Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

pig teats/catsuits/TH & gender-sex-etc.-issues

139 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Sat, 2013-08-10 05:46

jackgraham jackgraham's picture

pig teats/catsuits/TH & gender-sex-etc.-issues

Here.

—

J A C K G R A H A M :: Hooray for Earth! http://eclipsephase.com :: twitter @jackgraham @faketsr :: Google+Jack Graham

Sat, 2013-08-10 07:18

Smokeskin

Thank you for moderating this

Thank you for moderating this. As much as I like arguing with feminists (or perhaps rather the discussion equivalent of rude gesticulation at inconsiderate drivers in traffic), it is annoying when they derail interesting topics.

Sat, 2013-08-10 07:36

Decivre

That's all I would like to

[img]http://moneypennydd.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/robphin.jpg[/img] That's all I would like to say.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sat, 2013-08-10 10:05

Lorsa

Having just gotten the pdf

Having just gotten the pdf from DriveThru, I now feel informed enough to comment on the pictures. First I can safely say that I am not attracted to a pighead with 6 breasts. That feels good. I find that it's not the best of artwork and I have a feeling it doesn't really fit with the image that was in the mind of the person that ordered it. It's not horrible, it's just not very good. Secondly I don't think there's anything wrong with the picture of the girl in the skintight suit. It's a classic actionhero pose and shows an image in motion. If that is meant to flaunt tits or ass it's doing a very poor job of it because it doesn't really get my juices flowing. I much prefer the limber girl with prehensile feet smoking a cigarette for titilation purposes.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Sat, 2013-08-10 10:25

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:First: You're

Smokeskin wrote:
First: You're seriously confused about why there are and should be "titillating" images. In real life, there are many "titillating" women, just as there are many men who try to impress women in various ways. It is realistic. A setting where no one is "titillating" works for something bleak and dystopian, but EP certainly has a lot of vibrant locales where people would certainly be "titillating" - and given the ease of body modification they'd be prettier and sexier than what we see today. You're objecting to realism.

I feel the need to stress that the context of this discussion is [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] image. If you take my complaints about that image and then try to claim that I'm ignorant of real life, you're trying to argue something that simply isn't true - because people [i]don't[/i] wear latex catsuits wrapped in corsets and knee-high boots everywhere and anywhere in real life, and I am [i]not[/i] objecting to realism when I object to an image of a female character dressed in what is obviously supposed to invoke a latex catsuit with a corset on the outside. That's not something I'll find on a random woman in the street who wishes to be sexy - it's something I'll find almost exclusively in porn magazines and fetish clubs. If you're really going to claim that women wearing [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] when doing what she's depicted as doing is in any way "realistic", I really don't think you have the kind of perspective necessary to say anything about what is "realistic".

Smokeskin wrote:
Second: When you say that my sexuality is demeaning to women, you're obviously being derogatory.

"These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" is [i]not[/i] a derogatory statements about your sexuality. It does not demerit, disparage or belittle your sexual attraction to sexy women and the depiction thereof.

Smokeskin wrote:
What I'm objecting to is people like you who jump in at anything even remotely sexy and claiming that it is demeaning to women and just there to get us off. Not only is it bigoted against other people's sexuality, it is also a totally ridiculous statement. What you're asking for is that the artist drop realism in order to purge anything sexual from the art.

Again, we're talking about [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url]. This is not "anything even remotely sexy", this is a very blatant attempt to sexualize. I'm not talking about the Encladean Body Stylist or the Human Impersonator, I am talking about a piece very obviously inspired by fetish gear. There is [i]nothing[/i] realistic the artist has to drop by not dressing up female characters who are not in fetish clubs, not posing for latex fetish photography, and not in the privacy of their own homes, in clothes designed to invoke fetish gear.

Smokeskin wrote:
Why are you so scared of common straight sexuality that you feel it has to be purged?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" You're not arguing honestly here; if you are, you should be able to point to explain how what I've said far is evidence that I desire straight sexuality to be purged.

Smokeskin wrote:
Hah. As if. How do you feel about say the amount of skinny, beautiful women with large breasts and great hair in media?

That it's actively harmful. It sets unrealistic and impossible expectations of girls, which they can't live up to because the images are mostly photoshopped into unnatural levels of perfection. A huge amount of the self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatifaction with their appearance in young girls is because of the barrage of expectations of beauty they're subjected to, which are impossible to live up to or equal.

Smokeskin wrote:
Look, you can keep on saying the same thing, it doesn't make it true. Many people's sexuality are based around what you would call [i]objectification and fetishistic sexualization[/i]. If you want to depict people in a realisticly, there's going to be images of people being sexy - which means playing on the preferences of the partner you're trying to impress.

That's a lovely misleading argument you have going there. Let's dismantle it. It is true that, in any realistic universe, there will be people trying to be attractive to other people. However, if it's [i]realism[/i] we're talking, let's talk about the kind of things you're more likely be going to [i]do[/i] in a game of Eclipse Phase. Are you going to be sleeping or forming relationships with everybody in sight? Or are you going to be politicking, fighting, running around, piloting submarines, etcetera? Oh, the second one? Really? Huh. How surprising. So. Should the pictures in the book be of the dolled-up people wearing clothes designed with "being attractive" as a foremost aim, or should they be of people doing the kind of things your characters are likely to do? Clearly the latter. Cut to real life. If we look at people - specifically women - in [i]actual jobs[/i], we see that they do not, in almost any situation, dress to be ultra-attractive. They dress to get their job done, practically, and with attractiveness as a secondary aim if it's there at all. What should be in the book are outfits akin to those of people who are in [i]jobs[/i], not in the bedroom. People do not, in real life, dress like [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] to impress potential partners when they're at work or doing the real-life equivalent of hunting TITANs. Take a look at what [i]actual women in a work environment[/i] wear - perhaps, yes, makeup or a flattering outfit, but certainly not skintight latex and a corset. Therefore, while you are technically correct in that highly sexualised outfits likely [i]exist[/i] in the Eclipse Phase setting, the point is entirely unconnected to what should be in the book. Basically, unless [i]Transhuman[/i] actually [i]covers[/i] "Sex in Eclipse Phase; What People Do In The Bedroom", then no, it is not realistic to show images of such things. Yes, some people's sexuality has to do with objectification. This is relevant to including images pandering to them... how, exactly? I see no chapter on that in the book. I don't see people walking around in full-on fetish gear in real life. So if there's nothing in the book about it, and such fetishes aren't generally flaunted in public in real life, where, pray, is the justification for splashing images of it in [i]Transhuman[/i]? There exist people whose sexuality deals with a whole bunch of [i]other[/i] stuff, too. To quote you, good sir, with only a minor word change; "Many people's sexuality are based around"... feet, or body odour, or even stranger fetishes. Should we then include blatantly sexualised images of those in the sourcebook as well, on the basis that in a realistic society there will be "people being sexy - which means playing on the preferences of the partner you're trying to impress"? No. The concept is patently absurd. As is yours.

Smokeskin wrote:
And there you go with the hetero hate again. It is not discriminating. [b]Plenty of people, male and female, have no problem with it and in fact enjoy it.[/b] Just because you don't and you wouldn't like it that doesn't give you the right to label it as discriminating.

I'll address the bolded part first. You're making a fallacious argument by appealing to the existence of the masses (in this case, not even a quantified mass - just "plenty of people", which could mean "twelve" for all I know), in order to claim that because "plenty of people" don't have a problem, the problem doesn't exist, which is obviously fallacious. And, no, the [i]fact[/i] that I don't like it doesn't give me the right to label it as discriminating. In fact, my right to label it as discriminating is the fact that it [i]is[/i] discriminating; I have a right to call things that are discriminating discriminating. I do not call it discriminating because I don't like it. I don't like it [i]because it is discriminating[/i]. I don't like discrimination against women; it informs my opinions about what is appropriate to reinforce through imagery in media. In this case, it's not appropriate to reinforce the objectification of women through sexualized poses and outfits in unrealistic situations.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Sat, 2013-08-10 11:54

nick012000 nick012000's picture

Except that it's not purely

Except that it's not purely an attempt at sex appeal. She's just wearing a futuristic version of [url=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/845604160_da0b846394.jpg?v=0]this[/url], with a utility vest around her waist. In Eclipse Phase, suits like that aren't sexual, they're everyday work-wear.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Sat, 2013-08-10 15:25

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

Oh, let's not be Facetious.

That suit is sexual. It may also serve as everyday workwear, but it is primarily sexual. If we want to talk about the role sexuality takes in setting, that's one thing. It would undoubtedly be a very interesting exploration. But that's a different conversation. The drawing wasn't drawn that way because the artist wanted to demonstrate how people in the future view sexuality and attractiveness. No, the art was drawn that way because the artist wanted to draw a sexy woman. Trying to defend a weak piece of art by saying it's an accurate depiction of people in setting does more to show the setting itself is sexist, than that the art is not. I would abandon this argument. And Since this is a work of fiction and it is intentionally created, it's worth exploring whether we actually want the setting to be that way. And I'd say that ideally, no, we don't need to include these tropes in the setting. I'd rather eclipse phase wasn't mired down with tired action movie tropes, because they get in the way of the transhuman horror. A setting filled with [url=http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=336] Strong Female Characters [/url] isn't an interesting depiction of the future. As an aside, whenever I see an unnecessarily sexy female morph in eclipse phase, my gut assumption is that the ego is male. I also assume that certain choices, like a Fury morph's looks, were made by sexist hypercorp execs. I kind of want to make a character now who's a woman pissed that the only morphs she can find to sleeve are hypersexualized. "All I want is a morph that's post-pubescent and doesn't measure 36/24/36, is that too much to ask?"

Sat, 2013-08-10 16:54

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
First: You're seriously confused about why there are and should be "titillating" images. In real life, there are many "titillating" women, just as there are many men who try to impress women in various ways. It is realistic. A setting where no one is "titillating" works for something bleak and dystopian, but EP certainly has a lot of vibrant locales where people would certainly be "titillating" - and given the ease of body modification they'd be prettier and sexier than what we see today. You're objecting to realism.
I feel the need to stress that the context of this discussion is [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] image. If you take my complaints about that image and then try to claim that I'm ignorant of real life, you're trying to argue something that simply isn't true - because people [i]don't[/i] wear latex catsuits wrapped in corsets and knee-high boots everywhere and anywhere in real life, and I am [i]not[/i] objecting to realism when I object to an image of a female character dressed in what is obviously supposed to invoke a latex catsuit with a corset on the outside. That's not something I'll find on a random woman in the street who wishes to be sexy - it's something I'll find almost exclusively in porn magazines and fetish clubs.

Look, knee high boots are common. My wife is a communication consultant at a pharmaceutical company with 30,000 employees, about as corporate as you get, and she regularly wear boots to work. And as onetrikpony pointed out to you, this is EP and vacsuits are common. It is not a latex suit, it is a vacsuit. And if you're wearing vacsuits on a daily basis, you're going to pick something that looks good. You might as well be complaining about pink sneakers.

Quote:
If you're really going to claim that women wearing [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] when doing what she's depicted as doing is in any way "realistic", I really don't think you have the kind of perspective necessary to say anything about what is "realistic".

It is clearly an exagerated action scene like you'd see superheroes doing. The EP developers said the artist sent them 10 images of males in similar poses. You are simply wrong when you see sexism here.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Second: When you say that my sexuality is demeaning to women, you're obviously being derogatory.
"These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" is [i]not[/i] a derogatory statements about your sexuality. It does not demerit, disparage or belittle your sexual attraction to sexy women and the depiction thereof.

When you say my sexuality demeans women, yes you are being derogatory towards both me and the many women who like being sexy.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
What I'm objecting to is people like you who jump in at anything even remotely sexy and claiming that it is demeaning to women and just there to get us off. Not only is it bigoted against other people's sexuality, it is also a totally ridiculous statement. What you're asking for is that the artist drop realism in order to purge anything sexual from the art.
Again, we're talking about [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url]. This is not "anything even remotely sexy", this is a very blatant attempt to sexualize. I'm not talking about the Encladean Body Stylist or the Human Impersonator, I am talking about a piece very obviously inspired by fetish gear. There is [i]nothing[/i] realistic the artist has to drop by not dressing up female characters who are not in fetish clubs, not posing for latex fetish photography, and not in the privacy of their own homes, in clothes designed to invoke fetish gear.

Except it isn't a fetish latex suit, it is a vacsuit which has to be body-hugging.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Why are you so scared of common straight sexuality that you feel it has to be purged?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" You're not arguing honestly here; if you are, you should be able to point to explain how what I've said far is evidence that I desire straight sexuality to be purged.

What exactly are you trying to insinuate with your wife beating comment? When you're calling my preferences demeaning, harmful and brings up wife beating, you seem to be implying that you want to purge it. You at least want to purge it from EP art.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Hah. As if. How do you feel about say the amount of skinny, beautiful women with large breasts and great hair in media?
That it's actively harmful. It sets unrealistic and impossible expectations of girls, which they can't live up to because the images are mostly photoshopped into unnatural levels of perfection. A huge amount of the self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatifaction with their appearance in young girls is because of the barrage of expectations of beauty they're subjected to, which are impossible to live up to or equal.

It also inspires a lot of women to look the best they can, and that lets them attract better partners and makes their partners happier with them (and the quality of your partner and relationship is obviously extremely important for life quality). It makes billions of people enjoy media content more, and helps companies sell.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Look, you can keep on saying the same thing, it doesn't make it true. Many people's sexuality are based around what you would call [i]objectification and fetishistic sexualization[/i]. If you want to depict people in a realisticly, there's going to be images of people being sexy - which means playing on the preferences of the partner you're trying to impress.
That's a lovely misleading argument you have going there. Let's dismantle it. It is true that, in any realistic universe, there will be people trying to be attractive to other people. However, if it's [i]realism[/i] we're talking, let's talk about the kind of things you're more likely be going to [i]do[/i] in a game of Eclipse Phase. Are you going to be sleeping or forming relationships with everybody in sight? Or are you going to be politicking, fighting, running around, piloting submarines, etcetera? Oh, the second one? Really? Huh. How surprising.

I haven't played much EP, but in Shadowrun my players spent most of the time in social settings where looks mattered one way or the other. One group had a female face that used seduction a lot. I guess it depends on what sort of campaign you run.

Quote:
So. Should the pictures in the book be of the dolled-up people wearing clothes designed with "being attractive" as a foremost aim, or should they be of people doing the kind of things your characters are likely to do? Clearly the latter.

It's a vacsuit first and foremost. They look like that, hugging the skin, to keep tissue pressurized. The only thing you have to go on are the boots (omg a woman in boots) and the waist cincher, which isn't that sexy. I was a German bank party and they had an October beer festival where all the waitresses wore them.

Quote:
Cut to real life. If we look at people - specifically women - in [i]actual jobs[/i], we see that they do not, in almost any situation, dress to be ultra-attractive. They dress to get their job done, practically, and with attractiveness as a secondary aim if it's there at all. What should be in the book are outfits akin to those of people who are in [i]jobs[/i], not in the bedroom. People do not, in real life, dress like [url=http://imgur.com/q9cpdlt]this[/url] to impress potential partners when they're at work or doing the real-life equivalent of hunting TITANs. Take a look at what [i]actual women in a work environment[/i] wear - perhaps, yes, makeup or a flattering outfit, but certainly not skintight latex and a corset.

It's a vacsuit. They look like that. And the features you're talking about don't impede the function at all. You can't compare this to fantasy bikini sized plate armor.

Quote:
Therefore, while you are technically correct in that highly sexualised outfits likely [i]exist[/i] in the Eclipse Phase setting, the point is entirely unconnected to what should be in the book. Basically, unless [i]Transhuman[/i] actually [i]covers[/i] "Sex in Eclipse Phase; What People Do In The Bedroom", then no, it is not realistic to show images of such things.

So people don't party? They don't go out? Maybe it is just me, but recreational activity seems to be a big deal in EP. Look at say the number of sample PCs with Knowledge skills in Dancing, Clubs, Drugs, etc. Isn't there even an official adventure that's set in some sort of pleasure hab on Venus? You're again just plain wrong when you think the extremely low frequency of art with sexy women is somehow not representative of the setting. If anything it is much too low.

Quote:
Yes, some people's sexuality has to do with objectification. This is relevant to including images pandering to them... how, exactly? I see no chapter on that in the book. I don't see people walking around in full-on fetish gear in real life. So if there's nothing in the book about it, and such fetishes aren't generally flaunted in public in real life, where, pray, is the justification for splashing images of it in [i]Transhuman[/i]?

For the I don't know what time - it's a vacsuit, not fetish gear.

Quote:
There exist people whose sexuality deals with a whole bunch of [i]other[/i] stuff, too. To quote you, good sir, with only a minor word change; "Many people's sexuality are based around"... feet, or body odour, or even stranger fetishes. Should we then include blatantly sexualised images of those in the sourcebook as well, on the basis that in a realistic society there will be "people being sexy - which means playing on the preferences of the partner you're trying to impress"? No. The concept is patently absurd.

I think for example artwork of some outlandish fetish of the Scum could be quite natural and relevant actually. But overall, no there shouldn't be much artwork of fringe fetishes. But you're railing against vacsuits because you think they look like latex suits, and knee high boots. That's silly. And you're railing against the way the majority of people will dress when going out.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
And there you go with the hetero hate again. It is not discriminating. [b]Plenty of people, male and female, have no problem with it and in fact enjoy it.[/b] Just because you don't and you wouldn't like it that doesn't give you the right to label it as discriminating.
I'll address the bolded part first. You're making a fallacious argument by appealing to the existence of the masses (in this case, not even a quantified mass - just "plenty of people", which could mean "twelve" for all I know), in order to claim that because "plenty of people" don't have a problem, the problem doesn't exist, which is obviously fallacious. And, no, the [i]fact[/i] that I don't like it doesn't give me the right to label it as discriminating. In fact, my right to label it as discriminating is the fact that it [i]is[/i] discriminating; I have a right to call things that are discriminating discriminating. I do not call it discriminating because I don't like it. I don't like it [i]because it is discriminating[/i]. I don't like discrimination against women; it informs my opinions about what is appropriate to reinforce through imagery in media. In this case, it's not appropriate to reinforce the objectification of women through sexualized poses and outfits in unrealistic situations.

So it is not because you don't like it, it is because it is not "appropriate". You really can't explain why it is discriminating, can you? The idea that it is discriminating is of course utterly ridiculous. How can what I find sexy be discriminating? Who exactly is it you think is being discriminated and by what mechanism?

Sat, 2013-08-10 17:05

Smokeskin

Anarchitect wrote:That suit

Anarchitect wrote:
That suit is sexual. It may also serve as everyday workwear, but it is primarily sexual. If we want to talk about the role sexuality takes in setting, that's one thing. It would undoubtedly be a very interesting exploration. But that's a different conversation. The drawing wasn't drawn that way because the artist wanted to demonstrate how people in the future view sexuality and attractiveness. No, the art was drawn that way because the artist wanted to draw a sexy woman. Trying to defend a weak piece of art by saying it's an accurate depiction of people in setting does more to show the setting itself is sexist, than that the art is not. I would abandon this argument.

Let us assume you're right about what the artist wanted to draw- a sexy woman. What is wrong with that? Don't you think there is plenty of sexy women in EP? Of course there are. Is it any different from an artist that wanted to draw say a spaceship or a bloody scene of violence? The artists wants to (or was commissioned to) draw something that exists in EP and does so. You and others like this are coming at it from a radical feminist perspective where sexy females are in itself a problem.

Quote:
As an aside, whenever I see an unnecessarily sexy female morph in eclipse phase, my gut assumption is that the ego is male. I also assume that certain choices, like a Fury morph's looks, were made by sexist hypercorp execs. I kind of want to make a character now who's a woman pissed that the only morphs she can find to sleeve are hypersexualized. "All I want is a morph that's post-pubescent and doesn't measure 36/24/36, is that too much to ask?"

Are you trying to say that if women got the choice to pick their bodies that very few wanted something sexy? Because then you need to go look at some women's magazines, the diet and fitness trends, and the makeup and fashion industry.

Sat, 2013-08-10 17:21

#10

CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
You and others like this are coming at it from a radical feminist perspective where sexy females are in itself a problem.

I do agree that there seems to be a strange, sex negative vibe going on in some posts. Which really wasn't my intention when I initially voiced my, seemingly relatively minor, concerns with that particular art piece. And implying that any portrayal that portrays female sexuality must come from the immature minds of a man is insulting as all hell, to both men and women. Especially to women, infact. Women dress in an 'unnecessarily sexy' manner all the time, and they don't do it because they feel compelled by male peer pressure.

—

Sat, 2013-08-10 17:40

#11

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

LatwPIAT,

LatwPIAT, Please answer this hypothetical; If the female in the picture [i]choose[/i] to dress as she is, would you admonish or look down on her in any way? The reason I ask is because your description of the pic as; titillating, exploitive, sexualized, and unfit for a roleplay book, is very extreme and reminds me of the old men in church when I was young who would browbeat girls for wearing popular styles. You're entitled to your opinion only so long as you allow room for mine and don't take your opinion as law that allows you to infringe on the rights of me or mine. If your answer to the hypotetical is negative then I'm ok with that. If you're titillated by the picture there's no solution but you should keep it to yourself. If your answer to the question is positive then there is a serious problem. I believe [u]that extremist view must be stamped out out of our society with extreme prejudice![/u] I cannot state that strongly enough. I enjoy the way my girlfriend dress. Anyone who who would prohibit, admonish, or make her feel morally inadequate for something as innocuous as wearing tight clothing, exposing skin or (WTF?!) wearing "knee high boots" does not belong in my world. I think the issue is best resolved by putting another hole in their head. [b]For the record;[/b] I don't expect that you would look down on, or be rude to the women I love for dressing attractively as they choose, or because you're titillated by their sexual power. I'm sure we can be friends. There is a second issue about which I feel strongly but, slightly, less violent. That is; the "art vs. porn" issue. Expressing the opinion that this art does not belong in an Eclipse Phase book because of it's [i]perceived[/i] "sexual" qualities and using the terms exploitive and titillating is tantamount to calling it pornographic. That's wrong-headed. Deciding what is art and what is exploitive is easily resolved. It's decided by the community. The community of people who have bothered to respond on this forum disagree with the standpoint that the picture on p 82 is titillating, sexual, or exploitive. On a quick survey of all the role games I own there isn't one I can find that doesn't include a female figure in equivalent dress or pose. So I posit that the whole community of role game publishers, and specifically Posthuman Studios disagrees with your premise. All of the females I've shown the picture to and who have read this thread disagree that the picture is female exploitation or hyper-sexualized. Regardless; Your specific objections have been negated because the items you find reason to objectify and sexualize are actually rational and fitting to the scene. [b]Pose:[/b] Common action scene pose not specific to women in art but necessary to the action of the scene in a low gravity setting. [b]Tight shiny clothing:[/b] Tight shiny clothing is functional in a space faring society for reasons that have already been explained. [*] Obviously the scene does not take place in a safe relaxed setting where vacuum hardended clothing might not be needed. [*] Do not fail to notice that the other (male?) figure in the scene is also wearing tight clothing. This establishes firmly that the style of clothing the female is wearing is common, if not standard, in the universe being depicted. [b]Knee high boots[/b]: Seriously?! I can't figure this one out. This point negates itself. No one can object to boots as being sexual without exposing their own fetish. She's not wearing boots on the off chance it might titillate some fetishist. EVERY ACTION FIGURE WEARS BOOTS. Superman wears boots. It's as sensible to ask why superman even bothers with clothes! You can not expect the whole world to not wear boots simply because they are sexualized for you. That's just bizarre. [*]your speculation in the other thread that they might also be high heeled boots is ridiculous. It's as relevant as speculation that she might have nipple cut-outs in her space suit. Arguing that the figure may have [i]subjectively[/i] sexual aspects that the artist did NOT exploit simply proves that the sexual exploitation exists only in your own head. [b]the "Corset":[/b]this is also something that exists only in individual imagination. If you sexualize boots it probably follows that you'll see a load bearing harness, torso armor, flexible back support, as a sexual item. It's primary function in the scene has been explained as artistic license with composition and color. To Sum up. Calling this an exploitive, sexual piece of art assumes that I and other viewers see it as sexual. I don't. They don't. You're entitled to your opinion but you're pretty much alone in the way you feel about this. It's unfortunate that you're offended. Have you tried [i]not[/i] being offended? It's unfortunate that women are objectified. Have you tried [i]not[/i] objectifying women?

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Sat, 2013-08-10 18:47

#12

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

I can't believe I am posting this

The problem with the art on page 82, is that people read from top to bottom and from right to left. So that when you look at the picture, you focus on the upper right, which is her ass. However, because of the blur/transparency of the background and the coloring of the picture, her ass is also the highlight of the piece. This is bad, as eyes are attracted to lights, so the eye does not naturally leave her ass. It gets stuck there and the rest of the piece isn't seen. Don't believe me? How many of you noticed that the figure in the backgrounds legs end abruptly mid calf as if they are extending through the floor? However, there is a very simple solution: [b]flip the picture horizontally[/b] (and maybe place it on the facing page). Then the main highlight of the piece is not the first thing you see and you don't get stuck on it. Instead you have a progression of highlights as you read from right to left: 1. the pink of the wrist blades from the lunge, 2. the light blue shot, 3. the the yellow of the gun fire, 4. the pink of her face, and 5. finally the white of her ass. This also creates a transition from background from foreground and makes it seem like the woman is hurtling towards the viewer, when before the picture seemed unnecessarily static before because the eye stopped on the first element of the picture it saw. Seriously, try it. Flipping the image works wonders on improving it's quality. Note: results will vary depending how exactly you view the image: by itself, single page, or two up and how big the image is.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sat, 2013-08-10 19:23

#13

Zevarus

My 2 credits

Just piping in really quickly: If you seriously cannot view an image of a woman in a sexy pose/outfit, and immediately classify her as an object, that's your problem, not the artists. The first thing that caught my eye was not the buttocks or corset(which, really, I don't see being justified as "armor" or a life support vest or whatever), it was her ability to do a handstand, not look at her target, and hit it right in the face. I do not view attractive women as objects, and I don't think anyone should. And if you honestly believe that just because she's in a sexy pose, she's an object, and none of her other characteristics/ actions matter, that's your belief. In the future, I'd recommend you write off what someone looks like, and focus on what they're doing.

Sat, 2013-08-10 19:41

#14

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:Look, knee

Smokeskin wrote:
Look, knee high boots are common. My wife is a communication consultant at a pharmaceutical company with 30,000 employees, about as corporate as you get, and she regularly wear boots to work.

Does your wife also go to work in a latex catsuit when she wears those boots? You're missing the forest for the trees here; it's not the boots themselves that are the problem, it's the whole outfit.

Smokeskin wrote:
And as onetrikpony pointed out to you, this is EP and vacsuits are common. It is not a latex suit, it is a vacsuit. And if you're wearing vacsuits on a daily basis, you're going to pick something that looks good. You might as well be complaining about pink sneakers.

If it's a vacsuit, then maybe it should actually [url=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/845604160_da0b846394.jpg?v=0]look like one[/url]. Maybe it should be inspired more by flight suits, or the tight g-suits that fighter pilots wear. I wouldn't have much room to complain if it was designed after [url=http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/BlkFireBird/Reference%20Photos... thing[/url], which was very obviously designed to make the actress look good - but no, for some reason, the main inspiration remains a latex catsuit mainly used as fetish attire.

Smokeskin wrote:
It is clearly an exagerated action scene like you'd see superheroes doing. The EP developers said the artist sent them 10 images of males in similar poses. You are simply wrong when you see sexism here.

You're changing the comment; the text you quoted was obviously not referring to her pose, it was saying that latex catsuits were not realistic attire for someone in the middle of fighting. A statement that I continue to stand by. (And as for your comments on her "exaggerated" action scene post, at the risk of repeating myself, I will cite a friend of mine who reads more superhero comics than me on the matter: "Spider-Man's been posed like that a lot, but that's because Spider-Man's poses are specifically intended to show off his impossible flexibility and weird swinging/crawling poses. Although his ass certainly wouldn't have received such... emphasis. Comic book women tend to be posed like that a lot, which is a problem because they're not superhumanly flexible and have no particular reason to be doing whateverthefuck she's doing. If other, more muscular and static superheroes like Wolverine are posed like that, it's generally just because the artist is [i]terrible[/i].")

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:
"These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" is [i]not[/i] a derogatory statements about your sexuality. It does not demerit, disparage or belittle your sexual attraction to sexy women and the depiction thereof.
When you say my sexuality demeans women, yes you are being derogatory towards both me and the many women who like being sexy.

What I am saying and have been saying is, as you just quoted, "These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women". I'm [i]terribly interested in knowing[/i] how you see that as me being derogatory towards your sexuality; how does "These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" demerit disparage or belittle your sexuality? You should be able to find an example of where I have said that your sexuality is demeaning to women, or otherwise explain how I've actually said that. So far, all you've really done is [i]say[/i] that I've called your sexuality demeaning to women, and when I deny it, you've repeated yourself without any elaboration.

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Why are you so scared of common straight sexuality that you feel it has to be purged?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" You're not arguing honestly here; if you are, you should be able to point to explain how what I've said far is evidence that I desire straight sexuality to be purged.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate with your wife beating comment?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the archetypal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question]loaded question[/url], and quoting it is a not uncommon way to imply that one has just been asked. In this case, your question started with "why are you so scared of common straight sexuality", which is a question I cannot answer without admitting to being scared of common straight sexuality, despite not actually being scared of it. To explain using the archetypal loaded question, irrespective of whether one answers 'yes' or 'no' to it, one admits to a) having a wife, and b) at some point having beat her on a regular basis, regardless of whether one has actually ever beaten one's wife. You've asked me a question that contains an unjustified assumption (that I'm scared of straight sexuality), and any straight answer will implicitly verify that assumption. It's a dishonest technique to use in an argument, and I do not take kindly to it.

Smokeskin wrote:
When you're calling my preferences demeaning[...]

I don't want to talk past you, so I'd like you to clarify this for me; are you saying that your (sexual) preferences include having female characters dressed like [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] depicted in the artwork of roleplaying sourcebooks? Secondly, if so, do you consider that an important part of the sexuality you have accused me of demeaning?

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Hah. As if. How do you feel about say the amount of skinny, beautiful women with large breasts and great hair in media?
That it's actively harmful. It sets unrealistic and impossible expectations of girls, which they can't live up to because the images are mostly photoshopped into unnatural levels of perfection. A huge amount of the self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatifaction with their appearance in young girls is because of the barrage of expectations of beauty they're subjected to, which are impossible to live up to or equal.
It also inspires a lot of women to look the best they can, and that lets them attract better partners and makes their partners happier with them (and the quality of your partner and relationship is obviously extremely important for life quality). It makes billions of people enjoy media content more, and helps companies sell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatisfaction with their appearance in young girls fostered by unrealistic and impossible expectations made by media a bigger problem than lessened inspiration for women to look as best they can and attract partners? Because - and again, correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to me that you're saying that the self-esteem problems and anorexia etc. caused by the unrealistic media representations is "balanced out" by the fact that "a lot of women [are inspired to] look the best they can [etc]". And, really, I'm not sure I believe that women making their partners happier by looking the best they can has any value at all compared to, say, [i]not[/i] causing self-esteem problems and anorexia in young girls.

Smokeskin wrote:
It's a vacsuit first and foremost. They look like that, hugging the skin, to keep tissue pressurized. The only thing you have to go on are the boots (omg a woman in boots) and the waist cincher, which isn't that sexy. I was a German bank party and they had an October beer festival where all the waitresses wore them.

They don't actually look like that, at least not if they're based on the MIT Bio-Suit that has been mentioned several times in this discussion; the level of skin-hugging in the image far exceeds [url=http://www.engineerdir.com/images/research/037b021dfdbfb8b4a66f8d989fa0b... indication I can find[/url] of how tight it will hug the skin. Besides, the statement "it's a vacsuit first and foremost" ignores the fact that an artist actually drew this; an artist who decided that, in their depiction of a vacsuit, they'd made it look like a latex catsuit. They could have, you know, [i]not[/i] made the suit ride up her ass or be adorned with a corset, yet somehow the artist decided that they wanted to draw a vacsuit that's visually equivalent to fetish attire. So, yes, "in universe" it may "just" be a vacsuit, but that doesn't change the fact that the visual design is one that draws more from latex catsuits than Space Activity Suits.

Smokeskin wrote:
So people don't party? They don't go out? Maybe it is just me, but recreational activity seems to be a big deal in EP. Look at say the number of sample PCs with Knowledge skills in Dancing, Clubs, Drugs, etc. Isn't there even an official adventure that's set in some sort of pleasure hab on Venus? You're again just plain wrong when you think the extremely low frequency of art with sexy women is somehow not representative of the setting. If anything it is much too low.

Again, the context is [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] image. I neither convinced that latex catsuits with corsets will be common party-wear in the EP future, not am I convinced that, as that character is in the middle of shooting someone, she was out partying.

Smokeskin wrote:
For the I don't know what time - it's a vacsuit, not fetish gear.

If it's not fetish gear, why is it designed to look like fetish gear?

Smokeskin wrote:
But you're railing against vacsuits because you think they look like latex suits, and knee high boots. That's silly. And you're railing against the way the majority of people will dress when going out.

Are you saying that the majority of people will dress like [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] when going out? And, since you put the onus on me for thinking that [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] looks like a latex catsuit, you do not yourself believe that the attire that female character wears in that image looks like a latex catsuit?

Smokeskin wrote:
So it is not because you don't like it, it is because it is not "appropriate". You really can't explain why it is discriminating, can you? The idea that it is discriminating is of course utterly ridiculous. [b]How can what I find sexy be discriminating?[/b]

I've noticed that this is a persistent pattern with you; when I claim that I do not consider [i]what[/i] you find sexy to be discrimination, but [i]where[/i] you want those things represented, you nonetheless want to know how [i]what[/i] you find sexy can be discrimination. Unless your sexuality is actually predicated upon the objectification of women in RPG sourcebooks, I really don't see how an objection to objectification of women in RPG sourcebooks is in any way a statement about [i]what[/i] you find sexy.

Smokeskin wrote:
Who exactly is it you think is being discriminated

I think I've been fairly clear in stating that I think women are being discriminated against.

Smokeskin wrote:
and by what mechanism?

There are many. Objectification. Setting unrealistic expectations to their personal appearance. Marginalization of women's choices by not lending any focus to clothing options other than sexy, especially when the demand that the clothing be sexy interferes with realism. The marginalization of any counterpoint to the idea that women's appearances exist to appeal to men, by placing a demand on media that unnecessarily sexualized depictions of women be treated as appropriate in places where they serve no purpose other than to titillate. This is a treatment that women receive [i]because they are women[/i], and it is a treatment that is far worse than the way other people are treated. That is what makes this discrimination.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Sat, 2013-08-10 23:29

#15

Decivre

LatwPIAT wrote:There are many

LatwPIAT wrote:
There are many. Objectification. Setting unrealistic expectations to their personal appearance.

I want to pipe in briefly on this for a second. Eclipse Phase is a transhuman setting, and by design it is going to set unrealistic expectations to personal appearance. On one page, you have a woman holding a cigarette with her prehensile feet and smoking, an unrealistic standard for any person, regardless of sex, to strive toward. You have people with cybernetic parts, and people with completely fictionalized organs and bodily components. These by definition set unrealistic expectations. Should we also be offended that sex changes (not surgical mutilation of genitals, but the actual changing of physical sex, including the fertile function of the organs) are in the setting, and set unrealistic expectations for transexuals who might read the setting? I also disagree with the implication of objectification. The character in the picture is not a static object, but an animated character. She isn't a damsel in distress, or an object to be acquired. If anything, you can argue that this piece was an attempt at female power fantasy, more than anything.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 00:27

#16

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

Ye gods, the conversation

Ye gods, the conversation could have gone like this: "You know, that artwork is unnecessarily sexy, don't ya think?" "Yeah, a little, I guess. I didn't really notice." Seriously, what happened to maturity? Are we unable to deal with the idea that different people might have different, valid emotional reactions to a piece of art? We couldn't as a community just say "yeah, that pic's a bit sexed up." It had to become an argument about whether funtional women's clothing exists in setting and what have you. On to the more interesting concept of voluntary sexiness. Let's say we're rating attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10. I went ahead and did an informal poll, asking the people around me "If you could make yourself as attractive as you wanted, how attractive would you make yourself? On a scale of one to 10?" No one I asked said "10." The average was 8. Without even being asked why, several volunteered that they don't want to be too sexy because it would attract unwanted attention. Most people don't want to be attractive all the time, or attractive to everyone. This is especially the case when one is the passive receiver, a role played primarily by women today, though it may be different in Eclipse Phase's future. Simply put, most people will NOT want constant sexual advances made towards them, or constant Lecherous attention, and so probably won't want supermodel bodies. The perfect ideal, rather than being attractive all the time, would be being able to turn being attractive on or off as desired. (Another idea this gives me is well-off egos who have an everyday morph, and another, sexier morph specifically for sexytimes.) Now, on the other hand, say you had the opportunity to design the bodies of the people around you. Actually, lets make that specifically the bodies of the gender/s you're attracted to. This is the position that my hypothetical hypercorp exec is in: He's designing it and bringing it to market. In this circumstance, it's attention getting supermodel bodies all around. This mismatch between the way we experience being attractive, and the way we experience other people being attractive, is the driving dichotomy here. I think most of the people assuming the future is filled with supermodel sexy biomorphs are thinking like my hypothetical executive: You're imagining looking at these bodies, and not really imagining being in one.

Sun, 2013-08-11 02:20

#17

Justin Alexander Justin Alexander's picture

LatwPIAT wrote:Does your wife

LatwPIAT wrote:
Does your wife also go to work in a latex catsuit when she wears those boots? You're missing the forest for the trees here; it's not the boots themselves that are the problem, it's the whole outfit.

Here's the thing: You're not going to get anywhere on the outfit because skin-tight vacsuits for both genders have had a prominent place in Eclipse Phase art since the beginning. There's one literally on the cover of the core rulebook: It is simply impossible that you spontaneously discovered this fact on page 82 of the most recent supplement. Which leaves us with the pose. But I tend to agree with those pointing out that you'll often see lithe male heroes portrayed in SF and superhero art in similar poses. You're trying to compare it to stuff like this in which women's spinal columns have been broken so that their ass and the front of their chest can both be facing the same direction, but that's not what's happening in this picture. I'm a little concerned by the fact that she appears to have dislocated her left hip, but there's nothing particularly outrageous about it: If this was featured in the Hawkeye Initiative, it would pretty much just look like Hawkeye.

—

The Alexandrian

Sun, 2013-08-11 02:21

#18

Smokeskin

Anarchitect wrote:Ye gods,

Anarchitect wrote:
Ye gods, the conversation could have gone like this: "You know, that artwork is unnecessarily sexy, don't ya think?" "Yeah, a little, I guess. I didn't really notice." Seriously, what happened to maturity? Are we unable to deal with the idea that different people might have different, valid emotional reactions to a piece of art? We couldn't as a community just say "yeah, that pic's a bit sexed up." It had to become an argument about whether funtional women's clothing exists in setting and what have you.

Let us just be clear - radical feminism is not a valid reaction. It is a bigoted, judgmental position that does not accept many kinds of hetero sexuality. It is equivalent to being a homophobe and intolerance should not be tolerated. You don't get to play the "it's just a difference of opinion" card.

Sun, 2013-08-11 03:38

#19

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Look, knee high boots are common. My wife is a communication consultant at a pharmaceutical company with 30,000 employees, about as corporate as you get, and she regularly wear boots to work.
Does your wife also go to work in a latex catsuit when she wears those boots? You're missing the forest for the trees here; it's not the boots themselves that are the problem, it's the whole outfit.

No, my wife does not work in environment where vacuum exposure is a risk, so sje doesn't wear a vacsuit.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
And as onetrikpony pointed out to you, this is EP and vacsuits are common. It is not a latex suit, it is a vacsuit. And if you're wearing vacsuits on a daily basis, you're going to pick something that looks good. You might as well be complaining about pink sneakers.
If it's a vacsuit, then maybe it should actually [url=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/845604160_da0b846394.jpg?v=0]look like one[/url]. Maybe it should be inspired more by flight suits, or the tight g-suits that fighter pilots wear. I wouldn't have much room to complain if it was designed after [url=http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/BlkFireBird/Reference%20Photos... thing[/url], which was very obviously designed to make the actress look good - but no, for some reason, the main inspiration remains a latex catsuit mainly used as fetish attire.

It does look like the one in the first picture. Could you i,agine that maybe it could be made from a different material, that it might have refractive armor mod, or does it have to look exactly loke the MIT suit before you will accept it? why would you take that stance if not just to be stubborn? You can't compare to g-suits, they're not made to provide pressure on the upper body but only the legs. You are obviously too invested in your argument to accept that the girl in that poc isn't on her way home from a latex fetish sex party even when a much more likely explanation is available, so I'll leave the vacsuit point alone from now on.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:
"These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" is [i]not[/i] a derogatory statements about your sexuality. It does not demerit, disparage or belittle your sexual attraction to sexy women and the depiction thereof.
When you say my sexuality demeans women, yes you are being derogatory towards both me and the many women who like being sexy.
What I am saying and have been saying is, as you just quoted, "These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women". I'm [i]terribly interested in knowing[/i] how you see that as me being derogatory towards your sexuality; how does "These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women" demerit disparage or belittle your sexuality? You should be able to find an example of where I have said that your sexuality is demeaning to women, or otherwise explain how I've actually said that.

I like sexy women. Some women try to be sexy to appeal to men like. E. When you claim that being sexy (in reality, in artwork, or wherever) is demeaning and objectifying, you are being derogatory to such men and women. We are not demeaning anyone with our sexuality. You and others that don't like it are free to opt out - I assume you don't try to look sexy for example - in the same way I opt out of for example goth fashion and gay sex.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Why are you so scared of common straight sexuality that you feel it has to be purged?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" You're not arguing honestly here; if you are, you should be able to point to explain how what I've said far is evidence that I desire straight sexuality to be purged.
What exactly are you trying to insinuate with your wife beating comment?
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the archetypal [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question]loaded question[/url], and quoting it is a not uncommon way to imply that one has just been asked. In this case, your question started with "why are you so scared of common straight sexuality", which is a question I cannot answer without admitting to being scared of common straight sexuality, despite not actually being scared of it. To explain using the archetypal loaded question, irrespective of whether one answers 'yes' or 'no' to it, one admits to a) having a wife, and b) at some point having beat her on a regular basis, regardless of whether one has actually ever beaten one's wife. You've asked me a question that contains an unjustified assumption (that I'm scared of straight sexuality), and any straight answer will implicitly verify that assumption. It's a dishonest technique to use in an argument, and I do not take kindly to it.

It seems to me that you are scared of common straight sexuality though and the effects it has on women, like right wing pundits are scared of the gay agenda. You could explain how you're not scared instead of dodging the issue by acting offended.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
When you're calling my preferences demeaning[...]
I don't want to talk past you, so I'd like you to clarify this for me; are you saying that your (sexual) preferences include having female characters dressed like [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] depicted in the artwork of roleplaying sourcebooks? Secondly, if so, do you consider that an important part of the sexuality you have accused me of demeaning?

Let me put it in this way. If artwork of someone being cut with a knife showed blood flowing from the wound, and you complained about the blood and I said I think there should be blood, that would not be because I wanted to look at blood, but because in the setting it is likely that the cut morph would bleed (but it could no bleed, if it was a masked steel morph for example). So no, my sexuality it does not require having such artwork. But the existence of people in the setting with sexuality like mine would make it realistic that there were plenty of sexy women in setting, and that makes it perfectly reasonable that there are artwork of such women. And that makes your complaint completely unwarranted.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Hah. As if. How do you feel about say the amount of skinny, beautiful women with large breasts and great hair in media?
That it's actively harmful. It sets unrealistic and impossible expectations of girls, which they can't live up to because the images are mostly photoshopped into unnatural levels of perfection. A huge amount of the self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatifaction with their appearance in young girls is because of the barrage of expectations of beauty they're subjected to, which are impossible to live up to or equal.
It also inspires a lot of women to look the best they can, and that lets them attract better partners and makes their partners happier with them (and the quality of your partner and relationship is obviously extremely important for life quality). It makes billions of people enjoy media content more, and helps companies sell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't self-esteem problems, anorexia and dissatisfaction with their appearance in young girls fostered by unrealistic and impossible expectations made by media a bigger problem than lessened inspiration for women to look as best they can and attract partners? Because - and again, correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to me that you're saying that the self-esteem problems and anorexia etc. caused by the unrealistic media representations is "balanced out" by the fact that "a lot of women [are inspired to] look the best they can [etc]". And, really, I'm not sure I believe that women making their partners happier by looking the best they can has any value at all compared to, say, [i]not[/i] causing self-esteem problems and anorexia in young girls.

You know what? We shouldn't have sexy women in the media. It creates self esteem issues. Just like we shouldn't have smart women, successful women, interesting women, confident women, charismatic women, healthy women, or anything else that could cause some women to develop unrealisic expectations and feel bad about themselves. What you're saying is stupid, unrealistic and very demeaning to women. Do you really assume need to be protected like that lest their frail psyches be failed?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
It's a vacsuit first and foremost. They look like that, hugging the skin, to keep tissue pressurized. The only thing you have to go on are the boots (omg a woman in boots) and the waist cincher, which isn't that sexy. I was a German bank party and they had an October beer festival where all the waitresses wore them.
They don't actually look like that, at least not if they're based on the MIT Bio-Suit that has been mentioned several times in this discussion; the level of skin in the image far exceeds [url=http://www.engineerdir.com/images/research/037b021dfdbfb8b4a66f8d989fa0b... indication I can find[/url] of how tight it will hug the skin. Besides, the statement "it's a vacsuit first and foremost" ignores the fact that an artist actually drew this; an artist who decided that, in their depiction of a vacsuit, they'd made it look like a latex catsuit. They could have, you know, [i]not[/i] made the suit ride up her ass or be adorned with a corset, yet somehow the artist decided that they wanted to draw a vacsuit that's visually equivalent to fetish attire. So, yes, "in universe" it may "just" be a vacsuit, but that doesn't change the fact that the visual design is one that draws more from latex catsuits than Space Activity Suits.

Vacsuits are common in EP. They're not going to be thought of as latex catsuits. Something that's tight on her ass and a "corset" (you have no reason to assume it actually tightens in more than the vacsuit itself) is probably no stranger than a tight skirt.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
So people don't party? They don't go out? Maybe it is just me, but recreational activity seems to be a big deal in EP. Look at say the number of sample PCs with Knowledge skills in Dancing, Clubs, Drugs, etc. Isn't there even an official adventure that's set in some sort of pleasure hab on Venus? You're again just plain wrong when you think the extremely low frequency of art with sexy women is somehow not representative of the setting. If anything it is much too low.
Again, the context is [url=http://i.imgur.com/q9cpdlt.png]this[/url] image. I neither convinced that latex catsuits with corsets will be common party-wear in the EP future, not am I convinced that, as that character is in the middle of shooting someone, she was out partying.

You conveniently removed your preceding quote where you talked about the general activity of PCs and not this specific picture. So please address what I wrote instead of dodging. Look at the setting, the recreational Knowledge skills of sample PCs, and try to tell me again how that fits with your idea that PCs will only be wearing practical clothing.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Who exactly is it you think is being discriminated
I think I've been fairly clear in stating that I think women are being discriminated against.
Smokeskin wrote:
and by what mechanism?
There are many. Objectification. Setting unrealistic expectations to their personal appearance. Marginalization of women's choices by not lending any focus to clothing options other than sexy, especially when the demand that the clothing be sexy interferes with realism. The marginalization of any counterpoint to the idea that women's appearances exist to appeal to men, by placing a demand on media that unnecessarily sexualized depictions of women be treated as appropriate in places where they serve no purpose other than to titillate. This is a treatment that women receive [i]because they are women[/i], and it is a treatment that is far worse than the way other people are treated. That is what makes this discrimination.

So what you're saying is that it is women discriminating against themselves, because everything you just wrote is something that goes on in their own heads. Women's choices are not limited by what I like, they're free to dress any way they like. If some get the idea that they can only dress in a way that pleases men like me, that's their own crazy idea and something that a lot of women disprove daily by being very unsexy. So that gets me off the hook I guess? And just for the record. I dress and keep my hair and beard like my wife likes it. I lift weights and eat properly mainly to stay muscular for her. I listen and understand her problems rather than try to fix them because she doesn't want me to fix them (and besides, most people know perfectly fine what to do, the main problem is almost always building up the determination to go through with something difficult, so imo women aren't actually as silly as some men try to make them out to be with this). In my productivity app I'm required to log at least 4 hours per week of "Deeds" that I do specifically for her. And she certainly expects me to work hard and make money too. And I think I have a great relationship. The foundation of a good relationship is to give a lot. Don't try to put a negative spin on that by calling it "unrealistic expectations that lowers self esteem". Don't blame that on the silly romantic comedies that women watch where the men are handsome and attentive. See it as instructional, as a guide to how you can improve your relationships by giving people what they desire. If they're even halfway decent people they'll return it.

Sun, 2013-08-11 05:50

#20

LatwPIAT

Decivre wrote:Should we also

Decivre wrote:
Should we also be offended that sex changes (not surgical mutilation of genitals, but the actual changing of physical sex, including the fertile function of the organs) are in the setting, and set unrealistic expectations for transexuals who might read the setting?

That's not a valid comparison; effective sex change surgery doesn't coast on decades of all-pervasive media portrayal of effective sex change surgery being used to discriminate against transexual people.

Decivre wrote:
I also disagree with the implication of objectification. The character in the picture is not a static object, but an animated character. She isn't a damsel in distress, or an object to be acquired. If anything, you can argue that this piece was an attempt at female power fantasy, more than anything.

The objectification is the fact that the character is obviously drawn largely to titillate, with other aspects being secondary. It's obviously intended to be titillation first and power fantasy a distant second if at all.

OneTrikPony wrote:
LatwPIAT, Please answer this hypothetical; If the female in the picture [i]choose[/i] to dress as she is, would you admonish or look down on her in any way?

If the women in the image chose to dress herself that way, then no, I'd have no valid reason to admonish or look down on her. Yet, and I think this is important to stress, she didn't choose to dress like that. She's a fictional character who was created by an artist, and that artist chose to dress her that way, in order to make her into a vehicle for titillation. Fiction, unlike real life, is creationist, and everything exists because someone wanted it to be; the extremely fetishized outfit is therefore not an expression of female agency, but an expression of the artist's desire to draw women in latex catsuits.

OneTrikPony wrote:
All of the females I've shown the picture to and who have read this thread disagree that the picture is female exploitation or hyper-sexualized.

Whereas all the women I've shown this picture to, and who have read this thread, think that the image is objectifying, exploitative and overly sexualized, and are disgusted with the way some people try to portray this as normal or acceptable.

OneTrikPony wrote:
Regardless; Your specific objections have been negated because the items you find reason to objectify and sexualize are actually rational and fitting to the scene. [b]the "Corset":[/b]this is also something that exists only in individual imagination. If you sexualize boots it probably follows that you'll see a load bearing harness, torso armor, flexible back support, as a sexual item. It's primary function in the scene has been explained as artistic license with composition and color.

Again, this is an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification that doesn't change the fact that out of all the possible designs of load-bearing harnesses, torso armor or flexible back support, and all the possible artistic licenses taken with composition and colour, the one that was chosen was a corset.

OneTrikPony wrote:
It's unfortunate that you're offended. Have you tried [i]not[/i] being offended?

I've tried it. Turns out, not being offended doesn't actually change anything, and the offensive things don't actually go away.

OneTrikPony wrote:
It's unfortunate that women are objectified. Have you tried [i]not[/i] objectifying women?

I've tried. You should try it yourself some time, when you've finished making loaded questions.

Smokeskin wrote:
I like sexy women. Some women try to be sexy to appeal to men like. E. [b]When you claim that being sexy (in reality[/b], in artwork, or wherever) is demeaning and objectifying, you are being derogatory to such men and women. We are not demeaning anyone with our sexuality.

If I have claimed this, you should be able to quote me saying that women being sexy in real life is demeaning and objectifying. Secondly, I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Sun, 2013-08-11 07:16

#21

nick012000 nick012000's picture

LatwPIAT wrote:Secondly, I

LatwPIAT wrote:
Secondly, I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?

No. It does not. It is a mechanical pressure vacsuit.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Sun, 2013-08-11 07:23

#22

Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture

Ok, Lets take a nice deep

Ok, Lets take a nice deep breath folks and look at some facts about the setting. 1:Everyone looks good. Its a fact, look at your core books.If you are not a flat you have been genefixed for health and looks. In fact it costs you 10 CP to look plain. People are sexy and athletic looking. That is just how it is. 2:She is wearing a Vacsuit. Such suits are all over the books, take a gander at page 293 of the core. Go ahead, i'll wait. Now, if you remove that Helm, does that suit look familer? 3:Also see pages: 77,110,117,126,133,153,154,161,168,190,195 and 362. And that is just in the core book. 4: If the art on Page 82 is an issue( and it is) its not because its sexist, but simply because its comic booky and the colors and styles do not fit(IMO) the style used in the Eclipse Phase line. Now have we covered all the basics?

Sun, 2013-08-11 07:24

#23

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

OneTrikPony wrote:
LatwPIAT, Please answer this hypothetical; If the female in the picture [i]choose[/i] to dress as she is, would you admonish or look down on her in any way?
If the women in the image chose to dress herself that way, then no, I'd have no valid reason to admonish or look down on her. Yet, and I think this is important to stress, she didn't choose to dress like that. She's a fictional character who was created by an artist, and that artist chose to dress her that way, in order to make her into a vehicle for titillation.

Hahaha this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You're complaining that a fictional character is being dressed a certain way against her own choosing? So let me get this straight. You think that sexy women is ok (women choose their own clothing). You think that men liking sexy women is ok (you don't want to be derogatory towards our sexuality). It is only the drawing of sexy women that is ok because the fictional characters didn't choose it for themselves?

Quote:

OneTrikPony wrote:
All of the females I've shown the picture to and who have read this thread disagree that the picture is female exploitation or hyper-sexualized.
Whereas all the women I've shown this picture to, and who have read this thread, think that the image is objectifying, exploitative and overly sexualized, and are disgusted with the way some people try to portray this as normal or acceptable.

I'm going to ask again (knowing that you're going to ignore it again): what is exploitative about a sexy appearance? How can you say you feminists are not being derogatory towards hetero sexuality then follow it up with how you are disgusted with our acceptance of women looking sexy?

Quote:

OneTrikPony wrote:
Regardless; Your specific objections have been negated because the items you find reason to objectify and sexualize are actually rational and fitting to the scene. [b]the "Corset":[/b]this is also something that exists only in individual imagination. If you sexualize boots it probably follows that you'll see a load bearing harness, torso armor, flexible back support, as a sexual item. It's primary function in the scene has been explained as artistic license with composition and color.
Again, this is an [i]ad hoc[/i] justification that doesn't change the fact that out of all the possible designs of load-bearing harnesses, torso armor or flexible back support, and all the possible artistic licenses taken with composition and colour, the one that was chosen was a corset.

Let us say you are right. What is wrong with a corset? And while you're at it, how about you stop ignoring that we asked you what was wrong with knee high boots, which you've been conveniently ignoring.

Quote:

OneTrikPony wrote:
It's unfortunate that you're offended. Have you tried [i]not[/i] being offended?
I've tried it. Turns out, not being offended doesn't actually change anything, and the offensive things don't actually go away.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I like sexy women. Some women try to be sexy to appeal to men like. E. [b]When you claim that being sexy (in reality[/b], in artwork, or wherever) is demeaning and objectifying, you are being derogatory to such men and women. We are not demeaning anyone with our sexuality.
If I have claimed this, you should be able to quote me saying that women being sexy in real life is demeaning and objectifying.

You have to decide. Either it is demeaning or it is not demeaning. If it is not demeaning, then what is the problem with people like me liking it or pictures of it? Your position is beginning to sound dishonest as well now.

Quote:
Secondly, I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?

Of course it looks like a latex suit. It also looks like a spandex suit worn by speed ice skaters. And it looks like a wetsuit worn by divers and surfers. It looks like any number of skintight suits. But let me ask you this - if an action shot was set inside a submarine docking bay, would you assume that it was a wetsuit or a latex fetish suit? Now it is set in space - do you think it is a vacsuit or a latex fetish suit? You really do see offensive porn everywhere, don't you?

Sun, 2013-08-11 12:04

#24

Decivre

LatwPIAT wrote:That's not a

LatwPIAT wrote:
That's not a valid comparison; effective sex change surgery doesn't coast on decades of all-pervasive media portrayal of effective sex change surgery being used to discriminate against transexual people.

The problem with this mindset is that it implies that anything can become a permanent taboo if at some point it is used in a negative manner. I dislike this mentality; it's the same sort of thing that allows countries to ban the naming of children "Judas", or to force people to change their last name from Hitler. Tradition as a consequence of history is a terrible mentality for deciding the mores of society.

LatwPIAT wrote:
The objectification is the fact that the character is obviously drawn largely to titillate, with other aspects being secondary. It's obviously intended to be titillation first and power fantasy a distant second if at all.

Titillation has nothing to do with the concept of objectification. Objectification is the representation of a person as an object or piece of property. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because objectification tends to correlate to sexually appealing people does not mean that one causes the other. A picture of an attractive woman being held as property is just as objectifying as a picture of an unattractive woman being discarded as property; what makes it objectifying is that they are being [b]presented as property[/b], not being presented as attractive or unattractive. So whether this picture is titillating or not is irrelevant to whether it is objectifying or not.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 13:44

#25

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

"Difference of opinion card."

Smokeskin: My point would be that there is a Non-radical feminist reaction, as well as the radical one. This whole thread is filled with Radical Feminism and Radical Anti-Feminism, and very very little reasonable discussion. It's possible to be mildly put off by excessive sexuality in an artwork, without being an anti sexual radical feminist claiming "all sexuality is objectifying." It's possible to not have an issue with sexy art without being "there's no such thing as sexism and anyone who thinks there is is oversensitive and hates men." The card I'm playing is not "all opinions are valid" but "this is not worth the giant fight we're having over it." Seriously, I'm not espousing anything radical here, it's just that the anti-feminism in here is so far off the deep end I feel the need to try to pull things back from the brink. No, the picture in question is not inherently anti-woman, but some of the response to people in this thread has been. The picture in question didn't really need to be defended, and the people jumping in to defend it are proving the points the attackers are making. And arguing that a piece of comic-booky fantasy art is accurate to the setting simply makes the setting into a piece of comic-booky fantasy. I'm upset with this specific tact being used to defend the piece. I am fine with "I like looking at pretty pictures" and "the artist can draw attractive women if they want to." I am not fine with "all women are this sexy in the future," because it's unlikely to be true, detracts from the setting, and illuminates worse objectification than the artwork itself ever did. TL:DR I have no problem with the picture, but I do have a problem with the way people are fighting over it like this is the line in the sand.

Sun, 2013-08-11 14:14

#26

ProxyKlee

No need to unnecessarily drag trans* people into this

LatwPIAT wrote:
Decivre wrote:
Should we also be offended that sex changes (not surgical mutilation of genitals, but the actual changing of physical sex, including the fertile function of the organs) are in the setting, and set unrealistic expectations for transexuals who might read the setting?
That's not a valid comparison; effective sex change surgery doesn't coast on decades of all-pervasive media portrayal of effective sex change surgery being used to discriminate against transexual people.

Well, there is the whole discrimination of certain trans* people that says they are not the gender they truly are because they cannot or choose not to get sexual reassignment surgery.

Seekerofshadowlight wrote:
2:She is wearing a Vacsuit. Such suits are all over the books, take a gander at page 293 of the core. Go ahead, i'll wait. Now, if you remove that Helm, does that suit look familer? 3:Also see pages: 77,110,117,126,133,153,154,161,168,190,195 and 362. And that is just in the core book.

Yes, all of of those pictures do have skintight vacsuits, but most of the characters depicted are not shown in ridiculous poses. The problem here isn't attractive people in sexy clothing, the problem is when they are drawn to be eye candy in what would be otherwise an action scene. Try imagining a piece of art like this, but instead of a woman in that catsuit it is an attractive man. Isn't the pose now kind of ridiculous? Maybe I am wrong and there is a piece of art in EP like that.

Sun, 2013-08-11 14:40

#27

Smokeskin

Anarchitect wrote:Smokeskin:

Anarchitect wrote:
Smokeskin: My point would be that there is a Non-radical feminist reaction, as well as the radical one. This whole thread is filled with Radical Feminism and Radical Anti-Feminism, and very very little reasonable discussion. It's possible to be mildly put off by excessive sexuality in an artwork, without being an anti sexual radical feminist claiming "all sexuality is objectifying." It's possible to not have an issue with sexy art without being "there's no such thing as sexism and anyone who thinks there is is oversensitive and hates men." The card I'm playing is not "all opinions are valid" but "this is not worth the giant fight we're having over it."

That sounds reasonable. And the "giant fight" we're having is because of the radical feministic hate speech, not over any actual issues with the picture.

Anarchitect wrote:
Seriously, I'm not espousing anything radical here, it's just that the anti-feminism in here is so far off the deep end I feel the need to try to pull things back from the brink.

So you expect use heteros to just take it when our sexuality is being called "demeaning"? Defending our sexuality is being far off the deep end?

Anarchitect wrote:
No, the picture in question is not inherently anti-woman, but some of the response to people in this thread has been. The picture in question didn't really need to be defended, and the people jumping in to defend it are proving the points the attackers are making.

I agree that the picture itself doesn't need to be defended much. It speaks for itself. Calling vacsuits "latex fetish suits" is obviously ridiculous. If it wasn't for all the hetero hate commentary, it would have died very quickly. It is the feministic bigotry that keeps the ball rolling. And please give some examples of how speaking up against it "proves the points the attackers are making", and how they are "anti-woman". It seems to me you're veering right down the same road as LatwPIAT by claiming that we're "anti-woman". I'd love to hear your arguments and see your examples, because right now it seems that you're opening up the post with something polite but then you start calling us "anti-woman" - and I note that you're making no objection to the anti-hetero commentary.

Anarchitect wrote:
I am not fine with "all women are this sexy in the future," because it's unlikely to be true, detracts from the setting, and illuminates worse objectification than the artwork itself ever did.

No one ever said that.

Sun, 2013-08-11 14:58

#28

Smokeskin

ProxyKlee wrote:

ProxyKlee wrote:
Yes, all of of those pictures do have skintight vacsuits, but most of the characters depicted are not shown in ridiculous poses. The problem here isn't attractive people in sexy clothing, the problem is when they are drawn to be eye candy in what would be otherwise an action scene. Try imagining a piece of art like this, but instead of a woman in that catsuit it is an attractive man. Isn't the pose now kind of ridiculous? Maybe I am wrong and there is a piece of art in EP like that.

I googled "spiderman acrobatics". Now imagine these with feminists complaining about: Profiles ass and breasts, very similar to the one being complained about http://www.high5review.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/21_spiderman_560x3... Crotch shot! This one is totally over the top http://www.fortressofsolitude.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Spider_Ma... Showing off a long slender leg, ass and pushing up the breasts http://www.wallgc.com/comics-spider-man-10908/ Plain and simply, you're wrong.

Sun, 2013-08-11 15:56

#29

LatwPIAT

nick012000 wrote:LatwPIAT

nick012000 wrote:
LatwPIAT wrote:
Secondly, I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?
No. It does not. It is a mechanical pressure vacsuit.

Now you're just being obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

Smokeskin wrote:
How can you say you feminists are not being derogatory towards hetero sexuality then follow it up with how you are disgusted with our acceptance of women looking sexy?

Crap. Was I elected Queen of Feminism again? Because usually my views and opinions aren't representative of the entire feminism movement. But, hey, if I get to speak with the authority that my voice is the opinion of every feminist ever, then I'd probably note that you're, as usual, misrepresenting my position. You say I'm disgusted with your acceptance of sexy-looking women, trying to paint yourself as some kind of pro-women paragon and me as some kind of hypocrite, which is dishonest argument: all I ever said was that objectifying and demeaning imagery of women have no place in an RPG sourcebook. You're the one who are trying to make it sound as if I'm hounding you for [i]accepting[/i] that women can be sexy. Quote me on it. Quote me being disgusted with your acceptance of women looking sexy.

Smokeskin wrote:
Let us say you are right. What is wrong with a corset? And while you're at it, how about you stop ignoring that we asked you what was wrong with knee high boots, which you've been conveniently ignoring.

Maybe I've been "ignoring" the question because it's [i]really bloody dishonest[/i]? I mean, every time I talk about the image on p. 82 and dare to mention that the boots are a part of how the image is deliberately designed to invoke latex fetish attire, you or someone else will latch onto it and cry "what do you have against boots? Lots of women wear boots!" or something to that effect. You know what that's called? A strawman argument; I've never claimed that there is something wrong with knee-high boots in isolation. The [i]whole time[/i] I've been talking about how it's a [i]part[/i] of the sexualization of the image. Yet I'll still be racked as if I'd claimed that knee-high boots are the root cause of all misogyny. And you know what happens when I say that? Nobody says anything, and the [i]next[/i] time I mention the boots, someone latches onto it and whines about my irrational hatred of female footwear. So maybe I'm just really damn tired of having to repeat myself to people who refuse to listen.

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I like sexy women. Some women try to be sexy to appeal to men like. E. [b]When you claim that being sexy (in reality[/b], in artwork, or wherever) is demeaning and objectifying, you are being derogatory to such men and women. We are not demeaning anyone with our sexuality.
If I have claimed this, you should be able to quote me saying that women being sexy in real life is demeaning and objectifying.
You have to decide. Either it is demeaning or it is not demeaning. If it is not demeaning, then what is the problem with people like me liking it or pictures of it?

There's a distinct lack of quotes here.

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:
Secondly, I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?
Of course it looks like a latex suit. It also looks like a spandex suit worn by speed ice skaters. And it looks like a wetsuit worn by divers and surfers. It looks like any number of skintight suits.

Uh huh. Yet, you know, using my amazing primate brain, I can do a really cool thing. I can tell different images apart. I can do things like distinguish between a wetsuit and the spandex suit worn by athletes. Something that is also pretty cool is that I can tell when things look [i]more[/i] or [i]less[/i] similar. And you know what? The outfit in image on p. 82 looks [i]more[/i] like a latex catsuit than it looks like a wetsuit or the spandex suits worn by speed ice skaters, or even the Space Activity Suit it's supposed to be an example of. Which is really strange; you'd imagine that if the artist wanted to draw a spacesuit, they'd make sure it resembled a spacesuit more than it resembled a latex catsuit.

Smokeskin wrote:
But let me ask you this - if an action shot was set inside a submarine docking bay, would you assume that it was a wetsuit or a latex fetish suit? Now it is set in space - do you think it is a vacsuit or a latex fetish suit?

Well, that'd actually depend a lot what the suit actually looked like; if it looked like a wetsuit and it was set in a submarine docking bay, I'd probably say wetsuit. And if it was set in space, and looked like a space activity suit, I'd probably say vacsuit. But if it's all shiny and accentuating, complete with a zipper-shaped line where the zipper that runs down to her butt would be, and we have incriminating details like a corset and knee-high boots to point my mind in the direction of "latex fetish photography", I'd probably still say "latex fetish suit".

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Sun, 2013-08-11 16:23

#30

Lalande21185 Lalande21185's picture

Just want to say...

I also don't like the piece on page 82. I think it is one of the worst of the book. Art contains themes in addition to any subject/story that may be present in the piece. Themes that are formed, not by the individual elements in isolation, but by the totality of the piece: character focus, body positions, cropping, mistakes, focal locations, coloring, etc. all contribute to form the theme. Looking through the book and picking out some examples: Page 29 - This woman is badass! Look at her sliding across the floor while firing two guns. Page 82 - Look at her ass! Sure she is doing something, but ignore that, look at her ass! Page 101 - They are in space! Up is relative, things float everywhere, bouncer morphs have hands for feet, and smoke is in rings/spheres instead of streams. There are strange alien lizard-men. Space! Page 106 - Everyone here is a normal person. Even though they look weird and sci-fi, they do normal person things. They play games, smoke, and drink like normal people. Page: 201 - We can rebuild her; We have the technology. Look at all these cool sci-fi things! Page: 207 - Look at the monsters we are fighting. Look how monstrous they are. Look at how tenacious they are. We can win, but it won't be easy. Looking at these themes, though all the woman in the art are good looking (at least in my opinion) and several have skintight outfits or are wearing little/no clothing, only the picture on page 82 has a theme that focuses on this aspect. This is made worse because it is supposed to be an action shot, but the work completely ignores the details of the action in order to focus on a portion of the woman's anatomy. This is objectifying* and I don't like the piece because of this. *Through the composition, coloring, words, and other elements of the medium the work is asking us not to view the woman as a person, but rather as a body part or a collection of body parts.

—

[url=http://awdaberton.wordpress.com/about/]Eclipse Phase Adventures[/url]

Sun, 2013-08-11 19:22

#31

Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture

ProxyKlee wrote:[

ProxyKlee wrote:
[ Yes, all of of those pictures do have skintight vacsuits, but most of the characters depicted are not shown in ridiculous poses. The problem here isn't attractive people in sexy clothing, the problem is when they are drawn to be eye candy in what would be otherwise an action scene. Try imagining a piece of art like this, but instead of a woman in that catsuit it is an attractive man. Isn't the pose now kind of ridiculous? Maybe I am wrong and there is a piece of art in EP like that.

Umm I take it you have never watched Gymnastics then? That pose is not as odd as some of you guys think. Its just the way the human body is built, athletic people tend to have well sculpted asses Those asses (both male and female) tend to jut out just as we are seeing. Really, watch cheerleaders of both sexes lay on the floor, do the splits and lean forward, you see just this pose. It is an action seen and while the style is not to my taste, the artiest knows what a human body does.

Sun, 2013-08-11 20:31

#32

Anarchitect Anarchitect's picture

Look, what I find anti-woman

Look, what I find anti-woman about the arguments here is that people are characterizing not liking sexualization in an action shot as being an attack on heteronormative sexuality. As I see this, one person interpreted a mild example of "male gaze" as an attack, and other people responded by actually attacking. Thus shit has gone all out of proportion. If I'm coming off as being on the "Feminist side" of this argument, it's because those arguments bother me more. If LatwPIAT is making a mountain out of a molehill, Smokeskin and OneTrikPony are denying the existence of moles. I don't want "Radical feminism" to be a valid critique, so stop making it one! As to "no one is claiming that": "You're again just plain wrong when you think the extremely low frequency of art with sexy women is somehow not representative of the setting. If anything it is much too low." "the existence of people in the setting with sexuality like mine would make it realistic that there were plenty of sexy women in setting, and that makes it perfectly reasonable that there are artwork of such women. And that makes your complaint completely unwarranted." Yeah, no, people are explicitly saying that. Actually, those are all quotes from you, smokeskin. Note how the second one quote is all about what "people like you" want to SEE, and not about what people want to BE. There's an inherent assumption that what people like you want will dictate other's desires about what they want to be. That may not be unrealistic, but it is sexist. This is the perfect example of "proving the point." Similarly, Seekerofshadowlight, using cheerleaders as an example to try to prove something isn't sexualized seems counter-productive. Lalande21185 gets it. This is an example of a piece of art that doesn't support the setting. Acknowledging that is all this needed to be.

Sun, 2013-08-11 21:19

#33

Churchill

One is not like the other

Long time reader, first time poster here. TLDR: Pig Woman is a bad piece of lazily drawn art that does not belong in this book with the caliber of art that surrounds the rest of this tome. I have to say I've been impressed with art from all the books. Everything that is drawn gives me the feeling that space is a huge place, that the worlds that Transhumans inhabit are vast, varied, and very deadly. When I saw this picture I immediately thought that something was off. Something did not look right in my brain. Then it hit me just like others posted above and in other threads. The dimensions are off and this hack job looks out of place. The head, the limbs, the copy/paste of the teats are not 'right' on this piece of art. I think that the concept that originally was posted (Dirty, scum barge roaming, tusks broken off, ear rings, etc) were tossed out the window and someone took the head of pig, pasted this on another piece of art, copied the teats 4 other times and added this to the body. This feels like the original artist had no idea what they were doing or at the last minute someone put this image together to fill this picture slot. The rest of the skin tight outfits of Uber Comic book women in ridiculous outfits doesn't bother me. I'm immune to it. I truly do wish that future products would put more women that looked like Ellen Ripley from Aliens. This is a STRONG woman who got things done, and may not be the best looker, but determination makes her ooze confidence and presence. T&A sells books (this I know for a fact), but EP is something different and hopefully there can be more Ellen Ripley's than Wonder Women's.

—

V is for Victory.

Mon, 2013-08-12 02:25

#34

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I like sexy women. Some women try to be sexy to appeal to men like. E. [b]When you claim that being sexy (in reality[/b], in artwork, or wherever) is demeaning and objectifying, you are being derogatory to such men and women. We are not demeaning anyone with our sexuality.
If I have claimed this, you should be able to quote me saying that women being sexy in real life is demeaning and objectifying.
You have to decide. Either it is demeaning or it is not demeaning. If it is not demeaning, then what is the problem with people like me liking it or pictures of it?
There's a distinct lack of quotes here.

You are in full blown dodging mode throughout your entire post, and you also cherry pick. I would really like it if you actually tried to discuss the issues. I would like it if you adressed how you think portraying sexy women in media is problematic because it creates self esteem issues, if we should then also stop portraying smart and successful women or any other number of positive characteristics a woman can have? I would like you to elaborate on your idea that real women can choose to be sexy and that is unproblematic, but fictional characters can't choose for themselves so that is oppression. But let us just look at this one quote. You say that being sexy in real life is not demeaning. If that is the case, then liking sexy women is not demeaning either. Drawing sexy women is not demeaning. How could that be demeaning when being it is not? Or are you seriously saying that things that are perfectly fine and acceptable in real life somehow becomes demeaning when you draw them? Does that also apply to say being smart?

Mon, 2013-08-12 03:46

#35

Smokeskin

Anarchitect wrote:I don't

Anarchitect wrote:
I don't want "Radical feminism" to be a valid critique, so stop making it one!

I'm not sure what you mean. Radical feminists (and most feminism, though I try not to object to that out of respect for its history and that many reasonable people still call themselves feminists even though they agree with the current feminism movement on practically nothing) are like homophobes and racists - are you suggesting that they change, or that we stop calling them out on it?

Anarchitect wrote:
As to "no one is claiming that": "You're again just plain wrong when you think the extremely low frequency of art with sexy women is somehow not representative of the setting. If anything it is much too low."

I was replying to another post, not claiming there should be more. Someone said there were too many sexy women in EP art. I pointed out that the frequency was actually extremely low (most women in EP art are not sexy), and that if anything it is much too low - as you said yourself, your informal survey had people wanting an attractiveness level of an average 8/10, where in EP it is say 5 or 6, even though most people in EP can pretty much pick their looks. I have never bitched about there being too much or too little sexy art in EP. They could easily have skipped that vacsuited cartwheeling woman and I'd never have noticed or cared. I'm just objecting to the completely unwarranted criticism from feminists, and even more so the bigotred commentary that comes with it.

Anarchitect wrote:
"the existence of people in the setting with sexuality like mine would make it realistic that there were plenty of sexy women in setting, and that makes it perfectly reasonable that there are artwork of such women. And that makes your complaint completely unwarranted." Yeah, no, people are explicitly saying that. Actually, those are all quotes from you, smokeskin. Note how the second one quote is all about what "people like you" want to SEE, and not about what people want to BE. There's an inherent assumption that what people like you want will dictate other's desires about what they want to be. That may not be unrealistic, but it is sexist. This is the perfect example of "proving the point."

It is certainly not sexist. I expect that in all groups - men and women, straight, gay or bi - there will still be plenty of people that want to be sexy. And to BE sexy you play on what your desired audience SEES as sexy. So no, it is not sexism. It is a gender-neutral position, and it is simply how being sexy works.

Mon, 2013-08-12 05:41

#36

Lorsa

Wikipedia on discrimination:

Wikipedia on discrimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination Wikipedia on sexual objectification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification A picture is not a person, thus it can impossible be objectifying. Both men and women in EP art is being depicted with skin-tight suits and in action thus it isn't discriminating either. Unless you have interviewed the artist you can impossibly know if it was drawn with the primary focus on being titilating. You're making assumptions on what the artist was meant to do. The concept of sexual objectification of women in society, according to wikipedia, involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female. This picture shows a woman in action, shooting and eliminating a (possibly male) threat. She is obviously very capable, atheletic and dangerous. Thus the artist did not disregard the personal and intellectual abilities of females. Claiming that the ego has to be male it actually [i]more[/i] demeaning to women in that sense, as it assumed a woman could impossibly do this. In EP, people are much much more agile, athletic, good looking and capable than people. Comparisons to Spiderman are highly relevant, except that Spiderman would probably loose in a fight against a Firewall sentinel. The game has a morph trait "Limber" after all. The EP setting involves things like discrimination and objectification (the actual things). It even mentions that neotenic morphs are used for prostitution. It's not a society that is an utopia, in many ways it is quite ugly. Even if you read art as being discriminating or objectifying it can still be highly relevant to the setting. In real life I have seen (just this summer) girls just going on a train ride that either a) had shorts that were so short they ended betfore the buttocks did or b) very small shorts (but still covering the whole ass) and a tiny top that ended right after the breasts which means the entire belly and legs were bare. I have also seen women in skin-tight clothing, sunbathing topless (or bathing naked though not this summer). I have seen girls that dresses in actual corsets. Realistic art would include all those things as this is how our reality is. But our present day reality is not EP. So I guess it is up to each and every person to assume which things will still be present and which ones will not. Personally I think women will dress even more sexy in EP than they do today. It might have creepy implications for society but I think that's the beauty of EP; it stretches the boundaries of what we consider "normal" and "human" and "okay".

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Mon, 2013-08-12 08:22

#37

LatwPIAT

Lorsa wrote:Wikipedia on

Lorsa wrote:
Wikipedia on discrimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination Wikipedia on sexual objectification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification A picture is not a person, thus it can impossible be objectifying.

From the same wikipedia article: "[i]Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[who?] see [b]objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media[/b], women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, [b]images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art[/b], stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, [b]and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement[/b] and labiaplasty.[/i]"

Lorsa wrote:
Both men and women in EP art is being depicted with skin-tight suits and in action thus it isn't discriminating either.

The wearing of skin-tight suits by itself isn't discriminating, but then that has never been the issue; the issue has been the sexualization.

Lorsa wrote:
The concept of sexual objectification of women in society, according to wikipedia, involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female. This picture shows a woman in action, shooting and eliminating a (possibly male) threat. She is obviously very capable, atheletic and dangerous. Thus the artist did not disregard the personal and intellectual abilities of females.

But the artist did choose to portray the female character in a way that makes her sexual features the core of the image, making the fact that she is an object to be sexually desired the main subject of the image, rather than her capabilities and competence. That [i]is[/i] disregarding the personal abilities of women; [i]because[/i] she is a woman, she is being presented primarily as a sexual object first and everything else a distant second.

Smokeskin wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Radical feminists (and most feminism, though I try not to object to that out of respect for its history and that many reasonable people still call themselves feminists even though they agree with the current feminism movement on practically nothing) are like homophobes and racists - are you suggesting that they change, or that we stop calling them out on it?

Yup. Those movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women? They're totally as bad as racism and homophobia.

Smokeskin wrote:
You are in full blown dodging mode throughout your entire post, and you also cherry pick.

And you do not?

Smokeskin wrote:
I would really like it if you actually tried to discuss the issues. I would like it if you adressed how you think portraying sexy women in media is problematic because it creates self esteem issues, if we should then also stop portraying smart and successful women or any other number of positive characteristics a woman can have?

Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting my position to set up a strawman argument that you can trivially demolish. I have [i]never[/i] said that portraying sexy women in media is problematic, I have said that the sexualized and objectifying portrayal of women in media, and the impossible standard of beauty in media, is problematic. And as evidence to why it is problematic, I can point to the fact that it leads to self-esteem issues, body image issues, body dissatisfaction, negative moods, depression, eating disorders, misogyny and encourages stereotypical gender-roles. Whereas, unless you can provide me some evidence to the contrary, I remain unconvinced that portraying women as smart or successful or similar has problematic effects that are in any way similar to what sexualized, impossible standards of beauty causes.

Smokeskin wrote:
I would like you to elaborate on your idea that real women can choose to be sexy and that is unproblematic, but fictional characters can't choose for themselves so that is oppression.

Fiction (including art) has characters. The actions of those characters are never decided by themselves; they're decided entirely by the author/artist. Women in real life being sexy of their own volition is an expression of their freedom to do whatever the fuck they want; female characters in [i]fiction[/i] being sexy are doing so based on a rationale of the author/artist - they are not expressing their freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, because they are not actual, thinking persons who can have "wants". And it's not just the singular portrayal of a single woman in a single piece of art, somewhere, sometime. It's the fact that these pieces perpetuate and reinforce the oppression of women, for reasons I have explained above. That's not something a woman dressing of her own volition does, but it is something the complete saturation of media with sexualized images does.

Smokeskin wrote:
You say that being sexy in real life is not demeaning. If that is the case, then liking sexy women is not demeaning either. Drawing sexy women is not demeaning. How could that be demeaning when being it is not?

Once again, you misrepresent my position to attack a strawman. Either through ignorance or malice, you are trying to trap me in a contradiction by implying I am contradicting myself when I am not.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Mon, 2013-08-12 09:28

#38

Lorsa

LatwPIAT wrote:Lorsa wrote

LatwPIAT wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
Wikipedia on discrimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination Wikipedia on sexual objectification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification A picture is not a person, thus it can impossible be objectifying.
From the same wikipedia article: "[i]Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[who?] see [b]objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media[/b], women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, [b]images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art[/b], stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, [b]and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement[/b] and labiaplasty.[/i]"

I take it you belong to that category that see these sort of things as objectifying then? Personally I think objectification isn't in any one single action or event. It is in the mind and the reason behind it. If I, for example, thought a pornstars sole purpose of existance was to supply me with arousing video then it would be objectifying. I do not, and would be happy to have a conversation with said pornstar, would never assume that just because she have sex with people on video that she naturally should have sex with me. Pornography, images and whatnot is in itself not sexual objectification. It is sexual, sure, but it doesn't need to be objectifying. You are reading things into people's minds that aren't there. It is possible to enjoy beautiful without without objectifying them.

LatwPIAT wrote:
The wearing of skin-tight suits by itself isn't discriminating, but then that has never been the issue; the issue has been the sexualization.

There seem to have been a lot of discussion about latex fetish outfits. But if that has never been the issue I'll leave it be.

LatwPIAT wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
The concept of sexual objectification of women in society, according to wikipedia, involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female. This picture shows a woman in action, shooting and eliminating a (possibly male) threat. She is obviously very capable, atheletic and dangerous. Thus the artist did not disregard the personal and intellectual abilities of females.
But the artist did choose to portray the female character in a way that makes her sexual features the core of the image, making the fact that she is an object to be sexually desired the main subject of the image, rather than her capabilities and competence. That [i]is[/i] disregarding the personal abilities of women; [i]because[/i] she is a woman, she is being presented primarily as a sexual object first and everything else a distant second.

And here is where opinions differ. You look at the image and see that someone is trying to portray a woman's sexual features whereas I see an acrobatic maneuver. Hey, I don't really think this picture is all that great either for reasons someone else have stated here, but I don't think it was drawn that way as a conscious effort to promote female sexual features and send the message that women are only objects to satisfy the male sexual apetite (or lesbian women's). If you want to portray a woman's sexual features (which these would be is again extremely subjective, you obviously have a thing for asses, I prefer bellies) there are much better ways to do it. Like this (warning, you need your adult filter on): http://metalhed13.deviantart.com/art/Dezirae-PP12-XXII-373859565 Lastly I would like to say (and this part is very important). There are two kinds of problems as it involves sexual objectification of women and it is microproblems and macroproblems. Macroproblems are when a large majority of all the media gives a certain specific message to people. For example, when every woman in media is good-looking it gives the idea that this is how women are supposed to be and that leads to the self-esteem issues you were talking about. I don't like this either, I have had friends and family that have had these issues and I believe if there was more portrayal (in general, we're in macroproblem territory here) of ugly intelligent women that are successfull then young girls would have an easier time to understand thet they are okay and have worth even if they're not super beautiful. Microproblem is when one piece just in and of itself is problematic. Let's say a picture of a slave auction where a man buys an unwilling girl to be his personal sexdoll. THAT would be objectification. I don't think the piece (of ass) in Transhuman is a microproblem. It could be part of a macroproblem but unfortunately I think we can all agree that all art in EP isn't based on a T&A philosophy and that there's a very broad range of images showing all sorts of women (and men, and androgynous weapon platforms). I don't believe this picture is a microproblem. It seems to me you really want to discuss the macroproblem of sexual objectification of women in media in general, and EP art's place or role in this. However, in order to claim that EP is part of the macroproblem you need to show that a majority of all images of women are objectifying in nature. So far you only have this one picture, which makes it a microproblem. And as microproblem most people doesn't agree with you.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Mon, 2013-08-12 09:57

#39

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Radical feminists (and most feminism, though I try not to object to that out of respect for its history and that many reasonable people still call themselves feminists even though they agree with the current feminism movement on practically nothing) are like homophobes and racists - are you suggesting that they change, or that we stop calling them out on it?
Yup. Those movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women? They're totally as bad as racism and homophobia.

Look, justifications don't make it so. Homophobes also try to dress it up with "protecting the institution of marriage", or what is natural, and all sorts of other excuses for their bigotry. They don't call themselves homophobes. Radical feminists say they're working for equality, but next breath they're making derogatory remarks on "male culture", talking about hetero sexuality as "demeaning", etc. Of course you dress it up, but that doesn't make it any less bigoted.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I would really like it if you actually tried to discuss the issues. I would like it if you adressed how you think portraying sexy women in media is problematic because it creates self esteem issues, if we should then also stop portraying smart and successful women or any other number of positive characteristics a woman can have?
Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting my position to set up a strawman argument that you can trivially demolish. I have [i]never[/i] said that portraying sexy women in media is problematic, I have said that the sexualized and objectifying portrayal of women in media, and the impossible standard of beauty in media, is problematic. And as evidence to why it is problematic, I can point to the fact that it leads to self-esteem issues, body image issues, body dissatisfaction, negative moods, depression, eating disorders, misogyny and encourages stereotypical gender-roles. Whereas, unless you can provide me some evidence to the contrary, I remain unconvinced that portraying women as smart or successful or similar has problematic effects that are in any way similar to what sexualized, impossible standards of beauty causes.

Please tell me what the difference between "portrayal of sexy women", "sexualized and objectifying portrayal of women", and "impossible standard of beauty" is. It sounds a lot like you're moving goalposts in order to be able to diss male sexuality without dissing sexy women. Maybe you're too young, but here in middle age the big issue for many women is that they feel they have to both take care of the children, the home and their careers, and it makes them stressed, depressed and they feel constantly inadequate. Many with children would prefer to take some time go on reduced time but fear they'll be looked down on for not having a career. In my age group, the expectation of being smart and successful hits women much harder than the expectation to be sexy. So, what do you say? Are you consistent, and we should stop portraying successful women along with sexy women? Or are your justifications for your bigotry bogus?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I would like you to elaborate on your idea that real women can choose to be sexy and that is unproblematic, but fictional characters can't choose for themselves so that is oppression.
Fiction (including art) has characters. The actions of those characters are never decided by themselves; they're decided entirely by the author/artist. Women in real life being sexy of their own volition is an expression of their freedom to do whatever the fuck they want; female characters in [i]fiction[/i] being sexy are doing so based on a rationale of the author/artist - they are not expressing their freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, because they are not actual, thinking persons who can have "wants".

I'm laughing so hard at this. Ok, let us step it up a notch. Some real women choose to be sexy, and some fictional women are forced to act sexy for the artists benefit, and that is bad. Now, getting raped or murdered, that's really horrible for real women. And that's also really terrible for fictional characters, both male and female. You know, this whole oppression of fictional characters is pretty bad and pervasive when you think about it, and it affects both genders!

LatwPIAT wrote:
And it's not just the singular portrayal of a single woman in a single piece of art, somewhere, sometime. It's the fact that these pieces perpetuate and reinforce the oppression of women, for reasons I have explained above. That's not something a woman dressing of her own volition does, but it is something the complete saturation of media with sexualized images does.

This might come as a shock to you, but you do know that women are free to not dress sexily? That in quite a lot of jobs it is frowned upon to be too sexy? That plenty of women don't dress or act sexy at all without anyone persecuting them? Calling it "oppression" is just completely ridiculous. You're again trying to vilify hetero sexuality. Oppression is a horrible thing, and trying to associate it hetero sexuality is hate speech, nothing less.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
You say that being sexy in real life is not demeaning. If that is the case, then liking sexy women is not demeaning either. Drawing sexy women is not demeaning. How could that be demeaning when being it is not?
Once again, you misrepresent my position to attack a strawman. Either through ignorance or malice, you are trying to trap me in a contradiction by implying I am contradicting myself when I am not.

Honest people would follow that with an explanation of their position. Why don't you explain yourself? Name me one other thing where the act or attribute is ok, but liking it and depicting it is demeaning.

Mon, 2013-08-12 12:16

#40

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:Honest people

Smokeskin wrote:
Honest people would follow that with an explanation of their position.

I have done so repeatedly. The fact that you persist in misrepresenting my position despite the fact that I have explained what my position is over and over again is an astonishing level of obtuseness that indicates you're engaging in blatant intellectual dishonesty. This tells me you're unable to actually refute my points, because if you could, you would actually have done so. Until you begin to actually engage with the arguments I present, rather than the tired strawmen you keep propping up, I have no reason to treat you as a serious participant in this discussion.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Tue, 2013-08-13 07:08

#41

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT, seriously, you have

LatwPIAT, seriously, you have not explained why you think being sexy is ok, but liking sexy women or depicting sexy women is not. You have referred to self esteem issues, to which my reply was if we need to stop portraying any female characteristics that some women might have trouble living up to, like being successful. This was in my last post. You have failed to reply to it. You've tried to differentiate between "portrayal of sexy women" as ok but "sexualized and objectifying portrayal of women". I have asked about clarification of the difference in my last post, you have not replied. Then there's the several other questions I've asked you which you haven't replied to. If you think there's any points of yours that I haven't adressed, then please let me know. I've gone out of my way to answer your questions. I even went with you down to the path of "ok so let us assume it is a corset" to see where that got us. And to be fair, I don't think you're being dishonest. That was just to provoke you. I think you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and now it is getting too much for you, so you're stonewalling completely. I do think you're quite the bigot though. And I realize you don't feel that way, but bigots don't feel evil. They feel justified, they feel like they're doing the right thing. And you probably associate with people who feel the same about these issues as you do, so you can confirm eachother in how right you are. While I find your hatred offensive, I only find it very mildly infuriating, because you're on the losing side of the issue. It's not like radical feminism is winning over the culture, quite the opposite.

Wed, 2013-08-14 15:33

#42

Gantolandon Gantolandon's picture

LatwPIAT wrote:Lorsa wrote

LatwPIAT wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
Wikipedia on discrimination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination Wikipedia on sexual objectification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification A picture is not a person, thus it can impossible be objectifying.
From the same wikipedia article: "[i]Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[who?] see [b]objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media[/b], women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, [b]images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art[/b], stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, [b]and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement[/b] and labiaplasty.[/i]"

I would like to point out that sexual imagery is not enough to talk about objectification. It's just that many of the mainstream media show women sexuality as one of many perks that powerful men get to enjoy for their success, like an expensive watch or jacuzzi in the living room. They are frequently symbols of status - the more sexy, the better. Rich people are portrayed with trophy wives (or unqualified secretaries whom they sleep with), rappers in music clips slap butts of scantily-clad girls, commercials present attractive women more likely to sleep with someone who uses advertised product. They are always willing to have sex, like a car is always willing to be driven. If it isn't, then it's either broken, or you are doing something wrong. Nothing like this is presented on the picture in question. The woman is floating in microgravity and shooting into some kind of threat. She is not submissive in any way, clearly capable of acting independently, definitely not a reward for someone's good behavior (as frequently shown in commercials). It doesn't matter what she's wearing. She could have as well walked out from a fetish bar for all we know and still be a subject on this picture.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anarc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anticorp_userbar.jpg[/img]

Wed, 2013-08-14 16:33

#43

LatwPIAT

Gantolandon wrote:Nothing

Gantolandon wrote:
Nothing like this is presented on the picture in question. The woman is floating in microgravity and shooting into some kind of threat. She is not submissive in any way, clearly capable of acting independently, definitely not a reward for someone's good behavior (as frequently shown in commercials). It doesn't matter what she's wearing. She could have as well walked out from a fetish bar for all we know and still be a subject on this picture.

So? That still doesn't make it not objectification; her action in the picture is that of a subject, yes but the [i]trappings[/i] - the stylised way her pose is set up to show off her sexual characteristics, the titillating fetish gear she's shown in, the way the focus of the shot is on her ass - is all objectication. It's not [i]gone[/i], it's merely one step removed from the core of the piece. It doesn't help all that much that she's acting independently, when the very means by which she is acting independently serve to sexually objectify her.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Wed, 2013-08-14 17:34

#44

Seekerofshadowlight Seekerofshadowlight's picture

LatwPIAT, you are seeing what

LatwPIAT, you are seeing what you wish to see. Nothing anyone can say will change that as you want to see it in that manner. You Refuse to except she is not in fetish gear, even when shown other examples of the same outfit on both men and women. You do not know what the artiest intended, we know(as we have been told) they sent both men and women in similar poses. We also know those poses can be replicated by gymnasts. I don't like the art myself. Its style does not fit. But you are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Wed, 2013-08-14 18:28

#45

Gantolandon Gantolandon's picture

LatwPIAT wrote:Gantolandon

LatwPIAT wrote:
Gantolandon wrote:
Nothing like this is presented on the picture in question. The woman is floating in microgravity and shooting into some kind of threat. She is not submissive in any way, clearly capable of acting independently, definitely not a reward for someone's good behavior (as frequently shown in commercials). It doesn't matter what she's wearing. She could have as well walked out from a fetish bar for all we know and still be a subject on this picture.
So? That still doesn't make it not objectification; her action in the picture is that of a subject, yes but the [i]trappings[/i] - the stylised way her pose is set up to show off her sexual characteristics, the titillating fetish gear she's shown in, the way the focus of the shot is on her ass - is all objectication. It's not [i]gone[/i], it's merely one step removed from the core of the piece. It doesn't help all that much that she's acting independently, when the very means by which she is acting independently serve to sexually objectify her.

Her pose and outfit show off her sexual characteristics, yes - but how does it make her an object? As in - a commodity, someone without agency? Beyond the obvious fact that she a character drawn by an artist, so she doesn't have any free will and can't act on her own - but this is a problem of every imagined character ever. At this point, I don't even see how your definition of sexual object even links to the definition of objectification.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anarc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/anticorp_userbar.jpg[/img]

Wed, 2013-08-14 19:01

#46

Lorsa

I was linking the wikipedia

I was linking the wikipedia page on objectification for a reason. It seems to me that LatwPIAT doesn't really understand it at all. It's in the word. Objectification - to make a person into an object. Also, he/she? seems to have ignored my comment about micro vs. macroproblems. I would really like to ask a very personal question to LatwPIAT, because I think the answer would help clear things up for me but unfortunately I don't want to seem offensive so I'll leave it unasked. But perhaps if I ask this instead: "Why does it bother you so much?". What is the core underlying reason that one picture in one book would give this reaction?

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Wed, 2013-08-14 23:32

#47

nick012000 nick012000's picture

Lorsa wrote:I would really

Lorsa wrote:
I would really like to ask a very personal question to LatwPIAT, because I think the answer would help clear things up for me but unfortunately I don't want to seem offensive so I'll leave it unasked. But perhaps if I ask this instead: "Why does it bother you so much?". What is the core underlying reason that one picture in one book would give this reaction?

Because he's an internet white knight who's been indoctrinated with feminist propoganda, of course, though that's not what he's going to say (thanks to the aforementioned indoctrination).

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Thu, 2013-08-15 02:06

#48

SkepticalCat0_o SkepticalCat0_o's picture

First let me just say I'm in

First let me just say I'm in pretty much total agreement LatwPIAT. The art on p.82 may not be the most egregious bit of comic book style "strong woman" nonsense I have ever seen, but it felt mildly inappropriate and definitely out of place tone-wise. A major selling point of Eclipse Phase to my players and myself has been the explicitly progressive gender politics. It's great to have a game that acknowledges gender identity as completely independent from your body right there on the character sheet, and seems to be perfectly okay the player writing in things like "none" or "femme-queer" in that box. So I for one don't really want to see the kind of hetero-normative male pandering which is so endemic to gaming culture creeping into EP. And before someone decides to label me a "radical feminist" or a "white knight", for the sake of argument, let's just assume that I am. I'm also someone who has bought nearly everything ever published the with an Eclipse Phase logo on it and encouraged others to do the same. There is a lot already built in to EP that should appeal to feminists and their ilk, and I can't say how important of a demographic we are to the business side of the game, but I would like to believe that it's one Posthuman would prefer to avoid alienating. And just to be clear -- I don't think this one image does that. I just hope it doesn't represent some kind of trend.

Thu, 2013-08-15 03:40

#49

Smokeskin

SkepticalCat0_o wrote:There

SkepticalCat0_o wrote:
There is a lot already built in to EP that should appeal to feminists and their ilk, and I can't say how important of a demographic we are to the business side of the game, but I would like to believe that it's one Posthuman would prefer to avoid alienating. And just to be clear -- I don't think this one image does that. I just hope it doesn't represent some kind of trend.

I don't think there's any sort of risk of a trend. EP is very clearly not going into the direction of "females in armored bras", as evidenced in commentary from the developers - apparently all the even semi-sexy photos led to discussions with the artists about it. I think they should keep on going the way they're going. I don't want sexy females in all the artwork. I want artwork that reflects the cool parts about the setting, and most of that is NOT about sexy females. But to have the "feminist agenda" reach so far into the art direction that they can't show pictures from parties, that there can never be a female con artist dressed to manipulate men, that pleasure houses on Venus or ID Crew brothels are off limits - that would certainly be taking it too far. What's next, purging those things from the text and mandatory Social Stigma (sexy) for anything female with high SAV? I'd be as sorely dissappointed with Posthuman if they bowed to pressure from feminists to purge anything pretty from the artwork as if they let religious groups pressure them into casting the Jovians in a more flattering light.

Thu, 2013-08-15 03:43

#50

Erenthia

So I'm pretty much going to

So I'm pretty much going to ignore the extreme ends of the spectrum in this thread as being unhelpful and therefore irrelevant. Having a gender-war over these images is simply not doing any good. So I'll just give my opinions in hope that PHS [i]will[/i] find them useful for future projects. Pig-teets: This one is easy. I heard about this picture before ever seeing it and expected something WAY more extreme. Like a cock-tail dress with x3 cleavage. What I saw didn't offend me for any sexual/gendered reasons. It "offended" me how poor a piece of artwork it was. Admittedly uplifts can be hard to do, but honestly I've never understood why "breast pockets" exist in the first place. Compared to the other artwork it was cartoony and poorly drawn. Now for the big one: Page 82's picture isn't as poorly drawn, but it [i]is[/i] a little dumb. Why is she looking at the viewer? Also if you want to show off her flexibility/dexterity then show it [i]accomplishing[/i] something. As it is, she's twisting around for really no reason. The vacsuit/boots don't seem to me to be a major issue. Clearly there's an element of sexuality that went into it, but honestly I think it could even have been more sexual without being offensive if it weren't for the odd pose and the unnecessary direction of her face. If the sexual elements had been integral or even [i]tangential[/i] rather than primary the artist could have gotten away with quite a bit more. Ultimately, while my feelings about this picture are even less extreme than the pig-teets, it is precisely the same sort of problem that I have with it. It is a subpar piece of artwork. If I have a problem with the sexuality expressed in it, it is not that I find it to be "objectifying" or "problematically hetero-normative" but rather that it is [i]adolescent[/i]. If you want an example of an even more sexualized depiction that I would find more acceptable (assuming it was drawn well) have two people having sex, with the female morph on top, pulling a knife out of a skin pocket in her back while her entopics show her a readout that shows her partner with a high level bounty on his/her head. I don't know if you could get away with something like full-frontal nudity, but in this hypothetical example, the sexuality [i]makes sense[/i] completely inspite of the fact that it would be [i]more titillating[/i] than the one in question. For a sexy action shot, the picture in question isn't too far off. Just give her a [i]reason[/i] to be twisted up like gumby and have her [i]look at her fucking target[/i] unless she has a reason not to. Also, try to throw in some sexualized men into the next book. They'll probably be labeled as "male power fantasies" by some, even if they look like the men on the cover a romance novel, but I'm not suggesting you do it to "balance out the objectification" but rather because I would like to see a depiction of a man as sexually desirable that had nothing to do with apparent signs of wealth/authority/power/etc. For that matter I'd like to see more sexualized men, period. Not for my own titillation, but rather I'd like to see a depiction of male sexuality that isn't analogous to a hungry animal devouring its prey. That level of nuance may be beyond what a still image can capture though, but if you come up with something than by all means go for it.

—

The end really is coming. What comes after that is anyone's guess.

Thu, 2013-08-15 03:46

#51

Smokeskin

Btw, the picture in question.

Btw, the picture in question. It's a woman being powerful - but who is also "sexy" (it really isn't that sexy tbh). Isn't that the perceived problem? I mean, if it was a picture that was way more revealing but instead it was an indentured prostitute* in an ID Crew brothel. Wouldn't that somehow be more acceptable? How about a scene from a nightclub? * wow there's an euphemism for what is essentially incarceration plus serial rape - but I'm afraid I'll get jumped on if I call it "sex slave" because that's a "fetish porn term" or something.

Pages

Topic locked