those nude daria toons

has anyone seen those pics of the girls from daria floating around the net'? theyr'e kinda sick but funny as hell

i knew someone was going to say it, so i may as well be the first. Where on earth did you see these?

ive seen a bunch of em floating around...i dont think theyre legal though.....technically...the kids from daria are underage

[email] (Jgaulrapp) writes:

Okay, THIS is insane.

You may in fact be right about the legality thereof, but, if you are, it would clearly show a severe problem with the law.

If these were illegal becasuse of copyright violation, okay, that'd be fine with me. But calling these "child pornography" is a gross violation of common sense.

Think of it: a law exists to protect someone or some agency from actions of another entity. What person or agency is harmed by nude drawings of a ficticious character? You could claim that the copyright holder is harmed, but that would be a copyright issue. Claming that this is a child pornography issue is ridiculous: who's the child being harmed?

• Ian

On 2 Dec 1998 14:15:27 GMT, [email] (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:

Studies show that pornography is progressive. There is no way that someone getting hooked on drawings would stop there. I guess, I don't really know.

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

[email] (Kyle) writes:

Which studies, where? Who sponsored them, and why? Did they use reasonable data, and did they interpret it correctly?

So far, I've seen no studies which show that. I've seen *claims* that studes show that; the studies themselves don't. I've seen anecdotal evidence from people who claim that pornography took over their lives; I don't find such stories convincing; they sound like pathetic excuses from people who are trying to blame anything other than themselves for their actions, and I've seen Dear Abby columns from people who claim that pornography broke up their marriages (of course, the people writing those letters sounded like nasty people that I would've up and left, too, with or without pornography.)

Like I said, I don't actually see that anybody's correlated pornography with anything bad, ever, to my satisfaction.

• Ian

On 2 Dec 1998 23:05:27 GMT, [email] (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:

If we start taking this attitude, nothing is ever going to get decided. If you want me to dig up and post 1000's of megabytes of data and soforth, I'm not.

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

[email] (Kyle) writes:

Better that we should decide nothing rather than allow ourselves to be led around by the predigested prefigured predecided conclusions of interested parties! Look: we're all Daria fans here; we should at least get SOME of the "question authority" message that the show sends.

If you don't have the time, the inclination, or the skills to do the research and to draw your own conclusions, that's fine. But don't just make a random decision on a matter because someone told you to, unless you personally have a reason to trust that person.

Don't just accept the voice of authority! Don't just sit there and accept whatever someone tells you! Question motives, reasons, methods, ideas!

What you've just said is that it's more convenient to use other people's cooked data than it is to make your own decisions and to think for yourself. And you're right; it is more convenient. But who's cooking the data, and whose data is it, and do you trust those people to cook your data for you?

I'd hope that we'd get the message from the show that the voice of authority is not always right, and that people believe what they want to believe, not what is real.

• Ian

Xiphias Gladius wrote:

LOL! Go tell that to the Tom Grant-worshippers onalt.fan.courtney-love or alt.music.nirvana! This is possibly the only newsgroup in the whole of cyberspace you could say that and people would listen! :)

Alli

"endless, nameless" writes:

Yes, but notice: I said it on this group. :)

It's not the only one; soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is pretty good, too. Also the urban legends group. A few others.

• Ian

Xiphias Gladius wrote:

Very sensible. You can say it here without getting flamed, which is always nice.

On 3 Dec 1998 13:32:48 GMT, [email] (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:

Thank you.

I really don't know what to say, but point taken. ___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

Xiphias Gladius of Illuminati Online writes:

Daria of course! Cartoon characters should have rights too! Actually, since Daria is 16 it shouldn't be an issue, but Quinn is only 14 so people shouldn't draw nudes of her.

OTOH, who cares about Quinn.

-Shez.

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:20:53 +0000, Shez wrote:

Well, from a purely, uh ... *cough*, "aesthetic" point of view, Quinn would be more suited to this particulay area.

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

Kyle of writes:

No, I mean who cares if Quinn's rights are violated by people drawing her nude.

-Shez.

Shez wrote in message ...

I don`t care for Quinn much, but i find the idea of Daria ending up as a porn star, heartbreaking frankly. :-(

"Paul gate" wrote:

Naa, not as a star. More likely as the director. ;)

Shez wrote in message ...

I don`t care for Quinn much, but i find the idea of Daria ending up as a porn star, heartbreaking frankly. :-(

Shez wrote in message ...

I don`t care for Quinn much, but i find the idea of Daria ending up as a porn star, heartbreaking frankly. :-(

Shez wrote in message ...

I don`t care for Quinn much, but i find the idea of Daria ending up as a porn star, heartbreaking frankly. :-(

Shez wrote in message ...

I don`t care for Quinn much, but i find the idea of Daria ending up as a porn star, heartbreaking frankly. :-(

I know the guy who drew some 'good' ones (he does art, erotic or otherwise, on commision). If anyone wants, I can post them to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.cartoons. These are two 4 page 'comics', plus a regular pic.

Kyle wrote in message ...

Well if we're talking about nude cartoons, why not bring the art of Alberto Vargas into it?

Or Little Annie Fanny?

Or Jessica Rabbit? ("I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way.)

Or even Betty Boop?

Drawings of sexy-looking women some of whom have given the censors some problems.

Bob

Xiphias Gladius wrote in message ...

This may be so in the case of these particular pictures (I haven't seen them, and I don't want anyone to email or post these pictures so I can judge for myself - see note below).

I think that here you're inviting discussion on a general point (forgive me if I've got it wrong and you're still referring to *tbese particular* pictures).

A test for obscenity used in English Law is whether the published material is likely to deprave or corrupt. (Note: pornography per se is not illegal here, only obscene pornography. Just because someone has no clothes on does not make a picture illegal in the UK. I'm not implying that it does in the USA; I don't know.)

Now if the pictures showed Daria performing a lewd act, I'd say that they could be capable of corrupting or depraving. Some of the people who watch Daria are young; some of them identify with her; some of them are impressionable. So seeing Daria performing a lewd act may inspire that young person to to try it themselves, or make them more likely to permit an adult to do to them what an adult is doing to Daria in the (hypothetical) picture, and, perhaps, less likely to report the act afterwards.

So, answering your general point, not talking about these particular pictures, because I haven't seen them: the child who may be harmed is the child who looks at the pictures.

You can also assert that people legitimise their fantasies by using pornography, and so lower their inhibitions and make them more likely to act them out in reality. I agree with this view, though I recognise it's hotly disputed by those who make and sell pornography. So another person harmed may be the person who uses lewd pictures to feed their fantasies. Another group of people harmed would be those to whom such people's exploitative attitudes would be reinforced.

There was pornography before there was photography. Clearly, there is one fewer victim in drawn pornography: no child is harmed by performing for the camera, and it is absurd to equate nude cartoons with nude photographs of real underage people.

If the actual pictures in question show Daria unclothed, but are not in any way lewd or suggestive, then I think you are right in saying that, 'Calling these "child pornography" is a gross violation of common sense.'

But I don't accept that just because they're "only" cartoons, no-one can possibly be harmed. It depends on what the cartoon shows!

Who would produce things like this? Well, cui bono? ("Who stands to gain?"). If they are lewd, and they are capable of making children more receptive to indecent suggestions, who would benefit from that?

If they're not lewd, it could just be straightforward visual humour playing on the funniness of the unexpected (You wouldn't expect *Daria* to pose nude, would you?)

(Note: Should anyone decide to post or email me these pictures in defiance of my expressed wish, and the toons do turn out, in my view, to be capable of depraving or corrupting, I will report the matter to the appropriate authorities. Sorry if this is a bit heavy. 8-( I don't imagine that any of the atd regulars would contemplate doing such a thing! I felt it only fair to express my wish and to say in advance how I'd react to anyone acting contrary to it.)

Martin.

<snip for space>

I'll attempt to clear up some of the confusion here... the pictures (if we're thinking of the same ones here) were created by Chris Flores, who used to frequent the message boards, and still shows up here occasionally. From the ones that I've seen (he used to post them on the boards, earning himself a notorious reputation) none of them were particularly lewd or likely to deprave, but they were all in very poor taste. YMMV. Also, I was the one who posted a link a few months ago to satisfy somebody's curiosity. I'd like to aplogize for any distress and/or vomiting I may have caused.

Shadowcloak [email] (NOT @aol) http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/7252/

"Oh, no. The toilet is talking to me again." - Jane Lane

On 2 Dec 1998 20:40:22 GMT, [email] (Shadoc64) wrote:

No apologies neccessary. I looked at them out of my own free will.

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

Insanity is the only thing that keeps everyone else in straight mind.

Xiphias Gladius wrote:

Right!! It's like my friend participated in some research (as subject) at a college, which you could see was fixed: like part of it asked questions about how often you're upset at people of different ethnic groups: which is really irrelevant, because if I'm mad at someone it's because of something that person did- not their ethnic group. The other was about radical groups on the internet, all the subjects were given different pages and asked how much they agreed with- with no questions beforehand to know how much they agreed with before- to determine how radicals on the internet affect people's opinions. All had no control and many misleading questions. So the point is, lots of figures are faked. I hope you all knew that before, but.. Dagny misery chick, cynic, general loony

Visit the Parsley Firefly http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697

"One must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you." Friedrich Nietzsche

A couple months ago someone posted a link to one. Curiosity got the best of me, and I almost threw up... On 2 Dec 1998 01:30:44 GMT, [email] (CrtoonDude) wrote:

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280

hmmmmmmmmm..... well, curiosity is the getting the best of ME. And i can't stand being curious about anything. AND i don't remember any link... hmmmmmmm, perhaps i haven't been reading this NG long enough.

Uh, sorry about that. Somebody asked to see them. Anyway, better end this topic before we bring you-know-who out of hiding.

Shadowcloak [email] (NOT @aol) http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/7252/

"Oh, no. The toilet is talking to me again." - Jane Lane

CrtoonDude wrote:

I'm just guessing, but I can't help but think that the same guy who created the nude Marge Simpson a few years ago probably came up with these. ;-{)>

MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

make GEORYN disappear to reply

"'Thin Thighs For Your Man.' But I don't *like* men with thin thighs" --Daria

N.P.:"Goodbye"- J a n e S i b e r r y / T h e W a l k i n g

heeeeeeey! first of all, i can't draw worth a shit. Second of all, i don't ever remember seeing any freakin nude marge simpson pictures. I wanted to know where he had seen them, as in, "what kind f site would post such filth?"

Funny? How, exactly, is there humor in a sick perversion of a great cartoon (which is also child pornography, I guess)?

On 2 Dec 1998 01:20:59 GMT, [email] (Jgaulrapp) wrote:

___

Uh-oh, someone just put me in a position of responsibility! The day has suddenly turned sinister...

Another Nugget of Knowledge from the Wonderful World of Kyle(TM), ICQ#12773280