General Discussion

Is nudity a bad thing?
Inkmonkey at 11:57AM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Custard Trout
Aurora Moon
Never said that you couldn't use rape as an story element… just that I would get offended by rape. ;)

So, you don't get offended by rape, but you also do? What?


The question for whether or not it's “offensive” or just “shocking” is based on how the rape is presented. Is it portrayed as a violent act that wracks the victim with rage and shame? Then it's part of a story element. Is it an excuse for the female lead to have all her clothes torn off and have her boobies get all jiggly while some guy has his way with her? Then that's pointless exploitation and it's offensive.

Basically anything will have a realistic way to do things and a “sexy” way to do things. Whether it's as simple as a perfectly normal activity being done from a “booty shot” perspective, or the female character going out of her way to thrust her chest forward when opening a door.

In most cases sexifying things isn't offensive. A bit crude, perhaps, but I can tell you firsthand it makes a lot of situations more fun to draw.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
Aurora Moon at 11:58AM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Inkmonkey
Custard Trout
Aurora Moon
Never said that you couldn't use rape as an story element… just that I would get offended by rape. ;)

So, you don't get offended by rape, but you also do? What?


The question for whether or not it's “offensive” or just “shocking” is based on how the rape is presented. Is it portrayed as a violent act that wracks the victim with rage and shame? Then it's part of a story element. Is it an excuse for the female lead to have all her clothes torn off and have her boobies get all jiggly while some guy has his way with her? Then that's pointless exploitation and it's offensive.

Basically anything will have a realistic way to do things and a “sexy” way to do things. Whether it's as simple as a perfectly normal activity being done from a “booty shot” perspective, or the female character going out of her way to thrust her chest forward when opening a door.

In most cases sexifying things isn't offensive. A bit crude, perhaps, but I can tell you firsthand it makes a lot of situations more fun to draw.

exactly!
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
kyupol at 12:09PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
Ethereal Legacies: The comic that spawned 3 pages of thread debate.

Feature this comic now. :)
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Lord Shplane at 1:40PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
Inkmonkey
Lord Shplane
The fact that this thread exists = Society is stupid.

No animals wear clothes. How are humans any different? The only real uses clothing has is protection and expression. It protects us from extreme temperature and allows us to express ourselves via our appearence. But if it's not cold? And if someone would rather express themselves via nudity? Then they should be allowed to not wear anything.


Thank you, for providing us with the the elementary school theory of “Animals do it, so it's okay!”. Animals also shit on the street and pee on things to denote ownership. I don't think it's a good idea to set your moral compass based on what you see on Animal Planet.

lol!

See, the difference between nudity and defecating on things to say “MINE!”, is that we understand that pissing and shitting all over things is unsanitary, and can cause us to get diseases and such (Except the 2g1c girls, but then ewwww…), so we have a logical reason for that.

Covering our bodies because it's somehow WRONG to be naked though? Makes no sense. We don't piss and shit all over the place because it's MORALLY WRONG, we don't do it because it's stupid. Nudity, however, is only stupid if it's cold.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:43PM
TH89 at 4:09PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 36
joined: 1-30-2006
ozoneocean
Actually, drawing characters naked, or semi-naked is more fun and much nicer than doing clothes: you get to show the beautiful shape of the body. Why do you think almost all superheroes wear their silly tight costumes? It was a way to draw them easily, and attractively, essentially stark naked, with only some lines to denote where various items of “clothing” start and stop and where the patterns are supposed to be.

Lord Shplane
Covering our bodies because it's somehow WRONG to be naked though? Makes no sense. We don't piss and shit all over the place because it's MORALLY WRONG, we don't do it because it's stupid. Nudity, however, is only stupid if it's cold.

Good points, certainly, but, here's another thing to consider–when it comes to making people feel ashamed of their bodies, which you argued against, repeatedly drawing unrealistically attractive people with little clothes on in a comic is often counterpointed with unattractive characters with more clothes on. For example, the comic in the OP begins with one of the scantily-clad female heroines having her breasts groped by an old man wearing a bulky robe. Nobody wants to see HIM naked, right?

So it can be argued that by putting the most attractive characters in revealing outfits and “hiding” everyone else, one is teaching people to be ashamed of themselves if they don't meet the standard of the characters. So ironically nudity can be used to push perceptions in either direction.

In other words, if you're going have naked characters and make nudist arguments, why not have some ugly-ass naked characters? ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:13PM
spacehamster at 4:42PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
SarahN
So this person wrote you a hate mail about how they were dumbfounded by the boobs in your comic? I mean, it's rated M isn't it? Good grief, just stop reading it and find another fantasy comic with no boobs then.

See, now Frank Miller would say that's proof age ratings only attract people who want to be offended on some weird semi-conscious level and therefore don't serve their purpose. I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but… yeah.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
Inkmonkey at 6:01PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Lord Shplane
lol!

See, the difference between nudity and defecating on things to say “MINE!”, is that we understand that pissing and shitting all over things is unsanitary, and can cause us to get diseases and such (Except the 2g1c girls, but then ewwww…), so we have a logical reason for that.

Covering our bodies because it's somehow WRONG to be naked though? Makes no sense. We don't piss and shit all over the place because it's MORALLY WRONG, we don't do it because it's stupid. Nudity, however, is only stupid if it's cold.

It's cute how you're so smug about your wholly ridiculous argument. Clothes aren't just about staying warm; there's protection involved too, whether it be from plants, UV rays, rough surfaces, hot surfaces, etc. Simply put, the human body has evolved to the point that it basically needs clothes. At the same time, the reliance on clothes is what makes mankind so adaptable as a species. Polar bears are constantly covered in a thick layer of fur and fat, which allows them to survive in an arctic environment, but would be lethal to them if they lived in, say, Wisconsin.

Humans are adaptable, and part of that adaptability comes from our “minimized” bodies, which rely on clothes in many environments to survive. Your whole argument is akin to saying that Hermit crabs shouldn't bother with wearing shells since all the other animals get along fine without them. It doesn't work that way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
SarahN at 6:08PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
Maybe this should be moved to the debate thread now? XP
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:23PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 6:30PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Inkmonkey
It's cute how you're so smug about your wholly ridiculous argument. Clothes aren't just about staying warm; there's protection involved too, whether it be from plants, UV rays, rough surfaces, hot surfaces, etc. Simply put, the human body has evolved to the point that it basically needs clothes. At the same time, the reliance on clothes is what makes mankind so adaptable as a species. Polar bears are constantly covered in a thick layer of fur and fat, which allows them to survive in an arctic environment, but would be lethal to them if they lived in, say, Wisconsin.

Don't forget that, without clothes, the population would increase every time a man and woman accidentally bumped into each other. lol!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:37PM
donkas at 8:29PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 112
joined: 2-28-2006
nudity offensive? i never thoiught it couild be untill i went to canada and america,
im not unknown to flop out my slug and light my pubes on fire if im drunk enough and the occasion calls for it, ive also been in pubs here where you call “naked pub” and everyone blokes and chicks who wants to can get their kit of, and the place just runs on like normal. there is also skimpy days at bars, where women can take their tops off and drink with ther tits out topless just like the blokes, and concidering dads and mums take thrir kids to these bar( the kids dont drink of course) i never saw it as a problem.
but hells teeth in america and canada, chicks only get their tits out in nudie bars. so my thioughts is that anyone whos a prude must be a little bit shy, or just plain fucked in the head.

or possibly just a religo nut bag and they can be safly ignored in small numbers.

just my two bobs worth.

on the other hand you got mail from someone who was offended enough to write you a letter, so mad props to you for putting a bee in someones bonnet to the extent that they'd bother to take acton.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:13PM
Lord Shplane at 9:55PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
Inkmonkey
Lord Shplane
lol!

See, the difference between nudity and defecating on things to say “MINE!”, is that we understand that pissing and shitting all over things is unsanitary, and can cause us to get diseases and such (Except the 2g1c girls, but then ewwww…), so we have a logical reason for that.

Covering our bodies because it's somehow WRONG to be naked though? Makes no sense. We don't piss and shit all over the place because it's MORALLY WRONG, we don't do it because it's stupid. Nudity, however, is only stupid if it's cold.

It's cute how you're so smug about your wholly ridiculous argument. Clothes aren't just about staying warm; there's protection involved too, whether it be from plants, UV rays, rough surfaces, hot surfaces, etc. Simply put, the human body has evolved to the point that it basically needs clothes. At the same time, the reliance on clothes is what makes mankind so adaptable as a species. Polar bears are constantly covered in a thick layer of fur and fat, which allows them to survive in an arctic environment, but would be lethal to them if they lived in, say, Wisconsin.

Humans are adaptable, and part of that adaptability comes from our “minimized” bodies, which rely on clothes in many environments to survive. Your whole argument is akin to saying that Hermit crabs shouldn't bother with wearing shells since all the other animals get along fine without them. It doesn't work that way.

No. Our bodies existed roughly the way they do a LONG time before clothing was properly invented. In short, we evolved off our fur a good while before we started wearing clothes. Human being don't need clothes to survive unless we're in an environment that we would need them. About hot surfaces/rough surfaces etc., no other animal is really protected from that either. Fur won't keep you from getting burned very well. Neither will most clothing. Try it, but your hand inside your shirt and touch the inside of your oven. It'll hurt.

And the thing is, hermit crabs DO need their shells. WE don't. My argument is that humans DON'T need clothes except under certain circumstances. And when we're not involved in those circumstances, clothes are useless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:43PM
Ziffy88 at 10:58PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 595
joined: 8-27-2007
I don't know about you but I need pockets. wallet keys, phone, medicine. and lots of crap. Actually we need clothes most of the time. Our skin and the ozone is not quite as effective as covering it with cloth. most of our clothes help make us more efficient. we were shoes because on the ground with your feet hurts.
last edited on July 14, 2011 5:01PM
usedbooks at 11:09PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,619
joined: 2-24-2007
My bare minimum (pardon the pun) requirements: pockets/purse, shoes, and a good bra. (Real breasts do not defy gravity the way comic breasts do. I'm talking about *pain* not aesthetics.)

– Frankly, I would also prefer pants that cover my entire legs if I plan on sitting anywhere. Grass gives me a rash, wood/concrete is abrasive, and metal is cold/hot. It's either wear pants or carry around a towel or blanket. I think pants are more convenient.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:37PM
TH89 at 11:19PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 36
joined: 1-30-2006
It's a little of both, I think–if people went around without clothes on they'd develop callouses on their hands and feet, thicker skin, possibly more resistance to sunlight, etc. On the other hand, centuries of wearing clothing HAS weakened us beyond what the body can compensate for in a single lifetime.

BLAO
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:13PM
Lord Shplane at 11:19PM, Dec. 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
One could also argue that clothing often chafes around certain areas. One could say that clothing causes you to get TOO hot sometimes. If you want to argue that clothing keeps us from experiencing minor inconveniences, I can argue that it causes a few other ones.

But regardless, that doesn't mean that we NEED clothes. That just means that clothes prevent a few small things from happening that would otherwise annoy us slightly. You only NEED something when it's actually necessary for survival.

Not to mention that, without clothes, our skin would toughen anyway, therefore causing us not to need clothes. You ever notice how you get calluses on your hands if you use them enough? Well that works for any part of your body. And if you had those, they would keep you from feeling most of those minor inconveniences.

And as for pockets, you could always carry around a bag, now couldn't you?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:43PM
DAJB at 1:35AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
albone
For instance, anything that is publicly displayed by Michaelangelo is a beautiful thing in my opinion.
You've seen Michaelangelo naked??

They should lock that guy up, I tell ya!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Custard Trout at 2:47AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Lord Shplane
No. Our bodies existed roughly the way they do a LONG time before clothing was properly invented. In short, we evolved off our fur a good while before we started wearing clothes. Human being don't need clothes to survive unless we're in an environment that we would need them. About hot surfaces/rough surfaces etc., no other animal is really protected from that either. Fur won't keep you from getting burned very well. Neither will most clothing. Try it, but your hand inside your shirt and touch the inside of your oven. It'll hurt.

And the thing is, hermit crabs DO need their shells. WE don't. My argument is that humans DON'T need clothes except under certain circumstances. And when we're not involved in those circumstances, clothes are useless.

You are completely ignoring the fact that the world is a very different place than it was all that time ago. Try walking barefoot on concrete for a week and see how that argument holds up then.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
Lord Shplane at 3:02AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
Custard Trout
Lord Shplane
No. Our bodies existed roughly the way they do a LONG time before clothing was properly invented. In short, we evolved off our fur a good while before we started wearing clothes. Human being don't need clothes to survive unless we're in an environment that we would need them. About hot surfaces/rough surfaces etc., no other animal is really protected from that either. Fur won't keep you from getting burned very well. Neither will most clothing. Try it, but your hand inside your shirt and touch the inside of your oven. It'll hurt.

And the thing is, hermit crabs DO need their shells. WE don't. My argument is that humans DON'T need clothes except under certain circumstances. And when we're not involved in those circumstances, clothes are useless.

You are completely ignoring the fact that the world is a very different place than it was all that time ago. Try walking barefoot on concrete for a week and see how that argument holds up then.

Your feet would toughen, and you wouldn't feel it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:43PM
Inkmonkey at 3:38AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Lord Shplane
But regardless, that doesn't mean that we NEED clothes. That just means that clothes prevent a few small things from happening that would otherwise annoy us slightly. You only NEED something when it's actually necessary for survival.


You keep telling yourself that, kid. Clothes wasn't created as an accident, and it didn't stick around just out of habit. Many of what has become our morals started out as what was necessary for survival, and clothing is a part of that. It became immoral to walk around naked all the time as a means of getting people who didn't understand clothes to keep it on, thus keeping them from dying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
Lord Shplane at 3:44AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 7,978
joined: 6-3-2007
Inkmonkey
Lord Shplane
But regardless, that doesn't mean that we NEED clothes. That just means that clothes prevent a few small things from happening that would otherwise annoy us slightly. You only NEED something when it's actually necessary for survival.


You keep telling yourself that, kid. Clothes wasn't created as an accident, and it didn't stick around just out of habit. Many of what has become our morals started out as what was necessary for survival, and clothing is a part of that. It became immoral to walk around naked all the time as a means of getting people who didn't understand clothes to keep it on, thus keeping them from dying.

Nudist colonies. People don't die there any more often than anywhere else.

I rest my case.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:43PM
CharleyHorse at 5:59AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Must . . . resist . . . this . . . EVIL . . . thread. Ah to hell with resistence. Being a joiner is the ultimate high spakath the Borg to its next victim.

I had an uncle with one of those annoying perfect physiques. I found it annoying because he never worked out and never dieted and yet he had naturally muscular arms, a wide shoulders, sculpted chest, rock hard abdominal muscles and very nice legs. Inside his house he seldom wore anything but shorts and shower shoes. If it was late spring or summer time he would wear the same outside. He was as near to being a nudist as it was possible to be inside the big bad city. The stupid bastard would wear pretty much the same thing, mind you while clearing brush off a section of land, dragging tree limbs and brush to a raging inferno of a fire and tossing more fuel onto the flames. I've seen most of his exposed flesh covered with heat blisters.

Yeah, it was dumb of him, but he apparently had a high pain or discomfort threshold and I know that had it been legal so to do he would have shucked everything except for shoes in everything but cold weather. So, in many cases, yes, clothing is not a necessity for survival. It is, rather a means of controlling humanity. This is not, however, necessarily a bad thing.

Myself, on the other hand would be covered from toes to neck and wearing work gloves and yet I would be the one to catch a nasty case of poison oak or ivy rash or burn myself while helping him toss the brush or tree limbs on the flames. I was this way because, despite having been an athlete at the time I was NEVER anyone you'd care to see walking around in the altogether. I was beefy rather than svelte. My uncle looked like a handsome Greek godling whereas I looked like . . . well . . . not good.

So aesthetics makes one hell of a difference so far as accepting nudity goes or for sky-clad being a good option in casual conditions.

But wearing clothing is frequently a good idea in any form of the metal working or chemical industry, anyplace were the temperature gets low, anyplace that is inhabited with more people looking like me than look like my uncle looked.

So here's this artist happily producing an M-rated ‘toon and showing about what one would expect of such a rating, a delicious crop of mostly bare buttocks and other aspects of the anatomy that - at least in females - is considered erotic in nature. Personally I get crazy over female buttocks and thighs, but I’m live and let live where breasts are concerned. Erotic is whatever turns you on.

So here's this artist happily producing an M-rated strip and then here's this dunder head crying because there's bare female breasts in an M-rated strip. This is along the lines of one of those fire bug freaks complaining that the heat rolling off a torched building is uncomfortable, and so this idiot can be dismissed as being - well - an idiot. That aside Inkmonkey was correct in his response. Hey the artist is deliberately producing M-Rated work, something that society itself considers somewhat iffy in nature and so resorting to a – it's just art work like everyone else's art work on DD - defense is ingenuous.

Sexually oriented material is deliberately tweaking the mating urge in humans - even in a cartoon medium - and isn't selected because one wants to convey deep philosophical messages; that is, not unless those are about sex.

You, yes YOU M-rated artists are pandering to the prurient interests of humanity and I say thank you very much for that!

You are producing M-rated stuff because you yourself find the human form of interest and want to play with the concept. Bless you for that. Now embrace the truth of what you are doing and toss the whack job's hate mail in the circular file where it belonged in the first place.


last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
usedbooks at 6:09AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,619
joined: 2-24-2007
Lord Shplane
But regardless, that doesn't mean that we NEED clothes. That just means that clothes prevent a few small things from happening that would otherwise annoy us slightly. You only NEED something when it's actually necessary for survival.
We don't “need” computers, stoves, aspirin, eyeglasses, sunblock, light bulbs, air conditioning, cars, movies, tooth brushes, silverware, deodorant… But I enjoy civilization. Think I'll stay here. You can run off into the woods if you like.

(Besides, wasn't the original point that “clothes exist solely to hide our bodies?” We've already stated they have a function, whether or not you feel it is a “necessity” is immaterial.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:37PM
subcultured at 6:23AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
it's lines in a paper…not really real nudity.
if someone gets murdered in a comic, is he really dead?
or is it all in your head.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
CharleyHorse at 6:55AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Nope, it doesn't work that way Subcultured. Something inside the human skull allows this crazy creature to confuse seeing with believing with reality. This is why words can start a war and such things as lies can even exist. For humanity, lines on a piece of paper can equate to nudity and can definitely be utilized for sexual stimulation.

“Stop that. You'll go blind!”

I've known people to shed a tear or two over the death of a comic book character.

For humans, reality and fantasy commingle on an irregular but definite basis and to a degree and can produce interesting effects.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
VegaX at 7:08AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 617
joined: 4-28-2006
subcultured
i hate nudity
it's just a crutch for weak story telling.

even those that just do partial nudities or “butt shots”.
weak authors use those to keep the audience coming back.

Are you being ironic here? ;)
Seeing as your comics contains a lot of those said nudities and butt shots.

