Aug17
on August 17, 2017
Gendered Armour
I maintain my position that chainmail bikinis are ridiculous.
Talking with people on forums (okay, I mean ENWorld) I’ve discussed why art that is not cheesecake is so important. Art that is inclusive and shows people of all genders and ethnicities in positive lights reminds people who identify with those images that they’re welcome and that the game is for them. Typically, the only counterpoint made is the generic “but I like cheescake art,” occasionally with the “compromise” that more beefcake art can be included. It’s posed that reducing “sexy” art diminishes the product, making it less enjoyable.
I don’t like this argument for two reasons:
- Why does a roleplaying game require art that turns you on? High production values are nice and good art is a plus, but why is attractiveness important? This isn’t 1979 anymore, and naked nymphs in the Monster Manual are not the closest people are going to get to seeing a boob. Sexy fantasy illustrations are not being rationed; they’re pretty much the reason DeviantArt exists…
- Cheesecake arts suggests that the subjects exist solely to please people attracted to them. Female warriors in chainmail bikinis imply that women exist for the enjoyment of men. And that’s not cool.
Stop policing my fantasies you fucking nazi.
…That was harsh of me… but you’re trying to NAG RED SONJA INTO BEING PERCEIVED AS A HATE CRIME. JUST STOP!
You’re not even female.
I’m not policing your sexual fantasies. You can have whatever kink you want.
If by “fantasy” you mean your personal homegames, again you can do whatever you want. But what’s acceptable in your fantasy ends outside of your basement. Your homegame does not equate with the hobby as a whole or determine what should be acceptable or unacceptable in gaming products meant for a wide audience.
I’m not trying to argue Red Sonja is no longer acceptable. Personally, I think her outfit gets granfathered in. It’s iconic now. (Plus, her masculine counterpart Conan, is often portrayed as wearing far less.) But that doesn’t mean it’s okay for new characters or art in books other than Red Sonja.
However, if you go back through literary history, the past is full of characters and images that were once well recognised but are no longer acceptable. Standards change over time. Characters either update and evolve or fall into obsolescence.
Sorry if I’m coming off as obtuse or dismissive (and a little lengthy), but I never understood how “inclusive” relates to fantasy art — or anything “sexualized” for that matter. There is this argument that art with nude or scantly-clad women drive away female players or that they take offense to it, or that women in general have some aversion to anything sexual. This never makes sense to me.
All the women I know ether enjoy cheesecake art for what it is, or are just indifferent towards it. The ones that do enjoy it would joke about “chainmail bikinis” but they ether wish they could get away with dressing like that, or they totally cosplay like that if they could. The indifferent ones could care less about, but they are not offended by it. I don’t think I know any woman who dismiss a picture of a tasteful female nude out of hand. And nearly all women I know loves shows like True Blood and Game of Thrones for all of its sexualizations.
The only ones I know who take an adverse to it are kids (boys and girls of the children-to-tween range) who been sheltered by Disney films, but they often get weirded out by anything racy, as they usually too immature to process it. (I’m thankful I did not have that type of upbringing)
Fantasy art is by its vary nature is an “escapist fantasy.” It makes no sense in real life due to its “rule of cool” outlook on life, nor does it need to: Its all about desire and wish-fulfillment.
I see it as heroic soldiers in armor are shown fighting without helmets to humanize them, as oppose to rank-n-file Stormtroopers. Comic book superheroes run around in spandex with flowing capes, punching-out mobsters armed with guns without getting hit or snagged. Giant piloted robots are the most viable weapon platforms in the theater of war, as far as anime goes. And sexy sword & sorcery heroes clad in leather thongs taking out whole armies with only minor scratches. Mindless, but fun.
As an artist, I personally enjoy seeing nudity in fantasy art and drawing it. I find the human body, be it male of female, is highly dynamic and beautiful thing. The way one poses a body in action or expression is an art form into itself. Look at the Overwatch art controversy with Tracer. It was not controversial due to being “overly sexualized” as its widely reported, but the pose was bland, had no flow, nor did it reflect her playful nature. The replacement picture fixed that, while still showing off her nice butt (the newer flow draws attention away from the butt and more towards the arms and legs).
Although I find that when a picture of “naked nymphs” from a book of fantasy and mythological creatures as having “issues”, the problem is just poor presentation — bad body proportions; awful use of colors; Wayne Reynolds-level of ugliness; etc. Nymphs being naked is not an issue into itself as they are not known for their modesty.
If I had it my way, D&D books would have nudity, but it would be so tasteful and fitting to the situations illustrated, it would not really draw too much attention to itself — basically, how it should be done; how it always should have been.
It doesn’t take much Googling to find examples of women who want female fighters who looked dressed for fighting: http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/
While I’m sure there are lots of women who do have no problem with cheesecake art or chainmail bikinis, there are some many for whom that art is a pet peeve. A symbol of a time when female characters were the eye candy for the expected male audience. Products that feature such art imply they’re not designed with a female audience in mind. And D&D should be for everyone…
The rule of cool is fine for a lot of things in fantasy games. But for generic and semi-generic RPGs like D&D, they probably shouldn’t assume armour is designed for aesthetics (the Wayne Reynolds dungeon punk or Warcraft pauldrons) and should try to have armour that borders on realistic. Or at least grossly impractical. Many people want a more grounded fantasy, in a medieval European setting… but with wizards and dragons.
Sensuality in pop culture is a tricky thing in general. Ideally, things like non-sexual nudity and the beauty of the human body would be fine to display. And, in a vacuum, that seems fine. However, there is a loooong history in RPGs (and fantasy in general) of objectifying women – to say nothing of comics and video games. The mediums haven’t earned the right to have sensual females yet. The trust isn’t there yet. The days of armoured boob windows and reptiles with breasts aren’t that long ago…
(Oh, the less said about reptilianoid boobs, the better. Nothing good came of that 60+ page debate to nowhere. That was just dumb! =P )
I have no issue with people liking and wanting sensibly-dressed fantasy characters. I see much like how gun enthusiasts love to see firearms being realistically portrayed in movies. Their fascination with their respective topic — be it realistic lady-armor or guns — is weirdly sensual into itself (kinda like me while watching anime with realistic mecha). I cant deny that level of enthusiasm.
To me, the vary concept of “fantasy” (in the broadest term) is a highly subjective preference that everyone has is some fashion, and largely harmless when not acted upon. Which is why I support the availability of video games with extreme violent and sexual content. There are those who object to, games where you can harm helpless women and children or treat women as mindless playthings, and dismiss those who play them is horrible people in real-life. But the truth is, catharsis is a real thing, and dismissing it as abhorrent or sinful does not remove it from people — that only hides it, giving it time to boil-over. I see it as: Let people take their frustration out mindless chunks of code in over-the-top fashion, instead of out on real people.
One thing I can never get my head around is how a fictional character can be “objectified” when by their vary nature, are but mere objects of personal expression. Nor why that, in of itself, is a bad thing. When I draw something, I see it as a product of my own skill, talent and desire — even an impulse at times. I will draw what I want and nothing in the world could tell me otherwise. To me, the worst an artist can do is to edit oneself.
(Sorry if that might have came off as ranty — that is not my intention. This is how I see “questionable content” in media and artistic expression.)
Now with the “Cheesecake is bad; it has a history of dehumanizing women” thing: I don’t see how that is reverent today? Back in then, women were seen as cattle, but we (thankfully) moved beyond that crap. Today, women are still seen as objects of sexual desire by men and that is OK. Really. Its OK. Women feel the same way about men. We are both hot-wired for sex and that will never change — it shapes are desires and fantasies, and no amount of public objection will stop how people feel. The notion of “Cheesecake is bad” is just unproductive baggage.
And with how women are portrayed in D&D art: Its a multifaceted fantasy, were you can cross a Renaissance-inspired civilization one moment, only to find yourself in Greece-roman lands; colleges could have science taught alongside sorcery and alchemy; where sensibly armored soldiers fight alongside near-naked, leather-bandage barbarians; were you can can find people who are overly modest but sexually liberated in one community, and have neighbors who are sexually repressed nudists. D&D can be all that and more!
Oh, and the weird irony with Red Sonja is that she is not canon to Conan of Cimmeria. The scantly-clad Red Sonja was the product of Marvel comics needing to fill out the Conan comic cast, and her metal bikini started off as part of a Comic Con art-jam. Conan’s creator, Robert E. Howard, died well before the comics came along.
Robert E. Howard had a “Red Sonya” (note the spelling) who was a 16th century pirate captain trying to recuse her little sister form Ottoman slavers, but she never adventured with Conan. That “Sonya” was a strong (figurative and literal) female character, and far from sexist by any measure. Despite his reputation for presenting women as helpless-damsels-of-the-week in his stories (and the less said about the casual old-timey racism the better), Howard’s personal views on woman were surprisingly progressive for the time and was surprisingly good at writing well-rounded women. Even the publication that ran his stories — Weird Tales Magazine — made “sexualized horror” it business model while also treating their female talent with a great deal of respect (lookup C.L. Moore and M. Brundage, just to name a few). Unfortunately, Howard’s successors during the ’60s and ’70s were not as progressive (nor respectful of his works), and much of what people think of “Conan the Barbarian” came from them. :(
I’m totally on same page as Jester here, but I noticed that many women (and my wife among them) care little or nothing about the scantily-clothed, good-looking girls which appear on fantasy book covers (and who look nothing like someone with a body trained to fight). They simply dismiss it as normal these days (our babysitter also cosplays, and I have to admit she’s a hell of a jawdropper. I asked her if she found it demeaning to show up (un)dressed like that, and she said “no, it’s fun”).
Anyway thanks for the site link, I’ve always found it hard to reach for art portraying women for my campaigns, as I don’t want princesses, priestesses and sorceresses who look like they’re trying to get it on instead of doing their job.