The most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying games?

[Raimun]

Women shoot.

Men fight in melee.

Regardless of PC- or NPC- status.

It's not my doing or invention. Just observation. Except that I do often fight in melee. Wouldn't be caught dead using a bow. "I am man! *Punch!*"

[Milo v3]

Your "joke" did. Most women are mortals. So are most men, for that matter.

But that was in response to you saying "They were both female." That makes them women..... Doesn't make them mortal.

[TheCountAlucard]

"If a goddess couldn't impregnate another…", or "If one of the primordial titans that forged the world couldn't impregnate her chosen scion…" are fair descriptors (though even then I'd still disagree). These are somewhat more than men or women we're talking about here.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I won't weigh in on the whole "not trying hard enough to get pregnant" issue, but I will say that even the merest of mortals in Exalted have way more way options than the people who usually get the "mere mortal" description in most fantasy RPGs.

[TheCountAlucard]

Most mortals in Creation are some type of subsistence farmer (slaves and other laborers a close second), can't afford to eat meat every day, doesn't know how to read (and is thus unlikely to know about neomahs and other means of magical baby-making) and will never travel fifty miles from their homes. That's pretty damn "mere."

Most of them go their whole lives without knowingly seeing a sorcerer or spirit; perhaps during their once-a-year visit to the city they witness one of the Terrestrial Exalted on his palanquin, from a distance (though even then they best not meet his eye - that's a good way to get killed). Even for the odd farmer who does see these sorts of things, her ability to compel one of these workers of miracles to intercede on her behalf is basically nil.

Maybe a fabulously wealthy merchant-prince or a powerful, influential queen can throw enough at a demon-summoner to persuade him to do this thing. But the same could be said in D&D.

[Steampunkette]

Just because two people are women doesn't mean they can't have a baby of their own. Mortal, deity, or real world couple.

And I am not talking about adoption.

[Cerlis]

Yes, for every strangely continued convention there are EXCEPTIONS

Please dont name them just because there are 7 billion people on this planet and there are exceptions to almost everything.

[TheCountAlucard]

Just because two people are women doesn't mean they can't have a baby of their own. Mortal, deity, or real world couple.Also very true. The existence of transgender individuals provide a fair example of exactly that. Still doesn't make it accurate or fair to say that women who can't aren't trying hard enough.

[Lord Torath]

Also very true. The existence of transgender individuals provide a fair example of exactly that. Still doesn't make it accurate or fair to say that women who can't aren't trying hard enough.Dude. It's a GAME. No one exists in it that you haven't created. That means that the only women in Exalted who can't get pregnant are the ones you personally create that can't get pregnant. All those couples you're imaging that can't have children? You're IMAGINING them. They're not real. NONE of the characters in Exalted are. Taking offense is optional, though. If you want to get offended on behalf of a horde of imaginary women you've created in a make-believe game, no one here can stop you.

Any chance we can get back to the topic of The Most Resilient Gender Conventions in Roleplaying Games now?

[Sith_Happens]

"If a goddess couldn't impregnate another…", or "If one of the primordial titans that forged the world couldn't impregnate her chosen scion…" are fair descriptors (though even then I'd still disagree). These are somewhat more than men or women we're talking about here.

I see the war on nits in Creation is going well.

[Segev]

I see the war on nits in Creation is going well.

Mars is pleased. Her plans proceed apace.

[Segev]

It occurs to me that perhaps the root trope of most RPG-specific gender differences in treatment would be Men Act; Women Are. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenActWomenAre)

For those wise enough to avoid TVTropes and its time-devouring nature, it really is what it says on the tin: Men typically are defined by their actions (what they do), while women are defined by their attributes (what they are).

It's also related to men as actors and women as passive participants, though it's not got 100% overlap. Women CAN take active roles, but are often shown doing so by using the fact of who or what they ARE to get men to DO something.

As noted on the trope page, it can be viewed as unfair to both sexes: it makes men the "powerful" ones, but it also makes them interchangeable and valueless outside of what they do specifically to stand out. It makes women the "dependent" ones, but it also makes them each unique and special based simply on who they are and their personal natures.


My suspicion is that this will crop up mostly in NPCs in RPGs; obviously, a female PC is going to do things. But...maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?

[Red Fel]

My suspicion is that this will crop up mostly in NPCs in RPGs; obviously, a female PC is going to do things. But...maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?

Well, part of it is that, if this particular trope holds, even if the female PC does things, her characterization comes not from her actions, but from her reactions. That is to say (again, according to the trope), a male PC, to be compelling and awesome, needs to slay dragons or engage in intrigue or negotiate with the trade federation. A female PC could do that too, but by the same token, her characterization would come from her fury at what the dragon has wrought, her cruel smirk as she spreads the rumors that will have the Duke's name ruined in court, and her quick wit as she arranges for the contract with the traders.

I've actually seen some of this at my table. In one campaign (which was admittedly a DM's Girlfriend scenario), we had one female PC who basically had most of the emotional reactions. The rest of us were fairly two-and-a-half dimensional, but her character emoted more than anyone else's. When the Drow Priestess killed several members of our party, she stopped fighting and just went up and slapped her. When my lycanthrope kept snarking, she used Moonbeam to reduce him to a mute kitty, then laughed about it. And so forth.

In another campaign, it was even more true. Most of our party consisted of heroic actors, who fought and schemed and achieved, but one female PC was just kind of... there. She just sort of followed us and offered help and stuff. I can't honestly remember what she contributed. She fought alongside us, doing like the male PCs did, but she wasn't terribly memorable, probably because the character was out of her emotional depth in a parking lot puddle. (We did have another female PC in that campaign, but she was extremely active. It's worth noting that she actually had a lot of emotional depth, too.)

[PersonMan]

Yes, for every strangely continued convention there are EXCEPTIONS

Please dont name them just because there are 7 billion people on this planet and there are exceptions to almost everything.

I think they can be worth doing, especially since some people may be interested in reading about said exceptions.

As long as it's not a case of 'NUH-UH! HERE'S AN EXCEPTION!', which I haven't seen in this thread, I don't think it's a problem.

[Yukitsu]

Well, part of it is that, if this particular trope holds, even if the female PC does things, her characterization comes not from her actions, but from her reactions. That is to say (again, according to the trope), a male PC, to be compelling and awesome, needs to slay dragons or engage in intrigue or negotiate with the trade federation. A female PC could do that too, but by the same token, her characterization would come from her fury at what the dragon has wrought, her cruel smirk as she spreads the rumors that will have the Duke's name ruined in court, and her quick wit as she arranges for the contract with the traders...


That sort of stuff is probably more or less player dependent since I know I've played male characters who spend most of the campaign doing that and I also know that I've played female characters that due to differences in optimization at the table, had to do pretty literally everything from time to time.

[Socksy]

Although you do seem to see quite a few scantily-clad male sorcerers.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/81/4a/29814a73f82c77d66ffcaadef6c5af70.jpg

I was genuinely surprised when the image loaded and it wasn't Hennet in those... lovely trousers.


-snip-

your avatar is adorable


Sadly Alter Self is temporary, but for this particular application there's a classic magic item that does do it permanently.

Oh, I never thought of that! That's cool!


The most automatic gender-based thing I've seen in rpgs is this:

In my experience, a player who is arguing for absurd rules interpretations for personal gain has always been a male. There may be exceptions, but I haven't seen them.

*Waves hand about* Meee!
I run the real bullcrap past another player first though, because I can talk my DM into allowing most things, and I know it's bad.


"Having a child" is not "getting pregnant."[/i]
...Well, that's generally the end goal...
For anyone playing Spot The SJW, we have a winner!

And I have a female hobgoblin mad scientist.
She started out as a Twi'Lek before being converted to 3rd edition though.
Oooh, there's one! Has anyone ever seen a male Twi'Lek in a Star Wars tabletop RPG, other than Bib Fortuna?

[BootStrapTommy]

This is admittedly a subset of the more general "the evil spellcaster BBEG is almost never female" trope, but I've seen variations on that. I've never once seen the one who was after ascendency to godhood portrayed as anything but male. This supposed nonfemale bad spellcaster trope is new to me. As far as I'm aware the "Wicked Witch" trope is actually quit common.

[Red Fel]

Oooh, there's one! Has anyone ever seen a male Twi'Lek in a Star Wars tabletop RPG, other than Bib Fortuna?

Quite honestly, until you told me that he was one, I didn't think he even was a Twi'Lek. Or that there were any males of that race. At all. In my mind, and in my memory, Twi'Lek = Female. And not just because of the whole "Twi'Lek slaves" image; I honestly had no image whatsoever of a male Twi'Lek.

Realizing what one looks like, I now appreciate my prior position all the more.

For some time, I actually thought Kit Fisto was a Twi'Lek. (Nope, Nautolan. Far more head-tentacles.)

There's an interesting gender convention, though. Certain fantasy races as being depicted exclusively one gender or the other. Twi'Leks are one example, of course. Any others?

And a related note, a hypothesis: When a race is presented as a single gender (not counting genderless races), that gender is almost exclusively female. I can't think of anything to disprove this, off the top of my head. Anybody?

[Steampunkette]

Orks.

Warforged.

Atrox.

That's one from mini wargaming, one from tabletop rpgs, and one from videogames off the top of my head.

[goto124]

Dwarves, orcs? The females are described as 'nonexistant' or 'very manly, like their male counterparts'. Or just plain ignored.

[Eldan]

Satyrs. And Centaurs.

[Red Fel]

Orks.

Warforged.

Atrox.

That's one from mini wargaming, one from tabletop rpgs, and one from videogames off the top of my head.

I don't know Atrox, but Da Orkz are a fungal lifeform; I don't think gender actually has a meaning for them. And Warforged are genderless constructs.


Dwarves, orcs? The females are described as 'nonexistant' or 'very manly, like their male counterparts'. Or just plain ignored.

For a long time I was amused by the idea of Dwarf women with lush beards, but popular media - including more recent TTRPGs - has depicted them as actually existing. Same with Orc females. So while the race is depicted as predominantly male, it's hardly exclusive.


Satyrs. And Centaurs.

I'll give you those. But see: Dryads, Nymphs.

[Milo v3]

And Centaurs.

Dragonlance's 3.5e Setting Book actually has a female centaur as it's "iconic" centaur.

[Segev]

I don't know Atrox, but Da Orkz are a fungal lifeform; I don't think gender actually has a meaning for them. And Warforged are genderless constructs.



For a long time I was amused by the idea of Dwarf women with lush beards, but popular media - including more recent TTRPGs - has depicted them as actually existing. Same with Orc females. So while the race is depicted as predominantly male, it's hardly exclusive.



I'll give you those. But see: Dryads, Nymphs.

You did ask more if there WERE male-only races, not if they outnumbered the female ones or had distaff counterpart races.

Most of the time, I think the reason it's "obvious" that a single-sexed race is "presented as female" while the contrary is dismissed is that we're back to "men are generic; women are special." It's notable if a race is all-girl, because we see girls front-and-center where we may not have expected it. It might take a while to realize, "We've never seen a female [member of race]," and then to be told, indeed, "there are none."

I think a lot of the "girl-only" sexes tend to actually be sexless, as well, but have female morphology because the writers wanted to play with femanine tropes and, if they bothered with justification, because the womb and the child-feeding-glands are things that are needed to raise children (hypothetically for a humanoid race, anyway).


This brings up something else: Remove all sexual primary and secondary characteristics, and you generally wind up with a "male" androgynous form. Give both (for a hermaphrodite, for example), and you usually wind up with something that looks "female." This is, I think, because we identify women and men more by whether or not there are obvious breasts, and otherwise rely on what are really tertiary (i.e. culturally chosen) physical traits, like hair style and clothing.

Put genderless androgynous creature in a dress and give him long hair, and we'll think "that's a girl." Put him in a suit and cut his hair short, and we'll think "that's a boy." He might be a "wiry" or "stringy" or even "pretty" boy, but...


On the other hand, physically, men can have a harder time passing as women just because a lot of men have less consciously obvious but still pronounced secondary traits, in the jaw, the shoulder width, etc. (Body shape isn't always indicative; "round" can disguise a lot of traits, and being dangerously skinny can do likewise.)


Second tangent: Whenever a single character from a race that has a trait that enables them to choose their gender, usually at puberty, as a permanent choice (i.e., not a shapeshifter or the like), it will almost always have a male protagonist and use this "I'm not a girl!" thing to create the tension of "will they/won't they" despite the fact that it's obvious they're going to. The not-yet-chosen-to-be-a-girl toys with being a rival, best friend, etc., but ultimately it's always "chooses to be a girl."

There's never the straight-up gender-flipped version, where the neuter character is paired with a female protagonist and ultimately chooses "boy" to be with her. Certainly, there's not the "I'm not a boy!" declaration that's so pronounced as the "technical truth" used in the going-to-be-a-girl version.

I know there's at least one anime where they're all girls until they "earn" being a boy, which is at least a different take on it (though I can hear all sorts of unfortunate implications cries coming out of that; for the record, I thought the anime was rather squicky and didn't get past the first episode, though that wasn't the reason).

It could be interesting to construct a love triangle around such a character: there's a male and a female love interest from a human or human-like race which has defined sexes from birth, so the neuter character has to make his choice in love interest before he reaches his physical decision-point.

Though to be fair, even the gender-flipped version would be interesting to see. Just try it with UQ Holder by playing my favorite game and a lot of stereotypes we may not even consciously appreciate will turn up.

[The Grue]

And a related note, a hypothesis: When a race is presented as a single gender (not counting genderless races), that gender is almost exclusively female. I can't think of anything to disprove this, off the top of my head. Anybody?

Hutts, perhaps?

[Cristo Meyers]

Hutts, perhaps?

I think Star Trek: TNG had a race of mono-gendered people... unfortunately the episode centered around Riker essentially teaching one to be a woman (identifying as one or the other was a massive cultural taboo).

I mean, the unfortunate implications didn't seem intentional (at least at the time), but look at it now and... yeah.


Oooh, there's one! Has anyone ever seen a male Twi'Lek in a Star Wars tabletop RPG, other than Bib Fortuna?

Did the two male Twi'leks that served in Rogue Squadron ever get statted up? Nawara Ven and... the one that only appeared in Bacta War and Krytos Trap to be a Proud Warrior Twi'lek?

Seems like Ven might've at least shown up in the old West End Games version in a sourcebook somewhere.

[The Grue]

I think Star Trek: TNG had a race of mono-gendered people... unfortunately the episode centered around Riker essentially teaching one to be a woman (identifying as one or the other was a massive cultural taboo).

I mean, the unfortunate implications didn't seem intentional (at least at the time), but look at it now and... yeah.

I recall well that episode; the character in question self-identified as female despite the cultural taboo and her own physiology.

I don't see the unfortunate implications you allude to. At worst it's a heavy-handed allegory.

[Steampunkette]

Yeah, Segev's got it right, more or less. We assume the default is male because of our societal expectations, even though the biologically default human body is "female".

Also worth noting: Gender is inherently separate from anatomy. Which, in the case of warforged, means there are only physically identified as masculine warforged while warforged of a variety of genders exist.

Atrox are part of Anarchy Online. Genegineered laborers and warriors. Big, strong, and not too bright.

Orks are biologically engineered warrior beings who do reproduce through spores. That doesn't make any member of the population anything but male, though.

I played Anarchy Online for about 2 weeks (not a great game) while Warhammer Online got about 2 hours before I got angry at the gender-locking of different races and classes. There are literally no female Ork characters: You can only make clearly identified male characters.

However I'll go ahead and point to the Smurfs. Gargamel -created- Smurfette as a construct. The other Smurfs are all invariably male. If you look around you'll see even more examples like these above, they just don't stick out as much...

Because they're the standard. The norm. It's female-specific races that stand out as different, unique, or odd enough to be remembered, specifically.

[Red Fel]

However I'll go ahead and point to the Smurfs. Gargamel -created- Smurfette as a construct. The other Smurfs are all invariably male. If you look around you'll see even more examples like these above, they just don't stick out as much...

Because they're the standard. The norm. It's female-specific races that stand out as different, unique, or odd enough to be remembered, specifically.

Once they introduced the kid-Smurfs, though, wasn't one of them female? Would that make her the only naturally-occurring female in the species? Also, how did the Smurfs reproduce prior to the introduction of Smurfette into their population? (Their toadstool homes suggest something akin to Da Orkz.) What does it mean to have a biological female in a race of creatures who, while biologically male, have had that physiology serve no function?

And why did James Cameron pick them as his model for science fiction?

[Shining Wrath]

Whenever I make an NPC I flip a coin to determine sex, so none of this is even a possibility of being an issue for my group.

I do this, too. Patron is a Baroness, her guard captain is male, first dungeon boss was male, first important NPC they met was female.

I also use the PHB tables to determine height and weight of all NPCs and encouraged the players to use them for their players. As it turned out, my DMPC is a 6' tall female wood elf who weighs 126 pounds and has low charisma. I'm playing her as looking like a model but being so sullen and withdrawn as to be almost uncommunicative (as the DMPC shouldn't talk much). The aforementioned Baroness wound up 5'5", 165 pounds, and I describe her as athletic, not fat. The guard captain wound up perfectly normal - for a dragonborn.

[Cristo Meyers]

I recall well that episode; the character in question self-identified as female despite the cultural taboo and her own physiology.

I don't see the unfortunate implications you allude to. At worst it's a heavy-handed allegory.

I just think that her education basically consisting of a romantic relationship with Riker (in other words, her femininity is fully realized in response to someone else's masculinity) causing more than a few people to cry foul, is all. Other than that it's pretty standard for it's time.

But it's neither here nor there.

[The Grue]

Also worth noting: Gender is inherently separate from anatomy.

This is an important point that is often lost in such discussions. If only for the sake of clarity we must be careful not to conflate "gender" with "sex"; gender is a matter of social convention, whereas sex is one of biology.

[Segev]

This is an important point that is often lost in such discussions. If only for the sake of clarity we must be careful not to conflate "gender" with "sex"; gender is a matter of social convention, whereas sex is one of biology.

I strongly suggest we shy away from this particular aspect of the topic, as it's one which can and likely will become...frought...if pursued. It is too much a sacred cow and otherwise uncomfortable subject for some people, to the point that it becomes impossible to discuss without offending somebody. Who is allowed to be offended and who is not varies from board to board, but it will inevitably lead to places we probably don't want to go.

Fortunately, the topic of the thread need not delve into that particular divide; "gender conventions" are about tropes rather than about how any particular person self-identifies or how they feel about it.

If we really want to discuss it, I propose as a "safe" area to discuss gender as projected onto physically sexless beings, such as warforged, and we shy away from it being separate from human(oid) phyical sex as a general topic.

[Steampunkette]

The aggressive disdain you show for the subject and anyone on the other side of it may have something to do with that.

[LogosDragon]

The aggressive disdain you show for the subject and anyone on the other side of it may have something to do with that.

I'm not sure that's fair. Even if he does have some disdain/bias or another, I think he's right; if it has the potential to start rule-skirting arguments, it should probably be avoided or, at most, taken up over PM.

[goto124]

No need to discuss at length, the distinction between 'gender' and 'sex' anyway, but I feel we shouldn't conflate them either. It helps for this discussion, such as the case of the neuter character. I won't argue this bit further.

I usually choose gender of my PCs based on how it relates to their personalities (I have a female barbarian and an effeminate male elf, their genders are part of their characterization), or if they're based off pre-existing characters (where I keep the genders because I see no reason to change it, and it keeps my pronouns in order).

For NPCs, it's either the pre-existing thing, or I look at how many genders are already in the game. For example, if there is 1 male PC and I'm throwing an NPC at him, the NPC will be female. Just so that male pronouns (he, his, him) refers exclusively to the PC, while the female pronouns (she, her, hers) refer to the NPC without ambiguity.

I ran a setting with a heterosexual couple. The female was described as young and innocent, while the male was described as burly and uncaring. I took my spin on them, by making the male abusive. The PCs got really angry at the male :D

Next time, I'll swap the roles and make the female abusive. I'll have to wait for the 'next time' though. Do you think I should change the male's and females's appearances to better fit their new personalities?

[Steampunkette]

I'm not sure that's fair. Even if he does have some disdain/bias or another, I think he's right; if it has the potential to start rule-skirting arguments, it should probably be avoided or, at most, taken up over PM.

It definitely does have that potential. I'm just saying that his disdain has been evident for a while. Specifically using loaded terms and phrases like orthodoxy, sacred cows, who is allowed to be offended, etc. It's all aggressively disdainful without being directly insulting to any specific poster. I'm surprised it didn't shut down the conversation several pages back. Very flamebaity.

[Amphetryon]

It definitely does have that potential. I'm just saying that his disdain has been evident for a while. Specifically using loaded terms and phrases like orthodoxy, sacred cows, who is allowed to be offended, etc. It's all aggressively disdainful without being directly insulting to any specific poster. I'm surprised it didn't shut down the conversation several pages back. Very flamebaity.

I have had many offline discussions where 'gender' was considered a loaded term; I'm not sure that your belief that some of a particular poster's phrases are loaded terms should be the deciding vote for what is, or is not, 'aggressively disdainful.'

[Hawkstar]

I don't know Atrox, but Da Orkz are a fungal lifeform; I don't think gender actually has a meaning for them. And Warforged are genderless constructs.Da Orkz, while fungal, are completely masculine (Demonstrating overwhelming and exaggerated male secondary sexual characteristics: Broad shoulders, flat muscular chests, narrow waists and hips, square jawlines, facial hair and coarse facial features, very little excess fascia deposits, masculine muscle development, and deep voices). Even grotz, while pathetic, are still masculine.

I think most warforged tend to demonstrate masculine social traits (especially Expendability)

[Frozen_Feet]

Generally, when it comes to non-dimorphic and asexual species, we humans tend to think of them as being whatever gender their traits most resemble. Hence, my occasional answer to "where are all the female orcs/dwarves/whatever?" is "how'd you tell them apart in the first place?" We humans are used to sexual dimorphism and tend to exaggarate in our fiction.

Speaking of which, this has an interesting effect: quite often in case of sexually dimorphic fantasy creatures, the male creatures can be notably inhuman and ugly, yet the females are still designed to be attractive. Shades of this also appear every time "satyrs are all males" and "nymphs are all females" (etc.) gets explained by "the former is really the male of the species, and the latter is female". I'm hard-pressed to think of a single fantastic species where the male is conventionally attractive while the female is genuinely monstrous.

[goto124]

Next time I use a monstrous race, I'll say 'there's an equal mix of both males and female. Just that they look identical to the naked eye, and rely on sound/smell/etc to distinguish between the sexes'.

Like penguins, except penguins are really cute.

* Biological sexes, not genders.

[Ralanr]

A race based on a real world animal that is matriarchal in nature will be showcased as patriarchal in game.

I'm looking at you, Gnolls. While they could be based off stripped hyenas, I don't see stripes often. I may have made this point earlier.

Also, can I say that I don't like the concept of a love triangle simply because I don't see a triangle? B and C love A looks more like an arrow to me. A love triangle sounds more like A loves B, B loves C, and C loves A.

[goto124]

A race based on a real world animal that is matriarchal in nature will be showcased as patriarchal in game.

I'll hazard a guess and say it's research failure, or 'just didn't care'.

Reinforced by the writers living in a patriarchal society.

[Lord Torath]

Antman did this too. Ant workers are almost universally female, but the movie refers to them all as male.

[SpectralDerp]

So this thread is both still going and still not about games in particular?


A race based on a real world animal that is matriarchal in nature will be showcased as patriarchal in game.

Drow?


I'm looking at you, Gnolls.

Hyena social structures are far from well known to the majority of people, not sure I would make much of this.

[Ralanr]

Hyena social structures are far from well known to the majority of people, not sure I would make much of this.

As true as that may be, information is not as difficult to obtain as it once was (depending on the subject obviously, but hyena facts aren't very difficult).

It most likely is due to lack of research or little care to research. Which I get, there are times where I just don't bother to research things, sometimes because they're distracting from writing, not easy to type up (I'm ashamed how I have trouble describing what I mean through text sometimes) or I think I know enough.

Still kinda annoys me though.

I also have no idea what the Drow are based off of from real life if anything.

[Red Fel]

I also have no idea what the Drow are based off of from real life if anything.

It's likely that they were based in part on the Norse concept of Svartalfar, the Black Elves. The problem is that these were basically Dwarves, in that they were subterranean craftsmen.

Really, I think they just wanted some Evil Elves, and they figured everyone's scared of spiders, and slavery and murdering your family are all pretty Evil, and then they just threw it all into a pot one night after I assume they got super drunk...

... and the result was the Drow.

[goto124]

Antman did this too. Ant workers are almost universally female, but the movie refers to them all as male.

Did they? I watched the movie. I know there's one fly/ant called Anthony, which is a gender neutral name IIRC.

[Lord Torath]

I confess I have not watched the movie, but they did a science review of it on public radio (Science Friday, I think), and the gender of the ants was something they specifically brought up.

[Ralanr]

It's likely that they were based in part on the Norse concept of Svartalfar, the Black Elves. The problem is that these were basically Dwarves, in that they were subterranean craftsmen.

Really, I think they just wanted some Evil Elves, and they figured everyone's scared of spiders, and slavery and murdering your family are all pretty Evil, and then they just threw it all into a pot one night after I assume they got super drunk...

... and the result was the Drow.

And they decided black because it's the color most associated with evil?

Have they ever been sued over this? Or called racist?

[A Tad Insane]

And they decided black because it's the color most associated with evil?

Have they ever been sued over this? Or called racist?

It has been brought up on this forum a few times, if memory serves. Usually in tandem with the fact they should be literally as pale as death, or whether or not being completely black makes you hard to see with dark vision, but that is a different set of rails.

[SpectralDerp]

I also have no idea what the Drow are based off of from real life if anything.


And they decided black because it's the color most associated with evil? Have they ever been sued over this? Or called racist?

You know, I can believe that someone might now make the association of drow with spiders, despite the fact that they are defined through servitude to the spider-queen Lolth, given the fact that all Drow have turned chaotic good.

But the concept of "Dark Is Evil" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsEvil) is news to you? Seriously? Are you trying to troll?

[Ralanr]

You know, I can believe that someone might now make the association of drow with spiders, despite the fact that they are defined through servitude to the spider-queen Lolth, given the fact that all Drow have turned chaotic good.

But the concept of "Dark Is Evil" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsEvil) is news to you? Seriously? Are you trying to troll?

If my posts have been viewed as trolling I apologize. I know that trope amongst thousands of others (like sacred darkness). I'm not sure when drow were made (1980's?) but I'm guessing around 2e. The whole, "dark is not evil" took a more firm grasp of the reins in the 90's (oh those anti-heroes...psychotic, gun toting anti-heroes). Until then I imagine that many things that were associated with evil commonly (darkness, blood, and their colors, etc) were still commonly used to represent evil. I'm sure we had exceptions.

Course I'm basing it on my understanding of tropes and history. I could be very incorrect.

I admit the racist question seemed like something a troll (and a better one could phrase it better) would ask. I wasn't thinking much on that after I typed it.

Edit: I also have no knowledge of the realms history to know of the entire alignment shift of a race. I don't look into the realms often.

[Lord Torath]

Drow first appeared (to my knowledge) in G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King, which was published in 1978. 2nd Edition AD&D started in 1989, so this is firmly in the early 1E era.

[Frozen_Feet]

We had a thread once of how Drow are racist and misogynist construct.

It was rather embarrassing since their society is such transparent spoof of arachnid mating habits - specifically, black widows.

[Ralanr]

We had a thread once of how Drow are racist and misogynist construct.

It was rather embarrassing since their society is such transparent spoof of arachnid mating habits - specifically, black widows.

The fact that I never saw it that way is embarrassing.
The imagery is practically shouting it.

[Socksy]

I'm hard-pressed to think of a single fantastic species where the male is conventionally attractive while the female is genuinely monstrous.
Harpies and hags come to mind for D&D. Although they're female-only.


We had a thread once of how Drow are racist and misogynist construct.

It was rather embarrassing since their society is such transparent spoof of arachnid mating habits - specifically, black widows.

Auuuuuughh.
That's terrible.
Why did I only just notice that once it was pointed out to me?

[BootStrapTommy]

And why did James Cameron pick them as his model for science fiction? Because he was that kid from when you were a kid who licked the windows on the bus...


We had a thread once of how Drow are racist and misogynist construct.

It was rather embarrassing since their society is such transparent spoof of arachnid mating habits - specifically, black widows. Why exactly is a female-dominated society were they chew men up and spit them out misogynist? I mean aside from the unnecessarily revealing female-empowering wardrobes?

Speaking of misogyny, why always Sex Goddesses? What I wouldn't give for a standard diety famed for his huge ****.

[Alent]

Speaking of misogyny, why always Sex Goddesses? What I wouldn't give for a standard diety famed for his huge ****.

Look up Kokopelli sometime. Trove of odd ideas in this vein to be had from that one.

I'm not terribly surprised that they haven't featured in modern media, tho', because some versions of his myth seem horrific to modern sensibilities.

[Ralanr]

Why exactly is a female-dominated society were they chew men up and spit them out misogynist? I mean aside from the unnecessarily revealing female-empowering wardrobes?

Speaking of misogyny, why always Sex Goddesses? What I wouldn't give for a standard diety famed for his huge ****.

Oh Zeus, someone is calling for an expy of you for D&D.

The revealing clothing kinda bothers me in drow society. Mainly because why? Is it to seduce other nobles of society?

And why is it so similar to S&M fetish? Maybe it's just me seeing it, but it looks a lot like it. Why does almost every fantasy or science fiction culture with S&M like tendencies evil?

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if male clothing in drow culture was as revealing. It would make logical sense in-universe.

OOC though, the writers are male.

[Lurkmoar]

Speaking of misogyny, why always Sex Goddesses? What I wouldn't give for a standard diety famed for his huge ****.

You're talking about fiction right? There's a couple of names that spring to mind when you start talking about packages signed for IRL. Priapus for one. If you look him up, the first image on wikipedia is NSFW so there's that...

As for fictional Sex Goddesses, probably shameless knock offs of Aphrodite. At least the ones that come from a 'Western' background ie Greek/Roman heritage. Aphrodite had some pretty good stories about her as I recall... not that many paint in a flattering light.

[Ralanr]

You're talking about fiction right? There's a couple of names that spring to mind when you start talking about packages signed for IRL. Priapus for one. If you look him up, the first image on wikipedia is NSFW so there's that...

As for fictional Sex Goddesses, probably shameless knock offs of Aphrodite. At least the ones that come from a 'Western' background ie Greek/Roman heritage. Aphrodite had some pretty good stories about her as I recall... not that many paint in a flattering light.

It's the Greek gods. What story of theirs is put in flattering light within today's moral standards?

[Lurkmoar]

It's the Greek gods. What story of theirs is put in flattering light within today's moral standards?

Hmm... I'd say the one about Hades challenging Orpheus to not look back until he and Eurydice were out of the Underworld could work. But I do admit that's a reach.

Oh, and male rescues female. Pretty sure that's been mentioned before.

[Berenger]

My theory is that Drow have dark skin because D&D authors indiscriminately steal everything that is not nailed to the floor.


In Norse mythology, Dökkálfar (Old Norse "Dark Elves", singular Dökkálfr) and Ljósálfar (Old Norse "Light Elves", singular Ljósálfr) are two contrasting types of elves; the prior dwell within the earth and are most swarthy, while the latter live in Álfheimr, and are "fairer than the sun to look at".

Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6kk%C3%A1lfar_and_Lj%C3%B3s%C3%A1lfar

[Ralanr]

My theory is that Drow have dark skin because D&D authors indiscriminately steal everything that is not nailed to the floor.



Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6kk%C3%A1lfar_and_Lj%C3%B3s%C3%A1lfar

Didn't Norse elves have holes in their backs?

[Socksy]

Didn't Norse elves have holes in their backs?

You're thinking of the Huldra (https://tfwalsh.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/huldra-%E2%80%93-norse-forest-lady/).

[goto124]

My theory is that Drow have dark skin because D&D authors indiscriminately steal everything that is not nailed to the floor.

That explains why DnD adventurers have similar behavior... :3

What company can portray BDSM in a good light and not get flak for it? Speaking of which, the Book of Erotic Fantasy says BDSM is Evil.

[Ralanr]

That explains why DnD adventurers have similar behavior... :3

What company can portray BDSM in a good light and not get flak for it? Speaking of which, the Book of Erotic Fantasy says BDSM is Evil.

I had to look up that being a thing.

I'm not even bothered that it gives a cross breeding page. In fact I want that.

But seriously? They treat it as evil? They never hear of safe, sane, and consensual?

[LogosDragon]

I had to look up that being a thing.

I'm not even bothered that it gives a cross breeding page. In fact I want that.

But seriously? They treat it as evil? They never hear of safe, sane, and consensual?

You heard the terms "safe" and "sane" and didn't think it would be labelled an abomination by adventurers everywhere?

[Ralanr]

You heard the terms "safe" and "sane" and didn't think it would be labelled an abomination by adventurers everywhere?

Well it's not like only adventurers have sex.

[BootStrapTommy]

What company can portray BDSM in a good light and not get flak for it? Speaking of which, the Book of Erotic Fantasy says BDSM is Evil. That's because it was written by prudes.

[Steampunkette]

Antman did this too. Ant workers are almost universally female, but the movie refers to them all as male.

Fun note: Ants are, by and large, asexual or at least members of a "Third" sex.

All humans start in the womb as girls. The ovaries drop into testes, the vaginal canal inverts to become a penis, etc, etc, etc. In ants it works the same way. But worker ants wind up without sexual organs at all. Instead they gain a stinger-scent producing gland called the Dufour's gland.

http://www.antnest.co.uk/wpimages/wp029f908c_06.png

But because of previous generations of entomologist being raised in highly striated dichotomous societies most everything that wasn't considered male was, by default, labeled female.

Which, of course, carries over into the game world!

Further: Any OBJECT with visual design similar to a human woman (Such as a Caryatid Column) will be referred to with she/her pronouns.

Also, is it just me or do objects almost invariably get referred to/named as females? Guns and cars especially. I think it has to do with society's objectification of females (both sexual and literal objectification) and a tendency to place female characters in roles that could be served just as well by an object within a story. Imagine Princess Peach replaced by a Treasure Chest, Trophy, or other Material Reward in the core Mario games. Not a lot changes, really, except Bowser Jr no longer has a Mom...

[BootStrapTommy]

Not a lot changes, really, except Bowser Jr no longer has a Mom... Not very relevant, but Peach is not Bowser Jr's mother.

[VoxRationis]

All humans start in the womb as girls. The ovaries drop into testes, the vaginal canal inverts to become a penis, etc, etc, etc. In ants it works the same way. But worker ants wind up without sexual organs at all. Instead they gain a stinger-scent producing gland called the Dufour's gland.


Technically, it's not quite that simple for human development. There are two parallel sets of structures in addition to the gonads, and one of them develops while the other breaks down and gets absorbed by the body.

[Steampunkette]

Which ones? I ask because a prostate is the collapsed uterus, fallopian tubes are transformed into vas deferens, and all other structures seem to be accounted for.

[Steampunkette]

Looked it up! The only difference is the mullerian ducts.

So a dude's mullerians degrade, but that's hardly a huge shift in internal plumbing. One potential set of analogous piping to the other.

[Sith_Happens]

Quite honestly, until you told me that he was one, I didn't think he even was a Twi'Lek. Or that there were any males of that race. At all. In my mind, and in my memory, Twi'Lek = Female. And not just because of the whole "Twi'Lek slaves" image; I honestly had no image whatsoever of a male Twi'Lek.

Realizing what one looks like, I now appreciate my prior position all the more.

Bib Fortuna is not the standard, most male Twi'leks look exactly how you'd expect:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111114205315/starwars/images/0/04/Twi'lek_TOR.jpg

Da Orkz are a fungal lifeform; I don't think gender actually has a meaning for them.

By that logic we'd have to disqualify the Asari as an example of "monosexed = phenotypally female."


Speaking of which, this has an interesting effect: quite often in case of sexually dimorphic fantasy creatures, the male creatures can be notably inhuman and ugly, yet the females are still designed to be attractive. Shades of this also appear every time "satyrs are all males" and "nymphs are all females" (etc.) gets explained by "the former is really the male of the species, and the latter is female". I'm hard-pressed to think of a single fantastic species where the male is conventionally attractive while the female is genuinely monstrous.

...

...I also got nothing.


We had a thread once of how Drow are racist and misogynist construct.

It was rather embarrassing since their society is such transparent spoof of arachnid mating habits - specifically, black widows.

http://i.imgur.com/1PKhMgd.jpg

[Frozen_Feet]

The revealing clothing kinda bothers me in drow society. Mainly because why? Is it to seduce other nobles of society?


There's an actual explanation for this one: drow society is a pseudo-theocracy. The highest-ranking matriarchs are always powerful priests and mystically protected. So wearing gaudy, impractical and revealing clothes is a Veblenian signal telling "look, I'm so powerful I don't even need clothes to protect myself". It's similar to how bureaucrats in ancient China grew impractically long fingernails.

Seduction does factor into it, though, as drow females are aggressively sexual and use their looks to gain power over others, including other females, because the writers of the drow books think girl-on-girl is hot. This is not far out of line of how several actually existing species (to a degree, including humans) work.

[goto124]

Do cultures in real life wear impractically sexy clothing as a show of power? Impractical gowns filled to the brim with jewelery yes, but sexiness?

Does this have anything to do with our changing perceptions of sexy? I suppose back in those days showing skin was icky and whorish, not sexy?

I think I've seen images of the Chinese fingernails. Eeek...

[Steampunkette]

You could definitely reverse rationalize it as Veblenian, but the turth is more simple.

When drow appeared for the first time, the women were described as wearing spider silk clothing. Or, more specifically, clothing woven from spider silk.

The artists drew them wearing spider web bikinis and the like, and the rest is history.

Here is the first picture of a female drow...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SjrQoDeld0I/AAAAAAAABFs/wOP5auKr9TA/s1600-h/D2+-+Drow2.jpg

And another shortly after.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SjrQXUNYLqI/AAAAAAAABFE/A8pw1AulVeg/s400/Q1+-+Drow1.jpg

[LogosDragon]

Do cultures in real life wear impractically sexy clothing as a show of power? Impractical gowns filled to the brim with jewelery yes, but sexiness?

Does this have anything to do with our changing perceptions of sexy? I suppose back in those days showing skin was icky and whorish, not sexy?

I think I've seen images of the Chinese fingernails. Eeek...

I think changing standards of beauty across societies would definitely play into it. I mean, when you get right down to brass tacks, it's all a matter of wearing highly impractical clothing to show off attractiveness, affluence, and social/political/personal power (though personal power has become a much less common motif in the modern day because having the ability to, say, cleave through three guys in one swing with a greatsword isn't a valid method of spreading your influence now).

Of course, my parenthesis above plays into another standard that has changed across society: namely, sexiness representing power. While using sex to obtain power has always been a part of human history, it's much more played up in the modern day due to a general shift in what constitutes real power. In days past, power was almost a mob-like entity; you had power by having an army, or at least by being able to get a group of some kind to go beat up guys you don't like. You also had power by having wealth, and by being willing enough to share it around that everyone wanted to keep you where you were but not enough that you quickly ran out. Power was money and violence. And while money has stayed a central part of what we consider power, violence has largely faded away, and become popularity. Rather than an army of soldiers, power comes in the form of an army of fans and much of the aforementioned wealth comes not from conquest or being impressive but in getting others to like you so much that they give you things and try to elevate you even more. Popularity is to today what violence was to older cultures (and they do sometimes overlap, to varying degrees of hilarity and horror), so naturally where people were normally showing their ability to exert physical punishment on those below them (I have lots of money and treat everyone with disdain and cold but appropriate response, so you know I won't hesitate to sic an army on you) now they show their ability to turn a mob on you (I have lots of money and friends who will destroy everything about what people think of you if you mess with me).

And you know the only thing more popular than awesomeness and never-ending, pointless, yelling-and-screaming drama?

Being ridiculously hot.

It makes sense that people show off so much more sexuality now. Because sex sells for profits much more easily than it pays for soldiers. (Though it can do that too, if you know what you're doing.)

Based on that, I suppose you could make an argument that drow ladies focusing on sexuality could be reflective of their society, in which being popular and looked up to/envied is more important than having physical or military power to back up your claims of superiority. However, the real answer is that Steampunkette has the right of it.

Male (and, more importantly, male of the 70s) writer: "Well, we've got these women leading their society, and we need to draw them in a way our mostly (70s) male audience will enjoy. I like scandily clad chicks. Do you guys like scantily clad chicks? Because I think we all-... Shut up, Gygax, we all like scantily clad chicks. And so does our audience. Let's draw some scantily clad chicks!"

[SpectralDerp]

I know "female drow wear revealing clothing" is a thing in pop culture, but does it have its origin in official sourcebooks?

Because I have a hard time finding any source on this. Drow of the Underdark seems to mention nothing of the sort and the only time it is depicte, it's in the context of worshipping the minor goddess of beauty, which is frowned upon in the main society.

[Milo v3]

I know "female drow wear revealing clothing" is a thing in pop culture, but does it have its origin in official sourcebooks?

Because I have a hard time finding any source on this. Drow of the Underdark seems to mention nothing of the sort and the only time it is depicte, it's in the context of worshipping the minor goddess of beauty, which is frowned upon in the main society.

I was sure I read something in a sourcebook about it being a way to show you have no fear by not wearing armour.

[goto124]

Also...

why females only?

[LogosDragon]

Also...

why females only?

Because the drow males are too busy bowing down to their masters to be sexy.

... I mean, unless you're into that.

[Kalmageddon]

Also...

why females only?

I was under the impression that males dressed in revealing clothes as well, actually...

[Steampunkette]

Because male artists, writers, editors, and producers of the 80s were mostly straight men who wanted to see lots of boobs and as few peens as possible.

{scrubbed}

[Milo v3]

I don't think it'd matter how much a drow male wears, the females wont see them as a threat no matter what since they view males as pathetic.

[Frozen_Feet]

My source for my claim is Forgotten Realms novels written by R.A. Salvatore & Co. It's explicitly stated in several of them. I don't know when this thought was expressed first. Probably not at the very creation of the drow, but it's certainly been around for a long time now.

Also, in the books, male drows are frequently dressed in revealing outfits. Or do so willingly in order to pander to their matriarchs.

As for questions like "has sex really been used for power?" and "wasn't revealing skin considered whorish?", you might want to take a closer look at the history of actual whores. They haven't been mere social outcasts for all of history. Prostitution was part of several old faiths and high ranking temple prostitutes had power comparable to any other clergy. Even in Christian times, there are known cases of pretty girls (and boys, for that matter) ending in the bedchambers of kings and netting land and noble status for their bastard offspring.

Or in simpler terms: every era and every society has had its version of today's pornstars and pop celebrities. And flaunting their attractiveness and sex appeal has always been part and parcel with that.

[SpectralDerp]

My source for my claim is Forgotten Realms novels written by R.A. Salvatore & Co.

And is there anything like that in the sourcebooks to the game?

[Frozen_Feet]

I do not know. Though placing the novels in an entirely separate category from sourcebooks is iffy; the novels are supposed to be canon and the tabletop version has been drawing from them for quite a while.

[Ralanr]

I do not know. Though placing the novels in an entirely separate category from sourcebooks is iffy; the novels are supposed to be canon and the tabletop version has been drawing from them for quite a while.

Lord Soth and Ravenloft would disagree partially.
But that was due to meddling.

[BWR]

And is there anything like that in the sourcebooks to the game?

"Drow love beauty [...] and the beauty of the body. Drow of both sexes are proud of displaying their physiques [..]"
Drow of the Underdark, p. 17
(Unsurprisingly) written by Ed Greenwood, so that's as close to WoG as you can get regarding the Realms. And there are plenty of scantily clad female drow in the artwork with nary a scantily clad male in sight.
The Menzoberranzan boxed set doesn't say anything about it that I can see but reuses most of the art from DotU and adds even more scantily clad females and very few if any new male art.

[SpectralDerp]

I do not know. Though placing the novels in an entirely separate category from sourcebooks is iffy; the novels are supposed to be canon and the tabletop version has been drawing from them for quite a while.

I am aware that the novels are supposed to be canon, I just want to know novels and sourcebooks intersect in their statements.


"Drow love beauty [...] and the beauty of the body. Drow of both sexes are proud of displaying their physiques [..]" Drow of the Underdark, p. 17

Which version?

Also, some people in this thread seem to have severe issues, that is to say, are openly sexist bigots. Not gonna point fingers, should be kinda obvious.

[Ralanr]

I am aware that the novels are supposed to be canon, I just want to know novels and sourcebooks intersect in their statements.



Which version?

Also, some people in this thread seem to have severe issues, that is to say, are openly sexist bigots. Not gonna point fingers, should be kinda obvious.

Well it is the internet.

[goto124]

"Drow love beauty [...] and the beauty of the body. Drow of both sexes are proud of displaying their physiques [..]"
Drow of the Underdark, p. 17
(Unsurprisingly) written by Ed Greenwood, so that's as close to WoG as you can get regarding the Realms. And there are plenty of scantily clad female drow in the artwork with nary a scantily clad male in sight.
The Menzoberranzan boxed set doesn't say anything about it that I can see but reuses most of the art from DotU and adds even more scantily clad females and very few if any new male art.

This amuses me.

Apparentally they lacked male art, let along scantily clad male art? Did I read that right?

[Ralanr]

The drow as villains make good examples of feminazi's.

Not feminists. Feminazi.

[BWR]

I am aware that the novels are supposed to be canon, I just want to know novels and sourcebooks intersect in their statements.



Which version?

There's more than one?
*looks up*. Looky there. I referenced the 2e book, not 3e. 3e is, according to Wikipedia, not setting specific while the 2e DotU is very definitely a FR product.


Apparentally they lacked male art, let along scantily clad male art? Did I read that right?

Oh there was male artwork (about 2:1 female to male ratio, at a rough guess), they just weren't scantily clad. The Menzo BS reused a lot of the art from DotU but what new art they added was almost exclusively female, often somewhat lacking in the proper dress department. Sorry for the confusion.

[Frozen_Feet]

The drow as villains make good examples of feminazi's.

Not feminists. Feminazi.

No they don't. Drow women have no actual plans of genociding their males or founding a female-only country. They're content with men being their servants and disposable foot-soldiers.

They have plenty of plans for enslaving or genociding males of other species, but that's because they're not drow, not because they're men.

Drows as written bear little to no resemblance to any strain of radical feminism or caricature thereof; they're just female chauvinists.

[BootStrapTommy]

Also...

why females only? Because we sexualize men by depicting them as shirtless musclebound freaks in loinclothes.

[Ralanr]

No they don't. Drow women have no actual plans of genociding their males or founding a female-only country. They're content with men being their servants and disposable foot-soldiers.

They have plenty of plans for enslaving or genociding males of other species, but that's because they're not drow, not because they're men.

Drows as written bear little to no resemblance to any strain of radical feminism or caricature thereof; they're just female chauvinists.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted the extremes and that's my bad.


Because we sexualize men by depicting them as shirtless musclebound freaks in loinclothes.

And yet no one ever complains about that. Ok not no one, but it's rarely brought up.

[goto124]

Because we sexualize men by depicting them as shirtless musclebound freaks in loinclothes.

Aren't those, er, barbarians. And for some reason we see the nakedness as a sign of toughness, not sexiness.

We seem to have a hard time looking at an 'exposed' woman and think of something other than sexy. At best, both tough and sexy.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ralanr]

Aren't those, er, barbarians. And for some reason we see the nakedness as a sign of toughness, not sexiness.

And toughness translates to attractiveness.

It depends on how you view it.

[Steampunkette]

Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women: They're male power fantasies.

He-Man was not designed to make little girls watch the show, he was the power symbol the boys were supposed to get excited about wanting to be. Same thing with every other Barbarian archetype of the past 40 years. Thundarr, the Herculoids, Beastmaster, etc.

Female sexual fantasy in mass media tends to be more towards how singers are presented. From Frank Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, and Bowie up to N'Sync and One Direction. Slender, pretty, and not musclebound (though often with some nice muscle definition ala Michael Phelps or Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch).

The whole "Men in Loincloths" thing is a common misconception.

[Steampunkette]

As far as the Word of God from Greenwood: The Drow were introduced in Greyhawk, by Gygax. Not FR by Greenwood. And the artists were already drawing the ladies wearing cobweb codpieces by that point.

[Ralanr]

Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women: They're male power fantasies.

He-Man was not designed to make little girls watch the show, he was the power symbol the boys were supposed to get excited about wanting to be. Same thing with every other Barbarian archetype of the past 40 years. Thundarr, the Herculoids, Beastmaster, etc.

Female sexual fantasy in mass media tends to be more towards how singers are presented. From Frank Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, and Bowie up to N'Sync and One Direction. Slender, pretty, and not musclebound (though often with some nice muscle definition ala Michael Phelps or Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch).

The whole "Men in Loincloths" thing is a common misconception.

Right. The major attraction to male audiences is through power fantasies (which also sexualize women).

I do hope future rpg artwork can avoid going heavy into objectification and power fantasies.
Or at least not make it as common. I'd like to see some action heroes cry.

[Steampunkette]

There's really nothing wrong with power fantasies. The problem is the lack of female power fantasies or the female power fantasies getting subverted by male sexual fantasy or to avoid being 'threatening' to the male power fantasy. If we can fix that, all the musclebound barbarians and action hero stereotypes won't be even a slight problem.

*edited for clarity*

[Ralanr]

There's really nothing wrong with power fantasies. The problem is the lack of female power fantasies or the female power fantasies getting subverted by male sexual fantasy or to avoid being 'threatening' to the male power fantasy. If we can fix that, all the musclebound barbarians and action hero stereotypes won't be even a slight problem.

*edited for clarity*

If it means more strong characters then I'm all for it.

[Steampunkette]

Oh, definitely. It'll just require time and widespread recognition of the problems involved. Awareness of the issue can help people examine and unbox biases in writing and design and fix the problem in their actions (if not in their socially constructed background and thus mindset). Raise a few generations in more and more progressively less problematic environments and the problem fades away.

We just have to be kind of vigilant of how our thoughts impact our work and the lives of others, is all.

[BWR]

As far as the Word of God from Greenwood: The Drow were introduced in Greyhawk, by Gygax. Not FR by Greenwood. And the artists were already drawing the ladies wearing cobweb codpieces by that point.

I know, which is why I specified 'the Realms', especially since I was responding to a previous question about the Realms and sourcebooks.

[Steampunkette]

Oh, I was agreeing with you and countering the previously raised point. I referenced your post as it was highly relevant to my point.

I apologize for the confusion! I'm having a bad time of getting my ideas across, today.

[Ralanr]

We just have to be kind of vigilant of how our thoughts impact our work and the lives of others, is all.

Which is surprisingly difficult. Sometimes in the middle of writing I wonder if I'm just doing what people complained the new tomb raider was doing to show struggling. Aka (from what I remember) making her struggle way too much.

Then again my confidence in my writing hasn't been at it's highest lately. Creators are often the worst critics of their works.

[YossarianLives]

Maybe I'm weird or something but I've always found the image of a musclebound barbarian in a loincloth wielding an axe quite unattractive and gross. For me, the image of a slender and graceful man is much more appealing. Even as a child I never had fantasies about charging around cracking skulls.

[Ralanr]

Maybe I'm weird or something but I've always found the image of a musclebound barbarian in a loincloth wielding an axe quite unattractive and gross. For me, the image of a slender and graceful man is much more appealing. Even as a child I never had fantasies about charging around cracking skulls.

That's not weird at all. I'm a nerd (or geek idk) but I'm not a fan of magic users and I played football throughout highschool.

What is this normal people speak off?

[Steampunkette]

Normalcy is a statistical anomaly!

The "Average" American dude can only be measured within a given trait. Once you combine all traits the "normal" American Male vanishes into a cloud of specificity. At least until you start bringing in ranges, but that's intentionally obfuscating things to sway a point.

Most guys in the US watch Football. Most guys in the US drink Beer. But throw up a Venn Diagram of those two things and you'll find a lot of Football fans who don't drink Beer and a lot of Beer drinkers who don't watch Football. Add in more and more "Most guys" and the center of that diagram gets smaller and smaller and smaller...

[Lord Torath]

In the first appearance of the drow I'm aware of (Module G-3), there are images of three drow. One appears to be a male in a robe with a tentacle wand/staff, and the other two are male (or very flat females) wielding atl-atls. Module D1-2 had a pair of curvy-but-covered female drow, and two male drow, one in chainmail and the other topless on the inside cover, and a slim-and-well-covered female drow with a sword on page 6. Module D3 had a female drow in "revealing" armor on the jacket cover, and a topless female drow with a loincloth on the inside cover. And Q1 has, presuambly, Lloth herself wearing a two-piece spiderweb bikini on the inside cover. So yeah, it didn't take long...

[Amphetryon]

Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women: They're male power fantasies.

He-Man was not designed to make little girls watch the show, he was the power symbol the boys were supposed to get excited about wanting to be. Same thing with every other Barbarian archetype of the past 40 years. Thundarr, the Herculoids, Beastmaster, etc.

Female sexual fantasy in mass media tends to be more towards how singers are presented. From Frank Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, and Bowie up to N'Sync and One Direction. Slender, pretty, and not musclebound (though often with some nice muscle definition ala Michael Phelps or Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch).

The whole "Men in Loincloths" thing is a common misconception.
No women have fantasies about musclebound men in loincloths? Fascinating.

[Steampunkette]

Yeah. You gotta remember: Guys who were in their 30s in the 80s were raised in the 50s and 60s. These were not hyper progressive people in large part as relates to treatment of women in general, much less fantasy and artwork.

That's something a lot of people tend to overlook. They say things like "Oh, that was just the 80s!" without realizing that Gygax was a year old when WW2 started. It's not just the 80s (or 90s or Today) it's all the time leading up to the event you're discussing.

[Steampunkette]

No women have fantasies about musclebound men in loincloths? Fascinating.

I didn't say no women.

God knows there's some women with fantasies about dudes wearing full plate armor and never taking it off. That doesn't make full plate a female sexual fantasy

"Gendered Sexual Fantasy" tends to refer to mass-appeal rather than a given individual's sexual enjoyment.

But you go on tilting those windmills. You'll get 'em eventually, I'm sure.

[Kitten Champion]

Yeah. You gotta remember: Guys who were in their 30s in the 80s were raised in the 50s and 60s. These were not hyper progressive people in large part as relates to treatment of women in general, much less fantasy and artwork.

That's something a lot of people tend to overlook. They say things like "Oh, that was just the 80s!" without realizing that Gygax was a year old when WW2 started. It's not just the 80s (or 90s or Today) it's all the time leading up to the event you're discussing.

Plus Gygax was clearly enamoured with pulp sword & sorcery stuff from depression-era pulp novels ala Howard. That's the kind of story he wanted to play, and D&D reflects that. That and the presumption that his entire market were men and women were occasional outliers you can tidily ignore which seems to be the basic reasoning behind most nerd-centric businesses.

[The Grue]

I didn't say no women.

God knows there's some women with fantasies about dudes wearing full plate armor and never taking it off. That doesn't make full plate a female sexual fantasy

"Gendered Sexual Fantasy" tends to refer to mass-appeal rather than a given individual's sexual enjoyment.

But you go on tilting those windmills. You'll get 'em eventually, I'm sure.

Is it possible to get a flow chart showing the progression of goalpost positions here? I'm having a hard time keeping up with their movement.

[Steampunkette]

They're right where they've always been, next to the Strawman you're beating on.

"Scantily Clad Women" have a mass appeal with men. Big dudes made of muscles with only a loincloth on don't have the same mass appeal with women. That's as much as had been said on the topic until Amphetron tried to move the goal posts way the heck forward and quantify ANY sexual fantasy held be any woman as a general female sexual fantasy.

[Amphetryon]

I didn't say no women.

God knows there's some women with fantasies about dudes wearing full plate armor and never taking it off. That doesn't make full plate a female sexual fantasy

"Gendered Sexual Fantasy" tends to refer to mass-appeal rather than a given individual's sexual enjoyment.

But you go on tilting those windmills. You'll get 'em eventually, I'm sure.

If a woman has a given fantasy, it is, by definition, a woman's fantasy. You didn't say 'generally, women I know don't fantasize about muscular guys in loincloths.' You made a blanket statement that marginalized any women who didn't fit this statement as 'not women,' since 'Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women.'

[Friv]

If a woman has a given fantasy, it is, by definition, a woman's fantasy. You didn't say 'generally, women I know don't fantasize about muscular guys in loincloths.' You made a blanket statement that marginalized any women who didn't fit this statement as 'not women,' since 'Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women.'

The statement was clearly a shorthand for "musclebound men in loincloths are not written and drawn in order to be sexual fantasies for women, as they don't have a mass-market appeal as such."

(EDIT: And the statement, "If someone has this as a fantasy, it is a fantasy for that group" is absolutely absurd. By that stance, a scantily-clad woman is a sexual fantasy for women, as gay women exist who would find it attractive.)

[The Grue]

They're right where they've always been, next to the Strawman you're beating on.

"Scantily Clad Women" have a mass appeal with men. Big dudes made of muscles with only a loincloth on don't have the same mass appeal with women. That's as much as had been said on the topic until Amphetron tried to move the goal posts way the heck forward and quantify ANY sexual fantasy held be any woman as a general female sexual fantasy.

Did...did you just refute that you moved the goalposts by moving the goalposts?

None of this is apparent at all in what you originally wrote. Worse, you continue to respond to criticism not by rebuttal but by changing the definitions of words as you go - I question, for instance, your definition of "mass" as it appears to "mass appeal".

[Amphetryon]

The statement was clearly a shorthand for "musclebound men in loincloths are not written and drawn in order to be sexual fantasies for women, as they don't have a mass-market appeal as such."

(EDIT: And the statement, "If someone has this as a fantasy, it is a fantasy for that group" is absolutely absurd. By that stance, a scantily-clad woman is a sexual fantasy for women, as gay women exist who would find it attractive.)

Difference in education on rhetoric and logic noted.

[Friv]

Difference in education on rhetoric and logic noted.

Well, that's very big of you. Apology accepted.

[Milo v3]

I actually don't know of any male friends I've ever had (excepting friends I had before I was 7, since some of those friends I don't know since... that's not the type of stuff you'd ever talk about when you're a kid) that agreed that being muscular was a power fantasy for them. For us, it was just seen as "Do exercise and be muscular so you can look attractive, if you don't you're ugly."

[LogosDragon]

I actually don't know of any male friends I've ever had (excepting friends I had before I was 7, since some of those friends I don't know since... that's not the type of stuff you'd ever talk about when you're a kid) that agreed that being muscular was a power fantasy for them. For us, it was just seen as "Do exercise and be muscular so you can look attractive, if you don't you're ugly."

How'd you end up playing TTRPGs with that attitude? :smalltongue:

[Steampunkette]

Power Fantasies aren't always physical.

Some people dream of being so wealthy they can tell off their bosses.

Other people wish they could control other people's minds or actions.

Some guys just wish they could go on a shooting spree against the currently topical "International Bad Guy".

And there's power fantasies based on all of these ideas. The last one is a very common power fantasy for "Common Beat Cop" or "Unassuming Common Man" fighting terrorists/russians/aliens/robots/zombies films and TV shows.

[LogosDragon]

Power Fantasies aren't always physical.

Some people dream of being so wealthy they can tell off their bosses.

Other people wish they could control other people's minds or actions.

Some guys just wish they could go on a shooting spree against the currently topical "International Bad Guy".

And there's power fantasies based on all of these ideas. The last one is a very common power fantasy for "Common Beat Cop" or "Unassuming Common Man" fighting terrorists/russians/aliens/robots/zombies films and TV shows.

I'll defeat you yet, Russian Zombie Alien Terrorbots... To my last breath I shall keep fighting!

[The Grue]

Power Fantasies aren't always physical.

Some people dream of being so wealthy they can tell off their bosses.

Other people wish they could control other people's minds or actions.

Some guys just wish they could go on a shooting spree against the currently topical "International Bad Guy".

And there's power fantasies based on all of these ideas. The last one is a very common power fantasy for "Common Beat Cop" or "Unassuming Common Man" fighting terrorists/russians/aliens/robots/zombies films and TV shows.

Reading this post I think I may be guilty of misinterpreting some of your previous comments. I thought you were using the term "power fantasy" in a negative connotation; that's not actually what you were getting at is it?

[Ralanr]

Power Fantasies aren't always physical.

Some people dream of being so wealthy they can tell off their bosses.

Other people wish they could control other people's minds or actions.

Some guys just wish they could go on a shooting spree against the currently topical "International Bad Guy".

And there's power fantasies based on all of these ideas. The last one is a very common power fantasy for "Common Beat Cop" or "Unassuming Common Man" fighting terrorists/russians/aliens/robots/zombies films and TV shows.

Don't forget setting things on fire with your mind.

[BootStrapTommy]

Female sexual fantasy in mass media tends to be more towards how singers are presented. From Frank Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, and Bowie up to N'Sync and One Direction. Slender, pretty, and not musclebound (though often with some nice muscle definition ala Michael Phelps or Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch).

The whole "Men in Loincloths" thing is a common misconception. Explain Magic Mike, then. Because it was not the male demographic living out their power fantasy through Channing Tatum's ripped figure as it slowly gyrates, glistening with swe... Oh.. Um... *ahem*

It was because the female demographic was capable of sexually objectifying him, and his supposed power fantasy body.

As further evidence, I present Chris Pratt, Ryan Gosling, and Chris Hemsworth and their largely unobtainable body types as well.

[goto124]

I think Magic Mike is part of a modern attempt to move towards having more sexual fantasies geared towards women?

Weren't many male muscular unclad barbarians historically written not to be sexy, but as shows of power?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Yukitsu]

Most of the heroes and idealized historical figures weren't ever really described as being massive and muscular with that role more commonly being sidelined to minor or supporting figures like Ajax. The long shadow cast by Alexander the Great meant that in the west, a popular and attractive image was boyish rather than muscular for a huge portion of the Roman era. Pompey for example wanted to look like Alexander despite coming around hundreds of years after him.

Later you get ones that are like King Arthur or Galahad or Lancelot. I can't honestly remember their physical appearance but their moral character seems to be what the stories tried to emphasize. I'm sure there was something about their individual looks in each book but unlike say, Ajax they weren't really described all that well physically. Many folk heroes of the day to resonate with the peasants were clever and cunning rather than strong or had a moral character. Robin Hood is a good example.

Later heroes I can't honestly guess at as the real life members of the 1700s to 1900s were more interesting than the fictional ones. Many of the real life heroes of that age however, were not big or buff. Admiral Nelson, Frederick the Great and a great number of the royalty during that era weren't particularly buff and the royalty and nobility were sort of what dictated what was fashionable.

I'm betting there were plenty of beefcake heroes around through history, but there were a ton of fashionable men who were not and when talking about the men other men wanted to be during those ages it was more often than not people like Robin Hood or Arthur Wellesley.

I would in fact that two most muscly protagonists, Heracles and Beowulf are written as figures who ultimately prove to be impotent despite their strength, not as a power fantasy.

[goto124]

Okay, maybe 'historically' was the wrong word. I didn't mean THAT far back.

Good points though.

[Steampunkette]

You did, Grue. There's nothing negative about Power Fantasy in and of itself. It is a form of escapism.

As to Magic Mike and Hemsworth et al.

Yeah. Sure. Now look at the way Magic Mike moves. Compare it to Conan. Look at the way Hemsworth is shot and framed. Compare it to Dar. Understand that there's a significant difference in how things are presented.

Here's musclebound Hugh Jackman as Wolverine:
http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hugh-Jackman-Muscles-Claws-in-The-Wolverine-570x356.jpg

Does he look sexy, dangerous, powerful, demure, lustful? He's got the muscles and the definition, but he doesn't look like he's DTF.

Compare it to some of the muscle men in this video. Yeah they're not as defined...

{scrubbed} There was a video here which contained dancing men who were highly sexualized. You can find it on youtube if you are so inclined.

But these dudes are being sexualized. Jackman? No. He's being shown as a character of strength, power, and so forth. It's a completely different fantasy. Male Power not Female Sexual.

Though to be fair, Cazwell is presenting gay male sexual fantasy. I just happen to enjoy it, too, even though I'm not his target audience. >.>

So to get back to the original statement: Big musclebound barbarian and warrior dudes wearing loincloths while they murder mofos is not a female sexual fantasy. It's a male power fantasy. I'm not saying women can't or don't find muscley dudes attractive. I never have. I'm saying that the barbarian archetype is presented as male fantasy not female fantasy.

[BWR]

Oh, I was agreeing with you and countering the previously raised point. I referenced your post as it was highly relevant to my point.

I apologize for the confusion! I'm having a bad time of getting my ideas across, today.

Yeah, it does read that way on a second glance. Note to self: read things twice (at least).

[SpectralDerp]

But these dudes are being sexualized. Jackman? No.

"This naked man who's posing naked and has a lot of women who want to see him naked because they sexualize him is not being sexualized by posing naked, mkaay?"

[Daedroth]

But these dudes are being sexualized. Jackman? No. He's being shown as a character of strength, power, and so forth. It's a completely different fantasy. Male Power not Female Sexual.


"This naked man who's posing naked and has a lot of women who want to see him naked because they sexualize him is not being sexualized by posing naked, mkaay?"

Indeed, is both... and indeed, both have a huge tendency to overlap. Why? Because one of the most common elements of a power fantasy is being atractive to the other gender and that overlaps with sexual fantasy.

A clear example is Bayonetta, no one would denny that is a Male Sexual Fantasy but... is also a Female Power Fantasy for a lot of female gamers, same with other character like Lara Croft. Why? Because one of the most common elements of a female power fantasy is being really really sexy.


Another example? Gray Fullbuster fromn Fairy Tail, i'd rather say that the overlap here is really huge, only few moments in diving into internet will convice you that is totally a Female Sexual Fantasy (and just look at the fanservice at the series!) but is clearly also a Male Power Fantasy with really cool powers and epic moments.

[Red Fel]

A clear example is Bayonetta, no one would denny that is a Male Sexual Fantasy but... is also a Female Power Fantasy for a lot of female gamers, same with other character like Lara Croft. Why? Because one of the most common elements of a female power fantasy is being really really sexy.

Wait, wait, what? Is it really? I mean, I wouldn't know the elements of female power fantasy, but I will say that my power fantasy doesn't involve being "really really sexy." Maybe slightly more attractive, but my power fantasy focuses on power, not sex. (That kind of fantasy is a different kind altogether.)


Another example? Gray Fullbuster fromn Fairy Tail, i'd rather say that the overlap here is really huge, only few moments in diving into internet will convice you that is totally a Female Sexual Fantasy (and just look at the fanservice at the series!) but is clearly also a Male Power Fantasy with really cool powers and epic moments.

There's a difference between a character designed as a sexual fantasy and one designed as fanservice. It's a narrow difference, but it's a difference. Gray is the latter, and it's played off as comedy. I don't think that sexual fantasy characters - for either gender - play it off as comedy, generally speaking.

Also, if you call Gray "clearly . . . a Male Power Fantasy," you're basically saying that's true of almost every anime protagonist. (Which is... fair, sometimes.) They're all strong, determined, and generally powerful. But there's more to "power fantasy" than simply "strong protagonist," and I'm not entirely sure that Gray makes the grade.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the most common stereotype is that any humanoid species will automatically adhere to human gender conventions. Ilithids are genderless but have a sex, and they sneak it by due to being just inhuman enough to avoid projection (except by some very fringe fans). Myconids get by the same way, but almost everyone else if forced into human gender roles.

[goto124]

I believe that applies to non-gender-related conventions as well?

[Milo v3]

Ilithids are genderless but have a sex
I thought illithid had genders but not sex... since all illithid reproduce via tadpoles regardless of whether the original body they took over were male or female.

[Tvtyrant]

I believe that applies to non-gender-related conventions as well?

For sure. Anything that looks remotely human basically is human in fantasy, while actual cultural differences are found primarily in weird (and often evil) species.

[Red Fel]

I think the most common stereotype is that any humanoid species will automatically adhere to human gender conventions. Ilithids are genderless but have a sex, and they sneak it by due to being just inhuman enough to avoid projection (except by some very fringe fans). Myconids get by the same way, but almost everyone else if forced into human gender roles.

Take it a step further - even non-human things which have a physical sex must nonetheless demonstrate humanlike sexual characteristics or traits.

For example: This is a Dragonborn, a humanoid Draconic creature.

http://www.herpy.net/gallery/data/media/68/dragonborn_female.jpg

Can you tell whether it's male or female? How can you tell?

Could it be that, despite the fact that her race hatches from eggs and has no nursing tendencies, traits, or functions, she has two rather large secondary sexual traits squeezing their way out of her impractical plate corset?

I'm not just annoyed that they have to be so large (relatively flat-chested women do exist!) or that her clothing has to highlight them (not every armor has to lift and separate!); I'm annoyed because they serve no function except to say "Yup, this is a female." It bothers me from the perspective of biology.

[Milo v3]

Take it a step further - even non-human things which have a physical sex must nonetheless demonstrate humanlike sexual characteristics or traits.

For example: This is a Dragonborn, a humanoid Draconic creature.

http://www.herpy.net/gallery/data/media/68/dragonborn_female.jpg

Can you tell whether it's male or female? How can you tell?

Could it be that, despite the fact that her race hatches from eggs and has no nursing tendencies, traits, or functions, she has two rather large secondary sexual traits squeezing their way out of her impractical plate corset?

I'm not just annoyed that they have to be so large (relatively flat-chested women do exist!) or that her clothing has to highlight them (not every armor has to lift and separate!); I'm annoyed because they serve no function except to say "Yup, this is a female." It bothers me from the perspective of biology.

At least 3.5e dragonborn have a justification if they have boobs, since they are simply warriors who have been blessed by bahamut with dragon powers and a coat of draconic paint is splashed around on them.

[goto124]

Probably because breasts are an easy way to identify a creature as female.

Would it be better to go with... er... long hair? Ribbons? Skirts?

[Red Fel]

Probably because breasts are an easy way to identify a creature as female.

Would it be better to go with... er... long hair? Ribbons? Skirts?

Okay, that's fair. Follow-up: Why do we need to be able to easily identify a creature as female?

Look at Dragons. Not Dragonborn or Half-Dragons or Draconic Creatures; proper Dragons. Can you identify which one is male or female?
(What, you can't? Racist.)
Does it matter so much to be able to?

Some animals or insects can appear so similar between sexes that it can be hard to tell without some background in zoology, or knowledge of that creature in particular. Why do humanoid races need to be so obvious about it? Why can't it require a Knowledge check, or similar, to be able to recognize, "Oh, wait, that's a female."

[BootStrapTommy]

So to get back to the original statement: Big musclebound barbarian and warrior dudes wearing loincloths while they murder mofos is not a female sexual fantasy. It's a male power fantasy. I'm not saying women can't or don't find muscley dudes attractive. I never have. I'm saying that the barbarian archetype is presented as male fantasy not female fantasy.
You're ignoring the origin of that power fantasy. Namely, that physical prowess is generally considered physically attractive by women, and the origin of the power fantasy is partially rooted in the idea of such men being desirable to females.

And for the record, Hugh Jackman is a sexy FILF.


Okay, that's fair. Follow-up: Why do we need to be able to easily identify a creature as female? Spoken like someone who has never struggled with what pronoun to use in front of a rather angry Dragon. It can be the difference between obtaining a new ally and ending up as lunch...

[Kalmageddon]

Spoken like someone who has never struggled with what pronoun to use in front of a rather angry Dragon. It can be the difference between obtaining a new ally and ending up as lunch...

Corollary: dragon boobs save lives.

[Red Fel]

Spoken like someone who has never struggled with what pronoun to use in front of a rather angry Dragon. It can be the difference between obtaining a new ally and ending up as lunch...

I usually use such terms of address as "Your mightiness," "Your awesomeness," and "Oh, you are so very big."

"Hello, sexy," is also an option, if your Charisma is high and you'd like to find out from whence come Half-Dragons.

I find that these work much better than hoping the giant reptile absurdly developed mammary glands located in an easily visible place.

Keep in mind, also, that Dragons have Alter Self, so being identified by physical sex is... Not exactly obligatory with them. (Didn't we cover this upthread?) Making the mistake might actually amuse the Dragon, who takes a moment to think, Wait, which parts do I have this week?

[Amphetryon]

You're ignoring the origin of that power fantasy. Namely, that physical prowess is generally considered physically attractive by women, and the origin of the power fantasy is partially rooted in the idea of such men being desirable to females.

And for the record, Hugh Jackman is a sexy FILF.

My S/O points out that, clearly, romance novel covers were designed to attract male readers.

[Steampunkette]

Are the dudes on Romance Novel Covers beating the holy crap out of people or are they usually leaning over some lovely woman with fluttery clothes and half-lidded sexy gazes?

There's a big difference in presentation.

[BootStrapTommy]

But the physique in both cases are built on the same principles. Women like physically attractive men.

[Amphetryon]

Are the dudes on Romance Novel Covers beating the holy crap out of people or are they usually leaning over some lovely woman with fluttery clothes and half-lidded sexy gazes?

There's a big difference in presentation.


Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for womenDo they need to be in loincloths for you to stand by your statement? Because there's no reason the dudes on the covers need be musclebound, if musclebound men aren't sexual fantasies for women. . . and yet, I'm unable to pull up any images of romance covers that would bear this out.

[Steampunkette]

On the topic of Bayonetta...

She's a witch whose clothing becomes less and less able to cover her body because it is a direct representation of her magic (because why wear clothing when you can wear magic?) and the more clothing she wears the closer to nude she becomes.

That's pure male sexual fantasy (and an incentive to mash the buttons more quickly) and has got nothing to do with a woman being powerful.

As to Lara Croft: She is a female power fantasy. The big boobs thing, however, have absolutely nothing to do with it. Tomb Raider was a fantastic game, and even if the glitch in designing Lara (yeah, it was a math error in the model wireframing) hadn't happened it still would've been a fantastic game with a protagonist with smaller boobs.

People want to be attractive, sure. I'm not saying we don't. But that is a separate issue from power fantasies. Otherwise there'd be no Werewolf Power Fantasies and the like where a person becomes a powerful and unrestrained embodiment of Id with no Ego holding them back. There's nothing attractive in being a 7 foot tall animalistic monster (unless you're into the furry thing).

What you're dealing with, there, is the conflux of multiple fantasies.

And no. Male power fantasy doesn't by nature have to overlap with male sexual fantasy. Just because you daydream about going in to work and telling your boss off, quitting, and winning the lottery doesn't mean you also want to have sex with your boss, your unemployment, or a pile of money. (unless you're into that sort of thing)

[Yukitsu]

Just as a point of note there, I don't think I know of any guy that finds Bayonetta physically attractive despite the overt sexualization. Most people you talk to talk about her strange slender man like proportions in terms of limb length to torso length. I'm sure there are some guys that do, but I've yet to hear one admit they think she's sexy and some of these are guys who have the hots for post zergification Kerrigan.

[Red Fel]

But the physique in both cases are built on the same principles. Women like physically attractive men.

But "physically attractive" can mean any number of things.

To put it in a generically male perspective, a man who is attracted to women may find any, all, or none of the following features physically attractive: A body shape similar to that of a piece of kindling. A body shape similar to that of an orange. A bodyshape similar to that of an hourglass. A body shape of an hourglass exactly, complete with unnaturally sharp angles. A body shape similar to that of an Olympic athlete. A body shape similar to that of a statue of classic Greek athletes. A body shape similar to that of a statue that has been worn down over the centuries and is missing parts. A body shape similar to that of a carrot. A body shape similar to that of the Pyramids. A body shape similar to that of the Sphinx.
Coming back to point, there's a difference between "aesthetically pleasingly fit" and "massive gorebeast seeks the blood of enemies." One is a sexual fantasy, one is a power fantasy, and the distinction isn't a fine one.

[Steampunkette]

Do they need to be in loincloths for you to stand by your statement? Because there's no reason the dudes on the covers need be musclebound, if musclebound men aren't sexual fantasies for women. . . and yet, I'm unable to pull up any images of romance covers that would bear this out.

Google Image Search. Found this one at number 8 on "Romance Novel Covers"

http://wildtexasnights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Wildcat_Epson-scan.jpg

Most of the others are fairly defined, but only a handful are Fabio. None of them are Schwarzenegger. And none of them are male power fantasies which is the actual thing I've been talking about, not dudes being physically fit somehow being unattractive to women.

Most of the ones I'm looking at with slender but cut looking dudes but posting them would probably get me another warning.

As for your initial question: Stop it. If you don't understand by now what I'm talking about when I use the phrase "Male Power Fantasy" then you're clearly not going to learn. Trying to put me on the defensive with passive aggressive flamebait is just bad forum etiquette.

[Steampunkette]

But "physically attractive" can mean any number of things.

To put it in a generically male perspective, a man who is attracted to women may find any, all, or none of the following features physically attractive: A body shape similar to that of a piece of kindling. A body shape similar to that of an orange. A bodyshape similar to that of an hourglass. A body shape of an hourglass exactly, complete with unnaturally sharp angles. A body shape similar to that of an Olympic athlete. A body shape similar to that of a statue of classic Greek athletes. A body shape similar to that of a statue that has been worn down over the centuries and is missing parts. A body shape similar to that of a carrot. A body shape similar to that of the Pyramids. A body shape similar to that of the Sphinx.
Coming back to point, there's a difference between "aesthetically pleasingly fit" and "massive gorebeast seeks the blood of enemies." One is a sexual fantasy, one is a power fantasy, and the distinction isn't a fine one.

This. But also the specific note of presentation. You open a Playgirl magazine and you're not gonna be looking at pictures of Schwarzenegger lopping off heads. You're going to see men (muscular or not) posing in sexy positions. Even if it -was- Schwarzenegger in the nudie mag he would be posing for sexiness, not to inspire men reading the magazine to want to be him so they can crush their enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.

Lighting, framing of the shot, set design, and social structure all play into sexualization. It's not just "Oh. He's strong. He's therefore a female sexual fantasy." There's a heck of a lot more to it than a lot of people acknowledge.

[Red Fel]

Most of the others are fairly defined, but only a handful are Fabio. None of them are Schwarzenegger. And none of them are male power fantasies which is the actual thing I've been talking about, not dudes being physically fit somehow being unattractive to women.

Most of the ones I'm looking at with slender but cut looking dudes but posting them would probably get me another warning.

I think what you're describing can be summed up nicely in this webcomic (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/). (I won't link the image directly, because size.) In particular, the second panel (top right) and fifth panel (bottom left) pretty much show the difference between "male power fantasy" and "female sexual fantasy."

Now, I think we were discussing something to do with roleplaying games...?

[The Insanity]

There's really nothing wrong with power fantasies. The problem is the lack of female power fantasies or the female power fantasies getting subverted by male sexual fantasy or to avoid being 'threatening' to the male power fantasy. If we can fix that, all the musclebound barbarians and action hero stereotypes won't be even a slight problem.

*edited for clarity*
Could you give some examples of what Female Power Fantasies could be or characters from media that are FPF?

Also, why exactly do women like lean men? Does it have something to do with the trope that all women are inherently bisexual?

[Steampunkette]

The evil wizard can be attractive, ugly, old, young, infirm, healthy, sane, mad, and more if he's a dude. He's also going to have a heck of a lot of backstory options from dying loved ones to personal desire for power or even straight up "I have to destroy the world for reasons!"

If the evil wizard is a woman she must be attractive, young (or falsely appear young out of vanity), and healthy enough to maintain her attractive and young appearance. She may be crazy, but her insanity will almost always center around men. Either lustful/romantic feelings that are spurned and drive her to villainy or a traumatic history of abuse that leads her to want to destroy/subjugate/control men. When it doesn't center around men it will be centered on personal vanity. The vanity may be of her beauty (including Jealousy of other women) or for everyone to know that she is the most powerful.

That covers most every female mage from the Evil Queen of Snow White (Vanity) past Bavmorda of Willow (Must destroy the female baby who will be more powerful) through Willow Rosenberg of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Trauma inflicted by Warren), come to think of it...

[Amphetryon]

Google Image Search. Found this one at number 8 on "Romance Novel Covers"

http://wildtexasnights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Wildcat_Epson-scan.jpg

Most of the others are fairly defined, but only a handful are Fabio. None of them are Schwarzenegger. And none of them are male power fantasies which is the actual thing I've been talking about, not dudes being physically fit somehow being unattractive to women.

Most of the ones I'm looking at with slender but cut looking dudes but posting them would probably get me another warning.

As for your initial question: Stop it. If you don't understand by now what I'm talking about when I use the phrase "Male Power Fantasy" then you're clearly not going to learn. Trying to put me on the defensive with passive aggressive flamebait is just bad forum etiquette.

So, the guy in that pic is physically holding her up but he's not muscular? :smallconfused: I also presume you could have picked any of the other ones to prove your point about muscularity not impacting female fantasies, right?

[Steampunkette]

Could you give some examples of what Female Power Fantasies could be or characters from media that are FPF?

Power Fantasy in general is a viewer insertion point wishful thinking of being powerful. This power can be social, political, physical, or any combination of the three.

Tonya Stark, the Iron Woman, would cover Social, Political, and Physical Power Fantasies specifically for women if you were to take all of the character genders and shift them around. Instead of a male character in control you provide the audience with a female character overcoming challenges and struggles.

Admittedly this is a very basic example, as superheroes tend to play into very basic and extreme power fantasies, but it is an example nonetheless.

As to examples in the media: There are very few that are not highly subverted in the interests of Mass Market Appeal. One example of subverted power would be Buffy Summers. While she is rarely in control of her life she has physical power many women wish they had, without the need to step outside of commonly accepted and rigorously drilled standards of beauty that we are bombarded with, all the time...

A simple example from her TV Series would be the episode in which Cameron Walker attempted to push himself on her before class and Buffy, with Slayer Strength, rebuffed him and broke his nose. Sexual harassment and the feeling of powerlessness before a larger attacker are serious frustrations a lot of women have to deal with. The ability to react to it and stop the attack without being hurt, herself, makes her a nice analog for someone to step into.

However her power is subverted immediately by her social superiors in the next scene as the Principal, the Nurse, and the school's Coach all demean her actions and accuse her of leading him on rather than acknowledging his wrongdoing. While realistic, it immediately takes the character's power away, reminding the audience that they will face similar accusations even if they stop a harasser.

It's still a great show, by the way, I'm just pointing this out as an example.

[Steampunkette]

Also, why exactly do women like lean men? Does it have something to do with the trope that all women are inherently bisexual?

It's a combination of factors, as all things in life are.

One of those factors being that slender men are less physically threatening or intimidating, which can make them more easily approachable with less concern for violence.

Another is general fitness. While a guy who goes to the gym every day is gonna get swole, that doesn't represent standard biological power brought on by day to day labor, which tends to make people fit, and usually fairly defined, without being heavily muscled.

You've also got what people view as their primary identity playing into it. Someone loves football? They've got a variety of body types to be their sexual interests from brick wall defensive linemen to smaller players who spend most of their time running faster (and turning faster) than the big guys. Meanwhile someone who loves swimming is going to drool over Michael Phelps's swimmer's body and turn up their nose at Schwarzy.

There's also the issue that sexiness is defined in our society by the female form in large part. Sex doesn't actually sell (according to the numbers) but we still wind up using it everywhere, and where we use it we usually use conventionally attractive women. Tell someone that slender, well formed, and not very muscled people are sexy long enough and they'll apply it to at least some of their ideals of what is sexy. Societal expectations and declarations.

But mostly? Because it is what most wealthy people are. Look at what different cultures find attractive and, by and large, it's going to be wealthy folks setting the trend. Does everyone toil in the fields all day except for wealthy folks who stay inside? Then a deep tan is going to be less attractive than milky white skin (This is specifically calling out western Europe during Feudal times and is not a statement that white people are by nature more attractive than anyone else). Is everyone skinny because of the famine except for the portly rich folks? Being overweight just became sexy. After all, Fiddler on the Roof has Rev Tevya singing about his wife having a "Proper Double Chin" because that's the appropriate thing for a wealthy man's wife: To be overweight. Well. At that time and in that place.

[Red Fel]

So, the guy in that pic is physically holding her up but he's not muscular? :smallconfused: I also presume you could have picked any of the other ones to prove your point about muscularity not impacting female fantasies, right?

Where do you see muscles? I see barely anything of his body, aside from face, neck and hands; not enough to tell me if he's muscular or not. (In fact, based on what I can see, I'm inclined to think he's toned, not "swole.") Which I imagine is part of the point - the attractiveness comes in part from the scenario of being held aloft and gazed at adoringly, not from having the three-year winner of the International Iron Man Competition doing the holding.

That, and the mustache. I mean, it's not the best I've seen, but that sucker is not half bad. Gotta appreciate a dude who writes checks his face can 'stache.

Just a guess, mind you.

[Steampunkette]

Gotta appreciate a dude who writes checks his face can 'stache.

This is so sigged.

[Lord Torath]

Spoken like someone who has never struggled with what pronoun to use in front of a rather angry Dragon. It can be the difference between obtaining a new ally and ending up as lunch..."Oh, you're a girl dragon! I mean, of course you're a girl dragon, 'cause you're just reeking of feminine beauty." :smallwink:

[Amphetryon]

"Oh, you're a girl dragon! I mean, of course you're a girl dragon, 'cause you're just reeking of feminine beauty." :smallwink:

"Psst! Ixnay on the eekingray!" - The rogue, while taking 2 large steps back.

[Red Fel]

This is so sigged.

Do it, Rockapella!

[Steampunkette]

The proper pronouns for a dragon are "You" and "Your".

Never talk about a dragon in their presence without addressing them!

[Talakeal]

Quite honestly, until you told me that he was one, I didn't think he even was a Twi'Lek. Or that there were any males of that race. At all. In my mind, and in my memory, Twi'Lek = Female. And not just because of the whole "Twi'Lek slaves" image; I honestly had no image whatsoever of a male Twi'Lek.

Realizing what one looks like, I now appreciate my prior position all the more.

For some time, I actually thought Kit Fisto was a Twi'Lek. (Nope, Nautolan. Far more head-tentacles.)

There's an interesting gender convention, though. Certain fantasy races as being depicted exclusively one gender or the other. Twi'Leks are one example, of course. Any others?

And a related note, a hypothesis: When a race is presented as a single gender (not counting genderless races), that gender is almost exclusively female. I can't think of anything to disprove this, off the top of my head. Anybody?

I cant think of many races which are described as. All male, but plenty which are presented as all male. Lots of races in video games or tabletop games supposedly have females but no one ever bothered to make a model / graphic for one.

Also, a race without females is a bit weird from a logical standpoint. Unless they are cloned or reproduce thorugh fission or something (in which ase why have genders at all) where would babies come from? Parthonogenesis is a real thing, and it is biologically possible to absorb non sperm cells to fertalize a. Egg, but birthing wiout a womb is kind of hard to imagine.

[The Insanity]

Tonya Stark, the Iron Woman, would cover Social, Political, and Physical Power Fantasies specifically for women if you were to take all of the character genders and shift them around. Instead of a male character in control you provide the audience with a female character overcoming challenges and struggles.
I think Iron Maiden is a better name. :P
The way Tony Stark conducts himself with the ladies, there's the risk that his genderbent version would be condemened as being a slut, which could take away some of her Social and Political power. But I get what you mean. Just an unfortunate example, I guess.

[Hawkstar]

Take it a step further - even non-human things which have a physical sex must nonetheless demonstrate humanlike sexual characteristics or traits.

For example: This is a Dragonborn, a humanoid Draconic creature.

http://www.herpy.net/gallery/data/media/68/dragonborn_female.jpg

Can you tell whether it's male or female? How can you tell?

Could it be that, despite the fact that her race hatches from eggs and has no nursing tendencies, traits, or functions, she has two rather large secondary sexual traits squeezing their way out of her impractical plate corset?

