The (sketch)Book of Riot

The process and progress behind the illustration of the egnimatic Natalie Cutrufello, who is very modest and also beautiful.
My newest poster for SDG. I did a lot of experimenting with this onr

My newest poster for SDG. I did a lot of experimenting with this onr

Trying to decide which color scheme to add to my store and use on my new business card. Let me know what you think….



A series of life lessons in doodling. 

I have wise, talented friends.

Latest poster for SDG. This year’s snow brawl is “A Christmas Story” themed. I got the idea for the skate from the monster high roller girl line. Those dolls are awesome and I want to collect them all. I need to sit down and sort through all my knew work and update the ol’ portfolio. The last three posters I did all involved legs, so I really have to do something else for the next one, that’s for sure!

Latest poster for SDG. This year’s snow brawl is “A Christmas Story” themed. I got the idea for the skate from the monster high roller girl line. Those dolls are awesome and I want to collect them all. I need to sit down and sort through all my knew work and update the ol’ portfolio. The last three posters I did all involved legs, so I really have to do something else for the next one, that’s for sure!

2013 vs 2005 or Let’s Get Embarrassed about Old Art

I just completed the first poster for a roller derby bout at the end of this month, While working on it, I was reminded of an assignment I did for my very first illustration class during my freshman year of college. Particularly some notes I received from Jay Bevenour on how pumpkins are actually constructed. I can’t believe how much my art has changed because I feel like it’s been the same forever. When I did the earlier piece I was using a Photoshop 6, a mouse, leaving line work in multiply and exclusively using burn/dodge and blur to apply color (apparently). I vividly remember thinking that piece was awesome. I look at it now and think “why did I ever think I was good at this?”

FYI (if you’re Kim Hall and other people into shaming young girls)

Recently a few things have been creeping into my social media feeds that have been sitting on my brain very heavily. These articles are all about teenage girls, the proper ways they should act and the importance of meeting these standards if these hypothetical girls want to gain the affections of the writer’s sons and attain the approval of the writer, most often a mom. There was one that was just a list about rules for dating the writer’s, and then by proxy, those who reposted it, son. Offbeat Families did a great response that made me feel a lot better about the whole idea, called "It’s Cool if You’re not a Woman and 9 Other Rules for Dating my Son." Maybe someone would read that and really think about what they’re saying.

Now I’m a visual artists and don’t post a lot of long form essay posts. Honestly, I am channeling my many feels into a graphic novel project that’s meant to be an open letter to the young girls in my life and the potential daughter’s I may have. But today I read this article: entitled FYI (if you’re a teenage girl) It seems sweet enough, right? So many mothers of both boys and girls that are following me or friends with me are reposting it telling the author to PREACH girlfriend! I read it and it didn’t sit right. I sat with the article open a long time thinking about it and trying to figure out why this just rubbed me the wrong way.

For one, the idea of a family activity being everyone sitting around and judging other people’s facebook pages, seems kind of messed up. The author masks it with a caring hand, but really it reads like her son’s facebook is the place to be but these girls didn’t wear the right shirt so they don’t get access. From the picture in her article, her sons aren’t exactly infants here. Do these boys completely lack their own judgement or freedom to choose their own friends? I struggle with it. As a step mother, I try to be a very present parent and very involved in my step daughter’s life. I want to know who she’s friends with and how she may present herself online when she reaches that age, but I don’t see myself as being the police of that. It feels like a boundary is crossed to police a child’s social life when there isn’t laws being broken. And it feels very wrong to judge people based on nothing but their facebook…when they’re teenagers.

The author starts this article in kind of a condescending tone, do other people get that? She mentions that her sons notice that in these pictures the girl in question is not wearing a bra. She approaches this in tone, as if it’s indecent. I don’t wear bra, regularly. Why? Because they’re uncomfortable and I don’t think I need to wear some boulder holders to make my breasts the perfect shape and perkiness for someone else. Leave girls alone. They have a right to not wear a bra, it’s not against the law. And not wearing a bra doesn’t suddenly make them a sex object. It’s a personal choice a woman has the right to make and this ever so perfect family really has no right to judge a woman on that fact. Not wearing a bra was one of the best things I ever did and I really did not do it because I thought it would get a man’s attention. I know it’s a shock, but most if the decisions women makes are not -for- men.

The author carries on, commenting on the girl in question’s “selfie” poses. She refers to a teenager’s pout as sultry. When talking about her arched back, it seems as if she’s implying an arched back is somehow beckoning. Then she claims that the family genuinely enjoys seeing life through her colorful lens, but then follows it with the news that, sorry honey but we’re blocking your sluttly slut face. Not in those words. But see, the author just lied to the reader. Mom does not enjoy seeing life through this girl’s eyes because she just judged her indecent by her family’s standards. If this girl’s world view is sex positive, then Mom should be interested in reading about it since her life is so different, and from everything I’ve read the girl has not shown her bare breasts or propositioned her family for sex. That’s what enjoying another person’s perspective means.  But no, this anonymous girl’s viewpoint is never explored. She is just blocked and addressed as someone who has made mistakes and should put on her good girl outfit and be a “real lady” if she hopes to get the golden ticket back to her son’s facebook.

Let’s talk about the “selfie” the author has described. First we must address that from the time we (women) are forced out of the birth canal, there is nothing more important than being beautiful. We start as a beautiful baby girl, our toys in vast majority are about being a pretty pretty girl, the compliments girls get up until they’re about 6 is “you’re so pretty!” Not smart, not talented, not creative, not brave, not strong, but pretty, over and over again. When a girl turns 6 she enters school and she’ll find out if she really is pretty or not within the first 5 minutes of the experience. For the rest of their lives, they will be elevated as one of the pretty girls and receive all the benefits and hindrances that go along with that or she will be one of the ugly girls. A girl’s entire self worth is tied to being pretty and it’s completely messed up. When you’re an “ugly girl” every compliment given feels like a consolation prize for not being pretty. From infancy through childhood, everything around a girl tells her that she needs to be a pretty girl, that’s the standard. What’s pretty? Go to the very pink isle in a toy store and think about what you see. Then open pre-teen and teen girl magazines, what’s pretty? Why are there diet tips in a magazine for 10 year olds? Just soak that all in. When a girl gets into her twenties, magical things start to happen, where people notice the beauty she has outside of that pink standard. But if she was an ugly girl, she will never shake the label in herself and unless she gets some serious feminist rage/empowerment, she will always feel some shame about not being perfect.

Think about that for a long time, maybe the people that reposted the article were in the pretty girl club and didn’t have to make certain efforts to be noticed that way. Now this girl’s photo has an arched back and a sultry pout. The pout, if the reader is referring to something akin to the duck face, slims the face out and gives the illusion of cheek bones. It’s not about being sexy, it’s about making a girls face look less fat, because I am 100% sure this girl probably thinks she’s too fat, because being a teenage girl is awful. The arched back is kind of vague, but in a world where there is nothing more important than being attractive, its very likely she’s imitating a model pose. Arching the back, angling the body a certain way, it’s all about creating something visually appealing and often, slimmer. So perhaps the author should question that whole concept right there, Maybe the writer should try -actually- empowering girls to feel beautiful without meeting the standard and not tie their self worth to the attention they get from others. The author tries to flip it that she’s trying to show these girls there’s more to them than sexy pictures, but that’s the key, it’s a “sexy” picture. The author ties the girl’s picture to an attempt at being an object of sexual desire instead of just a girl trying to be beautiful to meet someone else’s standards. This harlot won’t be getting near this mom’s boys, no sir.

Let’s say the picture is about sexual attention, what then? Firstly, the girl in question needs to be made aware of the sex laws in her state, because she could get labeled a sex offender even if she engages in sexual contact even with someone her own age. She needs to be aware of those repercussions in addition to that of STDs and pregnancy in order to  make well informed decisions. But we have now entered a world called “slut shaming,” and it’s the act of shaming someone for being sex positive and open to sexuality and it often leads to victim blaming. This girl’s picture does not sound that risque to me, but if this girl got assaulted, I firmly believe the author of this article would believe she has asked for it. The adult woman author, referred to a teenage girl, who is still a child, as sultry. Even the author is sexualizing this girl without really thinking that an adult SHOULDN’T be sexualizing a child even if she has pouty lips. If this girl is truly a sexually active teen, who wants to be seen as sexy, that’s her right and something she should take pride in, because it’s her choice. If you are a sex positive woman, you’re sex positive for you and what this girl does is not for the benefit of anyone but herself. Those are her rights. What is not anyone else’s right is to take advantage of her, rape her, demand sex from her or even expect sex from her, regardless of the clothes she wears or how sultry her pout is. But I doubt the author of this article shares my viewpoint, and honestly, that’s a problem.

Third option? Maybe this girl was just taking a damn picture and the Hall family should leave her alone!

Here’s my favorite line:
"Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it?  You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?"
This quote makes me see RED! Let’s take the second part of this sentence first. “You wouldn’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?” Well, for one, if the Hall boys have such fantastic parents as the author would have you believe, they shouldn’t, regardless of this girl’s facebook picture. But that wording tells me that if they do only see girls as sexual object, the author believes it is completely this girl’s fault for it happening, not her sons being raised as chauvinist pigs. What about teaching them respect for women? But I guess the idea is this girl does not deserve respect because she took a picture of herself in a towel.

Now the first…”Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it?” Where are the scientific studies to back that up? Does the author have such little faith in young men, even her sons, that they have no self control? No other thoughts besides boobs? Does this author think that seeing a girl wrapped in a towel will work them into such a sexual frenzy that they can’t control themselves? Because they see worse on TV every day. And I’m sure seeing this girl at school everyday hasn’t posed a problem for these boys. Really, the issue is the author does not want her sons to see a girl in a sexual way, because that means they might have sex. And since nothing can be her perfect sons’ fault, these girls must be temptresses making her sons have dirty dirty sex. This idea makes me think of Burkas, not just head scarves, but the full burka that covers a woman from head to toe to prevent men from having sexual thoughts about a woman. Funny thing though, it doesn’t. Men think about sex. I’m sure the sons in this article have a porno magazine stashed somewhere in their room. And there’s nothing wrong with that. “We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.” well if you’re raising them that way, it shouldn’t matter if those pictures exist.

To apply icing to this cake, there are two pictures of her sons in bathing suits, one in which they are flexing. Showing off their bodies for the camera. What that says: girl bodies are dirty and indecent, boy body’s are strong and acceptable. When I was in college, my male roommates walked around in their boxers all the time. Out in the hall, to the laundry room, around company. What if a lady did that? It wouldn’t be about comfort or it being hot out now would it? When I moved into a house in south Philadelphia, we had a mix of guys and girls living there, and us girls totally walked around in our underwear because it was hot and it was comfortable. So did the guys. One of our male roommates had a crush on both myself and our other roommate. Oddly enough, he didn’t take the action as an excuse to make advances or that we were asking for him to have sex with us.

Girls are desperately in need of empowerment right now. I have read two stories this year about teenage girls killing themselves after being sexually assaulted. The communities around those girls said they had asked for it, wanted it, citing facebook page photos and clinging to the myth of teenage girls tempting men into indecent acts. But that’s the thing, it’s a myth. Girls should have the freedom to take pride in their bodies and not be shamed. If the author of this article really wants to empower girls to be strong women of character, she shouldn’t base her case about shaming them. Young girls don’t need this message from Kim Hall. Not one bit.

waiting to send this off to print. have to confirm the bout times.

waiting to send this off to print. have to confirm the bout times.

The Myth of the Teenage Temptress: Or Why A Young Girl Can Not Consent to Sex With An Adult Man



I started having sex with adult men when I was 13 years old.

Neglected at home and ostracized at school, I found comfort in the sexual attentions of older men. Unlike boys my own age, who cruelly taunted me, older men were nice to me. Unlike my emotionally distant father, older men paid attention to me. They were grooming me, but to that chubby, attention-starved teenage girl, their attentions felt a lot like love.

And so I created Prodigy chat rooms with names like “13yo girl home alone” and spent hours chatting and having phone sex with the men who would find me there. I “dated” men in their 20s and 30s that I met at the movie theater, online or hanging around local college town with my other underage girlfriends. I pursued these relationships with with Lolita-like abandon. The terrifying thing is how few adult men ever said no.

I was not coerced. I consented to all these sexual encounters in the basest sense of the world. But I was making choices that I wasn’t emotionally equipped to make. Legally, that’s why statutory rape laws exist. Because like an intoxicated person, an underage person is not truly capable of informed consent.

And yet, on Monday, Stacey Rambold, a Senior High teacher convicted of raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who later committed suicide, was sentenced to spend just 30 days in jail. The judge justified his decision in part by saying he listened to recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes that while she was a troubled youth, she was “as much in control of the situation” as Rambold.

The judge also said Morales was “older than her chronological age.”

Yep, you read that right. A 14-year-old ” troubled youth” who eventually committed suicide (as a direct result of the sexual assault and its aftermath, according to her mother) had “control over the situation” with a 49-year-old rapist. But don’t worry, this wasn’t “the kind of rape most people think about,” according to Judge G. Todd Baugh. “It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies.” He generously added that “It was nonetheless a rape…and this should not have occurred.”

After the sentencing, the victim’s mother shouted “You people suck!” repeatedly before storming out of the court, and later told news cameras, “My faith in the justice system is gone.”

While researching this article, I read many comments supporting the judge’s decision, all predicated on the idea that the 14-year-old victim had consented to sex with her 49-year-old teacher.

"There is little to no information given about what the nature of the relationship was, how it started, how long it lasted, how the girl felt about the relationship or perceived it, how much consent … she gave in regards to it all, but all signs point to the fact that this was an ongoing relationship where they engaged in sex on at least 3 occasions, which strongly brings to question just how much actual victimization took place here," wrote one commenter.

The fact is, a 14-year-old girl may be capable of agreeing to sex with a 49-year-old man, but she doesn’t have the emotional and mental maturity to consent.  I was 25 before I realized that every man I’d slept with as a teenager was a pedophile. It seemed to me that since I’d courted the attention, that I was fully culpable. What teenager believes she is not mentally or emotionally capable of full consent? I thought I was an adult, although when I look at the picture of myself from the time period above, I see a child.

I thought I was the exception for these men, the girl so precocious and advanced that it superseded social norms. I thought that I was “older than my chronological age.”

It never occurred to me as a young sexually active teen that the adult men I had relationships with may have been manipulating me, that they had designs and motives I couldn’t see from my limited child’s perspective. 

Once, I met a 28-year-old man online and went to his house for a “date.” He began to undress me almost immediately — I went along with it because I wanted him to like me, and our sexual encounter culminated with him holding my head down and ejaculating into my throat while I sputtered and struggled to pull away. Later, I couldn’t understand why he never called me again, why he didn’t want to be my boyfriend.

Because I was a child, I was missing large pieces of the perspective required to understand adult situations. Children can be sexual. Children can pursue. Girl children in particular may have already learned how to manipulate and bargain with their sexuality at a very young age. They are still children. Like all children, they test boundaries, boundaries that adults must set and maintain.

