From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Sexism & Racism in FRPs
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

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:
>>       I don't really understand what the big deal is.  If scantily clad
>>fantasy characters are so bad, I guess you don't like the Cistine Chapel
                                                            ^^^^^^^
"Sistine", I think.

>  I have nothing against the Sistine Chapel, the David, or the Venus
>deMilo.  These are clearly classic works of art which glorify the human
>body and bring out the inner beauty of the subject.  I don't like females
>wearing 4-inch steel plated heels, a G-strip, and a big smile on the cover
>of a generic fantasy role-playing supplement.  I also don't like seeing
>men on steroids clad in naught but a squirel-skin.  To my mind, this is not
>great art.  Larry Elmore != Leo DaVinci.

First, it was Michalangelo, not da Vinci, that did the Sistine Chapel.  And
the main difference is 500 years of appreciation by "critics".  The people
of Michalangelo's time hated the Sistine Chapel, and it wasn't long after he
finished it that someone was hired to bowdlerize his work by painting vines
and leaves in strategic places.

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.

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.

The simple fact of the matter isn't art, it's that "women's" groups in this
country have decided that female nudity in ANY context is "demeaning" and
"sexual" in intent.  Many of them don't even except the "old masters", and
those that do, do so purely as a matter of PR, knowing that setting themselves
against 500 years of critical acclaim would only weaken their position.  It
hardly matters WHAT Elmore paints, if it shows more than a politically
correct amount of female skin, he's toast, according to every politically
correct rule the PC people are trying to make us buy.	

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,
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.

>>>ice warrior as unsetting as a white arabian camel rider.  In fact,
>>>I am still puzzeled by TSR's _Dark Sun_ setting which features what seem
>>>to be albinos running around in 120 degree rays.  Must be a Lake Geneva
>>>thing.  :)
>>       I do agree with you on this.  In my campaigns, the locale and climate
>>determine the racial types, not fantasy stereotypes (i.e. no fat Arabic
>>shieks, or savage Zulu warriors).

In societies with high mobility - mundane or magical - or with histories of
mass, possibly forced, migration, I see no problem with breaking such
stereotypes.  Depends on your milieu, again.  It might be the case that if
the sun produced less uv, black people might never have evolved, we would all
have light skins to trap enough light to make vitamin D (? - I think).  You
choose your background and live with the consequences of the logic.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a "disgrace",
that two are called a "law firm", and that three or more become a "Congress".
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp