Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Clay, July 22, 2001, 04:36:00 PM
QuoteOn 2001-07-23 14:41, Dav wrote:Echoing the opinions of others, I am asking if this thread is about a) what art sells best (and under what circumstances) or b) what art is the "ethical high-ground"? We all know what the high-ground is, even if we don't like to admit it.
QuoteOn 2001-07-22 18:24, greyorm wrote:Honestly, if the above is the way you feel, why say anything at all? It's a jab; it's essentially, "I disagree, but you might be a fanatic, so I won't waste my time besides saying I disagree. (Ha-ha, neener! Deal with that!)"
QuoteAnd conversely, if you want others to be open to changing their minds based on your presentation, you had best be willing to have your mind changed as well.
QuoteSo, in my case, what would convince me would be hard, solid, scientific evidence based on a variety of reputable studies that explains why and how your position is accurate, and also equally and accurately explains my own experiences with the issue (as detailed in the other thread) without belittlement or legedermain of those experiences.
QuoteOn 2001-07-22 19:14, Clay wrote:It isn't entirely untrue to say that I'm a fanatic, since I intend to marry one of the women that I described.
QuoteThat said, I am really interested in hearing an argument that can successfully refute the first four of my points.
QuoteIt's also worth pointing out that I'm not necessarily supporting cheesecake for the sake of cheesecake. But I do appreciate the art of Raphael Vargas, Boris Valejo, Julie Bell and other fantasy artists who seem to have captured what it is about the human form that intrigues us. To put it more plainly, I like the photography in Playboy, and don't care for Penthouse.
QuoteOn 2001-07-22 16:36, Clay wrote:I'm interested in taking up this thread about how women are depicted in gaming. In particular, I want to assert that it may at times be appropriate to show some cheesecake.1. Some women (and men) are quite capable of exercising power through their sexuality. Think of Madame Mertuile from Dangerous Liasons as a fictional example, or Mata Harri for a historical example.
Quote2. Appealing to the fantasies of gamers is not only acceptable, but essential to the concept of gaming--we don't game to portray Bob (or Julie) the Janitor, after all.
Quote3. Stocking books with pictures of ugly people isn't going to do anything for sales.
Quote4. I personally take offense to the idea that it's unrealistic or unflattering to portray large breasted, well-armed women as sensual.
QuoteThe world is full of bossomy women and women who are well armed. I can not only produce examples of both varieties, but the confluence of the two attributes. I can also produce the men (all gamers) who can speak to the sensuality and sexual approachability of these women.
Quoteeven her story is about the exploitation of women - most female gamers I know are always drawn to that Charisma score (or Appearance, if it's WW). Where we male gamers know that Charisma is (traditionally) the Attribute to dump your lowest die roll, the females always place more significance on it.
QuoteA much more pervasive fantasy for the women I've been around is for them to make a character as sexually appealing as the rules will allow, and then play that character as unattainable.
Quoteknow the answers to these questions, but I think the observations are relevant.
QuoteOn 2001-07-23 13:25, Ron Edwards wrote:Hello,Warning: the following point is guaranteed to annoy.
QuoteEthics are not policies. Ethics are about what *I* am going to do, or do habitually. Policies (and politics, the making of policy) are about what *others,* that is , *groups* are enforced to do.
QuoteOn the first thread about these matters, I asked where the big "should" was coming from. "Should" women be drawn like this in games. "Should" we buy such a game. And so on.My claim is that, in this case, the "should" remains an expression of a personal ethic. As there is neither body politic, economic control, nor any means of enforcement, it cannot be considered a transitive, policy-level "should."
QuoteP.S. My above argument cannot be analogized to issues that ARE at the "body politic" level. For instance, a person who claims that policies regarding prosecuting crimes of rape is "an individual ethic" is a moron. I'd appreciate it if no one were to ascribe such a view to me.
QuoteOkay, now this is guaranteed to annoy.
QuoteI do however believe that it is used in rpgs way more often than appropriate for the games, and that, taken in context, it often contributes to a sometimes subtle sexist atmosphere that is off-putting to many potential female gamers. (I also believe that this, in the long run, weighs more heavily than the sales boost you get from having T&A art.)
QuoteOn 2001-07-23 21:32, Supplanter wrote:QuoteOkay, now this is guaranteed to annoy.Annoy? I'm too astonished that a guy with the first name "Seth" and the last name "Ben-Ezra" is quoting the New Testament to be annoyed! :wink:
QuoteOn 2001-07-24 14:50, Ron Edwards wrote:Seth,I do understand your point about the role of God in ethics and policy. However, many folks take the viewpoint that relying on such an authority is not an acceptable policy-making standard. As you know, this is the basis for separation of church and state, and it applies to my above points about RPGs as well as to anything else. It is not against the law to sin.