If Cherice Morales was indeed a “troubled youth,” like I was, if she came from a dysfunctional home or had a trauma background or had been previously abused, then not only may she have been lacking in protection at home, she may have been especially incapable of protecting herself. And that’s why statutory rape laws exist — to protect children who need protecting, not just from those who will prey upon them, but from themselves.

The defense argued that Rambold had suffered enough by losing his career, his marriage and his home and suffering a “scarlet letter of the Internet” as a result of publicity about the case.

For my part, I spent the next decade of my life wrestling with demons borne partly of sexual trauma. I became addicted to drugs, risky sex, and alcohol. I still struggle to learn that there are better ways to get attention than with my body, that my sexuality isn’t the only thing that makes me worthy of love and attention.

Still, I made it out of my teen years alive; Cherice Morales wasn’t so lucky.

What I needed, and what she needed, were strong male role models in my life who knew how the fuck to say “No thanks” to a little girl’s come-ons. Because it doesn’t matter if a young girl is saying yes, it’s an adult man’s job to say no.

You can sign a petition to unseat Judge G. Todd Baugh here. For Billings residents, a protest will take place outside the courthouse tomorrow at noon.

The fact is, a 14-year-old girl may be capable of agreeing to sex with a 49-year-old man, but she doesn’t have the emotional and mental maturity to consent.  I was 25 before I realized that every man I’d slept with as a teenager was a pedophile.”

yup yup yup

I am constantly frustrated and deeply upset by the “she wanted it” culture of rape cases. We’re living in 2013 and we’re still wrestling with these problems, even enduring a back lash and being accused of buyers remorse. How would this have been different if the young girl in question had been a 13 year old boy with that 49 year old male teacher? These young women who are victims are publically shamed as “sluts” instread of seen as what they are, victims. This isn’t the first sexual assault case I’ve heard of this year that ended in the suicide of the victim. Or where the predator had “suffered enough” or where the predator was seen as a victim of the victim’s feminine charm. that I’ve heard of

(via mooncalfe)

Mutha Fuckin' SOPA Is Back! (Aug. 23, 2013)








The Obama administration announced that it will be bringing back a piece of SOPA legislation that would make streaming copyrighted material a felony.

Can you believe this shit? When we finally get one off our backs, they try and bring up another bill AGAIN. We already said no to the first one, so why do they think that this is any better?

For those of you who don’t know what SOPA is, it was a bill back in 2011 that the govn’t tried to pass that said that posting any copyrighted music or even COVERS of said music would be considered a felony. A. FELONY.

Sign the petition below, and let’s keep our internet the way we like it.

not only the action of posting covers would be a felony, but also making fanart and writing fanfiction. Please, guys. It only takes a moment to make an account and click a button. If you’ve ever made a cover, drawn fanart, or written fanfic, or enjoyed any of the above, PLEASE go sign this petition.

signal boost this shit

So if you’re in a fandom, you’re basically screwed. I don’t know how Tumblr hasn’t imploded because of this.

Some times I think that the stereotype of young people being apathetic is directly related to the fact that no one listens when we say ‘knock it off.’ Times like this, I think I’m pretty damn certain.

Actually, I forgot to comment about this.

The reason why Tumblr hasn’t imploded about this is because, well kids, people really ARE as stupid and apathetic as you think they are.

It takes some REAL coaxing to get people to care about things other than penises and cats and other trifling, unnecessary things that can survive perfectly capable without their gawking and cooing. 

People in the masses are dumbasses.

Because not one person will take the time to sit down and think and actually READ what’s awfully important. 

Let me break it down, followers for I feel most of you are perfectly capable, free thinking folks that actually has some life in the gray mater in your calcium husk.

All that OTP, OT3, BFFships, shipping/armadas that you have accumulated over the years of really enjoying something and being a fan, it’s going to fucking disappear. All. Of. Your. Precious. Websites (some questionable, some popular, some obscure). That cater. To your kinks. About your favorite pairing. Will. FUCKING. D-I-S-A-P-P-E-A-R. Yes, will go down. will go down (painfully). AO3 (archive of our own, for those who don’t know) will go down. ANY. AND. ALL. FANFICTION. WILL. D-I-S-A-P-P-E-A-R. And not only that, kids. The authors, probably totally innocent human beings (I use “innocent” very loosely), fans JUST LIKE YOU are now felons. That means, kids… FANFICTION AUTHORS. WILL BE GRADED. THE SAME WAY. A FELON WOULD. BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY ENJOYED SOMETHING SO MUCH THAT IT STIMULATED THEIR CREATIVE SPIRIT TO TAKE THE TIME AND BUILD UP THAT RESUME TO GAIN CARPAL TUNNEL BECAUSE THEY LOVE SOMETHING TO ACTUALLY EITHER TYPE IT OR PEN-TO-PAPER IT OR DO FUCKING BOTH.

You know those… beautiful webcomics that sometimes caters to and blends in all of your favorite things? The one that immediately pops in my mind is Grim Tales From Down Below and PPG:D (all Snafu content). KISS THOSE GOOD-BYE. It’s going in the incinerator. 

Oh, also… I know most of you have favorite artists from around the art WWW world. I fucking love Blackstorm and I REALLY fucking love EarlGreyxx. Blackstorm makes by far the sexiest gotdamn IchiGrimm art I’ve ever seen in my life. EarlyGreyxx is a surgeon with Pokemon gijinkas (gijinkas = the humanization of animals/things). THEY TOO. WILL BE. LABELED. AS FELONS. FOR SIMPLY DOING SOMETHING THEY LOVE. WHICH IS CATER TO YOU (for they’re sharing this art for the world to see) AND CATER TO THEMSELVES (‘cause let’s face it, art is very selfish and self-fulfilling). IT. WILL. BE. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Kiss all those art sites you believe to your heart of hearts to be better than deviantart INCLUDING deviantart that last kiss goodnight ‘cause  they’re all gonna get fuckin’ buried. That includes simply because it CARRIES the fanart.

Take the time to watch this balloon, think how far this will balloon. You may think it won’t effect you. What about those MLP:FIM figurines you love so much made by somebody other than the folks who own MLP:FIM? IT’S GONE. Those gorge art pieces featuring you with somebody of fiction that you took the time and money to pay for? IT’S GONE (by the way, you’re probably gonna be considered a felon for simply promoting this art by buying it from the artist who is also now a felon). Those awesome cross-over pieces that circulate around Tumblr? Disney meets Pokemon? Digimon meets Attack On Titan? Pokemon meets EVERYTHING UNDER THE FUCKING BLACK SUN (and the glow cloud)? You will… never… see it… again… Plain and simple.


Think of all those times when a simple fucking picture of your favorite thing brightened an otherwise shitty day. 

Think of all those times fanfiction probably saved you from going to a deep and dark place that you felt you couldn’t escape, remember that little window of light making you smile through your tears.

Think of all those times role-playing simply in the same UNIVERSE as your favorite thing made you feel like you could fly if only for a moment.

But then again, since this won’t get nearly as much attention as a picture of a kitten or a vulture or a penis or vagina or whatever, I guess you don’t give a fuck. 

And the government is gonna continuously prey on that fact: You don’t give a fuck.

Keep in mind kids, the ones who give less than a fuck than you is forever gonna be the gotdamn government.

Stay stupid, kids.

Love ya.

This is important, people.

I personally would like the right to draw wolverine and post it to my blog if I want to, or write a comic reimagining of sailor moon, or the future of batman villians since the real batman never ages. I know the rules about selling licensed characters, but i’d still like to do that. Drawing popular characters gets your page more hits and recognition so your original stuff can get noticed. It would cut the legs off up and comers to take that away.

(Source: nameless-traveler, via mooncalfe)