Female Armor. Any Explanation?

[Jay R]

Back in the 80's, some men did get their armour from the same design school as the females:

Looks lie the fine folks at Bikini Armor Battle Damage (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com) blog are way ahead of you all:

Like chainmail bikinis, these are all decoration, not intended as armor.

[Arbane]

Whenever I DM d&d, I always include "Chainmail bikinis", and standard armor that is slightly tweaked to fit females, but still appears almost identical to male armor. I never tell the players that the bikinis, which they go for immediately, have no protection whatsoever. Cue any player who uses them getting disemboweled on their first Kobold fight and having to roll up a new character.

I hope establishing your intellectual dominance over the lesser gamers provides you with great emotional satisfaction. 9_9

PS: I guess the armor list in your games doesn't include any actual game stats?

[8BitNinja]

Looks lie the fine folks at Bikini Armor Battle Damage (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com) blog are way ahead of you all:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2n1k4l7hI1rqdz1fo1_1280.png

I can see now why men don't wear identical armor as females. In my opinion, it's slightly disturbing.

It's just my opinion though, you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

[Hawkstar]

I can see now why men don't wear identical armor as females. In my opinion, it's slightly disturbing.

It's just my opinion though, you can draw whatever conclusions you want.

My only problems with it are the breastplates aren't properly sculpted to fit male pectorals, and the codpieces are clearly painted over missing anatomy, and thus too small. And the orc's armor is too top-heavy. He needs shin and knee plating.

[8BitNinja]

My only problems with it are the breastplates aren't properly sculpted to fit male pectorals, and the codpieces are clearly painted over missing anatomy, and thus too small. And the orc's armor is too top-heavy. He needs shin and knee plating.

So that's why it falls into the uncanny valley.

[Nozza]

I hope establishing your intellectual dominance over the lesser gamers provides you with great emotional satisfaction. 9_9

PS: I guess the armor list in your games doesn't include any actual game stats?

The stats exist, but are pretty much useless unless the enemy fails their roll so bad they actually manage to hit the "armor." :smallamused:

[Fiery Diamond]

The stats exist, but are pretty much useless unless the enemy fails their roll so bad they actually manage to hit the "armor." :smallamused:

I think the poster you were replying to meant "I suppose when you provide players with an armor list, you don't also provide them with the corresponding game stats," not "I suppose your armor doesn't have game stats."

[Arbane]

I think the poster you were replying to meant "I suppose when you provide players with an armor list, you don't also provide them with the corresponding game stats," not "I suppose your armor doesn't have game stats."

Pretty much, yeah. The alternative is that he's deliberately lying to his players in order to uncork his Gotcha Moment.

[Nozza]

The stats exist are shown to the players, but I refrain from telling them that their tiny pieces of covering are pretty much useless unless the enemy fails their roll so bad they actually manage to hit the "armor." :smallamused:

That better?

[8BitNinja]

I think the poster you were replying to meant "I suppose when you provide players with an armor list, you don't also provide them with the corresponding game stats," not "I suppose your armor doesn't have game stats."

This is some nethack level stuff

[The Glyphstone]

That better?

So can the players look at the stats and see the bikini armor provides a +0 bonus compared to the chain shirt's +4 (arbitrary value selected), or are the 'stats' that the players get to see falsified where bikini armor supposedly provides a +4 but is actually a +0? Cause if they are knowingly taking weaker armor, that's one thing and entirely their fault, but if you are indeed just lying to them for that "Gotcha Moment" as suggested, very much not cool.

[Lemmy]

I'm in favor of every game having optional ridiculously over-the-top sexy armor for all characters of both genders, and then players are allowed to pick whichever ones they prefer!

CHEESECAKE AND BEEFCAKE FOR EVERYBODY!!!

[Nozza]

So can the players look at the stats and see the bikini armor provides a +0 bonus compared to the chain shirt's +4 (arbitrary value selected), or are the 'stats' that the players get to see falsified where bikini armor supposedly provides a +4 but is actually a +0? Cause if they are knowingly taking weaker armor, that's one thing and entirely their fault, but if you are indeed just lying to them for that "Gotcha Moment" as suggested, very much not cool.

They provide good-enough protection. For the areas they actually cover. Which enemies are extremely unlikely to either go for, or actually hit. Useful if enemies always aim for the genitals, which they don't. That attack works better on men anyway. Once they get hit for full damage, they realize pretty quickly to swap out their +4 bikini that only protects about 5% of their body for a +4 chain shirt (using the arbitrary value), which is better in every way because it actually gives the same protection everywhere else it covers (a considerably larger area).

[Jerrykhor]

Yeah no. The SJWs complain about what Cammy wears in Street Fighter, and all we have to do is remind them what Zangief wears.

[Satinavian]

They provide good-enough protection. For the areas they actually cover. Which enemies are extremely unlikely to either go for, or actually hit. Useful if enemies always aim for the genitals, which they don't. That attack works better on men anyway. Once they get hit for full damage, they realize pretty quickly to swap out their +4 bikini that only protects about 5% of their body for a +4 chain shirt (using the arbitrary value), which is better in every way because it actually gives the same protection everywhere else it covers (a considerably larger area).
In D&D "how many of vital body areas are covered" is part of the stats as armor does not provide damage reduction but makes it harder to land a damaging hit at all. So it is utterly impossible to give the armor good stats that somehow don't count in combat.

Systems where armor does actually mitigate damage usually either use zones (where it will instantly be revealed that the bikini does not offer any valuable protection) or use a whole body average and don't have the possibility to hit unprotected body parts in their combat rules.

So no, your "surprise" can never work without changing the rules of the game and not telling the players. Which is kind of never acceptable.

[Nozza]

Systems where armor does actually mitigate damage usually either use zones (where it will instantly be revealed that the bikini does not offer any valuable protection) or use a whole body average and don't have the possibility to hit unprotected body parts in their combat rules.

Exactly. If they still think that the stats are worth it despite the tiny coverage, then they deserve whatever they get for not having common sense. Most of my players see it happen once, and then none of them ever touch a chainmail bikini ever again.

Besides, about 90% of my campaigns are either homebrew D&D, or something else entirely (like Warhammer 40k).

[Fiery Diamond]

Exactly. If they still think that the stats are worth it despite the tiny coverage, then they deserve whatever they get for not having common sense. Most of my players see it happen once, and then none of them ever touch a chainmail bikini ever again.

Besides, about 90% of my campaigns are either homebrew D&D, or something else entirely (like Warhammer 40k).

So, to clarify, you're playing a system where armor is listed as "provides X bonus" and "protects Y region of the body" in the stats, rather than simply "provides X bonus" like vanilla D&D, and players go "chainmail bikini with X bonus? Yes please" and ignore the fact that the "Y region" is something ridiculously unlikely to be targeted on purpose or hit accidentally until they actually get hit somewhere other than "Y region" and go "well that was useless" and never touch the bikini again? Do I have that right? That's reasonable on your part and idiotic on the part of your players.

The issue we were having was that we were just assuming you had armor listed as "provides X bonus" and then denied them the bonus unless certain areas of the body were hit, justifying it with "well obviously the rest of the body that isn't covered isn't protected!" as your "gotcha." Because that was the impression we were getting. If that is what you were doing, that would be uncool and not acceptable.

[Alberic Strein]

So, to clarify, you're playing a system where armor is listed as "provides X bonus" and "protects Y region of the body" in the stats, rather than simply "provides X bonus" like vanilla D&D, and players go "chainmail bikini with X bonus? Yes please" and ignore the fact that the "Y region" is something ridiculously unlikely to be targeted on purpose or hit accidentally until they actually get hit somewhere other than "Y region" and go "well that was useless" and never touch the bikini again? Do I have that right? That's reasonable on your part and idiotic on the part of your players.

The issue we were having was that we were just assuming you had armor listed as "provides X bonus" and then denied them the bonus unless certain areas of the body were hit, justifying it with "well obviously the rest of the body that isn't covered isn't protected!" as your "gotcha." Because that was the impression we were getting. If that is what you were doing, that would be uncool and not acceptable.
I thought his system worked a bit like War of the Roses, even if it's a videogame example. Basically armor has two stats: protection and weight. Also, once the armore is added it is shown on your character model. Usually there are only three levels of protection cloth, mail, and plate, while the weight tends to vary a lot more with each armor design, which is again represented on your character model. Weirdly enough for a new player, pricier armor is heavier, but doesn't offer a better protection rating. If you just look at the stats, entry-level plate armor is strictly worse than the priciest one. That's because the game has great hit detection, so it can tell where exactly you were hit, if the location was armored and the damage reduction applied. To follow the chainmail bikini example, it would provide as much protection as other chainmail armors for a fraction of the weight, but only if the enemy hit strikes the protected areas, otherwise you get max damage from being unprotected. Likewise, you can have the best armor in the game if the enemy player manages to strike right at your neck, right at the juncture of the armor and helmet, then you only get the protection of your coif if you have one... Which will be at a lower protection rating than the armor unless you have a frog helmet that's nailed on your breastplate, at which point you don't have weakspots.

Otherwise, letting the character buy the armor and then getting him killed because "Duh, chainmail bikini. Of course it won't protect you." is just straight up evil in a game where magic, living golems, and swords of ridiculous size exist and are commonly used without problem.

But what of common sense? I left it with the portable hole.

[Nozza]

So, to clarify, you're playing a system where armor is listed as "provides X bonus" and "protects Y region of the body" in the stats, rather than simply "provides X bonus" like vanilla D&D, and players go "chainmail bikini with X bonus? Yes please" and ignore the fact that the "Y region" is something ridiculously unlikely to be targeted on purpose or hit accidentally until they actually get hit somewhere other than "Y region" and go "well that was useless" and never touch the bikini again? Do I have that right? That's reasonable on your part and idiotic on the part of your players.

That's pretty much it, yeah. In our system, you attack specific parts of an enemy, either deliberately through a called attack, or at random with a normal attack. And of course, the genitals are a pretty rare place to stab somewhere. The actual bra part of the bikini is a little more useful if enemies go for the heart, but with so much unprotected space, the enemy is bound to hit somewhere more lethal. And if you think that's harsh to players, you never met my old DM. That guy deepfried PCs in butter and fed them to the list of CR 20 traps he kept written down to scatter through every. single. dungeon.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah no. The SJWs complain about what Cammy wears in Street Fighter, and all we have to do is remind them what Zangief wears.


I have to wonder if people are just too young to remember a time before SJWs, or simply going for the easiest laziest dismissal of other people's thoughts on the matter, when they fall back on this "objects to treating woman as sex-toys = SJW" canard.

[Max_Killjoy]

They provide good-enough protection. For the areas they actually cover. Which enemies are extremely unlikely to either go for, or actually hit. Useful if enemies always aim for the genitals, which they don't. That attack works better on men anyway. Once they get hit for full damage, they realize pretty quickly to swap out their +4 bikini that only protects about 5% of their body for a +4 chain shirt (using the arbitrary value), which is better in every way because it actually gives the same protection everywhere else it covers (a considerably larger area).

OK, great, sure, but that doesn't answer the question. So far, you've appeared to be doing everything you can to talk around answering the question, and come across as evasive and obfuscating.

The question is, DO THE PLAYERS KNOW UP FRONT that there's this significant mechanical difference between the armors?

[Nozza]

Do the players know up front that there's this significant mechanical difference between the armors?

Unless they've forgotten how our armor system works, then in a word, YES. But there's been a couple who still think they can get away with using the Bikinis just because they think the bonus is good.

[Âmesang]

Zangeif is a pretty poor example, anyway, since he's dressed no differently than most wrestlers.

Now Gill and Urien, on the other hand…

[Hawkstar]

Zangeif is a pretty poor example, anyway, since he's dressed no differently than most wrestlers.
I fail to see how that matters.

[Stealth Marmot]

Otherwise, letting the character buy the armor and then getting him killed because "Duh, chainmail bikini. Of course it won't protect you." is just straight up evil in a game where magic, living golems, and swords of ridiculous size exist and are commonly used without problem.

But what of common sense? I left it with the portable hole.

I'll admit it is a jerk move to not tell the person that their armor wasn't going to protect as expected due to "common sense" AFTER combat has started. Then again I don't know too many players who list their armor as "Chainmail bikini". If I were to know someone like that, I imagine they would have it listed as "Chain shirt". If a DM is upfront and says "Yeah if you have a chainmail bikini you are going to get +0 bonus to AC" then that is fine.

That said, it's important to remember that you can't just brush away problems like this by saying "Well you don't question magic existing".

Yes, we break realism on a whim, but what we strive to NOT break is the term that is thrown around a lot around here (and for good reason). You don't want to break verisimilitude.

It's tricky business trying to explain WHY things break verisimilitude. Why does the existence of an ogre not break it, but chainmail bikinis do? Well for some it doesn't, but for others I think it has to do with a few factors.

1. Real World Relatability to a real world equivalent. If something has no real world equivalent, or is specifically deviated away from a real world equivalent, then our suspension of disbelief stretches further. Magic, as shown in a D&D game, is not real in any practical sense. Since we do not have anything real to relate it to, at least not in our every-day lives, then we can allow our minds to believe that magic can do whatever the rules say it can. We will wrap our minds around whatever ruleset you give it, and create that as its new "reality" for reference. The same concept of new reality allows for say, an ogre to exist. Ogres are not real, so we can make up whatever you want about them. However, people and armor exist. As it does exist we have things we can compare it to. We see a chainmail bikini and we know that there is something wrong because we know what chainmail armor should be like if it is expected to protect anyone. We are also human beings and know where our sensitive fleshy organs are. As such we realize better that "Hey, armor should cover our fleshy organs or else it will not be good armor." It operates under the same logic that we would not expect a character to walk up a 90 degree wall without some sort of assistance, such as magic. We know this because we walk ourselves, or at the very least have seen many people walk and the idea of gravity stops such ascension. Now obviously, such perception is not exact (we seem to have no problem for the most part with strapping a greatsword to our backs and draw it without problem, even though we all understand our arm length and flexibility limitations), but egregious examples can disrupt a suspension of disbelief. I mean, if someone tried to pass off a set of boots made of cinder blocks, you would probably say you couldn't move at full move speed in them. (This all of course does not include the addition of magic which can make stuff do whatever, but saying every suit of chainmail is suddenly magical for no reason than "SHUT UP!" is sort of silly.)

2. Created Virtual Reality. When we add something like "magic" to the game we add it to the new "reality." Funnily enough, once that new "reality" is understood and molded within our minds, verisimilitude can be broken via deviation from this new reality. Should someone create a level 1 spell that can blow up an entire building when cast by even an amateur wizard, our verisimilitude is broken. Same goes for the ogre. We now know that an ogre is a large, lumbering humanoid, so an ogre walking through a mousehole without magical intervention hurts our suspension of disbelief as well. So even working along the logic of the in game universe in a way that we had never seen armor before or understood what it was like hoping your fleshy organs don't get punctured, let's look at armor in D&D and the pattern of increasing armor class. Increased armor class equals greater protection. Looking at the armors, there is a pattern towards what provides more protection and a higher AC. The heavier the armor, generally the higher the AC. Also, armor made of metallic pieces usually provides more protection than those made of softer materials such as leather. More metal means more protection. Harder metal, such as plate, is also superior in protection than flexible metal (like chain). One important aspect however, show in illustrations, is that more coverage equals more protections. This specifically comes up with Chain Mail verse Chain Shirt. If a chain shirt provides less protection than chain mail because it covers a smaller area, it stands to reason that a chain bikini, which covers a far smaller area than even a chain shirt, would have substantially inferior protection. One would argue that such a piece would only justify a +2 at absolute best, probably a +1 or even not enough to justify increasing armor class at all.

3. Cultural Recognition (including pop culture). The reason we accept the idea that a unicorn is specifically a horse with a horn is due to popular culture portraying it as such. There is nothing about a Unicorn that says it has to look that particular way. In fact if you take historical context into it, the unicorn stated in early works such as the Bible probably referred to a single horned rhino. Despite this, when we hear Unicorn we see a white horse with a long thin horn that looks suspiciously like a narwhal horn. Cultural imagery can enhance our ability to stretch our suspension of disbelief, providing that it falls into that cultural view. Exposure, however, can affect whether we consider it normal or an exception. This is commonly referred to as Normalization (or the lack thereof).This applies to the chainmail bikini as well. The chainmail bikini has been used before, but seems to be significantly less popular in modern fantasy portrayals. This is probably because of a market that is less focused on teenaged (presumed) males. Basically, it was entirely likely that chainmail bikinis were more normalized during the early 80s and 90s than they are today. It also depends on where and who one might spend time looking at such concepts. If someone hangs around the Boris Valejo area on Deviantart, then chainmail bikinis will become normal. For others, not so much. In fact i would so far as to say that chainmail bikinis are niche to begin with even within fantasy imagery. Going one step beyond that, recognizing and calling out chainmail bikinis is probably more recognized than those who desire to make them canon with a D&D type world. Chainmail bikinis usually only appear in satires, such as HarkonQuest or Gamers: Dorkness Rising (where it was more derided than used).

4. Preference. If you like it, you will want it to be normal. This does not necessarily mean liking something on a conscious level, or even "liking" it so much as feeling comfortable with it. The concept of magic is accepted because it is a potential fun power trip to be able to affect physics using one's mind and skill. The idea of an ogre is accepted because it is a huge lout that we can feel justified in attempting to defeat AND feel righteous victory for it being a tough foe. This is where things get a little rough, because here we get to the idea that people accept bikini mail as being normal because it either doesn't affect them, or it is what they want. While it can be hidden, even from the people making the argument, the truth is that one will find an excuse for something they want to be true and acceptable. The chainmail bikini is something some people enjoy seeing, so they will attempt to justify it however they see fit. Many people though, may not appreciate the existence. This is not necessarily drawn straight across gender lines either, though there would be more women opposed to it then men. Some women find the chainmail bikini empowering, and some men find it disturbing or idiotic (Even putting LGBT situations aside).

The point is that the chainmail bikini fails in the first 2 areas significantly and is not well reinforced by the third one, if not actually harmed by it. So it stands to reason that those who are willing to defend the chainmail bikini are, on some level (and often admittedly), just trying their best to keep it a thing because they like it personally. In fact they have to like it personally SO much that it overrides the negatives of the first two and the problems of the third.

[Lemmy]

I have to wonder if people are just too young to remember a time before SJWs, or simply going for the easiest laziest dismissal of other people's thoughts on the matter, when they fall back on this "objects to treating woman as sex-toys = SJW" canard.Having sexy character dress in sexy clothes is not the same as treating people like objects, though.

[Cluedrew]

To Stealth Marmot: I think you just condensed the "serious" side of this thread into a single post. Good job, one of the best examinations of "verisimilitude and immersion" I have seen.

To Lemmy: No, but there is an unfortunate amount of overlap.

[Lemmy]

To Lemmy: No, but there is an unfortunate amount of overlap.Not nearly as much as people claim. Nowadays, every time any female character shows some skin it's called "objectification", no matter the context, and then someone demands censorship, as they always do... So it's quite difficult to take said accusations seriously.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not nearly as much as people claim. Nowadays, every time any female character shows some skin it's called "objectification", no matter the context, and then someone demands censorship, as they always do... So it's quite difficult to take said accusations seriously.


That's not what most of us are talking about, and conflating things ranging from "Oh my god she's showing some shoulder, that's sexual exploitation!" to "That armor is ridiculous, and obviously intended for titillation rather than functionality of any kind" under one blanket "Oh that's just SJWs being idiots" dismissal is at best inaccurate, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

[Segev]

I mostly think the "SJWs are being idiots" angle comes in when they state the patently obvious. Of course that bikini is more to show off the female form than protect it from swords. And that pin-up calendar is there for purposes beyond (if not, dare I say, more than to) tell the construction workers what month it is.

The less-idiotic conversation is over where the line of "acceptability" is. Again, I tend towards "whatever the group in question is comfortable with," because if you don't want the oh-so-horrific Christian prudes telling you you can't have gays in your game, don't go around telling the stereotypical frat boys that they can't have sexy pin-ups in theirs. If something offends your sensibilities, don't be involved with it. If you feel it's being shoved in your face, sure, go ahead and ask that it not be. But do extend the same right to those whose views on propriety and morals you find offensive, as well.

I, personally, find more enjoyment out of examining where the cultural blind spots are by playing my favorite game with it. As I've already mentioned in this thread.

[8BitNinja]

I have to wonder if people are just too young to remember a time before SJWs, or simply going for the easiest laziest dismissal of other people's thoughts on the matter, when they fall back on this "objects to treating woman as sex-toys = SJW" canard.

Revealing clothing is different than treating women as sex toys. Women in revealing clothing can still be seen as having free will, autonomy, and overall as a human being.

[Max_Killjoy]

Revealing clothing is different than treating women as sex toys. Women in revealing clothing can still be seen as having free will, autonomy, and overall as a human being.



It gets really fuzzy after a few decades of "But she's an empowered woman in control of her own sexuality!" being used as an excuse for objectification ranging from subtle to blatant in artwork and media. Especially when it sometimes comes with the implicit or explicit corollary that any woman not running around half-plus naked and/or hopping from bed to bed is somehow "repressed" or "controlled".

[Nozza]

I'll admit it is a jerk move to not tell the person that their armor wasn't going to protect as expected due to "common sense" AFTER combat has started. Then again I don't know too many players who list their armor as "Chainmail bikini". If I were to know someone like that, I imagine they would have it listed as "Chain shirt". If a DM is upfront and says "Yeah if you have a chainmail bikini you are going to get +0 bonus to AC" then that is fine.

God, that was a good post. Although the way armor works in our game means that you get the occasional player who forgets that coverage is more important than actual armor points.

For an example, let's make two characters.

Name: Testy
Gender: Female
Level: 1 Fighter
HP: 10

Name: BadOrk
Gender: Male
Level: 20 Fighter
HP: 100
Feats: Calculated Attack - Attack the target in whatever body part you choose, at the cost of 25% less damage, or 1d4 less damage (whichever is lower). This is a full-turn action.


Testy has a Chainmail Bikini, which has an armor rating of 40 and protects two areas: Her chest and her groin. BadOrk has Orcish Armor, which has an armor rating of 120 and protects all 12 areas of his body.

In other words, Testy has 20 armor points on her chest, 20 armor points on her groin, and 0 armor points everywhere else. BadOrk, meanwhile, has 10 armor points everywhere.

The two meet, and roll for initiative. BadOrk attacks first, using a Half-Turn action to drink a potion that buffs his damage by one die, and another half-turn action to make a random attack at Testy.

BadOrk rolls 2d100, and gets a 40. He then rolls a d12 to determine which body part he hits. He hits Testy in the chest, which is protected by 20 armor points. BadOrk deals half damage, rounded down, to the armor.

Testy still has 10 HP, 20 AP in her groin, and 10 AP in her chest. It is now Testy's turn. She uses a half-turn action to use a single-shot item, which makes her dagger penetrate armor. She uses another half-turn action to make a random attack against BadOrk, hitting him in the left arm. She rolls a d10, and gets a 5. Her attack ignores his armor and damages his health directly.

BadOrk now has 95 HP, and still has 10 AP on all 12 body parts, and it's his turn.

BadOrk rolls 1d100, and gets a 50. He subtracts 25% of the damage (rounded up), reducing it to 37, and targets Testy's unprotected head. Testy runs out of HP, makes a Fortitude Save equal to her total HP (10), and fails. Testy dies, BadOrk takes her skull as a trophy.



So yeah.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Although the way armor works in our game means that you get the occasional player who forgets that coverage is more important than actual armor points.

So remind them?

[Nozza]

So remind them?

If they're willing to sacrifice coverage for armor points, it's their problem. I've had two, maybe three players stuff up at this. One was because the Bikini has a ridiculous armor rating, and he thought he could get away with using it anyway. The other two didn't know the rules, but soon remembered after combat. And of those, I only remember the guy who tried to get away with it on purpose actually dying.

[Lemmy]

That's not what most of us are talking about, and conflating things ranging from "Oh my god she's showing some shoulder, that's sexual exploitation!" to "That armor is ridiculous, and obviously intended for titillation rather than functionality of any kind" under one blanket "Oh that's just SJWs being idiots" dismissal is at best inaccurate, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.What's the problem of having characters wear costumes obviously intended for titillation? If you don't like the way a certain piece of media portrays a character or group of characters... Don't consume that piece of media. Simple as that. I didn't see anyone crying about the shirtless werewolf being a "sex object" in Twilight (you know, that franchise with an overwhelmingly female target audience that made A LOT of money), so why should we censor Ivy in Soul Calibur?

If you prefer stuff where every character dresses realistically... Create and/or support that stuff. But let others enjoy whatever it is that they enjoy. I'm not particularly interested in "fan service"; It doesn't make or break anything, IMO... I just find it repulsive when people are accused of sexism or bigotry because they enjoy having sexy characters in sexy clothes in their media.

[Nozza]

What's the problem of having characters wear costumes obviously intended for titillation?

I personally have nothing against fanservice, even if I'm not that much of a fan myself, but our system just makes classic female armor impractical, because it's not that useful in combat. So females can still use it, they're just more likely to survive if they're kitted up in plate armor, or have some sort of protective spell.

[Hawkstar]

It gets really fuzzy after a few decades of "But she's an empowered woman in control of her own sexuality!" being used as an excuse for objectification ranging from subtle to blatant in artwork and media. Especially when it sometimes comes with the implicit or explicit corollary that any woman not running around half-plus naked and/or hopping from bed to bed is somehow "repressed" or "controlled".No, it doesn't come with that corollary. However, based on my own observation on the real world and its cultures, there's a strong negative correlation between a woman's freedom and how much society expects her to cover.

[8BitNinja]

I personally have nothing against fanservice, even if I'm not that much of a fan myself, but our system just makes classic female armor impractical, because it's not that useful in combat. So females can still use it, they're just more likely to survive if they're kitted up in plate armor, or have some sort of protective spell.

That's why this whole thread was made. It's funny, so we make jokes about it.

[Lemmy]

I personally have nothing against fanservice, even if I'm not that much of a fan myself, but our system just makes classic female armor impractical, because it's not that useful in combat. So females can still use it, they're just more likely to survive if they're kitted up in plate armor, or have some sort of protective spell.That would be true in reality... Not necessarily in fiction. When you're not bound to the rules of reality, armor, weapons, tools and even fighting styles don't have to make sense.

Now... I do agree that depending on the setting and story, absurd armor whatever can detract from the artwork (e.g.: it'd be pretty awful to see someone using a chainmail bikini in Game of Thrones). OTOH, it fits perfectly with other settings and stories (you can't reasonably complain about unrealistic armor in, say, Monster Hunter). But even then, that's just a matter of preference, even if it's a preference that is most likely shared by the vast majority of the audience (and probably the author as well).

[Nozza]

That would be true in reality... Not necessarily in fiction. When you're not bound to the rules of reality, armor, weapons, tools and even fighting styles don't have to make sense.

Anyway, I can't speak for D&D, that's WotC's job, but in the Homebrew system my group uses, skimpy armor just doesn't work. Unless we say that the majority of it is invisible or something, we don't feel like twisting the armor mechanic just so the one guy in the group can have his chainmail bikini. While I couldn't give less of a crap on if it is still protective in other systems, or whether it's "too revealing", it's just a bad idea, plain and simple, for my group. :smallwink:

[Arbane]

Yeah no. The SJWs complain about what Cammy wears in Street Fighter, and all we have to do is remind them what Zangief wears.

I'm sure somebody finds Zangief sexy, but it probably wasn't the art director's primary design criteria, unlike Cammy.

(Social Justice Warriors? Boring class features. (http://xiphias.livejournal.com/788434.html) I wanna play a Social Justice Barbarian. (http://www.redbubble.com/people/vonaether/collections/328337-social-justice-classes))


Revealing clothing is different than treating women as sex toys. Women in revealing clothing can still be seen as having free will, autonomy, and overall as a human being.

Fictional characters, on the other hand....

[Nozza]

(Social Justice Warriors? Boring class features. I wanna play a Social Justice Berserker. (http://xiphias.livejournal.com/788434.html))

All attack made against men do 1d4 more damage.

If the man is white, they do 1d6 more damage.

If the target is a straight white male, they do 1d8 more damage.

If the target is a straight white male who earns more than you, they do 1d10 more damage.

If the target is a straight white male who earns more than you, and you have a member of a minority in your party, the attacks of everyone in your party do 1d20 extra damage.

If the target is a straight white male who earns more than you, you have a member of a minority in your party, and you spend a full-round action screeching "TRIGGERED" at the top of your lungs, the attacks of everyone in your party do 1d100 extra damage, and the target will be deafened for 1d4 rounds.

If the target is a straight white male named "Hugh Mungus" who earns more than you, you have a member of a minority in your party, and you spend a full-round action screeching "WHAT IS YOUR NAME?" at the top of your lungs, the attacks of everyone in your party do 1d100 extra damage, and for 1d4 rounds, the target will automatically fail any saving throws. You may continue shrieking "WHAT IS YOUR NAME?" to extend the period of time in which the target automatically fails his saving throws.

[Satinavian]

For an example, let's make two characters.

Name: Testy
Gender: Female
Level: 1 Fighter
HP: 10

Name: BadOrk
Gender: Male
Level: 20 Fighter
HP: 100
Feats: Calculated Attack - Attack the target in whatever body part you choose, at the cost of 25% less damage, or 1d4 less damage (whichever is lower). This is a full-turn action.


Testy has a Chainmail Bikini, which has an armor rating of 40 and protects two areas: Her chest and her groin. BadOrk has Orcish Armor, which has an armor rating of 120 and protects all 12 areas of his body.

In other words, Testy has 20 armor points on her chest, 20 armor points on her groin, and 0 armor points everywhere else. BadOrk, meanwhile, has 10 armor points everywhere.

The two meet, and roll for initiative. BadOrk attacks first, using a Half-Turn action to drink a potion that buffs his damage by one die, and another half-turn action to make a random attack at Testy.

BadOrk rolls 2d100, and gets a 40. He then rolls a d12 to determine which body part he hits. He hits Testy in the chest, which is protected by 20 armor points. BadOrk deals half damage, rounded down, to the armor.

Testy still has 10 HP, 20 AP in her groin, and 10 AP in her chest. It is now Testy's turn. She uses a half-turn action to use a single-shot item, which makes her dagger penetrate armor. She uses another half-turn action to make a random attack against BadOrk, hitting him in the left arm. She rolls a d10, and gets a 5. Her attack ignores his armor and damages his health directly.

BadOrk now has 95 HP, and still has 10 AP on all 12 body parts, and it's his turn.

BadOrk rolls 1d100, and gets a 50. He subtracts 25% of the damage (rounded up), reducing it to 37, and targets Testy's unprotected head. Testy runs out of HP, makes a Fortitude Save equal to her total HP (10), and fails. Testy dies, BadOrk takes her skull as a trophy.



So yeah.
Seems a reasonable system (and not that uncommon actually, have seen several lime this).

But if a chainmail bikini is good protection for chest and groin, couldn't you just combine it with arm and leg greaves and a helmet and have still a very classical skimpy unrealistic female armor variant that does offer significant protection ruleswise in most zones ?
I somehow don't think that most light and medium armor combinations protect all zones equally, otherwise you wouldn't need rules for zones.

[Nozza]

Seems a reasonable system (and not that uncommon actually, have seen several lime this).

Why thank you.


But if a chainmail bikini is good protection for chest and groin, couldn't you just combine it with arm and leg greaves and a helmet and have still a very classical skimpy unrealistic female armor variant that does offer significant protection ruleswise in most zones ?

They absolutely could, they just don't most of the time. So far Testy has 2 out of 12 areas covered, quite well. If she were to slap on greaves and a helmet, she'd have 7 zones covered. A good pair of boots and some gauntlets, and she only has her stomach and her back unprotected, which could be sorted out easily enough if she were to, say, link both parts of the bikini into something like a one-piece chestplate, or just drape a Cloak of Resistance over her back. Most of them just think it's easier to find a decent set of armor, rather than have to improve a sub-par set.


I somehow don't think that most light and medium armor combinations protect all zones equally, otherwise you wouldn't need rules for zones.

You're right, my example of the full armor was just to show how the system works. Typically we use a modular system of sorts for armor. As an example, the chestplate provides 20 AP to the chest, stomach, and back, the greaves provide 10 AP to each limb, the helmet provides 10 AP to the head, the gloves and boots provide 5 AP for each appendage, and the Spiked Codpiece provides 50 AP to the groin and deals 1d10 thorns damage to melee attackers. It's easier to lay out on our sheets than on this forum, though.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it doesn't come with that corollary. However, based on my own observation on the real world and its cultures, there's a strong negative correlation between a woman's freedom and how much society expects her to cover.

Sometimes, too often, it DOES come with the corollary, and not just in fiction. And it happens in part because of the association you mention from cultures who demand "modesty" from women.

And when that happens, you've just traded one set of social expectations for another -- or put together two conflicting social expectations for a no-win situation. And hey, that's where we get to the "prude" or "wh*r*" dichotomy.

[Max_Killjoy]

What's the problem of having characters wear costumes obviously intended for titillation? If you don't like the way a certain piece of media portrays a character or group of characters... Don't consume that piece of media. Simple as that. I didn't see anyone crying about the shirtless werewolf being a "sex object" in Twilight (you know, that franchise with an overwhelmingly female target audience that made A LOT of money), so why should we censor Ivy in Soul Calibur?

If you prefer stuff where every character dresses realistically... Create and/or support that stuff. But let others enjoy whatever it is that they enjoy. I'm not particularly interested in "fan service"; It doesn't make or break anything, IMO... I just find it repulsive when people are accused of sexism or bigotry because they enjoy having sexy characters in sexy clothes in their media.

In part, I'm coming at it from a verisimilitude and quality standpoint. "Armor", worn in combat, that's obviously been set up for "all sexy, no protection", doesn't pique my "interest", it makes me wonder if the person who designed it is a closet snuff fetishist... because the person wearing it is going to end up dead.

In part, I'm coming at it from the standpoint of having two little nieces who are growing up in a world that's constantly hitting them with the message that the most important thing about them is how cute, and eventually how sexy, they are -- that their worth is defined by how they please other people's eyes. Yeah, I'm the uncle who buys them Lego and toy tractors and stuffed animals.

In part, I'm coming at it from the standpoint of a would-be author, and one of the things I'm trying to write features a female protagonist, and it squicks me out to no end looking at what happens in the artwork, and then in certain places online, to almost any female character in media.

[Cluedrew]

[QUOTE=Hawkstar;21510534However, based on my own observation on the real world and its cultures, there's a strong negative correlation between a woman's freedom and how much society expects her to cover.[/QUOTE]I can see that, but I can say the same of a correlation within the individual cultures of a women's place in the social hierarchy and how much society expects her to cover. They higher she is the more she covers.

Again, that is a correlation not a rule.

[Lord Torath]

Rikus, a male human Gladiator on Athas (from the Prism Pentad series - don't bother, not worth reading) had a belt that attracted incoming missiles to strike it, instead of the bare flesh just inches (or feet) away. Combine something like that with Bracers of Defense, a Cloak of Protection, and your skimpy armor is good to go!

[Inevitability]

Rikus, a male human Gladiator on Athas (from the Prism Pentad series - don't bother, not worth reading) had a belt that attracted incoming missiles to strike it, instead of the bare flesh just inches (or feet) away. Combine something like that with Bracers of Defense, a Cloak of Protection, and your skimpy armor is good to go!

Fun fact: one of the reasons Athas was made a desert world (as opposed to the alternative of a frozen wasteland) was that in a warm climate would require less clothing to be worn.

Of course, that disregards the fact that walking half-nude is one of the worst things you can do in a desert.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Fun fact: one of the reasons Athas was made a desert world (as opposed to the alternative of a frozen wasteland) was that in a warm climate would require less clothing to be worn.

Of course, that disregards the fact that walking half-nude is one of the worst things you can do in a desert.

Beach world.

[Inevitability]

Beach world.

The worst part is that this actually happened. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_Lords_of_the_Last_Sea)

[Hawkstar]

No, the worst part is that it didn't catch on.

[Lemmy]

Anyway, I can't speak for D&D, that's WotC's job, but in the Homebrew system my group uses, skimpy armor just doesn't work. Unless we say that the majority of it is invisible or something, we don't feel like twisting the armor mechanic just so the one guy in the group can have his chainmail bikini. While I couldn't give less of a crap on if it is still protective in other systems, or whether it's "too revealing", it's just a bad idea, plain and simple, for my group. :smallwink:That's ok. You don't have to like or dislike anything. You can even like/dislike both or neither in different contexts. I have zero problem with what kind of characters aesthetics other people enjoy, it just annoys me to see good people being accused of bigotry simply because they enjoy seeing sexy characters in their games or tv shows.


In part, I'm coming at it from a verisimilitude and quality standpoint. "Armor", worn in combat, that's obviously been set up for "all sexy, no protection", doesn't pique my "interest", it makes me wonder if the person who designed it is a closet snuff fetishist... because the person wearing it is going to end up dead. There nothing "snuff fetishist" about. It simply turns out that human beings enjoy looking at attractive people (that's why we call said people "attractive"), and since unrealistic armor/weapons/whatever is only a problem if the author wants it to be, the author discards realism in favor of aesthetics. That said, I do agree that certain aesthetics can take away from a artwork... But context matters. If I see a boob plate in Game of Thrones, I'll face-palm faster than I can say 'eye candy". However, in a world where Conan can get away with fighting (and winning) while wearing nothing but a loincloth, I won't be bothered by Sonja's chainmail bikini.


In part, I'm coming at it from the standpoint of having two little nieces who are growing up in a world that's constantly hitting them with the message that the most important thing about them is how cute, and eventually how sexy, they are -- that their worth is defined by how they please other people's eyes. Yeah, I'm the uncle who buys them Lego and toy tractors and stuffed animals.Funny. I have three nieces (and one nephew) myself. And since I'm the only uncle who is single and has a flexible schedule (my work hours are weird... But I digress!), I'm often asked to take care of them and/or pick them up at school. I always tell them they can grow up to be whatever they like, as long as they work hard towards it. But you know what kind of toys I give them? Whatever they like. One of my nieces loves princesses and cats. Not coincidentally, she loves Jasmine. So I give her toy princesses and cats. My nephew enjoys anything related to Batman, Superman and Ben 10. So those are the toys I give him. Another one of my nieces loves animals of any kind, and says she wants to be a veterinarian... So I give her stuffed animals and veterinarian-themed toys. And I give Lego to all of them (except the youngest one, since she's too young), because everyone loves Lego. When possible, I let they choose what toys they want, and encourage them to take a look at everything before choosing, even the stuff they think they won't like. I won't give toy trucks to my niece or unicorns to my nephew to "break gender stereotypes" or whatever. I give them the toys they like, because they like it. If my niece wants to be an engineers, that's great! But if she wants to be a princess, that's great too! And I'll fight anyone who tells her she's wrong for wanting to be a princess! It's her childhood! She's the only who gets to decide what's fun!


In part, I'm coming at it from the standpoint of a would-be author, and one of the things I'm trying to write features a female protagonist, and it squicks me out to no end looking at what happens in the artwork, and then in certain places online, to almost any female character in media.Yeah, because no male characters ever use any revealing clothes, right? Like I said, people enjoy looking at attractive people/characters. If a certain media is targeted at a predominantly male audience, chances are that media will have things that interest most male consumers, including, but not limited to: attractive women. OTOH, if a certain media is targeted at a predominantly female audience, it'll will almost certainly contain elements that interest most female consumers, including, but not limited to... you guessed it! attractive men! There's nothing wrong with that, unless the media in question presents every person of a certain gender, and only those of said gender in a negative light.

e.g.: Let me put it like this... Do you watch anime? Have you ever watched, say, Highschool of the Dead? The show is obviously based on fanservice and every female character is meant to be attractive... But at the same time, they are also quite badass. Being attractive doesn't make them any less capable. OTOH, we have shows like, say, Naruto. Now... Naruto's cast is mostly male, which is okay as well, seen as it's target towards young boys (yes, it has female fans as well, but that doesn't mean that's their intended target audience, just like My Little Pony has many male fans, even though its target audience is young girls and their mothers)... However, one of my criticisms of Naruto is how literally every female character in that show is pretty much useless or irrelevant, even the ones that are meant to be super badass. So yeah, I consider Naruto to be somewhat sexist, but not Highschool of the Dead. Because, again, having sexy characters in titillating costumes/poses is not the same as treating people like objects.

[Stealth Marmot]

Anyway, I can't speak for D&D, that's WotC's job, but in the Homebrew system my group uses, skimpy armor just doesn't work. Unless we say that the majority of it is invisible or something,

http://grrlpowercomic.com/archives/2320

[Max_Killjoy]

That's ok. You don't have to like or dislike anything. You can even like/dislike both or neither in different contexts. I have zero problem with what kind of characters aesthetics other people enjoy, it just annoys me to see good people being accused of bigotry simply because they enjoy seeing sexy characters in their games or tv shows.


At least as far as I'm concerned, it's a lot more nuanced and complicated than "you like sexy characters, you're a bigot".




There nothing "snuff fetishist" about. It simply turns out that human beings enjoy looking at attractive people (that's why we call said people "attractive"), and since unrealistic armor/weapons/whatever is only a problem if the author wants it to be, the author discards realism in favor of aesthetics. That said, I do agree that certain aesthetics can take away from a artwork... But context matters. If I see a boob plate in Game of Thrones, I'll face-palm faster than I can say 'eye candy". However, in a world where Conan can get away with fighting (and winning) while wearing nothing but a loincloth, I won't be bothered by Sonja's chainmail bikini.


It's just the way my mind works... character is going into combat looking like Victoria's Secret model (hey, they're on TV, at this point we've all seen them), I'm not thinking "that's sexy", I'm thinking "they're going to get killed", and personally, that doesn't "pique my interest".

The "hero in a loincloth" thing is just as eye-rolly, but on the other hand, a dude showing lots of skin has different baggage than a woman showing lots of skin. The male showing skin is often demonstrating his individual power and agency, while the woman showing skin has historically been about... other things.





Funny. I have three nieces (and one nephew) myself. And since I'm the only uncle who is single and has a flexible schedule (my work hours are weird... But I digress!), I'm often asked to take care of them and/or pick them up at school. I always tell them they can grow up to be whatever they like, as long as they work hard towards it. But you know what kind of toys I give them? Whatever they like. One of my nieces loves princesses and cats. Not coincidentally, she loves Jasmine. So I give her toy princesses and cats. My nephew enjoys anything related to Batman, Superman and Ben 10. So those are the toys I give him. Another one of my nieces loves animals of any kind, and says she wants to be a veterinarian... So I give her stuffed animals and veterinarian-themed toys. And I give Lego to all of them (except the youngest one, since she's too young), because everyone loves Lego. When possible, I let they choose what toys they want, and encourage them to take a look at everything before choosing, even the stuff they think they won't like. I won't give toy trucks to my niece or unicorns to my nephew to "break gender stereotypes" or whatever. I give them the toys they like, because they like it. If my niece wants to be an engineers, that's great! But if she wants to be a princess, that's great too! And I'll fight anyone who tells her she's wrong for wanting to be a princess! It's her childhood! She's the only who gets to decide what's fun!


When the entire world seems to be telling them "You want to be a princess!", I'm trying to provide a broader balance.




e.g.: Let me put it like this... Do you watch anime? Have you ever watched, say, Highschool of the Dead? The show is obviously based on fanservice and every female character is meant to be attractive... But at the same time, they are also quite badass. Being attractive doesn't make them any less capable. OTOH, we have shows like, say, Naruto. Now... Naruto's cast is mostly male, which is okay as well, seen as it's target towards young boys (yes, it has female fans as well, but that doesn't mean that's their intended target audience, just like My Little Pony has many male fans, even though its target audience is young girls and their mothers)... However, one of my criticisms of Naruto is how literally every female character in that show is pretty much useless or irrelevant, even the ones that are meant to be super badass. So yeah, I consider Naruto to be somewhat sexist, but not Highschool of the Dead. Because, again, having sexy characters in titillating costumes/poses is not the same as treating people like objects.


I tend to lose interest in high-fanservice anime very quickly (as a coincidence, someone on an entirely different forum posted "matrix boobs" gifs from HotD a couple days ago). Part of the problem is that it's so often disconnected from what's otherwise going on -- the context, the atmosphere, etc.

Naruto, yeah, the uselessness quotient on the female characters is WAY too high, even when we're told that they're butt-kickers.

[Lemmy]

Like I said, there's no problem if you don't like it. It's perfectly within your rights to love or hate or anything in-between any piece of media for whatever reason you see fit. What I find repulsive is when people defend censorship of something just because it doesn't fit their preferences or because it's "offensive", as if their tastes and sensibilities were any more valid than anyone's else... And then, when someone complains, about this authoritarian holier-than-thou pseudo-morality, the complainer is called a bigot. If you want realistic armor more power to you! Enjoy! Have fun! If you want skimpy armor that makes no sense! More power to you all the same! Enjoy! Have fun! Neither side is hurting anyone, so for all I care, people are free to create and enjoy both!

About "the world telling them they want to be princesses". Well... I agree... To an extent. Sure, there's a trend of telling people what they are "supposed" to like, but it's not like there's some evil boogeyman forcing girls to buy barbies and boys to buy transformers. I know it's fashionable nowadays to pretend there is no inherent difference between the sexes, and that every taste and behavior is solely dictated by what we learn and free of genetic influence, as if our brains were the one organ that is magically immune to evolution, but that's completely nonsense. It's obvious and perfectly natural that some activities and behaviors would be more attractive to one gender or another. There's nothing wrong going against the norm, but there's nothing wrong with going with it either.

I don't care if my niece will fall in line with the majority or be different from every other girl in her class. All I want is for her to be happy and healthy and have a fun childhood. So I show her the alternatives, but if she still wants princesses instead of trucks, then princesses is what she gets. Its her childhood, so it's her choice, not mine. And t doesn't matter what she chooses, what matters is that she gets a choice.

[Âmesang]

So speaking of Red Sonja, I recently picked up a pewter figurine that was very reminiscent of her—as in not wearing a chainmail bikini, but a scalemail bikini top/loincloth, with a buckler, bracers and arm bands, fur and leather boots, and a… scimitar?

Anyway… if I were to build a 5th Edition barbarian based on her, how much armor counts as "armor" with regards to the Unarmed Defense bonus? :smalltongue: Or can I just chalk it all up to flavor/fluff? I would hate to come across a referee thinking, "It doesn't count! She's clearly wearing scale armor!"

(Granted, the only time I legitimately had a character wear a "chainmail bikini" was a succubus for 3rd Edition, using the stats found in an April Fools errata; at least they've got natural armor and damage reduction to help supplement their defense.)

[8BitNinja]

Like I said, there's no problem if you don't like it. It's perfectly within your rights to love or hate or anything in-between any piece of media for whatever reason you see fit. What I find repulsive is when people defend censorship of something just because it doesn't fit their preferences or because it's "offensive", as if their tastes and sensibilities were any more valid than anyone's else... And then, when someone complains, about this authoritarian holier-than-thou pseudo-morality, the complainer is called a bigot. If you want realistic armor more power to you! Enjoy! Have fun! If you want skimpy armor that makes no sense! More power to you all the same! Enjoy! Have fun! Neither side is hurting anyone, so for all I care, people are free to create and enjoy both!

About "the world telling them they want to be princesses". Well... I agree... To an extent. Sure, there's a trend of telling people what they are "supposed" to like, but it's not like there's some evil boogeyman forcing girls to buy barbies and boys to buy transformers. I know it's fashionable nowadays to pretend there is no inherent difference between the sexes, and that every taste and behavior is solely dictated by what we learn and free of genetic influence, as if our brains were the one organ that is magically immune to evolution, but that's completely nonsense. It's obvious and perfectly natural that some activities and behaviors would be more attractive to one gender or another. There's nothing wrong going against the norm, but there's nothing wrong with going with it either.

I don't care if my niece will fall in line with the majority or be different from every other girl in her class. All I want is for her to be happy and healthy and have a fun childhood. So I show her the alternatives, but if she still wants princesses instead of trucks, then princesses is what she gets. Its her childhood, so it's her choice, not mine. And t doesn't matter what she chooses, what matters is that she gets a choice.

Unless I misread this and totally overlooked a crucial detail, I 100% agree with this.

[Vinyadan]

Since we are talking about Barbie, do you think Ken is wearing a flesh-coloured codpiece?

[Amazon]

I don't care if my niece will fall in line with the majority or be different from every other girl in her class. All I want is for her to be happy and healthy and have a fun childhood. So I show her the alternatives, but if she still wants princesses instead of trucks, then princesses is what she gets. Its her childhood, so it's her choice, not mine. And t doesn't matter what she chooses, what matters is that she gets a choice.

Except if she wants to be different from every other girl in her class she will be ostracized and bullied.

So it's not a free choice if she will be mistreated for making a chooice.


Because, again, having sexy characters in titillating costumes/poses is not the same as treating people like objects.

Except it is.

Why do male characters can be whaterever they want without having to look sexy? And female characters can be awesome but they also have to be sexy?

How many awesome fat female characters can you name? I can name many fat male characters so why do all awesome famale character also have to be supermodels?

@8BitNinja if this topic bother you so much, I suggest you to watch this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOla9SEdXQ

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jko06dA_x88

I know they are kind of long... But please watch both until the end.

[CharonsHelper]

Since we are talking about Barbie, do you think Ken is wearing a flesh-coloured codpiece?

Yes.

Also - he's a kept man. Everything is Barbie's. She's the doctor/lawyer/teacher etc. Ken just hangs out at Barbie's beach house all day making himself look pretty for her.

It's the reverse of the classic 1950's household.

*nods convincingly*

[Lemmy]

Yeah... I don't take seriously any argument that includes Anita Sarkeesian. Her arguments are half-truths at best and complete lies and miscaracterizations at worst. She's literally a scam artist.

And BTW, there aren't many fat male characters either.

[Keltest]

Except if she wants to be different from every other girl in her class she will be ostracized and bullied.

So it's not a free choice if she will be mistreated for making a chooice.

Is participating in activities she doesn't enjoy and associating with people she doesn't share interests with any better? At least by doing what she enjoys she gets good with the bad, and theres every possibility she will meet other people who share those interests.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah... I don't take seriously any argument that includes Anita Sarkeesian. Her arguments are half-truths at best and complete lies and miscaracterizations at worst. She's literally a scam artist.


Or that's the narrative told by the Gamergate trolls.

Hard to tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian#Harassment

[Lemmy]

Or that's the narrative told by the Gamergate trolls.

Hard to tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian#HarassmentI watched Anita's videos before I even knew who she was... Whatever few she made, anyway (even though she received over 25 times as much money as she asked, she didn't deliver even half of them before asking for MORE money).

I've seen her "harassment" as well... Oh, yeah. She calls gamers (and men in general) everywhere biggots and then says she's been harassed when people say mean thing about her online (turns out people don't enjoy being called biggots by openly sexist scam artists. Who would have guessed, huh?). The police and FBI both said there were no credible threats against her.

[CharonsHelper]

And BTW, there aren't many fat male characters either.

At least not awesome ones. They're usually used as comic relief and/or the MC's best friend to make him look cooler by comparison (and who usually finishes last).

[Max_Killjoy]

I watched Anita's videos before I even knew who she was... Whatever few she made, anyway (even though she received over 25 times as much money as she asked, she didn't deliver even half of them before asking for MORE money).

I've seen her "harassment" as well... Oh, yeah. She calls gamers (and men in general) everywhere biggots and then says she's been harassed when people say mean thing about her online (turns out people don't enjoy being called biggots by openly sexist scam artists. Who would have guessed, huh?). The police and FBI both said there were no credible threats against her.

She says there are bigots, or she says that all men are bigots? I ask because I keep seeing people say "you called all men bigots" when someone actually says "there are bigots" or "there is bigotry".

The venues where she's been scheduled to speak, organizations working with her, etc, have received bomb, etc, threats... of course, the Gamergate trolls keep telling us that those threats were all "faked by Sarkeesian", but the only claims I can find that it was faked by Sarkeesian come from the usual suspects.

Can you provide a cite on the claim that the FBI and other agencies stating that the threats were not credible? The most recent news I can find was that the FBI spent well over a year investigating the cases and eventually closed the files due to not obtaining actionable leads or evidence -- which is not the same thing as "not credible".


E: maybe you're right and it is all just a scam, but I've seen so much misinformation and distortion and outright deceit directed AT Sarkeesian and others, that I'm not willing to just dismiss her or others as "frauds" based on the sorts of websites, etc, making those claims.

[Cazero]

You know, instead of shooting the messenger, you could listen to the actual message and form an opinion around that. The messenger is pretty irrelevant to the idea presented, and ideas are what we're supposed to talk about.
For example, the point that men exposing skin are usualy displaying muscles and power rather than being sexualised seems pretty spot on to me.

[Hawkstar]

You know, instead of shooting the messenger, you could listen to the actual message and form an opinion around that. The messenger is pretty irrelevant to the idea presented, and ideas are what we're supposed to talk about.
For example, the point that men exposing skin are usualy displaying muscles and power rather than being sexualised seems pretty spot on to me.

So, how do we expose women's bodies to display muscles and power?

[The Glyphstone]

So, how do we expose women's bodies to display muscles and power?

Something like this (http://www.sherdog.com/image_crop.php?image=http://www.origin.sherdog.com/_images/fighter/20131219091702_ronda_rousey.JPG&&width=200&&height=300)?

Unlike her promotional shots (that invariably are cut for cleavage), that outfit is optimized to maximize her ability to fight. Still a good bit of exposed skin on her limbs and midriff, but the muscles are cleanly in play and any titillation is incidental.

[Stealth Marmot]

She calls gamers (and men in general) everywhere biggots and then says she's been harassed when people say mean thing about her online (turns out people don't enjoy being called biggots by openly sexist scam artists. Who would have guessed, huh?). The police and FBI both said there were no credible threats against her.

Sources please.

I have yet to see where she has actually called "all" gamers bigots.

Thor damn it all, I didn't WANT to get involved in this minefield but YOU PEOPLE (on both sides mind you) have sufficiently pressed the issue enough that I feel I need to get involved.

First, since you just HAD to bring in Anita Sarkeesian, I'll go ahead and make something perfectly clear: SHE IS NOT WORTH ANYONE'S TIME.

Seriously. I don't know why she gets so much attention. There is NOTHING impressive about her. Either way. She is about as milquetoast as feminist activists get. She has not gone on any major tirade or crusade, she has never called for legal action asking for ANYTHING to be banned, at least not when it comes to video games (Online harassment is another can of worms). She has never said ANYTHING new, she is just NOT INTERESTING.

I've watched her videos. I agree with the general premises about how women are generally and definitely historically portrayed in video games, and that there are a LOT of troubling patterns in game development when it comes to female characters. I have actually reconsidered a few ideas after looking at them. HOWEVER, her videos are generally boring, often lacking a coherent narrative or structure, communicate ideas VERY poorly with often poorly thought out language, often choose poor examples and in some cases hang on a specific example which is by no means egregious, tend to never address common possible rebuttals, or do so VERY poorly, and has no seeming idea what sort of audience she is talking to. She doesn't explain enough to be talking to a general audience, and her concepts are too basic to be addressing a more professional audience, I'm not sure if she is talking to gamers, general audiences, or other feminists, and she seems moie interested in listing games than getting in depth in any particular one.

Frankly, her work looks like a B+ final project for a gender studies college student with a minor in Film. Not terrible, but not worth even noting, but for some reason people seem to flock to talk about her, and try to spin her narrative as either this raving bigot or some shining hero. SHE. IS. NOT. THAT. INTERESTING.

Getting back to the subject of female clothing in D&D and related fantasy. It is worth noting that the whole problem with women being sexualized is not AS BAD as it used to be. But if you think that sexism is not a problem in geek culture, then I have a bridge to sell you. Not to say that sexism isn't a problem MOST places, but if your back yard is on fire, pointing out that other peoples yards are on fire doesn't stop making it a problem you need to address.

A person I respect a hell of a lot more than Ms. Sarkeesian is a gaming pundit named Jim Sterling, who talks about the concepts of how women and men are portrayed in video games, and I think it relates to tabletop games as well. Basically, the idea is this:

Men are usually idealized. Women are usually idealized AND sexualized.

Basically, men and women as characters are almost always some sort of kickass. That is the nature of gaming as a power fantasy. That said, the number of female characters who are given any sort of badassery but NOT made also sexually attractive, you could count them on one hand. In fact, you will find that when a female character is announced or shown, the first thing that will usually come up in the comments is judging how "hot" they are. Seriously, when the character Taliyah was added to League of Legends, there were people commenting about how she was ugly. Just for reference, here is a pic of her:

https://i1.wp.com/www.lazygamer.net/images/2016/05/mud-slides.jpg

Not everyone of course talked about it, but enough people (pretty much all male) did. Basically, female characters can be hot and badass, sure. That is not in dispute. But why is it female characters can't be anything BUT hot?

What's more, the idea that the men are sexualized too is true but not in the way you might think. Most women (though not all obviously) don't like big buff muscle bound men. Think about this, of the two brothers from Asgard in the Marvel movies, which one is more famously crushed on by the women, Thor or Loki? Who else do geek women usually crush on? David Tennent as the Doctor? Matt Smith as the Doctor? Brimblepatch Cumberbund as Sherlock? What are all these guys, but skinny goofy British dudes.

Even mentioning this is making me throw up in my mouth a little, but Edward Cullen from Twilight? Not exactly a big musclebound monster. Jacob maybe, but he's more the alternate than the main.

Want to see an ACTUAL sexualizing of men for women's benefit? Yaoi. Tall, skinny, pretty boys. Most of which have deep romantic emotions.

What are the characters in D&D then? Big musclebound sometimes shirtless dudes? They are sexualized for men. And I don't mean gay men (though I'm sure some do like that). Specifically, they are sexuaized and idealized in a way that men want to BE like. Strong, grim, taciturn, emotionless, unflappable. Sometimes they are cocky or witty in the face of danger, but they are rarely sensitive or romantic, and if they are they usually become the butt of people's jokes. (Hint: Sensitive male protagonist: Tidus. Ask most guys how well they like THAT guy.)

Basically, male protagonists are "sexualized" in the sense of "Boys don't cry, they PUNCH!"

D&D and related games of course are much more dependent on your individual groups, so there may very well not be a real problem in your group with making characters of all stripes. But there are 2 problems. One, there are more groups besides yours, so we have to take in consideration that you don't live in a vaccuum.

There is nothing wrong with a female character being attractive and competent, in fact there is nothing wrong with a female character being attractive and INCOMPETENT should the need arise (humor for example). The problems begin when women and characters are EXPECTED to be attractive, or they are instantly invalidated if they are not. What's worse, they can sometimes have their value related to their attractiveness.

I hate to bring this up, but imagine if you were a little girl and you saw all the male characters. They came in short, tall, fat, skinny, muscular, scarred or bearded or shaved clean and smooth, hairless or long haire, tattooed or not, ugly or attractive, all sorts. Then they showed the female characters who were all a line of supermodels with zero bodyfat except the breasts and buttocks, and ranged from supermodel skinny, to fitness model kind of cut, and NOTHING ELSE except the occasional joke ugly girl. Think that might result in some problems with mental body issues? More to the point, look at their faces. How many women characters do you see with different noses, eyebrows, lips, chins, teeth, ears besides the porcelain ideal?

You see, enough male characters exist that different body types aren't obviously aberrant, but you cannot say the same about women, at least historically.

That said, I think it has been getting better, somewhat, in more recent editions of games. You are seeing somewhat more diverse versions of women in fantasy media. But I think that diversity has been hard fought, both by artists and fans, over the people who want to just appeal to the lowest common denominator. In order to prevent constant Megan Fox bending over a car type of cheesecake, I imagine that a lot of people have had to call out such problematic portrayals and requests for diversity.

Let's be clear: Media marketing people are the scum of the earth. There is no more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the media marketing group who see people as idiots. They generalize people, especially young men, into perverted idiots who will buy anything with cheap boobs on it. The callous excess of "sex sells" makes everything less interesting, less deep, and less diverse. It coldly cuts off potential new people to a hobby or group by making their presence feel unwelcome through uncomfortable imagery and exclusion of different types, shoehorning them into a specific role. And they do this to HALF OF THE POPULATION.

Yes, some women are comfortable being the sexy badass, but unless you provide a context where you let people know that a female character does not NEED to be sexy, then you will end up with people constantly misinterpreting what D&D is about and what is accepted.

Does it suck having to specify and prove that? YES. But you know what sucks more? Living a life where you have seen that be the norm in everything else in the media to the point that you just have to assume unless shown otherwise.

Moving on to another point though, if you want to play a character with blatant sexualized characteristics, then just make sure your group is okay with it. And make sure to read that they are ACTUALLY okay with it and not just saying that they are okay with it to not rock the boat. Too often someone who is not comfortable with a subject is considered the wet blanket or the one with a stick up their ass because they openly say they don't like something. Consider instead that you have a damn near unlimited range of characters, and even if you don't get one specific one you could probably pick from a wide range of others. Also keep in mind that if someone seems to be speaking about something that they shouldn't really have a problem with, entertain the idea that they may be speaking up because those people also don't want to be considered "rocking the boat".

Passive acceptance is still acceptance, and when someone does not necessarily feel totally comfortable bringing a subject up, they may have to instead endure it. When someone with more social confidence, or someone whose acceptance is not up for debate, comes forward instead, they can have a lot less to lose by trying to address a problem.

If I am getting a little confusing with what I'm saying, let me put it this way: At some point, many if not most women have had to quietly accept a disturbingly sexist picture, character, or statement because they were afraid that bringing it up would cause massive resentment. If a guy brings up and speaks up about such things, they are much less likely to get hit with the resentment.

Guys don't usually have to face the same "Fake geek" accusations a girl does if they want to remove a potentially uncomfortable aspect of a game.

And that is where the idea of a "male ally" comes in.

THAT SAID, accusations and requests to have problematic material or examples removed should be handled with a degree of empathy, care, and thoughtfulness. People making such problems may not even be aware they ARE problems, and if they are particularly attached to an idea they will not like to hear that it IS problematic. In addition, choosing your battles is important, and male allies (or those trying to be them) should remember that it is not about THEM and it is not actually their fight, so if a woman wants to speak up don't get in their way, and don't ASSUME a woman will have a problem with a particular portrayal, otherwise you are being as sexist as the guy making the chainmail bikini the norm. Women are all different and some are empowered by the idea of the buff, busty, chainmail bikini barbarian. Some are offended by it.

It comes down to reading people, and making sure that you put the best foot forward. You need to make sure that you don't force an idea on anyone, and let them play what they want and appreciate it, but also keep in mind that the game is a group activity so a character or actions who make the group feel uncomfortable should be reconsidered, or adapted.

Empathy, appreciation, acceptance of diversity, consideration of your fellows, and making sure you give the right impression off the bat, all of these are the hallmarks of making a game fun for everyone, not just one person.

There is room for EVERYONE, and gaming is better with more people playing. Don't let anything get in the way of people playing what they would like, not what they are forced to be.

[Max_Killjoy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOla9SEdXQ

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jko06dA_x88

I know they are kind of long... But please watch both until the end.



Both videos make several good points, even if I don't agree 100% with everything said in either one.

There's nothing in either that should be considered offensive or scammy or outrageous. Even the points that one might not agree with are presented in ways that should bring discussion, not backlash.


Also, butts -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTufg1GvR4
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujTufg1GvR4)
Or.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhH_QGXtgQ -- which has gotten so bad that it might scare an author or GM away from even a well-done story arc.

The the one that actually pisses me off... the suffering and death of female characters used as plot fodder to drive the narratives of make characters -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DInYaHVSLr8 -- which might be the ultimate expression of female characters serving as plot objects, rather than active characters.


Something to take away from these videos is that it's not about any one example, but rather about the patterns of so many examples.

And it's not to say that a character can't be both competent and sexualized -- Lara Croft is hyper-competent, and at the same time a classic example of some of the things being discussed here, to the point that it's laughable rather than "interesting".


The "reaction videos" that YouTube suggests tend to filled with a level of rage or disdain completely out of proportion to the original comments made in the FF videos. One of the reasons I have trouble taking some of her critics seriously is that their outrage is just so completely over the top. I keep hearing about how Sarkeesian is a this awful lying scheming man-hating harridan... and then I watch her videos and... I have to just scratch my head at where that reaction is coming from.

[Vinyadan]

There is a funny story. Ever heard of the Girl with an Oar? It was a Russian statue portraying a girl with an oar. The girl was nude, but wasn't actually doing anything special. However, since the model was a sportswoman, the body was very well toned.

Well, Stalin himself got quite worked up as the statue was exposed in a public garden in Moscow. He found it indecent. The original was put away and sent to Ukraine. However, the quality of the composition was recognized, and dozens of copies were made, in which the girl was covered up with some kind of cloth. This actually ruined the statue, and, because of these copies, Girl with an Oar became a Russian slang to mean "kitsch".

So I wonder, what would today's Western nudity police think of making a monument of a girl playing beach volley? Too indecent? Too much body, too much curves exalted by the athletic act to be exposed with the dignity and gravitas belonging to the female sex?

[Max_Killjoy]

There is a funny story. Ever heard of the Girl with an Oar? It was a Russian statue portraying a girl with an oar. The girl was nude, but wasn't actually doing anything special. However, since the model was a sportswoman, the body was very well toned.

Well, Stalin himself got quite worked up as the statue was exposed in a public garden in Moscow. He found it indecent. The original was put away and sent to Ukraine. However, the quality of the composition was recognized, and dozens of copies were made, in which the girl was covered up with some kind of cloth. This actually ruined the statue, and, because of these copies, Girl with an Oar became a Russian slang to mean "kitsch".

So I wonder, what would today's Western nudity police think of making a monument of a girl playing beach volley? Too indecent? Too much body, too much curves exalted by the athletic act to be exposed with the dignity and gravitas belonging to the female sex?


Stalin's reaction seems quite in line with his ultra-authoritarian personality.

It is interesting to compare the standard uniform of beach volleyball players, male or female. The standard male uniform has long been knee-length very baggy shorts. The standard female uniform has long been small and very tight two-piece outfits.

If the tiny, tight getup serves any practical purpose, why don't we see even some of the male players going for a speedo instead of the "board shorts"?

Here's a hint... disgraced former FIFA head Sepp Blatter once remarked that women's soccer would be more popular if the players wore "more attractive" uniforms, and he was dead serious when he said this. He's never been alone in that attitude towards women's sports.

[Vinyadan]

I have no idea of the reason for that, but I don't think it's the patriarchy's fault. They now can wear long sleeves at the Olympics, if they want, and sometimes do.

[Max_Killjoy]

Basically, men and women as characters are almost always some sort of kickass. That is the nature of gaming as a power fantasy. That said, the number of female characters who are given any sort of badassery but NOT made also sexually attractive, you could count them on one hand. In fact, you will find that when a female character is announced or shown, the first thing that will usually come up in the comments is judging how "hot" they are. Seriously, when the character Taliyah was added to League of Legends, there were people commenting about how she was ugly. Just for reference, here is a pic of her:


https://i1.wp.com/www.lazygamer.net/images/2016/05/mud-slides.jpg


Not everyone of course talked about it, but enough people (pretty much all male) did. Basically, female characters can be hot and badass, sure. That is not in dispute. But why is it female characters can't be anything BUT hot?


And not to be ironic, but how the heck is she "ugly"?

Another layer of the problem is not just that female character can't be anything but hot, it's also that the "definition of hot" is so ridiculously narrow.

[Stealth Marmot]

And not to be ironic, but how the heck is she "ugly"?

Another layer of the problem is not just that female character can't be anything but hot, it's also that the "definition of hot" is so ridiculously narrow.

That was pretty much my point.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have no idea of the reason for that, but I don't think it's the patriarchy's fault. They now can wear long sleeves at the Olympics, if they want, and sometimes do.

Where did "the patriarchy" come into it?

I was talking about dirty old men thinking that the only way to promote women's sports was as titillation.

[Vinyadan]

Where did "the patriarchy" come into it?

I was talking about dirty old men thinking that the only way to promote women's sports was as titillation.

Yup, old men in positions of (economical) power who see the world through man-glasses and expect it to adapt to man-vision and give man-satisfaction, aka the patriarchy.

[Beleriphon]

There is a funny story. Ever heard of the Girl with an Oar? It was a Russian statue portraying a girl with an oar. The girl was nude, but wasn't actually doing anything special. However, since the model was a sportswoman, the body was very well toned.

Well, Stalin himself got quite worked up as the statue was exposed in a public garden in Moscow. He found it indecent. The original was put away and sent to Ukraine. However, the quality of the composition was recognized, and dozens of copies were made, in which the girl was covered up with some kind of cloth. This actually ruined the statue, and, because of these copies, Girl with an Oar became a Russian slang to mean "kitsch".

So I wonder, what would today's Western nudity police think of making a monument of a girl playing beach volley? Too indecent? Too much body, too much curves exalted by the athletic act to be exposed with the dignity and gravitas belonging to the female sex?

That's interesting, but I think the "nudity police" and people that think stupid armour that is really revealing clothing are different people for the most part. I can't think of anybody that would take issue with overly revealing armour on female characters because its stupid and a social issue relating to how society views women would take issue with a nude statue of a woman any more than the same people would take issue Michaelangelo's David. Hell the pose for David and The Girl with an Oar are actually pretty similar.

Don't conflate people that think nudity is wrong in general, or inappropriate on moral grounds, with people that take issue sexualized female forms just for the sake of it being sexualized are the same group.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yup, old men in positions of (economical) power who see the world through man-glasses and expect it to adapt to man-vision and give man-satisfaction, aka the patriarchy.


"The patriarchy" is about a supposed system, and has other (rather moronic) baggage attached by the people who routinely use it.

I was speaking of individuals doing and saying things that are stupid, ignorant, sexist, whatever.




That's interesting, but I think the "nudity police" and people that think stupid armour that is really revealing clothing are different people for the most part. I can't think of anybody that would take issue with overly revealing armour on female characters because its stupid and a social issue relating to how society views women would take issue with a nude statue of a woman with the intention of it being art featuring an atheletic female form any more than the same people would be think Michaelangelo's David is in appropriate because he's a (gaint) naked male with his bit on display. Hell the pose for David and The Girl with an Oar are actually pretty similar.


Yeah, I was kinda scratching my head about the conflation of "prudish moralists" and "feminist watchdogs" implied by the post you were replying to there.

[Beleriphon]

"Yeah, I was kinda scratching my head about the conflation of "prudish moralists" and "feminist watchdogs" implied by the post you were replying to there.

Me too, if anything it got me thinking. David is actually a fairly sexual pose all things considered. He's all got his arm pulled back specifically to draw the muscles in the chest and abdomen taught, with the specific intention of showing them off. Combined with the hips shifted to the right and slightly back actually puts the groin into a more prominent position than it would be normally.

[CharonsHelper]

Want to see an ACTUAL sexualizing of men for women's benefit? Yaoi. Tall, skinny, pretty boys. Most of which have deep romantic emotions.

I'd step in and say that part of that may be the age of the target audience and not necessarily representative of all female tastes.

Teenage girls tend to like the tall/skinny/pretty boys, and those are the audiences for such things. This is likely because guys their age generally haven't filled out yet. (While I'm very not a consumer - I was under the impression that some Yaoi had one of the two males be muscular.)

I know that my older sisters (30's & 40's) all thought Thor of those movies & Jacob of Twilight were the better looking of their pairing. (My sisters are all married, but one in particular liked poking fun with her husband with Jacob saying "he's legal" etc.)

[Stealth Marmot]

Yeah, I was kinda scratching my head about the conflation of "prudish moralists" and "feminist watchdogs" implied by the post you were replying to there.
At this point, I think you shouldn't be surprised, I tend to see that conflation all the time.

[Beleriphon]

I'd step in and say that part of that may be the age of the target audience and not necessarily representative of all female tastes.

Teenage girls tend to like the tall/skinny/pretty boys, and those are the audiences for such things. This is likely because guys their age generally haven't filled out yet. (While I'm very not a consumer - I was under the impression that some Yaoi had one of the two males be muscular.)

I'd also point out that the primary audience of such works are young women, in Japan. They have a somewhat different ideal on male physical attractiveness than in the Western world, which tends more towards at least athletically built men in a general sense.

[Max_Killjoy]

At this point, I think you shouldn't be surprised, I tend to see that conflation all the time.


I suppose that's true. Doesn't mean it makes sense, but I guess it's a common misperception / deliberate tactic.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'd step in and say that part of that may be the age of the target audience and not necessarily representative of all female tastes.

Teenage girls tend to like the tall/skinny/pretty boys, and those are the audiences for such things. This is likely because guys their age generally haven't filled out yet. (While I'm very not a consumer - I was under the impression that some Yaoi had one of the two males be muscular.)

I know that my older sisters (30's & 40's) all thought Thor of those movies & Jacob of Twilight were the better looking of their pairing. (My sisters are all married, but one in particular liked poking fun with her husband with Jacob saying "he's legal" etc.)

The point wasn't "this is what all females like."
The point was that blatantly and obviously sexualized portrayals of men do exist and have existed in various locations. Yaoi and Twilight actually being two really good examples. Also an example in the double standard that a bunch of 40-something men oggling a teenage girl is heavily frowned upon and creepy while reversing the sexes makes it totally acceptable naughty fun. Imagine the clusterfumble if your sister's husband teased her about some hot chick and regularly reminder her that "she's legal."

[Stealth Marmot]

I'd step in and say that part of that may be the age of the target audience and not necessarily representative of all female tastes.

Teenage girls tend to like the tall/skinny/pretty boys, and those are the audiences for such things. This is likely because guys their age generally haven't filled out yet. (While I'm very not a consumer - I was under the impression that some Yaoi had one of the two males be muscular.)

I know that my older sisters (30's & 40's) all thought Thor of those movies & Jacob of Twilight were the better looking of their pairing. (My sisters are all married, but one in particular liked poking fun with her husband with Jacob saying "he's legal" etc.)

It IS true that tastes can change based on age differences and targeting audiences for such can come into play, but I was using Yaoi as an example of men being sexualized for an audience that was explicitly female for the sake of imaginary sexual fantasies. I didn't say it had to be for EVERY woman, just women in particular. And I specifically chose it because it is an example of men being sexualized in a way that some straight males may find uncomfortable if they were put under societal pressure to be like that.

Basically, I think this comic actually covers what I was trying to say pretty well:

http://www.themarysue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/falseequivalence.png

Again, not EVERY woman likes that, but the idea is that we have a situation where someone of your gender is portrayed in a way that could make you feel uncomfortable for the sake of titillating members of the other gender.

Thing is, this situation is FAR more common for women to face than men, to the point that sometimes women would rather quit something they enjoy than deal with it.

[Stealth Marmot]

The point wasn't "this is what all females like."
The point was that blatantly and obviously sexualized portrayals of men do exist and have existed in various locations. Yaoi and Twilight actually being two really good examples. Also an example in the double standard that a bunch of 40-something men oggling a teenage girl is heavily frowned upon and creepy while reversing the sexes makes it totally acceptable naughty fun. Imagine the clusterfumble if your sister's husband teased her about some hot chick and regularly reminder her that "she's legal."

Yeah, you seem to be under the impression I was trying to give the sexualiztion of men equal measure to the sexualization of women because I was able to find a particular instance of where something was reversed. Simply put, I am not.

If I am wrong about that, please ignore the rest of this.

First off, Yaoi is specific. It exists with the primary function BEING the sexualization. I would not compare it to a video game or movie or tabletop art because it does not try to pretend that the Yaoi's primary purpose is say, making a political statement or trying to tell a gripping mystery. Sure, Yaoi's range in their explicitness, ranging from PG and focused on the story to flat our porn, (I THINK, I'M BASING THIS ON A COUPLE OF SAGE VIDEOS FROM CHANNEL AWESOME) but they are not advertised as Mysteries and then have a couple of dudes kissing through most of it for the ladies' benefit.

Second off, it is not as prevalent in pop culture. Yaoi is not only specific, it is niche. It is not exactly sold on the same shelves as Settlers of Catan. Fantasy books with large breasted women front and center? Those are.

Men being sexualized is a novelty, women being sexualized is the norm.

As shown in my earlier post, my example was not trying to give some sort of equivalence, but instead trying to make guys who think the problem is not prevalent an idea: Consider if every time you saw a guy in a fantasy genre looked like an exaggerated Legolas and almost never deviated from that prettiness, and were all the while usually dressed Like Kuja from Final Fantasy 9.

Imagine if you were expected to look like that with most of your characters, or were at least implied to look like that. Then imagine if you complained about the portrayals or wanted to push playing something else, you were scoffed at and your geek credentials questioned, implying you just weren't part of the group.

I know, #NotaAllMen and all that, but this is a common feeling that many women face, particularly when new to gaming and D&D groups. And I hate anything that keeps people away from joining gaming. Gatekeeping makes me mad.

[Vinyadan]

Me too, if anything it got me thinking. David is actually a fairly sexual pose all things considered. He's all got his arm pulled back specifically to draw the muscles in the chest and abdomen taught, with the specific intention of showing them off. Combined with the hips shifted to the right and slightly back actually puts the groin into a more prominent position than it would be normally.

That particular David is actually the depiction of a person facing an enemy with fear, tension, concentration and defiance. It was originally placed beside the gate of the City Hall, and incoming visitors (among which foreign diplomats) would be watched by this statue as they entered. Noticed that the eyes go to the left, which meant that they were actually following people's back as they went in. (Achtung marble nudity) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Michelangelo%27s_David.JPG)



Don't conflate people that think nudity is wrong in general, or inappropriate on moral grounds, with people that take issue sexualized female forms just for the sake of it being sexualized are the same group.

The point is that they aren't as different as they'd wish to be. As you are seeing sexualization in what is actually a depiction of heroic resistance and a warning, so could someone opposed to the sexualization of men decide that the David must be hidden or destroyed, because it's demeaning. Destruction, defacing or obfuscation of works of art is a big common denominator in human history, after all, with the most varied reasons given; more common than book burning, with which it shares a lot of elements, because images can be directly perceived and therefore be immediately irritating (independently by the fact that it has been understood or not).

My point of view is that the sexual revolution was followed by a persisting attempt by some of the revolutionaries to impose a new moral government, and that it would be as bad and rigid, if not worse, than the previous one, if it weren't for the fact that these people's ideology is often so preposterous, that it can't gain traction among the masses.

Are there some who are healthy minded and know what they say, and with whom I agree? Yes, I think so. I actually have a very low tolerance for sexualization in media, unless it's done intelligently (see the nudity in Andrej Rublev, which btw is also a great masterpiece that was hidden for years because it was held for too raunchy), otherwise I feel treated like an animal by the author. But there actually are very, very few people who understand something of human portrayal in art; a lot of artists do not speak the language of the art they try to generate, and a lot of critics don't have the slightest idea of what they talk about (see an interview to Andres Serrano in which the journalist wanted to see the majesty of the baroque in his works, without understanding that he is actually going for a feeling of uncanny generated by the grotesque he consistently inserts in this majesty. BTW Serrano is pretty good, if deliberately scathing).

I get the problem of sexy armour: the fact that most real life women use their sex appeal every day doesn't reduce them to being nothing but sex appeal, while sexy armour is a way to turn a woman into nothing but sex appeal ("yes, OK, great warrior, but let's get to the point, is she hot?"). I also don't think it's that much of a problem, compared to pornography. It is a childish desire to see everyone exist only to please you.

[Satinavian]

Second off, it is not as prevalent in pop culture. Yaoi is not only specific, it is niche. It is not exactly sold on the same shelves as Settlers of Catan. Fantasy books with large breasted women front and center? Those are. Really ? Here the manga shelf (small bookstores rarely divide further and finding Yaoi there is pretty common) is usually next to the fantasy shelf (which usually also includes horror and occasionally SF) but booktores don't have "Setlers of Catan" and toystores don't have books or manga. Also i have the feeling the more common fantasy book covers today are purely ornamental or simple drawings at least here. Pictured women seem more common for books targeting women as audience. But that changes every couple of years anyway and covers are somewhat reagional. Whatever the publisher things works best in the target country.


I know, #NotaAllMen and all that, but this is a common feeling that many women face, particularly when new to gaming and D&D groups. There are far more roleplaying games out there than D&D. Most try for some kind of consistent style. And quite a lot handle this particular problem far better than D&D. If i think about the various RPGs i played and illustrations (covers, character archetypes), yes, women are more often sexualized more or less everywhere. But aside from games that want to appeal to retro-chic and those that are pure parody, there is none as bad as D&D (and D&D clones going for a similar style to emphasize similarity).

[Segev]

Except if she wants to be different from every other girl in her class she will be ostracized and bullied.

So it's not a free choice if she will be mistreated for making a chooice.Hoo boy.

You do realize that kids are, in point of fact, mean to each other, and that there's no vile chauvinism in what you just outlined, right? I mean, I was picked on for being "too smart" and the crapsack administration at my elementary school said it was my fault for "intimidating" the other kids by speaking with, essentially, proper grammar and a wide vocabulary, so I "provoked" them.

If you want to say that the adults at school shouldn't defend little girls for picking on the girls that don't play with Barbie, I'm right there with you. If you want to say that the existence of Barbie and the general preference little girls show for Barbie over Transformers is somehow evidence that adults at school (or at home or wherever) are "forcing" it on them, or are encouraging bullying of little girls who happen to prefer Transformers over Barbie, then you're going to need to try a lot harder.

Godlings and demigods, people, my Mom, bless her heart, forbade toy guns when I was a kid. At least, she did, until my baby brother, at the tender age of 5, was caught playing with my sister's Barbies. Hang on, it gets better. What horrified my mom wasn't that he was playing with dolls. No, no. What horrified her was that he was stripping them naked, bending them over at the waist, and posing their arms above their backs...to use them as guns and pretend the arms were a hammer he was cocking back.

Totally innocent of any implications you may have drawn from that description: he wanted toy guns, so he used our sister's Barbie dolls to make them because, for whatever reason, they seemed the most suitable raw materials for his imagination to work with.

Me, I did play with My Little Ponies that belonged to our sister. Though I used them more as "magical action heroes" than ... well, honestly, whatever the "normal" thing to do with them is. I haven't the foggiest. I liked that they were magical teleporting and flying creatures. (I was uninterested in the normal horses.)

People like what they like. People who are different get made fun of when they're kids. It's good to discourage such mockery. But none of it is a sign of some nefarious, misogynistic conspiracy.


Why do male characters can be whaterever they want without having to look sexy? And female characters can be awesome but they also have to be sexy?Nonsense. Nobody said girls have to be sexy to be awesome. Though honestly...


How many awesome fat female characters can you name? I can name many fat male characters so why do all awesome famale character also have to be supermodels?Your "fat male characters" are likely not the awesome ones. Boys (and men) want to identify with the attractive male hero, too. And women likely prefer to watch attractive male heroes over unattractive ones.

And don't even get me started on the way this would be twisted if there were a prevalence of "unattractive" or "non-sexy" heroines. "It's all part of the misogynistic message that women can't be competent AND sexy," or some such tripe.


People like what they like. If YOU don't like it, don't buy it. Don't consume it. If you want something different, make it, or find somebody making it and support them. Screaming at people for liking things you disapprove of is at best a temper tantrum, and at worst (when it actually is backed by the power to enforce it) tyrannical.

Or do you think it's fine and dandy for the straight-laced Christian Prude Group du Jour to come in and tell you that you shouldn't have sexy characters at all, and that gays shouldn't be depicted in fiction, and...whatever else you care to think of?

A good word of advice is this: If you want to demand people stop doing something, rather than simply ignoring it, imagine if the opposite side had the power you fantasize about having, and what they'd do with it. Then curb your desired power to a point you'd be comfortable giving it over to them. You probably will find that there's room for everybody to be happy at that point, when everybody minds their own darned business.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nonsense. Nobody said girls have to be sexy to be awesome.


If you mean that nobody on this thread said that, sure, I haven't seen it blatantly said by anyone on this thread.

But, sheesh, if you think it's not routinely implied through criticism and commentary that the first thing female characters "should be" judged against is their appearance and "hotness"... then you've been very lucky to miss a great deal of the response that various female characters get.




People like what they like. If YOU don't like it, don't buy it. Don't consume it. If you want something different, make it, or find somebody making it and support them. Screaming at people for liking things you disapprove of is at best a temper tantrum, and at worst (when it actually is backed by the power to enforce it) tyrannical.

Or do you think it's fine and dandy for the straight-laced Christian Prude Group du Jour to come in and tell you that you shouldn't have sexy characters at all, and that gays shouldn't be depicted in fiction, and...whatever else you care to think of?

A good word of advice is this: If you want to demand people stop doing something, rather than simply ignoring it, imagine if the opposite side had the power you fantasize about having, and what they'd do with it. Then curb your desired power to a point you'd be comfortable giving it over to them. You probably will find that there's room for everybody to be happy at that point, when everybody minds their own darned business.


Why is it that you use terms like "screaming" and "temper tantrum" here? Is it not possible to make rational, reasoned arguments as to why both the creators and the consumers of these various works (RPG art, video games, animated or live fiction, cover art, whatever) should be more aware of the tropes and cliches involved, the stereotypes being reinforced, the effect on the self-image of girls, etc? Is there only "don't like it, don't buy it" and "screaming tantrum" / "tyranny"?

[Keltest]

If you mean that nobody on this thread said that, sure, I haven't seen it blatantly said by anyone on this thread.

But, sheesh, if you think it's not routinely implied through criticism and commentary that the first thing female characters "should be" judged against is their appearance and "hotness"... then you've been very lucky to miss a great deal of the response that various female characters get.


Sight is our primary sense, and in any media where vision plays a part, the visuals themselves are going to be one of the most important parts of it. Of course women are going to be judged on how they look. Everybody and every thing in visual media is judged on how they look. Even (and perhaps especially) book covers and other images associated with otherwise non-visual media need to place a heavy emphasis on looks and nothing else. The entire point is that you want people to look at them and be pleased. Its like criticizing food for being "too delicious".

Now yes, there is absolutely a problem when the only important thing about a character is how they look, and there is no other character traits behind them, in the same way that its a problem when theres food that tastes good and provides no nutritional value when you eat it. But these are (mostly) fictional characters. We aren't going to hurt their feelings by going "Wow, she is an interesting character, and also pretty."

[Max_Killjoy]

Sight is our primary sense, and in any media where vision plays a part, the visuals themselves are going to be one of the most important parts of it. Of course women are going to be judged on how they look. Everybody and every thing in visual media is judged on how they look. Even (and perhaps especially) book covers and other images associated with otherwise non-visual media need to place a heavy emphasis on looks and nothing else. The entire point is that you want people to look at them and be pleased. Its like criticizing food for being "too delicious".


Really? Because on anything I'd be working on, I'd want people to look at the associated artwork and see the characters accurately depicted, in ways that reflect something about them as characters, rather than see them depicted as eye candy.




Now yes, there is absolutely a problem when the only important thing about a character is how they look, and there is no other character traits behind them, in the same way that its a problem when theres food that tastes good and provides no nutritional value when you eat it. But these are (mostly) fictional characters. We aren't going to hurt their feelings by going "Wow, she is an interesting character, and also pretty."


The concern really isn't hurting the feelings of fictional characters, you know...

[Segev]

Why is it that you use terms like "screaming" and "temper tantrum" here? Is it not possible to make rational, reasoned arguments as to why both the creators and the consumers of these various works (RPG art, video games, animated or live fiction, cover art, whatever) should be more aware of the tropes and cliches involved, the stereotypes being reinforced, the effect on the self-image of girls, etc? Is there only "don't like it, don't buy it" and "screaming tantrum" / "tyranny"?There's nothing wrong with explaining why you don't like it. There's nothing wrong with saying "I would prefer this other thing." That's all great for conversation and even possibly persuasive. Unfortunately - and I admit that this is to what I'm reacting more than this SPECIFIC thread - the overall context that these "omg sexy girls are objectified and it's sexist to have sexy heroines" types of ... I'll call them "positions," for lack of a less-neutral term ... comes out in exactly that: a scolding tantrum that's telling people they're bad for liking things or making things, rather than simply expressing a personal dislike or a yearning for something else.

Tell me, "I am a little tired of this, and want more of that," and while I will admit I might knee-jerk to a :smallsigh: if what you're "a little tired of" is something that is constantly under attack, I am more likely to re-examine it and agree, "That's fine; and sure, more of that might be cool." I won't point 'this' out to you unless I think it's so awesome that it should deserve attention in spite of your exhaustion with the subject matter. And if I find something of 'that,' I'll be more inclined to point you towards it.

Tell me, on the other hand, "This is awful, and you should feel bad if you like it," and I am going to be annoyed. Even if I would agree that it's over-exposed (pun unintended), the accusation inherent is irksome. And any "this is sexist!" or "...misogynistic!" or "patriarchy!"-laced 'explanations' of why it's awful is, in fact, saying "you should feel bad if you like it."

Despite the fact that I am decidedly squicked by boys-love manga (and have run into a few anime or manga whose premise - usually involving something supernatural - intrigued me until it the pretty-boys started kissing), I am not going to tell yaoi fangirls (or anybody else) who like that sort of thing that that sort of thing is objectively bad, or that it's immoral to the point that liking it makes you a sinful, horrible person. I won't (knowingly) support such works, as I have things to do with my time and money that I like more. I ask the same courtesy from those who dislike things that I like.

(And, for the record, while I have no problem with "sexy girls" in shows, there are plenty of sexualized female presentations in shows where it really isn't necessary that have also turned me off to such works. Ironically, despite my (equally ironic to those who know me) distaste for the 'zombie apocalypse' genre, it's the almost-hilarious *ahem* 'anatomical physics' in High School of the Dead which rendered it unwatchable to me.)


Sight is our primary sense, and in any media where vision plays a part, the visuals themselves are going to be one of the most important parts of it. Of course women are going to be judged on how they look. Everybody and every thing in visual media is judged on how they look. Even (and perhaps especially) book covers and other images associated with otherwise non-visual media need to place a heavy emphasis on looks and nothing else. The entire point is that you want people to look at them and be pleased. Its like criticizing food for being "too delicious".

Now yes, there is absolutely a problem when the only important thing about a character is how they look, and there is no other character traits behind them, in the same way that its a problem when theres food that tastes good and provides no nutritional value when you eat it. But these are (mostly) fictional characters. We aren't going to hurt their feelings by going "Wow, she is an interesting character, and also pretty."

Frankly, men are also judged on how they look. Perhaps how much flesh they bare is less important (and, in fact, I am given to understand that women tend to respond more favorably to a man in a sharp suit or tuxedo than to a man in a speedo when shown depictions), but looks still are important. Especially, as Keltest notes here, when trying to sell something by "catching the viewer's eye."

[Segev]

Really? Because on anything I'd be working on, I'd want people to look at the associated artwork and see the characters accurately depicted, in ways that reflect something about them as characters, rather than see them depicted as eye candy.

Okay...? So do so.

If you're expressing irritation that somebody else will depict your characters inaccurately, that's a perfectly valid complaint and has nothing to do with telling consumers of media other than yours that they're bad people for liking the pretty girl baring her midriff.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay...? So do so.

If you're expressing irritation that somebody else will depict your characters inaccurately, that's a perfectly valid complaint and has nothing to do with telling consumers of media other than yours that they're bad people for liking the pretty girl baring her midriff.


I don't think I'm telling people that they're bad for liking something.

I think that I'm criticizing art on its merits as I see them, and questioning the intention behind and the impact of that art... and wondering aloud why the standards for depicting one sex are so different from the standards for depicting the other.

[JadedDM]

People like what they like. People who are different get made fun of when they're kids. It's good to discourage such mockery. But none of it is a sign of some nefarious, misogynistic conspiracy.
Nobody said anything about a conspiracy. 'Conspiracy' implies there's a conscious effort at work. It's usually not conscious. There's a lot of momentum in society. Someone does something, someone copies it, it spreads throughout our culture, few people think to question it. It just becomes a thing.

Kids do, generally speaking, make fun of anyone who is 'different.' They are taught this their whole lives. No, their parents don't take them aside and say, "Now junior, you make sure to beat up any other little boys who play with dolls or ponies and call them names." They learn from the media, from society itself. Not directly, but indirectly. If the vast majority of women depicted to little boys in their video games, books, movies, television shows, etc., are sexualized, they grow up thinking of that as the norm. And what isn't normal is considered bad. But if we, as a society, push to make it normal for boys to play with dolls or small children to have a high vocabulary or whatever, then it becomes normal and is no longer resisted.

And that's what people are fighting for. Not to force little boys to play with dolls and little girls to play with toy guns, but to make it acceptable for either to do both.


Of course women are going to be judged on how they look. Everybody and every thing in visual media is judged on how they look.
That's not the issue. Yes, any character will be judged on how they look in a visual medium. But the male characters are not judged in the same way as the female characters. Nobody looks at Super Mario and scoffs that he isn't f***able enough. But try to imagine what would happen if someone had tried to make a video game protagonist that looked like a female version of Mario (unsexy overalls and cap, pot belly). How do you think most men would respond to that image?


Tell me, on the other hand, "This is awful, and you should feel bad if you like it," and I am going to be annoyed. Even if I would agree that it's over-exposed (pun unintended), the accusation inherent is irksome. And any "this is sexist!" or "...misogynistic!" or "patriarchy!"-laced 'explanations' of why it's awful is, in fact, saying "you should feel bad if you like it."
I haven't seen anyone here make such statements, though. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make that sort of argument before. Even Sarkesian says in every video that it's okay to criticize what we love. I think a lot of people just infer that argument is being made and then get all offended, rather than listening to what is being said rationally.


Frankly, men are also judged on how they look. Perhaps how much flesh they bare is less important (and, in fact, I am given to understand that women tend to respond more favorably to a man in a sharp suit or tuxedo than to a man in a speedo when shown depictions), but looks still are important. Especially, as Keltest notes here, when trying to sell something by "catching the viewer's eye."
Again, but not in the same way as women are. And that's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? The complaint isn't that fictional women are depicted as being just too darn attractive, it's that they are sexualized and held to the same standards of beauty with no variation allowed. Men can be muscular and hairy, bald and pot-bellied, short and stout, skinny and awkward, or anything else. Women aren't allowed that kind of diversity. And when they are, men inevitably complain about it.

[Dragonexx]

How vocal and numerous are those complaints though? I remember when movies like star wars and mad max came out featureing female protaganists, there seemed to be a bunch of people up in arms but it was actually a small number of really loud stupid people.

Also, wasn't this originally a troll thread?

[Stealth Marmot]

Hoo boy.

You do realize that kids are, in point of fact, mean to each other, and that there's no vile chauvinism in what you just outlined, right? I mean, I was picked on for being "too smart" and the crapsack administration at my elementary school said it was my fault for "intimidating" the other kids by speaking with, essentially, proper grammar and a wide vocabulary, so I "provoked" them.

That was wrong of them. Bullying is a serious problem, no matter the source.


If you want to say that the adults at school shouldn't defend little girls for picking on the girls that don't play with Barbie, I'm right there with you. If you want to say that the existence of Barbie and the general preference little girls show for Barbie over Transformers is somehow evidence that adults at school (or at home or wherever) are "forcing" it on them, or are encouraging bullying of little girls who happen to prefer Transformers over Barbie, then you're going to need to try a lot harder.

*facepalms* FFFFFFFF-Ooookay then.

*deep inhale*

Gendered advertising and cultural expectations are problematic not because people having a preference is problematic, but because it gives a false impression that sociologically affected factors are rooted in biology rather than social factors. In short, the whole nature vs. nurture debate is mislead by the idea that children are automatically drawn to one sort of toy is due to their sex, not their social environment. Giving creedance to the idea that ideas and preferences are largely biological, instead of social, feeds into a fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior and responsibility. When one is able to blame such tendencies on biology they fail to instead address the sometimes problematic aspects of our culture, particularly in addressing potential inequalities and prejudices.

In general, Barbie existing is not so much a problem as much as the advertising and social aspects behind it. When Barbie is marketed solely as a girls toy, the aspects that are put behind it are in general "Female" aspects, while toys targeted to males are instead given "Male" aspects. Female toys are generally nurturing, aesthetic and dealing with things like homemaking, shopping, and making things aesthetically "pretty". Male toys instead are focused on fighting, protecting, conflict, and conquering. This is not to say that these toys are necessarily problematic for kids in general to have, but there is rarely any crossover or balance in a lot of the toys. More recent, as in the last 10-20 years, toy companies have tried to get away from gendered advertising but the stigma still remains. It is slowly going away, and stores like Target have decided to remove the line between the toys, but until the social stigma is addressed and the scales are tipped towards the concept of gender roles being unnecessary in children's toys, we will have stagnation in creativity and an unnecessary divide in social circles, over what it in the end, a trivial and personal concept. They are just toys and should be treated as just toys, not girls toys or boys toys.

The real issue behind the concepts of "Maleness" and "femaleness" is not just stagnating creativity though, but instead building a concept of inequality. "Maleness" is more socially respected than "femaleness'. It is worth noting that the "Maleness" and "Femaleness" of the actions are not tied specifically to actual gender or sex, but instead the aspects themselves. Women who are conquering and fighting types are more respected than males who are of the nurturing type. This is the real essence of what we refer to as "patriarchy". Not that males are superior, but "Maleness" is, and that "Maleness" and "Femaleness need to even be applied to these aspects, pidgeon-holing people into different groups when it is not necessary.

But this is, in essence, theoretical, and there is no scientific study that I have bookmarked to "prove" such ideas are true, so as far as I know I can't just link to something to use as a silver bullet, instead I have to try to appeal to deductive logic. Your personal experiences may paint a different picture of the effects, and the effects themselves are not only subtle, but heartily ingrained into our social view that the idea that they are NOT innate and a form of biological imperative is a hard pill to swallow, so I understand if you don't believe it.

Let's instead focus on some more practical and actual lasting problems caused by gendered advertising.

I should note that in my opinion, advertising to KIDS is actually sleazy in general, and that advertising for toys should instead appeal to parents and/or guardians. That said...

The first problem I will bring up is that early video games were largely gender neutral and had nearly as many women players as men. There is a Reason Ms. Pac Man was made, the company realized it could appeal to a female player base. However, video game systems went from being a consumer electronic, like a television, to becoming a toy. This happened with the NES, where the company had to pick a section to put the "toy" in. They went with the boys section. Nintendo would continue giving some subtle nudges towards gendered advertising, but it was NOTHING compared to when the same advertising was used for the Sega Genesis in the 16 bit era. The Sega Genesis was basically appealing to being a superviolent XTREME game console for big boys.

Where am I going with this? The concept of gendered toys caused the major rift in female players of video games that continued for decades. Fewer girls played video games and when they did they are often harassed and singled out. Unfortunately, this practice still continues to this day despite the overall video game consumer base being generally 50-50 male and female, even slightly favoring women overall. (This is largely dues to the existence of games like The Sims and smartphone games like Candy Crush and Farmville being REALLY popular amongst middle aged women).

Even still, the division and prejudice against women is felt when you look at the games generally played by women and realize how often they are derided as not "counting" or being "real games" for utterly arbitrary reasons. I constantly see this argument, and the justifications are generally weak, especially since basically no one accuses Tetris of not being a "real game". How precisely is Candy Crush any less of a game then Tetris? (You can argue QUALITY of a game, if you don't like it, but it is still a game.)

Basically, this boy vs girl mentality has resulted in the divide that leads to real problems when it comes to girls just wanting to play games. This cuts both ways, with guys getting their very sexuality being questioned and derided for liking "girl" things.

Just to cap all of this off, did you like the Teen Titans original TV show? Wasn't it great? Well you can thank gendered advertising for it being taken off the air. I am not even kidding. The show was cut and changed, because marketers could not wrap their collective heads around the fact that the show was nearly as popular with girls as it was with boys. I am so not making this up.

The original show had broad appeal to a very wide audience, but the REAL money from those shows is not the shows themselves, but the merchandise. (As Yogurt explained so wonderfully in Spaceballs.) So the people making the toys and such had no idea how to market it, which side to appeal to.You see, they have different divisions trying to advertise to each side, so they can sell one toy to boys and one toy to girls, but if they tried to sell it to both, they would be cutting in on the action of one or the other. You can't sell both, that would be disruptive to how things were done. These short-sighted advertisers were so stuck in gendered advertising that they purposefully changed a really good product to try to appeal to a more specific audience. Want to know why Teen Titans Go generally sucked? Because it was turned into a toy selling ad targeted at young boys because they couldn't wrap their heads around how to sell a show that appealed to EVERYONE. (The simple answer is things like T shirts, non-gendered toys, advertising with mixed audiences, etc, but that was NOT HOW THINGS ARE DONE SIR!)

Just so you know I am NOT making this up: http://www.themarysue.com/warner-bros-animation-girl-market/

In hindsight, a lot of people were probably grilled over the stupid decisions, but the fact that they were made in the first place shows just how harshly these gender lines are drawn, and you think that the very things that culturally brought us up won't affect our views during adolescence and adulthood?

Now I'm not going to suggest ANY sort of legal action or laws being put into place concerning this, First amendment and all that, but unless we culturally push the idea that gendered advertising and arbitrary association of genders from an early age is not something we want, how can expect these kids to suddenly sprout an ingrained sense of egalitarianism when they turn old enough for their actions to actually affect others?

This isn't the source of all sexism, and it may seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but can you honestly say that having advertisers constantly bombard still developing minds with "boys are like this, girls are like this" with the only concern of the messages being what will sell the most merchandise, could not possibly end with skwed and potentially harmful gender divides getting ingrained into their minds?



People like what they like. If YOU don't like it, don't buy it. Don't consume it. If you want something different, make it, or find somebody making it and support them. Screaming at people for liking things you disapprove of is at best a temper tantrum, and at worst (when it actually is backed by the power to enforce it) tyrannical.

Criticism is not tyrannical. We are criticizing. Nothing more. Have I, at any point, called the people who like something sexist? If I have, i apologize. But saying that something is problematic is not the same as saying anyone who likes it is bad. You think I don't like the things I criticize? If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be concerned with making sure it was accessible and friendly to everyone. Including you. I'm just asking that you try putting your best foot forward and making sure that people coming in are comfortable.



Or do you think it's fine and dandy for the straight-laced Christian Prude Group du Jour to come in and tell you that you shouldn't have sexy characters at all, and that gays shouldn't be depicted in fiction, and...whatever else you care to think of?

Your conflation of these two ideas is unsurprising, and flawed. Have I not made it clear that I understand the idea that some women may find sexiness empowering? My request is simply that people understand that certain ideas may be uncomfortable for them. As for homosexuality, that is an ENTIRELY different conversation, but I will sum u my thoughts best I can as this: When straight people who are homophobic are asked to put up with seeing homosexual love, they feel uncomfortable for a while. When LGBT people are told, once again, that their sexuality is not welcome in an entirely fantasy world, and that their honest love and feelings are conflated with sexual objectification and exploitation, they are given one more reason to fall deep enough into depression that results in someone being 8 times more likely to attempt suicide.

Don't compare being ASKED to have your female character put on a ****ing shirt to having your sexuality made unwelcome in what is supposed to be an accepting world where you can be anything, even if you just want to imagine being yourself.

[Vinyadan]

I suppose that's true. Doesn't mean it makes sense, but I guess it's a common misperception / deliberate tactic.

Now I'm kind of curious to know what you think of my previous post.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just to cap all of this off, did you like the Teen Titans original TV show? Wasn't it great? Well you can thank gendered advertising for it being taken off the air. I am not even kidding. The show was cut and changed, because marketers could not wrap their collective heads around the fact that the show was nearly as popular with girls as it was with boys. I am so not making this up.

The original show had broad appeal to a very wide audience, but the REAL money from those shows is not the shows themselves, but the merchandise. (As Yogurt explained so wonderfully in Spaceballs.) So the people making the toys and such had no idea how to market it, which side to appeal to.You see, they have different divisions trying to advertise to each side, so they can sell one toy to boys and one toy to girls, but if they tried to sell it to both, they would be cutting in on the action of one or the other. You can't sell both, that would be disruptive to how things were done. These short-sighted advertisers were so stuck in gendered advertising that they purposefully changed a really good product to try to appeal to a more specific audience. Want to know why Teen Titans Go generally sucked? Because it was turned into a toy selling ad targeted at young boys because they couldn't wrap their heads around how to sell a show that appealed to EVERYONE. (The simple answer is things like T shirts, non-gendered toys, advertising with mixed audiences, etc, but that was NOT HOW THINGS ARE DONE SIR!)

Just so you know I am NOT making this up: http://www.themarysue.com/warner-bros-animation-girl-market/

In hindsight, a lot of people were probably grilled over the stupid decisions, but the fact that they were made in the first place shows just how harshly these gender lines are drawn, and you think that the very things that culturally brought us up won't affect our views during adolescence and adulthood?


Ugh. To paraphrase The Bard... first, kill all the marketing departments.

There is literally nothing that marketers can't ruin.

[Dragonexx]

Yeah, this is reportedly the same thing that happened with Young Justice and is one of the reasons why Korra had so many problems.

[CharonsHelper]

How vocal and numerous are those complaints though? I remember when movies like star wars and mad max came out featureing female protaganists, there seemed to be a bunch of people up in arms but it was actually a small number of really loud stupid people.

And to play devil's advocate, there were also a small number of loud/stupid people who said that people were sexist if they didn't like the latest Ghost Busters movie.

[Lemmy]

No one is "asking" any character to "put on a shirt". They are literally demanding censorship. And the worst part is... Even if the work does get censored, the complainers still won't support it. Because they never had any interest in that work. They just want to stop others from having something that offends the complainer's sensibilities.

And there is a very real biological component to the "men are fighters, women are nurturers" dynamic. There is a reason said dynamic is seen in LITERALLY EVERY SOCIETY IN HUMAN HISTORY. Or do you think that the 108 billion humans who ever existed coincidentally decided to be sexist in exactly the same way? It's because it's beneficial to us as a species, and therefore, rewarded by evolution. Men are physically stronger because that makes them better hunters/warriors. And if they are better at fighting/hunting, women can stay safe... And since, from a reproductive point of view, women are more valuable than men, keeping them safe is in the group's interest (lose half your men to war/predators and the survivors can still impregnate multiple females, lose half your women and your next generation will almost inevitably be half as big as the current one).

This biological component does not dictate our tastes and actions, but it does heavily influence them, no matter how much SJW deny it. Biology doesn't care about politics. And marketers know this. They market "action toys" to boys, because they know boys are more likely to enjoy that. They sell more "nurturing toys" to girls for the very same reason.

Tell me... How many action-focused movies were targeted at women? How many artworks created by women focus on action scenes? Because the two last franchises aimed at female audiences that made a gazillion money and broke quite a few records were Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey. And neither of them is famous for its super-exciting action scenes and/or super-deep plot and great writing. I doubt Jacob taking off his shirt in nearly every scene was necessary to advance the "plot".

Men and women are different. And some of those differences are in our brains. Neither is "better" than the other or more deserving of respect and love, but they are not the same. We have different organs, different hormonal dosages and different benefit differently from different reproductive strategies. Evolution is a thing. We are not immune to it. Neither are our brains.

[Dragonexx]

This is how things have been, thus this is how they should always be.
......................

[Lemmy]

Yeah, this is reportedly the same thing that happened with Young Justice and is one of the reasons why Korra had so many problems.Korra had problems because Nickelodeon is an ass. The Last Airbender series suffered many of the same problems. And as much as I love YJ, I dare say what happened to it was that is second season was... Well... Kinda of bad. They got rid of multiple characters with little to no explanation, created a convoluted plot with boring villains and focused on new characters that viewers barely knew or cared about just so they could sell more toys. To make things worse, the exhibition schedule was all screwed up, with huge hiatuses out of nowhere I don't know how much of that is the writers' fault and how much was executive meddling, but the series did suffer quite a decrease in quality in the second season.

[Max_Killjoy]

No one is "asking" any character to "put on a shirt". They are literally demanding censorship.


So in other words, you're not discussing this with anyone here, you're trying to argue against people who aren't here and things (you claim) they're saying.

[Segev]

I don't think I'm telling people that they're bad for liking something.

I think that I'm criticizing art on its merits as I see them, and questioning the intention behind and the impact of that art... and wondering aloud why the standards for depicting one sex are so different from the standards for depicting the other.And note that I haven't said anything about an artist wanting to have his works depicted in associated art meant to complement his works not having that right.

Discussing the impact is fine. It's this notion that people are evil for disagreeing with you (generic "you," here, not "Max_Killjoy") that starts to grate. Especially since it becomes obvious in the double-standard about who's even allowed to criticize, and over what topics.


And that's what people are fighting for. Not to force little boys to play with dolls and little girls to play with toy guns, but to make it acceptable for either to do both.Sure. I have no problem with boys playing with dolls and girls playing with action figures. Outside of concerns over the push to force it in the name of social justice (and, if you're going to say "that doesn't happen," then...well, I don't have the energy to argue with you about it), very few people do care.

I can assure you that a little girl is not going to be drawn to a Barbie doll just because girls happen to be shown playing with them. Heck, tomboys get accepted in "boys' cliques" fairly easily, as a rule, even when the little tykes are running around feigning panic over "cooties" from the opposite sex. It's a "we don't get that other group's likes and think its funny that they over-react with their dislike of things we like" response. The clever little boy who decides he likes playing tea party will wind up being very popular with the little girls who want him to assume all the "male" roles in their "girly" role-playing games. And likely will be that same clever boy in the home ec course or on the teen figure skating team who is surrounded by skilled female chefs or athletic young ladies looking for partners in various activities.

It is rarely due to external pressure that the little boy feels he MUST like Transformers or must NOT like stuffed animals. Else we wouldn't have tomboys and the like. Oh, tomboys face pressures to "be more girly," don't get me wrong. But if that's all it took, there wouldn't be tomboys.

Kids are people. They have certain tastes. And there is not nearly as much artificial cultural pressure to make little girls like different things than little boys do as people think. The causation is reversed from this conception: people notice that girls like certain things, and thus market them towards the audience that will actually buy them.

Young Justice is mentioned later in here, but I'll address it now because I'll probably miss it as I go through this post. The problem there was that the marketers had the same backwards mindset I'm fighting against. They assumed that their marketing was shaping the likes of the target consumers, and thus felt it was failing because it was not successfully convincing the girls to like action figures. (Or, alternatively, they wanted to sell action figures and recognized that the girls who were the majority audience weren't likely to buy them.) If things worked as imagined by this paradigm, the fact that girls were watching Young Justice would have meant that they would have been conditioned by the commercials to buy action figures! Or that, perhaps, showing girls instead of boys playing with them in the ads would have done it.

But the truth is, girls happen to like certain things. Whatever they saw in Young Justice wasn't the action-figure demographic's interest. A more successful marketing campaign would have figured out what the girls DID like, what they WOULD buy, and started making lines of toys/products marketed to that.

Side thought: I believe the demographic that WAS watching were teen girls and young adults (of both sexes). What products DO they market to teen girls, traditionally? When is it expected that little girls "outgrow" Barbie, and into what DO they theoretically grow? I didn't stop playing with blocks, legos, and action figures until I was in college, and that's largely because I had left them at home. I spent more time on computer games, TV, and reading as time went on leading up to it, but still. But I've always been the wrong demographic for the age and sex clusters I've been put in, because I've always had "weird" tastes. (Like pen and paper RPGs!)



That's not the issue. Yes, any character will be judged on how they look in a visual medium. But the male characters are not judged in the same way as the female characters. Nobody looks at Super Mario and scoffs that he isn't f***able enough. But try to imagine what would happen if someone had tried to make a video game protagonist that looked like a female version of Mario (unsexy overalls and cap, pot belly). How do you think most men would respond to that image?
You mean like Samus? Oh, sure, take her out of her armor, and she's sexy, but her sprite was so unisex that it was a "reveal" that she was a girl at the end.

Make "Maria Mario" rescuing Prince Dandylion from Bowser, and it probably wouldn't have affected game sales one whit. Nobody would care if the plumber-girl was "hot enough" to play. Admittedly, they'd probably go for her being matronly rather than young, at that rate, going for more of a Rivetter Rosie approach. (Or is she too "f***able" for this not to be an indictment, too?)


Again, but not in the same way as women are. And that's a bit of a strawman, isn't it? The complaint isn't that fictional women are depicted as being just too darn attractive, it's that they are sexualized and held to the same standards of beauty with no variation allowed. Men can be muscular and hairy, bald and pot-bellied, short and stout, skinny and awkward, or anything else. Women aren't allowed that kind of diversity. And when they are, men inevitably complain about it."Same standards of beauty?" Er....

You are aware that different men (and different women) have different tastes, right?

I would contend that men are held to just as "same" a set of standards as you could reasonably define for women. (Not THE SAME standards, but a set of standards no more broad.)



Gendered advertising and cultural expectations are problematic not because people having a preference is problematic, but because it gives a false impression that sociologically affected factors are rooted in biology rather than social factors. In short, the whole nature vs. nurture debate is mislead by the idea that children are automatically drawn to one sort of toy is due to their sex, not their social environment. Giving creedance to the idea that ideas and preferences are largely biological, instead of social, feeds into a fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior and responsibility. When one is able to blame such tendencies on biology they fail to instead address the sometimes problematic aspects of our culture, particularly in addressing potential inequalities and prejudices. Sorry, biology does impact personality. It's inarguable. It's not perfectly deciding, but it does have impact. See: My baby brother playing with Barbies in ENTIRELY the "wrong" way.

Godlings, you can look to him for further evidence of personality being genetic. He's spookily like my Mom's youngest brother, despite having practically no contact with him growing up.


In general, Barbie existing is not so much a problem as much as the advertising and social aspects behind it. When Barbie is marketed solely as a girls toy, the aspects that are put behind it are in general "Female" aspects, while toys targeted to males are instead given "Male" aspects. Female toys are generally nurturing, aesthetic and dealing with things like homemaking, shopping, and making things aesthetically "pretty". Male toys instead are focused on fighting, protecting, conflict, and conquering.O....kay...?

So, because Barbies are marketed as nurturing and pretty, that makes them attractive to girls. So to make Barbies attractive to boys, we should make them more focused on fighting, protecting, conflict, and conquering? Isn't that making them...not Barbies, anymore? Aren't you right here saying that girls and boys are attracted by different qualities in their toys based primarily on their sex?

Or am I somehow misreading you?


More recent, as in the last 10-20 years, toy companies have tried to get away from gendered advertising but the stigma still remains. It is slowly going away, and stores like Target have decided to remove the line between the toys, but until the social stigma is addressed and the scales are tipped towards the concept of gender roles being unnecessary in children's toys, we will have stagnation in creativity and an unnecessary divide in social circles, over what it in the end, a trivial and personal concept. They are just toys and should be treated as just toys, not girls toys or boys toys.How will you know when "the stigma" is gone? What will be your evidence? Will it only be gone when boys play with Barbies and girls play with toy guns in proportions that make it impossible to state that there is a gender-associated difference in preference?

Because, by that standard, you're presuming your hypothesis. You need some criterion by which to judge "the stigma" is gone that doesn't rely on the choices boys and girls make in their toys, because otherwise you could mistake your hypothesis being wrong (and therefore that boys and girls do in fact have statistically notable gender-influenced taste in toys) for "the stigma" being there. Which would necessitate still more draconian measures to "fix" it.

In other words: be careful here.





But this is, in essence, theoretical, and there is no scientific study that I have bookmarked to "prove" such ideas are true, so as far as I know I can't just link to something to use as a silver bullet, instead I have to try to appeal to deductive logic.I empathize; I don't keep such things in easy access, either. It always amazes me when people do.



Your personal experiences may paint a different picture of the effects, and the effects themselves are not only subtle, but heartily ingrained into our social view that the idea that they are NOT innate and a form of biological imperative is a hard pill to swallow, so I understand if you don't believe it.I have significant personal and anecdotal experience to the contrary. I've, in fact, known women who correctly predicted their child's sex by their behavior in the womb, long before they got it identified. I have never heard a woman state they believe their child's sex to be something based on such behaviors and be wrong. (It is possible - nay, probable - that there have been. But I have not known them, and I have known a decent number of women who've made such predictions.)


Let's instead focus on some more practical and actual lasting problems caused by gendered advertising.

I should note that in my opinion, advertising to KIDS is actually sleazy in general, and that advertising for toys should instead appeal to parents and/or guardians.Meh. Bemoaning the only effective means of getting the target audience's interest is a bit counterproductive, I think. Parents already will be the gate guardians, as they're the ones who have to buy it.


The first problem I will bring up is that early video games were largely gender neutral and had nearly as many women players as men. There is a Reason Ms. Pac Man was made, the company realized it could appeal to a female player base. However, video game systems went from being a consumer electronic, like a television, to becoming a toy. This happened with the NES, where the company had to pick a section to put the "toy" in. They went with the boys section. Nintendo would continue giving some subtle nudges towards gendered advertising, but it was NOTHING compared to when the same advertising was used for the Sega Genesis in the 16 bit era. The Sega Genesis was basically appealing to being a superviolent XTREME game console for big boys.

Where am I going with this? The concept of gendered toys caused the major rift in female players of video games that continued for decades. Fewer girls played video games and when they did they are often harassed and singled out. Unfortunately, this practice still continues to this day despite the overall video game consumer base being generally 50-50 male and female, even slightly favoring women overall. (This is largely dues to the existence of games like The Sims and smartphone games like Candy Crush and Farmville being REALLY popular amongst middle aged women).Note that it was a choice in what kinds of games to produce which governed a choice in how to market them.

I mean, you bemoan the "superviolent XTREME games" they made for Sega Genesis. That is because they expected to be able to sell those to their target demographic: boys.

Or do you believe that they could've just slotted in girls, changing nothing else about the presentation of the games, and it would have appealed to girls and made boys go "ew, blue and black are girlie colors, because girls are in that, and that game about killing people in street battles is such a GIRL game!"



Actually, I am going to apologize for not replying to the rest point by point, as you raise interesting things, but I think my responses are best summed up this way:

Take those commercials you feel are gender-targeted. Play my favorite game with them (swap the sex of all involved kids). Do you think girls would be culturally influenced to view such things as "girly?" That boys would be culturally influenced to play house with Barbie and Ken that way?

If it helps, play the game with all the fictional characters involved, too. Make it Brad and Kendra. Make it Maria Mario rescuing Prince Dandelion. Make Sega Genesis the "superviolent XTREME game console for girls." Show girls playing with the action figures from He-Man or Young Justice.

Does that make the girls, in your mind, suddenly think "superviolent XTREME" stuff, that action figures, are something with which they want to play? Do they disparage Brad and Kendra as "too boyish" in his Malibu Dream House?



My biggest problem with your arguments is that you seem to be simultaneously claiming that it's just cultural associations that make "boy toys" and "girl toys," and nothing to do with their actual sex and biology influencing their preferences...but then turn around and say that it's about how they're marketed that determines whether boys or girls will find them appealing. But if how they're marketed determines that, doesn't that mean that there's a difference in their preferences?

[Lemmy]

This is how things have been, thus this is how they should always beI'm sorry... Are you saying we can/should change human genetics? Or do you just enjoy misrepresenting people's arguments?

[Dragonexx]

I'm flat out saying that your argument is ridiculous. Just because our genetics and instincts incline us towards certain things doesn't mean that's how things should be (and your WAY overselling how much influence this has on people). Humans also naturally fear change and difference, though if we embraced that, we'd never make any advancement as a society or species.


(Or is she too "f***able" for this not to be an indictment, too?)


Think up any random thing in your head. Now realize that someone somewhere has a fetish for that.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yeah, you seem to be under the impression I was trying to give the sexualiztion of men equal measure to the sexualization of women because I was able to find a particular instance of where something was reversed. Simply put, I am not.

If I am wrong about that, please ignore the rest of this.
I didn't ignore the rest, but I was in no way implying both happen equally. Just that both do exist, and it's not something that NEVER happens. Though I do have some comments:



Second off, it is not as prevalent in pop culture. Yaoi is not only specific, it is niche. It is not exactly sold on the same shelves as Settlers of Catan. Fantasy books with large breasted women front and center? Those are.

You shop at weird stores. Most fantasy novels nowadays don't even feature people on the cover at all outside of children's literature. Maybe that's a US thing, but... I can't remember the last time I've seen a buxom woman on the cover of a book that wasn't explicitly sexual or some kind of crude comedy novel.

Maybe we just shop at different stores... >.>



Imagine if you were expected to look like that with most of your characters, or were at least implied to look like that. Then imagine if you complained about the portrayals or wanted to push playing something else, you were scoffed at and your geek credentials questioned, implying you just weren't part of the group.

I know, #NotaAllMen and all that, but this is a common feeling that many women face, particularly when new to gaming and D&D groups. And I hate anything that keeps people away from joining gaming. Gatekeeping makes me mad.

I'll just throw in that men also feel pressure to have themselves/characters appear a certain way. BUT!

Gatekeeping is still lame.

Essentially:
It doesn't take away from or diminish the problems of women to point out that men also experience some of these problems.

*shrug*

[Stealth Marmot]

No one is "asking" any character to "put on a shirt". They are literally demanding censorship.

Where? Show me.

[Lemmy]

I'm flat out saying that your argument is ridiculous. Just because our genetics and instincts incline us towards certain things doesn't mean that's how things should be (and your WAY overselling how much influence this has on people). Humans also naturally fear change and difference, though if we embraced that, we'd never make any advancement as a society or species.I never said that's how things should be. I'm telling that's how it is. Humans "fear change" but are also curious and eternally unsatisfied. We always want more. And I'm not "overselling" anything, I'm just recognizing that our behavior IS influenced by genetics... You know... Like literally every other species on Earth. When a certain behavior is seen in LITERALLY EVERY SOCIETY IN HISTORY, even ones that are otherwise completely different, that's a damn strong evidence that said behavior IS part of human nature. Even in Sweden, "the most feminist nation in the world", I'm willing to bet there're far more female nurses than male ones, and more male engineers than female ones.

[Lemmy]

Where? Show me.Remember when Sarkeesian and Quinn had unopposed forum on UN, and instead of asking for them to help with legitimate issues, like how women are treated in underdeveloped countries, they literally asked the UN to censor their critics?
http://rightwingnews.com/feminism/campus-feminists-demand-censorship-of-social-media/
http://patriotupdate.com/feminists-demand-censorship-princess-leia-catcalling-parody-video/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/5-examples-of-feminist-censorship-that-will-make-you-rethink-online-bullying/

And this was just a quick google. You can find tons more. SJW's typical modus operanti is finding something they don't like, accusing it of being "offensive" and then demanding it be censored. Crybullies at its best.

[8BitNinja]

@Everyone: Can you put down the molotovs, baseball bats, and various other rioting weapons? For the last time, this thread is not on how armor is sexist or anything. This thread is not a serious one, it's a joke. Why can't we make fun of things any more?

@Feminists: Can you shut up about censorship, Anita Sarkeesian, and sexism?

@Anti-Feminists: Can you shut up about censorship, Anita Sarkeesian, and sexism?

Can you guys are what you are doing? You are arguing about how fictional characters choose to dress! Can we please keep this a joke? If not, start your own thread. I don't care if this is vigilante modding or if that last statement was mea culpa, just shut up or start your own thread.

[Lemmy]

You know what... You're right. There's no point in having this discussion here, anyway. I'm dropping out to avoid further conflict. You guys have fun!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Anyone who unironically uses the term "SJW" can safely be ignored.

[8BitNinja]

You know what... You're right. There's no point in having this discussion here, anyway. I'm dropping out to avoid further conflict. You guys have fun!

You don't have to leave dude. I just didn't want people to argue over a joke.

[8BitNinja]

Anyone who unironically uses the term "SJW" can safely be ignored.

Screw it, I'm out of here before this thread gets scrubbed.

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[Max_Killjoy]

Remember when Sarkeesian and Quinn had unopposed forum on UN, and instead of asking for them to help with legitimate issues, like how women are treated in underdeveloped countries, they literally asked the UN to censor their critics?
http://rightwingnews.com/feminism/campus-feminists-demand-censorship-of-social-media/
http://patriotupdate.com/feminists-demand-censorship-princess-leia-catcalling-parody-video/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/5-examples-of-feminist-censorship-that-will-make-you-rethink-online-bullying/


None of these articles actually serve as citations for your statement.

Plus... yeah, some of the other articles on the same sites are fairly revealing as to the slant they're presenting. What's next, a link to Infowars?

They're roughly the equivalent of linking to Voz de Aztlan for even-handed and accurate reporting on US history.




Where? Show me.

He can't.

He's not arguing with any of us, he's arguing with caricatures of people who aren't here, in refutation of things that kinda sound like what those people have said, but filtered through wackadoodle websites.

[Dragonexx]

I did originally ask if people remembered that this was a troll thrad.

[Max_Killjoy]

I did originally ask if people remembered that this was a troll thrad.

The trouble with a troll or joke thread is that people might start to make "jokes" that hit on serious points, and then all bets are off.

[Stealth Marmot]

My biggest problem with your arguments is that you seem to be simultaneously claiming that it's just cultural associations that make "boy toys" and "girl toys," and nothing to do with their actual sex and biology influencing their preferences...but then turn around and say that it's about how they're marketed that determines whether boys or girls will find them appealing. But if how they're marketed determines that, doesn't that mean that there's a difference in their preferences?

That is an interesting point so I'll address it.

Gender assignment is not innate, but it is programed VERY early. Specifically, by parents and they are affected by outside influences and culture.

Most of the early associations are very subtle and only affect a couple of things, since baby toys are usually not gendered very much. Specifically, colors. Pink is girly, blue for boys. This is so pervasive that it is enough to start off the difference and preference.

However, studies have shown that children of all sexes naturally gravitate to blue. The girls gravitating to pink doesn't happen until they are around 2 or 3. Now before you start saying that this is an indication that girls will naturally gravitate to a certain color when reaching a certain age, and thus that is why girls like pink socially, I will respond with this: Pink was not a girls color until a mere 100 years ago. Pink was actually a masculine color during the 1800s until around 1930, due to the influence of the style of Elsa Schiaparelli. So if the desirability of the color pink is innate enough that it is part of female biology, why is it that it was never actually part of being female until the 1920s to 1930s? And yet it seems to be popping in to children at an incredibly young age. Basically, programming starts early, and nurture far outweighs "nature".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21848751 Source.

I'm not entirely discounting biological preference, but if there is an effect it is a drop in the bucket and certainly not worth making presumptions about, much less base your marketing on.

So the question is why DO they market things by gender? I haven't actually SEEN Mad Men, but from what I understand it actually goes into how gendered advertising began.

There are a few reasons that gendered advertising is popular. The first is simply because that is how it's always been done. The people at the head of these marketing firms are generally slow to believe that things that were successful in the past might no longer be relevant today, and the idea of taking a risk by reaching across the aisle to the other gender for part of their marketing would be seen as a possibility of giving up ground to their competitors.

The second reason is simple: The current fad or culture believes that something is for guys, so they automatically market to those already predisposed towards their product. This has nothing to do with actual biological preference, it is based squarely on a perceived cultural norm which can shift.

The last reason is often the most insidious: It's reason 2, but instead of hijacking an existing cultural norm, they CREATE one. Marlboros for example, used to be genderless in their advertising, until the Marlboro Man came along and all of a sudden Marlboros were a man's cigarette, and not for wimpy girls. (The fact that some women still smoked them does not affect the fact that they were heavily marketed to guys). Hell, the Marlboro man was such a pervasive advertising gimmick, that it pretty much was a cornerstone in creating the entirely falsified view of the manly, sexy, white lone cowboy. It pretty much followed the fad of the manly cowboy stories of John Wayne movies. (For the record, the Wild West as we know it, pretty much BS.)

Lego similarly had the same thing going on. Until the 70s, you would see girls and boys in their advertisements, then the hyper-gendered 80s rolled around, and Lego decided to market specifically to boys. This lasted so long and became so normalized as a boys toy that Lego decided that instead of simply gearing their advertising twards gender neutrality, they would instead make an entire LINE of pastel Legos for girls. Lego Friends.

So now the term "friends" is a girl's buzzword apparently. Wonderful.

The entire idea of product preference by gender is entirely manufactured and often based on outdated stereotypes based on "traditional" marketing views perpetuated by existing demographical constructs that are used over and over. Why do boys like Legos? Because Lego markets to boys. Why does Lego market to boys? Because studies show boys like Legos. This all started because of a mostly arbitrary marketing campaign decision in the 80s.

Also, these decisions, even if they are based on focus groups and whatnot that actually show a particular demographic having a preference, it usually is purposefully accentuated by these campaigns.

This is not to say that non-marketing people are blameless, after all we have a long history of perpetuated stereotypes and social enforcement before marketing was a thing, based on a number of equally idiotic factors and "traditions". If anything, the marketers simply capitalized on these existing stereotypes, they didn't actually create them. They just make them worse.

YES I know the Lego example was used by Anita Sarkeesian and again I don't CARE.

[Segev]

Think up any random thing in your head. Now realize that someone somewhere has a fetish for that.

This is either quite besides the point, or proof that it doesn't matter how male or female characters are depicted, it's "too sexualized" by somebody's standards. :smalltongue:




Back on topic, female armor is clearly meant for psyops. No, not to titillate and distract thereby; to trick the enemy into arguing over who's more sexist than whom while the Amazon Brigade cuts them down.

[8BitNinja]

Back on topic, female armor is clearly meant for psyops. No, not to titillate and distract thereby; to trick the enemy into arguing over who's more sexist than whom while the Amazon Brigade cuts them down.

After everything that's happened, this makes total sense.

[Fiery Diamond]

All the big long posts that say awesome stuff.

I just wanted to chime in that I agree with basically everything you've been saying in your really long posts.


Back on topic, female armor is clearly meant for psyops. No, not to titillate and distract thereby; to trick the enemy into arguing over who's more sexist than whom while the Amazon Brigade cuts them down.

:smallbiggrin: After reading this thread, this is hilarious.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked.