Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Fluffy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:51 pm

Mandy wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:42 pm
This update was mostly to show that the new appendages are more than an asthetic change.
Which could have been established perfectly fine without the last two panels.
Dangerously Chloe isn't exactly my favorite of the Pixie trix comics but you guys exaggerate.
What exaggeration? This update is literally showing a pre-teen shuddering in pleasure as she touches her new horns and collapsing in orgasmic bliss. You can't miss it.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

Zorlond
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:17 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Zorlond » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:27 pm

dmra wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:08 pm
"This is a long distance from being what pedophiles would seek out so who gives a crap."

My wife used to work counselling convicted paedophiles and shared quite a lot of horrible stories. Trust me an awful lot of paedophiles would find the idea of a girl as old as Abby bringing herself to climax very arousing indeed.
Oh, like the time a guy set fire to his own apartment complex trying to kill an accused pedophile inside? While the guy's own two daughters were still inside as well?

Or how about the time a false accusation of pedophilia utterly destroyed a guy's life? Job, marriage, prospects, everything just gone?

How about the websites that have been completely deleted (all of them, 100%) just because of one fictional story (all text, no visuals) that happened to have pedophilia?

I've been working on a theory that people like you see one very specific sexual word and instantly and indelibly connect it to half a dozen other words. So, when you look at the word 'pedophilia', what other words or concepts do you instantly connote it with? Rape? Violent abuse? Imprisonment? Powerlessness? How about 'witch'? Because every time I see this sort of topic come up, everywhere it comes up, it instantly turns into a witch hunt. Accusation identical to guilt, no 'punishment' too far.

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Fluffy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:32 pm

In this case, there's no speculation about what's happening - it's right there, in black and white illustration and text. If Abby, an 11-12 year old pre-teen, isn't being sexualized by having an orgasm in those last two panels; what would you say is happening?

Or, does the context not matter because it's a work of fiction? Because, if you think it paints people in a negative light for jumping to those conclusions based on what they see/read; what does it say about the people who publish the content, in the first place?
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

'J'
A Figment of your Imagination
Posts: 5531
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by 'J' » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:59 pm

personally, i found this page fairly tame compared to some of the uncomfortable skeevyness we've had recently. or some of what we've had for as long as these comics have been going, for that matter.

User avatar
Error of Logic
Posts: 5065
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Error of Logic » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:01 pm

Perhaps, but it's cumulative.
My comic, Res Mira, starts here.

The crazy will bust loose. Either in the stories or on the forum. Or both at the same time.

Mad theory: Eulice is actually a retired succubus. This explains why she says DiDi Chastel looks like she did in her younger years. She maintains her current form because it allows her to get through her day without having to turn down sexual advances.

A busty redhead by decree of the Internet...? o.o;

User avatar
Mandy
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Mandy » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:40 pm

dmra wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:08 pm
"This is a long distance from being what pedophiles would seek out so who gives a crap."

My wife used to work counselling convicted paedophiles and shared quite a lot of horrible stories. Trust me an awful lot of paedophiles would find the idea of a girl as old as Abby bringing herself to climax very arousing indeed.
Of course they would. That's not the point. This is nothing compared to any fantasies that a paedophile might have. It neither makes it more or less likely for a paedophile to go through with any perverse, illegal plans that they might have. You're missing the point of making it taboo for the media to depict sexual behavior in people before puberty. The point is to protect kids. If you're not protecting kids then you're asking for pointless censorship. Should we start banning video games for making cereal killers next?

Zorlond
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:17 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Zorlond » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:51 pm

Fluffy wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:32 pm
In this case, there's no speculation about what's happening - it's right there, in black and white illustration and text. If Abby, an 11-12 year old pre-teen, isn't being sexualized by having an orgasm in those last two panels; what would you say is happening?
I'd say she's just discovering a surprise fact about her new body by accident, in the privacy of her own bedroom (Al doesn't count, he's out cold). Happens all the time, and isn't particularly sexy all by itself.
Or, does the context not matter because it's a work of fiction? Because, if you think it paints people in a negative light for jumping to those conclusions based on what they see/read; what does it say about the people who publish the content, in the first place?
I'd say the context of a work of fiction doesn't have any relevance to our physical reality. Did blowing up the Death Star matter to us? No, that'd be silly. It was undeniably fiction. And if other things are equally undeniably fictitious (like becoming a succubus), then why should they be relevant to our physical reality? You're also implying that the people who produce DC actually intend to produce pedophilia, instead of this entire discussion being the unfortunate consequence of what I was talking about before, people instantly connecting one word with half a dozen others.

User avatar
Mandy
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Mandy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:11 am

Eh, I'd say that the fictional media isn't quiet as disconnected from our reality as you let on; if only because for good or for bad, people can be affected by the media. People often exaggerate the amount that people are affected by media though. On the topic of pedophiles, the media doesn't make people into pedophiles. It's often a mental disease that all too often doesn't get treated before some poor kids get hurt. The media could promote paedophiles getting psychological help and that could make a difference... Or, conversely, the media could normalize paedophilia and cause more child molestations to happen. However, this comic specifically really is doing nothing in either direction and isn't having much of an effect on the public at all... Sooo, there's really not that much to complain about here in that regard.

renmei
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by renmei » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:36 am

DC's been doing morally reprehensible stuff since the start, so it's interesting to see where people draw their moral lines in the sand.

dmra
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by dmra » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:52 am

Zorlond wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:27 pm
dmra wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:08 pm
"This is a long distance from being what pedophiles would seek out so who gives a crap."

My wife used to work counselling convicted paedophiles and shared quite a lot of horrible stories. Trust me an awful lot of paedophiles would find the idea of a girl as old as Abby bringing herself to climax very arousing indeed.
Oh, like the time a guy set fire to his own apartment complex trying to kill an accused pedophile inside? While the guy's own two daughters were still inside as well?

Or how about the time a false accusation of pedophilia utterly destroyed a guy's life? Job, marriage, prospects, everything just gone?

How about the websites that have been completely deleted (all of them, 100%) just because of one fictional story (all text, no visuals) that happened to have pedophilia?

I've been working on a theory that people like you see one very specific sexual word and instantly and indelibly connect it to half a dozen other words. So, when you look at the word 'pedophilia', what other words or concepts do you instantly connote it with? Rape? Violent abuse? Imprisonment? Powerlessness? How about 'witch'? Because every time I see this sort of topic come up, everywhere it comes up, it instantly turns into a witch hunt. Accusation identical to guilt, no 'punishment' too far.
And I have a theory about people like you who make massive assumptions about other people's views based on very little data.

Like I said my wife worked with paedophiles in her professional capacity and shared stories with me. Things like some of the people she worked with telling her that children as young as five had "seduced" them. So you're right that I don't like paedophiles. I think they're awful people but that's a hell of a long way from wanting people to undertake vigilante acts or to see people's lives destroyed by false accusations.

I'm perfectly happy to let the law do it's job and think that those accused of paedophilia deserve the same presumption of innocence until proved guiltyas anybody else.

Now since you're so opposed to witch hunts and false accusations perhaps you'll apologise for the false accusation you've just made about me.

dmra
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by dmra » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:21 am

Mandy wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:40 pm
dmra wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:08 pm
"This is a long distance from being what pedophiles would seek out so who gives a crap."

My wife used to work counselling convicted paedophiles and shared quite a lot of horrible stories. Trust me an awful lot of paedophiles would find the idea of a girl as old as Abby bringing herself to climax very arousing indeed.
Of course they would. That's not the point. This is nothing compared to any fantasies that a paedophile might have. It neither makes it more or less likely for a paedophile to go through with any perverse, illegal plans that they might have. You're missing the point of making it taboo for the media to depict sexual behavior in people before puberty. The point is to protect kids. If you're not protecting kids then you're asking for pointless censorship. Should we start banning video games for making cereal killers next?
Actually it would help if you didn't keep shifting what you think the point is. Your original statement was that paedophiles wouldn't be interested in something that showed a very young girl engaging in sexual activity. i was simply pointing out that a lot of them would be very interested indeed.

The argument about censorship is something different altogether.

As far as that goes teens get up to an awful lot that hasn't been shown in this story. I can't remember seeing a single character smoking for instance. Should we really believe that nobody under 18 in the DC world has a cigarette habit? Or that no adults like a smoke every now and then?

So the authors are making conscious choices to exclude or include aspects of reality all the time. In this instance they chose to make a throw away and pretty lame joke about a very young having a sexual experience when they could have done any one of a number of other things. Abby has a tail and wings but they ignored the comic possibilities or either of those possibly because they might have had to think about it for more than two seconds.

I don't think the comic should be censored. I've not asked for it to be rewritten or redrawn. I've just said that it's going in a direction I personally don't like.

User avatar
Azrael
Mischief Maker
Posts: 22405
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:48 am
Location: Down below, where the dead men go

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Azrael » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:53 am

Alexander Collins wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:24 am
Azrael wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:13 am
FuzzyFace wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:48 am

Well, she looks like a demon. It has not yet been shown that she actually has anything in the way of succubus powers beyond the sensitive horns. In a similar war, Teddi is quite a succubus - she has the pheromones, but not the shape changing ability, as far as we know.


If she looks like a demon, and walks like a demon, and quacks like a demon, the she's clearly a demonic duck. :p
[In a deadpan tone] Rim shot...

Hey, thank you very much, I'll be here all week.
Grand Low Maker of Mischief, Claw of Chaos, Fang of Anarchy

politics: n. pl. from the Grk polis, meaning many, and the OE ticia, meaning blood sucking insects.

User avatar
Mandy
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:21 pm
Location: Gotham

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Mandy » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:21 am

Actually it would help if you didn't keep shifting what you think the point is. Your original statement was that paedophiles wouldn't be interested in something that showed a very young girl engaging in sexual activity. i was simply pointing out that a lot of them would be very interested indeed.
No. I said that paedophiles wouldn't seek this comic out specifically. Which they wouldn't. Why should they when there's a whole sea of internet? Then you argued with that for whatever reason.

I'm pretty sure that Zorland was banking on you NOT being okay with those examples he posted. He was saying that going too far demonizing pedophiles and anything that *might* be considered vaguely pedophilic leads to witch hunts that nobody wants happening. Same thing happens with the anti-abortion folks who shoot up women's clinics.

User avatar
vampire hunter D
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:19 pm
Location: Jasoom

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by vampire hunter D » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:05 am

You know, I think the incessant bitching on these forums is the biggest thing ruining these comics. Seriously, you guys are only reading it to find something to complain about
Pointless arguing is one of the three pillars upon which the Internet is built. The other two are of course cat pictures and porn.

User avatar
Starphoenix
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:39 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 30-10-17 Pinching My Back

Post by Starphoenix » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:54 am

To be honest, D, some of us aren't even reading the comic anymore and simply just hang around because... community. ^_^

I've seen the same thing happen with the Dominic Deegan web comic, so this is hardly a new occurrence.
Pretty much here for the ****posting.

Last Dangerously Chloe Comic Read: 09/18/17

Post Reply