Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 25-29 Apr 2011 (1911-1915)
Near Lurker:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 30 Apr 2011, 23:36 ---She's a pure lesbian and not into men at all. And she would like to have a relationship with a woman, but she just cant get any. Obviously she's actually very frustrated in that area, even if, thanks to her cheerful character, she doesnt show it much.
--- End quote ---
Yes, she can. She's getting plenty. At most, she wants something more meaningful, but what's relevant to the current situation is just that she wants something with Dora.
--- Quote from: snubnose on 30 Apr 2011, 23:36 ---Also, she's highly attracted to Faye and her breasts and would absolutely love to see them. Sadly Faye isnt into women at all, so Tai stands no chance in hell to have any success with Faye in this respect.
So when she sees Dora, who is comfortable around women, undressing so carelessly, she's inspired to attempt to undress Faye in a joking way.
--- End quote ---
I don't think so. I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there. If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.
TheEvilDog:
--- Quote from: Near Lurker on 01 May 2011, 07:54 ---I don't think so. I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there. If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.
--- End quote ---
Prediction for tomorrow, Tai with a black eye or several bruises, gifts from the house of Whitaker. (Of course, if it had been Hanners, Tai might have gotten a concussion, what with Hanners tendency to flail about when she panics. Penelope, I think she'd be the kind of person to slap people across the cheek. Nothing says no like a stinging cheek.)
DSL:
Just an observation ... just about every time the forum lights up with "Oooh, now shit's gonna get real," what actually happens is way less severe and a tad more comic than the predictions ( including mine).
That said, I can imagine Hanners's reaction ranging from the aforementioned flailing to "Dwah?!" to "It bothers me that I'm becoming inured to this."
Penelope's reaction could be interesting; for all her priggish rants when the situation is theoretical, she's displayed amusing aplomb when the situation finally presents itself, viz. the accidential presentation if Wil's Poetry Of Tumescence. Look at her ass, Tai, and tell her it's pretty.
Hm. The Bitter Barista could be the one to stop our little libidinous librarian dead in her tracks. For purposes of hilarity, of course.
Emperor Norton:
--- Quote from: LoveJaneAusten on 30 Apr 2011, 18:42 ---
--- Quote from: Emperor Norton on 30 Apr 2011, 13:10 ---The idea that because a stereotype exists, no character in fiction can be that way EVEN WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE EXIST and EVEN WHEN THE WORK HAS SHOWN OTHERS OF THAT GROUP NOT FITTING THE STEREOTYPE is absurd.
That's like saying I can't use my friend Israel as a inspiration for a gay man in something I write, just because he happens to match the very effeminate stereotype of a gay man wearing a boa and short shorts. People like this exist. Therefore, characters like this should be allowed in fiction AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT USED IN A DEMEANING WAY.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. It’s a good thing no one made that argument.
--- Quote ---Tai is not being used in a demeaning way. Stop acting like its awful for a character who is entirely believable to exist solely because they manage to match a stereotype.
--- End quote ---
Actually she is. You may not see it, but stereotypes are demeaning.
--- End quote ---
... Ok, lets see if I read this correctly.
No one is arguing that just being the stereotype is bad, but I don't understand because being the stereotype is bad.
I'm sorry if I don't have a "HIGHER UNDERSTANDING" of your single worldview to understand a bunch of points that YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN OTHER THAN ITS BAD GUYS BECAUSE ITS BAD OMG. Which you use to prove how I am "WRONG".
I'm excusing myself from this, its apparently the view that "YOU WILL NEVER GET IT SO I SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOU HEATHEN"
Is it cold in here?:
What worries me is that it can distort art to make it detour around all possible stereotypes. Jeph wrote a promiscuous character: should he have made her straight to avoid writing a promiscuous gay character?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version