Quote from: Piestrio;620569True.

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".

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup.

The difference between "a sexy person in a picture" and "a sex object" is somebody deciding they wanna be pissed off and type a lot that day.

I often wonder what it is about the gaming demographic that causes such a weird, conflicted response to seeing sexy women in art.
I conclude that gamers, in general, are not "sexy" people - i.e. single, age 18-30 and in the top 20% of looks and fitness for that age group. Young cool people having sex with attractive partners don't give a damn about sexist art poses. Those outside that demographic feel frustrated and threatened.

Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;620584I often wonder what it is about the gaming demographic that causes such a weird, conflicted response to seeing sexy women in art.
I conclude that gamers, in general, are not "sexy" people - i.e. single, age 18-30 and in the top 20% of looks and fitness for that age group. Young cool people having sex with attractive partners don't give a damn about sexist art poses. Those outside that demographic feel frustrated and threatened.

Oh, I doubt its the gaming demographic. Just the obnoxious and loud small online groups that take over forums. Most gamers never set foot on any online forums.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620586Oh, I doubt its the gaming demographic. Just the obnoxious and loud small online groups that take over forums. Most gamers never set foot on any online forums.

True enough. The debate has been taken over by those most motivated to stay at home and type angrily.

Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;620584I often wonder what it is about the gaming demographic that causes such a weird, conflicted response to seeing sexy women in art.

And I wonder what it is about some gamers that they can't say, y'know, I like cheesecake art, but sometimes the context makes it stupid rather than titillating, and I can see why pervasive cheesecake could bug other gamers.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;620589And I wonder what it is about some gamers that they can't say, y'know, I like cheesecake art, but sometimes the context makes it stupid rather than titillating, and I can see why pervasive cheesecake could bug other gamers.

Mainly because the "pervasive cheesecake" hasnt really been a thing in the industry in about a decade. Outside of D&d/Pathfinder, one would be very hard-pressed to find any cheesecake in any RPgs published since the d20 glut.

My non-gamer wife's impression of the two images posted on this thread.

On Savant and Sorcerer:
"Ahh! It looks like a ballsack!"

On Red Sonja:
"It's kinda cool that she still has her sword stuck in that guy."

It's not Pew-level research, but I feel comfortable with the impression that most people spend little time with hand-wringing over how a picture is supposed to make them feel, because they're more interested in whether they like it or not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620591Mainly because the "pervasive cheesecake" hasnt really been a thing in the industry in about a decade. Outside of D&d/Pathfinder, one would be very hard-pressed to find any cheesecake in any RPgs published since the d20 glut.

What are you basing this on? Your personal review of every piece of gaming art in the last fifteen years? Or the general impression that, since Pathfinder has a black woman paladin in plate armor, everything's now hunky-dory, and it's just 'those overly sensitive people' who can't see how things really are?

Quote from: Ladybird;620521What I don't like is art that looks stupid.

This. A million times, this.

Quote from: Piestrio;620436I think everyone benefits from a diversity of styles.

And I can't for the life of me figure out why some gamers are so freaked out by that.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;620598This. A million times, this.


And I can't for the life of me figure out why some gamers are so freaked out by that.

I don't think they are (okay some are sure) but the majority just react poorly (and probably over-react) to being called names because they like/are not bothered by some art styles.

I've never seen a thread where someone says, "you know what bothers me!? Sensibly dressed women!" And then everyone finds pictures of sensibly dressed women and posts them for everyone to tut-tut over.

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.

I don't buy this. In this case calling it "stupid" is a cover for another, deeper reaction.
I don't see thread after thread showing impossibly steep mountains in fantasy art and deconstructing how they are geologically impossible. It's fantasy, it looks cool, so who cares? But with sex - let's just say there is something else going on other than implausibility.

If Americans weren't so scared of fucking, you wouldn't have half the comments you do about sex in art; nor would you have half the sex in art.

Quote from: Piestrio;620601I've never seen a thread where someone says, "you know what bothers me!? Sensibly dressed women!" And then everyone finds pictures of sensibly dressed women and posts them for everyone to tut-tut over.

I've seen some boring-ass piously-produced art and games out there, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to complain about them and I am certainly not going to pretend my dislike has a moral dimension.

And that's what separates prudes from the rest of us. Even if I thought boring bloodless RPG art amounted to a moral hazard, I wouldn't think time spent bitching about it was time well spent.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620591Outside of D&d/Pathfinder, one would be very hard-pressed to find any cheesecake in any RPgs published since the d20 glut.

Eh, it's less common, and there's more beefcake (yay!), but you still see a good deal.  Savant and Sorcerer might be a pre-20-glut thing, but Thousand-Faceted "The Pantless" Nelumbo (2010) and HellNun (2009) are still a thing.  That's not, in itself, a bad thing: it's prevalence, not possibility, that are the issues.  I'd have to do more searching to get a good look into things.  

Quote from: JamesV;620593On Savant and Sorcerer:
"Ahh! It looks like a ballsack!"

Yeah, it's really horrible, which is rather unfortunate since the artist has done some other fairly decent stuff (proportions aren't perfect, but still a hella lot better).

Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;620602I don't buy this. In this case calling it "stupid" is a cover for another, deeper reaction.

There is chainmail.  Near pubic hair, and parts of skin with the highest concentration of nerves on the human body.  It makes me wince; that is stupid.

((The Savant piece assumes a Solar gets cold, which is wrong is other ways.))

QuoteI don't see thread after thread showing impossibly steep mountains in fantasy art and deconstructing how they are geologically impossible.

You kinda do.
They just don't get so many posts, because most folk that don't know why the geography is wrong (and I count myself here) don't post in them.

Quote from: Piestrio;620569So basically it's the Internet.

Don't forget the slacktivism factor!  It actually is something where changing a couple folk's opinions matters, which is really disastrous.

Quote from: GrimGent;620571Which 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).

Yeah, it is quite a well-written book, if you're into the Exalted setting.  It's just that I'd be less comfortable carrying it uncovered on a bus than I would several gay furry porn comics.  

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.

I don't think it's even that.  There are characters that are passive in a lot of settings, and they should exist.  If only because you have to really gloss over a huge amount of logical background to have feudalism or slavery or a thousand other common RPG setting tropes without recognizing that many people were trapped.  It's when they become the core of storytelling that you've got a problem.

((On the flip side, it's also rather irritating when all the active characters of one gender, and only that gender, conveniently end up wearing the stripperific clothing and using sex appeal.  Red Sonja and almost all current-day female Celestial Exalts happen to people, more than other people happen to them, but it still raises questions when Raksi's supposed to look pretty when her schtick is being a baby-eating monster with Secret Goals, yet Ma-Ha-Suchi looks ugly by goat-wolf-man standards despite superhuman Appearance and a schtick involving tarnished-astonishing-beauty with serious self-esteem issues.))

Personally, I think chainmail bikinis are pretty stupid, and usually a way to deflect the conversation to be about chainmail bikinis instead of more reasonable armor.

Boobplate armor, though, while not optimal is a good deal better than wearing no armor at all. While a crossbow bolt would go through, you're in all likelihood still not stabbing through that with your sword.

And the whole argument is still framed in medieval physics nonsense that is applicable only in very particular settings that don't have barbarians wielding battleaxes the size of their torso, or 6" wide two handed swords.

This is my favorite fantasy female character, and I've won Warmachine tournaments with her. If her outfit is impractical in your favorite fantasy setting then I don't want to be playing in it.



I'll pass on dungeonpunk leather gear though because it's not really my thing.