Messages

Now that's sexy. I mean, er, em...

'Now you vill haf taste of Vulf's happy stick'.
Sorry

No worries, chief. Have to admit that I completely forget where I saw that report; in fact it was more a report of report as I recall in a non-tabloid newspaper once. Lame, I realise, and far from the type of evidence that could prove my case, but you'll just have to trust me on this one.  
So yeah, let's get back to business. No hard feelings (but wait till I re-read Money Shots, fnarr, fnarr, fnarr).

I get the feeling this should be divided into two seperate threads, but anyway, for my money, I'll just defend myself - I agree that the Gary Glitter comparison is a bit tabloid - you're obviously well able to debate without cheap shots like this.

Yeah, it was difficult to find illegal porn in 80's Ireland, but as kids we managed it, and enjoyed it. It certainly didn't feel like abuse to us - we weren't being forced to look at it (and i don't think we would have objected to it if we were). We had an absolute blast looking at naked women and thinking about sex; did evolution got it wrong in instilling these desires at so early an age? we never thought about that.

THe only problem was the underlying thought which i believe most of us had that we were doing something morally wrong in enjoying it. An idea, by the way, largely instilled by a national organisation that for decades conspired to cover up sexual molestation of children by its own members.  The sad thing was that these kids didn't know enough about sex to know that the priests in question were in the wrong.  The suppression of a proper sex education also ensured enough of a social taboo around sexual matters to make sure victims stayed quiet. Now THAT'S abuse.

No one is suggesting that adults should make children look at pornography, but i believe it wouldn't hurt just to ask why children shouldn't know a bit about sex or shouldn't feel the natural desires that they really can't avoid feeling. (I'm speaking from personal experience here, I can clearly remember a weird but somewhat guilt-ridden interest in female nudity at the age of about 10 or 11). A proper knowledge of sex perhaps might make them realise the problems that underage sex can lead to; eg. pregnancy, STDs etc. No, I'm sure it isn't healthy to show kids hard-core porn before they know it isn't reality, but at least we could educate them to know the difference.

As far as abuse is concerned, I believe that if children in my country at least had been part of a much more sexually open society, a lot of them could have been saved from sexual abuse or at least ensured their attackers were caught.

Errr...ahem... The bit where Slough Feg gets a Gae Bolga through his non-functional willy, then laughs because it looks like the horn?

'Would Halo Jones have been more of a classic with more nudity? would Nemesis have been better if we'd seen Nem and Purity at it rather than just had the occasional hint? '

Nah, but Nikolai Dante couldn't follow the same storyline if he hadn't banged Jena Makarov, her sister and the Countess; and he wouldn't be the same character if he wasn't obsessed with sex. Downlode wouldn't be Downlode without titty bars and Buttonman 3 wouldn't be the same story if he hadn't been shagging the dentist's wife.

And I agree: A flaccid penis belonging to a dead person. Hardly pornography

By the way, that 'of course it is' was referring to your comment about value / cost. I hope it wasn't taken sarcastically, it wasn't meant like that.

Of course it is. As I said, my arguement was not against boarders or comics. It was just an aside really. Yes, maybe it's not the way to attract a young readership. But I thought 2000ad had given up on that as it just hasn't been happening. Kids in English speaking countries aren't buying comics, unless they're tied into other franchises like computer or role playing games.

I could be wrong, but i think it may be the fact that it IS a comic, not that the contents are more graphic, that isn't attracting new readers.

By the way, I heard Matt Smith say that he believes there's nothing in 2000ad that isn't suitable for 10-year-olds. Your thoughts?

This isn't a criticism of 2000ad, any boarders or other comics; it's more a criticism of our insular British and Irish societies. Possibly America too but I don't want to criticise any places i haven't lived in and don't have experience of.

Anyway, to get to the point; I've said said it before here and i'll say it again: What the hell is wrong with sex and nudity anyway?  One of the few things common to both the creationist and the evolutionist arguement is the idea that our main function is to ensure the survival of our species. The only way to go forth an multiply is to have sex.
 
And really, is it so bad that children know a bit about sex? The alternative is shielding them from it and making it taboo, and therefore instilling the idea in them that their natural desires are somehow wrong or evil. Personally I remember having sexual feelings and desires well before puberty, and having been raised in what was then a strongly Catholic country, believing i was doing something wrong. Ridiculous: Old religions celebrated sex and fertility, quite
rightly in my opinion as they are part of the joys of life. (Incidentally, i saw a report published recently stating that watching pornography involving consenting adults does not harm children in any way. A good thing, too, there are not many kids in Western society who don't look at it sometimes)

As for tits in the comic - fair enough, it's not the done thing in kids' comics. But really, why shouldn't it be? Think i've mentioned this on the board before but kids of any age in nearly all continental European countries can see all the female nipples they like by walking along a sunny beach. Does this unbalance their minds somehow? Does it damage their mental health in later life, or lead to unhealthy sexual behaviour? I can't answer for sure, but my money's on the exact opposite result.

 
And leading on from that, most people have genitals of their own: It's difficult to avoid seeing them now and again. I believe that we cover our genitals because we walk on two legs and don't wish to give permanent sexual displays. But, considering we're a species that reproduces sexually, occasional sexual displays have to happen. So what if we see them happening now and again?

 2000ad has always shown extreme violence; why is this suitable for kids while anything touching on the sexual isn't? Sex is positive, healthy, enjoyable and, if you want humanity to continue, necessary. Violence, though itself another fact of life, is negative, painful and damaging.  Yes, sex is for adults to practice, not children, but if you're going to make graphic displays of sex taboo, maybe you should ask what is so much more acceptable about displays of graphic violence. Is it better for children to know that adults kill each other or that adults show physical affection to each other?

Forgive me for ranting so much, but it's a subject i feel strongly about. So I'll just finish by paraphrasing Desmond Morris, author of the Naked Ape: A well-known American paper, the Chicago Times I think, pulped a whole print run because it mentioned the word 'penis' in a review of his book. However, the word 'gun' was mentioned frequently in the same paper and nobody complained. According to Morris, the public seems to prefer something that shoots death to something that shoots life.

I don't think there's any conspiracy at work here, to be honest - it's just a bit of fun. The more 2000ad readers there are, the greater the comic's chances are of surviving. Why would anyone want to get rid of new readers? And for that matter, why would pictures of nobs drive anyone off (unless they're seriously prudish or very young and caught by their parents?)

'I don't know the Issue number but in the Megazine, Hicklenton did a Dredd with a clearly visible outline of an erection a few years ago'

I remember you telling me that when i met you a few years back. I'm curious now; I really want to see Dredd on the horn. Er, I mean, someone else I know wants to see it

The bit on the hugely popular and successful Valkyries where the chick has stimulators attached to her nipples and up her vadj

Gunnar in Cinnabar: 'No, I'm your kid sister. Don't you recognise the bite you left on the front of my...?'

Dis-ruddy-graceful

Taste barrier, you say? Right so...

'Doctor, Doctor! I feel like a pair of curtains!'
'That's the least of your worries. You've got AIDS.'

'Because of natural variation, the same as any other genetic trait - it's just not a trait that's very likely to be passed on, for obvious reasons. '

Hang about though, Fargo was fond of a bit of a ride. But I remember Dredd telling some girl 'I am incapable of loving you', could have been Bella Bagley. Was this genetic trait weeded out of his genes before he was born?