I'm not just annoyed that they have to be so large (relatively flat-chested women do exist!) or that her clothing has to highlight them (not every armor has to lift and separate!); I'm annoyed because they serve no function except to say "Yup, this is a female." It bothers me from the perspective of biology.Their purpose in 4e is primarily Display (It helps that they're made of stiffer stuff than female boobs). Yes, they have Humanoid Pectoral and Fascia development. It comes from having a Humanoid body type. There probably aren't any actual mammaries.

Also - Vin Diesel's boobs are bigger than that dragonborn's.

And... to give another reason why I think it's better this way: "Because God Forbid a woman is actually allowed to look like a woman if she goes for a humanoid race that happens to have scales."

... in fact, the primary tells that it's female are not the (Rather shallow) boobs, but instead the presence of the armor-bra (Covering the chest, but nothing but the chest, saying there's something sexualized to cover there), the hip/waist/shoulder ratio, and facial structure. Ditch the bra, widen the waist, narrow the hips, and change the face, and it would look distinctly male, even with the large pectoral area.

[Eldan]

Okay, that's fair. Follow-up: Why do we need to be able to easily identify a creature as female?

Look at Dragons. Not Dragonborn or Half-Dragons or Draconic Creatures; proper Dragons. Can you identify which one is male or female?
(What, you can't? Racist.)
Does it matter so much to be able to?

Some animals or insects can appear so similar between sexes that it can be hard to tell without some background in zoology, or knowledge of that creature in particular. Why do humanoid races need to be so obvious about it? Why can't it require a Knowledge check, or similar, to be able to recognize, "Oh, wait, that's a female."

Psh. That's not similar. Similar is if you have to dissect an insect to guess its gender.

[Hawkstar]

Some animals or insects can appear so similar between sexes that it can be hard to tell without some background in zoology, or knowledge of that creature in particular. Why do humanoid races need to be so obvious about it? Why can't it require a Knowledge check, or similar, to be able to recognize, "Oh, wait, that's a female."

Because they're Humanoid, and one of the primary traits of humans is their unique and obvious sexual dimorphism. Ditch that, and you're no longer dealing with Humanoids.

[Yukitsu]

Because they're Humanoid, and one of the primary traits of humans is their unique and obvious sexual dimorphism. Ditch that, and you're no longer dealing with Humanoids.

Humans aren't actually very sexually dimorphous. Other animals out there are easier to tell like mallards.

Heck, you want real sexual dimorphism, look at some angler fish.

[Eldan]

IMportant traits of humans are also being a mammal, you know. So hair and mammaries. And life birth.

Or if we want to see what separates humans from other hominids, short jaws, big heads, weird shoulder joints, badly constructed spines, a lack of fur, overactive sweat glands, lean musculature (and lack of bulk), dextrous hands, a complicated voice box and semi-vestigial big toes.

[Hawkstar]

Humans aren't actually very sexually dimorphous. Other animals out there are easier to tell like mallards.

Heck, you want real sexual dimorphism, look at some angler fish.Humans aren't the most sexually dimorphic species, but they're still very dimorphic. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this argument.

If a guy wants to play a dude with scales/fur/an exotic face/feathers/etc, he's allowed to do so and still look like a dude without a fuss. If a chick wants to play a chick with scales/fur/an exotic face/feathers/etc, they have to argue for the privilege to still look like a chick, or worse, get stuck with something some dude thinks an exotic chick should look like because the 'human' female appearance apparently serves no purpose other than male tittilation, and should not exist on non-human humanoids of different dermal makeup and facial structure.

[Milo v3]

On the topic of Bayonetta...

She's a witch whose clothing becomes less and less able to cover her body because it is a direct representation of her magic (because why wear clothing when you can wear magic?) and the more clothing she wears the closer to nude she becomes.

That's pure male sexual fantasy (and an incentive to mash the buttons more quickly) and has got nothing to do with a woman being powerful.
Except that's blatantly not true.... Bayonetta was specifically designed by a female feminist to intentionally be a female power fantasy.

[The Insanity]

Wonder Woman is a decent example of FPF. And that statement includes the alternate version from the new movie Justice League: Gods and Monsters.

[Milo v3]

Wonder Woman is a decent example of FPF.

... except for the whole "becomes powerless if bound by a man".

[Ralanr]

... except for the whole "becomes powerless if bound by a man".

Which I don't think has been a thing since the golden age.

Though I don't know if she has her own series at the moment.

[The Insanity]

... except for the whole "becomes powerless if bound by a man".
Never heard of it. But I'm not a hardcore fan, so maybe I just missed it. I know her only from recent animated series and movies and nothing like that was ever mentioned or suggested.

[Red Fel]

Because they're Humanoid, and one of the primary traits of humans is their unique and obvious sexual dimorphism. Ditch that, and you're no longer dealing with Humanoids.

Here I thought "humanoid" meant an organic lifeform with a humanlike intelligence that walks upright, possesses two arms and two legs (unless mauled or mutated or otherwise altered).

I guess it could mean "exactly like humans, but X."


Except that's blatantly not true.... Bayonetta was specifically designed by a female feminist to intentionally be a female power fantasy.

... wait, what? Seriously?


... except for the whole "becomes powerless if bound by a man".

Which I don't think has been a thing since the golden age.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they ditched that a long time ago. Now she's not so much "powerless" as "thoroughly peeved." They sort of replaced her feminine gentility and innocence with a heaping helping of bloodlust, which I can respect.

Some artists (sadly, not in the comics) have really gone the extra mile though, and depicted her as more "Amazon" than "Glam-azon." Taller, broader shoulders, thicker build, a chest that's more pectoral than mammary. Not "swole," but sturdy; not like the frail thing that wore the flag as a pair of bikini bottoms, but a powerful woman who literally looks down on lesser mortals. Like this one (nebezial.deviantart.com/art/death-by-Snu-snu-418668528), for example; notice the contrast between the tall, broad Amazon Wonder Woman, and the shorter, slighter, teenage Supergirl. Then notice the cheap Futurama humor.

I like that depiction. It makes sense to me. She's a warrior. She fights and kills and smashes things. Supernatural strength aside, she should look like she could bench-press a car.

[Milo v3]

... wait, what? Seriously?
yeah... I was surprised by that as well....

[Ralanr]

Here I thought "humanoid" meant an organic lifeform with a humanlike intelligence that walks upright, possesses two arms and two legs (unless mauled or mutated or otherwise altered).

I guess it could mean "exactly like humans, but X."



... wait, what? Seriously?




Yeah, I'm pretty sure they ditched that a long time ago. Now she's not so much "powerless" as "thoroughly peeved." They sort of replaced her feminine gentility and innocence with a heaping helping of bloodlust, which I can respect.

Some artists (sadly, not in the comics) have really gone the extra mile though, and depicted her as more "Amazon" than "Glam-azon." Taller, broader shoulders, thicker build, a chest that's more pectoral than mammary. Not "swole," but sturdy; not like the frail thing that wore the flag as a pair of bikini bottoms, but a powerful woman who literally looks down on lesser mortals. Like this one (nebezial.deviantart.com/art/death-by-Snu-snu-418668528), for example; notice the contrast between the tall, broad Amazon Wonder Woman, and the shorter, slighter, teenage Supergirl. Then notice the cheap Futurama humor.

I like that depiction. It makes sense to me. She's a warrior. She fights and kills and smashes things. Supernatural strength aside, she should look like she could bench-press a car.

Batman's a time lord!

I love that guys art. You should pick up Rat Queens, he's the artist from the second volume on.

[Steampunkette]

Bayonetta was created by Hideki Kamiya, a dude. The design was under his auspices, though a female designer (Mari Shimazaki) was involved in her creation and wanted to "Subdue" her features and give her glasses to increase the difference between her and other female protagonists in videogames. However it was Kenchiro Yoshimura who modeled her and put her in the game and, in his own words "I wanted to get Bayonetta's Backside perfect, I guess I'm sort of into that"

Her ability to transform into a panther was there to increase her sexiness and "Femininity", and her primary design characteristic (according to Kamiya) was Sexiness.

Also worth noting, the target-lock reticle/notification was a lipstick kiss mark on your target's chest.

Bayonetta was not designed as a female power fantasy by a feminist. You're just completely misinformed on that topic.

As for Wonder Woman: She's gotten a heck of a lot better over the years. She was, however, originally designed as the "Perfect Superhero" by a bondage enthusiast. William Moulton Marston wanted to create a superhero that didn't win battles with fists but with love, and was directed by his wife Elizabeth to make the hero a woman.

He then designed the character based on his Wife and his live-in three-way mistress, combining their features into the "Perfect Woman" and designed her to be "Tender, submissive, and peace-loving as all good women are" (Direct quote)

Not only did Wondy lose all of her powers if her wrist-cuffs were ever held together by a man (And only a man) her main antagonist in her early career was a slave-master Nazi from Saturn who had no super powers but used a whip with incredible skill. Finally, here's a much longer direct quote from the creator about the character.

"The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element."

Ahem. Her golden lasso and primary focus on tying up her enemies (mostly female characters) takes on a significantly different light with the above paragraph in mind. It's also kind of amazing how many times throughout the comics she winds up bound. You'd think a Google Search for "Wonder Woman Tied Up" would result in a heck of a lot of fan art, but only 2 of the top 15 responses were. But here's one of the more recent ones from comics.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/d1/0e/74d10e5785ecf2b5d525daac7128dd6f.jpg Published 2000

She became a FPF character in spite of her creation as a sexual fantasy for her creator made up as an amalgamation of the two women he was romantically involved with. Mainly because she was the only female superhero that was given extensive runs of her own comics or treated with any degree of seriousness as a hero at the time (1930s-40s).

[Milo v3]

Bayonetta was created by Hideki Kamiya, a dude. The design was under his auspices, though a female designer (Mari Shimazaki) was involved in her creation and wanted to "Subdue" her features and give her glasses to increase the difference between her and other female protagonists in videogames. However it was Kenchiro Yoshimura who modeled her and put her in the game and, in his own words "I wanted to get Bayonetta's Backside perfect, I guess I'm sort of into that"

But Yusuke Hashimoto said "The concept of Bayonetta's design was 'a witch who came back to life in the present.' We were particular about giving her costume a modern arrangement whilst retaining some elements of the traditional view of a witch.

The designer who created Bayonetta is a female herself, so the costumes and accessories show the touch and detail that could only come from a woman’s sensibility."

[Ralanr]

Wonder Woman was written with bondage fan service from the get go.

[Sith_Happens]

Do cultures in real life wear impractically sexy clothing as a show of power? Impractical gowns filled to the brim with jewelery yes, but sexiness?

I think so...? It's kind of hard to say for sure, since the people most likely to be doing things as a show of power are men and pop culture has a tendency to directly conflate "looks powerful" and "is sexy" where we're concerned.

...Not that there haven't been four pages of argument on that exact subject since you posted this.


I was sure I read something in a sourcebook about it being a way to show you have no fear by not wearing armour.

The 3.5 version of Drow of the Underdark says that, though it's obviously a bit later into the game.


And yet no one ever complains about that. Ok not no one, but it's rarely brought up.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/207/234/you-must-be-new-here-willy-wonka.jpg


Musclebound men in loincloths aren't sexual fantasies for women: They're male power fantasies.

He-Man was not designed to make little girls watch the show, he was the power symbol the boys were supposed to get excited about wanting to be. Same thing with every other Barbarian archetype of the past 40 years. Thundarr, the Herculoids, Beastmaster, etc.

Female sexual fantasy in mass media tends to be more towards how singers are presented. From Frank Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles, and Bowie up to N'Sync and One Direction. Slender, pretty, and not musclebound (though often with some nice muscle definition ala Michael Phelps or Tom Hiddleston or Benedict Cumberbatch).

The whole "Men in Loincloths" thing is a common misconception.

Basically this, though really it's a heck of a lot more complicated.


No women have fantasies about musclebound men in loincloths? Fascinating.

According to recent studies women have a much higher variance in what they consider attractive than men do. Of course the eternal question is what's the nature/nurture ratio on that, but that might be getting outside the scope of this thread.


"This naked man who's posing naked and has a lot of women who want to see him naked because they sexualize him is not being sexualized by posing naked, mkaay?"

It's all about the pose itself. I'm pretty sure that, given the option, that specific photo of Jackman is not the one most women would want to stare at.:smallwink::smalltongue:


I'm not just annoyed that they have to be so large (relatively flat-chested women do exist!) or that her clothing has to highlight them (not every armor has to lift and separate!); I'm annoyed because they serve no function except to say "Yup, this is a female." It bothers me from the perspective of biology.

Nitpick: sexual selection can theoretically justify literally anything. Not that reptilian breasts isn't one of the least likely such options, but still.


Humans aren't the most sexually dimorphic species, but they're still very dimorphic. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this argument.

If a guy wants to play a dude with scales/fur/an exotic face/feathers/etc, he's allowed to do so and still look like a dude without a fuss. If a chick wants to play a chick with scales/fur/an exotic face/feathers/etc, they have to argue for the privilege to still look like a chick, or worse, get stuck with something some dude thinks an exotic chick should look like because the 'human' female appearance apparently serves no purpose other than male tittilation, and should not exist on non-human humanoids of different dermal makeup and facial structure.

I feel like a heck of a lot of problems would be solved by human men having a prominent secondary sex characteristic. If there were some rough male equivalent to breasts you can't tell me that every artist and director ever wouldn't be all over that ****.


... except for the whole "becomes powerless if bound by a man".

That particular bit is entirely because her creator was into bondage. See also: Lasso of Truth.


Some artists (sadly, not in the comics) have really gone the extra mile though, and depicted her as more "Amazon" than "Glam-azon." Taller, broader shoulders, thicker build, a chest that's more pectoral than mammary. Not "swole," but sturdy; not like the frail thing that wore the flag as a pair of bikini bottoms, but a powerful woman who literally looks down on lesser mortals. Like this one (nebezial.deviantart.com/art/death-by-Snu-snu-418668528), for example; notice the contrast between the tall, broad Amazon Wonder Woman, and the shorter, slighter, teenage Supergirl. Then notice the cheap Futurama humor.

I like that depiction. It makes sense to me. She's a warrior. She fights and kills and smashes things. Supernatural strength aside, she should look like she could bench-press a car.

*nod of acknowledgement*

I could definitely get behind this design. If you know what I mean. ;)


[Bayonetta's] ability to transform into a panther was there to increase her sexiness and "Femininity"

:confused:


Finally, here's a much longer direct quote from the creator about the character.

"The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element."

Ahem. Her golden lasso and primary focus on tying up her enemies (mostly female characters) takes on a significantly different light with the above paragraph in mind.

From what I've heard he was pretty equal-opportunity with that attitude, though.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/74/d1/0e/74d10e5785ecf2b5d525daac7128dd6f.jpg

...The heck is with those villains?:smallconfused:

[Red Fel]

But Yusuke Hashimoto said "The concept of Bayonetta's design was 'a witch who came back to life in the present.' We were particular about giving her costume a modern arrangement whilst retaining some elements of the traditional view of a witch.

The designer who created Bayonetta is a female herself, so the costumes and accessories show the touch and detail that could only come from a woman’s sensibility."

That... doesn't actually say anything about being a female power fantasy. At all.

It says that: They wanted to make her a witch. They wanted to make her modern and contemporary. There was a person with female parts involved in character design.
That's actually all that says.

It doesn't say "We designed her as a positive role model." It doesn't say "We designed her to showcase her strength and independence." It doesn't say "We designed her for the entertainment and enjoyment of female gamers."

It says "We wanted a modern witch, and also there was a chick on the design team. Look at dat backside!"

That's not FPF. That's the other thing. You know, objectification. Which is kind of the exact opposite of a power fantasy.

At least, for some people.


...The heck is with those villains?:smallconfused:

The heck is with her proportions? I mean, her waist is almost as narrow as her neck! And that bulge around her shorts - is she wearing a diaper or something? And how exactly did they get her arms that far behind her back just by wrapping rope all around her? Shouldn't she be able to slide them around into a position where she's not presenting her secondary characteristics as if involved in some terrifying mating ritual? And let's not even comment on how convenient it is that her Lasso of Truth apparently doubles as an underwire.

Jeeze.

[Milo v3]

That... doesn't actually say anything about being a female power fantasy. At all.

It says that: They wanted to make her a witch. They wanted to make her modern and contemporary. There was a person with female parts involved in character design.
That's actually all that says.

It doesn't say "We designed her as a positive role model." It doesn't say "We designed her to showcase her strength and independence." It doesn't say "We designed her for the entertainment and enjoyment of female gamers."

It says "We wanted a modern witch, and also there was a chick on the design team. Look at dat backside!"

That's not FPF. That's the other thing. You know, objectification. Which is kind of the exact opposite of a power fantasy.

At least, for some people.

That was me refuting that she wasn't designed by a woman. I saw the power fantasy thing somewhere else, while that quote took all of ten seconds to find.

[Steampunkette]

The Panther Femininity thing is another quote from Kamiya and the design team, don't look at me like that!

Yusuke Hashimoto was a producer on the title. He can say whatever he wants, and it's his job to say whatever he can to get people interested in the game, but his statements don't bear out against the statements of the actual design TEAM. One concept artist does not a character make. The mandate was handed down by the Lead Developer, Concepted repeatedly, rehashed, handed off to a modeler, passed through opinions of editors and producers, returned to the concept stage, redesigned, remodeled, retested, etc.

Mari did not design the character to be a female power fantasy. Kamiya designed the character to be a male sexual fantasy. Mari just drew her on paper to try and conform with the design notes Kamiya handed her. Have you ever commissioned artwork? Character Design is basically the same thing.

[Sith_Happens]

The Panther Femininity thing is another quote from Kamiya and the design team, don't look at me like that!

I'm not, I'm looking at them like that. Like, how does turning into a panther make someone hotter or more feminine? I'm pretty sure it just means that, you know, they can turn into a panther.:smallconfused:

[Red Fel]

I'm not, I'm looking at them like that. Like, how does turning into a panther make someone hotter or more feminine? I'm pretty sure it just means that, you know, they can turn into a panther.:smallconfused:

To be fair, feline movement has often been used as a symbol of elegance and power, as well as femininity.

Elegance and power, I get, but if I actually saw a woman who moved like a cat, and not just for movie purposes, I'd be thoroughly creeped out.

Except for Eartha Kitt. But, I mean, come on. She was about seventeen different kinds of awesome. And she could sing.

[Steampunkette]

Eartha Kitt is my FPF. I wish I could be like her.

She stood up to the Johnson Treatment. And that takes guts!

... the fact that she immediately lost all ability to work in the US for a decade after it kind of undercuts the awesome a bit..

[Red Fel]

Eartha Kitt is my FPF. I wish I could be like her.

She stood up to the Johnson Treatment. And that takes guts!

... the fact that she immediately lost all ability to work in the US for a decade after it kind of undercuts the awesome a bit..

Nothing undercuts Eartha Kitt's awesome. Nothing. The woman was a powerful creature in her prime, and she was in her prime right up until she died.

I listened to her sing "I Want to Be Evil." (It inspired me.) I saw her replace Julie Newmar as Catwoman. (It amazed me.) I saw her perform in The Wild Party. (She deserved that standing ovation.)

Nothing undercuts Eartha Kitt's awesome.

[Steampunkette]

For those who don't know:

Lyndon B. Johnson was a big man and also president of the United States. He talked a lot about his big endowment and used his size to intimidate people, constantly. It didn't matter if you were a maid in the White House or the diplomatic envoy of another nation...

Johnson would go to shake a hand and then step right into the person's personal space, towering over them so that he could crane his neck and talk down to you. He used it as a power play and got a lot of people to cave on a variety of topics by doing it.

Eartha Kitt, however, just stood right up against him and reasserted that sending kids to die in Vietnam was wrong.

He destroyed her career because she didn't capitulate to him. And that part sucks.

[The Insanity]

Johnson would go to shake a hand and then step right into the person's personal space, towering over them so that he could crane his neck and talk down to you. He used it as a power play and got a lot of people to cave on a variety of topics by doing it.
Knee to the nuts would have done the trick. :smallbiggrin:

[Steampunkette]

Oh, sure. But then you've got a pissed off giant AND the Secret Service coming after you, and... really, that's not a good place to be!

[Ralanr]

For those who don't know:

Lyndon B. Johnson was a big man and also president of the United States. He talked a lot about his big endowment and used his size to intimidate people, constantly. It didn't matter if you were a maid in the White House or the diplomatic envoy of another nation...

Johnson would go to shake a hand and then step right into the person's personal space, towering over them so that he could crane his neck and talk down to you. He used it as a power play and got a lot of people to cave on a variety of topics by doing it.

Eartha Kitt, however, just stood right up against him and reasserted that sending kids to die in Vietnam was wrong.

He destroyed her career because she didn't capitulate to him. And that part sucks.

Well that's awesome. I should read up on her sometime.

[SpectralDerp]

I think what you're describing can be summed up nicely in this webcomic (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/).

I'm just going to respond with this link (http://badwebcomicswiki.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Shortpacked!#Downfall), particularly the image I don't want to link directly.


If the evil wizard is a woman she must be attractive, young (or falsely appear young out of vanity), and healthy enough to maintain her attractive and young appearance. She may be crazy, but her insanity will almost always center around men. Either lustful/romantic feelings that are spurned and drive her to villainy or a traumatic history of abuse that leads her to want to destroy/subjugate/control men. When it doesn't center around men it will be centered on personal vanity. The vanity may be of her beauty (including Jealousy of other women) or for everyone to know that she is the most powerful.

Which is of course why all witches are beautiful! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WickedWitch)

[goto124]

Why do humanoid races need to be so obvious about it? Why can't it require a Knowledge check, or similar, to be able to recognize, "Oh, wait, that's a female."

I think it's applied to sapient races, even insect ones.

And yes, I suppose that is a convention. being able to tell the two sexes apart no matter the (sapient) race. Apparentally monsters don't count.

[Socksy]

I think it's applied to sapient races, even insect ones.

And yes, I suppose that is a convention. being able to tell the two sexes apart no matter the (sapient) race. Apparentally monsters don't count.

I don't think kobolds can be told apart, can they?
(The one in my picture is wearing a silly wig.)


male tittilation

Hehehe, Hawkstar said titty!


Google Image Search. Found this one at number 8 on "Romance Novel Covers"

http://wildtexasnights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Wildcat_Epson-scan.jpg

Most of the others are fairly defined, but only a handful are Fabio.

I'm like 89% sure that's actually Freddie Mercury.

[Hawkstar]

I don't think kobolds can be told apart, can they?
(The one in my picture is wearing a silly wig.)That's because Kobolds are monsters.

[goto124]

(Insert huge thread about a PC who killed kobolds)

[Milo v3]

That's because Kobolds are monsters.

Tell that to the Races of the Dragon book....

[Yukitsu]

Tell that to the Races of the Dragon book....

I'm pretty sure there was a way to play as virtually anything though. Even like, mindflayers or succubi.

[Milo v3]

I'm pretty sure there was a way to play as virtually anything though. Even like, mindflayers or succubi.

Mindflayers and succubi don't have a book focused on having them as a player option though. Races of the Dragon is a player focused book that gives a few additional races and a lot more material for kobold PC's.

[Coidzor]

Beware the sexy ones. Either they're evil or they're more badass than the other ones, that's why they get to skimp around in a bit of string while the others are encased in living, magical metal.

[Red Fel]

Mindflayers and succubi don't have a book focused on having them as a player option though.

Lords of Madness, Book of Vile Darkness, Fiend Folio, Savage Species... Book of Erotic Fantasy...

[Milo v3]

Lords of Madness, Book of Vile Darkness, Fiend Folio, Savage Species...

Those aren't focused on making them PC options Except for Savage Species, which has no focus on those monster types. It merely has them as a monstrous progression along with nearly all the other monsters in the monster manual.

[Yukitsu]

wasn't lords of madness the one that gave a lot of great options for a PC beholder?

[Red Fel]

wasn't lords of madness the one that gave a lot of great options for a PC beholder?

Yup. Had an entire chapter dedicated to Beholders and Beholder life, including the Beholder Mage class and several feats. And a chapter dedicated to Aboleths. And Neogi. And, of course, Mind Flayers.

I also seem to recall that somewhere (Fiend Folio?) there's a Half-Illithid template, and I think Complete Psionic has a series of feats around unraveling your Illithid heritage.

Point is, there are Illithid-based character options.

And how did we get onto that from gender conventions?

[Ralanr]

Yup. Had an entire chapter dedicated to Beholders and Beholder life, including the Beholder Mage class and several feats. And a chapter dedicated to Aboleths. And Neogi. And, of course, Mind Flayers.

I also seem to recall that somewhere (Fiend Folio?) there's a Half-Illithid template, and I think Complete Psionic has a series of feats around unraveling your Illithid heritage.

Point is, there are Illithid-based character options.

And how did we get onto that from gender conventions?

Because forums.

[Steampunkette]

Because Internet and Tentacles.

Alternatively 'cause conversations grow and change as new voices and ideas are brought into play with a variety of different channels laying out a track of meandering consciousness slowly becoming more and more loosely tethered to the original concept until someone yanks it back on track.

[LogosDragon]

Because Internet and Tentacles.

Alternatively 'cause conversations grow and change as new voices and ideas are brought into play with a variety of different channels laying out a track of meandering consciousness slowly becoming more and more loosely tethered to the original concept until someone yanks it back on track.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e6pEkqBSYac/maxresdefault.jpg

[Steampunkette]

Says the person posting Dragonball...

*cough*

[LogosDragon]

Says the person posting Dragonball...

*cough*

Reference aimed at incorrect audience.

Sadpanda is sad at alarming deficit of TFS fans. And jetpacks.
https://sarahcradit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sadpanda.jpg

[Lord Raziere]

your just talking to the wrong person. I'm a TFS fan.

as for a resilient gender roleplaying stereotype...

well speaking of succubi.....the incubus, male succubi is mentioned in books but has anyone ever actually seen one? I bet you haven't. cause succubi are inevitably female.

[Milo v3]

I've made a male succubus before actually... though it was more of the manipulating peoples dreams for entertainment variety, than the more common "sex demon" interpretation. Though he did have the ability shapechange himself to look however he wanted.

[goto124]

Incubi tend to be more 'sexual predator' (I think one of those DnD books protrayed them like satyrs?), while the demonic seduction is left to the female succubi.

[Steampunkette]

Great example of Women Are and Men Do.

The Seven Deadly Sins will be personified as six men and one woman.

Wrath will be violent and murder or hurt people over any slight, real or imagined.
Pride will be arrogant and megalomaniacal, to the detriment of those around him.
Sloth will be lazy and cause harm by his actions and the inaction he forces upon others. You could argue he is a passive entity, for certain.
Gluttony will eat everyone and everything.
Greed will connive and steal and try to get everything for himself.
Envy will be enraged by other people having more or being better and will make sure others don't have things, destroying them rather than stealing them.

But Lust will be sexy and everyone will be attracted to her. She will be passively gorgeous and other people will act on their lust towards -her-. She will never be depicted as hunting down people she lusts over, possibly assaulting them in the process to show that she herself is evil, they'll come to her the moment they see her.

Because being sexy itself is evil. Inspiring lust in others is just as wrong as theft, murder, and destruction.

[Milo v3]

I've never understood why lust personifications always looks beautiful.... lust isn't "it's evil to look sexy" it's "it's evil to want sex". If anything the archetype should look like a creepy pervy guy.

[goto124]

I was thinking of extending the 'induces <sin> in other people' from Lust to the other sins as well.

Greed could be a king/queen decked in gold and jewels from top to bottom.
Wrath is that kind of person we want to punch so badly because he/she talks and acts in the most rude and condescending manner.
Sloth could encourage everyone else to waste time doing useless things, just by engaging in those activites himself. 'Come on, just another 10 minutes of knocking cans over!'
Gluttony may be the happy pot-bellied guy (or the sweet old grandma?) who's constantly carrying around lots of food to eat. Doesn't that chicken drumstick look delicious...?

I got nothing on the other sins though. Also, it's probably highly inaccurate, since I literally just came up with the idea. Don't shoot me!



I disagree with this:
But Lust will be sexy and everyone will be attracted to her. She will be passively gorgeous and other people will act on their lust towards -her-. She will never be depicted as hunting down people she lusts over, possibly assaulting them in the process to show that she herself is evil, they'll come to her the moment they see her.

All incarnations of Lust I've seen are a long long way from passive, and actually do plenty of evil things with 'sexiness' to aid her.

[LogosDragon]

I've never understood why lust personifications always looks beautiful.... lust isn't "it's evil to look sexy" it's "it's evil to want sex". If anything the archetype should look like a creepy pervy guy.

This actually highlights a big problem with the presentation of sin demons through the generations. See, the point of demons of X sin wasn't originally to embody a given sin, but rather to be in a form perfect for tempting humans to those sins. However, for pretty much every sin except lust, this has flipped around. Demons of gluttony are represented as monsters who devour everything in their path, demons of wrath get mad easily and smash everything, demons of pride are, well, extremely prideful, and demons of greed want to horde everything and be extremely wealthy. But demons of lust, while also lustful, still stick to the original point of their presentations, tempting people into lust. If other demons had carried through the way demons of lust had, then demons of pride would often seem very meek, and be extremely effectively at bolstering your pride, subtly manipulating you to make mistakes on account of it; a demon of gluttony might be a gourmet chef, convincing you that your money isn't well-spent on necessities or charitable work but rather quick bursts of satisfaction; a demon of greed or envy might convince you that since person X clearly isn't using their possessions as effectively as you would, you are more worthy of their things, and thus you should steal them.

How you'd rather fix this depends on you, really. If you want to bring the other types of demons back to their roots, well, I've begun to outline it above. The easier solution, though, would be to implement the above suggestion, simply finishing the conversion of the demons, making demons of lust creepy, delirious perverts who will do anything they have to in order to get in bed with anyone, rather than beautiful masters of seduction.

[SpectralDerp]

Great example of Women Are and Men Do.

The Seven Deadly Sins will be personified as six men and one woman.

Wrath will be violent and murder or hurt people over any slight, real or imagined.
Pride will be arrogant and megalomaniacal, to the detriment of those around him.
Sloth will be lazy and cause harm by his actions and the inaction he forces upon others. You could argue he is a passive entity, for certain.
Gluttony will eat everyone and everything.
Greed will connive and steal and try to get everything for himself.
Envy will be enraged by other people having more or being better and will make sure others don't have things, destroying them rather than stealing them.

But Lust will be sexy and everyone will be attracted to her. She will be passively gorgeous and other people will act on their lust towards -her-. She will never be depicted as hunting down people she lusts over, possibly assaulting them in the process to show that she herself is evil, they'll come to her the moment they see her.


And examples of this are ...?

[Deathhappens]

Interestingly, the evidence that "transrace" people face discrimination in the place that would most hurt them is in this very thread's rejection of the validity of the concept. Discrimination is discrimination; it doesn't have to be done by the "evil white male-dominated majority of society." If somebody, for instance, desperately wanted to fit in with the nerds and geeks but was constantly ostricised because he's a handsome jock whose ingrained mannerisms endear him to jocks and cheerleaders and the "in crowd," he's still ostricised from the group with which he WANTS to fit in. And, of course, the more he insists on trying, the more he'll also become alienated from his "original" crowd.

Similarly, it seems that a "transrace" white-to-black person is to be villified by the "black" culture for "insulting" them by claiming to be one of them. That kind of discrimination would doubtless hurt a lot.

I would go further to discuss why I think that "race" is less of an issue than "culture," these days, but that's getting even further off-topic.

Steampunkette, while I do sympathize, and am willing to agree to disagree, you need to be very careful using the "you're hurting me, emotionally" card. I honestly, genuinely do not want to cause pain, but I have too often been attacked as a bad guy for causing pain simply because I didn't bow down and accept whatever premise is brought forth. If it's too personal for you to hear contrary views, you shouldn't bring it up; using the personal pain it causes you to silence opposing viewpoints is, in its own way, bullying. I know you are not the kind of person who seeks to do that. But it's a VERY easy trap to fall into when something touches on you, personally. "You're being mean for disagreeing with me" is not a sound logical argument. It's a powerful rhetorical one, unfortunately, which means even more unfortunately that it must be refuted powerfully lest it be used to allow assertions to be made and demand they go unchallenged.

Were I to heed every "you're being mean!" accusation, I would never participate in any discussions, and my silence would be taken for tacit agreement.

I do try to be very careful and delicate. There are points I would like to make that, while I feel they are valid, would not be heard objectively because they would be taken as insulting (for reasons I do not understand, since the openly-stated justifications should be equally insulting but are considered not insulting at all). It makes this a very difficult topic to discuss at all.


I will close by saying that the very rejection of "transrace" people by the supposedly-pro-tolelrance crowd is probably just as emotionally harmful to such people as anything else facing "trans-"anything people. A friend of mine who is gay suffered more at the hands of the gay community in college than he did at the hands of his straight-laced Christian friends who thought homosexuality was a sin: he wasn't pretty enough, and they made him feel entirely unwelcome. We, on the other hand, didn't really care; it's his life and his choices, and we're happy for him if he can find happiness. We won't condone the lifestyle, but I, personally, don't condone drinking, either, but won't judge people nor ostricise them for it (heck, my brother drinks quite a bit).

So the rejection by the very supposedly-pro-tollerance community that is supposed to be a safe place for those who feel "other" to the norm is, itself, very painful for people.

That said, it is doubtless painful for peopel to discuss. I suggest dropping it. Let's go back to our fantasy and sci-fi games, and our discussions of tropes.

One way I like to highlight the gender conventions and how we often don't even perceive them is to take a work of fiction and, with minimal changes made to ensure that it isn't a "guys in dresses comedy" or a "girls with boys' names farce," invert the sex of every character. Keep it as verbatim as possible within those guidelines. Then see how the same scenes hit you, emotionally.

One particular example I love bringing up is from Babylon 5. Garibaldi, the male security chief of the station, gets involved for one episode with a female "gropo:" a "ground-pounder" in the army (infantry) who is passing through with her unit on the way to another battlefield.

There's tension of new people meeting and a bit of concern over the nature of her transitive stay on the station, and it culminates in her coming on to him in his quarters and trying to have sex, pretty much assuming his agreement and pressing him that it'll be fun. When he tells her that this is moving too fast for him, she counters that this is all she has time for. He doesn't want a one-night stand, and explains that to her.

She comes back, not with fury or outrage, but with more than a hint of indignation that he would presume to impose that on her. She explains that "this" is all she has, because of the nature of her life, is time to seek one night stands and take what solace and comfort she can.

The whole scene is played out with just a hint of condemnation for Garibaldi not understanding her point of view. She doesn't force herself on him, and they part amicably, but there's an overall tone that it was Garibaldi who behaved less than properly.


If you swap the genders, however, you have a woman who is come onto by a soldier-boy just passing through, who assumes she's willing to have sex with him after one date, presses her for it, and, while he backs off when she says "no" firmly enough, he is indignant that she would deny him his one night stand of pleasure and would hold it back out of an expectation of more commitment than he's got time to give. As if he's being denied by her rather than him demanding more than he should.

They part amicably, but the tone remains that it's somehow her failing to refuse to give him what he needed.


The first passes almost without comment to modern culture. "A man is always eager," so it's kind-of odd that Garibaldi would turn down a one night stand. And with the explanation for why she wants a one-night stand, the man is the one who was wrong because he imposed his selfish needs on her. The second comes off with a creepy, skeevy vibe that makes the modern American audience uncomfortable with the implication that this girl in any way "owed" sex to this selfish jerk who just wanted to use her and leave her.


Ken Akamatsu's works were the first ones I applied this "game" to, and it's fascinating how the gut reaction changes. There are a lot of works where this does little to nothing, but it's sometimes stunning where the change makes something you never would have thought of as a "gender role" issue crop up as really off-putting or strange.

Star Wars is a good one for this. Sure, Prince Lee being come onto by Hannah Solo obviously has a different vibe, and you expect the "distressed dude" role Lee plays to be unusual. But this one also highlights something brought up in this thread: how the default for "NPCs" is "male." It is almost jarring to picture the femanine storm troopers as the rank-upon-rank of faceless mook, and to picture Darth Vadrex in a room full of female admirals and adjutants on the Death Star. Because we really do have a "default male" expectation for the random individuals. Sure, the Empress and even Darth Vadrex could work; leading ladies in positions of power have become a common enough thing. But the hordes of military women with nary a man to be seen would be notable for its oddity to the modern American audience.


There are also ones for which it just doesn't work. You don't have a "Mr. America" contest with anything like the same overtones as the "Miss America" contest, so Sandra Bullock's "Miss Congeniality" can't really survive the translation to "Mr. Congeniality" while following both rules of "keep changes minimal" and "don't let it become an obvious sex-swap farce." This is unsurprising, given that Miss Congeniality is deliberately exploring a gender-role-specific portion of our society.


While this entire thread treaded on a number of issues I typically prefer observing in silence, the "gender-swapping" experiment is one that I often indulge into, and i find is particularly interesting whenever it is brought up in relation to anime. Seeing as how you referenced Akamatsu Ken (one of my favorite mangaka, for a variety of reasons, but whose works have never been the most politically correct) I find myself curious about what specific examples you mught have had in mind.

Also, to *someone farther behind in the thread whose name escapes me at the moment*: I believe you meant to bring up Lysistrate's Gambit. Minor correction.

[goto124]

I would like to bring up a case that isn't from an anime, just something that some guy on the internet mentioned. I have attempted to retrace the anecdote, but to no avail. So I’ll just say what I remember.

A man (the ‘I’ in the original anecdote) and an woman were on their 6th date. They’ve (presumably) just finished a dinner at a restaurant. The woman says that she has lost interest, and wants to stop dating him. The man asks for separate checks (aka the man and woman pay their share). The man portrays this as him being in the right.

Let’s do the gender-swap!

A man and an woman were on their 6th date. They’ve (presumably) just finished a dinner at a restaurant. The man says that he has lost interest, and wants to stop dating her. The woman asks for separate checks (aka the man and woman pay their share). The woman portrays this as her being in the right.

I won’t provide my interpretation on this yet. I’m curious what others feel.

[Steampunkette]

Oh, sure, Goto. Lust does evil things WHILE being sexy.

But they're not sinning based on their Lustfulness. Their sexiness is tangential to their acts. The Lust Demon murders someone who is attracted to her, she doesn't act on her lust for someone irrespective of their feelings for her. Or gives him the Venereal Disease of Doom. Or kiss-mind-controls him. It's still his lust rather than hers that is the force and her reaction to that force that is the sin.

Logos hit it on the head. But the shift to being active occurred BECAUSE the non-Lust sin embodiments are male. And men act out in stories while women are acted upon, as the trope was previously noted. And the further from the Catholic Church's general mandate it got, the more it became this trope that being the TARGET of Lust was just as much a sin as acting on Wrath, or at least represented the same depths of wickedness.

By all rights, Lust as an embodied Sin should be someone who is a pervert, molestor, and very possibly outright rapist in the stories...

But all of the Sins should also be members of every gender, rather than 6 dudes and 1 girl. With equal amounts of passive and active sinning and inspiration to sin.

[Red Fel]

But all of the Sins should also be members of every gender, rather than 6 dudes and 1 girl. With equal amounts of passive and active sinning and inspiration to sin.

I'm pretty sure that the Homunculi in FMA have more than one female. (For reference: They're named for and represent sins.) I'm fairly confident that, while it's uncommon, I've seen female depictions of the sins other than Lust. Anecdotal, perhaps, but worth noting.

But yeah. Even when you have more than one token female in the group, there's the common presentation rule that men outnumber women. Despite the fact that the sexes each constitute roughly 50% of the population, it seems any team of characters - with the exception of sex-specific ones (like "Brotherhood of X" or "Warrior Maidens of Y") - is going to be disproportionately male.

[BootStrapTommy]

Batman's a time lord!

I love that guys art. You should pick up Rat Queens, he's the artist from the second volume on. He's also the primary artist for the Aphrodite IX comics.

[Deathhappens]

I'm sure someone has already pointed out Lidda (I skimmed over a lot of posts that waxed more on the political side) but I'm going to do it again. She was depicted in the PHB for 3.5 and on the Dungeons and Dragons wiki page is listed as THE iconic character under "Rogue".



Never rescued a prince from a dragon, but I had my party rescue a good-aligned silver dragon from a wicked princess once.



So she's a bard, then? No, all joking aside though, this is one of the few things that can totally ruin a game for me. If a character is capable, I expect that character to stay capable even when it's not convenient for the plot. This is basically the entire reason I couldn't finish watching Sword Art Online.



We had one of our PCs marry the queen of a city state and he was her king-consort. This was partly because he was a dwarf and the city was predominantly human and partly because to have him actually ruling would have been game-breaking and he needed to be able to keep adventuring and travelling for things to work.

That's not to say I would have been cool with her losing power just because she got married, but generally if I'm DMing a game and there's a choice between a PC doing something awesome and an NPC doing the same thing, I'm going to go with the PC just because it's good manners. They both ascended to godhood later and left their son (we rolled for gender) on the throne.



I played in a group that tried to handle this "fairly" by making the odds the same. To be fair they were all male and until a friend of mine and I joined them there weren't any female PCs. After a couple of near incidents of this we all mutually decided it was unfair and awkward (no one wants to have to retire a character because they had a one night stand with a tavern boy) and they stopped rolling for it at all.

A lot of my players enjoy playing second and third generation characters so a lot of our PCs end up having kids but most of the time we brush it off as "having happened during a timeskip" or assume it occurred after the game ends.

-/-/-/-/-

Okay I'm done replying to stuff now so some other things...now I'm saying 'usually'. I know exceptions to all of these, but since we're discussing trends I'm going to discuss trends.

Redheads in RPGs are more likely to be female. Most male characters I've seen have dark hair or white, and a few have been blond, but I can count the male red-heads I've seen on one hand. The female red-heads on the other hand...

Orcs and half-orcs are usually male.

Dwarves are usually male.

Twins are usually one male, one female. In fact I can't think of an example of twins in any game I've been in that have ever been one gender or the other with the exception of the dvati, and in that case you're basically playing one character in two bodies so I'm not sure how much that counts. (Of course there's also the notable example of Raistlin and Caramon for a pair of same sex twins).

And I'm honestly sorry to go off-topic on this one, but I distinctly remember a large part of the praise SAO got initially (before the hype backlash REALLY hit as hard as it eventually did) was because the female heroine was almsot as competent as the hero (not the usage of "competent" and not "strong", here, it's important) and remained that way throughout, even when placed in captivity.

[Red Fel]

And I'm honestly sorry to go off-topic on this one, but I distinctly remember a large part of the praise SAO got initially (before the hype backlash REALLY hit as hard as it eventually did) was because the female heroine was almsot as competent as the hero (not the usage of "competent" and not "strong", here, it's important) and remained that way throughout, even when placed in captivity.

That's a fair tangent. One of the big complaints I've heard about SAO, however, is entirely the opposite: She, or any other character, is only competent until the plot requires the protagonist to be, at which point everyone is useless but him. And also they all adore him. And also nobody bothers to communicate which would resolve a number of plot threads in moments. And also the intensity of the plot vanishes entirely because they want the protagonist to play house.

But yes. The lead heroine is presented as this awesome and powerful force. And then whenever the plot demands it, she hides behind the protagonist, because reasons. He fights for her dignity when she's perfectly capable of fighting herself. In one episode, a guy ambushes the protagonist, and the heroine fights him off but refuses to kill him. He makes a comeback, which would be the perfect time to show how awesome the heroine is; nope, the protagonist is suddenly Iron Heart Surge just fine and finishes the job.

SAO is a poor example in any event. Even assuming that it presented its heroine as competent, the entire thing is a power fantasy for the protagonist; he does things that literally make no sense by the story's own rules. It's all about him; every other character, even the presumably capable heroine, is simply ornamentation.

[The Insanity]

well speaking of succubi.....the incubus, male succubi is mentioned in books but has anyone ever actually seen one? I bet you haven't. cause succubi are inevitably female.
Huh? You mean as an NPC or something like that? Because there are stats for Incubi both in 3.X (one of the Dragon magazines, I think) and Pathfinder, which means they where used somewhere (an adventure path most likely). I personally use them as separate races. Succubi have males and Incubi have females. They're both about lust and sex and corrupting, but Succubi are generally more subtle and manipulative while Incubi are more brutal and rapey.

[Steampunkette]

For reference, an example counter to a convention does not mean it isn't a convention. It just points out that a few times out of all of gaming/movies/literature/media someone exists who specifically subverts the convention or trope.

EVERY trope has some instance of subversion. The fact that in X story the princess rescues the prince from the dragon doesn't end the prince rescues princess trope.

At least not until the trope is subverted an equal number of times, in total, as it is also used.

1 princess rescuing her prince from a dragon does not negate or even compare to the millions of princesses who had to be rescued.

Please. Think of the princesses!

[Ralanr]

That's a fair tangent. One of the big complaints I've heard about SAO, however, is entirely the opposite: She, or any other character, is only competent until the plot requires the protagonist to be, at which point everyone is useless but him. And also they all adore him. And also nobody bothers to communicate which would resolve a number of plot threads in moments. And also the intensity of the plot vanishes entirely because they want the protagonist to play house.

But yes. The lead heroine is presented as this awesome and powerful force. And then whenever the plot demands it, she hides behind the protagonist, because reasons. He fights for her dignity when she's perfectly capable of fighting herself. In one episode, a guy ambushes the protagonist, and the heroine fights him off but refuses to kill him. He makes a comeback, which would be the perfect time to show how awesome the heroine is; nope, the protagonist is suddenly Iron Heart Surge just fine and finishes the job.

SAO is a poor example in any event. Even assuming that it presented its heroine as competent, the entire thing is a power fantasy for the protagonist; he does things that literally make no sense by the story's own rules. It's all about him; every other character, even the presumably capable heroine, is simply ornamentation.

SAO? What's that standing for?

Also on the sins, lust should just be a rapist. Gender shouldn't matter, it's action.

Edit: actually that's a terrible idea. Sorry

[Yukitsu]

^^^^SAO is Sword Art Online, a popular but bland anime.


For reference, an example counter to a convention does not mean it isn't a convention. It just points out that a few times out of all of gaming/movies/literature/media someone exists who specifically subverts the convention or trope.

EVERY trope has some instance of subversion. The fact that in X story the princess rescues the prince from the dragon doesn't end the prince rescues princess trope.

At least not until the trope is subverted an equal number of times, in total, as it is also used.

1 princess rescuing her prince from a dragon does not negate or even compare to the millions of princesses who had to be rescued.

Please. Think of the princesses!

I'm not sure how productive that view is. I think that the damsel in distress idea is still too prevalent but I don't think we're really doing any favours by trying to tally up our current subversive literature against literally thousands of years of those stories. If we did stop writing those it's pretty much safe to say it isn't a convention in modern literature even though we haven't gone out of our way to deliberately subvert it.

[Hawkstar]

Tell that to the Races of the Dragon book....
Races of the Dragon agrees that Kobolds are monsters. Sure, it gives a short paragaph and a few bullets for Playable Kobolds, but the entire chapter on them, fluff-wise, talks about how unfit Kobolds are as playable characters, and just how far out of 'standard kobold operating procedures' you have to go to actually play them (And the 'using kobolds in your campaign' also focuses on them as Monsters). Yes, they have society and cultures, but so do animals, and they're still so inhuman as to be monstrous.


well speaking of succubi.....the incubus, male succubi is mentioned in books but has anyone ever actually seen one? I bet you haven't. cause succubi are inevitably female.... I'm reading a comic about Succubi and Incubi written by a D&D fan(But moreso a furry fan), though she's changed how they work from 'demons' to 'shapechanging, thought-reading emotion-eaters"... and the main characters are (half-ish) Incubi.

Does that count?

[Red Fel]

Races of the Dragon agrees that Kobolds are monsters. Sure, it gives a short paragaph and a few bullets for Playable Kobolds, but the entire chapter on them, fluff-wise, talks about how unfit Kobolds are as playable characters, and just how far out of 'standard kobold operating procedures' you have to go to actually play them (And the 'using kobolds in your campaign' also focuses on them as Monsters). Yes, they have society and cultures, but so do animals, and they're still so inhuman as to be monstrous.

... No. This is actually, factually wrong.

The chapter on them talks about how complex their society is, how deep and fascinating they are, and so forth. The section on Kobold characters describes them in numerous roles, and particularly encourages them in roles like Rogues and Sorcerers.

Then there's the web enhancement focusing on Kobold PCs (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a), offering variant racial features, a Cleric domain, and feats. The article, like the book, specifically refers to Kobold PCs. (E.g. "Time and again, these PC kobolds not only defy their shortcomings, but rise above them, enduring in memory and level long after most characters have been forgotten (or destroyed).")

Both the web enhancement and the book focus on Kobold options for PCs, and on Kobolds as people.

You keep saying "monsters," "inhuman," and "monstrous" as though they mean something other than not human. At one point, Humans were in the Monster Manual; the fact that they're not is really the only thing distinguishing Humans from the other Humanoid races (of which Kobolds are one). You keep saying that a thing refers to Kobolds as monsters as if to set them apart, but that is a distinction without a difference at this point.

And again, it's really not relevant to the subject of gender conventions in ttRPGs. I seem to recall there was a separate thread for this conversation; maybe you want to take it there.

[The Insanity]

... I'm reading a comic about Succubi and Incubi written by a D&D fan(But moreso a furry fan), though she's changed how they work from 'demons' to 'shapechanging, thought-reading emotion-eaters"... and the main characters are (half-ish) Incubi.

Does that count?
Link please?

[Steampunkette]

^^^^SAO is Sword Art Online, a popular but bland anime.



I'm not sure how productive that view is. I think that the damsel in distress idea is still too prevalent but I don't think we're really doing any favours by trying to tally up our current subversive literature against literally thousands of years of those stories. If we did stop writing those it's pretty much safe to say it isn't a convention in modern literature even though we haven't gone out of our way to deliberately subvert it.

Oh, sure. I'm just annoyed by people bringing up one or two characters who subvert a trope as if that means the trope is fallacious or just wrong.

The situation we're in with gendered tropes is one that just won't get fixed. There's no reasonable way to try and balance things out to kill the heavy negative biases that are pervasive in media beyond acknowledging they suck and cutting off that type of storytelling, which is gonna take at least 3 or 4 more generations.

[Hawkstar]

Oh, sure. I'm just annoyed by people bringing up one or two characters who subvert a trope as if that means the trope is fallacious or just wrong.

The situation we're in with gendered tropes is one that just won't get fixed. There's no reasonable way to try and balance things out to kill the heavy negative biases that are pervasive in media beyond acknowledging they suck and cutting off that type of storytelling, which is gonna take at least 3 or 4 more generations.There's no need to fix it. There isn't actually a problem with the stories themselves, merely the imbalance of the stories.


Link please?
Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (Dan becomes an Incubus as the strip started taking itself more seriously. The beginning's probably a bad place to start, but I'm not sure where a good one is.) Oh, and a fanfic webcomic, Project Future, which ALSO deals with the succubi/Incubi. And fantastic racism.

They actually have a pretty unique thing going on with Demons, Dragons, Succubi/Incubi, and Angels (Apparently all but extinct).

[Steampunkette]

That's what I'm saying, Hawkstar. The problem lies in the trope's prevalence.

If things were more even Prince to Princess wise it wouldn't matter which one got kidnapped in any given story, the general consensus is that "Children of Rulers get kidnapped for Dragon Sacrifice." without a gender preference.

But that's not gonna happen for at least 3 or 4 generations at the -least-, whether by writing incredible quantities of prince kidnappings or forgetting/casting aside the old stories in favor of new ones without some kind of malice and just a preference of the new ones.

Not saying they're bad stories. Just saying that the gendered tropes aren't going anywhere for a while, and giving a couple of examples of subversion of trope doesn't negate the existence of the trope. (Which kind of keeps happening throughout the thread).

[Amidus Drexel]

Link please?

Probably referring to DMFA (http://www.missmab.com/), though it wouldn't surprise me if there was something else similar to this out there.

[Yukitsu]

I'm pretty sure that the Homunculi in FMA have more than one female. (For reference: They're named for and represent sins.) I'm fairly confident that, while it's uncommon, I've seen female depictions of the sins other than Lust. Anecdotal, perhaps, but worth noting.

But yeah. Even when you have more than one token female in the group, there's the common presentation rule that men outnumber women. Despite the fact that the sexes each constitute roughly 50% of the population, it seems any team of characters - with the exception of sex-specific ones (like "Brotherhood of X" or "Warrior Maidens of Y") - is going to be disproportionately male.

Missed this, in the bad FMA anime, sloth was also female.

In the comic and in the better FMA anime, it is just lust but I think that Envy was meant to be non-gendered. Despite this, Lust in this series only ever manipulates the lust of others. She herself never appears to desire anyone.

Since Lust was the removed sinfulness of Father, it's possibly that he himself wasn't particularly lustful. It is also a likely enough explanation as to why many of his homunculi are male as he identifies as male. Since he wasn't originally human at all, his feelings of lust may very well be different from the norm and his ideas about gender and his own gender are probably a bit confusing.

As a note, the manga was written by a woman. I feel as though she still tried to make choices that would resonate with a widely male audience though.