Are Comic Art Porn Commissions A Big Thing? 0

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, comix4fun said:

It wasn't so much the money, although that was an eye popper of a number, it was the subject matter that stunned me. Because whether it be fact or fiction, real life people or fictional characters, there are documented bounds to not only good taste, but the law, which seem to be crossed in the proposal of that subject matter. Kids in sexual situations, even fictional ones, crosses that line for me as I am sure it does for you. 

Since I didn’t look at the piece, I can only assume it is sexually vile. But, if no actual children were used in the preparation of the art, then the purpose of those laws banning kiddie porn—exploitation of children—doesn’t come into play and would likely not be illegal. 

[delekkerste]

11 hours ago, Bill C said:

So...

Did it, uh... "finish"?

eBay has helpfully informed me this morning that the piece has been relisted, all cocked and loaded for its next owner. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by delekkerste

[vodou]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

then the purpose of those laws banning kiddie porn—exploitation of children—doesn’t come into play and would likely not be illegal. 

As all the knees jerk, as always, what gets lost is protecting the innocence of the innocent. Of course that refers to actual real humans

Anybody that buys into the Adam and Eve story of Creation, not to mention any other expansion to the unknown has to be okay with familial relations. Or...hypocrisy.

Acknowledging the facts of necessary incestual scenarios doesn't mean the concept or the acts are palatable to myself or anyone else reading this, but, um, how did we all get here otherwise? Hmmm...??

Same thing with "current" definitions regarding all things: kiddie. What in 2019 is widely unacceptable and "against the law" (often not the same as "moral") in Western Society is not exactly so in other societies presently or even our own going back just a hundred or so years.

Before certain people get "too" bent out of shape here, let's just try to see that it's not as simple, nothing ever is actually, as first blush.

We all know what's truly awful (no need to go into detail) and that's a much smaller slice than what's presently in the huge circle of "gross 'to me'" that we all carry around in our heads.

This commission request, any fantasy in paint, pencil or ink, where no real human is actually harmed...um...?? That general direction gets you pretty quickly to Thought Crimes and Book Burnings.

[comix4fun]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Since I didn’t look at the piece, I can only assume it is sexually vile. But, if no actual children were used in the preparation of the art, then the purpose of those laws banning kiddie porn—exploitation of children—doesn’t come into play and would likely not be illegal. 

The piece doesn't exist, because the artist refused to create it. We have his description. 

The CBLDF has covered the ground on where the legal issues with content like this might arise. The laws I am referring to are obscenity and lewd acts including (even fictional) children. This isn't a new issue, and the comic rendering of these types of acts, which include children are folded in the lewd and obscene areas with the inclusion of the images of fictional children into the piece as an exacerbating factor. 

And, frankly, whether or not this is "illegal" in some technical sense under a narrowly specific area of law you've identified but which is not the area of law to which I was referring, doesn't mean it doesn't cross every line of good taste and decency, which is what I was getting at. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by comix4fun

[vodou]

57 minutes ago, vodou said:

Same thing with "current" definitions regarding all things: kiddie. What in 2019 is widely unacceptable and "against the law" (often not the same as "moral") in Western Society is not exactly so in other societies presently or even our own going back just a hundred or so years.

As it turns out I gave some of our Western brethren a bit too much credit.

This 14 year old X-23 situation (gag, puke, oh nooooooooo!!) was legal (as to age, if not partnering selection) as recently as 12 years ago in Canada and Europe among other "modern" societies:

Several Western countries have raised their ages of consent recently. These include Canada (in 2008—from 14 to 16); and in Europe, Iceland (in 2007—from 14 to 15), Lithuania (in 2010—from 14 to 16), Croatia (in 2013—from 14 to 15), and Spain (in 2015—from 13 to 16).

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Thank you Lord Jesus Christ for that extra year or two that were recently legislatively added to the end...yikes we were at the precipice of the End of All Things Moral...those extra 12 to 24 months make it all okay after all

[FlyingDonut]

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Since I didn’t look at the piece, I can only assume it is sexually vile. But, if no actual children were used in the preparation of the art, then the purpose of those laws banning kiddie porn—exploitation of children—doesn’t come into play and would likely not be illegal. 

Um. No. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by FlyingDonut

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

The piece doesn't exist, because the artist refused to create it. We have his description. 

The CBLDF has covered the ground on where the legal issues with content like this might arise. The laws I am referring to are obscenity and lewd acts including (even fictional) children. This isn't a new issue, and the comic rendering of these types of acts, which include children are folded in the lewd and obscene areas with the inclusion of the images of fictional children into the piece as an exacerbating factor. 

And, frankly, whether or not this is "illegal" in some technical sense under a narrowly specific area of law you've identified but which is not the area of law to which I was referring, doesn't mean it doesn't cross every line of good taste and decency, which is what I was getting at. 

I think I used the word “vile”.

[comix4fun]

Just now, Rick2you2 said:

I think I used the word “vile”.

That's a good word. Most folks would agree with you. 

[Bronty]

51 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Um. No. 

Well, he is a lawyer, I'm going to have to trust his gut on that one.

The point being made is that a movie with a child actor or pictures with a child subject get different treatment than a picture of a child one draws or paints (however distasteful).

Publishing that picture I assume would be illegal but simply owning it as personal property without publishing it or showing it to anyone else, however indecent, may not be illegal, I think is the point. 

Drawing a picture of a murder and owning that at home isn't illegal either despite murder itself being illegal.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Bronty

[comix4fun]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

Well, he is a lawyer, I'm going to have to trust his gut on that one.

The point being made is that a movie with a child actor or pictures with a child subject get different treatment than a picture of a child one draws or paints (however distasteful).

Publishing that picture I assume would be illegal but simply owning it as personal property without publishing it or showing it to anyone else, however indecent, may not be illegal, I think is the point. 

I believe his point was actually it was not against a particular set of laws covering child pornography if it was a fictional character and not an actual child.

Whereas the point of the post he was responding to was that obscene material depicting children in sexual situations, their presence being an exacerbating factor in the determination of lewdness or obscenity, may break laws covering obscene material and those laws stand independent from those regarding, specifically, child pornography. 

His post spoke to the former but not to the latter. The scope was limited so I'm being careful to not put words into his mouth that the material is not or may not be illegal in all instances since he was only speaking to a single particular instance. I don't believe he broached the topic of publishing or refraining from publishing. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by comix4fun

[Bronty]

Just now, comix4fun said:

I believe his point was actually it was not against a particular set of laws covering child pornography if it was a fictional character and not an actual child.

Whereas the point of the post he was responding to was that obscene material depicting children in sexual situations, their presence being an exacerbating factor in the determination of lewdness or obscenity, may break laws covering obscene material and those laws stand independent from those regarding, specifically, child pornography. 

His post spoke to the former but not to the latter. The scope was limited so I'm being careful to not put words into his mouth that the material is not or may not be illegal in all instances since he was only speaking to a single particular instance. 

thank you

[Rick2you2]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Well, he is a lawyer, I'm going to have to trust his gut on that one.

The point being made is that a movie with a child actor or pictures with a child subject get different treatment than a picture of a child one draws or paints (however distasteful).

Publishing that picture I assume would be illegal but simply owning it as personal property without publishing it or showing it to anyone else, however indecent, may not be illegal, I think is the point. 

My field doesn’t encompass this subject matter, so my knowledge is limited. But, my understanding is that having it can get you in trouble since it would still be considered as imperiling the minor to make it.

What I find particularly disturbing involve people who are convicted of “sex crimes” of a minor sort, like lewdness, and then get marked with a scarlet letter maybe forever. For example, in a New Jersey case involving a technical matter unrelated to what follows, someone got terribly drunk and then he had to relieve himself. He couldn’t find a bathroom, so he used some bushes. Wouldn’t you know, that’s when a group of children, with a teacher present, saw him with his dong out. He is now a marked man (I think for at least 10 years). I have a problem with that.

[Rick2you2]

5 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I believe his point was actually it was not against a particular set of laws covering child pornography if it was a fictional character and not an actual child.

Whereas the point of the post he was responding to was that obscene material depicting children in sexual situations, their presence being an exacerbating factor in the determination of lewdness or obscenity, may break laws covering obscene material and those laws stand independent from those regarding, specifically, child pornography. 

His post spoke to the former but not to the latter. The scope was limited so I'm being careful to not put words into his mouth that the material is not or may not be illegal in all instances since he was only speaking to a single particular instance. I don't believe he broached the topic of publishing or refraining from publishing. 

Correct.

[Rick2you2]

Generally speaking, I find porn to be a tough subject. I lean towards freedom of expression, but not if someone is hurt, or could be hurt, in the process. Societal values keep changing, and what used to be sort of acceptable isn’t anymore. Child brides are an example. So is some Renaissance art and Greco-Roman art. I don’t personally care for any of it, and don’t mind at all if societal mores object, but subjecting someone to jail time is different. 

[Peter L]

My thought on the original subject is that if it were true and widespread, wouldn't we see more of this art get leaked out somewhere?  Even that Frazetta art leaked out or is known about.  Most people still need to flip or sell their art sometime.  

Regarding Mike Choi's original post, people were commenting on it and how bad it was, but he never said if he did it or didn't do it.  He previously said that just to feed his family he has to sell painted more expensive commissions which is why he got into acrylic painting.  If his options are do the painting and feed your family or don't do the painting, I don't begrudge him from doing the painting.  And his versions of X-23 look like adults.  

I've heard that there is a five page Marshall Rodgers hard core porn story in existence.  I'm sure it is more common even though they haven't really popped up in CAF or other common places.

[ESeffinga]

I dunno what Gene is all sad for. I think that drawing is hilarious! 🤣 

Its so, the opposite of sexy or titillating. 

Maybe just sad he clearly needed the money, judging by the age/drawing quality? Elderly artist needs money. Willing to draw whatever?

 

Now I’m sad too. 😞 

Thanks Gene!

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I dunno what Gene is all sad for. I think that drawing is hilarious! 🤣 

Its so, the opposite of sexy or titillating. 

Maybe just sad he clearly needed the money, judging by the age/drawing quality? Elderly artist needs money. Willing to draw whatever?

 

Now I’m sad too. 😞 

Thanks Gene!

For sexy or titillating, there is always Catawiki--always.

I would agree it isn't the best art in the world, but it does have a human sort of charm to it. Almost like she's saying: "There now, these are my breasts. Satisfied?"

And no stretch marks despite her age--Fantastic Two.

[Bronty]

She’s not Invisible in that drawing!  Nyuk Nyuk.   That’s hard to look at.

[John E.]

Just caught up with this thread. 
 

Last month a collector friend of mine found some rare Mike Diana art at a used bookstore and was excited about it. I had no idea who Mike Diana is. Well, my buddy schooled me by letting me know that he’s the first American artist/cartoonist to be convicted of obscenity. The way it all went down is pretty interesting. Anyway, just surprised that his case hasn’t been mentioned here. 
 

All I’ve done is read the Wiki entry which is pretty thorough.

[Bronty]

I mean, I'd love to be proven wrong but from reading that the impression I get is that the legal case and precedent would be more interesting than the comic books.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Bronty