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!
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Is nudity a bad thing?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [as in a community] 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 [hah! hah! - I said 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.
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.)
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.
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.
:)
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.
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.
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…
So here's this artist happily producing an M-rated strip [hah! hah! - I said 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.
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.
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.)
Yet really, the only function clothing serves, protecting you from minor amounts of rubbing against surfaces, wouldn't be necessary if you didn't wear clothes. And ANYTHING could be said to have a function. Rape can get a woman pregnant, so you could say that it has the function of procreation. Murder keeps down the population, so you could say that it has a function.
And all of those things you mentioned (Computers, stoves etc.)? You don't HAVE to have clothes to use any of those. Clothes are, if anything, the LEAST important part of modern society. Any function they have could easily have its place taken by something else. That isn't true for any of the other things you mentioned.
Clothing DOES have its uses, but only in extreme conditions. In everday life, one could get along FINE without closthes.
Like I said before, nudist colonies.
And all of those things you mentioned (Computers, stoves etc.)? You don't HAVE to have clothes to use any of those.Not my point. You missed it entirely. Those things, like clothes, are "luxuries" of society. And I like my luxuries. I don't give a damn if you want to live without them.
Even if we can "replace" clothes" by other things that serve the function, I find it more convenient to wear pants with pockets than carry a bag. (I have tried carrying a purse because my outfit had no pockets. It's not at all functional.) I have not found a replacement for a bra – aside from surgical breast reduction/removal. Bras are cheaper.
Rape can get a woman pregnant, so you could say that it has the function of procreation.I don't see how me wanting to wear a bra is "raping" your life. Wearing or not wearing clothes has no effect on anyone but the wearer, imo. Once you start to think it does, you become a "prude."
(Being "offended" by clothing is just as stupid as being offended by nudity.)
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.
It worked, didn't it? ;) Even I read the whole thing, just to find the part where the armor falls off and the breast falls out. I thought it was funny that the boob just kept hanging out and she didn't seem to care.
And all of those things you mentioned (Computers, stoves etc.)? You don't HAVE to have clothes to use any of those.Not my point. You missed it entirely. Those things, like clothes, are "luxuries" of society. And I like my luxuries. I don't give a damn if you want to live without them.Rape can get a woman pregnant, so you could say that it has the function of procreation.I don't see how me wanting to wear a bra is "raping" your life. Wearing or not wearing clothes has no effect on anyone but the wearer, imo. Once you start to think it does, you become a "prude."
(Being "offended" by clothing is just as stupid as being offended by nudity.)
At what point did I say I was offended by clothes? I simply said that clothes are unnecessary. If you WANT to wear them, that's fine. I'm just saying that everyone else shouldn't have to.
I'm just saying that everyone else shouldn't have to.I never said they should. Just that clothes serve a function, not just to "cover our shame."
But my point is that the only function that people actually wear them for is to "cover our shame." They might DO other things, but those things are minimal, and they aren't why people wear them anyway.
But my point is that the only function that people actually wear them for is to "cover our shame." They might DO other things, but those things are minimal, and they aren't why people wear them anyway.I would always wear them for the reasons I mentioned. Some clothing is more functional than others. Some clothing is just pointless, but not all is. Some clothing is a modern need – like shower shoes in the dorm, so you don't get planter's warts. (We don't have to "cover up" in the shower, but we do wear those shoes!)
And frankly, I don't believe anyone wears shoes because "naked feet" are offensive. We wear shoes to protect our feet. I daresay that is the same reason the vast majority of people in all of human history wore shoes. (Original clothing was purely functional. Early man didn't know or care that he was naked, but he knew he was cold and his feet hurt.)
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.
:)
whaaa?
my comic is Christian clean ^_-
come on! nudity is just skin, tits are nothing but darker skin.
you see skin everywhere…
people need to get over it.
Exactly. That's why I walk around nude everywhere.asl?
lol
jk
gtg
k bye
also i find it funny that people have a knee jerk reaction of disapproval when they see sex in the media, yet they don't really give the violence much though. sex is more natural than killing. it's a method of procreation, yet people find sex more offensive. why?
there is a higher chance of a person experiencing sex in real life than seeing a person's head get blown off with a hollow point bullet.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo