0770: "All the Girls"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

am3930
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby am3930 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:43 pm UTC

My animals are told things like this on a regular basis. They like being the best animals we currently have.

And I know more then a few female midgets. Three are related to me. It's kind of disturbing to see people connect different size couples with pedophilia when your 70ish grandmother is about four foot tall.
Take me out to the black.
Tell them I ain't comin' back.
Burn the land and boil the sea.
You can't take the-


****, they have.

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby diotimajsh » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:17 pm UTC

oddtail wrote:Seriously, if you want to be with the person you're with, then, for all intents and purposes, they should be the only person in the world, at least at that particular moment (unless you're both polyamorous).
Hmm, do you then suggest that the hopelessly unrequited simply don't ever date until they feel completely over the person they're pining for (or over him/her enough to want to be with another person more)?

Seems to me that NOT dating anyone else while you nurse a heartache can make you worse off, even if it is "fairer" to your partner. It will probably make you take longer to get over the earlier one.

Less dramatically, if we all chose to date only the people that we most wanted to be with and found most attractive at our current point in life--well, I imagine there'd be a lot fewer people dating. But, luckily, sometimes you can start out with a partner that you feel sort of lukewarm about, and then it develops into something much greater later on.
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

User avatar
Box Boy
WINNING
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Box Boy » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:21 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.

Must. Not. Make. This. Into. Innuendo.
Diadem wrote:With a bit of interracial mixing you can easily get a two foot length difference.

D-d-d-dammit! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!
Signatures are for chumps.

ElectricTurtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:56 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby ElectricTurtle » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:24 pm UTC

I think people are being too conspiratorial about this. This isn't some dark foreboding of imminent break-up when the first hotter thing walks by, it's a rational perspective on relationships vs. a romantic perspective. My wife has on several occasions expressed a sort of 'romantic fatalist' perspective, and I've said in no uncertain terms that it's unlikely that there is any kind of fate, or that out of billions of people we are the absolute most optimal match for each other. It just isn't reasonable. However, she is the best match I'm likely to find, and it is improbable that anybody else will ever come along in whom I would perceive more potential value than all the known value I perceive in her.

Every serious relationship is at its core a balance between the value perceived in the significant other vs. the potential values perceived in relatively unknown others. After one has dated around a while, one's estimates of potential values becomes more accurate, and so when one finds a really valuable person, the pull to stay the course is as strong as that perception. Successful relationships deepen over time because the more thoroughly one knows a person (and still finds them valuable), the more risky unknown potentials look, and this just heaps more weight on the scale for the existing relationship.

I think romantic types are annoyed that such calculating underpins what they want to be nothing but sunsets and eternal unconditional love, but that's just not how most, if any, human beings actually are. When all of this is reduced and people are conscious of it, I think it is beneficial because it encourages people not to take their loved ones for granted. If one significantly decreases the positive elements of their persona it will upset the balance and destabilize the relationship, regardless of how much time is invested or how much knowledge stems from previous experience (hence why divorce rates rose so high), whereas in a romantic fatalist view of unconditional love, people stay with others who even abuse them.

Love and reason are not exclusive.

Semiraghe
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:58 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Semiraghe » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:44 pm UTC

Sortie wrote:I have also successfully looked a girl in her eyes and told her "Yeah, you are my type." Of course, that wasn't the whole truth.


So you are type casting? . . . Sorry couldn't help myself on that pun/cs joke.

cream wobbly
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:07 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby cream wobbly » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:04 pm UTC

bitwiseshiftleft wrote:Come on, Randall, you know the condition is more complicated than that.


Twice in two days I've read about a scientific model being applied to the real world, discounting observations as being somehow unfathomable, without grasping the simpler explanation that the model is fundamentally flawed.

In this case, the model doesn't cater for changing preference during partnership. Fine, so it's an instantaneous observation … erm, so why use the word “stable”, which implies longevity? It should be “preferred”, or heck, even “instantaneous” would be better.

Pah.

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Faranya » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

I immediately wondered how many women fell into the category of "love him back" since she is just his favorite...
Image

User avatar
drewster1829
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby drewster1829 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

Box Boy wrote:
Diadem wrote:I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.

