<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Jesses&#8217; Flavor Reviews: The Male Gaze in Magic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/</link>
	<description>The prime source for Magic the Gathering strategy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:21:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Defender of Cats</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-251585</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Defender of Cats]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2015 01:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-251585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was a original player from a Alpha release oh those many years ago. I&#039;ve recently returned as a limited player and have noticed a very positive change...buuut the current sign-in screen (as of Aug. 1, 2015) for Magic the Gathering Online is an upshot of Liliana with a freaking see-through top (including nipples) and several grasping, body-less arms...le sigh.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was a original player from a Alpha release oh those many years ago. I&#8217;ve recently returned as a limited player and have noticed a very positive change&#8230;buuut the current sign-in screen (as of Aug. 1, 2015) for Magic the Gathering Online is an upshot of Liliana with a freaking see-through top (including nipples) and several grasping, body-less arms&#8230;le sigh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RexDart</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-233416</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[RexDart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2015 16:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-233416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think a lot of your comments are very funny, and you guys are very entertaining, even though I can tell we do not have the same views on fantasy art or the culture-at-large.

Earthbind was totally within the realm of ordinary fantasy art in 1993.  I think the card highlights a generational divide between older fantasy fans and younger ones.

But I don&#039;t disagree that Earthbind is out of step with contemporary fantasy art.  Chosen of Markov, OTOH, is not about capture, it&#039;s about surrender and power.  That art is expressing a type of sexuality that clearly you guys don&#039;t like, but that a lot of men and women DO like, that is central to the portrayal of vampires in media for decades, and it&#039;s doing it completely tastefully.  Vampire movies have had this &quot;sexual power&quot; dimension to them from Bela Lugosi through today.   Hell, if you look at her expression on the flip side of the card, you could interpret the &quot;story&quot; of the card as her having manipulated the vampire that turned her so that she could gain power.  You can&#039;t really write off the card as being about &quot;objectification&quot; and pretend she has NO agency here, unless you are really that deep down the rabbit hole about &quot;power structures&quot; and all that Sociology 101 stuff.  I don&#039;t begrudge you your own opinion, but TONS of young women (my own wife included) watch those vampire shows on TV, they love those shows, and that kind of sexuality is rampant in those shows and their legions of female fans from teenagers to 40-somethings don&#039;t seem to have any problem with it.  

I&#039;m not saying this is the artistic direction I want for the game, but it&#039;s not my opinion that counts, nor yours.  FWIW, my preference for the art direction would be to diversify the acceptable styles -- my two favorites all time are Rebecca Guay and Quinton Hoover, and I&#039;d rank Terese Nielsen the best of the remaining old guard, and the game has totally pushed anybody with a truly distinctive style to the fringes in favor of bland uniformity in the name of marketing and world-building.  The fact that all these recent cards just look like mediocre comic book art, instead of actual unique pieces of art you would want to buy, is the real crime.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a lot of your comments are very funny, and you guys are very entertaining, even though I can tell we do not have the same views on fantasy art or the culture-at-large.</p>
<p>Earthbind was totally within the realm of ordinary fantasy art in 1993.  I think the card highlights a generational divide between older fantasy fans and younger ones.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t disagree that Earthbind is out of step with contemporary fantasy art.  Chosen of Markov, OTOH, is not about capture, it&#8217;s about surrender and power.  That art is expressing a type of sexuality that clearly you guys don&#8217;t like, but that a lot of men and women DO like, that is central to the portrayal of vampires in media for decades, and it&#8217;s doing it completely tastefully.  Vampire movies have had this &#8220;sexual power&#8221; dimension to them from Bela Lugosi through today.   Hell, if you look at her expression on the flip side of the card, you could interpret the &#8220;story&#8221; of the card as her having manipulated the vampire that turned her so that she could gain power.  You can&#8217;t really write off the card as being about &#8220;objectification&#8221; and pretend she has NO agency here, unless you are really that deep down the rabbit hole about &#8220;power structures&#8221; and all that Sociology 101 stuff.  I don&#8217;t begrudge you your own opinion, but TONS of young women (my own wife included) watch those vampire shows on TV, they love those shows, and that kind of sexuality is rampant in those shows and their legions of female fans from teenagers to 40-somethings don&#8217;t seem to have any problem with it.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying this is the artistic direction I want for the game, but it&#8217;s not my opinion that counts, nor yours.  FWIW, my preference for the art direction would be to diversify the acceptable styles &#8212; my two favorites all time are Rebecca Guay and Quinton Hoover, and I&#8217;d rank Terese Nielsen the best of the remaining old guard, and the game has totally pushed anybody with a truly distinctive style to the fringes in favor of bland uniformity in the name of marketing and world-building.  The fact that all these recent cards just look like mediocre comic book art, instead of actual unique pieces of art you would want to buy, is the real crime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-233150</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 14:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-233150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[+1 about the lack of beautiful male angels. Given how many of them are rare, we must assume that beautiful, semi-clothed females are beyond most reach, with no hope to obtain beautiful semi-clothed angelic males. 

-1 about the negative dig against some artists fantasy girlfriend. You drank the Kool-aid you just rallied against with such a sexist dig.

Overall, good way to draw attention to the sexual objectification in MtG. What&#039;s next, though? You brought attention to it, so your next steps are, what, exactly- just complaining? Has WotC issued any statements you can quote? What did they say about this article? Can we have a linked quote to anything the business has said?

Starting with Earthbind was a good example. You had some categories that were reaches, like the anthropomorphic creatures with larger breasts. Seeing the original art for Keeper of the Mind was enlightening. By the time I wound up at Troupe #8, I lost count of the accusations you levied against WotC, or at men, in general, it seems. Triumph of Ferocity should have lead this discussion, soon after Earthbind&#039;s picture to show history from 4th Edition+ (and earlier, but 4th Edition is where a lot more people jumped on board).

Insightful, but no calls to action or intended plans going forward. What now?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>+1 about the lack of beautiful male angels. Given how many of them are rare, we must assume that beautiful, semi-clothed females are beyond most reach, with no hope to obtain beautiful semi-clothed angelic males. </p>
<p>-1 about the negative dig against some artists fantasy girlfriend. You drank the Kool-aid you just rallied against with such a sexist dig.</p>
<p>Overall, good way to draw attention to the sexual objectification in MtG. What&#8217;s next, though? You brought attention to it, so your next steps are, what, exactly- just complaining? Has WotC issued any statements you can quote? What did they say about this article? Can we have a linked quote to anything the business has said?</p>
<p>Starting with Earthbind was a good example. You had some categories that were reaches, like the anthropomorphic creatures with larger breasts. Seeing the original art for Keeper of the Mind was enlightening. By the time I wound up at Troupe #8, I lost count of the accusations you levied against WotC, or at men, in general, it seems. Triumph of Ferocity should have lead this discussion, soon after Earthbind&#8217;s picture to show history from 4th Edition+ (and earlier, but 4th Edition is where a lot more people jumped on board).</p>
<p>Insightful, but no calls to action or intended plans going forward. What now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Thiebaut</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-232757</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Don Thiebaut]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2015 20:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-232757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an interesting article. While I think in general, it is a bit too harsh (but then again, maybe it has to be to be taken seriously?), it&#039;s a good point to make. However, I would like to point out that one of the main points of the article is that Wizards is responsible for the art, where as that is not totally accurate. Wizards commissions most of it&#039;s artwork from independent artists, who make a lot of the choices on how the art is done. Wizards does make a style guide for it&#039;s settings, and gives a brief art description for it&#039;s commissions, but there is rarely any real detail in that. Wizards could crack down a little harder on accepting risque art, but since the art is already paid for by the time they would be able to do so, it would greatly increase the art budget. For a game that (for most of it&#039;s history) has struggled to grow beyond a niche market, that would be a pretty big blow to their bottom line, as well as greatly complicating the process (which is under time constraints) of releasing sets. 

Long story short, the criticism should be angled more toward the artists (or the culture that influenced them) than Wizards itself.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting article. While I think in general, it is a bit too harsh (but then again, maybe it has to be to be taken seriously?), it&#8217;s a good point to make. However, I would like to point out that one of the main points of the article is that Wizards is responsible for the art, where as that is not totally accurate. Wizards commissions most of it&#8217;s artwork from independent artists, who make a lot of the choices on how the art is done. Wizards does make a style guide for it&#8217;s settings, and gives a brief art description for it&#8217;s commissions, but there is rarely any real detail in that. Wizards could crack down a little harder on accepting risque art, but since the art is already paid for by the time they would be able to do so, it would greatly increase the art budget. For a game that (for most of it&#8217;s history) has struggled to grow beyond a niche market, that would be a pretty big blow to their bottom line, as well as greatly complicating the process (which is under time constraints) of releasing sets. </p>
<p>Long story short, the criticism should be angled more toward the artists (or the culture that influenced them) than Wizards itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rocky17</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-232594</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rocky17]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 21:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-232594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Appreciate the well thought article.  I think there is a place for love, nudity, and even sexuality in a card game, just not all on the same card.  Sylvan Paradise is an example that I think you were overly harsh on.  It&#039;s a classical nude in a lush environment, the nudity is the classical sense that it evokes a person that is free from the bonds of civilization.  

My main issue is tasteless fanservice, particularly the hideous art that goes on commons seemingly as a matter of hitting a quota.  I despise fierce orcs, beastwomen, witches, and zombies that display boobs for no reason in an artless way.  Clothes which exist to tear away in the artistic moment are softcore porn uniforms.

Still, there are times when it is called for in canon, in the case of merfolk, faeries, centaurs too much clothing would be as unsettling.  Vampires have a long history of wearing revealing clothes, there&#039;s a way to portray this without it being a 14 year old&#039;s wet dream.

Magic says it want to diversify its base, which seems a noble goal.  Considering diversity in artists will be a big part of it, the art of Rebecca Guay has always brought its own flavor to Magic.  Let&#039;s seek more artists with individual styles and fewer fanboys who came up short in their dreams as comic book artists.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Appreciate the well thought article.  I think there is a place for love, nudity, and even sexuality in a card game, just not all on the same card.  Sylvan Paradise is an example that I think you were overly harsh on.  It&#8217;s a classical nude in a lush environment, the nudity is the classical sense that it evokes a person that is free from the bonds of civilization.  </p>
<p>My main issue is tasteless fanservice, particularly the hideous art that goes on commons seemingly as a matter of hitting a quota.  I despise fierce orcs, beastwomen, witches, and zombies that display boobs for no reason in an artless way.  Clothes which exist to tear away in the artistic moment are softcore porn uniforms.</p>
<p>Still, there are times when it is called for in canon, in the case of merfolk, faeries, centaurs too much clothing would be as unsettling.  Vampires have a long history of wearing revealing clothes, there&#8217;s a way to portray this without it being a 14 year old&#8217;s wet dream.</p>
<p>Magic says it want to diversify its base, which seems a noble goal.  Considering diversity in artists will be a big part of it, the art of Rebecca Guay has always brought its own flavor to Magic.  Let&#8217;s seek more artists with individual styles and fewer fanboys who came up short in their dreams as comic book artists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micahcf</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-232238</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[micahcf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 19:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-232238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One aspect of the objectification concept is that oppressors in our culture are either intentionally or unintentionally removing the humanity from a minority group in order to deny them equality, and therefore conserve the power imbalance. 

As to the effect this has on 13 year old girls, magic&#039;s not as pervasive as watching a shampoo commercial on the tv, but it still needs some sunshine. 

As to this article, there is no one who is writing this. Bravo. Brav-freaking-o.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One aspect of the objectification concept is that oppressors in our culture are either intentionally or unintentionally removing the humanity from a minority group in order to deny them equality, and therefore conserve the power imbalance. </p>
<p>As to the effect this has on 13 year old girls, magic&#8217;s not as pervasive as watching a shampoo commercial on the tv, but it still needs some sunshine. </p>
<p>As to this article, there is no one who is writing this. Bravo. Brav-freaking-o.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kezzerdrix</title>
		<link>http://www.mtgoacademy.com/two-jesses-flavor-reviews-the-male-gaze-in-magic/comment-page-1/#comment-232116</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kezzerdrix]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 04:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mtgoacademy.com/?p=33620#comment-232116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Funny, the old Demonic Tutor art got flack for depicting a pentagram, followed by Wizards being gunshy about printing any demons for a very long time.

Then they said &quot;screw it!&quot;, printed Grinning Demon and many more awesome demons, and now we&#039;re complaining about a little peek at cleavage on the new Demonic Tutor.

To me, if they wanted Liliana to screw a demon that&#039;s the true offense. Not depicting a subtle hint + flavor text about it. But even then, there is a mountain of demon/vampire erotica written primarily for women, so this might not be a purely &quot;male gaze&quot; issue.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny, the old Demonic Tutor art got flack for depicting a pentagram, followed by Wizards being gunshy about printing any demons for a very long time.</p>
<p>Then they said &#8220;screw it!&#8221;, printed Grinning Demon and many more awesome demons, and now we&#8217;re complaining about a little peek at cleavage on the new Demonic Tutor.</p>
<p>To me, if they wanted Liliana to screw a demon that&#8217;s the true offense. Not depicting a subtle hint + flavor text about it. But even then, there is a mountain of demon/vampire erotica written primarily for women, so this might not be a purely &#8220;male gaze&#8221; issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
