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.
I think I have a partial answer to that question–people think kids need more protection from sex because there's a greater chance that they might "try it" whereas while everyone is equipped with a pecker or a vagoo, hollow-points are a tad harder to come by.
But that kind of attitude makes less sense when applied to older people, it just gets ingrained in people's thought processes.
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.)
Yes, the groups of early humans that lived in cold climates or deserts where they had to be protected against sand and the like decided to wear clothes for functional reasons. As for feet hurting, like I said earlier in the thread, if you didn't wear shoes, it wouldn't hurt to walk around barefoot. The skin on the bottoms of your feet would thicken. So the shoes that were invented were most likely invented for warmth.
I've admitted before that clothes are necessary in extreme cold and the like, but my point is that under most conditions they're not. In your average part of the world, most people would get along fine without clothes. Most people don't really NEED them. Most people only wear them because society has told them that they have to.
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.
I think I have a partial answer to that question–people think kids need more protection from sex because there's a greater chance that they might "try it" whereas while everyone is equipped with a pecker or a vagoo, hollow-points are a tad harder to come by.
But that kind of attitude makes less sense when applied to older people, it just gets ingrained in people's thought processes.
And of course ironically the more they try to "protect the kiddies", the more the kiddies become more curious and likely to try it.
It's like with that whole smoking/drinking thing… if you make a huge fuss over how it should be for adults only and that under-aged people shouldn't even know much about it other than it being bad for them. Then what do you think will happen? The young people are gonna be curious to see what the "big mystery" is. And why it's deemed so horrible yet people won't say the reason why it's thought of as such a bad thing. So by putting a big "Forbidden" label on it, it only has the opposite effect on those who has a curious mind.
Now I'm not saying people should allow the kiddies to drink/smoke/have sex… but if you educate them fully in EVERYTHING, and act like it's not such a freakin' big deal… then it'll become less likely that they would want to do it. After all, it's not a "huge deal", and science/knowledge took the mystery out of it. kids/Teenagers would then lose compete interst in sex then.
Yes, the groups of early humans that lived in cold climates or deserts where they had to be protected against sand and the like decided to wear clothes for functional reasons. As for feet hurting, like I said earlier in the thread, if you didn't wear shoes, it wouldn't hurt to walk around barefoot. The skin on the bottoms of your feet would thicken. So the shoes that were invented were most likely invented for warmth.
I've admitted before that clothes are necessary in extreme cold and the like, but my point is that under most conditions they're not. In your average part of the world, most people would get along fine without clothes. Most people don't really NEED them. Most people only wear them because society has told them that they have to.
Ahem. Just as an example, bras were not created to cover up breasts. Bras were created to keep the damn things from flopping about while the wearer was running, doing chores, etc. Similarly, the popular "banana hammock" adopted by early man was not a means of protecting the world from one's junk, but rather, a means of keeping your junk in one place so it doesn't get caught on a bramble.
You keep bringing up Nudist Colonies like they count. Nudist colonies are luxury resorts. People are playing tennis and swimming at nudist colonies. They're not going on nature hikes or doing construction. That's like saying people don't die of being naked while taking a shower. Sure, they don't get hurt, but they're not in any danger to begin with.
Ahem. Just as an example, bras were not created to cover up breasts. Bras were created to keep the damn things from flopping about while the wearer was running, doing chores, etc.
Bras were also created for people like me who actually need support. If they didn't invent bras, my back would be hurting like a mo'fo. I usually have to wear one at night to keep my back from hurting. I've been considering breast reduction for quite some time now.
A few countries are playing around with developing interior bras where silicone is attached inside the breast, and some type of cable is attached to the shoulderbone or collarbone inside the body to keep it up. Personally, I think this is a great idea and if it ever comes to fruition, I would volunteer to be one of the first test subjects. It would save me soooo much money on bras, which cost at least $60-80 a pop and only last a few months.
What I think - and I do admit I did not read all four pages that have been written so far, so someone might have said so already - is that anything that is needed in the story is right in its place. Nudity when the story requires nudity, violence when it requires violence, anything and I mean anything at all. (I wanted to say some pretty bad things here as examples but I realised that is not required by any story, so everyone, please imagine whatever seems bad to you, because I am sure to have included that too.). And showing any less than what "belongs to" a story, whether just to lower the rating or maybe because it seems less offensive that way, is scarring the story. I don't mean all stories should be 18+. There are those stories that do not need these things. And there are those that do. Which can be just as close to "high art" as those that don't need it. But banning an element, any element, from the world of storytelling, is throwing away a device one might still need - like as though a cook said "boiling things in water is bad, I will never use it again".
Yes, the groups of early humans that lived in cold climates or deserts where they had to be protected against sand and the like decided to wear clothes for functional reasons. As for feet hurting, like I said earlier in the thread, if you didn't wear shoes, it wouldn't hurt to walk around barefoot. The skin on the bottoms of your feet would thicken. So the shoes that were invented were most likely invented for warmth.
I've admitted before that clothes are necessary in extreme cold and the like, but my point is that under most conditions they're not. In your average part of the world, most people would get along fine without clothes. Most people don't really NEED them. Most people only wear them because society has told them that they have to.
Ahem. Just as an example, bras were not created to cover up breasts. Bras were created to keep the damn things from flopping about while the wearer was running, doing chores, etc. Similarly, the popular "banana hammock" adopted by early man was not a means of protecting the world from one's junk, but rather, a means of keeping your junk in one place so it doesn't get caught on a bramble.
You keep bringing up Nudist Colonies like they count. Nudist colonies are luxury resorts. People are playing tennis and swimming at nudist colonies. They're not going on nature hikes or doing construction. That's like saying people don't die of being naked while taking a shower. Sure, they don't get hurt, but they're not in any danger to begin with.
