. Because I'd like people to share my opinions. Trying to convice other people of your opinion is, I find, a perfectly legitimate action to take.
And that is where I think the largest disagreement is between us: That enjoyment of media, and personal preferences, are somehow neutral, and not worthy of being questioned, or beyond being questioned. Because I think they aren't. I think there is value in questioning preferences; and I think as they are shaped by society, and through our actions shape society, they are absolutely a valid target of questioning.

And, so, alright, so maybe DnD caters to people equally in that regard. I cannot really comment on that, I have no firsthand experience with DnD (Except a years-old dungeoncrawler boardgame my boyfriend found at a second hand store). But you aren't arguing the whole industry does, are you? Because at least we all agreed that there is a dearth of sexy male characters.

Spoiler: 3.x D&D Iconics

Show

It's interesting to see who gets fanart.

Since you do not mention names, it is hard to look for Fanart amounts and compare them.
Also, I gotta say, dang DnD has many iconics. Doesn't this kinda take away from the impact of their visual recognisability? Or how does DnD use the term iconics?

Exposure to pretty much anything without proper context can create the wrong impression in adolescents. I doubt that playing D&D is particularly worse in this regard than just watching television.

Noone said it was particularly worse; or worse at all. All that has been said has been that it has an effect, in line with other media (Relative to the amount of people exposed to it).

I don't really watch much TV and never understood the purpose of most ads. Seems like it's always for drugs and cars, and I'm not getting any drugs unless a doctor says I need it to not die and I'm not buying something as big as a car without a lot of research.

Just because you aren't affected by it, does not mean most people aren't.
The industry behind it wouldn't be as big if it didn't do something.

We need more Hennet fanart.

Spoiler: He thought belts stacked

Show

We do If sexualisation has to be there, at least equalize it. There are too few sexy men out there.

[Satinavian]

Of course I realise that to prove things I'd need that.
Unfortunately, my current situation seems to make it difficult for me to produce these - lack of access to the databases I'd use for proper research throws a spanner in my works. General studies on "media has effects" I have access to in the same ways as studies on the effects of media violence talked about earlier in this thread; but for sexism I haven't anything concrete enough saved on my PC, and internet research has hit paywalls. I must apologize, and can perfectly understand you not being convinced. If I manage to find anything, I shall come back to that. Maybe when I next get on university servers some of those paywalls will fall, but I cannot say how long that might be.
Out of interest, should I get the time: Would you want to see studies done specifically on sexy armor in Fantasy art, or would a broader point about sexualised depictions of women in media suffice?

thanks, i really appreciate that you are willing to provide actual science instead of hiding behind "it makes sense"

To motivate to do something against sexy armor in Fantasy beyond expressing a different taste and buy different products, i probably would need studies about that. But i am actually interested in the broader point too, even outside of this particular discussion and would certainly welcome the others too. And as you might have guessed,, i can read German too (social science still sometimes publish in other languages)

The question is how you define "do something about it"? Does this justify censorship? Of course not. Does it justify pointing out the problems and encouraging media producers to consider doing it differently? Maybe it does. Does it justify doing it differently in ones own works? Probably. I mean, if I have full control over something, why should I put in it things that I don't want there?

I am not sure. As long as it is personal taste, i just don't buy it and don't produce it. If i think, it is harmfull, i would additionally complain about it, hoping that some people would try to look at it in a new light and revisit their opinion. But i think i would not try to attack producers or buyers, i would not try to build social pressure to discourage people from making/using it. Just making people aware would be appropriate. That is the caese because i think this kind of portayal is more harmful than the sexy stuff (which warrants hardly more than just not buying if not interested), but still far far less dangerous than e.g. advertising tabacco at minors which should come with at least a lot of social pressure and maybe even laws against it.

However, just like with depictions of women, there is sometimes backlash.

I know this kind of backlash. And would be always willing to argue against the inherent double standard (and the fear of male nudity). But that kind of also touches cultural sensitivities, as the standards of how much/what kind of nudity is allowed vary wildly (and the US always tends to get the last word due to having the biggest market)

And I think, given my conviction that it is impossible to actually keep your own biases fully out of media that you produced, that if you expand the term propaganda to include these things, it almost fully looses it's negative connotation, and is just... a statement, really. A rather mundane one, at that. And: Producers are able to multitask, and consider entertaining and educating both valid goals. Just because you let your values influence what you make does not make it impossible to make it in a way meant mostly to entertain.

No, it is not always that easy to distinguish a work with a message and a work that just conforms to the worldview of the creator. Or better, if you can see the difference, the wlhole thing was already far too heavy handed.

That works that show different wordviews exist, is not actually a bad thing, just the opposite, it helps broaden the horizon. So you could say i am not really against the creation of media elements with a deeper meaning or even a message.
But it gets instantly bad when it comes to distribution and people want works that don't agree with their own view pushed backed, fearing the influence those works might have. There are few cases where i might accept that. There must be a lot of harm done before i agree that those kinds of worldviews should be actively fought by making casting creators/users social outcasts and maybe later lobbying for a law.

What do you mean by careful media placements? The statement of "Think about what impact what you are doing/producing/putting out there can have on the world; and be sure you can live with that impact"?

No, subtle manipulation. Casting the villain of the week as a loser with posters of scantly clad women in their room while the heroes of the story show their disgust. Making the boss of the heroine leecherous, ugly and incompetent instilling more rightous anger in the viewership against sexist acts. Let the heroine always be proven right in the end and her plan succeed after the plan of some male (who obviously gets to try first) fails. Letting the women being contantly be interrupted by a man, when the viewership already knows that she has something important to say, while having nearly no interruptions in other scenes. Showing acts of classical chivalry in the context of either being utterly unhelpful or being pretext to hit on someone.
Stuff like that. As a media expert you probably know that at a certain point pretty much all heroes stopped smoking while at the same time villians, especcially henchmen started.

What would you say about trying to encourage artists to produce art more to my tastes and the tastes of people who share my opinions? Would that still be something that is fine in your book? What about if that is accompanied by explaining why we like this better (that might well involve the same moral arguments?)

Yes, that would be fine. As long as you take a no for a no and don't start a social media campaign about this sexist behavior to apply preassure.

Why? What argument would you put forward against the assertion that everything is political in some way (The theory of "The Personal is Political", to name it again)?

I am physicist. That workes best when we stick to the numbers, the experiments, the equations, the theories.

Sure, you can always try to find links to politics, there is big money involved in some experiments, there is prestige, there are the universities and cities, there are the political views of the researchers. There are all the little interpersonal relations. But all that only clouds the mind, harms the ability to look at the numbers without prejudice. It is bad, it is a distraction. Never when politics got mingled with physics anything good came from it, just look at the utter stupidity that was "Deutsche Physik". And the Soviet Union always performed worse whenever important party members expressed favoritism to some scientific theory and scientists tried to please them with their findings.
One of the most important abilities in a scientist is the ability to accept having been wrong. To admit that the last couple of years were a waste of time trying to verify something that does not exist. It is really not helpfull at all to be additionally emotionally invested in the political ramnifications of your research.

News media has been shown surprisingly capable of putting topics on the public agenda, for example (Not so much at shaping opinions on these topics).

I actually agree with that one.

As for examples from the last century...
What kinds of shifts do you mean? Maybe some examples might help me give some back.I don't personally remember many big societal shifts, not that many happening during my lifetime. I do remember a shift in societal perception of homosexuality as acceptable, leading up to same sex marriage being adopted in a great deal of countries - and I do remember media depictions being more positive, while public opinion still remained largely indifferent. Does that count?

I was more thinking about e.g. the civil rights movement in the US or the various (violent or nonviolent) revolutions where the media in the hands of the current rulers never had a good word for those trying to topple them.

[Donnadogsoth]

If sexualisation has to be there, at least equalize it. There are too few sexy men out there.

Can you supply us with some "sexy men" fantasy art, if there is such a thing? I mean men sexualised along with power fantasy the way that women are, in a D&D context with magic and/or monsters and such, not just beefcake wrestlers or something.

[Smon]

So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years...

1e era had few female characters depicted, but they generally had fairly practical clothing, as much as the males (it varied by artist) - Morgan Ironwolf had skintight chain shirt but Aleena's armour would have kept her alive if magic missile had still rolled to hit...

2e era started to go bikiniplate, then 3e was the Britney Spears midriff-bearing armour era. 4e had boobplate dwarves. 5e has gone back to a very Old School aesthetic of practical armour.

[Talakeal]

I really wish people would stop bringing up sex and pornography as if they were synonymous with finding the human form aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I am trying to convey a specific tone or bit of information I like everything in art to be good looking.

For example, I like pretty girls (and guys) in the same way that I like knights to be wearing good looking and well polished armor rather than something that is rusty and battle dented, or I like a large healthy dragon with shimmering scales over a withered elderly dragon with broken teeth and scars, or a bowl of fruit to depict large ripe fruit rather than withered and rotting husks, or a wolf to be fearsome and healthy rather than old and mangy.

Physical beauty =/= pornography.

Robin Hood fighting in a green leotard probably is ridiculous, for several reasons.

Joking aide though, plenty of genres (many of which are based in real world history) have protagonists wearing clothing which would do nothing to protect them into battle, but for some reason people only seem to bring it up if it is "sexy" or shows a lot of skin. Now you personally seem to be a stickler for realism more than some sort of "moral guardian," but for a lot of these discussions it seems like that is the real underlying objection and the "impractical and dangerous" aspect is just a smoke screen.


You know, its kind of funny, people were posting the "bikini armor rhetoric bingo," but one could easily do the opposite. These discussions always seem to go in the same circle, people bring up an objection, people counter it with a justification, and then people counter the counter by bringing up another objection, and then people counter than objection with another justification, and so on in circles with both sides preferring to shift the goal post rather than countering specific arguments.

But like I said, you seem to be consistently in the camp of wanting pure fidelity to reality. Which is really nice when we are talking about the "but dragons," fallacy or getting narrative elements out of our RPGs, but goes a bit too far for me when it comes to fashion and aesthetics.

[Donnadogsoth]

I really wish people would stop bringing up sex and pornography as if they were synonymous with finding the human form aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I am trying to convey a specific tone or bit of information I like everything in art to be good looking.

For example, I like pretty girls (and guys) in the same way that I like knights to be wearing good looking and well polished armor rather than something that is rusty and battle dented, or I like a large healthy dragon with shimmering scales over a withered elderly dragon with broken teeth and scars, or a bowl of fruit to depict large ripe fruit rather than withered and rotting husks, or a wolf to be fearsome and healthy rather than old and mangy.

Physical beauty =/= pornography.

Good point. However, it might be more confused that that. Look at tv commercials for food, for example. Yes, they will show clean, tasty, appealing food, but also more often than not do so in a pornographic fashion. Glistening tomatoes that gleefully slice up in slow-motion, rivers of drizzling chocolate, delectable lips eating cookies and all that. Food porn is very popular--look at any food package. So, how can we separate out "healthy, pretty girl in armour with sword" from a kind of eroticism that is one step away from the pornographic? Of course there's eroticism in those kinds of images, beyond just "healthy, young dragons" or "fearsome, healthy wolf" or somesuch; I'd say "healthy, pretty girl in armour with a sword" is virtually unavoidably erotic. Not porn, but not like a picture of an shiny apple or a fine house or something either.

[Zanos]

Good point. However, it might be more confused that that. Look at tv commercials for food, for example. Yes, they will show clean, tasty, appealing food, but also more often than not do so in a pornographic fashion. Glistening tomatoes that gleefully slice up in slow-motion, rivers of drizzling chocolate, delectable lips eating cookies and all that. Food porn is very popular--look at any food package. So, how can we separate out "healthy, pretty girl in armour with sword" from a kind of eroticism that is one step away from the pornographic? Of course there's eroticism in those kinds of images, beyond just "healthy, young dragons" or "fearsome, healthy wolf" or somesuch; I'd say "healthy, pretty girl in armour with a sword" is virtually unavoidably erotic. Not porn, but not like a picture of an shiny apple or a fine house or something either.

There's actual nude images I wouldn't describe as pornography, so I guess the difference is whether or not your pants are on when viewing it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I really wish people would stop bringing up sex and pornography as if they were synonymous with finding the human form aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I am trying to convey a specific tone or bit of information I like everything in art to be good looking.

For example, I like pretty girls (and guys) in the same way that I like knights to be wearing good looking and well polished armor rather than something that is rusty and battle dented, or I like a large healthy dragon with shimmering scales over a withered elderly dragon with broken teeth and scars, or a bowl of fruit to depict large ripe fruit rather than withered and rotting husks, or a wolf to be fearsome and healthy rather than old and mangy.

Physical beauty =/= pornography.

Who said that they were synonymous?

But whether we're talking about sexual appeal or aesthetic appeal, if a character is wearing contextually impractical / unlikely clothing and/or armor, without a solid explanation grounded in their character and the setting and the circumstances... then my objections remain the same.

Joking aide though, plenty of genres (many of which are based in real world history) have protagonists wearing clothing which would do nothing to protect them into battle, but for some reason people only seem to bring it up if it is "sexy" or shows a lot of skin. Now you personally seem to be a stickler for realism more than some sort of "moral guardian," but for a lot of these discussions it seems like that is the real underlying objection and the "impractical and dangerous" aspect is just a smoke screen.

Not strict realism... verisimilitude, and fidelity to reality only as it serves to maintain it.

In the times and places in real world history that those other genres are based on, did people in the same context as these protagonists wear any sort of armor? Does it make sense in the context of the fiction for the character to be wearing armor? Is the armor that they're wearing somehow practical and functional and appear to be armor that would actually work?

You know, its kind of funny, people were posting the "bikini armor rhetoric bingo," but one could easily do the opposite. These discussions always seem to go in the same circle, people bring up an objection, people counter it with a justification, and then people counter the counter by bringing up another objection, and then people counter than objection with another justification, and so on in circles with both sides preferring to shift the goal post rather than countering specific arguments.

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.

But like I said, you seem to be consistently in the camp of wanting pure fidelity to reality. Which is really nice when we are talking about the "but dragons," fallacy or getting narrative elements out of our RPGs, but goes a bit too far for me when it comes to fashion and aesthetics.

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.

[Max_Killjoy]

Good point. However, it might be more confused that that. Look at tv commercials for food, for example. Yes, they will show clean, tasty, appealing food, but also more often than not do so in a pornographic fashion. Glistening tomatoes that gleefully slice up in slow-motion, rivers of drizzling chocolate, delectable lips eating cookies and all that. Food porn is very popular--look at any food package. So, how can we separate out "healthy, pretty girl in armour with sword" from a kind of eroticism that is one step away from the pornographic? Of course there's eroticism in those kinds of images, beyond just "healthy, young dragons" or "fearsome, healthy wolf" or somesuch; I'd say "healthy, pretty girl in armour with a sword" is virtually unavoidably erotic. Not porn, but not like a picture of an shiny apple or a fine house or something either.

This appears to be a far broader definition of "erotic" than I'd care to use.

(Note that I don't consider "erotic" to mean "filthy", either...)

[Donnadogsoth]

This appears to be a far broader definition of "erotic" than I'd care to use.

(Note that I don't consider "erotic" to mean "filthy", either...)

I worked at a library a few years ago and saw a young man at a computer terminal, watching clip after clip of automobiles crashing into each other and into solid objects. I went over and remarked to him, "Watching car crash porn, huh?" He looked at me oddly. A few days later he came up to me and said (paraphrasing) "I'm here to watch more car crash porn."

Jumping back a bit, here is an interesting interviewlet concerning evolutionary psychology which you might enjoy.

[Floret]

thanks, i really appreciate that you are willing to provide actual science instead of hiding behind "it makes sense".

To motivate to do something against sexy armor in Fantasy beyond expressing a different taste and buy different products, i probably would need studies about that. But i am actually interested in the broader point too, even outside of this particular discussion and would certainly welcome the others too. And as you might have guessed,, i can read German too (social science still sometimes publish in other languages)

No problem. I am somewhat annoyed myself that I cannot provide at the moment, because my memory claims there is something, but without the links to prove it, none of my claims in that regard matter particularly much.
And, yes. Truisms and Statements of facts can serve as argumentative points, and might just be convincing, but can't really be definitive proof either way. There's a lot of ways to make sense of situations "by logic" (I once mad the argument for violence in books being more impactful than in movies. Was perfectly logical, and on top of that unproven; what was pretty much the point of the thought experiment). "It's obvious" is neither proof, nor a particularly good argument.

And, alright. I don't think there are studies on sexy armor in Fantasy specifically, but there might be some of somewhat similar or related topics.
I'd have guessed so, yes^^ (When I first saw your username, actually; you being familiar with TDE pretty much confirmed it for me)

I am not sure. As long as it is personal taste, i just don't buy it and don't produce it. If i think, it is harmfull, i would additionally complain about it, hoping that some people would try to look at it in a new light and revisit their opinion. But i think i would not try to attack producers or buyers, i would not try to build social pressure to discourage people from making/using it. Just making people aware would be appropriate. That is the caese because i think this kind of portayal is more harmful than the sexy stuff (which warrants hardly more than just not buying if not interested), but still far far less dangerous than e.g. advertising tabacco at minors which should come with at least a lot of social pressure and maybe even laws against it.
I know this kind of backlash. And would be always willing to argue against the inherent double standard (and the fear of male nudity). But that kind of also touches cultural sensitivities, as the standards of how much/what kind of nudity is allowed vary wildly (and the US always tends to get the last word due to having the biggest market)

Alright. I think the only disagreement we might have on these points is what counts as social pressure or attacking the producers. (I would agree those are going too far; but wouldn't count pointing out "creator does some stuff I find sexist, and does this, by own admission, intentionally, because they don't care" would not as an attack. It might be useful information to some people wanting to support creators that share their values.)
I mean, that and where on the scale we put skimpy armor (You put it in with personal taste; I with thinking it is in some ways harmful), but we have been over that and won't get much further with the current supply of research )

No, it is not always that easy to distinguish a work with a message and a work that just conforms to the worldview of the creator. Or better, if you can see the difference, the wlhole thing was already far too heavy handed.

Alright, so if you cannot distinguish between the two in any meaningful way, what do you think the problem is? If it becomes so heavy-handed as to detract from enjoyment of the media; or already when the input is in some way intentional?
Would me creating a world deliberatly in a way without homophobic discrimination, in part to showcase it being possible, be a violation of that? (In other parts because I might just have no reason for it to exist in the story; and I like to write about non-straight characters, something serviced by that being possible to be acted on openly.)

That works that show different wordviews exist, is not actually a bad thing, just the opposite, it helps broaden the horizon. So you could say i am not really against the creation of media elements with a deeper meaning or even a message.
But it gets instantly bad when it comes to distribution and people want works that don't agree with their own view pushed backed, fearing the influence those works might have. There are few cases where i might accept that. There must be a lot of harm done before i agree that those kinds of worldviews should be actively fought by making casting creators/users social outcasts and maybe later lobbying for a law.
No, subtle manipulation. Casting the villain of the week as a loser with posters of scantly clad women in their room while the heroes of the story show their disgust. Making the boss of the heroine leecherous, ugly and incompetent instilling more rightous anger in the viewership against sexist acts. Let the heroine always be proven right in the end and her plan succeed after the plan of some male (who obviously gets to try first) fails. Letting the women being contantly be interrupted by a man, when the viewership already knows that she has something important to say, while having nearly no interruptions in other scenes. Showing acts of classical chivalry in the context of either being utterly unhelpful or being pretext to hit on someone.
Stuff like that. As a media expert you probably know that at a certain point pretty much all heroes stopped smoking while at the same time villians, especcially henchmen started.

Yes, that would be fine. As long as you take a no for a no and don't start a social media campaign about this sexist behavior to apply preassure.

I think it might be a matter of degree in some respects - at which point becomes "pointing out to your friends that you have noticed a problem, and encouraging them to voice opinions in line with yours to the creators" a social media campaign to apply pressure? Some developers might not be willing to act on one single person's claims (and why should they, someone will probably always complain); but hearing the same concerns from a number of people might value the situation differently.
It's a difficult question, I find, where to draw the line exactly. Certainly some people have stepped over it, and an unambiguous "no, never, this is my artistic vision get your hands off it" is, of course, unambiguous, as would be a person, when faced with criticism explicitly asking their audience for input; but what about the grey area in between? Where there is no clear statement either way about the criticism? Is more input, and encouraging other people to give input alright then?

I am physicist. That workes best when we stick to the numbers, the experiments, the equations, the theories.

Sure, you can always try to find links to politics, there is big money involved in some experiments, there is prestige, there are the universities and cities, there are the political views of the researchers. There are all the little interpersonal relations. But all that only clouds the mind, harms the ability to look at the numbers without prejudice. It is bad, it is a distraction. Never when politics got mingled with physics anything good came from it, just look at the utter stupidity that was "Deutsche Physik". And the Soviet Union always performed worse whenever important party members expressed favoritism to some scientific theory and scientists tried to please them with their findings.
One of the most important abilities in a scientist is the ability to accept having been wrong. To admit that the last couple of years were a waste of time trying to verify something that does not exist. It is really not helpfull at all to be additionally emotionally invested in the political ramnifications of your research.

Sure, that works for Phsyics - But I fear that the approach of natural sciences is ill-suited to social sciences; the ability to perform controlled experiments is just way more limited; the data more muddled; effect strengths weaker. The results (not necessarily the interpreations; looking at the factors you mentioned) of phsysics experiments can easily be fully free of ideological influences ("politics"); raw numbers and measurements of nature, but for the subjects of social sciences, that simply isn't the case. And we aren't talking about a subject of natural sciences

On top of that, I think you might be taking the word politics more literally than I applied it. Of course I, as a student of German, am more than familiar with the dangers of politics instrumentalising research, and the kind of behaviour you describe. (Those were some dark times for all of science... My boyfriend studied archeology. They have horror stories in that subject...)
And, no, it might not be helpful in that specific regard. But the general position of "be conscious of what you are doing, and question your motivations for doing it" it suggests, might be. Questioning if your interpretations of data (the point where some subjectivity is able to seep into physics) is lead by personal ideologies might be a very good way to keep them out of there; not a way to let them in.

I was more thinking about e.g. the civil rights movement in the US or the various (violent or nonviolent) revolutions where the media in the hands of the current rulers never had a good word for those trying to topple them.

Well, there were cases where media tried to prevent societal change and failed, sure, but that doesn't mean that was the only way around it ever happened? And, sure, if you have media in the hands of the powers that be, they won't report against themselves, but in a more democratic setting?
More to the point, would you agree that a situation where the media adapts to a positive as opposed to an indifferent position before the populous counts?

Can you supply us with some "sexy men" fantasy art, if there is such a thing? I mean men sexualised along with power fantasy the way that women are, in a D&D context with magic and/or monsters and such, not just beefcake wrestlers or something.

Quoting the relevant bits from an answer I gave you earlier:

3. This previously linked Shortpacked comic tackles some points. Other than that... The points you mention seem to work, though of course I cannot say I interpret them the same way you intend them. Full Monty on its own is somewhat diminished by penises just looking ****ing weird (Or maybe that's just me). As for providing pictures, I don't have any saved up - the picture results from googling "Fantasy art sexy man" were mostly pretty nice.

Beyond that, the aforementioned protagonist from Final Fantasy Mobius, especially pre-redesign works. I would give some points to the Hennet guy linked.
Some Fantasy Yaoi manga might service examples, though because of what that genre is I won't link any examples. The Daydreamer's Finery from Guild Wars 2, while not a character is an outfit skin that is reasonably unambiguously sexualised on men (Which gets weird with Charr wearing it, but well.)
Do you want more, something more specific, something else? I mean, it is there; its just way rarer than the equivalent for women. Heck, the google image search for "Fantasy art sexy man" mentioned above resulted in a good part of the images being of women (While there were no men interspersed in an equivalent search replacing "man" with "woman").

[Max_Killjoy]

I worked at a library a few years ago and saw a young man at a computer terminal, watching clip after clip of automobiles crashing into each other and into solid objects. I went over and remarked to him, "Watching car crash porn, huh?" He looked at me oddly. A few days later he came up to me and said (paraphrasing) "I'm here to watch more car crash porn."

That's also a far broader use of that word than I'd endorse -- unless he was literally, actually, sexually aroused by watching cars crash.

[Keltest]

That's also a far broader use of that word than I'd endorse -- unless he was literally, actually, sexually aroused by watching cars crash.

And even then, I would hesitate to use the term porn seriously unless the videos were specifically created and edited for people with that specific fetish.

[Max_Killjoy]

And even then, I would hesitate to use the term porn seriously unless the videos were specifically created and edited for people with that specific fetish.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

[Amazon]

Can you supply us with some "sexy men" fantasy art, if there is such a thing? I mean men sexualised along with power fantasy the way that women are, in a D&D context with magic and/or monsters and such, not just beefcake wrestlers or something.

I don’t think such thing exist, nor it should; sexualized characters are bad* characters, I rather have character with deep toughs, personality and motivations.

That being said I’m not against fan service or characters being sexual, the problem is when they are overly sexualized in other worlds reduced to nothing but a sexual role, prize to be won or being forced in sexual costumes/situations all the time.

Doing the same to male characters would be silly and counterproductive.

*: bad in the sense of boring, not morally bad.

[Donnadogsoth]

1. Mentioning "mothers" (A group of women that have generally proven their fertility) as one of the groups that would not be fertile-looking seems really, really strange to me. Moreover, "child-baring age, pretty, young and healthy" is a far shot from being anywhere synonymous with "fertile". If you don't care about child-bearing hips, for example, or other things that actually display fertility, please do not pretend that is what you are talking about. Maybe look up "fertility idol", the old stone-age depictions might give a clue to what an actual display of fertility might look like. What you are doing is pointing at depictions of modern beauty standards, and trying to dress that up as something biological. It is not.

Prettiness doesn't indicate fertility per se, but, it indicates someone whose genes a man would like to have continue to exist. Health and youth are contributors to fertility (ill health and age generally mitigate against it). And, physical characteristics typical of fertile women—menstrual cycles, breasts, body hair, hips—are hardly irrelevant. So, I will grant that boyish hips on D&D women are contemporary beauty standards at work, but, again, what of it?--most of the list is still there, or implicitly there. Add also personality—not too many sour glances, grimacing mouths, and matted hair among women in D&D fantasy art, as best I can recall.

By the way, I've never met, nor heard of, anyone who finds putative paleolithic standards of feminine beauty attractive. Have you? Also, mothers aren't necessarily infertile, of course, but normally they're spoken for, and it's easy to see why, loosely speaking, mothers would be displaced by virgins in terms of fantasy art.

