Possibly - its a rather interesting thought thoughSccrD25 wrote: What happens in that world with stuff that regenerates? Would beheading a troll give you two trolls?
i wonder if creatures like that are purposely hunted down and killed in the proper means as not to end up with an endless supply of beasts knocking at your door.
I don't think there's going to be nudity in the comic. The page says we'll see reality 20, not 3.Miryafa wrote:I get the impression from reading this comic that this is our NSFW notice, but I hope not. I would prefer not to see nudity, and something as simple as a spoiler tag over the comic that has nudity with a NSFW note would be welcome.
"Not safe for work" and a warning page because of some boobs, in a fantasy comic no less??Miryafa wrote:I get the impression from reading this comic that this is our NSFW notice, but I hope not. I would prefer not to see nudity, and something as simple as a spoiler tag over the comic that has nudity with a NSFW note would be welcome.
I'd floated the idea in the old forum that the color of everyone's genitals match their IME, and that Minmax does in fact have a bright purple 'worm'. Perhaps that the unique aspect of 'Our Reality'...willpell wrote:Please no. That was vomit-inducing enough the first time it was mentioned....Generic wrote:I think we're set in the boobies apartment. What I am wondering is when we're going to see more of Min-Maxes purple worm.
If by "desensitized" you mean "allowed to see them as often as desired until the novelty wears off", I fully endorse this plan. I just hope you can stand to wait a few thousand years....Arch Lich Burns wrote:This is why society needs to be desentized to boobs.
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
Sonova Crap...Glemp wrote:This? So much more creepy now.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Outlawing the visage of a female's chest is founded on the idea that mammary glands are sexual by nature, which is freaking stupid because that would make breastfeeding an act of pedophilia and incest. It gets even more absurd when "think of the children" is taken literally, because little girls don't even have the "offending" parts and the law (as I understand it) is forced upon them anyway. (If I ever hear someone in real life say that line in a context of nudity, I'll tell them they made me think of naked children.)gamecreator wrote:Is "gender-exclusive rights" some persistrent sentence / set expression?
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
English is not my native language, so I can not recognize common terms and phrases that english speakers use. Thank you for explanation though, I wouldn't even think along that lines. Speaking of which, this problem originates from people wearing clothes. As wearing clothes is something usual, then not wearing them would imply special circumstances (as sexual context). And women usually wear bras.BuildsLegos wrote:I'm not sure what you're asking. Outlawing the visage of a female's chest is founded on the idea that mammary glands are sexual by nature, which is freaking stupid because that would make breastfeeding an act of pedophilia and incest. It gets even more absurd when "think of the children" is taken literally, because little girls don't even have the "offending" parts and the law (as I understand it) is forced upon them anyway. (If I ever hear someone in real life say that line in a context of nudity, I'll tell them they made me think of naked children.)
BuildsLegos wrote:How would you like it if, in a world where we grow a second pair of arms from our armpits whilst coming of age, only girls are legally required to wear gloves on their armpits even during childhood because their extra arms can secrete silk? Meanwhile boys of all ages have no such rule at all because our extra arms don't secrete anything at all; also, it's considered indecent to hold hands or spin silk in public.
Sounds like an interesting alt universe! 
Not a sinful nature, the knowledge of good and evilBuildsLegos wrote:And to those that would look to the Bible as justification, was decency counted as an element when God told Adam & Eve to protect themselves with goat hides? No, the idea that clothes should be mandatory was conceived only when they ate the Forbidden Fruit that infamously bestowed upon them a sinful nature. .
Those two point are not contradictory, you know. What I say, that such social law originates from collective subconciousness. Actually this law reinforces itself as it exists, so can not be overthrown easily.BuildsLegos wrote:Gamecreator, you're welcome, but your're saying the same circular reasoning that I hear from all prudes on this subject: that a law is just because it is there. NO! When a law is unjust, it should not be! Also, I'm very sorry that this rant got out of hand and I hope it stops here.
He never said anything because the first thing they did was feel shame for their nakedness. The tree gave them the wisdom to know if something was good or evil. The shame was because in the Bible, being nakey outside is inherently 'not good'.BuildsLegos wrote:My point remains that God never said anything about wearing clothes ALL THE TIME, much the same way he never gave a crap about same-sex anything.
That could be rather interesting. Going back to you own reality with your own head as a servant. Thats one way to make yourself look immortalSccrD25 wrote: So in theory HeadlinerMax could collect a lot of his alt's heads and carry them out of the MoM? For some reason I love this idea.
