World of Warcraft erotic guild disbanded
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Sep 18th 2007 at 3:56PM }
WoW Insider has an extensive feature on an erotic roleplaying guild disbanded by Blizzard in World of Warcraft. The guild, originally named Abhorrent Taboo, which now goes under the name Vile Anathema, apparently engaged in extreme kink typing and roleplaying about subjects like "Ageplay, Bestiality, Child Birth, Watersports" and "any other kink those playing may wish to explore." After complaints by other players, Blizzard disbanded the guild saying, "This matter is not one Blizzard takes lightly in any way, shape or form, and we do not wish to have this topic continue circulation ... Let it finally be said that we appreciate those of you who brought this particular issue to our attention and that we will continue to follow up with this matter in the future to ensure the safety of all parties concerned."The issue gets murky in terms of public perception because of some comments made by the guild leader which became public. The guild leader allegedly said, "I want to defend us, but I also want to defend the pedosexual community." The key point here is that the guild leader is talking about pedophiles who don't actually molest children -- the thought isn't illegal, the real-life action is. So are people who engage in that fantasy while roleplaying in WoW (while in private chat with a consenting individual) doing something wrong? Of course, this is an extreme example.
There are also issues about age verification for the erotic guild. Many general-purpose guilds have age guidelines set up for the comfort of their members. It's also easy to argue parents should be doing their jobs and monitoring their child's online activity and who they associate with. This whole issue is full of deep social and sexual questions, but in the end it is Blizzard's game. We're not expecting the World of Warcraft sexual revolution anytime soon.
And because we couldn't resist, (it's an oldie but a goodie as) WoW meets porn and Broadway after the break.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Gamebreaker @ Sep 18th 2007 4:11PM
Holy sh@t!
The Boo @ Sep 18th 2007 4:37PM
I think that topic was touched on as well. Dirty germans...
Gamebreaker @ Sep 18th 2007 4:46PM
That would be a plus for you, Boo.
Gamebreaker @ Sep 18th 2007 4:48PM
A plus in the good sense, by the way, as in reading my reply it seems it might be interpreted as some sort of insult.
Dirty Germans, indeed...
BPM (Logic Defense Force) @ Sep 19th 2007 12:01AM
I find it highly amusing that the one talking about dirty Germans has an avatar of Der Führer Mario.
Buckshot @ Sep 18th 2007 4:10PM
I read this yesterday, a real good read. It seems that Blizzard is trying too hard to censor in areas that they do not have the ability to. A nice debate no matter which side you are on.
WiNG @ Sep 18th 2007 4:15PM
zomg here come the thought police.
Thought police r in ur mind, disbandin ur guild.
baby sea tuna @ Sep 18th 2007 4:17PM
So, uh, now childbirth counts as a kink?
Who knew?
Zertoss @ Sep 18th 2007 4:26PM
I did. I don't get it though.
Psaakyrn @ Sep 18th 2007 8:39PM
Trust me, there're a WHOLE lot more kinks than you think.
1) Pick any object/action
2) There's probably a kink related to it.
(It's sort of similar to rule 34)
Joe Smith @ Sep 18th 2007 4:29PM
WOW is a public forum owned by Blizzard. If they want to shut down a guild they owe no one any explanation. And in a world where people like my 13 year old kid play, I have no problem shutting down something this nasty. If they had an adults only area/server, I could see it, but not among the general gaming populace.
Rubang B (NDF - Heart) @ Sep 18th 2007 9:55PM
Yeah. If Blizzard supplied an 18+ only area, this would be fine, but you can't expect a guild to do its own age regulation within a game like this. Mistakes can be made too easily, and an 8 year old knows how to say "uhh I'm like 18." You think youngsters try to see M-rated videos at GameTrailers and put in their real age?
T3H WICKERMAN @ Sep 18th 2007 4:36PM
Pr0n puppet loves pr0n! eww birth kink UGH.
mike @ Sep 18th 2007 4:41PM
that's my realm! gogo ravenholdt!
Rususeruru @ Sep 18th 2007 4:52PM
TEH INTERWEBS ARE DA DEVIL! Nah, I'm all for blizzard on this one though. There are adult communities in existence for that kind of stuff... and by stuff I mean it's the internet. You can find anything. These folks should just say, "Onward to SECOND LIFE!" or w/e that other game is called.
Kujel @ Sep 18th 2007 5:03PM
This version of the video is much better then the kingdom hearts version I saw on youtube but yeah I have to side with blizzard Pedos who don't do anything but still fantasize about it are still wrong. I mean come on, they're kids for fuck sake.
WiNG @ Sep 18th 2007 5:05PM
yeah but we can't set a precedent in society for policing peoples' thoughts, can we?
NATO_Duke @ Sep 18th 2007 5:18PM
On private corporate servers, where there is no 1st amendment protection - they can police away.
(Please, before it happens, lets not have people chime in that you have 1st amendment rights in private forums. You dont, get over it, take some con law classes, have a pepsi and a smile, and stfu.)
Rubang B (NDF - Heart) @ Sep 18th 2007 10:07PM
Blizzard was right to disband the guild since they own WoW and can do whatever they want. The guild has no rights 'cuz it's a private forum. But... what they were doing was not wrong at all, just in an inappropriate environment. You can't police thoughts.
But look at it this way, would you rather have a "meatspace" pedophile kidnap your kid and rape your kid, or would you rather have your kid wander around WoW and find virtual pedophiles acting out childrape sex fantasies within the WoW engine?
NATO_Duke @ Sep 18th 2007 5:15PM
I won't touch whether its right or wrong to censor these folks - but I am proud to say I think they are freaks and the idea of getting off while playing WoW is pathetic to say the least.
Cut, quote, print!
NATO_Duke @ Sep 18th 2007 5:22PM
Oh, I guess I did kinda hit the topic of if they could police them in the previous reply comment. So sue me. No dont!
Korova @ Sep 18th 2007 6:00PM
Nato, your pride could just be a readiness to abuse and a desire to ignore. Kind of defensive.
h8rain @ Sep 18th 2007 5:22PM
I always get a kick out of that video :)
I am with Blizzard on this one, because a lot of young people play, and we don't want WoW to become the supermarket for pedophiles like MySpace is/was/percieved as? Get your jollies somewhere else.
NoHitHair @ Sep 18th 2007 5:26PM
I think Blizzard should simply enforce a policy of forbidding all guilds from engaging in any political or philosophical dogmas. It is a constant reminder to other players that despite an attempt at immersion into WoW they are forced to endure a polarized reality. In addition, entering murky waters such as whose political beliefs are more politically correct than others poses problems exactly like this one. Blizzard needs a more stringent policy.
TheWarden @ Sep 18th 2007 5:39PM
Leeeroooooyyy Jeeennnnnkinnnsss!!!!!!
Korova @ Sep 18th 2007 5:54PM
Porn is not protected speech. If its prurient and makes you quasy, it probably can be highly restricted.
I dont think its right that these people expose non-consenting players to their fantasies. I am sure they are aware that they could make people uncomfortable. Its basic lack of care and respect.
The video is hilarious. "Normal people, ready?"
Meeko @ Sep 18th 2007 6:30PM
Hurray for the Avenue Q reference!
DarkTetsuya @ Sep 18th 2007 7:00PM
"It's also easy to argue parents should be doing their jobs and monitoring their child's online activity and who they associate with."
They didn't listen yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that, or the day before that... so that's not going to change, I'm afraid.
konajinx @ Sep 18th 2007 9:52PM
Reason # 7,561 in a series why this game is a golden turd. Oh, wait I probably shouldn't have said that. Some fanatic may have just got turned on.
Chris @ Dec 11th 2007 4:07PM
hm... I'm not sure how favorably people will react to this, but I sincerely wonder if these two issues of bestiality and pedosexuality will be the next squeaky wheel that gets mainstream attention. There's been a trend of people complaining about a social taboo and liberals of their generation have changed what was priorly thought of as the definition of morality.
Back in the early 1900's, there was a huge fuss about interracial marriages, many of the day regarded them as completely immoral and wrong, and used misinterpreted Biblical passages to fuel their biases. But enough people wanting to marry who were of seperate races, as well as a number of other moral souls not in that position stepped forward and basically complained a lot about it being unfair, and sure enough, now it's completely moral for two people of different races to have relations.
Jump forward now to 90's 2000's, in many peoples minds, homosexual marriage is an immoral issue, much like interracial marriages were in the early 1900's. Many use biblical passages to condemn this (I'm not going to comment on weather their misinterpreted or not) eventually though, enough people wanting to marry, with homosexual orientation, as well as other moral souls stepped forward to basically complain about unfair treatment, and now in Massachusetts there is Gay marriage, and many don't view homosexual relations to be immoral.
I sincerely doubt either of these social moral changes would have happened 20 years prior to their respective dates, because the trend is always for every generation to grow more liberal and 'understanding', especially with issues of relationships.
So I wonder if in 20 years from now, a bunch of people of 'pedosexual' orientation or "bestiality orientation", or perhaps those who want to marry more than one person, and other 'moral souls' will step forward to change the definition of morality again.
To those 20 years prior to gay marriage, and even those today, it wasn't even a question of "is it moral" to those 20 years prior to interracial marriage, it wasn't even a question of "is it moral"... I wonder if now, to all of us who feel "it isn't a question of 'is it moral'" we'll all be the opposers of this in 20 years when people want to step forward and change the definition of morality again...