Must. Not. Make. This. Into. Innuendo.
Diadem wrote:With a bit of interracial mixing you can easily get a two foot length difference.

D-d-d-dammit! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!


You beat me! I was wondering why Diadem was using length as the relevant dimension.

As for the comic, ::sigh::. Randall, get out of my head! He stole this one from me, I think. LIke, from about two days ago, give or take.
"Distrust your judgment the moment you can discern the shadow of a personal motive in it."
-- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

User avatar
from canada
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:05 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby from canada » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:21 pm UTC

drewster1829 wrote:As for the comic, ::sigh::. Randall, get out of my head! He stole this one from me, I think. LIke, from about two days ago, give or take.



You told your girlfriend that you think you're lucky to have her because she's your favourite out of all the girls that are in love with you, but that you'd drop her like the ebola virus if you thought you had even the slightest chance with someone who has not expressed any interest in you what so ever?

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:30 pm UTC

from canada wrote:You told your girlfriend that you think you're lucky to have her because she's your favourite out of all the girls that are in love with you, but that you'd drop her like the ebola virus if you thought you had even the slightest chance with someone who has not expressed any interest in you what so ever?


Of course! xkcd fans who are COOL do that, like, everyday.

Alero
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Alero » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:32 pm UTC

I'm sorry people don't like this comic because Randall is showing emotion.

cburke
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:58 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby cburke » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:47 pm UTC

Ah! The placeholder romance!
Tale as old as time.

User avatar
Protofibril
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 8:33 pm UTC
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Protofibril » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:13 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
sje46 wrote:If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

As if that's limited to just women. I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.

With a bit of interracial mixing you can easily get a two foot length difference.


Or you could get a little more drastic....

http://thehumanmarvels.com/?p=1012

User avatar
Chfan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:26 pm UTC
Location: American East Coast

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Chfan » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

Oh god that was terrible
Just FYI, the guy isn't avatar isn't me. But he seems pretty cool.

User avatar
a.sub
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:14 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby a.sub » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

you know my girl and i just saw Ocean's 11 last night and we came to the mutual agreement that it would be OK if either of us left the other for George Clooney, i mean hell id turn gay for that man.
Spoiler:
Image

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby FireZs » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:30 pm UTC

Love is when you know you can't do any better.

People around here are way too romantic. Glad to see some reality from Randall once in a while.

smartcookie:)
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:50 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby smartcookie:) » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:38 pm UTC

I like this one, despite it's(sp?) creepiness.

karlzt
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby karlzt » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:43 pm UTC


amodelqueso
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby amodelqueso » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:45 pm UTC

I find this hilarious. I like laughing at painful human truths being revealed. :)

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Ari » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:51 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:I hope she feels the same way.

Then it would be a Nash equilibrium.


I would like to third this as being an excellent potential addition to the alt text. :D

from canada wrote:
drewster1829 wrote:As for the comic, ::sigh::. Randall, get out of my head! He stole this one from me, I think. LIke, from about two days ago, give or take.



You told your girlfriend that you think you're lucky to have her because she's your favourite out of all the girls that are in love with you, but that you'd drop her like the ebola virus if you thought you had even the slightest chance with someone who has not expressed any interest in you what so ever?


It's because he's a "Nice Guy"™. ;) There's a reason they finish last.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

oddtail
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 9:41 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby oddtail » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:57 pm UTC

diotimajsh wrote:
oddtail wrote:Seriously, if you want to be with the person you're with, then, for all intents and purposes, they should be the only person in the world, at least at that particular moment (unless you're both polyamorous).
Hmm, do you then suggest that the hopelessly unrequited simply don't ever date until they feel completely over the person they're pining for (or over him/her enough to want to be with another person more)?

Seems to me that NOT dating anyone else while you nurse a heartache can make you worse off, even if it is "fairer" to your partner. It will probably make you take longer to get over the earlier one.

Less dramatically, if we all chose to date only the people that we most wanted to be with and found most attractive at our current point in life--well, I imagine there'd be a lot fewer people dating. But, luckily, sometimes you can start out with a partner that you feel sort of lukewarm about, and then it develops into something much greater later on.


Good question =) however, this is not exactly what I meant. What I did mean was that it's not OK to be with someone and treat it as a waiting room to being with someone else. The way I see it, if you have feelings for a person, but they're not available, and you decide to pursue a relationship with somebody else, it's just that - a decision. You figure the person is not to be won over, and you choose someone else. As I said, it's not about the feelings as much as an attitude, a mindset. It's OK to feel like being with somebody else, it's even OK to settle for less than initially expected. But as soon as the decision is made, there's some kind of responsibility and commitment. You don't have to stop having feelings for that other person (I don't think it's even possible), but finding someone else equals, in my mind, *deciding* to get over the person, one day. Dating a person and waiting if the original crush/love/attraction will perhaps be available is just a shitty thing to do.

To put it in other words, the sentiment in the comic itself is understandable, if a little sad (but it might not be a good idea to say that out loud, of course). The sentiment in the alt-text somehow feels to me like it's not OK. By choosing one person over another (or over waiting for another), one gives up a plan, a goal or a dream of being with the other person. There are still feelings, sure, but dating and relationships are not exclusively about feelings.

In what I hope is a relevant example from personal experience, my first crush was a real ugly one. Like many teenagers experiencing their first love (unrequited to boot), I was quite desperate and obsessed. It took me quite a few years to get over it completely. But whenever I took an interest in a new girl, I gave her my full and undivided attention. Regardless of whether I took an interest in her for two days (yes, it happened once or twice), a few weeks, months or more, I didn't dwell on the feelings I may have had for other girls in the past. It was a moot point anyway, because I never got past the first few dates with anyone, but if my original True Love jumped out of nowhere and was available (and willing to be together) and I was already in another relationship, I'd say to myself "nah, too late" and stay with the one I was with.

It may seem strange, but I feel it's a "you can't have a cookie and eat it" situation. Either you stand by your feelings for a person (and either wait it out, pursue a relationship, or just give yourself time to get over them), or you move on and look for happiness elsewhere. Not only do I believe that there can be no real fidelity if a person is just a placeholder for the Real Love, but I also find that refusing to move on (even as a person continues to date) is unhealthy and bad for you for pragmatic, egoistic reasons. It's one thing to have long-lasting feelings for a person and another to let those feelings fossilise and turn into something more or less dead, and actually rather ugly. Again, this is based on my personal experience, and I am pretty sure I would've been better off if I looked at my first love in a different light after a while.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. Anyway, the whole thing boils down to this: one can't control one's feelings, but one can either stick to them or decide to move forwards and ignore (*) them. It's impossible to have it both ways.

(*) "ignore" may not be a good word here. I am not advocating suppressing of feelings and the like. I'm just saying that if a person moves on with their life, the feelings ought not to keep a central position in one's mind, if that makes any sense.

EDIT: as an afterthought: I think what makes it look bad to me is that the guy is not casually dating her. He's all "you're the most important in the world", so he should go through with it, all the way. I imagine a person who can't get over someone they love and yet decides to pursue romantic relationships can do that while being honest with their dates/partners that they can't fully commit, for now, and that they have some unresolved feelings they need to cope with. Heck, it's possible, after all, to just casually date someone with no strings attached. But in what seems to be a fairly serious relationship? That's a little, um, grotesque.

Cass_
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:48 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Cass_ » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 pm UTC

Ouch. This is painful. And hit waaayy to close to home for me with an ex and several friends' ex-relationships.

Kalos
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Kalos » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:26 pm UTC

Before I read the alt-text, I thought that the guy was actually implying that he had multiple girlfriends, but the one he's talking to is his current favorite. Which is a little funnier, I guess.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:12 pm UTC

This reminds me somewhat of Beautiful Girl

Looking round room,
I can tell that you
Are the most beautiful girl in the...room.
In the whole wide room
Oooh.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

derick
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:43 pm UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby derick » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:19 pm UTC

People don't dislike this comic because he's showing emotion. There are plenty of emotional serious comics that were, justifiably, well-received. They dislike this comic because it's bad. Stop rationalizing away the fact your pin-up boy boy Randall made a bad comic.

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby neoliminal » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:23 pm UTC

People complaining about the height should remember that you are complaining about the art of a person who draws his characters as STICK FIGURES.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:53 pm UTC

neoliminal wrote:People complaining about the height should remember that you are complaining about the art of a person who draws his characters as STICK FIGURES...


... and manages to somehow screw even that up.

Seraph
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Seraph » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:35 pm UTC

Kalos wrote:Given that Randall almost exclusively uses appreciable height differences to convey that the shorter character is a child (or possibly teenager, but usually child) this comic is wholly unsettling.

Given the fact that you don't know what the heck you're talking about this comic is fine.

Selecting random comics and looking for ones with mixed sex groups comes up with:


I also started looking for black-hat guy and is girlfriend and found the following with a non-random search:

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Faranya » Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:57 am UTC

derick wrote:People don't dislike this comic because he's showing emotion. There are plenty of emotional serious comics that were, justifiably, well-received. They dislike this comic because it's bad. Stop rationalizing away the fact your pin-up boy boy Randall made a bad comic.


Deal so long as you stop trying to justify the position that other people who might like and enjoy this comic are wrong or in some way deluded.
Image

User avatar
quadmaster
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby quadmaster » Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:35 am UTC

Aww, Sir Mustapha,
You're like a fifth grader who makes fun of the girl he has a crush on. He doesn't want to admit his feelings but desperately wants to talk to her. It's ok. We've all been there at one time or another. You don't have to hide your feelings from us :). Hugs?
I... I didn't do it.
<- he did it, I swear

fffudge
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:16 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby fffudge » Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:30 am UTC

oddtail wrote:Either you stand by your feelings for a person (and either wait it out, pursue a relationship, or just give yourself time to get over them), or you move on and look for happiness elsewhere.


Agreed. It's one thing to date casually while trying to get over someone else, but stringing people along like this is really twisted. It really just proves that he doesn't care about her at all. If he did, he would leave her so that she would have a chance to find someone who loves her as much as he loves the other woman. (Assuming monogamy, as is the norm for LTRs in most parts these days.) Every day that he stays is a day that he prevents her from finding that kind of love. But he stays anyway, because it's easier and more pleasant for himself that way. How "deep". :roll:

@ElectricTurtle, I think you have misread the comic. The alt text implies that there is a specific other woman. The only reason he's not with that other woman is that she's unavailable to him. This isn't you telling your wife that you don't believe in soulmates but she's the best match you're likely to find. It's you telling your wife that she's just a consolation prize, and that you'd leave her if you had a chance with Sally who works in your office.

User avatar
diotimajsh
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby diotimajsh » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:01 am UTC

oddtail wrote:
diotimajsh wrote:
oddtail wrote:Seriously, if you want to be with the person you're with, then, for all intents and purposes, they should be the only person in the world, at least at that particular moment (unless you're both polyamorous).
Hmm, do you then suggest that the hopelessly unrequited simply don't ever date until they feel completely over the person they're pining for (or over him/her enough to want to be with another person more)?

Seems to me that NOT dating anyone else while you nurse a heartache can make you worse off, even if it is "fairer" to your partner. It will probably make you take longer to get over the earlier one.

Less dramatically, if we all chose to date only the people that we most wanted to be with and found most attractive at our current point in life--well, I imagine there'd be a lot fewer people dating. But, luckily, sometimes you can start out with a partner that you feel sort of lukewarm about, and then it develops into something much greater later on.
[Explanation]
Ohh, okay, thanks for the reply. That does make sense, and I see I misunderstood you. :)

(I also agree about the alt-text changing the flavor of the comic's sentiment.)

One thing I might add to all this is that the terms of what's acceptable/obligatory in a relationship almost inevitably vary from couple to couple (or, uh, triple, quadruple, n-tuple), since people vary so wildly in their needs and preferences. Even some people who may not consider themselves polygamous might be okay with semi-open casual relationships. So, I think someone with that attitude would probably be less upset at knowing that their partner was interested in them on a contingent, possibly temporary basis.

It's certainly safest not to ever assume those kind of terms when starting out a relationship, though, of course: upfront communication will be key here.
Osha wrote:Foolish Patriarchy! Your feeble attempts at social pressure have no effect on my invincible awesomeness! Bwahahahaa


Blog type thing

tNok85
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 8:19 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby tNok85 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:48 am UTC

Diadem wrote:As if that's limited to just women. I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.


Which is why I could never be gay. What if I hit it off really well with some guy, but it turns out well.. he dwarfs me!?




Wait, height? Nevermind.

Marius
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:59 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Marius » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:01 am UTC

xquared wrote:
Fat Tony wrote: Hit a little too close to home. Mr. Munroe needs to, as they say, "Get out of my head".


i second that... one of my rare "randall get of out my head" moment that prompted me to post...

this is so bitterly funny for me. describes the dynamic between my ex and i to a tee. [i was a foot shorter than my ex too!]
at least stick figure guy had the balls to tell it as it is.

[edit: and the other girl in question is a friend of mine]


Same here.

To those who like this comic: If you haven't seen the movie "500 Days of Summer", you should.
Last edited by Marius on Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Marius
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:59 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby Marius » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:23 am UTC

derick wrote:They dislike this comic because it's bad. Stop rationalizing away the fact your pin-up boy boy Randall made a bad comic.


To me this comic is perfect, one of the best.

Also, there's no objective "good" and "bad".

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby SirMustapha » Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:44 pm UTC

quadmaster wrote:Aww, Sir Mustapha,
You're like a fifth grader who makes fun of the girl he has a crush on. He doesn't want to admit his feelings but desperately wants to talk to her. It's ok. We've all been there at one time or another. You don't have to hide your feelings from us :). Hugs?


It's ok, kid, I understand you have no actual opinions to stand up for, you don't need to bother with me.

jwwells
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:47 am UTC

Re: "All the Girls" Discussion (#770)

Postby jwwells » Sat Jul 24, 2010 4:48 pm UTC

This comic skewers a creepy attitude. That does not make the comic in itself creepy, even if it does induce a little wince. It creeped me out a little, I'll admit, but I think I'm oversensitive to these things.

It is good to date people to get over someone else. It is creepy to tell someone that you love them more than anybody else in the whole wide world, hugging them close and swearing you'll always love them, when you actually think of it as a strictly conditional agreement.

Funny? Eh. In a dark way, because of the contrast between the emotionally dishonest behavior and the absolutely honest explanation of it. It's like seeing the following conversation in a sitcom:

"HIM: Honey, I'm home!
HER: (concerned) You look tired. Is something wrong?
HIM: No, I'm just worn out from all that furtive sex with my secretary."

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Diadem » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:32 pm UTC

drewster1829 wrote:
Box Boy wrote:
Diadem wrote:I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.

Must. Not. Make. This. Into. Innuendo.
Diadem wrote:With a bit of interracial mixing you can easily get a two foot length difference.

D-d-d-dammit! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!

You beat me! I was wondering why Diadem was using length as the relevant dimension.

As much as I would love to take credit for that innuendo, I'm afraid it was just Dunglish. Here in The Netherlands we use length when we talk about how tall someone is, not height.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Kalos
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby Kalos » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:21 am UTC

Seraph wrote:
Kalos wrote:Given that Randall almost exclusively uses appreciable height differences to convey that the shorter character is a child (or possibly teenager, but usually child) this comic is wholly unsettling.

Given the fact that you don't know what the heck you're talking about this comic is fine.

Selecting random comics and looking for ones with mixed sex groups comes up with:


I also started looking for black-hat guy and is girlfriend and found the following with a non-random search:


(1) Most of those height differences are significantly less than the one is this most recent comic, you need to also take into account that the male is slightly hunched over.

(2) You haven't realized from my other two posts on the subject (and pretty much all of my posts, period) that I'm just trollin?

LordBritish
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Re: "All the Girls" (#770)

Postby LordBritish » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:31 pm UTC

bitwiseshiftleft wrote:Come on, Randall, you know the condition is more complicated than that.


Actually the comic sucked when I read it first, however the comment of bitwiseshiftleft gave it a geeky reference, considering this it's kinda ok. Was Randall planning this?
In vacuum, you are no longer a sucker.

now to something completely different: http://demesos.blogspot.com


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cougar Allen, Majestic-12 [Bot], serutan and 49 guests