2. Again, "Looking pretty" and "displaying fertility" are not synonymous. Moreover, looking pretty is not necessarily goal-oriented. People try to look pretty for themselves more often than not, and not so that onlookers might be enticed. Showing skin at the beach has little to do with displaying fertility (or even just prettyness) for other people. Going to the beach involves, usually, swimming, something very well served by wearing few clothes. Or sunbathing, which has the same caveats. In fact, most beach activity usually is done with few clothes; as demonstrated by everyone there. To assume a young woman has other motives for wearing little at a beach than a man in his 50s is at least questionable logic.

(a) You missed the cosmetics question.

(b) No, people would not take care of themselves or dress nicely outside of a social context, even if that context exists solely in their past—think “Last man on Earth” dressing in tails and tux for an evening out at a deserted fancy restaurant. People who think they “just prefer” to dress a certain way and that it's not “for other people” or otherwise related to their upbringing are delusional.

(c) I think few young women are wholly unaware of how their virtually naked, luscious physical appearance affects men, young or otherwise. Not knowing that would require an impressive brainwashing by culture, which I don't think operates currently. Either that or you genuinely are insensible to the male gaze (which I think you indicate is the case below).

3.*This*previously linked Shortpacked comic tackles some points. Other than that... The points you mention seem to work, though of course I cannot say I interpret them the same way you intend them. Full Monty on its own is somewhat diminished by penises just looking ****ing weird (Or maybe that's just me). Half-naked women are not about displaying fertility (Again, you are mixing that up), and I don't think quite near the certainty for being a male Fantasy (It requires them to be attractive at the very least), but then again I am no man and cannot say how much more he'd be turned on simply by seeing breasts than I am as a queer woman. As for providing pictures, I don't have any saved up - the picture results from googling "Fantasy art sexy man" were mostly pretty nice (Also, why are there pictures of women when I google that; and if that has to be so why not some of men when googling women?); other than that, my tastes run generally in somewhat atypical directions (Generally being into androgyny (somewhat of a Bishounen look, for example))

The comic is good. I find it curious that men, like the man in the comic, would feel threatened by it. But, I suppose the reason is that it and male power fantasy images, like cheesecake and credible female (martial) power fantasies, represent competing strains of fantasy art and narrative. How compatible do you suppose these two competing strains are, or do you think “there can only be one”?

If (heterosexual) men can get over female genitalia, I think (with all this talk of psychological equality) (heterosexual) women can get over male.

4. Ah, okay. I question why that would be necessary to do, though.

Because men like sexy and martial prowess can spike sexy. I've never met or heard of any man who doesn't like or at least keep mum about chicks with swords or doing kung fu moves.

5. I am unsure what psr means, and google seems to have failed me. I certainly do not believe your statements for why what you call "fertility fantasies" will always be there are sufficient to prove it, it seems like weird conjectures based on somewhat faulty logic to me. As for your options... 1) is a good one; 2) works, as long as it doesn't only apply to women; 3) Is nonsensical, as there is no environment where it would make sense; 4) Is basically just taking the status quo being this way as a statement that it should be.

5.That paragraph bridges between my comments on why we have will always have fertile power fantasies, with how we can approach these things in terms of the principle of sufficient reason. Do you have any comments on those options? Do you accepted the psr??

There may come a day, a fell day, when all cheesecake is verboten, and all women wear Mao suits, but it is not this day!

Re: options:
1. Okay.
2. I have no problem with this, provided it does not harden into an oppressive consuetude.
3. Didn't you click the link I gave? Burrough's Mars is exactly the kind of place justifying skin.
4. It's a possibility, and none the less for that—consider also something tangential to D&D fantasy art, like Tarot cards, or paintings.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don’t think such thing exist, nor it should; sexualized characters are bad* characters, I rather have character with deep toughs, personality and motivations.

That being said I’m not against fan service or characters being sexual, the problem is when they are overly sexualized in other worlds reduced to nothing but a sexual role, prize to be won or being forced in sexual costumes/situations all the time.

Doing the same to male characters would be silly and counterproductive.

*: bad in the sense of boring, not morally bad.

I might be out of the loop. Aside from my 1ed DMG's cover, I can't recall ever seeing what I have bolded above. Could you link to something instantiating it?

[Liquor Box]

I don't think there is much to discuss on the caveats - it would either require fielding studies, or study-like amounts of work (For exploring whether or not other genres; forms of media; and background characters fall alongside similar lines numbers-wise); or is already part of the discussion (How are women represented, if they are?)

Well we could go off your estimates like we did with the original discussion (what percentage of the audience is female vs what percentage of the characters). But I do think we have a lot of points of discussion going at the moment (and you also have many with others), so no need.

Somewhat. I mean, the discussion of "are those depictions sexualised" is still a thing, but that discussion somewhat rests on the assumption that sexualisation is a problem. But mostly it is about this, yes.
As for what to do... as I said, mostly making people aware that their choices might have unintended consequences and effects; and encouraging other ways. Supporting creators that go other ways; and going other ways in ones own work. Done by as many people as possible (Which is in part why I am discussing this - more people being more aware can only be achieved by talking about these issues.)

I am trying to get a little bit of a better understanding of the "as for what to do" element. Are you able to be a little bit more precise as to what you would like to see happen? For example are you hoping that all people who currently prefer games with scantily clad characters should go against their own preferences and refuse to buy such games? Are you hoping that all producers of media should refuse to publish games and other media depicting people in a sexual way? Or would you be happy if you felt that your views were heard, regardless of whether any change happened to the industry?

I have seen several times in the last few pages people saying the likes of "you want to police what we are able to watch" and the reply being along the lines of "nobody is actually saying that". I am hoping to avoid finding myself in that situation by understanding precisely what it is you are saying should happen. Also, it may be that I simply agree with you (we have found we agreed on several points already), meaning no further discussion is necessary.

One place where I do agree with you is that open discussion is a great thing. I think that applies to both perspectives (yours and mine) on this issue. It is problematic when one side of this debate seeks to exclude the perspective of those on the other side.

I think that both would be pretty harmless, but somewhat strange; putting tittilation in a place where... It doesn't really fit. I don't understand their preference, but I don't have to. (If we do take our current culture into account Franks might be informed by attitudes formed by cultural sexism. Lina's might be as well; but they, at least on the surface, do not fall in line with these attitudes.)

While you may not prefer to see titillating elements inserted into media that is not primarily focused on titillation, can we agree that some others might not see it that way? I mean there are numerous movies with a steamy sex scene where the focus of the movie is something else (a thriller say - or even our favorite example Game of Thrones)? So even you find it somewhat strange, some (and I kind of think the majority) do not.

Anyway, putting aside the question of whether them wanting to mix a little titillation into their game/movie is strange, we can agree that it is not sexist? That is, there are non-sexist reasons for people to want to see scantily clad and attractive depictions of the gender they are attracted to?

I think "more frequently" could almost be replaced by "at all" (If only "almost" because I might have missed something, not because I know any actual counterexamples going further than Dante from the Devil May Cry series.); and yes, I think the industry being this way; especially since it is inline with real world power dynamics, is sexist.

Whether it is "more frequently" or "at all" is something that I think we address later in our discussion.

Can I come back to the "industry bring this way... is sexist" question in a little bit?

I suppose "People are just that darn horny" is all the answer I will ever get on this, even though I don't wanna accept it as sufficient.
Since this discussion splits off and meanders all the time - what kind of specific framing would you be looking for?
"Should media meet demands of sexists"?

When you say "i don't wanna accept it as sufficient" about people being horny, do you mean that you don't believe that is an accurate reason for the existence of sexualised content? Or do you mean that you would prefer that it not be the reason for the existence of sexualised content?

In terms of framing, I just think that it is incredibly broad to say "why does sexism exist". I mean you might be able to point to a hundred types of sexism in media, and there might be twenty different answers to the "why does it exist" question. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to limit it to a specific type of sexism in a specific genre and medium - for example "why are female characters more frequently sexualised in fantasy movies" or something. Or, as you put it in your question "Should media meet the demands of viewers to see scantily clad female characters in fantasy movies, on the assumption that such depictions are sexist?"

As for your argument about scars, muscles and fat - again, we'd need content analysis of lots of media to get to concrete numbers; and I think to play the same guesstimating numbers game as before might require lots more work looking at more characters; as all of these criteria are less likely to appear than "Man" or "woman" (Quite sensibly so; but maybe not as sensible in their rarity). If you're interested, I could try and tally up the numbers for the media mentioned before, if I find the time?

You might be right, I was only putting that out there as a possible reason that doesn't fit neatly within the three answers you gave. I'm happy if you want to do a tally, but please don't do it on my account - there are lots of demands on your time in this thread, and I am not at all wed to the point - I am not at all sure whether it stands true or not.

And... well; if they have done so, they don't fall under Ignorance anymore, but rather under Indifferent (or disagreeing, which I think I wrote in as an example?).
This is somewhat in between the discussion of an ideal vs. advocacy - discussion of an ideal, that I advocate for being neared, if that makes any sense?
As for the last thing, I am talking about sexism in media in general; with sexualised depictions of women as an expression of that.

I see you did put is as an example of not caring. You said:
"Of course, quite some in this group just don't believe in the negative effects of their work. That is where they differ from me, and I firmly believe they are wrong - convincing them might be difficult, but debating them is at least worthwhile. After all, they have simply drawn different conclusions from the same facts, and showing that and why different conclusions where drawn might be able to convince the other side. I mean, it might in fact convince me of their view. So far, it hasn't. But please keep trying, feeling comfortable with the state of the world in more regards sounds pleasant"

I'm not sure that drawing a different conclusion from the same facts is correctly categorised as an example of not caring though. Again, I do agree that debating is worthwhile. Even our own discussion appears to ahve changed your perspective on a few (perhaps minor in the scheme of things) points, and my understanding of your perspective has also improved. So constructive discussion is always positive.

Yeah, I agree with this. Trying to explain ones subjective perception and making it as objective as possible would help, but as I said, beyond my tries of adapting the Bingo and changing the list, I am rather blank as to how to do that beyond discussing examples.

And it might well be. But I think we can both live with that?^^

I think we are generally on the same page here, except that I am not sure what it is that you are saying we can both live with?

I would actually agree with you that this is about as sexualised as the specific depiction of Conan. Maybe she could do with some more muscle, but on the other hand she is more clothed.
As sexualised as that Conan, ofc, would mean "I wouldn't say it is particularly or clearly sexualised; but could understand how people might think so".
I am not sure this proves any particular reason for us disagreeing

Interesting that we do not disagree on that. So dressing an attractive person scantily (when the setting does not require it) is not sufficient to sexualise them? You need something more, like emphasis on a body part, or something?

If I don't see the athletic build, I cannot factor it in. To see an athletic build requires visibility of at least some muscles. The picture you link qualifies in the broadest sense as "visible muscles", and the posing is quite clearly nonsexualised.

As to that assumption... Yeah, that is pretty much it. If there is another, clearly discernible reason for depicting this amount of revealing clothes, defaulting to "sexualisation" as an explanation seems unfair and dishonest, equating "skin shown" with "sexualised"; which clearly isn't the case.
Therefor, in the absence of other factors suggesting sexualisation, I am willing to at least give the benefit of the doubt and take these other, discernible reasons for revealed skin as the reason for it being revealed, and not count it as proof for sexualisation on its own.

I don't think that what is conventionally understood as an athletic build would require visible muscle - for example the female warrior I linked to as comparable to Conan I think would usually be thought of as athletic, although her musculature probably falls within the norm for a woman who is not overweight. Likewise the image I linked to of a man is a build I would think of as athletic, although his musculature probably falls within the norm for a man who is not overweight.

If you disagree, perhaps we can avoid further argument about what 'athletic' means, by referring to a body that appears healthy. Most people are overweight, and displaying body that is not overweight suggests health, fitness and (in a video game type environment) the ability to complete athletic feats like running and jumping. Certainly both the male and female picture from my previous post have the appearance of being fit and healthy and capable of participating in an action environment, despite neither being particularly muscular for their gender.

Just to explore the "another clear discernible explanation" point - are you saying that it is clear that every time a man with discernable muscles (which means all men who are not overweight, or who have below average musculature) are depicted with their shirts off, it is to display their strength? If so, how do you address the perverse outcome I mentioned earlier - that a man with an attractive body (at least some visible muscles) with his shirt off would not be sexualised, but a man with an unattractive body (with less muscles than is the norm, or overweigt to hide those muscles) would be seen as sexulaised?

Well, requiring the population to learn English is somewhat useful in the current state of the world; and we both know that one
(And, as I said, I think it might have been a rabbit, and a digital one at that. )

]
That's useful, because I exagerated my language ability in my previous post. I don't think I know the word for squirrel in any other language, but I do know the word for rabbit in a couple.

I think I can see your point. I strongly agree with predictability being useful for a setting - after all, if I'm not able to make reasonable guesses as to what an action means, or what conclusions might be logical to draw, what consequences would be on the table, then I am left just... awaiting what the work puts upon me next. Speculating about what might happen, or hoping for certain things to (rooting for certain characters, for example) is for many people an important part of their engagement in media.
I still disagree somewhat, mostly because of the missed potential of exploring other dynamics by consistently falling back to real-life ones; as well as the point discussed below (in relation to the article).

Yeah, I don't think we are too far off each other on this sub-point.

I don't think there is a missed opportunity - I think they should still (and sometimes do still) explore other dynamics.

Alright. I mean, the absence of something is difficult to portray - showing there is sexism is as easy as having one scene demonstrate it; showing its absence might be more difficult, but if showing there to be no differences in areas you'd expect some serves as enough of a statement I think we can agree there.
And the article touches on reasons one might not just copy these issues one for one without putting some thought behind it what it means for the story and the worldbuilding. The point I'd most likely want an answer on, I think, would be these paragraphs:

I'm going to come back to you on the article if that is ok - just because I have a meeting soon, and I want to address the rest of your post.

Good, I didn't think you were making that point, but wanted to make sure.
Yes, this is pretty much exactly what is generally meant by grey or gray morality - no obvious and unambiguous bad guys or good guys. Of course, grittier works might get into black vs. grey morality; where one side is rather unambiguously evil, but the other... still nothing close to actually good.
I guess using discrimination, especially along real-world demarcations as the go-to seems a bit... cheap, to me (It's a bit taking the easy way of characterising people as morally wrong); especially if not fully thought through. (One book I read recently had one side be characterised as morally wrong by making them utterly sexist; with women as property, polygyny and slavery; only to in the end just... forgetting about it while acting as if that culture was redeemed)
And I see a lot of potential of playing with different kinds of discriminations, changing directions of the axis, setting up new ones or shifting the real ones around a bit, that isn't really explored in worlds where one could get all sorts of creative; in favour of... the same old thing we know from reality. Missed potential, mostly.

yes, I think I agree with most of this.

[Floret]

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on Fertility

Show

Prettiness doesn't indicate fertility per se, but, it indicates someone whose genes a man would like to have continue to exist. Health and youth are contributors to fertility (ill health and age generally mitigate against it). And, physical characteristics typical of fertile women—menstrual cycles, breasts, body hair, hips—are hardly irrelevant. So, I will grant that boyish hips on D&D women are contemporary beauty standards at work, but, again, what of it?--most of the list is still there, or implicitly there. Add also personality—not too many sour glances, grimacing mouths, and matted hair among women in D&D fantasy art, as best I can recall.

By the way, I've never met, nor heard of, anyone who finds putative paleolithic standards of feminine beauty attractive. Have you? Also, mothers aren't necessarily infertile, of course, but normally they're spoken for, and it's easy to see why, loosely speaking, mothers would be displaced by virgins in terms of fantasy art.

If I find people attractive, I am generally not thinking about if I want their genes to exist further, but rather if I want to have mutual fun with them. To act as if attraction were about continuing the gene pool is, while one of the major staples of evopsych, not actually corroborated by reality.
The existance of non-heterosexual people stand against that. The existance of a majority of sex acts stands against that. The existance of beauty standards actively harmful to fertility (Thin; petite) stands against that; the ostracising of somewhat overweight women stands against that. Heck, mentions of menstrual cycles being relegated to "please don't talk about that" by a majority of men stands against that. Fertility has little to do with conventional beauty standards; and beauty standards everything with sexy fantasy art.
And, are you really saying that personality can be an indicator of fertility? How would that even work? Women being restricted in the amount of emotions "allowed" to them (In art as well as real life) for being "pretty ones" is a bad thing. Not an indication of fertility; maybe an indication of beauty standards

No, I haven't. But that wasn't the point, right? You were talking about depictions of fertility, as if they were synonymous with attractiveness. I was arguing that they aren't, and these idols are an image of fertility. Them being unattractive to you, and most modern people, is the point.
Being taken should have little to no consequence on looking fertile. It does have consequences for "do I wanna try and get with that person". That factoid has little to no relation to fertility; even if you are arguing that it does.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on women displaying their attractiveness

Show

(a) You missed the cosmetics question.

(b) No, people would not take care of themselves or dress nicely outside of a social context, even if that context exists solely in their past—think “Last man on Earth” dressing in tails and tux for an evening out at a deserted fancy restaurant. People who think they “just prefer” to dress a certain way and that it's not “for other people” or otherwise related to their upbringing are delusional.

(c) I think few young women are wholly unaware of how their virtually naked, luscious physical appearance affects men, young or otherwise. Not knowing that would require an impressive brainwashing by culture, which I don't think operates currently. Either that or you genuinely are insensible to the male gaze (which I think you indicate is the case below).

(a) Did I? I don't think so. "People aren't making themselves pretty just for other's". Also, what Max said in response: The industry spends lots of money on telling women they need it. It is not something that arose naturally in any way. Take for example women shaving their legs - part of conventional beauty standards. First coming up during the world wars; the time razor companies didn't have that many men to sell to anymore and started campaigning for it.

(b) That... wasn't necessarily what I said. I said people don't want to look nice to attract mates, or for displaying fertility or whatever. There is a social component to it, certainly, but that isn't in line with "displaying fertility".
But, thanks for clarifying that you see that this isn't about anything natural, but about social and cultural values

(c) My point was everyone, regardless of attractiveness or gender, is dressing the same amount of revealing at the beach, for a myriad of reasons, that for most people cannot be or even include displaying their attractiveness. Why this would be inherently different for attractive people isn't quite clear to me. The reactions, sure, but the reasons?
I mean, you do realise, that just because someone is attractive, they don't necessarily want to be ogled, right? That women do not want to be catcalled, and many, many women mourn not being able to put on clothes that look pretty but might incidentally also be revealing, without getting comments and looks?

And, trust me, women are aware of that. It's just, for the most part, really not something that we like or particularly aim for, as you posit. Most of us just want to be left in peace, and not constantly thought of as a dating/sexing target.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on sexualised men

Show

The comic is good. I find it curious that men, like the man in the comic, would feel threatened by it. But, I suppose the reason is that it and male power fantasy images, like cheesecake and credible female (martial) power fantasies, represent competing strains of fantasy art and narrative. How compatible do you suppose these two competing strains are, or do you think “there can only be one”?

If (heterosexual) men can get over female genitalia, I think (with all this talk of psychological equality) (heterosexual) women can get over male.

Many men have very fragile masculities. Men (especially ones that also serve as figures of identification) being turned into passive objects of attraction might violate their sensibilities of how the world "should be".
I think people can both look attractive and powerful, if that is what you ask? A powerful, attractive woman to me just doesn't look like the bikini armor models.

Getting over it? I think you misinterpret what I was saying. I said "Penises look weird, therefor seeing them directly does not necessarily contribute to someone looking attractive". I didn't say they were something one had to get over with (...must not make crude joke). Hell, I said a visible bulge in tight pants can contribute to attractiveness. But it's more the thought of the thing and what could be done with it, than the actual visual of it naked.
(And, seriously, why do you describe vaginas as something you need to get over? With that, and the asking for sexy men pics, you might wanna do some soulsearching...)

Because men like sexy and martial prowess can spike sexy. I've never met or heard of any man who doesn't like or at least keep mum about chicks with swords or doing kung fu moves.

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on reasonable representations

Show

There may come a day, a fell day, when all cheesecake is verboten, and all women wear Mao suits, but it is not this day!

Re: options:
1. Okay.
2. I have no problem with this, provided it does not harden into an oppressive consuetude.
3. Didn't you click the link I gave? Burrough's Mars is exactly the kind of place justifying skin.
4. It's a possibility, and none the less for that—consider also something tangential to D&D fantasy art, like Tarot cards, or paintings.

Hey, nothing against women in suits. Women in suits can look damn fine.
And, sure, again, noone is arguing for actually forbidding anything. Please fight your strawmen somewhere else.

2. I am unsure how those words fit together (Might be the translations having different connotations); but I suppose you are arguing that there should be some leeway? If so, I am inclined to agree. Or are you arguing that if a setting sets its rules as "magic armor over sexyness" should be allowed to apply this to women, but not men? If so, I suppose I agree there shouldn't be a law against it, but It'd be a very clear indication of the creators actual reasons for this not being logic; and that they quite possibly are somewhat sexist.
3. I did. And no, it isn't. No environment, taken from whatever point in the real world, or however constructed (Apart from a literal, gamy "anti-armor field") can actually explain there being no armor. I guarantee you for any such setting proposed there are ways to still wear armor, at a cost less than the enormous risk of death through not wearing it.
4. Yes, it is possible to accept the status quo as-is, sure. I didn't argue that. I argue that "This is an element that is present in culture" is in any way an argument for this solution being ideal or acceptable. It basically amounts to "shut up and let people like what they like", to which my reply can be found in other places in this thread already.

Well we could go off your estimates like we did with the original discussion (what percentage of the audience is female vs what percentage of the characters). But I do think we have a lot of points of discussion going at the moment (and you also have many with others), so no need.

I am confused, I thought we already did that? Or are you suggesting estimating percentages of the audience as attractive women; comparing that; as overweight women; women that can drive, and comparing that? If so, that'd be way to much conjecture for me to feel comfortable making statments. Let's let this rest^^

Spoiler: LiquorBox on what to do about this

Show

I am trying to get a little bit of a better understanding of the "as for what to do" element. Are you able to be a little bit more precise as to what you would like to see happen? For example are you hoping that all people who currently prefer games with scantily clad characters should go against their own preferences and refuse to buy such games? Are you hoping that all producers of media should refuse to publish games and other media depicting people in a sexual way? Or would you be happy if you felt that your views were heard, regardless of whether any change happened to the industry?

I have seen several times in the last few pages people saying the likes of "you want to police what we are able to watch" and the reply being along the lines of "nobody is actually saying that". I am hoping to avoid finding myself in that situation by understanding precisely what it is you are saying should happen. Also, it may be that I simply agree with you (we have found we agreed on several points already), meaning no further discussion is necessary.

One place where I do agree with you is that open discussion is a great thing. I think that applies to both perspectives (yours and mine) on this issue. It is problematic when one side of this debate seeks to exclude the perspective of those on the other side.

Well, for your examples...
1. No, I am not hoping people go against their own preferences. If anything I am hoping to convince people to change their preferences; or to at least reflect on them.
2. It depends. Requiring publishers to refuse this would be just censorship, of course. Convincing publishers of my view, so that they refuse them out of their own convictions, yes. Sure, if all publishers were convinced that would be similar in result, but in an age of crowdfunding and kickstarter I think that is a bearable situation. (Also, note that this applies to my previous assertion of "illogically sexualised (in an unequal fashion)". Depicting people as sexual and having sexuality be a part of games, is not something I am against.)
3. Since change in the industry would be the indication that my views were heard in a way that matters, I don't think I'd be too happy (Given that this is the current situation I can however confidently say that I am generally very able to live with this imperfection).

Basically, my hope is to convince people of my worldview, resulting in them applying the same standards and principles to their creations as I do to mine; or at least getting closer to them.
(Amongst others: Don't oversexualise characters unnecessarily, especially against logic; represent people from different backgrounds, different sexualities, genders, ethnicities (or Fantasy equivalents thereof; I would count the setting of Avatar (The series) as representing Asian people, for example); make sure in your worldbuilding you are putting things there intentionally and think them through; and reflect on your creations. Take a step back to count how many female characters you have introduced, for example. Ask people from the groups you are representing if you have ****ed up in that representation, if possible.)

Spoiler: LiquorBox on Sexy stuff being in nonsexy things

Show

While you may not prefer to see titillating elements inserted into media that is not primarily focused on titillation, can we agree that some others might not see it that way? I mean there are numerous movies with a steamy sex scene where the focus of the movie is something else (a thriller say - or even our favorite example Game of Thrones)? So even you find it somewhat strange, some (and I kind of think the majority) do not.

Anyway, putting aside the question of whether them wanting to mix a little titillation into their game/movie is strange, we can agree that it is not sexist? That is, there are non-sexist reasons for people to want to see scantily clad and attractive depictions of the gender they are attracted to?

We can agree that it isn't necessarily sexist, yes.

Whether it is "more frequently" or "at all" is something that I think we address later in our discussion.

Can I come back to the "industry bring this way... is sexist" question in a little bit?

Sure.

Spoiler: LiquorBox on sexyness being in media

Show

When you say "i don't wanna accept it as sufficient" about people being horny, do you mean that you don't believe that is an accurate reason for the existence of sexualised content? Or do you mean that you would prefer that it not be the reason for the existence of sexualised content?

In terms of framing, I just think that it is incredibly broad to say "why does sexism exist". I mean you might be able to point to a hundred types of sexism in media, and there might be twenty different answers to the "why does it exist" question. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to limit it to a specific type of sexism in a specific genre and medium - for example "why are female characters more frequently sexualised in fantasy movies" or something. Or, as you put it in your question "Should media meet the demands of viewers to see scantily clad female characters in fantasy movies, on the assumption that such depictions are sexist?"

I believe that it might be an accurate reason; but I'd prefer something more substancial, I guess? Like "Really, you are constantly putting sexyness before logic? Don't you have porn for that?" I just really, really don't understand the need, or how one could be that horny (And I am certainly not asexual).
I mean, coming back to your examples from above, the way GoT does it is different, I feel. Sex scenes, or scenes alluding to sex or sexuality (In the sense of "people being sexual beings"; not in the sense of "gay or straight") in general in non-porn can contribute to the story, setting, atmosphere, what have you. Sexyness being in parts of a thing, in the places it makes sense, is different from sexyness being tacked onto scenes where it makes little sense.

Hm. I don't think there is much value to discuss these points. Or much discussion to be had on such points, apart from comparing opinions.
I mean, the answer to "why are women more frequently sexualised" is pretty clear, from my perspective.
And the answer to the second one... "If people want sexist art, they should make it themselves and not expect the industry to cater to them." Beyond that, they of course have the same rights as I have to argue for their perspective to be reflected, even if I don't like their perspective.

