Want to get rid of the annoying adverts? The answer is simple. There are 4 levels of advertising on AnimeOTK:
Level 1: (Your Level, guests and members with 0-9 posts) has maximum advertising. Level 2: (A user with 10 or more posts who has been a member over two weeks) have vastly reduced advertising (including removal of the large full screen closable adverts) Level 3: (A member who has been registered over a month and has over 50 posts, or has a special account like "artist" or "writer" sees minimal advertising. Level 4: (VIP Donators) receive no advertising.
All donators of $10 or more will never see an advert on our site again!
I'm a bit sad to see Marie get spanked, but she's still cute and my total waifu from your works.
I *am* pleased that she did totally earn that spanking (even if the boy was a handsy brat, she slapped the *shit* out of him like a boss); that's my gal!
I do have to say, I love (and want a spanking from!) Marie's friend in the pink bikini... she's a great design and love her expression in the third panel.
Since you only do M/F scenarios, I think the best "fit" for her Asian friend in that context (thanks mainly to her awesome "pissed off" expression in panel 3) is as a "tsundere" spankee.
"It's not like I WANT to be spanked or anything..." :P
Or maybe she's wealthy and has got super strict perfectionist parents?
Is Becky the third friend? When did she get spanked?
You're fighting the good fight but that's a lost cause at this point I'm afraid
I'm not against someone being unable to differentiate between drawings and real life or not understanding why they are called sexual FANTASIES, even if I don't agree with it, it's their opinion. But god damn, the lack of logic of these arguments just blows my mind. Forcing someone into a spanking on the bare butt is 1000 times worse than just pinching them, but somehow the spanking is fine and the pinching is assault.
Can you explain that to me so we can have a conversation?
You're fighting the good fight but that's a lost cause at this point I'm afraid
How about fight the good fight by drawing something that you like instead of shitting on an artist that made a piece that you didn't like.
People tend to think they do some kind of noble act or public service by shitting on things they don't like. When, in reality, they are just acting spoiled with the "if I don't like, It doesn't have the right to exist" mentality.
wow. Okay. so 1. the boy was in the wrong for pinching the girl's butt in front of her friends. but the girl was in the wrong as well for striking the boy for doing so, the boy told on girl, daddy got upset at the girl for striking his son, Daddy chose to spank the girl for striking his son like a parent trying to protect their child, the son got away with his behavior because daddy did not know that the son started it. and there is no reason to start a war in the comments over what is depicted. no amount of arguing will make what is or is not already depicted right or wrong. and no one has any right to tell the artist what to draw. nor does the artist have any right to tell others what they are allowed to think about their art. as far as I am concerned it is nothing but a picture that the artist more than likely put a lot of effort into. and that is all I need to know to enjoy it.
1. That was a bizarre combination of both trying to tell us who was right or wrong in this scenario and then also telling people there's no point in policing who was right or wrong in this scenario. I think we could have just left it at "This is a work of fantasy and not meant to accurately depict real world ethics" and moved on.
2. If you are going to argue about who was in the right or wrong, saying someone is "in the wrong as well" for impulsively defending themselves from assault is actually way creepier than anything shown in this piece in the first place.
3. You started off with "Okay. so 1..." but then never got to any other numbers :P
---
On another note, great art as always alt_cor! Marie is suuuuuuuper cute!
This story here and the last one on the beach is the best I see so far, I imagine to be valerie and my bf would be the perfect Tommy too! Actual all with Valerie is so supersuperhot, I like the real about it. I hope more on her :-) Of cause I like the other drawings but most the story that could happen! Thing like boys touch our ass is normal teasing of cause it can be annoying. The boy touch the Marie ass I thin most girls in bathing suit or bikini have had that some time in the beach! many super artist here and alt cor is the king!
I didn't call you creepy. I called a specific thing that you said creepy, because I think "well, they were both in the wrong"-style false equivalences can be a harmful and dangerous lens through which to view the world. I'm sure that on the whole you're a perfectly decent, non-creepy human being.
Quote:
Great drawing, as always! I, for one, absolutely love the lighthearted "unfair" tone of your works. Keep them coming!
Agreed! As a bottom who very much likes the idea of finding herself on the receiving end of such unfair spankings, I can certainly second the notion that unfairness can be a very sexy concept ^^
Quote:
Why is the world arranged in such a way that if it were in reality, dad would have received huge compensation, and maybe even jail?
I assume this is just troll-baiting, but if you're actually confused why this would generally not be considered an acceptable thing for the dad to do IRL, that's a pretty deep rabbit hole of ethics and philosophy to go down here.
Well, this spanking is certainly unfair, sometimes I enjoy unfair fanny-tannings (although primarily ones that are F/m or F/f), however this one is quite questionable, from my perspective.
All three major characters show poor judgment and/or overreact emotionally, of course it's purely a fantasy--in such a real-life situation, 'Dad' could easily end up being arrested for assault and battery, not to mention child sexual abuse... --C.K.
I'm just surprised this popped up at all. I mean, from what I can gather, most of alt_cor's spankings are unfair, it's one of his trademarks. If you are here, then you should know what you're going to find.
The logic is not as simple as you make it, since you don't take the environment into account. This is a site for spanking pictures. So people who would be offended by spanking pictures wont show up here. If you post the picture on another site, the reaction might be different and the non-con spanking in the focus of the comments.
The logic is not as simple as you make it, since you don't take the environment into account. This is a site for spanking pictures. So people who would be offended by spanking pictures wont show up here. If you post the picture on another site, the reaction might be different and the non-con spanking in the focus of the comments.
Of course I understand that, Yukiko, however, if someone thinks that depicting a certain behavior in a drawing means that you're endorsing said behavior in real life, then that person should be offended by everything, including spanking. Of course pinching a butt is sexual assault, but it's fantasy, not real life, as everything in the site is. My question is, why is the pinching considered assault and forcing someone into a spanking is not? I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense. They BOTH are sexual assault. But, if you can make the difference between art and real life then you won't be offended by anything.
I've had people who loves seeing very little boys spanked (toddlers even) yelling "sexual assault" or "rape" when they see a drawing with someone touching a girl's boob or simply enjoying giving a spanking to a girl. It doesn't matter what the site is about, people should not decide what is sexual assault and what is just a harmless drawing based on what they like and don't like.
And sincerely, I think we should not receive moral lessons from people that love to see little kids being forced into a bare butt spanking. I'm not questioning whatever they like, but I leave them alone, so I'll hope they can leave us alone enjoying our fantasies too.
all I know is it can be really difficult at times to avoid controversy when it comes to depictions of any sort, I personally have seen so many attempts to merely share something simple with others break out into an overcomplicated mess of Unintentional Responses Bickering, Arguing, Never ending Discussions, and I don't want that to take a toll on anyone, we already live in an age of Insecurity and distrust and and Doubt in ourselves and in others, and that can make it hard to even write a simple comment without being afraid of the results. making every single "send" or "Post" more and more difficult to want to commit to. the delete and remove and even cancel button becomes all the more inviting when you feel like everything you post or share just ends up causing some sort of bad reaction from others. THAT is my only real concern, the artwork is a mere picture, yes you can debate forever about the wright and the wrong of what is or isnt depicted but to me its just another picture, a mere scenario that has been depicted as seen in the image that has been shared and the only other thing i can say is that regardless somone made it which is better than i can probably do myself. you can bring up whatever contexts you wish but please remember that somone made this, they poured their effort their time and their experience as an artist into this piece, and that is what truly matters.
Well, in my experience people who fantasize about children being spanked, especially preteen ones, tend to identify with the childish spankees rather than the adult (or even older-child) spankers.
Knowing that a particular image and/or description is a fantasy should hardly mean that whatever is being portrayed can't be discussed, however there should be no assumption that the artist/author promotes such a situation in real life.
Certainly we can discuss the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings writings, despite knowing that they're all fantasy.
However, nobody should assume that Agatha Christie or Ellery Queen actually approved of murder... --C.K.
Well, in my experience people who fantasize about children being spanked, especially preteen ones, tend to identify with the childish spankees rather than the adult (or even older-child) spankers.
I don't agree that spankings are usually sexual assault. Esp not if A) The spanker isn't turned on by the act of it and ESP if B) The area is fully clothed. C) While the bottom can be an erogenous zone, the fact is that the majority of the outer body can fit that description at least to some people. Feet, fingernails, the tip of the nose, the eyes, the ears, the neck , the legs, the stomach all these areas and the skin on them can not only be fetishes for some people but can be prodded, pinched, stroked, caressed, kissed, tickled and many other things that people often incorporate into lovemaking. And of course D) If the spankee is not turned on by it (most often the case when it is used by parents to discipline children, not usually teens). I've basically stayed out of this argument about the picture itself , I only chime in not to take a side, but to ask people to think carefully about the definitions of things. Just because an area can be stimulated sexually does not mean it is being done so. Now non-con things involving the sex organs themselves that do not involve some sort of life saving surgery I think can and should be classed as either assault (if one is injuring or mutilating them) or sexual assault (if one is non con sexually stimulating them). As examples of spankings that could be sexual assault, I would say non-con "good girl"(substitute boy if you want) or punishment spankings on the bare skin, IF the spanker had sex as any part of the motive for the punishment spanking.
Well, in my experience people who fantasize about children being spanked, especially preteen ones, tend to identify with the childish spankees rather than the adult (or even older-child) spankers.
With all respect, I feel like that's a way of justifying fantasies about kids while still attacking others that involve sexually mature individuals based on what one like or don't like. I've met many different people while working in spanking art and I can assure you that A LOT of them that like this kind of drawings identify with the spanker and like to see the little kids half naked.
But I think what's most important here is, I never go to galleries with themes that I don't like and start attacking people, even if there is a lot of stuff I find kind of disturbing or disgusting, I never go to drawings with toddlers in them and give shit to other people, I leave people alone with what they like, so I would expect 'adults' to not come here feeling morally superior because I depicted a butt being pinched.
Of course we can discuss about the drawings and I'm 100% open to criticism, what I don't accept is attacks and virtue signaling.
Quote:
I don't agree that spankings are usually sexual assault. Esp not if A) The spanker isn't turned on by the act of it
The problem, remo1, is that by that same logic I could say that grabbing a stranger's butt without permission is not sexual assault if the person grabbing it is not turned on by it. Of course it is, despite what the assaulter is feeling. Spanking is always something bad to do to a person if that person is not giving consent. I think we should accept the fact that spanko and BDSM fantasies are mean, sadistic and/or masochistic by nature.
Besides, the sexual nature of spanking fantasies don't depend on what the characters are doing, that's on us, we are the ones who like to see it (or practice it), so it's always sexual for us. Take for example dendrophilia (people that are sexually attracted to trees), trees are not 'sexual' but the people with the fantasies are the ones who give them the sexual tones.
With all respect, I feel like that's a way of justifying fantasies about kids while still attacking others that involve sexually mature individuals based on what one like or don't like. I've met many different people while working in spanking art and I can assure you that A LOT of them that like this kind of drawings identify with the spanker and like to see the little kids half naked.
Ummmm, I'm not "attacking" anyone for their fantasies, so long as their actual real-life interactions involve only consenting adults. Merely fantasizing about being a massive, overweight middle-aged male smacking a teenage girl's bare bottom, I have no issue with that although it's not overly arousing to me. (However, I do enjoy your artwork and dialogue.)
My past interactions have been mostly with writing about (rather than drawing) CP, and the authors of child-spanking stories I've discussed the issue with have almost all indicated that they visualize themselves as the spanked child.
As my avatar indicates, that applies to myself also... --C.K.
I have this weird sexual fantasy about people turning smart enough not to go all "wow, this porn surely don't depict real life very realistucally!" every goddamn time. Sadly, this fantasy would hardly be ever fulfield.
This site became such a trashcan with time, I kinda hate to keep coming here, really.
Ummmm, I'm not "attacking" anyone for their fantasies, so long as their actual real-life interactions involve only consenting adults. Merely fantasizing about being a massive, overweight middle-aged male smacking a teenage girl's bare bottom, I have no issue with that although it's not overly arousing to me. (However, I do enjoy your artwork and dialogue.)
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that you were attacking anyone, so sorry if I didn't express myself correctly.
I still think that argument sounds like judging a fantasy as right or wrong depending on if you like it or not, and again, I've met a lot of people turned on by the idea of spanking little kids, believe me.
Quote:
Well sexual assault is still sexual assault even if you get turned on by it. And more sexual assault by a big fat ugly man too boot. I like the drawing and such, but the implications are a tad odd to say the very least.
Mmhhh... I don't mean to sound rude but I think you haven't read my arguments at all, because I never remotely expressed such idea.
And for the second point, you really think that assault is more assault if the person is an 'ugly man'? So if it were a beautiful woman it wouldn't be? I think that's odd.
Ok I just wish to add that I have no issue against anyone who likes this. Personally it is repulsive to me, that is not a personal attack that is not an indictment against the person who commissioned this. I just do not like seeing someone victimized, victimized even more, the sexual assault is bothering as well. And the implication was of other people, who would view this and believe that the girl deserved it. I did not mean to imply that any particular person condoned this in real life. i know it is fiction, and i am merely judging it as fiction. Everyone have a nice and great day.
Never said you did buddy, maybe read that again. The implication is that a boy can get away with assaulting a girl in public. I mean in real life that does happen, and the girl gets victim blamed for it.
I disagree. Every single time I've seen a girl assaulted in public, every person goes immediately against the assaulter, including me.
Yes, there are cases in which the victim is blamed by some people and I absolutely despise that behavior too. It's a bad habit that comes from older times.
Quote:
Is a an ugly fat man assaulting the girl? Yes he is, I mentioned that because it is a fact. So please do not suggest something I did not say. I can dislike the content of this piece all I want. I am allowed to. I find it repugnant and disgusting to say the least. You can disagree with me, that is fine that is your right. My right is expressing my thoughts in a clear, concise manner. I do not like sexual assault of minors, even in fiction. I was merely expressing myself here that is all. Have a good safe day pal.
I still think you haven't understand anything of what I've said. I clearly expressed that all of these scenarios are indeed sexual assault (in real life), I also clearly expressed that anyone can like or dislike whatever they want, I also said that I'm 100% open to criticism and discussion, and yes, it is a 'fat ugly guy' in the drawing (something against fat people?), so I really don't understand what are you arguing against.
Sorry, but I think you have your own ideas in your mind that are blinding you of even trying to comprehend what I'm saying, and being that the case I choose not to reply to any more comments because we can't have a real conversation this way.
I have this weird sexual fantasy about people turning smart enough not to go all "wow, this porn surely don't depict real life very realistucally!" every goddamn time. Sadly, this fantasy would hardly be ever fulfield.
"The problem, remo1, is that by that same logic I could say that grabbing a stranger's butt without permission is not sexual assault if the person grabbing it is not turned on by it. Of course it is, despite what the assaulter is feeling. Spanking is always something bad to do to a person if that person is not giving consent. I think we should accept the fact that spanko and BDSM fantasies are mean, sadistic and/or masochistic by nature."
Since the bottom is not an erogenous zone for everyone you could say about grabbing a shoulder. Or any other part of the body that could be sexually stimulated in some way or that some (not all) people find to be so. At some point , intent and context have to matter. For instance, I don't see that your fat older male spanker is obviously turned on by spanking the young miss. Only YOU (as the artist) know if you intend for him to have a stiffie at some place that we can't see it, or if he is just (in his mind) putting a 'bully' in her place. She's OBVIOUSLY not 'turned on'. Possibly neither of them have sexual feelings, the area being touched isn't a sexual organ, so...where is the sexual assault here? Similarly, I have never been turned on by seeing an obvious pre-teen (no sexual development ) spanked. In fact, I usually hate little kids or even obvious tweens crying (and I don't even like adults/teens crying unless its from happiness or they deserved the spanking or wanted to cry) for any reason. Thus, should I ever spank a little kid I know I am perfectly safe as far as any sexual conflict of interest, I could not say the same for a DEVELOPED (meaning she's probably mid teens and legal or very close to so) teen girl, at least not if she was bare bottom and doubly so if she was over my lap. We also differentiate types of spankings as you know. There are ones meant to be explicitly sexual and ones that are not.
Besides INTENT, context also matters. If I 'grabbed' a strangers butt because it was the only part of him or her I could get hold of to stop him or her from falling over a ledge, or I grabbed it because I tripped and was falling and just put my hands up and grabbed the nearest thing nearby and didn't even know a butt was there: well, it takes quite alot of nerve to compare that to drunkenly feeling up a stranger in shorts or a short skirts bottom as they pass me by in some bar or something.
My point is that there is nothing inherently sexual about even a butt grab, let alone a spanking (which most givers don't find a turn on and most recipients in the real world don't find a turn on). I would say inherently sexual acts ONLY involve the sexual organs and only when stimulating them in sexual ways. Everything else is up to intents, the circumstances and the experiences (sexual or not) of the people involved.
Ok I deleted all but that one comment, I did not mean to accuse you Al of supporting or condoning sexual assault. I just get upset seeing it in any kind of media. I think an innocent person being punished can be a turn on, but being underage again upsets me. By saying this I am not claiming you hold a point to the contrary. I just want to express myself buddy, I apologize if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth. That was not my intention at all. I love the art, just dislike the bottom grabbing of a teenager. I did not mean to imply your art was bad, or I favor censoring of things I dislike. I know it's about sexual assault, I know unfair spankings are a turn on, I love them. I just do no like teenagers being the focal point. I wish you the best buddy, your art is really good, and I liked the biker gang commissions you did, that was pretty good, actually a lot you do I like. I just have an issue in seeing teenage girls and stuff like this. I get all upset and bothered by it. Again Al I wish you the best, and have a great day, I hope we can be civil about this and I do enjoy the unfair aspect about it, really again it's just the underage thing that makes me feel sour. Have a nice day buddy.
Since the bottom is not an erogenous zone for everyone you could say about grabbing a shoulder. Or any other part of the body that could be sexually stimulated in some way or that some (not all) people find to be so.
Well, I disagree. Of course is not a sexual organ, but I'm sure the vast majority of people consider it an erogenous zone. There is a big difference in touching someone's shoulder casually and touching someone's butt casually. You can even do that as an experiment, when greeting your friends put your hand on some of them's shoulder and some of them's butt, see how they react and then tell me about the results. (just trying to be a little bit funny here, don't get mad)
Quote:
She's OBVIOUSLY not 'turned on'. Possibly neither of them have sexual feelings, the area being touched isn't a sexual organ, so...where is the sexual assault here?
Just taking a person's clothes off by force and exposing their private area is sexual assault by itself, at least is considered as that by society and law.
Quote:
We also differentiate types of spankings as you know. There are ones meant to be explicitly sexual and ones that are not.
I know, I've been spanking girls for twenty years. I don't want to sound like a douche, but it's true. I know a lot, and I have a very clear understanding of how this fantasy works.
Quote:
Besides INTENT, context also matters. If I 'grabbed' a strangers butt because it was the only part of him or her I could get hold of to stop him or her from falling over a ledge, or I grabbed it because I tripped and was falling and just put my hands up and grabbed the nearest thing nearby and didn't even know a butt was there: well, it takes quite alot of nerve to compare that to drunkenly feeling up a stranger in shorts or a short skirts bottom as they pass me by in some bar or something.
But you know very well I'm not talking about saving someone's life or an accident, don't you? I'm clearly talking about just grabbing someone's butt casually. And yes, you have a point in saying that is not neccesarily sexual, I can see that, but it is assault nevertheless. That's why I'm not in favor of real corporal punishment at all, there is nothing cute or innocent about spanking someone.
Quote:
My point is that there is nothing inherently sexual about even a butt grab, let alone a spanking (which most givers don't find a turn on and most recipients in the real world don't find a turn on). I would say inherently sexual acts ONLY involve the sexual organs and only when stimulating them in sexual ways. Everything else is up to intents, the circumstances and the experiences (sexual or not) of the people involved.
I think you're missing my second point from the other post, which was:
Quote:
Besides, the sexual nature of spanking fantasies don't depend on what the characters are doing, that's on us, we are the ones who like to see it (or practice it), so it's always sexual for us. Take for example dendrophilia (people that are sexually attracted to trees), trees are not 'sexual' but the people with the fantasies are the ones who give them the sexual tones.
I mean, this site is dedicated to spanking as a sexual fantasy, that is why we are all here, isn't it? Of course a spanking doesn't HAVE to be sexual if the spanker's only intention is to administer discipline, but really... why are people here if not for sexual fantasies? maybe not every single one of us, but I'll say at least 99.9%
Ok I deleted all but that one comment, I did not mean to accuse you Al of supporting or condoning sexual assault. I just get upset seeing it in any kind of media. I think an innocent person being punished can be a turn on, but being underage again upsets me. By saying this I am not claiming you hold a point to the contrary. I just want to express myself buddy, I apologize if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth. That was not my intention at all. I love the art, just dislike the bottom grabbing of a teenager. I did not mean to imply your art was bad, or I favor censoring of things I dislike. I know it's about sexual assault, I know unfair spankings are a turn on, I love them. I just do no like teenagers being the focal point. I wish you the best buddy, your art is really good, and I liked the biker gang commissions you did, that was pretty good, actually a lot you do I like. I just have an issue in seeing teenage girls and stuff like this. I get all upset and bothered by it. Again Al I wish you the best, and have a great day, I hope we can be civil about this and I do enjoy the unfair aspect about it, really again it's just the underage thing that makes me feel sour. Have a nice day buddy.
I still think that argument sounds like judging a fantasy as right or wrong depending on if you like it or not, and again, I've met a lot of people turned on by the idea of spanking little kids, believe me.
Nope, as I've already stated, just so long as your real-life spanking activity invloves only consenting adults, you can express all the child-spanking fantasies you desire and I won't care at all. (I've written stories about CP of children, ones in which I personally identified with the spanked child, which have occasionally been criticized as supporting the real-life spanking of children.)
If I felt otherwise, I certainly wouldn't be a member of this site... --C.K.
Nope, as I've already stated, just so long as your real-life spanking activity invloves only consenting adults, you can express all the child-spanking fantasies you desire and I won't care at all. (I've written stories about CP of children, ones in which I personally identified with the spanked child, which have occasionally been criticized as supporting the real-life spanking of children.)
