THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 06 Mar 2011, 14:38

Title: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Mar 2011, 14:38
Sorry, I'm just not up to doing a poll this week.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Mar 2011, 15:00
Don't worry, we understand.  I've just been finding out about what's happening in Wisconsin and why, and it's truly appalling that you are (if I read it right) being used as a pawn in this way.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 06 Mar 2011, 15:09
It would be very difficult for me to express my opinion about the situation in Wisconsin (and other places, here in Ohio they passed an even worse law without so much as a speed bump) without violating the civility expectation, so I'll just say good luck, jwhouk, and don't let the bastards get you down.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Booknerd86 on 06 Mar 2011, 15:13
Jwhouk, my condolences. My best friend lives in Milwaukee, so I've been hearing a lot about all of this, and I'm sad that you have been affected by it.

Regarding QC, I'm curious to see what this week will bring!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: smilcarek on 06 Mar 2011, 16:13
I get the strange feeling that tomorrow's comic will be important to the plot...


I don't know why.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Mar 2011, 17:09
We've been getting whimsy lately, so it wouldn't be surprising if Jeph switches to drama soon, and a number of dramatic story elements are waiting in the wings.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 06 Mar 2011, 17:38
If memory serves from the stream on Wednesday, we'll see Steve, Marten, and Cosette walking down the street, and Cosette isn't very happy with Steve.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 06 Mar 2011, 17:47
Yeah, I mean what have we seen since November (besides the breakup);

There is a whole wealth of storylines there, and even more involving Dora, Sven, their relationship together, the therapy Dora obviously needs and her apprehension to actually attend it, and so much more.

Basically, I'm bracing myself for any potential shitstorm.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Mar 2011, 19:02
Or some drama with a punchline.  That's always nice, too. 

If Steve, Cosette and Marten are involved, I'm sure the bar incident is mentioned.  So Cosette being unhappy's scarcely a surprise...

But beyond that, a shift of focus would be nice! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Mar 2011, 19:37
Remember we had that hard reverse last time after Faye's VBS. However, that was slightly set up in the background by Jeph with the Gina Riverstone references. I don't know any similar background issues that could prove that hard a turn.

EDIT: Other than the Dora arc we've been expecting, of course.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Mar 2011, 19:38
Don't worry, we understand.  I've just been finding out about what's happening in Wisconsin and why, and it's truly appalling that you are (if I read it right) being used as a pawn in this way.
Not a pawn as much as a political football. And we've just been punted into the stands.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 06 Mar 2011, 23:37
*Covers ears* Mommy, make the politics stop!

I suspect we will see Dora do something this week, though what that might be I do not know. Probably therapy.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Mar 2011, 00:51
Dora is due for a turn on center stage.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 01:22
Dude, Marten, way to be supportive in the second panel. Also, did Steve just get dope Gibbs slapped? Also, we really need to know more about this flashbang party thing. Also, I need to stop writing also.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Mar 2011, 01:45
Hang on a mo, has Marten broken BrOmerta?

I am disappoint.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kazukagii on 07 Mar 2011, 01:50
Quote
Did he tell her the flashbang birthday party story?

If it was anything like the time my birthday party got raided by SWAT, then it's too good a story not to tell people. Flirting or otherwise.

Also way to be a dick Marten. Just because you aren't getting any at the moment doesn't mean you can turn around and throw your bro under the bus. I am dissapoint  :|
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 02:00
If it was anything like the time my birthday party got raided by SWAT, then it's too good a story not to tell people. Flirting or otherwise.
And yet you aren't telling us ... :-(
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 07 Mar 2011, 02:26
If it was anything like the time my birthday party got raided by SWAT, then it's too good a story not to tell people. Flirting or otherwise.
And yet you aren't telling us ... :-(
Maybe because his GF will get jealous...

Steve hasn't been much of a bro to Marten, so I don't think Marten's actions are unjust.  The whole scene of Marten and Steve at the bar was proof that Steve is more socially detrimental to Marten than he is Brotrimental.
Title: Strip 1876
Post by: willpell on 07 Mar 2011, 03:30
I just wanted to point out how awesome it is that violence by jilted women against jilting men is TOTALLY OKAY.  Our society has been quite clear on that point.  Slap, smack, punch - a philanderer has no right to protection from female assault.  Let us all contemplate this revelation and seek to achieve harmony with the Buddha.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Blackjoker on 07 Mar 2011, 03:49
I will not comment on Martens actions being appropriate or inappropriate, though I do think that Cossette is probably acting out of proportion. However I really wanted to mention that Martens 'eep' eyes in the last panel amuse me.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: dragontart on 07 Mar 2011, 03:50
I guess Cosette is not disappoint.
I'd approve of brutal honesty if it weren't just to get back at Steve here, as I suppose. (I like to see Marten being a "dick" once in a while, though.)

But I also don't really get Cosette's problem. Why's she hurting Steve, isn't making herself unnicer a pretty unwise decision when she fears that he find other girls nicer than her?
Title: Re: Strip 1876
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 03:56
I just wanted to point out how awesome it is that violence by jilted women against jilting men is TOTALLY OKAY.  Our society has been quite clear on that point.  Slap, smack, punch - a philanderer has no right to protection from female assault.  Let us all contemplate this revelation and seek to achieve harmony with the Buddha.
:x Nuh-uh. No. This is not going to become yet another gender wars argument that takes up a page and a half of the COMIC thread. Knock it off. Also, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6xGdeY5xQ&feature=related) and be awed by the equal opportunity slappage on the most watched show in the world, apparently.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Mar 2011, 04:02
Do we really have to bring this up every time a female character punches or slaps a male character in QC?

Really?

Can we just agree that hitting people* is wrong and move on?

Do we really need to open up a new front in the battle of the sexes just because Cosette gave Steve a harmless and well deserved dope slap?

Seriously. It's only Monday, and cartoon violence has been a part of QC since the fourth strip. That's not going to change anytime soon.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

 :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:

Yes, that was a line of 10 psyducks. Do you see what happens? Can you see what this is doing to us?


Unless it's part of a pre-arrange "scene," complete with boundries and safe-words and all that jazz, I don't want the BDSM community to turn on me.
Title: Re: Strip 1876
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Mar 2011, 04:29
Also, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6xGdeY5xQ&feature=related) and be awed by the equal opportunity slappage on the most watched show in the world, apparently.

Rank-induced behavioural correction isn't really the same thing as what Cosette's doing. 

On second thought, it's exactly  the same thing...

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 07 Mar 2011, 06:54


All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

 :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:


So say we all.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 07 Mar 2011, 07:02
Steve hasn't been much of a bro to Marten, so I don't think Marten's actions are unjust. 

Dude, BrOmerta has been invoked in episode 1862 by speaking the hallowed phrase WE! ARE! BROS! infront of a witness.

BrOmerta has been broken for which Marten must now forever be banished by the label of Not Cool Dude, NOT! COOL!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Black Sword on 07 Mar 2011, 07:45
Marten could have thrown his bro under the bus, but hesitated. Rather than go either way, he chose to remove himself from the witness stand by honestly stating he wasn't certain, as his own personal bias made his testimony unreliable. The only reason Stee got a Gibbs slap was because rather than asking for judgment, she asked for confirmation of the facts.

Marten has obeyed the letter of the bro code. Marten remains a bro.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 07 Mar 2011, 08:16
I'm sorry, but Steve was kinda flirting with Padma. I can't blame him for not being sure what to do when Cosette asked if he was flirting and giving an ambiguous answer. Steve put him in an awkward position at the bar.

And I'm really not sure if a violent shake and half-hearted attempt to console before dropping a tactical TMI on Marten qualifies Steve as a bro.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Delator on 07 Mar 2011, 08:41
We haven't seen Dora since before the time jump, so I'm curious to see how she's holding up.


I notice the bags under Marten's eyes that manifested in strips 1800/1801 still haven't gone away.   :|

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Mar 2011, 08:45
Marten has certainly been a bro to Steve, guiding him through many a love-induced alchoholic binge.  

I'm not too sure how much of a bro Steve's been to Marten, though.  Probably helped him through that first breakup (Vickie, was it?) before comic 0001.  Since then, it's been a while since Steve's done anything broworthy.  

Unlike real brothers, being a bro is not automatically reciprocal.  
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 07 Mar 2011, 10:05
"If i'm going down, i'm taking you down with me."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 07 Mar 2011, 10:20
I don't think Cosette and Steve will break up as of yet, but whats her face from before who professed her undying love for the other dude with his eyes closed almost all the time. Steve's ex. So perhaps Steve's luck with relationships is almost on par with Faye's, though she's doing better.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 07 Mar 2011, 10:48
Revenge is sweet.   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Black Sword on 07 Mar 2011, 11:29
I don't think Cosette and Steve will break up as of yet, but whats her face from before who professed her undying love for the other dude with his eyes closed almost all the time. Steve's ex. So perhaps Steve's luck with relationships is almost on par with Faye's, though she's doing better.

Her name is Meena. It'd be hilarious if Coss and Steve bumped into Meena and Dave right about now.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 07 Mar 2011, 11:49
Thanks, I had forgotten her name. The reaction should be priceless.

On a side note, how does the random button work? This is a question I have been meaning to ask. Aside from the obvious it puts up random comic. Is there a list it chooses from or something? I ask because I have been bored and came here and started reading from a random point by clicking random. I hardly ever get a comic above the 1000's and the 1400's are unheard of. Its always the old school when I use it, and I have used it many a time. Is it listed or do I just seem to "love" the old comics.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Mar 2011, 12:00
The random function calls a perl script at ohnorobot.  The script is clearly a very poor random number generator, and it also only delivers comics that ohnorobot has in its archive (which is missing a fair number of QC).  It seems to me that it would be relatively trivial to do a decent random function in Javascript and drop the call to ohnorobot (having said that, I guess I'm duty bound to do it and ask an admin to implement it...).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 07 Mar 2011, 12:30
Ah, I see. Thank you for the info.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Mar 2011, 13:04
Also, we really need to more of this flashbang party thing.
Sorry, friend, that's not how Noodle Incidents work.

Modifier: Oh, and to the people going "OMG VIOLENCE", what Cosette did to Steve is what us kids who came of age in the '90s refer to as a "dummy smack".  I have nothing to add besides that, I just felt like some nostalgia.  Oh, middle school :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 07 Mar 2011, 14:04
Why, why, why didn't anyone else (including me) think of using psyduck as a user icon?? (http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 07 Mar 2011, 14:09
Because Marten's expression in my icon pretty much sums up how I feel most of the time.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 14:15
Also, we really need to know more about this flashbang party thing.
Sorry, friend, that's not how Noodle Incidents work.
I know. It just frustrates me that a relationship is turning on something we know virtually nothing about.

Why, why, why didn't anyone else (including me) think of using psyduck as a user icon?? (http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif)
Because my name is Westrim, so its icon is built in and usable everywhere.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Mar 2011, 14:18
Also, we really need to know more about this flashbang party thing.
Sorry, friend, that's not how Noodle Incidents work.
I know. It just frustrates me that a relationship is turning on something we know virtually nothing about.

Why, why, why didn't anyone else (including me) think of using psyduck as a user icon?? (http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/ohgeez-1.gif)
Because my name is Westrim, so its icon is built in and usable everywhere.

A relationship is turning?  It's probably a bit early for such talk.  As for Psyduck, I've had it as my avatar for a while, I just don't post much.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 07 Mar 2011, 15:40
We haven't seen Dora since before the time jump, so I'm curious to see how she's holding up.

Actually, the strip where Hanners dissects the dude trying to hit on her (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1856) is a post-time-jump Dora.

Also, we really need to more of this flashbang party thing.
Sorry, friend, that's not how Noodle Incidents work.

You get "+10 Good Post" for not linking that to TV Tropes.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Mar 2011, 15:50
Also, we really need to more of this flashbang party thing.
Sorry, friend, that's not how Noodle Incidents work.

You get "+10 Good Post" for not linking that to TV Tropes.
It was hardly a selfless act.  It's not like it's possible to go there just to get a link, I would've been trapped as well.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Mar 2011, 16:42
You build up a resistance after a while.

After you spend about two or three hundred hours there it starts to get repetitive.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Mar 2011, 16:56
You build up a resistance after a while.

After you spend about two or three hundred hours there it starts to get repetitive.

Yes, but I haven't gone in a while, and I don't wish to relapse.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: BobtheDancingFlea on 07 Mar 2011, 17:12
Can I just say something about this whole "flirting" incident in that it...is so not an incident at all. I was so surprised when Padma was like, "flirting with a girlfriend, shame on you!" and now Cosette it in the same boat, I just find it so...over-protective. :/ I mean I say this as someone who's in probably the healthiest, most trusting relationship in the world but...I just find it surprising that BOTH girls found it so scandalous, I guess. You can't help when you hit it off with people, and anyone trying to restrict a relationship is going to make it so much more tempting (I mean relationship in the general sense here, not in the romantic sense).
I dunno that just irked me so much jeez.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 07 Mar 2011, 17:39
It's easier for us to say something like that from an outside perspective; it's easier for us to believe he wasn't flirting because we know he has a girlfriend and has never cheated before (that we've seen, anyway). But the moment Padma realized Steve wasn't gay she recognized what he was doing as flirting (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1867). And the fact that Steve was less than enthusiastic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1866) about admitting he had a girlfriend kinda points to the conclusion that he wasn't planning to admit that.

Sorry, but in my opinion, no matter how "innocent" it may be, flirting is still romantic and you don't do romantic things with people who aren't  your SO.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 17:44
Can I just say something about this whole "flirting" incident in that it...is so not an incident at all. I was so surprised when Padma was like, "flirting with a girlfriend, shame on you!" and now Cosette it in the same boat, I just find it so...over-protective. :/ I mean I say this as someone who's in probably the healthiest, most trusting relationship in the world but...I just find it surprising that BOTH girls found it so scandalous, I guess. You can't help when you hit it off with people, and anyone trying to restrict a relationship is going to make it so much more tempting (I mean relationship in the general sense here, not in the romantic sense).
I dunno that just irked me so much jeez.
Your feeling is probably largely because we didn't actually see any of the alleged flirting, just Padme reacting to the tail end of a funny story with no romantic subtext that we could see. But flirting is a pretty loosely defined term anyway, and without knowing more of what the heck happens in that story- or waiting for the next strips- trying to figure out whether what he said was flirting is a fools errand. Marten's reaction could be an indicator, but for all I know he was mostly irked at being *ahem* 'cock blocked', and was just acting that way to get back at Steve for... whatever the heck happened, given that Padmea thought they were gay when she invited Steve over to the table.

Sorry, but in my opinion, no matter how "innocent" it may be, flirting is still romantic and you don't do romantic things with people who aren't  your SO.
Wait, it's still in no way clear that he was doing so. Don't jump from indicators to definite statements like that. And I don't think he was unenthusiastic to admit it; rather, he was sideswiped by the sudden swerve from joviality to relationship talk from Mr. Cockblocked S. Grumpystein.


And hey, TVTropes isn't that bad. Why, I've only got... 296 tabs open.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: BobtheDancingFlea on 07 Mar 2011, 18:12
It's easier for us to say something like that from an outside perspective; it's easier for us to believe he wasn't flirting because we know he has a girlfriend and has never cheated before (that we've seen, anyway). But the moment Padma realized Steve wasn't gay she recognized what he was doing as flirting (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1867). And the fact that Steve was less than enthusiastic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1866) about admitting he had a girlfriend kinda points to the conclusion that he wasn't planning to admit that.

Sorry, but in my opinion, no matter how "innocent" it may be, flirting is still romantic and you don't do romantic things with people who aren't  your SO.
I didn't say he wasn't flirting, though, my whole point is that flirting is not something to get all riled up over. Your last statement makes me realize I must have a MUCH more open view on this sort of thing than most people, haha, although, then again, my boyfriend and I aren't exactly in a..."traditional" relationship I guess, so that could be why I seem to have such different views haha. I just think that whole "you DON'T do romantic things with people who aren't your SO" is the same kind of restrictive view on relationships that only makes the "forbidden" so much more tempting. Just my thoughts on it, don't want to be stepping on any toes here. :1

Westrim also makes a good point in that flirting is a very loosely defined thing...I just think of it as that friendly kind of chat where there is just...OBVIOUS interest going into the conversation but, for people who are involved, they can still engage in that kind of chat as long as they don't progress it any further, because I just don't think you can help what kind of chemistry you have when you chat with someone and how the two of you naturally interact. But, if it's not coming naturally and he's just trying to attract women despite his having a girlfriend, then I guess I can see the issue in that scenario.
Title: Re: Strip 1876
Post by: BlueMark on 07 Mar 2011, 19:05
Rank-induced behavioural correction isn't really the same thing as what Cosette's doing. 

On second thought, it's exactly  the same thing...

OK, on first scan I read that as "Rack-induced". And it made perfect sense.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Mar 2011, 19:21
I'm not sure what that says or who it says it about, but I think you're on to something.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Fenriswolf on 07 Mar 2011, 19:39
Sorry, but in my opinion, no matter how "innocent" it may be, flirting is still romantic and you don't do romantic things with people who aren't  your SO.
More accurately, you don't do romantic things with people who aren't your SO. I would class flirting as distinctly sexual rather than romantic - and if you're not comfortable with that then no, your SO shouldn't do it, nor should you.

Many people are comfortable with that, and it's a pleasant outlet for your sexuality that doesn't involve doing anything with someone outside your monogamous relationship. Many other people are comfortable with kissing other people, only kissing people of one sex, oral only, casual relationships only or are happiest in a polyamorous relationship. Every couple has to work out their own comfort level and abide by it.

Also, the idea that Marten is being a bad friend by not lying for Steve is pretty alien to me.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 07 Mar 2011, 20:23
Hang on a mo, has Marten broken BrOmerta? I am disappoint.
Is Marten now, or has he ever been, a bro? Is he subject to the code? Let us not forget that Steve put scorpions in Marten's bed (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=223) on at least one occasion.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Mar 2011, 20:41
Marten is not now, nor has he ever been, a bro.


He is a goo friend, but he's not going to enable his friend to act like a jerk out of some misplace loyaty to his gender.

Faye would kick his ass if she found out about that. :police:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 21:02
He is a goo friend.
Everyone should have a goo friend to count on.  8-)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Mar 2011, 21:05
Styupi keyboar!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Delator on 07 Mar 2011, 22:25
We haven't seen Dora since before the time jump, so I'm curious to see how she's holding up.

Actually, the strip where Hanners dissects the dude trying to hit on her (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1856) is a post-time-jump Dora.

Well I don't know where you're putting the time-jump then, because I have it as the transition between 1860 and 1861.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Mar 2011, 22:38
Hanners' hair changes between 1855 and 1856; 1857 is the appearance of Faye's new hair.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 07 Mar 2011, 22:38
We haven't seen Dora since before the time jump, so I'm curious to see how she's holding up.

Actually, the strip where Hanners dissects the dude trying to hit on her (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1856) is a post-time-jump Dora.

Well I don't know where you're putting the time-jump then, because I have it as the transition between 1860 and 1861.
Look at the previous comic. Now back to 1856. Now back to 1855, now back to 1856. Sadly, Hannelore's hair can not actually grow that fast, but with Timeskip Super Accelerator tm,  it can look like it has.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Mar 2011, 22:48
Maybe ever since the head lice scare she's replaced her hair with a retractible/extensible nanotube fiber from her dad's lab.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Mar 2011, 23:00
Look at the previous comic. Now back to 1856. Now back to 1855, now back to 1856.
Sadly, 1855 isn't 1856.  But if you add an unspecified period of time, 1855 can smell like it's 1856.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: ysth on 07 Mar 2011, 23:31
Can't wait to find out if Cosette broke her finger on Steve's head.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Mar 2011, 01:52
Padma is not impresed with Cosette's display of territoriality.

What I would like to see is Dora's reaction if Marten actually did begin to seriously pursue Padma (or anyone else.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 08 Mar 2011, 01:54
Ouch Cosette! Jealous much?

also akronnick, i think there would be elder rage directed at Padma
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 08 Mar 2011, 02:08
Yeah! Back to normal. Thankfully no speedlines this time. Surely somebody can give me reference explaining Cosette's finger gesture? :-)

My eyesight ain't what it used to be. Does it say "Less fresh" on that sign on top of a bowl of bagels/donuts/whatever? Apparently Renee isn't allowed to use leftover stuff as ammo the same way Faye does.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: sluthy on 08 Mar 2011, 02:08
...did Padma just insult Cosette with that last line?

Plus Cosette's being just a little hypocritical (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1700).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Mar 2011, 02:12
Cosette is pointing with her two fingers at her two eyes and then at Padma.

It's a (slightly?) threatening way to let Padma know "I'm watching you!"
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 08 Mar 2011, 02:21
Thanks, akronnick. I was worried that I (again) missed something like Yesterday's "Gibbs slap."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 08 Mar 2011, 02:23
I wonder what it is Marten didn't mean to do.  I kind of wonder how this all started.  Did Marten bring this up and Cosette dragged them to TSB?  That would be a bit much for Marten to do.  I mean I understand being mostly passive about it, but it'd be kind of messed up if he went out of his way to get Cosette mad at Steve.

The last two strips seem to come from nowhere.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kazukagii on 08 Mar 2011, 02:40
Cosette will slap. your. shit.

'nuff said.

All this chapter needed was Pintsize making cat noises in the background.  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: hannahsaurusrex on 08 Mar 2011, 02:52
Oh man, I knew girls like Cosette.  She's not gonna ever let this go, and stalk Padma's facebook for months. I officially cast my ballot that we will have the first irrational enemy of all the CoD girls amongst us soon.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 08 Mar 2011, 03:16
Laughed my ass off.   Good work Jeph.    :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 08 Mar 2011, 03:40
Plus Cosette's being just a little hypocritical (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1700).

I totally forgot that comic... and yeah, I agree with you.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 08 Mar 2011, 03:44
I wonder what it is Marten didn't mean to do.  I kind of wonder how this all started.  Did Marten bring this up and Cosette dragged them to TSB?  That would be a bit much for Marten to do.  I mean I understand being mostly passive about it, but it'd be kind of messed up if he went out of his way to get Cosette mad at Steve.

The last two strips seem to come from nowhere.

It reads more like they were following Marten while having their fight and he's just doing his normal walk in the morning going to TSB (his new morning routine). You know, that or he's being really passive-aggressive and intentionally led them there (maybe subconsciously or whatever, that is what the "I didn't mean to..." bit was about, as I take it).

But then, when every single character in the comic is a walking bundle of psychological problems, it gets to be a bit difficult pointing blame at any particular person when bad shit happens.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 04:31
*sigh*   Cosette got issues...


...but Padma's line was perfect.  Cosette didn't even phase her - she just can't beleive how wrong  she was about Steve! 

I've had that problem - people have a hard time shaking that firat impression, no matter how  wrong it may be! 

And the mathematician in me wants to point out that "She's not  prettier than you!"  is not the same as "You're prettier", but it's not something you should ever  point out to the person who made that assumption! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 08 Mar 2011, 04:55
I like the "Fresh" and "Less Fresh" baskets on the counter there. Looks like Padma runs a nice place.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Karilyn on 08 Mar 2011, 05:05
...but Padma's line was perfect.  Cosette didn't even phase her - she just can't beleive how wrong  she was about Steve!  

I've had that problem - people have a hard time shaking that firat impression, no matter how  wrong it may be!
Who's to say Padma is wrong?  Well, we already have a lesbian character.

Maybe this explains Steve's commitment issues.  He sabotages all his relationships because he keeps pairing up with women when his heart pines for men.

Maybe this whole plot arch is a set up for Steve coming out of the closet.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 08 Mar 2011, 05:22
Nah, its setting up the triumphant return of Steve's true love - the vaguely Eastern-European spy lady, or the tequila monster (sometimes I get confused).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 08 Mar 2011, 05:26
I wonder what it is Marten didn't mean to do.  I kind of wonder how this all started.  Did Marten bring this up and Cosette dragged them to TSB?  That would be a bit much for Marten to do.  I mean I understand being mostly passive about it, but it'd be kind of messed up if he went out of his way to get Cosette mad at Steve.

The last two strips seem to come from nowhere.

Marten and Steve mighta been just telling Cosette about their night out when Marten mentioned Steve taking over the conversation and being really friendly with Padma. Or one of them could have mentioned how Padma thought they were gay and when she found out they weren't, she accused him of flirting. From there Cosette could conflate that into 'he was  flirting!' and thus, yesterdays and today's comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 08 Mar 2011, 05:44
I guess those could work, though it seems like a situation niether of them would really want to talk about again, let alone bring it up in front of Cosette.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Jabberwocky on 08 Mar 2011, 06:31
The random function calls a perl script at ohnorobot.  The script is clearly a very poor random number generator, and it also only delivers comics that ohnorobot has in its archive (which is missing a fair number of QC).  It seems to me that it would be relatively trivial to do a decent random function in Javascript and drop the call to ohnorobot (having said that, I guess I'm duty bound to do it and ask an admin to implement it...).

Code: [Select]

<script language="Javascript">

var latestComic = 1877;
var comicUrl = "http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=";

function loadRandomComic() {
location.href = comicUrl +
Math.floor(Math.random() * (latestComic + 1));
};

</script>

<a href="#" onClick="loadRandomComic()">Random</a>

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 08 Mar 2011, 07:17
Err, personally I think its totally fine if you flirt with other people as long as its done jokingly and the other person knows you're in a partnership.

Its however not a nice idea to flirt people who dont know you're in a partnership. You might hurt either their or your partners or even both feelings.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Black Sword on 08 Mar 2011, 07:33
I hereby offer the totally unhelpful postulation that Padma is very pretty and her obvious sanity makes her far prettier than Cossie.

I still want to have Steve and Cossie encounter Meena and David, preferably with Meena either pregnant or nursing a baby. Mostly because I think it's Steve's turn for hella drama and I'd like him to have a bit more of the spotlight...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: sitnspin on 08 Mar 2011, 07:42
Cossette is a college kid. She's young. And apparently she has not had the best dating history, as indicated by certain statements she has made.  Jealousy and insecurity are not surprising reactions. I'm a flirter. I flirt without even realizing it most of the time. This has upset some of the girls I have dated. While I am pretty open about these things, I understand why some people are not. While her actions are not justified, her emotional reaction is both justified and understandable.

Also, I do not think Martin is being a bad friend just because he refuses to lie to cover up Steve's behavior. If anything, I think Steve is being a bad friend for putting Martin in that position.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 08 Mar 2011, 08:07
How exactly did Cossette find out about this, anyway? How did she hear about  what was going on that night in a way that made her think Steve was flirting? It's not like either Steve or Marten would have said "heh, hah, I/he was totally hitting on this one chick."  It's like some 4th party gave her a rundown on what happened offscreen.

Also, Marten wasn't bad because he wouldn't lie, he was bad because he waffled. Mmm... waffles.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: maddness on 08 Mar 2011, 08:31
Plus Cosette's being just a little hypocritical (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1700).

I totally forgot that comic... and yeah, I agree with you.

I don't think that's hypocritical. She blushed when Marten complimented her. Blushing is not a voluntary response. We already know she finds Marten attractive, she asked him out to before Steve, and his complimented flustered her. She believes Steve was actively flirting with Padma. Most people see flirting as an attempt to attach/cement the interest of someone they are attracted to. That's not the same thing as receiving a compliment.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 08 Mar 2011, 09:39
I don't think that's hypocritical. She blushed when Marten complimented her. Blushing is not a voluntary response. We already know she finds Marten attractive, she asked him out to before Steve, and his complimented flustered her. She believes Steve was actively flirting with Padma. Most people see flirting as an attempt to attach/cement the interest of someone they are attracted to. That's not the same thing as receiving a compliment.

I wasn't even thinking about the blush part... I was thinking about this part of the comic:
Are you telling me you wouldn't be the tiniest bit jealous if they did it right in front of you
No I wouldn't


I can see how it isn't the same thing... But if I were Cosette I would give Steve the benefit of doubt... I don't think he actually meant to flirt with Padma in anyway.

Oh... and Padma looks very cute in the last panel, great job Jeph!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Mar 2011, 09:42
But then, when every single character in the comic is a walking bundle of psychological problems, it gets to be a bit difficult pointing blame at any particular person when bad shit happens.
May I quote you on the wiki? That is a good insight.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 08 Mar 2011, 10:01
Go right ahead, just give me a link to it when you're done so I can see the wiki.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 10:24
Code: [Select]

<script language="Javascript">

var latestComic = 1877;


There needs to be some kind of call to the website to get the current comic number, otherwise you'll be having to constantly update the code.  Perhaps looking at the top of the archive list?  Or maybe a function that translates the date into a comic number, assuming 5 pages a week...

Then you'd have make sure to use the value (current comic - 1), just in case the comic isn't up at midnight...   :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Mar 2011, 10:54
"Gibbs slap."
Damn it, people were hitting people like that before NCIS!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 08 Mar 2011, 10:56
As far back as Saved By The Bell, at least.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 13:18
It used  to be called a "Dope Slap (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DopeSlap)", and goes back well beyond the Three Stooges.  Possibly through the middle ages, classical Greece, and into the mists of prehistory. 

As long as people have stupid ideas around those who know better, the Dope Slap will live on! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: smilcarek on 08 Mar 2011, 13:55
I think Padma is prettier than Cosette. Perhaps because Cosette's hair/skin combination reminds of a very obnoxious, undesirable girl I know.

Of course, they ARE both just drawings.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Laminator_X on 08 Mar 2011, 14:07
There's (ahem) tongue-in cheek flirting as fun banter for it's own sake, and then there's flirting with the idea of leading to something more. As long as all parties know the score and are cool with it, the former can be engaged in without transgressing relationship boundaries.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SuileanDubh on 08 Mar 2011, 15:07
Cossette is a college kid. She's young. And apparently she has not had the best dating history, as indicated by certain statements she has made.  Jealousy and insecurity are not surprising reactions. I'm a flirter. I flirt without even realizing it most of the time. This has upset some of the girls I have dated. While I am pretty open about these things, I understand why some people are not. While her actions are not justified, her emotional reaction is both justified and understandable.

Also, I do not think Martin is being a bad friend just because he refuses to lie to cover up Steve's behavior. If anything, I think Steve is being a bad friend for putting Martin in that position.

I agree, I'm a very physically affectionate person (I hug a lot, not in a whorish way), and I do tend to warn the people I date that I will cuddle with my friends and that it doesn't constitute flirting. The line between being friendly and being flirty is extremely fine in my opinion (Flailure!). And I think Steve is the kind of person who would flirt without realizing, just because he's charming. However, I still think that Cosette's emotional reaction, while understandable, is not justified. I also do not think youth has anything to with it, I'm in high school and I still find possessiveness annoying in my peers. Cosette is being silly, irrational, jealous and possessive.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 08 Mar 2011, 15:57
...... And after meeting Cosette, can you blame Padma for thinking he's gay??     :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Mar 2011, 16:12
Suggestion for a forum nickname for Padma: The Senator.  Why?  People for some reason saw "Padma" and thought "Padmé", the first name of Senator Amidala.  Is it needlessly complicated, and longer than her real name?  Of course.  But hey, this is the forum that argued for a dozen pages on [topic redacted]. :mrgreen:

Modified portion:
...... And after meeting Cosette, can you blame Padma for thinking he's gay??     :-D
I don't get it :?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 08 Mar 2011, 16:19
My guess it after her brief run in with 'Miss Balbricker' Cosette just now, she wonders why Cosette hasn't turned him gay.

Just a guess on my part, but probably close to Padma's thoughts.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 08 Mar 2011, 16:24
Modified portion:
...... And after meeting Cosette, can you blame Padma for thinking he's gay??     :-D
I don't get it :?

I don't get it either. Is Padma just hotwired into believing some weird Gay Stereotype that i'm not privy too?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 08 Mar 2011, 16:45
My take on Padma so far: Uncomplicated in her worldview, meaning that she operates from a set of simple preconceptions about people. She's also without guile.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Y on 08 Mar 2011, 16:55
Steve never said Cosette was prettier than her. Steve said that Padma is not prettier than Cosette. Logically that means Cosette is more or equal pretty than Padma according to Steve. Although that line seem to imply that they're both equally pretty.


Cosette is pointing with her two fingers at her two eyes and then at Padma.

It's a (slightly?) threatening way to let Padma know "I'm watching you!"
I remember that one from the 'Meet the Parents' movie trilogy.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 17:17
My guess it after her brief run in with 'Miss Balbricker' Cosette just now, she wonders why Cosette hasn't turned him gay.

Just a guess on my part, but probably close to Padma's thoughts.

Good lord, Kugai, you know better than that - no one can "turn someone gay". 

They already need to be gay - and it's the failed hetero relationship that finally brings them out of the closet! 

Of course, Steve's had a few of those...

and it's been posited that "Being a lothario is just a cover for latent homosexuality" -- (Painless the dentist in M*A*S*H, 1970)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: ysth on 08 Mar 2011, 17:42
The customer is always right...


but did she buy anything?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 18:15
"Large coffee and a less fresh bagel, please."

"Would you like some dried out cream cheese with your bagel?"
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 08 Mar 2011, 18:27
and it's been posited that "Being a lothario is just a cover for latent homosexuality" -- (Painless the dentist in M*A*S*H, 1970)

Oh I loved that film, thanks for reminding me of it, need to dig it out next time I go home.

"I wonder how such a degenerated person ever reached a position of authority in the Army Medical Corps."
"He was drafted."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Mar 2011, 18:44
Steve never said Cosette was prettier than her. Steve said that Padma is not prettier than Cosette. Logically that means Cosette is more or equal pretty than Padma according to Steve. Although that line seem to imply that they're both equally pretty.


Cosette is pointing with her two fingers at her two eyes and then at Padma.

It's a (slightly?) threatening way to let Padma know "I'm watching you!"
I remember that one from the 'Meet the Parents' movie trilogy.

Fixed that for ya. :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: St.Clair on 08 Mar 2011, 18:55
Just in case we needed another reminder of Cosette's crazy.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 08 Mar 2011, 19:04
But nowhere near as crazy as some of the other women in the comic  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Mar 2011, 19:45
But nowhere near as crazy as some of the other women in the comic  :roll:
Which one?  You mean the one with the crippling psychological problems*?

*That's all of them do you get it (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1196)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SJCrew on 08 Mar 2011, 20:34
Um, yeah, Cosette had better back off. Some one needs to tell her Padma knows how to throw down.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Mar 2011, 20:37
Back up one strip: I believe that Marten offered to take Steve and Cosette to TSB, and in the conversation that followed, it came up that Steve was flirting with Padma. Though I'll bet the way it went was this:

Quote
Steve: The Secret Bakery?
Marten: Yeah, that's where Padma works.
S: Oh, yeah, her.
Cosette: "Her"?
M: Yeah. We ran into her last night at the Horrible Revelation. Steve talked to her for a bit.
S: (looks away)
C: Talked to her? What were you talking to her about?
S: Oh, you know. I was just being friendly.
M: (rolls eyes) So that's what you call that.
C: What? (angry look) What were you doing?
S: Well... Marten thinks I was flirting with her.
C: (PUNCH to Steve's arm)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 08 Mar 2011, 21:11
My take on Padma so far: Uncomplicated in her worldview, meaning that she operates from a set of simple preconceptions about people. She's also without guile.

Okay, but how in the hell is Steve......"oozing" a gay stereotype that Padma is inferring too? None of the known Gay Stereotypes I know doesn't quite fit Steve.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Mar 2011, 21:17
Doesn't need to be a stereotype, could just be a hunch. 

Also, there's a common myth about ladies' men and latent homosexuality...

I also get the feeling that Steve has a bit of a "metrosexual" vibe, what with the hair and the grooming (compared to Marten), and the waterfall pics.  Then there was the touchy-feely "WE ARE BROS!!" episode, probably witnessed by Padma (and the rest of the bar). 

More like an educated guess on her part. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: no one special on 08 Mar 2011, 22:45
Cosette gave Martin another "in" to talk to Padma!  She's a WAY better wingman than Steve is.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Mar 2011, 22:56
Cosette gave Martin another "in" to talk to Padma!  She's a WAY better wingman than Steve is.
Or maybe Steve planned this entire thing!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mad Cat on 09 Mar 2011, 00:13
Am I the only one who's waiting for one of the existing mainline characters to screw up and out themselves as a secret racist with a dirt-stupid comment to or about one of the new characters who inhabit The Secret Bakery?

And no, I'm not taking about Pintsize. I don't know who it might be. I hope it's not Hanners. She had enough mental maladies as it is without adding "misunderstood" bigot to the mix.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 09 Mar 2011, 00:17
My guess it after her brief run in with 'Miss Balbricker' Cosette just now, she wonders why Cosette hasn't turned him gay.

Just a guess on my part, but probably close to Padma's thoughts.

Good lord, Kugai, you know better than that - no one can "turn someone gay". 

They already need to be gay - and it's the failed hetero relationship that finally brings them out of the closet! 

Of course, Steve's had a few of those...

and it's been posited that "Being a lothario is just a cover for latent homosexuality" -- (Painless the dentist in M*A*S*H, 1970)


Of course I frakin' well know that!

But not everyone is as rational as you or I - something we both know I suspect.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Mar 2011, 00:40
Am I the only one who's waiting for one of the existing mainline characters to screw up and out themselves as a secret racist with a dirt-stupid comment to or about one of the new characters who inhabit The Secret Bakery?

And no, I'm not taking about Pintsize. I don't know who it might be. I hope it's not Hanners. She had enough mental maladies as it is without adding "misunderstood" bigot to the mix.

I don't think Hanners would be the likely subject. Remember what she said to her mom about her great-great grandfather Thaddeus Whitehall Chatham (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=913).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 09 Mar 2011, 00:44
Am I the only one who's waiting for one of the existing mainline characters to screw up and out themselves as a secret racist with a dirt-stupid comment to or about one of the new characters who inhabit The Secret Bakery?
I hope so... I totally love Faye's expression in the last panel of today's comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 09 Mar 2011, 00:59
We don't get to see Dora's actual sit-down with the psychologist with her telling about how Sven wet the bed till he was 16, or how he blew up Barbies for fun??
You no fun!!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: steveh11 on 09 Mar 2011, 01:17
Um, as one who's never been near a 'therapist', I'm missing the point as much as Dora is.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 09 Mar 2011, 01:22
Missing the point seems to be happening more often for characters who used to constantly throw sharp and obscure banter at each other like it was a ... banter throwing contest?

Um, as one who's never been near a 'therapist', I'm missing the point as much as Dora is.
The point is she isn't supposed to talk about herself- she's supposed to reveal aspects of her personality and what shaped them so that corrective measures can be taken on whatever is out of whack. And a lot of what is out of whack with her has to do with her brother. If talking about yourself does the revealing that's fine, but that isn't necessarily part of the process.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CEOIII on 09 Mar 2011, 01:26
Dora thinks the therapy session was pointless since she and her therapist didn't talk about her, but you don't go into therapy to talk about yourself, you go into therapy to talk about your problems.

And she spent the session talking about Sven.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: no one special on 09 Mar 2011, 01:27
Um, as one who's never been near a 'therapist', I'm missing the point as much as Dora is.

The point is that therapists like to talk about whatever's on your mind, as that is often a symptom or symbol of what really needs to be discussed.  Basically, Dora wouldn't have talked about her brother for 45 minutes if there wasn't something there that really needed to come out, and that was likely a good starting point for some of what Dora needs to talk about (whether she wants to or not).  Therapists are sneaky (and helpful) like that. 

Talk therapy is about the patient, but a good therapist has a penchant for recognizing that things you happen to talk about are on your mind for a reason, and for delving and digging so they can find what that reason is, so that you can face it and deal with it, and hopefully understand it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 09 Mar 2011, 01:29
And talking about Sven is, I think, getting to the root of a lot of Dora's issues.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: steveh11 on 09 Mar 2011, 01:30
Thanks, but <shrug>.  I guess that's as clear an explanation as I should expect, but I confess it's like explaining a rainbow in terms of wavelengths of light to a blind man.  Anything 'psych-' still seems to me to be the fuzziest of science, barely above alchemy.  I guess it's an individual thing - like a rabbit's foot, if it helps, it helps.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 09 Mar 2011, 01:39
And talking about Sven is, I think, getting to the root of a lot of Dora's issues.
And so the punchline works on two levels: Dora resents the spotlight not being on her -- and she doesn't get that that's the point.
Three levels: Faye gets the point.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 09 Mar 2011, 01:43
And talking about Sven is, I think, getting to the root of a lot of Dora's issues.
And so the punchline works on two levels: Dora resents the spotlight not being on her -- and she doesn't get that that's the point.
Three levels: Faye gets the point.

I rather thought that the punchline was more that a lot of Dora's issues stem from her relationship with her brother and his relationship with women (womaniser, cad, bounder etc...) and that she doesn't get that point, Faye get's it etc...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 09 Mar 2011, 01:54
I think we're saying different versions of the same thing.
You have to tell Dora she's the prettiest.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 09 Mar 2011, 01:59
[...]  Anything 'psych-' still seems to me to be the fuzziest of science, barely above alchemy.  [...]
LOL

Alchemy is well respected ... only we call it now chemistry.

And psychology is about the most complex item we know about, the human mind.

Just because you cant press it into formulas doesnt mean its not very serious.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: KingoHrts on 09 Mar 2011, 02:02
This comic reminds me of a story George Burns used to tell about his first movie.  He worked of course, with his wife Gracie Allen who was the ultimate ditz.  They were offered $2500 to translate their vaudeville act for a 20 minute short film.  He says that when they turned the camera on and said "Action", he turned to her and said, "Gracie, How's your brother?".  Exactly 20 minutes later he stopped Gracie in mid-sentence, turned to the camera and said, "We just made $2500".

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 09 Mar 2011, 02:05
Of course the ditzie Gracie was just a character she played. In real life, she was the real brains of the operation.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Mar 2011, 02:09
If she was, how did George manage to live so freakin' long?

And Dora doesn't get it, of course.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: steveh11 on 09 Mar 2011, 02:09
[...]  Anything 'psych-' still seems to me to be the fuzziest of science, barely above alchemy.  [...]
LOL

Alchemy is well respected ... only we call it now chemistry.

And psychology is about the most complex item we know about, the human mind.

Just because you cant press it into formulas doesnt mean its not very serious.
Well, my point is that (to me) psych is still an immature science, which is at about the same level of maturity as alchemy wrt chemistry.  But like I said, I've never had any experience of any kind of 'therapy', short of novels, film/TV and now comics.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 09 Mar 2011, 02:43
I think we're saying different versions of the same thing.
You have to tell Dora she's the prettiest.

I'd disagree on that point. I don't think that Dora has a high need to be considered the prettiest or be the centre of attention.

I do think that her closest relationship with a man (Sven) has coloured her approach to relationships and to accept behaviour from her partners that she see's him giving to his. I suspect that this has now led her to expect poor treatment and now cannot seek emotional security within a relationship. Such are the dangers of looking up to someone who is both a poor role model and unaware of their impact on you.

Quite a well written parallel  here that at the same time Dora is effectively sabotaging a good thing, Sven is showing remorse for the sort of behaviour that has caused that. My advise to Marten is to kick Sven in the nads and then get him to wingman him into a good relationship.

At this point I'm now going to headdesk myself for analysing fictional characters with a side order of facepalm for even considering offering them advice.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 09 Mar 2011, 03:06
If she was, how did George manage to live so freakin' long?

And Dora doesn't get it, of course.

Well, George was no slouch either.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Arancaytar on 09 Mar 2011, 03:23
I can see why Dora isn't visiting Dr. Corinne as well, but come on, that would have been hilarious.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 09 Mar 2011, 05:21
I'm glad Dora's finally seeing a therapist but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel a little cheated we didn't get to see it.  :-( Then again, there'll definitely be more.

Also, I've never heard of someone having a counselor of the opposite gender. None of mine have been. I'd feel a little self-conscious if a man was my therapist; I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Mar 2011, 05:25
If she was, how did George manage to live so freakin' long?

And Dora doesn't get it, of course.

Well, George was no slouch either.

Granted - he was an excellent comedian, good with a joke, great timing and delivery.  But Gracie...

She was, literally, a character when she was on stage.  You have to see some of their early stuff - she wove the most bizzarrly logical but hysterically funny reality about any topic he brought up, usually off the top of her head.  And all George had to do was be a straight man for it.  She wasn't just the brains of their act, she was  their act.  He was just the conduit between her and the audience.  

He often said that he couldn't believe how lucky he was.  In some ways, he rode on her coattails for the last 30 years of his life.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 09 Mar 2011, 05:41
I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.

Tell me about your father...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Jabberwocky on 09 Mar 2011, 06:34
There needs to be some kind of call to the website to get the current comic number, otherwise you'll be having to constantly update the code. 

Yeah, it was just a quick-and-dirty example.  I assume the latest comic number can be pulled from the site code.
(Still, even with the hard-coded value, it gives newer strips than ohnorobot.)   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: steveh11 on 09 Mar 2011, 06:49
I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.

Tell me about your father...
<Respirator noise>
"*I am your father!"
 :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: willpell on 09 Mar 2011, 07:20
(Apparently my comment on 1876 was taken much more seriously than I intended so I'll refrain from continuing with it.)

Re:  1877

#1:  Am I the only one who doesn't recognize Cosette as a brunette (despite the rhyme)?

#2:  I could swear that nearly every white female character in the strip other than Faye has been drawn with the exact face Cosette makes in panel 2.  Am I insane?

#3:  A metrosexual is a dude who everyone thinks is gay because he uses product in his hair and gets manicures and that kinda thing.  What do you call the opposite, a guy who is so manly and butch that everyone thinks he's gay?  Apparently whatever the term is, Steve is one of these.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 09 Mar 2011, 07:35
(Apparently my comment on 1876 was taken much more seriously than I intended so I'll refrain from continuing with it.)

Re:  1877

#1:  Am I the only one who doesn't recognize Cosette as a brunette (despite the rhyme)?

#2:  I could swear that nearly every white female character in the strip other than Faye has been drawn with the exact face Cosette makes in panel 2.  Am I insane?

#3:  A metrosexual is a dude who everyone thinks is gay because he uses product in his hair and gets manicures and that kinda thing.  What do you call the opposite, a guy who is so manly and butch that everyone thinks he's gay?  Apparently whatever the term is, Steve is one of these.

Steve is most definitely not the macho end of the gay spectrum. Those guys are generally huge body builder-types with musculature like The Governator back when he was in Stay Hungry.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 09 Mar 2011, 07:56
Tell me about your father...

Anything about my father or just the molestation?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: wjen on 09 Mar 2011, 07:57
Also, I've never heard of someone having a counselor of the opposite gender. None of mine have been. I'd feel a little self-conscious if a man was my therapist; I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.

I have almost always had counsellors/therapists of the opposite sex, even though there seem to be 5x as many female counsellors as male ones. I think it's something to do with feeling judged by women (issuuuueees), I feel far far more comfortable with a male counsellor. The only time I had a female counsellor she was rubbish, I think that may have also affected it  :-P


I've registered purely to say this (I managed to stay away for so long! Dammit)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: ecstaticjoy on 09 Mar 2011, 08:03
Tell me about your father...

Anything about my father or just the molestation?

I don't want to be insensitive but LOL
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SJCrew on 09 Mar 2011, 08:07
Dora's left leg in panel 3 depresses me.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 09 Mar 2011, 08:24
Tell me about your father...

Anything about my father or just the molestation?

Whatever gets your motor running.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: J on 09 Mar 2011, 09:23
is there a reason faye turns her back on dora in panel 3 and then doesn't go anywhere? it seems like she just spontaneously decided to rotate in place mid conversation.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 09 Mar 2011, 09:28
Sometimes you just can't look an idiot in the eye in the middle of a conversation without feeling the urge to roll your eyes so much that your eyesockets might break.









Eyes.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Mar 2011, 10:01
I think it's something to do with feeling judged by women

You should never feel judged by a good therapist, in any case.  You may find at some point that you start to judge yourself, but your therapist should also help you to put that into perspective.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Loki on 09 Mar 2011, 10:05
I think I wouldn't make a good therapy victim. I would likely end up analyzing the therapist and telling them about them, annoying the heck out of them.

Also, I don't think I would have any problem with the gender of the therapist, in my opinion, their ability to earn my respect is much more important. That goes for any kind of relationship with people, really.

Edit: Is it normal for a therapy session to be 45 minutes? I always thought shrinks get paid per hour. (Needless to say I have no therapy experience.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Elysiana on 09 Mar 2011, 10:16
She did mention that they made some small talk. I assumed that was the first 15 minutes - getting to know each other.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Mar 2011, 10:22
Is it normal for a therapy session to be 45 minutes?

I've had a nominal hour of 50 minutes, giving the therapist time to adjust between sessions, and also to arrange the coming and going so that successive participants do not meet.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: wjen on 09 Mar 2011, 10:23
I think it's something to do with feeling judged by women

You should never feel judged by a good therapist, in any case.  You may find at some point that you start to judge yourself, but your therapist should also help you to put that into perspective.

I feel judged by everyone, like I said, issuuueeeesss. I just feel less judged by men.  :-P I suppose most people would feel more comfortable with the same sex therapist.

Anyway, I'm sure there was something else to discuss. Like the comic. Umm...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: tbones on 09 Mar 2011, 10:56
JEEEPH! I WANTED TO MEET THE NEW CHARACTEEEEER!!! :psyduck:

Meeep, i'm just impatient!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jacjyd on 09 Mar 2011, 11:32
Also, I've never heard of someone having a counselor of the opposite gender. None of mine have been. I'd feel a little self-conscious if a man was my therapist; I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.

I have almost always had counsellors/therapists of the opposite sex, even though there seem to be 5x as many female counsellors as male ones. I think it's something to do with feeling judged by women (issuuuueees), I feel far far more comfortable with a male counsellor. The only time I had a female counsellor she was rubbish, I think that may have also affected it  :-P


I've registered purely to say this (I managed to stay away for so long! Dammit)


Haha I also registered only to post on this topic! =P I've found that it's better with someone of the same sex but because I know that if it were a guy I'd just be subconsciously flirting the whole time...or that it was a possibility.  Which is not a good possibility!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Mar 2011, 11:39
Youze guys are lucky - back in my teenage years, you didn't really have the option, the feild was dominated by men.  Of course, I'm a guy, so it wasn't a big issue for me personally, but the old stereotype of sex with your therapist came from women spending an hour in a room with a male therapist and a couch...

So remember kids, some good has come from the push for gender equality.  Of course, this is one field where it went way past equality, like wjen observed.  Hard to even find  a male therapist anymore...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: spifspifferoo on 09 Mar 2011, 11:58
is there a reason faye turns her back on dora in panel 3 and then doesn't go anywhere? it seems like she just spontaneously decided to rotate in place mid conversation.

Faye and Dora both moved to the left. You can tell because the pictures on the wall change. Also, they're in front of the cash register in the first two panels and they move in front of the pastry display and espresso machine in the 3rd and 4th panels.

This is my first post *please don't hurt me*
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Mar 2011, 12:40
Well spotted, and welcome!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 09 Mar 2011, 13:43
Dora's left leg in panel 3 depresses me.

She is leaning against the counter (may be even "half sitting" on the edge?). It is hard to tell from the pic, which thigh would be pressed against the counter harder (and thus spread wider). Jeph probably had a 3D-image in his mind, so only he can tell.

Or were you worried about something else?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 09 Mar 2011, 13:59
Faye and Dora both moved to the left. You can tell because the pictures on the wall change. Also, they're in front of the cash register in the first two panels and they move in front of the pastry display and espresso machine in the 3rd and 4th panels.

This is my first post *please don't hurt me*
*stab*  :evil:

She is leaning against the counter (may be even "half sitting" on the edge?). It is hard to tell from the pic, which thigh would be pressed against the counter harder (and thus spread wider). Jeph probably had a 3D-image in his mind, so only he can tell.

Or were you worried about something else?
All I saw:
Quote
thigh spread wider
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 09 Mar 2011, 14:01
Skewbrow, I think it might be more that Dora has apparently skinny enough legs that she can get away with those tight jeans and not look like she had to be squeezed into them.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Ghostfingers on 09 Mar 2011, 16:46
Given perspective and leg angle, which changes a lot when your leg bends that way, it's not an entirely straight-forward depiction of Dora's body-type. However, as a curvy gal myself, Dora's thigh depresses me because apparently her leg is the same size as her arm, and at the very widest point of her thigh, haha. :)

(The one that is on Dora's right/my left, that is.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: albus on 09 Mar 2011, 17:13
Youze guys are lucky - back in my teenage years, you didn't really have the option, the feild was dominated by men.  Of course, I'm a guy, so it wasn't a big issue for me personally, but the old stereotype of sex with your therapist came from women spending an hour in a room with a male therapist and a couch...

So remember kids, some good has come from the push for gender equality.  Of course, this is one field where it went way past equality, like wjen observed.  Hard to even find  a male therapist anymore...
sight come here its so friking fulled with therapist that you could find a male therapist in a sec.i read once that this is the country with more therapist per person in the world 8Argentina)
i think i would feel more comfortable with a female terapist but only coz i always thought that women are way smarter

Albus
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SuileanDubh on 09 Mar 2011, 18:03
I am a girl and my therapist is a man, but it works for three reasons. One is that he is really good, another is that he's young and closer to my age which makes him easy to talk to, and lastly because most of my friends are guys because I get along with guys better. I don't trust girls much. I had a therapist before who was a woman, and I never opened up to her because she just seemed too motherly, and older women (not all, but most) aren't the first people I think to go to with problems, because they tend to be prudish or get you in trouble.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Mar 2011, 18:33
I can see why Dora isn't visiting Dr. Corinne as well, but come on, that would have been hilarious.

Faye had mentioned Dr. Corinne had already told her she didn't want to see anyone in her social circle. Though the girls figured it was more like, "Oh, NOW I get it. You're all driving each other insane!" (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1357)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 09 Mar 2011, 18:48
Of course, we've already seen a potential future where Dr. Corrine did take on Faye's friends as patients...Jeph would be rich! (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1266) (Or at least have some extra cash in his pocket.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: BlueMark on 09 Mar 2011, 19:52
Dora talking about her brother makes sense - it tells the therapist about her family dynamic, undoubtedly quite a bit about their upbringing, and is probably more revealing about how Dora interacts with other people than directly asking her.  And the fact that she nattered on for 45 minutes pretty much proves it's importance. As you can see I am an expert on psychological therapy because I took exactly one course in college (mumble) years ago.

Also ... does it count as flirting if the girl thinks you are gay?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SJCrew on 09 Mar 2011, 22:22
Also, I've never heard of someone having a counselor of the opposite gender. None of mine have been. I'd feel a little self-conscious if a man was my therapist; I'd feel like I was talking to my dad.

I have almost always had counsellors/therapists of the opposite sex, even though there seem to be 5x as many female counsellors as male ones. I think it's something to do with feeling judged by women (issuuuueees), I feel far far more comfortable with a male counsellor. The only time I had a female counsellor she was rubbish, I think that may have also affected it  :-P


I've registered purely to say this (I managed to stay away for so long! Dammit)


Haha I also registered only to post on this topic! =P I've found that it's better with someone of the same sex but because I know that if it were a guy I'd just be subconsciously flirting the whole time...or that it was a possibility.  Which is not a good possibility!
Such moxie coming from this post. This is why I'd fancy myself a nice, more homely-looking therapist with a trusting look about her. I'm not sure there's a male therapist I've met that didn't seem like a dick.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 10 Mar 2011, 00:22
So remember kids, some good has come from the push for gender equality.
Oh yes, the good thing we get from gender equality is that therapists can be female now.

Its even more funny because you said it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 10 Mar 2011, 00:55
Skewbrow, I think it might be more that Dora has apparently skinny enough legs that she can get away with those tight jeans and not look like she had to be squeezed into them.

Ook. LOL! Somehow I thought that attention was drawn to the fact that in the third panel Dora's right leg appears to be skinnier than her left leg. If her left leg was causing a depression, then I'm still a bit lost.  :-)

All I saw:
Quote
thigh spread wider
I first wrote "attention was drawn to the difference between Dora's legs", but at the last moment I realized ,which 3 words a mind-in-the-gutter language police would copy&paste out of that sentence.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 01:01
The appearance of her legs depend on the angle you see them from, people. A human thigh isn't a cylinder - its cross-section is not circular. Thus the left leg, which we see from a different angle, appears wider the right.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 10 Mar 2011, 01:18
So remember kids, some good has come from the push for gender equality.  Of course, this is one field where it went way past equality, like wjen observed.  Hard to even find  a male therapist anymore...
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. 

First, there's no such thing as going "passed equality" (assuming you meant "passed" and not "past").  That's called inequality.  But I'm not sure what you mean by "some good has come from the push for gender equality" and then state that it's "hard to even find a male therapist."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 01:24
No, he meant past, as in beyond.

An equal number of each gender would be equality.

A greater number of the former minority gender would be past equality.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SJCrew on 10 Mar 2011, 01:31
Dora's left leg in panel 3 depresses me.

She is leaning against the counter (may be even "half sitting" on the edge?). It is hard to tell from the pic, which thigh would be pressed against the counter harder (and thus spread wider). Jeph probably had a 3D-image in his mind, so only he can tell.

Or were you worried about something else?
This is not a perspective issue, this is an art discrepancy. Dora and Faye are approximately the same height, as are their wastelines. You'll notice that for one panel, the gap between Dora's legs is elevated slightly higher than it should be compromising the proportions of her thighs. Look at Faye's in the same panel; we're talking about a full centimeter in height difference.

The foreshortening of her left thigh is not caused by a different angle, but rather it being genuinely skinnier than the other one. Envision a full-body sketch of Dora in that panel and it will seem painfully obvious that the proportions are off. Jeph messed up.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 10 Mar 2011, 01:43
I am unable to tell, whether something is definitely wrong in that pic. My best guess would be that Dora is sitting on the edge of the counter with her left leg pressed against the top, and her right leg hanging more freely. May be her right foot is resting on a piece of furniture out of our sight or something? Or she hasn't really settled into that position yet?

May be it's a mistake? Quite harmless.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Tova on 10 Mar 2011, 02:05
Well, that tour de force of logic has firmly established Marigold as my favourite character.

Edit: I meant Hannelore... pfft. That's what happens when you jot off a quick post.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 10 Mar 2011, 02:24
Got to love a maths pun. If Marigold's self-loathing is the square root of two, which QC character's self-loathing would the square root of -1? Hannelore possibly? Pintsize certainly.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 10 Mar 2011, 02:30
Math jokes are never bad... well done Jeph!

Also... Don't overreact Mari.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cyro on 10 Mar 2011, 02:46
Ah, Sven, our man-prettiness is truly a curse. A curse of awesome and sexing, but a curse all the same.

Does this make us Bros? I believe it does.

BROOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 10 Mar 2011, 02:51
Got to love a maths pun. If Marigold's self-loathing is the square root of two, which QC character's self-loathing would the square root of -1? Hannelore possibly? Pintsize certainly.
Pintsize. Definitely. It might occasionally have a negative real part though.

If Marigirl's self-loathing is a constant, any constant, then there is hope. If it had exponential growth, that would be cause for concern.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: slydon on 10 Mar 2011, 02:52
I wouldn't question Hanner's logic. If anyone's broken the dating scene down to it's mathematical components, it's her.
Oh yeah (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1762). :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: JackFaerie on 10 Mar 2011, 02:53
Well, my point is that (to me) psych is still an immature science, which is at about the same level of maturity as alchemy wrt chemistry.  But like I said, I've never had any experience of any kind of 'therapy', short of novels, film/TV and now comics.

You do realize you've basically just said: "I have a strong negative and dismissive attitude about psychology although I know nothing about it?" Or to put it another way: "to me psych is an immature science, and my sole knowledge of it comes from highly fictionalized, dramatized media that is more interested in story than accurate representation of medical knowledge"?

I'm not saying you can't/shouldn't hold a negative opinion about psychology--many people do. But holding such an opinion with zero knowledge of the discipline as it is actually practiced (and there are many different ways of practicing) is another matter.

For one thing, the way psychiatrists use talk therapy can be different. In some cases, patients just need an opportunity to talk, air out their issues, and be listened to. A lot of people simply don't spend much time analyzing their reactions and relationships, etc, and having someone "safe" ask questions simply prompts some much-needed self-reflection. In other cases, therapists will guide you towards certain realizations. Dora's just starting therapy--but what was useful from her first session is that it right away pegged her brother, and her relationship with him as a sore point (otherwise she wouldn't have gone off talking about it for 45 minutes and not even known the time was up), and of course the content of Dora's Sven-speech might have given some basics for the therapist to explore/work on with Dora later. As Dora talks more and the therapist learns more about her, he will be able to help her put her various issues together, and guide her to explore particular parts of her psyche.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Fen on 10 Mar 2011, 03:35
I liked therapy. I was afraid of it for years and when I finally got around to going there I regretted not doing so earlier. I was reluctant at first what with all the TV talk about it, and have heard some IRL stories about horrible psychiatrists that tell people with low self esteem that "no man will ever want them unless they lose weight"(we're talking about a pretty good looking and healthy woman here, not an obese person).
I DO blame the whole "psychiatry sucks" idea for all the sucky psychiatrists out there. Half my class went on to study psychology, some to "fix their own problems" and others because they just assumed it was all easy. Ergo, how bad psychotherapists are flooding the industry >.>

(yes I know psychiatry and psychology are different things, I just didn't bother saying "psychiatry and psychology" every time. and yes, mine was a psychiatrist though I went there for cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy).

Also, there was this thing that made me really understand how hard it is to be a psych. Basically my therapist's office was in a building at the local neuropsychological hospital, and lots of schizofrenics would hang out near her hallway. Whenever i'd get there early I'd spend about 5-15 minutes with them. It was extremely depressing. You need some nerve to be able to handle people like that imho.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Eddurd on 10 Mar 2011, 03:38
Maybe this falls under "Don't Explain The Joke", but for the non-math-inclined ...

Why is Marigold's self-loathing the square root of two?
Because it's irrational.

Dora's flaws would be sqrt(-1), since most of them are imaginary.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 10 Mar 2011, 03:52
A greater number of the former minority gender would be past equality.
My point was that equality is theoretical to begin with.  Same with going "passed equality."  Thus it does not exist in reality.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 04:28
Ummm... equality is not  a theoretical concept.  it's a mathematical one, but not all mathematics is theoretical!  You can balance a scale, after all...

And it's a quirk of English that the verb pass becomes passed in the past tense, but as an adverb, adjective, or preposition it's spelled past.   Since the use in "gone past" is adverbial (for the past tense of going), I've used it properly (http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/passedgloss.htm). 



Why yes, my father was  an English major...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: ora on 10 Mar 2011, 04:33
Maybe this falls under "Don't Explain The Joke", but for the non-math-inclined ...

Why is Marigold's self-loathing the square root of two?
Because it's irrational.

Dora's flaws would be sqrt(-1), since most of them are imaginary.


Damn I logged in to say something like this, and I'd be pissed except your comment on Dora's flaws is so awesome I can't be.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 04:54
Why yes, my father was  and English major...

I will forgo my chance at a cheap joke about military ranks, and instead state that I hope that "and" is a typo...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: El_Flesh on 10 Mar 2011, 04:55
Quote
That is some pretty shaky reasoning there Marigold

Certainly.  Because a pretty person could also be nice to a butt-ugly zits-on your face, big nose and greasy greasy hair slob.
Or the pretty person could act nice to the slob, while plotting a devastating public meanness humiliation. Like in Carrie.


Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 10 Mar 2011, 05:09
Maybe this falls under "Don't Explain The Joke", but for the non-math-inclined ...

Why is Marigold's self-loathing the square root of two?
Because it's irrational.

Dora's flaws would be sqrt(-1), since most of them are imaginary.
Aaaaah lol ok now I get it, thanks a lot !


P.s.: Still a very weird way to say it, because no, Marigolds self-loathing IS NOT sqrt(2), its only IN THE SAME FIELD AS sqrt(2) :D

P.p.s.: Or shorter and more precisely, "as sqrt(2)"
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 05:16
Why yes, my father was  and English major...

I will forgo my chance at a cheap joke about military ranks, and instead state that I hope that "and" is a typo...

Never did learn how to type...

And he was also a Master Seargant in the Marines, so no, not an English Major. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 05:18
Why do I get the feeling that the Venn diagram of the intersection of {Math Geeks} and {Pedants} can be represented with one circle?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 10 Mar 2011, 05:18
Maybe this falls under "Don't Explain The Joke", but for the non-math-inclined ...

Why is Marigold's self-loathing the square root of two?
Because it's irrational.

Dora's flaws would be sqrt(-1), since most of them are imaginary.

Thank you, I appreciate that, too. When it comes to math I'm basically functionally retarded.  :-P

As I saw on an awesome t-shirt once: "I'm an English major. You do the math!"
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 05:21
Why do I get the feeling that the Venn diagram of the intersection of {Math Geeks} and {Pedants} can be represented with one circle?

It can't - it has to be two concentric circles. There are plenty of pedants who aren't math geeks, after all.  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 05:24
Ah.

It'd be a little circle inside a bigger circle.

Got it. :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 10 Mar 2011, 05:29
Perhaps this is then not the best time to point out that the intersection of two concentric circles IS the smaller of the two circles - and therefore can be represented with a single circle. :angel: I know. It doesn't work exactly like that with Venn diagrams, because then you would really want to draw both circles.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 05:45
LOL! You're right, of course! The intersection of a Venn diagram is basicly worthless in itself - it is only with the non-intersecting parts of the circles the diagram gives any valuable meaning. Well played!  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 10 Mar 2011, 05:45
(http://i.imgur.com/94fc9.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Antimon on 10 Mar 2011, 06:15
This is one of the best math jokes I ever saw in a Webcomic (xkcd included). Nice work!

... and "Hi, everyone"?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 06:17
Hi there, Antimon!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 10 Mar 2011, 06:28
Ummm... equality is not  a theoretical concept.  it's a mathematical one, but not all mathematics is theoretical!  You can balance a scale, after all...
Balancing a scale doesn't prove equality.  We only aim for an aproximation of balance.  No two things will be exactly the same weight.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Mar 2011, 06:29
Years of math classes and college courses in calculus, and I didn't pick up on the joke until someone said it here.

This is why I went into social sciences.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Mar 2011, 06:31
Ummm... equality is not  a theoretical concept.  it's a mathematical one, but not all mathematics is theoretical!  You can balance a scale, after all...
Balancing a scale doesn't prove equality.  We only aim for an aproximation of balance.  No two things will be exactly the same weight.

Oh, I really don't want to link to another certain webcomic about this... but... I like this one. (http://www.atomiclaundromat.com/2011/03/07/cover-up/)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Lubricus on 10 Mar 2011, 06:46
Hey, thanks for that link! I haven't seen that webcomic before, and it looks great!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: steveh11 on 10 Mar 2011, 06:51
Well, my point is that (to me) psych is still an immature science, which is at about the same level of maturity as alchemy wrt chemistry.  But like I said, I've never had any experience of any kind of 'therapy', short of novels, film/TV and now comics.

You do realize you've basically just said: "I have a strong negative and dismissive attitude about psychology although I know nothing about it?" Or to put it another way: "to me psych is an immature science, and my sole knowledge of it comes from highly fictionalized, dramatized media that is more interested in story than accurate representation of medical knowledge"?
Yes.

I'm not saying you can't/shouldn't hold a negative opinion about psychology--many people do. But holding such an opinion with zero knowledge of the discipline as it is actually practiced (and there are many different ways of practicing) is another matter.

For one thing, the way psychiatrists use talk therapy can be different. In some cases, patients just need an opportunity to talk, air out their issues, and be listened to. A lot of people simply don't spend much time analyzing their reactions and relationships, etc, and having someone "safe" ask questions simply prompts some much-needed self-reflection. In other cases, therapists will guide you towards certain realizations. Dora's just starting therapy--but what was useful from her first session is that it right away pegged her brother, and her relationship with him as a sore point (otherwise she wouldn't have gone off talking about it for 45 minutes and not even known the time was up), and of course the content of Dora's Sven-speech might have given some basics for the therapist to explore/work on with Dora later. As Dora talks more and the therapist learns more about her, he will be able to help her put her various issues together, and guide her to explore particular parts of her psyche.

OK.

You do realise that I asked the question, don't you?  As in, seeking out information?
I thank you for your explanation.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: tbones on 10 Mar 2011, 06:58
No two things will be exactly the same weight.
The day i learned why that is true, was like someone took my inner nerd to the most awesome roller coaster ever.

Also, about the comic:
I  keep feeling that SOMETHING is GOING to happen between Marigold and Sven!! I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT!!!! :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Delator on 10 Mar 2011, 07:12
I  keep feeling that SOMETHING is GOING to happen between Marigold and Sven!! I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT!!!! :psyduck:

I'm calling an online WoW love triangle between Marigold, Sven, and Dale.

 :psyduck:

They then learn they all actually know each other in real life. Hilarity Ensues.

 :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 10 Mar 2011, 07:16
Poor Marigold. It's not that easy being green socially broken. :(
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 07:21
I'm calling an online WoW love triangle between Marigold, Sven, and Dale.

Naaaah - I'm thinking that WoW will be an in for Marigold into realizing that Sven's human.  They'll bond over it, but IRL.  And Sven'll make a friend.  It may go somewhere, but probably not, despite much hilarity. 

Dale, on the other hand... now, there's  a twisted love interest, right there! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 10 Mar 2011, 07:36
Man that would be a huge "fuck you" to the two camwhores in her guild if she and Sven were to hook up

Just post a picture to the website with the caption "Oh I'm sorry I am busy making out with an
Italo-Nordic sex god
"

Know that they are choking on their own bile on the other end
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 10 Mar 2011, 08:05
Well, hell, Sven, how hard would it have been to say "Hi, Marigold"? I'd Gibbs-slap ya if it wouldn't bust my computer, you bein' a cartoon character and all.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DJRubberducky on 10 Mar 2011, 08:22
Sorry for going all the way back to yesterday's strip with this comment, but:

I'm really surprised nobody else has made explicit mention that Dora just might be freaking out about the therapist wanting to spend the whole nominal-hour talking about her brother, when one of her major insecurity issues is that she felt everyone cared about her brother more than they did about her.

Yes, in this case there will probably be some helpful advice coming out of such talking, but that doesn't change the fact that her therapist very neatly pushed one of Dora's buttons right there in the first session.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 10 Mar 2011, 08:41
Why should it be the therapist who decided that, though?  The therapist will be mostly listening, and Sven is what Dora  found herself talking about.  She may blame the therapist for not changing the subject, but that's not how they work.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 08:45
Ah yes, I can see it now...

"So, tell me a little about your brother." 

Then, either

"What, that man-whore?" followed by a 45 minute seething rant, or

"Well, he's nice enough, I guess.  At least he is lately.   When we were younger..." followed by 45 minutes of tales of woe and intrigue. 

Either way, grist for the mill! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: tbones on 10 Mar 2011, 08:57
Well, hell, Sven, how hard would it have been to say "Hi, Marigold"? I'd Gibbs-slap ya if it wouldn't bust my computer, you bein' a cartoon character and all.
Well, he didn't actually said "hi" to hanners either, and he is good at reading people and he obviously noticed that Marigold was unconfortable... I don't think he was at fault there...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 10 Mar 2011, 08:59
Sorry for going all the way back to yesterday's strip with this comment, but:

I'm really surprised nobody else has made explicit mention that Dora just might be freaking out about the therapist wanting to spend the whole nominal-hour talking about her brother, when one of her major insecurity issues is that she felt everyone cared about her brother more than they did about her.

Yes, in this case there will probably be some helpful advice coming out of such talking, but that doesn't change the fact that her therapist very neatly pushed one of Dora's buttons right there in the first session.

But therapy is never just about the person in the room with the therapist, it's about their interactions with other people. The fact that Dora spent 45 minutes talking about Sven alone spoke volumes to the therapist. Its one thing to say you have problems and issues, but that doesn't really help solve them. Which is why therapists often ask about family, friends, relationships, to know what can push someone, to help their patients figure out how to stop those specific buttons being pushed.

I mean, come on, one of the first sessions and Dora spends 45 minutes talking about her brother, her (supposedly) successful older brother, song writing career, has his own two storey apartment (I can't imagine those would be too common, or available to someone with an average wage), doesn't have to work and has essentially coasted through life with little effort. And yet Dora has struggled to maintain her own buisness, was average in the extreme in school, has developed a very serious case of sibling jealousy and has resorted to living with said brother. Whether she knows it or not, Dora has modelled her life on what she has seen Sven do with his, and has failed to notice that Sven is utterly miserable, a man who has failed to have one, proper, meaningful romantic relationship.

A person isn't just one person, defined by their own actions, but their interactions with the people around them. A good therapist will never just talk to a patient about themselves (the patient).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Mar 2011, 10:22
All points well taken, but the original point still stands. Dora may resent the room her brother takes up in her mind, and specifically may resent that she spent a whole therapy session talking about him, even though or especially because it was her call to do it.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 10 Mar 2011, 10:41
I think we forumites all see the point that Dora (or anyone) is the sum total of a bunch of things, including interactions with others, and therefore that is a legitimate thing to talk about in therapy. The larger point, and for the purposes of the comic the punchline, is that Dora doesn't get it: "When is it going to be about me?"
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 11:44
What is this, XKCD?
Maybe this falls under "Don't Explain The Joke", but for the non-math-inclined ...

