Re: 2016/01/09 - Not Over Until Its Over
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:41 pm
Tbh it'd be waaaaaay worse if this wasn't a furry webcomicHellishK9 wrote:The amount of controversy in this thread is too darn high!
dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria
https://www.housepetscomic.com/forums/
Tbh it'd be waaaaaay worse if this wasn't a furry webcomicHellishK9 wrote:The amount of controversy in this thread is too darn high!
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.Someone wrote:There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
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.
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.Sleet wrote: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.Someone wrote:There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
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 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.
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.SuperStar wrote: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.-snippity snip-
This.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.
There was an overt hint of their relationship in a couple of blink-and-you'll-miss-it throwaway lines in 2014:Someone wrote:There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
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.
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.ydeve wrote:This.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.
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.
I dunno, if I would have to guess it's because it wasn't obvious enough, that the roos are a couple?Saturn381 wrote:What is going on in this thread?
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: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.ydeve wrote:This.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.
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.
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.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.
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.Saturn381 wrote:What is going on in this thread?
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.D-Rock wrote:Look, everyone, just calm down.
We can stay civil about this.
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.ydeve wrote:-snipper-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.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.
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.Not A Furry wrote: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:D-Rock wrote:Look, everyone, just calm down.
We can stay civil about this.
When you look at it that way, it's dissappointing because it's routine. It's not a plot-turner or a punchline, just... routineSomeone wrote:There have been exactly 9 kisses including this one:Sleet wrote:There's been kisses before. Why is this one disappointing?
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
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.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
Agreed on everything you said.Not a furry wrote:[discussion]
Probably due to Sasha's "volatile" relationships.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.
There's nothing more inherently inappropriate or "un-PG" about a homosexual couple than a heterosexual one.Someone wrote: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.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 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.Dissension wrote:There's nothing more inherently inappropriate or "un-PG" about a homosexual couple than a heterosexual one.Someone wrote: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.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
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.Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.
Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
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.John-056 wrote: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.Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.
Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
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.
I know there are some comic strips, which were a subtle hint that the roos are more than just friends.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.
For ironic purposes then. Im pretty sure everyone here wouldn't hate on him because of thisRandomGeekNamedBrent wrote: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.John-056 wrote: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.Sleet wrote:If I'm not mistaken, 2011 Rick was a little prejudiced.
Also, awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! <3
The line about his parents not accepting a grey in the plane was pretty much a clincher. Really.ydeve wrote:There just wasn't a bright neon sign saying "gay couple". Yet a number of people here couldn't see that.
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.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.
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.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.