Scale matters. Rape is something that happens to a significant number of women and, furthermore, it's something that an even greater women have to be afraid of. The number of men who are raped or affected by the fear of such is very small in comparison. I'm not making any judgments about individual events, but when something happens to many, many, many more people it's a more serious problem.
Prison rape is a huge problem, so rape of males is not nearly as much rarer as it seems (though just how often it happens is hard to say as it's rarely ever reported).
However, fear of rape is a much greater threat to women, I totally agree.
Are you seriously saying that Rape is a more heinous crime than Murder?
Both of them are despicable and nothing any sane person could ever condone, but Murder is worse than rape - atleast on my scale of morality
I have to agree here. Murder is a more traditional punishment than rape, but I don't think that makes it a more justifiable one.
If the death penalty was changed to a "rape penalty", there would be huge public outrage even though most of those given the punishment would likely prefer it.
Of course, magic works off the flavour of history a lot, in which context death as a punishment is common.
Viricide level: Feminism is about equalizing the natural or socially constructed inequalities between men and women, despite the high probability that they will always exist. It makes sense to give women special treatment because they are not the same as men. They have different strengths and weaknesses. It is only realistic to acknowledge and correct for these inequalities instead of being an idealist and pretending that everyone is equal when they suffer unequally.
You can imagine people feel a sense of injustice when they transition from outlook A to B. "But I thought feminists believe men and women are equal!" This is why you'll see posts from strong women who say the art doesn't offend them - they personally want to be considered equal and they are ignoring the supposed needs of their weaker sisters who need protection, or rather who have a higher emotional response to abuse which according to feminism must be neutralized.
This is a small and (at this point) largely off-topic nitpick, but because you named me I feel compelled to point it out. My points about "protecting" those with "higher emotional response" have nothing to do with gender. I pointed out that people of both genders (myself included) can be offended by this image, and I attempted to explain why by sharing my personal thoughts on the image. I then asked people who are not offended by the image to have compassion and treat those who are with kindness and respect rather than dismissing their concerns as "idiotic" and motivated by rape fantasies because to do so is incredibly insensitive and rude. For my last half dozen or so posts I've been asking for common decency, not special treatment.
With that, I'm officially done with this thread. The direction it's taken and the views within are heartbreaking. If anyone would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to PM me (and thanks to those that already have).
Good point, since you know, Vampires are sexual beings and the idea of them biting a woman is supposed to be analogous to a sexual act. When that act is against a woman's will, it should be considered rape should it not?
The picture has several small choices the artist made that add to the conclusion of sexual assault.
The easiest change would having her in a more vertical angle, or even reverse the positions of the other triumph art.
Rape and sexual violence are one and the same. If a man is being violent with a woman, make sure there is nothing sexual/sexy about it, and this problem will not recur. Law and Order usually deals with sexual assault, so a rape victim with ptsd wouldn't want to talk about it or watch the series at all..
Yes true, but... I wouldn't know unless I talked to her about it and even then she may just quitly suffer the flashback. How am I to know? Should would just stop talking about TV shows like Law and Order or statues (like the rape of whatever-that-famous-godess-is that is so often shown in art history classes) to avoid "trigger".
What is "reasonable accomidation"? How far should one go to avoid said "triggering"? So far as to not show an important peice of art history in a class about art history?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
Good point, since you know, Vampires are sexual beings and the idea of them biting a woman is supposed to be analogous to a sexual act. When that act is against a woman's will, it should be considered rape should it not?
So Vampires basically being literal sexual predators is okay, but a picture of a climactic duel between two characters is implied rape?
You should read what I posted before because you would know the answer to that by now.
That's my beef with this entire argument, here we have an actual depiction of rape posted, the thing that should have spiked this entire argument to begin with and no one cares. The woman pictured was being taken advantage sexually , in a FAR more compromising position, and is unconscious and helpless to boot. Instead people are far more concerned about looking for ghosts in a picture of a fight rather then deal with the poltergeist throwing their furniture around the house.
What is "reasonable accomidation"? How far should one go to avoid said "triggering"? So far as to not show an important peice of art history in a class about art history?
Without drifting too close to the slippery slope fallacy, this is one of those grey areas in life. You and I can never know what might trigger someone else. Furthermore, they might not even know until it happens.
One can make a reasonable effort to avoid obvious/common statements, actions, images, etc that people find unpleasant, especially those who have suffered a traumatic experience, but there's also the flip side where some victims deal with their trauma through humour (sometimes so dark it's pitch black), and will mock, belittle or cajole those who would try to shield them, even going so far as to find such attempts profoundly offensive and misogynistic themselves, in that once again choice is being taken away from them, even if it's meant preventatively with the best of intentions.
Perhaps the artwork in question here didn't err far enough on the side of caution, but nothing produced for mass consumption will ever be completely and utterly sanitized from all possible slights or offences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try as a society to look carefully into our words/acts/works and how they affect people. Just that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution and a number of mutually exclusive facets.
I cant believe this is still going. I went to bed and there are like 5 more pages.
You know I am sick of all the "chivalrous" male apologists in this thread who just want us to "understand" how women feel. Every time I see this it upsets me because:
You don't understand how women feel, your not a woman. I don't understand how black people feel, because I'm not black. Step down and fight your own fights. You probably didn't even think the pic was a big deal until the issue became a thing. You also had no other problems with all the other "sexist art" in the thread untill someone pointed you out that there basically is a fantasy rape scene in one of the vampire shots.
Also the fact that you think you have to step in and defend women is sexist in and of itself, because the implication is your doing it because they are not capable of doing it themselves. There have been only a handful of women posting to this thread and they don't even agree that this is at all sexist. The original author of the article about this card being sexist was a white male (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jessemason-042312-liliana-and-garruk/)
There have been a few woman in this thread who actually have issue with this picture, and they are by far and large wrong about it and i will tell them that regardless of gender.
Without drifting too close to the slippery slope fallacy, this is one of those grey areas in life. You and I can never know what might trigger someone else. Furthermore, they might not even know until it happens.
One can make a reasonable effort to avoid obvious/common statements, actions, images, etc that people find unpleasant, especially those who have suffered a traumatic experience, but there's also the flip side where some victims deal with their trauma through humour (sometimes so dark it's pitch black), and will mock, belittle or cajole those who would try to shield them, even going so far as to find such attempts profoundly offensive and misogynistic themselves, in that once again choice is being taken away from them, even if it's meant preventatively with the best of intentions.
Perhaps the artwork in question here didn't err far enough on the side of caution, but nothing produced for mass consumption will ever be completely and utterly sanitized from all possible slights or offences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try as a society to look carefully into our words/acts/works and how they affect people. Just that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution and a number of mutually exclusive facets.
Shouldn't part of this responsibility and respect be returned though? Victims can't expect the entire world to walk around holding their hands. If I want to post in a nsfw forum a link to Carlin talking about rape for a relevant reason, do I have to ask? Let's take it a step further, if I use the playmat in this thread at a GP and it "triggers" my opponent, do I have to put it away? What if she was raped by a black guy and I happen to look just like him, and just seeing me is the trigger, do I have to leave?
At what point do victims have to understand and respect that what triggers them isn't necessarily something that needs to be censored, but something they have to learn to deal with or avoid?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
I just have to ask. If this is an actual issue, why is it that Go for the Throat, a standard staple and a celebrated FNM promo about to rotate in about 5 months with little fanfare? Both versions have a female vampire clearly about to assault someone. The normal art even has the vampire's claws on the woman's breast. We even have clear context that Magic vampires are sexualized from Last Kiss and Tribute to Hunger, both of which weren't complained about.
As for Triumph of Fury, though, obviously people that know storyline context know Garruk would have zero reason to rape Liliana anyway. If he'd been all "You killed my beast. You're going to pay me back" instead of charging her with an axe, Liliana would have very likely gotten her sexy on and we wouldn't have had much of a plotline, nevermind a supposed rape scene. Unless I remember wrong, it was strongly implied Liliana is as much or more promiscuous than Dack Fayden. The big difference being that Dack will just rob you blind and Liliana will murder you if that's what it take to get what she wants.
At what point do victims have to understand and respect that what triggers them isn't necessarily something that needs to be censored, but something they have to learn to deal with or avoid?
While I think that's a legitimate point, I don't believe anyone has asked that Triumph of Ferocity's artwork somehow be redacted, changed, or edited. Let alone the set be somehow delayed so that replacement artwork could be generated. IMO, there have been complaints made, and a request to exercise care moving forward, about the tone and/or images that may be depicted on cards in the future.
Things don't actually die, and it's just a game. I agree. But in the same light, things don't actually get raped, and it's still just a game.
Seriously, I know that rape has a worse connotation, but why? I don't know about you guys, but I really don't see how rape is on a worse level than murder, in the real world. And I don't see why they should differ in a fantasy world.
I don't quite understand how portraying rape is worse than portraying murder.
Murder might seem to be a harsh word to use, but in the same way, so is rape. Neither is actually happening, but one evokes a huge response and the other is really taken as a given in a fantasy card game.
That's not to say that I don't find images of rape (or implied rape) more offensive than those images of murder, I just really don't know why.
I've said this two or three times already, but since the question keeps coming up:
Rape, in both real life and fiction, is a disturbing concept because it's about someone using violence to hurt and humiliate someone who does not have the power to fight them off. It's an inherently sadistic, psychopathic act.
Murder is a more serious crime in real life (since it leaves the victim dead), but in fiction it can be less disturbing because, depending on the situation, the murderer's mindset can be easier to understand. I really don't blame Garruk for wanting to kill Liliana. He's dying of a curse that she put on him, for god's sake. I'd probably try to kill her too, if I were him.
So "Random big guy forces himself on random small woman" (my initial perception of the art) is disturbing as hell. "Garruk attempts to defeat Liliana" (my perception once I realized what I was actually looking at) is not disturbing at all.
I think his knee placement and her dress riding up are what is doing it for these people. That, and if you ever, EVER show a woman looking weak, you are obviously a sexist in most women's eyes, just from my perspective (If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, is what I'm saying)
Right about the first part, wrong about the second. The complaint that was made about the art wasn't that it showed Liliana being defeated or looking weak, it was that she and Garruk were positioned in a way that looked like a rape scene.
(I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who would agree with the second part, but I hope they aren't "most women.")
But, What if i came from a place in which the UFC/MMA wasn't common place and i saw the picture and perceived it to be one man attempting to rape the other. How is that not the same as someone not know the context of a MTG card and perceiving it to be a picture of a man about to rape a women?
It's not
Your perceptions is not reality regardless of if you believe it to be or not.
The fact that they're in a boxing ring wearing martial arts gear makes it clear that they're participating in a martial arts fight. There's really no way to look at that picture and not see the context.
Yes true, but... I wouldn't know unless I talked to her about it and even then she may just quitly suffer the flashback. How am I to know? Should would just stop talking about TV shows like Law and Order or statues (like the rape of whatever-that-famous-godess-is that is so often shown in art history classes) to avoid "trigger".
What is "reasonable accomidation"? How far should one go to avoid said "triggering"? So far as to not show an important peice of art history in a class about art history?
I think the issue is that no one expects a Magic the Gathering card to depict rape. Everyone knows that a show like Law and Order is going to have rape cases in it, which makes it easy for people with "triggers" to avoid the show.
Shouldn't part of this responsibility and respect be returned though? Victims can't expect the entire world to walk around holding their hands. If I want to post in a nsfw forum a link to Carlin talking about rape for a relevant reason, do I have to ask? Let's take it a step further, if I use the playmat in this thread at a GP and it "triggers" my opponent, do I have to put it away? What if she was raped by a black guy and I happen to look just like him, and just seeing me is the trigger, do I have to leave?
At what point do victims have to understand and respect that what triggers them isn't necessarily something that needs to be censored, but something they have to learn to deal with or avoid?
As I said, it's a complicated issue and not one with a simple answer. As I said, some victims will take offense to those who would walk on eggshells, yet conversely there are those who appreciate the effort to avoid causing them stress. There are mutually exclusive views present, and as such all that can be done is to make a sincere attempt to not go over big glaring lines. However, when dealing with such powerful emotions and painful memories/experiences, not everyone is going to be calmly rational, or even necessarily be able to express themselves as such.
And if yer gonna ask, I'm gonna answer.
Carlin? I see no reason not to link it with a heads up on the subject. It's not like it takes a ton of effort to give context.
If your opponent finds your playmat discomforting, I don't think you are required to put it away by any DCI rules (especially since it's a WOTC product. If it were custom, that might be another story), but it would be the considerate thing to do.
If you resembled someone's previous assailant, no, I don't think you should have to leave. You have done nothing wrong. If he or she were able to express what what causing them distress, perhaps you could ask the tournament organizer to swap you with someone else? Which is probably against DCI rules somewhere, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to at least ask. "omg what if we're down to the final match for the top prize!?!" Look, we can come up with millions of scenarios, and again, as I said, it's not a simple matter that necessarily always has a clear cut good answer. Bluntly, if that happened and your opponent was so thoroughly traumatized by your appearance, he or she might just want to leave anyway. I suspect that having a PTSD trigger go off wouldn't leave them feeling much like playing Magic at that moment.
As for your final statement, they already do. They live with the issue every day, and I think your tone is becoming progressively more crass on the matter. Do you think they like the fact that something beyond their control (a sight, a smell, a sound) causes them significant emotional distress? That their violation has potentially permanently altered their lives, and that their reactions (within varying degrees of within their control based on a number of factors) may cause others to treat them differently?
Due to the shenanigans with which these forums work, I seem to have missed a page or 5, but there are grey areas between "walk on eggshells around everyone forever" and "no responsibility whatsoever to show consideration to our fellow men and women". It takes empathy, compassion and making some tough choices once in a while, but that's life.
If future artwork is changed because of it, then yes it is censorship.
And as a business, WOTC might well decide that some self censorship is a worthy exchange to protect their bottom line/to accomadate a portion of their fanbase to a reasonable degree. Or they might just have to include a cycle of "Character X implied to be violating Character Y" cards and flip a bunch of people the bird, so to speak. That's their call, and while we're entitled to have an opinion on the matter and even voice it to WOTC and one another, at the end of the day, it's their choice, and that choice may well be affected by a variety of factors, including financial considerations and their rapport with their fanbase, which based purely on statistics, will contain a number of sexual assault survivors.
While I think that's a legitimate point, I don't believe anyone has asked that Triumph of Ferocity's artwork somehow be redacted, changed, or edited. Let alone the set be somehow delayed so that replacement artwork could be generated. IMO, there have been complaints made, and a request to exercise care moving forward, about the tone and/or images that may be depicted on cards in the future.
That seems a reasonable and balanced request.
Well, it seems reasonable if you're the one getting what you want. Would a reasonable response have been, "We're very sorry that this picture has upset some members of the magic community. However, we feel the artwork was appropriate for the flavor of the set, the point in the storyline, and the event we wanted players to experience."
I'm not trolling, just curious if that would be acceptable, or is it "apologize and make the cards how we want them".
The request isn't reasonable and balanced to me because it admits/accepts no responsibility for those complaining to respect Wotc's right to put whatever they want in the art, nor is it respectful or balanced regarding people who like the piece in question or similar art whose meaning could be interpreted incorrectly as well.
@Forar
There was nothing crass about it. I've actually dealt with that exact situation with patients of mine before. No questions asked, no arguments given, they were assigned someone else for their care. I've been a little more directly involved in these situations than you might think and have done everything in my power to make the victims feel comfortable, going so far as to take my own personal sick time to leave work which is far above and beyond anything I am ethically, morally, or professionally required to do. Thanks for passing judgment though!
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
If your opponent finds your playmat discomforting, I don't think you are required to put it away by any DCI rules (especially since it's a WOTC product. If it were custom, that might be another story), but it would be the considerate thing to do.
Actually, there is some precident for a judge to act in some situations...
Quote from Magic Tournament Rules, Section 3.8 Game Markers »
Players using markers to represent in-game components (e.g. permanents) must have a way of clearly representing any in-game status, such as whether a permanent is tapped. Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers. A tournament official may disallow the use of game markers that can cause confusion or that are deemed inappropriate or offensive.
...and while playmats and/or sleeves aren't mentioned, if a player were using such objects with objectionable artwork, then a judge might legitimate disallow the use of such tokens, sleeves, or playmat. (Or at least obscure the objectionable material.)
Well, it seems reasonable if you're the one getting what you want. Would a reasonable response have been, "We're very sorry that this picture has upset some members of the magic community. However, we feel the artwork was appropriate for the flavor of the set, the point in the storyline, and the event we wanted players to experience."
I won't argue that an appropriate response could have been, "We're sorry, we understand the concerns that have been raised, but the artwork meets our standards for not having artwork that is objectionable to our target audience." In fact, sometimes that is the most appropriate response.
The request isn't reasonable and balanced to me because it admits/accepts no responsibility for those complaining to respect Wotc's right to put whatever they want in the art, nor is it respectful or balanced regarding people who like the piece in question or similar art whose meaning could be interpreted incorrectly as well.
People can disagree on that conclusion, but as WotC acknowledged the potential issue with the artwork and apologized for the offense it caused, clearly they realize there's a problem they need to recognize and ensure doesn't trouble their market in the future.
Actually, there is some precident for a judge to act in some situations...
...and while playmats and/or sleeves aren't mentioned, if a player were using such objects with objectionable artwork, then a judge might legitimate disallow the use of such tokens, sleeves, or playmat. (Or at least obscure the objectionable material.)
Note, I am referencing specifically the playmat art linked in the OP, as it is an official WOTC product. It would of course be at a Judge's discretion, and also your own. As I noted in a later statement, I only imagine custom playmats/sleeves/altered art may come under greater scrutiny.
But of course, if a playmat were causing my opponent discomfort, I don't think it's unreasonable to put it away for that match. One round of play on a table isn't going to kill my sleeves or cards (to be fair, I don't even own a playmat, though I have pondered snagging one or having a custom one made).
You know, God forbid this artwork was Chandra and Liliana going at it.
The men would be screaming "Cat fight!" while the women would be arguing about who's the bigger bad ass B.
This whole debate over a ccg piece of art is laughable.
How about we concern ourselves with REAL issues like, oh, I don't know.
Domestic Abuse
Rape
Murder
Repression Of Freedom Of Speech
Charlie Sheen Acting Like A Jackass And Getting Tossed From 2 1/2 Men
Sorry, but this is a lot to do about nothing.
Logical fallacy. It is possible to do multiple things at once. The existance of all the things you linked does not mean that lesser issues aren't worthy of addressing.
My outrage at the regular victimization of men and women worldwide every minute of every day doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be proportionally displeased with artwork some people find questionable. One of them I can contribute time and money to fight, the other I might do something that uses very little of either.
Like discuss it on a free MTG forum.
Edit: Note, I don't even find the artwork in question distateful personally. HOWEVER, I don't feel that those who do find it distasteful are being unreasonable or irrational about it. There is a grey area present, which is room for discussion. If it were a clear cut case either way, there'd be nothing to discuss.
No, this is not about "political correctness" and it's not about Liliana being shown to be weak. It's about the art being uncomfortably close to depicting a sexual assault. I doubt that was the intent, but it doesn't matter what the picture was intended to look like, it matters what it looks like.
I don't think this is a huge deal, and it's not as bad as that playmat, but the positioning is a bit unfortunate. In hindsight, it probably could have been done more tastefully.
If the first thing that jumps into your mind when you look at this picture is "rape" then frankly, you're the one with the issues not the artist.
There is nothing that implies rape in this picture at ALL. He's not tearing her clothes off. He doesn't have his **** out.
In fact the people who think this is about rape are the sexist ones because if it was a man instead of Liliana you WOULDN'T be thinking it was about rape. Either this scene has overtones of sexual assault REGARDLESS of the gender of either participant or it doesn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Prison rape is a huge problem, so rape of males is not nearly as much rarer as it seems (though just how often it happens is hard to say as it's rarely ever reported).
However, fear of rape is a much greater threat to women, I totally agree.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
Woah, woah
Are you seriously saying that Rape is a more heinous crime than Murder?
Both of them are despicable and nothing any sane person could ever condone, but Murder is worse than rape - atleast on my scale of morality
I have to agree here. Murder is a more traditional punishment than rape, but I don't think that makes it a more justifiable one.
If the death penalty was changed to a "rape penalty", there would be huge public outrage even though most of those given the punishment would likely prefer it.
Of course, magic works off the flavour of history a lot, in which context death as a punishment is common.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
With that, I'm officially done with this thread. The direction it's taken and the views within are heartbreaking. If anyone would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to PM me (and thanks to those that already have).
Cheers,
Brandon
Good point, since you know, Vampires are sexual beings and the idea of them biting a woman is supposed to be analogous to a sexual act. When that act is against a woman's will, it should be considered rape should it not?
What is "reasonable accomidation"? How far should one go to avoid said "triggering"? So far as to not show an important peice of art history in a class about art history?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
So Vampires basically being literal sexual predators is okay, but a picture of a climactic duel between two characters is implied rape?
You should read what I posted before because you would know the answer to that by now.
That's my beef with this entire argument, here we have an actual depiction of rape posted, the thing that should have spiked this entire argument to begin with and no one cares. The woman pictured was being taken advantage sexually , in a FAR more compromising position, and is unconscious and helpless to boot. Instead people are far more concerned about looking for ghosts in a picture of a fight rather then deal with the poltergeist throwing their furniture around the house.
Without drifting too close to the slippery slope fallacy, this is one of those grey areas in life. You and I can never know what might trigger someone else. Furthermore, they might not even know until it happens.
One can make a reasonable effort to avoid obvious/common statements, actions, images, etc that people find unpleasant, especially those who have suffered a traumatic experience, but there's also the flip side where some victims deal with their trauma through humour (sometimes so dark it's pitch black), and will mock, belittle or cajole those who would try to shield them, even going so far as to find such attempts profoundly offensive and misogynistic themselves, in that once again choice is being taken away from them, even if it's meant preventatively with the best of intentions.
Perhaps the artwork in question here didn't err far enough on the side of caution, but nothing produced for mass consumption will ever be completely and utterly sanitized from all possible slights or offences. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try as a society to look carefully into our words/acts/works and how they affect people. Just that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution and a number of mutually exclusive facets.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
You know I am sick of all the "chivalrous" male apologists in this thread who just want us to "understand" how women feel. Every time I see this it upsets me because:
You don't understand how women feel, your not a woman. I don't understand how black people feel, because I'm not black. Step down and fight your own fights. You probably didn't even think the pic was a big deal until the issue became a thing. You also had no other problems with all the other "sexist art" in the thread untill someone pointed you out that there basically is a fantasy rape scene in one of the vampire shots.
Also the fact that you think you have to step in and defend women is sexist in and of itself, because the implication is your doing it because they are not capable of doing it themselves. There have been only a handful of women posting to this thread and they don't even agree that this is at all sexist. The original author of the article about this card being sexist was a white male (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jessemason-042312-liliana-and-garruk/)
There have been a few woman in this thread who actually have issue with this picture, and they are by far and large wrong about it and i will tell them that regardless of gender.
Http://www.fantasticneighborhood.com/
Comedy gaming podcast. Listening to it makes you cool.
Shouldn't part of this responsibility and respect be returned though? Victims can't expect the entire world to walk around holding their hands. If I want to post in a nsfw forum a link to Carlin talking about rape for a relevant reason, do I have to ask? Let's take it a step further, if I use the playmat in this thread at a GP and it "triggers" my opponent, do I have to put it away? What if she was raped by a black guy and I happen to look just like him, and just seeing me is the trigger, do I have to leave?
At what point do victims have to understand and respect that what triggers them isn't necessarily something that needs to be censored, but something they have to learn to deal with or avoid?
As for Triumph of Fury, though, obviously people that know storyline context know Garruk would have zero reason to rape Liliana anyway. If he'd been all "You killed my beast. You're going to pay me back" instead of charging her with an axe, Liliana would have very likely gotten her sexy on and we wouldn't have had much of a plotline, nevermind a supposed rape scene. Unless I remember wrong, it was strongly implied Liliana is as much or more promiscuous than Dack Fayden. The big difference being that Dack will just rob you blind and Liliana will murder you if that's what it take to get what she wants.
While I think that's a legitimate point, I don't believe anyone has asked that Triumph of Ferocity's artwork somehow be redacted, changed, or edited. Let alone the set be somehow delayed so that replacement artwork could be generated. IMO, there have been complaints made, and a request to exercise care moving forward, about the tone and/or images that may be depicted on cards in the future.
That seems a reasonable and balanced request.
I've said this two or three times already, but since the question keeps coming up:
Rape, in both real life and fiction, is a disturbing concept because it's about someone using violence to hurt and humiliate someone who does not have the power to fight them off. It's an inherently sadistic, psychopathic act.
Murder is a more serious crime in real life (since it leaves the victim dead), but in fiction it can be less disturbing because, depending on the situation, the murderer's mindset can be easier to understand. I really don't blame Garruk for wanting to kill Liliana. He's dying of a curse that she put on him, for god's sake. I'd probably try to kill her too, if I were him.
So "Random big guy forces himself on random small woman" (my initial perception of the art) is disturbing as hell. "Garruk attempts to defeat Liliana" (my perception once I realized what I was actually looking at) is not disturbing at all.
Right about the first part, wrong about the second. The complaint that was made about the art wasn't that it showed Liliana being defeated or looking weak, it was that she and Garruk were positioned in a way that looked like a rape scene.
(I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who would agree with the second part, but I hope they aren't "most women.")
The fact that they're in a boxing ring wearing martial arts gear makes it clear that they're participating in a martial arts fight. There's really no way to look at that picture and not see the context.
I think the issue is that no one expects a Magic the Gathering card to depict rape. Everyone knows that a show like Law and Order is going to have rape cases in it, which makes it easy for people with "triggers" to avoid the show.
As I said, it's a complicated issue and not one with a simple answer. As I said, some victims will take offense to those who would walk on eggshells, yet conversely there are those who appreciate the effort to avoid causing them stress. There are mutually exclusive views present, and as such all that can be done is to make a sincere attempt to not go over big glaring lines. However, when dealing with such powerful emotions and painful memories/experiences, not everyone is going to be calmly rational, or even necessarily be able to express themselves as such.
And if yer gonna ask, I'm gonna answer.
Carlin? I see no reason not to link it with a heads up on the subject. It's not like it takes a ton of effort to give context.
If your opponent finds your playmat discomforting, I don't think you are required to put it away by any DCI rules (especially since it's a WOTC product. If it were custom, that might be another story), but it would be the considerate thing to do.
If you resembled someone's previous assailant, no, I don't think you should have to leave. You have done nothing wrong. If he or she were able to express what what causing them distress, perhaps you could ask the tournament organizer to swap you with someone else? Which is probably against DCI rules somewhere, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to at least ask. "omg what if we're down to the final match for the top prize!?!" Look, we can come up with millions of scenarios, and again, as I said, it's not a simple matter that necessarily always has a clear cut good answer. Bluntly, if that happened and your opponent was so thoroughly traumatized by your appearance, he or she might just want to leave anyway. I suspect that having a PTSD trigger go off wouldn't leave them feeling much like playing Magic at that moment.
As for your final statement, they already do. They live with the issue every day, and I think your tone is becoming progressively more crass on the matter. Do you think they like the fact that something beyond their control (a sight, a smell, a sound) causes them significant emotional distress? That their violation has potentially permanently altered their lives, and that their reactions (within varying degrees of within their control based on a number of factors) may cause others to treat them differently?
Due to the shenanigans with which these forums work, I seem to have missed a page or 5, but there are grey areas between "walk on eggshells around everyone forever" and "no responsibility whatsoever to show consideration to our fellow men and women". It takes empathy, compassion and making some tough choices once in a while, but that's life.
And as a business, WOTC might well decide that some self censorship is a worthy exchange to protect their bottom line/to accomadate a portion of their fanbase to a reasonable degree. Or they might just have to include a cycle of "Character X implied to be violating Character Y" cards and flip a bunch of people the bird, so to speak. That's their call, and while we're entitled to have an opinion on the matter and even voice it to WOTC and one another, at the end of the day, it's their choice, and that choice may well be affected by a variety of factors, including financial considerations and their rapport with their fanbase, which based purely on statistics, will contain a number of sexual assault survivors.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
Well, it seems reasonable if you're the one getting what you want. Would a reasonable response have been, "We're very sorry that this picture has upset some members of the magic community. However, we feel the artwork was appropriate for the flavor of the set, the point in the storyline, and the event we wanted players to experience."
I'm not trolling, just curious if that would be acceptable, or is it "apologize and make the cards how we want them".
The request isn't reasonable and balanced to me because it admits/accepts no responsibility for those complaining to respect Wotc's right to put whatever they want in the art, nor is it respectful or balanced regarding people who like the piece in question or similar art whose meaning could be interpreted incorrectly as well.
@Forar
There was nothing crass about it. I've actually dealt with that exact situation with patients of mine before. No questions asked, no arguments given, they were assigned someone else for their care. I've been a little more directly involved in these situations than you might think and have done everything in my power to make the victims feel comfortable, going so far as to take my own personal sick time to leave work which is far above and beyond anything I am ethically, morally, or professionally required to do. Thanks for passing judgment though!
Actually, there is some precident for a judge to act in some situations...
...and while playmats and/or sleeves aren't mentioned, if a player were using such objects with objectionable artwork, then a judge might legitimate disallow the use of such tokens, sleeves, or playmat. (Or at least obscure the objectionable material.)
I won't argue that an appropriate response could have been, "We're sorry, we understand the concerns that have been raised, but the artwork meets our standards for not having artwork that is objectionable to our target audience." In fact, sometimes that is the most appropriate response.
But that isn't what happened here.
People can disagree on that conclusion, but as WotC acknowledged the potential issue with the artwork and apologized for the offense it caused, clearly they realize there's a problem they need to recognize and ensure doesn't trouble their market in the future.
Note, I am referencing specifically the playmat art linked in the OP, as it is an official WOTC product. It would of course be at a Judge's discretion, and also your own. As I noted in a later statement, I only imagine custom playmats/sleeves/altered art may come under greater scrutiny.
But of course, if a playmat were causing my opponent discomfort, I don't think it's unreasonable to put it away for that match. One round of play on a table isn't going to kill my sleeves or cards (to be fair, I don't even own a playmat, though I have pondered snagging one or having a custom one made).
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
The men would be screaming "Cat fight!" while the women would be arguing about who's the bigger bad ass B.
This whole debate over a ccg piece of art is laughable.
How about we concern ourselves with REAL issues like, oh, I don't know.
Domestic Abuse
Rape
Murder
Repression Of Freedom Of Speech
Charlie Sheen Acting Like A Jackass And Getting Tossed From 2 1/2 Men
Sorry, but this is a lot to do about nothing.
Logical fallacy. It is possible to do multiple things at once. The existance of all the things you linked does not mean that lesser issues aren't worthy of addressing.
My outrage at the regular victimization of men and women worldwide every minute of every day doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be proportionally displeased with artwork some people find questionable. One of them I can contribute time and money to fight, the other I might do something that uses very little of either.
Like discuss it on a free MTG forum.
Edit: Note, I don't even find the artwork in question distateful personally. HOWEVER, I don't feel that those who do find it distasteful are being unreasonable or irrational about it. There is a grey area present, which is room for discussion. If it were a clear cut case either way, there'd be nothing to discuss.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
I cannot stand political correctness. Sometimes bad things happen.
If the first thing that jumps into your mind when you look at this picture is "rape" then frankly, you're the one with the issues not the artist.
There is nothing that implies rape in this picture at ALL. He's not tearing her clothes off. He doesn't have his **** out.
In fact the people who think this is about rape are the sexist ones because if it was a man instead of Liliana you WOULDN'T be thinking it was about rape. Either this scene has overtones of sexual assault REGARDLESS of the gender of either participant or it doesn't.