Topic: WCT Jan 4 to Jan 8 2010 (Read 41626 times)

Border Reiver · « **Reply #50 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 03:03 »

Which is strange, given the name and all.

akronnick · « **Reply #51 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 03:06 »

It's also the reason kids don't buy condoms, And then engage in high-risk behavior without the benifit of protecton.

Abstinence only sex-education makes smiley

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #52 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 03:32 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 04 Jan 2010, 14:31

but please remember - the physical act of sex and our emotions are horribly intertwined with each other. There's really no such thing as a FWB, and even though a lot of people may want to argue that point, casual sex is unhealthy in more than the STD related way. It messes with the emotional state of both you and your "partner".

IMO FWB is not casual sex. In fact, I'd say that FWB is the healthiest sexual relationship there is,(Most "romantic relationships" are just FWB situations where one or both parties are in denial about their lack of eternal compatability. That's unhealthy.) because it is the most honest. (Unless you're lucky enough to have found your true love, it is the only honest sex to be had.)

Anyway, like the light moments in the last few comics. Marten and Dora are so cute.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #53 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 03:35 »

Regarding the comic: Panel 4; cutest Dora ever?

akronnick · « **Reply #54 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 03:51 »

No, but pretty damn cute.

Binary · « **Reply #55 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 05:14 »

Quote from: Ravenswing on 05 Jan 2010, 02:10

That seems to be one of the rationales for the current oral sex kick in high schools, which a startling number of kids claim to Not Be Sex.

They must be taking their lead from ex-President Clinton.

JD · « **Reply #56 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 06:43 »

Ugh, yellow type

TheKingOfFuzz · « **Reply #57 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 07:24 »

That whisper of magenta twixt the flaps of Marten's fly (final panel, 1/5/10) has put a very sensual bustle in my hedgerow.

I hereby petition the artist for a full-color spread: Marten attired only in these luminous fruit of the looms.

Commission to be paid in Cracker Barrel gift cards.

Mad Cat · « **Reply #58 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 07:58 »

Quote from: Mr_Rose

Regarding the comic: Panel 4; cutest Dora ever?

I'd say... child-like... and Martin wants to fuck that face in the ear. My esteem for young Master Reed if flagging.

Why is Dora, in the "face" of an ear-fucking, turning her posterior to Martin? Offering an alternative form of fucking?

Quote from: Binary on 05 Jan 2010, 05:14

Quote from: Ravenswing on 05 Jan 2010, 02:10
That seems to be one of the rationales for the current oral sex kick in high schools, which a startling number of kids claim to Not Be Sex.

They must be taking their lead from ex-President Clinton.

Just remember, ladies, take it in the mouth or your dry cleaning bill skyrockets.

Random832 · « **Reply #59 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 08:28 »

Quote from: Near Lurker on 05 Jan 2010, 00:25

So...Marten goes commando?

And now Faye walks in to find Marten with his member flying free.

Pink underwear. It doesn't even look remotely close to the right color.

Carl-E · « **Reply #60 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 09:17 »

Probably originally red, just faded.

westrim · « **Reply #61 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 09:18 »

Quote from: Random832 on 05 Jan 2010, 08:28

Quote from: Near Lurker on 05 Jan 2010, 00:25
So...Marten goes commando?

And now Faye walks in to find Marten with his member flying free.

Pink underwear. It doesn't even look remotely close to the right color.

We... kind of covered this already.

Quote from: TheKingOfFuzz on 05 Jan 2010, 07:24

That whisper of magenta twixt the flaps of Marten's fly (final panel, 1/5/10) has put a very sensual bustle in my hedgerow.

I hereby petition the artist for a full-color spread: Marten attired only in these luminous fruit of the looms.

Commission to be paid in Cracker Barrel gift cards.

What, the Christmas special or Sousuke-kuuuuuuuuun wasn't enough for you?

Quote from: NeverQuiteGoth on 05 Jan 2010, 03:32

Quote from: Carl-E on 04 Jan 2010, 14:31
but please remember - the physical act of sex and our emotions are horribly intertwined with each other. There's really no such thing as a FWB, and even though a lot of people may want to argue that point, casual sex is unhealthy in more than the STD related way. It messes with the emotional state of both you and your "partner".

IMO FWB is not casual sex. In fact, I'd say that FWB is the healthiest sexual relationship there is,(Most "romantic relationships" are just FWB situations where one or both parties are in denial about their lack of eternal compatibility. That's unhealthy.) because it is the most honest. (Unless you're lucky enough to have found your true love, it is the only honest sex to be had.)

Sounds like someone had a bad experience or two. As a virgin, I can neither confirm nor deny the validity of FWB situations being emotionally stable/healthy for those involved, but my suspicions are that yes they can be, but that is not how the majority of cases turn out. At some point, someone in the relationship is going to have their feeling ebb or flow for the other person; its how they handle it when that happens that matters. But with half of marriages dying these days, I don't see how WFBs are any less legitimate a relationship model. To me, the truth is between the two of you- there are decent, long lasting FWB situations, and romance does not require "true love" to persevere and thrive..

Carl-E · « **Reply #62 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 10:02 »

Yeah, well it was the late 70's / early 80's. I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, I suppose, but you just don't see such arrangements lasting long. At least, neither I nor any of my friends have...

But I think your observation is right on the money. One of the problems of a FWB arrangement is the involved parties' definition of friend! As the emotions shift, someone's bound to get hurt. You can set out all the ground rules you want, but everything changes, and it's rare that you can "go back to the way it was".

I married my best friend nearly 25 years ago, and we still are (married and friends). The romance has ebbed and flowed over the years - raising kids can do that - but we'll always be best friends, and that's a lot of love. Soulmates? Maybe. Can't imagine life without her. Well, maybe... especially after an argument.

Binary · « **Reply #63 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 10:13 »

Quote from: Mad Cat on 05 Jan 2010, 07:58

Why is Dora, in the "face" of an ear-fucking, turning her posterior to Martin?

She thought he said "I'm fuckin' you in the rear just to make sure" ?

JackFaerie · « **Reply #64 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 10:41 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 05 Jan 2010, 10:02

Yeah, well it was the late 70's / early 80's. I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, I suppose, but you just don't see such arrangements lasting long. At least, neither I nor any of my friends have...

But I think your observation is right on the money. One of the problems of a FWB arrangement is the involved parties' definition of friend! As the emotions shift, someone's bound to get hurt. You can set out all the ground rules you want, but everything changes, and it's rare that you can "go back to the way it was".

I married my best friend nearly 25 years ago, and we still are (married and friends). The romance has ebbed and flowed over the years - raising kids can do that - but we'll always be best friends, and that's a lot of love. Soulmates? Maybe. Can't imagine life without her. Well, maybe... especially after an argument.

I think you're confusing "FWB" and "a relationship where you two are friends first, except with sexual attraction and romance added." As opposed to what FWB usually entails, specifically: "a sexual relationship based on each party desiring sexual gratification but without commitment, exclusivity, or any responsibility, and at least one party strongly resenting any hint of attachment or being possibly asked to consider or be responsible for the other party's needs outside of bed."

There was this one guy I knew who was in a FWB situation with this girl, and seeing him at a party (thrown by their mutual friends), I asked him where she was and if she was coming. He scoffed "how the hell should I know? I don't keep tabs on her, we're not an item." That attitude is pretty much what I associate with a lot of FWB situations. The girl and guy did hang out together often enough, etc, but still, there's this extreme amount of guarding oneself from being in any way really associated with the other person that doesn't even seem friendly to me.

Of course there are fully functional FWB relationships, but they seem an exception rather than the rule... especially if they go on a while.

Kugai · « **Reply #65 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 10:54 »

The more disturbing part of that is Pintsize's comment.

Hmmmm

Maybe not, this is Pintsize we're talking about here.

ink slinger · « **Reply #66 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 11:30 »

Quote from: Kugai on 05 Jan 2010, 10:54

The more disturbing part of that is Pintsize's comment.

Hmmmm

Maybe not, this is Pintsize we're talking about here.

Disturbing? Maybe.
Surprising? Absolutely not.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #67 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 17:43 »

Quote from: JackFaerie on 05 Jan 2010, 10:41

As opposed to what FWB usually entails, specifically: "a sexual relationship based on each party desiring sexual gratification but without commitment, exclusivity, or any responsibility, and at least one party strongly resenting any hint of attachment or being possibly asked to consider or be responsible for the other party's needs outside of bed."

Sounds like a piss poor friend.
IMO the problem is when people say FWB they don't really mean the "F" part. I do.

BillyxRansom · « **Reply #68 on:** 05 Jan 2010, 21:31 »

Quote from: Kugai on 05 Jan 2010, 10:54

The more disturbing part of that is Pintsize's comment.

Hmmmm

Maybe not, this is Pintsize we're talking about here.

Funniest line in a while.

westrim · « **Reply #69 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 00:43 »

Aw man. I want a social protocol database! Just why did that waitress tap her toe by my table when I paid for my meal?

kurzon · « **Reply #70 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 00:57 »

Irony: commenting on someone's need for a social protocol database while demonstrating your own.

Akima · « **Reply #71 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 00:58 »

Poor Angus. Perhaps he should just epoxy one of his shoes to his teeth...

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #72 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 00:59 »

I don't normally buy Sony products but I'd buy a computer like Momo-tan.

themacnut · « **Reply #73 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 01:14 »

Momo advised Angus not to finish his sentence, but you know it's already far too late-Marigold will be imagining the worst anyway. She may even demand that Angus complete his sentence, while not believing any nice things he makes up in place of what he was really going to say.

Angus must be quite used to the taste of shoe leather and toejam by now.

Border Reiver · « **Reply #74 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 03:12 »

Poor man must be developing a bad case of athlete's tongue by now.

akronnick · « **Reply #75 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 04:23 »

It's okay, he keeps the Listerine right next to the Tough-actin' Tinactin.

matachin · « **Reply #76 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 05:41 »

Quote from: akronnick on 06 Jan 2010, 04:23

It's okay, he keeps the Listerine right next to the Tough-actin' Tinactin.

You have to use you best John Madden voice. No exceptions.

DarcOfTheShadows · « **Reply #77 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 09:38 »

I love the way Marigold's drawn in this comic, her hair looks really cute.

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #78 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 11:55 »

Momo-tan is certainly cuter than C3-PO.

Kugai · « **Reply #79 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 12:03 »

Angus really is gonna have to do something about that 10 second delay between his mouth and his brain

Carl-E · « **Reply #80 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 12:48 »

Unfortunately, it's probably his best asset in his job. If you're going in to lose in a debate, speaking without thinking is the quickest way to go about it!

Never bring your work home...

Carl-E · « **Reply #81 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 13:19 »

Quote from: JackFaerie on 05 Jan 2010, 10:41

I think you're confusing "FWB" and "a relationship where you two are friends first, except with sexual attraction and romance added." As opposed to what FWB usually entails, specifically: "a sexual relationship based on each party desiring sexual gratification but without commitment, exclusivity, or any responsibility, and at least one party strongly resenting any hint of attachment or being possibly asked to consider or be responsible for the other party's needs outside of bed."

There was this one guy I knew who was in a FWB situation with this girl, and seeing him at a party (thrown by their mutual friends), I asked him where she was and if she was coming. He scoffed "how the hell should I know? I don't keep tabs on her, we're not an item." That attitude is pretty much what I associate with a lot of FWB situations. The girl and guy did hang out together often enough, etc, but still, there's this extreme amount of guarding oneself from being in any way really associated with the other person that doesn't even seem friendly to me.

Of course there are fully functional FWB relationships, but they seem an exception rather than the rule... especially if they go on a while.

OK, you're right - it's the "friend" part that threw me. What you're describing was, in the late 60's / early 70's, called "free love". It was soon renamed "casual sex" in the mid 70's (not quite as casual as the "zipless fuck", though). It damn near disappeared thanks to HIV/AIDS in the mid 80's, around the time I went out of circulation. I guess it's back with a vengence...

To me, the "friend" part implies a certain amount of emotional investment in each other that goes beyond your definition of FWB. And, like you say, the rules and effort involved in keeping the benefits doesn't really seem friendly!

And a little research tells me the term was coined in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", where it was compared with more traditional relationships, and found significantly lacking!

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #82 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 14:10 »

Am I the only one who thinks that the new drawing style for Dora doesn't capture the sauciness of the older style?

Mad Cat · « **Reply #83 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 14:32 »

Damnit! I'd pay real money for a social protocol database. Maybe then I wouldn't be such a--

The Duke · « **Reply #84 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 15:39 »

See? You're learning!

JackFaerie · « **Reply #85 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 15:48 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 06 Jan 2010, 13:19

OK, you're right - it's the "friend" part that threw me. What you're describing was, in the late 60's / early 70's, called "free love". It was soon renamed "casual sex" in the mid 70's (not quite as casual as the "zipless fuck", though). It damn near disappeared thanks to HIV/AIDS in the mid 80's, around the time I went out of circulation. I guess it's back with a vengence...

To me, the "friend" part implies a certain amount of emotional investment in each other that goes beyond your definition of FWB. And, like you say, the rules and effort involved in keeping the benefits doesn't really seem friendly!

And a little research tells me the term was coined in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", where it was compared with more traditional relationships, and found significantly lacking!

Yeah. This article:

http://www.askmen.com/dating/vanessa_100/118_love_secrets.html

explains what a modern FWB entails pretty well. And the comments at the end (3rd page) show how well they usually work out...

Zingoleb · « **Reply #86 on:** 06 Jan 2010, 23:12 »

Quote from: raoullefere on 04 Jan 2010, 13:12

Too bad Faye's code is not right hand in, out, in, and shake. Life was so much easier when the Hokey Pokey described it—implied sexual connotations and all.

I blame Shigeru Miyamoto .

You will NOT take his name in vain again!

Shadic · « **Reply #87 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 00:48 »

He fucked her in the ear! Maybe.

Tuitsuro · « **Reply #88 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 00:50 »

Tommorrow, Faye burns the couch.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #89 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 00:53 »

Dora waving at Faye: Best panel of Dora, EVER!

westrim · « **Reply #90 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 01:08 »

I completely agree with Dora; I mean, it's 1 AM and I'm on the PACIFIC coast! Jeph needs to modulate his sleep patterns again.

Malek · « **Reply #91 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 01:10 »

Lovely. Just freaking Lovely. Great job man this still has me smiling.

raoullefere · « **Reply #92 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 01:30 »

Great comic! And, my god, I'd almost say Dora's slightly embarrassed.

themacnut · « **Reply #93 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 01:48 »

Heh. See, If I were Faye I wouldn't have said a word. I'd have just gone straight to my bedroom and closed the door.

And the next day, set that couch on fire.

TheReaper · « **Reply #94 on:** 07 Jan 2010, 03:01 »

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 06 Jan 2010, 14:10

Am I the only one who thinks that the new drawing style for Dora doesn't capture the sauciness of the older style?

I wasn't thinking those exact words, no, but something about Dora has seemed a bit off recently.

I think it's the chins.
Likely as not I'll get used to it, though.

Also, I cannot imagine ANY explanation that would suffice in those circumstances.