# OK... that's just vulgar...



## AffableVagrant (Oct 4, 2007)

Just looked at the new Death Knight ecology and... uh... this sword... looks like... well, does anyone else see what I see??

Ahem... 
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071003_dreo_3full.jpg


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 4, 2007)

That's an eye. If there's any other anatomy part that makes you think of, you or someone else needs to see a doctor, and quickly.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 4, 2007)

Oh, I can kind of see what he it talking about. But mostly it looks like an eye.


----------



## Tewligan (Oct 4, 2007)

When I first looked at it, I had no idea what you were talking about. However, when I looked at the big picture, including the red/pink glow - yikes! I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as to it being an accident, but wow...Wonder if it's the same artist who did the century worm?

EDIT: Looking at it again - DAMN! The coloration of the "glow" and the placement of the "eye" actually make it a bit tougher to buy that as a coincidence...


----------



## Rechan (Oct 4, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's an eye. If there's any other anatomy part that makes you think of, you or someone else needs to see a doctor, and quickly.




I came here to say this.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 4, 2007)

Kinda reminds me more of this...


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

I see a female form in that red haze. Put me down for "not just an eye."


----------



## Rechan (Oct 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I see a female form in that red haze. Put me down for "not just an eye."



I don't see what you see.


----------



## Masquerade (Oct 4, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Kinda reminds me more of this...



I thought the same. I didn't see the Freudian version until I came to this thread.

Btw, thanks a lot, thread.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I see a female form in that red haze. Put me down for "not just an eye."



I see only one disembodied bewb. 

Also the design on the sides of the gem kind of look like open ‘petals’.


----------



## Tewligan (Oct 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't see what you see.



Don't focus on the sword and eye - look at the "glow" coloration as not just a light effect.

Y'know, the more I look at it, I'm thinking that's gotta be intentional.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I see only one disembodied bewb.
> 
> Also the design on the sides of the gem kind of look like open ‘petals’.




I see aetherial thighs.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 4, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Don't focus on the sword and eye - look at the "glow" coloration as not just a light effect.



Too lopsided for that. 

I'd think the widest point of what you're talking about is in the center, whereas with that picture, the widest point is near the top. Sort've like a t instead of a vertical X.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

I like seeing vulgar things.
But in this case, I don't see any.

"Just a cigar", -- N


----------



## Gundark (Oct 4, 2007)

I looked at the picture and didn't see anything....I don't know what your talking about.






(Why am I suddenly aroused?     )


----------



## AffableVagrant (Oct 4, 2007)

Its not on the sword itself... look at the BIG picture of ALL of it.  Squint a little if you have to.  It's the fleshy color and the red that makes it look so suggestive.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

Isn't there already a thread on this? Mods, maybe we should merge them?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Flobby (Oct 4, 2007)

Thanks... Now that's all I can see when I look at it.


----------



## Pale (Oct 4, 2007)

Hey, I clicked on the link and someone looking at it from 10 feet away didn't see a sword with a glow around it first... even the blood channel down the middle of the sword...


When you put it all together, there's no way that's an accident.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 4, 2007)

Great... further proof that gamers are pervs that see sex in everything, and know next to nothing about female anatomy.

 :\


----------



## Snapdragyn (Oct 4, 2007)

Are you guys talking about girlie bits? *shrug* Having never been (nor wished to go) there, there is no 'there' there for me - just a sword.


----------



## TaiChara (Oct 4, 2007)

Nope, nothing.  

All I see in the haze is the distinct outline of a gape-jawed skull, starting underneath the right-hand quillion ...


----------



## DandD (Oct 4, 2007)

Let's say it. It's a *VAGINA*. Of course, you have to be made deliberately aware that the picture might look like that... And even then you might still have trouble to recognize it as such...


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Oct 4, 2007)

I can _kind_ of see the female-ish shape around the sword, but that eye is _way_ too high up to suggest that sort of thing.  From far away it looks like a chipped gemstone; from closer it looks more organic, but still like a Dragon's eye.

As a design, though, it's still a fugly sword.


----------



## KrazyHades (Oct 4, 2007)

I think it's intentional. I mean, really!


----------



## Pale (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Let's say it. It's a *VAGINA*. Of course, you have to be made deliberately aware that the picture might look like that... And even then you might still have trouble to recognize it as such...




No you don't.

5 People here at work I've said "Hey, come here and look at this picture."

5 out of 5 have glanced at it and came to the exact same conclusion as the original poster, and myself: The artist deliberately drew that picture to look like a vagina.

If you don't see it, pass me what you're smokin'.


----------



## AffableVagrant (Oct 4, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Great... further proof that gamers are pervs that see sex in everything, and know next to nothing about female anatomy.
> 
> :\



Funny you should say that, because when I showed it to my girlfriend she saw it immediately, without me even mentioning my own observation.  My roommate had to look twice before he even saw the sword.  It doesn't need to be anatomically correct to be extremely suggestive.

Also, I resent the accusation that nerds don't know what a naked woman looks like.  The fact that we're even on this forum proves we have internet which means we have PORN.


----------



## helium3 (Oct 4, 2007)

So I go to the article and I'm all "what in the nine hells are they smoking? there's nothing that looks like a hou-hah in that picture." Then I decide to read the article. Then I get to the picture at the end and realize which picture the OP was talking about.

And yeah, it's almost as bad as the "+5 Dildo of Fisting" in the Magic Item Compendium.


----------



## Henry (Oct 4, 2007)

_Why can't you see the sailboat, Wyatt?..._ 


Nothing smokin' here, and I sure as heck have to really stretch my imagination to see a suggestive picture there. Then again, people see sex in everything. Anyone see the article that suggests Stonehenge is based on female anatomy? Might be true, might not, but darned if someone didn't suggest it.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm pretty sure its my subconscious causing me to see it this way but I see a sword with an eye on the hilt set within a vagina....its obvious. Why beat around the bush? The illusion is caused by the red glow and the flesh toned coloration around it.

I seriously doubt its intentional on the part of the artist. This doesn't mean however that his subconscious intent wasn't for it to look like it does. We just can't know for sure.



Sundragon


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2007)

Kinda of a goatse thing going huh?  




What?


----------



## heirodule (Oct 4, 2007)

What did Erik Mona say about all artists being pervs and sneaking stuff in?


----------



## Heckler (Oct 4, 2007)

Upon taking a closer look and squinting and stuff, I see the disembodied screaming skulls.

If you ever find that in a vagina...RUN!


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Nothing smokin' here, and I sure as heck have to really stretch my imagination to see a suggestive picture there.




Me too.

joe b.


----------



## BlackMoria (Oct 4, 2007)

I didn't see it at all, even when it was pointed out.  Then it kicked in after much staring and wondering why I am missing it.  

It is like the contraversy in which one scene in The Lion King, people claimed to see a dust cloud form the word SEX, which outraged many parents.  Despite knowing where the supposedly offense scene was and looking for it over and over - it is just a dust cloud.... to me.

The power of suggestion....

Edit:  Changed reference to avoid religion imagery in coffee stains which might cross forum rules.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 4, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I see a female form in that red haze. Put me down for "not just an eye."



/cosign


----------



## shadewest (Oct 4, 2007)

Heckler said:
			
		

> Upon taking a closer look and squinting and stuff, I see the disembodied screaming skulls.
> 
> If you ever find that in a vagina...RUN!





Gives new meaning to the phrase "enter at your own risk".


----------



## Pale (Oct 4, 2007)

I would hate to try and explain Georgia O'Keefe's paintings to some of you people.

Oh, and none of you who can't see it should ever be art director's for a book. That picture wouldn't see the light of day in a newspaper because of its suggestiveness.


----------



## shadewest (Oct 4, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Also the design on the sides of the gem kind of look like open ‘petals’.




Petals like Georgia o'Keefe painted, maybe.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Oct 4, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Let's say it. It's a *VAGINA*.




No, there's no sheath or scabbard in that picture. That's clearly a _ferrum_ or _gladius_ (I'd go with the former, since the gladius can have a more specific connotation as a sword of particular dimensions which bears little to no resemblance to the sword in this picture.)

--Just got home from Latin class Spikey


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

Yup, that's a vagina, alright.  Not a very pretty one, either--which I suppose fits the PrC to which it belongs well enough.  

But definitely a vagina.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 4, 2007)

Jesus H Christ!   

Guess what I get to go and ask to be fixed tomorrow?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't see what you see.



That's because you haven't been eating the mushrooms.


----------



## Blastin (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Jesus H Christ!
> 
> Guess what I get to go and ask to be fixed tomorrow?





Lol....guess that means you see it Scott?


----------



## Henry (Oct 4, 2007)

Blastin said:
			
		

> Lol....guess that means you see it Scott?




He might, but the fact that so many people do makes it irrelevant whether he sees it or not.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 4, 2007)

Blastin said:
			
		

> Lol....guess that means you see it Scott?




Uh yeah 

and just to make sure it wasn't the thread suggesting it I showed it to my wife and she saw it too.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> _Why can't you see the sailboat, Wyatt?..._
> 
> 
> Nothing smokin' here, and I sure as heck have to really stretch my imagination to see a suggestive picture there. Then again, people see sex in everything. Anyone see the article that suggests Stonehenge is based on female anatomy? Might be true, might not, but darned if someone didn't suggest it.



I know what I'm looking for, understand what other people are putting together to get it, and I still have to force myself to see it in order to see it.  I'd suggest that perhaps people find what they're looking for.

Being a bonafide internet perv myself, I really ought to have no problem seeing the sailboat here.  But it's just a boring old sword floating in a red glow that if I really try hard I can make look kind of sort of maybe a bit like a sailboat.

Perhaps the Women in Gaming thread has oversensitized some people's sensibilities.


----------



## BlackMoria (Oct 4, 2007)

> Scott_Rouse wrote:
> 
> Uh yeah
> 
> and just to make sure it wasn't the thread suggesting it I showed it to my wife and she saw it too.




I guess the Art Director is going to get a call, followed by a call to the Webmaster tomorrow.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> I would hate to try and explain Georgia O'Keefe's paintings to some of you people.



I understand them just fine.  Don't try to insult my intelligence or the intelligence of anyone else on these boards.



> Oh, and none of you who can't see it should ever be art director's for a book.



Now you're our career advisor too?  Guess we're just too dumb to have opinions about artwork.  Gee, thanks for letting us know.


----------



## shadewest (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I know what I'm looking for, understand what other people are putting together to get it, and I still have to force myself to see it in order to see it.  I'd suggest that perhaps people find what they're looking for.
> 
> Being a bonafide internet perv myself, I really ought to have no problem seeing the sailboat here.  But it's just a boring old sword floating in a red glow that if I really try hard I can make look kind of sort of maybe a bit like a sailboat.
> 
> Perhaps the Women in Gaming thread has oversensitized some people's sensibilities.





Sorry, Doc.  You missed the boat!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Jesus H Christ!
> 
> Guess what I get to go and ask to be fixed tomorrow?



Glad to see that baseless hysteria and imagined threats to public morality still have power over publishers.  Go team!


----------



## kiznit (Oct 4, 2007)

I saw it immediately, and my wife just laughed from across the room.

She said, "Woah, now _that's_ Freudian!"

There's a cursed sword in your va-jay-jay.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Oct 4, 2007)

Yeap, got me all twitchy.


----------



## Blastin (Oct 4, 2007)

kiznit said:
			
		

> There's a cursed sword in your va-jay-jay.




 Wow....I just sprained something laughing at that.....


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Being a bonafide internet perv myself, I really ought to have no problem seeing the sailboat here.  But it's just a boring old sword floating in a red glow that if I really try hard I can make look kind of sort of maybe a bit like a sailboat.
> 
> Perhaps the Women in Gaming thread has oversensitized some people's sensibilities.




For what it's worth, Doc, I just had my wife come take a look. She's a gamer, but she doesn't follow any Internet sites. I didn't tell her what people were seeing in the pic, just that some people felt it was controversial.

She saw it immediately.

So no, it's not just people being overly sensitive.


----------



## kiznit (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Jesus H Christ!



No, no... They see _that_ in the burnt toast down in Mexico.

This here is just your regular old cooter.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, Doc, I just had my wife come take a look. She's a gamer, but she doesn't follow any Internet sites. I didn't tell her what people were seeing in the pic, just that some people felt it was controversial.
> 
> She saw it immediately.
> 
> So no, it's not just people being overly sensitive.



Well, let's think about that for a second.  You told her it was controversial.  There's obviously no dead babies or commie slogans on it, so it must be something hidden in it, and so it's probably sexual, because sexual is easy to convey with little detail. Either it's something small and detailed or it's something suggested in the larger picture.  The latter is easy to check for.  Just shift your focus like so, and look for penises, boobs, etc.  Eureka.

So basically, you told her to look for the thing you wanted her to see, and with your prompting, she saw it.  And so did all the other people in this thread who came here, were directed to go look for something "vulgar" in the picture, and found it.  People see religious figures in pancakes too.  It's not because they're there.  It's because they're looking for them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So basically, you told her to look for the thing you wanted her to see, and with your prompting, she saw it.




You're putting motives on me that I don't have. I'm with you, on a personal level; I have to make myself see it (though I can if I try). I had no care at all if she saw it or not.

But my point is, that (obviously) doesn't mean that other people _aren't_ seeing it. And in her case, it wasn't staring a few moments and then saying "Yeah, I suppose I can kinda see it." She got in front of the monitor and immediately cracked up.


----------



## kiznit (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, let's think about that for a second.  You told her it was controversial.  There's obviously no dead babies or commie slogans on it, so it must be something hidden in it, and so it's probably sexual, because sexual is easy to convey with little detail. Either it's something small and detailed or it's something suggested in the larger picture.  The latter is easy to check for.  Just shift your focus like so, and look for penises, boobs, etc.  Eureka.
> 
> So basically, you told her to look for the thing you wanted her to see, and with your prompting, she saw it.  And so did all the other people in this thread who came here, were directed to go look for something "vulgar" in the picture, and found it.  People see religious figures in pancakes too.  It's not because they're there.  It's because they're looking for them.



Try as I might, I don't see religious figures, dead babies (well, maybe) or communists in the picture, but man oh man do I see a great big blossoming hoo-hah exploding forth with the delicate colors of a million orgasmic suns, ready to give birth like a ripe peach.

_L'Origine du Monde_, my friend. Courbet would be proud.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> He might, but the fact that so many people do makes it irrelevant whether he sees it or not.



Again, I think it's worth pointing out that the probable reason so many people are seeing it, and reporting it in this thread, is because they were directed to look for something "vulgar" in the picture, and were given progressively more detailed hints over the course of the thread concerning what they were supposed to be "finding" in it.

"Hey look at this cloud.  It looks like a penis!"
"Well, it looks like a rod of some sort, maybe like a rocket or a finger..."
"No man, look!  There's the shaft, there's the dangly bits..."
"...oh yeah.  I see what you mean.  God totally drew a picture of some dude's unit up there.  We'd better get some planes up there to smudge it out before some kids see it."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're putting motives on me that I don't have. I'm with you, on a personal level; I have to make myself see it (though I can if I try). I had no care at all if she saw it or not.
> 
> But my point is, that (obviously) doesn't mean that other people _aren't_ seeing it. And in her case, it wasn't staring a few moments and then saying "Yeah, I suppose I can kinda see it." She got in front of the monitor and immediately cracked up.



You misunderstood me.  You don't need motives.  You just need to tell her that she's supposed to be looking for something, and she'll find it.  Further, everyone's first guess is something dirty, so that's what she was looking for.

It looks more like girl-crotch than boy-crotch, certainly.  But I also look more like Brad Pitt than Angelina Jolie, and I hesitate to claim that when people look at me they see Brad Pitt.  Just because it looks more like girl-crotch than like an airplane doesn't mean you don't need to add a lot with your imagination to get crotch out of it, or that it was intended (subconsciously or otherwise) to suggest anything crotch-like.


----------



## Henry (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Again, I think it's worth pointing out that the probable reason so many people are seeing it, and reporting it in this thread, is because they were directed to look for something "vulgar" in the picture, and were given progressively more detailed hints over the course of the thread concerning what they were supposed to be "finding" in it.




And as I said, for WotC it's irrelevant, because they don't want scores of people pointing at their first Dragon preview article and yelling, *"HEY! IT'S A..." *

Whether the dog's wagging the tail or vice versa, I suspect that pic is coming down.


----------



## sdtigerlily (Oct 4, 2007)

Yep....that's a cha cha.

My husband's the gamer, but I had to respond to this thread after seeing the


----------



## kiznit (Oct 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Whether the dog's wagging the tail or vice versa, I suspect that pic is coming down.




Saved for posterity, then.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 4, 2007)

Good lord, people.

There are indeed hidden images in the glow around the sword.  But not the ones you lot are thinking of.


----------



## helium3 (Oct 4, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> Good lord, people.
> 
> There are indeed hidden images in the glow around the sword.  But not the ones you lot are thinking of.




Heh. That's funny. So they mucked around with the original and inadvertently turned it into a big floating vagina?


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I know what I'm looking for, understand what other people are putting together to get it, and I still have to force myself to see it in order to see it.  I'd suggest that perhaps people find what they're looking for.
> 
> Being a bonafide internet perv myself, I really ought to have no problem seeing the sailboat here.  But it's just a boring old sword floating in a red glow that if I really try hard I can make look kind of sort of maybe a bit like a sailboat.
> 
> Perhaps the Women in Gaming thread has oversensitized some people's sensibilities.




Agreed on all counts.


----------



## Testament (Oct 4, 2007)

I see it, but I still think it looks more like Soul Edge than anything else


----------



## babomb (Oct 4, 2007)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> It is like the contraversy in which one scene in The Lion King, people claimed to see a dust cloud form the word SEX, which outraged many parents.  Despite knowing where the supposedly offense scene was and looking for it over and over - it is just a dust cloud.... to me.




That cloud actually DOES say something: "SFX"


----------



## jasin (Oct 4, 2007)

So what's the naughty part of the picture?

The rosy glow around the sword? Or the eye? Or both?

In any case, Scott saying they'll "fix" it turned this thread from funny to sad for me.

I guess I can see his concern, especially what with this being the first online Dragon article and all, but I hope this isn't indicative of how online Dragon is to work. If fifty people on the Internet saying something looks funny, or like a pussy, is enough to make you reconsider the design... well, then moving Dragon and Dungeon online truly was a mistake.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 4, 2007)

kiznit said:
			
		

> There's a cursed sword in your va-jay-jay.





 ROFLMAO

That's hilarious.




Sundragon


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Again, I think it's worth pointing out that the probable reason so many people are seeing it, and reporting it in this thread, is because they were directed to look for something "vulgar" in the picture, and were given progressively more detailed hints over the course of the thread concerning what they were supposed to be "finding" in it.



Having opened the thread, then opened the picture from the link in the OP, I saw it straight away. I didn't have to squint or anything - it's there in a pretty big way!


