Dangerous Comics

[Noise Monkey]

RotD made me hack my grandmother into tiny bits and then set them on fire!

[Princess]

Something, shall we say, sexual?
and if it's sexual, homosexuality in particular?
or just typical lascivious nudity?

Seriously I don't think nudity and sexy-love in comics is dangerous at all! (as long as there are apropriate age/NSFW warnings)

People like to have sexual intercourse, it's a normal and natural part of being an adult...unlike violence

[RemusShepherd]

Something, shall we say, sexual?
and if it's sexual, homosexuality in particular?
or just typical lascivious nudity?

Seriously I don't think nudity and sexy-love in comics is dangerous at all! (as long as there are apropriate age/NSFW warnings)

People like to have sexual intercourse, it's a normal and natural part of being an adult...unlike violence

But there are areas of discussion within the wide subject of 'sex' that are verboten to think, draw, or talk about.

A decade or so ago homosexuality would have been considered a 'dangerous' sexual topic in a webcomic. To be dangerous today, a comic would probably have to delve deeper into taboos.

[Blackaby]

Something, shall we say, sexual?
and if it's sexual, homosexuality in particular?
or just typical lascivious nudity?

Seriously I don't think nudity and sexy-love in comics is dangerous at all! (as long as there are apropriate age/NSFW warnings)

People like to have sexual intercourse, it's a normal and natural part of being an adult...unlike violence

DITTO

Because I agree with this so much it wasn't enough just to quote it.

[Wishmaster]

Ayup. The reproductive act has a lot to recommend it. Nature made it feel good for a reason. It's dodging the actual reproduction that's the trick.

[Corgan_dane]

I have to admit...I am a fan of the reproductive act.

[Jim North]

RotD made me hack my grandmother into tiny bits and then set them on fire!

Eeeeeexcelleeeeeeent . . .

[Gengar003]

Well, if Ghastly's comic and Sexy Losers made it into syndication (shyeah, right), the resultant outrage would be quite dangerous to both artists, I believe.

But they're still relativley niche comics, accessible online to those who look for them, forced upon none (except for that poor guy looking for cabinets...)

And I was gonna say Jack, but it's already been said.

[Kris X]

Something, shall we say, sexual?
and if it's sexual, homosexuality in particular?
or just typical lascivious nudity?

Homosexuals and bisexuals are hardly dangerous...In fact it's pretty common to find pretty-boy comics out there.

Most of us don't bite or hurt...Though CJ's cleavege has been known to poke a few eyes out.

[Warren]

[quote="cortland"]I saw this a while ago:

[quote="brusselsjournal.com"]The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding after the newspaper published a series of twelve cartoons (view them here) about the prophet Muhammad. According to the Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the paper

[McDuffies]

Here is a thought: Why are violence and sex the only objective things? Why are only them things that could get a PG rating for your film? Are violence and sex really that more dangerous than any other messages that can be included?
One thing that always bothered me. The only answer I've come up with: Only they come in graphical form.

[Keffria]

Here is a thought: Why are violence and sex the only objective things? Why are only them things that could get a PG rating for your film? Are violence and sex really that more dangerous than any other messages that can be included?
One thing that always bothered me. The only answer I've come up with: Only they come in graphical form.

Yeah, it's rather curious that such a big hype is made over violence in the media, considering that other factors (e.g. economic disparity) have been shown to be more strongly connected with violent behaviour. (And many studies that "prove" a strong link between violent TV and violent behaviour are flawed... The one that comes to mind most readily is that Bobo-doll one, which is never explained properly... But I digress. )

[Wishmaster]

Don't forget drug use!

*tunes in, turns on, orders a pizza*

[Blackaby]

We will always be rated NC-17, even if we took out the sex, drugs and 'historic' violence. We've got adult themes.

[Wishmaster]

I think that any creator who felt so moved could really open the floodgates. Functionally, all you have to do is dump out your id and someone somwhere is going to have a problem with it. The issue comes back to shock for shock's own sake or if there is some actual point ot it all. In theory, a comic that showed nothing explicit and operated entirely through subtle dialogue could be more dangerous than the most graphically rendered shock mag.

Not that I have the skill to do such a comic, mind you. I'm just saying it's possible.

[Escushion]

So, what constitutes a dangerous comic?

Mine's chock-full of violence. Curses. I'm keeping it human-nudity-free; the occasional non-human is nude, but only because you can't tell (although in one you will be able to, but I plan to have something blocking the view in every panel .) One of the characters goes into an area of child prostitution and isn't a villain. At one point there is a villain with mangled corpses littering his front lawn. The setting is pretty lawless.

Is this dangerous? I don't really see how a comic can be dangerous unless it gets into the hands of those who aren't mature enough to separate fiction from reality.

[Oneeyecat]

I once read a webcomic that convinced me stick my head in a woodchipper, after I did it I found out that it was dangerous!

[Wishmaster]

I mean more along the lines of advocating violent overthrow of government, tips on how to create fake identities or rip off major corporations, etc. Not that I'm espousing these beliefs, just that something truly dangerous probably hasn't come down the pike yet or if it has it probably got quashed without anyone knowing about it.

[RemusShepherd]

I mean more along the lines of advocating violent overthrow of government, tips on how to create fake identities or rip off major corporations, etc. Not that I'm espousing these beliefs, just that something truly dangerous probably hasn't come down the pike yet or if it has it probably got quashed without anyone knowing about it.

We'll return to this topic in a year.

I think, when looking for 'dangerous' comics, you have to first ask 'dangerous to whom?' Homosexuality may be tame to most of us, but Mrs. Havisham the Baptist preacher's wife may consider it horribly dangerous. Enticing people to kiss woodchippers may seem silly to some, but parents with impressionable children might think of it as out of line.

You want a dangerous comic? Who do you want to endanger? The church, the state, humanity in general? Your sanity?

[KittyKatBlack]

If your talking about 'pure offence factor to the most amount of people.' I'd probably go with Sexy Losers, and Ghastly's Ghastly Comic.

If your talking about dangerous as 'Most dentramental to society.' I think that Jack Chick's "Chick Tracts" take that spot. Lucky for us, Jack Thompson can't draw.