welcome to 4chan, circa 2008. Fuck, rules 1 & 2. Forget what I said.

oh...oh my

reporting in from /fit/, btw

The fishnets are a nice touch.

I'm most amazed the artist converted both middle-aged lumps into taut hairlessness. Somebody takes his hatefaps very seriously indeed.

Since I've been around computers since way before the internet (think BBS's & irc) I knew about Rule 34. I *did not know* there was a site for it. Cartoon woulda been much funnier if it looked like either of them. & Rule 34 doesn't encompass everything - I typed in "lasagna" & got no results. Now you know.

@ 6, why 34? Or is that like asking why the catch in Catch-22 is number 22?

@7 = Matt: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-t… :-)

@7 The catch in Catch 22 is 22 because, as Wikipedia sums it up(accurately), other novels or films with numbers, and what the publisher thought a funny number might be: From wikipedia:

The title is a reference to a fictional bureaucratic stipulation which embodies forms of illogical and immoral reasoning. The opening chapter of the novel was originally published in New World Writing as Catch-18 in 1955 but Heller's agent, Candida Donadio, requested that he change the title of the novel so it would not be confused with another recently published World War II novel, Leon Uris's Mila 18. The number 18 has special meaning in Judaism (it means Alive in Gematria) and was relevant to early drafts of the novel which had a somewhat greater Jewish emphasis.[23]

The title Catch-11 was suggested, with the duplicated 1 paralleling the repetition found in a number of character exchanges in the novel but because of the release of the 1960 movie Ocean's Eleven this was also rejected. Catch-17 was rejected so as not to be confused with the World War II film Stalag 17, as well as Catch-14, apparently because the publisher did not feel that 14 was a "funny number." Eventually the title came to be Catch-22 which like 11, has a duplicated digit, with the 2 also referring to a number of déjà vu-like events common in the novel.[23]

A 1950s-early 1960s anthology of war stories included a short version as "Catch-17".[citation needed]

I needed this lengthy comment to cleanse my brain-eyes of what I've just seen.

Would somebody who can actually draw Romney and Santorum care to take a stab at this? This one looks like a generic naughty picture with text added as an afterthought.

@6, Rule 35 suggests that someone is right now at work on some lasagna porn...

And... bam. Here you go, @6:

http://www.kinkbomb.com/Two-Girl-Lasagna…

and

http://apetronic.com/?p=976

So fucking sick of seeing "lulz" and "fappable" and other internet garbage everywhere.

Almost artsistic. Very Weimar Republic.

@13 i too hate it when my internet is sullied with internet stuff

That's a terrible expression of Rule 34, however popular it is. "If it exists" is stupid; obviously, the scene depicted (ineptly) here doesn't exist. A better way to put it is "if you can think of it, there is porn of it". Or the plain "there is porn of it, no exceptions".

Most of those websites serve the Red States.

We in the Blue States need not use those sections.

@ 8, thanks.

@ 9, I was thinking in context of the actual story, not what Heller or his publisher thought outside of it. And of course I knew about the criticism of military bureaucracy. I meant the fact that it was catch # 22, with no further explanation of any of the other catches (that I remember - I haven't read the book for 25 years, so some details are hazy). THAT being said, I appreciate the interesting story behind the title.

The website doesn't seem to embody Rule 34 much. Rather, it illustrates a rule that goes something like this: "Makers and consumers of graphic novels and anime/manga have an endless appetite for pornographic images rendered in those drawing styles."

Which is so obvious that it's not a rule that needs to be numbered, or have a whole website dedicated to it.

Possible Rule 34 breaker: "porn involving Will in Seattle".

@16 - Yeah. I've always heard that Rule 34 simply reads "There is porn of it."

@20 http://www.rentboy.com/Listing.aspx?lid=…

Hey Dan, quick question: Did the rooster really know how to open his throat?

I greatly enjoyed discerning what the image was from the comments rather than risk clicking.

@12 - Erica P - admittedly, I only looked it up on the Rule 34 *site* that Dan linked to, but, I bow to your mighty use of search. I don't think I needed to know that actually existed! Rule 34, proved yet again.

On the plus side, now not hungry for lasagna, anymore.

Fnarf is correct, you have inaccurately stated the rule.

Cantwell, Clinton, Mary Poppins? Nada. Not even Queen Victoria for God's sake. Site was a real disappointment.

@3: /sci/duck here. Come at me bro.

Little known fact: it is thanks to a mind-numbingly bizarre post on rule34.paheal.net that the Interbutts have been blessed with the phrase "what is this i dont even".

CANNOT BE UNSEEN!!!!!

Waiter? I'm going to need Fire. And LOTS of it.

Rule #35: The exception of rule #34 is the citation of rule #34.