If I felt otherwise, I certainly wouldn't be a member of this site... --C.K.
Well, that's perfectly fine if you ask me, my question then is why do think this drawing is questionable?
Well, that's perfectly fine if you ask me, my question then is why do think this drawing is questionable?
Oh, "this one" referred to the spanking shown, not the drawing (mini-comic) itself.
By "questionable" I simply meant that I'm doubtful that the girl deserved to be spanked, especially so publicly, because the boy provoked her via sexually assaulting her.
Some kinds of unfair spankings I often enjoy, however not this particular one... --C.K.
Oh, "this one" referred to the spanking shown, not the drawing (mini-comic) itself.
By "questionable" I simply meant that I'm doubtful that the girl deserved to be spanked, especially so publicly, because the boy provoked her via sexually assaulting her.
Some kinds of unfair spankings I often enjoy, however not this particular one... --C.K.
My friend, you're admitting you find it 'questionable' because you don't like it, not because there is something wrong with it. That was my point from the beggining.
Yes, of course she didn't deserve it, of course it's unfair, over the top and unrealistic, that's what the commissioner wanted.
You have all the right of not enjoying it, but I don't think you should label it 'questionable' because of that. Again, I never go to galleries I don't like and start telling people that there is something wrong with them or the themes they like. As I said I'm 100% open to valid criticism about my art, but I don't consider the "I don't like it, so it's wrong" posture as valid criticism.
alt cor:
This will be my last post on this as I don't wish to add to your headache over this wonderful art and our actual disagreement is rather small anyway. I'll just reference this because this is legally and factually wrong under certain circumstances.
"Just taking a person's clothes off by force and exposing their private area is sexual assault by itself, at least is considered as that by society and law". No. There are exceptions to this built into the law even today when I feel the definitions of many things have been stretched so far as to sometimes make normal human behavior legally perilous. The exceptions are primarily : "In loco parentis", or some forms of assisted care such as treatments in psychiatric facilities. Or strip searches if someone is placed into a jail. The other is medical both in terms of emergency medicine and in things like quarantine procedures or other things that impact on the safety of the hospital or medical providers as a whole. In other words, we are still back to circumstances again, and under certain conditions if your spanker here had parental control over her, this would be perfectly legal. I'd add consensual BDSM but we don't yet have a legal framework for that (and some never want us to) sadly.
alt cor:
This will be my last post on this as I don't wish to add to your headache over this wonderful art and our actual disagreement is rather small anyway. I'll just reference this because this is legally and factually wrong under certain circumstances.
"Just taking a person's clothes off by force and exposing their private area is sexual assault by itself, at least is considered as that by society and law". No. There are exceptions to this built into the law even today when I feel the definitions of many things have been stretched so far as to sometimes make normal human behavior legally perilous. The exceptions are primarily : "In loco parentis", or some forms of assisted care such as treatments in psychiatric facilities. Or strip searches if someone is placed into a jail. The other is medical both in terms of emergency medicine and in things like quarantine procedures or other things that impact on the safety of the hospital or medical providers as a whole. In other words, we are still back to circumstances again, and under certain conditions if your spanker here had parental control over her, this would be perfectly legal. I'd add consensual BDSM but we don't yet have a legal framework for that (and some never want us to) sadly.
remo1, just like with your 'grabbing a butt to save a person's life' argument, what you're doing is changing the context of the conversation just so you can say 'hey, you didn't consider this scenario, so I'm right', I know that because I used to do the same in arguments when I was young. And I was wrong to do it, because I perfectly knew what the other person was referring to.
I can not say "Just taking a person's clothes off by force and exposing their private area is sexual assault by itself, unless is a medical exam, or he/she had an accident and needs attention, In loco parentis, psychological treatment, bit by a jellyfish, has a bug in his/her butt, their clothes are on fire, etc, etc." Of course there are infinite possibilities, but again, you know what I'm talking about, if you change the context then it's useless to have a conversation about the subject.
I'm about out of popcorn after observing this comments section so I figure it's time to finally drop my two slivers of copper.
At face value her reaction to what the boy did is way worse than his offense towards her to begin with. She could've told the boy's father what he did, but instead she chose to flat out wallop him. That pinch didn't even hurt her yet we can see swelling and redness on the boy's face. The father sees a teenage girl hitting his son in the face, and anyone witnessing something like that happening to their kid is likely to have an extreme reaction. He seems to be an older gent and likely grew up with spanking, probably having been spanked plenty of times himself so he knows of its effectiveness. Instead of hitting a girl in the face the way she hit his son he chose to deal with bratty behavior the same way adults/parents have since time immemorial. The pinch may not have hurt her butt, but the spanking sure did!
As for this spanking being unfair it's my understanding that this girl was somehow involved in another girl getting an unfair spanking. Whether wrong or correct in that assertion anyone feel free to provide a citation if the latter is true as I'd love to see that! If that's the case then one could say she accrued karmic debt with such a brattish act and is now paying it off in full.
I'm about out of popcorn as well, Karnacht, but frankly, I'm just gonna shut up and move on. I only really see a will to seriously discuss by alt_cor. Respect to you for your patience, understanding and of course art skills, even if they are not my particular cup of tea.
Rest of participants are just trying to prove they are right, and my experience in those cases is that it's much better to just tell them they are so that everyone is happy and the discussion can end.
My friend, you're admitting you find it 'questionable' because you don't like it, not because there is something wrong with it. That was my point from the beggining.
Yes, of course she didn't deserve it, of course it's unfair, over the top and unrealistic, that's what the commissioner wanted.
So he/she got what he/she wanted, however it's a public forum so other members have the option of responding to it, in terms of their reactions.
My reaction is that were it to happen in real life and not as a mini-comic fantasy, I would find that spanking quite "questionable" and indeed I would dislike it happening.
The commissioner can hire you to draw a short account of a blatantly unfair spanking, however it's possible that some members viewing it will describe it as wrong--the nonconsensual CP, not the drawing itself. Why not just admit that "The spanking arguably was wrong, however that's what I was hired to produce"?
Again, the adjective "questionable" referred to the CP administered within the fantasy mini-comic, not to the drawing itself--I'm not certain that you understood that distinction, which I made earlier.
I've watched the original "Star Wars" (later retitled "A New Hope"), in which a whole populated planet is destroyed, numerous times--I can handle dealing with fictional wrong events, no problem with that... --C.K.
In other words, we are still back to circumstances again, and under certain conditions if your spanker here had parental control over her, this would be perfectly legal.
Yet none of those "circumstances" are shown existing in the mini-comic under discussion, are they?
Even if that massive overweight guy was her father, or someone with quasi-parental authority over the girl, exposing her teenage posterior in public strikes me as being of questionable legality.
Not to mention that, assuming that the young lady is underage, the spanker and his son are arguably producing kinky 'kiddie porn' by administering and recording her nonconsensual bare-bottom spanking.
Oh, of course I know that it's just a fantasy. I've had discussions about the "Harry Potter" books and movies too, knowing that something is fictional doesn't inhibit me from discussing it... --C.K.
My reaction is that were it to happen in real life and not as a mini-comic fantasy, I would find that spanking quite "questionable" and indeed I would dislike it happening.
As I said like one thousand times already, I too find a lot of things questionable if they were to happen in real life, including the same situation depicted in this drawing. And again, what I'm complaining about is the fact that people think if they don't like it then they can label it 'wrong' or 'questionable'. AGAIN, I don't like your fantasies involving little kids but I don't go to wherever you post your stories and tell you it's wrong. Is it really that hard to see the difference?
Quote:
The commissioner can hire you to draw a short account of a blatantly unfair spanking, however it's possible that some members viewing it will describe it as wrong--the nonconsensual CP, not the drawing itself.
I've never talked about the value of the drawing itself, I've always been talking about the themes depicted in it, you seriously haven't read any of my comments? And let me ask you a question, is the spanking of little kids consensual? The answer is no. Do I give anyone shit about it? The answer again is no. Why is so hard for you to leave other people alone with what they like?
Quote:
Why not just admit that "The spanking arguably was wrong, however that's what I was hired to produce"?
You seriously haven't read anything of what I've said. I've admited many times that this spanking is unfair and the pinching is assault and that was what the commissioner wanted me to do. Look, I have no problem if someone doesn't agree with me, but it's really infuriating when people want to argue with me and don't even pay attention to what I'm saying.
Quote:
Again, the adjective "questionable" referred to the spanking administered within the fantasy mini-comic, not to the drawing itself--I'm not certain that you understood that distinction, which I made earlier.
I already talked about this. And I think it's you who is unable to understand a word of what I'm saying, you only want to win, not actually have a conversation or exchange of ideas.
Quote:
I've watched the original "Star Wars" (later retitled "A New Hope"), in which a whole populated planet is destroyed, numerous times--I can handle dealing with fictional wrong events, no problem with that... --C.K.
My point has been that these are not absolutes and you keep making absolute statements. If spanking an unwilling participant is ALWAYS sexual assault, then all parents who have ever spanked have been sexual assaulters. If physical assault is ALWAYS wrong, then you can't have self-defense laws because self defense becomes impossible. If stripping people against their will is always a form of assault then you accuse every parent who ever changed a cranky and unwilling child's diaper of assault, and there's a whole bunch of other consequences that follows from such lazy use of language. My whole point was to try to get us to focus in on what we are talking about. If we don't even use the words the same way then communication becomes impossible and artists are in even greater danger of being misunderstood, attacked or censored. This sort of expansion of concepts and unwillingness to make exceptions , to sometimes see shades of grey and etc empower totalitarian authoritarians immensely.
Crimsonkid, you'll note I didn't even address the boys or young teens (looks 10 to a youngish looking 13 to me) behavior or the legality or any of that. Since taking pics of oneself sometimes gets teens in loads of trouble with the law , a pic of a teen girl with an exposed ass would obviously be illegal. Heck the pic could have been totally consensual in the normal meaning of the word and ONLY traded between them and it STILL would be illegal, which I think is ridiculous and whole bunch of other adjectives, but my opinion is not the law in the USA. Personally, I think people and society would be better off getting over such limited displays of 'nudity', but that's not the world we live in. Then again, I didn't address the legality of this particular situation with Alt Cor in part because he was making larger claims and I was making larger responses, and I wanted to avoid (for the most part when I could) talking about this particular art. Heck, I like it, and I would downright love it if the situation was more 'just'.
My point has been that these are not absolutes and you keep making absolute statements. If spanking an unwilling participant is ALWAYS sexual assault, then all parents who have ever spanked have been sexual assaulters. If physical assault is ALWAYS wrong, then you can't have self-defense laws because self defense becomes impossible. If stripping people against their will is always a form of assault then you accuse every parent who ever changed a cranky and unwilling child's diaper of assault, and there's a whole bunch of other consequences that follows from such lazy use of language.
remo1, my man, you're doing the same thing again, it's not going to work.
We've never talked about situations of self defense here, we've never talked about taking care of another person, like parents changing diapers, for christ sake. You know exactly what are we talking about and in what context, so you're not going to win the argument if you keep changing that context.
Quote:
My whole point was to try to get us to focus in on what we are talking about. If we don't even use the words the same way then communication becomes impossible and artists are in even greater danger of being misunderstood, attacked or censored. This sort of expansion of concepts and unwillingness to make exceptions , to sometimes see shades of grey and etc empower totalitarian authoritarians immensely.
Errr... I must say you're doing exactly the contrary to 'get us to focus in on what we are talking about', you and I knew from the beginning what we were talking about, but you keep bringing themes like medical treatment, accidents, self-defense, changing diapers, etc... that had nothing to do with the subject.
We were clearly talking about people touching or removing clothes for reasons that had nothing to do with helping or caring. It's not neccesary to specify every single detail when the context was already stablished way before.
And btw I clearly said that you have a point in saying that spanking is not always sexual, and I also said it's we who give it the sexual tones. Seriously, this is the third time I say the same thing, you really need to pay attention to what I'm saying, otherwise we cannot have a conversation.
Alt Cor, YOU may be a reasonable person that I can assume these exceptions, but I can assure you from vast personal experience (I used to be a male feminist , then switched to more classically liberal and MRA sympathetic. I also used to belong and might rejoin someday a sexual rights organization for the BDSM community) that there are plenty of people and plenty of places on the web and in real life where people will say the exact same things you said and MEAN THEM LITERALLY and if you try to point out any exceptions they will accuse you of all sorts of horrible things from pedophilia to sympathizing or actually being an abuser, whatever. They have no clue about the history or philosophy behind our legal system (for instance how many people know why rape was traditionally criminalized? And no, it wasn't all 'women as men's property' there were several other good reasons as well) or why certain things are criminalized and others aren't and etc, nor do they know (or probably care) about the effects that a legal regime can exert on a larger society. For some of them their cause is the only thing that is important, others just like to think of themselves as Paladins protecting the weak and etc. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. It's good to know you don't need to consider my points, but I hope you let them still stand so maybe some of the other people can at least think about why they dislike this artwork so much and maybe cut you some slack.
Alt Cor, YOU may be a reasonable person that I can assume these exceptions, but I can assure you from vast personal experience (I used to be a male feminist , then switched to more classically liberal and MRA sympathetic. I also used to belong and might rejoin someday a sexual rights organization for the BDSM community) that there are plenty of people and plenty of places on the web and in real life where people will say the exact same things you said and MEAN THEM LITERALLY and if you try to point out any exceptions they will accuse you of all sorts of horrible things from pedophilia to sympathizing or actually being an abuser, whatever. They have no clue about the history or philosophy behind our legal system (for instance how many people know why rape was traditionally criminalized? And no, it wasn't all 'women as men's property' there were several other good reasons as well) or why certain things are criminalized and others aren't and etc, nor do they know (or probably care) about the effects that a legal regime can exert on a larger society. For some of them their cause is the only thing that is important, others just like to think of themselves as Paladins protecting the weak and etc. Anyway, thanks for the conversation. It's good to know you don't need to consider my points, but I hope you let them still stand so maybe some of the other people can at least think about why they dislike this artwork so much and maybe cut you some slack.
remo1, that's an interesting personal story, but I'm not quite sure how we ended talking about it. All I can say is that I think between reasonable adults is not necessary to specify every single detail of a well stablished context for fear to be labeled as 'X' or 'Y". People who superficially label others are the ones that have a problem.
btw, I'm not from the states, so probably we don't have the same history behind our legal system.
Well, if you are from Canada, Britain, Scotland, Ireland or any Commonwealth country we probably share some Common Law legal history, but then (esp after the time of Blackstone) our legal traditions have drifted quite a ways apart. And if you are German or something all I can say is your English is so excellent you have long fooled me.
Well, if you are from Canada, Britain, Scotland, Ireland or any Commonwealth country we probably share some Common Law legal history, but then (esp after the time of Blackstone) our legal traditions have drifted quite a ways apart. And if you are German or something all I can say is your English is so excellent you have long fooled me.
I've never talked about the value of the drawing itself, I've always been talking about the themes depicted in it, you seriously haven't read any of my comments? And let me ask you a question, is the spanking of little kids consensual? The answer is no. Do I give anyone shit about it? The answer again is no. Why is so hard for you to leave other people alone with what they like?
I've merely noted my own personal reaction to the mini-comic, which I'm entitled to have and to express.
How this is preventing anyone else from reacting to it however they choose, I'm not clear about that. If you're going to post artwork here, people are going to comment on it, possibly in ways that you don't care for--that's the risk of posting it.
I have no interest in how you do or don't respond to the fantasy spanking of fictional children, of course you're entitled to whatever response you wish to have and express about it--however, it doesn't mean anything to me.
If you're offended and/or upset by my comments on your mini-comic, feel free to ignore them... --C.K.
I've merely noted my own personal reaction to the mini-comic, which I'm entitled to have and to express.
How this is preventing anyone else from reacting to it however they choose, I'm not clear about that. If you're going to post artwork here, people are going to comment on it, possibly in ways that you don't care for--that's the risk of posting it.
Absolutely, you're entitled to express your opinion, the same way I'm entitled to reply to you and express that your morals are not better than mine, that you have a double standard in your jugdement and that the real difference between us is that I don't question people that like things I don't unless I'm provoked first.
I see you chose not to reply to my other comments, probably you have your reasons.
It's a fictional spanking comic on a site for fictional spanking comics. Why are we discussing it as if it is happening in your town square? There are certain artists/galleries I do not visit because I do not like their style or subject matter. I don't go in there an judge the rightness/wrongness of their work.
As for this being a public forum, I could stand on a public street and critique every person walking by and say, "Well ma'am, if you didn't want me to say your face was not to my tastes you should not have brought it out in public. You have to expect comments." But I don't because that is a shit thing to do. If you don't have anything nice to say, click a different gallery and move on.
Absolutely, you're entitled to express your opinion, the same way I'm entitled to reply to you and express that your morals are not better than mine, that you have a double standard in your jugdement and that the real difference between us is that I don't question people that like things I don't unless I'm provoked first.
I merely expressed my reaction to the mini-comic, I didn't "question" your right to like/promote its message nor your right to post it here.
I'm not at all offended by your personal enjoyment of it, if you choose to be offended by my commentary on it, that's up to you... --C.K.
As for this being a public forum, I could stand on a public street and critique every person walking by and say, "Well ma'am, if you didn't want me to say your face was not to my tastes you should not have brought it out in public. You have to expect comments."
What would lead someone walking on the street to "expect comments" from other people whom he/she happens to pass by?
Is this some sort of social convention where you live?
Where I happen to reside, there's *zero* expectation that strangers on the street will be commenting on a person's appearance to him/her... --C.K.
I merely expressed my reaction to the mini-comic, I didn't "question" your right to like/promote its message nor your right to post it here.
I'm not at all offended by your personal enjoyment of it, if you choose to be offended by my commentary on it, that's up to you... --C.K.
You don't cease to amaze me. Either you cannot understand any of the things I've said or you simply don't want to.
I NEVER said that you're questioning my right to post the drawing here, my complain has always been that you're questioning the morals behind it, which in fact you clearly did in your first comment, which was...
Quote:
Well, this spanking is certainly unfair, sometimes I enjoy unfair fanny-tannings (although primarily ones that are F/m or F/f), however this one is quite questionable, from my perspective.
You're clearly mad because I exposed you to yourself, because you have to admit that your morals are not superior to ours, and that your questioning of the moral value of this piece has to do only with your particular taste. That is why you're unable to reply to my comments, because you have zero valid arguments, neither ethics or logic are on your side, that is why your last response was basically "I have the right to express my opinion, I don't care what you say", that's not an argument, you are clearly desperate trying to justify yourself and you just can't.
And yeah, you have the right to express your opinion, no one is saying you don't, but what you seem unable to understand is that we have the right to express ours too, and also let you know we disagree with what you say. Freedom of speech does not belong only to you.
Quote:
What would lead someone walking on the street to "expect comments" from other people whom he/she happens to pass by?
Is this some sort of social convention where you live?
Where I happen to reside, there's *zero* expectation that strangers on the street will be commenting on a person's appearance to him/her... --C.K.
I know this message wasn't for me, but JESUS! you again can't or don't want to understand anything other people say. Please check where the quotes start and end in canio6's comment, because you absolutely did not get it. He/she didn't say that people have to expect comments from others while walking on the street, but all the opposite. If you want to argue with people please READ what they say first.
He/she didn't say that people have to expect comments from others while walking on the street, but all the opposite
Thanks. Yes, it is not expected in public because it would be rude and uncalled for. Also, if your art was hanging in a gallery with you standing next to it, I doubt anyone would say to your face, "Let me tell you why I think this art is bad...," because that is rude and not socially acceptable. Yet, on the internet those ideas of socially acceptable comments go out the window. I know we can say whatever we want, but should we or should those same societal niceties carry over? I think they should carry over.
I am also aware that the website has a comment section. It invites comment. Artists often like positive feedback - so do writers, so do most people. It lets them know they are appreciated. When giving negative comments it discourages some (most?) from wanting to create. Also, this is a commission. It's not like you said, 'let me draw this...." I am glad the commissioner allowed it to be shared instead of just keeping to themselves. After all, they paid for it. If I don't like it I can skip it or go to a different gallery. People should commission art they like and not be criticized for it.
I commissioned a series of comics from stories I wrote, which were very unfair. However, they were meant to be and were only shared on sites where such was allowed/encouraged so it is not like it violated any forum/website guidelines. I received so many messages/DMs that were along the lines of "You are a bad person and should die in a fire" that I didn't finish either the story series or the art. It wasn't worth it. The artist lost out of revenue, and those who enjoyed the stories/art didn't get the ending. (There was a positive ending but no one but me will ever get to read it).
Kink is kink. It's not social acceptable in the mainstream. If we come to places where it is and tear down creators it will only fade away.
this is so good point! this is spanking site and somone pay alt cor for this drawing and also people complain! I wish you complete series canio6 I like the "unfair" ! If I can see it from you can msg me!!
I know this message wasn't for me, but JESUS! you again can't or don't want to understand anything other people say. Please check where the quotes start and end in canio6's comment, because you absolutely did not get it. He/she didn't say that people have to expect comments from others while walking on the street, but all the opposite. If you want to argue with people please READ what they say first.
Which means that his/her analogy doesn't work at all--which was *exactly* my point!
There's a section for comments on artwork at this site, meaning that commentary is anticipated and encouraged. Walking down the street outside, at least where I reside (U.S.A.), there's *zero* expectation that other people will comment on one's appearance.
Hence the analogy between commenting on AnimeOTK artwork and commenting on some random person's appearance on the street, that's totally invalid... --C.K.
that your questioning of the moral value of this piece has to do only with your particular taste. That is why you're unable to reply to my comments, because you have zero valid arguments
Since when does anyone need "valid arguments" to justify his/her individual taste on any particular artwork?
Of course my reaction is purely personal and subjective, I've always stated that.
If people don't share my artistic taste, including on the morality of a particular situation, I have no issue with that, as I've also always stated.
I've replied to your comments regularly, it's simply that you don't agree with my individual opinions on this artwork--well, that's neither here nor there, so far as I'm concerned... --C.K.
