THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 22 Jun 2024, 19:23
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Moment of the Week?

Vulcan Boob Squish II - The Wrath of Faye!
- 10 (12.2%)
"My Boobs are a Powerful Narcotic."
- 7 (8.5%)
Hannelore, wake up...
- 0 (0%)
Hanners channels the Old Ones again...
- 6 (7.3%)
Hannelore's weird dream
- 6 (7.3%)
Marten in a dress?
- 3 (3.7%)
Hanner's Kafka-esque moment
- 8 (9.8%)
Ghost Ridin' the Roomba!
- 6 (7.3%)
RK Milholland: Questionable Guest Strip
- 36 (43.9%)

Total Members Voted: 70


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)  (Read 96772 times)

tughluq

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #50 on: 28 Feb 2011, 09:04 »

So tired of Faye's breasts in this comic.

At least Hanners is cute.
Logged

Odin

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #51 on: 28 Feb 2011, 09:11 »

It remains close to the subject of today's comic, and I see no cause to consider that out of order.

Where did I say it was out of order? Hell, this ought to be one of the few times where the creepers can go hog wild and Jeph can't complain about it one bit.

pwhodges

  • Admin emeritus
  • Awakened
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17,241
  • I'll only say this once...
    • My home page
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #52 on: 28 Feb 2011, 09:15 »

You didn't, and nor did I. 

I could muse on the number of things that (from evidence outside this forum) I don't consider creepy and apparently others do, but on reflection I won't bother.
Logged
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important."  (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?"  (from: The Eccentric Family )

themacnut

  • Vagina Manifesto
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
    • The Vanguard-Superhero Space Opera Action
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #53 on: 28 Feb 2011, 09:49 »

Yeah, this thread isn't creepy at all.

Hey, if the forum users with big boobs aren't running from this thread in terror, then it's probably not that creepy.

Probably.
Logged
The Vanguard - superhero space opera

Kugai

  • CIA Handler of Miss Melody Powers
  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,493
  • Crazy Kiwi Shoujo-Ai Fan
    • My Homepage
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #54 on: 28 Feb 2011, 09:57 »

I could comment about registering as a lethal weapon

But I won't
Logged
James The Kugai 

You can never have too much Coffee.

Odin

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #55 on: 28 Feb 2011, 10:03 »

Hey, if the forum users with big boobs aren't running from this thread in terror, then it's probably not that creepy.

Probably.

That would depend on how creepy it is for complete strangers on the internet to know that much about each other (assuming they're telling the truth, or even female to begin with).

DSL

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,097
    • Don Lee Cartoons
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #56 on: 28 Feb 2011, 11:12 »

Faye-zers set to stun.
Logged
"We are who we pretend to be. So we had better be careful who we pretend to be."  -- Kurt Vonnegut.

shiroihikari

  • Plantmonster
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #57 on: 28 Feb 2011, 11:13 »

I'm just glad to see this comic lighten up a bit again.  It was painful to read there for a while, and I don't mean that it was of poor quality.  More like, reading it was like watching puppies and kittens and other cute fuzzy animals get kicked by a really big tough guy wearing steel-toed boots.

Also I'm a girl and I thought the boob joke was funny as hell.

Edit: lol word filters
Logged

tughluq

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #58 on: 28 Feb 2011, 11:38 »

to be honest, the comic's and the forum's focus on breasts makes me feel a bit unwelcome and creeped out as a woman, although it's not as bad if women are discussing their own. but it's kind of tiresome; it's just one more area of culture where women's bodies (or worse, pieces of their bodies) are objects instead of personal body parts. maybe it's just me...
Logged

shiroihikari

  • Plantmonster
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #59 on: 28 Feb 2011, 11:48 »

So it's okay for ladies to objectify their own parts but it's not okay for men to objectify them...?

I don't think talking about boobies is inherently bad.  I mean, people like boobs.  Boobs are pretty awesome.  They look good and serve a very useful purpose.  Obviously a person is a total clod if they only hang out with women for the boobies, though.

...I think I've filled my "boobies" word quota for today.
Logged

Mad Cat

  • Beyond Thunderdome
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 555
  • Master of my domain, but not of my range.
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #60 on: 28 Feb 2011, 12:09 »

Faye-zers set to stun.
I admire your neologism, but it is thusly that new words are created. I give you:

NARCOTITS

Edit: And for the record, I'm DD/E, so while mine can't induce delta-wave sleep, they can create in their target a peaceful contentment.
« Last Edit: 28 Feb 2011, 12:14 by Mad Cat »
Logged
The Quakers were masters of siege warfare.

Odin

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #61 on: 28 Feb 2011, 12:18 »

BTW it would only be creepy if the discussion turned to the male character's tackle

You don't think that is in any way hypocritical?

Doctor Online

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
  • Dat Triforce
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #62 on: 28 Feb 2011, 12:28 »

My apologies, I should have been clearer, it is absolutly fine to objectify men, however I would not take part once the converation moved outside my comfort zone.

Quoted for Odins viewing again. More like their own personal opinion. =P

My boyfriend sleeps in my breasts, but it's more so my heartbeat that puts him to sleep than the squishyness of my boobs.

Edit: I'm slow. I am sorry.  :psyduck:
« Last Edit: 28 Feb 2011, 17:04 by Doctor Online »
Logged

pwhodges

  • Admin emeritus
  • Awakened
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17,241
  • I'll only say this once...
    • My home page
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #63 on: 28 Feb 2011, 12:41 »

This conversation is getting to be like a school playground full of children each trying to be smuttier than the next.  Not creepy at all, but just sad if it's the best the forum can manage today.
Logged
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important."  (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?"  (from: The Eccentric Family )

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25,163
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #64 on: 28 Feb 2011, 13:04 »

Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
Logged
Thank you, Dr. Kariků.

cabbagehut

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #65 on: 28 Feb 2011, 13:43 »

So it's okay for ladies to objectify their own parts but it's not okay for men to objectify them...?

Someone saying something about their own bodies and someone saying something about someone else's body are really different things.  For example, it's fine for you to bitch about your own family, but if someone else does it, you get all defensive.  Hey, there!  That's my family you're talking about!

I personally find the conversation about breasts a little uncomfortable.  It's not like it makes me want to leave or anything, it just sort of reminds me that yep, objectification happens everywhere.

Surely just discussing the pro's and con's of ones (or ones partner's) breasts can't be creepy? I think it may well be more information than some people are willing to share and may come across as creepy (TMI) to them. I'd be pretty spooked if the forum had turned to a discussion of male genitalia, but then i'd just run and hide.

(BTW it would only be creepy if the discussion turned to the male character's tackle)

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I have a partner - if I found out he or she were discussing the pros and cons of my body on the internet?  I would be incredibly hurt and yeah, really creeped out.  I don't want to be tallied and analyzed on something that's so out of my control, and something that's so often used to demean and objectify women.  (I wouldn't do it to my partner, either.)

And Odin's got a point, there - it's creepy to talk about men's genitalia, but not women's?

Anyhoo!  The expressions in this comic are really great.  I like the slow transition on Hannelore from unfocused freaking out to sleeping, as well as the palette for her.  QC usually has really nice color sense.
Logged

tughluq

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #66 on: 28 Feb 2011, 13:52 »


I personally find the conversation about breasts a little uncomfortable.  It's not like it makes me want to leave or anything, it just sort of reminds me that yep, objectification happens everywhere.

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I have a partner - if I found out he or she were discussing the pros and cons of my body on the internet?  I would be incredibly hurt and yeah, really creeped out.  I don't want to be tallied and analyzed on something that's so out of my control, and something that's so often used to demean and objectify women.  (I wouldn't do it to my partner, either.)

And Odin's got a point, there - it's creepy to talk about men's genitalia, but not women's?


I agree with this. I also really hate the idea that there might be "cons" about my body (which probably has everything to do with it being a woman's body... it sucks to be reminded that my body is an object constantly up for critique because of my gender). Large breasts obviously being celebrated as the ideal always kind of jars me out of my enjoyment of the comic.
Logged

Elysiana

  • 1-800-SCABIES
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Make me Fibonacci
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #67 on: 28 Feb 2011, 14:12 »

Man, don't let anyone convince you that you're subpar because of how your body is constructed! I used to be really self-conscious about that because I've always had small boobs for my weight - when I was 110 I barely needed a bra, when I was 150 they were a full A, and now that I'm around 190 they're a full B. Then I learned that most women don't like what size they are - they want to be bigger or smaller based on some unattainable ideal. There are advantages to all sizes - and disadvantages too!

As far as culture, it's always been kind of inherent to see body type as a reflection of health and virility, and what that type is changes from culture to culture. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who like other types! I've had to learn to laugh at the people who can't see past someone's body, though - I could sit and be hurt but it won't do me any good. If someone looks down on me because of my genetics, they're not worth my time anyway. Haters gonna hate.

I don't usually make such "yay celebrate your body" type remarks, but yay boobs, all of 'em!
Logged

westrim

  • Guest
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #68 on: 28 Feb 2011, 14:28 »

I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

I agree with this. I also really hate the idea that there might be "cons" about my body (which probably has everything to do with it being a woman's body... it sucks to be reminded that my body is an object constantly up for critique because of my gender). Large breasts obviously being celebrated as the ideal always kind of jars me out of my enjoyment of the comic.
So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.
Logged

tughluq

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #69 on: 28 Feb 2011, 14:39 »

Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.


So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.

Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.
Logged

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #70 on: 28 Feb 2011, 14:56 »

Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

cesariojpn

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,392
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #71 on: 28 Feb 2011, 15:28 »

Faye's Boobs...that is my fetish.
Logged

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #72 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:34 »

Something I'd like to point out:

Last time we had the VBS, two days later we had a MAJOR PLOT TWIST.
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #73 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:35 »

Whi;le looking for someting else, I found this thread from a while back.  

Seems rather germaine to today's comic, though it has the same "smutty" level pwhodges referred to in his post.  

Seems that, at the heart of every man is that teenaged boy who just wants to play with 'em.  The apparant level of importance that results is way out of line with anything real, but it's soooo hard to stop...

I could go on about body types and social obectification of beauty, but it's not really the issue.  All types are appreciated by someone, and boob aficianados run the gamut from "more than a mouthful is a waste" to gazongaphiles.  As a physical characteristic, they are something that's noticed at first sight, and as has been argued elsewhere, they often contribute to a first impression which includes attractiveness.  It can be unfortunate, but it's the way our little ape-brains work.  We want to be friends with the ones we find attractive at first.  

We become true friends with the ones we like when we get to know them better... remember, the only real sex organ is the mind.  
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

TheEvilDog

  • Guest
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #74 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:35 »

DUCK AND COVER! I REPEAT, DUCK AND COVER! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

But in case this isn't....Blame Jwhouk
Logged

Odin

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #75 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:39 »

I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

It would be a package deal, though, since men don't really have an analogous body part to a woman's breasts as far as discussions of sexy body parts go. If you're talking about women's breasts in a sexual context it is pretty pedantic (read: stupid) to say that they're not technically genitalia as if that makes it okay to go on and on about them in a way that makes other people uncomfortable.

It would've been funny if one of you nerds had come along making "bags of sand" references or something (40 year old Virgin, among other movies), but this whole discussion quickly got sad.

westrim

  • Guest
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #76 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:46 »

Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.
Replace 'women's' and with 'everyone's' yes, that is exactly true. Everyone's bodies can be improved in some way, shape or form. Perfection is an unattainable goal. Everyone will have some way that their bodies don't run at peak performance or have structural issues or plumbing (yes, I'm comparing us to buildings). As soon as we're old enough to control our functions they start breaking down. Like I said below, what matters is what importance we attach to those flaws, but deciding that they don't matter (which I agree wholeheartedly with) won't change that they are still flaws. It's fine not to give a damn about saggy parts or veins, but that's still connective tissues breaking down and possible blood flow or skin tone problems. As for breasts, so far as I know small and medium are better in terms of health, for reasons I'm sure you're aware of, and anything else is personal preference that has nothing to do with flaws.

Quote from: tughluq
So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.
Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.

 As I said before, yes, every body is flawed; I don't know where the "my" comes in because I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about a universal human condition. And as I said before, whether or not we have flaws and whether or not we care about those flaws are two very different things. And talking about a single body part in isolation [opinion]does not automatically objectify it, what does so is dismissing the rest. Liking feet is not objectifying- judging someone solely by their feet is.[/opinion] I'm not sure how treating/improving a wart could possibly affect more than the area immediately adjacent to the wart- people can be improved in parts and pieces, whether it fits your worldview or not.

Analogy: Everyone is has some type of bad habit (flaw), most of which don't matter and can be ignored (caring about the flaw); say, fingernail biting. If that they bite their nails is the sole thing that a person perceives of them (objectification), that's bad or very limited. Helping them stop biting their nails doesn't somehow affect their knees (parts and pieces) nor is it bad to attempt fixing it. Viewing something that isn't a bad habit (flaw) as one, like, I dunno, eating left handed, is still a view (caring) problem; its flawedness isn't the issue, the perception is, and that may need your work. (I think that's where your point is, but you're expanding it unnecessarily with your claim that we don't have flaws, only perceptions of them.)

As for the comic, again, this strip only says that Faye's boobs put Hannelore to sleep. And that Angus likes them, I forgot that. That's it. It doesn't say why; anything else is your own projections. Yes, he's made jokes about breasts before, but as part of using cultural standards for humor, not bowing to them. Making note of a noticeable physical characteristic doesn't make the joke bad or demeaning, whether it's breasts or being skinny and physically unimposing .

TL;DR Everybody's body is flawed, how people view them is the concern; please don't confuse the two issues.


Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)
So, you two can be Sith, master and apprentice.

I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

It would be a package deal, though, since men don't really have an analogous body part to a woman's breasts as far as discussions of sexy body parts go. If you're talking about women's breasts in a sexual context it is pretty pedantic (read: stupid) to say that they're not technically genitalia as if that makes it okay to go on and on about them in a way that makes other people uncomfortable.

It would've been funny if one of you nerds had come along making "bags of sand" references or something (40 year old Virgin, among other movies), but this whole discussion quickly got sad.
Penises and breasts are still not 1/1 comparisons, because they are not analogous structures. Saying 'if breasts, then penises' is an escalation no matter how you try to reason it out. They are still prominent physical characteristics of Faye that were directly involved in the strip's plot; I remember a couple pages of discussion when Marten's tackle was mentioned in a strip too (with that term, if I recall correctly).

My point is, I made that note because people were bringing up penises and escalating the discussion and I was trying to bring it back down.

Dangit, I promised myself I wouldn't do any more of these hourlong posts.
« Last Edit: 03 Jan 2013, 04:37 by Westrim »
Logged

Armadillo

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #77 on: 28 Feb 2011, 16:55 »

I'll just say this: there have been occasions in this forum where the topic has drifted into territory I don't feel comfortable getting into, for whatever reason.

Whenever that happens, I don't participate in the conversation.  Why ruin somebody else's good time because of my ookiness, when I haven't been personally referenced/attacked? 
Logged

Is it cold in here?

  • Administrator
  • Awakened
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25,163
  • He/him/his pronouns
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #78 on: 28 Feb 2011, 17:02 »

Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)

We could appoint you Grand Master of the Archives to distinguish you from mere Masters.
Logged
Thank you, Dr. Kariků.

tughluq

  • Not quite a lurker
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #79 on: 28 Feb 2011, 17:16 »


 As I said before, yes, every body is flawed; I don't know where the "my" comes in because I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about a universal human condition. And as I said before, whether or not we have flaws and whether or not we care about those flaws are two very different things. And talking about a single body part in isolation [opinion]does not automatically objectify it, what does so is dismissing the rest. Liking feet is not objectifying- judging someone solely by their feet is.[/opinion] I'm not sure how treating/improving a wart could possibly affect more than the area immediately adjacent to the wart- people can be improved in parts and pieces, whether it fits your worldview or not.

As for the comic, again, this strip only says that Faye's boobs put Hannelore to sleep. And that Angus likes them, I forgot that. That's it. It doesn't say why; anything else is your own projections. Yes, he's made jokes about breasts before, but as part of using cultural standards for humor, not bowing to them. Making note of a noticeable physical characteristic doesn't make the joke bad or demeaning, whether it's breasts or being skinny and physically unimposing .

TL;DR Everybody's body is flawed, how people view them is the concern; please don't confuse the two issues.


You are deluding yourself if you think men have the same level of pressure to live up to beauty standards as women. Women's bodies are made into separate pieces, objectified and held to standards in a way that those of men are not.

Everyone's body is flawed according to whom? There is no such thing as an objective appearance flaw; there are standards which are entirely cultural and subjective. My body only has "cons" according to arbitrary, ever changing standards; there is not actually anything wrong with my appearance - it has no "cons." (Your building comparison doesn't actually work because its using the idea of proper function - despite what evolutionary psychologists tell you, whether I live up to beauty standards has nothing to do with my body's function, i.e. doing everything it's supposed to do.) It's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with those standards in every realm of culture, including webcomics. The intent for humor doesn't negate that. <-- my original point, relevant to comic discussion :P
Logged

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #80 on: 28 Feb 2011, 18:27 »

We're forgetting something:

What Faye did in today's strip?

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY.
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

Odin

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #81 on: 28 Feb 2011, 18:31 »

We're forgetting something:

What Faye did in today's strip?

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY.

Mission Failed, then, given how nobody is talking about it in that context and it has gone on into an argument about tangents.

TheEvilDog

  • Guest
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #82 on: 28 Feb 2011, 18:39 »

To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?
Logged

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #83 on: 28 Feb 2011, 18:58 »

Do we need to?  I mean, you can posit all you want; some will agree, some won't. 

And some may be offended. 

Regardless, I think that we're running out of things to talk about at this point.  As several others have said, if the conversation makes you a bit uncomfortable, you don't need to participate; if it gets out of hand, we actually have moderators; so I don't think there's anything to argue about here, beyond being pedantic. 

I'm going to go to a friends for poker and beer. 


Oh, and I think jwhouk may prefer the title Grand Poobah of the Archive, unless Jeph's reserved that title for himself! 
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

Blackjoker

  • FIGHT YOU
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 433
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #84 on: 28 Feb 2011, 19:22 »

On a somewhat related note, pintsize seems to face imminient shutdown if he touches Fayes breasts...while that might not be a narcotic it does seem to follow similar principals.
Logged
I strongly reccomend that we daily check our walrus slots to ensure that we are able to avoid walrus backup.

Armadillo

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #85 on: 28 Feb 2011, 19:28 »

To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?

Seconded, and the motion carries.
Logged

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #86 on: 28 Feb 2011, 19:47 »

Jeph has even admitted that he's not sure about some of the older comics.

Grand Poobah. I guess I can take that.

The best things about women's bosoms is the women to whom they are attached.
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

westrim

  • Guest
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #87 on: 28 Feb 2011, 20:42 »

You are deluding yourself if you think men have the same level of pressure to live up to beauty standards as women. Women's bodies are made into separate pieces, objectified and held to standards in a way that those of men are not.

Everyone's body is flawed according to whom? There is no such thing as an objective appearance flaw; there are standards which are entirely cultural and subjective. My body only has "cons" according to arbitrary, ever changing standards; there is not actually anything wrong with my appearance - it has no "cons." (Your building comparison doesn't actually work because its using the idea of proper function - despite what evolutionary psychologists tell you, whether I live up to beauty standards has nothing to do with my body's function, i.e. doing everything it's supposed to do.) It's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with those standards in every realm of culture, including webcomics. The intent for humor doesn't negate that. <-- my original point, relevant to comic discussion :P
Boy this has gotten out of hand. You seem to be reading everything through a highly personal, gender based filter that doesn't jibe with my belief that everyone is just people, all with real flaws that can and should be generally dismissed, which are not related to any imagined flaws on the part of others which we should not concern yourself. But Nope, stopping now. Point is, lets relax and enjoy the comic some more and dammit! I need to stop poking passengers!

It's annoying to realize that oneself is part of the problem.

And  I agree with the above 7 posts or so.

And why are my waffles gone and the walrus cage open?
« Last Edit: 28 Feb 2011, 20:57 by westrim »
Logged

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #88 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:04 »

What's in store for this week?

Elliot Tells All!    - 16 (17.8%)
Marigold finds her WOW character has been defeated - by DALE!    - 12 (13.3%)
Why Dora's Therapy Session is On Hold    - 14 (15.6%)
Faye & Angus do the Secret Booty Dance!    - 12 (13.3%)
Cosette finally burns down CoD.    - 6 (6.7%)
Tai's turn to find romance!    - 0 (0%)
Pintsize antics. MOAR MOAR MOARRRR!!!11!!!!!    - 1 (1.1%)
And now, for something completely different.    - 15 (16.7%)
Does it really matter?    - 10 (11.1%)
Waffles. I forgot waffles.    - 4 (4.4%)

Total Voters: 90
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

Carl-E

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,346
  • The distilled essence of Mr. James Beam himself.
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #89 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:25 »

Will the new poll involve boobs?
Logged
When people try to speak a gut reaction, they end up talking out their ass.

jwhouk

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11,022
  • The Valley of the Sun
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #90 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:27 »

My good man, I would not dare to stoop to such rubbish as that.

Women's breasts should not be the subject of something as tawdry and crass as a "poll" on a website.
Logged
"Character is what you are in the Dark." - D.L. Moody
There is no joke that can be made online without someone being offended by it.
Life's too short to be ashamed of how you were born.
Just another Joe like 46

akronnick

  • Only pretending to work
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,188
  • I'm freakin' out, man!!!!
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #91 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:39 »

The real question is will the poll involve anything other than boobs?




Not that it needs to...
Logged
Akronnick, I can think of no more appropriate steed for a Knight Of The Dickbroom than a foul-mouthed, perpetually shouting, lust-crazed bird with a scrotum hanging from its chin and a distinctive cry of "Gobble gobble gobble".   --Tergon

Smerf

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #92 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:45 »

To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?

Seconded, and the motion carries.

Boobs are like bacon.  Everybody loves bacon.
Logged

musicalsoul

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #93 on: 28 Feb 2011, 21:46 »

Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.


So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.

Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.

So you're saying you're body doesn't have any flaws that you consider a flaw? I find that hard to believe. I'm a happy, confident, 23-year-old woman, but I still have body flaws that I consider flaws. And I don't base them on cultural standards. Because... well, by most cultural standards, my biggest flaw is great (Just read some of the replies on this message board). I have very large breasts, but I consider how large they are to be somewhat of a flaw because they cause back problems and I feel like they sag. I wear a size H bra and there were a few ladies who stated they were larger. And I'm comfortable with how  big they are, but I do consider the fact that I can't sleep on my back because I feel as though I'm suffocating a flaw. Just sayin.


Also, based on your further responses, I can tell that this is a touchy subject for you. So I apologize in advance if I've offended you in anyway.
Logged

ecstaticjoy

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 237
    • I like math
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #94 on: 28 Feb 2011, 22:14 »

I love how Jeph said "I look forward to seeing some of you there" ...but only some of you.

hannahsaurusrex

  • Obscure cultural reference
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
  • Took the bomp from the bompalompalomp
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #95 on: 28 Feb 2011, 22:36 »

He probably means my boyfriend, who went for me last year. He doesn't read the comic and when asked for a drawing of Dora for me he said "wait you're drawing the guy not the girl!"
Logged
Overheard quote: "I ain't afraid of no 'RYAN'"

cesariojpn

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,392
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #96 on: 01 Mar 2011, 00:28 »

Awww, now Marigold is regretting not being a paladin in Warcraft.
Logged

CEOIII

  • Obscure cultural reference
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #97 on: 01 Mar 2011, 00:35 »

HE COMES!

Seriously, this isn't building to any sort of "Faye has to kill Hanners before she summons Nylarhotep" storyline, is it?
Logged
Between HannErsatz and PseuDora, I crown you the king of doppelganger names.
ALL HAIL THE KING OF DOPPLEGANGER NAMES!
I'm Charlie Owens, good night, and good luck.

iduguphergrave

  • Duck attack survivor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,650
  • All this could be yours someday
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #98 on: 01 Mar 2011, 00:36 »

Mrfl
Logged
"Theodore, we're 4-foot high chipmunks. We're proof that god is dead."
- Alvin

Dr. ROFLPWN

  • Beyond Thunderdome
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
  • Farmin' all these goddamn mushrooms.
Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
« Reply #99 on: 01 Mar 2011, 00:39 »

Wake ye not the Scion of the Lady Beatrice; for she speaketh with the Dreamer's own Voice. And if she waketh afore her time, so too shalt He. Iš! Iš-R'lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn!

(...also holy shit, guys, you got baited into turning a thread about boobs into an argument...?

 I...I don't even. D: )
Logged
Fuckin' pain in the ass.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up