I TOLD you Karen + Urology = Perfect Together

The teenage years. Friendships, crushes, growth... and hating. Lots of hating.

Moderators: Gisele Lagace, TCampbell

Forum rules
Penny and Aggie moved to http://www.pennyandaggie.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=1

Postby LeonardC on Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:12 pm

Tsarevna_Erin wrote:Please tell me you're joking about this. If you're being assaulted, you kick, punch, scream, do what it takes to get away. Period. If you are unable to, either because your life is being threatened with a weapon to your throat and/or you are being held down by someone who is twice your weight, that's one thing. Karen is not forcing him. In the shower, Marshall had no problem being proactive in keeping her away. If you want to make the argument that she's worn down his defences, fine. But it's still not rape, and if he has a way out of there, just as he had a way out in the shower, and is allowing her to touch him, then I can't necessarily blame Karen for assuming that he's implicitly giving her permission to continue. I do know that some rape victims go into catatonic states to avoid dealing with the trauma of their assualts, so they "lay" there and it seems as if they are aquiesing to the assualt. I just don't see that going on here.

That doesn't make what Karen is doing a good thing. But to equate this with rape angers me a great deal.


Erin, legally at least, when someone says no and the other person keeps going, that's rape. What that means is that there are very different types of rape, some far worse than others.

If you decide that you will rid yourself of an enemy by slitting his throat instantaneously in his sleep, it is far better than torturing him to death slowly. But both are still murder. It's not an insult to the torture victim to say that the throat-slitting is murder too.

I mean, I dunno, maybe the law should be changed so that it's only called "rape" if physical force is involved, and other kinds of nonconsensual sex are just classed as "sexual assault" or the like. And we don't *have* to accept the law's definition, either. But if you're angry and insulted and offended that people are calling this rape - well, you've just got angry at the accepted, codified official definition of the term in most countries that I know of (not counting those where marital rape is legal, or the like...) There are reasons why nonconsensual sex is generally classed as rape. Are they good ones? Maybe not... but they're certainly not there to belittle the suffering of people who have been physically forced into sex.
[/i]
User avatar
LeonardC
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Postby taotu on Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:51 pm

StarKruzr wrote:Oh for God's sake. Can we stop talking about rape statutes (?!) and return to reality for a moment?

ALL he has to do is walk away. That's ALL that is required.

Karen is being pushy. She's not @$#%ing raping him.


I don't really feel that it warrants a word that severe, myself, I just noticed that people -were- discussing whether it was considered rape and decided to explain it in legal terms to show that she- depending on Marshall's interpretation- could, legally, indeed be considered to be raping him.

Sorry. Aspiring law student here. :lol: I didn't mean to like- upset somebody or something, I was hoping it would settle that debate, actually...

...What about rape statutes is not part of 'reality'?

Man, this forum is scary.

EDIT:
But if you're angry and insulted and offended that people are calling this rape - well, you've just got angry at the accepted, codified official definition of the term in most countries that I know of (not counting those where marital rape is legal, or the like...)


Actually, in the UK rape is still considered penetration without consent- they have a whole debate about whether women should be considered capable of rape.
User avatar
taotu
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:54 pm

Postby Freemage on Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:26 pm

Ugly Hamster wrote:
Freemage wrote:Learn to count.


I'm a first time poster in the "Penny and Aggie" section, and I'm usually completely content lurking and reading the arguments. I had to sign up, however, because of how rude and completely disrespectful I've seen you be to other members on the forum, Freemage. Please grow up.


*Deep Breath*

Ugly Hamster, I admit to allowing annoyance to get the better of me in that post. The reason it did, however, is because the person I was replying to had so badly misread my post that his own became a non-sequitur.

I was quite clearly drawing a parallel between the two girls' faces. Even if I hadn't mentioned panel numbers at all, a casual glance between the two strips should have drawn the connection immediately (as the most striking visual image on each is that of a close-up to a girl giving astounding anime-eyes directly into the fourth wall). With the panel I was referencing, though, it should have been painfully obvious what I was talking about.

This argument IS beginning to fray my patience. I've seen way too many of my posts be misinterpreted after being half-read; this is also a discourtesy, but because it's less visible, it's somehow regarded as less offensive than a snarky response.

It's a simple concept: If you're going to take the time to respond to a post, do the poster the favor of reading it. Odds are, you'll both be better off at that point.

Note that tatou and I, while disagreeing as well, have kept it civil and rational. How? By making sure we actually address one another's points, until reaching a stage where we at least recognize a difference in premise (in this case, differing interpretations of the time-frames involved in the strip).

That out of the way, I am going to apologize to someone else entirely. Isobel, earlier in the discussion, I lashed out at you rather sarcastically; further examination of your post has led me to believe I was out of line. (I put a far greater connotation to the wording that "Karen's still being a shit" than you meant; the full context of your post, however, made it clear that you were not being as harsh as I initially believed.) Mea culpa.
User avatar
Freemage
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby MRodriguez on Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:51 pm

I love (that love as absolutely sarcastic) when people resort to what is 'legal' and what isn't to decide what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't work that way, which is why I despise most lawyers. The legal age of concent in America is 18 in most places, but in Canada it's 14. Does that mean that if a 14 year old American girl and her 20 year old boyfriend move to Canada it's suddenly right? Or if a 15 year old Canadian and her 20 year old boyfriend move to America it's suddenly wrong, but it was right in Canada?

There's a reason that in BDSM, a 'no' is very rarely an actual safety word. Also, a classical form of flirting with someone is running away and pretending you don't want their advances. It's called role play people, and it may be that you say 'no' but it's understood by both parties that you mean yes. Like when couples fake a kidnapping, or other similar kinks. And yes, I know that's not what's happening with Karen and Marshall, and no, I don't think what Karen is doing is right (but I still like her, I don't expect perfection from fictional characters. If she were real, I'd be like 'ewww') but seriously, pulling out the law books doesn't make you look smart, but the very opposite, because life is infinitely more complicated than the law books could EVER cover.
MRodriguez
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:38 am

Postby isobel on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:14 pm

So it goes, and on this board it's often really hard to tell what's serious, what's a joke, what's pretty straightforward and what's a big overreaction. I was baffled, not gonna lie, but didn't get all hung up on it. Apology accepted. :)

On-topic, I'm fine with BDSM and I see how it's a perfectly safe and enjoyable form of sexual contact for people; I'd never say that a BDSM situation was rape or anything. Buuut...I don't think that's got any relation to Karen and Marshall. They're not even functional enough to think about that kind of play, and I don't know if they'd ever reach the level of trust and communication needed to do that safely. Here, I think the law books might apply at least as a guideline or a means to show how severely out of joint Karen's reality is (or may be, right, benefit of the doubt even though I don't feel she deserves it).
User avatar
isobel
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Boulder, CO

Postby Tarlia on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:35 pm

Hate to be terribly technical here, but the definition of rape doesn't include any unwanted sexual contact. Rape, per definition, involves penetration (though not necessarily by penis in vagina, mind):

[quote]rape1  /reɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reyp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, raped, rap‧ing.

[b]
Last edited by Tarlia on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tarlia
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:04 pm

Postby Beanie on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:37 pm

I'm with Tarlia... I can't make any judgement on this until we figure out precisely what happens next. There are a large handful of things those expressions on Karen's face could mean - I don't take the fourth panel as a "he said okay! tee hee, handjob!!" but I'll admit it's possible, given that he hasn't reacted immediately (he had time to step back and said "ng..!" but not enough to step away and say "get the fudgemonkies off..?" I dunno if I'm totally buying the "not enough time" explanation just yet.)


I also agree with the previous poster (sorry, I forget your name!) who said there's no "compromise" in the situation where one says yes and one says no when it comes to sex. And "he only said 'no SEX,' he never said HANDJOBS weren't okay!!" sounds like a really, really bad excuse for spontaneous groping. "Oh, she's only searching for a compromise!" my ass.
Beanie
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:34 pm

Postby Tarlia on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:40 pm

Beanie wrote:I also agree with the previous poster (sorry, I forget your name!) who said there's no "compromise" in the situation where one says yes and one says no when it comes to sex. And "he only said 'no SEX,' he never said HANDJOBS weren't okay!!" sounds like a really, really bad excuse for spontaneous groping. "Oh, she's only searching for a compromise!" my ass.


Indeed. "Handjobs" are very much a sexual act. Just because it won't make babies doesn't make it not sex. If it's intended to give sexual pleasure, it's sex.
Tarlia
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:04 pm

Postby ZillahLewis on Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:44 pm

I haven't read all the comments, but I will say this: I've been in a situation like that, acted like Marshall. I don't know what he's thinking, but I didn't want sex for religious reasons. I had already done other things with my boyfriends, but I was holding out pretty well on the sex. A guy I wound up with, though, somehow duped me into having sex with him, and I've never been to pleased about that. I'm not so uptight about sex anymore, but it still pisses me off that he had the nerve to go so far when I was so adamant about not "doing it". Karen really has taken it farther than what that guy did, and I think this definitely proves she hasn't listened to a single word Marshall has said. She's like a child who wants her parent to buy her something, but once the parent starts yelling at her, she starts crying, because she only knows that she's in trouble. However, if there's any sign of her getting what she wants, she's right onto it again. I've always seen Karen as immature and self-centered, and this, in my mind, is only driving that further into the ground.

By the way, Tarlia, my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law disagrees with your Dictionary.com Unabridged. They say that rape is the forcing of any sexual activity, intercourse or otherwise. Don't just check the first definition that comes up; there are other sources if you scroll down a little more.
Not like it really matters; it's against his will, whether rape is the word to use or not. In this case, it certainly is the principle of the matter and not the vocabulary. In a court of law, perhaps the other way around, but here, eh.
Ciao,
Alms
ZillahLewis
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Northern Louisiana

Postby KiZeR on Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:41 pm

Here's a preview of tomorrow's update:

Karen: "Marshall, I've been wanking you for 10 minutes! Why aren't you even hard?"

Marshall: "Uh, I'm totally gay. Could you let go of my member? I've got to go to class."

Awkward silence.
Last edited by KiZeR on Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KiZeR
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:08 pm

Postby StarKruzr on Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:42 pm

ZillahLewis wrote:I haven't read all the comments, but I will say this: I've been in a situation like that, acted like Marshall. I don't know what he's thinking, but I didn't want sex for religious reasons. I had already done other things with my boyfriends, but I was holding out pretty well on the sex. A guy I wound up with, though, somehow duped me into having sex with him, and I've never been to pleased about that. I'm not so uptight about sex anymore, but it still pisses me off that he had the nerve to go so far when I was so adamant about not "doing it". Karen really has taken it farther than what that guy did, and I think this definitely proves she hasn't listened to a single word Marshall has said. She's like a child who wants her parent to buy her something, but once the parent starts yelling at her, she starts crying, because she only knows that she's in trouble. However, if there's any sign of her getting what she wants, she's right onto it again. I've always seen Karen as immature and self-centered, and this, in my mind, is only driving that further into the ground.

By the way, Tarlia, my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law disagrees with your Dictionary.com Unabridged. They say that rape is the forcing of any sexual activity, intercourse or otherwise. Don't just check the first definition that comes up; there are other sources if you scroll down a little more.
Not like it really matters; it's against his will, whether rape is the word to use or not. In this case, it certainly is the principle of the matter and not the vocabulary. In a court of law, perhaps the other way around, but here, eh.


No. Sorry. He's not being forced into *anything* here. It is sexual harassment at worst and stupid, ill-advised and childish at best (barring him actually being into it, which I haven't ruled out yet), but saying something is against someone's will is meaningless when they can stop the event at any time of their choosing.

Suppose my car has two sets of controls. The drivers' side always works. The passenger's side works until the driver takes over. Your argument supposes that if the passenger takes the car from a dead stop and attempts to drive it into a brick wall 300 feet away, the passenger is acting "against my will." This is patently absurd. "Will" has nothing to do with it when I have the ability to slam on the brakes at any time.
~'Kruzr, CI

FLEET: For Honor, Courage, and Really Big Guns.

Urban's Quills - Stay Sharp
StarKruzr
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Notre Dame, IN

Postby Dr. Jeff on Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:55 pm

KiZeR wrote:Here's a preview of tomorrow's update:

Karen: "Marshall, I've been wanking you for 10 minutes! Why aren't you even hard?"

Marshall: "Uh, I'm totally gay. Could you let go of my member? I've got to go to class."

Awkward silence.

... and it's KiZeR for the WIN!

I doubt it will happen that way, however. :wink:
[size=75]Minor deity Dr. Jeff, Administrator of Catgirl Heaven
Inventor of [color=blue]Instant Water
User avatar
Dr. Jeff
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Idaho, USA

Postby Trollroot on Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:58 am

taotu wrote:Sorry. Aspiring law student here. :lol: I didn't mean to like- upset somebody or something, I was hoping it would settle that debate, actually...

...What about rape statutes is not part of 'reality'?

Man, this forum is scary.

EDIT:
But if you're angry and insulted and offended that people are calling this rape - well, you've just got angry at the accepted, codified official definition of the term in most countries that I know of (not counting those where marital rape is legal, or the like...)



I, too have been an aspiring student, and then a student. Several times, actually. Perhaps you will allow me to pass on something that would have saved me some embarassment if I had known it when younger:

When you start out on a subject, you are often full of enthusiasm for it, read up on it, and want to display your knowledge. Doing so to people with practical experience in the matter rarely end well.

In a social setting, correcting a rape victim on what a rape is, quoting the legal definition, does not settle things. It is also considered hideously socially inappropriate.


Also, while not a legal term, I have heard laws regarded as "not part of reality" if they are unenforcable, for whatever reason. Or enforcing them would lead to gross distortions of justice.
I am not saying this is the case here, but it is a legitimate viewpoint.

And so is getting angry at a legal definition. If one feels that it is wrong, or unjust, then getting angry is certainly appropriate.

And like social norms relating to sexuality, rape definitions across the world does vary.

The definition of what a rape is, is also dependent on how the courts decide to interpret the written law. I don't think anyone here seriously imagines the situation here would be interpreted as a "rape" by a court. When a woman is convicted of raping a man, he normally had no ability to reject her.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 027927.ece

Sexual pushiness at groping level, in a relationship, while wrong, is neither a rape nor a court matter. In most countries, a prosecutor trying to push it would be ridiculed, and in some it could end up on his permanent record.

What all the sexual encounters we've seen in this strip have in common is that they have been awkward and not gone as planned. And that no one has shown any malice. This is rather realistic. These people are doing it for the first time. Critique because they do not live up to the books on how sexual encounters should go is misplaced.
Trollroot
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:41 pm

Postby Sebastian on Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:17 am

ZillahLewis wrote:She's like a child who wants her parent to buy her something, but once the parent starts yelling at her, she starts crying, because she only knows that she's in trouble. However, if there's any sign of her getting what she wants, she's right onto it again. I've always seen Karen as immature and self-centered, and this, in my mind, is only driving that further into the ground.


You know, is this kind of analogy and the general criticism of Karen in the actual situation that irks me, it assume that in the relationsip they are in, Marshall is in some way the superior (i.e. the parent) and hs is the inferior (the children). Well, she is not, they are boyfriend and girlfriend they are peer, and if he don't want to have sex and she want to have sex they are both right.
Yeah, what she is doing is not the mature thing to do, that would be either talk to him or just leave him, but there is a little detail everyone seems to have forgot, that they are both immature, she is doing it probably in the worst possible way but I still think that what she is doing is the right thing, she is forcing him to face the issue, to name the exact terms of the deal and if the terms are "no sex because I say so and until I say so" then I say she would be better leaving him right now.
Sebastian
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Italy

Postby mbtiru on Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:17 am

I know I promised my first (and previously last) "snarky post" would be my only such post before retiring to lurking, but I had to point something out from an earlier post.

Bold emphasis by original poster, color emphasis by myself.

Meaning of “consent”

273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.


Where no consent obtained

(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where

(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or

(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.


Put simply, consent can be (and usually is) based on specific actions (e.g. you may kiss me, you may not touch my breast, you may caress my leg, you may not slap my butt). It's entirely possible to refuse consent for one action while still allowing other actions.

Marshall, insofar as I have seen, has actively refused consent for sexual intercourse. I have seen no indication that he has refused consent for petting, kissing, cuddling, or any other form of physical intimacy outside of sex itself. Ergo, Karen can neither be accurately stated to be raping or sexually assaulting him.

(Unless someone can provide reference for where Marshall refuses any form of physical intimacy whatsoever, in which case I happily retract my point.)

--EDIT--
Also, totally retiring from snarky posts. Fo' realz this time. :oops:
mbtiru
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby Yuko no Slayer-Dryad on Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:41 am

CEOIII wrote:Alright, we've learned a few things over the past few strips.

1. He's been burned. Maybe by a black woman; "Man-Ho" isn't a term I hear white women use.

2. HE DIDN'T JUST LEAVE HER THERE! Good to see he's willing to keep the communication lines open.

3. She acknowledges she's "insecure". And she says what a LOT of poeple on this forum have said; Marshall's "we're just kids" line was, to say the least, out there.

4. This isn't all about her. She's not saying "I want you to make me scream your name" she's saying "I want to make you feel good." And no, having a girlfriend that wants you, and wants you to want her, usually isn't that complicated.

The last few panels: Speaking as an "owner/operator", no guy reacts like that if a girl puts her hands on his naked thigh. Trust me, she has "taken hold."

The next panel is very telling (and INCREDIBLY well drawn, you girls are good). That's not a look of mischief, or lust, that is hope. That look says the one thing Karen's wanted to say for quite some time. "HE IS ATTRACTED TO ME! I'M DESIREABLE! I'M PRETTY! WOOT!"

Is this objectionable? After his "hands off" in the shower? I think, at this point, anything short of Marshall picking up a blunt object and cracking Karen in the skull is an appropriate response.

He could immediately say "WHEN!", grab his clothes, storm out of the shower and out of her life, and it'd be Karen's fault for being too forward. (She is "just touching", which in and of itself isn't crossing too many lines, but with Marshall's unknown past trauma, it could be the proverbial spine-snapping straw.)

He could say "Um.........m-maybe just touching........f-f-for now. Just for.......now" and close his eyes while she works him like she's trying to get a truck with a stick-shift out of a mudhole. (BTW, this is a very weird relationship if they haven't hit the "touching" stage yet. But again, Marshall's past.)

He could lift her off the ground, carry her back into the shower, and the next few word balloons could be Karen singing, "SWEET MYSTERY OF LIFE, AT LAST I'VE FOUND THEE!"(Least likely of the group, but it's an option.)

Once again, with his balls in Karen's hands, the ball is in Marshall's court. He can waive her home.........or he can cut her from the team.

Wednesday's strip should be very telling, assuming we stick with this storyline. *SUBTLE HINT*


This analyzation comes is the most agreeable so far, IMO. Frankly, I think their whole relationship is turning into a farce. The current strip is starting to give me the idea the Karen's interest in Marshall is for using him to sooth her self-esteem issues over anying smacking of caring about him, otherwise she would be a lot more bothered by the huge emotional wall of Jericho Marshall has placed between them.
As for Marshall, well, One of the most elementary taboos for guys who wish to be lady's men is keeping yourself emotionally out of reach from your girlfriend. They tend to hate that, as would Karen if she really was worried about the two of them as an item.
If a man is right about something, and no one agrees with him and he is unable to put his truth into benificial action beyond mere principle, does it really matter whether he's right or not?
User avatar
Yuko no Slayer-Dryad
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: South Central US

Postby sordideuphemism on Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:03 am

Trollroot wrote:In a social setting, correcting a rape victim on what a rape is, quoting the legal definition, does not settle things. It is also considered hideously socially inappropriate.


*snerk*

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow. Just wow. "I'm a victim, so I can alter reality to fit what I feel it should be." And you even had the audacity to couple it with "Others won't approve." Wow. HUGE applause.

It's too bad that, despite all your chutzpah, taotu is still right.
User avatar
sordideuphemism
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:21 pm

Postby Trollroot on Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:16 am

sordideuphemism wrote:
Trollroot wrote:In a social setting, correcting a rape victim on what a rape is, quoting the legal definition, does not settle things. It is also considered hideously socially inappropriate.


*snerk*

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow. Just wow. "I'm a victim, so I can alter reality to fit what I feel it should be." And you even had the audacity to couple it with "Others won't approve." Wow. HUGE applause.

It's too bad that, despite all your chutzpah, taotu is still right.


I fear he is not.

However, if you believe quoting legal definitions in such cases will make you socially sucessful, please try. Experience often has a wonderful educational effect.
Trollroot
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:41 pm

Postby shekron Kaizar on Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:30 am

A man says to another man, "I am going to hit you on the head with a mallet". The other man says 'please no', but the attacker hits him with mallet anyway. Having no power or will to act against the beating, the victim can only whimper and plead for the beating to stop.
Just because Marshall doesn't seem to act against her, doesn't mean it is okay for her to continue, or that he secretly enjoys it. When one partner says no, the other should respect his/her decision. What Karen is doing is nothing short of molestation.
I hope Marshall has the strength to break up with the one 'he loves', before he turns into the one 'she owns'.
Seriously, if Karen hasn't gotten the drift that Marshall isn't ready for this step in the relationship, she really doesn't know him or respect him as another human being. Even if she did cry, her reasons are doubtful. Did she cry because she thought she had lost Marshall and his love, or did she cry because she felt like she was un-seductive and had lost her trophy?
That's my opinion anyway... :shifty:
"You know what? I'm like a book..."
"A very thick one..."
shekron Kaizar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Postby shekron Kaizar on Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:32 am

P.S. I don't think Marshall is the kind of person who has the will to say no to his girlfriend, or the type to cause someone hurt by rejection. :shifty:
"You know what? I'm like a book..."
"A very thick one..."
shekron Kaizar
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 1:42 am
Location: Australia

Postby Buggy on Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:08 am

Lets be honest here,

Karen, sure, inappropriate.

Marshall, also inappropriate. You don't get to call someone a girlfriend and prevent them from dating anyone else, as well as getting them emotionally entangled with you if you are not willing to A.) be physically intimate or B.) Tell them why you don't want to be.


This strip is telling because it shows Marshall as an insecure whining twit. My sympathy for him went from high to none.


Before it seemed as if he had had a long heart to heart talk with her about it and said he wasn't ready and she was still trying to force herself on him.

Now it turns out his version of dating, is saying they are dating and then refusing to touch her, talk to her openly, tell her why he has physical intimacy issues.

He is using her as a status symbol and a toy. If he didn't want to have a relationship with her, he shouldn't be stringing her along.


quite frankly if this douche was dating one of your friends you'd punch him in the stomach till his ears bled for screwing with your friends head.
Buggy
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:19 am

Postby MRodriguez on Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:29 am

sordideuphemism wrote:
Trollroot wrote:In a social setting, correcting a rape victim on what a rape is, quoting the legal definition, does not settle things. It is also considered hideously socially inappropriate.


*snerk*

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow. Just wow. "I'm a victim, so I can alter reality to fit what I feel it should be." And you even had the audacity to couple it with "Others won't approve." Wow. HUGE applause.

It's too bad that, despite all your chutzpah, taotu is still right.


Ummm... okay. Go ahead, mock the person who has had real life experience with ACTUAL RAPE. Yeah. You're so smart and clever because you KNOW everything is defined by a book written by dowdy old men locked up in a room, and anything that happens in reality doesn't matter unless it's written out in a book.
MRodriguez
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:38 am

Postby cookievore on Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:55 am

Buggy wrote:Lets be honest here,

Karen, sure, inappropriate.

Marshall, also inappropriate. You don't get to call someone a girlfriend and prevent them from dating anyone else, as well as getting them emotionally entangled with you if you are not willing to A.) be physically intimate or B.) Tell them why you don't want to be.


This strip is telling because it shows Marshall as an insecure whining twit. My sympathy for him went from high to none.


Before it seemed as if he had had a long heart to heart talk with her about it and said he wasn't ready and she was still trying to force herself on him.

Now it turns out his version of dating, is saying they are dating and then refusing to touch her, talk to her openly, tell her why he has physical intimacy issues.

He is using her as a status symbol and a toy. If he didn't want to have a relationship with her, he shouldn't be stringing her along.


quite frankly if this douche was dating one of your friends you'd punch him in the stomach till his ears bled for screwing with your friends head.


I would? Dang, I learn things about myself every day.

Um, I don't think that's what's happening here, because pysical intimacy really doesn't have to mean 'teh penis in teh vagina'. But I'm not obsessive enough to go through the comics where there was cuddling and crap.

However, by your logic, I should have dumped my girlfriend a while ago because, while together for quite some time, she did not want SEXX0RZ omg D: D: D: She didn't have a hardcore tragic 'omg this is whyyyyyyyy!!!!' explanation to go with it either. But me being the apparent retard that should smack people for not wanting sex that I am, chose to respect that and leave it as it was.

Now, this may shock some of you, but that actually did NOT cause an overload of drama. I kept loving her, she me, and we kissed and cuddled and gave each other swans and life was good. Amazing ain't it? Accepting the fact somebody doesn't want sex and leaving it at that.

Goodness, am I ever glad I don't have a forum debating my personal life, I might not be engaged then. That would be sad, and I would angst and bring about another weird forum discussion over whatever the hell. Or something, bleh.


And on a slightly random but still on topic note, if somebody had a hold on my sensitive bits, I don't think I'd be all that keen on fighting to get away. Not cuz it felt good, but um, yeah. Ouch on the yanking hard. Marshell may be crazy enough to keep his Mini-Marsh unscathed, I dunno.

Peace <3
cookievore
Junior Keenspotter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:39 am

Postby Ostracee on Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 am

Look...he is not going to resist physically. Look how pissed everyone got when he pushed her out of the shower; if anyone in the comic found out, they'd be even less understanding. If he did anything more than that, a guy like him, even if he could bring her up on charges, he'd be the one to bear the greater social stigma, maybe even the greater legal penalty. He's smart enough to know this.

And "ng..." looks like an abortive "no" to me.
User avatar
Ostracee
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:56 am

Postby Chrysee on Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:27 am

It strikes me as kind of weird how alot of people are saying they're not going to judge Karen's actions until they see how Marshall reacts. It just seems odd to me to base the right- or wrongness of an action on its consequences.
User avatar
Chrysee
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:33 am
Location: Delaware, OH

 
PreviousNext

Return to Penny and Aggie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest