New comic!
If you're wondering what Elliot is carrying, it's a Jigglypuff seen from above. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIwFrvAOoE)
I don't know about Brun's description of bartending. When her character was first introduced, wasn't the whole point that she didn't bother to find out whether Clinton needed a drink or not? This seems like some pretty big character retconning for a brand-new character. It took quite a bit longer for Hannelore's personality to completely change after she was first introduced.
Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion.
New comic!
If you're wondering what Elliot is carrying, it's a Jigglypuff seen from above. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIwFrvAOoE)
Now we know what the Harpoon was for.
Actually, I think that the creepy laugh is stage two of her disruptive customer discouragement process. Basically, it gives the unflinching impression that this is a woman who would stab you to death in a bar and not care whether she gets away with it. It's surprising how effective that can be. She's never been in a situation where she's had to develop a stage 3.
Now we know what the Harpoon was for.
It looks like Elliot is carrying a punching bag.
I know the reference, but the color's all wrong; it is clearly an amputee Geodude from above.
As for what Elliott is carrying? That's literally a gigantic meat-and-veg pasty; it's a notion that Jim had a way back and it turns out it's the sort of eating students like. Elliott is acting as the deliveryman.
It looks like Elliot is carrying a punching bag.
If you're wondering what Elliot is carrying, it's a Jigglypuff seen from above. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIwFrvAOoE)
Huh. So May is the inverse (complement? semeuke) of robosexual. That's interesting.
Or is she being crude about sex to avoid talking about difficult issues of body and identity?
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.
For some reason, I had the impression that May was a lesbian.Bisexuality is a thing.
Guess not.
May should touch base with Clinton. He got the robot hand at age 13, so I'm certain he rapidly overcame the pinching problem, one way or another.
Huh. So May is the inverse (complement? semeuke) of robosexual. That's interesting.
Or is she being crude about sex to avoid talking about difficult issues of body and identity?
For some reason, I had the impression that May was a lesbian.
Guess not.
It's worth noting that my prior headcanon was mainly based on her objectifying exclusively women (including herself), for what it's worth.
I prefer:
QuoteIt's worth noting that my prior headcanon was mainly based on her objectifying exclusively women (including herself), for what it's worth.
Which is certainly fair enough, I had similar thoughts as well. I also played with the idea that she wasn't necesserily in a body she personally identified with. I wouldn't put it past the US justice system to just put recent parolees in whatever body was currently available regardless of thier identity. After all, the chassis she originally wanted was that of a military drone.
QuoteIt's worth noting that my prior headcanon was mainly based on her objectifying exclusively women (including herself), for what it's worth.
Which is certainly fair enough, I had similar thoughts as well. I also played with the idea that she wasn't necesserily in a body she personally identified with. I wouldn't put it past the US justice system to just put recent parolees in whatever body was currently available regardless of thier identity. After all, the chassis she originally wanted was that of a military drone.
And today, Jeph posted a comic in which an AI talks about giving a guy a handjob.
(IIRC, there's a few other things he's said he'd never do that he's since done.)
Something I'm curious about. Bubbles, as a word, is plural. But Bubbles is her name which makes it, in this case, a singular noun. So it might sound strange, but shouldn't it be Bubbles's, not Bubbles'? Yeah, I know some people do the s' when a singular name ends in s, and Jeph might be one of them...but I hope not.
Thick latex or rubber glove with some lube would serve in a pinch.
For some reason, I had the impression that May was a lesbian.She sure seemed interested in what was going on between Faye and Bubbles back in 3075 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3075) & 3076 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3076).
Guess not.
We've seen May tease Momo before about her attraction to Sven but her own sexual... interest for the lack of a better word for it... towards humans seems to be more based on voyeurism and a slightly-teenage giggling curiosity (which would fit in with other aspects of her basically-teenage personality). So, I don't think that she's particularly interested in a sexual encounter with a human, May's just saying that Momo has that option and she feels that she doesn't and it annoys her somewhat. It's also possible that she's implying strongly that Momo has, possibly just to tweak her.We never did get an answer to May's question back in 3098 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3098) about what options Momo had installed.
