While sexist (or oversexualized) art can drive people off, there are some very unfortunate implications about role of women in the zealous opposition to it (I can see some skin, so she's not a REAL warrior! OMG, how dare that woman look attractive in front of everyone) as well as just plain hilarity of folks for whom "realism in gaming" is dirty words flying into frothing rage about sculpted boobs on a breastplate driving blows toward the heart.

Personally, I just want good artists to draw what they are good at. I also simply like attractive people in fantasy art, sexy or otherwise. And if people wear clothing that makes them look good IRL, I don't see why they shouldn't pay attention to that in their fantasy clothing/armor, at least in blatantly fantastic settings.

To address the OP:

There are people who attack jelly whenever they see it for being jelly and not peanut butter.

Why they don't just encourage making more peanut butter rather than demanding less jelly is a mystery they never answer.

Nothing in all the hours of argument has ever explained why the only answer they ever give to asymmetric sexualization is:
- less sexiness overall,
or
-attacking sexualized imagery that isn't their bag as sexist.

The arguments flare up over and over because, in reality, these people have no good arguments on their side and so can't finish the conversation. They're just nervous parents and social justice trolls. If they'd been around when Lolita was published they'd have whaled on that, too.

So, like a lot of arguments, the wrong side just starts flaming out and the argument ends and then restarts later because they keep not being able to finish it and are too emotional about the issue to just realize that and let it go.

If you're me, you get to hear from these people all the time.

I got a pretty good example of the typical stupidity-spiral-flameout here after I wrote this blog entry...

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/02/hire-women.html

if you read comments from "creases" you can see the person slowly realizing their argument's based on nothing but taste.

But then he or she pops up on another forum saying the same shit later.

You can see the same thing here with the commenter "Curt Purcell" who slowwwwwly slowwwwly slowwwwwly runs out of rope...

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/09/things-arent-problematic-people-are.html

While I don't have a problem with art that is sexy - I'd rather the ratio of "sexy men" to "sexy women" was much closer, just for evenness sake (And probably the same with setting-appropriate minorities. In a fantasy or sci-fi game, I don't want to see all white people. I want black people, green people, blue people, fucking rainbow coloured people - and sticking to just "sexy men" and "sexy women" is just boring! Show us what people in the setting would find sexy. Show us a sexy dragonborn - and I mean an actual one, not a blatant cosplayer in a scale suit! Don't objectify women, objectify the fourth gender of the insect-people of Ach't'yv Major!). I can get my "sexy woman" fix from the internet, any time of the day, but I have to get the details of a game setting from it's books.

What I don't like is art that looks stupid. Chainmail bikinis are stupid. They don't protect the most vulnerable parts of the body. Now, you do get tribes using similarly small armours, sure - but that's due to them not having the resources and technology to make better armour. Loincloth-and-muscle-oil armour is equally stupid.

Boob-plate armour that would channel a blow into the chest is stupid, because it negates the point of wearing a breastplate in the first place. May as well just paint "here is my weak spot!!!" on it, and be done.

Bondage-leather dungeonpunk outfits are stupid. They'd take ages to properly put together in the morning, and they're too tight for the clambering, active, deadly life that professional dungeon explorers lead. And good luck trying to sneak about with all the dangly bits on them!

It has nothing to do with those outfits being demeaning - rpg.netters can argue amongst themselves on that one. It has everything to do with those outfits being retarded.

Now, would any of this stop me playing and enjoying a game? Hell no. But I'd roll my eyes when I needed to look in the book.

I think most players are not on either extreme of this argument.

Quote from: Ladybird;620521What I don't like is art that looks stupid. Chainmail bikinis are stupid. They don't protect the most vulnerable parts of the body. Now, you do get tribes using similarly small armours, sure - but that's due to them not having the resources and technology to make better armour. Loincloth-and-muscle-oil armour is equally stupid.

In a fantasy world where wizard magic doesn't work if you strap on a cuirass, I have absolutely no difficulty believing that the gods of war bless those sufficiently badass to fight in nothing more than a grimace. Real-life cultures have certainly believed as much.

In a larger sense, I have absolutely no objection to a particular game or setting having a visual aesthetic more fanciful than a Trampier drawing. There's a time and place for boiled-leather historicism and there's a time for six-foot swordblades and loincloths +4. If your world is not such that gritty historical verisimilitude is a significant theme, I don't see much reason why your art design should look that way. If it looks exciting, interesting, appealing, and engaging, then you're Drawing It Right, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: SineNomine;620526In a fantasy world where wizard magic doesn't work if you strap on a cuirass, I have absolutely no difficulty believing that the gods of war bless those sufficiently badass to fight in nothing more than a grimace. Real-life cultures have certainly believed as much.

