benlehman: (Snake)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] benlehman at 07:05am on 20/09/2006
In other news: Point out and criticizing the stupid things that men do to try to get sex is sexist against women.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

I've been in many games where the girl who the GM wants to get in bed, or already has in bed, gets special attention, "cool plot," etc. It's stupid boy behavior (never seen a girl GM do it) and one of the downsides to having one person with %100 of the social and material power in a gaming group. It's stupid and it happens constantly.

How is pointing it out an attack against the women involved? The only situation I can think of is one where a girl likes this behavior, and is afraid that acknowledging her privilege will take it away.
There are 27 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] matt-snyder.livejournal.com at 11:13pm on 19/09/2006
"never seen a girl GM do it"

I have. Just a data point.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 11:17pm on 19/09/2006
Interesting! Was the target a boy or a girl? And how did they react?

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] matt-snyder.livejournal.com at 11:58pm on 19/09/2006
Target was a guy. I'm talking married couple here in my experience, however I also have a sliver of experience with 'em before they were married or even considered "serious."

Target wholly oblivious to A) special attention and B) that sexuality was involved in any way. But, sure liked those games, and mentions to this day some special "understandings" as though something telepathic was going on between.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:32am on 20/09/2006
Sounds very similar to some stuff that I've seen, yup. Okay, so I totally accept that it goes both ways, and it's been to my good fortune that my female GMs have been better tempered.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. It's interesting to me that, with progressive-style games, this is simply not an issue anymore. When everyone is expected to generate awesome for each other constantly, these things fade into the background.
 
posted by [identity profile] relevance.livejournal.com at 11:20pm on 19/09/2006
I think this sentence sums up her viewpoint neatly:

It's sexist because it is a charge most often levelled at women (or girl) gamers, and is predicated on the idea that women (or girls) are unable to play at a level equal to men and thus must resort to 'cheating' to succeed.

  • It's sexist to blame the girl if the GM gives her special treatment. I would agree with this - it's both unfair and sexist to blame the girl for what is most often a stupid boy behavior.
  • The girl is blamed out of jealousy because the other gamers think she would not be able to achieve as much without the special treatment. Assuming the group has generally gamist motivations (and thus the word "achieve" makes any sense), the other gamers would have to be pretty lame to jump to the conclusion that the girl is intentionally romantically/sexually manipulating the GM in order to "achieve".
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 11:26pm on 19/09/2006
What's missing here is the target's perspective. Do they like the game being subverted as a tool to hit on them? (note: I'm all for flirtiness in games, but it's a rather different story if it screws up the game in practice.) If so, they seem to be part of the problem and ought to take part of the blame. If not, then talking about the problem openly is not an attack on them, all they have to do is say: "damn, I noticed that, too, and it's hella creepy, let's put a stop to it."

My experience about it being a charge levelled at men is counter to hers, though. Remember DaveC's 1d6?

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] relevance.livejournal.com at 11:41pm on 19/09/2006
What if you're operating in the real world and don't know whether the target likes the game being subverted to hit on them? If you're another gamer in the group who's trying to improve the game by correcting the situation, it's sexist to assume that they like it, or are actively seeking it, because they are male/female. I think this is what she's complaining about.

As [livejournal.com profile] marcus_sez_vote points out, men and women can receive favoritism, and as I point out, it's never good for the game. But this is only tangentially related to the sexist assumptions that the original blogger is complaining about.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:33am on 20/09/2006
I guess. I just haven't largely seen it levelled at women exclusively, and usually seen it levelled at the initiator rather than the target.

Regardless, though, if there's social dysfunction going on, I'm loathe to tell people "you shouldn't point that out." For whatever reason.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] relevance.livejournal.com at 03:31am on 20/09/2006
Oh, I absolutely agree that it should be pointed out. One just needs to be careful about one's phrasing and assumptions when one does so.
 
posted by [identity profile] marcus-sez-vote.livejournal.com at 11:31pm on 19/09/2006
Well actually in terms of response I would wager that various plotlines that a male or female GM would think are "cool", or put out effort to make happen, are often different. Similarly the plots that appeal to male gamers and female gamers are likely also often different. Now as to female GMs skewing plot as a ploy to get it on with a male gamer, I imagine that has also happened. I think a similar phenomenon would be favoritism for friends. This could range from gamers who a given GM thinks can "handle" a given role(in a NPC case) or perhaps a favorable upgrade situation for a given character(in a PC case). This favoritism can be a good thing of course since you WANT your PCs to enjoy the game and you as a GM should cater, to some degree, to player needs.

Somewhat rambly, but there's my thoughts.

Be well.
 
posted by [identity profile] relevance.livejournal.com at 11:35pm on 19/09/2006
I would argue that favoritism (for whatever reason) is different from catering to player needs. Actually, I'd define favoritism in gaming as catering to player needs unequally - catering to some players' needs more than others'.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:34am on 20/09/2006
What Adam said. Being a good GM (giving your players what they want) is different from making one player super-special and good because you want in their pants / their respect / whatever.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] ross-winn.livejournal.com at 11:34pm on 19/09/2006
after gaming for thirty years, I think she has a point. here is my response.

Though I will admit to being turned by a pretty face now and again (much like I was recently turned by that high-level cleric with the shiny cross), it has happened a lot less of late, since I am now 40. So many of the gaming groups I have been in over the years have had love triangles, quadrangles, tetrangles, and such that the idea that you trade anything for sex is almost ludicrous. It isn't that you ask for things and get them, it is that they feel you are given things without asking. The two of you share a joke or a private moment even near gametime and you are both plotting against them. Sexually frustrated young boys (and older boys with no social skills) commonly express jealousy and competetive courting I would normally only expect from thirteen year-old girls. Not to toot my own horn, but I once ran a game where all of the players except one expressed a desire to sleep with me. three women and two men. I never once thought that any of them thought it would improve their character, they just thought I was attractive, or so they said. That group tore itself apart as players coupled or didn't. It wasn't the only time I have seen it, just the only time I was in the center. Most long-term LARP groups experience this. It is never about getting stuff, that is just the surface bitch. The thing that is easy to complain about. Underneath all of this is the jealousy that never stops.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:37am on 20/09/2006
Eh.

Social dysfunction is social dysfunction. I think that one part of her point (this isn't the target's fault!) is fine, if obvious. The rest (it never happens so we shouldn't talk about it) is wrong.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] mikegentry.livejournal.com at 11:40pm on 19/09/2006
After reading the article, I think what she's steamed about is not when it happens or when it's talked about, but when blame for it is reflexively placed on the woman. I.e., if you perceive that there is favoritism going on, and your first reaction, without knowing anything else about the situation, is to give the girl grief about it because your immediate assumption is that she likes it and/or is deliberately encouraging it, then that's a problem. And I tend to agree with that -- you really should first be going to the GM, or at least addressing it to both of them simultaneously, and preferably in a way that doesn't immediately assume that either of them are being deliberate or complicit about it. Because they may not be.

I also think she's steamed because she feels the first (non-ideal) reaction described is a lot more common than the second. I can't speak to this, because I've not seen it happen (much). But it doesn't sound like a particularly far-fetched guess.

And finally, I think she was too invested in being ranty and confrontational to communicate any of this well. She pretty much invited misunderstanding upon herself.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:45am on 20/09/2006
A "Here's a common dysfunctional behavior, here's how to handle it" post is an awesome thing.

This is more "Here's a common dysfunctional behavior, here's how some people have mishandled it, so let's just not bring it up at all." Which = lame.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] faerieloch.livejournal.com at 11:58pm on 19/09/2006
*waves* I think you're adding an interpretation that isn't in the original post. You're assuming that it's about men doing things to get sex. She's talking about a man who's already getting sex and another one is accusing *her* of sleeping with said man and using that influence to get ahead in the game. *Very* different premise. It's possible they get cooler scenes because they're in a relationship and therefore (presumably) know each other better, so know which buttons to push. I'm guessing there. One thing I do know is that whenever I'm in a game that Albert runs, I worry about being accused of this very thing. Why? The fact that we're together all the time, pre- and post-game, may be perceived by others as giving me an advantage because we will (of course) talk about the game and plot things out for my character ahead of time, or plot the downfall of other characters, etc.. Things we don't do. But it could be perceived that way. And *I'm* the one who will get accused, not him. The first reaction won't be to accuse the GM of favouratism, but to accuse me of using my relationship to twist him. No, it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. If players said "hey, GM, I think you're favouring player x" and the GM is in a relationship with x, that's a reasonable statement because it could also be said about players a, f, and k. But like I said, it's usually the woman who gets accused (and yes, this could be stupid jealous behaviour). It implies that it's the woman who's doing something wrong, rather than the GM who is the one displaying favouratism. Does any of this make things clearer?
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:44am on 20/09/2006
Hey, Nancy --

So you're the second person saying "it's usually the woman who gets accussed." This is so totally counter to my experience I can't tell you. Am I missing the accusations or are you missing the men dealing with their issues between each other or both or are we just in different social scenes?

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] apollinax.livejournal.com at 04:28am on 20/09/2006
It might be counter to your experience due to the sample sizes; a history is different than a single occurance.
 
posted by [identity profile] faerieloch.livejournal.com at 03:24pm on 20/09/2006
We're coming at this from totally different positions. What I'm saying is that GM and female player are sleeping together. Fellow male player accuses female player of using that influence to get ahead in the game. You're seeing it as two males fighting over a woman. However, why would male player accuse the woman rather than the GM?
 
posted by [identity profile] shaenon.livejournal.com at 12:42am on 20/09/2006

Whether or not this particular behavior is sexist, I agree with the original post. In particular, I agree that, even if favoritism is going on, accusing the supposed favorite of exploiting her sexual charms is childish and isn't likely to improve the situation. As the girl says, there's always going to be a certain level of favoritism in an RPG: to spouses, to friends, to people the GM has a crush on. People with any level of social maturity expect this and deal with it. After all, it's just a game.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:41am on 20/09/2006
It's true that the person to talk to isn't the favorite, but the whole group, directed at the authority figure ("Dude, you keep making Suzie's character the center of attention constantly. She finds it creepy, we find it boring. It's not cool.")

It was the "it doesn't happen, and if it does don't talk about it" vibe that I found creepy.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. "It's just a game" is, of course, a trump for anything involving RPGs. You should probably view this sort of thing through the same lens that I view the high-lar-ious webcomic arguments -- even if it seems silly from a distance, it's probably very important to the people involved. Artists are all touchy and stuff.
 
"Finally, do you really believe anyone would trade real life sexual favors for in-game advancement? Really?"

I play in the Camarilla Club. Happens every day.
 
posted by [identity profile] greyorm.livejournal.com at 02:21am on 20/09/2006
I have, from the inside: female GM to male player. I was the male player. I was honestly a bit embarrassed about her making her affections so public (but not so much so that I turned down her offer later that evening *ahem*).

It did, however, ruin the game itself for me. Mainly, I suspect, because "I want to get in your pants through your character" is just not good game-material. Perhaps also because it couples what should be seperate realities, making the fiction not about the fiction, diluting its power into a base, irrelevant tool.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:42am on 20/09/2006
Thanks for the Actual Play anecdote, man.

An interesting topic would be: How can we make flirting a positive part of the game (contributing the aesthetic experience), rather than a negative part (detracting)?

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] funwithrage.livejournal.com at 03:40am on 20/09/2006
*That* is a damn good question.


Especially because so much of it depends on personal boundaries and *interpersonal* relationships. There's a substantial portion of our mutual friends with whom, regardless of my actual lust-or-lack-thereof for 'em, I'd be comfortable playing out serious romance plot...


...and, unfortunately, there's another semi-substantial portion from whom even sideways looks, in game or out, would send me into "EW ICK NO" mode. I'm not sure exactly how I distinguish--it seems to be a function of real-life friendship, real-life social skills, and how much I get the sense that the other person is taking things seriously OOG--but I do. And I can only imagine I'm not the only one to make such distinctions, albeit with different groups.


How do you account for it? With one-shots, you can ask; with people you know pretty well, you generally *know*; what about with new gaming groups? Or large LARPs? It's like physical contact--do you make official rules, let people work it out for themselves (and handle the issues which sometimes arise when they get it wrong), or some combination of the two?
 
posted by [identity profile] kitsuchan.livejournal.com at 01:25pm on 20/09/2006
I think it does happen that people blame the girl, regardless of whether she is aware of and using the attention or just there and getting favored. I used to see this happen a lot with GMs who were after my neechan, and would give her all sorts of special attention because of it. This causes lots of problems for the girl, esecially when there are other girls in the group, because then people start getting jealous and catty. I don't know about boys, but in my experience adolescent and college girls tend to blame their female rivals before they'll blame the boy- not always, but often enough that it can make gaming groups awkward.

I also see this behavior pattern a lot with Dragon*Con staffing- guys give the girls they either are or want to be sleeping with better positions in tech, regardless of qualifications. This causes no end of problems; the qualified tech staffers who've been bumped are often more angry with their replacements than the people actually responsible, and those new girls who actually can run a sound board are treated as though they're incompetant anyway. And all the girls are extra catty to one another because they're jealous.

Aside from that, it's also frustrating to be told that you only have something (a chance to do something cool in a game, a position in tech, whatever) just because someone wants to sleep with you. It may reflect even more poorly on the GM, but it's also demeaning to the woman involved. Tne person who wrote the post seems to be angry partly because she was making an effort to address someone's concern and was told, "Your opinion doesn't matter because you're sleeping with the GM, so you can't be having any problems with the game." In most of the games I've played in, you get special attention for being creative and interesting, and if someone told me that I found that +3 sword not because I solved the difficult puzzle but because the GM had a crush on me, I'd be offended, too.

Also, the poster's GM is her husband. Saying that he's doing something stupid to try and get sex from her is an insult to the person she loves and to their relationship, and people tend to get angry about these things.

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14 15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31