Aug. 10, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST
Cannot wait to read this though
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:22 p.m. CST
Thanks for that post Moriarty, now I'm even more excited about picking this up this weekend.
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST
tell us what we really want to know...Is it a good "stroke book"?
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST
Hmm...what actresses should play the girls???
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:46 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I'm sure this'll be a particularly enlightened and non-infuriating thread.
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:53 p.m. CST
I always thought Wendy was slut.
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST
for some reason I thought I was first.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST
has a small Pecker...you know, because in Neverneverland you never grow up. His man canoe has to be miniscule
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST
has a small pecker too, I'm sure. And I only say this because I'm watching the Colts-Rams game. Pre-season football?! God I'm so alone
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST
sucks cocks too
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:10 p.m. CST
that doesn't sacrifice its story at the altar of the Big Idea, and I am interested to see if this is so. It looks amazing, and I found both your review and Moore's interview pretty darn convincing reasons to buy 'Lost Girls'.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:20 p.m. CST
I definitely might have to check this out as a fan of Moore's work. I think there are some interesting points there about the reaction to the idea of exploring the sexual aspects of some of these characters, even as children. It does seem like this is something that wasn't always seen as such a big deal - i.e. the overtly sexual nature of the earliest versions of Little Red Riding Hood.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
Oh, and Moore wrote a prose novel since From Hell called Voice of the Fire. I recommend it highly.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:41 p.m. CST
In before the impending TB shitstorm strikes.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:44 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
I like Moore's work but I'm getting a little tired of everyone drooling all over his supposed genius. I don't plan on buying this not because I'm offended but because I'm really not interested. Once again, it's just Moore taking someone else's characters and screwing with them rather than trying to create something wholly original. It's shock for shock's sake. I was in Chicago for Wizard World over the weekend and I stopped by the Top Shelf booth to buy some stuff as I always do but I just couldn't bring myself to buy it. There are so many other books and creators out there more worthy of the attention the fanboys and the mainstream media love to heap on Moore (and no Herc, Ellis is not one of them). Top Shelf in particular publishes a number of great books each year, many of which are better than most of what Moore produces, and yet they are continually overlooked by those who think they know comic books but only know Moore and Miller and Ellis.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
Oh, I forgot to add, John Byrne already called someone an asshole for eagerly anticipating Lost Girls on his message boards.
Aug. 10, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST
...when it first hit tpb. It was first published in Taboo magazine, if memory serves, and later collected in two prestige format books from Kitchen Sink (which is what I have), the first came out in '95 and the second in early '96, so it's kind of odd seeing people just discovering this book now. Well, okay, not odd that people are discovering it now, given the new shiny re-release and all, but odd that anyone would act as though this was a "new" masterpiece. Plus which, it never made that much of a dramatic or controversial impact back in the day (even if Moore may have wanted it to), so I can't see it doing so now, unless it's drummed up. Especially as the art in this is very much a child of many classic erotic artforms, from Persian to Egyptian, Greek and Roman, and as such, despite the content matter, it doesn't "look" like a "dirty book" any more than a book on historical hieroglyphic erotica does. Flicking through it, despite the explicitness, it just doesn't carry that same kind of connotation. I mean it's not like it's Cherry or Druuna we're talking about here (neither of which have faced that much hassle over the years anyway, despite their different takes on some very graphically pornographic comic based material). As for the book itself, it's interesting, but I can't say I was anywhere near as impressed as the Professor here. Still, it's worth checking out if what you've read has your interest piqued. Here's a question though, to anyone who has this new collected edition, is there any new material in it, or is it just reprints of everything done prior and the usual padded extras?
Aug. 10, 2006, 8 p.m. CST
I see by re-reading through the above review that clearly this book does have new material as well as the previously released, so sounds like he did what he's been promising to do for years and finished out the saga once and for all with a third volume (and then packaged it all together). Might be worth investigating again in that case.
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Yeah, I should have made that clearer. Like V FOR VENDETTA, I know this has been published in part before, but now he's finally completed the book, and I think the last third is what ties it together and makes it more than just a clever dirty riff on familiar faces.
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST
gah i'm going to go complain to greasemonkey now, so sorry
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST
Is there, by chance, an appearance by the Frog Sisters?
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:39 p.m. CST
More like a Sinister Duck.
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:40 p.m. CST
Journal Entry 34 - 2/23/1983 - When I was 10, I started to notices something in side of me was changing - something in my pants. I tried to ignore it as long as I could, this building urge to touch myself, to give my privates a little squeeze now and then. But as the weeks went on, this became harder to do until one morning in the caf
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Just for clarification, the two issues that were published in the 90's are actually just first two parts of th first volume now. The last 210 or so pages are all new, as I understand it.
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:56 p.m. CST
...characters they created in the real world. Moore met John Constantine for real, twice. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of his Lost Girls should find him?
Aug. 10, 2006, 8:57 p.m. CST
by The Mothman
Amazon's saving seems pretty decent, but savings are like jello...there's always room for a little more.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 9 p.m. CST
Too many god damn vampires.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST
Would be the art of making portraits of a certain 6th-7th Century Persian Queen.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST
Alan Moore is a genius. I'm glad to see that he is a bold and free thinker. Our sexually suppressed society...and the hypocrisy that mascquerades as a democracy...is killing our freedoms and starving us of our sense of self. Once you begin to live for everyone else and their self righteous approval, you lose yourself in the false paradigm others have created for you. The elite don't edit themselves...rather, they wish us...their presumed slaves, worker bees, to surrender ourselves to their police state of the mind. Alan Moore...has escaped the mind prison that the wealthy and powerful would keep us caged in. You know, we all know what is right...we have a sense of truth ingrained in us, of what is right...and what is wrong. And it is up to the individual to follow his or her own moral compass...Just as long as sex is consentual...and no one is being forced to do anything against their will...who are we to judge those who partake in it? Technically and scientifically speaking, sex is simply the act of bringing two or more bodies together to create friction...which results in a pleasurable feeling known as an orgasm!!! Essentually, when you think about it, sex is nothing but a deep tissue massage. Why should we be made to feel ashamed of that???
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:18 p.m. CST
Wonder what Harry thinks about your view on pornography given that he writes for Penthouse...
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:25 p.m. CST
Should appeal to academics who look down on porn but defend their "literary" porn as art. It's pure shock, which has its place in art, but really, the lesbian-chic going on here makes the pretentiousness all the more laughable. No, I am not saying this shouldn't be published, thought up, created, and I hope it's freely distributed, but when I read the asskissing in this review I just chuckle. It can't be porn because, well, there are literary references, and, like, it's Alan Moore, who makes comic books, so it's art! Yeah, whatever. This will appeal to fanboys who like lesbian superheorine porn as well as their college professors, who will put it on their coffee tables alongside Hollywood Babylon. There's nothing wrong with that, but gimme a break with the nose-in-the-air pretentiousness.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:26 p.m. CST
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST
by your definition "120 Days of Sodom" could not be pornography. Bruce LaBruce said it best "The difference between Pornography and Art is the lighting". Now in the spirit of encountering fictional characters in the real world ala Hellblazer #23 I must go "bump, bump, bump,...down the funny stairs" good-night.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:35 p.m. CST
.... I assume you bothered to, er... READ this book before you blessed us with your razor-sharp literary criticism? Moore doesn't walk on water, but since you're obviously someone who enjoys bloviating about shit you haven't even READ, you don't have the right to call anyone on 'nose-in-the-air pretentiousness'. Pot calling Kettle.... Come in, Kettle....
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST
...and Andrew Blake should photograph it! Of course Moore will disown it and demand his name be taken off the credits, a la V for Vendetta. I gotta admit, this sounds quite interesting...though I admit further that this is coming from a dude who, while eschewing the sort of "gonzo" porn that Mori mentions (i.e. let's do a 26-guy cream pie on one chick for two hours), has been a fan of erotica for many years, with a tendency toward leg and foot worship. (When Mori runs down some of what's in the book, I noticed feet weren't mentioned, darn it; I could do without the fisting, among others.) However, some of the fascination comes from the fact that these children's stories ALWAYS had metaphors for sexuality about them: Wendy Darling, for example, is clearly shown to be on the cusp of young womanhood; and the latest Peter Pan movie made no bones about that, casting an absolute babe-to-be in the role (nothing shocking about that, it's the pure and simple truth). Snow White is about as clear a virgin-deflowering story as you could think of; and Alice was borne of hallucinogens and more than a little interest in young girls. This clearly won't be along the lines of those fake funnybooks of yesteryear in which Dick Tracy was dicking Tess Trueheart...Moore is up to something else entirely. Still, as it's a visual medium, the art will make it or break it for me. And obviously, it couldn't be filmed; nor, I suspect, should it be.
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:54 p.m. CST
Alice: Sharon Wild. Snow White: Jessica Jaymes. Wendy: Rita Faltoyano. Both Sharon and Rita are czech, but I'm sure a dialogue coach would work wonders :)
Aug. 10, 2006, 9:59 p.m. CST
I really meant to say "Dorothy" the whole time! Tying into what I said before, Dorothy is also very much a young woman; and going "over the rainbow" is yet another euphemism for having an orgasm...or at least it SHOULD be!
Aug. 10, 2006, 10:39 p.m. CST
...you'd be green too, if someone panned your peter (insert canned laughter).
Aug. 10, 2006, 10:48 p.m. CST
more than a passing mention, if that, in the U.S. media. I actually wish it could create a big controversy. Lord knows this country needs to start a frank discussion on sexuality. Doesn't matter if Lost girls is any good or not (although it does sound great), I really think most people are too immature to be faced with, let alone talk, about this type of subject matter. Oh and Moriarty, I'm really digging these non-film reviews that you write up. Just gotta get around to reading The Chinatown Death Cloud Peril.
Aug. 10, 2006, 10:59 p.m. CST
5% high minded, discerning artistic afficionados..... 40% unapologetic stroking pedophiles..... 55% closeted pedophiles who masquerade as high minded discering artistic afficionados but who really like to jerk to naked pictures of Ariel and Sailor Moon. You know I'm right.
Aug. 10, 2006, 11 p.m. CST
... of slowly building my respect, you lost me at wendy's brothers sucking each other off.
Aug. 10, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST
by Cletus Van Damme
"...a scene of John and Michael sucking each other off while Peter fucks Wendy from behind." Honestly, come on. This shit is so juvenile that Andrew Dice Clay could sue for plagarism and win.
Aug. 10, 2006, 11:31 p.m. CST
... to sex and coming of age, in fairy tales and children's tales. You know what's not so clever? Bashing people over the head with explicit depictions of kiddie book characters fisting each other. Just because it can be imagined, and just because it's "dangerous" to put it literally on paper, doesn't make a writer's wank-matter art. And yeah, yeah, I know I should read it before I get so negative against it, on account of Moore making comic books "grow up" and all. But somehow I think the world is better served by a comic about Superman fighting the Ice Monster, read and enjoyed by a million little kids, than a wank mag about little kids getting jerked over by a group adults who've convinced themselves that their hobby has "grown up" just because they did. I think I'm done. If not I'll come back and write some more. Later!
Aug. 10, 2006, 11:35 p.m. CST
Congrats on being the one with the cliche of all the cliches, the You Haven't Read It So You Can't Comment post. (You also get a star on your pinhead for the addition of the "Er".) We are discussing the subject matter as described by the review. Please try to keep up with those of us with brains not entirely devoted to Nick at Nite. I know folks don't like their stroking of Moore to be interrupted by anyone daring to pop their kiddieporn balloons, and would like nothing but a thread of "This sounds great!" but too frickin bad. Boohoo, someone dared criticize the book as described, someone dared say something about a "graphic novel" which obviously can't be bad because it's got kiddie porn imagery. Well too bad, you pretentious twit. Now go back to the schoolyard, the recess bell just rang.
Aug. 10, 2006, 11:40 p.m. CST
I bailed on 120 Days after a chapter, and as for what is or isn't porn, I am comfortable letting the individual decide for him or herself. Based on this review, this just sounds awful, but it also sounds like something a lot of folks will enjoy. The pervs.
Aug. 10, 2006, 11:45 p.m. CST
by xavier masterson
It's been too long.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:42 a.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:48 a.m. CST
alan moore might be free to write this, and we are free to dream and fantasize as we please, but this does not make the dream great. though this is moore's expression as an artist, it does not do justice to the idea of freedom. we live in america and we can do just about anything. and for all the complaining many people do in regards to some percieved puritanical mindset in this country, we really have access to more information (be it neutral, dangerous, carnal, religious, whatever) than any previous age could have imagined. we can do practically anything and even if we feel as though we can't, we at least know about it. i also understand that somewhere along the line, our public understanding of sexuality went from obscured to blatant in a relatively short amount of time, in regards to having lifelike, reproducible, media representations of something that was normally the object of fantasy, at least in regards to scale. again, we can do and see nearly anything. but how is it that sexuality has become the final wall to break through in art? is there anything else left to show? because with each "last" wall broken through, there's still someone who's trying to break through the same wall and a thousand people waiting to applaud that act as "daring", "iconoclastic", "necessary", or whatever. Our freedom can be used for so much more than this. In this case, the book is done. This is less about the book and more about our response to it, or to The Dreamers, or to Last Tango In Paris, or Eyes Wide Shut or whatever "daring" and "provocative" movie that's on the menu. My point is that the classical definition of "freedom" means "freedom for greatness". This was the way the Romans and Greeks understood it and it stood alongside the ideas of "honor", "loyalty", "heroism", etc. It was an upward motion, at it cast aside lower pleasures for higher ones. i know that the greeks and romans also had a different understanding of sexuality than our current social situation, but the outcome would still be the same. what we consider daring is not what they would consider daring. i don't mean to rant, but i just have a rough time with each consecutive pushing of the envelope. that sucker's fallen off the table by now.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:52 a.m. CST
both from Moriarty and Ole Gravy Leg, definitely must look into this further when I get the chance then. Cheers guys.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1 a.m. CST
by The Mothman
How about withholding Nick at Nite as a tool of revenge. Rugrats All Grown Up is a damn funny show.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1 a.m. CST
Nah, sorry, you're limp comebacks don't quite stick to me. Although I'm an admirer of 'Watchmen' and 'From Hell', I'm hardly uncritical of Moore. And based purely on the synopsis, I'm not terribly interested in the subject matter of 'Lost Girls'. 'Arty' pornography is usually a deadly bore. But, unlike you, I avoid dismissing authors and the fans of authors based purely on a synopsis. But I admire what a classy intellectual you are to mischaracterize anyone who questions your rabid skullfucking ignorance as a kiddie porn enthusiast. Moore's authored some great work in the past; his new work might be terrible, but I believe the man has worked hard enough, and made enough contributions to comicdom, that he's earned enough trust to be READ before he's judged as some exploitative, lowlife hack. Again, the new book might be bloody awful. But all the namecalling in the world won't justify what a fucking useless loudmouth you are, 'writer'. You can't justify your opinions with any first hand experience, so you've got nothing but lame personal assaults to offer. Which would be irritating if you weren't so hopelessly off the mark. Even if I end up hating 'Lost Girls', I'll have earned the opinion; meanwhile, you'll still be some dumb twat who likes to mouth off about shit he knows nothing about.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:11 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Looks like this fucking inevitable mess of a talkback is really getting started. The Newsarama threads on the subject should have been enough to warn you, Morty.
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:20 a.m. CST
months ago and it hasn't shipped yet. I bought the first two issues online years ago and was eagerly awaiting the conclusion. Well, it seems as if my long wait was worthwhile; now if only Amazon would just ship the darn thing!
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:24 a.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:28 a.m. CST
well, you might be right! But there's quite a few of us who like it: Brian Eno, Neal Gaiman, The New York Press, Kirkus Review, and Wizard Magazine all give it enthusiastic reviews. (Wizard calls it a "pornographic work of art".) Don't believe me? Check out the Top Shelf page for the book and see for yourself...
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:31 a.m. CST
"A scene of John and Michael sucking each other off while Peter fucks Wendy from behind" Just what you want to read whilst having your corn flakes!!
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:59 a.m. CST
"but how is it that sexuality has become the final wall to break through in art?" Good question. And I believe the answer is that it's easy to see someone being shot, blown up, tortured, stabbed, mutilated etc etc in movies or TV but a couple going at it, or god forbid two teenagers going at it is censored and people get up in arms about it. It's not Moore who's made sex a taboo subject, Moore doesn't think it is. I don't. Millions of people don't and as such, a frank discussion and depiction of sex while healthy and important is seen by some as taboo. Why has society on one hand decreed that Janet Jacksons nipple is a damaging influence (or whatever it was called) and yet on the other is perfectly happy to sit back and watch commercials that use sex to sell practically everything? It's that division which Moore is interested in and that is an important question to ask and examine. Just my 2 cents.
Aug. 11, 2006, 4:23 a.m. CST
YOU WERE ALL THINKING IT
Aug. 11, 2006, 4:34 a.m. CST
So an Alan Moore Project was delayed. Again. Why am I not surprised. Anyone excited about LOEG: Black Dossier? Anyone know anything about it? Wanna bet it's available by the New Year?
Aug. 11, 2006, 5:47 a.m. CST
I liked the bit at the end with the crocodile.
Aug. 11, 2006, 7:31 a.m. CST
I've been hinting a bit, about authors meeting their characters. Dodgson and Barrie had very interesting relationships with the real Alice and Peter. "Finding Neverland" leaves out the coda where George dies in the war, Michael and his boyfriend Rupert drown themselves, and Peter throws himself under a train. Moore's deconstruction of these stories is not altogether inappropriate, as the sexuality was always there, symbolically in the original. I would recommend the films "The Dream Child" and "Neverland" (by Damion Dietz), as explorations on these themes.
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST
I mean, I've already pre-ordered my copy, but let's be honest here...
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST
Explain "From Hell". Explain "Snakes and Ladders" and "The Birth Caul". Explain "Swamp Thing". Explain "Voice of the Fire". Those aren't based on children's literature in any way (unless you count the presence of superheroes in "Swamp Thing" - I don't).
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:54 a.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST
by white owl
Moore injected that last little ditty about the "dream" so that logical question of "can anyone stop someone for dreaming this" is brought up. It's like a easy out.. rather than just leave that part out and have the story as a whole, we get this cheap "it was all a dream" deal, cheapening the whole book in the process.
Aug. 11, 2006, 9:41 a.m. CST
Her book, "The Bloody Chamber" has just about the same premise. I'd be surprised if Moore hasn't read it. The difference seems to me that the connection with sex in the original tales (Beauty and the Beast, Puss in Boots etc) are much more intelligent and convincing in Carter's collection of short stories. Who really thought that teaching Wendy how to fly was about breaking her in? Not me. Saying that, I guess that's what Moore thought it could be about (and that's probably what matters). I don't get why franchise fanboys kick up shit when it's their territory that's being bastardised (see Star Wars, X-men 3 etc) but if it's done in what society deems as "bad taste" then the artistic merits are profound. I'm a bit fed up with art and its smugness at supposedly challenging convention. Like when the Turner Prize winners pick up their big cash prize for work that's increasingly less focused on execution and more on idea and concept. Here's a thought: maybe looking at the "rules", picking one to smash up and displaying the results doesn't make you a good artist. Maybe it just shows you're aware of the rules and their implications. I personally think there should be more to it than that. But then, by providing criteria for "what art should be", you're making it into a sport/science/religion and and it stops becoming art.
Aug. 11, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST
by Borgnine JR
...lawyer, but could someone explain what the point of this book is, other than to shock. I mean come on, Michael and John sucking each other off? Why not have little Jack Horner tea-bagging Humpty-Dumpty?
Aug. 11, 2006, 10:31 a.m. CST
Once beloved characters fall out of copyright protection, any nitwit can twist them anyway they want - and actually make money doing it. Just how desperate IS Alan Moore? Has he run out of superheroes to ruin?
Aug. 11, 2006, 10:45 a.m. CST
that this is nothing new. Only Moore is a much better writer than Anne Rice. As for Sesame Street, that's been done. See Peter Jackson's "Meet the Feebles", Broadway's "Avenue Q", and MTV's "Wonder Showzen". Oh, and anchorite, you might want to catch a little film called "Twist" (2004) in which Joshua Close and Nick Stahl play Oliver and the Dodger as rent boys in modern day Toronto.
Aug. 11, 2006, 11:50 a.m. CST
This is not art. Children should not be portrayed in the throes of sexual contact. I don't care that they are complicit in their actions. I don't care that this is illistrative and not real people. People who film kiddie porn should be melted down. People who draw pictures of kiddie porn should wait in line behind them.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST
available for pre-order, that's almost 50% off...
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST
I don't know, he said that the "kids" in this book are all teens, at least. And in any case, Romeo was 14, and Juliet was 13. And it's just pictures, for God's sake. It's not like any real people were harmed by this. I defend all writing and artwork, regardless of content.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST
About how internet pornography--unlimited, free, constantly accessible--is warping and destroying a whole generation of young men.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:42 p.m. CST
Does much more harm than this ever will. I read where teens now are imitating porn, what with the ass to mouth and facials and all. Face it, anyone who's ever been to a mall and seen fifteen-year-olds with bellyrings and "Porn Star" or "Sperm Dumpster" shirts, or been to a college and realized all it takes to bed an 18 year old is a beer and assurance will realize our society is becoming fucked up regardless of a pretentious comic no one on here has read yet.
Aug. 11, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 1 p.m. CST
Hitler and his Third Rich rounded up many artists and their art that he considered 'deviant'and labeled them degenerates (Entartete Kunst). It looks like you would do the same. I agree, BayouWilly . . . freedom of speech is freedom of thought and includes art. The facist thought police wish differently, and if given the chance, would make Hitler, Stalin and the religious crusades look like innocent fun.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST
Art stris the soul and tracends the image, pornography stirs the ,uh, loins and immerse one one in the moment. Oh and v for vendetta was frustratingly didactic and over wrought. Sorry Moore but post modernism can suck too.
stirs the soul and trancends and sorry
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST
Is just like Hitler as he was known to compare things to other things.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST
Is just like Hitler as he was known to compare things to other things.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:19 p.m. CST
Altho, I must dissagree with Bayou. What is the problem with teenagers doing ass to mouth facials anyway? And, as I recall ... it took far less than "a beer and assurance" to 'bed' me in college many years ago. A challenge for your mind: Macktheknife... art dosn't need to 'trancend the image' or "stirs [sic] the soul" to be art. The moment you define art, you are wrong. Art is whatever you want it to be. It is the ultimate "thought candy" in that it just IS, and what you get out of it depends on your brain. So two underage hemaphrodite catgirls being tentacle raped becomes just some ink in the crevaces of some pressed wood pulp. It takes YOUR brain to turn these blobs of color into underage hemaphrodite catgirls being tentacle raped ... but it still dosn't change the fact that they are still ONLY blobs of color and paper.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST
I guess we all must be Hitler. :P
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST
It is stated that these are characters influenced and based on the real characters... but that they are not the characters themselves. Until I get it in my hands and read it, I'm not quite certain that he hadn't "aged up" some of the fuckers, so to speak. And even if he didn't? Hell yeah, it's disturbing and not the least bit arousing, but it deserves a place with all books, the Bible, Mein Kampf, Hop On Pop, and Gone With The Wind.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST
The way some people are carrying on you would assume they were. Who's this book harming? I mean in a world where 8 year old girls waer miniskirts and sex is used to sell anything and everything a book intended solely for adults that doesn't and hasn't coerced or abused any children or adults is a bit of a lame thing to attack. I assume people are all for freedom of speech and thought right?
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Moore has stated that the process of developing Lost Girls is what led him to conceiving the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. If it wasn't for him honing his skills on this work of pornography for the past sixteen years, we wouldn't have some of his best books.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST
or revolutonary. You can go to any filedump site get these type of images. The fact that Alan Moore is involved in it does not bring it up to an "art" level. The fact is its porn even if Moore has written a story around it.
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST
"The way some people are carrying on you would assume they were forced"
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:43 p.m. CST
it is forbidden and seperate from our normal lives in this culture. Alan Moore, "think if you were to sever that connection between arousal and shame, you might actually come up with something liberating and socially useful. It might be healthier for us, and lead to a situation such as they enjoy in Holland, Denmark, or Spain, where they have pornography all over the place
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:49 p.m. CST
I'm sorry i was unaware that moore and other artists simply strung together pieces of color and words and it is my mind that creates the image, kinda like elephant paintings. yeah everything is open to perception and the only difference between porn and art is who is viewing it except for the fact that cultures have ideals and most art requires some understanding of the culture to appreciate it and thus how it interacts within those ideals. I'm not mad at the existence of crappy art/porn i am irritated that someone would pay for it and promote it as we all are when any crappy thing makes a bundle of money...dan brown i'm looking in your direction. end rant
Aug. 11, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Pornography is a genre. Just becaue our culture is used to things like Max Hardcore gonzo movies where women are treated like toilets and no artistic merit could possibly be on display, doesn't mean pornography can't be used to create valid storytelling. Moore's intent with Lost Girls was to make that evident to his readers. Horror makes you afraid, and porno makes you aroused. Why are we living in a society that would rather be terrified by their art than turned on?
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:12 p.m. CST
Agreed. Just as there are degrees of taste and sophistication, though, there should also be degrees of what we consider to be contructive or destructive. When I say "we", I'm talking about what we decide as a society, in terms of how are laws are written. It's possible to have pictures of young people as sexual metaphor, even brutally so, and call it 'art' (Henry Darger Springs to mind), but we all must also decide when the line is crossed. How is the difference between gonzo porn and 'Lost Girls' demarcated? Who decides? I love Darger's work, and I'm sure I'll find merit in this new book of Moore's, but It's a messy business, deciding what's contructive art on the one hand, and what's destructive pornography on the other. especially when children are involved, even peripherally. Your last question is an incredibly important one, in my opinion, and long overdue answering. If Lost Girls can further that discussion, I'm all for it, but if I read it and decide its child porn, I'll burn as many copies as I find. Like I said- messy business. Cheers.
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:32 p.m. CST
by Lord Asriel
Seems like Wendy was the right age to be having sex at the time.
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Thanks for your comment. I think you make a fair point. As I see it, the one crucial boundary between Max Hardcore and something like this is pretty plain. One's entirely real, the other is fictional in every way. The child pornography aspect of this whole debate is certainly not something that's easily dismissed, as many people rightly have strong feelings about it. For my part, I feel very secure in the assumption that Moore isn't simply going to produce a harmful piece of child pornography. But I can't force people to see things the same way.
Aug. 11, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
by Lord Asriel
It was twelve.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST
so bottom line: Moriarty is in possession of child pornography. Don't bring it into Canada with you, my good man. ****** also: "Moore knows full well that his slow and steady stroke as a storyteller is all aiming towards an eventual release, and when his stories all come to a fitting climax, it really is completely satisfying." - did you really need to masturbate right in front of us? ewww!
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:16 p.m. CST
is the time when someone makes the assertion that "if it doesnt piss people off its not art". Wrong. The idea that art should piss anyone off is a 20th century invention that just leads to bad art. Moore however rules whether he believes the above or not.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
wonder if any of the local libraries here in LA will be carrying this. Doubt it.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST
Promethea is it. No one could write that without intimately knowing some of the secrets. In other words, you couldn't just read about ceremonial magick and then write that book.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST
by Lord Asriel
It's not a 20th Century at all. Just ask Michelangelo about the Sisteenth chapel. Or Goya, etc etc.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:39 p.m. CST
by Lord Asriel
Edit buttons pleeeeaaaaase?
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Reading it is an amazing experience. Morrison's totally the master of that style, though. He actually used one or two of the same tricks in his earlier stuff that Moore used for Promethea. If you haven't already, you should check out Animal Man and The Invisibles.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:52 p.m. CST
... if it "stirs your loins", Lost Girls cannot be porn for me, although there will be some for whom it most definitely will be. I know people who where sexually aroused by "The Passion of the Christ", and either Peter Kurtain or Fritz Haarman,(I forget which) would go to Mass to become sexually aroused by the Sacrament before hunting down his next victim. As for Hitler he banned "degenerate" art but promoted films showing adorable young people in various states of undress exercising their healthy Aryan bodies. This Propaganda becomes porn for anybody who is aroused by healthy nubile flesh. Hitler himself was fond of young girls now that I think of it. And to those who brought up the age of consent, right now, today in the U.S. it differs from state to state - ranging from 14 to 19. There is no social consensus on what a "child" is in America.
Aug. 11, 2006, 3:59 p.m. CST
as to the prevalence of these images. Teenage Japanese girls create entire shonen-ai websites based on homosexual affairs of Harry Potter with Draco Malfoy, fully illustrated in big-eyed anime style.
Aug. 11, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST
by R H S C
I highly recommend the book "Santa Steps Out" by Robert Devereaux if anyone wants another erotic tale involving childhood icons.
Aug. 11, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST
I meant Peter Kurten.
Aug. 11, 2006, 4:07 p.m. CST
That's Lane Meyer.
Aug. 11, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST
Hey pal, comic books are not art, grow up maybe and move from the basement, maybe head to the louvre and see some real art, rofl @ idiots
Aug. 11, 2006, 6:49 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 11, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST
bravo! Where did I claim comics were or were not art then? I said Michaelangelo and Goya both purposefully pissed people off. I haven't mentioned comics once. rofl at idiots indeed.
Aug. 11, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:37 p.m. CST
by Mister Man
What's another good film site, folks/ Let me know.
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST
Another good film site is at www.aintitcoolhascoveredothermediabesidesfilmforawhileyoudouche.com.
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST
about not growing up, ie not going through puberty? Although come to think about it, didn't the Lost Boys wear animal furs? ... Maybe it was symbolic of a ritualized puberty since they couldn't go through a physical one?
Aug. 11, 2006, 8:59 p.m. CST
by shizzal gofux
has the book listed "under consideration". Let's hope for the best.
Aug. 11, 2006, 10:22 p.m. CST
A government grant! Thank you Family Guy
Aug. 11, 2006, 10:57 p.m. CST
But that doesn't mean it's good art.
Aug. 11, 2006, 11:58 p.m. CST
Because if there's one thing he's written that Hollywood will never, ever touch, this is it.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:11 a.m. CST
as if he wasn't expecting people to be shocked by using such "innocent" iconic characters... People, think a little bit before you react. That said, I have never read anything by Moore, so I can't say I'm knowledgeable about the man or his work. I did some quite internet "research" (yes, I'm using the quotations for a reason), and was amused at the fortuitous coincidence. I just spent the last few days reading up on myths (particularly Prometheus and Leviathan) as research on the background of the political philosophy of Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt, who both wrote commentaries on the work of Thomas Hobbes. Anyways, to make a very long story short, I came across a comment by Strauss on "Asclepius", which has got me thinking on a lot of things, such as the notion of the golem as symbol of the modern technological tool of state craft (breathing 'spirit' in civil polity as a process of civilization and spiritual maturity etc. etc.), which Schmitt uses in the same way. So okay, Asclepius. I come back from work and am going through my papers looking for this text I read a while back on the 'God-making passages' of the the Hermetic text called "Asclepius" (eventually just went back on the internet and found it at: http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/printable/SympdevilFastprintable.html), and then decided to see what was up here on AICN and i run into this talkback... decide to check up on this Moore guy to get a feel of his background and artistic motivations... find a link to to an article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,643500,00.html) that mentions that he is into magic and particularly a 'cult of Glycon': "He's vague on the details of how you become a magician, but clear about the reasons why. "I've always sympathised with Brian Eno's theory, that if you were a mechanic you'd want to know what to look for under the hood if the car seized up. I'm dependent on writing for a living, so really it's to my advantage to understand how the creative process works. One of the problems is, when you start to do that, in effect you're going to have to step off the edge of science and rationality." He shows me his altar to the Roman snake god Glycon..." I go look up what this Glycon business is all about and then I run into this passage on Wikipedia : "At least initially, the cult did not worship an abstraction or a spirit of a snake but an actual, physical serpent that was said to embody the god. According to the cult's mythology, the snake appeared after Alexander had foretold the coming of a new incarnation of Asclepius. When the people gathered in the marketplace of Abonutichus at noon, when the incarnation was supposed to occur, Alexander produced a serpent egg and sliced it open, revealing the god within. Within a week it grew to the size of a man with the features of a man on its face, including long blond hair. At this point the figure resembling this description that was apparently a puppet appeared in the temple. In some references Glycon was a trained snake with a puppet head. As with previous Macedonian snake cults, the focus of worship at the temple was on fertility. Barren women would bring offerings to Glycon in hopes of becoming pregnant. According to Lucian, Alexander had less magical ways of causing pregnancy among his flock as well. The god was also believed to offer protection against the plague." What does all this have to do with Lost Girls? Well, I can't really say with certainty since I have not read this or any of his work, but I find these excerpts of Moriarty's review revealing: "These aren
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:14 a.m. CST
i couldn't even look at this for a minute before wanting to barf. this chick that does the art needs to get her eyes adjusted. its so hard to look at even when the characters are fully clothed. she must be a bitter angry person to draw such unflattering and uninteresting people. the art is garbage. i have no idea if the writing is good, because i couldn't get passed the junior high quality art.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:14 a.m. CST
...because he is interested in telling a story about little boys sucking each other off, and about depicting his jerk-fantasy of popular characters from childrens literature fisting each other. Simple, really. How on earth could his art possibly be more pure?
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:18 a.m. CST
Everyone who enjoy's Moore's take on kiddie porn slash as art, raise your hand! Now, drop your hand if you have NEVER wanked to dirty pictures of Ariel, Tinkerbell, that cartoon chick from Alladdin or Jessica Rabbit. Okay. The five of you remaining with your hands up should best get cracking on that thesis on Moore's book before all the other ones get all the pages stuck together.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST
in films etc... is that reality and society always reinforces the idea that violence is bad. It's universally agreed that we avoid violence towards each other. But with sex we have differing views... Society today has largely put aside God and morality or redefines morality altogether. The procreative aspect was separated from sex. Sex was now merely just enjoyable for those in love, though religious people like me would argue that if you remove the responsibility for procreation you run the danger of turning sex into self gratification and selfishness. Next Society removes sex from the sacrament of marriage, and well today marriage itself is hardly revered as it once was and some even condemn it as being limiting and repressive. With procreation gone and religion removed from sex, homosexuailty becomes legitimate, after all, why not? And now we've even got people trying to legitimize pedophilia and pedaresty. Some say psychologists have given up and simply assume it's genetic, maybe even to the point of tolerating it more openly. Maybe as a society innundated with sex, we're getting tired of the old and find an excitement in the taboo simply to stimulate us. The soft-core doesn't do it for us anymore. We want the 'next-gen' of sexual entertainment. Recently in Europe, where some countries allow polygamy, an openly pedophile political party was formed, free speech and all that... Anyway the point I'm trying to get at is, whereas violence is reinforced against in society, sexuality and what is moral and immoral isn't the same case and seems to be constantly challenged and raising (or lowering, depending on your point of view) that bar. And therefore people will be more responsive to what is tolerable to be portrayed in art, and likewise have greater reaction and stimulation from what they view. Since violence=bad is well reinforced, it's rare for anyone to be affected by it. Whereas sexuality is in a substantial jumble at the moment in terms of what is right and wrong and strong feelings will stir in the viewer... and depending on their thoughts on the matter, one can feel horrified at what they feel. If I'm flipping through Moore's book and start getting aroused at the sight of naked children having sex then I'd certainly worry. Repressed or whatever tag you want to apply to that, I firmly believe sex with children is a grave evil and such a desire stirring in me will greatly disturb me, and I'd never encourage it because I'm afraid it'll stir up those very thoughts in others and that they may rather feel inclined to pursue those feelings! Just as films and stories can make us feel better, open our eyes, encourage us with messages, the subject matter can affect us! Much of it can even be presented 'propagandistically'. The presentation can affect our senses merely based on the colours, sensuality or music that happens to be playing during the scene. Also compared to violence once more, since we can be reassured mentally that the violence isn't real, just acted, in comparison the sex in film is more 'real' and portrayed more 'realistically' than violence often is... the nudity is real, the movements realistic, it creates a greater impact on the senses. Ultimately I can only acknowledge how I'd feel about this book based on what it's creator's intent was... Is Moore trying to make a statement? Is he merely making a criticism of how perverted society has become? What is Moore trying to accomplish and tell us with this work? Depending on his answer, one can either applaud, think deeply or condemn the book.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:21 a.m. CST
I hope this goes on forever! I am NEVER leaving this thread.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:44 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
You've managed to attract the internet's best and brightest with this review.
Aug. 12, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST
The best and brightest closeted pedos, that is! It would be reassuring to assume rounding up the best and brightest was Moriarty's master plan all along. However, I really think he genuinely believes Moore has Forged Art with his latest Controversial Graphic Novel, and is sitting back and getting a kick out of the reactions from all us small-minded Quakers and soccer moms.
Aug. 12, 2006, 1:11 a.m. CST
I meant drop your hand if you have EVER wanked to those dirty cartoon pictures. Because that would have made for a great comic image, don't you think, of just 5 smart alecs standing there with their hands up, expressing their innocent and sincerely intellectual admiration for Moore's kiddie stroke mag, while everyone else dropped their hand and kind of just nervously shuffled from foot to foot. Man! The punchline about the pages sticking together must have made no sense whatsoever, in the context of of my misplaced NEVER! Ah, who am I kidding. You all just read my post as "blah, blah, blah, dirty pictures of Ariel, unh, unhh, unnnnhhhh!"
Aug. 12, 2006, 1:13 a.m. CST
This thread must not be allowed to end.
Aug. 12, 2006, 1:18 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
AIDS. I strongly suggest it.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:18 a.m. CST
I don't mean to sound too insulting, I don't mean to 'flame' you, but some of your leaps in logic are a bit frustrating, all the more so since you're probably the most lucid true-believer to post here in months. I have no opinion either way towards your religion, whatever it may be, but some of your theories are lacking in any kind of sense. First of all, defending our society's lust for vicarious violence in all it's forms is ridiculous and wrong. We don't watch these things to 'reinforce' the idea that violence is bad, anymore than Roman nobility went to the arena to remind themselves that being hacked to pieces with a broadsword would be an unhealthy passtime. It's a primal thrill, part of our animal nature. Anyway, on to the real meat- You propose that your religion has the "answer" to how humanity should engage in sexual activity, right down to the last detail (I wonder, is there a sacred list of optimal positions most pleasing to God's eye?) I ask you to remember that sex existed long before your, or any religion existed, so for the rest of us non-believers, your list of rules is showing up a little late to the game. You might argue that even though that may be the case, religion offers us a moral compass now, and why not follow it, sensible as it seems to be? Well, here you get into trouble, since you state that "The procreative aspect was separated from sex. Sex was now merely just enjoyable for those in love..." now, difficult as it is for me to find what's wrong with the idea of two people in love enjoying sex, it's more the "separation" idea I contend with. Since when? Did married couples stop having babies? Has population growth ground to a halt because folks are too busy fucking for fun? You continue: "if you remove the responsibility for procreation you run the danger of turning sex into self gratification and selfishness.", Again, I fail to see the problem. I have a sneaking suspicion that even religious folks like yourself enjoy sex, considering that without the benefit of divine illumination you can't know during which time, which position or which particular orgasm it was that your coitus produced a pregnancy. All mocking tones aside, I'm a little exhausted with all the religious folks gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out bemoaning the End of Marriage, you keep telling us that it's right around the corner, but it KEEPS NOT HAPPENING. Even with all our moral turpitude, depravity and wickedness. You go on, predictably, to blame the homos, as was as inevitable as the tide, saying: "With procreation gone" [again, where did it go?] "and religion removed from sex, homosexuailty becomes legitimate, after all, why not? And now we've even got people trying to legitimize pedophilia and pedaresty (sic)." There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start. First, removing religion from sex (impossible, since religion was added to sex, not the other way around) cannot 'legitimize' homosexuality, anymore than it would legitimize left-handedness. Are you really so backwards? Do you really still believe that homosexuality is a symptom of godlessness? Do you also believe that Jews have tails and horns? All of which is trivial and forgivable, next to your insinuation that homosexuality and pedophilia are related somehow. You go on to theorize that as our appetites slide further down the slippery slope to evil, we need darker and seedier pleasures to satiate ourselves. Interesting, but why is it that the most repressive societies , the most limited and regressive religions are the ones populated by child-molesting clergy? Could there be a connection? Apply your intellect to that puzzle, why don't you. Could it possibly mean there is a direct and equivalent reaction to sexual repression, as far as true sexual depravity goes? And if so, maybe a little freedom from imposed limitations on our freedoms as consenting adults, even though our tastes may differ from on couple (or other numerical alignment, as the case may be) to couple, might offer a release valve from the pressures of an already overly restrictive life. God gave us sex, Johnno. It's not so hard to imagine that it is so enjoyable because that is His will. In other words, fucking lie back and enjoy it, for Christ's sake. Goodnight.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:22 a.m. CST
But you're talking about a comic, not a real book. I thought it was interesting there for a while, thinking that AICN is actually reviewing books. But then I came to my senses and realized where I was. "Me need pictures to see what happening...me no have imagination to visualize things in head...me need pictures".
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:25 a.m. CST
The exploration of art vs. pornography is a very important one, especially dealing with sensitive subject material such as this. However, I think that the "kiddie porn" aspect of this is something that is really not applicable. Remember not too long ago, Pete Townsend was questioned and/or arrested (I'm not sure, and I'm too lazy to look it up) about a collection of "kiddie porn" pics that he had on his computer. He claimed they were for research for something or other, but the press was all over this. And this was something that was never published, never recorded, never released to the public. Now we have Moore doing what most people would say is very similar, but it's been published in the past, it's being released finally in its full form, and other than some nominal controversy, there have been no criminal or legal actions performed against its writer, artist, editor, or publisher. Is this creating something of a double-standard? I don't think so, because this is FANTASY and not REALITY. Are there going to be pervs and sickos that are going to take this book the wrong way? Yes. But, and I know this thought is going to open up a whole new can of worms, how is this any different than bukkake or hentai or whatever the fuck it's called? That shows EXTREMELY graphic sexual situations involving boys and girls that are CERTAINLY underage. It shows horrific rape, which I think is worse than just about anything. And bukkake is perhaps more 'gonzo' than anything that GGW or Vivid Video has ever released. It's so wildly over-the-top and so in-your-face and extreme. So think more about that before you go any further. But what's most important about this book, as far as these types of issues are concerned, is that we, as individuals, have the unalienable right to NOT look at it. To NOT purchase it. And especially here, on the internet, we have the right to bitch about it as much as we feel the need to despite never having seen or read it. Which I think is beyond moronic, but hey, that's just me. And also in response to someone calling Alan Moore a "One Trick Pony", you may very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Perhaps we should shoot you.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:26 a.m. CST
...that someone will get that reference that I made at the end.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:30 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
You're so right. Doesn't it feel great to arrogantly dismiss an entire medium of storytelling?
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:57 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... that's hilarious. Except, uh, we've had book reviews on this site forever. And not just "comic books," either, you condescending twat. Do a search for "AICN Books." Or don't. But you should probably know what we actually publish before you say something as remarkably stupid as that.
Aug. 12, 2006, 3:59 a.m. CST
by Johnny Smith
Films are stupid. Hell, looking at things is stupid. Why can't we all just listen to books on tape? That would make everything so much better.
Aug. 12, 2006, 4 a.m. CST
by Johnny Smith
...you're my hero. Never before have I been so happy to see someone use the phrase "condescending twat". You are truly a great American.
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:01 a.m. CST
cock it to the butt rot.
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:41 a.m. CST
I like what this Kostner has to say. Could it be the real deal? Indiana Jones's brother perhaps?
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:42 a.m. CST
Thats Costner with a "C" naturally
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:59 a.m. CST
He could have let it just go, but had to comment on it because I offended him so badly. Nice going Moriarty, I'll wait for another witty come-back from your thin-skined ego.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:06 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:20 a.m. CST
Do you really think I said the original thing about comics without knowing I would be vilified and called a troll. Though I will admit being called a "condescending twat" was kinda cool. Been called many things, but never that. It's refreshing actually. But I was surprised that Moriarty was moved enough by my trolling to respond like that. It wasn't even that good of a troll and too direct. A good trolling post is more subtle, slightly humours and circles on the outside of being direct, while the one I wrote above is blunt and awkward....not unlike my wedding night.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:28 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
This is surprising because it's really very close to something my friend and I had been discussing... It kind of makes me think of things along those different lines of like, y'know, the substance that one may or may not find in a certain type of subject... Depending on the different variables and specifics and all that, but I think it's still pretty worth, you know... What do you think?
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST
It is just child pornography, don't people understand that? Sure it involves young looking sexually active children, but there is a story and it is all written to make you think, see? Isn't that clever?
Aug. 12, 2006, 7:51 a.m. CST
when the person most likely to molest a child is his/her own parents/step parents. But that prolly hits too close to home for someAICN readers so they pawn it off on the safe stereotype. As for "violence destroys sex creates", talk about indulging in the same infantile simplistic logic you claim to loathe.
Aug. 12, 2006, 7:52 a.m. CST
Sounds like Moore is out of ideas since pornography is usually the final descent before an artist is totally washed up or kills themselves. This series is a gimmick, pure and simple. I know we all have fantasies about getting down but,damn, this was made just to piss people off and bring the pedophiles into the comic shop. Moore has ceased to be a genius and is now simply a perv.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:06 a.m. CST
Anyone interested in seeing just how far the first ammendment can be pushed should punch up Jake Baker University of Michigan - the infamous original usenet - think it was alt.sex. - story is easily found and should make even the staunchest first ammendment supporter shudder. Truly nasty stuff.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:35 a.m. CST
It would be too simplistic to assume that you are the actual "closeted pedo" here, based on your rabid, near obsessive ranting on about "Ariel naked" and such things. No, this is after all, the Internet, and as a deconstructed version of a Sesame Street Muppet once said "The Internet is for Porn!". Any actual pedophiles, closeted or not would not waste their precious wanking time on this thread, or even this site. They are off in some other dark corner of the web enjoying actual pornography, or sneaking into a kid's chat room. No, so why then are you so excited, clearly sexually by this thread that you hope it will never end? Because you are in fact a "Trollsexual", who finds erotic stimulation in setting off abusive posts in the middle of talkbacks, in fact you may just be a "flaming trollsexual".
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:56 a.m. CST
The problem with many people who declare themselves "religious" is similar to those who call themselves "moral" or "ethical". There is no ONE code of ethics, no ONE set of moral values, and certainly no ONE religion, but everbody seems to think their own is the only true faith. Alan Moore is indeed a very moral man. He could have made a lot of money over various film adaptations of his works, but this would have violated his own moral sense of integrity. Likewise, Moore is also a religious man, he just doesn't have the same religious beliefs you do. As a magician, and worshiper of the phallic fertility deity Glycon, his religious views of sex are quite different from yours. What you deem as "selfish" sexual acts are indeed Magickally procreative. Of course some Christians see this as evidence that Magick (and all systems of belief other than their own) to be the product of Satan. If that is your view, then there is no point in my further discussing anything with you, as you won't listen anyway.
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:08 a.m. CST
*sigh* just another liberal attepmt to justify the wicked and wrong. Maybe there will come a day when those like you wake up and realize there IS one code of ethics and one GOD. The truth is what it is regardless of what you want it to be.
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:10 a.m. CST
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:13 a.m. CST
Becuase the only thing funnier than reading posts by comic book fans defending their Art, and how grown up, serious and legitimate it has become, is to read posts by comic book fans defending a comic book with little kids diddling with each other. The posts about Moore deconstructing classic kiddie lit, and bravely challenging our sexual taboos are just so mind bogglingly awesome -- they just sound so propped up and ingenuine, like a kid calling into a talk show in a deep voice to make him sound like an adult. Also, where else, except in a thread like this, could a guy who is opposed to depictions child porn be labelled a "flaming trollsexual"? Awesome! Opponent: "I think child porn is fundamentally wrong, no matter how it is depicted." Talkback Defender: "Clearly you are unintelligent and fascist, probably a closeted pedophile, and should die of AIDS. Excuse me while I write a short and yet unoriginal 700 word essay on the funny pages' impact on deconstructing modern sexuality. Then I'm going to go back to arranging my action figures."
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:19 a.m. CST
Shouldn't that be: there WILL come a day, when Jesus comes back and all you sinners burn in Hell! Just using the word "maybe" like that puts you on a slippery slope! Are you a backslider?
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST
Do you need a cigarette?
Aug. 12, 2006, 9:53 a.m. CST
And because I was thinking the whole time about deconstructed versions of characters from children's literature rendered into comic book format, as opposed to real little kids, it was also very artistic!
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:04 a.m. CST
I like comic books. I read comic books and have a small comic book collection. I think there are some amazing comics that have been created over the past decade especially, and that they are some of the finest and most powerful things I have read. Including Moore's stuff. However: deconstructing iconic cartoon cliches to depict Nazi's and Jews as cats and mice is inspired (Maus). Putting classic characters into sexual situtions is actually pretty traditional and has been done a bazillion times before. Doing it again with little kids is just a lazy attempt to try and stand above it all without ever actually doing anything new, except to throw in more shock value. That's not being artistic, that's just being a smart ass. And more than a bit creepy, considering the subject matter, medium and audience. It's probably actually less inspired than the school-girl rape mags that creepy Japanese businessmen read on the trains, because as horrifyingly obscene as they are they are at least being honest with the subject matter and audience. Though just as creepy.
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:14 a.m. CST
Any kid toucher with a book of fairy tales,a computer full of porn and a sick imagination could come up with crap like that
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:40 p.m. CST
It's kiddy porn. no reason to say it's anything different than that.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST
No I'm not a backslider at all. What I meant by maybe is that those so set in their ways and their "beliefs" will come face to face with Jesus and still try their best to deny HIM.
Aug. 12, 2006, 12:58 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Did you actually expect a reasonable response towards this? A multiple homicide/suicide has almost never been so appealing to me before this thread. Almost.
Aug. 12, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST
Of course there is only one morality, your morality. There is only one code of ethics, your code. Only one true faith, yours. And only one true God, again the one you happen to pray to. Isn't it funny that there are so many millions of prople just as devout, and unshakable in their beliefs as you are who feel the same thing about their God? Are you not yourself "so set in [your] ways and [your] "beliefs"? What ever will you do if you come face to face with God and find out He's Allah, and not Jesus? Or the Jewish God? or Tom Cruise's God? Or Oprah Winfrey? or even the Blessed Lord Glycon Himself?
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:02 p.m. CST
haven't heard from you in a while. Dude, you gotta read Promethea. It was practically written for you. Once you get into the 2nd book or so, you'll see what I mean.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST
I did not call you out for opposing child pornography, but for attacking anyone who disagrees with you as "a closet pedo". An actual closet-case of any kind would try desperately to hide his/her secret and would go nowhere near this thread, certainly not to defend Lost Girls. Also all of the Disney characters you keep mentioning are girls of marriageable age, otherwise Prince Eric, Alladin, and Roger Rabbit would be pedophiles and the Disney company should be closed down for promoting kiddie porn! (Tinkerbell and Jessica in particular are portrayed as full grown, full figured mature women, of the pin-up girl style popular of the late forties early fifties) As for action figures, go back and read Octaveaeon's fascinating essay on icons, idols, simulacra, and the like, if you can understand it, or the connection I'm trying to draw here.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:09 p.m. CST
The point of my post was to highlight why people like me would have a reaction to this sort of book by Moore. Simply my rationale. I didn't mean to say that we watched films to learn that violence is bad. I meant the fact that we as a society are not so concerned about violence in media and mroe concerned about sex is because it's universally agreed and understood prior to engaging in that sort of entertainment that violence is wrong. Since there are differring opinions about sexuality, many feel threathned and afraid of such explorations in media. I'd agree also that violence and sex in media can act as a catharsis, a 'safe' release for underlying passions if Aristotle was right... but Plato was also right in reminding us that art can also stimulate and stir our passions through it's simulation of it. I'll address your criticisms of what I believe about sex, though that may divert from the topic at hand, but if no one minds (And note it's not my intent to directly change other's beliefs here, but I just want to clarify my own), as far as my beliefs dictate God is indeed the author of sex and that those He'd created understood it but eventually as mankind made its way in our fallen world, we lose such knowledge, our beliefs divert and change and various religions trying to cling to the strands of truth they have left emerge. Some things they lose, some thigns corrupt, many things they retain. The morality of sex being one of these. Now there is nothing wrong with people enjoying sex, it is enjoyable, it is unitive and draws closer together the couple who engage in it, as well what it's main purpose always has been was procreation. The sensual side of it is there to encourage it, to be fruitful and multiply. LAtely with the state of society these days, people tend to subconsciously view that raising children is a bit of a burden, though of course nobody will openly admit it, but it does have some truth, financially, timely, in our age there are a vast number of things we'd rather be preoccupied with. I don't want to make a blanket statement here, as people do have children and raise and love them and make sacrifices for that joy. However at the same time we are also afraid of having too many, and that is also a real concern for anyone. But at the same time we want to continue experiencing the pleasures of sexual intercourse. We don't want too many children, some don't want to have any for a given amount of time, and some altogether don't want any. So whereas the purpose of sex was once believed chiefly for procreation with love and pleasure and union to support it (And procreation is still the true end of any natural sexual intercourse), it was turned on it's head, and today we use contraception, birth control, in worse cases, even abortion. The message this sends out is that we want to experience sex, but we don't want to use it towards it's end result all the time. Hence soceity has seperated procreation from sex and it becomes an option rather than considered the true part of it. When the procreation part is optional and not necessary, you can now understand why homosexuality can be considered legitimate. For Catholics, if we are unable or afraid to commit to having more children, we are encouraged to refrain from sexual intercourse or to enjoy it during infertile periods to avoid pregnancy. This may sound contradictory, but rather since we are never in control of the sperm and egg actually fertilizing (As you say " you can't know during which time, which position or which particular orgasm it was that your coitus produced a pregnancy"), the only actions we are responsible for is making sure it goes in the right place and not artificially hampering the natural process. As for the so called 'End of Marriage' I feel you misunderstand what we mean. I'm sure the word itself will exist, and people will continue to get those little civil documents that show they're a partner, but marriage is no longer considered in secular society as one man and one woman, neither is it the practiced safe haven for sexual intercourse considering people are free to have sex outside of it, neither is it seen an unbreakable sacrament and true union, but people, even religious people treat it like a business contract, you get benefits, and when you can't live with each other sometimes for simple things, it is expirable. Oftentimes I feel this is mostly because people get married for the wrong reasons often, too early, and are rather unprepared for it, which is why the Cahtolic Church insists on having engaged couples take counseling before they actually walk down the aisle. Now getting down to homosexuality and pedophilia being related. I'll ignore any corellation between the two, as really all sex whether heoterosexual or homosexual is all related to each other, where we choose to focus our attention in order to find stimulation is simply a matter of psychological choice. But do note however that those that are fighting for tolerence for pedophiles have been observing the homosexual movement to gain them secular acceptance and are keen on following their model to win their 'rights'. Now getting down to the real crunch, about why societies that repress sexuality are often the ones with more cases of rape, molestation, etc. than ones that are more open about it. There is a connection! Going back to Aristotle for a minute, when he defended art as an outlet for us to vent this 'frustration' there are many opportunities for people in more open societies to engage their stimulis or perversions as a substitute. In one that represses forms of sexuality that the majority feel are wrong, people who have such perversions and fetishes can lose control and this leads to all sorts of problems... Now I will anser this in light of my religious beliefs. Since Catholicism is preoccupied with sin and salvation, which would be better? The society where the majority openly practice immorality freely without breaking secular laws and doing 'direct' harm to others? Or that in which a minority harm others to satisfy their immoral desires, but as a whole what is right is still believed in and reinforced? It is a hard teaching, especialy for victims to accept when it has been doen to them. However that is the way it is, my religion cannot ever accept 'lesser' sins even if it can deter 'greater' sins. Stealing would still be stealing, whether you rob from your mother's purse or the local bank. The ideal is to work towards a world free from it altogether, perfection and nothing less. The other rationale behind it is this... Ask yourself why you are often stimulated. Usually the desire comes, where one would want to jack off. Some think nothing of it and so pleasure themselves. Others like myself believe it is wrong, but often we find ourselves giving in to it anyway. You'd be likely to tell me that it's just what my body is crying out for and so relax and sit back and enjoy it... However tht's merely because you see the issue from a different worldview than I do. I'd rather ask myself why I absolutely have to give in to a bodily desire that's not of necessity? God originally made us to be in control of our bodies. But since the fall, man's spirit cannot control his own body and more often than not gives in to it's desires. It's a case of the horse riding the rider. COnsider the passions, consider something like anger. Sure nobody likes to get angry, and anger can lead to rage and do devestating things. But in a sense, anger is an emotion within us, and is also reflective of God Himself. In fact you can easily realize that there are rightful times when we ought to be angry! When we see abuse, when we witness wrongdoing in the world, even when for example, you, read my initial post and feel strongly againsts it and then reply back to me. Anger can stir us into action to help relieve or fix a situation. It can be a useful and good emotion. But if you carry it too far, you can even wrongfully use it in very negative ways! Consider your appetite and your thirst. YOu body needs food and water to live. Your appetite and thirst signal to you when you require these things. They even help you appreciate and enjoy what you eat and drink. But you can also take your appetite too far and make it gluttony! You can eat and drink too much, eat and drink the wrong things and become unhealthy and sick. It is teh same with sexual desire. It is good, has a purpose and is beneficial, but utlize it in the wrong way and you may end up doing harm and undervaluing it. You may stop seeing it as a way to please the one you love and only seek to satisfy your own selfish desires. It is my religion, as well as others that teach us to take hold of the reigns and control our urges, control the body, rather than be chained (or a Buddhist would say, 'attached') to it and what it wants. We are more free then than those who simply give into any and all sexual urges regardless. I hope that answers your questions...
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:10 p.m. CST
I understand what you are saying and know that others differ on such topics, but at the end of the day I too am allowed to say what I feel, and that is why I ask what Moore intends to say with his work? If it has some message or theme I can agree upon, then I can appreaciate it. If it happens to promote something I am against, I cannot recommend it and depending on the severity, will even condemn the work. BUt as well I'd also like to know where he is coming from with what he is saying... I don't know anything about Moore's religious beliefs, and just as I tried explaining mine to dstrbo1, I wouldn't mind hearing the rationale behind Moore's if you happen to know much about it. Of course I'm not likely to agree with it, but at least we can understand each other.
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST
...I am so glad that energies released during orgasm produce far better results in a ritual working to achieve to required end than say a blood sacrifice. And when a substitute like say bread and wine (or grape juice!) is used instead of actual blood, the result is almost non-existant. All praise to Glycon Divine Glove Puppet! Hail Damballah! Hail Hydra! Hail Tiamat! Hail Ouroboros! Hail Quetzalcoatl! Hail Serpent gird about Midgard! Hail Wyrm that dieth not! Hail Serpent of Knowledge and Fertility! Ye need not punish these unbelievers for they destroy themselves so much more efficiently! Shemhamforash!And for good measure...CTHULHU FHTAGN!
Aug. 12, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST
I was referring to the long Catholic diatribe, not to the one directed to me. Moore is a practising Magician, who would probably get a big laugh at my previous post. he has said that he worships the Roman snake god Glycan *because* the deity was likely to have been a hoax (a glove puppet) if you can get your head around that maybe you can begin to understand his religious beliefs. For further details on Moore's beliefs I recommend you read what he has to say.
Aug. 12, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
Okay, I have a couple points. 1) I'm not calling those who disagree with me closet pedos. You can disagree with me all you want, I don't care. 2) No, I'm calling those who are so a-titter about this book and who drool over the idea of naked cartoon kids as being closet pedos. Especially those so vigorously defending this book as important and artistic, etc., because what they're really doing is finally getting a chance to say "See! I'm not the only one who gets off thinking about banging Alice and watching Wendy's brothers suck themselves off! I mean, I can't wait to buy this important piece of literature." 3) I dare you to walk up to someone outside of this thread, someone "mainstream", and try to explain how it's not creepy that you want to buy a comic book with naked fictional kids fisting each other. "I know, I know, that sounds bad, but it isn't, becuase, well, comic books are now a grown up art to be taken seriously, and so it isn't really what you think it is." It's the sputtered protests like point 3) being depicted in this thread that I'm really getting a kick out of! "It's not a kiddie porn comic book, Mom! It's a thoughtful deconstruction of childrens literature and sexual taboos depicted in a Graphic Novel!"
Aug. 12, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST
So many opinions from people who have not seen or read the book. I prefer to check something out for myself before passing judgment, but that's just me. As far as showing incest or children having sex with adults -- IT'S A FANTASY. NO ACTUAL CHILDREN WERE INVOLVED. That is an extremely important fact to recognize. If a story is going to be ruined for you by the inclusion of such material, then don't read it. Why knock people who do?
Aug. 12, 2006, 3:47 p.m. CST
And as far as Jake Baker's posts went, there was nothing wrong with those either. If any of the allegations were true that Mr. Baker was plotting to commit actual rapes, or other crimes, then he should have been jailed for that. Writing out rape fantasies, even particularly violent and misogynistic ones, should not be a crime. THEY ARE FANTASIES. This country has lost its ability to see metaphor or distinguish fantasy from reality generally.
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST
'cause it makes people think ... and that's the best thing about art. *ahem* So, what if a kid is drawn as an underage rabbit with a squid head, and is OBVIOUSLY an underage squid-headed rabbit kid... since underage squid-headed rabbit kids don't exist, is it still illegal? No squid-headed rabbit kid was harmed. So putting religion aside (thou shall not eat shellfish) is it a legal issue?
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:40 p.m. CST
That's what I get for invoking Cthulhu. Seriously though I believe the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncontitutional those portions of the child protection act that outlawed representations that did not involve an actual child. This is why Top Shelf is able to publish this book at all.
Aug. 12, 2006, 4:57 p.m. CST
Could someone clarify... has this book condoned childhood sex? If it has, and no one is harmed (yet), then you're right, it isn't a legal issue. But it could be a moral one. Just because nobody real is harmed, it doesn't mean the book is harmless. Would you be defending it if he wrote a book trying to justify genocide or race hate, even if it's only representing fantasies and no one real was harmed as yet? Cos just by glancing through this thread, it seems that there are a lot of folk heavily influenced by the guy (maybe not to the extent that they'd imitate art, but possibly to the extent that they might alter their outlook and tolerance a little bit). If, on the other hand, he isn't condoning childhood sex, then it's clearly not that simple.
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST
I left a few out, such as Pagirnis, Auslavis, Long Mu, Wadd, Ash, Unut, Gogaji, Padmavati, Lahmu, the Nehustan, the D'Ampton Worm, Naganaga (Hail Kobra!), Salazar Slytherin, David Coverdale, and of course Samuel L. Jackson. Oh Great Ones! (and any others I might have missed) The slight was inadvertent. Please do not smite me in thy Holy Wrath with great vengeance whilst you misquote Ezekiel 25:17! But shed any anger like as you would shed your skin, be not rattled, but embrace us all in your gentle coils. Unhinge thy jaws and show us what snake sex is all about.
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST
...but I don't think Moore actually condones child sex per se. What I find ironic in so many of the outraged responses is that both Sir James M. Barrie and the Rev. Dodgson(aka Lewis Carroll) were sexually involved with children, and wrote their books out of their desires. L. Frank Baum had no such known liasons, but since you brought the subject up, he openly promoted genocide, declaring that Native Americans should be wiped out to the last man, woman, and child.
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:36 p.m. CST
...people here argueing for and against kiddie porn or the fact that photoman is so sad and lifeless that he actually not only admits being a troll but brags about it and is proud of it. It's a toss up.
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:43 p.m. CST
He advocated extermination of the Irish despite living there under Elizabethan rule. Considering your previous post, maybe one of the purposes of Moore's book is to highlight the hypocrisy of people who cherish the originals and abhor his vision. I hate Spenser by the way.
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:49 p.m. CST
He's always wanted you to be outraged. He's like that bumper sticker "If you're not Outraged, You're not paying attention".
Aug. 12, 2006, 5:58 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I haven't read the book yet, just like the other 98 percent of you. But some people who've reviewed the book have mentioned that the only actual pedophile character in Lost Girls is a Captain Hook analogue. He's portrayed as a monstrous villain and eventually fucked to death by the crocodile via a freshly torn orifice. Or something like that. Ask Rich Johnston about it. Apparently he loves that kind of thing.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST
...So let me try to make my positions clear before I go. 1. Alan Moore is not a pedophile, nor is he advocating pedophilia. 2. You can read and enjoy a book such as Lost Girls without being a pedophile, just as you can read and enjoy the Gashlycrumb Tinies without being a child-murderer. 3. You may believe and practise in whatever system of faith that you choose, but if you attempt to enforce your religion's "thou shall nots" upon others - especially if you try to codify them as the law of the land, then may God Damn you. I will oppose you with every breath I take. 4. There is a lot of real child pornography out there, in which real children were non-consensually abused for the pleasures of others. "Fight the real enemy" people.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST
I'm secure enough in my faith as a Christian that I realize we're not in total control of everything in our lives and that's what some don't want to accept which is why they look to a religion that fits their ideas and makes it easier for them to sleep at night. Every religion in the world has their own set of morals and ethics and by in large, many of them are similar to each other. America is a good example of what happens when the moral fiber comes unraveled and people turn away from God and begin worshipping themselves. By the way, the Jewish and Christian God are the same. Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity, not God Himself. At the end of the day, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. We all have choices that we make everyday and those will determine all of our outcomes after this life.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:27 p.m. CST
by Fatboy Roberts
a) None of these people actually exist. They're fictional characters. They never existed. It's like complaining about Bert and Ernie being homosexual. They're muppets. Muppets don't fuck. Because they're not real. b) There's plenty of literature and art that has dealt with little kids fucking for quite a long time. Some of it is pretty spurient. Some of it makes a sort of sense in the fictional world they inhabit. I know people tripped a little when Stephen King had everyone run a train on Beverly in a sewer in "It" but that, I don't think, was any more child porn than "Romeo and Juliet" or "Lost Girls" c) the first two issues of Lost Girls, available on the internet if you know where to look, are boring as fuck, and the sexual content ends up being pretty well divorced from actual pornography in that the art style used is so distancing from the reader as to take any and all heat out of the images. It's like watching victorian portraits on currency fuck. Which is the least of the story's problems, as for all his good intentions with the story, Moore has done what so many artists before him have done when trying to make high-minded, "important" pornographic literature: They made it ridiculously boring. So not only can you not actively be turned on by the erotica, you can't get involved in the story itself because your involvement hinges on how much you can be aroused by the idea of a fictional children's book character fictionally fucking things. That's how the book is structured, at least in the first two issues, and while it tries to be a deep exploration of why people do some of this and what need it fills, it's hard for you to give a shit because the characters are total ciphers. You're better off reading old Kinsey reports at this point.
Aug. 12, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST
Most people believe in whatever religion they were raised in, do you honestly think that the millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. in this world chose their faith over Christianity because it made them feel more secure? It takes far more security in yourself to forego religion altogether and rely on yourself rather than have God take care of things. It's so easy when you can just do what you're told and not have to think. Jews and Muslims both agree that there is only one God, and see the Christian concept of a Trinity as abject Blasphemy. Christians in turn see Hinduism as Polytheistic, but the Hindu believes that all the Gods are but different forms of the same single Divine Being. Some Christians such as Unitarians do not believe in a trinity either. Latter Day Saints believe Jesus and God the Father to be two entirely seperate Deities, among Others. Also most film geeks on this site should have gotten the Silly Ricky Bobby reference. And America is sadly a good example of what happens when opportunistic religionists infiltrate the power structure in an attempt to eat away at civil liberties with the deliberate goal of setting up a theocratic state. Oh, for the good old days! when the Deists and Humanists ran the country! Could you imagine Bush appointing as Ambassador or Postmaster a polyamorous nudist who attended Black Masses and fervently believed in Reincarnation? He's on your $100.00 bill, Baby. Or could a President who refused to pray or one who openly denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ be elected today? Washington and Adams. As Thomas Jefferson said "I declare on the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility against all tyranny upon the minds of men, this is why the clergy opposes me"
Aug. 12, 2006, 7:19 p.m. CST
or you would have left. Relying on oneself leads to arrogance which in turn leads to a fall of spirit and body. As far as God being on our money...the new world order is on there as well. The God mentioned is not the Christian or Jewish God but the God the government wants you to pray to which is in turn, the government.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:10 p.m. CST
That's just sick. Call it whatever you want; it's sick. Maybe it's supposed to be, but I don't give a shit. It's sick. Fuck Moore.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:22 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
With a little luck, you'll forgive yourself eventually. And maybe. Just maybe... You'll finally find a man to love you who's just like the adorable lil' cousin you left behind. So many years ago.
Aug. 12, 2006, 8:50 p.m. CST
on the one hand it's moore, on the other everyone who spots it will ask qeustions, you'll answer them, namely what it's about. they'll ahve disgusted looks on their faces..etc.... http://k105.blogspot.com/
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST
I wish someone would set Alan Moore's long hair and or beard on fire by soaking them in kerosene while he was writting some sick shit like this and then setting a match to him. Then he can outrage people by showing them his lack of eye brows ,ears and eye sockets. I'm the Mel Gibson of your concious.
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:12 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
There's a little flaw in your logic Prof.Ikamono. You can't be a child murderer without having murdered a child but you CAN be a pedophile without having abused a child. Anyone who would be aroused by sexually explicit images of a child is indeed a pedophile.
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST
before going to bed, to see if by chance anyone had written anything intelligent or interesting on this site. What's this more daft shite, oh dear...
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:38 p.m. CST
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST
Trying to explain anything to you is probably a violation of Jesus' edict to "Cast not your pearls before swine" but here goes: 1. I hope you read your Bible a little more carefully than you do my posts. I never mentioned God being on your currency. Unless you think God was an U.S. Ambassador and Postmaster who was a polyamorous nudist who attended Black Masses and believed fervently in reincarnation. Please take a look at a $100.00 bill - whose picture do you see? Do you get it now? 2. I do not disclose personal information here, including my actual religious beliefs. How do you know I am not a Christian? A Christian who believes with all his (or her) heart and soul that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who died for our sins that we should have everlasting life? But a Christian who does not believe in trying to enforce religion on others, choosing instead to life by example in imitation of Our Lord? All of this could be true - or not. You just assume that anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way you do couldn't possibly be a "real Christian" Boy, if you turn out to be right after all heaven will be a really boring place where everybody thinks exactly the same, which is the same as not thinking at all.
Aug. 12, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST
You are correct that one can be a pedophile without acting on it, but not a child-murderer unless you do. However, what the flaming hell has that to do with what I actually wrote? You say my logic is flawed, I say your reading ability is as flawed as alienindisguise's is. Read my post again, I did NOT say that you could become sexually aroused by the images in Lost Girls without being a pedophile, did I? No. I said you could read and enjoy a book like Lost Girls without being a pedophile. The only explanation I can think of for your bizzare reaction is that you yourself can only enjoy things if they sexually arouse you.
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:05 p.m. CST
But as I said before it's time for me to go to bed, please Lord (am I praying to Jesus, Glycon, Ganesha, Spongebob? I'll never tell!) let there not be a load of daft trolls accosting me tomorrow with their half-formed critiques of what they think I wrote. If indeed I find nothing here tomorrow but intelligent thoughtful discourse, then we will all have seen a miracle! AMEN
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:17 p.m. CST
I'm sure the vision of his young child and their possible siblings going down on each other in a nursery would make him gag.----What a shameful thing it is to glorify THIS GN.----Is it celeb worship?----Positioning?--Drunkeness?----What?!!!----Get a grip on yourself, Drew.
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:36 p.m. CST
Any idea on when this will be officially realeased?
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:44 p.m. CST
by Darth Evil Dead
Kevin Smith was filling in for Ebert this week. I'm a huge Kevin Smith fan (I hate Jersey Girl like everyone though).. He gives World Trade Center a thumbs up..thats cool, and deserved.. But then he does one of the most fucked up things I have ever seen (not really).. He gives "Step Up" a thumbs up... WHAT THE FUCK !!!! This movie has a 20% rating on rottentomatoes.com ... How the fuck can Kevin Smith like this buy the numbers dance flick that has been done (story)a million fucking times in hollywood (Dirty Dancing, Dirty Dancing 2, Footloose, Honey, The Cutting Edge, the list goes fucking on).. Roaper on the show said the lead character not only cant act..but cant dance either and gave the movie a huge thumbs down.. So what the hell has happend to Kevin Smith? Since the box office of Clerks 2 went lack luster, has he gone from pussy to liking cocks up his ass? How has it come to this with Kevin? Step Up? A good movie? Kevin what the fuck is going on? Out of the two celeb critics, I thought Leno would suck balls to Kevin.. But it looks like Leno is the one fucking Kevin in the ass..and Kevin likes it.. He's gone Lance Bass on us all of a sudden... Oh fucking well.. http://www.youtube.com/user/DarthEvilDead
Aug. 12, 2006, 11:52 p.m. CST
You know? A line that says "if you cross this, it's wrong." Everybody puts their lines in different places, and they don't always know why theyr'e where they are -- they're just there. I have read and I accept the arguments that have been made concerning how a person doesn't necessarily have to be a pedophile to enjoy a book like this. But I must bring up one more thing up, which essentially defines where I've put my own line on this topic. Regardless of whether or not you are a pedophile, and no matter how academic or non-sinister the enjoyment you might derive from this book, how would you honestly answer the following question: "Have you ever purchased, read or enjoyed comic books that show little boys sucking each other off?" You go ahead and think about how your answer sounds to you, and then decide if you're comfortable where your line is.
Aug. 13, 2006, 12:50 a.m. CST
by R.C. the "Wise"
Overrated or Pervert also works.
Aug. 13, 2006, 1:34 a.m. CST
If calling something pretentious means you really don't get it, then one can easily dismiss Moore, one of the most intelligent and brilliant (if not the most) artists working in the medium. But Prof, it totally makes sense that Moore would be into a hoax religion, because after all, what religion isn't one? Crowley was the ultimate trickster, one of a long line of trickster gurus. I can never get behind someone who says self-reliance is just being prideful and against God. This is what various churches and religions teach - and of course they do. If you were self-reliant for your relationship with divinity, you wouldn't need THEM. They'd be out of a job, or a position of wealth, power and influence. Most established Religions (capital for a reason) want sheep and that's exactly what they get. Especially when the Church makes it easy for them by telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Johnno, I'm hoping I read your statement about 'psychological choice' out of context, because if you did mean it like I think, that goes back to the dumbass idea of that being straight or gay is a 'choice' - an idea I'm amazed that some people still believe. The choice is whether you act on it or not - and when you get turned on and actually doing something about it, you've been programmed to feel guilty about it. Now in some ways, I agree that one should not be ruled by sexual urges, but my view of the ways in which those can be channeled positively is quite a bit broader than married, strictly procreative sex (Prof. - love the shout-out to the Great Rite or the Heiros Gaimos). But it certainly wouldn't include non-consensual activity which is what rape and pedophilic acts are, and to put them in the same category with homosexuality is just wrong. Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling. I mostly just wanted to say, Prof., I'm totally with you - on the not enforcing religion bit and randomly hailing snake gods (symbols of wisdom and healing, not 'temptation'). Hail Promethea!
Aug. 13, 2006, 2:12 a.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 2:18 a.m. CST
beyond this thread. Nobody but die-hard Moore fans will buy it. The rest of the public will never even be aware of its existence. It it were a film, maybe, but the average american doesn't give a shit about comics that aren't about mainstream superheroes. THEY DON'T CARE. I think it sounds decent, but Moore has yet to make an impression on me. It's pretty expensive, too. But if I get a chance, I'll give it a shot.
Aug. 13, 2006, 4:53 a.m. CST
You remember that horse movie with Dakota Fanning and Kurt Russell? He chose that as one of his favorite movies of 2005. But hey, if one liked '80s teen movies how far would it take that person to like other uplifting "emotional movies" as well? I'm still a Kev fan and I like Power Rangers for pete's sake (and I'm 20 fucking 4). Back on topic, I'm somewhat intrigued by Lost Girls, it sounds like a rather interesting meditation on sex but as weird as some of my tastes run even I have to say ewwwww to 2 boys 69'ing. I adored Watchmen and liked V For Vendetta but that described scene just kinda gets to me. I'm not angry just a little nauseated. I look up to Moore but the whole "it might have all been a dream" aspect is a bit of a cop out and mirrors where Moore has used rape a few times as a plot point in what he has done in the past (not that I couldn't imagine anything more evil than that; the person's still alive afterward). In closing, I'm intrigued but I can't help but give this material the evil eye. Oh and one last thing, it is my belief that a child can more easily understand the concept of physical pain and death than they can physical intimacy and love making. What about that old joke about a kid walking in on their parents and they think the mother is in pain because she is moaning?...sorry for the long post.
Aug. 13, 2006, 5:24 a.m. CST
...and I'm now so out of control that I'm renouncing any plan I had of leading a decent life and I'm going to enroll in NAMBLA membership. It's THAT powerful. It will change the way you live your life. You will become murderers, rapists, kiddie porn afficionados, crack dealers, and internet talkbackers (arguably the worst of the lot). So, if you wish to be fisted by Bozo the Clown while Cookie wanks him off, READ LOST GIRLS!!
Aug. 13, 2006, 5:44 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
After reading this powerful book, I've decided to devote my life's earnings to a new residence in Thailand. Can you guess what I'll be up to over there?
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:07 a.m. CST
Guess what folks - some people have loads o choice and choose both - it doubles the opportunities.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:15 a.m. CST
Your response was thoughtful and fair, and totally lacking in the smarmy sarcastic tone my post was soaked in. You made me sound like a petulant kid, relative to your maturity. Shit. I respect your beliefs, though I don't share them, because you're obviously someone who deserves that repsect. I was raised Irish Catholic, and even though I consider the man I am today to be in large part a result of some of the more honorable aspects of that upbringing, in my adult life as a secular being I've had nothing but reinforcement for my theories as a non-religious Good Person. This is the crux- I am not unfamiliar with the church and it's teachings, but everything I've experienced as an adult proves that religion, any religion, as benign and well-intentioned as it's core teachings might be, are unnecessary for people who choose to live a good life. I can tell you, and you can choose to take me at my word or not, that me and my group of friends live an honest, compassionate, and kind existence, without the benefit of religious doctrine. I do have religious friends, of all stripes, but for the most part we are confideltly non-religious and coexist peacefully by the standards of goodwill. My girlfriend and I plan on having kids within the next year or two, many of our friends are already married (five weddings last summer!) with little ones running around and more on the way. So I guess what stimulated my 'anger' (a fair enough description) was the assumption that without religion, whether it be yours, or someone elses, our life shouldn't be capable of being real. Can you understand that insult? I know you don't intend it that way, in fact, I believe that your motive is purely positive, but please understand that so is mine. whereas you see in me a lost soul, slipping towards an eternal punishment, I see in you an intelligent, thoughtful person selling himself and his life experience short for the sake of superstition. I know that sounds harsh, and I honestly don't want to offend you, (not this time) but that's the way I see it. I believe that as bright as you are, you must live in a constant state of conflict, struggling between what your brain knows and what your heart wants so desperately to believe. I've seen religion destroy families, and I've experienced true brotherly love with people who have nothing in common but a mutual respect and friendship. Maybe it's unfair, it's definitely biased, but my personal interpretaion of the sum of my experience is that religion does as much harm as it does good, just as any other human contruct or endeavor carries with it an inherent potential for good and bad. Anyway, all this to say, I truly appreciate your reply, you were far more generous to me than I deserved, and I hope that this may serve as an equally repsectful gesture, as much as you might reject the bulk of it out of hand. I learned a long time ago that you can't argue with a true believer, because they are true believers, so I'll quit now, and shake your hand virtually. adieu.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:42 a.m. CST
yeah really controversial stuff here. read some waita uziga instead.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:42 a.m. CST
Go back to the Lost Girls page on Amazon, scroll down to "Product Details" there you should find "Publisher: Top Shelf Productions (August 30, 2006)". Of course I expect this date is always subject to change.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:55 a.m. CST
"and going "over the rainbow" is yet another euphemism for having an orgasm...or at least it SHOULD be!"----------The Wizard Of Oz (the novel, not the movie) was a satire criticizing US Federal monetary policy and the like. I can't remember much of what stood for what anymore, but the silver slippers and the yellow brick road were the gold and silver standard, the tin man was representative of industry, the scarecrow agriculture, the Emerald City had something to do with paper greenbacks...well, you can look it all up. Basically the Wizard Of Oz is a high minded political rant. I don't know why Alan Moore decided it somehow had the potential of being considered anything else. Guess he's just lost his touch after all.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST
I see that Christians are right in at least one thing, you can get a miracle if you pray for it! Or did I actually get the desired results of my ritual working? Remember, Jesus was a snake deity too, to the Gnostics. And thank you oisin for bringing up Crowley, in spite of what everybody said about him, dear Uncle Aleister was himself an exceedingly moral man.
Aug. 13, 2006, 7:19 a.m. CST
You'd be amaz'd at what I could oppose with my breath. And I'm only lying when I am telling the truth.
Aug. 13, 2006, 7:52 a.m. CST
Completely off topic, but I think it's funny as hell... the trailer for Dead or Alive, being the unholy offspring of Basic Instinct 2 and The Transporter. Staggeringly bad, in a bad way. http://tinyurl.com/fhhuk
Aug. 13, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST
Maybe when you post, you should make yourself clear instead of rambling to try to get a foothold on your slippery slope. The fact of the matter is you're lost. Believe what you like, but when it comes down, don't cry when you realize you lived a lie.
Aug. 13, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST
I put it to you that I might just be a Christian myself, but you chose instead to Judge me and condemn me. A right which Holy Scripture reserves only for The Almighty Himself. You however, have repeated Lucifer's sin of Pride by placing yourself on God's throne and telling me that I am lost. I am not crying, my lie is truer than your "truth", and snakes don't have feet.
Aug. 13, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST
And all you backward people for whom morality is a life line your slippery fingers fumble at. Even after you've come over that illegal download. And don't worry about damaging your precious souls over pornograhic literature such as this, just remember to repent to your local pedophille priest before you die. See you fuckers in hell.
Aug. 13, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST
Better hide this good stuff along with my stash of Patrick Swayze porn. Now I'm definately going to hell.
Aug. 13, 2006, 10:10 a.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST
by The Funketeer
and yet I don't enjoy you at all. Here's my problem with Moore and this book. I am in no way offended or interested in it. I'm just getting tired of all the attention the media (mainstream or web sites like this) drools all over him every time he pulls his head out of his magical ass and farts out a comic book when he hasn't created anything worthy of this attention since the 80s. If the cover of the book didn't have Alan Moore's name on it, Moriarty probably wouldn't have read it, and if he had he probably wouldn't have finished it, and if he had finished it, her certainly wouldn't have lept out of his seat to bless us with his drooling pretentious review (at least it wasn't Herc this time). Moore has done so many interviews about this book where he talks about the potential controversy that it's pretty clear he'd really like there to be a controversy and anyone who's been writing about the book, or interviewing him is really just trying to jump on the "let's defend Moore" bandwagon before it pulls out of town.
Aug. 13, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST
I'm starting a deadpool right now in this talkback... Guess which American state arrests sellers of this book first! A bonus if a buyer of the book is arrested as well.
Aug. 13, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST
... I am an in fact an underage little girl. You have admitted here that I arouse you, you are thus a self-confessed pedophile, the police are hereby dispatched to come and take you away. Or maybe just to raid your ass. Anyway they're going to come.
Aug. 13, 2006, 11:05 a.m. CST
Bloody indefinite articles!
Aug. 13, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST
"that it's pretty clear he'd really like there to be a controversy"....wow did you figure that out all by yourself??!! OF COURSE he wants a controvesy! Controversy sells his product! By the way thanks so much for telling us what Moriarity would or wouldn't do, it's great that you are so psychic or have such a deep relationship with him that you can be the expert on his actions in life. No really, that kind of jack ass assumptive statement doesn't hurt your believability at all, really it doesn't.
Aug. 13, 2006, 12:20 p.m. CST
by Jar Jar 4 Prez
Just like Alan Moore will burn in HELLFIRE for ALL ETERNITY for going against the one, true Christian GOD!!! How dare people call this "art" or "literature" when it's just SMUT! Alan Moore is a known sinner, liberal, pinko intellectual and he should be thrown into an oven or a gas chamber immediately!!!
Aug. 13, 2006, 12:46 p.m. CST
i asked the other schoolgirls here in japan if they had bought a manga that showed boy on boy action, and of course they have! lost girls will be very popularity with teen and tween girls in japan!
Aug. 13, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST
Stop this NONCE SENSE at once. For more information and advice on how to save your flesh - click for enlightenment: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000066NT9/202-1454554-5945411?v=glance&n=283926
Aug. 13, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 2 p.m. CST
You need to read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Top Ten, most importantly, Promethea. Promethea is definitely up there with his 80s work.
Aug. 13, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST
Ahhhh, obvious trolling never gets old! Good one, chum!
Aug. 13, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST
Since the 80's? Um.... Does 'From Hell' ring a bell? It's his best work ever, better even than 'Watchmen'. And 'Top Ten' isn't too shabby, either.
Aug. 13, 2006, 3:59 p.m. CST
Were you joking about the moral thing? Uncle Al would surely laugh at such an accusation. 'Morals' (or at least how Edwardian society constructed them) were certainly nothing he had time for. I'm not sure what he did to Neuberg was very 'moral.' He was a fucked up genius, but certainly not moral.
Aug. 13, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST
You probably are aware that I can't quite help but joke even when I'm being serious. As you say Crowley disdained what passed for "morality" in Victorian and Edwardian England. He utterly deplored their hypocritical prudishness. Nevertheless he remained through his life true to his own sense of honour as it were. Consider his outrage at the boorish behavior of the Austrians on the ill-fated expedition to Kangchenjunga, especially in relation to their treatment of the sherpas, his refusal to use Magick for monetary gain (an inherited fortune made this easy), or his need to expose Mathers' fruadulance even when it wasn't in his best interest to do so. He had a certain integrity that nevertheless allowed for such things as tricking Neuberg into his first glass of absinthe, or leading Dr. Guillarmod through his fish-pond on that wild sheep hunt at Boleskine. In essence Crowley was not amoral, but had a morality all his own, that had less to do with "right and wrong" than it did with well, "fair play".
Aug. 13, 2006, 6 p.m. CST
In no way have I tried to put myself on God's throne nor have I exhibited the same pride Lucifer did. I simply state the truth. A truth that obviously hit a nerve. I have said my piece. If you'd like to continue this, I'll be here all week!
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST
...my main source for the events of Crowley's life would be The Confessions, the author of which probably had a bias in Crowley's favor.
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 7:59 p.m. CST
Aug. 13, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST
You want your gay sex? Fine! You want your fisting? Fine! You want illustrated visuals of this? Fine! I never claimed that you were 'sinners' or any of that crap because I'm a libertarian agnostic you over sensitive, shoot-from-the-hip, jumping-to-conclusion, small minded, too-cool-for-the-room, ultra elites. I mean, with all we disagree with here on AICN, can't we agree on one thing -- that child pornography is too fucking evil to grant even a minute of consideration? Is it too much to expect from the entertainment industry to portray sexual awakening upwards of 16-years? That this book is centered around fictional characters that wake up from a dream is inconsequential. That is simply a one-two punch of a hamfisted ploy. A ploy that is consciously engineered to excuse itself for what it truly is as well as to provoke you 'hipsters' to apologize for the very real child pornography that it is. Half the content of this TB coupled with Mori's lecturing about allowing ourselves 'free reign over our imagination' is quite alarming. And yet for calling child pornography the evil that it is, I'm likened to motherfucking HITLER?! What the fuck is with the oversimplified labeling from some of you fucking idiots? I didn't try to control anyone's thoughts, yet I am likened to one of the world's most viscious of them all. Ultimately, this is thought policiing in reverse in an attempt to justify why it's okay to fiddle with the hinges on pandora's box. Consider this other pearl of wisdom from my accuser, "Hitler pooped... I guess we all must be Hitler." Indeed. When everyone is Hitler, no one is Hitler. Later on, this person posts, "So, what if a kid is drawn as an underage rabbit with a squid head, and is OBVIOUSLY an underage squid-headed rabbit kid... since underage squid-headed rabbit kids don't exist, is it still illegal? No squid-headed rabbit kid was harmed. So putting religion aside (thou shall not eat shellfish) is it a legal issue?" This is a classic example of an imagination in overdrive. The abstract will always win, which is why this person engages exclusively in abstracts. There is no debating to be had with an individual of this mindset. The clear answer is that the premise as mentioned is inconsequential to the debate. There are REAL kids that are forced into REAL pornography. Something that is absolutely 100% wrong in any light. But why focus on that when it's much more convincing to engage in false platitudes that go nowhere at all? Besides, Moore's book is just drawings, right? Well, the middle east sure did get into an uproar recently about drawings of mohammed, none of which portrayed him sucking off another guy or getting fisted either. And most of the world respected that. Most of the leftist media to be sure. This level of respect and understanding doesn't extend to illustrations of child pornography? Why? Sure, kids sexually awaken before the legal age of consent. Not disputing that. Some awaken well before prepubescence. Not disputing that either. However, it is during those times that they need guidance, counseling, and understanding. To place them on the same plateau of maturity and consequence as us adults is to exploit their naivety at the least and their innocence at the most. Thankfully, most laws in civilized countries understand this perspective. It's a shame this logic cannot permeate the banality of AICN TB. PS: Shame on you Mori. One day, Toshiro will be 10. What would you think of a sketch of him sucking off your father while your mother is fisting him? After all, a piece of paper never hurt anyone. Fuck it. This whole thing is all Bush's fault anyway.
Aug. 13, 2006, 8:24 p.m. CST
by The Ender
Aug. 13, 2006, 8:33 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
Of all the ABC stuff I read, LOEG and Tom Strong were the only ones I kept up with. I really liked some of the stuff in the anthology series but not enough to pay for the rest. Dropped Promethea and Top 10 after a while because I just wasn't liking them enough to pay for them every month. As for From Hell, it first came out in 91 which is technically not the 80s but still before the speculator explosion. Either way, I own it, I've read it, but it's not up there with V or Watchmen or some of his other DC stuff. It was decent enough and Eddie Campbell is of course amazing, but it didn't grab me or challenge me the way other independent books of the time did.
Aug. 13, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST
An assembly of letters and punctuation never hurt anyone. (ugh!)
Aug. 14, 2006, 1:05 a.m. CST
Talk about jumping the gun. 'Lost Girls' isn't child pornography. There aren't any children in it. There are fictional characters, represented by 2D drawins, who are underage. They aren't real children. By your definition, 'Lolita' by Nabokov is kiddie porn. Fantasy. is. not. reality. Fantasy is used to explore avenues... imaginative, technological, political, immoral... avenues which we would never embark on in real life. If I read a book about murder, am I a murderer? Nope. Even if I thrill a bit to fictional violence, am I guilty of assault? No-ope. Child pornography (that is, pornography featuring REAL children, engaged in REAL acts) is a loathesome, disgusting crime deserving of the strictest, most merciless punishment allowed by law. But fictional acts with fictional characers? At worst, it's sleazy. And at best, as in the case of Nabokov, it's fucking art. Now get off your stupid, anonymous, internet high horse and think for a second. There are plenty of REAL crimes being perpetrated every day, and those are the ones that should be taking up everyone's time and effort, to help prevent. Moore's book might be great, or it might be shit. Or it might be simply mediocre. Or maybe it's okay, but the graphic subject matter overwhelms its merits. We don't know, because we haven't read it. But one thing we DO know, is that it's not child pornography. People are so ineffectual, they think they're accomplishing something by getting all outraged about goddamn comic books. Well, that's because they're too goddamned lazy to read the paper and deal with the shit that's going on in the REAL world every day. You all can take your armchair moralizing and stick it up your ignorant fucking asses. You're welcome.
Aug. 14, 2006, 7:58 a.m. CST
Talking that way in front of the customers! You've highly offended me. I don't know if sorry can make up for it... Maybe you should print some of them pitchers... ;)
Aug. 14, 2006, 8:01 a.m. CST
What happens is, when some people start getting too old and senile, and start losing the inhibitions that are a natural part of being young and healthy (our inhibitions and instinctive taboos are part of what make us able to get along with eachother, which most people think is a GOOD thing, not a vile repression of their freedoms), and Moore is obviously at an age and state of health where he's losing his marbles, and any inhibitions against the appropriate. What I've seen of Moore (though I REALLY enjoyed his Swamp Thing run) has been basically that of an aging old fart, who thinks indulging his declining ability to direct his attentions appropriately is some kind of statement. All it is is personal masturbation on his part. His "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen II" had a young Mina Harker fucking a wrinkled old fart (standing in for Moore) and that Magical Ceremony comic (I forget it's name) has the same thing, with the young beauty thanking the wrinkled old fart for the magic orgasms he's giving her. How can Moriarty or anyone defend this as anything but pathetic and senile fantasies? The kiddie porn aspect being described is just a deepening symptom of senility, an old man who can no longer expend the energy to categorize certain classes of people as off limits to adult appetites, and just goes all out indulging himself in the name of "art".
Aug. 14, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST
I think these people are so worried about this because if you read Lost Girls, you'll pop a boner and immediately become a degenerate child rapist. Just like reading Batman will turn you into a sodomite, or reading Superman will turn you into a fascist bully-boy. Wonder Woman will turn you into a sado-masochist, and any little girls who read Alan Moore's Swamp Thing back in the eighties are out in the forests now shagging the shrubbery. I just don't want to think about anybody who read Aquaman, or Animalman...
Aug. 14, 2006, 8:31 a.m. CST
Aug. 14, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST
You've been dropping hints in the talkbacks that you do (your trip to Vancouver) and let me let you in on a little secret that apparently you are unaware of; pot smoking makes you silly. It doesn't enhance your perceptions, it restricts them and locks them into stupid little ruts. That's why pot smokers are known to find inane ideas "deep", because their minds have been poisoned and they can't actually see how fucking inane and stupid their brilliant ideas are. If you want to be respected as a movie reviewer, as a script writer, as an opinionator of any kind, you gotta give up the weed, no matter that you think it's the only way to control your rageaholic tendencies. If you read Moore's porn fest with the help of the old herb, it doesn't surprise me that you found it non-sexual ... weed suppresses the libido. Try it again without the help of cannabis ... I'll bet you come up with a reaction more akin to how you felt about "Memoirs of a Geisha". You didn't defend THAT piece of crap just because it was "artistic" did you?
Aug. 14, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
Drug taking and stupidity are not necessarily related. As you have just proved. Ever heard of The Doors of Perception, Fear and Loathing in las Vegas, Naked Lunch? i could go on with this for ages, but you get the point.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10 a.m. CST
You mean "Reefer Madness" was WRONG? I thought it was a documentary!
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:12 a.m. CST
The only worthwile literature influenced by drugs is literature written after the drugs have worn off, in a sober state, assuming the author hasn't been permanently damaged by overuse of the drugs. Philip K. Dick is the best example of this, but he came out against drug taking, horrified by the harm it did to so many of his friends.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST
We simply make sure that every copy of Lost Girls is sold with a pack of cannibis. No one will be allowed to read it unless they light up. Then they can enjoy the book just like Moriarity did without having to worry about any erotic stimulation that would reveal their suppressed pedophilic tendencies. There, problem solved. Thread over! Victory is Mine!!!
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST
by The Funketeer
... are annoyed that most of us who are bashing it are not really condemning it on any sort of moral ground. They'd love for us to take a "think of the children" stance but really our only issue is that it's just pointless and bad and that a once great writer left the building a long time ago.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
Almost all of Song's of Innocence and Experience and Heaven and Hell, which he wrote and did the art for (is this arguably the first graphic novel?) was written whilst he was utterly off his bollocks on opium. See also De Quincy . There is a shit load of great music, art, poetry and literature written under the influence. There are also great works written by clearly addled authors (Hubert Selby is obviously damaged). The point is that Drug Taking does not automatically impair reasoning. As your ludicrously broad statement implied. I was being partly facetious, as your preachy Daily Mail editorial attitude irked me, but the point is valid.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:38 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
You couldn't pay me to read this crap. The thought of a paedophilic reinterpretation of books written by suspect characters makes my skin crawl. I will absolutely pass on this,
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:39 a.m. CST
"real" child pornography may use real children to pose for it, but it's as fake as the "fictional" pornography. It's much worse because it uses real children, but what makes it vile is that people get off on looking at it, and it's made in order to get people off on looking at it. It encourages looking at children in a sexual way, and it doesn't matter whether the source of that encouragement is a cartoon, or a child model; both are fictions, and both depict children in sexual situations that ought not to be encouraged or even thought of. Fiction, shmiction.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:40 a.m. CST
"real" child pornography may use real children to pose for it, but it's as fake as the "fictional" pornography. It's much worse because it uses real children, but what makes it vile is that people get off on looking at it, and it's made in order to get people off on looking at it. It encourages looking at children in a sexual way, and it doesn't matter whether the source of that encouragement is a cartoon, or a child model; both are fictions, and both depict children in sexual situations that ought not to be encouraged or even thought of. Fiction, shmiction.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST
First of all, a lot of people ARE taking the 'think of the children' stance'. Are you reading the same talkback as me? Secondly, your issue is NOT that the book is 'pointless and bad'. Because as far as I can tell, YOU HAVEN'T READ THE FUCKING THING. Now, I'm not saying you have to. If the subject matter turns you off, so be it. Personally, I'm not terribly interested in a Peter Pan story involving fisting. But to my mind, Moore is the best comics writer who has ever lived, so I'm not going to say he's 'lost his touch' based on a book I've yet to read. Read it or don't read it. But you've not earned the right to call it a bad book on it's merits, because you haven't read the fucking thing. So shut up. Like I've said before, this book could very well be bloody awful. I'm not 'defending it' so much as I am decrying the unthinking, kneejerk reaction of you nitwits. I'm sick of this ignorance pageant you people are putting on. If you want to blow hot air about how much the book sucks, read it first. Or shut the fuck up.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:04 a.m. CST
... explain this to the extremely conservative U.S. Supreme Court who tossed out the bits of the child protection act that outlawed "child pornography" which did not in fact portray actual children.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST
these arguments that Moore is a dirty old man who has lost his touch are wholly inaccurate, seeing as he starting writing this series quite some time ago (around 1988, I think, just after V for Vendetta) and has done quite a bit of work since then. Most of the opinions here are based on wild assumptions from whatever posters imagine this series to be like. I've read the early issues (not the Peter Pan stuff) - but the whole thing reads more like Victorian erotica than anything else. Explicit? yes. But to me it's WAY more wholesome and less disturbing and sick than what you might read in, say, Preacher. And one of things graphic novels do so well are illustrate fantasy images that can come from our subconscious. Now, here, fantasy does not necessarily imply this thing you wish you could do, but images that are there nonetheless. I don't know about you but I've seen some fucked up shit in my own dreams that I would never want to do or see in 'real life' - but exploring what those images mean and why we make these subconscious associations are interesting and they're what modern psychology was based on. So the idea of fantasy characters engaged in sexual acts and what that means to our collective unconscious is vastly fascinating to me. If that disturbs you, don't read it! And 'children' aren't affected by this, because it's meant for adults. So unless you're a dumbass and let your kids read it, you have nothing to worry about.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST
when i say 'fantasy characters,' I meant iconic, archetypal characters from children's literature - the kind that already have a strong sexual element to the themes - especially Peter Pan. Come on. Hell, even Cuaron got and interestingly explored the sexual metaphors of Harry Potter. Expectorum Patronum indeed!
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:14 a.m. CST
You ignorant slut. First of all, in what way is pornography featuring real children 'as fake as "fictional" pornography'? You might want to explain that one. REAL child pornorgraphy features REAL models, whose REAL lives are twisted and perhaps perverted as a result of the experience. They're who the law, and us adults, are meant to protect. Also, if I'm looking around the interweb for some porn, and I stumbled across child porn, you're saying I would be 'encouraged' to view minors sexually, and perhaps be motivated to act on these new urges? Nonsense. Child pornography is generated from the demand FIRST, it doesn't create the demand. There are sickos out there who want to fuck children, and they want to watch children being abused. But porn didn't make them that way, you idiot. Their own abusive relative or authority figure did. Child abuse is not a 'supply-side' problem, and anybody who thinks they're curing a problem by supressing all the outward symptoms, well, wouldn't make a very good doctor. If Moore touched a child, I'd say, put him in the clink. But as far as I can tell, the man is happily married to a woman his age, who was also his collaborator on 'Lost Girls'. He is depicting fictional women on the edge of puberty. If someone is honestly going to write a book about sex, do you think they would confine the subject to the missionary position, and avoid anything dark or taboo? If kiddie-porn lovers buy the book, does that make anyone who reads it ALSO a kiddie-porn enthusiast? I'm sure a lot of sickos jacked off while watching 'Silence of the Lambs', but that doesn't have anything to do with a normal person's ability to enjoy the film as a well-crafted, creepy little thriller. Treating people who FANTASIZE about immoral or criminal acts as if they are real criminals is a very, very dangerous thing. It's the first step to a surveillance state and tought policing. It's frankly exponentially scarier to me than the idea of somebody jerking off to a drawing of Dorothy sucking off the Cowardly Lion while Toto fucks her in the ass. Oh no! Now I'm a child pornographer for describing a purely fantastical scenario! Lock me up! I hope in the police state, someone blows the whistle on you for being an asshole with half-baked arguments.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:18 a.m. CST
From a legal standpoint, you can't legislate artistic depictions of anything, as long as no real people were harmed in the process (as in using child models would harm the child models). Art could fictionally represent children in sexual situations in a context that condemns it, for instance, and should that be outlawed? The fact is, you can't make the leap between someone apparently THINKING about children having sex and the actual harmful act of having sex with children. But common sense indicates that, even though it makes sense not to get the law involved in "thought crimes" that thinking has to be the precursor to doing. You just can't say it definitely is so, because it isn't.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
reminds me of the furore over Brass Eye Paedophile Special a few years ago. Buy it off Amazon- it is brilliant satire of the most scathing variety. My personal favourite memory of the time was when David Blunkett (then home secretary) released a statement describing it as the most evil thing he had ever seen. Despite being blind. You couldn't write satire like that. It did, however, highlight the instant kneejerk reactions of people whenver the word "Paedophile" is mentioned. Other classic moments from it include when the focus group (of real people- not actors) were asked "I'm in love with a 4 year old. Is it OK to have sex with her now she is 24?" and all of them said it was disgusting- stupid, pointless not thought out reaction. Very funny stuff.
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:28 a.m. CST
Thank you. Someone needed to tell off the arrogant assumptions of some these posters. One particularly egregious pundit of her own presumptiousness actually said pornography was the final descent of a washed up artist before he commits suicide. What a hateful unchristian thing to wish on someone! Also terribly inaccurate as many artists go from porn to more "socially acceptable" forms of art. Aleister Crowley wrote "White Stains" at the beginning of his career, and consider the career trajectories of Traci Lords, John Waters, Wash Westmoreland, Gregory Dark, or even Sylvester Stallone!
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST
was that he couldn't love because he could never grow up... Though I guess you don't have to love someone to fuck them from behind, so nevermind. Carry on Pete!
Aug. 14, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
Who's career highpoint was arguably "Sizzle Beach, USA"
Aug. 14, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST
let's hear what the man himself has to say on this subject: "I do not believe in any restrictions based on prejudice. great art is always outspoken and its effect on people depends on their minds alone. We have now discovered, in fact, that the most harmless phenomena of dreams really represent the most indecent and abominable ideas. if we choose to find an objectionable meaning in Alice in Wonderland, or determine to persuade ourselves that the frank oriental obscentities of the bible are indecent, no one can stop us. Mankind can only rise above his lower self by facing the facts and mastering his instincts."
Aug. 14, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST
The people defending this crap in the name of "fantasy" and doing so because the thought of them not being able to whack off to Hentai cartoons of asian school girls being raped by demons,aliens, or machines is just to much for them to handle. So they are crying out"They are just drawings of children depicted in sex scenes with graphic descriptions being written about the action,it's not real" what a statement. I dare any single guy involved in this discussion to bring that point up to a really hot chick your trying to pick up or any woman ,guess what would happen? I guess thats a bad example. Guys who read this crap and other stuff like it ,hide it from everyone,especially if they have a girlfriend or wife.Which brings me to another point, if something as undefenseable as this is for you is it really that cool?
Aug. 14, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST
I do not wish to imply anything with the lower case, it was simply a typo on my part.
Aug. 14, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST
as asian schoolgirl you must realise that manga of cute boys sexualising with each other is most popularity! japan girls love shonen ai! and share our own drawings of fictionalised pop icons like harry potter. One of my schoolmates did a fun picture of draco tied to his bed with slytherin necktie, harry smiling over him with wand, on draco's bare chest harry has magically inscribe "property of harry potter" wwwwWwwwWwwweeewwwW
Aug. 14, 2006, 2:06 p.m. CST
See, this is what is so frightening. I never look at hentai, or manga porn, or any of that shit. I'm not a 'furry' or anything. I'm just an average, educated straight white guy who can distinguish between erotic fantasy and criminality. When I read your post, and the way you describe anybody who defends Moore, I'm struck at how far off base you are. You're so completely wrong about me, that I have to wonder, how wrong you are about other things. And then I wonder.... Jesus, are there people like you presiding over courtrooms? Fuck, I hope not. I don't like kiddie porn, I don't like cartoon porn. I think the former is criminal and immoral, and I think the second is just plain silly. But when an established, talented guy like Moore decides to take on subject matter like this, I'll certainly wait to read the book before I declare that he's an exploitative sicko. And your characterization of women is simplistic and naive. There are a lot of women, professional, educated women, who are just as freaky, if not freakier, than guys when it comes to sex. You fucking internet trolls are hilarious. You don't bat an eye when a comic features mass killings, decapitation, disembowelment... but draw a picture of a fictional 'underage' character getting it on, and you turn into a bunch of liljuniortippergores. Get a job.
Aug. 14, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST
by Cod Profundity
Probably a little less evil. So, why isn't anyone screaming about movies where you see people murdered? I mean a drawing of two kids fucking or a real as possible effect of someone being murdered are just as fake as each other. And yet all these fucktards moaning about this book never come on to other talkbacks complaining about the fake violence in movies or comics. Every last one of you clueless fucks really need to get back to school and get an education.
Aug. 14, 2006, 3:49 p.m. CST
Once Upon a Time there lived on an Island Kingdom a little boy named James. He had a brother whom he loved very, very much. One Terrible Day a very bad thing happened to the little boy's brother - he died. The little boy was very, very sad and wished he could never grow up. He was so sad, and he wished so hard that he fell (accidentally?) down some stairs. A wonderful thing happened, the little boy never grew another inch for the rest of his life! But sadly he discovered that he still became a man anyway. The little man now found that he loved little boys very, very much. He would go out and look for little boys to be his playmates. He found a whole family of boys, including Peter, John, and Michael. They played wonderful games together. It was magical. But the little man saw that the boys were growing up. So he wrote down a wonderful story, of his deepest, most secret fantasy, that there might be a little boy who would never grow up, but remain his little playmate for ever and ever. He named the boys in his story after the real little boys he loved and played with. He gave away any money he got for his story to a hospital to care for sick little children, many of whom would never grow up. Michael never really grew up though, he went to school and found a playmate named Rupert, people didn't like the special games Michael and Rupert played together, so one night they swam away to Neverland. Peter grew up, he became a bitter old man, one day he went to a strange land far away called America where he met an old woman named Alice, she had played special games when she was little girl too. But Peter became sick of being a grown-up and decided to catch a magic train to Neverland. James, the little man found many other children to play with and tell his stories to, one of these was a little princess named Elizabeth of York, and when she grew up she became the Queen of the whole land! "And they all lived happily ever after"
Aug. 14, 2006, 4:11 p.m. CST
One of the things that kinda undermines the Finding Neverland film with its bittersweet happy ending is the knowledge about how messed up those boys grew up to be and how many committed suicide - though I'm not sure that's Barrie's fault. Thankfully, they didn't add that to the end of the film, cause that would have been really depressing. Of course, one of my favorite 're-interpretations' of Alice is Dreamchild (1980something) with an elderly Alice traveling to America, flashbacks of Ian Holm as the good reverend (who was also in the strange adaptation of Through the Looking Glass with a pre-plastic surgery Kate Beckinsale) and Jim Henson's Creature Shop doing wonderfully aged and creepy Wonderland characters. I'd say Peter, Alice and Oz are three of the most psychologically weighty of children's stories in Western culture and deserve to be continually explored in every medium.
Aug. 14, 2006, 4:47 p.m. CST
...although I miss-identified it as "The Dream Child", in that same post I mentioned a film called "Neverland" directed by Damion Dietz. In it Wendy and her brothers are wealthy LA teenagers who meet a wild street kid named Peter who seduces them all and takes them off to Neverland, a local theme park. He teaches them to "fly" with Ecstasy, and they join his gang of lost boys, who live in a secret area backstage at the park. They are pursued by Security "Cast Members" (a direct hit at a certain Theme Park Company) led by Hook. Hook and his men just happen to be gay leathermen. Peter and the Lost Boys are helped along by Peter's other lovers: Tink, an androgynous club kid, and Tiger Lilly a "two-spirited" Native American who performs at the park in drag. (Peter Pansexual!) There have been other variations on these themes but these two films in particular stick out in my memory.
Aug. 14, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST
Another interesting thing about Peter Pan is that it is a play with many elements of the British theatrical genre known as Pantomime or "Panto". Americans use the word pantomime to mean "Mime" so some explanation is in order. Panto plays are usually children's stories, and traditionally are presented with audience participation encouraged (clap your hands if you believe). They also have animals portrayed by actors in suits (Nana, the Crocodile), and the lead character is always a boy portrayed by a woman actor. These plays are usually put on at Christmastime. One tradition of Panto seems to be missing from Peter Pan, however, The Dame. The Dame is a broad farcical female character played by a man in drag. The only character in Peter Pan that resembles the traditional Dame is Captain Hook. Hook though male is usually portrayed as a foppish and elegant dandy, as broadly camp as the traditional Panto dame. Barrie named the characters after people from his own life. What must we make of the fact that he gave Hook the Christian name of James?
Aug. 14, 2006, 5:22 p.m. CST
I have yet to read Lost Girls, but I wonder if Moore in portraying Dorothy mentions the Princess Ozma? Ozma is probably one of few transsexual characters in popular children's literature. Ozma is not merely raised as a boy like Princess Sapphire of Ribbon no Kishi (Princess Knight), she was actually transformed into a boy as an infant. The boy, Tip, who has no memory of ever being a girl, and who is a typical rough and tumble, "girls are yucky" pre-teen boy must choose to undergo magical gender reassignment for the sake of the Kingdom! Wow. What a deconstructed Broadway Musical this would make!
Aug. 14, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST
I am not a homophobe. What two adults do with eachother is their own business. While I consider myself to be a Messianic Jew, I also see the disconnect in trying to force everyone to conform to one standard. People are going to do and be who they are, whether I agree with it or not. I don't judge people in most cases, because it's not my place. But this, in my opinion, is sick. Not because it's two males having sex with eachother, but because it's two young boys, who are brothers, having oral sex. That is sick to me. Call it art or whatever, but just the thought of it sickens me. I was never molested, nor have I ever molested anyone as it was suggested I had earlier in response to my first post, but I don't think it takes having been molested to see how this is wrong. I would have a lot less of a problem if this was being depicted not as erotica (or pornography or whatever you want to call it) and more as a moral play. But the way it's been depicted here is not as something that is wrong or confused, but as a natural and even sexy thing to do. There is nothing sexy about incest, and there is particularly nothing sexy about pedophelia. If you want to watch two guys sucking eachother off, at least watch Brokeback Mountain where the two guys are of age and not related to one another.
Aug. 14, 2006, 10:01 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I'm sorry you thought I was implying that you're a child molester. I was actually just implying that you might have engaged in some kind of sex play with another male friend at a young age, and suggesting that your repressed feelings about it might be why you're uncomfortable. It was basically a joke. But your post concerns me, because it seems like you don't see any distinction between normal, healthy sexual behavior in children and child molestation. Two kids of roughly the same age and experience levels experimenting with things like oral sex in a completely consensual manner is not anywhere near molestation, in my opinion. In fact, it's actually really healthy and common sexual behavior. Teaching kids to be responsible about as they grow up is the important thing. But I'll bet you that having those sort of urges forcibly repressed and then having feelings of guilt over them reinforced by respected adults for years afterwards probably could lead to somebody having some pretty weird feelings towards kids. Just ask a few Catholics. (And no, there's nothing sexy about incest. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun!)
Aug. 14, 2006, 11:55 p.m. CST
It may indeed be perfectly normal and common for two kids of similar age to experiment while growing up, and I agree that we shouldn't all run around freaking out and making kids repress their feelings by shaming them. But the point a lot of us are making here is that while it may be normal and even healthy, as you say, for kids to experiment, we don't think its healthy for adults to buy a comic book, written for a specifically pornographic purpose, that depicts two boys having sex. It's not like we're running around trying to ban books like this because we want to repress kids (they can't buy the book anyway), nor are we talking about bursting into bedrooms and shaming and repressing actual kids in real life. What we are saying is that it there is something wrong with adults buying pornography -- even in the form of really intelligent funny papers -- that depict underage kids having sex. No, the kids in the book aren't real. The point isn't that the book is objectionable because a child has been exploited, the point is that the book is objectionable because we think it's wrong for adults to take enjoyment out of depictions of child pornography. And no, maybe there is nothing patently offensive about a person engaging in a harmless fantasy of the the mind, but there is something objectionable to making money by selling comic books that show underage brothers sucking each other off. I'm not an anti-porn prude by any means, nor am I religious, homophobic, etc... but I do think that child pornography is just simply wrong.
Aug. 15, 2006, 3:10 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I see what you're saying, and essentially my only response is that we have entirely different definitions of child porn. I completely understand. I just really disagree with you.
Aug. 15, 2006, 7:44 a.m. CST
I had forgotten about this but there was a mini-series on the Beeb back in the late seventies, "J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys", and who played Sir Jim? Ian Holm. Who of course also has a rather obvious Alan Moore connection as well...
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:31 a.m. CST
Probably the real reason for the whole Tip into Ozma plot was Baum's desire to tie his second 1904 Oz book in with a play (the 1902 musical loosely based on the first book had been quite successful). Baum was using the convention of the main boy character played by an adult female (a la Peter Pan) who would appear in female costume at the end of the show. THE MARVELOUS LAND OF OZ was dramatized by Baum as THE WOGGLE BUG, but it flopped after poor reviews in Chicago.
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST
I quote from Oz authority Eric Gjovaag (http://tinyurl.com/gazl2 scroll down) "Much more disturbing, however, are two short newspaper essays on Native Americans that Baum published years before he started writing for children. In January 1890 Baum bought the weekly Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer in Aberdeen, South Dakota. That new state contained several shrinking federal reservations for the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota peoples, also collectively called the Sioux. Later that year, many Native Americans joined the "Ghost Dance" religious movement, which prophesied the return of Jesus as a Native American. Alarmed by this cult and the independence it inspired, federal police officers went to arrest the retired general Sitting Bull and ended up killing him on December 15. Two weeks later, the U.S. Army massacred hundreds of Sioux camped at Wounded Knee. On December 20, 1890, and January 3, 1891, Baum wrote short editorials about these events. He lamented Sitting Bull's death but declared all remaining Indians to be "a pack of whining curs" and called for their "extirmination" [sic]. You can read these editorials in their entirety on the WWW at http://www.northern.edu/hastingw/baumedts.htm. For these writings, some have compared Baum to Adolf Hitler. His defenders, on the other hand, have argued that Baum wrote satirically, as Jonathan Swift did in "A Modest Proposal" (which you can read at http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html), for example. Baum usually did write with a great deal of irony, especially in his "Our Landlady" columns (see question 6.9). When a group of Dakota had visited Aberdeen for Independence Day, he'd poked fun at both them and the locals, including himself. As late as December 6, he'd supported the Indians' freedom to worship how they pleased. But if Baum meant his December 20 editorial to be ironic, it's hard to explain why he repeated and amplified the same message after learning that the U.S. army had actually killed men, women, and children at Wounded Knee. Let's be honest here: What Baum wrote about Native Americans in late 1890 and early 1891 is short-sighted, bigoted, and repugnant. This was also the only time he ever advocated genocide. As described above, his earlier newspaper writings and later children's books promoted tolerance. So the real mystery is why Baum suddenly expressed so much hostility toward Native Americans. To understand that, we have to examine the context in which Baum wrote. Our best sources are Baum's Road to Oz: The Dakota Years and Our Landlady, both books edited by Nancy Tystad Koupal. To begin with, Baum was far from the only South Dakotan expressing animosity towards Native Americans at that time. The sentiment that all noble Indians had died, leaving a degraded race, was unfortunately deep-rooted in American culture; it appears in writings by Thomas Jefferson, James Fenimore Cooper, H. Rider Haggard, and many others. Friction between the Sioux, forced to live on a small portion of the land they'd once controlled, and white settlers was inevitable. The "Ghost Dance" movement promised that all whites on the continent would soon be buried under a thick layer of new topsoil. In late 1890 Aberdeen was filled with rumors of Sioux groups on the move and farmers feeling besieged. The dominant Aberdeen Daily News argued for arming white settlers and said, "Put it in the hands of practical men and the Indians who were not 'good' would be few and far between without much ado, or waste of time." Baum's essays thus went farther than anything his neighbors said in print, but they came at a time when hostility and fear were widespread. So far as we know, no one in Aberdeen condemned his remarks. The second important factor is what was going on in Baum's own life. South Dakota's crop failures and the state Republicans' loss in the November elections meant that the Saturday Pioneer was losing subscription and ad revenue (the Pioneer had always been a Republican-leaning paper). Maud Baum was pregnant with the couple's fourth child. Baum also seems to have become seriously ill around that time. Those pressures must have affected Baum's outlook when he wrote. And his columns weren't like newspaper editorials today, debated and reviewed by boards. Baum wrote his comments quickly to fill empty space left by the news, perhaps even composing remarks off the top of his head. Baum had long been "noted for being contrary," according to the Daily News, but at the end of 1890 he seemed to lose much of the optimism and humor that had lightened his essays. In February he stopped writing "Our Landlady." His 1891 editorials picked fights with the town's ministers, fire department, school administrators, and eventually high school students. By April, Baum sold the newspaper and moved to Chicago. He never again wrote about Native American policy. Baum's editorials on Sitting Bull and Wounded Knee therefore seem less like deep-seated convictions and more like the remarks of a man under stress expressing anger and fear in a way that his society allowed. Baum was a product of the nineteenth century, born five years before the Civil War began. During his life, and long after, the United States was a segregated society in which European-Americans held power and set policy. People of all other ethnic backgrounds were denied equal services, opportunities, and respect. Within that society, many of Baum's beliefs were progressive, but since then our values have become much more inclusive. For example, Baum and his relatives spent decades advocating women's suffrage, and today no politician would conceive of saying that only one sex should be allowed to vote. We therefore can't judge Baum solely by twenty-first century standards. When we understand the intellectual environment of Baum's time, it's no surprise that his stories occasionally portray non-white people as inferior. His newspaper remarks on Native Americans may come as a shock, but they also appear to be an aberration within his writings. Baum expressed racism, but simply labeling him as racist neglects how he differed from his contemporaries. It also overlooks how his best-loved books show young readers a society of many peoples, differing greatly in culture and tastes and even physical makeup yet living together with happiness and mutual respect.
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST
its crude and shocking. showing the pan kids sucking each other off? yea, makes for a great story. its porno for pedo's
Aug. 15, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST
try reading it first or say, any of the previous posts.
Aug. 15, 2006, 2 p.m. CST
Sorry. I've just come again. Consider your asses part of my crazed child porn jizz fantasy. Oops there it goes again. Getting dizzy now. This is way better than those preteen forums to get off. Hey I just hit a fly with that shot. Anyways me and Alan Moore are going out to the playground to film some eleven year old's. It's all in the name of art though so don't worry. Just wondering are any of you lot "underage"? If so then please contact me on: email@example.com
Aug. 15, 2006, 2:44 p.m. CST
I have the 2 volume version from the mid-1990's, but anyone know if this completed version is available online?
Aug. 15, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST
The last time I checked, "Lost Girls" sales rank was at about #200,000 on Amazon. Now, after all the attention the book has gotten here, it's at #128! Wow! Alan Moore owes you guys some residuals...
Aug. 15, 2006, 5:38 p.m. CST
but come on, this was just porno. sure it was pretentious porno, but let's just call a spade a spade.
Aug. 15, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST
Thanks for saying what I apparently couldn't.
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:15 p.m. CST
So frustrating when a TB'er posts in reply with something that was already addressed. That 'Lost Girls' is about fictional characters (i.e. a no-filter target) that wake up from a dream (i.e. it didn't happen anyway!) is a thinly veiled (i.e. transparent) reason (i.e. justification) to justify (i.e. make excuses for [yep, I'm really driving that point home]) this literature (i.e. immoral pedophilia) to be made available to the public (i.e. enabling those with sick problems). I've read some amazing shit in this TB. Things like Romeo and Juliet were underage. Romeo and Juliet didn't find the need to pull a train with Tybalt. Then there was the other bullshit, like equating Moore's fodder for depraved inhumanity with the works of Bob Kane or Seigel and Shuster. Like Wendy watching her brothers suck each other off is completely and rationally equitable to the selfless acts of heroism of Superman and Batman. There should never be a need to observe the sexual exploits of anyone under the legal age within your area. I mean -- with all the 'under 18' LEGAL porn available, compleat with LEGAL age girls that look and dress less than their ages... is there really any room for Moore's self-gratifying hunger (including yours) for more than that? If you honestly believe there is nothing wrong with doing so, then you have only begun to scratch the surface of your internal strife. You have nothing but disdain for me, yet I still have hope for you. Consider long and hard. We need fewer David Westerfields on this planet. Who couldn't agree?
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:24 p.m. CST
Were your ground of debate true, there would be no need for this to be a picture book. Yet, a picture book it is. Considering how the 'draw' of the material is all visual, is there truly anything that must actually be read before one can arrive at a salient conclusion? In other words, do I really need to taste a piece of shit before I know it tastes awful and that I never want to taste another piece of shit ever again?
Aug. 15, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST
A: Because that's the very worst thing that any character, real or fictional, could be portrayed as. It's the one stigma that removes any sympathy someone might have via gut reaction to a pedophile allegation. Yes, these are also fictional characters. Fictional characters that just so happened to carry associative weight in the real world. Mere commentary or planned coincidence? Granted, Hayes is likely the least amongst pedo suspects, but to characterize his character in such a light carried much weight in the real world (hoever leveled against scientology rather than personally). And that weight is apparently lost on many in this crowd. 'Pedophile' should be the worst word anyone can be associated with. Worse than any ethnic classification, wealth classification, party affiliation, etc. Again, explicit pedophilia is a very easy evil that we should all very easily agree on.
Aug. 15, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST
Blah, blah, blah. Um, I think everyone on this board DOES agree that pedophilia is evil. Duh. And your 'tasting shit' analogy is ridiculous. Books are nuanced things, which rely on CONTEXT to interpret. So you must read it, and interpret it, before you can effectively judge it as immoral, unethical, etc. Books are of wildly varying content and quality, while shit is , by definition, shit. If you don't WANT to read it, fine. But get off your fucking high horse about it. I would never touch an underage person, nor have I ever wanted to. But if I read Moore's book based on the quality of his previous books, and to satisfy my curiousity, you would accuse me of being some pedophile-in-training. If you knew anything about psychopathology or possessed the slightest inkling about human nature, you might understand that THAT'S NOT HOW IT FUCKING WORKS. Also, you might want to LEARN WHAT A FUCKING COMIC BOOK IS before engaging in a talkback like this. You state that: 'Since 'Lost Girls is a picture book, what can be gained by reading it?' Which is perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard all month. There are words to put those pictures in context, dumbass. That's why Moore is credited as the WRITER, and there's his collaborator who is the ILLUSTRATOR. Now shut the fuck up, you useless hump.
Aug. 15, 2006, 10:26 p.m. CST
...Chef would have been a communist. If it had been set in the Middle Ages, he would have been a witch. In 19th century England, a sodomite. In Nazi Germany, a Jew. In the Pre-Civil War American South, an Abolitionist, or a free black man. Chef was, of course, portrayed as a free black man on South Park, but that is no longer quite so threatening to most people today. I'm by no means defending paedophilia or those who practise it, but I feel it is necessary to point out that throughout human history, (and even throughout the world today) it has not always been the "worst thing imaginable" the "one stigma that removes any sympathy" and it is likely that something else will hold this dubious distinction in the future.
Aug. 15, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST
... as our moral compass anyway? I think I would prefer someone other than Trey Parker and Matt Stone to set the standards of decency.
Aug. 15, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST
Hold on.... You're comparing pedophiles to Jews under Hitler, abolitionists, and blacks?????? Holy shit, you are off your rocker. You might not quite mean it the way it sounds, but OH-MY-GOD that's one of the most insanely bad, relativistic arguments I've ever heard. That's the kind of half-baked crap that gets all the other, smarter liberals in trouble. Way to give people ammunition and paint a bullseye on your back. I'll be quietly sneaking away now.
Aug. 16, 2006, 7:47 a.m. CST
I am neither comparing paedophiles to Jews nor was I comparing Lost Girls to Superman. In the post I believe Fish was refering too, I was comparing the misguided reaction of the Senate to the hysteria drummed up by Frederic Wertham's book The Seduction of the Innocent, to the hysteria on this Talkback. The similaritly was in the reactions. Likewise in bringing up different things that have been considered "the worst thing imaginable", I was comparing the reactions. Regardless of paedophilia's inate "evilness" the near hysterical reactions of the merest suggestion of it echo the witch hysteria, McCarthyism, etc., in that an accusation of "child molester" is enough to ruin a human being's life regardless of actual guilt. It is assumed you see, that a crime of such heinous abomination is so dreadfully unspeakable, so unimaginable to decent folk that nobody could ever accuse anyone of it unless they were actually guilty. There are few if any "exhonorated" sex offenders that anyone would allow to live near their children's schools. I hope you can see the distinction here. I am talking about the social phenomena, and am no way whatsover suggesting that "being a paedophile is like being a Jew" or any other such nonsense. Unfortunately many people who read these threads can't get through two sentences without their ADD kicking in, and since I didn't answer in a quick "sound bite", you are probably right about the bull's eye on my back. I've been there before for the heinous crime of suggesting that racism and homophobia were equally wrong.
Aug. 16, 2006, 11:36 a.m. CST
Excellent point about certain concepts being so loaded that they immediately short-circuit rational discourse. An eloquent post. But you'll forgive me if I still think that your initial post should have been similarly crafted. It was written rather irresponsibly. After all, I'm basically on you side, and even I thought it was a terrible argument to make.
Aug. 16, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST
by The Funketeer
Sure there's a couple of morons here who are making some pretty broad assumtions but for the most part, as is typical on this site, some of us have expressed negative opinions about a work and/or a creator and are met with insults to our character instead of a rational response. I think you'll find that most of the idiocy here comes from the people who are choosing to defend Moore not by attacking our criticisms but by attacking us instead. This book is porn, which is hardly a controversial topic on an internet message board. It's not an original concept, it's not a controversial concept, and it's certainly not a challenging concept. I'll admit I haven't read the book and at it's current price, I won't be either. But I've seen the works of Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie both separately and together. I've seen porn both photographic and artistically rendered. I've seen drawings of characters from children's literature in pornographic positions long before this. I've read most of Moore's interviews on this book over the last few months. There is nothing about any of that that has me even remotely interested in seeing somthing that's been done a million times over just because it's written by someone who hasn't created a wholly original character in a long time. I like Moore. I think he's a good writer. I still buy many of his books and I'll be picking up LOEG when it comes out in a couple of months but I've been reading comic books for a long time and it disturbs me that he is lifted head and shoulders above a number of very talented creators who are producing far better, and far more challenging work today, by people who have only a passing interest in comics. Saying Alan Moore is your favorite comic writer is like saying Jimi Hendrix is your favorite guitar player. If Moriarty is going to review comics for this site, given that AICN already has a comic review team, shouldn't we know a little more about his comic reading habits? Is he a regular reader? Which writers and artists are his favorits and does he buy their work regularly? Was this book comped to him or did he pay for it himself? What other great works from Top Shelf has he read? I can judge his movie reviews because he's posted enough of them on the site for me to know what his tastes are and how much much he actually knows about movies. For him to post a ridiculously drooling review of a book like this out of the blue demands some skeptisism from me.
Aug. 16, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 16, 2006, 2:47 p.m. CST
... and yes, my previous post about South Park could be misread. So let me hereby offer my most sincere apologies to any African Americans (or people of African descent who do not enjoy U.S. citizenship), Jews, gays, Abolitionists ( I hope these still exist, as unforunately human trafficking still exists), Communists and other Socialists, and Wiccans who may have been offended by it. That being said let me try once again to make my positions clear: 1. Alan Moore is not a paedophile. 2. I do not believe the people defending Lost Girls on this thread are paedophiles, nor do I believe they are defending paedophilia. 3. I agree with those who have said one should make up their minds about a work of literature "pornographic" or not, *after* having actually read it, rather than going by a review on AICN. 4. I do not advocate attacking people who wish to engage in rational discourse even if they disagree with me. 5. I do believe in attacking people who would irrationally label Alan Moore a paedophile. 6. Likewise those who would label anyone who immediately fails to denounce Lost Girls as "kiddie porn" (or God help us, "kiddie pr0n"), and Alan Moore as a paedophile, as paedophiles (or closeted ones) themselves, are deserving of abject scorn. 7. I especially believe that people who hide behind their faith while hypocritically breaking the very commandments they eschew are beneath contempt. Please do not misunderstand this, there are people of faith here disturbed by Lost Girls who are not reacting like Zealous Jihadists, there is a world of difference between, for example, Johnno and alienindisguise. 8. The question of paedophilia needs to be examined far more carefully, and consistant definitions as to what exactly it is need to be applied. Clinically a paedophile is an adult who is sexually cathectic towards pre-pubescent children. Legally the word is used to describe anyone who is sexually attracted to persons under the age of consent in whatever jurisdiction the law applies to. This causes problems when clinical facts about paedophilia (such as its incurability) are applied to people who do not have any actual clinical pathology. Someone in an earlier post suggested that countries other than his/her own who have a lower age of consent are not "civilised". What does this say about the United States where there is no Federal age of consent? Is Wyoming the most civilised state because the age there is 19? Are states where the age is 18 more civilised than states where it is 16, or 14? Are Western European nations less civilised than the U.S.? Is my own native country, which had art, poetry, philosophy, science, and a highly sophisticated culture when Western Europeans still wore bearskins and lived in wattled huts, less civilised than the West because the age of consent there is 12? Where do we draw the line? And how do we treat people who cross it by mistake? I am sure that the many men (and women) who were sexually stimulated by the films of Traci Lords *before* anybody knew she was underage, were not paedophiles - they were jacking off to what they thought was a young, but adult woman. How too do we treat sexually active teenagers? There are some who actually advocate that underage people who have sex with their boyfriends and girlfriends should be criminalised with the full force of the law, making them life-long regestered sexual offenders! Even for the harmless sexual rehearsal play common among young preadolescent boys! Can you imagine rounding up a Cub Scout "circle jerk" as a "paedophile ring"? This sort of legislation is actually being passed in some American states. 9. which brings me to this - there are polititians who take advantage of public hysteria to pass draconian measures with wide reaching implications that go far beyond actual child protection. Just as the "Patriot Act" took advantage of the fear of terrorists to limit civil liberties, so to are fundamental human rights being sacrificed in the name of "saving the children". Finally to those in the know, yes, I do understand the difference between "invocation" and "evocation", make of that what thou wilst.
Aug. 16, 2006, 3:38 p.m. CST
Here is a difficult question: Do we protect our children or protect ourselves from them? Consider the cases of two boys of the same age - these events actually happened a few years ago in the U.S. The first boy physically matured early, at 13 he was a big strapping lad over 6 feet tall, athletically proportioned, and could easily have been mistaken for an 18 year old. His young female schoolteacher in a colossal lapse of judgment fell head over heels in love with him. Please note, as she was sexually attracted to a person with all the physical attributes of an adult - she was no paedophile. They had an affair which resulted in pregnancy. She was prosecuted no differently than if she had been a demented member of NAMBLA grooming young boys for child rape. They even took her baby away from her when it was born, because she "could not be trusted with children" as if she would rape an infant! They carried on their illicit liasons and a second child was produced. When the boy turned 18 he promptly married the woman, they are still together. A paedophile would have dumped the lad when he became "too old" (Actually a true paedophile would have found him sexually repulsive from the get-go) Our second case is of a 13 year old boy who looked about 9 or 10, a disturbed young man, he took a knife and stabbed the school librarian to death. In the first case the boy was described by the media as an innocent baby, a child who was used by an evil predator. As these events happened around the same time, some of the same papers in the same editions portrayed the second boy as a viscious monster who should be tried as an adult. Which in fact he was. In other words screw your teacher and you are an innocent child victim, stab your teacher and you are an adult commiting adult crimes. Where will this end? I foresee somewhere in America an unscrupulous solicitor presenting a criminal defence as follows: Your Honor, I submit to you that my client a six foot four boy of 14, did not as the prosecution maintains brutally rape the alleged victim in this case, a woman of 22 years of age. As the age of consent in this state is 18, the lad is legally unable to consent to sexual relations, and the so-called victim being the adult in the matter is ultimately responsible. I call for the immediate accuital of my client - and for the equally immediate arrest of the so-called victim, for she is in fact the actual rapist here!"
Aug. 16, 2006, 5:13 p.m. CST
Please pardon, as I did not learn to speak and write English in an English-speaking country.
Aug. 17, 2006, 12:10 a.m. CST
At the risk of overstaying my welcome (too late!) , I just gotta say in response to your post two above this one: 1) A child that is "physically" 18 but chronologically 13 is still freaking 13. It's not like a child whose glands are 5 years faster than the rest of his is 5 years more mature. 2) The case you reference is entirely atypical of a typical pedophile for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the perpetrator is a chick. So yeah, I'm not surprised she didn't behave like a "true pedophile" (which, 99.9% of the time, is a creepy dude who can't get pregnant). 3) How the fuck does your head even begin to compare and contrast an underage boy who was seduce by an older woman to a young boy who went psycho and killed an older woman? You know, for a while you were arguing on topic, but stuff like that just makes you sound like an apologist for adult / child relationships. And with that, I'm DONE! I once wished this thread would never end, but baby, I'm DONE!
Aug. 17, 2006, 12:14 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 17, 2006, 7:33 a.m. CST
The fact that the boy was 13 is my whole point - exactly the same age as the other boy. The fact that the woman was not a paedophile was also my point. The fact that you can't seem to get your head around is that whereas one kid is treated as a child regardless of his actions in the matter (honestly, now, how much seducing does it take to get a big horny jock to fuck a hot chick? sorry to be so blunt, but c'mon), the other who "is still freaking 13" is legally declared an adult, tried and convicted as an adult, and sent to an adult penitentiary. And what do you suppose happens to a vey young looking 13 year old boy in an adult penitentiary? Talk about enabling child molestation! As for me being an "apologist", nowhere in any of my posts, or in any of anybody's posts on this thread, have I read any apology for paedophilia, any advocacy of it, and God knows any support or encouragement of it.
Aug. 17, 2006, 10:29 a.m. CST
by Jar Jar 4 Prez
We should have a book burning and do away with all of this sick "literature!" Amybody who thinks differently is just a childfucker! All of you non-righteous defenders of baby-rape will feel the tormet of burning in hellfire for all eternity!! Christian GOD will punish you all!!!!!
Aug. 17, 2006, 12:59 p.m. CST
Oh please, please don't eat me! I'm so little and scrawny, I wouldn't make a morsel! Wait till my big brother comes...he's so much more bigger and tastier, he'd make such a better meal than I would... trip-trap trip-trap trip-trap...
Aug. 17, 2006, 2:11 p.m. CST
Now Harry is a snake god too! Hail Thulsa Headgeek Doom!
Aug. 17, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST
Mainly to see if aliendisguise will be a good Christian and keep her word. she said "Yep!" back on Sunday, and we haven't heard from her since. Wouldn't want her to burn in Hell for bearing false witness or anything. And if you are here and wonder why I am using female pronouns for you, I just thought I'd return the favor and make wild assumptions about you. Just for fun I'm assuming you are an overweight black woman! Some random thoughts 1. To anyone whose done a bit of research on the life of Sir James Barrie, yes I did use some poetic license in my "Bedtime Story" borrowing a page from the recently self-confessed ex-Nazi Gunter Grass. However all the rest is true enough. 2. Finding Neverland left out a couple of details, Sylvia was not a widow when Barrie inserted himself into her boy's lives - Arthur was very much alive - and there was no romance between Sir James and Sylvia. After Arthur and Sylvia died, Barrie crossed out "Jenny" the woman Sylvia named as the boy's guardian - and wrote in "Jimmy", becoming the boy's guardian through forgery. 3. Some think Michael didn't commit suicide, but two odd facts make it likely he did - he and Rupert went swimming in a notoriously dangerous body of water, even though Michael never learnt to swim, and his hands were tied. 4. Isn't it funny that nobody has mentioned John Mark Karr on this thread - until now. Western Europe considers America less than "civilised" for having the death penalty, my own native land, as I have said, an ancient civilisation, practises hanging. Although we would prefer that anyone who so horribly dishonours their family by commiting such a vile deed should commit suicide. After the Hell Mrs. Ramsay went through with everybody assuming her guilt,(including Tray Parker and Matt Stone on South Park) I will wait to see if he is proven guilty (the DNA should tell for sure), and is not some sad lunatic confessing falsely for some sad lunatic reason. Then when or if he is proven guilty - FRY THE BASTARD!!! (they have the death penalty in Colorado, yes? It is what you call - a red state?) How's that for an "apologist"!!
Aug. 17, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST
Colorado uses the needle. So - Put the Bastard down like a Mad dog!!! (If he is proven guilty of course.)
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:48 p.m. CST
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:49 p.m. CST
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:51 p.m. CST
Aug. 17, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST
and you know how us Japanese girls can hold a GRUDGE...forever. What's that...behind you...is it a little boy? ... ... ... MEOW!!!
Aug. 19, 2006, 6:48 p.m. CST
I'd have to say that I'm bothered by and disappointed in Moriarty for using his influence(as the only truly respected person at AICN) to half ass champion this book about child sexuality. I think that porn is for whacking off to, and a porn book about children is obviously for whacking off to. What I'm unhappy about is that Moriarty made sweeping approval of the book while barely discussing it. It's a giant issue, and if AICN is going to talk about it, it would be nice if they took it seriously. The book itself wasn't important until Moriarty made it important by suggesting everyone buy it. You do have influence Moriarty. But this book is not a trivial movie. This book is itself a terribly complex issue. And it was handled with so little respect that I'm almost so dissapointed that I may be losing respect for you, Moriarty. This isn't The Nightmare Before Christmas or Snakes on a Plane. This isn't even a movie. It's a book... and no offense to movies, but books are far more complex and influential than movies. Even graphic novels. YOU opened a pandora's box here and you should have done so with a little more respect for the effect this book will have for good/bad on the masses of people who hold your opinion in high regard. I think you owe them a REAL discussion about the book and not some movie'ish review about it. You hold a lot more influence than most of the reviewers out there. And a lot of people look at you, and not Harry, as the voice of the people for movies. Maybe you don't realise that, but you should, and start taking it more seriously.
Aug. 19, 2006, 8:03 p.m. CST
But Amazon.com now features several pages of artwork from the book...and yes, the "children" certainly look mature. Anchorite insisted that the children were a certain age in the original stories so that she could condemn this without ever once considering that Moore might make a few changes. Little girls do not have pubic hair for one thing. Also I'm not sure if the images I saw are the exact ones Moriarty described, but if so the boys (much older than anchorite stated above - these are clearly adolescents) are in silhouette. Honestly, I've seen worse things drawn on the walls of the average public toilet stall.
Aug. 19, 2006, 10:34 p.m. CST
Dude... You are a fool. You don't have one clue what you are talking about. You need to come to planet earth and realise that people do have problems with controlling appetites and developing an appetite for enjoying children having sex is exactly how there are so many fucking child molesters out there. You dumb fuck. Do you know how many people get molested by family members? And you are going to tell me that child porn doesn't hurt anyone? Why is the chances of someone who has been molested so high that they will molest? Because it fucking twists people to associate sex with children or being a child. Bottom line: Alan Moore believes that he knows his audience... he's believes that his audience is exactly what the whole world thinks of people who are adults and still into comics... that they are rejects and deviants. And that IS what the general public thinks of adults who read comics and so does the publisher's of this book. They know who their audience is. It's people that they think can't get laid in a relationship because they are too freakish for anyone to want them. This is entirely untrue, but it is what people think and it IS what the publisher thinks. I am personally offended by Alan Moore for having written a book like this. And I'm very upset with AICN for making it seem like this book is ground breaking or brave when it is in fact irresponsible and will help to influence people to desire and act out on their desires for sex with children. And before you people who are so caught up in movies instead of the real world scoff, go and find out how many people this happens to. Then find out how they got into it. Most of them were influenced by someone else who did it. This isn't about getting rid of rediculous social taboos about sex... it's about the opposite... it's about using that as an excuse to be sick... and it undermines all of the real work being done to releive society of it's fear and shame about sex. Way to help some people take steps backwards. You know... if you want to do some good, stop the coffee table talk and really go and do some good. Publicly defending and championing sick fuckers doesn't do anybody any good except for the sick fucks who feel they have a new champion: AICN.
Aug. 19, 2006, 10:39 p.m. CST
I am personally offended by Alan Moore for having written a book like this --- I am personally offended, as a lover of comic books, by Alan Moore...
Aug. 20, 2006, 7:28 a.m. CST
And I am offended by those who do not bother to read my posts and see what I am actually saying. Go back up and read carefully. Yes there are a lot of silly jokes and obscure references, but I have tried to make a few points clear. I don't feel like repeating myself for your benefit since it's all there on this page already! You apparently are not even aware that you have contradicted yourself: do erotic images of children trigger paedophilia, or does being molested as a child? You seem to want to have this both ways. Finally since I am a fool without one clue on what I am talking about, it may come as a surprise "antonphd" that I actually have a Ph.D. in this very field. I have studied Sexology for many years and have met and in some cases worked with such people as William Masters, Ruth Westheimer, William Granzig, John Money, Shere Hite, Albert Ellis, Pei Ching Hu, Irwin Haeberle, and many, many others, I am a member of SSSS, AASECT, and ABS, and I have read everything from Krafft-Ebing to the most recent pop how-to book by Ian Kerner, and the truth is: nobody fucking knows how a person becomes a paedophile. Just as many studies show people who have been molested not becoming paedophiles as do. Your whole bloody argument is built on false principles and pop-psychology at best.
Aug. 20, 2006, 8:10 a.m. CST
Alan Moore, and the publishers at Top Shelf, and just about all other comic book creators, publishers, and comic shop owners as well, ARE "adults who read comics" themselves. Have you never met or spoken to any one of these people? Have you never read a single thing they have ever said? Just what planet are YOU on?
Aug. 20, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I realise you're still struggling with your history of molestation, but that's no reason to get testy. Like the rest of the people in this thread, you haven't seen this book. If you had, you might know that the part of this book which actually includes children is only a small portion of the third volume. In a 250 page story. The book is not about children's sexuality, you indignant young fellow. It's about sexuality in general. And sexuality is a big part of growing up. Adolescence is not something you can just ignore when you're writing an epic-length novel on this subject. So don't start screaming NAMBLA when you're obviously completely unfamiliar with the fucking book in the first place. And get some better theories on the causes of pedophilia, you curiously angry young man.
Aug. 20, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST
This explains why those "little girls" had pubic hair in the pictures I saw. I must now correct an earlier statement...Japanese schoolgirls into shonen-ai will NOT like this book after all. In fact it will be illeagal to publish this in Japan because of the offending pubic hair.
Aug. 20, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST
...since you said you would be here all week. You have not posted since then. Not even when I had many a good laugh at your expense, so you haven't been back, and you'll probably never read this...but somebody might. I can only conclude one of two things, either you lack the courage of your convictions, or you are as big a troll as Jar Jar 4 Prez. If the latter, brava! you got me. But if the former, then what a sad pathetic little waste of a life you must have. I really feel sorry for you because if you're so hot for Jesus, then bail out like this, God, there is no need for me to throw evil curses at you my dear - you have cursed yourself utterly and irrevocably. No, I much prefer to think you are a complete fraud laughing at how silly Ikamono was in buying your line of Bullshit.
Aug. 21, 2006, 11:46 p.m. CST
But check this out.=p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycon
Aug. 22, 2006, 2:53 a.m. CST
1) when I say what planet are you on... I didn't say it about comic books. 2) i haven't read the book and neither have you, who happen to have a lot to say about it. 3) i don't have a phd, i was going to have one until i came to my senses and realised what a waste of money and time it was for the field I was going into. 4) i was not molested but lots of the foster children i knew from being passed around foster care sure were. 5) science doesn't know what makes those types of sickos?!?! i think the proper translation of that would be that science doesn't have an excuse for those types of sickos. it's obvious as wanting to cheat or steal or fight... you want something but it hurts someone to get it but you still go get it anyway... you like it and you want more... end of the story. i know first hand that some scientists don't find answers to certain things because the answer doesn't pay as well as books and books and books talking about what might be the answer. 6) no way i'm going to spend the time it takes to read all of the 100+ posts above?! what the hell. i commented on your last statement and it's not difficult to see where you are coming from by it. 7) i'm not a phd, but i do have eyes and a brain and if you want to talk about this here, i'm happy to do it. it would be nice to actually have a real talk about a real subject on a talkback. i'm mean that seriously.
Aug. 22, 2006, 2:59 a.m. CST
All flaming aside... I'm serious about a real discussion about this book and this topic... I certainly don't think I've got the answers... that's why they didn't like me in seminary... nothing is more unpopular at church that a minister who says 'I don't know'.
Aug. 22, 2006, 3:03 a.m. CST
And to clear up any misconceptions, I am not a minister nor do I attend church. not for a very long time. they don't care for free thinkers, despite the bible saying that more than anything else in life that you should become one... but they wouldn't know that, cause that would require thinking. anyway. just so we can get the Jesus jokes out of the way right from the start.
Aug. 22, 2006, 3:10 a.m. CST
[quote]Just as many studies show people who have been molested not becoming paedophiles as do. Your whole bloody argument is built on false principles and pop-psychology at best.[/quote] - my wife was molested, i am very well aware of that fact. i am also aware from personally knowing maybe people growing up that were molested, what it does to them. for instance... the 2 girls my brother adopted who's parents raped repeated when they were 3-5 yrs old. they struggled their whole childhood with being sexually awakened far beyond their ability to handle. then my sister, who was raped by her brothers and sisters while visiting her biological parents... and she was fucked up her who childhood and adult life. and 2 or my best friends growing up who were both raped... one by a step father and the other by a neighbor... both of whom were seriously fucked up and have struggled their whole lives... and i'm just warming up. now, you tell me about the people you've read about in books... the one's who did opened up and really trusted doctors to tell them what their lives were like... as opposed to the family and friends that I have known my whole life. let's start with that.
Aug. 22, 2006, 3:19 a.m. CST
All of the 'brave and psuedo-intelligent' talk from a screen writer and a phd who have no real understanding of what happens with this shit... it's like listening to a virgin marveling why people with experience with sex often don't want sex with virgins(for the virgins out there... it's because sex is not easy to get right... it takes a lot of time and experience to get any good at it) listening to people talk about how harmless graphic stories about children having sex with each other... it's just rediculous... no body who has any real experience with this shit thinks that, unless they are one of the sick fucks who want to fuck with children... and that's the real truth of it.
Aug. 22, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST
It's because they wanted to have sex and children can easily be coerced into sex. There's no mental reason for this behavior. it's like fighting over land or murdering for money. people want something and that's it plain and simple. you can't find another answer out there because there is no other answer. people take what they want regardless of what it does to other people ALL of the time EVERY DAY. There's not big secret about it. And they make excuses about it all the time too. I can take this shit from work because my boss treats me like shit and I don't get paid enough. If you worked at a shitty paying job, you'd see this every day. How about a high paying job... like corporations. How about the struggling game company that fights it's way to success despite closed doors from big companies. As soon and this little guy makes anything worth any money... big company buys the little company and shuts them down... the guy from the little company, who all those years lead the people who worked there thru hard times thru which the people of the company sacrificed because they believed in the company... this guy stabs them all in the back at the first chance to get bank from selling the company... it's not rocket science... it's called be selfish.
Aug. 22, 2006, 3:39 a.m. CST
Honestly, i think that people like you and Moriarty are well meaning, but you are way off on your understanding of this shit. you know... you actually can't believe what a sick fuck tells you for his excuse for doing sick shit. he's not going to tell you the truth. but you can use your common sense and figure it out pretty easy. did you ever wonder why people who have been molested can see a child molester a mile away? you know... it's funny... this topic... cause... if you really care about someone who you know has been a victim of something like this... you hear about a book like this... and it's just like watching someone play with fire... and listening to people talk about how a book like this is harmless... i say what planet are you from, because i'm just astonished at the lack of commmon sense balance with this... it's not difficult to connect the dots here... you read stories about children having sex, then you get turned on by it, then you're holding your daughter in your lap and she accidentally touches your dick and you get arroused by the touch... no big deal so far... until you think about the story of the kids touching the man's penis and then rubbing it and then you find yourself in the dilema that 100s of thousands of adults have found themselves in where they can choose to act out on the desires or not to... and you know... humans... not so good at resisting acting out on desires... thus... the 100s of thousands of parents and family members who have molested their children. now. tell me what part of that is me being a prude or illogical or going down a slippery slope. i'll rest for now and give you a chance to respond.
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:12 a.m. CST
I don't know if I should even be responding to you. It is clear you are very troubled, and have an enormous amount of issues you need to have worked out. The fact that you felt it necessary to respond to me seven different times, in a rambling disorganised, and obvious anguished state tells me this. I fear any attempt to have a rational discussion on this topic with you would quickly dissolve into an attempt on my part to perform some sort of "online therapy", which would be harmful professionally to me, and psychologically and emotionally dangerous to you. I do not mean this as any sort of "flaming", please go seek help from someone who can see you face-to-face, and can help you deal with whatever issues are tormenting you.
Aug. 22, 2006, 11:26 a.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I have experienced it. And you really DON'T know. Get your fucking life together.
Aug. 22, 2006, 5:58 p.m. CST
by Cod Profundity
Funny thing about this book is that it features a child molester AS THE VILLAIN. Capt Hook is a dirty old man in the park and what he does is seen as despicable and villainous. I don't disagree with you about your hatred of child molesters and I understand your objection - it's irrational but it comes from a moral centre and that's part of it is commendable, but, really, you need to take a step back and look at this objectively. Theres far more insidious dangerous abusive shit being peddled to children on MTV and that's a channel MEANT for kids.
Aug. 22, 2006, 6:24 p.m. CST
To any and all who may have read the exchanges between alienindisguise and myself on this thread - I found "her" on another thread posting things decidedly out of character to the way "she" presented "herself" on this one. I have been had...brilliantly.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7 p.m. CST
Dude, that was the weakest excuse for not having a response ever. LOL. My favorite part is how it could be dangerous to respond to me. LOL. Right... and if there's one single person with the slightest shred of doubt in the room... God won't heal this poor cripple kid. Man. I knew your bullshit sounded familiar. And how many posts in a row did you write above when nobody was listening? 10? Yeah. Dude. You don't even talk like you know what you are talking about. So, stop pretending you're not 12 and that you are a sex psychologist.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:02 p.m. CST
I'm sorry for you. But, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST
I have no problem with the right to write or read or sell whatever the fuck one wants as long as it doesn't violate any one else's rights. In this case, a book like this doesn't violate anyone. I am particularly not worried about children being hurt by reading this book. The book is for adults and hopefully won't find it's way into the hands of a child. I do think that stories about sex and children do influence people to want to commit acts of sex with children. Not everyone, but a large portion. And my other point is that what kind of a person would read this shit and not immediately become disgusted and stop reading.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:16 p.m. CST
Yeah, I know it's hip to act like everything is cool with sex. But everything isn't cool. I'm no prude about sex. I'm just your regular guy. And as a regular guy, thinking about kids having sex seems pretty fucked up if you aren't a kid. Now, when you are a kid... hooray for you. I wanted to fuck Wonder Woman when I was a kid. Nothing wrong with that. But if I'm 35 years old and I want to think about sex between or with kids... that's fucked up. There's all kinds of wrong with that. And it's not about being repressed?! Not killing isn't being repressed. Not stealing isn't being repressed. Getting excited about kids fucking when you are an adult is just fucked up period. Who's going to defend these people? Who's going to pretend a book about kids fucking each other in an orgy isn't about some old guy dreaming about kids having and orgy?! It's really not hard to figure out here.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:23 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
You know and nobody else does.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST
Give me a break. You say that I don't know what I'm talking about because you were molested. As though that discounts every thing I do know from my experience and the experience of people I've known. Just in one nice easy quick sentence. Man. I don't know everything any more than you do. But I do know somethings. I'm not an expert, but I have lived and I listen to people who've been thru this shit. Your statement just said 'you DON'T know'. What don't I know? I haven't said anything that is controversial. You think I don't know what friends and family and people I've known have told me about shit like this happening? I do know what they said. And sorry, but hearing some phd who read in a book that nobody knows what causes people to do fucked up shit to kids... it's a joke. Wow. Psychologists don't agree on something. Big suprise?! I know what I know and I don't claim to be smarter than anyone else... I claim to just know what anyone with half a brain would know if they knew as many people who've been thru this shit as I do.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:51 p.m. CST
By the way, almost all psychologists think the same way I'm talking. Sure, there's some who don't, but it's bullshit to say that psychologists don't think they don't what causes people to fuck with kids. Only the one's with their head up their asses don't. Everyone knows the real truth of this... there's people here who get off on kid sex in porn or in real life who want to pretend like it's not harming anyone. or there's just the well meaning people who don't know shit about this because they just simply don't know. sorry, but that is the truth.
Aug. 22, 2006, 7:54 p.m. CST
I do take you very seriously, and I am not condescending to you when I say that certain things you have written in your posts are very worrisome indeed. A Talkback at AICN is hardly an appropriate place to discuss these issues. Once again for your safety and for the safety of those around you, I urge you to seek guidance from a qualified, certified, and properly trained professional - preferably one with experience in the area in question.
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST
Hey, now you are using the 'calm voice deaf ear' tactic. Nice. What other tricks do you have to you use when you can't simply respond. Do I have to use your posts above to break apart this bullshit post.
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:34 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST
Dude, really, you come in here and you talk like you know what you are talking about and the first person to opening talk about this, you try to pull the old 'this isn't the place to talk about this' bullshit. and of course the age old strawman where one person says examples that are disturbing and you respond as though the person is the one who is disturbed and you use the old 'you should seek help, seriously, i'm saying this for your own good' trick. dude, read my posts, seminary, do you think we don't learn this shit there? why don't you put the pretension down and just talk... you have said plenty and attacked people plenty, but now you have a chance to really talk about this. can you do that?
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:39 p.m. CST
OK. So, all you can do is just say shit like that. Again, I'm talking openly. This is a subject that requires more than one sentence replies that are only meant to difuse what the other person is saying... but not actually talk about it. Why don't you just say 'whatever, dude' and be done with it.
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:49 p.m. CST
I am starting to get tired of this topic. Nobody really wants to talk about it. Could have been a cool conversation. I'm not afraid of challenge. Challenge is always good. If you figure out you are wrong from it, cool, that's one step closer to figure out the truth. And in the words of Fat Albert: I know nothing.
Aug. 22, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
Aug. 22, 2006, 9 p.m. CST
by Ole Gravy Leg
I know people can be kind of like that sometimes, and you know, it's like when my friend and I were discussing something like this the other day. She was basically trying to explain to me that once in a while, people just sort of do... The sort of things that just make it seem harder or maybe even easier in cerain areas. It's sort of like a conundrum in that human beings just tend to be... You know?
Aug. 22, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST
alright, alright. you win. although, it's not easy to have a discussion that's one sided. i said things specifically in pieces to throw out ideas to discuss. but it's not easy to see that in text. text doesn't have all the tone of voice and facial expression communication. and it's too hard to try to write that into a talkback post textbox. for the record... i was hoping you'd say whatever, dude back. that was too funny. alright, time to go back to the snakes on a plane threads and tell everyone they need to see a guy get his dick bitten by a snake or they haven't really lived.
Aug. 22, 2006, 9:25 p.m. CST
... if you choose not to follow it, that is entirely your decision. I will take no responsibilty for any consequences you, or any persons who come in contact with you will have to pay should you fail to take my advice. Alan Moore and his book also cannot be used by you as an excuse for any choices you have made, or intend to make. You must take the responsibilty for yourself. I have said my piece, I have been on this thread way too long. I was only here for you to find me because I was played by a clever troll. I'm finished with this thread now, so any responses you make from here on out cannot be read by me.
Aug. 22, 2006, 9:29 p.m. CST
You sorta scare me dude.
Aug. 23, 2006, 12:52 a.m. CST
Despite what he says, that sanctimonious child-porn apologist is still here, sitting on his hands and fighting the urge to post just one last post. Kind of like I just did. The best I can figure is that in reality he's either a pretty bright 16 year old high school smart-ass, a chronic pud-pulling basement-dwelling 30 year old virgin, or one of those sanctimonious (I used that word TWICE!) creepy twits at work who like go off into a droning passionate defence for their reasoned and sophisticated love of adult comic boo... excuse me, graphic novels, particularly the ones that show Japanese grade schoolers in school uniforms and little boys fucking with each other. And man, what I wouldn't give to witness a guy like Prof.Ikamono finally luck out and bring an actual, live, cute chick back to his place, only to have her pick up this book, flip through it and ask him what it was and why he bought it. THAT would be comedy gold.
Aug. 23, 2006, 2:35 a.m. CST
"Prof.Ikamono finally luck out and bring an actual, live, cute chick back to his place, only to have her pick up this book, flip through it and ask him what it was and why he bought it." - you can't say it better than that.
Aug. 23, 2006, 2:30 p.m. CST
You detractors (who have nott read th book) pay lip service to the fact that you understand that, but don't appear to grasp the concept. (That's the trouble with peopple today, everyone is so literal.) Let me be explicitly clear - some people will buy this book and whack off to it - for the sake of unnecessary argument, let's assume most purchasers - SO WHAT? Just because someone fantasizes about something does not mean they secretly want to or would even consider actually taking such action. Most people are capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, but refuse to acknowledge others can. I am reminded of the controversy over the Body Count song Copkiller. (The only real controversy should have been who gave that band a recording contract.) The outcry from police was just as stupid as the outcry is from you people now. Regardless of its depictions of adult-child and child-child sex, don't you think the work could have any artistic merit? You don't think the commentary on the reality of the times vs. the moral structure of the society may be enlightening? What about fantasy depictions of bestiality or rape? Should those be condemned out of hand as well? Please don't ever check out usenet sites such as alt.sex.stories, it's apparently full of rapists and pedophiles. If you have had a chance to review the work itself and decide that it was full of entirely gratuitous pedophilia, then I will take your concerns and criticisms more seriously.
Aug. 23, 2006, 2:31 p.m. CST
filling in for the prof. Just returned to say that people like antonphd (why the phd in your name if you never got one?) and mookiedood should really stay out of threads like this one. I can see that the old classic 'you should get a girlfriend' was finally trotted out. What the hell do you know about prof's personal life? On the other hand, we do know a bit TOO much about antonphd's personal life and it ain't pretty. The fact is, whatever you think you know about child molesting or pedophilia, whether true or not, has NOTHING to do with Alan Moore's book, which you haven't seen, haven't read and you have no idea what you're talking about, when it comes to this book. You even admitted to not even reading this thread! So why should we engage you when you refuse to educate yourself on what the thread's actually about? All you've done is whine about this issue and demand that someone answer for it. Prof was right on when he said you need to take responsibility for your own shit, not blame Alan Moore or AICN or Moriarty or Prof. Done now.
Aug. 23, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
Your arguments also suggest a "pornography leads to rape" or "pot is a gateway drug" crap espoused by people who cannot tell the difference between correlation and causality.
Aug. 23, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST
And you guys are dumbasses! All this arguing back 'n forth over a book with 250 pages of full on Lesbian sex - Adult Lesbian sex with a couple of "highly stylized" pages of kids. If I went out to get me some porn, and I sent $50.00 for a video that was all gay guys sucking dick for two hours and then there was one minute of not very attractive naked chicks in bad lighting, I would go find the asshole who sold that shit to me to get my money back and kick his ass! That's what any pedo is gonna do if he spends his money on this book! Also from reading all the posts I think that this Prof. Ikamono is a chick! So the only way mookiedood's story about bringing an actual live cute chick back to the house could happen is if the prof was a lesbian!
Aug. 23, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST
My life is pretty great. I am happily married and I make games for a living. My life isn't weird because I actually talked about the shit that nobody talks about... I just actually talked about it. This kind of shit is very common but it's ussually too painful for people to talk about. Maybe you guys are lucky enough to not have to have dealt with this shit... but it's a very very very big deal in our coutry. People want to know why american's are so uptight about sex while violence is overlooked? The answer to that is simple. People get away with domestic sex crimes all of the time. People don't get away with killing people all of the time. There isn't a problem in this country with average people killing... but there is a big problem with them fucking with children and raping women. And isn't because sex is thought 'bad'. It's the other way around... the overreaction to this shit was to try to put boundaries on sex... to protect all the people being abused. Read some history... you'll see what kind of fucked up shit people have been doing to their families for thousands of years. sorry, but this author is full of shit. 16 years to write a sex fantasy book... that's an aweful long time to obsess about a sex fantasy. that he did... whatever... i wouldn't let him near my kids... but that people think that it's about being a prude that some people are cautious about the book... come on... I don't have any problem with sex, but i dream for 16 years about Peter and James blowing each other?! That's just kinda fucking weird in my book. Honestly, american's aren't prudes about sex at all. That's the second clue to this book being something other than a sex fantasy. Which... I mean... who really thinks that fantasies about children blowing each other is cool?
Aug. 23, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST
The guys whove actually seen this book keep sayin' it ain't kiddie porn. They say its all about grown lady lesbian rug-munchers. Their the only ones who seen it, so they would know right? Howcum you can't understand that? Howcum you so desperately WANT this to be kiddie porn? What the fuck's wrong wit you? Is that Ikamono chick right about you or someting? Are you fucked in the head? You aint looking for some reason to do something sick to some kids, right? I ain't no fucking shrink, hell i never went to college, but I know crazy when I hear it. I met crazy people before. Theres this one guy hangs around my street a homeless guy I think. Talks to himself all the time. You sound just like him in your posts, dude.
Aug. 23, 2006, 9:06 p.m. CST
Yes, I am fucked in the head. That's it. I wander the street talking to myself while spinning in circles and publicly exposing myself to play with my penis. When I'm not adding a new meaning to the term circle jerk, I frequent school yards where I flirt with grade school teachers while they are on break smoking pot. Sometimes we go to the kiddy slide and I fuck them in the ear. The doctors say that I have emotionally distanced myself from society due to child trauma envy:when one child is envious of the attention other traumatised children recieve. I think it's bullshit of course and I sell my meds at the local coffeshop/bookstore to earn money to watch movies in the theater. Sometimes I give sperm to earn money, but not often, since I ussually like to save it up for jizzing on the door handles of fast food restraunts while they are closed. I've thought often about whether or not I should just let go and get a real job, instead of making these stupid action games, but where else am I going to work where I'll be able to sneak penis and vagina symbols into the designs for the products. That's not an easy thing to do. Alright, enough of this talk though. I've got a scientology meeting to run to. They are helping me learn to not pull out my willy in public. - now can you tell i'm jerkin your chains. lol
Aug. 24, 2006, 5:57 a.m. CST
ya learn that at your seminary, right?
Aug. 24, 2006, 6:04 a.m. CST
I think ya may be right about prof Ikamono being a smart 16 year old, but yer wrong bout everyting else. I read all the posts and this is a chick, an asian chick. She's real smart and into some kinda kinky voodoo shit. Yeah, hot,smart, asian, chick. SOrta like Harry's girlfriend only younger.
Aug. 24, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST
Thanks. :) You didn't leave much room for me to respond without becoming vulnerable. Now, the question is, how smart are you, and how much fun would a challenge of smartassness be right now? Seriously. I'm game. I don't meet many people who can last long at this. I get a feeling that you might be able to. I working with the 95% honest 5% kiss ass method. Which method(s) will you use? Or will you just go by ear? Oops... that's 90% honest and 5% kiss ass and 5% aloof for me. Now... I left a little door open for you to jab back... now, in the imortal words of Mary Jane 'Bring It'. <rubs hands like a total clueless dickless nerd> Sorry, automatic habit.
Aug. 24, 2006, 7:49 a.m. CST
This is all in good fun you know. I hope you don't take it too serious. I do think Moriarty was a dick for making Alan Moore sound like he wrote about 5 year old brothers sucking each other off when he wrote about young adult brothers sucking each other off, which is gross but not even in the same ballpark as 5 year olds. I suppose it had something to do with trying to promote the book... who knows. But I don't care for being baited into a Talk Back about one thing to find out it's something else after I pour out some of my life in a fucking talk back like some dumbass who hadn't slept for a few days from working too much... now I feel like and looked like a dumbfuck for what i wrote above. Otherwise... beside being pissed at that... I am just having some fun talking back in here for talking back and fun.
Aug. 24, 2006, 8:07 a.m. CST
By the way... that wasn't a very nice comment about learning to dodge questions at seminary. I did very poorly at seminary. I barely graduated. I was more interested in helping people(if misguided about it) than good grades about stuff I'd learned on my own years before by just reading. I am not some slick saleman type person. I am talking honestly when I'm not spouting sillyness. I don't mean any harm or offense to anyone, especially not to people who don't see eye to eye with me. I learned one thing at seminary: I don't know shit. Though I do talk like i am unbending about my opinions. Or, lookin back now at my posts, like i'm drug or high off my ass, cause i skip around rambling a lot. That's just due to not sleeping in the last few days from working too much. Deadlines are a bitch. Anyway... I think I'm falling asleep writing this.
Aug. 24, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST
Dude, get yer sleep first, have some coffee, wake your ass up BEFORE you post on the talkback. Otherwise ya sound like ya said, some kinda spaced-out druggie, and this scares away the hot asian chicks before I can trade sushi recipes with them, if ya know what i mean...
Aug. 24, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST
machinist. lol. maybe, I do work for a game company.
Aug. 26, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST
Whilst visiting a local bookshop yesterday, I happened to inquire of the shopkeeper if he intended to carry Lost Girls, and if in fact it were legal for him to do so. He assured me that not only was it perfectly legal to buy and sell the book in his jurisdiction, but that the book had alreadly arrived in the shop on the previous Wednesday. He had already sold all the copies he got in, but he could easily secure another if I was interested. I then decided on the spot to purchase this book so that I could actually read it. Once I have done so I will return to this tired old thread one final time - to do what almost nobody has actually done here: give an informed opinion of Lost Girls based on actually having read the book. This, I feel is a legitimate reason to dig through the AICN archives to post here yet again. It is likely that few, if any will actually read what I will be posting, but nevertheless I believe that Alan Moore deserves at least someone from this thread to give him the respect of an opinion based on a reading rather than an emotional reaction. This is not "sanctimonious", it is merely fair. That being said, a few words to my detractors here (if you're still here to read them) antonphd - I apologise if you are indeed suffering from severe sleep deprevation. That would explain the nature of your posts that threw up a red flag to me. Please try to get some sleep, and don't drive a vehicle or operate heavy machinery until you do so. mookiedood - you do not have any such excuse as anton does for the nature of your posts, you're just being a dick. I laughed heartily at your attempt to "profile" me, oddly enough CalamariWrestler is much closer to the truth than you might think. And now a final shout out to oisin5199, I just came across a book by Richard Wallace that proposes that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper! This silly theory reminds me of a story I read in a comic-book some time ago where Vincent Van Gogh was the Ripper. I think this was in an old issue of Taboo - where of course Alan Moore first serialised both From Hell and Lost Girls. There, now I will await receipt of my copy of Lost Girls, and after reading it will return here to make one final post on this thread.
Sept. 3, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST
By accident came across this thread again. Oisin, thanks for the recommendation. I looked for some info on Promethea and it certainly sounds promising. Will check it out (if you got any other interesting recommendations, go to http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/blog/804 and leave me a message - i'll appreciate it). Prof, i'd be interested to read what you have to say, if i remember to check this thread again.
Jan. 23, 2007, 9:01 p.m. CST
Thanks man, i had completely forgotten about that, but I'm glad you brought it up now. That description of the three women reminded me of the Three Fates - Atropos, Clotho and Lachesis - from the 'Myth of Er' whom I've been spending the whole day trying to figure out (in the context of Plato and Strauss, fyi)... They all embody different ages and represent past, present and future, respectively. They are the the 'daughters of Necessity' who spin the 'spindle of necessity' that recycles souls after death, a process similar to that which the ouroboros is meant to represent. As far as all this is connected to war, all I can say is that what is going on now goes beyond daily spin or 'truth' unveiled in hindsight. Desire, choice, and memory all come together in the moment of necessity, and this only true reason can determine for itself (symbolized by the Goddess Pallas Athene erupting from Zeus' forehead; btw she is the 'statue of freedom' on top of the dome on the Capitol building - it has the inscription 'E pluribus unum': out of many, one - similar to your 'Three who are one'). As such war happens for a reason. I wonder if enough people are willing to find out why, instead of going through the motions by blaming others and thinking 'they figured it out.' That's the point of freedom (i.e. the freedom to make the right choice). Either way, thanks for the review!
Jan. 31, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST
by Onomaki Forp
Those who time travel back to this TB see two posts by the same person months apart. Reading them they puzzle at references to a "review" which is not here. This TB once was enormous, it was active for over a week - - then it vanished away, lost after September 2006 and the Upadate to the site. Even if the TB were restored however it would become clear to one reading through the copious posts that someone was missing. Here on this talkback Ikamono had one of his/her finest hours. Prof.Ikamono was a Talkbacker different from many who post silly catchprases. Ikamono a Japanese word that can mean "fake" or "squid-thing" was not a fake insofar as he/she was obviously a scholar. Ikamono was most knowledgable when it came to the subject of human sexuality. Ikamono was passionate about dispelling myths about sexuality, exposing hypocracy and would often become enraged when dealing with homophobia. Ikamono was also apparently a metaphysician and would often make references to occult, arcane and esoteric subjects. Ikamono despised bullies, bigots, trolls, assholes, fascists, liars, and closet-cases. Ikamono had nothing for contempt for "conspiracy theorists" who imagined AICN as being a front for some nefarious cabal. Ikamono admired Harry for creating this site and always defended him. Ikamono never tolerated those who attacked Harry for his physical appearance, and always mocked those who implied that many great filmmakers who were friends with Harry where only successful because of hype written up on this site. Ikamono was also a joker, a prankster, a trickster and a knave, this may have led to his/her downfall. Ikamono enjoyed silly jokes and often posted bizzarely off-topic obscure references just to see if anybody would get them. Ikamono was coy about his/her gender, sexuality, race, religion, etc. and sometimes wrote with British spellings and sometimes American - often in the same post. Ikamono would sometimes claim to be a Japanese schoolgirl, a Lesbian, a Professor of Clinical Sexology, a Discordian, etc. Ikamono never intended to hurt anyone. Ikamono was banned, why? this remains unkown. Shortly before the banning Ikamono played a very small part in the resurrection of old Talkbacks. Some of the others who played a larger part were also recently banned - some were not. Ikamono also recently speculated on the identity of a notorious troll, naming names in the industry. Ikamono very shortly before being banned posted a quote in French deying the existance of God. Ikamono, however did believe in God, albeit in a non-conventional way. Which if any of the above reasons caused the Watch-Wardens of this site to banish Ikamono to the neither depths may never be known. There are some who posted in support of him/her, and who engaged Ikamono in lively discourse who will probably miss Ikamono. There are others with for whom Ikamono's banishment will be satisfactory - they will see it as vindication of their bigotry, hypocracy, and narrow-minded wilful ignorance. They are wrong. AICN has lost a passionate, eloquent voice. But there is no need to mourn. Ikamono always prefered laughter to tears. Carry on in the spirit of joyful anarchy, rejoice in humanity and life! Ikamono may be gone but his/her spirit remains among us. So in memorium I call out in the name of the spirit of Discordian revelry. Hail Ikamono! Hail Eris! You shall not be forgotten, YOU ARE STILL HERE!
Feb. 10, 2007, 9:22 p.m. CST
Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
May 4, 2007, 7:18 p.m. CST
by Onomaki Forp
...playing coy and all. I've since pretty much took what was obvious and made it explicit...If there's anybody around who doesn't know by now that Onomaki Forp is in fact Prof.Ikamono - then they're just too stupid to live...
May 10, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST
by PROF IKAMONO
...and this time... it's personal(ity disorder)...
Jan. 24, 2008, 10:27 p.m. CST
by PROF IKAMONO
Prof.Ikamono's posts are back from the dead? Well not all but some of them! Too bad I have no bloody idea what my old password was, doesn't matter... my new PROF IKAMONO incarnation is sufficient for now. <p> Whoever restored me.... THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I'll never be a douchbag again!
Sept. 19, 2008, 3:33 p.m. CST
I, for one, am glad you made it back from the nether regions, even though I didn't notice you had been banned. Btw, not that I've tackled Promethea, I'm going to look into Lost Girls, though the hefty price at the local book store may pose a slight technical problem for the foreseeable future. I'll put in on my Amazon wish list and hope for a generous benefactor. Just in case.