On a more practical level, Momo's chassis is several orders of magnitude more advanced than May's. Understandably, she probably feels something analogous to a woman who drives a Fiat and whose best friend has a Lamborghini.
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.
So it might sound strange, but shouldn't it be Bubbles's, not Bubbles'? Yeah, I know some people do the s' when a singular name ends in s, and Jeph might be one of them...but I hope not.
I never said it was equally valid, just that some people do it.
I have this issue, and have always used a distinct " 's " after my name and others like it, both in writing and in speech. Fowler in his Modern English Usage supported it too.Ah... It seems I've been doing it wrongly for years. I was taught a "punctuate it the way it sounds when spoken" rule. So I would probably write "Paul Hodges' recordings", but "Tom Jones's records", which is not at all consistent. According to that rule, I would write "Bubbles's coat". I shall in future follow Fowler's
I know the reference, but the color's all wrong; it is clearly an amputee Geodude from above.As for what Elliott is carrying? That's literally a gigantic meat-and-veg pasty; it's a notion that Jim had a way back and it turns out it's the sort of eating students like. Elliott is acting as the deliveryman.It looks like Elliot is carrying a punching bag.If you're wondering what Elliot is carrying, it's a Jigglypuff seen from above. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIwFrvAOoE)
This comic has turned into a Rorschach test.
I know the reference, but the color's all wrong; it is clearly an amputee Geodude from above.As for what Elliott is carrying? That's literally a gigantic meat-and-veg pasty; it's a notion that Jim had a way back and it turns out it's the sort of eating students like. Elliott is acting as the deliveryman.It looks like Elliot is carrying a punching bag.If you're wondering what Elliot is carrying, it's a Jigglypuff seen from above. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIwFrvAOoE)
This comic has turned into a Rorschach test.
Hm. Wonder what it says about me, then, that I see him carrying a big bag of flour - something perfectly logical for a guy who works at a bakery to be carrying.
I shall in future follow Fowler's
Use 's after non-classical or non-classicizing personal names ending in an s or z sound: Charles's, Marx's, Dickens's, Leibnitz's, Onassis's, Zacharias's, Collins's, Tobias's.
An apostrophe alone is also permissible after longer non-classical or non-classicizing names that are not accented on the last or penultimate syllable: Nicholas'(s), Barnabas'(s), Augustus'(s).
Jesus' is an accepted liturgical archaism; use Jesus's elsewhere (Jesu's is also possible in older contexts).
Use an apostrophe alone after classical or classicizing names ending in s or es: Arseces', Ceres', Demosthenes', Euripides', Herodotus', Mars', Venus', Xerses', Philip Augustus'. This traditional practice in classical works is still followed by many scholars. Certainly follow it for longer names (though Zeus's, for instance, is possible).
Use 's after French names ending in silent s or x, when used possessively in English: Dumas's, Descartes's, Lorilleux's.
You wouldn't say Bubbles's or Hodges's out loud?I would say the former but not the latter, but that is probably just sloppy pronunciation on my part. I certainly would say "Davey Jones's locker".
The vast array of regionalisms only further complicate the issue.Difficult to work out exactly what you do actually say sometimes, but I think I mostly use a slightly lengthened (but not sibilant) final s for xxxes's.
What is a "classicizing personal name"?
It was years ago, but Jeph said in effect that robot sex squicked him and he wouldn't be covering it.
Just a reminder: May's chassis appears to belong to the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. It's quite possible that 'moving out' without the permission of her ParoleBot, at least for a while, would be a violation of her release terms
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.On a good day; I can read body language, and facial expressions in an instant and usually better than most neurotypicals.
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.On a good day; I can read body language, and facial expressions in an instant and usually better than most neurotypicals.
Maybe Brun has learned to read such tells, as they are much more honest than what someone says.
QuoteIt's worth noting that my prior headcanon was mainly based on her objectifying exclusively women (including herself), for what it's worth.
Which is certainly fair enough, I had similar thoughts as well. I also played with the idea that she wasn't necesserily in a body she personally identified with. I wouldn't put it past the US justice system to just put recent parolees in whatever body was currently available regardless of thier identity. After all, the chassis she originally wanted was that of a military drone.
QuoteIt's worth noting that my prior headcanon was mainly based on her objectifying exclusively women (including herself), for what it's worth.
Which is certainly fair enough, I had similar thoughts as well. I also played with the idea that she wasn't necesserily in a body she personally identified with. I wouldn't put it past the US justice system to just put recent parolees in whatever body was currently available regardless of thier identity. After all, the chassis she originally wanted was that of a military drone.
seeing the variety of chasis(es?) available, I have to assume they honor the preference of the ex-inmate as far as they can afford
there's no doubt they could have put her on an ipod, or a pintsize-like body for a lot less money
I really doubt she lucked out and got a humanoid body
That's just it though. Even a working Pintsize style body would be preferable to her current body if it didn't mean she didn't have to worry it falling apart. May was given a junker and basically shafted in every way by the Justice Department. The chassis (which I have found out is one of those words where the plural is the same as the singular) was literally falling apart and May reported that fact to her parole officer, hoping to get some help, only to be told "Nope. No money." I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually a pile of empty AI chassis somewhere and they just grab the nearest one when a prisoner is set to be released. The Justice Department probably doesn't even maintain those chassis, meaning that the problem parts have not been repaired and have probably been exacerbated by poor storage conditions.
There's a reason why second hand is cheap, but junk yard is even cheaper.
That's just it though. Even a working Pintsize style body would be preferable to her current body if it didn't mean she didn't have to worry it falling apart. May was given a junker and basically shafted in every way by the Justice Department. The chassis (which I have found out is one of those words where the plural is the same as the singular) was literally falling apart and May reported that fact to her parole officer, hoping to get some help, only to be told "Nope. No money." I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually a pile of empty AI chassis somewhere and they just grab the nearest one when a prisoner is set to be released. The Justice Department probably doesn't even maintain those chassis, meaning that the problem parts have not been repaired and have probably been exacerbated by poor storage conditions.
There's a reason why second hand is cheap, but junk yard is even cheaper.
Downside to a Pintsize-style body is that it's even harder to find work if you don't look mostly human. It's hard enough to find work as a convicted criminal, and it's part of her release conditions that she has to find work.
Momos sarcasm is strong in this comic
Half the time I'm not sure whether May does this just to shock people for her jollies or she just doesn't care what comes out of her mouth.
If May got a more advanced chassis and human like dermal covering (and was not on probation) I'd bet it would not be the blink of an eye before she started sex work. Not sure if that's illegal in QC reality though.
We already know underground things go on, what with that totally-a-skate-park AI fighting ring.
Trust me, I'm an American...
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.On a good day; I can read body language, and facial expressions in an instant and usually better than most neurotypicals.
I'm not quite getting Brun's situation. Is she supposed to be a high functioning autistic or what? Her flat emotional affect and literal nature would not seem to be (usually) what makes for an effective bartender where empathy and communication skills are paramount.On a good day; I can read body language, and facial expressions in an instant and usually better than most neurotypicals.
In a post-singularity economy, items like AI chassis ought to be plentiful. Of course, it's not clear why you'd still need human baristas in a post-singularity economy either. We already saw an anthro-pc bar proprietor; robot baristas and bartenders ought to be cheap and plentiful.
Well, Momo, very few things are recorded in the history books if the preface phrase is: "After partying wildly for more than 24 hours, the scientists and engineers then..."
Seriously, May has noticed that Momo is attracted to Sven. This may be her attempt (as good natured as she knows how) to talk her into overcoming her feeling that it is improper and approach him rather than spend the rest of her runtime with a subroutine called "What_If" running the back of her processes.
I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one), and I also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal cost, thus rendering nearly all humans unemployable. But a world where those things were true wouldn't support an interesting comic like QC.
I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one),Since they are modeled/model themselves after us, it entirely possible it is a feature that emerged spontaneously during the initial formation of the original AI code.
I also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal cost
dd if=pintsize of=pintsize2
I put the whole "robot sexuality" thing (along with the "no mass unemployment in the wake of the singularity" thing) down to artistic license. Jeph makes his world the way it is so he can do what he wants with it.
I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one), and I also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal cost, thus rendering nearly all humans unemployable. But a world where those things were true wouldn't support an interesting comic like QC.
In that case, an AI's consciousness has to be more evolved than all their data. Otherwise, cloning one would be as simple asAlthough, in canon, dd if=pintsize of=pintsize2 has actually been done before: http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=59Code: [Select]dd if=pintsize of=pintsize2
We'll have plenty of time to discuss the sexuality of fictional robots while we starve in unemployment after the AI's take all our jobs.
I put the whole "robot sexuality" thing (along with the "no mass unemployment in the wake of the singularity" thing) down to artistic license. Jeph makes his world the way it is so he can do what he wants with it.
I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one), and I also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal cost, thus rendering nearly all humans unemployable. But a world where those things were true wouldn't support an interesting comic like QC.
subjectively the experience could be described in much the same way we describe dreaming.Am I wrong in presuming that electric sheep are involved there?
Am I wrong in presuming that electric sheep are involved there?
WCDT stands for Weekly Comic Discussion Thread, in case anyone is still confused.
Why has May stuck her face in a vat of bleach?
Researchers and workers in the field held our collective breath for a few weeks wondering if mobs with pitchforks and torches were about to show up, but most people didn't immediately decide we were Mucking About In God's Domain and Producing Abominations, so the apprehension has died down somewhat.
The systems we're producing today aren't even electric newts yet. Sheep-level AI is still a ways off.I think we've just about reached the level of newts and other amphibia, and exceeded the level of spiny lobsters years ago.
Ha ha, only serious.
I wonder if this is leading somewhere actually. I don't think Jeph would have kept this kind of a storyline going beyond a one hit joke if it wasn't going to lead to some form of revelation as he has done in the past.
I'm not sure if she is really interested in this as a thing for herself or if it is just curiosity about this thing that seems so vitally important to so many humans; she just wants to know what the big deal is.
I wonder if Momo has inbuilt genitalia, as it were, because May's body is government-provided but Momo's is a bit more... upmarket, as it were.
On the other hand, I'm somewhat curious as to why Momo seems to think sexual stuff is gross, or at least if it would involve an AI. I'd really like to see this explored more.
That's because over 99% lack the intellectual ability to understand what you're talking about.This fundamentally is why there is so much hostility to the Theory of Evolution from religious zealots. Because it can be discussed in words (they generally are not aware of the introduction of mathematics into the study of evolution from at least the time of R.A.Fisher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher)), they think they understand it. By contrast, concepts in physics, Quantum Theory for example, that offer far greater challenges to religious belief than evolution ever has, go largely unremarked, because they are expressed in complex equations that most people can't understand.
Her sense of modesty will not permit anyone to discover the answer to that question.She was ready enough to boast of her... facility with eels (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298).
I wonder if Momo has inbuilt genitalia, as it were, because May's body is government-provided but Momo's is a bit more... upmarket, as it were.
Her sense of modesty will not permit anyone to discover the answer to that question.
Really? I didn't know it was optional. I've always seen names that in in s just get an apostrophe affixed to the end when in the possessive form. I think James is the only one Ive ever seen with a 's.Something I'm curious about. Bubbles, as a word, is plural. But Bubbles is her name which makes it, in this case, a singular noun. So it might sound strange, but shouldn't it be Bubbles's, not Bubbles'? Yeah, I know some people do the s' when a singular name ends in s, and Jeph might be one of them...but I hope not.
