2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

For old comic discussions threads! seriously what did you think
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

HellishK9 wrote:The amount of controversy in this thread is too darn high!
Tbh it'd be waaaaaay worse if this wasn't a furry webcomic
User avatar
Sleet
Bringing Foxy Back
Posts: 17291
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:32 am
Location: Nephelokokkygia
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Sleet »

Someone wrote:
Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... issy-faes/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2012/12/25/is-you/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -the-dark/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... year-five/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... r-contest/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... ing-blows/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... get-lucky/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... u-maul-me/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -its-over/
Three of them were Bailey-King: One when he proppossed, one before bailey left to fight, one at the wedding.
One was Fido resurrecting Sabrina, which can't be considered a propper kiss.
One was Dragon trying to kiss peanut, one was Miles kissing Lucretia in the forehead, one Sasha kissing Fox in the cheek.
The only full-blown kiss that wasn't between King and Bailey was Jessica and Zach
All of them except for Dragon-Peanut/Sabrina and Lucretia-Miles had a big impact in the storyline

But that's beside the point.
The 'roos have always been portrayed as two guys living together and doing stuff together, you could always consider them as just being "close friends". I think Rick always wanted them to be what you wanted them to be up until now, and by doing so and actually introducing them as an actual gay couple he's contradicting what he said and kind of "reinventing" their characters completely IMHO.

It is disappointing because it gives the impression he's betraying his own principles and ideas.
I'm not sure the problem. They were always a couple, Rick just didn't shove it in everyone's face. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't kind of thing. Either you're "forcing" it, or you're subtle and it's "out of nowhere." Nobody seems to say this about straight kisses.

I would say the problem isn't with Rick presenting them as "just friends" so much as people assuming any two same-sex people who are close are "just friends" until proven otherwise, whereas any two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise.
Image
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Friendly banter? Feel free to click the "PM" button below!
User avatar
SuperStar
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:51 am
Location: Shining in the Boonies of Thailand

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by SuperStar »

Sleet wrote:
Someone wrote:
Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... issy-faes/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2012/12/25/is-you/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -the-dark/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... year-five/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... r-contest/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... ing-blows/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... get-lucky/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... u-maul-me/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -its-over/
Three of them were Bailey-King: One when he proppossed, one before bailey left to fight, one at the wedding.
One was Fido resurrecting Sabrina, which can't be considered a propper kiss.
One was Dragon trying to kiss peanut, one was Miles kissing Lucretia in the forehead, one Sasha kissing Fox in the cheek.
The only full-blown kiss that wasn't between King and Bailey was Jessica and Zach
All of them except for Dragon-Peanut/Sabrina and Lucretia-Miles had a big impact in the storyline

But that's beside the point.
The 'roos have always been portrayed as two guys living together and doing stuff together, you could always consider them as just being "close friends". I think Rick always wanted them to be what you wanted them to be up until now, and by doing so and actually introducing them as an actual gay couple he's contradicting what he said and kind of "reinventing" their characters completely IMHO.

It is disappointing because it gives the impression he's betraying his own principles and ideas.
I'm not sure the problem. They were always a couple, Rick just didn't shove it in everyone's face. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't kind of thing. Either you're "forcing" it, or you're subtle and it's "out of nowhere." Nobody seems to say this about straight kisses.

I would say the problem isn't with Rick presenting them as "just friends" so much as people assuming any two same-sex people who are close are "just friends" until proven otherwise, whereas any two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise.
To be fair I don't assume two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise, I also assume they are just friends until proven otherwise.
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

SuperStar wrote:
-snippity snip-
To be fair I don't assume two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise, I also assume they are just friends until proven otherwise.
That's a logical approach considering demographics. Homosexuals aren't even close to being 20% of the population, but almost everyone has close friends of the same gender. Even if you knew they were both gay, they'd still not neccessarily be a couple.

Regarding people instantly shipping opposite-gendered couples, it'd be the common thing for them to be heterosexual, so being too close might mean they are a couple since the "are they both gay" barrier is not present.
ydeve
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:15 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by ydeve »

Sleet wrote: I would say the problem isn't with Rick presenting them as "just friends" so much as people assuming any two same-sex people who are close are "just friends" until proven otherwise, whereas any two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise.
This.

