Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."

Honestly engage instead of the usual claim someone is a sexual predator.

Quote
Here I'll help you out...

Moralizing - the action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.

There's a difference in speaking in moral terms and "moralizing". I chose my words for a reason and even pointed this out.

Yes, and I also accused you of moralizing knowing this definition

QuoteHe COULD have said "Hey I'd also like there to be this thing" or "I think this will attract more customers" or any number of other options but INSTEAD he opted to moralize and state someone else's tastes were "oversexualizing" (thereby attaching moral stigma to it) in a way that is totally without merit since he himself would not be willing to accept the same argument of "oversexualization" for his own tastes from someone with a stronger stance on such things.

Ergo he is speaking on moral matters with unearned, inconsistent superiority. Moralizing.

That is markedly different from someone saying "Here is my consistent moral outlook on the matter where I do not demonize nor chastise someone and instead encourage multiple viewpoints to co-exist if possible"

Main public purpose of morality is to enforce social order - which you get by enforcing given morality on society.
I do not see why morality of mine should encourage multiple viewpoints to co-exist. Co-existence of good and evil is not a value in my book.
Fact that states had any laws is generally expression of underlying morality. There's no going around it.

Argument from inconsistency is of course valid, but that's like utterly different pair of shoes.
You just want to paint your lassez-fair stance not as specific morality, but some OBVIOUS natural stance, all particular moral systems should submit too. Plot twist: it's not. It's just your moral stance about borders of personal freedom.

QuoteOr, by all means, explain how someone saying "Change this thing you have because it is bad and I want it to be different" is identical to "I don't want anyone to change anything but encourage people to support what they like or even create what they like" on the grounds of moralizing (which has now been defined for you since you don't seem to have bothered to look it up)

Both are judgements about value and role of culture/entertainment and what rules should apply to practicing it. Just because you're are much more pro-freedom does not make them not a moral stance.

QuoteWhat demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.

You cannot really use fact that Gog went down to your level of logical fallacies, as an argument to defend yourself.
And removing bikini chainmails, or barechested beefcake barbarians because of oversexualising hold little merit as example of "treating people equally".

Y'know what I wrote some stuff...and it ain't worth it

Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:08:22 AM
I'm not the one calling me a sexual predator. Lol. It is spelled 'fallacies' by the way. What demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.

But what do I do. Run away and hide? Would you do the same if someone challenged your beliefs? I'm not going anywhere. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. Short of banning me I won't back down.

Your support for your arguments are simply bad.

You don't want women 'oversexualized' but cannot qualify this in a meaningful way other than arbitrary tastes as if you are the moral arbiter of this somehow.

If someone of a different cultural background comes up to you and says your preferred RPG art is "oversexualized" because women are showing any amount of skin and the shape of their bodies, how quickly will your 'oversexualized' argument utterly fall apart and be walked back because YOU do not think it is oversexualized and refuse to accept someone else's standards of that term?

"No no no. That video game is too violent. I demand you make it less violent" the person said about Mortal Kombat before becoming so very upset that someone tried to censor their favorite 1st person shooter series by banning all guns from video games due to them being 'too violent'

Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."

And now you've reminded me it's been too long since I've seen that movie

Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 05:30:05 AM

Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:08:22 AM
I'm not the one calling me a sexual predator. Lol. It is spelled 'fallacies' by the way. What demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.

But what do I do. Run away and hide? Would you do the same if someone challenged your beliefs? I'm not going anywhere. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. Short of banning me I won't back down.

Your support for your arguments are simply bad.

You don't want women 'oversexualized' but cannot qualify this in a meaningful way other than arbitrary tastes as if you are the moral arbiter of this somehow.

If someone of a different cultural background comes up to you and says your preferred RPG art is "oversexualized" because women are showing any amount of skin and the shape of their bodies, how quickly will your 'oversexualized' argument utterly fall apart and be walked back because YOU do not think it is oversexualized and refuse to accept someone else's standards of that term?

"No no no. That video game is too violent. I demand you make it less violent" the person said about Mortal Kombat before becoming so very upset that someone tried to censor their favorite 1st person shooter series by banning all guns from video games due to them being 'too violent'

I've made it clear.
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.

If you want better AC you wear better armor. That applies for male and female characters. How does chainmail bikinis grant better armor than full plate? Any female adventurer would wear full plate if they could afford it. So, just accept that. The most bad-ass female warrior would be wearing full plate armor covering every inch of their body in the same way full plate protects male characters.

Do you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.

Now the dweeb is trying to call in a sexualized armor rate.

Well... if you want to go into the minutia now, and go into RAW rules. That's fine...

Then, lets look at just how ineffective a combat wheel chair would be. Then lets also look at the reduction women would have in their strength (and size) stat compared to men. Which would lower their HP also.

By all means... Get as technical as you want. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what a player wants their armor too look like, as far as I'm concerned it has got the AC of the armor they are wearing.

But lets get some beefy men wearing Conan style loin cloths swinging their big swords about for the women to leer at. Who gives a fuck.

Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 06:00:36 AM
I've made it clear.
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.

Sure, let's abolish all non-realistic armor design from all of the games. You better get on the horn to WotC and pretty much every artist on the planet though or start getting ready to start penalizing the AC of ALL of your players based on the art they find for their characters because I'll bet dollars to donuts it AIN'T realistic and is full of all sorts of design elements that would be directly detrimental.

BTW, don't think people haven't noticed that you've now moved goalposts from a matter of 'oversexualization', an out of game conceit, to arguing RULES which is entirely in-game. A valiant (but cowardly) attempt...but not a particularly smooth nor subtle one.

QuoteIf you want better AC you wear better armor. That applies for male and female characters. How does chainmail bikinis grant better armor than full plate? Any female adventurer would wear full plate if they could afford it. So, just accept that. The most bad-ass female warrior would be wearing full plate armor covering every inch of their body in the same way full plate protects male characters.

So OBVIOUSLY you reduce all players armor to nothing when they use "leather" since that wasn't actually a useful armor AND if someone gives you a picture of a character whose armor does not EXACTLY match what they are wearing you tell them "no you can't look like that and have the AC assigned to that type of armor"

...right?

Oh no wait. Of course you don't. You're just being totally disingenuous because you have zero consistent ground for your argument. In fact, I never said ANYTHING about armor class prior to you conjuring the specter of it out of the blue. I merely stated my wife likes to play characters that are 'sexy' and seeks out art to make that representative of her character. In fact, I EXPLICITLY stated that she's even adverse to wearing big armor for her characters cuz she likes the magic using squishies that get to wear dresses and such because (shocker) she's a girl that thinks dresses are pretty

How utterly convenient for you and this fresh (and bad) angle of argumentation you've adopted to totally disregard what was actually said.

QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.

Have suffered some kind of brain impairment?

Most women think sexy women look good and, when given the choice of character, tend to pick one that is good looking. It's wish fulfillment.

You are arguing things NO ONE said because your argumentation is bad and emotionally driven because you DESPERATELY want to be validated by your peer circle and be seen as virtuous. "Oh no no I do not think women should be oversexualized. I am pure and good. Accept me and talk about my virtuousness!"

How about you try and stick to the discussion and the things ACTUALLY said?

Oh no wait...that would totally destroy your argument because it's built on a foundation of sand...

So, once again, you are a defender of women against the specter of oversexualization...

So, once again, obviously you will agree that women showing any amount of skin is oversexualizing the so women should be covered up in art from head to toe and their curves should not be shown.

Correct?

Or is THAT cultural standard for what is 'oversexualization' magically incorrect? I'm guessing somehow, as if by magic, YOUR definition of 'oversexualization' is perfectly correct?

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 06:14:41 AM
Now the dweeb is trying to call in a sexualized armor rate.

Well... if you want to go into the minutia now, and go into RAW rules. That's fine...

Then, lets look at just how ineffective a combat wheel chair would be. Then lets also look at the reduction women would have in their strength (and size) stat compared to men. Which would lower their HP also.

"No no no! Not like that!" - he will desperately cry out as if it were in any way different. 'Muh realism' suddenly collapses...as if it was never the REAL basis for his argumentation at all. How curious.

QuoteBy all means... Get as technical as you want. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what a player wants their armor too look like, as far as I'm concerned it has got the AC of the armor they are wearing.

But lets get some beefy men wearing Conan style loin cloths swinging their big swords about for the women to leer at. Who gives a fuck.

Entirely agreed on both counts. I rarely care what someone says their armor looks like and I often give out totally improbable looking sets of spiky, blocky or otherwise unrealistic armor.

As for the other points, that's why I always make sure to include some beefy warriors and dangerously seductive vampire dudes in tabletop for the two female players to enjoy playing up some of the fantasy tropes of that sort. Then again, the very first session with the new female player saw her trying to seduce a female performer at a tavern because "I'm a shapeshifter. Guy? Girl? Whatever" because OF COURSE the new player immediately has to fulfill the 'hit on the first girl you see' trope 

I'd say the one bi guy in my play group might enjoy the beefy warriors and vampires too but he tends to play fairly asexual characters since he's more into heroic adventure hooks...so no chance for drama there.

Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 06:43:09 AM
As for the other points, that's why I always make sure to include some beefy warriors and dangerously seductive vampire dudes in tabletop for the two female players to enjoy playing up some of the fantasy tropes of that sort.

Yes, IME many female players want some NPC beefcake to hit on. Paizo APs tend to be very poor at including attractive male NPCs among the mounds of cheesecake. WoTC tend to make every NPC asexual, even worse. I have one D&D group with more adult female than adult male players, all straight, and the women want the sexy NPCs at least as much as the men do. Greeba the half-orc barbarian tends to hit on any big muscly guy she can find for a one-night stand, while Nathia the Goliath Fighter is in a possibly-doomed romance with Arnor the 9' tall Shadowfey Guardian. I didn't originally see Arnor as a potential love interest, but Nathia's first line on meeting him was

"Why hello, you tall drink of water!" - and it went from there. 

Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 06:43:09 AM

"No no no! Not like that!" - he will desperately cry out as if it were in any way different. 'Muh realism' suddenly collapses...as if it was never the REAL basis for his argumentation at all. How curious.

Indeed!  Reality appears highly malleable when he needs to make squares fit into round holes.

The most common question I got asked whenever a new NPC was introduced, male or female, was "how hot are they". This has continued on with a new player into a new campaign where I'm taking a break from GM. Both the people who ask this question are women. The older player pursued an explicitly lesbian relationship with an NPC in a sci-if game I ran.

Yes, women like their characters and NPCs to be sexualized just as much as men.

My experience has been that the female players I've had (save 1) have been vastly more interested in the attractiveness of NPCs but for reasons that vary from general 'lets hit on the NPC' to developing romantic character drama potentially long-term for their characters.

And all of them have chosen art that is 'impractical' because they thought it looked cool and/or sexy (though honestly that I've never seen those two things divorced from each other for female players...not that such a thing is impossible, mind you).

Now with resources like Hero Forge, that has held ENTIRELY true so it can't be chalked up to "well that's the only kind of art out there"...which would be a blatant lie but I just know that some people are not afraid to prop up blatant lies to support their narratives so might as well cut it off at the pass.

Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 07:20:30 AM
Yes, women like their characters and NPCs to be sexualized just as much as men.

But not in RPGs 'apparently'.

And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.

Again, it seems that people are not treated 'equally' in media.

Why doesn't our new resident oxygen thief go after their market on a forum and complain about male partial nudity and explicit content? Because they would crucify him in a nano second.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 07:37:14 AM
And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.

No no no! It's different when it's powerful, bare-chested barbarians because somethingsomethingpowerfantasy! Ignore that the men on the covers of the romance novels look functionally identical! Questioning similarities like that is sexist! Also viking god Chris Hemsworth Thor appears shirtless in every movie ONLY for PURELY narrative reasons!