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 4, 2007)

I SEE IT TOO!


----------



## Felon (Oct 4, 2007)

I think it's a pretty cool bit of imagery myself. Hearkens back to the heyday of Heavy Metal magazine.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 4, 2007)

While Scott asks the art department to adjust the "naughty bits" version of the art, I would ask that folks here keep the thread at a Grandma-standard-crudity-level. We're doing pretty good so far, but a few comments are pushing the boundaries... and I'm finding this funny enough that I'd rather not Klunk the thread.


----------



## Felon (Oct 4, 2007)

I was wondering when a mod was going to weigh in. I've been biting my lip all this time trying to avoid a pun on "critical hit" having to do with that little red eye...


----------



## Klaus (Oct 4, 2007)

AffableVagrant said:
			
		

> Just looked at the new Death Knight ecology and... uh... this sword... looks like... well, does anyone else see what I see??
> 
> Ahem...
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071003_dreo_3full.jpg



 Dude.

Not even remotely.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 4, 2007)

Took me about ten minutes of staring at the full-sized image to see it, post-thread. The shrunk version on the actual Ecology article suffers from a weird case of aspect ratio where the dimensions make it look a lot more like girlie bits once you know what to look for.


----------



## OakwoodDM (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm with the "Huh?" brigade on this. Even with all the pointing and shouting about the glow, I can't see a female form.

Sure, the eye in the middle _could_ be construed as a part of the female anatomy, but I'd have gone straight over it as just another wibbly sword with eye motif if I hadn't been looking for vulgarity...


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Oct 4, 2007)

I see it, but that's after knowing something was there and the first thought was the Soul Calibur sword.  My second thought - a split second later - was "Oh.  That's what they are seeing."


----------



## CharlesRyan (Oct 4, 2007)

Put me down in the "huh?" category. Once the commentary here got explicit, I could see what was being ascribed. And yes, it does vaguely look like a va-jay-jay, in the sense that any vertical elipse with a line looks like one, any circle with a dot looks like a boob, and anything taller than it is wide looks like a pe-pe.

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like an alligator. Or maybe a duck.


----------



## MadBlue (Oct 4, 2007)

I didn't see it at first. I thought people were talking about the eye, but that's just the little man in the boat.


----------



## glass (Oct 4, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't see what you see.



Nor I.


glass.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

CharlesRyan said:
			
		

> I saw a cloud the other day that looked like an alligator.




Was your cloud green then?


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

Showed this picture to my wife.

"Hey, that looks nice. Who did that?" (momentary pause) "... You know what, that kind of looks like a .... whoa!"


----------



## diaglo (Oct 4, 2007)

kiznit said:
			
		

> No, no... They see _that_ in the burnt toast down in Mexico.
> 
> This here is just your regular old cooter.



a*Rouse*d cooter. thank you very much.

i can see the coloring and and boatsman


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 4, 2007)

...I can SORTA see it, but I think I'm forcing myself too.  

I suspect it wasnt intentional as any red glowy sword will probably end up looking like a vag00. The skulls though...that's a nice touch.  I didnt notice those at all until someone pointed it out.


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 4, 2007)

Larry Flynt working for WotC these days or something?


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 4, 2007)

That's not nearly as bad as the Eye of Sauron was. Now when I saw that for the first time, I was ???.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 4, 2007)

Here's a video of totally normal doodles that have stuff more obvious than the sword pic



http://www.glumbert.com/media/doodle


----------



## billd91 (Oct 4, 2007)

This thread delivers!
Can I see it? Yes. I certainly can. Did so immediately.

Is that bad? 
Not really. I think people get their undies in a bundle far too much about art that looks like bits of more frequently obscured anatomy. I don't consider swords with nimbuses of light (or flowers, or eyes of sauron, etc) that look kind of like vaginas to be particularly vulgar. In fact, if that were an intelligent weapon that seduced paladins into falling, then the additional symbolism would ROCK!


----------



## wgreen (Oct 4, 2007)

Hay guyz,

It took me a few minutes but I finally see it now.  At first, I thought it was just a picture of a big vagina, but then I was like, WHOA -- that sort of looks like a SWORD!!  I hope the staff at Wizards gets this fixed right away and replaces it with a proper pic of a vagina ASAP.

kthxbye,

-Will

P.S.  Seriously, I didn't see it until a few posts into the thread.  My first reaction was: "Um...it's a sword."  FWIW.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> This thread delivers!
> Can I see it? Yes. I certainly can. Did so immediately.
> 
> Is that bad?
> Not really. I think people get their undies in a bundle far too much about art that looks like bits of more frequently obscured anatomy. I don't consider swords with nimbuses of light (or flowers, or eyes of sauron, etc) that look kind of like vaginas to be particularly vulgar. In fact, if that were an intelligent weapon that seduced paladins into falling, then the additional symbolism would ROCK!




I think there's a line between erotic forms in art and the woman on the pack of Camels that must be carefully trod.


----------



## sckeener (Oct 4, 2007)

meh....I see it...not a big deal.  

If fits the theme of the picture.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 4, 2007)

It's the colors more than anything that make me think of a vagina.  And I had to take a second look at it to get that.  (Of course, I admit at first I thought everyone was talking about the eye on the hilt, so I spent a few minutes staring at that to conclude that it was, in fact, an eye.)

They don't need to do much with the picture except some adjustments to the color.  But I guess my question is:  why?  So it resembles a vagina.  Who cares?  The global landscape is littered with monuments blatantly phallic in their representation.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 4, 2007)

Even when knowing what to look for and where, it still looks like a jagged sword on a red swirly background fading into pink at the edges. 

Apparently, I'm either not perverted enough or too perverted to see it.


----------



## Rel (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm disappointed.  This was the first thing that I unequivocally liked about 4e!

That disappointment is largely assuaged however by the fact that the term "vajayjay" is catching on.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 4, 2007)

You know when I first read the article, I didn't even make that connection until my SO pointed it out.

Reading this thread, I noticed a lot of other posters mentioning that the women in their life IMMEDIATELY saw the imagery even before they did.

And they saw we men have dirty minds....


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Strangely the Death Knight weapon's in the other images have a green glow (if they glow).


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 4, 2007)

My favorite part of this thread is Nifft asking that the threads be "merged".


----------



## Tewligan (Oct 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Heh. That's funny. So they mucked around with the original and inadvertently turned it into a big floating vagina?



A big floating HAUNTED vagina!


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Jesus H Christ!
> 
> Guess what I get to go and ask to be fixed tomorrow?





Could you fix the massive spoiler for 



Spoiler



Vanthus Vanderboren


 while you are at it, loads of people are still only part way through that campaign and probably don't want their players knowing his whole life story.


----------



## Lorthanoth (Oct 4, 2007)

Huh? And huh again. I really cannot see anything suggestive in this at all. A sword is a flaming sword. An eye is an eye. The surrounding for the eye looks nothing like a vagina. 

Never cease to be amazed.


----------



## helium3 (Oct 4, 2007)

What's funny is that if they'd used the colors from the death knight at the beginning of the article, IE lime green, no one would've noticed it.

It really just goes to show how subjective human perception really is.

Heh, well that and ENWorld in general.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 4, 2007)

I think it would still be noticeable, but a lot less noticeable, yes.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 4, 2007)

I didn't see it initially, but now I can't look at the pic w/o getting grossed out. 

I think it is intentional, running along the whole HR Giger biomechanics tradition combined with the common mysogynistic idea that the female sex = evil.  All in all I think it is a great expression of the concept.  Still a public site of a large corp is probably not the best place for somthing like that.  There is a time and a place.  This is more a gallery piece than a gaming book piece IMO.


----------



## helium3 (Oct 4, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I didn't see it initially, but now I can't look at the pic w/o getting grossed out.
> 
> I think it is intentional, running along the whole HR Giger biomechanics tradition combined with the common mysogynistic idea that the female sex = evil.  All in all I think it is a great expression of the concept.  Still a public site of a large corp is probably not the best place for somthing like that.  There is a time and a place.  This is more a gallery piece than a gaming book piece IMO.




Heh heh. Funny you should mention misogyny. In the article, that picture is supposed to be of Blackrazor, which is described thusly:



> The adventure White Plume Mountain introduced Blackrazor, a magic sword that stole a character's soul and made him subject to its whims.




Looks like someone at WotC has some issues with their romantic life.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 4, 2007)

If you think this is unintentional, then you probably think that Georgia O'Keefe's paintings coincidently look like things.

I have a very hard time believing a serious artist going to unintentionally do that.  You get way to much indoctrination in seeing things that way just by studying art, and anyone with more a couple hours worth of classes in art history is going to pick up on it immediately.

In contrast to the nay sayers who say this is just naughty imaginations, I think females are going to pick up on the association faster on average than men.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 4, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> What's funny is that if they'd used the colors from the death knight at the beginning of the article, IE lime green, no one would've noticed it.




You be the judge:





edit: maybe later

edit: and yeah, I just emailed the picture to my wife. She saw it immediately---so I guess I was wrong in my previous post. Imagine that, someone admitting their error on the Internet?


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Oh my god I can't believe you've just posted a picture of Princess Fiona's lady troll bits!!!


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> A big floating HAUNTED vagina!



 That's so going to be my next adventure location.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In contrast to the nay sayers who say this is just naughty imaginations, I think females are going to pick up on the association faster on average than men.




Not really "naughty imagination". Its just that I honestly don't think a lot of men would make the immediate connection as apparently the women seem to be. 

I mean, everyone knows the joke about the washington monument and yet I've heard that there too, women seem to make the connection faster than men.....so what does that really say about men amd women?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 4, 2007)

Blackrat said:
			
		

> That's not nearly as bad as the Eye of Sauron was. Now when I saw that for the first time, I was ???.



When I saw that, I've _only_ thought of Sauron. It never occured to me, that someone would see _that_ in Sauron's Eye!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Whether the dog's wagging the tail or vice versa, I suspect that pic is coming down.




One can find suggestive forms throughout art, architecture, advertising, etc. Over the years fantasy as a genre has been ripe with suggestive and overt sexual references (both intentional  and accidental), so this nothing new. 

I have pointed out this thread and the image in question to the folks on the web team and will leave it up to them to decide what to do about it. It's not the first piece of art that turned a few heads.

I doubt I will get a call from an irate mom but if I do I can handle it "sorry ma'am, all I see is a cool looking sword   "


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

And the 



Spoiler



Vanthus


 spoiler that sort of ruins an NPC in Savage Tide?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 4, 2007)

I'd REALLY love to hear from the actual artist. 

And yeah, I saw it too. 

So did the three women I work with here in the office.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 4, 2007)

AffableVagrant said:
			
		

> Just looked at the new Death Knight ecology and... uh... this sword... looks like... well, does anyone else see what I see??
> 
> Ahem...
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20071003_dreo_3full.jpg




In the event I might meet you one day, I will make sure I wear sunglasses. On my head.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I doubt I will get a call from an irate mom but if I do I can handle it "sorry ma'am, all I see is a cool looking sword"



Mr. Rouse, I have seen you on the boards and in my opinion you are a genial person.  That thing you said just there, however, isn't very nice.  On the one hand, you have already stated in this thread that you see what some of us see in the image.  Doesn't seem very honest to later state that you'll deny having seen a lady's naughty bit if you end up on the receiving end of a complaint from an irate mother.   Now, I'm somewhat confident that you won't receive any complaints about the image and I think you made a smart move alerting the right folks to the possibilities of what the image may convey while also agreeing to let them do their work and decide for themselves what to do with the picture.  I'm hopeful, however, that you were kidding just there when you said "sorry ma'am, all I see is a cool looking sword."  Without an emoticon or any other contextual information, I felt I should mention that while I didn't find the picture offensive and don't mind it's being on the net or on WotC's website, I did go "Huh?!" when I read your most recent remark about deniability.  

Again, you seem a nice person.  With the onset of 4E, I'm happy to have seen you posting on EN World.  I didn't think what you just said there was very kind, but that's okay.  My own husband sometimes isn't very kind, nor am I.  I hope you were joshing.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Can I just say a big thanks to whoever added the spoiler warning to the Savage Tide bit in the article. So thanks Scott_Rouse if it was you behind it and if not pass on my thanks.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 4, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I think it is intentional, running along the whole HR Giger biomechanics tradition combined with the common mysogynistic idea that the female sex = evil.



I think you're seeing things in this that aren't there (then again, so are we all in this thread...)

I always thought the Aliens were phaliic symbols, anyway. Something about the shape of the head...


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 4, 2007)

..aaaand it's gone.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> I didn't think what you just said there was very kind, but that's okay.  My own husband sometimes isn't very kind, nor am I.  I hope you were joshing.



 Your comments indicate an unkind connotation towards "joshing". As a Josh, I demand an immediate and profuse apology.

 -- N


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

I've always enjoyed your sense of humor, Nifft.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> I've always enjoyed your sense of humor, Nifft.



 So you're saying it's okay to be Josh in private, just so long as I act Nifft in public?

Horribly offended, -- N


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> ..aaaand it's gone.




What's the replacement image, and miniature?

I take it the sword is Blackrazor, (edit) ah found it Thrall of Blackrazor.

Hmm maybe I should have bought some Unhallowed.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> So you're saying it's okay to be Josh in private, just so long as I act Nifft in public?
> 
> Horribly offended, -- N



Hmmm....thinking...

This "Josh" character, he seems persnickety (OMG, hope no one with the name "Persnickety" shows up in this thread to decry offensiveness by association!).    But this "Nifft" person, now he's funny.  

Yeah, I'm thinking I'd like all Nifft, all the time.



Intended to be humorous banter.  If you do not find the banter to be humorous, CanadienneBacon, Inc, Ltd, LLP is not responsible for the content's lack of humor.  Well, okay, actually I am--the agreement to which I indicated agreement when I signed up for EN World says I have to be.  All rights reserved.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 4, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> What's the replacement image, and miniature?
> 
> I take it the sword is Blackrazor.




The one and only.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

Wormwood, do you know who the artist is?


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> Hmmm....thinking...
> 
> This "Josh" character, he seems persnickety (OMG, hope no one with the name "Persnickety" shows up in this thread to decry offensiveness by association!).    But this "Nifft" person, now he's funny.
> 
> ...



 I'll keep taking my Josh suppressants, then.

My only regret is not using "Mifft" until far, far too late. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

...and now I have to go make a Persnickety MUP.  Don't know why I didn't think to do that earlier this year.


----------



## Lolth (Oct 4, 2007)

I just had to register because of this thread, because it gave me quite a laugh.

At first because I spent *10* minutes squinting at the replacement picture without realizing that it WAS a replacement picture; the urge to read *just* the first post is sometimes too strong...

Baffled, I read onwards, and then came upon the other link, clicked and...

"OAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Yes!"    

(Oh, FYI, female 'ere, by the way, and while I am an outspoken personality when it comes to issues of females and roleplaying -- anyone familiar with me in rpg.net can testify -- I was howling my head off with gales of merry laughter.)

But while we're talking about suggestive pictures, what about this one?

A picture from "The Sinister Spire".

 

I mean, my, that IS rather peculiar formation! (I'm still laughing merrily, no worries...)


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 4, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> Wormwood, do you know who the artist is?




The 'controversial' image is by Steve Argyle (I think).

The Blackrazor image from White Plume Mountain (currently on the site) was done by Bill Willingham.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 4, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed.  This was the first thing that I unequivocally liked about 4e!
> 
> That disappointment is largely assuaged however by the fact that the term "vajayjay" is catching on.



Once Oprah starts using a term, its acceptance into the OED is pretty much inevitable.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 4, 2007)

Lolth said:
			
		

> A picture from "The Sinister Spire".
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, my, that IS rather peculiar formation! (I'm still laughing merrily, no worries...)




More evidence of the Erik Mona thesis


----------



## Lolth (Oct 4, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> More evidence of the Erik Mona thesis




Out of curiosity, what is this one?


----------



## Rel (Oct 4, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Once Oprah starts using a term, its acceptance into the OED is pretty much inevitable.




I'm on hold with her office right now.  I'll let you know how it comes out.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 4, 2007)

No, you know you all watch and love Grey's Anatomy.

Seriously though, I'm a little disappointed they took it down.  It really wasn't that big a deal.


----------



## sckeener (Oct 4, 2007)

Well...we now know what the interactive content is going to be....

Users complain and WotC changes the site.  

If they are going to do things like this, I'd prefer a visible change log of the edits.  I mean if two years from now they go back and do an errata on an issue of Dungeon, I'd like to know where the changes happened rather than them being invisible.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

A change log would be nice, I agree.  I don't know if many companies are in the habit of doing that, though.  Is that something that is common practice?

Regarding WotC receiving complaints about the image, other this thread's title, I did not see a complaint about the vulgarity of the image in this thread.  As best I can tell by having read everyone's responses in this thread, even those of us who see an unmentionable in the image have not posted claiming offense.  

If they did receive a complaint or felt that the image toed the line and they'd rather not receive complaints, more power to them for making whatever change they deemed necessary.  It's nice to see a company take customer opinion into account and, if they're in agreement or feel they'd rather not tango with a topic, be pro-active and self-edit.  Folks complain a lot that WotC doesn't listen or doesn't respond to customer feedback.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 4, 2007)

Lolth said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what is this one?



 Erik Mona thesis = "All artists are perverts."

This is true, by the way.

Former artist, -- N


----------



## Lolth (Oct 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Erik Mona thesis = "All artists are perverts."
> 
> This is true, by the way.
> 
> Former artist, -- N




Ah!

Well... can't say that I disagree.

Current artist, -- L.

 

PS: Another fine "oh my, no WAY!" moment was when I happened to buy a pack of goblins or orcs wielding spears from Ral Partha in mid-90s ... and in this instance I did not need to imagine anything. They were wearing a chainshirt that hit their mid-thighs, but when you twisted the miniature to put paint between their legs, you could see that they were going completely commando underneath. In explicit detail.


----------



## YourSwordIsMine (Oct 4, 2007)

Wow, that looks painful...

They make medications for that now...

Though... I wonder if Cure Disease would work...


----------



## Rel (Oct 4, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> A change log would be nice, I agree.  I don't know if many companies are in the habit of doing that, though.  Is that something that is common practice?




_"October 4th - Altered artwork to Sword Picture 2.0 in order to lessen resemblence with a vajajay."_


----------



## kenmarable (Oct 4, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Could you fix the massive spoiler for
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The article has also been updated to hide the spoiler material (clicking a link reveals it). Very fast!

They could have been funny and did the same thing with the image and a "You must be 18 or older to see this sword" message.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 4, 2007)

The replacement picture is so vulgar!

Does anyone else see that angry red breast in the background... spraying a froth of lait?

Or that lusty man thrusting his sword forward?

And heaven know what that little fella in the lower right corner is up to.

I'm baffled they would replace the previous picture of a cool sword surrounded by a nimbus of demons with an image dripping with such blatent sexual imagery.

Ick... the folks a WotC have steered 4E down a twisted path of perversion.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Oct 4, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Ick... the folks a WotC have steered 4E down a twisted path of perversion.



If this is true, I'm much more excited about 4E than I was before!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> So what's the naughty part of the picture?
> 
> The rosy glow around the sword? Or the eye? Or both?
> 
> ...



How long before we go from devils and demons to Baatezu and Tanar'ri again?


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 4, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> _"October 4th - Altered artwork to Sword Picture 2.0 in order to lessen resemblence with a vajajay."_



 



About the only way I've personally experienced a log of edits to online content was when a former PbP player of mine kept his character sheet with a list of precise edits and their accompanying edited-on date at the bottom of his post in our rogues' gallery.  Color me curious if companies do make public edits to content on their webpages.  Would there be some way to View Source using right click to see if someone's edited in comments into HTML text for a page?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I SEE IT TOO!



Did I ever tell you that you're a very groovy person?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Larry Flynt working for WotC these days or something?



From the look of the reaction by Rouse, it's more like Charles Keating Jr.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

jester47 said:
			
		

> I didn't see it initially, but now I can't look at the pic w/o getting grossed out.
> 
> I think it is intentional, running along the whole HR Giger biomechanics tradition combined with the common mysogynistic idea that the female sex = evil.  All in all I think it is a great expression of the concept.  Still a public site of a large corp is probably not the best place for somthing like that.  There is a time and a place.  This is more a gallery piece than a gaming book piece IMO.



Of course you're right.  I don't know how I could possibly disagree with your thesis that this picture is proof that the artist, and WotC by extension, is terribly mysogynistic and feel the need to express this by reference to HR Giger.  _It just makes so much sense!_


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In contrast to the nay sayers who say this is just naughty imaginations, I think females are going to pick up on the association faster on average than men.



Which perhaps says something about cultural assumptions concerning women and the imaginations thereof.


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> Mr. Rouse, I have seen you on the boards and in my opinion you are a genial person.  That thing you said just there, however, isn't very nice.



Nonsense. It was stated in a perfectly nice manner, you just seem to be of a mind that dishonesty is abhorent in any situation. That's a delusion most folks are dissuaded from very early in life.

In all things, try to be both benign and pragmatic.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 5, 2007)

At any rate, props to the artist for turning a phallic symbol into a vulvic one!


----------



## Lolth (Oct 5, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Which perhaps says something about cultural assumptions concerning women and the imaginations thereof.




Well, uh, there's also the fact that us wimmin usually come equipped with one... and it, erm, requires regular maintenance. As often as several days in a row in one month.

Imagine owning a wreck of a car, and for three to five days a month you drive it to a mechanic-generic handyman for repairs/maintenance/oil job; by now, this mechanic knows the system inside out and is intimately familiar with all the nooks and crannies of the engine.

"Oh hullo, I can see right away where's the problem today..."


----------



## Felon (Oct 5, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> At any rate, props to the artist for turning a phallic symbol into a vulvic one!



It's both, that's what made it so cool.

Personally, I'm glad I have saved the image to my hard drive. It'll make a great T-shirt.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 5, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> From the look of the reaction by Rouse, it's more like Charles Keating Jr.




This isn't funny to me. 

I just watched the People vs Larry Flynt again a few weeks ago because it was on OnDemand. Keating is not a very likable fellow and I don't like the comparison.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 5, 2007)

CanadienneBacon said:
			
		

> Mr. Rouse, I have seen you on the boards and in my opinion you are a genial person.  That thing you said just there, however, isn't very nice.  On the one hand, you have already stated in this thread that you see what some of us see in the image.  Doesn't seem very honest to later state that you'll deny having seen a lady's naughty bit if you end up on the receiving end of a complaint from an irate mother.   Now, I'm somewhat confident that you won't receive any complaints about the image and I think you made a smart move alerting the right folks to the possibilities of what the image may convey while also agreeing to let them do their work and decide for themselves what to do with the picture.  I'm hopeful, however, that you were kidding just there when you said "sorry ma'am, all I see is a cool looking sword."  Without an emoticon or any other contextual information, I felt I should mention that while I didn't find the picture offensive and don't mind it's being on the net or on WotC's website, I did go "Huh?!" when I read your most recent remark about deniability.
> 
> Again, you seem a nice person.  With the onset of 4E, I'm happy to have seen you posting on EN World.  I didn't think what you just said there was very kind, but that's okay.  My own husband sometimes isn't very kind, nor am I.  I hope you were joshing.




Sorry, yes I was joshing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 5, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Imagine that, someone admitting their error on the Internet?




Big of you to do so, however, you do realize that this means the robot masters of Internet-Face will be dispatched to your door shortly, right?

It was nice knowing ya man..... 

joe b.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 5, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> Jesus H Christ!
> 
> Guess what I get to go and ask to be fixed tomorrow?




After a little less than 24 hours this has given me quite a few laughs. Thinking about my initial response I think it was out of surprise more than anything else (like: "wow how did we miss that"  ). 

as you can see we changed the image. In most cases we wouldn't do this but after talking about it briefly with some of the R&D folks and showing the image to some people internally who had not seen this thread or the art, we decided to replace it with another version we had from the artist.

This does not mean we are going to change D&D art from now on and make it G-rated but in   the "oh wow" response was enough and this case the switch was easy enough to warrant a swap .


----------



## Samnell (Oct 5, 2007)

I have to make myself see it. Seriously. Even after reading the whole thread. When I do I just laugh.

I'm a bit sad that WotC changed the image, though. I would have left it and laughed at anybody who phoned the office with a complaint. 

But then I am not in charge of selling anything to anybody.


----------



## Megatron (Oct 5, 2007)

*qq moar.*

Didn't see anything.
Still don't.
Girlfriend doesn't either.


----------



## CanadienneBacon (Oct 5, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> After a little less than 24 hours this has given me quite a few laughs. Thinking about my initial response I think it was out of surprise more than anything else (like: "wow how did we miss that"  ).
> 
> as you can see we changed the image. In most cases we wouldn't do this but after talking about it briefly with some of the R&D folks and showing the image to some people internally who had not seen this thread or the art, we decided to replace it with another version we had from the artist.
> 
> This does not mean we are going to change D&D art from now on and make it G-rated but in the "oh wow" response was enough and this case the switch was easy enough to warrant a swap .



I don't believe you need--and you probably really don't care one way or the other--props from me, but I think you handled that beautifully.  And, again, thank you for coming around to post, both here and at WotC.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 5, 2007)

Lolth said:
			
		

> Well, uh, there's also the fact that us wimmin usually come equipped with one... and it, erm, requires regular maintenance. As often as several days in a row in one month.
> 
> Imagine owning a wreck of a car, and for three to five days a month you drive it to a mechanic-generic handyman for repairs/maintenance/oil job; by now, this mechanic knows the system inside out and is intimately familiar with all the nooks and crannies of the engine.
> 
> "Oh hullo, I can see right away where's the problem today..."





Di... did you just compare your Vajayjay to a wreck of a car?


----------



## Henry (Oct 5, 2007)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> After a little less than 24 hours this has given me quite a few laughs.




This will go down as a classic, I assure you. 

Regardless of origin or intent, props to your web team, Scott.


----------



## Kesh (Oct 5, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Di... did you just compare your Vajayjay to a wreck of a car?



 I've just found a new word to hate.

Seriously. Where the hell did that one come from, and why is everyone using it? x.x


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I've just found a new word to hate.
> 
> Seriously. Where the hell did that one come from, and why is everyone using it? x.x




That would be me.  I am responsible.  Bring on the hate.

EDIT:  Or did you mean "compare"?


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 5, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> That would be me.  I am responsible.  Bring on the hate.
> 
> EDIT:  Or did you mean "compare"?





Is this, like, your favorite EN World thread ever, or what?


----------



## kiznit (Oct 5, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I've just found a new word to hate.
> 
> Seriously. Where the hell did that one come from, and why is everyone using it? x.x



Could be worse.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 5, 2007)

I just showed the original pic to my wife with no more lead-in than "hey, c'mere and look at this" and her response?

"It's a vagina. With a sword in it."


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2007)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Is this, like, your favorite EN World thread ever, or what?




Well it WAS until I followed Kiznit's link and discovered that "vajayjay" wasn't on the list.

*grumpy*


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2007)

Megatron said:
			
		

> Didn't see anything.
> Still don't.
> Girlfriend doesn't either.




Also, no offense, but worst haiku ever.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 5, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I've just found a new word to hate.
> 
> Seriously. Where the hell did that one come from, and why is everyone using it? x.x




Because vajayjay beat up the vagina and took its stuff...


Actually I used it because I thought it was appropriate for the rocky terrain. Trust me I will never use that word anywhere else. I find it as detestable a word as flapjack and slacks.


----------



## Lackhand (Oct 5, 2007)

Megatron said:
			
		

> Didn't see anything.
> Still don't.
> Girlfriend doesn't either.




Especially ironic as I *think* I've seen the full picture of your avatar before.

And, um.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Oct 5, 2007)

This reminds me of an episode of _Everybody Loves Raymond_ . . .


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Actually I used it because I thought it was appropriate for the rocky terrain. Trust me I will never use that word anywhere else. I find it as detestable a word as flapjack and slacks.




I like vajayjay way better than flapjacks or slacks.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> This reminds me of an episode of _Everybody Loves Raymond_ . . .



Ha ha, I know which one you mean! "Oh...oh my...does this mean I'm a...a...oh, Raymond why didn't you tell me?!"

So does this mean that the link in the OP no longer links to the original pic? I'd like to see this _Sword of Controversy +5_...


----------



## Lolth (Oct 5, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> Di... did you just compare your Vajayjay to a wreck of a car?




Only humoristically, I assure.

Except there ARE days when I really do, and those days involve delicate maintenance. Those days also usually involve thoughts like "I wish I could cast _cure * wounds/heal/regenerate_ in Real Life."


----------



## Blackrat (Oct 5, 2007)

I don't know if this has come up yet but has anyone else realized that in Latin the word vagina means a sheat of sword. Just an interesting coincidence regarding the sword in guestion.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Oct 5, 2007)

Anyone have the original art?  I was reading the thread and looking at the linked picture and thinking jeez I thought I was more of a pervert than this but that eye just looked like an eye.  Then I'm reading about the glow around the sword and can't see any.  So I go to the end of the thread and have to work backwards for a while to catch a reference to them having swapped the picture out.  I want to know how blatant this really looks.


----------



## kiznit (Oct 5, 2007)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> Anyone have the original art?  I was reading the thread and looking at the linked picture and thinking jeez I thought I was more of a pervert than this but that eye just looked like an eye.  Then I'm reading about the glow around the sword and can't see any.  So I go to the end of the thread and have to work backwards for a while to catch a reference to them having swapped the picture out.  I want to know how blatant this really looks.



If you scour this thread, you'll see that I saved a copy of it and linked to it.

Page 3, I think? Maybe 4?

Edit: Page 2, post #64.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Oct 5, 2007)

Blackrat said:
			
		

> I don't know if this has come up yet but has anyone else realized that in Latin the word vagina means a sheat of sword. Just an interesting coincidence regarding the sword in guestion.




Check the bottom of the first page.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 5, 2007)

I'm horny.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 5, 2007)

Blackrat said:
			
		

> I don't know if this has come up yet but has anyone else realized that in Latin the word vagina means a sheat of sword. Just an interesting coincidence regarding the sword in guestion.



I didn't know that this about latin, but in German, the word "Scheide" also has both meanings. Apparently, the ancient swordsmen were dirty, perverted old bastards, and the extreme feminists are correct in calling weapons "phallus symbols"...


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 5, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Also, no offense, but worst haiku ever.



This thread lingers, but
the vajayjay sword got fixed.
Now it can be closed.

Err, the THREAD can be
not the image from the art
That would just be weird.

So please wave goodbye
with to your favorite sexy sword
as the thread goes klunk.


Klunk... 

...cherry blossoms fall.


----------



## Rel (Oct 5, 2007)

Piratecat is PWND
When this thread is reopened
But only for Rel...


Seriously I've been in and out of this thread for the last couple days and I wanted to commend you all on the gentle way you've handled it.  It would be easy for something like this to become messy when people really start getting into it.  But thankfully we've avoided that by not going too deeply into uncomfortable territory.  I'd like to think we reached a point where everybody was fairly satisfied and nobody got too sore about it.  It's been a real pleasure!

And lastly:  Vajayjay, vajayjay, vajayjay!

NOW THREAD REALLY CLOSED.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 5, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> Seriously I've been in and out of this thread...




One of us!

Ahem.

THREAD REALLY, REALLY CLOSED.

-Hyp.


----------

