Update: Apple Bans Saga #12 For Gay Sex Scene

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
JarinArenos said:
I think you missed the facts of the case. The issues containing those elements (orgy, etc) were in *other issues that were not banned*. Apple *permitted* those elements, and only blocked some background images of what appears to be gay fellatio in an otherwise unrelated scene.
No, as I said, I've read the entire first trade which includes this issue. NOTHING comes even close to that. There's breasts and even one penis in the comic before this issue but this issue in particular has everything in spades over multiple pages. There's a married couple having sex at one point in previous comics but it's mostly sparse in other comics.

Again, there's literally a human pyramid of naked men with their penises fully in view while they're being whipped by a dominatrix. This particular issue has a section that about an everything-goes-wildest-sexual-fantasy-comes-true planet. Have you not read the comic? Do you honestly disagree that this particular issue isn't double/triple/quadruple the number of privates and sexual content flapping around?

I don't think Apple's goal is to ban all depicted sexual acts. I don't know what their standards are but I can at least understand the reasoning here as it's pretty blatant.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
QtheMuse said:
Journalistic Sensationalistic Article Title strikes again. Reporters are suppose to report the facts, not editorialize. Journalism 101.
I don't know if the author has both sides. The title of the article is certainly slander of sorts without Apple actually having issued a statement that this is why they blocked it. But I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here. As things appear, this is a pretty egregious example of sensationalism. But maybe that wasn't so intentional?
 

QtheMuse

New member
May 23, 2010
76
0
0
Lightknight said:
QtheMuse said:
Journalistic Sensationalistic Article Title strikes again. Reporters are suppose to report the facts, not editorialize. Journalism 101.
I don't know if the author has both sides. The title of the article is certainly slander of sorts without Apple actually having issued a statement that this is why they blocked it. But I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here. As things appear, this is a pretty egregious example of sensationalism. But maybe that wasn't so intentional?
Well there is no proof of why they blocked it just for the gay sex. Also it can just depends on the vetting process too. How many of the submissions do they always scan through. Maybe not many people blasted this content and when they finally got around to it they noticed oh crap. Also it matter how they decide to ban stuff. Was it one mod, a group effort, did it go all the way up to the desk of Tim Cook. "LOOK AT THIS MR. COOK TEH GAYYZZZ." There was a multitude of reasons why it could of been banned and why the other content wasn't banned. Also since it was many episodes did the scan through all the other comics or just this one. How thorough and un-bias are the Apple censors. That is the real issue. Saying that Apple as a company is out to ban gay content with just one piece of evidence trumped up to appeal to a pretty liberal reader base is pandering, borderline slander and is something that I would expect from Fox News.

As a journalist myself its just annoying to see it happening so often, and then using the shield of championing social progress as a flimsy tool to deflect closer scrutiny.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
QtheMuse said:
Well there is no proof of why they blocked it just for the gay sex. Also it can just depends on the vetting process too. How many of the submissions do they always scan through. Maybe not many people blasted this content and when they finally got around to it they noticed oh crap. Also it matter how they decide to ban stuff. Was it one mod, a group effort, did it go all the way up to the desk of Tim Cook. "LOOK AT THIS MR. COOK TEH GAYYZZZ." There was a multitude of reasons why it could of been banned and why the other content wasn't banned. Also since it was many episodes did the scan through all the other comics or just this one. How thorough and un-bias are the Apple censors. That is the real issue. Saying that Apple as a company is out to ban gay content with just one piece of evidence trumped up to appeal to a pretty liberal reader base is pandering, borderline slander and is something that I would expect from Fox News.

As a journalist myself its just annoying to see it happening so often, and then using the shield of championing social progress as a flimsy tool to deflect closer scrutiny.
Keep in mind what I've been saying up to this point. The other issues were nowhere close to this issue. Not by a long shot. Any sex contained in previous issues was practically a nun showing too much ankle compared to this one. So it's rather incorrect to say that Apple let the equivalent amount of heterosexual stuff through. This was the only issue that had a scene take place on a pleasure planet, like the author said.

I agree with you to the point that this is awfully one sided and is trumpeting the one thing that would get the most views. That is... technically, sensationalism as things appear. But hopefully we'll get an update from the writer or something more substantial like actual correspondence. So, while I am saying that this issue was above and beyond on the sexual theme compared to the other issues (and so had a lot of reasons to be blocked), I also can't affirm that Apple didn't ban it specifically for the gay actions and nothing else. What we have here is a lack of information and a one-sided quote and that's a pretty sketchy thing to do so wantonly if the goal is objective reporting. My apologies for any resulting insult for that comment. I'm just expressing my concern and I really appreciate this being reported as Saga is quite good. A fantastic universe that I thoroughly enjoyed and this pleasure planet was just a small thing.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
geizr said:
Nurb said:
Apple uses oppressed commie child labor to increase their quarterly earnings reports, what do you expect? They don't care because most of their customers don't care.
If you're going to use that, you've pretty much decided to not use a large chunk of modern computing devices. Here's a list of just the major clients of Foxconn:
I know others do it, but we're talking about Apple and it's large liberal cutomer base.

And everybody SAYS that, but the whole point of using chinese is that they are oppressed by their government and cannot organize, therefore work cheap (And often commit suicide). If All these companies gave a shit about these people at all and treated them as a person with rights in their own countries, there would be no point in exploiting them.

Apple or any of them won't really do anything significant because they need their workforce to be under the boot of a communist dictator to make oceanic shipping cost effective.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
I have a hard time voicing my feelings over this.

Mostly because they are a tangled ball of rage, hatred, fury, pain, wrath and impotent roaring.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
Nurb said:
geizr said:
Nurb said:
Apple uses oppressed commie child labor to increase their quarterly earnings reports, what do you expect? They don't care because most of their customers don't care.
If you're going to use that, you've pretty much decided to not use a large chunk of modern computing devices. Here's a list of just the major clients of Foxconn:
I know others do it, but we're talking about Apple and it's large liberal cutomer base.

...
And that's the same lame, trite excuse that's used to focus on Apple, yet, no other company is ever held to the same criticism on this issue. In fact, as far as I know, no other company is ever criticized AT ALL on this issue, only Apple. What makes it so bad is that Apple is the ONLY company that has shown that it gives even half a shit about the issue and has made ANY effort at all toward better conditions. The other companies have either been silent or have expressed disdain for Apple's efforts on the issue because they fear having to deal with price increases for the production of products. Basically, the one company that is actually the closest to being the patron saint in all this is always the only company that is ever burned at the stake over it. So, no, your excuse and argument just seem flawed to me. If you want to criticize Apple because you don't like the prices for the products, the marketing methods, the policies toward customers, the design of the products, how the products work, or the inadequacies of the Mac platform in relation to gaming, that's all well and fine. But to use such a fallacious pretense to lambast the one and only company that has shown any care in this issue and has made any effort at all to effect some change is just wrong.

Yes, we are talking about Apple, but the interesting thing is that this particular issue is never brought up in context when discussing any other company other than Apple. That's what really makes the "We're talking about Apple" excuse all the more lame. If we were talking about Sony or Microsoft or Dell and someone had some hatred for the company, you would never hear about their use of Chinese labor as an additional reason to object to the company. It just smacks of mindless parroting of ignorant haterade posts from the Internet in a shallow attempt to justify one's own negative opinion.

You may also want to be careful of such gross generalizations such as "liberal customer base". The specific censorship Apple is displaying here is more appealing to a conservative personality. A liberal personality would be far more accepting of the content.
 

SteewpidZombie

New member
Dec 31, 2010
545
0
0
They were fine with graphic scenes such as the mentioned exposed organs, swearing, AND Lesbians having sex...yet they draw the line at two men having sex?

Can anyone say HYPOCRITES and DOUBLE STANDARDS!
 

Milanezi

New member
Mar 2, 2009
619
0
0
Guys... being the 10th yesterday I went crazy on DC with my iPad, bought some new releases and some old issues I want to tag along, while buying them golden boys I remebered the post I'd made here on the subject of Saga and went on to verify it myself and also check out what this yet-unheard-by-me comic was all about, I've long since deleted my Image Comics app cause I hardly buy anything there, but I have the Comixology app, and there I found Saga issue 12 for sale, and even a compilation of issues 1-6... So really, it's there on iPad...
MAYBE it's not available via Image Comics app, by that I mean, and I don't know why, sometimes some comics don't make their way to their "own" app, for instance I was reading Lot 13, editions 1-3 were bought via DC app, issue 4 was not released there, I bought it on Comixology app (via iPad itself, which I find strange), AFTER that I can download it for free on DC, same thing used to happen with every Vertigo and Wildstorm comic book...

Edit: I bought volume 1 (issues 1-6) and it's pretty neat!!! lol
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
redknightalex said:
And the fact that they're banning this over "postage-size" images of gay sex? *shakes head* In all fairness, ban all the issues that contain sex so we can be equal, alright?
There is NO statement from Apple saying that's what the reason is. We only have the author of the book making a claim about why he thinks they banned it without any statement from Apple.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
UPDATE:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/update-comixology-says-that-it--and-not-apple--blocked-sale-of-saga-12-decision-now-reversed/2013/04/10/91c146c6-a228-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_blog.html

"ComiXology says that it ? and not Apple ? blocked sale of ?SAGA? #12"

And their decision has been reversed. Go ahead and look at the apple store to purchase it.

That's what happens when an article is completely unvetted from both sides.

?We did not interpret the content in question as involving any particular sexual orientation, and frankly that would have been a completely irrelevant consideration under any circumstance.?

?Given this, it should be clear that Apple did not reject Saga #12.?


I'm not going to say I told you so but please keep this lesson in mind when you read one-sided articles in the future.

Vaghn, who apologized to Apple, needs to also apologize for misleading people into believing that someone said it was only because of the depictions of homosexuality rather than the graphicness of the entire issue. He did say this:

"I never thought either company was being homophobic, only weirdly inconsistent about what kind of adult material was permissible."

But he should explain why he said they specifically blocked it for those depictions. He was clearly wrong about who blocked it so why did he assume those were the offending articles since he clearly didn't get a statement from Apple. I think it's awfully convenient that Cosmixology continued to sell the issue on their site and didn't correct the statement for 24 hours. Quite a novel way to generate site traffic and sales for them if done on purpose.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123195-Comixology-Dropped-Saga-12-Not-Apple
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Grey Carter said:
I just wanted to say: Thanks for this article. Even thought it was proved that Apple wasn't involved later, it was this article that introduced me to Saga.

I now own the first graphic novel (trade paperback for those who prefer that term). It covers issues 1-6. It is FUCKING AWESOME.

Great comic. It reminds me (rather fondly) of the old Sandman comics. It is very different than that, technically, but I haven't enjoyed a western comic this much since Sandman.

I eagerly await the second novel's release this summer.