OT: Associated Student Bodies

ZOMBIE USER 7262 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 7262** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:41 pm

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe wrote:...Did I say that out loud?

Do we have to answer?

But, in all seriousness, Associated Student Bodies is for adult readers only, and it even says so on the cover of every issue. There are, here and there as called for by the story, sexual situations. On the other hand, it's not gratuitious sex. In fact, one of the most striking scenes is left out and simply given over to the reader's imagination. (The morning after, however, is given page time.)

I wouldn't call it pornography, exactly, though I suppose you could define it like that. There's little that's gratuitious, and all of it is caring consentual acts between individuals who care for each other...as opposed to a parade of genitalia mushing against each other. It didn't bother me when I was reading through the stories, because it all made sense as part of the whole piece.

Crash · Post by **Crash** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:30 pm

Andrick wrote:Does privacy make this any less pornographic in nature? No.

Actually, Andrick, I would argue "Yes". Pornography is material designed to appeal to prurient interest, to provide sexual gratification, and one important feature of pornography is it's existence as a commercial medium (or at least for mass dissemination). As the saying goes, "Sex sells." Pornography eliminates from consideration love, affection, intimacy, or generally any sort of mutually beneficial, satisfying relationship; it excises them completely.
The example you created does indeed have explicit material, but it must be judged within the context of the relationship from which it springs. If the material created is part of a loving relationship, is private in nature and not intended for public dissemination, I would argue that it is not pornographic in nature. What it is, I will not conjecture; that would lie entirely between the people involved.

Do we entirely disagree? I don't think so, but I think there are some significant distinctions to be made. I like Elix's point that ASB provides a context for the sort of scene in question, rather than having isolated incidents designed solely to excite. Though a story that has some explicit content certainly complicates the argument, I feel the piece should be considered as a whole, with the relationships and backgrounds as context for specific acts...

My apologies if this continuation of the discussion makes anyone uncomfortable.

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe · Post by **W.M.Y.L.G. Joe** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:37 am

Though a story that has some explicit content certainly complicates the argument

I've found that life doesn't have a "censor bar" for explicit content. Basically, if you're going to portray something realistically, sometimes ya gotta get your hands dirty because real life includes all the situations and occurences that are either A) hard to deal with, or B) something a child shouldn't learn about until they can accurately grasp and understand the importance/weight of with a decent level of maturity.

But I'm off topic. I just wanted to address that comment.

Gloria · Post by **Gloria** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:14 am

Yes. What Crash said.

And I'm not trying to be holier-than thou, or anything. You all know what a dirty nasty mind I have. I don't NEED any help with that. And that's why I try to stay away from pornographic material as much as possible (Listen, I don't even like watching tv, not solely for that reason, but that IS a part of it. That and everything on the networks is utter mindless drivel, nowadays).

Anywhoo... yes.

ZOMBIE USER 10915 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 10915** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:21 pm

Gloria wrote:You all know what a dirty nasty mind I have. (Listen, I don't even like watching tv, not solely for that reason, but that IS a part of it. That and everything on the networks is utter mindless drivel, nowadays).

Yea!

Someone thinks just like me. 8)

Poor girl.

IndigoMoon · Post by **IndigoMoon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:37 pm

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe wrote: I've found that life doesn't have a "censor bar" for explicit content. Basically, if you're going to portray something realistically, sometimes ya gotta get your hands dirty because real life includes all the situations and occurences that are either A) hard to deal with, or B) something a child shouldn't learn about until they can accurately grasp and understand the importance/weight of with a decent level of maturity.

*agrees wholeheartedly* That was nicely put, Joey.
I think the existence of actual plot distinguishes erotic publications from flat-out pornography. I'm not a consumer of either, but I do believe erotic works can be tastefully done. Pornography, on the other hand, is really destructive both to the.. uh.. 'performers' and to the consumers. I would put ASB into the 'erotic' catergory, and I wouldn't feel bad about reading it. I don't think I'd get much out of furry sex, personally, but if the story was good enough, I'd give it a chance.

Gloria wrote:Listen, I don't even like watching tv, not solely for that reason, but that IS a part of it. That and everything on the networks is utter mindless drivel, nowadays.

Yes, TV is absolute trash! The only things I watch on TV are CSI (though even that has become a bit gratuitus of late) and, the absolute BEST show on television.. *drumroll* TRADING SPACES!!! *Cheers for Ty, the oh so pretty-pretty carpenter man!*

I am suddenly compelled to paint and upholster everything within a five-mile radius..

Ironpaw · Post by **Ironpaw** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:13 pm

IndigoMoon wrote:...the absolute BEST show on television.. *drumroll* TRADING SPACES!!! *Cheers for Ty, the oh so pretty-pretty carpenter man!*

I am suddenly compelled to paint and upholster everything within a five-mile radius..

Ahhh... yes, but no. I'm afraid you're a bit off, as the best show in the whole universe as far as home design goes is Surprise by Design!!
If I ONLY had Robert Verdi's colour sense! And my GOSH! Some of the accessories he comes up with are absolute WONDERS! I mean... in the beginning it looks like he's out of his mind, but in the end it ALL COMES TOGETHER! *shakes with creative delight and then stops suddenly*

*looks around shiftily* Aheh... that is if I were some sort of fruitcake that'd watch that sort of show... *shuffles his feet*

Look! I'm big and scarey, I like guns!

*runs off and hides*

Pengolodh_sc · Post by **Pengolodh_sc** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:50 pm

Ironpaw wrote:*looks around shiftily* Aheh... that is if I were some sort of fruitcake that'd watch that sort of show... *shuffles his feet*

Look! I'm big and scarey, I like guns!

Bears are big and scary - and Theodore Roosevelt was big and scary too, I believe, and liked big ships with real big guns, big sticks (the perfect accessory to soft words, according to him), and big rifles with which he could shoot big antelopes, big gazelles, big lions, big bears, big elephants, etc. (and let's leave the psycho-analysis for later, shall we?) And, scariness notwithstanding, what was the dismal fate of both Theodore Roosevelt and big bears? To be used as the model for mass-produced cuddly toys!

Please to imagine demonic laughter!

(I personally think these boards lack an emoticon - that for truly evil smiles! The current evil emoticon just looks surly)

Besides, that show can hardly be the worst in televised remodellings - Tradign Spaces sounds related to British TV-series Changing Rooms, featuring the acclaimed Welsh fop and lilac-enthusiast Lawrence Lewellyn Bowen (LLB). To quote from The Guardian's article Handy Dandy, from about a couple of years ago:

With his famous locks and penchant for purple, Laurence Llewelyn-
Bowen is the doyen of TV interior designers. But, he says, it's not
easy being an intellectual and a babe magnet.

Come to think of it, LLB probably likes guns too, as long as they're lilac, or purple. And have you ever considered what Martha Stewart might do with a gun - I have some images of rather unorthodox floral decorations.

:: hands out fried codfish-tongue as peace-offering ::

IndigoMoon · Post by **IndigoMoon** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:53 pm

Ironpaw wrote: Ahhh... yes, but no. I'm afraid you're a bit off, as the best show in the whole universe as far as home design goes is Surprise by Design!!
If I ONLY had Robert Verdi's colour sense! And my GOSH! Some of the accessories he comes up with are absolute WONDERS! I mean... in the beginning it looks like he's out of his mind, but in the end it ALL COMES TOGETHER! *shakes with creative delight and then stops suddenly*

*looks around shiftily* Aheh... that is if I were some sort of fruitcake that'd watch that sort of show... *shuffles his feet*

Look! I'm big and scarey, I like guns!

*runs off and hides*

*snort*
Thanks Devon, that is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read all week.

However, point taken. Surprise by Design certainly has its charms. Another series that puts an entertaining spin on the whole decorating show craze is VH1's Rock the House. I think the Goo Goo Dolls did a pretty nice job with their room, but I pity the poor sap who had his basement decorated with hot pink walls and giant 'she-devil' decals by Tommy Lee.. Tsk.

ZOMBIE USER 10915 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 10915** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:11 pm

I believe Trading Spaces is a cousin Changing Rooms.

Surprise by Design is one I haven't seen yet.

Those are very good shows but the best show has to be Junkyard Wars!8)

Ironpaw · Post by **Ironpaw** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:17 pm

DOUBLE POST!!!!

Ironpaw · Post by **Ironpaw** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:18 pm

Okay, you know what? You're right.

I miss that show so much. Dang not having cable! DANG DANG DANG! And I miss that british chick, what's her face. But Junkyard Wars has to be one of my favourite shows of all times.

I miss Combat Missions too.

-Devon

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe · Post by **W.M.Y.L.G. Joe** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:31 pm

HELLO? Anyone else remember G-Rock? THAT was a cool show.

And The Tick will ALWAYS rule in my book.

ZOMBIE USER 7262 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 7262** » Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:35 pm

Amazing...we went from discussing a pretty picture in a gay furry comic to...Junkyard Wars.

ZOMBIE USER 10915 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 10915** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:23 am

Elix wrote:Amazing...we went from discussing a pretty picture in a gay furry comic to...Junkyard Wars.

This is nothing compared to the topic drift at the Freefall forum.http://nice.purrsia.com/cgi-bin/ultimat ... forum&f=21

Andrick · Post by **Andrick** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:08 am

pengolodh_sc wrote:...I personally think these boards lack an emoticon - that for truly evil smiles! The current evil emoticon just looks surly...

If you don't like what the board's got then go, go find your own.

ZOMBIE USER 10925 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 10925** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:35 am

Elix wrote:Amazing...we went from discussing a pretty picture in a gay furry comic to...Junkyard Wars. :)

And we might be better off for it. :)

Btw, "p.s.", I *disable* emoticons in my posts be default! mwahahaha....

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe · Post by **W.M.Y.L.G. Joe** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:10 am

gay furry comic

I didn't know comics could have a sexual orientation (maybe it hits on other comics instead of going after novellas or something...).

ZOMBIE USER 7262 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 7262** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:46 am

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe wrote:
gay furry comic
I didn't know comics could have a sexual orientation (maybe it hits on other comics instead of going after novellas or something...).

Well, seeing as the majority of the cast members are gay, and it's about growing up gay in the modern world... there's two regular cast members that are straight, and everyone else pretty much is gay. (There's hints that one or two are bi, but on the whole...)

Though I usually don't make blanket generalizations like that. Yay.

Gloria · Post by **Gloria** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 1:40 pm

W.M.Y.L.G. Joe wrote:
gay furry comic
I didn't know comics could have a sexual orientation (maybe it hits on other comics instead of going after novellas or something...).

*eyes grow wide as she runs over to the KS Super 100 list to make sure that Untitled! isn't sitting next to BDK....*