Slut-shaming. Bad. Very bad.
Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra
- Rosa
- BANNED
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:22 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
"I assume that the creative team does read the boards and that, through
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."
(by @worldshaking00)
─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."
(by @worldshaking00)
─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif
-
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
We know that Chloe is jealous whenever people get close to Teddy and an awful lot of people have been getting very close to him lately. So I doubt she'll be happy knowing that he's been being promiscuous including with one of her best friends. And all in the name of doing her a favour.
And Teddy has basically been lying to the jocks he's been getting "close to" by failing to point out that the only reason he's doing it is to test out their chances of not being disembowelled by the "friend" he was planning to introduce them too. Even if he was right about them being suitably "legendary" they were likely to go through something that would likely see them making a trip to the hospital. And if he was wrong well I'm sure they would have died happy right before the limb ripping off and the intestines tearing out part of the experience.
And Teddy has basically been lying to the jocks he's been getting "close to" by failing to point out that the only reason he's doing it is to test out their chances of not being disembowelled by the "friend" he was planning to introduce them too. Even if he was right about them being suitably "legendary" they were likely to go through something that would likely see them making a trip to the hospital. And if he was wrong well I'm sure they would have died happy right before the limb ripping off and the intestines tearing out part of the experience.
- Fluffy
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
A favor that Teddy had never discussed with Chloe, in the first place.
I'm really hoping that when Chloe finds out what he's been up to, she blasts him for it - and not get all weeping and sentimental over the 'sacrifices' he's made in her name.
I'm really hoping that when Chloe finds out what he's been up to, she blasts him for it - and not get all weeping and sentimental over the 'sacrifices' he's made in her name.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.
-
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
And the irony is Teddy is building himself up for the biggest sacrifice of them all. He seems to have completely forgotten that the whole point of Chloe being on Earth is that she is meant to be finding him a girlfriend so that he can break the pact.
Teddy sleeping with Chloe is exactly what Hell wanted to happen in the first place. So unless a transfusion of angel blood really does make his strong enough to survive sex with Chloe he's going to be on a one way trip to Hell thus rather making the whole original premise of the comic pretty pointless.
Teddy sleeping with Chloe is exactly what Hell wanted to happen in the first place. So unless a transfusion of angel blood really does make his strong enough to survive sex with Chloe he's going to be on a one way trip to Hell thus rather making the whole original premise of the comic pretty pointless.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
I've been lurking on the forums for a while but felt like I needed to weigh in on it now. And this definitely. It's still fine if the sex happens off screen. How many times has American Dad gotten away with Steve and his friends posing provocatively in speedos for example? But there have been a few pages showing all but penetration with underage characters. This issue can be fixed with one very simple change:OllieOrOlly wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:06 am*EDIT* Yet another thing I don't think I've considered is that even though the strip is rated "PG-13," the fact that it has underage people involved in arguably explicit sexual acts makes it technically illegal in my country.
Retcon Teddy to being 18. On paper it's that simple. Just going back and editing the older pages to change that 16 into an 18. Abbey has yet to be shown doing anything sexual so she gets a pass for now. The plot can stay the same with a simple edit and be a little less skeevy as a result. Teddi can still be in high school, can still be a stripper instead of an underage stripper (I never felt like the underage bit added anything to the plot since the goal was for her to make money, not make some kind of point) and still have tried finding a guy for Chloe.
- DarkAsh
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Abby is typically selfish, but here she is actually thinking of Chloe’s well being and trying to get Teddi to think of the consequences of throwing her out.crimzontearz wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:08 pmAnd here we are again. Abby being her selfish dumb self. Seriously what would it take for her to just be GONE?
And really why isn't Alchemy taking her share of blame and trying to freaking help for once rather than being as dumb as Abby "oh I'm sorry, I just injected you with my blood because I was curious....my baaaad"
Alchemy seems to have been given a free pass by everyone. If it was me that did something so stupid, I would have tried everything I could think of to fix it. Of course this wasn’t going to happen because David has some unseen plan for his story regarding Teddi’s gender swap.
- Fluffy
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
If Abby really cared about Chloe's well being, she would have told Teddy how this whole transformation thing came about in the first place - taking the blame off of Chloe's shoulders and accepting responsibility for her own selfish actions (as she had with the Artemis Girls in order to save Chloe's life). Instead, Abby is staying mums about it.
Pay in mind, in Canada, the legal age of sexual consent is sixteen - so, the majority of the cast getting up to sexual activity is totally fine . The stripping, though - is something else entirelyOnyx wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:01 pmI've been lurking on the forums for a while but felt like I needed to weigh in on it now. And this definitely. It's still fine if the sex happens off screen. How many times has American Dad gotten away with Steve and his friends posing provocatively in speedos for example? But there have been a few pages showing all but penetration with underage characters. This issue can be fixed with one very simple change:OllieOrOlly wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:06 am*EDIT* Yet another thing I don't think I've considered is that even though the strip is rated "PG-13," the fact that it has underage people involved in arguably explicit sexual acts makes it technically illegal in my country.
Retcon Teddy to being 18. On paper it's that simple. Just going back and editing the older pages to change that 16 into an 18. Abbey has yet to be shown doing anything sexual so she gets a pass for now. The plot can stay the same with a simple edit and be a little less skeevy as a result. Teddi can still be in high school, can still be a stripper instead of an underage stripper (I never felt like the underage bit added anything to the plot since the goal was for her to make money, not make some kind of point) and still have tried finding a guy for Chloe.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.
- DarkAsh
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Now that she’s stood up to Teddi, she may bring up what she did to get in this situation next page... or not. She probably needs to find her courage when talking to her brother about this. I like to see this as a start.
Last edited by DarkAsh on Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:27 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Isn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.
Age of consent here in the UK is 16 as well, but make a sex tape with anyone under 18 and you're in hot water. Just to use another example, R.Kelly was taken to court because he made a sex tape with a girl who was legal in the state the filmed it in but still under 18.
-
- BANNED
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:30 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
- Fluffy
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
It sounds ridiculous, considering it's a work of fiction; but - even if she was a legal adult - if the actress could physically be mistaken for a minor, I could understand why the film maker got into trouble; as - regardless of the actress's age - he was still making a porno depicting (albeit fictional) underaged characters in sexual situations; specifically for an audience who are into child porn.Onyx wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 pm
Isn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.
If a person is going to be stupid enough to play with that kind of fire; no one should be shocked when they get burned.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.
- Rosa
- BANNED
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:22 pm
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
YES. Y'see, this is exactly what I was talking about: being unable to tell fantasy from reality, the horrible effect of Puritan influence in American culture.Fairy Glade's Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:14 pm
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Making a porn movie with a child actress - illegal.
Making a porn movie with a 20-something actress - okay.
Making a porn movie with a a 20-something actress who prances around saying 'Whee, I'm a cute widdle child!' - illegal... wait, WHAT? Da fuck? Are they out of their motherfucking minds? It's just fiction, you sickos! Fictional events are not reality! It's paper, ink, celluloid, pixels, not real people! Don't persecute fiction!
You sound so smug and pleased with yourself. I guess that, if a magazine publishes a caricature of prophet Muhammad and muslim radicals attack and bomb their offices, you'd be among the people who'd come out and say: "Hey, they should have expected it. Why were they so stupid? Play with fire and you get burned!"Fluffy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:21 pmIt sounds ridiculous, considering it's a work of fiction; but - even if she was a legal adult - if the actress could physically be mistaken for a minor, I could understand why the film maker got into trouble; as - regardless of the actress's age - he was still making a porno depicting (albeit fictional) underaged characters in sexual situations; specifically for an audience who are into child porn.Onyx wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:37 pmIsn't it a general law in most countries however that real life people or even fictional characters under 18 depicted in sexual situations is considered child pornography? I remember Max Hardcore got into legal trouble because a porn actress in one of the movies he was producing played an underage character despite actually being an adult herself.
If a person is going to be stupid enough to play with that kind of fire; no one should be shocked when they get burned.
I don't agree with your use of the word 'stupid.' You should have said 'brave,' 'gallant' or 'right-minded,' not stupid. Stupid are the laws that infringe on human rights and the lawmakers who make them. People who helped runaway slaves in the pre-Civil War South, people who hid Jews from Nazis, people who defied repressive laws that trample free expression, they often met bad endings. Yeah, they played with fire and got burned. But this never is 'stupid,' because, those who challenge evil and unjust laws, no matter what their goal or purpose, are always, in their own humble way, strengthening universal rights. Even if they all they do is produce a porn flick where Amber Amber plays a 14-year-old schoolgirl. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." From UNUDHR.
"I assume that the creative team does read the boards and that, through
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."
(by @worldshaking00)
─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif
the troll swill, they can find a decent thought-provoking post from time
to time. Other than money (of course), praise and intelligent discussion
concerning an artist's work has to be their life blood."
(by @worldshaking00)
─────────────────────────────────────────
http://image.ibb.co/jtqXqx/output.gif
-
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:43 am
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, i'm pretty sure underage cartoons or fictional characters don't count as child pornography, although it might vary from state to state.
- DarkAsh
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 2:57 am
- Location: Sacramento, California
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Welcome, Dragon Paladin.Dragon Paladin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:31 amI don't know about Canada, but in the US, i'm pretty sure underage cartoons or fictional characters don't count as child pornography, although it might vary from state to state.
- Valkog
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
- Contact:
Re: Dangerously Chloe 22-03-18 Where Chloe Went
Eh, from a narrative standpoint, Chloe's been out in the rain for a long time. No big change here.
Edit: Also Rosa, that Jews bit is out of line. Comparing the plight of people like my great-grandpa, to porn directors getting flak for depicting minors (fictional or not) taking a fat pipe? That's just gross and exploitative.
Edit: Also Rosa, that Jews bit is out of line. Comparing the plight of people like my great-grandpa, to porn directors getting flak for depicting minors (fictional or not) taking a fat pipe? That's just gross and exploitative.
Last edited by Valkog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.