From: dsimkins@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Sexism & Racism in FRPs
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:33:47 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <3430@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <9204062044.AA26504@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>, BECKERDJ@DAYTON.BITNET writes:
>>In Article 4435 of rec.games.frp, rhr9081@hertz.njit.edu (Ray Rich) writes:
>>>In article <9203260058.AA05885> beckerdj@UDAVXB.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU writes:

Stuff about Michelangelo and his works deleted.  (censored?)
> 
> I don't have much use for silly things like chainmail bikinis, but scantily
> clad women (or men) as mages, slaves, barbarians or what-have-you are
> believable purely as a function of milieu.  A powerful female mage needs
> to be respected, even if she IS starkers.  In fact, starkers might even be
> a deadly tip-off to how powerful she really is - if she's naked in an
> arctic snowstorm and still looks COMFORTABLE, you'd BETTER respect her
> power.

Why do these "starkers" exist?  Are they adding something important to the 
setting of the game?  Are they building a certain atmosphere which the GM 
is trying to convey?  Is this atmosphere exactly the kind of thing that 
many people feel that they should complain about?  If you feel that you 
are justified by your milieu, fine.  It sounds to me like this powerful 
mage is the product of a male dominated society which sees power as 
obtained through ascetic practices.  Nakedness is a form of asceticism.  
The lack of clothing causes discomfort both due to weather and due to 
social stigma.  If it was not an ascetic practice, why is clothing 
interfering?  It really does not restrict movement if made well, and it 
weighs almost nothing (especially since it is distributed evenly).  If 
there is a good reason, fine.  If not, why are you bothering.  In any 
case, aren't you making it uncomfortable for a woman in your campaign who 
is unwilling to have their character strip every time they want to perform 
magic somewhat uncomfortable?  Is this a form of rape culture?  This is 
really not a flame of anyone in particular.  I just hope that everyone is 
thinking about what they are doing, and how it is percieved.  What you do 
effects other people.

> If it works in the milieu, it's okay, or should be.  If you have an argument
> with the milieu, fine.  But know which is which.  Don't knock an illustration
> of a Gor novel if what you really object to is the whole Gor milieu, that's
> like putting a band-aid on a skin cancer.  Now you don't have to look at it,
> but you have no warning signs, either.

(stuff about "womens groups" deleted)

> I, and I suspect most people, including most men, don't find these illus-
> trations at all sexual the way the feminists talk about it.  None of them
> raise my pulse, I don't get an erection, nor do they star in my fantasies.
> I may like and enjoy a picture, I find the human body, male and female,
> clothed and unclothed, endlessly fascinating, and I like art that explores
> it's potential - even commercial art.  Claiming otherwise ignores *my*
> feelings, and leaves me free to ignore - or even antagonize - anyone who
> makes such claims.
> 
> Sexy illustrations are entirely different in intent.  Playboy is sexy.
> Elmore usually isn't, Boris isn't on book covers, but sure as hell CAN be
> when he does what HE wants.  The difference is not easy to quantify in words,

Boris can be on book covers when he wants to be?  (oh, silly me)

> but it is really obvious when looking at the illos side-by-side.  Elmore
> and his kin are illustrating a moment of action or introversion, not of
> a sexy fantasy, and anyone who doesn't know the difference deserves to
> be ignored.
> 
>>>To those who object that chainmail bikinis and the like are unrealistic,check
>>> what newsgroup you're on.  This is "fantasy" role-playing.  The artist
>>>is not trying to convey history or realism, he's (a) trying to sell the damn
>>>book and (b) make the picture pleasing to the viewer.  Since gaming appeals
>>>predominantly to a young male audience, chainmail bikinis, cleavage, and the
>>>like seem to be in order.
> 
>> Swell.  I am not on a crusade to ban slinky paintings.  You want it?
>>Great, go out and buy it.  I won't stop you, preach at you, or even make
>>faces.  I just know that I am (a) less prone to the damn book with the
>>scanitly clad floks and (b) am not pleased by viewing it.  I am a young
>>male (21 yrs), my gaming group is 90% composed of young males, and none of
>>us seem to have been influenced by buying stuff with cleavage on the cover.
>>I don't enjoy being grouped with those who _do_ see cleavage as a positive
>>inducement to buy a RPG supplement.
> 
> Peachy.  Then don't buy it.  It seems simple enough to me, if enough people
> agree with you, simple economics will do the rest.

I agree with this.  If the "adolescent gaming market" (you know 
who you are) was to suddenly disappear, maybe we could have better, 
less offensive artwork.  On the other hand, they are apparently the largest 
group which purchases games.  The gaming companies need to keep 
the 10-18 year old boys playing their games or they will not survive.  If 
this means putting a scantily clad women on the cover, they will probably 
do that.  Actually White Wolf seems to have gotten away without doing this 
(at least not on the cover), neither does TSR (but they are very 
parent-conscious).  Actually, I take that back.  I see very little of 
TSR's stuff.  Under EGG they were pretty adolescent motivated, I think 
that they are less so now, but they are still good business people.

(more stuff deleted about racial types being environmentally based, etc.)

It seems to me that we should not be blaming Elmore and co.  He is doing some 
pretty high quality work when he wants to.  It is the industry which often 
tells him what to paint.  As I understand, the cover of the Fanatasy Hero 
book is what he does for fun.  The cover of the companion was what he does 
for the SF book/ game industries.

David Simkins
dsimkins@yang.earlham.edu