It's way beyond that, actually. People assume to same-sex people are just friends even when they are acting as a couple until it becomes extremely explicit, but not so for heterosexual couples. It's called heteronormativity. People are blind to what challenges their world-view.
User avatar
Naro Rivers
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:43 am
Location: Somewhere in a river on the Miltons' estate.

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Naro Rivers »

Someone wrote:
Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... issy-faes/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2012/12/25/is-you/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -the-dark/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... year-five/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... r-contest/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... ing-blows/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... get-lucky/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... u-maul-me/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -its-over/
Three of them were Bailey-King: One when he proppossed, one before bailey left to fight, one at the wedding.
One was Fido resurrecting Sabrina, which can't be considered a propper kiss.
One was Dragon trying to kiss peanut, one was Miles kissing Lucretia in the forehead, one Sasha kissing Fox in the cheek.
The only full-blown kiss that wasn't between King and Bailey was Jessica and Zach
All of them except for Dragon-Peanut/Sabrina and Lucretia-Miles had a big impact in the storyline

But that's beside the point.
The 'roos have always been portrayed as two guys living together and doing stuff together, you could always consider them as just being "close friends". I think Rick always wanted them to be what you wanted them to be up until now, and by doing so and actually introducing them as an actual gay couple he's contradicting what he said and kind of "reinventing" their characters completely IMHO.

It is disappointing because it gives the impression he's betraying his own principles and ideas.
There was an overt hint of their relationship in a couple of blink-and-you'll-miss-it throwaway lines in 2014:
Image
It's difficult to wear gloves with webbed fingers...

When talking about a character, I often speak in D&D terms.

I'm participating in a forum game! You can find it here:
Image
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

ydeve wrote:
Sleet wrote: I would say the problem isn't with Rick presenting them as "just friends" so much as people assuming any two same-sex people who are close are "just friends" until proven otherwise, whereas any two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise.
This.

It's way beyond that, actually. People assume to same-sex people are just friends even when they are acting as a couple until it becomes extremely explicit, but not so for heterosexual couples. It's called heteronormativity. People are blind to what challenges their world-view.
Or maybe they assume the most common thing, which is for people to be hetero and for two same-sex people who hang out together to be friends. Because let's be honest, assuming all same-sex friends are couples would lead to far more and more embarrassing situations than assuming the oppossite.

And not to be an jerk, but using fancy words to make a normal behavior into something bad and wrong is stupid.
User avatar
Cesco
Posts: 4624
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:35 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Cesco »

Well, everything ended fine (arc story included), at least. :P It's now time to sleep, and nice bed you've got. :) Lovely goodnight kiss and bed cuddles! :D Also if these last got suddenly interrupted, though. ;) Oh, finally Steve found the mice, and it's a carnage for them! :? :P
Image
User avatar
Saturn381
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:03 pm
Location: Clifton Forge, VA

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Saturn381 »

What is going on in this thread? :lol:
Image
User avatar
guru4567
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:00 pm
Location: OHIO

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by guru4567 »

The smek heard around the world! Or at least this forum.

This strip is super cute.
User avatar
HundKatzeMaus
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:31 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by HundKatzeMaus »

Saturn381 wrote:What is going on in this thread? :lol:
I dunno, if I would have to guess it's because it wasn't obvious enough, that the roos are a couple?
There had been subtle hints here and there and I always thought it was quite clever :mrgreen:

Also I must say personally I liked it that it wasn't shoved in our faces that they're a couple. Nothing against same-sex couples, but I would find it sad if the most prominent thing about a character is his sexuality, that goes for every kind of preference.
A character should be defined by many things not just if they have a boy or girlfriend. But that is just me.
ydeve
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:15 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by ydeve »

Not A Furry wrote:
ydeve wrote:
Sleet wrote: I would say the problem isn't with Rick presenting them as "just friends" so much as people assuming any two same-sex people who are close are "just friends" until proven otherwise, whereas any two close opposite-sex people are a couple until proven otherwise.
This.

It's way beyond that, actually. People assume to same-sex people are just friends even when they are acting as a couple until it becomes extremely explicit, but not so for heterosexual couples. It's called heteronormativity. People are blind to what challenges their world-view.
Or maybe they assume the most common thing, which is for people to be hetero and for two same-sex people who hang out together to be friends. Because let's be honest, assuming all same-sex friends are couples would lead to far more and more embarrassing situations than assuming the oppossite.
I'm not talking about being friends. I'm talking about people being in a relationship, expressing that they're a lot closer than friends would be. You look at how Roosevelt and Bruce act, and they are way closer than friends. There just wasn't a bright neon sign saying "gay couple". Yet a number of people here couldn't see that.
Not A Furry wrote: And not to be an jerk, but using fancy words to make a normal behavior into something bad and wrong is stupid.
Naming something is the first step to identifying and correcting it. Just because something is normal doesn't make it right. If someone kept insisting that you and your significant other were just friends, it would get old and frustrating after a while. I'm sorry if you took what I said as an insult. It wasn't meant that way.
User avatar
D-Rock
Moderator
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:25 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by D-Rock »

Look, everyone, just calm down.
We can stay civil about this.
Faith doesn't change circumstances. Faith changes me.
Image
Image
Avatar by CHAOKOCartoons
User avatar
Douglas Collier
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:35 pm
Location: Housepets! Universe - Babylon Gardens

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Douglas Collier »

Saturn381 wrote:What is going on in this thread? :lol:
Some people are happy to see the romantic nature of the roos' relationship comfirmed; others want to keep the kangaroos as just good friends or enclosuremates and are sad; others from both of those groups just want to argue about it like politicians or chastise Rick like activists.

Rick did what he did. He's done controversial things before - we should either accept that sometimes he just wants to do things the way he wants, or we can stop reading the comic. Alternatively, if we can't stop reading because it's such a great comic, then I suppose we can just pretend things did or didn't happen - write our own alternate headcanon.
Douglas isn't my real name, but because of a name block put on me by a higher-order being known as Djinni, I can't say my real name.
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

D-Rock wrote:Look, everyone, just calm down.
We can stay civil about this.
It's preety civil if you ask me. In my experience if this were any other forum, the banner would be in flames, people would be running for their lifes and there'd be constant ddos attacks... Then again those other forums aren't exactly PG. Or have a mature community/good mods. :lol:
ydeve wrote:-snipper-
Not A Furry wrote: And not to be an jerk, but using fancy words to make a normal behavior into something bad and wrong is stupid.
Naming something is the first step to identifying and correcting it. Just because something is normal doesn't make it right. If someone kept insisting that you and your significant other were just friends, it would get old and frustrating after a while. I'm sorry if you took what I said as an insult. It wasn't meant that way.
I was referring to that new trend of making up... You know what, let's not get into that for the sake of the thread.
It would be way more annoying to hang out with a same-sex friend and be called a couple by everyone, even offensive to some extent if you aren't gay or don't even act like a couple.
And don't worry, I didn't take it as an insult. Two people can have different opinions and not be offended by eachother's point of view.

What you have to understand is, prejudice exists for a reason. It'd be impossible to interact with people if you didn't assume anything about them, and to avoid as many awkward situations as possible, you should assume the most common or obvious things about them.

Regarding the 'roos case, to consider them as just friends is putting a blindfold on, but you can't blame people for shipping whatever they like. If you don't want people to think you're just friends, you should just tell them. That's like being annoyed at people thinking you like lettuce because you never speak up when they serve it to you.
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Dissension »

To recapitulate what Rick said on the last page, Bruce and Roosevelt have pretty much always been a couple. I've said, and he's said, they're in a relationship. They're even included in this couples-themed sticker pack (photo by RemonyRavine), so (taken in concert with their appearances in the comic) it's not like their relationship comes out of left field.

Image

Not A Furry wrote:
D-Rock wrote:Look, everyone, just calm down.
We can stay civil about this.
It's preety civil if you ask me. In my experience if this were any other forum, the banner would be in flames, people would be running for their lifes and there'd be constant ddos attacks... Then again those other forums aren't exactly PG. Or have a mature community/good mods. :lol:
While I really appreciate the compliment to our moderators and community, this can come across as talking back or arguing with a staff member, which I believe is generally discouraged.
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
User avatar
GameCobra
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by GameCobra »

I would expect some fans to think the roos are a pair of brothers in certain ways based on their actions. That doesn't discount, however, the possible romantic and way they treat each other as friends. similar to the antlersons from Zootopia.
3 words - Liquid Metal Fur
Image
User avatar
SuperStar
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:51 am
Location: Shining in the Boonies of Thailand

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by SuperStar »

On the matter of the couples stickers, why weren't Kevin and Sasha included? They're more prominent than the roos in the comic.
User avatar
Frank
Posts: 979
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:33 pm
Location: EST

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Frank »

Someone wrote:
Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... issy-faes/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2012/12/25/is-you/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -the-dark/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... year-five/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... r-contest/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... ing-blows/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... get-lucky/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... u-maul-me/
http://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/201 ... -its-over/
Three of them were Bailey-King: One when he proppossed, one before bailey left to fight, one at the wedding.
One was Fido resurrecting Sabrina, which can't be considered a propper kiss.
One was Dragon trying to kiss peanut, one was Miles kissing Lucretia in the forehead, one Sasha kissing Fox in the cheek.
The only full-blown kiss that wasn't between King and Bailey was Jessica and Zach
All of them except for Dragon-Peanut/Sabrina and Lucretia-Miles had a big impact in the storyline
When you look at it that way, it's dissappointing because it's routine. It's not a plot-turner or a punchline, just... routine
"[E]ven with simple tools, you too can make awesome."
November 21, 2010
Someone
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:54 am
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Someone »

rickgriffin wrote: And? Technically I'm still of the opinion that nobody NEEDS to have gay couples in their comics in order to PROVE they're not homo.phobic.

Also it's not reinventing with the roos because they've been a gay couple since at least 2012
I still think this is a complete change of attitude towards them, you've implied and even said, but never really showed they were a gay couple up until now, which is why I'm disappointed. Maybe because it gives me the impression you'll eventually drop the PG to allow for more mature stuff to be said and done and then housepets will lose its attractiveness, at least to me.
Not a furry wrote:[discussion]
Agreed on everything you said.
SuperStar wrote:On the matter of the couples stickers, why weren't Kevin and Sasha included? They're more prominent than the roos in the comic.
Probably due to Sasha's "volatile" relationships.
Off to a good start.
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Dissension »

Someone wrote:
rickgriffin wrote: And? Technically I'm still of the opinion that nobody NEEDS to have gay couples in their comics in order to PROVE they're not homo.phobic.

Also it's not reinventing with the roos because they've been a gay couple since at least 2012
I still think this is a complete change of attitude towards them, you've implied and even said, but never really showed they were a gay couple up until now, which is why I'm disappointed. Maybe because it gives me the impression you'll eventually drop the PG to allow for more mature stuff to be said and done and then housepets will lose its attractiveness, at least to me.
There's nothing more inherently inappropriate or "un-PG" about a homosexual couple than a heterosexual one.
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
Someone
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:54 am
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Someone »

Dissension wrote:
Someone wrote:
rickgriffin wrote: And? Technically I'm still of the opinion that nobody NEEDS to have gay couples in their comics in order to PROVE they're not homo.phobic.

Also it's not reinventing with the roos because they've been a gay couple since at least 2012
I still think this is a complete change of attitude towards them, you've implied and even said, but never really showed they were a gay couple up until now, which is why I'm disappointed. Maybe because it gives me the impression you'll eventually drop the PG to allow for more mature stuff to be said and done and then housepets will lose its attractiveness, at least to me.
There's nothing more inherently inappropriate or "un-PG" about a homosexual couple than a heterosexual one.
I know this is the official position of Rick and the forum's rules, but homosexual relationships being as "appropriate" for all ages as heterosexual ones is all but arguable. I won't get into it though, not here at least.
Off to a good start.
User avatar
GameCobra
Posts: 7243
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:27 am
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by GameCobra »

Can't forget Grape's kiss to Peanut now, and that one was a wham shot moment.

Getting into the same sex side of things wouldn't make this more mature, just more opportunities for twists and shocks if romantic interest was your thing. Though i'm not exactly sure what kind of romantic relationship people would look into for the roos considering they aren't as focused romantically as well as the more majorly romantic cast like Peanut, Grape, Fox and Sabrina. That being said, though - i wouldn't let the roos sudden romantic reveal be anything than to expect some more interesting surprises in the comic in the future.
3 words - Liquid Metal Fur
Image
biddyfox

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by biddyfox »

I thought it was all but revealed they were a couple more than two years ago.
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Dissension »

I'd have considered the same, but apparently it's a huge shock!
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
User avatar
D-Rock
Moderator
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:25 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by D-Rock »

Wasn't it hinted at before? I seem to recall Rick posting a sketch of the roos when asked of their relationship, and Roosevelt seemed to have a look of, I can only say, longing towards Bruce.
Faith doesn't change circumstances. Faith changes me.
Image
Image
Avatar by CHAOKOCartoons
User avatar
John-056
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:24 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by John-056 »

Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.

Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
Uh... Actually, Rick himself is Bisexual. Karishad is based off his boyfriend... And Karishad's been around since 2007, I do believe, back when the Comic was black and white. He turned up in the Zoo Arc.
Image
On the next... Wire in the Blood...
Image
HSDVGDGFWGFWHGVMBHGWY*Ded*
User avatar
RandomGeekNamedBrent
laughing maniacally
Posts: 21032
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:42 pm
Location: an invisible, flying volcano over Virginia

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by RandomGeekNamedBrent »

John-056 wrote:
Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.

Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
Uh... Actually, Rick himself is Bisexual. Karishad is based off his boyfriend... And Karishad's been around since 2007, I do believe, back when the Comic was black and white. He turned up in the Zoo Arc.
they were just friends at the beginning of the comic and Rick hadn't yet realize he was bisexual, I believe. plus it's possible to be prejudiced against a group you're a part of.
Paradigm Shift by me
I do not actually believe any of what I'm saying.
RP character sheets
User avatar
Dissension
Posts: 8840
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Dissension »

John-056 wrote:
Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.

Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3


Uh... Actually, Rick himself is Bisexual. Karishad is based off his boyfriend... And Karishad's been around since 2007, I do believe, back when the Comic was black and white. He turned up in the Zoo Arc.

Hiya! Please make sure to treat other members respectfully and civilly. It's hard to determine tone via written word and avoiding ambiguity is important.

Not everyone accepts who they are quickly or easily. Karishad and Rick have been friends for a very long time and engaged in a romantic relationship for about three and a half years. Rick's opinions of homosexuality did change over time.
avatar: milodesty

people are the only things that matter; take care of yourselves and each other
User avatar
HundKatzeMaus
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:31 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by HundKatzeMaus »

D-Rock wrote:Wasn't it hinted at before? I seem to recall Rick posting a sketch of the roos when asked of their relationship, and Roosevelt seemed to have a look of, I can only say, longing towards Bruce.
I know there are some comic strips, which were a subtle hint that the roos are more than just friends.
I know there is one comic strip, in which both of them watch football and I think Roosevelt cuddles on Bruce during it (hinting that they are more than just friends), but sadly I can't find it. I just know that Bruce was complaining, because football wasn't as good for him as Rugby or something like that.

Another subtle hint would be this.
I know in theorie two friends could be more touchy with each other without being a couple, but I still think this is a subtle hint and guys let's be honest:
We live in modern times and we know homosexual couples exist, so the idea wasn't that much out of place.
User avatar
D-Rock
Moderator
Posts: 9321
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:25 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by D-Rock »

Well, didn't find where the sketch was posted, but it is one of the bonus sketches at the back of Book Five.
Faith doesn't change circumstances. Faith changes me.
Image
Image
Avatar by CHAOKOCartoons
FelixKayne
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:49 am

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by FelixKayne »

So.... Cute smooch, right? These two are adorable.
User avatar
Cyon
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:44 pm
Location: France

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Cyon »

RandomGeekNamedBrent wrote:
John-056 wrote:
Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.

Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
Uh... Actually, Rick himself is Bisexual. Karishad is based off his boyfriend... And Karishad's been around since 2007, I do believe, back when the Comic was black and white. He turned up in the Zoo Arc.
they were just friends at the beginning of the comic and Rick hadn't yet realize he was bisexual, I believe. plus it's possible to be prejudiced against a group you're a part of.
For ironic purposes then. Im pretty sure everyone here wouldn't hate on him because of this
User avatar
Argent
Posts: 5972
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Noonkkot <32,64,51>
Contact:

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Argent »

ydeve wrote:There just wasn't a bright neon sign saying "gay couple". Yet a number of people here couldn't see that.
The line about his parents not accepting a grey in the plane was pretty much a clincher. Really.

Plus I'm pretty sure that Rick has previously confirmed it in online discussions.

I am kind of boggled that this was any kind of shock to anyone who's been actively following the comic.

Can't wait for Keene and Breel to get together.
Cinnamon "Sixtoes" Walton (M Pine Marten #B06060) @
Pitchpipe (F Jackrabbit #808060) @
User avatar
schradieck
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:11 pm
Location: Alive

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by schradieck »

okay, I needed to log in just to pitch in my two cents,

why can't you guys just accept what happened and move on? it's just a comic, don't like it or the creators opinions? make your own comic.


that aside this is now my favourite page of all time
Not lonely anymore,

But do still feel free to talk to me
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

It's not that people needed a neon sign to see it, it's that people didn't want to see it. Kind of like people shipping grapenut or people shipping sasha+fox when she's kevin's gf.

And yeah why not, I admit I shipped a new female kangaroo being introduced to their den(Forgot the word) and them "competing" for her. Because people are free to ship whatever they want for the characters.
User avatar
NathanielKing
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by NathanielKing »

The mere indication a homosexual relationship could be less 'PG' in any way gives me the creeps. Is it my misunderstanding that PG means no mature or adult content? They are a male-male couple, alright, how does that imply any mature content at all? Or more boldly: Being a couple does not imply sexual interactivity between the partners at all. It's possible, but only a narrow mind would be unable to tell these things apart.

Is it less PG for men or woman to fall in love? To say that would be to say that love is nothing for a child. Obviously that kind of approach is utterly wrong. In my opinion it's quite PG to show that affection and love is something that ought to be free. Hopefully it is not necessary to explain here what separates affection and love from sexual instinct and abuse.

Edit: I've decided to connect a bit more to the comic, and give all this a new spin if you let me.
Everything about the roos being a homosexual couple was confirmed in the forum, not in the comic.
That's how I see it:
It's a comic were gender-identity is hinted, while genders (PG, remember) as organs are not shown. Yes, reproduction to be functional and similar to real world ways was indicated, however we've also seen that this is a world in a big cosmos with alternative worlds. It was directly shown that theirs is an alternative universe of ours. So just technically, with all the magic going about, genders were not exactly yet shown to be there at all nor proven to be necessary for anything.

I see this may seem far fetched, but one more. I said it's not been confirmed in the comic the roos are a couple. Because I grew up with many movies and seen my own schooldays, I've seen many pairs of close friends and sisters which kiss each other on the mouth and share the same bed. So personally I'm very used to the idea people can be that close without being a couple, thereby I wasn't sure if the roos were a couple or just close before I checked the boards.


With this in mind, I find it hard to connect to most of what's being discussed here, which I tell as an apology for my apparent ignorance. The comic itself didn't perfectly confirm any homosexual relationship without external information from the author. Anything beyond close friends is left to the readers mind and interpretation, actually.
Not A Furry

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Not A Furry »

I'm gonna prudently sit the PG one out, but genders are shown to exist as early as august 2008, not only that but they're also implied to be "visible" if one were to look. The "doll" aspect of their genitalia is also implied to be an artistic and PG-friendly choice rather than canonical.

Image
User avatar
Arvetis
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:44 pm

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by Arvetis »

Someone wrote: I know this is the official position of Rick and the forum's rules, but homosexual relationships being as "appropriate" for all ages as heterosexual ones is all but arguable. I won't get into it though, not here at least.
You are getting into it though, because you said it. This is written communication, not spoken - there's no point to half-bringing something up and then saying "oh but I'm not discussing it." This is just a way of saying "please don't argue back at me." If you didn't want to bring it up, you could have deleted that sentence.

This applies to Not A Furry's objecting to "the trend of making up... you know what, never mind" too. Have the courage of your convictions or don't say it at all.
User avatar
NathanielKing
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over

Post by NathanielKing »

Not A Furry wrote:I'm gonna prudently sit the PG one out, but genders are shown to exist as early as august 2008, not only that but they're also implied to be "visible" if one were to look. The "doll" aspect of their genitalia is also implied to be an artistic and PG-friendly choice rather than canonical.

Image
Please understand that I differentiate between gender-identity and genders as organs. Genders are there, I did not question that. Organs of any of that sort are, as you said, "implied", thereby possible, likely so, but not necessarily existent.

Which I do not state as an opinion but as an aspect that should be considered in a discussion that in my point of view builds more and more on top of assumptions, emotions, implications, and less on facts, and drifts away further and further from it's origin: the comic strip.
Post Reply