People at nudist colonies live exactly the way that most people do, except naked. Most people don't do construction. A lot don't go on nature hikes. Those are some of the "Extreme circumstances" I keep talking about. People don't need to wear clothes all the time.
As for bras keeping breast from flopping out, who would care if they flopped out if it wasn't taboo for them to be out?
And I don't know who you've been looking at, but if a guy's dick is big enough to get caught on a bramble, I commend him heartily.
Hey yeah, a lot of tribes people still walk around naked, or with a minimum of clohing; like a long basket over the penis to make it look really, really long. lol! -Papua New Guinea
In South America and Africa there are peoples that still traditionally go naked, even today. The ladies don't have a worry with their big floppy boobies, with a daily workload that'd make me ill… And the guys seem to do OK with their wedding tackle hanging loose…
Shplane's right, Clothes aren't needed, they're mainly about tradition, decoration, and taboo. That said, it's easier to be nude in warmer climates ;)
Hey yeah, a lot of tribes people still walk around naked, or with a minimum of clohing; like a long basket over the penis to make it look really, really long. lol! -Papua New Guinea
[…] it's easier to be nude in warmer climates ;)
Yeah. You don't see many people walking around nude, here in dear ol' Blighty. All that cold weather could cause a severe shrivelling of the unmentionables.
We'd have to start importing baskets from Papua New Guinea!
It would save me soooo much money on bras, which cost at least $60-80 a pop and only last a few months.
under pants are cool thinking of which are theses the kind your bras talking about
Underwire bras. They are bras that have wire in the cups for added support. Sounds painful and it is, quite frankly. They are expensive and wear out quickly because the wire falls out often.
I can't wear just regular bras because, well, I have big 'uns. ;)
Thank everyone, I didn't expect this at all. I was venting but thank you for your input and great back and forth on the subject. Excuses or not, the subject of nudity should not be an issue when it comes to art. I would post the email but I think everyone knows it isn't right to do. I just wanted to hear what other readers and comic creators thought on the subject. Sure I know I am drawing the boob when I create the scene, and I never really thought twice about it until then. Yeah, the comic has a lot to do with boobs, I mean the story is focused on a group of outcast female elves. So the boobies are going to be there. I don't believe it is the focus of the comic though or I would have called it Ethereal Breasts not Legacies, lol. I just wanted to thank you all for the posts and support ^^
Oh and another thing I want to make quite clear about the web comic. The comic may not reflect this to some of you, and maybe that's due to my writing skills (thus Michael Raymond Judy has taken over the writing) but these female characters are not sex objects, they are actually very intelligent, skilled, yet beautiful survivors. Bianka just doesn't care about her breast hanging out, she is focused on getting the sword, that's all. As the comic plays out you will begin to see this.I emailed the concerned person this…
Bianka is a tomboy who could care less and Gatan is a bit prudish and likes her clothes. Una is from a tribalistic region and would normally cover herself but as the dirty old shaman said, the magic paint wouldn't take effect if covered by clothes. The paint/dye appears to work since neither Tyrania or Rigor Mortis could not see her. Pages 4 and 5 show this and yeah it doesn't read well but again, I spend my time illustrating only now. While Michael has just recently taken the writing over. Please don't take the nudity as a sex thing but as part of a developing set of events and character personality traits. As I said earlier it's pretty obvious that Bianka doesn't seem to care and that's Bianka for you. Thank you everyone, I appreciate the posts very much ^^
yeah I could see why someone would not like it and be very offended by it, it is exploitive and it does demean women
I hope you are not talking about my characters. I mean what is so offensive about a woman standing up for another and using her skill and strength to do so? Is that exploitation, or is the little breast thing that you see as an issue here? I mean if I was trying to help or finish a task and my johnson was haning out, I am pretty sure I'd stick to the cause at hand, especially if I could care less about the whole nudity factor…
Hahaha, we already addressed that aspect and Ziff is in the minority with that statement, and I think, if you read on, he actually mollified that somewhat ;)
Either way, he's entitled to that position, no matter how much we all disagree with it :)
Right on Ozone but I wanted to add my comment just to be certain, lol. I haven't been able to get on the site until tonight and want to make certain to respond to everyone. I just had no idea there would be so much to read. ha ha ha
Oh and another thing I want to make quite clear about the web comic. The comic may not reflect this to some of you, and maybe that's due to my writing skills (thus Michael Raymond Judy has taken over the writing) but these female characters are not sex objects, they are actually very intelligent, skilled, yet beautiful survivors. Bianka just doesn't care about her breast hanging out, she is focused on getting the sword, that's all. As the comic plays out you will begin to see this.I emailed the concerned person this…
Bianka is a tomboy who could care less and Gatan is a bit prudish and likes her clothes. Una is from a tribalistic region and would normally cover herself but as the dirty old shaman said, the magic paint wouldn't take effect if covered by clothes. The paint/dye appears to work since neither Tyrania or Rigor Mortis could not see her. Pages 4 and 5 show this and yeah it doesn't read well but again, I spend my time illustrating only now. While Michael has just recently taken the writing over. Please don't take the nudity as a sex thing but as part of a developing set of events and character personality traits. As I said earlier it's pretty obvious that Bianka doesn't seem to care and that's Bianka for you. Thank you everyone, I appreciate the posts very much ^^
I'm not normally one to say this, but…
Bullshit.
The T&A is fan service. There are aspects of the character that explain the nudity, but don't come in here and pretend that drawing a bunch of sexy ladies with their tits hanging out is somehow deep.
