Sooo, one time at deviantART, I was reading a thread complaining about the rule (as usual). Some guy started arguing about such things as an "exception" to the rule, he later confidently declared that cardboardboxes have not ever been 34'd in a random argument trying disprove of the theory. About an hour later, someone actually linked to a site DEDICATED to cardboard-box fetishes.
His response? A short, priceless: "O.o"
No one dared question this law anymore in that thread, IIRC. To this day I wish I could find the thread on dA just to share with you all.
Well, to be perfectly frank, it WAS a bad 34 request. SolidSnake spends a LOT of time in cardboard boxes... sooooooooooo try harder next time dude!
I Think — THINK — i've thought of a un-34able thing - However, it'll only remain so as long as i don't describe the physical traits to anyone. Anyone know of a potential weakness in this crazy idea of mine...well, aside from the fact that it relies on noone but me knowing what this unknown thing is to keep it 34-proof? (God, writing that whole bit in a way that prevents other readers from determining if it's a object or person, if it is male or female — assuming it is a person — and so on was hard. It seems there's no way of describing something that takes up space in existance that is person/object neutral.)
schrodinger's cat. Whatever your idea is, it could exist, and the only way you can know for sure is by giving the description, putting it out there for rule 34 to be made of it...
I have a story I'm working on, and the main character is an AnimesqueBedsheet Ghost. He doesn't even have parts, so I think I beat the system there! Then again...
A variation on tentacle rape involving animated bedsheets?
I have, in fact, seen exactly that before.
Actually, since your thing's description aren't clear on any aspect, that means it can be literally anything, because any set of characteristics it might have will end up forming a thing. Since per Schroedinger's cat it will be simultaneously anything in existence, it'll therefore fall inside the scope of Rule 34.
well, even that may not work, as, if we stretch the rule a bit, we can count mental images as porn, so you imagined you mystery thing, and now, thinking about a rule 34 version of it, you've though about a rule 34 version of it
A lot of the confusion and knee-jerk reaction to disprove 34's absolute nature stems from the fact that they are thinking in specific details when Rule 34 doesn't require that. There is Star Trek/Star Wars crossover porn, but not being able to find a picture of Gul Madred and Lobot having sex doesn't mean you've disproven Rule 34. That's like saying there isn't porn of Ron Jeremy simply because he hasn't had sex with every woman on Earth. Likewise, abstract concepts don't apply since Existentialism doesn't "exist" in the same way Charlie Brown does. You cannot have the concepts of liberty and justice screwing, but you could have this.
I wonder, would it possible to overload rule 34 by challenging someone to make rule 34 of something that's already porn?
No, if there's porn of it, rule 34 already made its work. Leave it alone, please. For humanity's sake.
Wouldn't the already-porn equivalent of rule 34 be writing cute, sexless gen fic for something that's already porn? I WANT IT. Like, somebody giving characters in an already bad porno proper characterisation, and cute 'shippiness so we'd actually want to see them get together as a couple and not just get together to couple.
The idea of recutting and/or redubbing porn to make a Lighter and Softer comedy or romance is a great idea.
And for the record, Rule 43 states that "The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt it." adding onto rule 34, basically, not reversing it.
Actually, I once saw a porn based on another porn, so it is possible.
Don't poke the porn beast.
Answer: The rule 34 is: "There is porn of it. No Exceptions." Rule 35 is "If there is no porn of it, it will be made." So, if there is no porn of porn (there is, of many kinds of porn) and you create it via 35, it will be part of 34. There is no overload. There is no escape. Rule 34 just is.
Considering there's a lot of people who find the Left 4 Dead playable zombies and splicers and stalkers the height of sensuality...
There is indeed Rule 34 for things that are already pornographic. There is no shortage of 34 for pornographic webcomic website Palcomix's in-house continuities and characters, for instance... Note however that, in my opinion, any given thing only needs to be 34d once in order to prevent us from having to 34 our 34 in an infinite chain in order to ensure that the rule is indeed true, which is why Super Hornio Bros, for instance, cannot be (or rather does not need to be) 34d, because it is itself already 34 of Super Mario Bros, as are Palcomix's comics that include existance characters that the Palcomix team didn't make up themselves...
The real problem with any repository of Rule 34: For every... worthy (for lack of a better term) result of the application of Rule 34, there is one picture where the subject in question looks like they have been partially fed through a meat grinder. Literally. YE BE WARNED.
Rule 34.5, the Gorn corollary? I do wish you were joking.
I wish I was joking as well. What these eyes have seen... cannot be unseen.
Don't worry, in time all these moments will be lost, like tears in the rain.
If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes...I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate.
Not to mention that Sturgeon's Law applies too, so there's also the corollary that if you're using the word porn in anything more than a technical sense, you might be in for a horrible disappointment.
The good news is after seeing enough bad stuff you'll gradually be desensitized to the squick. Keep flipping through the archives and soon enough boredom will replace horror.
But what does that do to your humanity? Some things should seem squicky.
Is there a gigantic master list of these "rules of the internet," from 1 to...some huge number anywhere out there? Was there ever a Rule 1, even? I mean, obviously this Rule 34 had to come from somewhere.
There is, but it was invented by /b/, and in general it isn't taken seriously. The first two rules are a parody of Fight Club.
And even then, rules one and two are generally used in a pathetic attempt at justifying 4chan as some "Secret hacker website".
No, it's actually just a precaution for raids, because people made trouble by publicly proclaiming to come from 4chan. At some point dogmatic /b/tards starting calling Rules 1&2 on any non-site mention of 4chan, until moot posted that "Rules 1&2 are for raids only".
I have come up with my own explanation. If you're a /b/tard, then the explanation of rules 1 and 2 is as above. If you are not a /b/tard, it just means "Seriously, it's stupid and not worth discussing."
Rules 1 and 2 are just used to make gullible idiots think that we're some kind of secret internet cabal.
It's 34 for the same reason the Ultimate Answer is 42. The numbers work well together. The "rest" of the rules are memetic mutations of 34, such as "Needs more Desu, no exceptions!", or the aforementioned lists on /b/ no two of which are ever the same.
Rule 34 is called rule 34 because of an old webcomic, zoom-out.co.uk (site not defunct, but there's still a deviantART page for the artist) which started the whole thing. It's just a random number, everything else, including rules 1, 2 and 35 all came after the fact.
Actually, rules 35, 36, and 63 seem to have become standardized too. On the other hand, if we ever discover what Rule 42 is, the universe will implode.
It's "All persons more than a mile high must leave the court."
Thank you so much for tearing a big ugly gash in the fabric of time and space.
If you insist. Who wants to go about drawing this, then?
Are you forgetting the topic? It exists already (I found nine pictures without trying very hard)
Then there is only one thing to do. Send the pictures to as many Muslims as possible.
Then they'll just spam you with Moses/Jesus slash, and we'll be back to square one. Especially us atheists who just want to enjoy conventional porn without all you zealots spamming us in the crossfire.
*ahem* Islamic tradition says that Jesus will return from the dead at the end of time, and will live a happily married life. Nowadays gay marriage is recognized in all sorts of places. I'm just sayin'.
Eradicate the radical ones from the planet. Problem solved.
One of the biggest problems with Rule 34 is that sex is so segregated from storytelling in general these days that people have to imagine what the characters' sex lives are like in the first place. Sure, there are movies like Brokeback Mountain and series like Sex and the City that don't put it off in some porn parallel universe where people do nothing but have or think about sex and reproduction is a myth but it isn't that prevalent yet and even that has limits. Maybe if there were some kind of content filter for the squemish, disinterested or the purely violent who don't want sex to pollute their entertainment that could turn NC-17 into PG. It would be an interesting use of Parental Controls to determine which scenes are played out depending upon content rating level selected. Will Snake get it on with Meryl/Otacon or just stay friends? It's all up to the individual viewer! Still, that wouldn't address the more...inappropriatepairings but it would cut down on it. It was just be redundant plus the pros most likely would do it better!
I dunno, an entertainment scenario where everything has the capacity to be pornographic would just take all the fun out of it. Scouring the internet for porn of a favorite series or character is one of the fun parts about the internet.
Don't bother looking up anything with the Traveling Wilburys, all you'll find is some crappy Mad Lib-generic slash stories. Roy Orbison and cling film, now that's a good time. This I also heard.
Shouldn't the rule be more along the lines of "if it exists and the Internet at large knows, there is porn of it?" I'm fairly sure there's no porn of Altered Space: A 3-D Alien Adventure, for instance, or of the sketches I've been doing from time to time lately that I haven't shown to anyone.
Rule 35, dude. If there isn't porn of it, someone will eventually make porn of it. And since you know about this Altered Space thing, it is now your God-given duty to start drawing up some 34. Also, your random sketches? 34 those, too.
Not to sound crude, but what series has the record for most pornographic fanart?
How exactly would you quantify that?
Well, as Jiraiya would say, I've done my "research" and I think the answer is Pokemon. Of course, I didn't look that hard.
I dunno, Sonic the Hedgehog seems to be up there. Maybe that's just the Furry Fandom side of it. (then again, so would be at least half of the above)
Sonic the Hedgehog ain't quite as prevalent as you'd think in the Furry Fandom . There's a helluva lot more Pokemon though.
If Pokemon isn't it certainly has the potential to be. There is an upwards of around 500 Pokemon. If you pair Pikachu (the series mascot) with each of the other ones and itself you get roughly a fuckton of seperate pairings. Do this with each of the other Pokemon and you get whatever 500 x a fuckton is (as you can see, I suck at math).
Or in purely scientific terms: exactly One Metric Fuckton!
Since I have too much spare time, let us do the math. There are currently, as going per generations, 151 + 100 + 135 + 107 + 156 = 649 pokemon. Each can be paired with itself and another, briging total of possible pairings to 649^2 = 421201. According to pokemon wiki, there are total of 231 characters. I'm leaving Screw Yourself out of humans, so we get 231 * 230 = 53130 pairings. Now, each human can be paired with any pokemon, giving us 649 * 231 = 149919. Combine all this numbers and possible two-person pairings is 421201 + 53130 +149919 = 624250. And that just having two person relations. Include third one, and we get (624250 * 649) + (624250 * 229) = 405138250 + 142953250 = 548091500, that is 548 million possible pairings.
You are not accounting for duplicate pairings. There is no functional difference between Pokemon AB pairing veruse Pokemon BA pairing. It pretty much divide everything in half, which still gives us 274 million.
Not all of them have genders though, and some are male (or female) only. Although that probably doesn't stop artists from making them have genders. In fact, Ash himself has dressed as a girl multiple times, so we should just double the amount of humans to include their opposite sex clones.
How the hell does the internet have porn of absolutely everything? I can think of Adolf Hitler having sex with Roger Smith in the middle of the Eurovision Song Contest. I can think of Eve in a BDSM relationship with Baby Jesus. I can think of the CEO of Colombia Pictures and the President of Colombia having sex with Colombia from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. However, I doubt there's porn of any of that. What happened to "No Exceptions"?
If it exists, there is porn of it. None of those events have occurred in a clean context; thus, we cannot with any certainty expect it to exist with naughty bits.
If you say or think "There's no Rule 34 of X," then you must have a vague idea of what Rule 34 of X looks like. So, since Rule 34 is "if it exists, there is porn of it," then, by thinking about it, you created an example of Rule 34 within your mind. This validates the Rule because the Rule extends far beyond the Internet.
Rule 34 paper towels. Rule 34 ashtrays. Rule 34 oceans*
You've never seen a fic with two people having sex in the ocean? -Eds.
, those two islands in the Bering Strait, keyboards, mice, watering cans, tomatoes, churches...
I'm pretty sure I've seen porn involving mice and tomatoes. Not at the same time. Though that would be hot.
Gadget Hackwrench wearing nothing but a hula-skirt made from a tomato. To her left, Tara the tomato girl from Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! the cartoon, with a hula-skirt made from all the other cartoon mice conntected together by their tails. You can thank me later for that image!
Oceans and keyboards have been done. And although I haven't seen those two islands doing it, there has been some of continents done. Heck, tornadosex seems strangely popular in its own little niche.
The fact you've now named those things makes the future existence of porn of them infinitely more likely, of course. This is a rule so fundamental that it doesn't have a number. Naming an improbable thing in order to point out how improbable its existence is makes it much more likely to come into existence.
Actually, that's Rule 35 (at least as it applies to porn).
Rule 34 da T-Shirt! Rule 34 da coloring book! Rule 34 da lunch box! Rule 34 da breakfast cereal! Rule 34 da FLAMETROWAH!
Rule does not actually state that the porn must be on internet, just that it exists. You have tought about it. Thus, it exist in your head. It exist in your head = there is porn of it. Whenever you think if there is porn of something and think example, you effectively create it. Whenever you share it or not is not part of the rule.
I'm not done yet. For Rule 36, is there someone with a fetish for having sex in abandoned Victorian houses? For insect repellent? For being burned alive by the Sun? For beating someone over the head with sandals? For LED lights? For having their toes cut off by Bowie knives? For frozen wedding cakes in the shape of John Travolta floating 600 feet above the surface of Ceres? And how do you even prove Rule 36? Do you talk to everyone in the world and ask them if they have a fetish for a given situation? All 6 billion people?