You might be right, I was only putting that out there as a possible reason that doesn't fit neatly within the three answers you gave. I'm happy if you want to do a tally, but please don't do it on my account - there are lots of demands on your time in this thread, and I am not at all wed to the point - I am not at all sure whether it stands true or not.

It is a possible reason, yeah, though now I am wondering if women that get into combat situations (As most characters we are talking about do) are any less likely to spot scars than men who do. I'd suspect they aren't, and that the gendered differences might largely disappear when controlling for profession and the like - meaning that if true, fictional fighters, adventurers and risk-takers should, if supposed to reflect reality, spot them relatively equally. Of course, that is the point where we'd need real-life numbers, "logical deduction" can get to multiple results.
Part of me wants to do it now, just to see if I can make you walk away with the same "Huh, guess my perception was a bit warped" as I had when doing the last tally^^

I'm not sure that drawing a different conclusion from the same facts is correctly categorised as an example of not caring though. Again, I do agree that debating is worthwhile. Even our own discussion appears to ahve changed your perspective on a few (perhaps minor in the scheme of things) points, and my understanding of your perspective has also improved. So constructive discussion is always positive.

Yeah, with including that, the category might have been mislabeled. I feel it falls into very similar patterns, which is why I included it.
Well, it has somewhat forced me to reflect, and face some numbers I wouldn't have expected, which is always a good thing. I might not like being proven wrong, but I like it better than being wrong

I think we are generally on the same page here, except that I am not sure what it is that you are saying we can both live with?

With a difference in our perception, and you (probably) judging the disparity as smaller.

Interesting that we do not disagree on that. So dressing an attractive person scantily (when the setting does not require it) is not sufficient to sexualise them? You need something more, like emphasis on a body part, or something?

Yes, it is not necessarily sufficient. Leaving aside the ambiguous Conan; Kratos from God of War is definitely scantily dressed, though the setting might call for something more sensible; but I'd strongly argue he isn't sexualised (The points in favour of Schwarzenegger Conan being don't apply to him either).
As for what could serve as additional argument, clothing positioned as to pronounce certain things (e.g. cleavage; tight pants; (Maybe midriff-baring), boobwindows, sideboob, panties/strings; catsuits (especially with cleavage-level opened zipper in the front) would count in a similar vein even though little skin is shown) or Posing to pronounce these body parts or sexyness. At what point the collection of factors pushes over the edge gets into subjective territory again.

Spoiler: LiquorBox on Athleticism

Show

I don't think that what is conventionally understood as an athletic build would require visible muscle - for example the female warrior I linked to as comparable to Conan I think would usually be thought of as athletic, although her musculature probably falls within the norm for a woman who is not overweight. Likewise the image I linked to of a man is a build I would think of as athletic, although his musculature probably falls within the norm for a man who is not overweight.

If you disagree, perhaps we can avoid further argument about what 'athletic' means, by referring to a body that appears healthy. Most people are overweight, and displaying body that is not overweight suggests health, fitness and (in a video game type environment) the ability to complete athletic feats like running and jumping. Certainly both the male and female picture from my previous post have the appearance of being fit and healthy and capable of participating in an action environment, despite neither being particularly muscular for their gender.

Just to explore the "another clear discernible explanation" point - are you saying that it is clear that every time a man with discernable muscles (which means all men who are not overweight, or who have below average musculature) are depicted with their shirts off, it is to display their strength? If so, how do you address the perverse outcome I mentioned earlier - that a man with an attractive body (at least some visible muscles) with his shirt off would not be sexualised, but a man with an unattractive body (with less muscles than is the norm, or overweigt to hide those muscles) would be seen as sexulaised?

While an athletic build might not, I think that showcasing that a build is athletic does, in some parts, require visible muscle; to differenciate it from a person who is merely slender, but not athletic. They do look differently, but might not intuitively appear as such.
And, no, trust me, that woman rather visibly works out at least a bit. A stomach of an untrained person does not really look like that. Could be more pronounced, but there are hints in there. Same goes for the guy. Their muscles don't look like those of an average non-overweight person.
Maybe this is a cultural thing - but at least around here, the majority of people who aren't overweight (And I'd even think that the majority of people aren't overweight) aren't automatically trained. If that is all you see of non-overweight people it might be easy to mix the two up; but as I said: There is a clear difference between a simply slender, untrained person; and a trained one.

I am saying that it is a clearly visible second option for why he his depicted shirtlessly.
And I would combat that by including "having a generally/conventionally attractive body" as a prerequisite for being sexualised (Applying the same principles of dressing onto characters without these bodys is pretty much only done for comedy). An implicit assumption so far (after all, to be able to look sexy, you have to kinda be sexy), but I guess there might be value to making it explicit.

That's useful, because I exagerated my language ability in my previous post. I don't think I know the word for squirrel in any other language, but I do know the word for rabbit in a couple.

German version would be "Eichhörnchen", however hard to pronounce it might be for non-German speakers

Yeah, I don't think we are too far off each other on this sub-point.

I don't think there is a missed opportunity - I think they should still (and sometimes do still) explore other dynamics.

My point is that I see creators falling back on real-life patterns far more often than necessary, thereby missing out on opportunities of other setups; that I have met rather rarely.
But I don't think "Creators should get more creative" is really much of a point of contention?

I'm going to come back to you on the article if that is ok - just because I have a meeting soon, and I want to address the rest of your post.

Alright, no pressure. Looking forward to it, though^^

[Calthropstu]

Wow, did this thread REALLY need over 1k posts? Seriously, we either have freedom of speech, in which case artists are free to depict whatever they like, or we don't... and we have to depict what a certain subsection of the society wants.
You are free to depict armor for women however you wish, as are other artists. From boob plate and bikini plate to leather or spandex to a ball shaped rock surrounding her form... anything should go. If you find a particular artist distasteful... TOO ****ING BAD.
It's art, which means the artist is free to depict whatever he or she wants.
It shouldn't need a thousand posts to realize this.

[Max_Killjoy]

If artists have freedom of speech to create what they wish, then others have freedom of speech to crtique, criticize, and discuss the broader implications and effects.

It's like somewhere along the way, "freedom of speech" became "all negative response is censorship".

[Koo Rehtorb]

You also have the freedom not to read the topic if you dislike it. So much freedom all over the place. Wow.

[Donnadogsoth]

The fact you have a sex drive at all is evo-psych. The “biological exuberance” that you display doesn't detract from the fact that sex primarily exists to reproduce the species. Heterosexual men are going to be looking for a close-enough-to-ideal woman to mate with, and youth, beauty, fertility*, and health are the parameters that hem in that ideal. Few men look for age, ugliness/disfigurement, barrenness, and illness/disability. That's my point: what men typically look for in a mate corresponds more or less with fertility, not with infertility. And, personality is part of that, of effective fertility, with regards to mating with someone who isn't a harridan or an abuser or a slob or probably unfaithful or probably carrying a venereal disease or whatever. It's a mistake to think men simply look for menstruating women with wide hips, or something simplistic like that. It's no coincidence men look for women who look capable of continuing their genes.

*Slim hips—virginal hips—women who have yet to mate—an attractant. As most of the women in these art works look like they haven't mated yet, given how none of them look like mothers.

I've not been arguing that pure biological fertility alone is attractive; if it were men would only be attracted to women for a week or so out of every month. Rather, “fertility” is a concept of “would make a good mate, someone to pass on genes with” which again in the case of rainbow sexualities amounts to a displacement of basic reproductive drive toward purely relational or recreational ends—though increasingly homosexual couples are expressing their reproductive drives otherwise thwarted by their sexual psychology, through other means

(a) Cosmetic campaigns would have no success if they weren't selling to basic drives. People don't buy rotten food no matter how much it might be advertised. Women are buying to look attractive to other people. If there were no other people, women would not wear makeup.
(b) Cosmetic companies sell (successfully) to women the implicit idea that they should look fifteen. Why not twelve? Why not fifty? If it's all just social conditioning there's no reason why the companies should pick that particular age. They pick it because it most conforms with the ideal of virginal fertility, which is the undercurrent here.
(c) Few people look at the hairy fifty-year-old fat guy in a speedo on the beach except to go “Oh brother,” and avert their eyes. Eyes are drawn towards beauty etc.. The male lustful gaze (and the female envious one) is an occupational hazard when one is a young, fertile-looking female. That this male appreciation of female beauty can be done without being aggressive or obscene goes without saying, and without the need to a consuetude muzzling men or putting bags over women (there are plenty of places in the Middle East where women don't have to worry about being ogled).

The comic is good. I find it curious that men, like the man in the comic, would feel threatened by it. But, I suppose the reason is that it and male power fantasy images, like cheesecake and credible female (martial) power fantasies, represent competing strains of fantasy art and narrative. How compatible do you suppose these two competing strains are, or do you think “there can only be one”?

