THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 16 Feb 2014, 17:50

Title: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Feb 2014, 17:50
And here we go.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 16 Feb 2014, 18:17
Back to Dale/Farmer? Sticking with Marten? A third option? TIME WILL TELL.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Nepiophage on 16 Feb 2014, 20:10
If you were wondering, here is the recipe for Dale/Farmer pancakes  (http://www.dalefarm.co.uk/pages/lakeland/Breakfast%20Pancakes)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 16 Feb 2014, 22:09
Would Marigold be okay with Dale sharing the news like that?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 16 Feb 2014, 22:14
Who said he's sharing anything? Just that he's happy (and if anyone asks, he'll probably give the relationship as the reason, not the sex).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 16 Feb 2014, 22:44
Marigold could do a lot worse. Dale could do a lot worse. That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 16 Feb 2014, 22:58
If you were wondering, here is the recipe for Dale/Farmer pancakes  (http://www.dalefarm.co.uk/pages/lakeland/Breakfast%20Pancakes)

Do you have a reciepie for self-raising flour? It is flour and baking powder, I think, but how much of each?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 16 Feb 2014, 22:59
Ah, I thought it was a mix of flour and magic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 16 Feb 2014, 23:03
That's right, Marten. Just take your coffee and go home to take a shower. If you are feeling bad, it does not help to see other people happy.

Where is Marigold? Perhaps she sent Dale to get coffee for the pancakes? Otherwise, I should imagine they would stay in bed all day, unless Dale is coming to work. If so, Faye should give him sick leave because of emotional overload.

EDIT: Besides, happy baristas would be bad for CoD's reputation (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=651).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 16 Feb 2014, 23:20
Why is Dale farting little pink hearts… that are levitating him?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Feb 2014, 23:22
The Smile (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=575).

Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 16 Feb 2014, 23:29
Would Marigold be okay with Dale sharing the news like that?

Sharing? Ok, there may be an inference. Ok, a very strong inference.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 16 Feb 2014, 23:33
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?
Simple: Dogs and cats don't talk to you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: JohnTheWysard on 16 Feb 2014, 23:33
Well, average Dale and Marten and it's a pretty ordinary day.

(looking at Dale again)

Ok, a pretty nice day.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 16 Feb 2014, 23:39
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?
Simple: Dogs and cats don't talk to you.
Sure they do.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 16 Feb 2014, 23:57
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?
Simple: Dogs and cats don't talk to you.
Sure they do.
Well, my cat doesn't talk much, but she has body language that indicates if she is happy or not.

As to why: It is difficult to be envious on dogs and cats, but other people's success may make you envious. I am not saying it is a good thing, but it is the way the human mind works.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Nepiophage on 17 Feb 2014, 00:02
If you were wondering, here is the recipe for Dale/Farmer pancakes  (http://www.dalefarm.co.uk/pages/lakeland/Breakfast%20Pancakes)

Do you have a reciepie for self-raising flour? It is flour and baking powder, I think, but how much of each?

See http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/glossary/baking-powder (http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/glossary/baking-powder)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 17 Feb 2014, 00:51
Why is Dale farting little pink hearts… that are levitating him?

What, that's never happened to you?

God, you must be weird or something  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: HiFranc on 17 Feb 2014, 01:21
I suppose how you feel depends on several factors:

I find that, most of the time, my friends being happy makes me happy but not all the time.  In my case, most of the time, the love I feel for those close to me is greater than any competitive impulses.  Most of the time their successes make me feel happy for them.

However, that's not all the time.  It's known that in social interactions people tend to get on best with those who are in a similar emotional state.  I know that sometimes, when I'm really down, being around someone chirpy just serves to remind me how separate I am from their life and can enhance the feeling of isolation that comes when a person is down.

Dogs pay attention to their pack so being around a dog means that you know that there's someone who cares.  Being around a cat is different because a cat is uninterested in your state so trying to work out what it wants brings you out of yourself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 17 Feb 2014, 01:35
Dogs pay attention to their pack so being around a dog means that you know that there's someone who cares.  Being around a cat is different because a cat is uninterested in your state so trying to work out what it wants brings you out of yourself.
True. Cats only have self-interest. They (sometimes) like to be scratched, they want food, and they want a nice place to sleep. Other than that, they don't give a damn about you. Basically, they are parasites, traditionally tolerated by humans because they occasionally catch worse parasites (mice).  Still, there must be some reason why we still keep cats today. I suspect it is only because they are cute.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 17 Feb 2014, 01:49
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?

People are happy near you, thereby creating a contrast between their happiness and your unhappiness that makes the latter seem more stark for the comparison.

Dogs are happy with you, pooling their happiness with your unhappiness to create an improved average between the two.

Cats are happy at your expense. Because cats are dicks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 17 Feb 2014, 02:38
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?

People are happy near you, thereby creating a contrast between their happiness and your unhappiness that makes the latter seem more stark for the comparison.

Dogs are happy with you, pooling their happiness with your unhappiness to create an improved average between the two.

Cats are happy at your expense. Because cats are dicks.

I've known a few cats that had some empathy.  Cats will often seek out the most distressed looking person in the room to go and comfort them.

Often, this person is distressed because they've just seen a cat, and they are horribly allergic to cats. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 17 Feb 2014, 03:09
Ah, I thought it was a mix of flour and magic.
And the awkward unexpected pubic hair.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 17 Feb 2014, 03:24
Ahh. Time for another musical, now with Dale performing. It has been a while since last time. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1999) Are the heart-farts real? Is Dale really floating across the floor? Do we have a new antigravity theory? Or is it all inside Jeph's head? (Duh! Of course it is inside Jeph's head.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: judemorrigan on 17 Feb 2014, 06:07
True. Cats only have self-interest. They (sometimes) like to be scratched, they want food, and they want a nice place to sleep. Other than that, they don't give a damn about you.
Cats get a bum rap.  While it's a common enough stereotype, it doesn't really match my experience with a good many of the critters.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Neko_Ali on 17 Feb 2014, 07:03
Indeed. Cats are more independent creatures than dogs, but this popular portrayal of them being self interested assholes is blown out of proportion and supported by people who treat them like that. Cats can be every bit as loving and supportive as dogs can be. And dogs can be as aloof and disinterested as cats are portrayed. It's all in how they are raised and treated.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 17 Feb 2014, 08:07
Cats only have self-interest. They (sometimes) like to be scratched, they want food, and they want a nice place to sleep. Other than that, they don't give a damn about you.

This is actually true of a lot of people too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 17 Feb 2014, 08:30
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?
Simple: Dogs and cats don't talk to you.
Sure they do.

Not in the same way humans do... Which I think it was clear in my previous post (unless your post was a joke I just missed).

As to why: It is difficult to be envious on dogs and cats, but other people's success may make you envious. I am not saying it is a good thing, but it is the way the human mind works.
This is more or less my opinion.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: riccostar on 17 Feb 2014, 08:36
Afterglow hearts: renewable energy source??
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 17 Feb 2014, 10:02
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/happy/cloud-nine-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 17 Feb 2014, 11:11
Indeed. Cats are more independent creatures than dogs, but this popular portrayal of them being self interested assholes is blown out of proportion and supported by people who treat them like that. Cats can be every bit as loving and supportive as dogs can be. And dogs can be as aloof and disinterested as cats are portrayed. It's all in how they are raised and treated.

Exactly. I discovered this when my first wife was laid off for six months. Her cat had always been kind of aloof and distant, as with the usual stereotype, but after having my wife home all day for a while the cat  got much more friendly and sociable -- and she was an adult cat (five or six years old IIRC) at the time.

My second wife has had six cats since I've known her, two of whom are still alive, and all six were pretty friendly and social, in part because she's always been very loving and affectionate toward all of them, but also in part because my wife became disabled shortly after we first moved in together (before we were even engaged), and she hasn't been able to work since (almost 14 years now). So, again, they had at least one adult home all the time, and our present two cats have had both of us at home all the time for their whole lives (I telecommute from home as a computer programmer these days) and are extremely affectionate and snuggly.

My theory is that the "aloof, distant" cats are that way because they're alone in the house for anywhere from 8-16 hours a day while their owners are commuting, working, and possibly socializing after work. If you were alone that much of the time, wouldn't you get pretty self-sufficient too? I think it's basically a "fine, if you're going to leave me alone that much, I'll leave you alone too when you're home" kind of thing.

Just my experience, YMMV, but it's my experience with seven different cats over multiple decades, so I suspect it's reasonably valid. Of course, any cat that was abused or feral before you got it will probably be an exception to the above.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zwammy on 17 Feb 2014, 11:21
Why is it that being around happy people makes bad moods worse but that it's mood-elevating to be around happy dogs and cats?

Because cats and dogs are robust wide field emitters of happiness pheromones, and the effect is amplified through physical contact with the animals. Soft fur adaptations have occurred to encourage contact - it's a symbiotic relationship, humans feed and care for the animals in return.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Feb 2014, 12:45
In other words:

They're fuzzy!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 17 Feb 2014, 12:52
It's actually been shown that cats - while not as overt as dogs at times - do show their affection for humans in different ways. I've heard a few counts where they became quite protective of their owners. One of my friends in college has a cat as a service animal, too.

Would Marigold be okay with Dale sharing the news like that?

Sharing? Ok, there may be an inference. Ok, a very strong inference.

Guilty. I was tired, it was like 1 am. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Feb 2014, 12:57
They're fuzzy!
That they are! (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=787)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schwungrad on 17 Feb 2014, 13:41
As to why: It is difficult to be envious on dogs and cats, but other people's success may make you envious. I am not saying it is a good thing, but it is the way the human mind works.
If the difference in happiness is rather small, being around happy people can make you happier too. If the difference is large, however, you expect them to show some empathy to you. If they are happy while you are depressed, it might often enough feel like "they're too busy with being happy to care about my worries". From a cat or a dog, you expect no empathy, and seeing how they just lead their happy lives, completely unable to even understand your human worries, might put those worries into some perspective.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rghfrgl on 17 Feb 2014, 15:40
 Remember. Just because a cat is sociable doesn't mean it'd not evil.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Srxjo on 17 Feb 2014, 16:14
Remember. Just because a cat is sociable doesn't mean it'd not evil.

Same can also be said about humans, you just have to take it this way, not all cats are the same, same for dogs, you'll find ones that match the stereotypes and ones that don't, it depends all on up bringing. you can't really try to fit them into a box saying they have to be like this because chances are they're not going to be.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DrBear on 17 Feb 2014, 18:18
Let me add my voice to the supportiveness of cats. I recently went through an unexpected and unwated job change, and I was quite down about it...and yes, both cats took special care to provide me with extra opportunities to pet them and relax.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 17 Feb 2014, 18:19
Just something I still notice: I still don't like the new layout. I like the new font size even less. Looking at the comic on my notebook looks way too zoomed in. Also there's a lot less dialogue. The current strip has less text altogether than the first panel of most older strips.

Oh and cats? I love cats.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Feb 2014, 18:48
The Post-Valentine Storyline:

Marigold and Dale - the Afterglow.    21 (42.9%)
Or is that "Aftermath"?    5 (10.2%)
Marten isn't satisfied.    5 (10.2%)
Dora and Tai issues.    0 (0%)
Faye and Angus issues.    1 (2%)
Steve and Cosette issues.    1 (2%)
Pancakes and Waffles issues.    1 (2%)
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SPATHE HAM?    1 (2%)
Oh, and what about Marigold's space dude?    3 (6.1%)
Claire. All the time.    4 (8.2%)
Pintsize. ALL. THE. TIME.    6 (12.2%)
YELLING BIRD STRIPS!    1 (2%)

Total Members Voted: 49

And suddenly, I have an idea for a poll...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Feb 2014, 19:26
Dang, nobody's happy for Dale.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Jazzmaster on 17 Feb 2014, 19:30
Making pancakes ought to be code for getting laid.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Feb 2014, 19:36
No. No, it should not.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 17 Feb 2014, 19:54
Dale gets a pass for this behavior in my book because he was a virgin till roughly 20 minutes ago.

At any other point though. Don't do this. You will be being that guy. No one likes that guy. In fact most people want to smash that guy's head in with a brick.


I cannot confirm a similar status for "that girl" and "that individual of fluid gender status". Members of those groups have not done the post sexin "La la la I got laid" shit at any where I've worked, but I'm sure they're out there annoying the piss out of other people.

Feminist action for the day: We as a society need more female helicopter mechanics.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 17 Feb 2014, 19:55
Would Marigold be okay with Dale sharing the news like that?

And you guys were scorning me!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Feb 2014, 20:00
It would indeed be terrible if female helicopters had nobody to service them.

Faye should have appreciated how much this means to Dale.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 17 Feb 2014, 20:19
Actually like most machines, all helicopters are female.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 17 Feb 2014, 20:21
In Portuguese, "o helicóptero" is masculine.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: bryntheskits on 17 Feb 2014, 21:02
Would Marigold be okay with Dale sharing the news like that?

And you guys were scorning me!
He never said who it was with, though it would be pretty easy to guess  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: aliensporebomb on 17 Feb 2014, 21:09
Something is up.  Faye is mad Dale was late but something else is bothering her,  She is a little over the top here.  Maybe the news of two guys she knows getting laid and each having the opposite reaction was too much.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 17 Feb 2014, 21:57
Why is Dale farting little pink hearts… that are levitating him?

What, that's never happened to you?

God, you must be weird or something  :mrgreen:
If I ever exhibitted such symptoms, I would be seeking professional medical assistance.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zog on 17 Feb 2014, 22:03
Something is up.  Faye is mad Dale was late but something else is bothering her,  She is a little over the top here.  Maybe the news of two guys she knows getting laid and each having the opposite reaction was too much.

My guess is that she is trying to keep dale from making "Mark" feel worse.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Feb 2014, 22:14
That would make sense. There might also have been developments about Angus's job opportunity in New York.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 17 Feb 2014, 22:15
Why is Dale farting little pink hearts… that are levitating him?

Wait, there was an alternate version of this strip?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 17 Feb 2014, 23:08
You missed a strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2641),  I guess.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 17 Feb 2014, 23:23
Cats get a bum rap.  While it's a common enough stereotype, it doesn't really match my experience with a good many of the critters.

My opinion of cats isn't based on stereotypes, it's based on my personal experience with cats to date, the highlight being an incident in which I was asked to bring the family cat inside but, upon approaching to about 6 feet from said cat (in an open, outdoor area, not cornering him or anything), I decided looked as though he did not want to come inside.  Rather than force the issue, turned to say as much over my shoulder to the party doing the asking - I was so not going to try to chase down a cat and bring it in the house if it didn't want to go. I'd respect that space.

The cat responded to my understanding nature by leaping at me and slicing through my denim jeans so deep I have scars on both legs , then bolting.

Wtf cat, I was leaving you alone anyway. I was on your side!  :-\

Less dramatically, I just find it really annoying that cats will jump on your lap and appear to encourage petting, then use your thighs for pincushions. Because that's supposed to be comfortable, I guess.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 17 Feb 2014, 23:58
You missed a strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2641),  I guess.

Thats what I get for being shifted to graveyard shift.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 18 Feb 2014, 00:37
Something is up.  Faye is mad Dale was late but something else is bothering her,  She is a little over the top here.  Maybe the news of two guys she knows getting laid and each having the opposite reaction was too much.
My guess is that she is trying to keep dale from making "Mark" feel worse.
I think this is Faye's ordinary behavior towards the rookie. I have the feeling that the chemistry between Dale and Faye is not the best. Perhaps he is too easy going for her taste, but she should definitely try to be more nice towards him. The boot camp should be over by now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 18 Feb 2014, 01:04
"Love and pancakes, love and pancakes,
Go together like Kubric and retakes.
This I tell ya, brother, you can't have one without the other."


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Feb 2014, 01:17
I sure as hell wasn't complaining!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 18 Feb 2014, 01:37
Feminist action for the day: We as a society need more female helicopter mechanics.

My cousin's wife used to be a submarine mechanic; does that help?

She wasn't actually in the navy, mind you -- she was a civilian contractor, but with a pretty high security clearance. And she's in her 60s now, so this was probably 30 years ago... which possibly makes it better, come to think of it; there were even fewer opportunities for women in that kind of field back then.

"Love and pancakes, love and pancakes,
Go together like Kubric and retakes.
This I tell ya, brother, you can't have one without the other."


(click to show/hide)

"Mancakes"? I don't know what they are, so they could be either sexy or gross...

Anyway, it's great the way it is! No complaints here, either.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 18 Feb 2014, 03:57
I cannot confirm a similar status for "that girl" and "that individual of fluid gender status". Members of those groups have not done the post sexin "La la la I got laid" shit at any where I've worked, but I'm sure they're out there annoying the piss out of other people.

I did know one woman who did this, but she was a bit more subtle about it. She just came in to work one morning wearing (for her) an unusually skimpy dress, and (quietly) singing something happy-sounding all day. (In Cantonese, so I can't really say what the lyrics were.) Somebody asked her what was up with her, and she just smiled and said "Love is in the air, you know?" Yeah, yeah, we get it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: gopher on 18 Feb 2014, 04:18
I find this all a bit tacky of Dale. Marigold is good friends with the rest of Marten and Faye, coming into work and announcing to them that he has had sex with her just doesn't feel right.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Socky on 18 Feb 2014, 04:52
I dunno, they're his friends too, he just had sex for the first time so he's pretty excited. He's probably high on endorphins and not thinking normally. So I'm with Marine, I think he gets a pass this one time.
And I'm sure someone will explain to him it's not cool to brag.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 18 Feb 2014, 05:48
As Marigold and Angus are room-mates, Faye and Dale are bound to meet there sometimes. They will be part of the same social circle. Therefore, Faye should try to be more friendly towards Dale, or we shall have future mayhem when Dale has had enough of the rookie treatment.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 18 Feb 2014, 10:31
However friendly she may or may not want to be to him outside the workplace, Faye is still Dale's boss and he's still the FNG* and he's late to work. Faye is probably still is doing the boot camp thing (it's only really been about a week or two in-comic since he was hired) and IMO justifiably so. He's got stuff to do but he wants to gossip. She's bringing him back in line.

Moment of silence for your virginity. ... Now empty the trash, dude.

*FNG=F*ing New Guy
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Feb 2014, 11:19
Right, because Faye never talks about outside stuff at work :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 18 Feb 2014, 11:21
Criminals make the best prosecutors, and vice versa  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schwungrad on 18 Feb 2014, 11:44
I find this all a bit tacky of Dale. Marigold is good friends with the rest of Marten and Faye, coming into work and announcing to them that he has had sex with her just doesn't feel right.
Marigold and Dale will have been aware that their mutual friends will ask anyway, so they probably just resolved to "yeah, just tell 'em when you see 'em".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 18 Feb 2014, 12:10
And if you think Dale is being annoying about it, just imagine how bad Marigold's going to be.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2014, 12:15
Is bragging to friends something women do? Stereotypically it's a (douchy) guy thing.

Dale is a long-time good friend to The Pugnacious Peach, judging from his Secret Menu privileges.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 18 Feb 2014, 12:26
Don't know about women in general. But speaking of Marigold specifically, if there's a wrong way to do it, that's what she'll do.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 18 Feb 2014, 12:35
To be honest, I don't see Marigold bragging about it - she'd be way too embarassed. Remember how it was with Francis the space guy?
I can actually picture her coming into COD, being congratulated by Dora and Faye (and possibly Hanners) and running away again in embarassment. Or at least blushing as much as possible.
And probably Dale and Marbear are also still awkward around each other.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: anahata on 18 Feb 2014, 13:08
I can actually picture her coming into COD, being congratulated by Dora and Faye (and possibly Hanners) and running away again in embarassment. Or at least blushing as much as possible.
And probably Dale and Marbear are also still awkward around each other.

I've been wondering how Marigold will behave afterwards, but that is indeed one very plausible scenario.

Another possibility is that Dale and Marigold will be quite inappropriately all over each other in public and Faye will have to throw a bucket of water over them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 18 Feb 2014, 13:14
Dale is a long-time good friend to The Pugnacious Peach, judging from his Secret Menu privileges.

A lesson I should have learned years earlier than I did: Stay the hell out of any circumstance in which your friend becomes your boss.

ADD: And if (you think) your boss becomes your friend ... never forget your boss is still, for good or ill, your boss.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Feb 2014, 13:44
Yes, but Dora is still Faye's boss, so there's only so much she can do.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Feb 2014, 14:33
The other thing that could happen, of course, is Marigold suddenly becoming this calm, mature, rational person.

...Or is that a trope?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 18 Feb 2014, 14:43
The other thing that could happen, of course, is Marigold suddenly becoming this calm, mature, rational person.

...Or is that a trope?

If it happened suddenly, then yeah. 

But if gradually she continued on her present course of getting out more and more of her shell and becoming more confidant, then it would be normal character development.  You can change the shape of the neural tunnels, but it takes time.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Jazzmaster on 18 Feb 2014, 14:59
The other thing that could happen, of course, is Marigold suddenly becoming this calm, mature, rational person.

...Or is that a trope?

If it happened suddenly, then yeah. 

But if gradually she continued on her present course of getting out more and more of her shell and becoming more confidant, then it would be normal character development.  You can change the shape of the neural tunnels, but it takes time.

Right.  Losing your v-card won't transform you overnight.  That said, many people will tell you that losing it boosted their confidence, for one reason or another.

I wonder if this would've happened if Marigold didn't pass out.  Was she going to make that bold move the whole time, or did she only make it because they never went out on their date?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 18 Feb 2014, 15:08
It's a well-known fact that a good bang can have a temporary soothing effect on anxieties, so there's that too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 18 Feb 2014, 15:28
Right, because Faye never talks about outside stuff at work :roll:

Well, with respect, she's been there much, much longer. Dale is relatively new. There are certain things I feel are okay to roll with if the authority figure initiates, but never to start on your own. Bosses initiating a conversation about outside matters with their employees on occasion can be seen as an attempt to get to know them better, but I've made the mistake of trying to pal around with my superiors (even if they weren't my bosses) and learned my lesson the hard way.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zwammy on 18 Feb 2014, 15:33
Right, because Faye never talks about outside stuff at work :roll:

Yes, plus there has been plenty of times the Barista crew has been late , or left early because of bootie calls. Faye, Dora and Penelope all come to mind in several cases. Ok, I can only think of one case for Penelope - not sure about Raven.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Jazzmaster on 18 Feb 2014, 15:52
It's a well-known fact that a good bang can have a temporary soothing effect on anxieties, so there's that too.

Oh, of course.  I know you used the word "temporary" for a reason, but I'll say it anyways - it really is only temporary. 

You might call it sharpening a blade, though.  You can never really become complacent and rely on past experiences to keep you sharpened up on whatever it is you might struggle with.  Marigold will have to keep putting herself out there or risk slowly returning to her old self (the Marigold that was originally introduced). 

I wouldn't say she's totally absolved of her problems.  That isn't to say anybody ever is, but she'll have some issues down the road, I believe.  Just look at how she broke down and lashed out at Momo when she was confronted with having to take the initiative and ask Dale out.  What happened and the way she dealt with it is a sign that she is a "work in progress" (but, again, so is everybody really). 

She eventually rose to the occasion, and she was fortunate enough to have things turn over in her favor.  It's clear that she has her problems, but if she's willing to deal with them in a progressively adult fashion, things can only look up for her.  We'll see.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 18 Feb 2014, 16:28
Maybe Dora should put Pancakes on the CoD menu.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: skiddle on 18 Feb 2014, 18:55
Hi. This is my first post, having lurked for a while. Just wanted to add my vote of confidence to cats. Maybe it's because mine were stray street cats once, but they're all three of them very affectionate ... admittedly sometimes for food but not always!

With regard to whether Dale should be bragging and whether he should be so open about what's happened, Faye and the others have been pretty involved in Marigold and Dale getting together one way and another (witnessing key events, talking to them each individually about it) so I don't think it would be a terrible breach of confidence. That said, I can imagine MarBear going one of two ways - totally over the top excited and proud, or very embarrassed, which might lead to problems.

And as a currently single girl, I have to say that women can be *that girl*. I don't know if it's a British thing, but a certain amount of smugness among friends is allowed - even expected!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2014, 19:08
Welcome, new person!

What flavor of "Britain"? It's a heterogenous place.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 18 Feb 2014, 19:27
Marigold seems rather prudish for a woman who contracted a robot with an eelgina.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 18 Feb 2014, 19:31
"Yes, Marigold.  You are a slut.  Now get your sweet ass back on the street and make Mama some more money."

That's what Momo should have said!

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z9J_PAC25dk/SwlQTI1J_6I/AAAAAAAAA-Q/Cjlht49kj1E/s1600/Pissed+PIMP+Robot.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 18 Feb 2014, 19:32
Marigold seems rather prudish for a woman who contracted a robot with an eelgina.

 If they were assigned like Marten (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2333), then i would say they their personalities complement each other. It was discussed already, that Momo have/can help with those things that Marigold lacks (like social skills (http://www.questionablecontent.net/1573)).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: J on 18 Feb 2014, 19:41
a new insecurity appears.

poor marigold, two steps forward, one step back.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Yarin on 18 Feb 2014, 20:16
Marigold looks good without her glasses or clothes lol
Title: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 18 Feb 2014, 21:18
She looks good with them too, but there's a certain innocence or clarity that comes out when she has them off. Faye does too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Half Empty Coffee Cup on 18 Feb 2014, 22:04
Is that Momo's "You did good" face, in the last panel? I'm fairly sure it is.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 18 Feb 2014, 22:55
OMG
Dat hair
Dat hair is nice.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 18 Feb 2014, 23:14
I think we have the L word.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 18 Feb 2014, 23:33
It's a well-known fact that a good bang can have a temporary soothing effect on anxieties, so there's that too.
Oh, of course.  I know you used the word "temporary" for a reason, but I'll say it anyways - it really is only temporary.
In light of today's comic, I'm glad I also used the verb "can".
Aw, Marigold...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 00:09
Marigold, whatever you're afraid of, it doesn't apply in this situation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cpflux on 19 Feb 2014, 00:16
I think we have the L word.

... lesbian?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 19 Feb 2014, 00:27
Lemur!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 01:10
I'm hot for girls in glasses but Marigold looks awesome with them off too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 01:12
Logic?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sidhekin on 19 Feb 2014, 01:16
Levity?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 01:22
Labia.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 01:23
Is it bad that I've been thinking of all the unhelpful things Momo might do, such as offering to bake a tart?

EDIT: Lutefisk.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 19 Feb 2014, 02:03
On cats: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3078#comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3078#comic)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 19 Feb 2014, 03:23
Lexicon.

And Marigold, I think you could probably set him on fire and he'd still want to, um, date you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 03:39
Lexicon.
You win.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 03:55
Lexicon is, weirdly enough, a large part of my lexicon.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2014, 04:16
Definently Lemur.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 19 Feb 2014, 04:21
Lucubrate (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1331).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: McSnarf on 19 Feb 2014, 04:52
(New reader/poster here, after a five day diet on nothing but QC...)

Is it only me or has Marigold undergone a mysterious transition to slightly slimmer, better skin and better hair? Okay - the last we saw of her before had her under the effects of medication and a rash, but...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 04:55
I feel the need to chime in on the cat's having empathy thing.

We have a cat that's scared of literally everything.  She spends most of the day hiding under the couch.  She suffers from a really bad anxiety disorder, you can easily read it on her (and the vet has given us an anti-anxiety medicine that helps some when she takes it).  She won't come near anybody for any reason out of sheer fear.  With one single exception.  I myself suffer from some rather extreme depression at times, and whenever I get soul crushingly destroyed by chemical imbalances in my own brain, and cannot escape the thick mucking mud of despair, when it feels like I'm trying to swim on a different planet under the force of multiple Gs... That's when that goddamn cat will decide she's not scared anymore, and will timidly approach me, curl up next to me, and let me pet her.  When she sees someone in despair, she'll choke back that anxiety and fear, and realize someone needs her more than she needs to be afraid.  That cat is empathetic as hell.

Also.

Marigold is the only person who has sex with someone and wakes up with BETTER hair.  Seriously, WTF just happened?  Does Dale-sex work as a moisturizing hair conditioner?

... ew
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 04:56
@McSnarf - Not that mysterious. She's actually taking care of herself and eating better, much better compared to before, if Hanners has anything to do with it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: McSnarf on 19 Feb 2014, 05:11
@McSnarf - Not that mysterious. She's actually taking care of herself and eating better, much better compared to before, if Hanners has anything to do with it.
Hm... Probably true long term. Also, she had a lovely night, which would probably show.

But this mysterious effect happened in something like a couple of hours.
Compare
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2637
to
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2643
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 05:16
I'm not seeing a difference besides her hair and she probably just showered.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: McSnarf on 19 Feb 2014, 05:21
I'm not seeing a difference besides her hair and she probably just showered.
Okay, then it's probably just me! :) Thanks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 05:28
I'm not seeing a difference besides her hair and she probably just showered.
Ahhhh, that makes sense.  Marigold doesn't shower for weeks on end, that's why she looks so messy all the time.  And after she had sex with Dale she was all icky so she went and showered for once in a blue moon.  Makes sense.  I generally only shower after having sex too.  I don't know why I didn't think of that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 05:44
Wait, so how often do you shower/have sex then?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 05:47
About once a week, why?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 05:58
I'm just curious, because despite being a sweat fetishist, for my own hygeine I can't stand going more than two days without showering. How long have you been showering weekly?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 06:01
I don't know, like, 10+ years I guess?  I don't really start getting stinky or anything until like, around 3-4 weeks.  And my hair doesn't start getting greasy until late into the second week.  So sex is just sorta a good time to shower cause I'll smell funny afterwards.

Also, you're a sweat fetishist?  And open about it too?  I like that about you already.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 06:04
More of a fluid fetishist, honestly. There's a 'TMI' thread in the Relate subsection if you want a more comprehensive (but by no means anywhere near 100% comprehensive) list of my paraphilias.

I've just realised the amusing irony of being a sweat fetishist and yet wanting to be clean all the time except during and after fucking.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 06:11
TBH I'm basically a fluid fetishist too.  And it's not really that ironic.  I'm more or less a fat fetishist, and yet I fall in and out of being anorexic all the time.  Though that's more due to social pressures to be skinny that somehow override my personal knowledge that skinnier doesn't make someone more attractive.  Uh, I think we have just TMI'd this thread far more than we should have.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 06:21
We may well have done, which is why I recommended the other thread  :mrgreen:

Also, this forum is a beautiful supportive place, and if you ever need any advice or support for dealing with your anorexia, or even just a shoulder to (virtually) cry on, the Relate subsection is great for that too.

If ya wanna.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 06:31
Naw I'm cool, I have four wonderful partners who punch me upside the head if I start trying to not eat enough.  No offense darling, but that's a lot of shoulders I have already to make me feel better.  All long-term crippling chemical imbalances aside, my life is pretty good right now, don't let the mentioning of depression cat empathy get ya down.  It's something that we've all sorta come to understand, that sometimes I'm just going to be sad, and that's okay and nobody else needs to feel bad or inadequate simply because I have a chemical imbalance which causes me to sometimes experience unexplainable uncontrollable despair that will eventually go away as suddenly as it arrives.  And in-between those times, I get to experience all the joys and happiness of getting to be surrounded by friends.  And besides, while it's still uncontrollable and unrelenting, that doesn't mean that having four partners doesn't make it easier to get through even if it won't, can't, and never will make it stop.

So yeah things are pretty good for me dawg, no sympathy needed, I apologize for making you worry.

EDIT:  Also while I'm at it, I'm glad Jeph tapped onto the "You're not a slut" thing.  Because seriously, that's so fucking common and it's getting so goddamn old.  Just listened to someone earlier this day starting to put herself down calling herself a slut because she enjoyed sex and I had to punch her in the head a few times, and then since I had already read today's QC, I ended up reciting what Momo said to her because it's pure 100% concentrated truth in a can.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 07:01
It wasn't sympathy, it was empathy - people have to want sympathy to get it in my experience ;) I'm glad you have a support system, because a lot of people on here don't. Hopefully one day it will be gone completely, as much as such a thing can be gone (as someone with depression I know that sometimes these things just don't go away...).

I agree that it's a positive that Jeph put that in there. There is still this strange perception that having sex and enjoying it is against the rules somehow.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 07:16
Going 15 years strong, it's probably not going away *laughs*  But just because it isn't going to ever go away, doesn't mean I haven't been learning new ways of coping with it.  One of the more... monumental discoveries in my life was coming to understand that neither I, nor anybody else, should feel guilty for me being depressed, and not being able to make me happy when I am depressed.  That the chemical imbalance is truly outside my control and immutable.  And with the discovery of that knowledge, me and my loved ones have been freed from oceans of guilty feelings about things we had no right to feel guilty about.  Such feelings of blameless guilt are truly a poison that erodes away at the soul.

---

I think the guilt and shame surrounding sex is one of the more omnipresent problems in our society, it really warps minds, and hurts so many people in so many ways, both men and women.

This.
http://imgur.com/a/DmKBm?gallery
This is a thing that so bizarrely sums it up so well.  We live in this bizarre place where we're told sex is incredible, but that we're sluts if we want it.  And where men are told sex is incredible, and that they have no value if they are virgins.  We live in this weird crazy place where we get messages that sex is some incredible amazing good thing, and some horrible evil thing that you're a bad person for wanting.  And it's such a bizarre mixed message that people have to warp their minds around to try and rationalize.  Too few people realize that the middle ground, that it's just a thing, nothing more, nothing less, and instead destroy their self-image all because they are fed this myth that sex is somehow something it's not.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 07:31
I love Kat Dennings, and that gallery.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: marsman57 on 19 Feb 2014, 08:13
Unpopular opinion: Despite my initial elation (such as what Dale is experiencing), once I rationally thought about it, I might think less of Marigold for going all the way on the first date. A lot of my reasons for being uncomfortable with it might be mitigated if I knew that previously she was a virgin though.

Edit: To be fair, I'd think less of myself too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 08:20
(New reader/poster here, after a five day diet on nothing but QC...)

Is it only me or has Marigold undergone a mysterious transition to slightly slimmer, better skin and better hair? Okay - the last we saw of her before had her under the effects of medication and a rash, but...

Welcome, new person!

Jeph frequently changes drawing style simply because he wants to and then gets irritated when people read too much into it, but I suspect you're on to something here. Momo offered to cook more healthful meals and there are hints she's showering more often.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 08:25
Unpopular opinion: Despite my initial elation (such as what Dale is experiencing), once I rationally thought about it, I might think less of Marigold for going all the way on the first date. A lot of my reasons for being uncomfortable with it might be mitigated if I knew that previously she was a virgin though.

Edit: To be fair, I'd think less of myself too.

Unless you also think less of Dale, you've got one of our culture's stupidest ideas lodged in your brain.

We know Marigold has never had a boyfriend and had never been kissed when she first appeared.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 19 Feb 2014, 08:29
What is this about "first date"? They have met often. They know each other well. What makes a "date" so special? What if they had had sex without ever "dating"? Would that have been worse?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 19 Feb 2014, 08:31
"First Date" seems like a silly framework and set of standards for Dale and MarBear. 


It really is a silly framework for me and everyone I've been seriously interested in beyond sex.  I haven't dated dated for decades.  I mean: going out on the town for dinner, movie or watnot seems to be not really related to initiating the sex or relationship part. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 08:33
Unless you also think less of Dale, you've got one of our culture's stupidest ideas lodged in your brain.
Only way I'd think less of Marigold (and I'd also think less of Dale too) is if they didn't use a condom.  Seriously people, men and women, always use a condom, for the respect and love of yourself, and for the respect and love of your partners.  I know they are both virgins but I don't think either of them knew that they were both virgins.  And even then, people who are virgins have been known to have somehow picked up an STD that they weren't aware of.

Of course, we'll never know if they used a condom or not, but I'll just go on pretending that they somehow managed to be godtier awesome and did even though it's probably giving them too much credit with how hopeless both of them are.

What is this about "first date"? They have met often. They know each other well. What makes a "date" so special? What if they had had sex without ever "dating"? Would that have been worse?
I agree.  I think... I've actually only ever had one "first date" in my life.  I think it was with my uh... 5th person I dated?  I went through the formal shit with him, asked him out to a dinner and a movie.  Wound up being the worst relationship of my life lol.

I mean it's not like I haven't had dates with people I've been dating other than that, but they were often something like, "Yeah let's go out and have a special date for the hell of it even though we've already been dating for 9 months" and you can't really call that a first date even if it was the first date you had together.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 08:36
Having just met in a bar and clicked on is just as perfect a framework for having sex as any.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 19 Feb 2014, 08:45
My contribution to the L-word cavalcade: Lugubrious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lugubrious)

Mar-bear has really pretty eyes… when she's not obscurring them with glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 19 Feb 2014, 08:53
I am going to don my asbestos undies and go against the flow here.

Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

Seriously, how is putting out for the first vagina/penis available empowering? Intimacy is a very important thing. For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult. Even after the likely heartbreak, sex remains something special, something shared with someone important. Sex isn't just sex, it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.

Marigold and Dale don't really know each other well. They've seen anime together that one time and Dale did that WoW harrassment but that's it. I haven't seen any meaningful conversations or interactions similar to those that Marten and Angus did with Dora and Faye. This whole thing just feels rushed, from a literary and realistic point of view.

caveat: I'm not saying save it for marriage and make sure it's your one true love, I'm saying that that biological imperative to stick it in to guarantee your genes being passed on is not the be-all, end-all to everything! There's more to it than just pleasure, dammit.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 09:04
Then I'm outing myself as a slut. And I'm proud of it. I'll be adding it to my sig right now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 19 Feb 2014, 09:04
Am I seeing things or did Marigold's character get a redesign?

Or is it just the afterglow and a good fucking?  :-o

Because that's purty impressive.

@ Black Sword

Not sure...if serious or not.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 19 Feb 2014, 09:05
"First Date" seems like a silly framework and set of standards [...].

I agree with that. I find the idea of having to begin a relationship by formally going on dates (often with expectations attached to what has to happen at the Xth date) a little ridiculous. Looking at QC and other popular culture coming from the US, this seems to be much more a thing there than in Germany - although I will immediately admit that pop culture does of course not necessarily portray reality very accurately. I have never "dated" anyone by that definition. Sure, I sometimes go out to dinner with my boyfriend for celebrations or because we feel like it, but that was always after we were already together. I suppose we also went out to dinner or cinema or something when we were still just friends, but that weren't dates either, just stuff we did together as friends. Same thing with my first boyfriend.
But then, I was friends with both my boyfriends before being in a relationship with them (in one case a seven-year friendship, in the other about 6 months), so I guess it's not the same thing as when you're still getting to know each other while already in romantic pursuit. Maybe in that situation the formalised setting of dates makes it easier?

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. 
Re: I think it is really everybody's personal decision when to first have sex, as long as both partners are happy with it. I could never sleep with somebody whom I don't know already and who I am not already really strongly emotionally attached to (or so I think now), but that's just me really.
This is absolutely a personal decision and nobody except those immediately involved have the right to judge it.
I do agree that it feels a little rushed in Mari's and Dales case - but that makes neither of them a "slut"!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 09:12
Having just met in a bar and clicked on is just as perfect a framework for having sex as any.

It's how my wife and I met. Been together 25 years now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 09:12
I am going to don my asbestos undies and go against the flow here.

Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

Seriously, how is putting out for the first vagina/penis available empowering? Intimacy is a very important thing. For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult. Even after the likely heartbreak, sex remains something special, something shared with someone important. Sex isn't just sex, it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.

Marigold and Dale don't really know each other well. They've seen anime together that one time and Dale did that WoW harrassment but that's it. I haven't seen any meaningful conversations or interactions similar to those that Marten and Angus did with Dora and Faye. This whole thing just feels rushed, from a literary and realistic point of view.

caveat: I'm not saying save it for marriage and make sure it's your one true love, I'm saying that that biological imperative to stick it in to guarantee your genes being passed on is not the be-all, end-all to everything! There's more to it than just pleasure, dammit.

Well, thanks for calling me, multiple ex girlfriends, my current girlfriend, my ex wife and many of my friends sluts. I'm done talking to you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 09:13
Am I seeing things or did Marigold's character get a redesign?

Or is it just the afterglow and a good fucking?  :-o

Because that's purty impressive.

@ Black Sword

Not sure...if serious or not.  :psyduck:

I think her face looks slimmer without the big glasses. Her skin does seem to have cleared up a bit, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: marsman57 on 19 Feb 2014, 09:15
My current opinion of Marigold and Dale with regards to this is equal. I was more talking about Dale's perspective upon Marigold though rather than my perspective as a third party.

I largely agree with what Black Sword said about the whole issue.

I could say more about my feelings as a third party toward people who REGULARLY have sex on the "first date", but I don't desire a flame war where no one is going to change anyone else's opinion.

A pregnancy scare story arc could be interesting. I doubt Dale had protection on hand.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 09:17

A pregnancy scare story arc could be interesting. I doubt Dale had protection on hand.

Well, I've been off the circuit, so to speak, for a while now, but I seem to remember when EVERY guy had protection on hand ALL the time. 'Cause you just never know.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 09:18
Having just met in a bar and clicked on is just as perfect a framework for having sex as any.

It's how my wife and I met. Been together 25 years now.
It's a separate matter really. A random sexual encounter can lead to something durable, or can just be a shooting star of tenderness. And some awesome love stories started on online dating sites specifically oriented towards sexual flings.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 19 Feb 2014, 09:21
My contribution to the L-word cavalcade: Lugubrious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lugubrious)

What, no verb?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 09:21
Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.
First off, it wasn't really their first date, they've known each other for a while, even if this was their first formal date (which trainwrecked).  That being said, yeah I think they probably did rush sex, because they haven't known each other that long, and yes I agree it's not empowering, but it's also not slutty.  It's just sorta, rushing things and poor decision making.

There is a pretty wide shade of gray between empowering and slutty.

Also for what it's worth, one of the best relationships I ever had (still with him) was with a guy I just had sex with one day because I was horny, and really wanted to fuck someone, and he was a friend of a friend and seemed nice enough.  Then AFTERWARDS I got to know him, and found out we were extremely compatible.  I hardly remotely recommend this as a technique for finding a long term partner, as it was mostly a fluke, but for crying out loud, doesn't make you slutty to enjoy having sex with someone.  Just wear a fucking condom.

For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult.
I said it up higher on this page, but I'll say it again.

Sex is neither as good or as evil as you've built it up to be.  The media, the people, who tell you it's the greatest thing ever?  That it's what makes you an adult?  They're bloody fucking crazy, you're the same person before and after having sex, just a little stinkier after sex, until after you've showered.  Hell, for the average person, their first time having sex is kinda lame, because they're too wrapped up in the nonsense of trying to perform right, or rush to the orgasm, instead of just enjoying it.  That's something you learn to do over time, nobody seems to get it at first.

Even after the likely heartbreak, sex remains something special, something shared with someone important. Sex isn't just sex, it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.
For some people yes, but for some people no.  For me?  Yeah, it is.  I can't have sex with someone I don't share an emotionally bond with because the emotions are too sloppy.  Many other people can and there is nothing wrong with them, OR with people like me (and Martin).  It's just natural variations on human sexuality.

For what it's worth?  Dale and Marigold did have emotion behind it, they weren't having sex for the sake of sex, they were having sex because they were caught up in powerful infatuation emotions.  Perhaps not the wisest thing, but they were not having sex to just to have sex or to get rid of their virginities.


I'm saying that that biological imperative to stick it in to guarantee your genes being passed on is not the be-all, end-all to everything! There's more to it than just pleasure, dammit.
FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD FORGET THE BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE.  WRAP YOUR GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING BLOODY COCK YOU WANKER.

CONDOMS MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU WEAR THEM?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Y on 19 Feb 2014, 09:25
Is it bad that I only realized today that they had sex? I assumed based on her face expression in 2638 panel 3 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2638) that she dragged him to the door without saying a word, then proceeded to shower.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 19 Feb 2014, 09:27
Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.
First off, it wasn't really their first date, they've known each other for a while, even if this was their first formal date (which trainwrecked).  That being said, yeah I think they probably did rush sex, because they haven't known each other that long, and yes I agree it's not empowering, but it's also not slutty.  It's just sorta, rushing things and poor decision making.

There is a pretty wide shade of gray between empowering and slutty.

Also for what it's worth, one of the best relationships I ever had was with a guy I just had sex with one day because I was horny, and really wanted to fuck someone.  Then AFTERWARDS I got to know him, and found out we were extremely compatible.  I hardly remotely recommend this as a technique for finding a long term partner, as it was mostly a fluke, but for crying out loud, doesn't make you slutty to enjoy having sex with someone.  Just wear a fucking condom.

For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult.
I said it up higher on this page, but I'll say it again.

Sex is neither as good or as evil as you've built it up to be.  The media, the people, who tell you it's the greatest thing ever?  That it's what makes you an adult?  They're bloody fucking crazy, you're the same person before and after having sex, just a little stinkier after sex, until after you've showered.  Hell, for the average person, their first time having sex is kinda lame, because they're too wrapped up in the nonsense of trying to perform right, or rush to the orgasm, instead of just enjoying it.  That's something you learn to do over time, nobody seems to get it at first.

Even after the likely heartbreak, sex remains something special, something shared with someone important. Sex isn't just sex, it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.
For some people yes, but for some people no.  For me?  Yeah, it is.  I can't have sex with someone I don't share an emotionally bond with because the emotions are too sloppy.  Many other people can and there is nothing wrong with them, OR with people like me (and Martin).  It's just natural variations on human sexuality.

For what it's worth?  Dale and Marigold did have emotion behind it, they weren't having sex for the sake of sex, they were having sex because they were caught up in powerful infatuation emotions.  Perhaps not the wisest thing, but they were not having sex to just to have sex or to get rid of their virginities.
[...]
Yep, good post!

Edit: Huh, now this went on the next page. Then I'd better actually put in the citation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 19 Feb 2014, 09:32
Is it possible to make a copy of an AnthroPC's mind and load it into another chassis, so that I too can have a Momo who will talk sense into me when I'm feeling needlessly down on myself?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 09:33
Is it bad that I only realized today that they had sex? I assumed based on her face expression in 2638 panel 3 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2638) that she dragged him to the door without saying a word, then proceeded to shower.
It's... kinda bad, because now you'll have to tell us what you thought Momo was worried about the use Marigold could do of the syrup on her own, in the following strip.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2014, 09:35
Then I'm outing myself as a slut. And I'm proud of it. I'll be adding it to my sig right now.

*high fives Schmorg and better then half the other posters here*

It's good to be a man whore. Even if I am normally monogamous I am all for people fucking consenting partners basically whenever they feel like it and 100% free of judgement for that act.

It is an empowering act to choose to fuck on the first date, or not, or never, or RIGHT NOW! Because you're making the choice! Judging other people's choices? That's attempting to strip their power.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 09:36
Well, I've been off the circuit, so to speak, for a while now, but I seem to remember when EVERY guy had protection on hand ALL the time. 'Cause you just never know.
I wish I was where you live, because in my experience that's woefully grossly untrue.  Then again I live in THE SOUTH, land of abstinence only sex-ed, and wall to wall insane and dangerous attempts at making people feel ashamed about having sex, so much shame that they are too busy feeling shame to actually prepare and be safe for sex when it does happen.

I'm the woman and I'm the one who has to provide the condoms every fucking time I swear.  I wind up handing them out to random guys on a regular basis who I see getting close to getting laid with someone else, because I'm like CHRIST ALMIGHTY USE A FUCKING CONDOM THIS ISN'T A GODDAMN JOKE.

It's why I scream about it so much, because I just don't fucking see people using them, ever.  And yes I know that's more of a regional issue, as I'm sure places which have actual real sex education in schools don't have this problem nearly as badly.

I find the idea of having to begin a relationship by formally going on dates (often with expectations attached to what has to happen at the Xth date) a little ridiculous. Looking at QC and other popular culture coming from the US, this seems to be much more a thing there than in Germany - although I will immediately admit that pop culture does of course not necessarily portray reality very accurately. I have never "dated" anyone by that definition.
[...]
Maybe in that situation the formalised setting of dates makes it easier?
Nobody in America really does that dating thing.  It's an outdated thing which hasn't really been common for about 50 years.  But it survives as a trope in fiction because it's a convenient and easy setup for drama.

Also I generally find formalized dating settings are far fucking more awkward and difficult than just dating someone normally.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: 5th_fathom on 19 Feb 2014, 09:44
CONDOMS MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU WEAR THEM?

I'd like to make a sign out of this, or maybe put it in my signature. Both?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 09:47
CONDOMS MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU WEAR THEM?

I'd like to make a sign out of this, or maybe put it in my signature. Both?

Approve of this.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 19 Feb 2014, 09:54
Is it bad that I only realized today that they had sex? I assumed based on her face expression in 2638 panel 3 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2638) that she dragged him to the door without saying a word, then proceeded to shower.
It's... kinda bad, because now you'll have to tell us what you thought Momo was worried about the use Marigold could do of the syrup on her own, in the following strip.  :-D
(http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b429/zebgodwin/farmer2-3.png)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 19 Feb 2014, 10:01
I am going to don my asbestos undies and go against the flow here.

Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

Seriously, how is putting out for the first vagina/penis available empowering? Intimacy is a very important thing. For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult. Even after the likely heartbreak, sex remains something special, something shared with someone important. Sex isn't just sex, it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.

Marigold and Dale don't really know each other well. They've seen anime together that one time and Dale did that WoW harrassment but that's it. I haven't seen any meaningful conversations or interactions similar to those that Marten and Angus did with Dora and Faye. This whole thing just feels rushed, from a literary and realistic point of view.

caveat: I'm not saying save it for marriage and make sure it's your one true love, I'm saying that that biological imperative to stick it in to guarantee your genes being passed on is not the be-all, end-all to everything! There's more to it than just pleasure, dammit.

LOL. 

The best and longest lasting relationship of my life started out as a bar hookup.  We really liked each other so we did exactly what the fuck we felt like doing without regard for what anyone else thought of it.  That's the benefit of "empowerment" or, in my preferred language:  Autonomy.   As adults, Dale and Marigold are free to accept or reject your standard of what is "slutty" OR "prudish". 

As we got to know each other better, we formed a great relationship that lasted a long while. 

Sex is sometimes just sex.  Not for everybody and not all the time, but sometimes it is.  I don't think I could casually hookup like I did in my late teens and twenties, but it was great fun while I did and there's not a damn thing for me to regret about it because I was honest, ethical, considerate, and I used some goddamn protection. 

Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mlle Germain on 19 Feb 2014, 10:05
Well, I've been off the circuit, so to speak, for a while now, but I seem to remember when EVERY guy had protection on hand ALL the time. 'Cause you just never know.

Uh, that was not me who said that, but WareWolf. Weird how the citation got the author wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 19 Feb 2014, 10:07
SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING.

Global Moderator Comment While you are entitled to your opinion, expressing it in this manner (shouting, and using a generally insulting word) is likely to cause upset. If you come back to defend your position, please use more moderate language.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2014, 10:08
On a side note, I wish I could be as chipper as Dale after apparently having stayed up all night.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 19 Feb 2014, 10:10
On a side note, I wish I could be as chipper as Dale after apparently having stayed up all night.

I wonder what kind of energy drinks Marigold has in her fridge. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: marsman57 on 19 Feb 2014, 10:18
Is it bad that I only realized today that they had sex? I assumed based on her face expression in 2638 panel 3 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2638) that she dragged him to the door without saying a word, then proceeded to shower.

I wish I could be that innocent again. There was a chance it was as such in 2638 panel 3, but Momo's comment in 2639 should have brought clarity. :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: retrosteve on 19 Feb 2014, 10:19
Sex on the first date?

I'm 50 (way crusty!) and male, and I've made nearly every mistake it's possible to make with ladies. And on other occasions, done lots of things right, too.

I've played my cards wrong and lost out with women, by appearing too interested or too uninterested, being too eager or by not picking up on the cue that said 'I want sex now if you just give me the right excuse'. And I've been at various times a slut, a player-wannabe, a shy boy, an awkward geek, a one-nighter, and a confident guy who knows what he wants.

On many occasions I've been fortunate enough that a series of outings or dates led eventually to a relationship. I've had just two occasions when we both just had sex by obvious mutual consent at the very first opportunity. You know what I called each of those two ladies?

"Fiancee".  Later, wife.  No regrets. (first marriage lasted 15 years, still friends). Those occasions where it just feels right, sometimes it's just right.

So if I went by my own experience, I'd say Dale and Marigold just did the right thing and are destined for a long and happy thing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 19 Feb 2014, 10:41
She really does look cute like that.


And it's going to be interesting to see where this goes from here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 19 Feb 2014, 10:47
I was going to suggest that they'd join forces on WoW, but I suspect Marigold would not want to do that until after marriage.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 10:56
I was going to suggest that they'd join forces on WoW, but I suspect Marigold would not want to do that until after marriage.
Oh please, like Marigold would ever go Alliance.  She's far too ethical for that.  Dale needs to go Horde for her.  Just say no to evil Alliance scum.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 10:58
Wouldn't want to horde yourself out, now...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2014, 11:36
....damn. That was well played. Nice work Gareth.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 19 Feb 2014, 11:37
They probably continue with their present guilds. Or give up on it. Where did this story start? West Side Story? Romeo and Juliet? Ancient Greeks? Gotta be one of the oldest recurring themes in storytelling.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 11:52
Wouldn't want to horde yourself out, now...
That one is so funny it gave me a horde-on!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 12:12
Well, I've been off the circuit, so to speak, for a while now, but I seem to remember when EVERY guy had protection on hand ALL the time. 'Cause you just never know.
I wish I was where you live, because in my experience that's woefully grossly untrue.  Then again I live in THE SOUTH, land of abstinence only sex-ed, and wall to wall insane and dangerous attempts at making people feel ashamed about having sex, so much shame that they are too busy feeling shame to actually prepare and be safe for sex when it does happen.

Well, I'm from the South, too, so it may not be so much a matter of geography as it is of changed culture. When I was in my 20's (in the before time, in the long-long ago), a guy that didn't have a condom handy when sexy-time rolled around risked going home unlaid. Not saying some wouldn't roll the dice, but every guy I knew kept a rubber in his wallet (occasionally leading to Big Laffs when the thing had been in there so long that the  outline showed through the leather) Of course, this was when everyone was terrified of AIDS.

Quote
I'm the woman and I'm the one who has to provide the condoms every fucking time I swear.  I wind up handing them out to random guys on a regular basis who I see getting close to getting laid with someone else, because I'm like CHRIST ALMIGHTY USE A FUCKING CONDOM THIS ISN'T A GODDAMN JOKE.

I swear, you kids today, get off my lawn, etc. (Also, you're a smart person).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 19 Feb 2014, 12:14
I don't carry a condom around with me, mainly because I know I'm not going to get laid.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 19 Feb 2014, 12:21
 You would be a terrible boy scout  :-P.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 12:32
I don't carry a condom around with me, mainly because I know I'm not going to get laid.  :psyduck:
I used to be like that. Now I've been carrying condoms around with me since late December of 2011. According to the box, their expiration date is June of 2016. Maybe I'll use one before then? Who knows? The future is full of surprises.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jeph on 19 Feb 2014, 12:43
I am going to don my asbestos undies and go against the flow here.

Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

oh my god fuck offffffff
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 12:50
I don't carry a condom around with me, mainly because I know I'm not going to get laid.  :psyduck:
I used to be like that. Now I've been carrying condoms around with me since late December of 2011. According to the box, their expiration date is June of 2016. Maybe I'll use one before then? Who knows? The future is full of surprises.

That's the spirit!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 19 Feb 2014, 13:22
If something was going to gross me out about sex on the first date, the "slut" aspect would be the least of my worries. I'm on board with 90% of the other posters on that.

However,

Ahhhh, that makes sense.  Marigold doesn't shower for weeks on end, that's why she looks so messy all the time.  And after she had sex with Dale she was all icky so she went and showered for once in a blue moon.  Makes sense.

That would be horrid. Hygiene - especially sexual hygiene - is extraordinarily important to me. I wouldn't want to smell days worth of built up, oxidized sweat during intimacy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 13:25
That's the spirit!
What is even more the spirit is that since February of 2012 I've been carefully clipping and filing my fingernails, I've been maintaining my hands' smoothness with hydrating cream, and I've carried a flagon of lubricant, a small bottle of grape seed oil, and even a pack of latex gloves when I was going out.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 13:31
Why do people think Marbear didn't shower the morning of the date as well?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 13:32
That's the spirit!
What is even more the spirit is that since February of 2012 I've been carefully clipping and filing my fingernails, I've been maintaining my hands' smoothness with hydrating cream, and I've carried a flagon of lubricant, a small bottle of grape seed oil, and even a pack of latex gloves when I was going out.

Hmmm. You may be over-preparing. It's a fine line.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 13:35
Wouldn't want to horde yourself out, now...
That one is so funny it gave me a horde-on!

High five!
Quote from: Black Sword link=topic=29722.mega a AAA date=1392828809
I am going to don my asbestos undies and go against the flow here.

Male or female, SEX ON THE FIRST DATE IS SLUTTY, NOT EMPOWERING. Please note that I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

oh my god fuck offffffff
Love.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Coffee_Kaioken on 19 Feb 2014, 13:38
That's the spirit!
What is even more the spirit is that since February of 2012 I've been carefully clipping and filing my fingernails, I've been maintaining my hands' smoothness with hydrating cream, and I've carried a flagon of lubricant, a small bottle of grape seed oil, and even a pack of latex gloves when I was going out.

Hmmm. You may be over-preparing. It's a fine line.

The gloves were what crossed that line :p
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 13:42
What are they even for? :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 13:44
That's the spirit!
What is even more the spirit is that since February of 2012 I've been carefully clipping and filing my fingernails, I've been maintaining my hands' smoothness with hydrating cream, and I've carried a flagon of lubricant, a small bottle of grape seed oil, and even a pack of latex gloves when I was going out.

Hmmm. You may be over-preparing. It's a fine line.

The gloves were what crossed that line :p

I was also thinking that a flagon of lubricant might be a bit more than needed. But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 13:51
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)
But no, the lubricant is there because it can help with caressing a clit. Same with the gloves, in some cases. Heard it can make it slicker.

...

What thread is this already?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 19 Feb 2014, 13:52
Mari without glasses...approved.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 13:54
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)
But no, the lubricant is there because it can help with caressing a clit. Same with the gloves, in some cases. Heard it can make it slicker.

...

What thread is this already?

If you can snap on a pair of latex gloves during foreplay without your partner running out of the room screaming, my hat's off to you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 13:56
Mari without glasses...approved.

Here's the thing about women who wear glasses...they look even more naked when they come off along with everything else.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 14:07
If you can snap on a pair of latex gloves during foreplay without your partner running out of the room screaming, my hat's off to you.
Well, two things: I wasn't speaking of foreplay, I was speaking of fingering; and it isn't really something that I'd bring up on my own early on, just an accessory some lesbian friends told me could be fun.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 14:22
That's the spirit!
What is even more the spirit is that since February of 2012 I've been carefully clipping and filing my fingernails, I've been maintaining my hands' smoothness with hydrating cream, and I've carried a flagon of lubricant, a small bottle of grape seed oil, and even a pack of latex gloves when I was going out.
Hmmm. You may be over-preparing. It's a fine line.
Now now, let's not be hasty.  I don't think you appreciate how nice a man with well moisturized hands is.

For some, very inexplicable reason, there's all these men who are running around with one hand that's soft and well moisturized and the other hand which is as crunchy and dry as Satan's anus, and that's no good now is it?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WareWolf on 19 Feb 2014, 14:27

Now now, let's not be hasty.  I don't think you appreciate how nice a man with well moisturized hands is.


I confess, I had never truly considered it. I shall take your comment under advisement.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 19 Feb 2014, 14:41
<comment about first date sex being "slutty">

I'd be curious just what exactly Black Sword thinks is so bad about being slutty?

From the all caps and tone, I infer that it's being used as a pejorative here, but to rephrase my previous question, So What?

Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Penquin47 on 19 Feb 2014, 15:13
"For men and women, one's first sexual experience is considered a mark of becoming an adult."

Nice to know I'm 31 years old and still not an adult yet...

Thank you, Jeph, for supporting choice and self-determination, and thank you forums for generally being awesome about it.  I'm willing to call people sluts in certain situations, but choosing to have sex with a dude you're into and who's into you?  Not those situations, no matter how long you've been dating or known each other or whether you ever intend to see that person again.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: HauntingPoem on 19 Feb 2014, 15:42
Nice to know I'm 31 years old and still not an adult yet...
Glad i'm not the only one haha!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Feb 2014, 15:44
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)
But no, the lubricant is there because it can help with caressing a clit. Same with the gloves, in some cases. Heard it can make it slicker.

...

What thread is this already?

If you can snap on a pair of latex gloves during foreplay without your partner running out of the room screaming, my hat's off to you.

Challenge accepted.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 15:48
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)
But no, the lubricant is there because it can help with caressing a clit. Same with the gloves, in some cases. Heard it can make it slicker.
If you can snap on a pair of latex gloves during foreplay without your partner running out of the room screaming, my hat's off to you.
Challenge accepted.
While I haven't considered the possibility of latex gloves before (Wow what sorta lameass boring kinky person am I?), I'm more or less up for trying almost anything first, so if you explained what you're doing, I might think it's odd, but I'll totally give it a shot and I definitely won't be running out of the room screaming.

No reason not to give something a try.  Might be fun.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zwammy on 19 Feb 2014, 15:56
On a side note, I wish I could be as chipper as Dale after apparently having stayed up all night.

I think the lack of sleep is making him a little giddy. Crash will soon occur, and Faye will sacrifice his sleeping carcass to the spider goddess in the corner of the basement. "But Mar-Bear, he disappeared into the alley while taking the trash out earlier, haven't seen him since. Space Owls must have carried him off."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 19 Feb 2014, 17:01
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: LittleKing on 19 Feb 2014, 17:19
I know this post has already been adressed, but...

Sex isn't just sex
It can be just sex and there's nothing wrong with that, who are you to judge?

it's emotions, drives, needs, desires, and more besides. I'd even go so far as to say that sex is a sacred experience for humans because of all the intangibles that go into it. Trust, attraction, creation, vulnerability, and more that I don't even have names for.
Sure. But some times all you want is to have a good, hard fuck.


Also, what's wrong with being a slut? If someone enjoys having sex with multiple partners/random hook-ups (which is the typical definition of slut, btw, so nothing to do with what Marigold and Dale did) does that automatically make them a horrible person? As long as they're safe and use protection then more power to them. People really need to learn to be less judgmental and mind their own business.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 19 Feb 2014, 17:21
It just so happens that I'm not into anal, but if I were the lubricant would be obvious, wouldn't it? (although I've been told too much lubricant can be harmful in anal - FYI)
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 19 Feb 2014, 17:21
(regular user hat)
I think it'd be best if we just let the  matter of "slut or not" drop.
(/)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Feb 2014, 17:57
Cats?

CATS!    12 (18.2%)
Cats.    5 (7.6%)
CATS????    1 (1.5%)
KITTTEHS!    14 (21.2%) <== Did May cheat on this? ;)
Meh.    4 (6.1%)
Cat GIFs!    5 (7.6%)
Hellspawn of EVIL! EVIL, do you HEAR ME????    5 (7.6%)
Dogs.    8 (12.1%)
Waffles and Pancakes.    3 (4.5%)
SPATHE HAM!!!!!!    3 (4.5%)
MOAR PINTSIZE!!!!    2 (3%)
YELLING BIRD STRIPS!    4 (6.1%)

Total Members Voted: 66
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Feb 2014, 17:58
Only point I'd like to make: this wasn't their first "date".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 19 Feb 2014, 17:58
(regular user hat)
I think it'd be best if we just let the  matter of "slut or not" drop.
(/)

I agree very much in the context of the comic. 

It might be interesting to explore the phenomenon of people getting and/or using that label and how the policing of other people's sexual lives affects individuals and society.  I care enough to participate in a thread on it, but not enough to actually start a new thread though. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zwammy on 19 Feb 2014, 18:01
Is it possible to make a copy of an AnthroPC's mind and load it into another chassis, so that I too can have a Momo who will talk sense into me when I'm feeling needlessly down on myself?

I'm wondering what ever came of Momo's old chassis. Did Pintsize spirit it away to do terrible (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2008) things to it? Or did Winslow like his previous transfer (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1012) so much he decided to see how the other half lived?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 19 Feb 2014, 19:03
People really need to learn to be less judgmental and mind their own business.

"Everyone belongs to everyone else."
-Aldous Huxley
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rghfrgl on 19 Feb 2014, 19:42
Puns.

Yesssssss.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 20:01
Haha, good show Claire.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 20:05
So it's a book...but where's the face?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 19 Feb 2014, 20:07
I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

Ah, yes. Good ol' fractal wrongness.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: rschill on 19 Feb 2014, 20:18
I am including BOTH genders. Penis or vagina, there's no solid justification.

Ah, yes. Good ol' fractal wrongness.

I'm so embarrassed that that slipped by me.   Neural tunneling takes time I guess. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Jazzmaster on 19 Feb 2014, 20:21
What is this about "first date"? They have met often. They know each other well. What makes a "date" so special? What if they had had sex without ever "dating"? Would that have been worse?

idunno man.  The few official "dates" I've had felt like a bunch of contrived nonsense.  "Hurr let's go to a public place and talk about stuff and hold hands".

Fuck that, honestly.  I don't really "date", I just get to know people.  And then after a while, I might decide I really like one of those people and do something about it.

Of course, there can be fun dates.  Or you can have fun dating.  In the general sense, however, "dating" was never quite my thing.  What many might consider dates, I see as simply hanging out.  Dates to me feel like they have a certain frame, and pressure to escalate physically and at a certain pace, rather than merely going with the flow and enjoying the moment.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 19 Feb 2014, 21:13
Why has no one posted this yet?

Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 21:22
Good old Claire, and Faye needs a Grumpy Cat t-shirt.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Emoroffle on 19 Feb 2014, 21:25
Gosh darn it she is adorable!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 21:28
So it's a book...but where's the face?
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh. Just looked at it again and...oh.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 21:32
Ah? I assumed you were kidding...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 21:34
Nope! I didn't really give it much thought before, but I'm glad I got to solve it before someone told me what it was. Partly because it's too much of a stretch to work as a pun.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 21:49
Well, a French songwriter named Boby Lapointe once said that good puns are unfunny, it's bad puns that elicit laughter.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 21:51
That makes no sense. Good as in...an actual pun? If a pun makes you laugh, it is a good pun. If it doesn't, it is a bad pun.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 21:54
The success of a pun is in the oy of the beholder.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 21:59
My god, what have I pun?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cpflux on 19 Feb 2014, 22:07
"First Date" seems like a silly framework and set of standards [...].

I agree with that. I find the idea of having to begin a relationship by formally going on dates (often with expectations attached to what has to happen at the Xth date) a little ridiculous. Looking at QC and other popular culture coming from the US, this seems to be much more a thing there than in Germany - although I will immediately admit that pop culture does of course not necessarily portray reality very accurately. I have never "dated" anyone by that definition. Sure, I sometimes go out to dinner with my boyfriend for celebrations or because we feel like it, but that was always after we were already together. I suppose we also went out to dinner or cinema or something when we were still just friends, but that weren't dates either, just stuff we did together as friends. Same thing with my first boyfriend.
But then, I was friends with both my boyfriends before being in a relationship with them (in one case a seven-year friendship, in the other about 6 months), so I guess it's not the same thing as when you're still getting to know each other while already in romantic pursuit. Maybe in that situation the formalised setting of dates makes it easier?

I just started dating my first girlfriend about a week and a half ago (Hey, maybe I should start writing advice columns and sharing them on Faye's Book!), and it sort of started out that way. I think she was burned in the couple of relationships she had before me. So she set the line at 3 dates - 3 dates, and I'd be allowed to kiss her. This being my first girlfriend, and after a long spell being single, I decided to acquiesce to her demands out of an abundance of fear and hard-wired genetic imperative - though, mostly, because she's a great person.

So two days later I call her up and talk to her for a bit. Out of the blue, she coyly says that she'd be willing to treat a movie we'd seen together the week before (Frozen, 'coz musicals appeal to the Music Man). And then texts me a day later saying that she'd "surprise" me on our Friday date. We go on our date, she looks pretty in a dress, blah blah blah, it's a first date. And it hasn't gone up in flames at all. She goes to get her coat, and as she does, she says something in a kind of Kermit-the-Frog-y voice, which is apparently enough to turn me into a drooling buffoon. I go up to her, kiss her (Frickin' first kisses, man, how do THEY work?!)... and then she tells me that she was going to say that she was dropping that whole 3 date thing before I planted one on her.

tl;dr I wrote a story and wasted your time, unless you didn't read it, which in that case means that it isn't tl;dr; Also, lol, Facebook joeks.


Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to get off your soapbox and stop telling everyone that you're dating a pretty girl.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 22:14
Dating pretty girls is fun.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Neko_Ali on 19 Feb 2014, 22:34
Oh Claire, never change. :) I actually laughed a good couple of minute solid over that one.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: hedgie on 19 Feb 2014, 22:39
It's things like this that half make me think that Claire is Clinton's younger sister rather than the older one.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 22:42
Posted for Claireface.

(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/animals-funny-3.jpg?w=500&h=1023)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 19 Feb 2014, 23:22
That makes no sense. Good as in...an actual pun? If a pun makes you laugh, it is a good pun. If it doesn't, it is a bad pun.
I think his point was that approximative puns tend to be funnier per se for being both daring and silly. Without further elements, like proper timing, context and delivery, exact puns tend to fall flat for being clever and nothing else.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2014, 23:31
I know that was his point, but I was saying his point is wrong. Sure, timing/context/delivery help any joke and are necessary for any joke. But if the approximate pun isn't close enough then it doesn't work...at least for me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 19 Feb 2014, 23:36
(http://zeqps2k4t563atbs730zvzq12aw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/horrifyingly-cringeworthy-puns-2011.jpg) (http://kaplaninternational.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/funny-puns-board-planks.jpg) (http://rlv.zcache.com/i_love_puns_womens_fitted_t_shirt-rd0ddfbcf36fe43fb80a7a761184e2998_8nhmi_512.jpg?bg=0xffffff)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2014, 23:52
There is actually a fayesbook.com, home to a rather strange blog.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Delator on 19 Feb 2014, 23:59
No, Faye. First you hit her in the head with your book. Then you kick her out of the store.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 20 Feb 2014, 00:05
Posted for Claireface.

<Jokedogfacehere>

That is the creepiest face that ever faced. Jeebis.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 00:12
Probably just mid-yawn.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 20 Feb 2014, 01:03
I admire Claire's pun. A pun is like serving a really big dinner; if it doesn't make them groan, you're doing it wrong.

That is the creepiest face that ever faced. Jeebis.
Wow! Such humour! Very pun! So rimshot!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Feb 2014, 03:23
Note a recently added possibility:

Wow! Such humour! Very pun! So rimshot! :wow:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 03:27
 (http://i.imgur.com/qKmws24.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 20 Feb 2014, 03:37
GROOOOOOOAAAAN.


I like to imagine that Claire was waiting a very long time for Faye to be reading a book just so that she could do that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 20 Feb 2014, 03:40
That makes no sense. Good as in...an actual pun? If a pun makes you laugh, it is a good pun. If it doesn't, it is a bad pun.

No no no no no. The best  puns are the worst ones. See IICIH's remark about the oy of the beholder, above. Also ...

WAITAMINUTEWAITAMINUTEWAITAMINUTE ... how the HELL would a little slip of a thing like Claire get a book away from the Pugnacious Peach without severe corporeal damage?

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schwungrad on 20 Feb 2014, 03:59
The best puns are when the recipient thinks "wait, that doesn't make sense... or does it... no... oooooh, it's a pun!" - and you can read this whole thought process in their face. The best ones take 5-10 seconds :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 20 Feb 2014, 04:34
Posted for Claireface.

I laughed more at this than I did at today's comic.  :wow:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 20 Feb 2014, 04:38
Guys. I just realized. Claire is at CoD. Where either Marten's or Dale's escapades might be discussed.

If this was a David Willis comic, I would expect immediate drama.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 20 Feb 2014, 04:46
I like to imagine that Claire was waiting a very long time for Faye to be reading a book just so that she could do that.
Heh, we punsters tend to do that now and then.

Which reminds me of an anecdote about François-Georges Mareschal, Marquis of Bièvres. He was a staple of the court of Louis XV, famous for his puns and bons mots (he even wrote the article on puns in an addendum to the Encyclopedia).
It is said that one day, Louis XV himself asked him to make a wordplay. "About what, sire?" he asked. The king answered "About me." The marquis said "Sire! You're no subject!"
Given how fickle and ferocious Louis XV's court was, you can bet anything that the marquis had that one up his sleeve, just in case.


I used to find Claire a bit bland as a character, but I've groaned to like her.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 20 Feb 2014, 04:51
Guys. I just realized. Claire is at CoD. Where either Marten's or Dale's escapades might be discussed.

If this was a David Willis comic, I would expect immediate drama.

If this was a David Willis comic, you should always expect immediate drama. Otherwise it'll hit you in the moment you least expect it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 20 Feb 2014, 04:59
No, Faye. First you hit her in the head with your book. Then you kick her out of the store.
I'm surprised Claire is not posted on the wall right now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Feb 2014, 05:43
...


Why is there a shark tank over there? And what's with the guy with the boat and the water skis?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2014, 05:50
Re Marigold and Dale - they weren't having sex. They were making love.
Compare and contrast with Marten and what's her name. That was good healthy sex. But totally different.

Mixed marriages are problematic, but can work. Protestant and Catholic for example. Horde and Alliance for another.
DOH! Wait a sec, there's a melanin difference too. For the hard of thinking, that never entered my mind until I re-read my post. I hope to goodness that in a world of AIs and spacestations that such puerile stupidity has gone the way of examining goat entrails to determine tomorrow's weather.

I fell in love with the love of my life on the first date. Actually at a party. We slept together - on the floor, snuggled, before leaving together in the morning. That was 34 years ago. Quite a lot like Dale and Marigold. We got engaged a few weeks later, waited a year because to get married immediately would have been insane, and after that year we wed.

Things can happen. Breakups. But right now, I see them being permanently together as the most likely outcome. It can happen when two inexperienced and naive people are just right for each other. Sometimes it just happens that way.

Today is our 33rd wedding anniversary.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 20 Feb 2014, 06:01
No need to worry about the melanin difference. Marigold and Dale are surrounded by people who clearly don't give a damn about it. Not to mention that Jeph has portrayed a few such relationships before without ever mentioning the difference in skin color, so I doubt anyone will bring it up. Also the percentage of the US population (even in RL as opposed to QC) who do care about such things has declined noticably in my lifetime.

Happy Anniversary!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 20 Feb 2014, 06:08
Good old Claire, and Faye needs a Grumpy Cat t-shirt.
Faye is always grumpy when wearing that T-shirt. It looks like a slow day at CoD, Marten must have left (finally!), and Dale is on trash duty. It looks like the Dale/Marigold and Marten/Delilah threads have finally ended, with very different outcomes.

Yelling Bird tomorrow, please!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: toffee-skye on 20 Feb 2014, 06:15
puns make me angry. this one made me throw a shoe.

well played, Claire and Mr. Jacques. well played.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Feb 2014, 06:45
Today is our 33rd wedding anniversary.

Congratulations!  (You've done better than me - 22 years first attempt, 20 years and counting second try...)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Nepiophage on 20 Feb 2014, 07:38
(http://i.imgur.com/qKmws24.jpg)

In Claire's Twitter picture she looks just like  Irma Prunesquallor (http://www.mervynpeake.org/gormenghast/images/irma.jpg). They must be related.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrudd on 20 Feb 2014, 09:12
A person needs new experiences.
They jar something deep inside, allowing them to grow.
Without them, it sleeps- seldom to awaken.
The sleeper must awaken
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 
:psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 20 Feb 2014, 09:40
(http://thewrenproject.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sandworm.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 20 Feb 2014, 09:41
WAITAMINUTEWAITAMINUTEWAITAMINUTE ... how the HELL would a little slip of a thing like Claire get a book away from the Pugnacious Peach without severe corporeal damage?

Faye put the book down when she went to get sticky notes. Probably.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rghfrgl on 20 Feb 2014, 10:25
Faye is always grumpy when wearing that T-shirt.

Faye is always wearing that T-shirt.

Oooooooh.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2014, 10:36
Claire should be careful what she gets up to around Faye. If she climbs the pun-ladder too much it might get Faye-tall.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 20 Feb 2014, 10:40
A person needs new experiences.
They jar something deep inside, allowing them to grow.
Without them, it sleeps- seldom to awaken.
The sleeper must awaken
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 
:psyduck:

my first thought on reading this was "this is a terrible limerick"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 20 Feb 2014, 11:28
Now all she needs to do is 'Share' it. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2014, 11:42
If Faye built a bull-shaped coffee maker for Dora and Claire attached pictures of kittens to it, that would be a Dora Bull.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 20 Feb 2014, 11:43
Claire should be careful what she gets up to around Faye. If she climbs the pun-ladder too much it might get Faye-tall.
:facepalm: Claire should not anger the Fayery (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1844).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 20 Feb 2014, 12:14
If Faye built a bull-shaped coffee maker for Dora and Claire attached pictures of kittens to it, that would be a Dora Bull.

You owe the Pun Jar $5
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 13:14
You owe the pun jar jar $20. (There are no further jars)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Feb 2014, 13:15
ZoeB, happy anniversary!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 20 Feb 2014, 13:29
You owe the pun jar jar $20. (There are no further jars)
(http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111208042122/starwars/images/4/42/JarJarHS-SWE.jpg) Oh yes, there is!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 20 Feb 2014, 13:48
ACK! Shame on you! Surrender all of your moneys for subjecting us to that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 20 Feb 2014, 13:58
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schwungrad on 20 Feb 2014, 14:18
You owe the pun jar jar $20. (There are no further jars)
All glory to the meta-jar!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 15:09
I realized the second after I posted it that someone would do what NilsO did, but I had no regrets.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2014, 15:31
I was going to use the Pun Jar Jar Brinks pun, but I've used that pun before.

So, heard about the one where Marten had the interns recite the alphabet? The 13th letter was recited Emily.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 15:35
 
Quote
Did someone call me?
(http://i.imgur.com/y6dAvX6.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zwammy on 20 Feb 2014, 15:37
I used to find Claire a bit bland as a character, but I've groaned to like her.

Terrible pun aside, I've always thought Claire was an interesting character.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 15:44
The 13th letter was recited Emily.
I get the M...but where do you get the L E?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2014, 15:47
It's what you get if you treat M like an adjective and try to form an adverb, i.e. M-ily (yeah, I guess that pun wasn't very Claire).

So, did you hear about the time the students at the library had a fight to the death? It was a Tai.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 16:00
It was a Tai.

 (http://i.imgur.com/68c7iAS.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 16:02
I still think that Claireface dog was the best thing ever.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 16:43
 (http://i.imgur.com/1DTrcY8.jpg)

 I don't know.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 17:22
Excellent.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2014, 17:27
In his elderly years, Scrooge McDuck went a bit more eccentric than he was when he was younger. One day, he decided to have a wedding in his vault. He realized he wanted to Marigold.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 18:04
 (http://i.imgur.com/v4P1KV2.jpg)
  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 18:05
Very Mari. Such gold. Wow. :wow:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Feb 2014, 18:43
See what happens, people? We start punning without remorse, and the boss goes and doesn't do a comic!

Argh! :psyduck: :grumpypuss:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 20 Feb 2014, 18:50
Quote from: Jeph's Twitter
Would everybody hate me if I went ahead and declared this week and next week would have four comics instead of the normal five?

YES JEPH WE WILL ALL HATE YOU FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER or at least for five minutes. Now go get some sleep.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 20 Feb 2014, 19:20
Regarding tonight's non-comic...


...Dale wears cowboy boots?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 20 Feb 2014, 19:23
 It's one of the first sketchs of Dale from Jeph's Tumblr.

 
See what happens, people? We start punning without remorse, and the boss goes and doesn't do a comic!

 (http://i.imgur.com/VrbayBQ.png)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Feb 2014, 19:39
(http://i.imgur.com/v4P1KV2.jpg)
  :psyduck:

Is it gold in here?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: bjams on 20 Feb 2014, 20:42
Awwwww, poor Jeph. "Personal Stuff" sure sounds a lot like "Divorce Stuff".  :-( Hope he's doing OK.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rghfrgl on 20 Feb 2014, 20:43
OK, but next week has to be 4 strips of puns.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Shjade on 20 Feb 2014, 20:48
I declare a war of the grins.
(http://i.imgur.com/1DTrcY8.jpg) vs (http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111208042122/starwars/images/4/42/JarJarHS-SWE.jpg)

...

Nevermind, I've already creeped myself out. x.x
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NilsO on 20 Feb 2014, 22:36
I think Dale first appeared in strip 1640 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1640), although he was already a steady CoD customer with benefits by then. Without the glowing glasses (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2487) he looks quite normal, although a bit scruffy.

What do we really know about Dale?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Detachable Felix on 20 Feb 2014, 22:43
We also know he plays enough to have a custom guitar. That or he just likes wearing Creston shirts. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1640)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Feb 2014, 22:48
Interesting, apparently in between 1640 and 1668 he took out his plugs and they shrunk to nothing :roll:

(Considering he only had them in 1640, it seems to just be an error. Perhaps I should bring this to the Did You Notice? thread)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 21 Feb 2014, 00:51
I declare a war of the grins.
Soylent Grin. It's made of people's teeth.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 21 Feb 2014, 10:51
Quote
Did someone call me?
(http://i.imgur.com/y6dAvX6.gif)

I thought 2293 might be more striking.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrudd on 21 Feb 2014, 12:00
I declare a war of the grins.
I better dig through my bookshelves then for my copies of the The Brothers Grinn, Mother Goose and Grinn and the new fave from the DVD collection The Grinn Adventures of Billy and Mandy
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 21 Feb 2014, 12:44
Dales theme song is a Shaft-like version of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly theme.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 21 Feb 2014, 12:45
I thought 2293 might be more striking.

 (http://i.imgur.com/aqrJ6va.gif)
  :-)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 21 Feb 2014, 12:58
Someone needs to do one of those with a picture of Colin Mochrie...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 21 Feb 2014, 13:18
Someone needs to do one of those with a picture of Colin Mochrie...

 (http://i.imgur.com/uoVcSUh.gif)
 ?

 
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 21 Feb 2014, 14:52
(click to show/hide)

Colin Mochrie used Flash! Foe Post Reader's accuracy fell!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 21 Feb 2014, 16:03
Holy Chao, that's awesome! My month is fulfilled.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 22 Feb 2014, 13:38
So why exactly did you want to see Colin Mochrie in a picture like that? I'm only familiar with him through the game show "Whose Line is It, Anyway", and I don't recall anything in that about him peeping through doorways.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 23 Feb 2014, 00:42
Because he's a living Internet meme. That's why.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 23 Feb 2014, 12:09
He is?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: KOK on 23 Feb 2014, 12:17
I have never heard of him before.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: lot_jockey on 23 Feb 2014, 12:42
Interesting, apparently in between 1640 and 1668 he took out his plugs and they shrunk to nothing :roll:

(Considering he only had them in 1640, it seems to just be an error. Perhaps I should bring this to the Did You Notice? thread)

Wow, when he was introduced, Dale seemed to know far more about relationships.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrillho on 23 Feb 2014, 13:30
Interesting, apparently in between 1640 and 1668 he took out his plugs and they shrunk to nothing :roll:

(Considering he only had them in 1640, it seems to just be an error. Perhaps I should bring this to the Did You Notice? thread)

Wow, when he was introduced, Dale seemed to know far more about relationships.

It can be quite easy to be good at giving advice and appalling at taking it. It's like watching a horror movie. 'Don't go in the closet!' when in a state of panic you probably would yourself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 23 Feb 2014, 14:30
He is?
Look up the "Colin Mochrie vs. Jesus H. Christ" trilogy on Albino Black Sheep.

Also, look up the submissions for Pintsize's present: Colin Mochrie was there too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 23 Feb 2014, 14:33
Albino Black Sheep still exists? I haven't been there since pre-YouTube :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 23 Feb 2014, 17:13
He is?
Look up the "Colin Mochrie vs. Jesus H. Christ" trilogy on Albino Black Sheep.

Wow, how old WERE those videos? I've never even heard of Animutations or Fanimutations, and I've been on the Internet since about Netscape 2.0. Granted, I never was terribly interested in keeping up with the latest Internet fads, but still...

Also, look up the submissions for Pintsize's present: Colin Mochrie was there too.

Can you refresh my memory on that, or provide a link? I don't remember "Pintsize's present", sorry.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Feb 2014, 18:20
Cats?

CATS!    13 (15.5%)
Cats. :grumpypuss:    7 (8.3%)
CATS??    2 (2.4%)
KITTTEHS!    18 (21.4%) (I still say Barmymoo rigged this one.)
Meh.    5 (6%)
Cat GIFs!    6 (7.1%)
Hellspawn of EVIL! EVIL, do you HEAR ME??    5 (6%)
Dogs. :wow: Such Poll.    14 (16.7%)
Waffles and Pancakes.    4 (4.8%)
SPATHE HAM!!!!!!    3 (3.6%)
MOAR PINTSIZE!!!!    2 (2.4%)
YELLING BIRD STRIPS!    5 (6%)

Total Members Voted: 84
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: hedgie on 23 Feb 2014, 18:49
Interesting, apparently in between 1640 and 1668 he took out his plugs and they shrunk to nothing :roll:

(Considering he only had them in 1640, it seems to just be an error. Perhaps I should bring this to the Did You Notice? thread)

Wow, when he was introduced, Dale seemed to know far more about relationships.
He could have easily known them on a theoretical level, but never been able to apply that on his own life.  'Tis easier after all to give good advice to others from the perspective of an outside party than it is to follow it once one has a personal stake in the matter.  And yes, I know this from experience.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 23 Feb 2014, 21:24
Can you refresh my memory on that, or provide a link? I don't remember "Pintsize's present", sorry.
I'm still trying to retrieve it. Jeph once posted a picture of Pintsize looking startled by what was going out of a box, and asked readers to submit ideas about what that was.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 23 Feb 2014, 22:13
Your needs are beyond my archive skills.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Feb 2014, 23:07
1042.  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1042)

Sad irony in the newspost for that comic:

Quote
What exactly is jumping out of the box to horrify Hanners? That's up to you! I welcome all submissions. You can download a print-quality version here.

I should also mention that Cristi and I are now officially engaged! Cristi is the best lady a fellow could hope to have, so I am one lucky dude indeed.

Have a safe and happy holiday, regular QC updates resume tomorrow.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 24 Feb 2014, 00:07
Ah, yeah, that one. I misremembered the participants. It's waaaay older than I thought.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Storel on 24 Feb 2014, 15:08
Oh, yeah, that one. Thanks!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2641-2645 (Feb 17 - 21 2014) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 25 Feb 2014, 05:07
Mwahahaha (actually I didn't even vote - clearly my powers are so strong that they work without my knowledge).