Page 4 of 5

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:15 am
by Zorlond
dmra wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:52 am
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.
Unfortunately, that's not what happens. Like it or not, the ideal of justice goes completely absent once the accusation is levied. Get on a watchlist and your job is gone, never to be hired again. And it'd be impossible to get off of that list, no matter how innocent you may be. Your wife ever talk about false accusations? Or does she assume everyone burned by the legal system is guaranteed to be guilty?
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.
Far as I can see, no false accusation has been made. Funny how that works, huh?

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:19 am
by dmra
So when you referred to "people like you" when you were talking about something I said you didn't actually mean me. Interesting use of the English language there.

Still it's not worth arguing over. You may have a wrong opinion of me and my views but there's not much point debating that and risking derailing this comment section any more than it already has been.

Having said that on your substantial point of course miscarriages of justice take place. Innocent people have suffered the consequences of allegations or, even worse, been found guilty of all kinds of charges whether as a result of police incompetence, false accusations, corruption or just really bad luck. All that's one reason why I'm opposed to capital punishment. But in the absence of a perfect criminal justice system what do you suggest we do?

EDIT - original comment edited to reduce risk of this discussion becoming personal.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:26 am
by dmra
Mandy wrote:
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.
Sorry if I misunderstood you on the first part. But paedophiles aren't always that different from the rest of us. Some of them might like reading web-comics like DC. in which case if this scene flicked their switch they'd probably regard it as a happy bonus.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:56 pm
by Mandy
That's true. Though I didn't figure that there weren't some pedophiles reading. I'm not that concerned with people fantasizing. If they don't act on it, I'm not that concerned. I'm more concerned when media actually causes people to do things relevant. Oddly enough, I don't know whether cartoon pedophilia porn makes people more or less likely to act on any fantasies. Do they get release by watching that and so they never act on any pedophilic inclinations? Does the cartoon pedophilia make any criminal urges more desirable?... I should look up statistics in Canada vs the US.

@Zorland. There always has and always will be some people who get their lives ruined by false charges and there will always be guilty people that go free. Things get better with new technologies but there will always be people failed by the system. It's not ideal but what choice do we have?

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:41 pm
by LarsenSan
Maelphaxerazz wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:34 am
You know, if Tandy spies on the house right now, she would have the perfect confirmation of her theory on the source of Teddy's pact.
Why do I have the hunch that that's what will happen? :|
Fluffy wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:22 am
An 11-12 year old girl being depicted as having an orgasm (and let's not kid ourselves - this is what's happening here, given Abby's obvious quiver/shudder in the second to last panel and confirmed in the last panel, as we've only seen the orgasmic heart bubbles during/following Teddy's own masturbation sessions) isn't just towing the pedophilia line; it's damned near vaulting over it. The fact that no nudity is visible doesn't make it any less squicky.
You should visit shadbase :)) :)) :))

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:36 pm
by BlairFan
I guess Abby won't be needing those big boobs after all. ;)

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:36 am
by sparky
It's a good thing that Teddi is over 18 or we would have had this same long drawn out discussion a long time ago.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:11 am
by vampire hunter D
I think he is under 18

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:27 am
by tityanya
I'm afraid if I laugh at this the FBI will bust down my door

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:14 am
by LegendaryKroc
sparky wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:36 am
It's a good thing that Teddi is over 18 or we would have had this same long drawn out discussion a long time ago.
Really? Then why is he still in high school with no mention made of him leaving it soon? Surely if he was in his final year that would have been brought up by now? The only reason this doesn't quite count as underage is that I'm pretty sure everyone else he's had sex with is in the same age category so it's not a crime per sé. At least I sure hope so.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:35 am
by dmra
I'm not sure about Canada but in the UK where I live the age of consent is 16 so Teddy's age was never an issue.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:59 am
by Fluffy
sparky wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:36 am
It's a good thing that Teddi is over 18 or we would have had this same long drawn out discussion a long time ago.
Teddy is sixteen, at the oldest. However, sixteen is the legal age on consent in Canada; so there was never an issue with him having sex. The issue with him is how and why he's having sex.

Abby, on the other hand, is still a child. I can't think of any conceivable reason why anyone needed to see a child having her first sexual experience; or how it's even remotely funny, in this case.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:11 am
by lordoffiling
Not sure if it matters, but I doubt it’s her first, now I’ve thought about it.

We’ve already seen Abby mesmerized by male angel asses, hanging guy posters all over her room, and peeking into locker rooms hoping for boys.

She’s definitely into puberty, she has no parents around to pound shame into her head, and she’s got two succubi and a shapeshifted brother living in the house. If she hasn’t gotten curious about her body before this I’d be very surprised.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:36 pm
by DocMesa
Starphoenix wrote:
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.
Good lord, that takes me back...

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:45 pm
by Fluffy
lordoffiling wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:11 am
Not sure if it matters, but I doubt it’s her first, now I’ve thought about it.

We’ve already seen Abby mesmerized by male angel asses, hanging guy posters all over her room, and peeking into locker rooms hoping for boys.
There's a big difference between ogling/being attracted to a physical body and physically reacting to sexual stimuli. If Abby has ever had sexual fantasies based on the male figure - we've never seen it in this comic (nor should we - ever).

Just because it may happen; doesn't mean we have to see it. Because, in all honestly, what purpose does sexualizing a minor serve?