You mean you're not into abandoned Victorian houses? The dry, gentle texture of peeling wallpaper? The sweet musty smell of old dust? The open, inviting fireplaces? Etcetera?
Who's to say there isn't someone out there with a fetish for those things? And though those persons may exist, Rule 36 doesn't necessarily state that those with the fetish have to say they have said fetish.
I have begun to have a fetish for all the above things... just to spite you. No, seriously. The Victorian houses one is seriously turning me on, and it's WRONG. Soft, chipping plaster, horsehair insulation coming apart at the seams like the world's most perfect mattress, scratching at your skin... the beautiful ghosts who live in the attic and just go on brushing and brushing their hair all day... gahh.
As for the sandal-beating, I think that can be lumped either with footwear fetishes or sadomasochism. And John Travolta space cakes me me sooo horny.
Goddamn it, now I've got that houses thing too ... yargh. I think also it's important to realize that people don't KNOW they have fetishes until they experience them, either in reality or through fantasies. Somebody out there may have a latent floating cake fetish and not realize it until they happen to think of floating cakes. Although when you start getting ridiculously specific like that the odds do go down significantly. Lots of people have black stocking fetishes; does anyone have a fetish for black stockings purchased at Wal-Mart that have pink trim that if you squint at it kind of looks like Sanskrit and have a faint odor of cedar from the sachet in the sock drawer? Umm, well, probably not — anyone turned on by that is probably actually turned on by one or more of the components of it. (Alright, somebody make the obvious "dur hur hur, that's my exact fetish" joke now, please.)
Sorry, black stockings with pink Sanskrit trim don't do it for me unless they're fresh out of the dryer. And bought at Target, for preference. As for the abandoned Victorian houses? I'm surprised I'm the only one who just likes the idea of somewhere nobody else goes where you can enjoy whatever you damn well please and nobody can see you.
If Pro-Mole had a fetish on people who try to take jokes way too seriously, Pro-Mole'd be excited right now.
I don't think I have a full grasp on the meaning of 'fetish,' but I think I have one for androgyny. That's considering some of the anime characters I gravitate toward...not in a smutty way, just...I like them in something between a fictional-character crush and Perverse Asexual Cuddlelust. There's also my knife fetish.
Read up on 'Postfurry' my friend. Or animism in general but that doesn't come with a GAURANTEE of porn of whatever you're thinking of. Anthropomorphic lavalamp having sex with a cloud and making sexy tweenage twin fluffy bubble people? Yeah, we got that.
Half the fun of Rule 34 is actively contributing to it. The horrified reactions of the rest of the internet are the other half.
I, without admitting a damn thing, would like to hasten the contribution of more bits with male angels being molested in a manner reminiscent of homosexual preference. Or, to speak plainly, moar Angel gei plz.
There isn't enough straight angel porn either!
Which has always really surprised me ...
Speaking as a troper with a severe wing obsession and a folder that has very slowly and steadily been filled with over a thousand of carefully selected images from amongst tens, if not a hundred thousand pictures...I agree there isn't enough, but there's never enough.
Get thee to Good Omens fandom. And take a box of tissues.
If you can find it, a comic called Artistic Licentiousness by Roberta Gregory contains a scene of that in the second issue.
There's also a XXXenophile story in which an angel and a nun...well you can guess.
The above examples are evidence that Rule 34 needs to be rephrased. People read it as "if I want porn of a certain situation, it's out there for me to find". A more accurate definition is that there is no such thing as a situation about which porn cannot be made.
Including LIFE-SIZE hydrogen atoms?
Hydrogen atoms are kinky as heck. Being the most common element and being equally happy to gain or lose an electron, they really get around. Now, helium atoms, they're kinda prudes.
Pretty sure I saw something awfully similar in some metroid porn...close enough for Rule 34, perhaps with a quick recolour, to call good.
The extent that some Rule 34 can go bugs me. For instance, as I mentioned on the Power Rangers IJBM board, there's a disturbing trend in both the Furry Fandom and Super Sentai communities where virtually every bit of porn based around Doggie Kruger simply has to depict him as being the bottom slut of a heavy BDSM fantasy...including any straight porn of him. Why is that? Is it the standard "bring the big badass guy down a few pegs by making him a submissive" fantasy? If so, why is the straight porn of him depicting that, not just the gay stuff? Is it because he's treated like that by his associates on the show itself, and this is simply a fanboy (or fangirl) exaggeration of that? What?
Hey, straight girls can top too, you know.
I'm aware of that, and the simple fact that he's being topped by a female isn't what disturbs me; it's the fact that he's always getting topped, regardless of the gender of his partner(s) or the events depicted in the porn. Out of all of the porn I've seen of him, I've only seen one picture of him being on top, and only a tiny handful of pics of him solo. The rest - and there are a lot of the rest - has him firmly as the submissive. So, what is the driving force behind this idea?
Cause that Sirian was made to have dicks in him, Hard Gay style
Ever see how many businessmen, especially Japanese, are into BDSM so THEY are the ones giving up control? Yeah, presumably has something to do with that.
Is there Rule34 of this page?
Only time will tell.
If Trope-Tan got Rule 34'd (see a few paragraphs above), anything on TV Tropes can be Rule 34'd.
The thing that terrifies me about rule 34 is that if you combine it with the Many Worlds Theory you get a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything possible thing that could be turned into porn is porn in one of those universes. Which means those horrible thoughts/mental images that we never tell anyone else about are porn somewhere.
Or even more scarring...those mental images could be REAL.
What about the idea that our reality is someone else's porn? "Ooooh, geeks sitting in front of computers writing articles about fictional metaphors really turns me on!"?
Does Rule 34 have an inverse equivalent? Can you prove the existence of something (such as, say, Bigfoot) by finding porn of it?
No, rule 34 is not a "two-way corollary". If something exists, there is(or there will be) porn of it, but just because porn of it exists, it doesn't mean it does. Actually, if fictional works have been 34'd, finding rule 34's manifestation of something doesn't mean it's real.
How does Rule 36 work with Rule 35? If a person makes porn simply for the sake of making porn, how can it be their fetish? Are they forcing this fetish onto themselves? And if so, wouldn't that be cheating?
Rules work independently. You can make porn just for the sake of it, it'll still be someone's fetish, if not your own.
I'm sure Rule 35 applies to Rule 36. It's got to be somebody's fetish to draw quality satire porn of extremely obscure things.
Why is it that Rule Thirty Fours of shows aimed at children keep the children at a young age? Isn't that pedophilia?
Yes.
Actually no, since they are not real. Pedophiles want real stuff, a drawing wouldn't even effect them.
Although thankfully at times, some artists have the decency to age those characters. I've unintentionally seen Daria and Lazytown stuff, and has seen the female leads looking somewhere around 18.
And even when they don't, they generally tend to draw their, ahem, "features" aged up a few years.
Isn't the girl from Lazytown 18 anyway?
Not when it started. Minor irony in that they only eliminated the panty shots AFTER she came of age.
Is anyone else getting a bit grossed out just reading this page?
Yes, and in the second item of this page, they were already told to take the stick out of their asses.
And shortly thereafter, they rushed to the discussion page to vent their disgust, their outright horror. How could anyone think like this? And yet, even as they clung to the safety of the discussion page, something about Rule 34 fascinated them. The odd fascination of sexualizing the unsexy. The humour of people dishing their junk to it. They turned back to the Headscratchers page, thrusting their fingers upon their keyboards, lashing their words against the wiki, sweat dribbling down their brows. Their mad thoughts of sex clung to the whiteness of the edit screen, dancing from the end of their cursor. One thought, another thought, another and another, until finally they clicked 'save'. The screen flushed anew with their handiwork. The stick had left their asses.
Here: [1]◊ And this is the last time, the next one asking will have the entry deleted on sight! ...since, you know, this was already posted up there.
It just bugs me how damn popular Lucario is in the furrier parts of the Pokémon 34-dom. I have only seen a Lucario outside of a lemon-fic one time. But of the 20 or so lemons I've read that could be considered "good", only 5 of them didn't have a Lucario. What I consider the best one I've read had 3!
That's due to several factors really. Lucario had lines and characterization in a widely released movie, appeared in the extremely popular Super Smash Brothers Brawl (a game which took Fur Affinity by storm when it came out), and is already vaguely anthropomorphic and appears vaguely Anubian besides (still a popular quality in the fandom no matter what denials you might hear).
Nowadays, being favoured tends to mean quality over quantity.
No, it didn't just pop into existence because you decided to go looking for it. It was there before you went looking, you just had your personal blinders (also called Scotomas, thank you, Mr. Loven) on, and this porn never filtered through to your conscious mind. Now that you want to see it, you will.
On this page, whenever someone asks if porn of X exists, are they just trying to sake their own weird fetish without having to look it up themselves? On an unrelated note, does anyone know if porn involving people having swarms of rats crawl all over their naked bodies? just curious.
I have looked and looked for Starlight Express porn for years with no luck, so I could be they just haven't found it.
...Have you actually just answered your own question? Because, you know, it could be someone's fetish...
If it exists there's porn of it? What about most people, animals and plants?
To emphasize this, there are thought to be between 5 and 8 million unique species of beetle. Is there really porn of every single one of those species?
Rule 35
Rule 35? 8 million unique species. That... could take a little while.
8 million species (or whatever - according to The Other Wiki there are some 350,000 known beetle species) is the merest beginning. Now imagine making porn of every threesome combination among those species. That's in the neighbourhood of 10^18 different setups to make porn of. Then consider all hypothetical interspecies hybrids between those species (almost all of which are Artistic License - Biology, but hey, it's porn), and all the threesome combinations between those. That's about 10^36 combinations if we stick to two-species hybrids.
Better get started!
Beetles? Plants? Seen it. Not together. I wouldn't be surprised it they were, it'd make a good pair thematically.
Well, beetles do have sex.....
Beetles in general, yes. But have you seen it for each distinct species? Plants are a whole fucking kingdom. Trees alone would be the work of a lifetime of pronography-making!
That's not how it works. This is more like asking for 34 of a character to wear 8 million specific sets of costume/makeup. Although there HAS been a recent jump in bug porn on FA...
On one side you have okami, featuring Amaterasu. on the other side you have Naruto, with a caracter with an attack named Amaterasu. it bugs me that there is almost NO porn of the two, combined.
Really, if there's porn of everything, then that means someone is stalking you without your knowledge to make porn of you covered in 8 million unique beetles. Which would technically narrow the stalker down to a creepy entomologist.
16 million, you've got to account for sexual dimorphism.
Coupled with the Pokemon thread up above, this can only mean one thing. Your stalker is Giovanni you lucky devil.
Personally, I'd be rather flattered that someone finds me that sexy. Though, if its candid photographs of me undressing and/or showering, then we have a bit of a problem.
What would happen if someone who would ordinarily have a fetish for a certain thing never heard of it? For instance, if someone would have been into Naughty Tentacles but lived in the 1950s, would their fantasies be rerouted into, say, a garden-hose fetish, or would they have comparatively "normal" sexual fantasies, or would they be Asexual?
I would say it depends on what other fetishes they had. If it was just (and only) Naughty Tentacles in general, they might have a thing for living garden hoses and lithographs of kraken. If it was specifically (and only) Naughty Tentacles, they might be effectively asexual. If they also had a fetish for naked people of the opposite sex, they'd probably live a perfectly average fifties-era sex life.
For the example provided, I have to point out the obvious. Of course, this is hardly the only example of old naughty tentacles.
Is there any truth to the idea that it was called Rule 34 because of Route 34? Or is that just a coincidence?
It's possible that someone specifically chose Skitty and Wailord because of Route 34 and the rule. There's lots of other bizarre pairings they could have used.
On a purely theoretical conjecture: can you call rule 34 on unsexy porn? It would seem that, eventually, a fetish would exist for everything that existed (and didn't). On an vaguely related note: Could someone possibly make/find porn of concept of nothingness getting it on with the concept of infinity, thus reassuring me of the ingenuity of the internet?
Walk outside when it's night. Look up at the sky. For now it is filled with stars, galaxies, matter... but between that matter is nothingness. And it's waiting for infinity... Because as time goes on, infinity will strip nothingness of it's burden, destroy the matter that are like impurities in the emptiness. Then there will only be Nothingness and Infinity, forever together.
The rule 34 site itself...What's with the Atari Jaguar skin and name?
Nerds.
Actually, when this was up, it referred back to an earlier attack, a hack involving tigers everywhere as angry nerd payback for the terrible FBI jo-er....Yeah, Nerds. Self-referential nerds!
Believe in Rule 35, my friend.
Are there any instances of creators making Rule 34 of their own work?
Disney animators. See the page "Creator's Reactions to Rule 34.
Just who the heck made up this rule anyway?!?!?!
The internet. Duh.
Rule 63's site. A lot of the pics in Pokemon are of Pokemon who come in both genders, genderless Pokemon, or non-63 gijinka. It applies to other series too. Seriously, why are consoles gijinkas considered rule 63 unless the artist usually draws them as the opposite sex but 63'd them for kicks?
One thing that bugs me to no end: Rule 34 states that "There is porn of it, no exceptions." Nowhere does it state that the porn needs to be GOOD. I can't tell you how many examples I've come across where the porn looks like it was drawn by some drunk!!
There is a very good, very obvious reason for that. Most people can't exactly draw most of this stuff sober.
I claim that I can mathematically disprove Rule 34. First of all, the Internet is by technical definition finite at any given point of time, which means there can only be finite content on it, and thus, only finite porn. Now, take any infinite series of objects that exist, such as the series of integers. With an infinite set of objects and a finite set of porn thereof, there must be one object in the former set with no counterpart in the latter set, and thus for which no porn exists. Q.E.D.
Well, what about multiplication?
What about multiplication?
It doesn't say that the porn has to be on the internet. I guess you could prove it with "a finite number of brains to imagine porn with" though.
Given the existence of Rule 36, can we PROVE Rule 34? The definition of pornography, once you consider fetishism, is incredibly broad. If I have a fetish for say, obscure species of beetles, wouldn't the mere image of said beetle be pornographic from my point of view? Can we add the corollary, "If it's been fapped to, it is porn."?
Ok, for those of you who've seen the infamous "Bart, get out! I'm piss!" comic; It starts with Bart holding a flower and saying "Good morning Lisa! Congratulations!" So, what exactly is he congratulating her for, anyway? For being piss?
They do have yellow skin sooo...
Why do so many people look into this so incredibly deeply, trying to "prove" or "disprove" the concept of "there is porn of everything in existence"? Is the Internet really for porn after all?
OK, how do we make porn of every human that exists? What about humans who lived in the past, and are dead now? It's pretty much impossible to do.
No it isn't. There is porn written in the second person. Therefore, there is porn of "you," and every person in the world is "you." Case closed.
If there are parallel universes,does that mean somehow in the mulitverse there's a universe entirely based off Rule 34? Also,if there's an infinite number of parallel universes,how do you Rule34 that?Finally,why is it so hard to find Rule 34 that most people don't see as Fan Disservice or Brain Bleach?I want to decent a decent HarleyXIvy Rule 34 dammit!
Rule Thirty Six says "There is always something more fucked up than what you just saw." But unless there's an infinite amount of memory and an infinite amount of users, something is the most fucked up thing out there.
Y'Golonac?
Does it only apply to stuff posted publicly on the internet? I mean, I may or may not have some stories, pictures, etc that I've only posted in locked private folders or that will most likely forever be hidden on the hard drive of my computer and not inflicted onto the internet. So, it's sort of the equivalent of the whole "If a tree falls in the forest...." question. Hell, I'm sure there's plenty of Rule34 that has never seen the light of the internet, that only the author/artist even knows about. Do those doodles that perverted fanartists draw and stash away in a drawer, never to be seen by anyone else count? Those fanfics that forever collect dust in some secret folder that only the author knows about? If no one else finds out that it exists, can it still be considered significant?
Go to google images. Look up rule 34 (without an adult content filter). There will be lots of pictures in those black frames, saying below "WTF? Is that [insert male character having sex with other male character here]? Fuck you internet, fuck you" yet, there are ZERO ones of the same ilk with two female characters engaging in sex. Yeah, noDoubleStandard here at all!
An extremely popular series (which I will not name due to fear of rule 35) has no porn of it whatsoever. Either all artists just failed a spot check for material or they didn't have the heart to corrupt it. Does this mean rule 34 has failed?
No, either Rule 35 is in work or you just didn't look hard enough.
I have something that bothers me. WHY DOES THIS EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!? No, I'm not just complaining here, can someone please explain to me why people want porn of everything under the goddamn sun? Why not pour your sexual energy into something that already sexualizes itself? What drives so many jackasses to think that doing this to every fictional series(and that's all rule thirty four really means is porn of every fictional series, not "everything") would be an awesome idea? Why draw porn of a random anime character when there's countless anime that already do it for you?
Why would someone make a comic (Batman: In Darkest Knight) where Bruce Wayne becomes a Green Lantern, when their are plenty of characters who are already Green Lanterns they could read and/or write about? Also, Rule 34 is descriptive not prescription, in other words, it simply claims that porn exists of every character, not that it should exist. Furthermore, I would assume that most Rule 34 artists either find the character(s) they draw to be sexy, and/or (in cases involving multiple characters) ship the characters together and want to see them in a sexual relationship, and that any scaring of childhood that may result is purely unintentional.
Because of Rule 36.
In soviet kazakhstan multiverse, rule34 states if it exists, it's been a Lantern instead.
What percentage of rule 34 is drawn by people who legitimately have something wrong with them and get off that kind of stuff, and what percentage is drawn by trolls?
The first group is poorly defined (in particular the "legitimately have something wrong with them" part), and the later group can't reasonably be counted as anyone who claims to be a "troll" is lying or wrong as a real troll would never admit to being a troll.
The world will never know! Norly. Go to the DNP list on paheal. Click Stuart CH. Try not to tell yourself he is of the second group. See also: Psycho333
I highly doubt there is a porn of anything and everything. It's simply not possible. New things come out all the time. Most of the porn that appiles to Rule 34 — is done by doujin artists and not the original creator. I actually don't mind hentai though, and if there really IS a porn for everything, good then. It just doesn't seem remotely possible to me- Rule 34...
The version of Rule 36 I saw was "There will always be something more fucked up than what you just saw." But what if I see a picture of twin toddlers being raped by shitting dick nipples while Cthulhu looks on, waiting for his chance to...you know. Can something be more fucked up than that?
Just wait for Cthulhu to stop waiting and get in on the action.
There's probably some sort of 'law of tolerances' for drugs, just don't know what you'd call that. But what you just said, I know sooooo many people who would be unable to get off to it... Because its as boring as Missionary to them. One of them is currently working on Town of Fears porn.
Why do pictures as tame as characters cuddling or kissing, or characters in outfits that are slightly revealing (sometimes only a tiny bit more than what they'd wear in cannon) sometimes get called "Rule 34"? Um...if you even know what Rule 34 is, how can you be so sheltered to consider that "porn"? And if both characters are male, why would pictures of them cuddling/kissing get the "ARRGH, DAMN YOU INTERNET, DAMN YOU RULE 34" reaction when a more graphic picture of one of them being more intimate with a female character wouldn't? (Then again, that does depend on which cornersof the internet you ask....)
By being American.
Well, arguably, porn is a subjective thing. if I find X fappable, and there exists ANYTHING depicting X, then there is porn of X, becaus I can fap to the depiction I've found.
Not so fast there: even though sexual attraction and desire may be subjective, some things are clearly not intended to be porn, while others are. An episode of Xena: Warrior Princess is clearly not intended to be porn, while the Xena porn parody clearly is. While some people may nevertheless find the tv show sexually arousing, that doesn't make it porn; similarly, some people might fail to be aroused by the porn parody, but that doesn't make it not porn. Put simply; just because you fap to it doesn't make it porn.
Why is there no Trope-Tan 34?
There is.
Pics or it didn't happen >:D
Look up.
Who came up with this? Where is it coming from? how do yuo keep tabs on who made what? Is there no end?
The internet came up with it. It comes from everywhere. You cannot stop it.
Why is there porn of characters who don't have genitalia? As in you've SEEN them naked and you can clearly see they have no parts, but people draw porn of them with parts anyway?
Artistic talent may vary, but even artists tend to agree that drawing a good human face is one of the difficult tasks (along with hands and feet). Do it wrong and you hit the Uncanny Valley and ruin the effect you were going for, even if you were intending to draw something monstrous. Bad proportions or other mistakes take people out of the experience. These animated characters, with their pre-defined models and stylized designs, are not only easier to draw but less likely to evoke the Off Model feeling even with drastic changes to their appearances. Alternately, it is easier to accept that it is all made up, leading to plentiful fantasies and/or Power Perversion Potential. It's easier for our brains to accept, say, being surrounded by dozens of gender-flipped Naruto clones than being surrounded by dozens of gender-flipped Daniel Radcliffes, if only because Naruto's done such a thing before. Finally, there are just some people who enjoy corrupting any source material simply For the Lulz.
Disproving the Rule 34: "There is porn of it." Recursively: "There is porn of porn of it." play this one ad infinitum for an endless recursion of porns of porns of porns. In the end, the limited size of our planet will restrict us from having that much porn. As soon as one thing exists, there gotta be porn of it. Meaning, there gotta be an infinite amount of porn simply because of that one thing. Alas, either rule 34 is wrong, or the universe doesn't exist. Your choice.
Ah, but, what is porn of porn? If something's already porn, could you say that it itself qualifies as porn of itself? If so, your endless recursion collapses entirely and the rule simply requires that for any non-porn, porn of it exists.
This is also getting into pedantry; it's pretty implicit that when people say "there's porn of it," they're referring to material which is not itself porn to begin with. Because porn is already porn, so there is no need to make porn based on porn, so there is simply no need to go further into the rabbit hole. Although one could easily argue that there are some people out there who, say, make pornographic fan-art featuring their favourite pornographic performer; thus, they are making porn based on porn, and yet, no universal implosion.
