I have played with far worse than this.
One of the big reasons that gamer stereotypes are allowed to perpetuate is that it is extremely hard (or in some cases almost prohibited) to turn people away from public gaming, i.e. the most visible form of gaming. If you sit down at a folding table in the corner of a comic shop, God only knows who's going to sit down with you. Most likely, you will meet one of the players who can't find a group to play with for very obvious reasons, and, if you're at a public space gaming, often it's because you've put out an open call for players and it's considered rude to tell someone you don't want to hang out with them because their breath is toxic and they haven't bathed in two weeks. So they sit there, and when your normal, well adjusted friend comes to a game to see what it's about, they get a less than pretty picture of what roleplaying is like. I've had some pretty funky fellow players when I gamed at comic shops. I've had half deaf players who practically screamed what they were saying, people who tried to enact rape fantasies at my table, and even a guy who was way into bestiality (like, he got arrested for it and everything) and so were his characters.
This will be important in a moment.
Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called Leviathan which was published in 1651. It's a book on society and government that I had to read bits of in some of my college courses. One of the segments that really struck me was that a ruler was a composite of his people (see image above), meaning that if there is sickness or dissent in the body, the whole thing is affected. For purposes of my argument, the RPG hobby is the ruler, and all the roleplayers are the body. The body excises unwell parts, meaning that for new people to be brought into the hobby, the less presentable specimens of gamer should not be presented as the norm. I'm not saying completely shun people. Just remember, it's a game, if you're not having fun, don't play with the people who aren't fun. Even more important, don't inflict the not fun people on newbies. Roleplaying is a hobby that more people should experience. Don't scare potential roleplayers off.
A huge attitude common in the industry that scares off many potential roleplayers is a chauvinistic and/ or bigoted attitude. Now, chainmail bikinis, hypersexualized women in RPG and fantasy art, and slut shaming have been beaten to death in discussion, but they still happen. Fantasy worlds are typically misogynistic places, women are usually identified as second class citizens or pidgeonholed into bitch or whore roles. Even in settings that don't fall into those pitfalls (Rokugan from Legend of the Five Rings comes to mind) still have to contend with the actual players. Never in my life have I heard more overtly misogynistic comments than at a gaming table. Every woman referred to as a bitch? Check. Casual rape comments? Check. Continual objectification of women? Check. Poorly played female stereotypes? Check. Several of my female friends who have played with even my most well behaved groups have remarked about it and been obviously uncomfortable, and by scaring off women, we are scaring off 50% of the world population. Many of the most entertaining roleplayers I've ever played with are women, and if the general population of the RPG hobby would curb their tongues a bit more, people probably wouldn't wonder why so few girls play RPGs.
The same thing goes for the LGBTQ community. If anything, roleplaying games and settings are less friendly to non-traditionally straight roles, players, and characters than they are to women. So is the gaming table. Forget that women's rights issues are more commonly accepted than LGBTQ right issues, the common slang is just flat out damaging. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "that's so gay," or a gaybashing reference during a game, I wouldn't have college loans to deal with, and most of my gaming in the last five or so years has been with an extremely accepting group of friends.
Especially considering that even if gay characters are mentioned, they look and act like this...
Roleplaying is a very vulnerable hobby and needs to be played from a place of safety and security. It's a game about opening up and having fun and being goofy and somehow expressing a side of yourself that you probably never reveal in public (seriously, most of us have some Barbarian in us somewhere). If there is a fear of harsh critique or even mockery (especially when it does not come from friendly jibing), there will be less fun had by all, because nobody will be able to truly let go and experience the game and immerse themselves.
And let's face it, when this face is making fun of you from behind a DM screen, nobody is having fun.
Even worse, if you can get a new, possibly non-traditional players past the bigotry, meanness, awkwardness, and get them comfortable in a gaming chair, there are the rules to deal with. Games like Pathfinder, GURPS, and even several editions of old faithful Dungeons & Dragons are almost prohibitively difficult for non-gamers and new gamers to pick up. Not a lot of people have the mindset, attention span, expectations, or even necessary math skills to calculate Base Attack Bonus, remember attacks of opportunity, remember THAC0, and consciously deal with Force Point Economy. Number crunching and rules lawyering are very few peoples' idea of fun, but experiencing a fantasy world and immersing themselves fully into it are. This is a gigantic failing of the industry and a way that it alienates itself from new members. Sure, there are games that are far more intuitive than industry mainstays, but they're more niche games, and don't have the exposure and brand appeal to expand public perception of the industry or have the table time to show new players a different aspect of how games can be played.
Why yes, let's play a "simple" game of Pathfinder.
There is, however, a solution. One that will take people out of their cliques, require some work, be uncomfortable for a while, and probably seem like it's not worth it for a while. The solution is to bypass the smelly nerds at the comic store. Let them play with each other. Be the Jehovah's Witness of gamers. Find new players, play with them . Find a new group, and go outside your introvert comfort zone. Zak S of Playing D&D With Porn Stars fame is a prime example of this. He grabbed porn stars and strippers from his work to make a group. Now, he lucked into some former gamers (and more importantly, some disenfranchised former gamers), and so can you. When you grab new players, play something simple and/or make it as easy as possible for your new group to jump into action with a minimum of frustration.
My friend and DM, Jacob, volunteers at his old high school's band camp that happens to be hosted at a church that is right next door to my parents' house. One night of band camp a few years ago, he called me to come and DM a game of Pathfinder for him, his friend Joe (who I'd played with before), and two of the band camp kids. It was...memorable. Immediately the rules were a problem. The new players barely grasped them, and they really didn't understand their characters' abilities. The Rogue tried to cast a spell, the wizard tried to swing a sword, I had to pull punches not to kill them and they realized it, and it sucked the fun. Jacob and Joe were playing very vulgar and extremely violent characters who just steamrolled everything, and there were no approachable female roles for the girl playing to approach. It was a mess. Now, we had fun, but one of the players said she probably wouldn't play again, and the other player was awkward to play with for quite some time, just because he took the confusion, number crunch, and immaturity of that original Pathfinder game to heart for quite some time.
Forget that there really wasn't a lot of women bashing in that game. I made a few blunders, and the first one was bringing full blown Pathfinder complete with Ultimate Magic and the Advanced Player's Guide. Character creation took forever, because I gave the players an overwhelming list of options to choose from instead of saying "just make something up." It wasn't a friendly first taste. It was overwhelming, overstimulating, and uncouth. Last summer, Jacob got a few more kids to play at the same band camp, but this time they played Hunter: the Reckoning. That game grabbed several roleplayers who had never even considered gaming before and quite a few of them have become real gamers since then. I attribute this success mainly to Hunter being an easier access point for most of the players. They were already comfortable, because they were playing with friends, and it was far easier for them to make up a "normal person" than to pick a fantasy race, and the modern day vibe is easier to relate to. Also, the Old World of Darkness dice pool system of Attribute+Stat is extremely easy to master.
Plus it has a one page character sheet. I love one page character sheets.
In fact, the system and themes of Hunter brought that group together, and several people in that group were hesitant to try other systems, because they liked Hunter so much (Vampire: the Masquerade was an easy transition, however). We ran another one shot a few weeks later, and the newbies showed up excited and already knowing how to fill out 90% of their character sheets, knowing the Hunter Creeds, and understanding exactly how to figure out what they needed to roll. It was magical, because they threw themselves into their roles, acted in character, and a few even affected special voices. If time constraints weren't such an issue, I'd play with most of those kids weekly.
My normal group is made up of veteran roleplayers, all of whom are GMs in their own right. I find that group fighting with staleness, because we've been there, done that, seen it, and tend to snark at each other more often than not possibly due to boredom with the game. We tend to over-analyze, try too hard for uniqueness, and not embrace actually playing the game. We've had several scheduling issues with that group too, and I think I may embrace the whole "Dungeons & Dragons Witness" thing and find people who haven't played and immerse them into a hobby I've enjoyed for over half my life. I'll find people who know each other, who are comfortable with each other, and take the character sheets and have them roll dice and have fun. I can do the math faster than them, and, over time, they can start understanding it better, and I can hand them the mechanics piece by piece. We'll probably start with something really easy, too, like the New World of Darkness or Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures. Y'know, things that drip with flavor and not with rules.
I'm thinking it'll loosen it up a bit if it drips with wine too...
An idea I've seen bandied around roleplaying circles recently is a player/GM contract. In its simplest form, it's a set of expectations for what everyone involved expects out of each other during the game. Some games such as Whispering Road, even include a version of setting up such a contract in game creation. It's an excellent way to gauge what people find uncomfortable and what will really excite them. For new players, this can be key. If I can get a checklist of what will hook them right into the game an hobby, you bet I'm going to use the hell out of it. It will help me inform the pacing and content of the game. If someone writes "no sex, please," that immediately means I'm probably going to phase out that band of succubi that I was thinking about adding later on. If someone really really wants to kill tarantula people, that means I get to include tarantula people, probably sooner than later. As with most ventures, communication at the outset is key for success. Also, be nice to people and thoughtful of their feelings.
It's something that we nerds, for all our preaching about being inclusive because we were bullied and blah, blah, blah seem to be pretty bad about...
You seem to be addressing a cloud of different issues here:
ReplyDelete1. Annoying dorks (actual real people) who play in public games. This is a real problem. Kick them out or don't play with them.
2. "The health of the hobby" -- Hobbes' Leviathan is about government--i.e. a thing that has a monopoly on violence it can use to force you to do things. The RPG hobby can't force anyone to do anything.
3. "chainmail bikinis, hypersexualized women in RPG and fantasy art, and slut shaming have been beaten to death in discussion, but they still happen. "
This is deeply ironic-- _complaining about chainmail bikinis and hypersexualized women is slut-shaming_ . This is unrelated to the issue of sexist dickheads playing RPGs.
Unless you want to go tell the girls their sexist. IF you'd like to, leave a message here:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2013/11/halloween-pictures-trigger-warning-real.html
I'll make sure they get it. And I'll make sure you get to hear what they think of that.
The problem isn't sexualized women it's _asymmetrically_ sexualized women. The solution in a mass medium isn't to slut-shame women into covering up--it's to encourage equal sexualization of men and women.
1) To your solution to playing with annoyng dorks and public games: I agree with your assessment--but it's not always an option to take that sort of "my way or the highway" attitude where Dave and I (I'm one of his fellow players) live. Sometimes our choice is between playing with folks who make us uncomfortable, or not playing at all--which really isn't much of a choice.
Delete2) The RPG Hobby can't force anyone to do anything, you're correct--but the culture surrounding it--which is expressed through its players, who are people who can control your access to games by denying you the right to play with them if you don't play in their favor--is able to single folks out and force players to suffer through micro-aggressions or not play. If you haven't experienced this sort of situation, I'm really glad for you. You've found some wonderful places to play. But I remember when I began playing, the group of players I was with decided it would be fun to lock my character in a bathroom and have him be raped by a troll. I was 12 years old, they were seventeen. They rolled out the attack rolls and everything. I stopped playing because that was a pretty terrible experience, and I didn't play again until I was fifteen, because I was scared--legitimately scared--that the folks who I knew played would be equally as shitty to me as the last group.
As for the Leviathan metaphor--Hobbes used it to discuss government, but it does apply to other large cultural bodies with a set of general values/mutually recognized principles the same way other metaphors or allegories can come to symbolize concepts they weren't originally associated with.
3) I disagree that complaining about chainmail bikinis and hypersexualized women is across the board slut shaming. Take the Hawkeye Initiative, for instance--I wouldn't call that slut shaming because it's taking issue with the unrealistic portrayal of women's bodies in comics. The Hawkeye Initiative isn't attacking the character of the female superheroes who are posed in such ludicrous positions, it's attacking the trend in comics that women aren't portrayed in any other fashion EXCEPT as eye candy.
I'm still contemplating your argument about asymmetrical sexualization. In the confines of RPGs, I think you're onto something--I don't have my books with me, but I can't think of a single male character in the Pathfinder books who is portrayed as attractive. Maybe the monk, since he's fit and going shirtless (I think?). But then when I think about World of Darkness, or the comic industry, or video games, the men are almost always hyper fit, sporting rippled muscles and dribbling with Western notions of masculinity (stoic on the outside, softie on the inside). We fetishize the male figure in these industries as much as we do the female form, but while the men are being drawn to portray their virility, strength, and toughness, the female portrayals emphasize their sexuality first--their being tough isn't as important. Like I said though, I'm still contemplating it.
But as for the slut-shaming--is it wrong for me to want to see my female barbarian wearing armor that protects her abdomen? I'm not arguing from a moral ground, nor am I criticizing the character--I'm arguing from the perspective of someone who wants to play a female character who wears medium armor into combat, and wants to see pictures depicting female characters depicting realistic portrayals of what a woman would look like in that armor.
Zak, Dave didn't slut shame anyone. Slut shaming is the act of condemning a woman for her sexual activity (assumed or actual) or for how she chooses to dress. Women in male-dominated mediums are not dressing in bikini armor and similarly revealing clothing because they want to, but because the artists choose for them to be. That's a major difference that you failed to grasp. Critiquing male artists' hypersexualized and anatomically incorrect depictions of women points out the exclusionary and degrading practices of a male-dominated hobby that treats its female players poorly in an attempt to fulfill their male power fantasies.
DeleteYou assert that your pornstar "girls" appreciate and/or support that kind of depiction, to believe that that is the norm is a false consensus, or else this wouldn't be such a contentious issue that thousands of geek girls like me as well as female creators complain about all the time.
Even if it wasn't demeaning to portray women exclusively as sexual objects, it's narratively dissatisfying. Guys don't wear bikini armor because it doesn't make sense for a male warrior to trounce around with his most vulnerable assets exposed, but artists make exceptions for women because it's aesthetically appealing to the core demographic (core because, as this blog entry points out, the industry keeps new audiences out). So if everyone were to strut around in loincloths, that's only going to increase the threshold for suspension of disbelief, because it's easier to accept the idea of wizards thowing fire balls than it is for a rogue to be creeping around in shadows without any armor.
Outside of those issues, "equal sexualization" still would not fix the problem for several reasons:
1.) Stripping men in geek mediums of their clothing and posing them in ridiculous positions to show off their muscles is not representative of female wish fulfillment, that's a false equivalency demonstrated by the following comic strip:
http://www.shortpacked.com/.../05-the.../falseequivalence/
2.) We need greater diversity represented in geek culture, not shallow versions of ideal beauty that perpetuate the gender binary. Hypersexualizing almost everyone who appears on screen/on panel means only representing the physically perfect--because artists are not going to sexualize the average, the ugly or the grotesque. So, we would have fewer examples of people who don't fit the norm of physical perfection: youth, thinness, whiteness, and heteronormative expectations are already dangerously correlated with public perceptions of beauty and sexiness. Sexualizing more characters would mean those few characters who don't fit the norm would be depicted as younger, thinner, whitewashed, and with hyper-feminized or masculinized secondary sexual features, taking away the few examples of diverse representation we have left.
Both sexes are represented unrealistically (women as hypersexualized and men as hypermuscular) in geekdom and it doesn't do anyone any favors, but men are represented realistically in many other places: sitcoms, block busters, video games--they're all far more likely to include men who don't fit the norm, but 99% of the women in those same movies are still gorgeous model types. So when women are misrepresented in RPGs, comic books and video games, the damage is compounded, because not only are they damaging on their own, but they also contribute to an environment where women are, without reprieve, treated as sex objects.
As a general rule, women don't like to be reduced to our T&As, we don't like to be portrayed as contortionists or arm candy or nearly identical models whose only differences are superficial changes in hair, eye and skin color. We exist for reasons other than to look good and we want to be represented that way, so your solution to proportionately sexualize men to compensate does not appease us.
Evi:
Delete"Dave didn't slut shame anyone. Slut shaming is the act of condemning a woman for her sexual activity (assumed or actual) or for how she chooses to dress."
Then, yeah: he is totally slut-shaming every single chainmail-bikini and chainmail-bikini art fangirl in my group. he should stop and apologize.
"Women in male-dominated mediums are not dressing in bikini armor and similarly revealing clothing because they want to, but because the artists choose for them to be."
Or female artists choose for them to be. Which you excluded.
"You assert that your pornstar "girls" appreciate and/or support that kind of depiction, to believe that that is the norm is a false consensus, or else this wouldn't be such a contentious issue that thousands of geek girls like me as well as female creators complain about all the time.
"
So talk to them about it. Not me. You claim you're right and my girlfriend has a false consciousness. She'd claim the opposite. Go fight about it.
"Even if it wasn't demeaning to portray women exclusively as sexual objects, it's narratively dissatisfying."
Nobody said "exclusively". Where did you get "exclusively"? Did you throw in "exclusively" to overreach and bolster your argument? That's kinda bad faith.
"Stripping men in geek mediums of their clothing and posing them in ridiculous positions to show off their muscles is not representative of female wish fulfillment, that's a false equivalency demonstrated by the following comic strip: "
So then do whatever _Is_ representative of female wish fulfillment.
Don't complain about other peoples' wishes.
:"We need greater diversity represented in geek culture,"
Again: HIRE MORE DIVERSE PEOPLE. Don't yell at a fraction of those people for what they want to produce.
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/02/hire-women.html
As for the rest: don't write things everyone already knows mixed with bloated rhetorical statements. It doesn't speed up the conversation, it just makes it look like you think you have to repeat Feminism 101 stuff when you don't.
And I never assumed a sane non-prudish attitude toward sex was "the norm". Anyone in porn can tell you it isn't.
DeleteWhat's normal isn't important. Only what's fair.
I am addressing a cloud of different issues, because they have to deal with one central issue: prospective players probably won't stick around if they're uncomfortable. Annoying dorks and hypersexualization of women have both been major points of discomfort for players new and old alike.
ReplyDeleteIt's not even necessarily asymmetrically sexualizing women that is the problem, because extremely sexualized male roles could have a similar detrimental effect on different prospective player groups . While sexualization of male roles would be an excellent step for equality and to possibly bring in gay male gamers, many people are uncomfortable with sex. While I'm extremely comfortable with most sexual situations coming up in games, I know that in the available player base I have in my local gaming circles I am in the minority, and I have to tread lightly around sexual or taboo topics, and that awareness is necessary when trying to bring in new players.
I'm not saying make the women cover up. I'm saying make sure your roleplayers are comfortable with chainmail bikinis and sexy priestesses,etc (as "the girls" obviously are, more power to them. I wish more of my players were).
The sexualization of women in roleplaying art and writing is actually at least somewhat tied to sexist dickheads playing the game. Much of that art is pandering to that demographic which is, unfortunately, perceived as a majority of the hobby. I understand that some of it is legitimately done as art, which I support, but not all art is tasteful, and tasetless art has a limited audience.
While I do enjoy looking at some sexy ladies almost as much as I like looking at sexy men, a boobalicious chainmail bikini babe on the cover of a D&D book projects a less than female friendly game (to most women at least) just as a dude in a fur g-string hip-thrusting and licking a sword with come hither eyes on the same cover would probably weird out a large portion of the potential male audience of the same game.
My health of the hobby and Leviathan segment is more about what is perceived as the majority of the hobby: i.e. sexist, obnoxious, dickheads. I'm using more of the image than the actual writing for this allusion (which I didn't make overly clear), and, to the public, the body of roleplayers is a corrupted, stinky mess.
We need to work at replacing that public image with a roleplaying body that is more palpable to the public if the hobby is to grow meaningfully and get the recognition that it deserves.
As someone whose life has been so positively impacted by RPGs, I'd like to be able to get as many people into the hobby as possible, and have found myself again and again thwarted by public perception and, once I got people past public perception, insensitivity from the hobby and players.
Anyways, I didn't mean in any way to shame the girls, and I actually have the utmost respect for you guys. You're unashamedly expressing a unique side and viewpoint of the hobby, doing so intelligently, producing interesting and useful content, representing yourselves excellently, and obviously having fun doing it. Props, and quite honestly, your blog is why I started mine. You guys have a unique voice from a very misunderstood segment of society and have made me respect people in the adult industry quite a bit.
a) "denying you the right to play with them if you don't play in their favor--is able to single folks out and force players to suffer through micro-aggressions or not play."
ReplyDeleteThat is a Real-Life problem with prejudice _everywhere_ not a game problem. It's not like these people BECOME prejudiced because of games or will get better if you change games. They're bad people because of bigger things than games.
b) "The Hawkeye Initiative isn't attacking the character of the female superheroes who are posed in such ludicrous positions, it's attacking the trend in comics that women aren't portrayed in any other fashion EXCEPT as eye candy. "
I JUST said that, dude:
"The problem isn't sexualized women it's _asymmetrically_ sexualized women. The solution in a mass medium isn't to slut-shame women into covering up--it's to encourage equal sexualization of men and women."
c) As for this:
"But as for the slut-shaming--is it wrong for me to want to see my female barbarian wearing armor that protects her abdomen? "
Is it wrong to want to see it? NO.
Is it wrong to say that an image that doesn't have that is sexist? YES.
It's not wrong to want a pizza, either, but accusing someone making fried chicken in their own home of being prejudiced against pizza or contributing to antipizza prejusdice is wrong. It's really really really wrong.
d) "While sexualization of male roles would be an excellent step for equality and to possibly bring in gay male gamers, many people are uncomfortable with sex."
Someone being uncomfortable isn't the same as "promotes sexism". I mean lots of people are uncomfortable with how much sex comes up when people drink in bars--it doesn't mean bars are sexist.
e) " I'm saying make sure your roleplayers are comfortable with chainmail bikinis and sexy priestesses,etc"
THEN SAY THAT INSTEAD OF something like: "There's a problem with roleplaying--someone's pictures are part of that problem". Because that's a crazy thing to say that lots of crazy people say in RPGs
f) "The sexualization of women in roleplaying art and writing is actually at least somewhat tied to sexist dickheads playing the game."
"Tied" is a pretty vague verb here.
Does art cause them to be dickheads? No it does not.
Does art make them think they are welcome? Maybe--who cares-- _they exist and are a problem for the world whether they are gaming or not_ . It's not like there's a wonderful nonsexist nonhomophobic world OUTSIDE of gaming to retreat to.
The problem is the dickheads _themselves_.
g) " a boobalicious chainmail bikini babe on the cover of a D&D book projects a less than female friendly game (to most women at least) just as a dude in a fur g-string hip-thrusting and licking a sword with come hither eyes on the same cover would probably weird out a large portion of the potential male audience of the same game. "
Then you DO BOTH. And then have things that do neither. Understand? You don't complain about peanut butter and jelly because some people don't like peanut butter.
h) "As someone whose life has been so positively impacted by RPGs, I'd like to be able to get as many people into the hobby as possible, and have found myself again and again thwarted by public perception and, once I got people past public perception, insensitivity from the hobby and players. "
Yeah--and a HUGE portion fo the perception problem is that RPGs are for uptight dorks who can't handle actual adult sexuality.
Calling any expression of that names doesn't help
I don't think anyone here is actually saying that pictures of chainmail bikinis are always always always actually sexist. I also don't think RPGs are even always for people who CAN handle adult sexuality. I started playing when I was 12. Is sexualized roleplay a necessary part of RPGs for teens? I agree that a market for RPGs with adult themes does and should exist, and I fully support sexy art for such games. We can have things that have both male and female sexy roles and things that have none. No one here is saying that we should not.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is that sexual art and themes do not necessarily have a place in most heavily marketed RPG products. Games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and even Vampire: the Masquerade have expectations of adult themes in their artwork and text. Games like Dungeons & Dragons do not.
I am also saying that people need to be mindful of presentation. Shock art, political statements, and pushing boundaries are not appropriate in all places, especially in a medium that is peddled to children. They need to understand that people come from different backgrounds and different places in life, and need to understand that sex is not comfortable to everyone. There is a problem with roleplaying, and some pictures are actually a part of that problem.
Editing oneself is not always an appetizing proposition, but few people have the luxury of gaming with people who share their own views 100%, are comfortable with all aspects of sexuality, and have large groups of convertible friends who will play whatever they want and not be turned off by the gaming material because everyone is accepting and takes no offense to everything.
I'm not saying everyone involved is sexist. I am saying there is a distinct undertone of sexism in the industry, it needs to be fixed. Yes there is sexism in real life, it also needs to be fixed. Will fixing the asymmetry in sexualization be a step towards this? Yes, it will. However, it will alienate a select player base, because not everyone wants sexualization in their games. Some people like peanut butter with their jelly. Some don't.
Another thing I'm saying is that if you don't want to attract misogynistic immature gamers, don't plaster hypersexalized pictures all over the book. This goes both ways with male and female images (you can get dorks who like half naked boys too). Yeah, the mature gamers may like it, but some may not, and is it worth attracting losers and making some people uncomfortable to cram some sexy pics into a book that's not about sexy pics when you can honestly find far better on the internet, in an art gallery, or in a book dedicated to tons of sexy pics?
So, in summary, I'm not saying (quasi)erotic pictures are sexist. I'm not saying making people uncomfortable is promoting sexism. I am saying that sexy pictures do have a placed in roleplaying products that have the clear expectation of containing said pictures, and that handling adult sexuality is not and should not be a prerequesite for playing games about dwarves and elves with swords. I am saying that I would like it if people can handle adult sexuality, and that being aware of the way things are presented is key. Not everything (actually very few things) can handle free artistic license. It is sad, but true, and a harsh lesson that all artists must learn.
"What I am saying is that sexual art and themes do not necessarily have a place in most heavily marketed RPG products. Games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and even Vampire: the Masquerade have expectations of adult themes in their artwork and text. Games like Dungeons & Dragons do not"
ReplyDeleteSaying "I'm taking the parental position that kids can't handle sex" is WAAAAAAAY different than claiming these things are bad for women.
So which is it?
And this:
" but few people have the luxury of gaming with people who share their own views 100%, "
IF THERE ARE HOMOPHOBES AND SEXISTS AT YOUR TABLE: REFUSE TO PLAY WITH THEM.
Seriously. No game is worth enabling those fuckheads.
"Yeah, the mature gamers may like it, but some may not, and is it worth attracting losers and making some people uncomfortable to cram some sexy pics into a book that's not about sexy pics when you can honestly find far better on the internet, in an art gallery, or in a book dedicated to tons of sexy pics? "
Is artists making whatever art works for them worth alienating people who can't handle sexy imagery:
ABSOLUTELY.
Creative freedom is WAY more important than the RPG industry making money or timid people not being forced to realize they need to tell people they don't want to play with that they do not want to play with them.
And saying "most RPG art doesn't get the benefit of creative freedom but REAL art does" is just opening the door to basically every artist has to submit to some prig's evaluation of their quality and real art quotient" before they're allowed to make the work that they want to make.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with creative freedom is that it does not have the luxury of a target audience. An artist can create the most amazingly, shockingly, poignant piece in the world, but if it alienates its target audience, it failed. If an artist feels like making a piece of art for their own benefit, great. They SHOULD make that art. They SHOULD NOT expect other people to like it, accept it, and publish it. When art is published in an RPG, it should be art that enhances the RPG. I would hesitate to say that 90+% of sexualized art in RPGs does not enhance the RPG in any meaningful way save to immature people who want to oogle half naked people. When art gets commissioned (for anything) the artist loses some of their artistic license.
Delete"An artist can create the most amazingly, shockingly, poignant piece in the world, but if it alienates its target audience, it failed. "
DeleteNo: it merely selected a new target audience.
Artists are the people who decide who buys the thing. Not performing monkeys for corporate overlords to point and shoot at unsuspecting rubes.
I'm not solely taking the parental stance here. I'm also not encouraging or saying that I play with homophobes and sexists. I am bringing up the fact that many of these games are aimed at kids as well as adults and bringing it to the table for consideration. These things are bad for women if they are not comfortable with it. Not everyone is comfortable looking at half naked people. It's not a defect. It doesn't make them sexist.
ReplyDeleteSome people are not comfortable with sex, and should not be shamed for not being comfortable with it as long as they are not shaming people for being comfortable with it. I'm not waffling on my stance, I'm bringing more aspects of it to the table. It's not black and white. Not all chainmail bikini art is bad for women, and nowhere in my entire argument have I said black and white that all (quasi)erotic art is bad for women/people in general.
I am saying that knowing your audience is key in this situation. I fully support artists making art that works for them. I fully support them making alienating art. I do not fully support them forcing it on others. Forcing alienating artwork into RPG books to fulfil some self serving artistic want is just as bad as someone forcing their own creepy sex fantasies into a game.
I'm not saying play with homophobes and sexists. I am actively saying do not play with them. I am also suggesting that the RPG industry try to help curtail the issue by working towards inclusiveness, not enabling misogyny*. Do I support creative freedom? Absolutely. I do not think creative freedom is more important than the growth of the industry.
If artists want to create controversial, uncomfortable art, let them. Don't put it in my Player's Handbook. Not everything has to be an outing for artists to do whatever the hell they want. I'm not saying sell out. I am saying that when you make commercial art, don't push your views and beliefs at the expense of your audience. Artists forcing art on others is just as bad as the people telling them they need to not do it in the first place. There's a way to make a point without being aggressive and obnoxious about it.
*note, sexualized (even evenly sexualized) art IS enabling. It is not an excuse or excusable, but it unfortunately encourages horrible behavior. This is why I am saying that the RPG industry should curb the inclusion of such art (not completely, it has its place in RPGs where the expectation for sexual behavior is there) in much of its literature. RPGs aren't the sex industry.
I don't expect or necessarily want boobs when I order waffles at Waffle House. I don't expect or necessarily want boobs in my Dungeon Master's Guide. I do want and expect boobs when I go to a porn convention. Lewd comments and inappropriate behavior is not okay in all three situations, but the porn convention attracts people who want to make lewd comments about boobs (as well as the wonderful, mature people who work in the industry). It's horrible, but true. If there are no exposed boobs at the roleplaying table, lewd boob comments and the people who make them are less likely to be present.
"These things are bad for women if they are not comfortable with it"
ReplyDeleteAre women, as a group, ALL comfortable or uncomfortable with the same things?
No, they're not.
It's _uninviting_ for people who aren't into it (male or female) and _inviting_ for those who are, male or female.
Why privilege the prudes over the non-prudes?
"I do not fully support them forcing it on others. Forcing alienating artwork into RPG books to fulfil some self serving artistic want is just as bad as someone forcing their own creepy sex fantasies into a game. "
Incorrect:
If you put your art in a book and turn some people off--they're just not in the audience for your book. You haven't FORCED anything on anyone. No one is being forced to play or buy a game.
" I do not think creative freedom is more important than the growth of the industry."
Why do you care if the industry grows at all? You care if WOTC makes money? Why?
"*note, sexualized (even evenly sexualized) art IS enabling."
This is simply provably untrue. No person _gains an ability they did not already have_ via a fictional picture.
Yes, it invites people who are not "prudes." People who are attracted by that kind of art deserve that kind of art. As you pointed out in an earlier post, that is when you make books with that kind of art and books without. Throwing your own words back at you, what privileges the non-prudes over the "prudes?" I did not say that all women are made uncomfortable by the same thing. Your female players are clearly comfortable with things that my female players are not. What entitles them to sexy pictures in RPG books when those same pictures actively drive other people away from the hobby?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying there should not be art that turns people off. I have players who are 110% in the market for Lamentations of the Flame Princess. They loved the crap out of the rules and gameplay. Guess what, they're under 18 and thus actively (and parentally) turned off by the art. Several of them cringed at it and refused to play the game, despite the fact that they had enjoyed it previously, because despite preaching about artistic freedom, art matters a lot. I bet most of the women you play with would still play if there was no boob art.
I care that the industry grows, because I care about more players finding out about and joining the community. Let's be frank, if Paizo and Wizards weren't pumping out books, organizing play, and putting out ads and spots in TV shows, the industry would be completely relegated to basements, comic shops, and corners of the internet where new players would probably not find out about it. Not everyone has word of mouth. I started because a friend found D20 Star Wars at Barnes & Noble. I didn't get mentored under an elder gamer.
Without the industry growing, we wouldn't have the high quality print books that are out now. Look at out of print dead tree books on Amazon. Most are prohibitively expensive. Try as they may, DriveThruRPG and Lulu don't have the greatest binding. Sure, you can get PDFs on the cheap, but then who would make the dice. If the industry is not growing, Chessex would stop making poly sets. Sure, you can argue that you can just relegate all your gaming gear to a phone dice app and some PDFs, but how satisfying and high quality is that really? As awesome as the DIY D&D community is, almost all the PDFs I've seen churned out do not have the same quality as a similar product from Paizo. Give me a dead tree book any day, and you don't get a lot of good ones without the industry making money.
I understand that we both come from very different places in regards to what we expect from art and game creation and publishing. You seem to enjoy (and are good at) creating your own content. I would rather create the creative stuff and leave the mechanical creation to people who actually like doing that. That is why I want the industry to grow.
Enable means to make possible or easy. Sexualized art makes it easy to comment on sexual topics. Sexualized art makes it easy to comment inappropriately on sexual topics if a person is so inclined. I suppose a better way of phrasing it is that some people take sexualized art as a (misguided) empowerment to let their misogyny fly. Sorry for the loose language usage.
"Throwing your own words back at you, what privileges the non-prudes over the "prudes?""
ReplyDeleteNothing: the artist gets to decide their audience.
"What entitles them to sexy pictures in RPG books when those same pictures actively drive other people away from the hobby? "
AGAIN: Nothing. Whoever made it gets to make what they want.
"I care that the industry grows, because I care about more players finding out about and joining the community."
Why?
Who does that benefit? Them? Were they not having fun doing whatever they were doing before they found out about RPGs?
RPGs aren't food or water--it's not like people scared off them by prudery are missing out on an essential social service.
"Without the industry growing, we wouldn't have the high quality print books that are out now. "
Aaaaaand….who cares? It's not like those things are very good or important. The free stuff is all a million times better. Pretty much every game ever is available free online anyway.
" I've seen churned out do not have the same quality as a similar product from Paizo."
1. LOL
2. It's not like Paizo has exactly shrunk having the same kind of art comic books have--sexy girls and all.
"Enable means to make possible or easy. Sexualized art makes it easy to comment on sexual topics."
LISTEN: those people are _already shit-heads_ whether they are commenting or not. Just because they might _talk less_ about things that bother you doesn't mean they suddenly belong at your table.
So: no. Art does not "enable" them to be shitheads. They _already were_ before the art was there. You're just wrong about that.
And, frankly:
asking _artists to self-censor_ because people scared to do the utterly necessary task of telling shit-heads to take a hike is a tremendous act of cultural cowardice. "We don't want to tell these people their behavior is wrong, so we want you to tone down art (which isn't really wrong) because we sorta kinda hope it will discourage them" is a totally backward idea.
Part 1:
DeleteZak,
I had a lengthy response written up, and I clicked the wrong button and lost it xD. You've made a series of interesting points, and while I don't agree with many of them, I can see where you're coming from.
Much of my original post was essentially an argument about Kairos. I don't know how comfortable you are with rhetorical concepts, but Kairos is, in my opinion, the most important. Kairos is the idea of timing; it's also the concept of "right measure". Doing the right thing at the right time.
" a) 'denying you the right to play with them if you don't play in their favor--is able to single folks out and force players to suffer through micro-aggressions or not play.'
"That is a Real-Life problem with prejudice _everywhere_ not a game problem. It's not like these people BECOME prejudiced because of games or will get better if you change games. They're bad people because of bigger things than games."
"It's not like these people BECOME prejudiced because of games or will get better if you change games"--this line in particular is interesting to me. Where does sexism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry begin? It's not biologically determined, and it's not taught explicitly in schools (though I'd be inclined to argue against myself there--but I think that's a conversation for another time). It comes from us from the backdrop of our world--the white noise which defines our cultural perceptions. Advertisements, movies, the way we see strangers interacting with one another ,the stories we hear and tell each other. They come from our personal experiences in life--you know all this, more than likely. What makes folks prejudiced is a combination of external factors being internalized--whether it be bad experiences which fundamentally alter someone's perception of a given topic, or an experience read through the filter of culturally acquired lenses (through other external factors that were already internalized).
These games can absolutely attribute to prejudice. If all young men see of the females in their preferred media are hypersexed women dressed for their eye and not for the female's own purpose (see my argument for clothed barbarian-warrior-women), they're being presented with a version of reality that favors their biases/interests in lieu of realistic portrayals of women. I am not arguing that this is the inevitable interpretation of these pictures, but I am arguing that they contribute to the notion that women dress, pose, and behave in ways to appease young males.
I also agree that these issues are much bigger than the gaming world, and that compared to other media, tabletop gaming seems like a drop of water next to an ocean of unfair representation. But the history behind the depictions of women in Fantasy settings goes back all the way into the early 20's, and for nearly a century we've seen women consistently portrayed as sex objects (for an introduction to this trend, I suggest Jon Anderson's book _Playing at the World_, which discusses the relationship between pulp fiction, fantasy, wargaming, and the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons.)
Part 2:
DeleteI also recommend you take the time to study the depiction of oppressed groups in media: a great place to look is at the evolution of the suffragist figure in political cartoons, and how the depiction of female's who wanted the right to vote as being angry, aggressive, and physically unattractive impacted the way men/those who held power perceived women who wanted an equal status as citizens in the USA.
My point is, there is plenty of evidence--anecdotal, statistical, descriptive, etc.--that supports me when I say that the way a group of people are portrayed in media can have an impact on the way that group is treated by those who consume that media. Obviously, there are going to be those who lack the necessary self-awareness to evaluate their situation--to respond to the kairos of the situation--and make decisions, but that criticism applies to the creators of comments as much as the consumers.
"'The Hawkeye Initiative isn't attacking the character of the female superheroes who are posed in such ludicrous positions, it's attacking the trend in comics that women aren't portrayed in any other fashion EXCEPT as eye candy.'
I JUST said that, dude:
The problem isn't sexualized women it's _asymmetrically_ sexualized women. The solution in a mass medium isn't to slut-shame women into covering up--it's to encourage equal sexualization of men and women."
In this instance, you're responding by asserting that the hypersexualization of women should be met with the equal hypersexualization of men--that, or the way women are sexualized should mirror the way men are sexualized (which you never responded to my assessment of, by the way).
You later responded to some of Dave's comments by discussing the moral imperative that artists not self-censor. Dave and I are not arguing that artists self-censor. We're arguing that artists need to create more art that breaks the censorship inherent in following an industrial norm. The chainmail bikini and sexy, exotic sorcerer are industry tropes--and the need/desire for these tropes forces the artist to self-censor. We're not allowing ourselves to see what else these artists can produce if we're not challenging the genre conventions.
"c) As for this:
"But as for the slut-shaming--is it wrong for me to want to see my female barbarian wearing armor that protects her abdomen? "
Is it wrong to want to see it? NO.
Is it wrong to say that an image that doesn't have that is sexist? YES.
It's not wrong to want a pizza, either, but accusing someone making fried chicken in their own home of being prejudiced against pizza or contributing to antipizza prejusdice is wrong. It's really really really wrong."
I agree--I would be in the wrong if I was arguing that any sexualization of female characters is sexist. But I'm not. I'm arguing that the trend that women are ONLY portrayed as sexual (unless they are a villain, in which case they are permitted to be hideous, but only as a way to depict they are somehow vile) is sexist, because women exist on a large spectrum of physicality, and we reduce our portrayal of women into binaries of sexy-hideous. Aside from Brienne of Tarth, can you think of a "good" female character who isn't also intended to be seen as attractive/sexual? (This isn't a rhetorical question, nor is it a challenge of your knowledge of the fantasy genre--I legitimately can't think of any in "mainstream" fantasy fiction)
And finally, one more of your comments that I believe needs addressing: .
Part 3
Delete"the artist gets to decide their audience"
Do you and the girls get to decide who your audience is when you do a show? Do you as a blogger get to decide who from the interwebs sees your work? Did you decide me and Dave could read your work? Artists do not have autonomy over their audience--they can have an INTENDED audience, but who sees their work once it is out and beyond their control is that--beyond their control. They don't get to select their audience.
I'm an instructor of college composition. I'm planning a learning module using games and gaming (Dogs in the Vineyard--booyah). I'm also going to have my students read about cultural conceptions of games and gaming--and your blog is right up there on my list. Did you elect to be an audience to a group of 18 year old students in a college classroom, who're discussing the intersection of identity, games, and mass media? Was that what you wanted your blog to be?
I'm really excited to see how my students respond to your blog. I want to see how they talk about you and the girls, and I'm curious to see how it makes them perceive the sex industry when they see sex workers as more than sexual objects. Your blog gives depth and dimension to you and the girls that folks who consume porn otherwise don't care to consider. You de-emphasize the sexuality of the girls by virtue of discussing them as something more than sexual objects, and that's important. A large part of my course is about seeing beneath the immediate face-value of the world, and looking at the larger discourses which define the way we express ourselves. If your blog was just a series of pictures of naked women playing games, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting--the kairos of your blog, the time that it creates in which its audience must respond, is to read about porn stars doing something other than porn.
But I'm straying from my point now. If we aren't challenging our artists to produce for more than the most obvious of audiences, then we're really just asking them to reproduce the same work over and over--which is a form of self censorship. That censorship then limits the kinds of people who are attracted to an artist's work, and rather than challenging this new batch of people with a variety of different kinds of art, that artist instead only creates a safe art which he/she knows will attract an audience who is favorable to that form. From there, a community grows around that art, and begins to defend that art. It places that art on a ideological pedestal. That ideological pedestal makes certain forms of expression more valuable than others--even when they aren't adding additional value to the larger conversation which that art belongs to--and creates a larger form of censorship. The cycle goes on and on this way.
Sexuality has a place in art. It has a place in games. It has a place in our society and culture. I am not the ultimate arbiter of where it belongs. Nor is any artist or industrial persona. But what I will say, and I feel I have authority to say, is that I want to see art that does more than sexualize folks. I want to see art that inspires different emotions, thoughts and experiences, and the RPG world is not sufficiently doing this. My desire for a greater variety in the art is not an attack on the rights of other artistic expressions, it's a legitimate argument that we are missing out on opportunities to draw pictures that create different experiences by their observers. To argue against that is as much an act of censorship as what would happen if I said that we can't have any sexual depictions of anyone, ever.
Zak, so either me and all of the other people who are uncomfortable/outraged with the near uniform depiction of women in geek culture just suck it up and deal with a trend that absolutely encourages misogynistic culture or we don't get to participate? That isn't a choice at all, and for all your assertions that individual autonomy be respected (the artists who wants to draw hypersexualized women, the dickheads who support those trends, and the CEOs who absolutely do choose what is and is not published) you obviously fail to understand that the autonomy of marginalized peoples such as myself is not being respected when we say that we do not want representation of ourselves to be in the hands of white, cis-het men who warp those images to benefit themselves at the detriment of the people who are actually being represented.
Delete"Zak, so either me and all of the other people who are uncomfortable/outraged with the near uniform depiction of women in geek culture just suck it up and deal with a trend that absolutely encourages misogynistic culture or we don't get to participate? "
DeleteIncoorrect:
The way you fight an overabundance of jelly is to make more peanut butter, not excoriate jelly.
As for the detriment again: Tell the women in my group that they are hurting you by how they depict _themselves_ .Go do that. Now. Go see what they say.
If you have a problem with women in chainmail bikinis _TALK TO THE WOMEN IN THE CHAINMAIL BIKINIS ABOUT IT.
@ Ferus Priest:
Delete1. All your paragraphs about "where does bigotry begin?" are 100% meaningless unless you can draw a causal link between:
A picture appearing
and
Someone turning evil who wasn't.
Mass-produced art for children needs to be _egalitarian_ . It need not be PRUDISH.
You're not advocating egalitarianism, you're advocating prudery.
2. Do not write condescending "you should read…" stuff. It wastes time.
3. "In this instance, you're responding by asserting that the hypersexualization of women should be met with the equal hypersexualization of men--that, or the way women are sexualized should mirror the way men are sexualized"
Yes, I am. Why did you bother to tell me what I just wrote?
4. (which you never responded to my assessment of, by the way)."
The Hawkeye initiative is slut-shaming. Pure and simple "Dont' these men look ridiculous in these poses?" Yes: because they were poorly drawn. A better artist could've made great gay porn out of them.
5. "We're not allowing ourselves to see what else these artists can produce if we're not challenging the genre conventions. "
If an artist is stupid enough to draw sexy pictures not because they want to but because they're too stupid to not do it, you need to prove they're doing that.
I personally have never met an artist who didn't like drawing sexy girls who did it anyway for money. Maybe some do it: that's a personal problem. But "Set yourself free! Draw what I assume you want!" is a silly position.
6. " I'm arguing that the trend that women are ONLY portrayed as sexual…is sexist"
Sure: so art directors need to hire more people who want to draw sexualized men.
Easy.
But you don't complain about the art that's already THERE. it didn't do anything wrong.
7. "Do you and the girls get to decide who your audience is when you do a show?"
YES. People who don't like it don't come back. People who do like it do come back.
Simple. Done.The art has chosen its audience.
8. "If we aren't challenging our artists to produce for more than the most obvious of audiences, then we're really just asking them to reproduce the same work over and over--which is a form of self censorship. "
No, this is the moronic "Set yourself free and be my performing monkey!" stance you set out earlier.
Artists have zero moral or ethical obligation to provide thinky-material for people too dumb to think for themselves or too untalented to produce for themselves.
It is one of the few benefits of the job and one of the few fair things in life: the person with the vision and talent gets to say what's in the art.
9." But what I will say, and I feel I have authority to say, is that I want to see art that does more than sexualize folks. "
Then make it or shut up.
You have no other moral right.
"who warp those images to benefit themselves at the detriment of the people who are actually being represented."
DeleteThat's a begging-the-question argument.
You're assuming the thing (sexualized pictures hurt women) that you set out to prove.
"A picture appearing
Deleteand
Someone turning evil who wasn't"
That's a pretty one dimensional understanding of morality, human psychology, and the transference of meaning. People can hold conflicting views. They don't "turn evil" because they don't have realistic expectations of female sexuality. They might be ignorant, or struggle with creating intimate relationships (emotional and sexually) with females that are both stable and mutually beneficial. Which can in turn perpetuate negative behaviors. Which can create very real problems for women trying to enter into the community. Just because you haven't experienced this doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and I think you would do well to go out and talk to people outside your sphere of influence to really understand the implications of what you're saying.
"Mass-produced art for children needs to be _egalitarian_ . It need not be PRUDISH.
You're not advocating egalitarianism, you're advocating prudery"
Prudery is not an intellectual equivalent of egalitarianism. You're creating a false dichotomy. Why is sex the end-all be-all of equality in art? I haven't seen you explain this argument in any real depth.
4. (which you never responded to my assessment of, by the way)."
The Hawkeye initiative is slut-shaming. Pure and simple "Dont' these men look ridiculous in these poses?" Yes: because they were poorly drawn. A better artist could've made great gay porn out of them."
Again--the purpose of Hawkeye Initiative is a litmus test of equality/egalitarianism. If a man doesn't appear powerful in the poses these women are drawn in, can we really say that the women are portrayed as powerful? Does sex actually equal power, and if so, to whom and why?
My post about male sexuality was actually about the already existing trend of sexualizing males. As an example:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2012/03/seeing-and-being-seen/
Look at Captain America (scroll down--although the article itself is pretty good too). Is that or is that not a sexualized image, and why?
"Do you and the girls get to decide who your audience is when you do a show?"
YES. People who don't like it don't come back. People who do like it do come back.
Simple. Done.The art has chosen its audience."
Nope. Not that simple. Some folks might like what you do--but maybe don't like the way the camera angles are shot, so they pass you up in favor of a higher quality production--they liked your art, but not how specifically you and the girls did it. Some folks might be only interested in certain kinds of scenes, and so you have recurring audiences, but only for certain types of shows. There's loyal customers who like a particular girl and follow her, and then there's customers who are one-and-done buyers because they don't feel comfortable purchasing, and then there's customers who want to buy but might not be able to because of financial or social conflicts. Your audience type matters as much as the work you produce because it effects your sales. Art is a transactional relationship, not something to be put on a pedestal.
8. "If we aren't challenging our artists to produce for more than the most obvious of audiences, then we're really just asking them to reproduce the same work over and over--which is a form of self censorship. "
DeleteNo, this is the moronic "Set yourself free and be my performing monkey!" stance you set out earlier."
...Wait. How aren't they already performing monkeys?
"Artists have zero moral or ethical obligation to provide thinky-material for people too dumb to think for themselves or too untalented to produce for themselves.
It is one of the few benefits of the job and one of the few fair things in life: the person with the vision and talent gets to say what's in the art."
...I never said anything about thinky material. Nor am I asking for it. I'm asking for less sexual material.
How does an artist like Gail Simone fit into your argument? She's very much against the way women are portrayed in the comics industry, but she has to bend to the will of that industry. She can't make the art she wants, despite having the ability to do so, because of larger constraints.
I don't think you have a realistic understanding of the marketing world when it comes to art. If you want, I can share an e-mail correspondence I had with Dan Le Sac (of Scroobius Pip Versus Dan Le Sac fame). He explained to me the process it takes for a musician to get his work accepted by a larger industry. It's not this nebulous freeform thing--they have to meet the demands of the buyer. I can put you in contact with writers--fiction and nonfiction--who will be able to walk you through the steps they've taken to get their work sold. They've gutted stories, rewritten entire sections of books. I have artist friends who make ads for businesses because they can't find a market for their preferred art. They don't want to draw hyper sexy sorcerers, but they love DnD and games and want to publish in that world. Would you buy their art?
"9." But what I will say, and I feel I have authority to say, is that I want to see art that does more than sexualize folks. "
Then make it or shut up.
You have no other moral right."
What about the people who've already made art (Gail Simone) who complain about it?
You're missing a huge point--I don't want to make the art. I want to create an environment as a consumer where more kinds of art are acceptable. I want to buy things that depicted a larger spectrum of potential portrayals of what could be.
Quite honestly, the stance you're taking on this is a self serving insular attitude that is also problematic. It seems that you don't actually care about the gaming industry or gaming culture expanding, and it honestly comes across that you don't really seem to want people in the hobby that aren't already there and agree with you.
ReplyDeleteSure people were having fun before RPGs. Sure RPGs aren't a necessary part of life. They are a fun part of life, and fun _should_ be shared. A superior "fuck you if you don't like my art" attitude doesn't attract anyone except more people with the same attitude. I'd like diversity at my table, thank you.
I'm not saying do not tell shitheads to get lost. By all means, show them the door. Not all art is meant to be a crazy over the top statement about human sexuality. I'm not telling artists to self censor. I'm saying know your damn audience and if your audience is people who like nakedness, draw naked people, but why the hell are you putting it in a book that is for a game that is not about naked people? Just slapping whatever art you feel like in a book is a rhetorical failure on the part of the artist, and forcing artists to understand their audience and present their art in mediums and places applicable to their audience breeds smarter artists not lazy ones who think that any statement can go any which where.
". A superior "fuck you if you don't like my art" attitude doesn't attract anyone except more people with the same attitude. I'd like diversity at my table, thank you. "
DeleteWell: Why would you want prudes at your table?
And OF COURSE I want the people at my table at my table more than I want people I don't like: that's why I asked them.
Friends are, literally people you like and get along with BETTER than other people. Yes: I want friends at my table, not uptight foes.
"but why the hell are you putting it in a book that is for a game that is not about naked people?"
Because naked people and sexuality are totally good things and not bad things and filtering out people who don't like them is like filtering out homophobes and sexists: it's a positive good with no downside.
"forcing artists to understand their audience and present their art in mediums and places applicable to their audience breeds smarter artists "
No: it breeds timid, safe artists who make worse and more watered-down work that lies about their sexuality and panders to the most prudish common denominator.
As _every single second in the entire history of art, comics and film_ has shown.
No: Disneyfication is not a positive good by itself. And if you think that it brings in an audience you want you need to _explain why_ not simply declare it.
And you're _still_ not explaining what any of this has to do with women--which is allegedly who you want to bring in more of. Not prudes: women.
The strategy you're proposing won't bring in more women, only more prudes of both sexes in likely equal numbers.
"Because naked people and sexuality are totally good things and not bad things and filtering out people who don't like them is like filtering out homophobes and sexists: it's a positive good with no downside."
Delete...what about folks who were sexually abused and feel uncomfortable talking about sex or displaying their own sexuality? Again, not a rhetorical question, but a legitimate response to your assertion, and I genuinely want to know how you'd respond.
Those people are going to have trouble with being an adult in general, right? And social situations in general, right? And popular music, videos, the whole internet, etc.
DeleteWhy would you argue that a game for (at the youngest) teenagers should be directed at people with a special problem?
Like: we don't demand that of their music or their movies? And we shouldn't. Are you seriously saying we should expunge references in popular music to sexuality?
I know a woman triggered by busses. She has every right to not be unnecessarily triggered--but I don't think it's reasonable to ask the film and art industries to leave out images of busses because of her trigger.
I'm not saying make the game to cater to those people. I'm asking you if you think filtering out people who don't like naked people and sexuality in the gaming community is totally a good thing, when some of those people aren't hateful or bigotrous. I've already put my two cents in on the way sexuality is used in popular media--my question was directed toward you, about your values: is it appropriate to filter out folks who aren't comfortable with sex/sexuality for legitimate reasons (traumatic experience, say) at the gaming table?
DeleteI think the gaming industry should feel at least as comfortable about filtering out people who have sexual issues as the music and film industry do.
DeleteNot everything has to be for everyone.
A creative person has to make work that _interests them_ or it will be bad, dull and half-done. The price of that is _always_ (and acceptably) filtering out people who don't like the same things as them.
I'm not asking about the gaming industry--I'm asking about you. Do YOU think folks should be filtered out at the gaming table because they aren't comfortable with nudity/sexuality? You, not the gaming industry. Please answer the question I've asked with respect to the context of its phrasing.
DeleteI'm not saying everything has to be for everyone. Nowhere did I say that.
I can link you to five artists who I know personally that make work that bores them or doesn't match their aesthetic tastes because they need a paycheck. Hell--I'm a published fiction writer, and I've received national recognition for my nonfiction, and I'm still not writing what I want, I'm writing to get into magazines.
@ferus priest
DeleteAt my table? People uncomfortable with sexuality should not come within 20 miles of downtown LA, much less our apartment (where our game happens). Everyone who lives in this apartment is in the sex industry. There's a picture of a woman with her crotch spread over the front door.
"I can link you to five artists who I know personally that make work that bores them or doesn't match their aesthetic tastes because they need a paycheck. "
Then:
1. They should stop.
2. There is no defense for any of the work they make. Unlike many cheesecake artists, who are making what they want.
and
3. None of that proves your point.
No matter _what_ the subject is: inside or outside the industry norms, if it isn't exactly what the artist wants there is no possible defense of it and it is an abomination.
If the artist wants to make cheesecake and doesn't: that is a disaster.
If they don't want to and do: that is a disaster.
If a non-artist wants to tell an artist want to make: they can fuck off and are evil. Hire someone else if you want different art.
"If a non-artist wants to tell an artist want to make: they can fuck off and are evil. Hire someone else if you want different art."
DeleteThat's not how the world works, Zak. It's not.
http://writingspaces.org/essays/inspired-writer-vs-real-writer
Please begin the process of dismantling the idea that art is a concrete concept, and has nothing to do with cultural values.
That wasn't coherent, Ferus.
DeleteWhether or not that's _how the world works_ it's what's right and wrong.
Asking an artist to make art they don't want to make is wrong--though (like many evil things) common.
The art they make will be, most often watered-down and bad.
_
As for the rest of what you said: it's gibberish and addresses none of the points here.
Asking an artist to make the art _you want to see for you_ instead fo just finding another artist who is in accord with what you like is like going to the vegan restaurant and demanding sausage.
There's plenty of sausage: go find the person who wants to make it--dont' demand every vegan in your path make sausage instead. They'll have no heart for it.
Do not retreat into vagary and abstraction: you have brought up serious issues--address them directly.
As for the above:
Delete"negative behaviors"
That's evil. You look at a fictional picture and decide to treat women poorly: that's evil.
Prove that happens. And prove the person _before that_ was good. If they're so easily influenced: they're already a bad person.
"Just because you haven't experienced this doesn't mean it doesn't happen"
TRUE: but you're refusing to provide evidence it does happen.
Don't bring up ideas you can't provide support for.
"Prudery is not an intellectual equivalent of egalitarianism. You're creating a false dichotomy. Why is sex the end-all be-all of equality in art? I haven't seen you explain this argument in any real depth. "
this is gibberish:
Equal sexualization is egalitarian.
Removing sexualization is prudery.
Done.
"the purpose of Hawkeye Initiative is"
The PURPOSE doesn't matter. The purpose was to do something good, obviously. The effect is something bad: slut-shaming.
"If a man doesn't appear powerful in the poses these women are drawn in, can we really say that the women are portrayed as powerful?"
Since when is that important? Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. If we want more powerfulness we hire artists who can provide that, not attack the artists who provided the sexiness.
Wow, I must be one of the luckiest people in the world when it comes to gaming. I've lived, and gamed in 2 cities in the U.S.A. and I have had pretty much none of any of the problems brought up in this entry and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI've always had good people to game with, of a wide variety of just about every characteristic you could throw at a demographer. The only problem I could think of is that occasionally we just couldn't make room for more people (we generally drew the line at 6).
You've been lucky. I am jealous of your gaming experiences.
Delete"Does sex actually equal power, and if so, to whom and why?"
ReplyDeleteTotally differently to different audiences for billions of different sets of reasons. That's why you need a variety of artists
"Is that or is that not a sexualized image, and why?"
Depends what turns you on.
"Some folks might like what you do--but maybe don't like the way the camera angles are shot, so they pass you up in favor of a higher quality production--they liked your art, but not how specifically you and the girls did it. Some folks might be only interested in certain kinds of scenes, and so you have recurring audiences, but only for certain types of shows. There's loyal customers who like a particular girl and follow her, and then there's customers who are one-and-done buyers because they don't feel comfortable purchasing, and then there's customers who want to buy but might not be able to because of financial or social conflicts"
NONE OF THIS EXPLAINS THIS...
"Your audience type matters as much as the work you produce"
Why?...
"because it effects your sales".
Who gives a fuck about sales? Again: I thought we were talking about whether art hurts women or not, not how much money art makes.
If you want to make money: make terrible boring derivativecrap. And ignore all the issues here. Money is not important. We are discussing freedom and morality.
"How aren't they already performing monkeys? "
They are making the art they want to make.
"I'm asking for less sexual material. "
Then you are a _terrible_ person.
You can ask for MORE unsexual art. But asking for _less_ sexual art is asking for peopelt o do less of what they want. That's disgusting.
"How does an artist like Gail Simone fit into your argument? She's very much against the way women are portrayed in the comics industry, but she has to bend to the will of that industry."
Gail Simone's position matches mine:
Chainmail bikinis are fine. (She writes Red Sonja and likes it.)
It's the _asymmetry_ she dislikes. She doesn't want _less_ peanut butter, she wants _more_ jelly.
Then you refer to a lot of artists who have made compromises in their work:
Fuck them all.
I am an artist. I live off my paintings. I don't compromise: so they're good paintings.
The people who compromise: they all fucking suck.
"You're missing a huge point--I don't want to make the art. I want to create an environment as a consumer where more kinds of art are acceptable"
THAT is fine. THIS "I'm asking for less sexual material. " is evil.
Do you not understand this?
You can ask for MORE OF FICTIONS YOU LIKE. But you cannot ask for LESS OF FICTIONS YOU DON'T.
Do you grasp the difference?
Posted in 2 pieces because evidently Blogger didn't like it in one post:
ReplyDeleteLet's get one thing straight. The world is not divided into Prudes and Not-Prudes. You obviously live in a very sexualized subculture. Good for you. I'd love to experience that some day. However, it obviously biases you. People who do not live in that subculture, do not want to live in it, and are not comfortable with it are not "evil," do not "fucking suck," and are not necessarily prudes. They are different from you. Difference does not equal evil. Wanting something different out of art than what is presented is not evil. Telling people they want something different out of art from you that they are evil is, in fact, evil.
Zak, I'd love to live in a world where people didn't have to compromise. I don't even agree that compromising is ALWAYS good. It is SOMETIMES good. I'd hesitate to say it is OFTEN good. Calling people who ask for compromise and want compromise evil and saying they "fucking suck" is elitist, naive, assholish, and quite honestly unintelligent. If certain people groups got their way, we wouldn't eat pork. I like bacon. They have compromised to allow me to eat bacon and not eat bacon themselves. Do Jewish people fucking suck in your opinion?
I'd highly suggest taking a step back from what is obviously a hot button pet topic for you and examine the absolutism of what you're saying. I understand that you're of the opinion that there should be absolutely no compromise in art ever, but the opinion that compromise is NEVER necessary is the hallmark of someone who is not secure enough in themselves and their beliefs to actually question if they're right or wrong. I'm not even saying you're NECESSARILY wrong, I'm just saying that the abrasive and black and white way you're arguing is not correct rhetorically.