I have this issue, and have always used a distinct " 's " after my name and others like it, both in writing and in speech. Fowler in his Modern English Usage supported it too.
Except that the end of scarcity will hardly be like that. Yes, there will be no need for meat people to do servile jobs any more but there will be plenty of other jobs to pick up the slackI admire your optimism, but I'm not convinced it will work out like that. A reasonable extension of recent history is that the executive class will continue to concentrate wealth and privilege in themselves, whilst relying on the Ais to dish out enough of the old panem et circenses to keep the plebs from rioting too much.
I put the whole "robot sexuality" thing (along with the "no mass unemployment in the wake of the singularity" thing) down to artistic license. Jeph makes his world the way it is so he can do what he wants with it.
I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one), and I also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal cost, thus rendering nearly all humans unemployable. But a world where those things were true wouldn't support an interesting comic like QC.
There are three possibilities that I can see:You forgot:
- May didn't like it and bleached it;
- The material was UV-sensitive and has been bleached by contact with unfiltered sunlight;
- Jeph either (a) forgot or (b) decided to change it because he liked white better.
You forgot:If it is cheap lighting for large areas then incandescent went away a very long time ago.
4. The skate park/fighting arena is poorly lit, possibly with incandescent bulbs, so the colours of everything there are off a bit.
In a post-singularity economy, items like AI chassis ought to be plentiful. Of course, it's not clear why you'd still need human baristas in a post-singularity economy either. We already saw an anthro-pc bar proprietor; robot baristas and bartenders ought to be cheap and plentiful.For one of the same reasons we still have human cashiers/baristas/[insert service industry job] these days. Generally speaking, humans prefer interacting with other humans/human-like entites over dealing with a bunch of touch screens and automation. Yes, even the shouty customers.
Momos sarcasm is strong in this comic Half the time I'm not sure whether May does this just to shock people for her jollies or she just doesn't care what comes out of her mouth.Could be both. If the former or both, she'd be a "gadfly" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGadfly)
#3303, I can see where this is going. Momo and Clinton are going to date.
You heard it here first. (?)
comic
So, I wonder where Jephjag is going with this series of Momo & May strips. Is he giving exposition about AI sexuality to set up a robot/human romance (maybe Sven/Momo?), or is he just doing it because he likes worldbuilding and development?
I don't think can simply assume that robot sexuality is the same as, and arises/develops in the same way as human sexuality.
shemales and traps
I don't think can simply assume that robot sexuality is the same as, and arises/develops in the same way as human sexuality.
Depends on which model of development you're going with.
And, human sexuality being nature could be argued to be as a result of sexual reproduction being how the species perpetuates itself. And, there's hormonal systems that affect the brain in that regard, too.
Unless AIs were somehow programmed to have sexual reproduction amongst themselves, evolved it themselves, or were programmed to have a sex drive to fit in with humanity, there'd be no use for them to have a sex drive as part of their nature. Of course, asexual humans exist despite the hormonal and societal pressures to be sexual, and I'm wondering how an AI would even have a sex drive without somehow being programmed to be sexual.
For one of the same reasons we still have human cashiers/baristas/[insert service industry job] these days. Generally speaking, humans prefer interacting with other humans/human-like entites over dealing with a bunch of touch screens and automation. Yes, even the shouty customers.
In-universe, I'd think someone would have already thought of this. Here on Earth there are highly-sophisticated sex-dummies; imagine if you could have a sentient one. Not sure what May expects to get out of this, other than maybe money. She doesn't strike me as the altruistic type.
[Neither of these are acceptable terms for trans people.
I like May. Her openness and honesty are quite appealing - you know exactly where you are with her.
One could not write lines for her voice without taking that into account.Until Jeph makes her say that, and I'm reasonably certain he won't, then I'm pretty sure there are lines May won't cross. Either way, please don't do it again.
Hmmm.... Do we know if the QC-verse is part of, linked to, or related to the Narboniverse? If so, Hanner's dad working with/off the research of one Dr. Virginia Lee could (sort of) explain it.I see no reason why an actual AI would have a sexual response (unless explicitly programmed to have one),Since they are modeled/model themselves after us, it entirely possible it is a feature that emerged spontaneously during the initial formation of the original AI code.QuoteI also see no reason why AI's wouldn't be set up to work 24/7 (and like it), not to mention being infinitely clone-able at low marginal costMy argument would be that there is something unique to each emergent AI that is uncloneable. We, as an audience, are not aware of the exact process by which the AI in this world develop. As I understand it AI is not specifically and directly coded but is more an emergent property. The individual intelligences arise through some sort of semi-random, or at least probablistic, jumbling of interacting processes and data. We have already been told that the scientists who originally discovered the prime AI weren't sure how it happened.
Just to be clear: I didn't do it the first time.
I was ROFL at a different part of the sketch, because at our house we do in fact have a bucket full of toys next to the bed, and I can just imagine me OR my wife going "You mean I have to choose? Okay, I choose this one for Monday, that one for Tuesday, both of those for Wednesday, and Thursday ... are we inviting company over Thursday? Oh, good. We'll need several then." The bucket presented in the context of picking just one is ridiculous and makes good comedy because the character even though deliberately trying to coarse, is herself such a prude as to not embrace the power of AND.
I see May's use of vulgarity as serving the purpose of comic relief, so even if it was in character, the specific line about the bookmarks was a fail. Even if the character is deliberately offensive, it fails as comic relief if more than half the audience is too busy being offended to laugh. If, as in this case, there's a good May-Is-Actually-A-Prude joke in there but people don't get past that one line to appreciate it, it actually subverts comic relief.
And I never did.Yes. You did. It's not really up to you to declare that nobody was hurt by your words, or that they shouldn't have been if they were.
Shit. My mistake.
But... why so little love for candy? :-(
But... why so little love for candy? :-(
Because chocolate already had its own category? Sure, candy that isn't chocolate still gets bought and eaten, but probably not in anywhere near the same quantities.
You know, I don't think I ever critically looked at that idiom, but...ew.Isn't it just?
To be fair, if one is attempting to woo me, a bottle of scotch will win you far more points than any amount of candy. However, the intent behind the lyric is bit squick.Oh yes, if we're talking gifts, sure, though my tastes run more to vodka than whisky but whatever. The context of the line however… just yikes.
I thought that might be the case, but Martin is a much more common spelling. Also, I just realized that I posted in entirely the wrong thread anyway.Honestly, it only needed a bit if ferreting around to get the right spelling. No point pining about it now though.
There's quite a lot of popular media out there that frames stalking as proper romantic behavior.
"Little sister" is slang for girlfriend.What the absolute fuck? That's literally the LAST thing "little sister" should be slang for!
What the absolute fuck?
Then there's amateur radio.
Old man (or OM) == a male amateur radio operator, regardless of actual age.
Young lady (or YL) == an unmarried female amateur radio operator, regardless of actual age.
Ex-young lady (or XYL) == a married woman (whether she's an amateur radio operator or not), often in the context of a male amateur radio operator's wife. (As in, "A1BC, how's your XYL?")
To be fair, if one is attempting to woo me, a bottle of scotch will win you far more points than any amount of candy. However, the intent behind the lyric is bit squick.Oh yes, if we're talking gifts, sure, though my tastes run more to vodka than whisky but whatever. The context of the line however… just yikes.
On a similar but more recent note, there was a popular song recently that carried massive emphasis on the line about "never ever letting [their lover] go" which always troubled me given the tone of the rest of the track. Too many overtones of the jealous ex/stalker for me to accept it as romantic. I still don't really understand how it got so much airplay.