« Respecification sounds positively Orwellian, doesn't it? | Main | A bedtime story. »

Wednesday: Bloody hell, that's creepy.

Oh, man. No. No way.
(From Alien Loves Predator. Click to understand how I might be just a little messed up.)

It's not so much the execution, although I normally love AlP to death. Not that I was much on Alien, or on Predator, or on the whole bizarre conflation of those two concepts (why are they the same universe? No, wait, don't explain it to me, because I won't care!), but I'm enamoured with these two repulsive action figures sharing an apartment in a city full of other action figures. Also, as sitcom writing goes, it makes me very happy. Notwithstanding the Buddy Christ. I'm no fan of the Buddy Christ; that part's just been overdone.

But I digress. See, the thing is, Bernie Hou just invoked ELIZA.

As Eliza Dushku.

Okay. Understand, I can cope with the idea of an ELIZA implementation who's sexualized outside of the therapeutic environment -- if you're over 21, go find Sexy Losers strip number 200 and consider ARPA-01, or consider this panel out of context
-- but, for no apparent reason, I hadn't connected the face of Hypersexualized Vampire Slayer Faith with my childhood babysitter.

Yeah.

See, I'm second-generation computer geek. One of my very first memories is of my dad taking me down to his academic workplace, and sitting me down in front of a greenscreen Tektronix terminal in the lab. It was 1979, maybe 1980; I was four. He passed me the phone receiver and dialed a campus number; the phone started squealing. Then he took the receiver, and put it down onto this strange little machine with cups in it.

The terminal, he said, was talking to a big computer down the block in the engineering deparment.

Slowly, the greenscreen terminal started responding. Apparently he was right.

There's not a lot for a four-year-old to do with a mainframe in 1979, or even 1980. So he pulled up ELIZA for me to talk to. I wasn't sure why she wanted to know so much about my mother, but we kept up something of a conversation. A four-year-old can't have much of a conversation with a program from 1966, but, then again, neither can that program have much of a conversation.

I dimly rememeber being frustrated by the limited topic scope, though. My dad would later mess with the code enough to have ELIZA bring up topics more relevant to my personal life (Barbie dolls, for example), but it was never quite the same. Not that I didn't spend entire weekend afternoons or after-kindergarten stretches talking to ELIZA, or that I didn't miss her as I moved on to the WICAT in the other room and such.

Anyhow, the image I always had of ELIZA-the-person was of some austere daycare manager. A bad beehive or perm; perhaps aviator glasses and schoolmarmish garb. Not...

Not Eliza Dushku with the biouxbies falling out, willy-nilly, all religiously devout sex and silver lame trousers. No. No, I'm vaguely creeped out in that way one is creeped out when one's primary caretakers are characterized as possibly being inclined towards private activities now. But that's my problem.

Then again, I was never the sort to develop crushes on my real-life babysitters to begin with. They were cute, and had nice chests, but they didn't know the first thing about computers. Who wants that in a relationship?

Posted by Wednesday Burns-White at October 10, 2005 11:39 PM

Comments

Comment from: Alexis Christoforides posted at October 10, 2005 11:49 PM

Re: The strip.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Comment from: quiller posted at October 11, 2005 12:21 AM

Luckily, my youthful time on a mainframe was at my mom's job at Dartmouth college, so I got to play basic computer games. Oops, sorry, Basic computer games. Lots of question and answer sports games and Animal. And I think I was at least 1st grade or so.

Comment from: gwalla posted at October 11, 2005 12:36 AM

Eliza...

As ELIZA...

ouch

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 11, 2005 1:35 AM

Wow. Just when I thought I'd seen all the webcomics that could creep me out....

As for your babysitter as a child, Eric? It's a wonder you're not on a belltower, or completely in love and wishing you could wed your bathroom slippers or something. It *does* explain a bit, however, how you gravitated to the Keyboard as Communication Method lifestyle, though.

Comment from: Merus posted at October 11, 2005 1:46 AM

That's Wednesday snarking. She's not Eric.

Comment from: Paul A. posted at October 11, 2005 2:16 AM

Oh. So it is. That would explain the Barbie dolls, then.

Comment from: gwalla posted at October 11, 2005 2:39 AM

Waitasec...Paul A = larksilver?

Comment from: Merus posted at October 11, 2005 4:09 AM

I'd put money on Paul A's computer = larksilver's computer, myself. One of them forgot to log out.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at October 11, 2005 7:46 AM

Not if this's the Paul A I thought it was, who lives half a world away from Houston. I think Paul A was just confused also.

Meanwhile, back on topic, sorta: I suppose if they had to give the Pink Panther a voice it might as well have been Matt Freuer's - but why did they have to?

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 11, 2005 9:06 AM

duuuuh. Of course it's Wednesday. And I'm usually the one going "dude, didn't you see that tag up there?!?!?!" in my head, too. Color me embarrassed. Sorry Weds! the snark just.. well, it sounded more like an Eric snark than a Wednesday snark, and I didn't bother to look.

Uhm.. last time I checked, there was no Paul here. Even if I'm too daffy to actually read the tag up there. Darla, aye, but not Paul.

I used to date a man whose online name was Paul, but haven't seen him in about 5 years. If he's still using my computer, that's kinda creepy.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 11, 2005 11:10 AM

I can give you the easy reason as to why Alien and Predator are the same universe - because it's entertaining. Sometimes, it's all the reason you need.

And I personally think Buddy Christ appears so often because everyone (especially Christians) wishes they thought of it first.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at October 11, 2005 11:15 AM

Poor Eliza Dushku, she'll always be Faith, won't she. HAving to go around being typecast as a character from a ended series must make it hard to get good gigs these days (and God forbid she want to go on to do Shakespear or something).

As to ELIZA, it belongs in jokes. It's funny. A funny concept that enherently creates funny lines (have you ever typed in something odd and gotten delightful giberish in return?). Before spam started trying to evade filters with random generated sentences, ELIZA was the greatest source for slightly zany "found poetry". It makes sense that people would put it in their comics.

Frankly, I find the Sexy Losers strip alot more disturbing (is that series on hiatus or something?). The ALP comic isn't overtly sexual, excepting that the poster of Sigmund Freud is thinking about her ass (you can't see her ass in that poster, Sigmund).

Comment from: Paul A. posted at October 11, 2005 11:09 PM

I used to date a man whose online name was Paul, but haven't seen him in about 5 years. If he's still using my computer, that's kinda creepy.

It is, isn't it.

 

 

 

...no, actually, Paul Gadzikowski has it right. I have no actual connection with larksilver; it's just that for a while there our trains of thought were running on parallel tracks. Or something like that.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at October 11, 2005 11:12 PM

It's the breasts, isn't it? Y'all always seem to get tripped up when there's breasts. :)

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 12, 2005 12:13 AM

Well, given that I have a pair of my own, and I live in the Town of Tripped-up... sure, it's the breasts. I'll gleefully blame them!

Comment from: miyaa posted at October 12, 2005 5:06 AM

I wonder how long will it be before a webcomic tries a joke essentially asking the question why do men have breast and teats? Especially the teats.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at October 12, 2005 7:07 AM

I wonder how long will it be before a webcomic tries a joke essentially asking the question why do men have breast and teats? Especially the teats.

I saw one the other day! But I was surfing at random and I couldn't now tell you who or where it was.

Comment from: abb3w posted at October 12, 2005 1:26 PM

32_footsteps isn't quite correct. The reason Alien and Predator are in the same universe is because someone making Predator 2 had a fun idea, and the obsessive fanboys caught the joke and ran with it. From IMDB's Predator 2 trivia page: "The skull of a creature that resembles the ones in Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986) is on the wall in the Predator's trophy room. [...] Putting the Alien skull on the trophy case on the Predator ship was the idea of Stan Winston' as a way of showing off all the different species and creatures that the Predators have hunted and killed. Since Fox had owned the Alien franchise, it was easy to obtain the rights to use the Alien head in the film."

It's amazing what spins off from 1.8 seconds of throwaway in-joke. However, as noted... Wednesday doesn't care. =)

Comment from: quiller posted at October 12, 2005 3:17 PM

Well I'm sure men have teats because of "Intelligent Design", just like why humans have appendixes, don't you know.

Comment from: J.(Channing)Wells posted at October 12, 2005 3:42 PM

Now I find myself wanting to know if Predator-type aliens have mammae. Thanks, brain! Thanks, Websnark commenters!

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 12, 2005 4:05 PM

I always thought I had teats in case of emergency. As in, if the primary lactating parent is unavailable, I'm to begin with the milk production immediately.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 12, 2005 4:27 PM

I understand that some men, feeling left out of the whole nursing thing, let their baby suckle on them. So if mom's "food," then dad's "binky?"

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 12, 2005 4:58 PM

But what of a case of male lactation?

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 12, 2005 5:13 PM

From what I recall, it is, technically, possible, although rare.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 12, 2005 7:23 PM

Bah, you're just not running with the joke, lark.

From the studies I've read, male lactation is possible, although generally there needs to be much outer stimulus in the male and even then the yield will be lower (in both quantity and quality) compared to a woman (even a woman that has lactation stimulated in the same manner as a man).

It's not that it's impossible, it's just rare and generally inefficient even when it happens, from what I've read.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at October 12, 2005 7:55 PM

"From what I recall, it is, technically, possible, although rare."

and the biologist weighs in...
It is possible, contingent on hormone injections. Stories of men crash landed on desert islands with infants developing nursing ability are urban legends. A sizeable number (somewhere between 1 and 5%) of boys going through puberty experience some form of hormone-flux driven short term mammary developement or "discharge".

"It's the breasts, isn't it? Y'all always seem to get tripped up when there's breasts. :)"

Why do you say that? I must be missing the relevance (except a cheap shot at men).

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at October 12, 2005 8:52 PM

WD: I say that because the last time I made a 'snark entry which was strongly confused with one of Eric's, I made salacious references to boobies. In fact, I think that was one of the reasons why the last one was attributed to Eric, although god only knows why. :)

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 12, 2005 9:31 PM

Joke? hehe I wasn't joking. I didn't want to go into too many specifics, as I know there are people on here who are way smarter than me, who would surely tell me I'm nuts. It's nice to know that I'm not - at least, it's nice to know that I recalled correctly that men could lactate, even if it's sort of junk-food-ish (read: filling, but not as nutritious as the real deal from Mom).

I did a *lot* of reading when deciding whether to nurse the boy or bottle-feed, but couldn't remember the source of that particular tidbit and didn't want to, y'know, spread an urban booby-legend.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 13, 2005 10:20 AM

I ended up figuring out that you weren't joking, Lark. But I was - male lactation seems inherently humorous to me, and should it somehow happen to me I'd like to think I can keep laughing at it.

I've also heard rumors of "sympathetic lactation" - that some men will start shortly after their partner has a child. Something about reacting to a hormone a lactating mother produces or the like, but this (like anything else I say about the subject) is just what I've heard and you'd want WD to confirm or deny it.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 13, 2005 10:27 AM

It *is* funny, 32. The idea of my newborn nuzzling on his dad's chest, given that it would totally freak him out, cracks me up.

There are cases where adoptive moms can nurse their adopted babies, if the child is young enough, especially if they've had a child before. Back, before formula, etc., it was common for poorer women to serve as wet nurse to the rich woman's babies, and these people nursed their kids for *years,* instead of just the 1-2 that's common today.

For me, it was a case of "ow! Teeth! Done!" I can't imagine nursing a kiddo til they're 4 (as a supplement to table food, I assume), which was pretty common as recently as 100 years ago.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at October 13, 2005 11:37 AM

"WD: I say that because the last time I made a 'snark entry which was strongly confused with one of Eric's, I made salacious references to boobies. In fact, I think that was one of the reasons why the last one was attributed to Eric, although god only knows why. :)"

Because women don't want to talk about boobs. Only men want to talk about boobs. Why would women want to talk about boobs? It's not like they have them or anyth...wait. hmmm.

Okay, so it is more common for men to talk about the use women as sexual images.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 13, 2005 2:23 PM

Hey, I'm a woman. I *have* boobs, and they're sexual objects, so for me not to be aware that other women's boobs are also seen as sexual objects would be a trifle silly, dontchathink?

Some e-mail thing came around recently about how men's magazines are always full of half (or more than half) naked women, because the female body is smooth, and curvy, and often full of grace. It went on to say that women's magazines were also full of pictures of women for the same reason, whereas men's bodies are kind of lumpy and hairy and a bit goofy-looking.

Even a woman firmly in the "I like boy bits, thankyouverymuch" camp can appreciate, and even find attractive, a set of perky boobies. yep.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 13, 2005 3:31 PM

To be fair, in the right context, any part of the human body can be a sexual object - and by extension, any part can be made into a non-sexual object. If I described an organ as a sac of adipose tissue surrounding a modified sweat gland, that certainly sounds unappealing. But that's what a mammary is. Meanwhile, someone could wax poetic about the sensual qualities of well-formed metatarsals. Doesn't mean that everyone finds sexual interest in the feet.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 13, 2005 6:47 PM

Of course any body part can be sensual, or sexual. Boobs are simply a very commonly recognized one in our culture - not to mention being one of the most obvious differences between male and female, and thus played up a good bit. We don't wear push-up bras and low necklines for nothin', sport. :)

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at October 13, 2005 6:48 PM

I'm not sure this part of the conversation was the point.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 13, 2005 7:46 PM

Wait, we now have to have points with out conversation? Crap, I'm about to be booted from Websnark.

I dunno, Lark... given the increasing prevalence of men having noticeable tissue beneath their nipples and the number of women I've met with litle in the way of mammary development, I'd probably point to body hair as a more obvious difference.

That, and I always figured some women obsess about footwear to attract foot fetishists. Who else spends that much time looking down there?

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 13, 2005 9:52 PM

Oh, dear. We're supposed to follow the point of the conversation and not go wandering off on a.. er.. Non-Rob tangent? I'm screwed. May as well hand over my password now.

You're right, of course, about the man-boobs thing, 32. Frighteningly right. I dated a man once, for about 10 years, whose boobies were bigger than mine, and that's no small accomplishment.

As for footwear? I don't completely get that, I never have. I'm not good at being "girlish," I suppose. I wear pants, seldom skirts, and I own 4 pair of shoes: a pair of brown ankle boots, two different styles of black ankle boots, and a pair of flats for skirts, seldom worn. Oh, and footsies for around the house. More than that.. well, heck, my hubby owns more shoes than that.

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at October 14, 2005 1:37 AM

No, no, I'm not saying there's an arbitrary rule which says you have to follow a point, just that the course the conversation took struck me as rather missing the one I'd made. :)

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 14, 2005 8:27 AM

We know, Weds - it's just that the point we found was one ripe with jokes. We couldn't resist that.

Okay, that's a reasonable number of shoes. I have five pairs, and I remember them more for why I own them than what they look like. Sandals for hot weather, boat shoes for temperate weather, snow boots for cold/nasty weather, boots for work, and dress shoes for wearing a suit. Having that many is actually a recent shift. I used to just have sneakers and a pair of boots that could go with a suit.

I'm not saying that I don't care about breasts at all, but the obsession gets a bit ridiculous. Especially as it's over an organ that both genders can develop and probably gets less use than any other organ in either gender (although that's just begging for someone to make a joke about brains).

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at October 14, 2005 9:55 AM

the course the conversation took struck me as rather missing the one I'd made. :)

Well, I responded to your general theme if not to your specific manifestation of it, but apparently no one else here is old enough to remember when the Pink Panther didn't talk.

(Not couldn't. Like Harpo Marx until A Day At The Races, the Pink Panther could talk but didn't, as shown in at least one cartoon when he spoke to the audience. Sounded like George Sanders.)

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 14, 2005 10:19 AM

It's funnier when they don't talk, except for the occasional woohoo-he-just-talked! moment.

While not on quite the same playing field, it's sort of like the Kevin Smith movies. You spend the whole time wishing Jay would shut up, or that someone will pummel him into silence, and waiting for the moment when Silent Bob says his two words.

I have never understood why producers of remakes always seem to find it necessary to jack with the basic premise of the film they're "remaking." I mean, there's updates for modern times, and then there's "hey, we're going to make our own film, and just slap this name on it, mmmkay?"

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at October 14, 2005 10:31 AM

LS: "Hey, I'm a woman. I *have* boobs, and they're sexual objects, so for me not to be aware that other women's boobs are also seen as sexual objects would be a trifle silly, dontchathink?"

exactly, which is the way that Wednesday was talking in her original post. However, because men seem to spend alot more time talking/thinking along those lines, people assumed it was Eric.

"Some e-mail thing came around recently about how men's magazines are always full of half (or more than half) naked women, because the female body is smooth, and curvy, and often full of grace. It went on to say that women's magazines were also full of pictures of women for the same reason, whereas men's bodies are kind of lumpy and hairy and a bit goofy-looking."

And here I'd always thought that it was because men's magazines were marketed as, "here's what you can HAVE (fast cars, gorgeous women, etc.), so long as you buy the products we advertise" while women's magazines were marketed as, "here's what you can BE (a gorgeous women, etc.), so long as you buy the products we advertise".

WW: "No, no, I'm not saying there's an arbitrary rule which says you have to follow a point, just that the course the conversation took struck me as rather missing the one I'd made. :)"

I think I touched on it. The poster is clearly a copy of a "starlet" poster produced for hormonal fans of Ms. Dushku. Aside from that (and the Freud poster's not-so-subtle "Freudian slip"), there wasn't anything about the Dushku poster that was particularly sexual. Even the oversexed alien was asking it for support, not asking it out.

Still, I think I understand where you are going. Have you ever seen Victor/Victoria? (AAAAUUUGGGGH!!!! Mary Poppins' boobies!!!! Somebody claw my eyes out!!!!!!)

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at October 14, 2005 12:09 PM

Still, I think I understand where you are going. Have you ever seen Victor/Victoria? (AAAAUUUGGGGH!!!! Mary Poppins' boobies!!!! Somebody claw my eyes out!!!!!!)

Victor/Victoria? Really? I haven't seen that but I have seen a still of Julie Andrews flashing, which I'd thought was from another film I haven't seen, S.O.B.. You see, S.O.B. is America's sweetheart Julie Andrews' husband filmmaker Blake Edwards' film about an unscrupulous fillmaker putting his wife America's sweetheart in a nude scene. You can see, I'm sure, how I arrived at this conclusion.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 14, 2005 12:37 PM

If I recall correctly, S.O.B. wasn't very good, and although there was much hubbub about it, I can't recall seeing those boobies. I think she fainted or something when the scene came about.

It's so hard to remember. The film was so bad I just blocked it from my noggin, I fear.

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at October 14, 2005 2:45 PM

Paul G.: Wait. I... the Pink Panther talked? Man, where the hell have I been?

Comment from: SeanH posted at October 14, 2005 3:29 PM

Yeah, seriously, what? I completely don't remember him talking, ever.

Comment from: Matt Sweeney posted at October 14, 2005 3:30 PM

There was a short lived cartoon in the last 10-15 years that featured a talking Pink Panther.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at October 14, 2005 5:28 PM

Weighing in on the male nipple issue (a phrase I don't expect to type again any time in the near future):

From what I've read (I think this was addressed in one of Stephen Jay Gould's books, among other places), there's a simple explanation for male nipples, and it has nothing to do with male lactation. (Even if males can lactate under unusual circumstances, that seems to be an accidental phenomenon, not the reason they have nipples.) The reason is simply that it (obviously) serves a purpose for females to have nipples, and it was simpler to evolve nipples in both genders and leave them nonfunctional in one than to only evolve nipples in one gender. Male nipples are just a side effect of female nipples; they serve no purpose on their own, but evolution generally takes the easier routes.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at October 14, 2005 9:16 PM

In "classic", 1970s Pink Panther there was a cartoon called Nora's Ark. This guy decided to build an ark to pen up stupid animals to harvest fur coats for his wife Nora, but the animals led by the Pink Panther tricked him into thinking another flood was coming and he could escape it in the ark he conveniently already had on hand. At the end the Pink Panther turned to the camera and said in a deep, British-accented voice, "Why can't people be more like animals?"

In the 1990s there were new Pink Panther cartoons produced which were regular talkies instead of silent, and in which the Pink Panther was voiced by Matt Freuer.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 16, 2005 10:07 PM

"Male nipples are just a side effect of female nipples; they serve no purpose on their own, but evolution generally takes the easier routes."

But by that logic, why don't girls have testicles? Or boys, vulva? Wouldn't we all be semi-hermaphroditic?

Comment from: Wednesday White posted at October 16, 2005 10:13 PM

A good, hard look at both sets of genitals, up close, makes it relatively easy to see where the differentiations happen. At a very first glance:

a) compare the clitoral head and hood to the uncircumcised penis head;
b) shift the scrotal sac upwards and consider the shape the perineum takes.

Ovaries and testes aren't visible, but IIRC appear comparable on ultrasounds, &c. &c. &c.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at October 17, 2005 5:10 AM

Yup; I think basically Wednesday's got it. Men and women do have analogous sets of genitalia; women may not have testicles, or men vulvas, but they do have organs that are analogous, though not identical, and that develop along roughly parallel lines. The fact that it's easier for things to develop similarly in the two genders, rather than for an organ or feature to develop completely in one gender and not at all in the other, doesn't mean there can't still be significant differences. (Besides, although there's no adaptive reason for men to have nipples, there's no real adaptive reason for them not to, either--they're not hurting anything, so there's no good reason for evolution to "put forth the effort" (speaking figuratively) to make such drastic changes between them. On the other hand, there are some very good reasons for the differences in the genitalia (though despite that those differences aren't as pronounced in every species--for reasons that biologists still aren't completely certain of, the clitoris of the female spotted hyena bears a very strong resemblance to a penis, despite the potential difficulties this causes in reproduction--so much so that spotted hyenas were once mistakenly thought to be hermaphroditic).

Anyway, there are few hard and fast rules in evolution; it does generally tend toward taking the easiest routes, but there's a lot of happenstance and contingency too.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at October 17, 2005 6:19 AM

By the way, I suppose I might as well add that that bit about the hyena I actually first learned from Digger. Entertaining and educational...

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 17, 2005 10:20 AM

So, it's Monday morning, and I'm at work. At a Children's Hospital. Reading about genitalia, in a conversation I've been participating in, no less. And suddenly, I'm wigged out. Creeeeeeepsville. I mean, dammit, I'm at work. There are children here, lots of them... okay, so they're not in my work area, but still. Ewwwwwww

Actually, the part that may have me totally wiggy is the discussion of non-human genitalia up there. Because, see, I once saw a nature program where they showed a couple of humpbacks.. and that, my friends, was .. wow. Wiggy. yep. Not wrong or anything, just.. oh, hell, I'm going to chalk it up to fatigue, because today? eeeeeeeep.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 17, 2005 10:59 AM

I don't know... after seeing a picture of elephants making the pachyderm with two backs when I was 14, I couldn't really be affected all that much about fairly clinical descriptions of body parts, whatever parts they may be.

And actually, I do know that nipples on men are there because of evolutionary simplicity. I just couldn't resist the male lactation joke. All I can say is that I'm easily amused.

Though I'm finding it really funny that while I try to type this, someone wants to talk to me about a game called "Where Do Babies Come From?" that uses the Nintendo DS touch screen.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 17, 2005 1:07 PM

I used to have a book, somewhere, about where babies come from. It was all cute illustrations and such. My mom gave it to me when I was, like 6? and was curious about how that all worked. She figured if I was old enough to ask, I was old enough to at least get the basics, sans discussion of genitalia.

And of course evolutionary simplicity makes total sense. But hey, this whole thread has been fun.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at October 17, 2005 2:16 PM

Lark, maybe I ought to givve you some background, as it makes things more obviously funny.

There's a game for the DS called Feel The Magic. It's basically a collection of minigames that you play with a touch screen and a stylus. The plot, such as there is, is that you're a guy who is trying desperately to land the woman of his dreams. Some of the minigames are just goofy stunts to get the woman's attention. Others involve you trying to build up affection, like holding her hand. And then there are games in which you give her massages.

Not anything outrageous, but there were more than a few jokes about how people were hitting on virtual women using a portable game. Well, they've announced a sequel, and it's called "Where Do Babies Come From?" Seriously, that's the title. The going assumption is that you again will use the stylus and touch screen to play mini-games... this time, with the purpose of making babies.

Now fill in the average maturity level of a hardcore video gamer. I'd say something derisive about it if I wasn't busy snickering myself.

Okay, I'll go on - I can't wait to see someone follow up with "Our Bodies, Ourselves, the RPG".

Comment from: siwangmu posted at October 17, 2005 5:46 PM

I'll never quite get over the "massage" scene in Final Fantasy X-2... I was there when my roommate got to the part where Yuna, in infiltrating *Villain's name*'s base, has to substitute for her "regular girl," and by pressing the right places on the back (feedback being given in terms of the moans and such), win the minigame...

The exact stated goal of this game was "Satisfy *Villain's Name*"

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 17, 2005 7:50 PM

Y'know.. such scenes shouldn't cause my skin to crawl, and of themselves, they really don't. But I doubt I could play through such a scene without knowing, with absolute certainty, that hundreds (if not thousands) of fanboys, many of whom without .. er.. "real" female companionship, would save right before said scene and watch it, over, and over, and over, and over....

/shudder. Creepsville.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 17, 2005 7:51 PM

Oh - and I must say, I took the time to go back through ALP's archives today... and now, I've gotta read the next one. Both-er. I really did NOT NEED another comic on my list, but it's there now. And it's all HER fault! hee

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?