Delete"Do you not understand this?
You can ask for MORE OF FICTIONS YOU LIKE. But you cannot ask for LESS OF FICTIONS YOU DON'T.
Do you grasp the difference?"
I grasp this difference quite completely, but you seem not to be grasping my argument. I understand that you have strong feelings about the topic, and I'd invite you to step back and actually read my arguments above and understand that I am not calling for less erotic art. I am calling for erotic art to move to places where it is rhetorically sound and makes sense. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT SEX AND NEEDS TO HAVE SEX.
If you like everything to involve sexiness, have complete artistic freedom, and never have to compromise, I'd like to invite you to stay in your corner that obviously does not resemble the real world. I wish more of the world was like that, but obviously LA is not Ohio or just about anywhere else. I get that you don't care about the industry. Have fun making PDFs and Google docs and whatnot. Let other people enjoy glossy hardcovers, box sets, and amazing mass produced game props. Understand that I want, like, and want to support different things from you. You're not always right, and your way is not the highway.
Quite honestly, many statements you have made are bullying in nature. Sexualized art is like Jesus. It is great for some people, but don't shove it in my face if I don't want it. The way you are addressing these topics comes across just as bad as people slut shaming. Being a dick because someone doesn't agree with you is, as you like to say, Evil.
"Your audience type matters as much as the work you produce"
Why?...
"because it effects your sales".
Who gives a fuck about sales? Again: I thought we were talking about whether art hurts women or not, not how much money art makes.
Sales are not what I'm talking about. However, I give a fuck about sales, but that's a side issue that is not important here. Obviously you don't. Let's agree to disagree. I'd hazard to say that if you deigned to make a piece of art criticizing corporate greed (because you felt driven to let your muse fly in that direction one day), nobody who actually would benefit from taking that criticism to heart (aka a Corporate moghul) would actually give a flying fuck about it. It would probably be purchased by some edgy fringe element who would hang it on the wall of their loft where they would feel superior and snark about the message to people who also do not benefit of the message of your art.
Adding sexualized art into gaming to promote sexual freedom and egalitarianism is a massive failure of artistic intent. It makes people uncomfortable, and before you come back by saying that impactful art makes people uncomfortable, understand that there is a kind of uncomfortable that is bad. Inappropriately placed art promotes the bad kind of discomfort.
Evidently 3 parts...
DeleteWhat I get from your responses is that you only want people who think the same as you to play with you. That's fine. For you. A lot of people, myself included, want to play with diverse groups of people. Please note before you misread this that I do not mean that I want to play with misogynists and bigots. Some people are not as comfortable with sex as you. Some are not as comfortable with sex as me. Some are not comfortable with extreme violence or horror scenarios. That does not make them evil, prudes, unworthy of playing with or befriending or interacting with. It does mean that I have to do something that you obviously find distasteful: compromising. But I am secure enough in myself and my views and a mature enough and unselfish enough human being that I can and gladly do compromise so that I can grow as a person and have fun.
" People who do not live in that subculture, do not want to live in it, and are not comfortable with it are not "evil," do not "fucking suck," and are not necessarily prudes."
ReplyDeleteThey areIF AND ONLY IF they ask other people to make _less of their art_ to satisfy their prudery.
It is not what you want, it is wanting to _deprive others_ that makes them suck.
" I am calling for erotic art to move to places where it is rhetorically sound and makes sense"
It makes sense _wherever you hire that artist to draw it_
You are making a huge mistake: thinking you (not the artist) get to decide _where it makes sense_ . You don't.
Everything else you said was either reiterating those 2 points or just making pointless insulting conjecture with nothing to back it up. So just address those 2 things.
And, again, since when does this have anything to do with women?
ReplyDeletePoint A: It is not what you want, it is wanting to _deprive others_ that makes them suck.
ReplyDeletePlease read my posts and comments. Nowhere am I asking for you and people like you to be deprived. Go and read an adult art book. Pull up an adult themed RPG or have a Playboy poster where you roleplay. Show me where I said I want to take away things you like. I am wanting to provide things that other people like, and some people like exposed breast free RPG products. You are approaching this in a black and white absolutist manner. Understand that there are shades of grey and *gasp* compromises that need to be made.
Point B: It makes sense _wherever you hire that artist to draw it_
You are making a huge mistake: thinking you (not the artist) get to decide _where it makes sense_ . You don't.
Why don't I get to decide if I hired the artist and am buying their product? The artist is not the be all and end all of art. Let artists draw whatever they want. They shouldn't expect to be given free reign to put it wherever the hell they want just because they made it. Don't impinge on my RIGHT to ask for a piece of art not to be placed somewhere that I purchased and own. Don't impinge on my RIGHT to provide feedback. It's the same RIGHT that allows an artist to draw whatever they want. Expect me to vote with my buck and my opinion. Draw shit I don't like and see if I support you. If I hire an artist to draw something and they don't provide me with something that I feel fits the product, I am not wrong in telling the artist that I am not going to use their art. I just decided where it makes sense, and I was not wrong. I am not obligated to like, support, or use your art. If you are making art for commercial purposes, expect editing. The ego is not attractive and doesn't make friends or help make any point.
How about you answer this: If someone painted a piece of art depicting women being degraded, shamed, slut shamed, and conveying the opinion that people should also behave in a similar manner, do you support it being placed in a widely published D&D book that you want to present at your gaming table? On one hand, you support complete artistic freedom, but on the other, you seem really against misogyny. No waffling that chainmail bikinis do not do this. That's not the question.
And this has to do with women, because you have been trying to make the point that art making women uncomfortable is not a bad thing and that we shouldn't care about female opinion and comfort level, because artistic license is the most important thing ever. Or at least that's what your commets are coming across as.
ReplyDeleteBasically, what does artistic freedom and the artist only drawing what they love have to do with women?
Delete"Why don't I get to decide if I hired the artist and am buying their product? "
ReplyDeleteBecause if you want something other than what they want to do YOU HIRED THE WRONG ARTIST.
You don't hire an adult and then demand they made Disney art instead of what they made. If you want Disney art _hire a Disney artist_.
If you hire Wayne Reynolds or Frank Frazetta--if you want access to their talent--you have to deal with sexy ladies. That's it.
If you do _not_ want access to it: hire someone else.
And: again--you still haven't explained how the women in my group wearing chainmail bikinis hurts anyone
"And this has to do with women, because you have been trying to make the point that art making women uncomfortable is not a bad thing and that we shouldn't care about female opinion and comfort level, because artistic license is the most important thing ever. Or at least that's what your commets are coming across as."
ReplyDeleteNo you've made a disastrous mistake.
Your argument is:
A) Sexy art makes some people uncomfortable (TRUE)
B) These people are women (FALSE)
C) So sexy art makes _women_ unusually uncomfortable.
No: sexy art makes_ prudes_ uncomfortable.
We shouldn't care what _prudes_ think.
DO YOU GRASP THIS OR DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT?
"If someone painted a piece of art depicting women being degraded, shamed, slut shamed, and conveying the opinion that people should…"
ReplyDeleteThis would be a bizarre situation: D&D art is generally fiction, not political cartoons or advice.
People can say whatever they want in fiction. Alleging that D&D art generally has an "opinion" is crazy. There's a guy with a sword--there is no opinion there about what guys, in general, in real life, should do.
Please answer my question.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I never (read my comments and post) have ever said that the women in your group wearing chainmail bikinis hurts anyone.
In regards to expecting something out of the artist and being wrong if the artist does not deliver, what makes art so special that artists get to deliver whatever the hell they want? If I hire someone to build me a house, provide blueprints (read: art guide for what I want that is commonly provided to commercial artists when they take a job), and then the person I hired builds me a gazebo because they felt like it, they are wrong. If I hire you to paint me an illustration that depicts non sexualized characters and you aren't comfortable with that, you get to COMPROMISE and tell me you don't want to do that. You then don't get my money, get to paint what you want, and I find someone who paints what I want. It's not an artist's right to ignore the requirements of a job.
Oh, you responded to my question while I was typing. Thanks-ish, because you didn't answer the question. IF D&D art has no point, why should it be a problem for artists to take art direction and not make a point of including sexualized art?
ReplyDelete", I never (read my comments and post) have ever said that the women in your group wearing chainmail bikinis hurts anyone"
ReplyDeleteNOPE WRONG:
" huge attitude common in the industry that scares off many potential roleplayers is a chauvinistic and/ or bigoted attitude. Now, chainmail bikinis, hypersexualized women in RPG and fantasy art, and slut shaming have been beaten to death in discussion, but they still happen."
You lumped in chainmail bikinis (harmless) and hypersexualized art (harmless) with slut-shaming (evil) and chauvinism (evil). This is wrong.
"what makes art so special that artists get to deliver whatever the hell they want?"
Because if you ask them to make something other than they want, the art is always worse. And, of course, the art (which lasts forever and is there forever for anyone to see) is more important than what the patron wants (money for one person).
" IF D&D art has no point,"
Who said that? It has a tremendous point: it can be beautiful and evocative.
" why should it be a problem for artists to take art direction and not make a point of including sexualized art?"
Because if they need to make something sexualized to make it beautiful then they do. Just like they might need to use orange or yellow.
It's ok to not like orange or yellow but then:
1) HIRE A DIFFERENT ARTIST
and
2) DON'T LIE AND PRETEND ALL WOMEN HATE ORANGE AND YELLOW
Again, please actually answer my question. In fact, we'll make it easier. Please answer the first three of the following questions with Yes/No answers:
ReplyDeleteDo you support rape?
Do you support artistic representations of rape?
If yes, do you believe that this may glorify rape?
If no to the above, please explain why a piece of art of the above type of art has a place in an RPG book that does not contain references to rape.
I'd like you to please understand that the following topics: chainmail bikinis, hypersexualized women in RPG and fantasy art, and slut shaming are lumped together, because they are usually lumped together in RPG related discussion. Understand that this is an example of what is known as Framing An Argument and Providing Examples. Did I say it was intrinsically bad? No. Did I say it can (CAN) make women uncomfortable? Yes. Did I say that it can drive potential roleplayers away from the hobby? Yes. Did I say anything about your girls wearing chainmail bikinis being bad? No.
On the topic of the artist not making what they want making the art bad, please understand that I am also an artist. I'm not a commercial artist, I do not sell my art, I do not illustrate books, and I do not live off my art, but I am a painter, sketcher, musician, writer, and create aquarium aquascapes for aesthetic reasons. My poetry and one of my short stories has been published. I have shown art in state wide art shows. You're not the only artist in this conversation. I majored in studio art for two quarters in college before finding that I was more interested in majoring in English. I value the crap out of artistic freedom.
I have found often that I create extremely different art than what I would normally create when fulfilling assignments. Different is not bad. I actually count several of those highly different pieces of art among my most successful. It's a skill set. Not learning to be true to yourself while doing something you don't want to do is lazy and self serving. Be an adult and learn to channel your aesthetic in everything you do, not just from your comfort zone.
"It's ok to not like orange or yellow but then:
1) HIRE A DIFFERENT ARTIST
and
2) DON'T LIE AND PRETEND ALL WOMEN HATE ORANGE AND YELLOW"
I will hire a different artist. I've been saying I'll do that all along. I also never said ALL in regards to my comments about womens' comfort levels.
(questions about rape)
ReplyDeleteI don't know what piece of art you're talking about. You made reference to pin-ups, hypersexualization and chainmail bikinis, not rape.
"I'd like you to please understand that the following topics: chainmail bikinis, hypersexualized women in RPG and fantasy art, and slut shaming are lumped together, because they are usually lumped together in RPG related discussion. "
Then you made a mistake by following the crowd. Stop doing that.
Your autobiographical information proves and means nothing and addresses none of the points here. Nor does your assertion that some women don't like to see sex.Some women don't like to see gay people either: it doesn't meant they should be excluded from RPG art.
So, to recount your mistakes:
-Do not ever lump in harmless things (sexy art) with evil things (chauvinism)
-Do not excoriate artists for managing to get their art on a book cover--if you want to see different art, you do _not get to pretend that art hurts women_ just ask for different art from different artists.
(questions about rape)
ReplyDeleteIf you read this, you'll realize that they are questions about your support of art and artistic license. Your refusal to answer them makes me think you might be ashamed of your opinions.
"-Do not excoriate artists for managing to get their art on a book cover--if you want to see different art, you do _not get to pretend that art hurts women_ just ask for different art from different artists."
I am not excoriating artists for managing to get their art on a book cover. I am questioning why that art was picked to be on said book cover in the first case and saying that there is possibly a piece of art that better fits the work inside the book and that that second piece of art should probably be there instead. Stop taking this as an attack on the sanctity of the artists work.
I am attacking artists in the following statement: It is lazy when artists create what they want and it doesn't fit what they were asked to create and then they still expect their work to be displayed as if it was what they were asked to create. If you are asked to do a job, do it. Don't wuss out because it's not "you." Have the grace to bow out beforehand if you don't feel connected to the project.
Sorry if my writing presentation caused you to misread me. Let's move past that. I've moved past a plethora of insensitive and inflammatory presentation issues with your posts as well. We're both not writing to the best of our ability.
To recount your mistakes:
-Make a point, don't nitpick presentation.
-Answer questions posed to you when people are answering questions posed to them. It's common courtesy.
-When trying to make a point about the sanctity of artistic intent, don't dismiss other people as artists. It undermines your entire argument.
-Don't deal in absolutes. I understand that this can be read as an absolute, but understand that I'm trying to elevate your ability to use rhetoric successfully.
-Try to be polite, at least at the start of a conversation, I understand we've moved past niceties at this point, but it didn't have to devolve like this.
As an artist, as a comic fanatic, as a fantasy reader, as a gamer, as a human being... I don't get it.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't get the "body image" issue as it pertains to fictional characters and artistic expression. As an artist, NO ONE tells me what I can and cannot portray. My style is my style, and if I'm hired to depict a form, I will create it as I see fit. If my client wants a particular layout, I will work with them to make it happen, but I am not going to betray my work for the sake of sparing one's feelings or because someone else low self esteem sees my work as detrimental to their ego. It's not my job to make YOU feel better about yourself; it's about my expression and my clients satisfaction.
Julie Bell works with her partner Boris Valejo to create some of the most renowned and provocative fantasy art in the world. Is this self hating for her creations, her hours and hours of over the decades? Of course not! She LOVES her pieces! Artists create out of expression and if you get paid for it, all the better. If it offends, it's doing its job of inciting a reaction. But censorship is not an answer. When has it ever been? Where does it stop? Do we pretend that we aren't a dimorphic species and start depicting one another wearing boxes, hiding what makes us different and special? Doesn't THAT sound a little offensive?
Equal representation IS a must, that is so very true. Sexualize men, please! Hell, I argue we do. Some same that the masculine forms shown in fantasy art are depictions of ego trips and power... Isn't THAT up to interpretation? It depends on who is looking at the work. Personally, I don't see myself in them because I live vicariously threw other's work. I look at the structure, the play of light, the expression, the motif. Fantasy isn't making a stance. It's FANTASY.
I left my original declaration above which I'll now we address: I don't understand body image issues in relation to fiction. A strong minded human being shouldn't be susceptible to such things. They're DRAWINGS. Or PROFESSIONAL PRETTY PEOPLE, literally paid to take general care of themselves. If you want to see average people, look around you. In fantasy, or fiction in general, you're looking at iconography, not literal representations. It's what we aspire to, not what we can achieve without effort. In our children we should instill a sense of "Yes, that's pretty, but it's not real." and an understanding of the difference between fiction and reality (both beautiful for different reasons). Gender politics is certainly a serious issue...in reality. In art, you're going to have to decide if it's offensive to YOU or the WHOLE.
As for homosexuality... Yeah, there's not great representation there. Some artists don't get how to illustrate it visually (and in a single image) and resort to stereotypes. I can't say I blame them because it isn't easy, but it doesn't make it right. Most would just draw a person. Just a person...until a client says "Make sure he's gay." Well how the fuck do I draw THAT? I would tell my client that unless I can just draw him/her holding hands with a partner, I don't know what they want. Others go another route. Hands tied and it's a shame. But there's progress and innovation, and that's how art works.
Geek exclusion is essentially revenge for how geeks felt they were treated it high school, and it's the most ridiculous trait of the culture. Events like Dragon Con and SDCC prove nerds can be inclusive and sociable; berating each other and faux flexing egos is self destructive and merits all those swirlies suffered. Let us remember the matra of that most prestigious of dorks: Don't be a dick. We have stop reading so such into our passions and remember why we love them. Not because we ARE them, but because we CREATED them. And art is about creating, be it fantasies or communities, discussions or consensus.
"If you read this, you'll realize that they are questions about your support of art and artistic license. Your refusal to answer them makes me think you might be ashamed of your opinions."
ReplyDeleteOf course not: what a stupid, disgusting assumption.
Subject is unimportant (rape/ not rape) only quality. To answer: Well done art deserves to exist wherever it exists, poorly done art doesn't.
None of the rest has to do with the issues we're discussing--you said things that weren't true and now are changing the subject
So answer the question:
ReplyDeleteYour argument is:
A) Sexy art makes some people uncomfortable (TRUE)
B) These people are women (FALSE)
C) So sexy art makes _women_ unusually uncomfortable.
No: sexy art makes_ prudes_ uncomfortable.
We shouldn't care what _prudes_ think.
DO YOU GRASP THIS OR DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT?
Sweetheart, obviously we have very different world views. While I laud you for bringing your viewpoint to the conversation, your inability to accept that other viewpoints may be valid has simply turned this into into a flame war.
ReplyDeleteGood for you for representing an extremely sexually liberated viewpoint, bringing in, and helping give a voice to a unique element in the hobby. Props, snaps, and a big thumbs up for helping break down barriers in this industry and others by helping show that sexuality is beautiful.
No props for failing to understand that your actions do not exist in a vaccuum and that the concept of the artist being always right gives license for the artist to commit atrocity.
I'm done with this, because you're not actually having a discussion, you're trying to cram several viewpoints, some of which I already actually agree with down my throat without actually listening to what I'm saying. That bullheadedness is not attractive, does not make the hobby a friendlier place, and is actually counterproductive to the points you're making, the points I'm making, and the points other people are posting here are making.
Understand that this is a hobby about people. People are different from each other, like different things, and not just your viewpoint is represented in the constellation of gamers. Things that you enjoy are not enjoyed by others, and other people enjoy things you do not. I wish you well, but this has not been a productive discussion.
You're refusing to answer basic questions.
ReplyDeleteYou're refusing to have a debate.
Which is fine: you don't have to have a debate--but if you _don't want to debate an issue Why The Fuck Did You Bring It Up?_
You have repeatedly asserted that:
- with the covers of D&D products, the opinion of the prude should take precedence over the non-prude. But you have _never_ stated why.
-And you have pretended that the category of "prude" is identical to the category "women". And so the prude cover will somehow invite in more women---and you have never explained why.
The heart of smarminess is bringing up a debate and then refusing to have it out and refusing to answer questions.
Why won't you answer those two questions?
Why won't you answer those two questions?
Why won't you answer those two questions?
No answer, huh?
ReplyDeleteSo David turns out to be yet another conservative gamer who wants to rant about big ideas but can't back them up. Sad and fucked up.
Yep, that's right. The personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, and citation of other historical situations dealing with the depiction of historically oppressed groups Dave and I brought up--magically didn't count as an attempt to back up our thoughts. The thousands of words we wrote weren't at all attempt to explain our stance on a topic. They were just squiggly shapes you couldn't see past the haze of your ideology. It is sad and fucked up and nobody can do anything about it.
DeleteSeriously, sir, what the hell? I may not agree with David entirely on all points, but the guy IS speaking his mind. Any debate that was to be had here dissolved into baseless finger pointing and crassness a dozen comments ago. And you're a journalist? Is THAT how YOU win, by assuming that someone with an adult life stepped away from a spiraling logic pit has forfeited rather than realizing there are better things to do, like MAKE a difference in the gaming community for homosexuals? Well then, kudos because...
DeleteMeh, fuck it. This is just a sad, petulant trolling, and I feel bad David got sucked into defending himself on his own site by someone out to make another geek feel as bad as he did in high school.
Despicable and petty.
If you:
Delete-bring up a topic
-then get asked a question about that topic
-then refuse to answer that question
…you have fucked up.
It's that simple. Writing a bunch of shit and _dancing around_ the questions you got asked isn't any better than silence.
Neither is debate, neither is a good thing.