I'd be turned off by what I would perceive as exploitation of nudity.
So what's the problem if he does "exploit" nudity? It's just one of the many aspects of hos comic art there to show… Like the fighting, the swords, the monsters… Why is the nudity part somehow wrong and even deserving of the phrase "exploitation"? The other aspects I mentioned are equally "Exploited' but that'd pass without comment…
I'm not posting this to critique you at all man, it's just that this idea that using female nudity in art is somehow a problem is at the root of things.
I'm still amazed that nudity is not as accepted at violence. Gun a blazing, body parts exploding, but nudity is for sickophants. I do mean to apply some good sense, I'm not talking pornogoraphy. AND most nudity/topless shots in entertainment rarely compliment the material, it's just there. For instance, anything that is publicly displayed by Michaelangelo is a beautiful thing in my opinion.
I'm still amazed that nudity is not as accepted at violence. Gun a blazing, body parts exploding, but nudity is for sickophants. I do mean to apply some good sense, I'm not talking pornogoraphy. AND most nudity/topless shots in entertainment rarely compliment the material, it's just there. For instance, anything that is publicly displayed by Michaelangelo is a beautiful thing in my opinion.
So what's wrong with pornography? It seems as though most of you here are saying that nudity is fine, but then quickly saying that pornography isn't so as to not seem like a horny pervert, despite the fact that sex is just as natural as nudity.
Me, I couldn't care less if they're naked, clothed, or attempting to perform everyday tasks while buggering each other. BUT, it has to serve the story, gratuitous nudity annoys me because it seems so crowbarred in.
I mean, in the first few pages of the comic here, the shaman is groping a young woman. This, to me, speaks volumes for his character. That's the sort of thing I like to see.
I'm still amazed that nudity is not as accepted at violence. Gun a blazing, body parts exploding, but nudity is for sickophants. I do mean to apply some good sense, I'm not talking pornography. AND most nudity/topless shots in entertainment rarely compliment the material, it's just there. For instance, anything that is publicly displayed by Michaelangelo is a beautiful thing in my opinion.
Agreed!
As an female comic artist, I tend to draw the female form a lot. and at times you will find that some of my female characters gets clothes ripped off in her battles, etc… although most of the time it's not the key focus.
And also as a female, I do not get offended at female nudity. Especially if it's in an situation where she would be naturally nude. like changing in a locker room, for instance. When you have a scene like that, how the hell do you expect her to change clothes WITHOUT getting naked? Sure, you could always skip that scene and just say that she changed her clothes there. But… what if something important went on in there such as some vital information going on between women?
The only way I would get offended was if the said female was in a bad situation where she was being treated like an animal and forced into non-consensual sex. now that would be way more demeaning to a woman than any nudity could ever be!
The only way I would get offended was if the said female was in a bad situation where she was being treated like an animal and forced into non-consensual sex. now that would be way more demeaning to a woman than any nudity could ever be!
It's all about the Context!
So we're not allowed to use rape as story element?
Those are not differing contexts, getting changed and being raped are two entirely different situations.
The only way I would get offended was if the said female was in a bad situation where she was being treated like an animal and forced into non-consensual sex. now that would be way more demeaning to a woman than any nudity could ever be!
It's all about the Context!
So we're not allowed to use rape as story element?
Those are not differing contexts, getting changed and being raped are two entirely different situations.
(Going rather off-topic here…) What irks me about this: if it's a guy raping another guy…oh that's not bad, that's HOT! But a guy raping a girl? That's offensive and wrong and the author shouldn't be allowed to draw comics. =/
I don't get it. How can there be a 'good' rape? lol!
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?
(Going rather off-topic here…) What irks me about this: if it's a guy raping another guy…oh that's not bad, that's HOT! But a guy raping a girl? That's offensive and wrong and the author shouldn't be allowed to draw comics. =/
I don't get it. How can there be a 'good' rape?
Good rape would be girl on girl. So hot they're also on fire.
Serious: I've never heard anyone say that, did that really happen?
|| || || <—— What my faith in humanity would be doing if it could get any lower. || || \/
I'd be turned off by what I would perceive as exploitation of nudity.
So what's the problem if he does "exploit" nudity? It's just one of the many aspects of hos comic art there to show… Like the fighting, the swords, the monsters… Why is the nudity part somehow wrong and even deserving of the phrase "exploitation"? The other aspects I mentioned are equally "Exploited' but that'd pass without comment…
I'm not posting this to critique you at all man, it's just that this idea that using female nudity in art is somehow a problem is at the root of things.
Take the example that was given. A battle takes place and all of a sudden there's boobies. It seems to be pandering to the folks that get off on nudity in webcomics. Sure, it was passed off as some sort of logical conclusion, that the armor would pop off and boobies would result, but that's another one of those things that gets my goat. Why would female characters wear sexy armor? And what you said about form-fitting superhero designs… same thing. Why does every damn female comic book hero have to wear lingerie as a uniform? Its obvious: to get the allowance of teenage sexually repressed fans.
I don't have a problem with sex or nudity. I have a problem when they show up without good reason. That's exploitation. Imagine Back to the Future with a sex scene and you'll understand my perspective.
This is all moot, really. You know darn well that there are comics out there that exploit the sexually repressed American teen in the webcomic audience. The same way there are webcomics that exploit fetishes, such as furry comics. I'm not on a crusade, saying that all sex and nudity is bad. I'm saying I have zero respect for comics that use sex and nudity as a hook. To me they're like gamer strips, cashing in on the obsession of teenage boys in lieu of coming up with creative content.
As an female comic artist, I tend to draw the female form a lot. and at times you will find that some of my female characters gets clothes ripped off in her battles, etc… although most of the time it's not the key focus.
You ever draw a man's armor ripped away, exposing an unnecessary cock?
And also as a female, I do not get offended at female nudity. Especially if it's in an situation where she would be naturally nude. like changing in a locker room, for instance. When you have a scene like that, how the hell do you expect her to change clothes WITHOUT getting naked?
This is what I'm talking about… non-exploitive. Logical. Natural. Not inserted for the sake of getting some tit shots on the web page.
The only way I would get offended was if the said female was in a bad situation where she was being treated like an animal and forced into non-consensual sex. now that would be way more demeaning to a woman than any nudity could ever be!
It's all about the Context!
So we're not allowed to use rape as story element?
Those are not differing contexts, getting changed and being raped are two entirely different situations.
(Going rather off-topic here…) What irks me about this: if it's a guy raping another guy…oh that's not bad, that's HOT! But a guy raping a girl? That's offensive and wrong and the author shouldn't be allowed to draw comics. =/
I don't get it. How can there be a 'good' rape? lol!
yeah, that irks me too as well. I don't like rape at all, whenever it be "homosexual", "lesbian" or even "straight". I think if somebody's into man-on-man or whatever, it should at least be consental.
I can understand if rape was used as a part of the storytelling. You know, to gain the sympathy of readers for a certain character. Or to get them to hate the villain. But it disturbs me greatly when the rape scene is much longer than it should be, and made in such a way to be actually "Romaticized". If you know what I mean.
Like all those stupid stories where the person being raped starts to actually enjoy it in the middle of the rape. WTF? It's like they're saying: "Even though it's rape, it's okay because the victim is enjoying this! Even though this woman/man/whatever said no at the start, her/his inner slut was serectly craving the cock. All it took was a little roughening up and some forced entry to get him/her to enjoy it!!" THAT's what gets me offended.
It just makes me sick. Sex should be enjoyable and special for BOTH people, even if they're fictional characters. Sex should be all about Love, period…. just call me sappy. :P
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? ;)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