Well, in the real world, none of the legendary wizards or witches ever wore armor. Well, maybe one knight in Charlemagne's stories. But look at historical depictions of wizards and they don't wear it either.

While there haven't been a whole lot of warrior women in the medieval/ancient world, there have been enough and there doesn't seem to be any use of special scantily clad or ridiculous looking armor just for them.

The laws of physics and common sense don't stop applying just because magic exists and may or may not not always make sense (like not working in armor).

Still, if you do look at old fantasy art, one thing that is different today is a lack of nudity. I don't know if it's prudery or political correctness, but it's somewhat amusing to look at old illustrations of mythology, then modern day ones

Quote from: Nexus;620415...But on one forum there's a thread about it seemingly every couple of weeks and they almost always blow up into huge debates/flame wars with emotion running high. What is the status of the matter? Is it really so prevalent and disputed?

No.  "One forum" has been taken hostage by a handful of single-issue posters who seethe with hate for women, and who stage coordinated hyperventilation at the sight of conventionally attractive females.  Any depiction can be a trigger, not just what we'd call cheesecake.  They co-opt legitimate concerns about objectification, then leave reason (and my sympathy) far behind in their pursuit of purple tiaras and what amounts to the marginalization of women.

The enlightening discussion that might be had is shut down every time, by the same people, abetted by a few trolls.  Those threads are not about social justice.

Quote from: JeremyR;620531Well, in the real world, none of the legendary wizards or witches ever wore armor. Well, maybe one knight in Charlemagne's stories. But look at historical depictions of wizards and they don't wear it either.

While there haven't been a whole lot of warrior women in the medieval/ancient world, there have been enough and there doesn't seem to be any use of special scantily clad or ridiculous looking armor just for them.

The laws of physics and common sense don't stop applying just because magic exists and may or may not not always make sense (like not working in armor).

Still, if you do look at old fantasy art, one thing that is different today is a lack of nudity. I don't know if it's prudery or political correctness, but it's somewhat amusing to look at old illustrations of mythology, then modern day ones

But the Celts did go into battle Sky-clad with protective war paint through probably not quite as often as we were led to believe.

The problem with "sex objects" is the object part not the sex part. Objects are things that stuff happens to. They don't do anything, they're passive. That's the problem there, not the T&A.

Quote from: jibbajibba;620561But the Celts did go into battle Sky-clad with protective war paint through probably not quite as often as we were led to believe.

They went into battle naked. "Skyclad" is what wiccans do.

Quote from: Piestrio;620469There is an interesting discussion to be had about how people react to different assertions about media and its effect on people.

FREX notice the different reactions to "Sexist media creates Sexism" and "Violent media creates violence".

Here, or at RPGnet? Of course, america retains its intense fear of sex that manifests as violence porn, but thats just part and parcel with the stars and stripes.

Quotethis is of course seperate from the discussion about how welcoming and inclusive artwork is/isn't. Which I think is also an interesting discussion if fairly poisoned at this point.

Agreed. If you want women to buy your game, plastering it full of heavy metal cover  and porn tracings in silly armour isn't going to help.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620565... porn tracings in silly armour isn't going to help.

Yeah.  No matter how 'good' the artist is,

does not make me think "worthwhile buy filled with useful mechanics and fascinating story seeds".  I've seen porn comics with more subdued covers.

See, I wouldn't call that "good", but the anime/maga style doesnt appeal to me the way it seems to appeal to many these days. Adam Hughes now....

Quote from: Daztur;620563The problem with "sex objects" is the object part not the sex part. Objects are things that stuff happens to. They don't do anything, they're passive. That's the problem there, not the T&A.

True.

The problem with talking about it is that it involves impressions and judgements and feelings and its messy. Really messy. And no one takes that into account and everyone pretends to have a monopoly on "objective truth".

With a good heaping of "Not only are you wrong but that also makes you a bad person".

So basically it's the Internet.

Quote from: gattsuru;620566Yeah.  No matter how 'good' the artist is, [Savant & Sorcerer] does not make me think "worthwhile buy filled with useful mechanics and fascinating story seeds".

Which is a bit of a pity because the cover doesn't really reflect the actual contents that well, and the book does include all sorts of expanded information on topics like manses and summoning (at the cost of, say, the longer spell list in The Book of Three Circles, as I recall).