What would this be qualified as?

[Miracle overloading]

I was reminded of this old looney tunes episode (god, i love looney tunes), and i was wondering what category, if any, this would fall under?

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v241230HM3hfdJT

a woman transforming into another woman (in this case an ugly into beautiful)

what do you guys think?

[No-Man]

It's not a tg, it's not BE, it's not muscle, not shrinking, not growth...

There are some groups that put BE, Inflation, and all transformations where the species and gender stay the same as Body Modification. There's not really a category for it here. Maybe just TF?

[PrBlahBlahtson]

AR or TF. One could theorize that she transformed to a younger form. Or just that she transformed.

[No-Man]

I wouldn't say AR because AR usually implies an age reduction below 18.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by No-Man

I wouldn't say AR because AR usually implies an age reduction below 18.

Not really, AR just implies a person getting noticably younger than before. It could just as easily be a person going from being an older woman to a visibly younger woman.

However, it's also likely that it's just a female-to-female change, which is what I've heard tf's been called that have been along the lines "Woman changing to a different looking woman"

[genderhazard]

The cause of the transformation was a beauty potion. No age regression just beautification.

Witch Hazel meant the potion for Bugs who was wearing a ugly witch mask for Halloween. So Hazel would still be the ugliest of them all.

If any one is intrested here are two original production drawings of the characters and a cel at his site.
http://members.aol.com/bruz2/broomstick_2.html

[PrBlahBlahtson]

Originally Posted by No-Man

I wouldn't say AR because AR usually implies an age reduction below 18.

Are you implying that AR art should only include characters being reduced below the age of consent? Because that's seriously close to if not illegal in a number of countries. It's photography or artwork where the subject is below legal age of a sexual nature.

[No-Man]

*shrugs* Not an AR fan, so I wouldn't know the rules on that. But I believe that AR usually doesn't put the transformee into a sexual situation.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by PrBlahBlahtson

Are you implying that AR art should only include characters being reduced below the age of consent? Because that's seriously close to if not illegal in a number of countries. It's photography or artwork where the subject is below legal age of a sexual nature.

Strangely I don't think the U.S is one of them. Art is protected under freedom of speech and all that.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by No-Man

*shrugs* Not an AR fan, so I wouldn't know the rules on that. But I believe that AR usually doesn't put the transformee into a sexual situation.

That also tends to depend on the situation quite a bit. It's not really cut and dry, I've seen authors who write erotic AR stories, as well as those who write non-erotic AR stories.

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

Strangely I don't think the U.S is one of them. Art is protected under freedom of speech and all that.

Artwork, yes, it's not considered child pornography and isn't illegal. Photographs, not so much. Then it really depends on the purpose on how it would be viewed by the public.

[PrBlahBlahtson]

It all depends on intent. If you draw a picture of an underage girl having sex with an adult in way that's intended to provoke arousal, I do believe that potentially falls under child pornography. Yes, it's only a drawing, BUT it's still an intentional depiction of a minor having sex with an adult for the purpose of the viewer's sexual enjoyment. Keep in mind, there's a difference between "artistic expression" and porn, and if you think about it, you can tell the difference. And the fun part of intent is nobody sees things the same way as everybody else.

That being said, I'm not a fan of AR myself. Yeah, I've been known to like AP material, but I've always been kind of wary because I know that gray zone is out there. Guess I'll have to dig up some law references tomorrow and see if I can understand it once and for all.

[TrumanGrace]

Originally Posted by PrBlahBlahtson

It all depends on intent. If you draw a picture of an underage girl having sex with an adult in way that's intended to provoke arousal, I do believe that potentially falls under child pornography. Yes, it's only a drawing, BUT it's still an intentional depiction of a minor having sex with an adult for the purpose of the viewer's sexual enjoyment. Keep in mind, there's a difference between "artistic expression" and porn, and if you think about it, you can tell the difference. And the fun part of intent is nobody sees things the same way as everybody else.

If we're talking about legal terms, then in the US, it has to be real photographs/movies, rather than artwork. I can't recall the exact case, but it was something the Supreme Court decided.