Why is Marigold's self-loathing the square root of two?
Because it's irrational.

Dora's flaws would be sqrt(-1), since most of them are imaginary.
I guess it is.

All I saw:
Quote
thigh spread wider
I first wrote "attention was drawn to the difference between Dora's legs", but at the last moment I realized, which 3 words would mind-in-the-gutter language police copy/paste out of that sentence?
Yeah, I kind of had to stretch to make my pun. Thighs wasn't plural, for instance. Still, it was inevitable that someone would make the allusion, so I decided to go ahead and do it.

Well, hell, Sven, how hard would it have been to say "Hi, Marigold"? I'd Gibbs-slap ya if it wouldn't bust my computer, you bein' a cartoon character and all.
He might've, but Hannelore beat him to the 'ello, and with a follow up question no less. Notice how he wavers a bit before skipping the pleasantries and just answering her question.


In regards to Dora, part of her neurosis is that under her veneer of socialism (not that one) is a fairly self centered person. Thus, though she may have recognized that she needs to talk about her brother in abstract, she wanted to talk about herself first and foremost with someone she finally didn't have to care about judging her, and later bring her issues with Sven or anyone else in as a secondary issue. Underlying her entire world view is the question "but what about me?", and she thought the therapy would answer that question- when what she needs to do is change the question, if that makes sense.

Also, writing it that way was funny.


Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Mar 2011, 12:11
Isn't there some school of philosophy which holds that we only exist as the sum of our relationships with other people and things?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 10 Mar 2011, 12:33
In regards to Dora, part of her neurosis is that under her veneer of socialism (not that one) is a fairly self centered person. Thus, though she may have recognized that she needs to talk about her brother in abstract, she wanted to talk about herself first and foremost with someone she finally didn't have to care about judging her, and later bring her issues with Sven or anyone else in as a secondary issue. Underlying her entire world view is the question "but what about me?", and she thought the therapy would answer that question- when what she needs to do is change the question, if that makes sense.

This I completely agree with. Her whole life has been about one person, Dora, and her own needs. But, as you've said Westrim, Dora has this idea that the therapy will be all about her, that the therapist will answer the question of "what about Dora?" The thing is, all that question has don't has led her from one bad relationship to another, and the first relatively decent relationship she has had has seen Dora subconsciously trying to sabotage it from day one.

Actually, (and I'm not a psychiatrist so this might be a load of crap), but does anyone get the feeling that Dora suffers from Antisocial personality disorder? Just taking a quick look at the defining characteristics we have;

Just a few characteristics (and we all know that other members of the cast probably have them in spades), but it really does puts things into perspective.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 10 Mar 2011, 12:40
Well I, for one, have always found goatkcd.com (http://goatkcd.com) to be far more amusing than the original.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 10 Mar 2011, 12:45
Isn't there some school of philosophy which holds that we only exist as the sum of our relationships with other people and things?

Hegel referred to this obliquely, my understanding of German Idealism is flaky at best but it runs along the lines of:
"we are individuals but the world around us is made of universals, those universals are made by our interactions with others, our thoughts alone can never make these universals".
if anyone can phrase this better please correct me

odin:

from the newbies thread
Quote
2. Internet Memes? Passe. There is nothing exciting or new about robots, pirates, ninjas, or all the other bullshit you heard mentioned one time and think is omg fucking hillarrrrrious. Again, it's been done before, and really we don't want to hear your take on the same tired cliche. When was the last time you heard a good cover of "Brown Eyed Girl"? Same principle.

Goatse; really?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 10 Mar 2011, 13:13
I definitely think that Hanners may have a bit of Vulcan blood in her family tree somewhere   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 13:20
Actually, (and I'm not a psychiatrist so this might be a load of crap), but does anyone get the feeling that Dora suffers from Antisocial personality disorder? Just taking a quick look at the defining characteristics we have;
  • Poor behavioural control - Anger, irritability,  impatience, aggression - Espresso machine incident, the underwear incident, Cosette's asking Marten out, etc

Too be fair, most of these incidents were at stressful (in one form or another) times.  However, her reactions under stress are certainly something to be addressed in therapy...

Quote
  • Tendency to violate personal boundries - Do I really need to give an example of that? Fine, ignoring Marten's requests to not look at his private internet history, and using Pintsize to get onto Marten's laptop

Not to mention crawling into bed with Faye, going off into a horny fugue state about Hanners, and there are probably other incidents.  But different people heve different levels of personal boundaries.  The porn thing was really an attempt at self-sabotage, anyway, I don't think I'd count it. 

Quote
  • Irresponsible work behavior - Leaving work in what was presumably the middle of the day to go and looking up her boyfriend's collection of porn, leaving Faye alone to deal with any customers.

Again, it's the same self-sabotage example.  Other times when she's left work have mainly been things like spending time with Marten, or going to lunch, or taking care of some crisis.  Really, it's just one of the perks of being the boss! 

Quote
  • Poor and abusive relationships - Apparently all her boyfreinds before Marten.

No argument with that one. 

However, a quick search (I'm no psych-person either) shows that, though some of these are symptoms of antisocial personaliuty disorder, the actual diagnosis requires "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."  The issues usually verge on the criminal, and often include lying, stealing, constant irresponsibility, lack of remorse, lack of empathy, ... 

She's just not that bad.  If nothing else, we've certainly seen remorse.  And if there's one thing she's not, it's consistant!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skelepunk on 10 Mar 2011, 14:14
Dora shows more of a insecure attachment style than she does of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Also, it's more likely-attachment issues are far more common than mental illness.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 10 Mar 2011, 14:19
Whether she knows it or not, Dora has modelled her life on what she has seen Sven do with his, and has failed to notice that Sven is utterly miserable, a man who has failed to have one, proper, meaningful romantic relationship.
Utterly miserable? Sez who? Sure, Sven got a bit of a wake-up-call when he realised he'd screwed things up with Faye, but "utterly miserable" is going a bit far I think. I suppose some people might think he ought to be miserable, but there's not much evidence I think.

In regards to Dora, part of her neurosis is that under her veneer of socialism (not that one) is a fairly self centered person.
Socialism? Do you mean sociability? I've never seen any sign of Socialism in Dora the petite-bourgeois business-owner :), but I know the USAnian political dictionary is different.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 14:24
In regards to Dora, part of her neurosis is that under her veneer of socialism (not that one) is a fairly self centered person.
Socialism? Do you mean sociability? I've never seen any sign of Socialism in Dora the petite-bourgeois business-owner :), but I know the USAnian political dictionary is different.
(not that one)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 10 Mar 2011, 14:46
I translated it as socialisation  myself.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 10 Mar 2011, 16:09
I  keep feeling that SOMETHING is GOING to happen between Marigold and Sven!! I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT!!!! :psyduck:

I'm calling an online WoW love triangle between Marigold, Sven, and Dale.

 :psyduck:

They then learn they all actually know each other in real life. Hilarity Ensues.

 :mrgreen:

Hot on the hells of our show with Doctor Who and the Cybermen Family, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYFy5-bFhxE) watch as we get a Blood Elf Archer, an Orc Warlock, and a Draenei Paladin all together in one house.....next on "Living with the Enemy."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Sorflakne on 10 Mar 2011, 17:31
Mari-girl's right.  Pretty people are dicks.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 10 Mar 2011, 17:38
This is kinda off the current line of discussion but I noticed Jeph's doing something a little different with Marigold's hair in the front. Also, I like that green hoodie on her  :-)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Mar 2011, 17:38
I think we forumites all see the point that Dora (or anyone) is the sum total of a bunch of things, including interactions with others, and therefore that is a legitimate thing to talk about in therapy. The larger point, and for the purposes of the comic the punchline, is that Dora doesn't get it: "When is it going to be about me?"

Thinking back to the list she gave about him to Marten way back in 1107, she does have about 45 minutes of stuff on him:


This is kinda off the current line of discussion but I noticed Jeph's doing something a little different with Marigold's hair in the front. Also, I like that green hoodie on her  :-)

It's grown out. Remember? Time skips?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 18:37
By definition, you can't remember time skips. 

 :angel: :psyduck: :angel: :|
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 18:49
By definition, you can't remember time skips. 

 :angel: :psyduck: :angel: :|

Well, I got from 10th grade to 12th grade somehow.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 10 Mar 2011, 19:10
Bribes?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 10 Mar 2011, 19:22
JW: We agree. And this is me wishing you luck IRW.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 10 Mar 2011, 19:31
By definition, you can't remember time skips. 

 :angel: :psyduck: :angel: :|

Well, I got from 10th grade to 12th grade somehow.

Do we wanna know?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 20:15
I did quite well grade-wise junior year, it's just that I think back and can't specifically remember anything about it. I don't remember any of my teacher's names, only one or two people I knew were a grade above me, and so on.  Get your minds out of the gutter.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cesariojpn on 10 Mar 2011, 21:31
Well, I did quite well grade-wise junior year, it's just that I think back and can't specifically remember anything about it. I don't remember any of my teacher names, only one or two people I knew were two grades above me so no one I knew left during it, and so on.  Get your minds out of the gutter.

Funny, I thought it partially involved a rain gutter.....maybe I just have an overactive imagination.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Mar 2011, 22:04
Poor Marigold.  She's got a point, though. 

About the makeovers.  Not the harpoons. 


Of course, she'd look a lot nicer if she's stop slouching about with a scowl on her lip...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: helloandgoodbye on 10 Mar 2011, 22:15
  Sure, Marigold.  You're not the prettiest girl in the world, but at least you have big tits.

  /shot
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Mar 2011, 22:19
Marigold cares more about her appearance than she lets on, but I sure wouldn't mind if she dug in her heels and insisted on being evaluated for her server tuning prowess and being left alone about how she looks.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 10 Mar 2011, 22:28
I got a harpoon I'd like to put in Marigold's butt durr hurr hurr



(I promise I'm actually a woman  :angel:)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 22:28
Marigold cares more about her appearance than she lets on, but I sure wouldn't mind if she dug in her heels and insisted on being evaluated for her server tuning prowess and being left alone about how she looks.
She actually cares quite openly about how she appears (how many strips has she groused to Angus and Hannelore about specific things, and more publicly about her lack of appeal, including this very strip?), the problem is that she cares in a bad way. She grumbles that no one looks at her and stays in her room wallowing in self pity. instead of actually doing something about it, like laying off the Pocky, going for a run, and taking a shower. That's not even appearance stuff, that's health stuff.  She needs to clean up her self image and herself, and wear a smile instead of being so mousy in both the visual and mental sense. If she'd just stay clean (not that one), she'd be quite appealing.

EDIT: Oh, I just realized that there's a new strip up and that's what we're talking about.  :oops: I thought we were talking about the one in the hallway. The above is all from before that revelation.

Marigold, Kevlar isn't very good at stopping harpoons because they're too slow. They'd probably go through it like thick cloth.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 10 Mar 2011, 22:34
Poor girl has absolutely no idea what she has to work with. (Or is in denial, or immediately shoots everything down because "that's hideous and stupid" like the camera incident.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 22:35
I got a harpoon I'd like to put in Marigold's butt durr hurr hurr



(I promise I'm actually a woman  :angel:)


You know, they have certain, how shall we say, attachments that women can use for that purpose.  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 22:37
You know, they have certain, how shall we say, attachments that women can use for that purpose.  :evil:

MOMMY, IS HE TALKING ABOUT A STRAPON?


Well dear, it might just be a double ended dildo. And do try to be quieter.

Oh, sorry.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 22:41
Is strap on one word or two?


This is important question!!!!!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 22:44
Is strap on one word or two?
This is important question!!!!!
One, says the Firefox dictionary and Google, though it is usually hyphenated. Also, the page image on Wikipedia is pretty tricked out and they have a whole list of them complete with images. I learn something new every day.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: slydon on 10 Mar 2011, 22:45
it's amazing how some people clean up really well. Mar looks like one of those people. :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 10 Mar 2011, 22:47
Is strap on one word or two?
This is important question!!!!!

It's "Straphyphenon" when you're talking about the tool company.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 10 Mar 2011, 22:53
I believe that's Snap-on Tools.


Strap-on Tools has a completely different product line!  :-o 8-) :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Mar 2011, 22:54
I bet she has bright eyes when she gets excited about something. That and a smile goes a long way. She may feel doomed by her nose, though.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 10 Mar 2011, 22:56
I believe that's Snap-on Tools.


Strap-on Tools has a completely different product line!  :-o 8-) :wink:
Apparently, music and concerts. There's a band by that name, according to Google.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: ecstaticjoy on 10 Mar 2011, 23:09
Dang Marigold, low self-esteem.

I love the hair texture in this strip, did it get even better? I just noticed.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CEOIII on 10 Mar 2011, 23:55
  Sure, Marigold.  You're not the prettiest girl in the world, but at least you have big tits.

  /shot

And that would be the easy solution to all her problems. You want people to notice you, Mari? You want guys fawning all over you? Two words.

Tank.
Tops.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: JackFaerie on 11 Mar 2011, 00:10
Yeahhhhhh, if you feel your appearance isn't mainstream-pretty, you've got two options:

1) Don't care about the opinions of others, and OWN the way you look (ie, "yeah, so I have a unibrow, but I like it and I'm against the idea I have to pluck it to be attractive, fuck y'all haters)

or 2) if you WANT to be more mainstream-attractive, DO something about it.

You only get to whine and wallow in self-pity if you've given option 2 a reasonable shot and it still hasn't worked. (Mind you, people who go for option 1 may still experience anger and some insecurity due to the fact that they're expected to look a certain way, but that's different from "woe is me, nothing can help my miserable state!" self pity.)

Marigold both wants to be more mainstream-girl pretty and yet is unwilling to put any effort into presenting herself attractively. She also seems to believe that "pretty girls" are all just somehow naturally pretty, although it takes effort for just about everyone.

I'm "pretty" now, and it takes a lot more of my time than my routine in hs, when I was the nerdy bespectacled girl with bad skin and oily hair. (Daily showers, hair products, learning to dress well and paying attention to what I wear, consistent morning and evening skincare routine, constant tweezing/shaving/plucking and pricey good-for-your-skin makeup--along with some help from mother nature and passing out of my teens.) The difference being, when people told me in HS "you'd be so pretty if you took care of yourself more!" I just shrugged, because I knew it was my choice not to shower daily or do the whole circus of hair and makeup care and to dress kinda blah. "Being pretty" wasn't worth it to me at the time, and I was fine with that.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Sorflakne on 11 Mar 2011, 00:28
Quote
Marigold, Kevlar isn't very good at stopping harpoons because they're too slow. They'd probably go through it like thick cloth.
This is truth.  Though if you're right next to the guy wearing a Kevlar vest, stab him in the neck.  He'll die faster.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 11 Mar 2011, 00:32
Awww, I wanna give Marigold a hug.  She's not ugly at all!
(And no, I don't want to hug her for the boob smoosh... you pervert.)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 00:41
Daaaaaang Marbear yo titties may be big but yo self-loathing bigger, girl~

I mean I get where she's coming from, but do recall, Mari, you had Tai, a "pretty person", totally wanting to bone you. You HASS the proverbial junk, you just gotta work it. Dora is right.

I got a harpoon I'd like to put in Marigold's butt durr hurr hurr

P.S.: This is the best comment

The best
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 11 Mar 2011, 00:42
Marigold both wants to be more mainstream-girl pretty and yet is unwilling to put any effort into presenting herself attractively. She also seems to believe that "pretty girls" are all just somehow naturally pretty, although it takes effort for just about everyone.

It's pretty routine for people to claim that "good stuff" comes without effort to those who have it. Dora's attitude to her brother's grades and career is another example. I'm with JackFaerie on this. Fish or cut bait, Marigold! At least you're in with a chance of being mainstream pretty. Some of us have to make do with exotic...  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: St.Clair on 11 Mar 2011, 01:13
Makeover Makeover... Makeover! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaXJmo9cro)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kazukagii on 11 Mar 2011, 01:35
Dora: All you need is a makeover!

Me: Oh god, please not one of those "make over" episodes where we find out she was beautiful all along.

Insert Marigold's panel 3 rant here.

This is why I love Marigold.  :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 01:42
That was always the most bullshit part of that whole bullshit rodeo, was the glasses-taking-away. THE GLASSES ARE PART OF THE APPEAL, FUCKASS!

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 11 Mar 2011, 01:48
I got a harpoon I'd like to put in Marigold's butt durr hurr hurr
I would rather want a Lasso for Hanners. :D

Albeit it wouldl probably be the last thing I would ever do.

Still totally worth dying for.



Quote
(I promise I'm actually a woman  :angel:)
And that is important why ?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 11 Mar 2011, 01:52
Awww, I wanna give Marigold a hug.  She's not ugly at all!
How could you possibly know that ? She's an imaginary character and we only know her looks through Jephs ever changing art.

Even if Jeph is great at making up imaginary people who are totally believable.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Tova on 11 Mar 2011, 02:13
Low self-esteem: the weaker points are more horrible and self-defining than they really are, and the strong points "don't count".
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 02:29
 :psyduck: ...

I would think that Jeph's depiction of Marigold would be a pretty good barometer for how physically attractive she is?

Dude that. How does that make sense, what you just said?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 11 Mar 2011, 02:38
Tova means when you have low self esteem, all you see are your bad points
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 11 Mar 2011, 02:41
I was fine with the previous comic strip but now Mari got annoying. Seriously... that whining reached a level of being pathetic... and stubborn to not hear about what others have to suggest.

Where's Sven and his paper against self-pity when we need him?!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: SJCrew on 11 Mar 2011, 02:43
Same old Marigold, nothing new here. But Dora is right about the skirt. All she really needs to do is flaunt those awesome curves of hers to get some attention from the opposite sex.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 02:55
Tova means when you have low self esteem, all you see are your bad points

...No no no. Uh. I got Tova's point just fine, and I didn't really read his/her post initially cause it showed up as a redtext whilst I was trying to get my reply through to snubnose, above Tova, because what snubnose said just defies logic and sense.

Tova, you and I are cool, right? I was trying not to quote unnecessarily and all WHOOPS OH SHIT.

snubnose, in case I was not clear, what you said= wat

Also please refrain from bearhat commentary about Hanners gdi :/
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odal on 11 Mar 2011, 03:02
Awww, I wanna give Marigold a hug.  She's not ugly at all!
How could you possibly know that ? She's an imaginary character and we only know her looks through Jephs ever changing art.
Wha...?!  She's imaginary?!  NO!  I refuse to believe it!  I shan't, I can't, and I won't.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 11 Mar 2011, 03:07
I'm sorry for clarifying the wrong post,

snubnose seems to be misunderstood sometimes, if my understanding is correct, he is german. Some of my colleagues are german and when they write emails in a hurry i need to call them to get the real meaning, one lady in particular writes in a german grammatical style but using english words, it can be very confusing sometimes.

as to the bearhat comments, not cool snubnose, not cool at all.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 03:10
That is the spirit Odal

Marigold truly lives
in your heart


Marigold: Actually be a fakey-fake friend. Not real. You know, like fairies are.

STOP BEING SUCH A KILLJOY, YOU LOUSY STUPID NARRATIVE VOICE
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 11 Mar 2011, 03:58
as to the bearhat comments, not cool snubnose, not cool at all.
To be fair, he didn't start them.

P.S.: This is the best comment
The best
Actually, no it isn't.

Guys, don't go down that road again, please.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 11 Mar 2011, 04:42
I'm with Carl - that whole self-esteem issue is kinds crippling to coming across as pretty.

Jeph's experimenting with his art again - the hair texture is looking very good, my only criticism is that he needs to up the texture for the rest of the strip.

Oh and Akima - your picture looks lovely (the drawing is an acurate representation, isn't it?)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Loki on 11 Mar 2011, 04:43
That was always the most bullshit part of that whole bullshit rodeo, was the glasses-taking-away. THE GLASSES ARE PART OF THE APPEAL, FUCKASS!

You know, I think she would look better with another shape of glasses, more akin to Tai's.

Also, did anyone else get the "I wish I was prettier"-vibe from Hanners in the last panel?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 05:03
as to the bearhat comments, not cool snubnose, not cool at all.
To be fair, he didn't start them.

P.S.: This is the best comment
The best
Actually, no it isn't.

Guys, don't go down that road again, please.

Well erm to be fair Dug's comment was actually a callback to the comic and was meant tongue-in-cheek pretty clearly.

Like I would use that as an example of funny comment as opposed to actual creepy bearhatting. ._.

ANYWAY wonky, I don't think I'm misunderstanding? From what I gathered, what he said was that we can't know if Marigold is ugly or not just based on Jeph's art. Which...yeah!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Y on 11 Mar 2011, 05:14
Anyone read the specials? Cayenne mocha, tequila latte and cactus up your ass. Do they actually have a permit to serve alcohol? (emergency brandy aside)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: akronnick on 11 Mar 2011, 05:43
Maybe just tequila flavored.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 06:02
Naah, it just has a worm in it. 


So, it took a little searching, but Marigold is definitely able to pull off pretty (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1686).  She needs to relax about it though, and that's not easy for her. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Mar 2011, 06:43
Thanks, Carl-E. I was just thinking that. Although I think it was a few strips earlier in the arc (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1678) that was more or less proof.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: snubnose on 11 Mar 2011, 06:45
I would think that Jeph's depiction of Marigold would be a pretty good barometer for how physically attractive she is?
I cant agree. Jeph has done the same characters in extremely different ways. So all we really have for evidence is how people react to certain people on the comic.

Thats why we know Sven must be very handsome and Steve must be quite handsome; both have an easy time to get women. Sven practically has to beat off women with a stick.

We also know that Raven must have been very hot. She has a full book of potential one night stands.

Faye, Dora, Hanners, Cosette, Marigold: we only have vague ideas about them.

Marigold specifically, all we really know is that she has an "amazing rack" and some moles in her face.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 07:01
Thanks, Carl-E. I was just thinking that. Although I think it was a few strips earlier in the arc (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1678) that was more or less proof.

True, but you have to go further into that arc to find her smiling and relaxed.  I think that's a big part of it - she stops being so self conscious!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 11 Mar 2011, 07:22
We also know that Raven must have been very hot. She has a full book of potential one night stands.

However we know she had to put effort into getting (back?) to that point. According to Dora, when she was in college she was heavier and got no attention thanks to a lot of "french fries and sulking", so she made the conscious decision to get back into shape and take better care of herself, then she started getting attention again. (Archive experts help me out please; I think it was said in or around Marten and Dora's first date, probably in the early-mid 600s?)

A reason to take her off the bus for a while, perhaps? :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CaptainFish on 11 Mar 2011, 07:23
I wonder if some of this is an art issue.

Here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1696) marigold looks perfectly fine in tight fitting clothing, so I assume that she's not overweight. She doesn't even look flabby.

We only assume she looks that way from her lifestyle and her opinions. From a straight depiction the only issue I see is a few pimples and blackheads, and that doesn't actually stop anyone from being pretty.

We're left with the sense that Mare-Bear has an extremely poor opinion of herself for literally no reason, when there is probably a little truth to her self-doubt. I'm not saying her self-image issues aren't irrational, but perhaps they aren't completely unwarranted
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 11 Mar 2011, 07:39
Yeah, today's comic sounds very familiar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnnecessaryMakeover), I will say everyone arguing over whether Marigold is ugly or not is full of shit because it doesn't matter. In this case, God (Jeph) has dictated that Marigold believes herself to be ugly (her friends don't make very convincing arguments to the contrary and give up far too quickly), so she is ugly.

Case closed, really.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 07:50
Hmmmm... I suppose there's some credence to the "you are what you perceive yourself to be" theory, but really there's nothing about her that's objectively "ugly" (whatever that means - I think I'm talking about horrific scarring or disturbingly disproportionate features).  So yeah, she's ugly because she thinks she is, and projects herself that way. 

Which can change - not instantly, but at the core there's nothing preventing her from changing it. 

What we've got here is a serious battle between "perception is reality" vs. "appearances can be deceiving", and they're both fighting dirty. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 08:10
@snubnose: ...So if I grasp what you're saying, we cannot have a concrete idea of what any character in this comic looks like at any given time based on Jeph's art. That what we see every day is like...dream afterimages or something? Pardon my French, but that's just fucking dumb. That ranks among the dumbest shit I have ever heard. I really doubt Jeph means for the characters to be perceived as appearing other than how they're drawn.

@CaptainFish: Or she's been consistently bullied most of her life and has a metric fuckton of body image issues, which seems more likely to me.

@Odin: Well yeah, from the perspective that matters, her own, she's an ogre, but also see Carl's argument, cause he worded it better. I'm too busy tripping over all this goddamn "you cannot perceive what the characters in a visual medium actually look like" horseshit.

@Carl: my thoughts exactly. Hat doff.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 11 Mar 2011, 08:14
@Odin: Well yeah, from the perspective that matters, her own, she's an ogre, but also see Carl's argument, cause he worded it better. I'm too busy tripping over all this goddamn "you cannot perceive what the characters in a visual medium actually look like" horseshit.

This isn't a question of perception, since Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.

In this instance, Jeph is dictating that Marigold is actually ugly. Look again at how quickly Dora and Hannelore dropped their arguments (shitty as they were to start with).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: westrim on 11 Mar 2011, 08:18
My, it sure is getting nasty in here.  :police: T-rex, get em!  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CaptainFish on 11 Mar 2011, 08:39
When it comes to pretty ladies in comics, I'm just reminded of the excellent guest strip (http://scarygoround.com/sgr/ar.php?date=20081006) Rene Engström did for scarygoround.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 11 Mar 2011, 09:04
What we've got here is a serious battle between "perception is reality" vs. "appearances can be deceiving", and they're both fighting dirty. 

And we're all waiting for the mud wrestling to begin.  Or did you mean something else by "fighting dirty?"

all of this is truth:  a.  nothing is preventing Mar from seeing herself as pretty if she chooses to present herself that way; and
b.  except the author of the comic - who may be going for the lulz at the moment, setting up some character development
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 11 Mar 2011, 09:27
@Odin: Well yeah, from the perspective that matters, her own, she's an ogre, but also see Carl's argument, cause he worded it better. I'm too busy tripping over all this goddamn "you cannot perceive what the characters in a visual medium actually look like" horseshit.

This isn't a question of perception, since Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.

In this instance, Jeph is dictating that Marigold is actually ugly. Look again at how quickly Dora and Hannelore dropped their arguments (shitty as they were to start with).

....Th--I don't even. I'll give you the Jeph-determinism, I guess, even though it's a stretch? But the leap that Marigold is actually ugly because Jeph has dictated that she perceives herself as ugly and all that is just as dumb as snub's idea. I....just...fgsfds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhI0OVs_zj0&feature=related)  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Mar 2011, 10:21
Marigirl is plump, anyway. Her belly hangs out over her waistline. Her nose size exceeds conventional standards.

The reference to Raven's weight struggles is #562.

The way Jeph draws each character varies, but his intent doesn't change as fast. In the "Fat Faye" thread, he said that Faye was consistently attractive to the other characters, over a time period where her appearance on screen changed a lot.

Hannelore doesn't seem like the sort to engage in disingenuous flattery, and she was the first to say Marigirl is pretty. So I think that's what Jeph is trying to convey, that she's a diamond in the rough.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Kugai on 11 Mar 2011, 10:34
Sounds to me that if anyone else in the CoD Universe needs Therapy, it's Marigold.  She really has some self-image issues.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 11 Mar 2011, 10:36
@Odin: Well yeah, from the perspective that matters, her own, she's an ogre, but also see Carl's argument, cause he worded it better. I'm too busy tripping over all this goddamn "you cannot perceive what the characters in a visual medium actually look like" horseshit.

This isn't a question of perception, since Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.

In this instance, Jeph is dictating that Marigold is actually ugly. Look again at how quickly Dora and Hannelore dropped their arguments (shitty as they were to start with).

....Th--I don't even. I'll give you the Jeph-determinism, I guess, even though it's a stretch? But the leap that Marigold is actually ugly because Jeph has dictated that she perceives herself as ugly and all that is just as dumb as snub's idea. I....just...fgsfds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhI0OVs_zj0&feature=related)  :psyduck:

I'm talking about both physically and mentally/emotionally ugly, to be clear.

No one that is constantly self-derogatory like Marigold is ever ends up being seen as attractive, ever.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 10:47
Marigirl is plump, anyway. Her belly hangs out over her waistline. Her nose size exceeds conventional standards.

Plump's OK, the problem is that she thinks she's fat.  As for the nose, it's not really size so much as shape.  Looking back (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1855), it's what's called aquiline.  Not enough to be a beak, but definitely a prominent bridge (as oposed to the ski slope my glasses continuously slide down).  In Marigold's case, the result is nearly perfectly triangular, much different than everyone else in the comic.  The only other really unusually shaped nose in the cast is Angus', with its slightly bulbous end. 

Oh, and Wil has a fair sized bridge, but the rest slopes, giving it that waterslide look.  Sort of like an adam's apple of the nose. 

Quote
she's a diamond in the rough.

Shame all she sees is a lump of coal...

Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.  

OK, I will. 

Odin; thanks for clearing that up.  But self image can change.  Like Kugai says, it may need therapy, or at least some friends to clear your vision. 

Then again, if she actually gets straightened out, we'll lose some of teh funny. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: tbones on 11 Mar 2011, 10:50
I'm talking about both physically and mentally/emotionally ugly, to be clear.

No one that is constantly self-derogatory like Marigold is ever ends up being seen as attractive, ever.

Welp, unless they grow out of that. I mean, if you maturate enough....
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Near Lurker on 11 Mar 2011, 10:51
Due to Jeph's art style, I'd say that Marigold is a bit fatter than some people might be perceiving her, with worse skin and ill-behaved hair.  Yes, it's a visual medium, but it's a very stylized one.

Dora, on the other hand, is very thin, and at least has good enough skin that she can hide her blemishes without looking like Mimi from Drew Carey.  A short skirt probably won't work for Marigold, although she might benefit from... oh, no...

Jeph's going to cut her hair off.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CaptainFish on 11 Mar 2011, 11:55
Marigirl is plump, anyway. Her belly hangs out over her waistline.

Do you have an example of this, because, as I linked before, here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1692) or here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1696) she doesn't show any sign of pudginess at all. I looked across some strips and this strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1635) where she is changing looks a little love handle-y and thats probably the best example of her self-perceived 'weight problem'.*

I agree that the plump portrayal is probably what we're supposed to see, I'm just not sure how well the art brings that across. That's why I think her poor opinion of herself comes across as completely unwarranted, she isn't drawn less pretty than anyone else.

I will say that it's completely understandable that she equates her lack of success in dating with looking bad. However, in this case it might more be an issue of anxiety and how she carries herself socially due to the poor way she's been treated in the past.

*I hope this doesn't come across creepy, I'm just interested in the dichotomy between how she's drawn and how she's perceived.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 11 Mar 2011, 12:34
Shes got an itty bit of a belly as can be seen here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1635) and here. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1873) Personally I think it makes her look cuter. ^_^ She's just a little zaftig
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Blood-Tree on 11 Mar 2011, 12:35
As a keen jacket aficionado, I have to state, for the record, that Hannelore has a rather superb jacket. Just look how well-fitted it is in panel 2.

It is my sincere and earnest belief that, if The Amazing MarMar were to ditch the green-blob-like hooded sweatshirt and join Ms H in Jacketville, then all of her problems would immediately be solved.

All of them. Immediately.

Such is the power of a well-fitted jacket.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Skewbrow on 11 Mar 2011, 13:48
Shes got an itty bit of a belly as can be seen here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1635) and here. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1873) Personally I think it makes her look cuter. ^_^ She's just a little zaftig

May be zäftig is the word? I thought it means something a little bit meatier than what is showing in those strips, but whatever :-).

I can't help feeling that the little love handles showing in the strips you cited are not really there! The little plump is just her hip points that are showing because she's wearing a pair of those ridiculously low hanging pants that fail to cover her underwear.

Hmm. On second thought may be that kind of pants only look ridiculous on me? The inevitable cleft ...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 14:52
While she is wearing her pants a bit low (a style I just don't understand or find comfortable, but try finding jeans that aren't  cut that way anymore), there's a bit of a belly/love handles showing in the respective strips.  Nothing out of the ordinary, though - I personally find people without 'em look a bit odd and malnourished... you really can't have boobs of that dimension without a fairly decent layer of adipose tissue, which will also give you accentuated hips and other, softer curves. 

And my understanding of zaftig  (same as zäftig, we are umlaut-lazy in the US) is that it means pleasantly plump, nothing mean is intended.  Of course, that may have changed in the thin-obsessed world we now live in.  My references for beauty go back to those 70's playmates Sven was going on about...  no ribs, hip bones or six-packs showing there! 

"Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds..."
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: reboundstudent on 11 Mar 2011, 15:40
Okay can we just please knock it off with the "oh if she just exercised and wore make-up she'd realize she's pretty!"

Sometimes... people are just ugly.

I consider myself very similar to Marigold. I have a "curvy"/fat body (bust: 35 1/2, waist: 32 1/4, and hips: 36 3/4, height 5" and weight 123), mousy brown hair and a large prominent nose. I've heard it ALL... that if I dressed better, wore make-up, smiled!, then suddenly I'd be beautiful.

Well I'm doing those things. I wear make-up every morning, I work out three days a week, I take a shower every day, wash my hair, wear it back from my face, have at least some semblance of style (jeans, blouse, and boots with some heel) and ya know what, I'm STILL not pretty. I STILL don't have guys paying attention to me or people treating me any differently than when I was ten pounds heavier in high school and thought a cup bra was some ancient torture device.

Sometimes, people are just ugly. You can make an ugly person passable, but ya can't make em pretty (not by societal standards, anyway.) Is it really low self esteem to point that out??
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Mar 2011, 15:56
I doubt you're nearly as ugly as you think you are.  However, just because you're not beating them off with a stick doesn't mean you're ugly.  It's the next to last sentence that's most telling...

You can make an ugly person passable, but ya can't make em pretty (not by societal standards, anyway.) Is it really low self esteem to point that out??

Societal standards are bullshit, but they're how you're judged by society.  They also change over time and from one culture to another. 

So yes, it really is  low self-esteem, to a certain extent.  Society says you're not pretty, and that shifting "standard" makes you feel like shit about yourself.  You may feel that you've "accepted" this, but that doesn't mean you don't  have low self esteem about your looks.  Self-esteem isn't self imposed, despite the name. 



Then again, maybe you really are  ugly.  Damned if I  know...   :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 11 Mar 2011, 15:59
Okay can we just please knock it off with the "oh if she just exercised and wore make-up she'd realize she's pretty!"

Sometimes... people are just ugly.

I consider myself very similar to Marigold. I have a "curvy"/fat body (bust: 35 1/2, waist: 32 1/4, and hips: 36 3/4, height 5" and weight 123), mousy brown hair and a large prominent nose. I've heard it ALL... that if I dressed better, wore make-up, smiled!, then suddenly I'd be beautiful.

Well I'm doing those things. I wear make-up every morning, I work out three days a week, I take a shower every day, wash my hair, wear it back from my face, have at least some semblance of style (jeans, blouse, and boots with some heel) and ya know what, I'm STILL not pretty. I STILL don't have guys paying attention to me or people treating me any differently than when I was ten pounds heavier in high school and thought a cup bra was some ancient torture device.

Sometimes, people are just ugly. You can make an ugly person passable, but ya can't make em pretty (not by societal standards, anyway.) Is it really low self esteem to point that out??

Ok wow way to completely miss the point. Marigold isn't stunning but good christ she isn't ugly! And granted I skimmed a few of these comments but I don't think that's really what anyone was getting at. Dora isn't saying Marigold needs a makeover because she's ugly, but because she doesn't know how to show off what she's got, not to mention the confidence boost that often comes with changing one's image. She isn't ugly, dear, and I'm willing to bet that you aren't, either!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Akima on 11 Mar 2011, 16:17
It's a bit difficult to take the Marigold is/isn't ugly thing seriously when she is Hollywood homely (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHomely) at worst. But self-acceptance comes from within regardless of how you look. I'm working on it...
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 11 Mar 2011, 16:35
Wait, I just realized something. Angus self-admittedly has a "type:" short, curvy, thick glasses...and guess what his roommate looks like?

No I'm not insinuating they're gonna get together, just that Angus appreciates a little eye candy around his domicile.

Well played, Mr. McPhee, you dog, you. Well played.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Mar 2011, 16:40
We also know that Raven must have been very hot. She has a full book of potential one night stands.

However we know she had to put effort into getting (back?) to that point. According to Dora, when she was in college she was heavier and got no attention thanks to a lot of "french fries and sulking", so she made the conscious decision to get back into shape and take better care of herself, then she started getting attention again. (Archive experts help me out please; I think it was said in or around Marten and Dora's first date, probably in the early-mid 600s?)

A reason to take her off the bus for a while, perhaps? :mrgreen:

That was during the unofficial Dora/Marten first date. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=562)

EDIT: Which someone already pointed out but didn't link to.

What we've got here is a serious battle between "perception is reality" vs. "appearances can be deceiving", and they're both fighting dirty.  

"They see me trollin', self-hatin', My problems are both fightin' dirty (they both fightin' dirty, percs and apps fightin' dirty...)"

(Sorry, had to do it...)

As a keen jacket aficionado, I have to state, for the record, that Hannelore has a rather superb jacket. Just look how well-fitted it is in panel 2.

It is my sincere and earnest belief that, if The Amazing MarMar were to ditch the green-blob-like hooded sweatshirt and join Ms H in Jacketville, then all of her problems would immediately be solved.

All of them. Immediately.

Such is the power of a well-fitted jacket.

The irony is that Hanners picked that up at a thrift store a week ago.

It's a bit difficult to take the Marigold is/isn't ugly thing seriously when she is Hollywood homely (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodHomely) at worst. But self-acceptance comes from within regardless of how you look. I'm working on it...

PHWEEET! "Five minute major for linking to TV Tropes!"

EDIT: Whew. Post Consolidation is hard.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Mar 2011, 16:58
Marigirl is plump, anyway. Her belly hangs out over her waistline.

Do you have an example of this, because, as I linked before, here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1692) or here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1696) she doesn't show any sign of pudginess at all. I looked across some strips and this strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1635) where she is changing looks a little love handle-y and thats probably the

That's the one I had in mind.
Quote from: Akima
exotic
Is exotic good? Susan Sarandon's character in Bull Durham was outraged to be called "cute", insisting that she wanted to be regarded as exotic, but Meena definitely did not feel the same way.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: teclo on 11 Mar 2011, 17:19
I have to admit I love Marigold's nose, theres something about it that just works for me.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: teclo on 11 Mar 2011, 17:29
Also if they do insist on giving Marigold a makeover, they should avoid the whole over the top type. Aim her towards a falteringly cut business suit or pinstripe pant suit.

Dang, pinstripe pant suits on a woman with curves? Awesome...

I think forcing her into trying to look attractive for dating will backfire, but making her look powerful for work, that may work towards her self esteem.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: brew on 11 Mar 2011, 17:38

Is exotic good? Susan Sarandon's character in Bull Durham was outraged to be called "cute", insisting that she wanted to be regarded as exotic, but Meena definitely did not feel the same way.

Exotic is insulting if you're a racial minority, good if you're pale white.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 11 Mar 2011, 17:46
That was during the unofficial Dora/Marten first date. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=562)

EDIT: Which someone already pointed out but didn't link to.

Hey give me a break that was a "5 minutes after I was supposed to leave for work" post and I flat out asked for help finding it because I only had a vague idea of where it was. :P
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Mar 2011, 17:54
I think he was talking about me: I gave the strip number but didn't linkify it.

Teclo has a good idea. Build up Marigirl's confidence first, and only then subject her to the horrors of dating. Dating without self-confidence but with normal horniness can lead to bad outcomes.

Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Mar 2011, 18:08
... Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Mar 2011, 18:26
... Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.
Plus, you could argue that we have no more free will than they do...but that's probably for another thread.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: DSL on 11 Mar 2011, 18:28
... Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.

I've heard a number of creative types say that precise thing. I believe Jeph has hinted at the same thing in a few things I've read.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Mar 2011, 18:30
I should point out that this thread is as bad as TVTropes.  Why?  Because I'll read it, and someone will mention a certain strip, and I'll click on it...and then read the next two hundred :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 11 Mar 2011, 18:30
So creativity leads to schizophrenia, or is it the other way around?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 11 Mar 2011, 18:34
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.
Plus, you could argue that we have no more free will than they do...but that's probably for another thread.

The difference between us and Jeph's characters is that there is quite literally no god pulling our strings. Non-religious Determinism is pretty much the order of the day for everyone (it is an extremely complicated thing, but true free will doesn't exist), yes.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Mar 2011, 18:39
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.
Plus, you could argue that we have no more free will than they do...but that's probably for another thread.

The difference between us and Jeph's characters is that there is quite literally no god pulling our strings. Non-religious Determinism is pretty much the order of the day for everyone (it is an extremely complicated thing, but true free will doesn't exist), yes.
We're actually in agreement on the deterministic universe, at least for the most part, but Jeph is hardly an omnipotent being, even regarding his own creation.  He's still affected by outside influences, even if he doesn't realize it (that's not a criticism, he's human).

Modified portion: Also, unrelated, but your avatar kicks all sorts of ass.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: musicalsoul on 11 Mar 2011, 18:40
Okay can we just please knock it off with the "oh if she just exercised and wore make-up she'd realize she's pretty!"

Sometimes... people are just ugly.

I consider myself very similar to Marigold. I have a "curvy"/fat body (bust: 35 1/2, waist: 32 1/4, and hips: 36 3/4, height 5" and weight 123), mousy brown hair and a large prominent nose. I've heard it ALL... that if I dressed better, wore make-up, smiled!, then suddenly I'd be beautiful.

Well I'm doing those things. I wear make-up every morning, I work out three days a week, I take a shower every day, wash my hair, wear it back from my face, have at least some semblance of style (jeans, blouse, and boots with some heel) and ya know what, I'm STILL not pretty. I STILL don't have guys paying attention to me or people treating me any differently than when I was ten pounds heavier in high school and thought a cup bra was some ancient torture device.

Sometimes, people are just ugly. You can make an ugly person passable, but ya can't make em pretty (not by societal standards, anyway.) Is it really low self esteem to point that out??

I think it's low self-esteem to consider yourself ugly. That's just my personal opinion.

Whether you're beautiful by societal standards is totally irrelevant when it comes to how you feel about you. Everyone has a different definition of beautiful. You know, the whole beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing.

Everyone is beautiful in their own way. And the one thing that always helps make everyone a bit more beautiful is having confidence in their beauty. I didn't really figure that out until pretty recently. But, I honest to God, believe that everyone is beautiful, even if I'm not attracted to them. I can always find something that I think is pretty.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 11 Mar 2011, 19:45
So creativity leads to schizophrenia, or is it the other way around?
Very nearly all "mental disorders" are exaggerations of otherwise useful traits to one extreme or another. This is why they are so hard to treat; if they were genuine aberrations, complete excision would be a viable treatment, achievable with old-fashioned brute force & ignorance, but in the vast majority of cases what is required is mitigation to within "normal" or at least "acceptable" levels.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cabbagehut on 11 Mar 2011, 22:49
Okay can we just please knock it off with the "oh if she just exercised and wore make-up she'd realize she's pretty!"

Sometimes... people are just ugly.

I consider myself very similar to Marigold. I have a "curvy"/fat body (bust: 35 1/2, waist: 32 1/4, and hips: 36 3/4, height 5" and weight 123), mousy brown hair and a large prominent nose. I've heard it ALL... that if I dressed better, wore make-up, smiled!, then suddenly I'd be beautiful.

Well I'm doing those things. I wear make-up every morning, I work out three days a week, I take a shower every day, wash my hair, wear it back from my face, have at least some semblance of style (jeans, blouse, and boots with some heel) and ya know what, I'm STILL not pretty. I STILL don't have guys paying attention to me or people treating me any differently than when I was ten pounds heavier in high school and thought a cup bra was some ancient torture device.

Sometimes, people are just ugly. You can make an ugly person passable, but ya can't make em pretty (not by societal standards, anyway.) Is it really low self esteem to point that out??

Honestly, I sort of agree.  I don't look anything like Marigold, but sometimes... you're just sort of unfortunate-looking.  I think the storyline here is that Marigold is voluntarily that way, and she could change it, but she's not in the camp that believes it can be.

My mom jokingly threatens to put me on What Not To Wear, which is why I love Marigold's response.  People act like the cancer's gone into remission because their mom put on a dress and got her hair cut.  While I can understand the value in dressing nicely and feeling good about yourself, it's really image-centric and that just bothers me.  It feels like there's so much pressure on women to "take care of themselves" (read: dress nicely and wear makeup and stuff) in order to feel good.  Maybe because I AM jealous, who knows?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Mar 2011, 23:04
Faye notices the gender difference in appearance standards (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=352).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 12 Mar 2011, 04:55
Faye notices the gender difference in appearance standards (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=352).

And Jeph's newspost comment is the true explanation for why Marigold rejects the skirt advice out-of-hand!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Mar 2011, 08:21
I'd jokingly suggest plastic surgery as an option, but given Marigold's self-esteem problems, that would just cause more problems in the long run.

And somehow I think Marigold would end up looking like the Bride of Wildenstein. (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-barf.gif)
  (seriously, there needs to be an ill/sick emote on here)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 12 Mar 2011, 09:27
Honestly, I sort of agree.  I don't look anything like Marigold, but sometimes... you're just sort of unfortunate-looking.  I think the storyline here is that Marigold is voluntarily that way, and she could change it, but she's not in the camp that believes it can be.

I think the problem is she isn't giving herself enough credit. No she's not a knockout SI model, but she's also not the hideous sideshow attraction she sees herself as. A lot of it probably came from the teasing she received because of her behavior and interests in her school years (you don't get a frog down the back of your shirt for no reason), and was exasperated by being a recluse in college. It's very difficult to break out of that "I'm a hideous idiot nobody actually likes me" mindset.

Of course, being surrounded by other women so skinny they could hide behind a fence post doesn't help much either. She doesn't seem to think there is any difference between "full-figured" and "moo".

e: (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-goonsay.gif)

(seriously, there needs to be an ill/sick emote on here)

You can borrow this one!

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-barf.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Mar 2011, 09:53
(seriously, there needs to be an ill/sick emote on here)

You can borrow this one!

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14073868/pictures/emotes/emot-barf.gif)

Thank you.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 12 Mar 2011, 10:16
Presumably also a lot of people in Marigold's past have told her she's ugly.

This is what I'm thinking. She says shes never had a date and if the title of this comic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1615) is actually true, the last time she was invited to any kind of social gathering (before meeting Marten and Co., anyway) was in 8th grade. The point is, I think it's safe to assume that people have been telling her, both in words and in actions, that she's ugly and unwanted for a very long time. That kind of treatment takes its toll; what else is she supposed to think when someone sincerely tells her she's pretty? Experience has told her otherwise.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cannoli on 12 Mar 2011, 10:51
Apologies in advance if anyone finds the forcefulness of my words offensive, and no I have not read the thread, and yes Jeph has the absolute right to write his comic any way he wants, but:

I CALL BULLSHIT.

I am a smart person, a compassionate person, I am caring and forgiving and possess a decent, if quirky, sense of humor.  I am also ugly. No matter how I change myself with makeup or clothing to fit other people's perceptions, I am still ugly.  Because of this, no guy has ever or will ever consider me a candidate for anything resembling romance or a relationship.  I can get laid, sure; but that is not relevant to the point.  I am ugly, and no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.

And before anyone plays the self-esteem card: I am perfectly fine with myself, thank you very much.  I know who I am and what I'm worth, and if the rest of the world is unable to realize that an ugly face has nothing to do with my value as a person, that is entirely their problem.  I'm not angry or hostile about the fact that no one will ever fall in love with me - only with yet another iteration of the same old tired meme that "looks don't matter" and that ugly can somehow become "pretty" with anything less than extensive plastic surgery.  I've long since come to terms with the fact that any sort of romantic relationship is completely off the table for me, and I've learned to be content with that.  For me, friendship will have to suffice... and to be honest, it's in no way an inadequate substitute; many if not most of my friendships are far more intimate than a whole lot of the relationships and marriages I've witnessed will ever be.

Everyone likes to believe that things like "true love" are fair, and based on a person's heart instead of their looks, and that the underdog has some chance of winning the Hollywood ending.  In point of fact, that does not happen.  I would be delighted with this storyline and the fact that FINALLY someone is spouting the uncomfortable but very real truths involved, were it not for the accompanying editorial comments that seem to me to be indicating that yet another typical reveal is in store.  Which, if it comes to that, will be the one thing that will make me turn away from the comic permanently.  Suspension of disbelief is one thing - insulting my intelligence is quite another.

I am certain that there are many who will disagree with my statements. I am equally certain that none of those people are or have ever been ugly, nor have ever fallen in love with or even considered dating an ugly person.  I have lived with this face for over four decades, and I know whereof I speak.  That is all.



Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: themacnut on 12 Mar 2011, 11:10
It would be interesting if it turned out that Marigold really ISN'T attractive and has to find something else to base her self-esteem on, and learn to live with the fact that she'll never be in a romantic relationship because of that. But I don't think Jeph is going that way with Marigold.

The way she's presented in the comic, Marigold isn't hideous. She isn't conventionally attractive either, but all she's really going to need (again, based off the way she's being presented in the comic) is to put more time and care into her appearance and hygiene, and spring for some more flattering clothes. Plastic surgery would be overkill for her, even with her impressive nose.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: bicostp on 12 Mar 2011, 11:35
And before anyone plays the self-esteem card: I am perfectly fine with myself, thank you very much.  I know who I am and what I'm worth, and if the rest of the world is unable to realize that an ugly face has nothing to do with my value as a person, that is entirely their problem.

This is the key, right here. You're confident with who you are, Marigold has never been written that way. Her appearance is one attribute she's (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1505) unhappy with (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1636), and changing it may or may not help her self esteem.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Mar 2011, 14:08
... Marigold doesn't have any actual free will here (she is going to do exactly what Jeph makes her do), though.
Creative people on good days report that it feels as though their characters have free will and do things the authors weren't expecting, at least not consciously.

Example: Faye's reaction to Dora kissing Marten way back. See the liner notes on 566 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=566).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: StevenC on 12 Mar 2011, 15:22
I am ugly, and no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.

Well, then I'm not a person I guess. The girl I love would be by all means considered ugly by the majority of people. But guess what? I don't give a damn. I love her because she is an awesome person.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: shiroihikari on 12 Mar 2011, 15:42
Quote from: cannoli
I am ugly, and no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.

I think saying "people only fall in love with pretty people" is just plain wrong in some cases.  You can't paint all of humanity with such a broad brushstroke.  For some people, personality does matter more than physical beauty.  An attractive personality can really make up for a lot.  Also, you give Hollywood shit for saying we should look beyond physical beauty, but then you turn and say only pretty people find love?  I think Hollywood shoves the latter down our throats more than the former, personally.

I think Marigold's real problem is that she is far too wrapped up in her anxiety to let other people in, and that's just not a very attractive quality.  Also, being "needy" can turn people off too.  I do think that trying to dress nice and what-have-you would help her.  I don't know about other women, but I generally feel better when I "take care of myself", which in turn helps me be more confident in my interactions with others. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 12 Mar 2011, 16:26
Dora may be trying to help because she was in a situation like Marigirl's when she was in high school, the weirdo with bad skin and an unfashionable wardrobe.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: CaptainFish on 12 Mar 2011, 16:45
One thing I will say is that Marigold's confidence in stating her opinions is great. I like her character when she's assertive and confident, as exemplified by her dealings with Dale, her talks with Angus and Faye after crying at that party and here. Even when she was first introduced she was confident in her demands to make sure Pintsize wasn't being abused; when Mare-Bear cares* about something she comes across almost uncharacteristically decisive.

Mare-Care-Bear? Mare-Bear countdown: 4, 3, 2, 1.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 12 Mar 2011, 16:46
Appearances are not everything.  And love is not strictly based on appearances.  Cannoli, one of these days it will hit you - one of your friends is more than that to you, and you to them.  

And it will be one hell of a shock, because you didn't think it would ever happen.  

Just do both of you a favor - don't shove that person away because you don't believe him/her.  Don't throw it away - even for the pretty people, it's a rare and wonderful thing.  

[/hopeful  romantic]
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 12 Mar 2011, 17:13
You don't have to be pretty to be seen as attractive, having loads of money or being in an influential position of power works as well.  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: cabbagehut on 12 Mar 2011, 17:42
I think the problem is she isn't giving herself enough credit. No she's not a knockout SI model, but she's also not the hideous sideshow attraction she sees herself as. A lot of it probably came from the teasing she received because of her behavior and interests in her school years (you don't get a frog down the back of your shirt for no reason), and was exasperated by being a recluse in college. It's very difficult to break out of that "I'm a hideous idiot nobody actually likes me" mindset.

Of course, being surrounded by other women so skinny they could hide behind a fence post doesn't help much either. She doesn't seem to think there is any difference between "full-figured" and "moo".

Yeah, that's a good way of describing it.  Marigold isn't exactly socially astute, and I can see her putting a lot of pressure on herself to be "perfect" and outright rejecting anything less.  She can't be a model, so therefore she's a troll.  That's sort of her personality, though - she's very much "all or nothing".

I am a smart person, a compassionate person, I am caring and forgiving and possess a decent, if quirky, sense of humor.  I am also ugly. No matter how I change myself with makeup or clothing to fit other people's perceptions, I am still ugly.  Because of this, no guy has ever or will ever consider me a candidate for anything resembling romance or a relationship.  I can get laid, sure; but that is not relevant to the point.  I am ugly, and no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.
...
For me, friendship will have to suffice... and to be honest, it's in no way an inadequate substitute; many if not most of my friendships are far more intimate than a whole lot of the relationships and marriages I've witnessed will ever be.

And cannoli, I feel you.  I don't think it's impossible for "ugly" people to have lovers as well as friends, but it is a whoooole fuckload harder.  Yeah, there's always an option of sex.  But the intimacy and tenderness of a relationship is just... it's different.  And I, too, cling to friendships and tend to develop them a whole lot deeper than maybe I should.  I could dress myself up, but I'm afraid of the failure.  I know I'm not terrible attractive, and my experiences reflect that.  I don't need to try and feel worse.

I am not a romantic, really.  Love tends to make me sort of sad, because I have a lot of personality issues sitting on top of a below-par physique (it's not a weight issue, so I don't know how to work at it), and I honestly don't think anyone's willing to put a lifetime to that.  At least, not someone who isn't doing it because they're "settling" or "can't do better", and I'm not such a trainwreck that I'm okay with THAT.

Also, people are massively judgmental if you have a little (or a lot) of extra weight.  Marigold is presented as a somewhat chubby girl (whether or not this is her perception only or an actual characteristic, I'm not sure, but the art style suggests she's partially right).  When somewhat chubby girls wear sexy clothing, they can pretty much expect to hear a lot of vitriol.  It's easy for Dora or Hannelore to suggest she just dress more revealingly - both of them are quite slender, and probably don't have to endure as much of the fat-girl jokes.  While Dora had a weight problem before, IIRC, she might not remember how much that stung.

I admire the thought that Jacques puts into his work.  This is a perspective we see almost exclusively from male nerds (who invariably end up with a modelesque girlfriend), and it's interesting to see it from a woman.  Marigold's echoing a lot of the things that I feel, and it's kind of refreshing to see someone take down the idea that we're all special, beautiful snowflakes in such a succinct way.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 12 Mar 2011, 18:11
(If memory serves, it was Raven who had the weight problem).

Interesting point, and an additional piece of evidence in its favor is that the Pugnacious Peach is not among the ones calling for more provocative clothing. She is of the opinion that "there are some things ladies shaped like me should not attempt".
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: smilcarek on 12 Mar 2011, 20:20
(If memory serves, it was Raven who had the weight problem).

562 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=562)
Raven was chubby in college, according to Dora. Her comment about her "teensy rack" would imply that she was always skinny.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Shremedy on 12 Mar 2011, 20:29
Marigold isn't ugly-ugly, and however the characters of the Jephverse perceive her, he can't really *draw* her that way -- IF that's how she really is.  Hollywood-itis dictates that ugly characters (or even just facially flawed) are EVIL, like the scarfaced spychick.  Ugly characters who are well-treated by their associates are just unrecognized evildoers who will inevitably show their real colors at the most dramatic moment, or so the trope goes.  

Whether Marigold's perception is self-delusion or externally-applied cruelty, or even factual, is irrelevant.  She perceives it as real.  Works that way for real people, too.  There are two ways to deal with it; change the perception, or change the physical element.  Perceptions can be more fluid, but they can be more difficult to shift.  Maybe plastic surgery can improve looks, but consider the innumerable instances of beautiful celebrities going too far in pursuit of the imagined ideal, and absolutely ruining their looks!
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: IanClark on 13 Mar 2011, 01:19
Apologies in advance if anyone finds the forcefulness of my words offensive, and no I have not read the thread, and yes Jeph has the absolute right to write his comic any way he wants, but:

I CALL BULLSHIT.

I am a smart person, a compassionate person, I am caring and forgiving and possess a decent, if quirky, sense of humor.  I am also ugly. No matter how I change myself with makeup or clothing to fit other people's perceptions, I am still ugly.  Because of this, no guy has ever or will ever consider me a candidate for anything resembling romance or a relationship.  I can get laid, sure; but that is not relevant to the point.  I am ugly, and no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.

Fun fact: The first girl I ever really dated actually had fairly extensive facial damage from a car crash when she was a child. And you know how I call myself "QCForums' resident chubby chaser" (or maybe you don't because I'm not that prolific here)? She was less than a hundred pounds. And I cared for her quite a bit, to the point where at the time I thought I was in love with her but I was only 16 so my perception might be a little skewed. And even though she was the exact opposite of everything I've ever considered attractive, I don't think there's a single person who witnessed it who wouldn't have called it a relationship. I'm not even saying beauty is subjective (well, I am, but I'm not saying it now), I'm saying that sometimes people do fall in love with people they don't consider pretty. I don't have an explanation for why this doesn't comply with your experiences, but it does happen, and I know this because I've witnessed it from the inside out.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: shlominus on 13 Mar 2011, 05:21
no one, NO ONE, ever looks beyond the surface to the inner self, or any of that other crap that Hollywood and idealistic idiots like to sell - people fall in love with pretty people, period.

you are wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Mar 2011, 06:03
No, he didn't say that single people are miserable.

What he was meaning, I think, is that many people who think they will not find themselves in a relationship in fact are faced with that possibility at an unexpected time.  As a general principle of life, discounting the possibility of change can lead to lost opportunities - but I will say no more than that, because actually it is never possible to say categorically that one or another of alternative courses of action will lead to greater or lesser happiness in the end.

Certainly, taking one aspect of oneself and treating it as an absolute block to possibilities is likely to be shortsighted.  In the case of perceived ugliness, what even defines that?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Mar 2011, 06:49
Thank you, that's exactly my point.  Cannoli did not sound like she was making her statements based on a desire to be alone - I know full well that there are such people, and that's fine. 

For them. 

But when it does happen (and it's more likely to than not, we're an interesting animal that way), I'm concerned that, having decided that it couldn't happen to her because "she's too ugly", she would deprive herself of one of life's greatest adventures. 

And that's just not a good idea.  Regret over a decision like that can grow to eat you alive. 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: IanClark on 13 Mar 2011, 22:24
I know I'm coming late to this particular party, but...

In this instance, Jeph is dictating that Marigold is actually ugly. Look again at how quickly Dora and Hannelore dropped their arguments (shitty as they were to start with).

No (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1471) he's (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1473) not (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1493) it's (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1495) just (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1501) the (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1504) internal (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1534) pessimism (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1535) talking (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1553) and (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1598) I (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1619) can't (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1656) think (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1668) of (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1675) anything (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1678) to (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1684) make (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1787) this (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1788) effect (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1791) come to a succinct end (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1792).

Some of those are a bit of a stretch, but those are all examples where someone genuinely reveals that they find Marigold attractive.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Mar 2011, 23:43
I'd forgotten about Tai. That was sincere attention.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 05:57
I know I'm coming late to this particular party, but...

Some of those are a bit of a stretch, but those are all examples where someone genuinely reveals that they find Marigold attractive.

Only two or three of those actually have anything to do with Marigold's actual appearance and the rest of them are random strips where they're about interactions with her (that, again, have nothing to do with how attractive/not attractive Marigold is). Did you think nobody would actually look at all of the links you posted?

C- for effort after everyone had already moved to the other thread, though.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: IanClark on 14 Mar 2011, 20:39
Shall I go through them one by one then? I'll even put a star by my favourite ones.

1. Marigold herself comments on how nice her chest looks in the dress.
2. Marigold tells Momo that other people said she looked pretty.
3. Hannelore's internal naivité causes her to think Marigold's had 12 boyfriends. Again, a bit of a stretch given that it doesn't directly imply she thinks Marigold is physically attractive, but given the often superficial nature of our society, one wouldn't likely expect an ugly person had had 12 boyfriends.
4. "I can't believe you've NEVER had a boyfriend! You're so pretty!" Hannelore's surprise seems genuine, but you'll probably disagree. Again, internal pessimism. Angus seconds Hannelore's notion, although he's probably more than capable of lying about it.
5. Angus backs up his previous sentiment. Again, his genuineness is called into question, but just because he might not be doesn't mean preclude the possibility that he is.
6. Angus is pretty clearly oggling her ass through the camera.
7.* Angus recalls a story about how one of his friends in college was not only convinced she was a porn star, but was actually so obsessed with trying to find her naked on the internet that it caused him to drop out senior year. Clearly, at the very least, that guy found her attractive.
8. Angus is compelled to do something by the "sad Marigold face". Whatever that's worth, I don't know, but I put it in there anyway.
9. "You look cute with bangs."
10. "It was cute. You're actually not a bad dancer."
11.* Dora is apparently literally unable to stop herself from hugging Marigold, literally just because she's so adorable.
12.** Double star for this one, because I literally think I could just go on this one and rest my case. Both Dora and Faye, both of whom not only know Sven intimately (in very different ways) but are both firmly of the opinion that he is shallow and bases his standards for who to fuck entirely on attractiveness, and are both fully aware that he doesn't just fuck anything that moves because he "can afford to be pretty picky about who (he) sleep(s) with" (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=798), are both instantly concerned that Sven might try to seduce Marigold. In other words, they both think the guy who only seduces attractive women is going to seduce her, meaning they both consider her attractive. Also, note the usually candid Sven doesn't dismiss the idea that he finds her bangable, only the idea that he'd actually do it.
13. Dale appears to be flirting with Marigold until it all goes horribly wrong. Could be any number of other explanations, but you never know.
14. "Hey, you look great!" Okay, that one might not count. Notice he does compare her tits to a flood.
15.* Last panel, without Marigold in the room, everyone is undeniably fawning over her, even if it's mostly just her chest again. Both Tai and Dora agree they'd like to "use those boobs as a pillow" by which I'm pretty sure they're not completely platonically stating that they feel they'd sleep well on her mammary glands. In other words, her physical characteristics make them want to have sex with her. That's literally the dictionary definition of attractive.
16. Tai actually asks Marigold out. Sort of.
17.* Tai is again under the impression that Marigold wants to fuck her. And she's into it.
18. "Don't sell yourself short. I'd TOTALLY make out with you."
19. Even after being rejected (sort of), Tai propositions Marigold twice.

There you go, 19 explanations of 19 strips and how they all pertain to my argument.

Quote
C- for effort after everyone had already moved to the other thread, though.

You're a long way from Something Awful if you think anyone's going to confuse vitriol for actual wit or reasoning. I've given you a response and we both know these threads get used weeks after their week, so now it's your turn. For real this time.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Watched Pot on 14 Mar 2011, 22:03
i was thinking of making a list like that, but then realized i am too lazy. anyway, you are right about most of those comics pretty explicitly stating that people find marigold at least decently attractive.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 07:01
Shall I go through them one by one then? I'll even put a star by my favourite ones.

1. Marigold herself comments on how nice her chest looks in the dress.

Everyone in the last panel is drunk at the Fancy Hats bar (or whatever it's called) and having fun as the punchline to Angus being butt-hurt over not being invited and thinking that Marigold would hate being there; Marigold is (drunkenly) amused by what wearing a corset is doing to her boobs, a commentary that really doesn't offer an opinion one way or the other in terms of how attractive she thinks it is (and Dora is just being the usual go-to "LOL I'm obsessed with fucking!" character).

Quote
2. Marigold tells Momo that other people said she looked pretty.

Beer goggles will make people say strange things, also, look at her reaction when Momo doesn't give a shit.

Quote
3. Hannelore's internal naivité causes her to think Marigold's had 12 boyfriends. Again, a bit of a stretch given that it doesn't directly imply she thinks Marigold is physically attractive, but given the often superficial nature of our society, one wouldn't likely expect an ugly person had had 12 boyfriends.

You admit this one is a stretch so I'm not wasting time pointing out how dumb it is to reasonably expect someone in their mid-to-late 20s to have had fewer than a dozen boyfriends, both in the QC-verse and this one.

Quote
4. "I can't believe you've NEVER had a boyfriend! You're so pretty!" Hannelore's surprise seems genuine, but you'll probably disagree. Again, internal pessimism. Angus seconds Hannelore's notion, although he's probably more than capable of lying about it.

Hannelore is being Hannelore, Angus is being a smartass and you get the beginning of a prime example of why Marigold has such self-loathing (the whole arc where she ends up being obsessed with Angus over the tiniest bit of half-ass attention she gets that makes her think a guy is into her).

Quote
5. Angus backs up his previous sentiment. Again, his genuineness is called into question, but just because he might not be doesn't mean preclude the possibility that he is.

He uses it as a segue into asking for help finding cosplayer porn?

Quote
6. Angus is pretty clearly oggling her ass through the camera.

Pretty sure that if the situation played out the same way between guy room mates you wouldn't be so quick to bring this up like it means Angus thinks the person in question is attractive (but if so,  :psyduck: ).

Quote
7.* Angus recalls a story about how one of his friends in college was not only convinced she was a porn star, but was actually so obsessed with trying to find her naked on the internet that it caused him to drop out senior year. Clearly, at the very least, that guy found her attractive.

Yeah, but that story sounds like Angus spinning a yarn of complete bullshit for the sake of messing with Marigold (like half the shit Angus does to get a rise out of people).

Quote
8. Angus is compelled to do something by the "sad Marigold face". Whatever that's worth, I don't know, but I put it in there anyway.

This one really is worth very little, what with the Guilt Trip being the motivation and all.

Quote
9. "You look cute with bangs."

"Does this mean you're going to wash it more than twice a year now?" (http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y24/WdOdin/Smilies/burnsauce.gif)

Quote
10. "It was cute. You're actually not a bad dancer."

See #7.

Quote
11.* Dora is apparently literally unable to stop herself from hugging Marigold, literally just because she's so adorable.

Dora has made "jokes" about wanting to have sex with every single other character in the strip at some point, so her judgment on what is and isn't attractive isn't really the best thing to go by. Also, "adorable" != "attractive", etc.

People think duckbill platypuses are cute, but they don't want to fuck them.

Quote
12.** Double star for this one, because I literally think I could just go on this one and rest my case. Both Dora and Faye, both of whom not only know Sven intimately (in very different ways) but are both firmly of the opinion that he is shallow and bases his standards for who to fuck entirely on attractiveness, and are both fully aware that he doesn't just fuck anything that moves because he "can afford to be pretty picky about who (he) sleep(s) with" (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=798), are both instantly concerned that Sven might try to seduce Marigold. In other words, they both think the guy who only seduces attractive women is going to seduce her, meaning they both consider her attractive. Also, note the usually candid Sven doesn't dismiss the idea that he finds her bangable, only the idea that he'd actually do it.

Sven acts more pissed because he's trying to get his book back and Dora is being a bitch about him walking into her coffee shop than anything else. He doesn't dignify the accusation with a response because the whole thing is beneath him, not because he finds her "bangable". The next strip is him messing with someone that clearly acts like she's afraid of him and getting a laugh out of it ("Boo! Haha!").

Quote
13. Dale appears to be flirting with Marigold until it all goes horribly wrong. Could be any number of other explanations, but you never know.

Dale is a WoW nerd that delivers pizzas for a living, but even forgiving that he's being incredibly clumsy if that is what passes for flirting these days.

Quote
14. "Hey, you look great!" Okay, that one might not count. Notice he does compare her tits to a flood.

"Oh no! The Levee broke, warn the townsfolk down stream!" isn't very attractive imagery, though.

Quote
15.* Last panel, without Marigold in the room, everyone is undeniably fawning over her, even if it's mostly just her chest again. Both Tai and Dora agree they'd like to "use those boobs as a pillow" by which I'm pretty sure they're not completely platonically stating that they feel they'd sleep well on her mammary glands. In other words, her physical characteristics make them want to have sex with her. That's literally the dictionary definition of attractive.

This would be more compelling if they were talking about actually fondling them or something, but "using them for a pillow"? Really? I wasn't aware the QC-verse was so vanilla in it's sexual antics.

Quote
16. Tai actually asks Marigold out. Sort of.

I think you lost count or something, because #16 is this one (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1684). Tai isn't even in it, but this was the other of the "two" relative ones I mentioned in my earlier post that gives you credit for finding one where people act like she's attractive (in an incredibly shitty way, because they're just focusing on her boobs and not her in any meaningful context).

Quote
17.* Tai is again under the impression that Marigold wants to fuck her. And she's into it.
18. "Don't sell yourself short. I'd TOTALLY make out with you."
19. Even after being rejected (sort of), Tai propositions Marigold twice.

The problem with Tai is that she comes across as unbelievably desperate every time the subject of sex comes up. I'll give you these provisionally if you'll agree that Marigold doesn't seem to be too impressed with Tai's opinion of her, given how she continues to act later.

Quote
There you go, 19 explanations of 19 strips and how they all pertain to my argument.

Okay, rebuttals and responses above where appropriate.

Quote
You're a long way from Something Awful if you think anyone's going to confuse vitriol for actual wit or reasoning. I've given you a response and we both know these threads get used weeks after their week, so now it's your turn. For real this time.

Most of them usually die by about Wednesday of the next week (except the drama bomb ones) with people just finishing up whatever discussions they were having when the next week started, actually, but whatever. Your turn.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Mar 2011, 08:38
I'm not wasting time pointing out how dumb it is to reasonably expect someone in their mid-to-late 20s to have had fewer than a dozen boyfriends,

However, the world is full of people you might view as unreasonable, and it is not dumb to realise that.  For instance, I am well past my 20s but have only had two girlfriends in my life (each of whom I married).
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: guayec on 15 Mar 2011, 08:43
You admit this one is a stretch so I'm not wasting time pointing out how dumb it is to reasonably expect someone in their mid-to-late 20s to have had fewer than a dozen boyfriends, both in the QC-verse and this one.

I sincerely have no friends who have had more than 4 boy/girlfriends in their 30-year old-ish lives. And I have a lot of friends.
I myself have had only 3 in my 31 years of life.
Do you get your statistics from Melrose Place?
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 09:00
You admit this one is a stretch so I'm not wasting time pointing out how dumb it is to reasonably expect someone in their mid-to-late 20s to have had fewer than a dozen boyfriends, both in the QC-verse and this one.

I sincerely have no friends who have had more than 4 boy/girlfriends in their 30-year old-ish lives. And I have a lot of friends.
I myself have had only 3 in my 31 years of life.
Do you get your statistics from Melrose Place?

More along the lines of college towns and more urban areas like Atlanta, actually.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Border Reiver on 15 Mar 2011, 09:10
I'm not wasting time pointing out how dumb it is to reasonably expect someone in their mid-to-late 20s to have had fewer than a dozen boyfriends,

However, the world is full of people you might view as unreasonable, and it is not dumb to realise that.  For instance, I am well past my 20s but have only had two girlfriends in my life (each of whom I married).

Similar story here - although I only married one.
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Mar 2011, 15:15
Female friends?  Hundreds over the years.  Well, OK, probably around a hundred or so.  Certainly too many to sit down and count. 

Sex partners?  Just over a score.  (Oooh, look, an unintended pun...)

Actua girlfriends?  Four.  Married the last one at the age of 24. 

Seriously, if you're relationship hopping so much that you have over a dozen by your mid twenties, I'm not sure I'd call them girl/boy friends.  You're not really investing the time. 

Of course, I'm not taking into consideration the early teen "relationships" that last a few weeks or so - junior (and much of senior) high school really shouldn't count! 
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 19:24
I'll be 32 in exactly one week.

One high school fling that lasted a month and would never have been serious.
One 4-year college relationship that turned into a 6-year marriage.
After the marriage ended, one FWB (can't count that as a boyfriend), one month-long, and two long-distance 6-monthers, none of which were serious.
Then another long-term relationship that turned into marriage, and so far so good.

All of those started before I was 30 years old.

Most of my friends are about the same - generally between five and ten actual relationships. I grew up in a city of 100,000, went to college near Chicago, and now live in a city of 250,000... though I don't know how that would affect it. My best friend, who grew up and went to college in Atlanta and is arguably much more "progressive" than me sexually, says, "five, and who the hell has more than a dozen serious relationships?"

*shrug*
Title: Re: WCDT 7-11 March 2011 (1876-80)
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Mar 2011, 15:00
Meanwhile, as to today's strip: I seem to remember an old I Love Lucy episode where the statement, "No one ever believes the story of how you got a black eye" was made a few times over.