u/EgoistRanger

Hopefully we can all agree that consent is important and shouldn't be violated in anyway. I'm no puritan and I do enjoy smut but I prefer drawn NSFW art like Rule 34 over real NSFW content like Pornhub mostly because it's more ethical and less exploitative. The porn industry has countless scandals of non-consensual nude recordings of victims, and profiting from human trafficking over decades, but even if those two weren't the case, can you really say it's consensual to prey on desperate people to sexualize themselves just to feed themselves? To commodify sex, sounds very exploitative. "But what about those OF women who make millions?" At best they only make up of %1 of OF content makers, so 99% are still scraping by. The real ethical solution is to improve welfare, education, and women's rights so they won't have to sell their bodies for money. The worst scandals of NSFW artists or Rule 34 artists are usually tracing, scamming, or AI slop which are small potatoes compared to the scandals of the porn industry. Most NSFW artists sexualize mostly fictional characters, rarely real people ever, so they have the ethical high ground over the porn industry plus it's often see as taboo to draw NSFW art of real people in the NSFW art community unless the real person expresses consent or permission to do so.

So fictional NSFW art is better than real porn because it's more ethical.

So my protagonist acquires supernatural powers and later hires researchers to learn about his powers more thoroughly, then the scientist tells him he's biologically immortal and can no longer age. This makes the protagonist sad because he has a boyfriend he really loves and the thought of outliving him one day makes him dread it a lot. Also the protagonist is actually invincible so he'll never ever die. He tells the bad news about this to his boyfriend but assures the protagonist that everything will be alright. So the protagonist tries to find a way to become normal so they die together as a couple or find a way to make his boyfriend immortal so they can live forever as a couple. Later on his boyfriend has cancer but it's incurable and the protagonist is desperate to save his life. Then luckily after defeating a major antagonist, he discovers a limited supply of serums that grant random powers but always guarantees disease/cancer immunity and immortality. He saves his boyfriend from cancer and they can live forever as a couple thanks to the serum. Though this creates a single but big question, how will they handle immortality as a couple? And eventually I would have to address that.

In fictional media, there's a lot of examinations about it's like being immortal or at least one with a long lifespan, Frieren is a great anime that examines this, but most of them focus on one single immortal and how lonely, boring, depressing, or maddening it is after seeing all your loved ones die. So what if a couple were immortal? Will they get sick or bored of each other eventually then split because in real life some couples have peacefully divorced due to the love between each other fading after years, or will their love for each other become even stronger because the rest of their loved ones like friends or family are gone but at least they still have each other forever? I think I remember someone saying what heaven or hell is depends on the company you have, hell is where everyone hates each other, and heaven is where everyone loves each other. Any help will be appreciated.

So I'm an indie comic book writer and artist, I want my protagonist to use some real Cold War era to 90s era guns that look sci-fi (for example the PM-63 and the Neopup paw-20) because I like to my work to stand out more when it comes to creativity. The reason why I'm specifically looking for pre-2000s guns that look sci-fi is because there's plenty of post-2000s guns that look sci-fi but the pre-2000s just look more interesting as if it were retro-futuristic. Plus it can't be prototype, and actually been manufacture and used by the military, police, or citizens.

So in Russia, the debate about what or who caused the USSR is unsurprisingly still the hottest debate in the country. Most say it's Gorbachev's fault, some say it's Brezhnev's fault, but the pro-soviets and Marxist-Leninists have interesting answer to that. So the pro-communists obviously hate Gorbachev and his policies causing the death of the Soviet Union but they also say that the Soviet Union began to rot and decline towards downfall at the year 1961, implying the Khrushchev was the one who planted the seeds of downfall for the USSR. The Marxist-Leninists say that the Khrushchev Thaw caused rampant corruption in the USSR and Khrushchev's incompetency during his time as leader both did a lot of damage to the USSR but it was subtle and gradual. They also claimed that Brezhnev tried to do his best to undo the damages of Khrushchev's mistakes but it was too late and the damage was already done then came Gorbachev who dealt the final blow. So it seems they're implying that Khrushchev started the downfall of the USSR and Gorbachev finished it. So is this in anyway true or is this a negative bias towards Khrushchev?