And btw, the arguments that will be used will be "If it's natural for one man to love another man, how is it not natural for one man to love a child, or one man to love an animal, or one man to love multiple people?"
Just a thought...
Korova @ Sep 19th 2007 7:05AM
Interesting thought...
I offer a modification: liberality is not necessarily of a growth pattern generation from generation. Despite all the rhetoric and "biblical" arguments, which as you point out are all the same no matter what the issue is, social norms correspond to social needs and social needs are driven by security and economic factors.
If a society is prospering, it will push culture toward inclusiveness of more and more diversity, because it is a source of further economic growth. My argument for gay marriage is that it will double the size of the wedding industry - can you imagine the parties they will throw! I want to go to those, rather than the stodgy traditional affairs.
On the other hand, if a society is threatened or loses economic footing (access to resources etc) it will retrench social norms and "purify" itself because consensus is what is needed to fight threats efficiently. That's why during war, instances of unconstitutional intolerance (like Japanese internment) are justified by the courts.
As for bestiality and pedosexuality, mainstreaming may happen if further inclusiveness is necessary, but how high are they on the list, when there are so many other divisions to be erased which affect much larger groups?
Alternatively, there can be radical change, but that's speculative and unpredictable.
Chris @ Sep 18th 2007 10:45PM
Oh one quick addition, I meant to type "the arguments that will be used for 'pedosexual orientation' are the same ones as are used today for homosexual orientation. "It's natural/something you're born as/you can't change it" as well as "How can you define and confine love. Love doesn't see age or species." I guess I just wanted to give some perspective.. The liberals of 20 years ago didn't think they'd be today's conservatives, they assumed they were as liberal as it would get..
I more just wanted to post that to show how subjective the "black and whites" of morality really are, as well as to show the reason why conservatives are the way they are... in the future, all of you who condemn pedosexuality might be viewed as closed minded conservatives... the same way as those who condemn homosexuality are now... even though many of you may consider yourself liberal and open minded today.
Just so people won't start flaming me, I consider myself a liberal conservative, and I'm not trying to say interracial, or homosexual marriages are wrong. I'm just trying to provide some perspective into conservatives minds, and show how they can think homosexuality is wrong, just like many of you think pedosexuality is wrong..
Z @ Sep 18th 2007 11:00PM
I think that the big difference is that interracial relationships and homosexuality are between CONSENTING individuals. Pediophilia and beastiality and what-not can't be - kids aren't mature enough to enter into a relationship like that (wow is this creepy to think about) and of course animals can't even speak for themselves! So basically, I don't think that these kinds of things will gain such a commonality - they're not even in the same league!
Chris @ Sep 18th 2007 11:26PM
Well, My point is that's your and my perspective now... but times change as do ideas and people. The generations before ours with the issue of gay marriage didn't consider it even in the same league as interracial marriage. Of course you can say now "children aren't mature enough," or "animals can't speak for themselves" but who's to say generations past ours will think those are reasonable arguments? These are moral issues above logic issues. And I believe if a humans can reason themselves into believing that it's not ok for a black person to marry a white person, humans can also reason that it's ok for a 30 year old to be in love with and have relations with a 16 year old. That's where it will start I'm guessing... is pushing the line of consent back. Using historical examples of how people used to marry at age 14, something that's illegal now and called pedophilia. And once they get the line moved to 17, they'll push for 16, and then for 15... it's a slow process, but it's within reason to believe it could happen.
aka Prof Chaos @ Sep 18th 2007 11:55PM
Whoah now Chris. You're starting to freak us out a little.
This reminds me of the South Park episode with PETA and the people marrying the animals. Classic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5H2TCEzyFQ
Korova @ Sep 19th 2007 6:52AM
In Iran, the age of consent is 12! They sure reasoned fast.
The possibility of changing social norms exists, sure. But today, these things shock the conscience of many. If tomorrow they dont, WoW will be different together with the majority.
Wow is a commercial product meant to capture as many people as possible within a common fantasy. It does not mean to attract variety, like 2nd Life.
BPM (Logic Defense Force) @ Sep 19th 2007 12:03AM
But... The Internet is for porn! This is an undisputible fact!
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Sep 19th 2007 1:18AM
And you don't want me to say people in Wow have issues, HA!
Guild wars for the WIN!
/People start to stare at me awkwardly with torches and forks
OH noes...*Glup.
Aberu @ Sep 20th 2007 2:38PM
People in MMOs that get their panties in a bunch whenever they get silenced by the administrators remind me of children in classrooms who cry freedom of speech when being taken away. They fail to recognize the private sector, and the fact you have the right to not only speak freely, but to suffer the consequences of doing so at inappropriate times. This guild leader is like what... 12?