If (heterosexual) men can get over female genitalia, I think (with all this talk of psychological equality) (heterosexual) women can get over male.


How do you know many men have very fragile masculinities?

The problem is that men's power fantasies discord with the dewy-eyed slender hunk shown in the comic-in-a-comic. Men want to kick ass, and look like they're about to kick ass. Dewy-eye Batman doesn't look like that. That's the problem.

It seems like comics should just produce two versions, one for each sex's general preferences: one featuring hard-bitten rock-bod Batman and sexy Batgirl, and the other featuring dewy-eye Batboy and solid-set, grim (yet with great hair) Batwoman.

I think genitalia in general are weird. They're an unexpected divergence from the ordinary flow of the human body, like finding a frog in your refrigerator. But, when you're a given sex, you have ample time to get used to your own genitalia. When you encounter the other sex's, that weirdness can revive. I'm sure many men can relate to this.

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?

The general lean of your side of the argument against cheesecake fantasy art is towards making it go away, even if you're not officially forbidding or criminalising anything.

2. I'm arguing that artists shouldn't feel obligated to include one-for-one representations of women in magic revealing armour and men in magic revealing armour. Let the archetypal chips fall where the way, rather than making it ideological.

3. All those National Geographic photos of nearly naked African spearmen were wrong?

4. As I said, here I will go with archetypal versus ideological.

Footnotes

1. You mentioned overweight women: I think the reason they are passed over by many men, is not cultural so much as that fat conceals the female form, making it look odd—as if a woman is not so healthy (which is often the case with severely overweight people), not so fertile (no hourglass figure), not so young (excessive fat takes some time to accrue), and not primevally pretty (goddess figures aside).

2. I find most of the art I've been defending as cheesecake to be total crap, especially a lot of the videogame pasty-suit armour. I hate that kind of stuff and think most art depicting women dressing like strippers is dumb. But, someone has to defend the cover of the 1st ed. DMG.

[S@tanicoaldo]

It's like somewhere along the way, "freedom of speech" became "all negative response is censorship".

This is so perfect. It summarizes so much of what I think.

[Lord Raziere]

If artists have freedom of speech to create what they wish, then others have freedom of speech to crtique, criticize, and discuss the broader implications and effects.

It's like somewhere along the way, "freedom of speech" became "all negative response is censorship".

Much truth, good sir. Freedom is both the positives and the negatives. If you don't take the valleys of freedom, how can you claim the mountaintops?

[Floret]

Spoiler: Calthropstu on artistic freedom

Show

Wow, did this thread REALLY need over 1k posts? Seriously, we either have freedom of speech, in which case artists are free to depict whatever they like, or we don't... and we have to depict what a certain subsection of the society wants.
You are free to depict armor for women however you wish, as are other artists. From boob plate and bikini plate to leather or spandex to a ball shaped rock surrounding her form... anything should go. If you find a particular artist distasteful... TOO ****ING BAD.
It's art, which means the artist is free to depict whatever he or she wants.
It shouldn't need a thousand posts to realize this.

What novel idea.
Maybe if you had read the thousand posts you'd have realised this isn't new input for anyone here; why we discuss this anyways, and why "people should be allowed to draw what they want" was not the end to the discussion. Beyond that, what Max said.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on fertility

Show

The fact you have a sex drive at all is evo-psych. The “biological exuberance” that you display doesn't detract from the fact that sex primarily exists to reproduce the species. Heterosexual men are going to be looking for a close-enough-to-ideal woman to mate with, and youth, beauty, fertility*, and health are the parameters that hem in that ideal. Few men look for age, ugliness/disfigurement, barrenness, and illness/disability. That's my point: what men typically look for in a mate corresponds more or less with fertility, not with infertility. And, personality is part of that, of effective fertility, with regards to mating with someone who isn't a harridan or an abuser or a slob or probably unfaithful or probably carrying a venereal disease or whatever. It's a mistake to think men simply look for menstruating women with wide hips, or something simplistic like that. It's no coincidence men look for women who look capable of continuing their genes.
*Slim hips—virginal hips—women who have yet to mate—an attractant. As most of the women in these art works look like they haven't mated yet, given how none of them look like mothers.
I've not been arguing that pure biological fertility alone is attractive; if it were men would only be attracted to women for a week or so out of every month. Rather, “fertility” is a concept of “would make a good mate, someone to pass on genes with” which again in the case of rainbow sexualities amounts to a displacement of basic reproductive drive toward purely relational or recreational ends—though increasingly homosexual couples are expressing their reproductive drives otherwise thwarted by their sexual psychology, through other means

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.
And... what biological exuberance do I display?
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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on attractive women

Show

(a) Cosmetic campaigns would have no success if they weren't selling to basic drives. People don't buy rotten food no matter how much it might be advertised. Women are buying to look attractive to other people. If there were no other people, women would not wear makeup.
(b) Cosmetic companies sell (successfully) to women the implicit idea that they should look fifteen. Why not twelve? Why not fifty? If it's all just social conditioning there's no reason why the companies should pick that particular age. They pick it because it most conforms with the ideal of virginal fertility, which is the undercurrent here.
(c) Few people look at the hairy fifty-year-old fat guy in a speedo on the beach except to go “Oh brother,” and avert their eyes. Eyes are drawn towards beauty etc... The male lustful gaze (and the female envious one) is an occupational hazard when one is a young, fertile-looking female. That this male appreciation of female beauty can be done without being aggressive or obscene goes without saying, and without the need to a consuetude muzzling men or putting bags over women (there are plenty of places in the Middle East where women don't have to worry about being ogled).

(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.
(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?
(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.)
(c) ...Yes, that is a perfect answer to what I was saying. Not.
Let me break down the point:
1. You argued that women wear revealing clothing at the beach, as an example of women wearing revealing clothing to "display their fertility".
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.
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".
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.
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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on Batman and genitalia

Show

How do you know many men have very fragile masculinities?
The problem is that men's power fantasies discord with the dewy-eyed slender hunk shown in the comic-in-a-comic. Men want to kick ass, and look like they're about to kick ass. Dewy-eye Batman doesn't look like that. That's the problem.
It seems like comics should just produce two versions, one for each sex's general preferences: one featuring hard-bitten rock-bod Batman and sexy Batgirl, and the other featuring dewy-eye Batboy and solid-set, grim (yet with great hair) Batwoman.
I think genitalia in general are weird. They're an unexpected divergence from the ordinary flow of the human body, like finding a frog in your refrigerator. But, when you're a given sex, you have ample time to get used to your own genitalia. When you encounter the other sex's, that weirdness can revive. I'm sure many men can relate to this.

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on BS

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on options

Show

The general lean of your side of the argument against cheesecake fantasy art is towards making it go away, even if you're not officially forbidding or criminalising anything.

2. I'm arguing that artists shouldn't feel obligated to include one-for-one representations of women in magic revealing armour and men in magic revealing armour. Let the archetypal chips fall where the way, rather than making it ideological.

3. All those National Geographic photos of nearly naked African spearmen were wrong?

4. As I said, here I will go with archetypal versus ideological.

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?

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?
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.
4. You can accept the status quo. Sure, that is an option.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth's Footnotes

Show

Footnotes
1. You mentioned overweight women: I think the reason they are passed over by many men, is not cultural so much as that fat conceals the female form, making it look odd—as if a woman is not so healthy (which is often the case with severely overweight people), not so fertile (no hourglass figure), not so young (excessive fat takes some time to accrue), and not primevally pretty (goddess figures aside).
2. I find most of the art I've been defending as cheesecake to be total crap, especially a lot of the videogame pasty-suit armour. I hate that kind of stuff and think most art depicting women dressing like strippers is dumb. But, someone has to defend the cover of the 1st ed. DMGt.

1. 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).
2. Good to know. But one question: Why? Why is there need for someone to defend this?

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.
(Quotes in quotes are usually unnecessary, btw, since the quotes as generated by the forum come with handy buttons to go back to the source post)

[Zanos]

If artists have freedom of speech to create what they wish, then others have freedom of speech to crtique, criticize, and discuss the broader implications and effects.

It's like somewhere along the way, "freedom of speech" became "all negative response is censorship".

No, but censorship is censorship. If your point of view is that something is so harmful that it needs to be restricted, you're making a moral argument to censor something. I'm not saying that you're advocating for that, but I have seen views expressed in this thread that chainmail bikinis are so harmful that nobody should enjoy material containing them.

[Max_Killjoy]

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.
And... what biological exuberance do I display?
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.


(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.
(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?
(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.)
(c) ...Yes, that is a perfect answer to what I was saying. Not.
Let me break down the point:
1. You argued that women wear revealing clothing at the beach, as an example of women wearing revealing clothing to "display their fertility".
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.
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".
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.
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.

Welcome to dealing with evo-psych's convoluted, self-contradictory, insulting, and sometimes downright creepy "theories".

[CharonsHelper]

Welcome to dealing with evo-psych's convoluted, self-contradictory, insulting, and sometimes downright creepy "theories".

Isn't that true of most psych theories, evo or not?