Photoshop Round-Up: Links We Love

Oct. 25th, 2014 11:16 pm
[syndicated profile] photoshop_disasters_feed

Posted by bev

Here’s what’s been happening in Photoshop and pop culture news this week.

kris-jenner-photoshop

  • Like daughter, like mother? Kris Jenner gets busted Photoshopping this Instagram photo with Gordon Ramsay. [E! Online]
  • Pentax K-S1 Promo Features Really Bad Photoshop. [PetaPixel]
  • What color should the sun be? [Clients From Hell]

weatherman-ripple-fail

  • 10 TV Weathermen Who Are Having A Really Bad Day. [Web Humor]
  • The Science Behind Renee Zellweger’s New Face. [i09]
  • These photos were destined for Photoshop. [The Chive]

Have a great weekend! We’ll see you back here on Monday with more disasters. Be sure to join us on FacebookTwitter, and Google+ for daily fun and entertainment.

The post Photoshop Round-Up: Links We Love appeared first on PSD : Photoshop Disasters .

The Wooden Mansion

Oct. 25th, 2014 06:59 pm
cyberghostface: (Two-Face)
[personal profile] cyberghostface posting in [community profile] scans_daily


Here's a story from Junji Ito. Remember to read from right to left. Also a warning for brief nudity.

Read more... )
[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

Anonymous asked:

Hey I don’t know how you feel about adding porny things to this blog but I’ve been googling for rolequeer porn just to see what’s out there and I found some tumblrs using rolequeer tags for sexy pics and stories. so it’s definitely a thing people are thinking about. And the pics are mostly sub-on-sub stuff which is hot! (at least to me anyways)

rolequeer:

Oh please do point them out to me! I’m very curious how people think rolequeer porn might look.

Depending on the content I might want to post them with some trigger warnings or behind a link so people can chose whether to click through to the porn. 

Ooh! This is exciting! For two reasons!

  1. Look, a new blog entirely about all things rolequeer!
  2. There is evidently already porn tagged rolequeer out there, and Google knows about it.

I tend to keep this blog pretty heavy on text and light on images for a few reasons, not least of which is “porny things” have historically been pretty trigger-y for me for a long time. The best known archive of porny things I like is ironically also one of the things that made me famous in the BDSM community: browse back in the archives of the malesubmissionart Tumblr for more on that.

But, like all effective exegetic self-criticism, I look back on those archives and I can clearly see the massive shift and evolution my political and personal beliefs have taken over the years. When I read through them, I think to myself, “Holy shit, I was obsessively focused on being dominated, to the point where I absolutely fetishized dominance. That is soooo problematic. And soooo common. And soooo disturbing, especially to me about myself.” What I see when I look back on the internationally-acclaimed Male Submission Art archive I curated is a singular fixation on sexualized authority, the defining, fascistic element of BDSM as a culture and the one thing BDSM’ers are loathe to admit they are fixated on.

So just the idea that there even might be people out there sharing their erotic thoughts and their thoughts on eroticism in a way that criticizes authority-fetishism is really exciting! Might there even be enough out there right now to make a sort of “Male Submission Art for rolequeerness”? BDSM’ers should tremble as I rejoice at the thought! :D

Obviously, I will be doing some googling around for this myself. But, in the mean time, I am signal boosting the fuck out of this and I am sharing the very first two things that came to my mind when I read this post, which I tweeted:


Naturally, feel free to reblog and add your own #YouMightBeRolequeer phrases, humorously presented or otherwise. :)

See also:


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

rivai-lution:

Lmfao @ these vanilla ass bitches calling themselves fucking ~*~rolequeer~*~ are you fucking kidding me rn 

If you’re not into BDSM then see yourself the fuck out of the community and stop making cute lil posts about your dumbshit opinions on tumblr and confusing everyone with your pointless bullshit. 

It’s cool if you’re not kinky like, seriously, that’s 100% fine, but stop mixing your white ass middle class education with your bastardization of queer theory and your fucking perversion of Marxist theory and your personal discomfort with not being a special fucking snowflake and barfing it all over tumblr like you fucking know what you’re talking about. 

The BDSM community is a small minority community that is based on consent and respect and sex positivity and the last thing we fucking need is over educated, underemployed little kids with superiority complexes and something to prove trying to politicize interactions that are personal, consensual, and most of all, enjoyable. 

Get the fuck out of our bedrooms, get the fuck out of our sex lives, and stop pointing fingers and pissing yourselves every time someone has the motherfucking audacity to enjoy the incredible variety of dynamics that BDSM has to offer. 

Rolequeer: pressed vanilla people who give terrible life advice, tbqh. 

Come at me guys no really lets fucking go.

Okay. Since you asked me to. Let’s go.

You seem to believe that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who are kinky, and those who are not (“vanilla,” which you say as though it’s an insult). This is called a binary. In reality, a binary categorization applied to human beings is silly at best. Truth is, there is no such thing as “not that kind of person.”

You also seem to believe that “kinky” is synonymous with “BDSM.” I’ve written quite a bit about this misunderstanding, but perhaps nowhere more succinctly as here, which I’ll excerpt as diplomatically as I can:

There is a difference between “having hot, kinky sex” and “being into BDSM.” The sadomasochists’s subculture (aka the “BDSM Scene”) tells us that these are effectively the same thing, but this is a[n intentional] conflation [popularized by people] who call themselves Dominants. These self-identified Dominants are so desperate to justify their desire to have non-consensual sex that they promulgate the lie that it’s only possible to have hot, kinky sex within the context of a Dominant/submissive binary. That’s what “D/s dynamics” are.

It’s easy for many ethical kinksters to believe this [conflation], as I did, because [it’]s premised on the pervasive idea that eroticism—and, therefore, sexual excitement—necessarily hinges on a power disparity in which one (dominant) party controls another (submissive) party. That is what domination is. […]

The truth is that domination and control are not necessary elements of eroticism. You can still have hot, kinky sex that doesn’t base itself in a story (or the actual act) of one party overpowering another. Since we live in a pervasively coercive society, almost everyone finds coercive cultural tropes sexy, but there *are* ways to have sexy-fun-times that don’t also have elements of coercion at all. These sexy fun times are still hot, and they are still kinky.

The misperception that “kinky” is inevitably laced with domination or control is the [lie of BDSM].

In other words, it is true that BDSM is a minority community, but it’s not true that what makes that community distinct from any other minority community is that it’s “based on consent and respect and sex positivity.” There are in fact many niche communities and subcultures distinct from BDSM who share that characteristic, and I’m sure you, Mr. self-described “Queer fag Dom (Daddy) gay kinkster feminist fan nerd extraordinaire,” need no help naming several others. Besides, numerous BDSM community’s own internal surveys show at least 50% higher rates of consent-violating behavior within the BDSM Scene than the “vanilla” world. So. That’s weird.

In fact, the defining element of the BDSM subculture and its associated fringe identity is the fantasy of sex as egalitarian until power relations are intentionally remade unequally. In other words, it’s the explicit eroticization of (often extremely violent) dominance coupled with the paternalistic idea that dominated peoples need domination to be fulfilled. BDSM is fascism, applied to sex.

In political discourses, authority fetishists are fascists. In sex, they’re BDSM’ers. But contrary to your hollow assertions, not everyone who is aroused by submissiveness also fetishizes authority. Here’s another way of describing this idea:

[S]ubmission isn’t just some kink that some people have. Submission is the voluntary use of one’s own power to become the means to someone else’s end.

Submission lies at the heart of what makes sex good. It exercises one’s own autonomy, recognizes the autonomy of one’s partner, and places trust in their sensitivity and good judgement. It’s possible to have sex without domination. Putting the two under the same umbrella is another huge logical misstep. But without submission – mutual submission – there is only coercion.

I understand that you—very personally, you—feel threatened by the idea that dominants are not necessary for and are often abusive partners to Submissive people, that they are wholly unnecessary for fulfilling the sexual satisfaction of kinky Submissives like me, that in fact Submissives can have hot, kinky sex without ever inviting a Dom, and that this lack of invitation for your presence in our sex lives may feel like we’re invading your bedroom. I certainly believe you when you express confusion at such a sudden shift from a sex life in which you were always the central figure to one in which you are not even desirable. But, since you asked and since we’re being honest here, I don’t actually have any sympathy for you over that nor over the anguish you say this is causing you. I have no sympathy for you at all.

You see, for my whole life, I was told I couldn’t be happy in a relationship with someone who didn’t identify as Dominant, like you. That I would never be able to experience even the most basic physically pleasurable sensations that I craved. That the only way to ever have a meaningful relationship was if I had that relationship with a very specific kind of person, namely a kind of person very much not like myself. And I believed them. I shunned relationships with people who I might otherwise have found rewarding. I quieted the part of me that called “bullshit” on this poisonous idea that because I am Submissive, I needed someone like you, someone Dominant, to be happy.

So while you may feel like I invaded your bedroom, I feel like you invaded my mind. I’m sure it feels violating to have someone else’s body who you never invited appear in your bedroom. Can you imagine how violating it feels to have someone else’s thoughts who you never invited lodged deep in your mind?

Look, I am kinky. Y’know, like most people. What I am not is into BDSM. Y’know, like most people. You’re more than welcome to define both of these terms however you like, but what you’re doing when you exclude only the ways that I fuck from “legitimate” kink and derisively call me vanilla after your on-the-spot audit of my sex life, what you’re doing is making a No True Scotsman argument. BDSM’ers are enamored with No True Scotsman arguments, I know, but it’s still a weak argument. Also, to use your phrase: get the fuck out of our sex lives.

And finally, even though I’ve said it before, apparently this needs repeating:

[D]espite the propagandistic insistence from BDSM community leaders to the contrary, your personal rape fantasy doesn’t bother us.

What bothers us—and by “us” I mean people of every political persuasion, from dyed-in-the-wool hardcore kinksters who have personal sex blogs chronicling an almost 10 year immersion in the BDSM Scene as self-identified Submissives, such as myself, all the way through to religious right anti-porn lobbyists who want to see BDSM criminalization harshly enforced—what we have a problem with is rhetoric and practice that presents things like “consensual nonconsent” as “healthy, happy kinks, easily practiced safely with sanity” as though you can just walk down to your corner drug store and pick up a “rape play kit” like it’s some fucking over the counter aphrodisiac.

We’re not trying to take away your sexy-fun-time playing rapist and rape victim. We’re telling you that mainstreaming a subculture whose premise is “rape play is uncomplicated because it’s everywhere” is an obscenely irresponsible thing to do in the context of existing rape culture.

Everyone, literally everyone, knows that. Only BDSM’ers object to it.

All right, then, “Queer fag Dom (Daddy) gay kinkster feminist fan nerd extraordinaire,” I’ve said some words. I even tried to avoid using language you might feel was too white-ass-middle-class-education, especially given that you’re “a student…majoring in Gender Studies and hope to get your PhD,” ain’t nothing white-ass-middle-class-education about that, nope, although other folks have said some things along these lines in that lingo I think is relevant.

Now. Wanna come back at me? Come on. Let’s fucking go.


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

When describing their communities, BDSM’ers will talk about how theirs is a “safe, sane” space, “based on consent and respect and sex-positivity” as if reciting some invisible script. But there are many communities whose rhetoric or practice (or both) are based on these ideas, so it seems incomplete at best or a deliberate misdirection at worst to describe this particular subculture in that way. All of those things may be present or lacking to varying degrees and the thing that BDSM is will still be mostly unchanged.

It’s especially strange to hear them talk as if those aspects are unique characteristics when there is one very obvious thing that sets BDSM apart from other communities: a fixated sexualization of authority. Oddly, that’s also the one thing about BDSM they seem loathe to admit. I think that’s meaningful.

See also:


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

Rolequeer ALL the things

Oct. 24th, 2014 09:50 pm
[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

lyricalagony:

rolequeer:

There have been some posts about what rolequeer sex looks like and what rolequeer porn looks like, but what about all the non-sex stuff?

What does a rolequeer friendship look like? And a rolequeer workplace? (I’m tempted to say I’d be an anarchist workplace) Rolequeer parenting? Rolequeer activism?Heck, rolequeer cooking or rolequeer art or rolequeer anything! I’d love to hear your ideas and examples. 

For me, this is a place where you have a lot of movements in different areas but with an ultimately common center. Like, there’s relationship anarchy (which would be relevant to friendship) and the recent nonmonogamist tag, and I’ve run into respectful parenting and gentle parenting.

Would totally be interested in anything anyone else has run into, and thoughts on the other things!

I honestly find this question somewhat confusing in itself, especially given that most of the time I’ve used or intimated the word “rolequeer” I’ve done so in a non-erotic context. Here is a round-up in case you missed some of these references and in so doing were left with an incomplete picture of what I’ve been using the word for.

  1. In “Prologue to Consent Is Not Enough” I use the example of the relationship between a therapist and their client. Excerpt: “[an abusive dynamic in] the overculture [is] where therapists are taught that their job is to help people better integrate themselves in an abusive society by sublimating their own will rather than supporting their clients to do whatever the fuck they need to do to reject participation in said abusive society.”
  2. In one of my “Rolequeerness is not about sex; it’s about power” posts, I explicitly give examples citing workplaces, schools, and parenting. Excerpt: “In a workplace, a rolequeer boss might do everything they can to support an employee’s professional development and then, rather than offer a promotion, that boss would encourage employees who mastered the job to quit. In a school, a rolequeer teacher might jettison the school’s curriculum and start sharing information about how to drop out of school and not be treated “like a drop-out,” covertly if necessary. A rolequeer parent or legal guardian would teach their legal charge about “parental controls” software, not activate any of them, and then explain how to get around any of those controls when they are active.
  3. In the same post, I also quote Kat Whimsy, a dance community blogger, who aptly uses rolequeer to describe a form of partnered dance activity that is neither lead nor follow. Excerpt: “I like Kat’s use of “rolequeer” here because it’s spot-fucking-on and emphasizes the kind of exploration I’m talking about, above. Dance is a great example of a prescribed social interaction with a clearly defined “script.” The interaction is often very rigid: left foot here, right foot there, hands like this. But the ideal outcome of “a good dance” is extremely vague. In that way, it’s not unlike sex. Of course, while heteronormative sex is very scripted (insert tab A in slot B, remove, repeat), sex is actually more like the generic concept of dance than it is like any particular kind of dance. Sex isn’t the foxtrot, or a tango—it’s not necessarily a given activity. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do a given activity (like the foxtrot, or a tango) as sex.”
  4. In my most recent post, “What I mean when I say Submissive,” I gave even more examples of jobplace-related rolequeerness and one more from my own experiences with the Medical-Industrial Complex. Excerpt: “When I was forced to go see psychopharmocologists for my “mental illness,” I became obsessed with learning everything I could possibly know about neurochemistry. (I am still diagnosed mentally ill. No, I do not take medications for it anymore.) […] When I saw secretaries doing painfully repetitive computer “paper work,” I taught them how to automate some parts of their job and then encouraged them to take longer lunch breaks rather than do more work.”
  5. In my post about rolequeer porn, “Multivalent if cornered. Malevolent when dominated,” I was intentionally describing hypothetical erotica using terms from non-erotic, real life examples of embattled anti-authoritarian action. Excerpt, with emphasis added: “So, rolequeer porn, as I understand it, would eroticize disobedience to authority. It would eroticize Submissives taking care of themselves and each other. It would valorize Dominants who are traitors or whistleblowers or turncoats to themselves and other Dominants. It would eroticize Submissives being good *for* themselves and each other, not just good *to* the people with power over them.”

This is just off the top of my head. I’ve been writing about this shit for longer than I had the word “rolequeer” to describe it with. That means there are probably even more examples out there that I just haven’t been able to find links to in the span of one or two clicks.

In another post, you also asked, “What exactly is the relationship between rolequeerness and anarchism?” To me, a short answer to this question is that rolequeerness is queer anarchism; rolequeer sex is anarchism, applied to sex. Compare this with when I say “BDSM is fascism applied to sex.”

I am not rolequeer because I am an anarchist. Rather, insofar as I am an anarchist (instead of someone who is “doing anarchism everywhere in their life”), it is because I am rolequeer. See also this early roundup post, “Continuing Discussion on ‘Dominants are Rapists': Useful Reflections from the Blogosphere,” especially the excerpt by unquietpirate describing me as “one of the most submissively-identified people I know is also one of the most hardcore anti-authoritarians I’ve ever met.”

Does this address your question and clarify my viewpoint?


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

Submissive person: I’m really intrigued by the notion of having sex tied up in some way.
BDSM person: You should totes join us, then! We’ll show you the ropes. We’ll even teach you to like stuff you didn’t know you liked!
Submissive person: That sounds…interesting…but…I’d rather just do this stuff I know I like, first.
BDSM person: Oh sure, sure, that’s fine! That’s great, even. After you’re tied up, you should check out this thing with pain I’m totally into!
Submissive person: Uh…thanks, but no thanks.
BDSM person: Well, it’s okay if you’re not kinky, you know.
Submissive person: I am kinky.
BDSM person: You don’t seem kinky to me; a real submissive would be happy to let a Dominant push their limits.
Submissive person: I told you, I’m really only interested in this one thing for now. I don’t want to have my “limits pushed,” I think this thing is hot and I want to play around with it together with someone I feel safe with.
BDSM person: Maybe you’re just a sensation slut, then.
Submissive person: What?
BDSM person: Well, if you’re really kinky, you may just think this is all you like now, but soon you’ll find your limits and, we promise, you’ll want to expand them. We can help with that. *wink wink*
Submissive person: You’re making me really uncomfortable, please stop. Besides, my significant other isn’t even Dominant.
BDSM person: Well there’s your problem! You can’t just go around having sex like that without any Dominants around! You’re a submissive. You need a dominant. I mean, LOL, what would two submissives even do to each other?
Submissive person: But I *don’t* want to have people “do things to me” right now, I just want to explore this thing I think I’ll like. What does it matter if they’re Dominant or not?
BDSM person: It matters because how will you ever expand your limits if you don’t get into a relationship with a Dominant who can push them? You might as well just have “normal” sex.
Submissive person: What are you talking about? I want to explore this thing. You’re right that I don’t know for sure what I’ll think of it but why do you assume this means I’m going to want to do MORE of that thing?
BDSM person: If you’re really a submissive, you will. We know. You’ll probably even start asking us for things you know that you *don’t* like! We’ve seen it happen to submissives before. It’s totally hot.
Submissive person: Well that’s hella creepy.
BDSM person: Creepy? How dare you! We’re CONSENSUAL. You obviously don’t understand BDSM.
Submissive person: Actually, I think I do understand. You’re not interested in helping me play around with this thing for my own sake, you’re interested in making sure I’ll have the sex you want to have with me later on.
BDSM person: That’s crazy, we’re all about consensuality here.
Submissive person: Then stop trying to make me feel like I’m not a “real” Submissive if I don’t want to be raped.


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

[syndicated profile] maybe_maimed_never_h_feed

Posted by maymay

Rolequeerness is not about sex. It’s about power. But insofar as sex is about power, then rolequeerness is simply a neologism pointing out the reality of sex as infused with inegalitarian power relations and describes one’s desire to undermine that inequity.

The idea that human relationships are infused with power imbalances is not some new insight birthed, fully-formed, from the imaginations of rolequeer people and no one else. That’s not what’s interesting about discussions of rolequeerness nor about rolequeer sex. What’s interesting about these things are the stories rolequeer people tell one another and ourselves about what we can do to sabotage our own positions as people with the ability and desire to dominate other people.

This is what distinguishes rolequeer sex from many other approaches to erotic intimacy: its core tenet that moving towards vulnerability together is a move towards safety; that submitting *with* someone else—rather than submitting to someone else—strengthens you both; that despite what we may have internalized in a pervasively abusive society, there is nothing fulfilling about dominating or about being dominated.

I spent a bit of time musing about how to describe rolequeerness succinctly, mostly spurred by unquietpirate‘s search for anarchist sex literature—as in literature about anarchist sex, not sex that anarchists have. This is what I came up with today.

See also:


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

Donate Bitcoin

flattr this!

laughing_tree: (Default)
[personal profile] laughing_tree posting in [community profile] scans_daily


"I think I have a bit of a reputation for taking obscure or under-utilized characters and fleshing them out. I intend to really flesh out Hammond [the original Torch] and turn him into a truly compelling character." -- James Robinson

Read more... )

Uber #17

Oct. 25th, 2014 07:27 pm
laughing_tree: (Default)
[personal profile] laughing_tree posting in [community profile] scans_daily


"Uber relaxing into a three- and five-panel structure is something I find fascinating. Three-panel is something I connect intensely with Warren Ellis (and Millar, though never in this mode). Five-panel storytelling is Garth Ennis." -- Kieron Gillen

Read more... )

The state of my university

Oct. 25th, 2014 07:00 am
[syndicated profile] stealingcommas_feed

Posted by chris the cynic

Things are fucked up.  The people in charge say things are fucked up.  The things which are fucked up are not the things the people in charge say are fucked up.  The primary thing that is fucked up is that the people in charge are saying things which are not fucked up are fucked up.

To wit:

In an ideal world the budget is a best guess as to expenses and revenue for the coming year and a plan on how to spend money such that money will not be lost.  Meaning that even if everything were perfect the budget would still not reflect reality.

The reality is that my university makes money.  My university system also makes money (individual universities in the system may lose money some years, but those loses are offset by the surpluses elsewhere.  That's the whole point of having a system instead of a bunch of isolated universities.)

The budget, every year, says that my university will lose a metric fuckton of money so we need to cut, cut, cut.

Thus the only real problem is that the budget is wrong, consistently, year after year, and always in the same direction.

If the administration didn't say that things were fucked up, nothing would be fucked up.  Their saying it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

While the deficits projected by the budgets are imaginary or fictitious (depending on whether you're betting on stupid or evil) the need to balance these budgets creates a very real deficit when it comes to spending money on things like salaries.  Since you need to slash spending by enough to make up for the fake deficit, real damage is done to the university.  What happens at the end of the fiscal year when actual legal reports need to be filed with non-fictitious numbers?  The money goes into the reserves.  That's how the reserves got so bloated.

The cuts do have an effect upon revenue.  A teacher who isn't at the university can't teach a class and so the university can't make money off the class.  So revenue is dropping.  It's just that so far it hasn't dropped enough for the university to stop making money.

The need to "fix" the projected-but-never-actual deficits means hard choices about who can stay and who must be let go but here, again, the administration does stupid things.  They get rid of profitable people.

Now it's important to remember that profit != value.  The university counseling center is of great value, but since the service is free (as it fucking should be) it doesn't make any money (and it's impossible to determine how much it retains by keeping student's we would otherwise lose.)

The reason for the focus on profit is that all of the things that don't pay for themselves need to be paid for, and since the deficits aren't actually real they are in fact being paid for.  What pays for them?  The things that make a profit.

By cutting profitable things, we have less money left to pay for the non-profitable things.  For example one program being slashed returns two dollars for every one dollar put in.  That makes for easy math.  Pay for one person and you get the money that you paid back, plus enough money to pay for a zero-revenue person with the same salary.

Flip that around and you see that if you get rid of one person in that program, you can afford one less zero-revenue person than you could before.

Now we're still in surplus territory.  They can already afford more zero-revenue people than they actually employ.  But once there start to be actual deficits the cuts to profitable programs will necessitate cuts to zero-revenue ones.

And that's when things will really go to shit.

The university is suffering enough when the horrific problems we face aren't actually real.  Once they are real it's going to get very, very bad.

Chamber of Chills: Crawling Death

Oct. 25th, 2014 04:17 am
alicemacher: Lisa Winklemeyer from the webcomic Penny and Aggie, c2004-2011 G. Lagacé, T Campbell (Default)
[personal profile] alicemacher posting in [community profile] scans_daily




Harvey Comics is best remembered as a publisher of kids' comics, but like MLJ/Archie, there was a time it dealt in a variety of genres, including horror, giving that up only when the establishment of the Comics Code Authority in 1954 put an end to stories such as the one I present here in its entirety, from Chamber of Chills #7 (April 1952; scans of this public domain title courtesy of ComicBookPlus.com). The gruesome denouement of "Crawling Death" (writer unknown, art by Abe Simon and Don Perlin) got special mention in Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent. Trigger warning for gore.

Typical human reaction: 'I'm going to kill it!! It might be some rare species!!' )

Profile

bliumchik: (Default)
Captain Oblivious

October 2014

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19 202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 26th, 2014 04:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios