# Question about the Rules of the Internet...such as famous Rule 34



## Sneakers (Apr 21, 2011)

A got a friend who keeps asking me if I could draw my main character with muscles...but I don't wish to, because it's not his nature to have muscles...he is designed the way he is on purpose, and I just don't like drawing him that way...but the guy is quite nice and thought of Rule 34....I was thinking...since I don't want to officially draw him that way, what if I did a comic where my character Sneakers was looking up art online, and commenting on these rules, and someone would say it could happen to him, but he just replies it would be very unlikely due to him being virtually unknown compared to the many that are known and get 34'd...and in the last panel is a closeup of a drawing someone was working on, and is a picture of him buffed up....granted I would draw it, but in the picture, it's a drawing of someone else's drawing 

my question is...Rule 34 pertains to porn that will exist if a character or person exists...is there a similar rule that states, in a nutshell, that art will exist portraying anyone or any character different than they usually are? Something like that. I just want to be sure to have it make sense...and since it's about Sneakers' having muscles...saying he was 34'd wouldn't really make any sense.

Thanks.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Apr 21, 2011)

There's no such rule, afaik.


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 21, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> There's no such rule, afaik.


 
No? Oh...well...you think there would be....makes sense..if something exists, people are going to draw them outside their character....like give them muscles, make them fatter, thinner, put them in relationships with characters they want to see them with, whether it be characters from the same universe as the target character or some OC....I see it all the time, and is like Rule 34, but never has anything to do with porn.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 21, 2011)

The fuck?

Just say he was abusing steroids or had a spell cast on him by a crazy wizard or some other bullshit that furries usually use.


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 21, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> The fuck?
> 
> Just say he was abusing steroids or had a spell cast on him by a crazy wizard or some other bullshit that furries usually use.


 
Because that's not what I wanted to do..I don't want him having muscles...period..no spells, no steroids, nothing that involve him actually having muscles. the joke was that he was commenting on how people draw characters outta their normal state....and ends with a picture someone is drawing outside his normal appearance. This way, he never gets muscled out...and the picture of him with muscles isn't him...just a picture of him some fan drew of him. I don't want to get into a discussion of other ways of making him bulked up, when what I have, he never does....and even if I use the non-canon rule or a dream sequence...even if it's non-canon, he still is portrayed by me with muscles. 

I know it doesn't make sense, but this is the way I want to have him shown with muscles without feeling he himself was shown differently. Because the picture at the end is supposed to represent someone else's drawing(even if I would have drawn it) and thoughts.

No need to make a capital issue...just asked a simple question, and if you don't know, fine..leave it at that.


----------



## Zydala (Apr 21, 2011)

The history of the rules go as such: they were made in an arbitrary order and on a whim by anonymous people and there's a bunch of places that fill up the missing rules here and there but they're not really anything to pay attention to. Rule 34 exists not on an actual definitive list of rules, but as itself. So... that's all.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 21, 2011)

http://rulesoftheinternet.com/


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 21, 2011)

Zydala said:


> The history of the rules go as such: they were made in an arbitrary order and on a whim by anonymous people and there's a bunch of places that fill up the missing rules here and there but they're not really anything to pay attention to. Rule 34 exists not on an actual definitive list of rules, but as itself. So... that's all.


 
Ah...ok...think I know how to deliver the gag now....just was curious about it, since rule 34 is infamous...that there may have been a similar one. Thanks for the help.


----------



## DesecratedFlame (Apr 26, 2011)

The only rules that are agree on are these:
Rule 1: do not talk about /b/
Rule 2: do not talk about /b/
Rule 34: Porn exists of it
Rule 63: A genderbent version exists of it
Rule 88: a large breasted version of any female exists

and that is pretty much it


----------



## Faustus (May 1, 2011)

Not one of the 'rules of the Internet' per se, but one that I quite like is "As an Internet forum debate becomes longer and more heated, the chances of one of the participants comparing his opponent to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one. Once such a comparison has been made, nothing constructive or useful will come out of the remainder of that thread"

But yeah, the old 'If it exists, there is porn of it' is about the only general rule of the Internet that gets close to being a universal truth, and even then there are bound to be exceptions. (Mind you, they likely remain exceptions only because nobody has thought of them, or mentioned them in such a place that somebody will immediately MAKE porn about them.)


----------



## Icky (May 1, 2011)

Is there a Godwin's Law about people mentioning Godwin's Law?

And if there is, did I just invoke a third Godwin's Law by mentioning the new second Godwin's Law, mentioning the original Godwin's Law?


----------

