Anonymous2: Wow this thing got put as a featured image as SOON as it was posted! & yeah I love thier cartoon, though seeing as how this is probably made my the creator is it realy 34? Still nice though.
OmegaGenesis: ... This has to be the first featured image I nearly busted a gut laughing upon seeing. A definite improvement from the last featured image, in my opinion.
Anonymous14(10): just one stupid question... if a pic gets deleted from the galleries, it also disapears in the comments section?.... I woul dlike to know that
Blucanary: Unfortunately a solid definition of pornography is pretty much non existent. This why every time a law on the subject is attempted to be passed, it runs into so many problems. The definition always comes down to "I know it when I see it", and that is not something you can base a law on. And the is the problem, its purely objective. Add to that, the fact that we have reached the point where there are people who consider bare feet, exposed tongues, and nostrils to be fappable all by themselves.
I don't understand how this site can actually remove anything under the guise that it is not 34. Someone could upload an image of a brick wall and it really shouldn't be removed because there is most likely at least one person out there that considers it erotic.
lorik: Ah but unless the brick wall was from a TV show / comic / cartoon /Movie or Book , That was done as purely non-porn / erotica ...then the brick wall would not be 34...34 is about non-porn objects meme'ed into porn.
lorik: Penny from Inspector gadget was just a cute plucky young lady with a long suffering dog...Until 34 got her and now she is a dog humping uncle fucking little slut.
Blucanary: Ahhh... ok, that's cool. So since the maker of the brick wall did not intend for people to fap to it (as far as we know), it is a non-porn object. So then it has to undergo a change of some kind (removal of a brick maybe) by an outside source before it can be considered 34. So then my question is, what if the brick wall WAS built to be fapped to? Is it then already an erotic object and therefor not 34 because it does not undergo a change by an outside source? So, then an original creation that was made by the artist to be erotic.. like, say, Sirokowski's Miss dynamite and Blackie.. would not be considered 34? If that is the case, fortunately this image would still qualify as 34 because the two are dressed up as other characters that were most likely not created to be fapped to.
Blucanary: You have been a treasure trove of explanation, thank you.
One more question... what about images of someone like, Jenna Jamison? She is only famous because she made a career out of being an erotic object, so images of her should not be 34... but, technically, she wasn't "created" by her parents to be one (as far as we know), so images of her in sexual sitations might be considered 34.
craggle: lorik: i don't think that has anything to do with 34ity, it's a matter of convenience. it's like furry art. bears exist, so drawn bear porn should be 34 of it. but if we allow that, the site gets full of furry shit. so we don't, unless the bear is a specific character. sort of the same with fakes. we get too many basic celeb fakes, so now they're only okay if they're supposed to be a specific character. though i'm not an admin, this is just my own reasoning and i may be wrong.
Blucanary: @Craggle:
Well, then images of Sarah Palin wouldn't be allowed unless she was photoshopped into a situation where she was dressed as something like an erotic Harley Quinn.... that doesn't work.
lorik: Craggle = No when I posted some Omaha art..not from the comic but fan stuff I was told it was not 34 becouse it was of a porn char to start with.
Blu - thats not clear..I asked the admins on one of my Princess Di pics about famous people ... but have gotten no responce.
But I think the rule is if they do porn or nudes...not 34
I go back to the leia example..humping chewwie 34
But just a nude fake of carrie Fisher = not 34 under the new policy
craggle: i don't see a problem with that. you could draw her, and it would still work, but fakes, no.
of course, there's always the ultimate rule of rule34 - lulzy trumps the other rules. there's lots of shit that breaks the official rules but mods allow to stay because it's particularly lulzy. so any celebrity the mods deem lulzy enough might be allowed to fake, which may include palin or the pope, or both together.
craggle: lorik: sorry when i was talking to you i was only talking about the celeb part, not the omaha part. but even that is technically 34. when the mods say something is 'not 34', they mean they've decided it's not going to be on the site. but the abstract rule 34 just says "if it exists, there is porn of it". that means porn of anything in existence, even something that there is porn of or was made to be porn, is 34 under the abstract rule. but not under paheals, because the abstract rule is impossible to base a site around.
Blucanary: I understand that the mods cant let every image that could possibly be made, into this site. so since the rules are so darn vague that they can't really obey them themselves, how about some quality control while they're at it. There is some real crap on this page. If something can be removed because the mods have decided that its "not 34" (when technically nothing can fall under that category) then is can be removed because it is just of really poor quality can't it?
warrior: Several mods and admins feel that 34 is not of celebs, but of characters. We even had a vote with users on it, and it was voted so. It took a while, but now it is law.
Anonymous31: Okay, keep in mind that I'm only saying this because no-one else seems to have the guts to.....<.<...>.>...Everybody who got a boner or a wet kitty from this is going to hell!
Anonymous45: This pic is impossible... There's no way Jesus would get a boner to Mary (or any chick for that matter)... I mean, it's just common knowledge that he's a homosexual...
Anonymous55: @Anonymous: I think the fact that he drew this while your 'god' is watching, is pretty fucking definitive proof that he is next-level fearless of Cockburn Christians and their do-nothing god.
- Reply
- Reply
Man I hate sirkowski.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Blessed be the Boner of Jesus!
- Reply
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
- Reply
*clears throat*
aaAAAAMMMMEEEEEENNNNNnnn!!!!!!
thanks Desumilk, really appreciated
"I don´t know why he has got such a big boner".
- Reply
Cute feature, though!
- Reply
I don't understand how this site can actually remove anything under the guise that it is not 34. Someone could upload an image of a brick wall and it really shouldn't be removed because there is most likely at least one person out there that considers it erotic.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
But buy the rules of 34 it's what the creator intended rather then what the view thinks.
The creators of inspector gadget never intened for brain to hump penny as offten as he does here.
At least not publicly they didn't
- Reply
Yes This is 34 becouse , as far as we know baby J never poped a woody over mary.
And Omaha the cat dancer is not 34 becouse it was made as erotica from the start.
Also why fakes of Princess leia getting humped by chewie are ok But fakes of just an actress are not..anymore.
One more question... what about images of someone like, Jenna Jamison? She is only famous because she made a career out of being an erotic object, so images of her should not be 34... but, technically, she wasn't "created" by her parents to be one (as far as we know), so images of her in sexual sitations might be considered 34.
Well, then images of Sarah Palin wouldn't be allowed unless she was photoshopped into a situation where she was dressed as something like an erotic Harley Quinn.... that doesn't work.
- Reply
Blu - thats not clear..I asked the admins on one of my Princess Di pics about famous people ... but have gotten no responce.
But I think the rule is if they do porn or nudes...not 34
I go back to the leia example..humping chewwie 34
But just a nude fake of carrie Fisher = not 34 under the new policy
of course, there's always the ultimate rule of rule34 - lulzy trumps the other rules. there's lots of shit that breaks the official rules but mods allow to stay because it's particularly lulzy. so any celebrity the mods deem lulzy enough might be allowed to fake, which may include palin or the pope, or both together.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I think it has more to do with how much room they have and quility of art works.
- Reply
Multi-tasking a wonderful thing.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Sirkowski........you........sick..........mother..........fcuker.......u...r...sick....
- Reply
- Reply
And suddenly, all the fail in the world makes sense.
http://www.missdynamite.com/anime/0020.html
- Reply
BTW, somebody thinking they rehearse for an act? :3
Anon31 is win. One winternet for you, good sir.
If anyone got a wet kitty from this, please come to 123 But My Mom Got Scared Street, Belair, CA
Outside of the obvious, why so much hate for the guy/girl? I think Sirkowski's a pretty cool guy, eh draws flashes and doesn't afraid of anything.
- Reply
- Reply
This is funny.
Jesus-porn in Paheal? It's more likely than you'd think....hotter than you'd think, too. :D
The joke is stupid, so it wouldn't be funny no matter what style.
IS FUNNY AS SHIT xD
- Reply
- Reply