|
|
Post by trashcanman on Jan 20, 2012 22:23:59 GMT 2
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Jan 21, 2012 4:56:19 GMT 2
The guy who wrote the article said it best - the comics state they are for teen and mature audiences.. so why the fuck show it to kids in the first place? Isn't that, like, illegal? Would they take a DVD of Reservoir Dogs and show that to school kids too?
You want an overly sexualised, unrealistic portrayal of women? Turn on MTV. And that shit IS aimed at kids. So Katy Perry can fire cream out of her (admittedly, amazing) tits and 10 years old flock to buy that stuff. Let's not start aiming at material that already states on the COVER that is it NOT for children.
Someone send a copy of Legend of the Overfiend to Fox News, stat. After all, it's cartoons, right? And cartoons = kids!
|
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Jan 21, 2012 22:29:56 GMT 2
I almost crapped when that bitch said that the comic were rated "T for Teens" and then went to a middle school to show the kids there. Middle school is like 10-13 year olds, isn't it? "Teen" implies high school age. Well let's see what the media has to say about what these kids today are up to that they aren't ready to see these PG-13 images in comics... www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TAe4FpEhU8 Riiiiiiiiight. By the way, rainbow parties aren't actually a thing. It was made up entirely by the media and is a confirmed urban legend. But if we're expected to believe this kind of shit about these kids, why exactly are we worried about them seeing some cleavage and implies sex in a comic book? |
|
