• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

NP Wednesday, Dec 18, 2019

Recommended Posts

http://egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-046

If she prays like this she would likely need some protection against negative influence :)

Now, regarding the fairness of only protagonist getting this treatment ... well ... there are lot of other things only valid for the protagonist. What the priest said about the protagonist not being famous enough notwithstanding, seems like everyone will easily identify them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Scotty said:

TBH, Susan has that kind of influence even without the horns and sexy tail.

Not that strong, however remember that she has the auto-cleaning purity, hat with attraction bonus ... and Rhoda here seem to have a classical syndrome of someone in celibate: due to not enough sexual experience everything is more tempting.

11 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Susan, go dump a bunch of money at the approved temple or your charge will never believe that you are not the biggest danger she faces

First, that probably won't help, second, she might really be the biggest danger to Rhoda's virginity Rhoda is facing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
19 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

First, that probably won't help, second, she might really be the biggest danger to Rhoda's virginity Rhoda is facing.

I disagree. The biggest danger to Rhoda's virginity is... Rhoda.

... that's good point. Let's say biggest external danger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

... that's good point. Let's say biggest external danger?

Hm. I am not sure about that. May I be nitpicky for a moment, please? I would prefer 'temptation' instead of 'danger.' 'Danger' seems to indicate a threat Rhoda cannot control, and I can't imagine Susan ever attempting to do anything nonconsensual.

I also despise the entire notion of virginity, but that is a separate issue, so I'll pass on that for now. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
14 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

... that's good point. Let's say biggest external danger?

Hm. I am not sure about that. May I be nitpicky for a moment, please? I would prefer 'temptation' instead of 'danger.' 'Danger' seems to indicate a threat Rhoda cannot control, and I can't imagine Susan ever attempting to do anything nonconsensual.

Only way the comparison could work is if we consider temptation low level of danger. Like, I agree that Susan won't ever attempt to do anything nonconsensual, in fact I suspect she will be actively resisting ... but the danger is still there, although mostly self-inflicted.

I wonder if there is different way to say it which I'm not able to use due to not knowing english good enough.

Would it work better if I use word "threat" instead of "danger"?

15 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I also despise the entire notion of virginity, but that is a separate issue, so I'll pass on that for now. *sigh*

The fact we are speaking about two girls ... uh, I mean women ... makes the virginity hard to define ... like, obviously hard. In heterosexual case, it's actually similarly hard but it's not so obvious until you think about it and remember all those excuses some people used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Would it work better if I use word "threat" instead of "danger"?

I think so, yes. Since something can represent a threat in the form of a temptation, for example.

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

The fact we are speaking about two girls ... uh, I mean women ... makes the virginity hard to define ... like, obviously hard. In heterosexual case, it's actually similarly hard but it's not so obvious until you think about it and remember all those excuses some people used.

It is not as much the definition as what the entire concept represents. 'Virginity' is typically employed about women with the clear implication that a non-virginal woman is less 'pure' than a virginal one. In other words, non-virginal women are considered 'used goods', which I consider to be profoundly offensive.

Not that virgins in their implied 'unbroken wrapping' are any less objectified, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The fact we are speaking about two girls ... uh, I mean women ... makes the virginity hard to define ... like, obviously hard. In heterosexual case, it's actually similarly hard but it's not so obvious until you think about it and remember all those excuses some people used.

It is not as much the definition as what the entire concept represents. 'Virginity' is typically employed about women with the clear implication that a non-virginal woman is less 'pure' than a virginal one. In other words, non-virginal women are considered 'used goods', which I consider to be profoundly offensive.

Not that virgins in their implied 'unbroken wrapping' are any less objectified, of course.

I'm hearing about boy's virginity almost as often as women's ... of course, boys are expected to actively work on getting rid of it. Based on some TV shows I heard about, like Sex and the City I think, seems that there is move to similar point of view for women as well. Not sure if that happens in reality, though. I didn't even saw the shows, just read the description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

I'm hearing about boy's virginity almost as often as women's ... of course, boys are expected to actively work on getting rid of it. Based on some TV shows I heard about, like Sex and the City I think, seems that there is move to similar point of view for women as well. Not sure if that happens in reality, though. I didn't even saw the shows, just read the description.

Either way it is problematic. Your sex life is personal. You shouldn't be expected to either jump into it as fast as possible or to stay away from it until some arbitrary outside event like marriage. If you are good with having sex early, that is your business. If you prefer to wait, or even to not have sex at all, that is your business, too. And an artificial standard like virginity just confuses the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Old Hack said:
4 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I'm hearing about boy's virginity almost as often as women's ... of course, boys are expected to actively work on getting rid of it. Based on some TV shows I heard about, like Sex and the City I think, seems that there is move to similar point of view for women as well. Not sure if that happens in reality, though. I didn't even saw the shows, just read the description.

Either way it is problematic. Your sex life is personal. You shouldn't be expected to either jump into it as fast as possible or to stay away from it until some arbitrary outside event like marriage. If you are good with having sex early, that is your business. If you prefer to wait, or even to not have sex at all, that is your business, too. And an artificial standard like virginity just confuses the issue.

Agree, however I totally understand why that wouldn't make good TV series. Also, while I hope it's not common, I totally believe there are exhibitionists who totally PREFER being this open about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Agree, however I totally understand why that wouldn't make good TV series. Also, while I hope it's not common, I totally believe there are exhibitionists who totally PREFER being this open about it.

I dunno. I think you could make a pretty good TV series out of young people struggling to assert their sexuality in spite of social pressures. And probably it would contain a lot fewer clichés because it hasn't been done so often.

As to exhibitionists, I don't really have a problem with them. I think the important thing is to make sure they have venues where they and those of like mind can do their thing, and that people who aren't interested can steer clear of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Agree, however I totally understand why that wouldn't make good TV series. Also, while I hope it's not common, I totally believe there are exhibitionists who totally PREFER being this open about it.

I dunno. I think you could make a pretty good TV series out of young people struggling to assert their sexuality in spite of social pressures. And probably it would contain a lot fewer clichés because it hasn't been done so often.

Hmmm ... like, I wouldn't be watching that, but I don't watch these series either so I might not be the best to compare.

But it seems that the producents, who are supposed to know more about it than we do, think it wouldn't be good series. (Note the "supposed". They were wrong before.)

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

As to exhibitionists, I don't really have a problem with them. I think the important thing is to make sure they have venues where they and those of like mind can do their thing, and that people who aren't interested can steer clear of.

Yes. That's why I'm against the bans of pornography, but totally for clear labeling of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But it seems that the producents, who are supposed to know more about it than we do, think it wouldn't be good series. (Note the "supposed". They were wrong before.)

Well, a lot of the ones in power insisted that there was just no money in movies featuring Black or women protagonists heroes. Then Black Panther and Captain Marvel came along.

It often works like this: Producers are against a kind of movie/TV series with 'no money' in it. They get reluctantly persuaded to put minimal money into a shitty script and a badly executed end product, which predictably flops. They then consider their prejudices confirmed.

Astonishingly enough, decently funded good ideas with a dedicated production team behind them then proceed to prove them wrong. I have no idea why it is this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Astonishingly enough, decently funded good ideas with a dedicated production team behind them then proceed to prove them wrong.

Why is it that more money and competence don't always make things better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Why is it that more money and competence don't always make things better?

Because the two of them do not necessarily go along. Especially not in a society where wealth and poverty are both essentially inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno if Dan's just being funny about the comment posted or if it was his actual intention in the comic.. here's there reddit post anyway:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
20 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But it seems that the producents, who are supposed to know more about it than we do, think it wouldn't be good series. (Note the "supposed". They were wrong before.)

Well, a lot of the ones in power insisted that there was just no money in movies featuring Black or women protagonists heroes. Then Black Panther and Captain Marvel came along.

Which movies are you talking about? I don't see any Captain Marvel movie older than this year and there are definitely movies with women protagonists superheroes older than that, even if you won't count cases like Catwoman in 1966 Batman because she was not the main protagonist.

9 hours ago, Scotty said:

Dunno if Dan's just being funny about the comment posted or if it was his actual intention in the comic.. here's there reddit post anyway:

 

Considering he was already joking about this in Family Tree ... ehm ... ok, actually, that doesn't exactly make certain which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Which movies are you talking about? I don't see any Captain Marvel movie older than this year and there are definitely movies with women protagonists superheroes older than that, even if you won't count cases like Catwoman in 1966 Batman because she was not the main protagonist.

He meant the recent Black Panther and Captain Marvel, both of which were well received and made good money; that being the point. You could also site the recent Wonder Woman for the same reasons.

I can't think of an older superhero movie with a female protagonist that was similarly well received.

1966 Catwoman is the era of the TV show. If there was an associated movie, I do not recall it, but there may have been one. Catwoman in that incarnation was purely an antagonist.

I believe focus on Selina Kyle's backstory and use as a love interest for Batman was after that era.

Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises is more toward the protagonist side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

1966 Catwoman is the era of the TV show. If there was an associated movie, I do not recall it, but there may have been one. Catwoman in that incarnation was purely an antagonist.

I believe focus on Selina Kyle's backstory and use as a love interest for Batman was after that era.

Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises is more toward the protagonist side.

There was a movie of the 66 show. I haven't seen it, but my understanding is it's a villain-team-up story with Catwoman as one of the villains.

I have seen several episodes of the show with Catwoman in them, and there actually was some hints of romantic interest between Batman and Catwoman. However, Batman made it clear he could never be with her unless she gave up her life of crime, which she couldn't bring herself to do, so it never went anywhere. (I don't recall any talk about her backstory in those episodes.)

Despite the hints of romance, I do agree with your assessment that she was an antagonist and not a protagonist in that series/movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Which movies are you talking about? I don't see any Captain Marvel movie older than this year and there are definitely movies with women protagonists superheroes older than that, even if you won't count cases like Catwoman in 1966 Batman because she was not the main protagonist.

He meant the recent Black Panther and Captain Marvel, both of which were well received and made good money; that being the point. You could also site the recent Wonder Woman for the same reasons.

I can't think of an older superhero movie with a female protagonist that was similarly well received.

Hmmmm ... ok, I'm not going to study which superhero movie with a female protagonist made enough money, but I would definitely consider Wonder Woman to count - and it was two years before Captain Marvel.

20 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

1966 Catwoman is the era of the TV show. If there was an associated movie, I do not recall it, but there may have been one. Catwoman in that incarnation was purely an antagonist.

I believe focus on Selina Kyle's backstory and use as a love interest for Batman was after that era.

Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises is more toward the protagonist side.

Hmmm ... ok, I probably mixed up 1966 Batman with 1992 Batman Returns, THERE was Catwoman like, not exactly hero but not exactly villain either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Hmmmm ... ok, I'm not going to study which superhero movie with a female protagonist made enough money, but I would definitely consider Wonder Woman to count - and it was two years before Captain Marvel.

Yeah, but the point is, these are some of the first movies that broke the pattern and helped prove that female-led and Black-led movies can indeed make money. Wonder Woman may have been the first, but even that was not until fairly recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Hmmmm ... ok, I'm not going to study which superhero movie with a female protagonist made enough money, but I would definitely consider Wonder Woman to count - and it was two years before Captain Marvel.

 

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yeah, but the point is, these are some of the first movies that broke the pattern and helped prove that female-led and Black-led movies can indeed make money. Wonder Woman may have been the first, but even that was not until fairly recently.

 

Also, the production lead time for major motion pictures these days often exceeds two years, so the Captain Marvel film was already in production before Wonder Woman had been released, so the box office returns from WW were not a factor in the decision to produce Captain Marvel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:
5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yeah, but the point is, these are some of the first movies that broke the pattern and helped prove that female-led and Black-led movies can indeed make money. Wonder Woman may have been the first, but even that was not until fairly recently.

Also, the production lead time for major motion pictures these days often exceeds two years, so the Captain Marvel film was already in production before Wonder Woman had been released, so the box office returns from WW were not a factor in the decision to produce Captain Marvel.

Good point. According to wikipedia, developement of Wonder Woman started 1996 and Captain Marvel 2013. Didn't though it's THAT long.

And looking at category .... hmmm ... Æon Flux wasn't good, Electra wasn't good, Catwoman (2004) wasn't good, Supergirl (1984) wasn't good, Ultraviolet wasn't good ... and Witchblade was for TV. Wikipedia sometimes miss stuff but I don't think they would miss major motion picture, so ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this