Monday, June 14, 2010

Oh Screw It

So the game got canceled over the weekend so I ended up going to this lunch thing with Maria's family that I hadn't planned on attending (be a publisher - your gaming sessions become legit "he's working" excuses to get out of these things).

I brought along the cool print of the cover art with me. I always go to these gatherings and I'm the quiet guy at the end of the table - it's rather rude to make the whole table speak English on my account, and I'm really really shit with Finnish even after all these years. So I said to hell with it. I'm doing something really cool and none of these people really know me or anything I do, so maybe a proper introduction would be in order. You know, participation and interaction.

There were a lot more people there than I figured, including a couple with a six year old child. It was also in a halfway fancy restaurant and not at anyone's house. With this new information, I was rather nervous about my plans, but... hell with it, right? This is what I'm doing, I'm proud of it, everyone else is there talking about their lives and what they do and this and that, I'm part of the damn family now, so why should I worry about it?

Towards the end of the lunch I stand up, introduce myself to everyone, told them what I'm doing, and presented the print for them all to look at. They start passing the thing around the table, and I note that the parents of the little kid are showing the thing to him, and pointing out something or other on the pic to him.

That's it. The big "uh oh" moment. Parents, people that I had never met before, showing the picture to their kid and passing it on to the next person. The father was the one at the table who then showed the most interest in the project in conversation afterwards. There was no scandal at this table.

And really, any sort of scandal that comes of this thing will be ridiculous. If parents at a public family gathering can show the picture to their six year old child and nobody raises an eyebrow, there is no issue. I'm sick of having this lingering guilt because I'm from a country that went into convulsions when Janet Jackson's boob was exposed for 9/16ths of a second on TV. I love being in a country that can show Dreams in the Witch House and Jason X uncut on broadcast TV as happened this past Saturday (nudity and violence in both, although Jason X sucks bad).

It'll be an issue with distribution on the retail end in Anglo countries, but I'm officially adopting a "take no shit" attitude about this. Anyone actually offended, or worse yet, speaking up on the behalf of other people they are afraid will be offended, best just walk away.

Oh, and now hanging on the living room wall, in full view of any visitors:


45 comments:

  1. Pretty effing awesome dude! What a life your living over there! I'll trade you Venice Beach (just 8 blocks from the beach) for the summer if I can come live at your pad and swing on the Finnish lifestyle.

    Man, I dig that redhead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's a new thing born of the generation brought up to be politically correct to be offended on behalf of somebody else. I don't get it. If somethng is not directed personally at someone, why be offended?

    As you can tell from my blog, I tend to speak my mind and pull no punches. I'm even moreso in real life. Nowadays, it seems people who I don't direct my comments to are offended by my comments. Case in point: I called a guy at work a pussy. Some person who takes on the role of being a surrogate offendee for all people everywhere says she's offended. I say it wasn't directed at her, she was barely in earshot, and mind her own business. She storms away pissed off, self-righteously indignant.

    If what I say or do is offensive to you, but not directed at you, feel free to not associate with me. I'd rather not have your company anyhow.

    If what I say is offensive and directed at you, feel free to reply.

    Getting offended on behalf of someone else is just another way to enforce your own moral view of the world on someone else. My general response to those types of people: Go fuck yourself.

    It's a whole different situation though if I'm there and witnessing someone being degraded, humiliated, and treated like a piece of shit. Then I feel I can step in and say something, especially if the person is outnumbered and unable to give it back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a long-term American expat I get where you're coming from.

    I was at a gaming con in the US a few years ago with one of my colleagues, a British guy. As we were washing our hands in the men's room I pointed out the vending machine on the wall. He looked at it and got the joke immediately. What in Europe would be stocked with variety packs of condoms and French ticklers was instead dispensing combs and antacids.

    Ah, America. And then you look at the teenage pregnancy stats and wonder why wishing it away doesn't work ...?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Damn, that's one good looking poster.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice poster! And you're lucky to be living in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The US is sure a strange and uptight country. Normal, healthy nudity is met with shocked moral outrage, but the pornography of violence is embraced in a big way. Bizarre. It must be hard work being an American sometimes. :-)

    Well done James, that was a brave thing to do at the lunch and it paid off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any plans to market the Print?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good for you, James. Approval all around. :D

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now does that qualify as "wearing your own band shirt?" ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. James said, "And really, any sort of scandal that comes of this thing will be ridiculous. If parents at a public family gathering can show the picture to their six year old child and nobody raises an eyebrow, there is no issue."

    So this one set of parents gets to decide for everyone else what should be normative? I thought you were against such things, James. I mean, how dare parents decide for their own children what is or isn't appropriate for their children! And if they don't like it, then they should keep their children locked away 24/7!

    If only more people were insensitive to others, the world would be a much better place. Er, wait a minute...

    Let's not pretend that disregard for others is somehow noble.

    Take JoetheLawyer's post - it is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Joe makes up his own personal code of "honor." Then, those who don't agree with this code that he made up himSELF, he condemns as being self-righteous!

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>So this one set of parents gets to decide for everyone else what should be normative?

    Why yes, as a matter of fact, they do decide what is normative for a good many children.

    The kid's mother is the director for a Finnish city's pre-schools. Another person at the table is the director of pre-schools for one of Finland's biggest cities. Also at the table were a defense lawyer, a doctor, and two police officers.

    I married well, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Theophilus, rather this one set of parents gets to decide what's appropriate for their own child. Same goes for every parent, be they normal or American.

    Now, if someone could explain to me how seeing a pair of boobs is a bad thing for a six year old, when it isn't for a newborn...

    Jim, of course you did. You married a Finn.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The US is sure a strange and uptight country. Normal, healthy nudity is met with shocked moral outrage, but the pornography of violence is embraced in a big way. Bizarre. It must be hard work being an American sometimes. :-)

    Well, at least this covers both... haha. Though I don't know if six arms counts as normal, healthy...

    ReplyDelete
  14. navdi said, "Theophilus, rather this one set of parents gets to decide what's appropriate for their own child. Same goes for every parent, be they normal or American."

    If you follow James' logic, because it is OK to these parents, it should be OK for everyone else, & therefore he's gonna push on without a care: "If parents at a public family gathering can show the picture to their six year old child and nobody raises an eyebrow, there is no issue." I actually respect the beliefs of others, even if we disagree. I believe in freedom, including allowing parents to make their own choices in the raising of their children by not needlessly exposing them to things a significant portion of people would find objectionable.

    This isn't nudity inside a book, this is on the box cover & promotional posters meant to be displayed in game stores. That is effectively taking away parents' choice for their children, & shoving it down their throats. When a culture gets flooded with this kind of stuff, it makes it that much harder for a parent to make choices for their own children.

    And for what? There is no NEED for nipples to be on the cover. There is no reason a wisp of hair just happens to cover it up. That leaves, what, the need to prove James is "edgy," "cool?" It isn't edgy, it is tacky.

    It is like Comedy Central bashing Christianity in order to be edgy. It isn't edgy, it is cliche. If they wanted to truly be edgy, they'd bash Islam. But they won't go there, because they are poseurs.

    navdi said, "Now, if someone could explain to me how seeing a pair of boobs is a bad thing for a six year old, when it isn't for a newborn..."

    Babies are oblivious to such things. Young boys are not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. At this point my only question is whether Theophilus chose Intelligence or Charisma as his dump stat.

    For the record, I don't respect the beliefs of others if they're fuckin' dumb.

    To address one point seriously though (even though my previous post was completely ignored, gee, how convenient)... I would think that having whatever "objectionable" content right on the cover makes it easier, not more difficult, to make decisions for their child about the product. How many parents back in the day were quite surprised at the nudity inside the Monster Manual? And I'll bet not many of them actually read the book before it was brought into the house. If someone is actually deranged enough to find the appearance of the human body distasteful, the cover of my product sends a clear message that those people should stay away.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "by not needlessly exposing them to things a significant portion of people would find objectionable."

    I have a problem with this. See, I don't believe there is that kind of significant portion of people. Rather I suspect it to be a vocal (white, christian, american) minority.

    You need to get out more. That box you live in is running low on oxygen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think both sides here are full of crap. For the record, it doesn't bother me a bit if my (American) 7-year-old son sees tits and ass at the FLGS. It might mean I have to discuss certain things with him a little earlier than I had planned, it might not, but whatever. If it's there we'll face it and move on. To object to the cover on the basis of "morality" or claiming that it prevents control over parenting your own child is a cop out.

    On the other hand, clearly Raggi is all about edginess. And that's puerile; it's also no big surprise. The entire LOTFP marketing strategy, to whatever extent it is self-conscious at all, is and always has been based on shock. Probably to do with the metal angle. Additionally, choosing this art for the cover virtually guarantees that it won't be carried in the majority of brick-and-mortar game stores in the U.S., and despite the assertion that Americans have a monopoly on prudery, much of the rest of the western world. Finland hardly has its finger on the pulse of what's "acceptable" to people generally, I wouldn't imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've got some ideas that may or may not see the light that are based on shock (depends on how Death Ferox Doom ends up, as it is based on Italian cannibal movies and it will keep with that tone). There's also something else I've been in preliminary negotiations for, and if that deal goes through then I expect shit to hit the fan around here.

    However, this cover art is not shocking or edgy. There is no violence depicted, and it is not porn or even erotica. It's a face-off, a duel about to be joined. I certainly wouldn't have at first intended to set this scene up as a photo shoot in my father-in-law's back yard if I was really pushing any envelopes. And the art inside the box that has nudity is taken straight from literary descriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perhaps my choice of the word "shock" was uncharitable--let's say "titillation" instead.

    As far the image not being shocking (titillating) or edgy, you must be joking. We've got a fiery-haired straitlaced witchhunter/dominatrix type with a phallic symbol squaring off against a barebreasted six-armed lamia (or whatever) on the other. It doesn't take an art critic to see the symbolism present (albeit possibly unintentionally) in the piece, but I bet any redblooded pubescent male can see the implicit lesbian imagery. Or maybe I just have a dirty mind, LOL. Point is, the bare breasts and all of the other "attributes" of these females aren't there by accident... No?

    Don't get me wrong, though. I quite like it :).

    Now the stuff inspired by Italian cannibal movies (whatever they are) I can do without.

    ReplyDelete
  21. James said, "I would think that having whatever 'objectionable' content right on the cover makes it easier, not more difficult, to make decisions for their child about the product."

    The difference is this. For the old MM, only those who had the book were exposed to the nudity. But by putting it on the cover & a poster, it is in the face of everyone in the gamestore, whether they buy it or not (& the law of averages, since it is just one more of a zillion RPGs & D&D clones, most people in the gamestore won't buy it).

    navdi said, "See, I don't believe there is that kind of significant portion of people. Rather I suspect it to be a vocal (white, christian, american) minority... You need to get out more. That box you live in is running low on oxygen."

    If you think "white christian American" is an insignificant minority, then perhaps you need to get out more. D&D of the 80s didn't pull in those large sales figures because all of the non-white, Muslim Iraqis were buying them up.

    dhowarth333 said, "It might mean I have to discuss certain things with him a little earlier than I had planned, it might not, but whatever. If it's there we'll face it and move on."

    This isn't about one poster or box cover in isolation. It is looking at it from a broader context. Children have sexualized stuff coming at them from all over these days. Nickelodeon's site contains links to a site with games such as "Naughty Babysitter," "Booty Rider," and "You da Sperm!" From the time my daughter was 3, THREE years old, we have to be careful about what pants we buy for her. Apparently, many of the pants made for little girls are lowriders. Seeing as how kids grow so fast, you buy clothes that are too big, & you have them wear them until they are a little too small, making it difficult to always tell that they are lowriders.

    Yes, James' game is small potatoes in the big scheme of things. But you change things one step at a time, one person at a time. Apparently, my appeal to respecting others' beliefs is "stupid."

    To disagree with James & others here is to automatically be "self-righteous," "dumb," & "must lead a sheltered life." As for me, hey, I strongly disagree with Islam, but I don't feel the need to draw cartoons of Mohammad. It is about respecting even those you disagree with. Immaturity will only take you so far in this life. But what do I know, "I is stoopid."

    ReplyDelete
  22. >>As far the image not being shocking (titillating) or edgy, you must be joking.

    S&M and bondage and all that is a turn-off for me, so the idea that impending combat is some sort of sexual imagery is not coming from me. Not into the rough stuff.

    Some early costume designs was showing off more of the Flame Princess' skin (and Marjut in the reference shots was wearing a tank top) and I corrected that and made sure she was 100% covered in order to make sure the whole thing wasn't sexualized.

    The look of the creature was decided because originally the girl from the cover of the first printing of the Creature Generator was going to be the monster again, and it was to get some continuity going between releases. And I certainly don't think the original Creature Generator cover image was sexy in the least, even if Aino herself is a beautiful girl.

    Same thing with Luna. She looks great as herself, but I find this snake creature absolutely grotesque. It's a friggin monster for crying out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If you think "white christian American" is an insignificant minority, then perhaps you need to get out more. D&D of the 80s didn't pull in those large sales figures because all of the non-white, Muslim Iraqis were buying them up.

    I don't think that, myself. I just wish they were. The longer I poke around the "old school" D&D 'blogs and boards, the more I realize that most of the people who play (or at least collect) D&D are closed-minded white Christians. Go figure; I played this stuff BITD to get away from such people..sigh.

    This isn't about one poster or box cover in isolation. It is looking at it from a broader context. Children have sexualized stuff coming at them from all over these days. Nickelodeon's site contains links to a site with games such as "Naughty Babysitter," "Booty Rider," and "You da Sperm!" From the time my daughter was 3, THREE years old, we have to be careful about what pants we buy for her.

    I don't disagree at all. I just think it's solely the responsibility of parents to police this stuff for their kids. I don't let my young boys, for instance, watch much television that includes commercials of any kind (which pretty much limits us to PBS), for the very reasons you cite.

    But a lot of parents do bring their kids to the FLGS for Pokemon cards, and any store manager worth his/her salt is gonna know better than to display a piece of art like this where it can be seen by those 'rents or their kids.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >>Apparently, my appeal to respecting others' beliefs is "stupid."

    No, what's stupid is your using the word "freedom" to mean that other people should make sure they meet your standards for approval, and then ignoring when it was pointed out that a high-level educator was looking at the picture with her own child without any problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No, what's stupid is your using the word "freedom" to mean that other people should make sure they meet your standards for approval, and then ignoring when it was pointed out that a high-level educator was looking at the picture with her own child without any problem.

    Are you saying that it would be okay for the high-level educator to dictate the norm for everyone's children (obviously she does this in some sense, but I mean in the arena of nude imagery, say)? Wouldn't that be the same thing (except with "credentials") Theophilus is advocating? Just because someone has authority doesn't mean they're right...

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm not marketing this as a children's product. "Give little Bobby the gift of Weird Fantasy Role-Playing!"

    But I do think that situation show that there's no great danger or even cause for concern if a kid happens to see the darn picture.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Indeed. It's a pair of breasts. Roughly 50% of the world's population has them, and while I do agree some of the concerns about the general oversexualisation of media, I don't think any of the arguments apply here. I cannot even perceive any outright sexual tension in the scene. (Though if I really wanted, I could do loads with the symbolism - snake, red hair, sword... and I wouldn't even have to mention the tits.)

    Seriously, who was ever hurt by seeing a boob or two?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm a bit offended that my bare breasts are being seen as sexual objects rather than an anatomical fact. To make sexual objects out of human anatomy seems like an unhealthy thing to me. I'm sorry I have breasts Theophilus, but that's a matter of fact, not a matter of sex.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As for respecting other people's beliefs, there must be limits.
    Some people find that a woman showing her ankle is not decent. I saw a little girl a couple of weeks back dressed from head to toes to swim at the beach here in Finland. That doesn't mean that I'd force my children (if I had some) to do the same not to offend them.

    Following Theophillus' logic, all Christians should wear a Kippah when they prey not to possibly offend a Jew who'd be passing by.

    It is also my belief that 6-year old children know that women have breasts and don't care. At the age when they start getting aroused by it, it won't be because it's on some snake monster (or those children are severely twisted), it will be because they already have those ideas from somewhere else (their friends, bigger brother,television, Internet, some dirty magasine they found somewhere, their parents if they are not lucky).

    If we were showing them more boobs and telling them it's just normal instead of telling that it is sexual and hence shameful, maybe that would improve their attitude towards all of it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You can't argue relative morality with a guy who picks Theophilus as his internet nickname...

    from Wikipedia...

    Theophilus is the name of a person or an honorary title to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). Most scholars agree that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Koine Greek, and that "θεόφιλος" ("Theophilos"), as it appears therein, means friend of God[1] or (be)loved by God or loving God[2] in the Greek language.

    ReplyDelete
  31. James said, "No, what's stupid is your using the word "freedom" to mean that other people should make sure they meet your standards for approval, and then ignoring when it was pointed out that a high-level educator was looking at the picture with her own child without any problem."

    #1. I don't ask people to meet my standards. I have asked people to follow commonly agreed upon standards of the broader community. Hollywood rates their movies based upon content, & they tend to rate nudity as requiring a higher age. Are we to honestly suppose Hollywood is a mere puppet of "Right-Wing Christianity?"

    #2. So some particular "high-level educator" doesn't have a problem with it, so what? Kevin Jennings was appointed by Obama to be the "safe school czar," & his mentor was a supporter of N@MBL@. I guess that makes that group OK, right? Of course not. Your argument is based upon the logical fallacy "appeal to authority."

    luna.duran@live.com said, "I'm a bit offended that my bare breasts are being seen as sexual objects rather than an anatomical fact. To make sexual objects out of human anatomy seems like an unhealthy thing to me. I'm sorry I have breasts Theophilus, but that's a matter of fact, not a matter of sex."

    So what you are telling me is that you normally go around in the buff? And when the police come, you explain to them your body is just an anatomical fact, & they let you go? Why is it that public nudity is outlawed over so much of the world, across cultural boundaries, even in those places not ruled by the "iron fist of Christian theocracies?"

    Corentin said, "As for respecting other people's beliefs, there must be limits. Some people find that a woman showing her ankle is not decent..."

    You are not disagreeing with me. I'm not asking anyone to do anything beyond the "normal limit." James himself is aware of certain common cultural mores in the western world, as he has made clear in his posts. Obviously, expecting others to not even show an ankle or a female face in America is going beyond the "normal limit" of tolerance expected.

    JoetheLawyer said, "You can't argue relative morality with a guy who picks Theophilus as his internet nickname..."

    Ah, so because I am a conservative Christian, I can't be reasoned with? So you basically admit you are prejudiced against Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Ah, so because I am a conservative Christian, I can't be reasoned with?"

    That's not always the case, of course, but your closed-mindedness and need to enforce your own christian morality on others is proven by your comments here.

    "So you basically admit you are prejudiced against Christians."

    NOPE. Just the religious whack-jobs who seek to impose their own morality on others.

    Dude, they're just boobs. Even Jesus' mom had them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Why is it that public nudity is outlawed over so much of the world, across cultural boundaries, even in those places not ruled by the "iron fist of Christian theocracies?""

    Because those places are rules by the Tyranny of Culture. Those cultures have been influenced by the small-minded people, influenced by ancient myths (popular religions), brought up within certain cultural "norms", who never saw or experienced any other cultures except through the TV, and therefore think theirs is the best.

    Ignorant peasants, basically.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dominatrix outfit? Someone is looking for sexuality EVERYWHERE!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do wonder why Theophilus is continuing this argument when I've made it clear that I do not care about any of the standards he thinks are so important.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jim, in case you care: I like that cover image, I think it's very striking and sets the tone beautifully for your game. Some thoughts on it:

    I don't think that sexuality is the correct issue to argue about regarding an image like this. The problem with this (stereotypically American) argument is that it does not fit with what we know about culture and psychology - that is, it's not credible to account for all the outrage and interest in nudity with mere sexual obsession. On the other hand, it's also not very perceptive to claim that there is nothing extraordinary about showing the boobs. I think that the truth lies in between these claims: the reason for why the counter-culture plays with nudity is often not direct sexual titillation, but rather the politics of the human body itself. It seems obvious to me that more nudity has been brought into the arts through the last 50 years in the name of transmitting cultural values than simply titillating the audience. I interpret an image like we have here in the same light I look at something like the Heavy Metal magazine or American underground comics - they're positioning themselves on the body-positive side of the cultural field, saying that human bodies do not need to be hidden for the sake of mere taboos. So it's a political statement (liberal cultural politics), not sexualization like American discourse often makes it out to be.

    Specifically, it's been claimed that Jim is doing a puerile marketing stunt here. I agree about the marketing part, but the puerile part is rather far-fetched. The reason for why that image sells the game to me is not that I lust after naked snake-women, but rather that the image signals values that I find interesting - that image tells me that I can expect the game to be counter-cultural, gritty and rebellious instead of patriarchy-upholding, conservative, child-friendly and safe. This edginess attracts me without having anything to do with sexuality. The boobs are a symbol, not content by themselves. Contrast this message with what for example 4th edition D&D provides as its cultural positioning, and you can see why I find this a rather appropriate visual for the game.

    As a body-positive liberal Finn I find using that image as the cover of a work of art a very positive statement about the worldview of the publisher. The issue of parental consideration is completely besides the point here, it only comes into the picture if you've accepted a priori that nudity is or might be harmful to children. Somebody who does not share this viewpoint does not need to do your work of protecting children for you. Specifically, I find this whole idea that nudity is harmful to children a bit offensive to all the cultures in the world that do not hold to this precept, my own included: saying that nudity without sexualization is by itself harmful seems to me to be saying that I routinely cause harm to the children around me by prancing around naked. And not just me, my whole culture is guilty of this child-abuse. There's no getting around the fact that even if this opinion can be held in the USA, it's likely to raise objections from people who live according to different precepts.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Also, in case somebody thinks that it is inappropriate to market D&D with what amounts to liberal counter-culture symbology, I'd like to differ. I very much like this connection, it is what interests me the most in the literary roots of the D&D culture; interpreting the game as child-friendly and safe entertainment for the whole family makes much less sense to me. In fact, let me link Ron Edwards's article on the topic, it should tell more about where I'm coming from in making this evaluation. Specifically, I think that part of the reason for why we all find that image pretty striking, liberal and conservative alike, is because we recognize the clearly implied stand the picture takes on cultural politics. It's subversive art and exciting for it. Judging this same work I'm calling "subversive" to be simply puerile is politically charged language, trying to belittle the real opinions held by real adults on the other side of the fence.

    I doubt that any agreement on a matter like this can be reached in the short term; we'll just have to accept that other people see the world differently in many ways. A body-positive liberal will necessarily react differently to the politics implied in displaying topless females than a taboo-upholding conservative; one will see an exciting artistic, feminist message where the other sees mere shock marketing, simply because the only emotional contact the latter has for the work is the way it disturbs him.

    In a nutshell: rock on Jim, I like what you're doing. I've rarely seen as female-positive imagery in an American game as we have here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. JoetheLawyer said, "That's not always the case, of course, but your closed-mindedness and need to enforce your own christian morality on others is proven by your comments here."

    Yet another lie, another bogus attempt to portray me as trying to force Christian morality on others. Unlike other religions, Christianity has no hard-coded description of what is & is not appropriate clothing. The general Christian principle is this: be modest in your attire. Obviously, the principle to be "modest" would vary to some degree depending upon the culture a Christian finds him/herself in.

    What I have done is ask why not cover the nipples with a few strands of hair. I don't think many people would consider just barely covering a nipple to fall in line with the Christian principle of modesty. I am not requesting James follow Christian norms, but societal norms.

    I am asking James to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you," the golden rule. Yes, this was taught by Jesus, but this is by no means an exclusively Christian teaching. People from various cultural & religious backgrounds recognize this as a common sense moral principle worthy of admiration.

    JoetheLawyer said, "Because those places are rules by the Tyranny of Culture. Those cultures have been influenced by the small-minded people, influenced by ancient myths (popular religions), brought up within certain cultural "norms", who never saw or experienced any other cultures except through the TV, and therefore think theirs is the best.

    Ignorant peasants, basically."


    But you're not prejudiced or biased or anything...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Boobs are meant to be provocative, case closed.

    In fact, based upon that, the conundrum is that the people at the table SAID LITTLE about it. I am curious Jim, if they "let it lie" by nodding and being polite, or if they addressed the picture at all and those elements directly. You don't mention if they complimented it, or if you had a Beevis at the table say "Cool heh heh Boobs". I am curious as to why a subdued pass-around of the cover is somehow enlightened, or special, or applicable.

    The table saying little is interesting, to be sure, but is to be interpreted as tacit endorsement? Fins are known to be polite. That said, perhaps you simply failed to mention glowing love for the art and picture and the boobs part of it.

    The bottom line is, a bunch of a people around a dinner are nice panel of accepting, accommodating people. Take what you all will from that.

    For the record, the so-called "Sexiness" aspects of the cover is offset by its otherwise bleak feel and protagonist expression, and the fact the cover appears 17-18th century instead appropriate era and has James' face on the redhead. I like the cover, and don't like it. I mean, the premise of the game is "Weird" and rare evils and the "hero" seems unfazed, even with no emotion on the verge of death.

    As for the puritans here, don't get offended by suggestions that the world would be a better place without your judgmental, shame-inducing, usually hypocritical philosophies.

    Someone mentioned the someone is a teacher or cop anything means nothing - in fact, the parasites that are government employees lose points with me. Of any sort.

    The consolation is, for the religious people is they live longer, and are happier - at tyhe price of others' happiness.

    Left handed people do not live longer. They are proven to die faster. But, they tend to have a better shot at making Major Leagues than righty hitters or pitchers.

    Yes, a baseball reference. Unfair for an international audience, as was the "Oddly Angled Room" puzzle in the Great Underground Empire due to its Americana basis.

    Hopefully, I pissed everyone off.

    ReplyDelete
  40. JimLotFP said, "I do wonder why Theophilus is continuing this argument when I've made it clear that I do not care about any of the standards he thinks are so important."

    You're not being honest, James. You yourself talked about the "uh oh moment" & you're "lingering guilt." Which proves you do care, it is just that you are trying to rationalize & make it go away.

    The first time I posted on this blog, it was about the release of the cover. I only posted a second time on that post to clarify what I meant, since I believe people misunderstood my point. And I left it at that, because at that point, you either agree or you don't.

    I posted on this thread because of the parental aspect, to address your point about what "should" be acceptable to others.

    James, you are being selectively inconsistent. You don't like people telling you what is acceptable or not, but you have no problem telling others what they should find acceptable.

    But perhaps you'd say you aren't going by your view, but according to an educational official. Yes, but if that same person had reacted differently, if this person was aghast that you would bring this out before children, would you then have concluded "I can't go through with this, I must change the cover?"

    You claim to respect the views of those who disagree with you, as long as those views aren't "stupid." Who gets to decide what is stupid or not? Well, you do, arbitrarily of course. But my views are not stupid, seeing as how I have not had to drop or retreat from anything I've said. I have been able to defend them even though people have been piling on me in a desperate attempt to vilify my views.

    The truth is, you don't respect those who disagree with you. "For me, but not for thee."

    ReplyDelete
  41. isabout said, "As a body-positive liberal Finn I find using that image as the cover of a work of art a very positive statement about the worldview of the publisher...

    Specifically, I find this whole idea that nudity is harmful to children a bit offensive to all the cultures in the world that do not hold to this precept, my own included: saying that nudity without sexualization is by itself harmful seems to me to be saying that I routinely cause harm to the children around me by prancing around naked. And not just me, my whole culture is guilty of this child-abuse."


    A "body-positive liberal" isn't a loaded term or anything! I thought we silly Christians were the ones who take offense to everything. You're offended because people disagree with you?!

    I have not tried to disparage other people for believing such images are perfectly OK for a 6 year old. What I have done is ask people to respect others, even if you disagree with them.

    I should be ashamed of myself for taking such an irrational position! But my point has been made. Since other views are apparently not tolerated here, I'll show myself to the door.

    Stats are determined randomly, but alignment is chosen. Choose wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ Theophilus: Why don't YOU tell me why nudity is outlawed? I'd like to hear what kind of twisted reasoning you can come up with. And for the record, yes, I am prejudiced against Christians or anyone with small-minded concepts instead of true values. Those who belittle life with the hope of an 'after-life'; the same small-minded people who have an irrational fear of nipples.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I just want to say that it seems like Eero ("isabout") hit the nail right on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Young Theophilus is the first of the coming swarm.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Let them swarm, I say. Nothing like a good controversy to sell some books. ;)

    ReplyDelete