:)

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:39PM
Dark_Elf_Designs at 10:47AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 79
joined: 3-29-2007
just throwing in my two cents here. I believe that nudity is just fine and the fact that we as americans are so apprehensive about it just shows our lack of culture. Everyone is born naked, and you know if everyone had to see breastsw everyday then sooner or later they would become desensitaized to it in a way that would make them go eh, it's just breasts. anyway the point I am making is in many other countries showing breasts isn't nearly as taboo as it is over here. breast should be a pg 13 thing over here but most people want to make it out to be an r rated thing. See the physical breasts themselves are not the problem and if you are drawing someone ina fight with their breasts bouncing about to me that isn't and or shouldn't be an issue. However if the fight suddenly had to stop because the orc was drooling over her breasts then yes that would be terribly R rated. it all in how they are portrayed and what is being done with them. If a breast is just there being a breast then I don't think it is faux pas at all but if it is being groped then obviously there is a sexual thing going on there.

ie; because someone is offended by something doesn't mean it should change your mind about it though art is art and it is meant to stir up feelings within people passionate feelings even if one of those is anger.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:08PM
Dark_Elf_Designs at 10:54AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 79
joined: 3-29-2007
just went back through it the comic looks great. it is obvious to me trhat you are using sex as a selling point to your comic weven without the nudity. So yeah if it bugs you to hear that then let me say how did tht massive sword crush that part of the armor and knock a piece of her breast but yet not leave a scratch? It all looks good to me though but I would also say there is a editing problem where in one of the panels after her arm armor is destroyed her arm armor still appears there while her breast is still openly visible. So the point in mentioning that is you deliberately were more concerned about showing the breast than the armor on the arm missing ergo therefore. I would just admit that heck yes it was exploitative and I would say I am sorry to the writer of the letter but also tell them that you felt it was censorship and denial of your artistic freedom to not be able to draw what you felt.

Largominus2004
I just received a piece of what I would call hate mail from a very concerned American. It had to do with my comic's theme but in actuality it had a lot to do with breasts. In the comic, I will admit, I draw breasts, sometimes they are pushed up, hanging out or painted on. But I never thought I did it for exploitation purposes only. In a scene, one of the characters, Bianka, takes a nasty blow from a sword and her armor is destroyed on her right arm and chest. Being this is set in a fantasy world and back when underwear wasn't a way of life, Bianka's breast falls out. She keeps fighting, due to the fact that the orc probably wouldn't be willing to take a time out for Bianka to change. This upset a reader and I have no idea how to respond. I hear that nudity is frowned upon more in America than Japan and Europe but I had no idea that it mattered so much as to write an essay of hate. Isn't art, just art? It's not like I am getting all X rated with it, it's just physics and a booby. Oh well, there's my rant LOL…
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:08PM
TH89 at 11:36AM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 36
joined: 1-30-2006
CharleyHorse
So here's this artist happily producing an M-rated strip and then here's this dunder head crying because there's bare female breasts in an M-rated strip. This is along the lines of one of those fire bug freaks complaining that the heat rolling off a torched building is uncomfortable, and so this idiot can be dismissed as being - well - an idiot. That aside Inkmonkey was correct in his response. Hey the artist is deliberately producing M-Rated work, something that society itself considers somewhat iffy in nature and so resorting to a – it's just art work like everyone else's art work on DD - defense is ingenuous.

While I agree with you in principle, I think that given the extent to which the OP misrepresented his/her own comic, the same could be true of the letter that sparked the thread, and since we don't know the actual content of said letter, it'd be unwise to judge the person who wrote it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:13PM
lastcall at 12:48PM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,358
joined: 11-3-2007
Probably because you have the same problem as me, Largonimus–your comic seems to be rated “E” in your thumbnail, but the actual comic is rated “M”. So when people pull up your comic in the Search function, they think “Oh, ok, it's safe for kiddies,” when in fact it's not. So it's probably just a viewer who didn't look at your actual comic rating of “M” for “Mature” who commented about the breasts.

The “E” rating in the thumbnail vs. the actual “M” rating is not our fault. Lots of people are having this problem recently. Ozoneocean explains here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:27PM
Fenn at 1:36PM, Dec. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 561
joined: 9-28-2007
I'd like to see how much the OP's strip stats have increased since this thread started. A very shrewd marketing move on his part.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:26PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved