Skip to main content

New cover.

I think Ghastly is gonna cry because you didn't give him a Buck Cake cover this month.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Now that cover certainly caught my eye.

Man... finally a sex toy more expensive than a Real Doll.

I can tell this is one that isn't going to make it to the 'switch' advertisements. ;)

Love the concept for this month's cover.

On the down side... this months cover isn't so good for people who want to check the news here while they're at work...

Then I wouldn't reccommend reading Newsweek or Time at work when they do a women's health related cover story. They put up more pictures of cleverly-nothing-showing-yet-sexy-but-not-so-sexy-we-get-sued than any other magazine I know, even Cosmopolitan!

Let's face it, chances are if someone is reading something with a sexy picture on it these days, it's probably the news.

That's what I tell people everytime I buy a playboy.

Gee,.. thanks for the cover. I'm not promoting Comixpedia anymore.

Comparing the cover of Cosmo or a womens' health page pic to that image is kind of like comparing the Venus de Milo to a RealDoll.

There's suggestive... and then there's a chick boinking an iMac.

I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd appreciate it if this stuff was kept off the front page from now on.

Chaobell
Too lazy to log in

Holy Mother, Juggs and Speed. This has to be the stupidest cover concept ever approved by a site. Seriously. It doesn't look sexy, it's not funny, and it would actively discourage me from suggesting Comixpedia to friends and cohorts, because I'd feel like I had to apologize for it.

What's more, it's utterly pointless. "Welcome to Sex in Comics. Here's a softcore pic of a woman having sex with an iMac." Um... I don't get it. At all. Even slightly.

I'm sorry, this isn't just questionable in taste. It's stupid, and entirely too likely to alienate a significant portion of your contributors and readers. It doesn't bring anything to the table to balance those problems.

Wow. I'm just flabbergasted. I'm not sure if anyone there gets paid, but this is the kind of thing that would get people fired anywhere else.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Man... if this is the result from a covered nude I wonder what would have happened if the cover featured Jesus having sex with a Macintosh?

Or would Jesus use a LINUX box?

Seems to be a serious case of prudeitis going around.

Then again I guess that's to be expected from a mainstreme culture mindset that thrills at watching live coverage of smart bombs falling on children during a CNN war infomercial, but works itself into a froth when a nipple gets uncovered during a wardrobe malfunction.

Nobody bats an eyelash when your comic features people slaughtering one another, but show a little nudity or dear-sweet-mother-of-god a little sexuality and suddenly everyone screams "think of the children"?

How sad we live in a world where violence played for laughs is acceptable but sexuality played for laughs is not.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Hmmm... I'm going to have to make some WOSWJU T-shirts.

"Ghastly" wrote: Man... if

Ghastly wrote:
Man... if this is the result from a covered nude I wonder what would have happened if the cover featured Jesus having sex with a Macintosh? Or would Jesus use a LINUX box? Seems to be a serious case of prudeitis going around.
I don't agree at all. Sex in Webcomics could have been illustrated countless BETTER ways. The cover is very tacky, first and foremost. And, as has been stated, some of us DO check the site from work - and I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not my boss will see me reading Comixpedia. And the fact the cover is of a woman getting drilled by an iMac in an issue where the Comixpedia staff basically rattles on about how much they can't stand sexually explicit webcomics... that's a whole other issue. But just because people don't think the cover's appropriate doesn't mean they're prudes, Ghastly.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Number of vaginas in picture: Let's see.... zero.
Number of nipples in picture: Let's see.... zero again.
Number of breasts in picture: Hmmmm... once again zero.
Number of wangs in picture: One... oh no wait, that's an Apple. Make that zero.

Geeze, there's not even any clevage in this picture.

!!!

Let's see, the theme for this month is NC-17 comics....hmmm...what better way to stir up the pot than by posting a cover that causes gasps and riducule...just like NC-17 comic do.

Thanks for all the comments, positive and negative!!! I expected to piss people off, but not this much! If I offended you, I'm sorry, but I think it brings the point of this months theme out perfectly.

BTW, anyone who doesn't have the balls to post under anything but guest shouldn't be so cocky.

Have a nice day! :D

Ghastly I don't think people have a problem with the picture itself so please don't turn this conversation into something it's not. The issue as described by the people who have objected is quite simple...they thought the content of the site was work safe. That image is not work safe by any means and if one was to look at that content say at a bank, a corporate office or what have you they'd be fired instantly. I for example work at Wells Fargo and if my supervisor saw that picture, I would be terminated on the spot. Everyone expects this site to be safe for viewing anywhere and at minimum I think the feeling is there should have been some sort of disclosure warning people it might not be safe in certain environments. You may disagree, and of course that's your right, but at least respect the other idea that there are people who do not wish to see pictures of that nature (not that it is bad) and it is their right to not have to see it unexpectedly.

Rich

"Ghastly" wrote: Number of

Ghastly wrote:
Number of vaginas in picture: Let's see.... zero. Number of nipples in picture: Let's see.... zero again. Number of breasts in picture: Hmmmm... once again zero. Number of wangs in picture: One... oh no wait, that's an Apple. Make that zero. Geeze, there's not even any clevage in this picture.
First off, Ghastly - discussions about this can be had without a condescending tone. It doesn't matter what's shown - it's what's insinuated. A woman writhing because she's getting fucked by a computer. It's just there for shock value and honestly does little for this month's theme (which seems to lay closer to "sex in webcomics!? ICKY!"). Not everyone WANTS to see that. I read your comic. I read Sexy Losers. Your content doesn't bother me because I walk into your site KNOWING what I'm getting into. When people come to a "news" site, they aren't expecting that - and yes, sometimes insinuating things is as inappropriate as showing.

Isn't that how the Psycho murder scene in the shower came off as powerful? It was just something that was hinted at, but never shown?

-JoshM

I'm not offended by it, as such. I just don't think it needs to be on the front page of what claims to be a respectable site.

I have no problem with it, in and of itself--it's kind amusing--but it needs to go somewhere else on the site.

No, it doesn't explicitly show any naughty bits, but it's pretty damn obvious what she's doing. Legs wiiiiide open, Mac plopped right in the middle. Oh, wait, maybe she's just polishing it!

And no, a pic full of blood and gore shouldn't go on the front page, either.

chaobell
still too lazy to log in

"Anonymous" wrote: Isn't

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't that how the Psycho murder scene in the shower came off as powerful? It was just something that was hinted at, but never shown? -JoshM
People went into Psycho expecting a horror movie. They got that. People come to Comixpedia expecting a news site. It would be like walking into Bambi and getting the Psycho shower scene spliced into the middle of it for no reason.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

For the whole "NSFW" argument. I've posted pictures more graphic than that on FARK (where the whole concept of "NSFW" was born) without violating the "NSFW" policy. Of course even there you'll get a half dozen people whine about a picture of someone in a bikini being "NSFW" because "their" boss would get upset about that and of course everyone should have to bow down to what "their" boss dictates.

The truth is, if you've got a puritanical boss who is going to get offended and fire you over a picture you stumble upon on the internet then should you really be doing recreational surfing while at work?

I didn't really see anything that terribly offencive about the picture. Every naughty bit was well covered (I'll bet there's been more exposed breast in past covers). I don't know about you, but I've yet to see an iMac with a penis underneith it. To me it wasn't a picture of a woman being fucked by an iMac. To me it was a cheesecake shot of a woman on a bed using a iMac to cover her naughty bits.

Comixpedia isn't a news site. It's a comics news site. Despite a hell of a lot of controlling efforts to make it so comics have never been entirely safe. Right after the first neandertal etched a primative painting of a hunter slaying a wooly ox on the wall of a cave he etched a naughty picture of the hunter's wife being banged by the hunter's best friend back at the cave.

You've got to expect a certain degree of cheesecake every now and then on a site this deep into all aspects of the comics industry.

As for my alleged "condescending tone". Blame that on the fact that text is an imperfect medium particularily for communicating light hearted humour because when it's in black and white everything tends to seem like it's being delivered with a certain degree of seriousness. I assure you there's a twinkle in my eye and cherubic lilt in my voice as I type all these posts.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Arrrgh, I hate it when I use html in the BBS and UBBC in the comments section.

Or instead of bitching like a little girl with her pigtail in the inkwell I could just go back and edit the post to fix the italics tags.

Like I said, I'm truly sorry if it offends anyone, and I definitely understand the work thing.

I approched the the idea the way it was presented to me by comixpedia representatives. Although, the final idea came down to me, and is mine alone. I take full responsibility and blame. That being said, I still think it works.

BTW, the guest bashing thing was a joke. :wink:

BTW, thanks for all the support Ghastly!

"rkm0001" wrote: People

rkm0001 wrote:
People went into Psycho expecting a horror movie. They got that. People come to Comixpedia expecting a news site. It would be like walking into Bambi and getting the Psycho shower scene spliced into the middle of it for no reason.
So my point for bringing that up is, even though it doesn't show anything, it hints at the point that it's supposed to give (making whoopie). Similar to never showing a person getting murdered but hinting at it to get a better effect. So by not showing anything offensive, it can make things come off as stronger, and thus not very appropriate anyway. That's the only reason I brought up the comparison. -JoshM

"rkm0001" wrote: People

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

rkm0001 wrote:
People went into Psycho expecting a horror movie. They got that. People come to Comixpedia expecting a news site. It would be like walking into Bambi and getting the Psycho shower scene spliced into the middle of it for no reason.
That's a better punchline than I've come up with lately. I was away from the site Monday and Tuesday and got back today. I am reading all of the postings right now.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

About the worksafe issue- Ghastly makes a wonderful point that you shouldn't discard just because he likes to press his own agenda- if your boss is going to fire you for this image popping up on your screen on a news site, then you shouldn't be doing recreational websurfing at work!

Sure, you go to Sexy Losers and expect naked people having sex or whatever. Sure you go see Bambi and don't expect blood and guts. But the thing is, the Bambi thing works because there are movie ratings you can see before going to the movie and SL works because it has a cover page telling you what you're getting into. Except one point- some SL strips DON'T have sex in them! Or even naked people!

If I draw a comic that regularily has fully dressed people in it and you read it at work and then I, for purposes of story, draw a character naked in a "going to school without clothes on" kind of dream... and you get fired for looking at a nudie drawing... I'm guessing most of you would think I'm at fault. And if you DO, you're probably a product of the american legal system. Take some responsibilty, folks.

Now *I'm* being tangental. Anyway, lovely cover, Caleb. It's a simply awesome image and I expected some controverys, but not so many people totally missing the part, especially a couple of smart people here thinking it's just a woman boinking an I-mac.

This has seriously been rag on Comixpedia month. It's either too critical, too accepting of news items, too slow on news, or too sexy for an indie publishing mag.

*sigh* I dunno. Like I said, most people here I'm dissapointed in are intelligent and not crusaders or prudes. Very open-minded, I would have thought. I guess that's why I'm so dissapointed.

-Meaghan

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Not very appropriate why?

The one bad thing about FARK starting the whole "NSFW" trend is that at one time it was very simple. Originally it applied to a photograph featuring an exposed female nipple, vagina or a penis. Any of those three things were exposed the image was tagged "NSFW". Then some people complained "Well my boss is offended by bare bottoms" so photographs featuring bare bottoms were filed under "NSFW" too. Then some people started complaining, "Well my boss is offended by paintings of nipples, vaginas, penises, and bare bottoms" so artwork, wether classics by Renesance Masters or webcomic artists were included in "NSFW". Then some people started complaining, "Well my boss is offended by statues of nipples, vaginas, penises, and bare bottoms" so again the definition of "NSFW" was changed. Then people started complaining "Well my boss is offended by sexually suggestive imagery" and "Well my boss is offended by girls in bikinis" and "well my boss is offended by any text that's sexually suggestive".

All these people wailing for all of us to comply with what does and does not offend their boss.

If your boss is really so easily offended then perhaps you should re-evaluate wether you should be doing personal surfing on company time. Hell, maybe you should even be re-evaluating if this is the kind of boss you want to be working for.

Somehow there's a growing misconception that if a website isn't classified as "porn" or "adult" then it has an obligation to make itself "Safe For Work". Well I'm sorry, but no website has an obligation to make itself "Safe For Work". If your occupation is to read the articles on websites like Comixpedia then obviously you'll be forgiven for stumbling across the odd NSFW image in the course of carrying out your online duties.

If your occupation is not to read the articles on websites like Comixpedia and you work for the kind of prude who will fire you for innocently stumbling upon a NSFW image while doing personal surfing on company time, well that gets filed under "Sucks To Be You".

This seems to be a predominantly North American phenominon, particularily localized to the United States to become outraged and demand that people providing you with free content on the internet uphold some sort of unwritten obligation to ensure your boss won't be offended by anything on their site. Hell, when I was in Europe I saw newspaper advertisements that were far more sexual than a cheesecake drawing of a woman covering herself up with a Macintosh.

Well you know what, the internet content providers of the world are under no obligation to not offend your boss. That might be your job, but it's not the rest of ours. So surf the web at your own risk if you're doing personal surfing from work.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Damnit! I knew I shouldn't have stopped to eat lasagnia in the middle of my post. Mequinn beat me to the punch.

Oh well, my wife makes a mean lasagnia. I have no regrets.

Yeah, well my husband makes the best omlettes in the world! Neener!

I mentioned Time magazine before, and while I don't keep old copies on hand or feel like looking up the particular covers I refer to, you can check out what kind of images they run with "sex" themed issues. Some shows a lot more skin than the comixpedia cover and would normally be considered more explicit on account of it being real live models rather than a drawing.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

HaHA!

Someone did the html in the BBS thing too.

Oh yeah... well my wife lets me dress her up in frilly french maid uniforms and give her bare bottomed spankings.

/waits to see if you'll say Damonk dresses up in frilly french maid uniforms for you.

I am a BBS loser.

And alas, no. All he does is speak in French from time to time without adapting any traditional costumes! No maid uniforms, no berets, nothing!

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Not even a loaf of bread under his arm and a week's worth of dirt on his body?

Thankfully, no. He bathes often in retribution for an entire nation!

Oh, and no wine, either! It's all beer for him! The Canadian influence has overtaken the French!

-Meaghan, successfully hijacking yet another thread from angst to silliness.

....

I mean, um, SEX!

Uncle Ghastly's picture

I thought it was an article about him dressing up as Sakura from CCS at a convention.

I like the cover. It's well done, it's clever, it's Caleb!

It's a real hoot to read that some readers are demanding that Comixpedia be 'work friendly.'

So you want the volunteer staff of Comixpedia to censor the content they offer for free so that you can sit there and get paid for reading it?

Is there any limit to the arrogance of the non-paying public?

Let it be decreed, from this day forward: All websites shall look like a Word document in the works. Recreational surfing from work is too difficult with alluring images and fancy shmancy graphics. From now on, everything should actually look like I'm doing work - so go now, people, and revise your comics to look like my weekly inventory report. Excel spreadsheets will also be accepted.

So it is written - so it shall be done

Seriously though, I have to agree - though I'd prefer 'work friendly' images, if I'm surfing on company time and get in heck over it, then it's my own damn fault.

And as for the image....
COME ON PEOPLE! This woman is more covered than 2/3s of the ladies that grace the pages of your average superhero comic. It's not graphic. It's not degrading. The most offensive thing about the image is the iMac...
Sweetie, darling, cookie -- please trade that thing in for a real computer.

Imagine what the weinies would be saying about "NSFW" if Ghastly DID get the cover...

I find it really funny that Ghastly's accusing the guy who does Something Positive of being a prude. Cognitive dissonance is great.

It is actually possible to surf from work without being cheating scum. Some employers will let you surf the web on your break time (like during lunch) as long as you don't clog up the net connection and don't look at something that they find offensive.

But if you are cheating scum, surreptitious surfing is what GhostZilla is for. Hide your browser in a Word document, or Outlook, or whatever! Slack like a motherfucker with little fear of reprisal! Get blacklisted from all employment for life if you do get your lazy ass caught!

The cover isn't THAT bad, but it would have been nice to have a warning beforehand.

Just as creators should be allowed to make the call whether to include stuff like the cover in their comics without being censored by an editor, readers should be allowed to be given the choice on whether they want to be prudes or not.

Whether being a prude is bad or not is besides the point. The point is having the freedom to choose.

For example, if there was a text warning on last month's comixpedia that the cover for May would be a little controversial, and maybe not work-safe, that would have be quite sufficient; the readers who are a little sensitive would be a little more careful and not check out the site from work.

"RichVStone" wrote: You

Uncle Ghastly's picture

RichVStone wrote:
You may disagree, and of course that's your right, but at least respect the other idea that there are people who do not wish to see pictures of that nature (not that it is bad) and it is their right to not have to see it unexpectedly.
Wow, I didn't know there was a right to not have to see it unexpectedly. Would this be covered under the same law that decrees "The rights of the people not to be offended shall not be impeded"? You see I can respect the fact that there are people who are offended by such stuff. Hell, I grew up in an opressive, right wing, conservative, charismatic religion (Pentecostal church). I got to grow up with people who thought the Smurfs were a Satanic influenced cartoon, I know all about offended. I respected they had a right to be offended by the Smurfs far more than they respected I had a right to express that being offended by the Smurfs is "bat-shirt crazy". Everyone can be as offended as they want, I respect that. Their right to take offence doesn't grant them an automatic right to not be criticised for their offence. It's the sense of entitlement that gets me. "I have a right to surf the internet from work without running across offencive images". "Your website violates my rights not to unexpectadly be shocked". Comixpedia is getting blasted for violating a right that just simply does not exist. On top of all this, the image itself is just really pretty tame when you stop to look at it. You could probably find more explicit advertisements flipping through a woman's magazine. As others have already said, I shudder to think what would have happened if I had been selected to draw this months cover because believe you me, there would have been cleavage, lesbian kisses, and possibly bikini buldges suggesting futanari. And tentacles? Hell yeah! Which, of course, is probably why I wasn't asked. But that's beside the point.

"Anonymous" wrote: What's

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Anonymous wrote:
What's more, it's utterly pointless. "Welcome to Sex in Comics. Here's a softcore pic of a woman having sex with an iMac." Um... I don't get it. At all. Even slightly.
I wasn't aware of the I-d*ck attachment to the Mac. It's a picture of a woman holding onto an I-MAC while looking at webcomics. Given her expression they may be particularly interesting webcomics but still, I'm sure she's looking at webcomics. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "sex with an iMac". Does no one else read webcomics in the nude? Am I that peculiar? :P

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

Number of women fucking an iMac: one.

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Heheheheee

i want to agree with you too.

But there's a little part of me that likes that picture too much :oops:

"m_estrugo" wrote: This

m_estrugo wrote:
This makes me think twice about whether Comixpedia worths visiting anymore, and I'm going to reconsider the earlier offer I made to Bill Duncan about "being always available" to illustrate future articles. And I'm also going to e-mail Emanuella Grinberg to ask her to take my words out from the article she told me she was writing. Should this have been a stunt to broaden the audience by stirring up controversy, I find it cheap and tasteless. Should this have been an attempt to look cool and hedgy by displaying this image as their cover, I find it unnecesary and gratuitous. Should Comixpedia's staff be unaware about the potential controversy and damage to their own image this could cause, I find them naive. To quote Dalton Wemble: Sex sells. Sex sells stupid crap.
Once again, this has nothing to do with Bill or Xerexes or Damonk or anybody else at the site. I was asked to do a cover that reflected the theme of NC-17 comics, I feel I achieved that goal. As far as anyone bowing out of any future articles illustration work, I'll gladly take over! Although, I'm probably banned from now on. Funny thing is, NC-17 comics usually aren't even my bag, but the opportunity just seemed too good to pass up. Besides that's nothing compaired to what my original concept was...God, I can only imagine the cries if this would've been on the main page: [img ]http://www.moderntales.com/calebsevcik/comixpre.gif[/img] Funny thing is, it would've been on the main page, had I not, at the last minute, decided to do something more, in my opinion, tastefull. Let's face it, porn comics our a part of our industry. As such, they desrve to be reviewed right alongside other webcomics. You don't by an issue of TCJ always expecting explicit content, but it's there, mainly because that magazine takes a broad look at all comics. Comixpedia is, basically, the digital equivalent of TCJ. Caleb

Crap, sorry about double

Crap, sorry about double posting and bad BBcoding! Anyhoo, here's the original cover concept: http://www.moderntales.com/calebsevcik/comixpre.gif

"m_estrugo" wrote: Should

Uncle Ghastly's picture

m_estrugo wrote:
Should this have been a stunt to broaden the audience by stirring up controversy, I find it cheap and tasteless. Should this have been an attempt to look cool and hedgy by displaying this image as their cover, I find it unnecesary and gratuitous. Should Comixpedia's staff be unaware about the potential controversy and damage to their own image this could cause, I find them naive.
I think this was their attempt to examine the topic of sex in webcomics this month. It's a very valid topic for an issue of an online magazine about comics. Many legitimate news magazines have had issues devoted to sex and sexuality with even racier covers than this one. Considering every article about sex and webcomics printed so far in this month's issue has basically been taking a big dump on the genre of adult humour webcomics I have to admit a certain schadenfreude. After seeing the genre I work in, as well as the top comic in that field roasted and ass fucked it is kind of amusing to watch all these people blast Comixpedia and call them sell outs for posting pornography and filth as their cover. Particularily amusing when the person defending their actions the most is one of the guys whose genre has been debased and raked over the coals in the Comixpedia articles.

"Caleb Sevcik"

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Caleb Sevcik wrote:
Crap, sorry about double posting and bad BBcoding! Anyhoo, here's the original cover concept
Oddly enough, I'll bet you that image would not have caused any controversy because it's a guy, not a girl, and it makes "those kind" of people who read adult humour webcomics look like mentally challenged (we can't say "retard" anymore, right? Unless we're talking about that movie Jon Malkovich was in where he played the "retard"), drooling retards which helps make those who look down their noses at the genre feel all the more self rightious about themselves.

You know, while we're at it... I think Comixpedia commits many mistakes from an editorial point of view, but that cover is hardly one of them. The issue is leaning towards NC-17 comics, and the cover just fits the theme nicely. I could understand if we were talking about fanservice being used to ensnare readers, but that's not the case.

As for the mistakes... I think the main articles each week need to get some more attention. The links are almost glued to each other, and these articles get pushed into the second page by "less important" news. I think a model like Anime Ex could work best...

You know what some of this reminds me of? Those people who cancel their newspaper subscriptions and write letters to the editor that they're cancelling and telling all their friends to cancel because someone had the gall to put Doonsbury or the Boondocks in the comics section, which should only be for mindless funnies.

Anyone saying that ONE image is going to reverse a year of comixpedia and is going to stop reading and won't ever contribute (which gives you some power over the content, you know).... Feh, I can't say how far you have gone down in my estimation.

And Ghastly, don't give up hope. This is only week ONE of a four week issue on the topic.

-Meaghan