0807: "Connected"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Cave Wizard
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:10 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Cave Wizard » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:33 pm UTC

I thought this one was pretty good, it's funny to see an android's-eye view every now and then

I'm also amused by the cold, analytical criticisms of the comic in this thread

Code: Select all

Comic: LOVE IS NOT BEAUTIFUL.

Response: DOES NOT COMPUTE.  IF LOVE IS NOT BEAUTIFUL WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL.

User avatar
Callista
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Callista » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:43 pm UTC

I might have a unique perspective on this one, but it just kind of made me sigh and go, "Yeah, I wish people would stop being so obsessed with love..."

I'm asexual--meaning I don't want sex and prefer friendships and possibly platonic relationships--and that means I'm a lot more into intellectual and emotional connection than hormones. Always have been. It's really very annoying for me to live in a world where everybody seems to be fascinated with love. They even inject it into things where it's totally irrelevant, like car ads and action movies; and I've seen more than one person just assume that your life must be perfect if you're in love, and horrible if you're not. It's not like that, at all. Plus, there are plenty of cultures that aren't so fixated on love, and they do just fine; so it's not like my belief that love isn't preeminent is just a product of my general lack of desire to sleep with anybody. On top of that, there's more to love than romance; there's also love of family, love of friends, even love of ideas. Why should romance always be considered superior? I think that's just plain silly.

Yes, romance helps us reproduce; but if we had nothing but romantic love, we'd all be raising those kids on our own, with no social structure to help us along. That, incidentally, is where asexuals and other non-reproducing people come in: We contribute information, ideas, and extra pairs of hands to help make a society where those who reproduce can raise their kids safely (and, incidentally, pass on the asexual's genes via siblings). It's not all about reproduction; it's about information and cooperation, too. Maybe it would be all about couples, if we were a species that didn't form social bonds or pass on information to each other; but we haven't been like that since we grew fur and decided to live in groups.

blu28
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:52 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby blu28 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

The Scyphozoa wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:.... For some reason, I can't shake the notion that this is the song they're talking about.

Because my brain is basic.

I like to think that it's this song, so I have a way to feel smugly superior to them.


And I thought it was this song.

User avatar
Locoluis
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Locoluis » Mon Oct 18, 2010 6:50 pm UTC

I once heard something about the initial physical attraction (a very intense, passionate something that happened between a couple, also known as "lust"), mentioning that it lasts up to about two years.

After that, the relationship could mature into something more permanent as more solid, long lasting feelings of love developed in the couple. Or would just die away as the passion is gone and there's no other foundation that justifies the relationship.

Most of the time, the overly passionate, "romantic" behaviors between a couple are manifestations of the initial physical attraction phase. If the relationship survives past such a threshold, saner heads are prevailing and there is much more potential for a successful marriage.

I pity all those fools who rush to passion-triggered conclusions and take decisions too early in the relationship, like getting married or having kids. I wonder how many marriages have failed because of this rush.



Of course, I have no idea if all of the above is true myself or just romantic bullshit, having never been in a relationship. However, for some reason my heart still hurts when I remember the name of certain ex-classmate. Nowadays, I wish it was just another stupid crush, that would be gone in two years. It's been six years already, and I curse the day I lost any tiny chance I could have had with her.

Did I mention it had to be mutual? Rarely it is.
Sueños del Sur - A webcomic about four siblings, their family, friends, adventures and dreams.
http://sds.lgm.cl/

User avatar
Skip
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:47 pm UTC
Location: Maricopa County
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Skip » Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

Any of you play MineCraft? I just started playing and I realize I can't make anything artistic in 3D ..or any other D. Who wants to have sex?
Reginald Beaumont Berkes

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3672
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Monika » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:18 pm UTC

Wait ... what?
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

User avatar
DorkRawk
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:50 am UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby DorkRawk » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:19 pm UTC

Trying to romanticize love is like trying to moisten water.

Azbbb
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Azbbb » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

Most people that describe themselves as asexual do not sympathize with the desire for passion in a relationship as typical people would be able to sympathize with the desire for a platonic relationship. They seem to have a certain aversion to sexual intimacy, are extremely uncomfortable with it. It would be very sad if I was extremely uncomfortable with being just friends with someone.

Whenever I see somebody mention being asexual I become a little sad inside, too. I wish there was a way for asexual people to pick out some of those elements of intimacy that they like, and give themselves fully to somebody that loves them. If you are truly, deeply, fully happy without a companion then yeah. But if somewhere there is that desire to have a companion and to share your soul with them, I really hope that an aversion to human intimacy does not stand in the way of that connection.

Passion doesn't have to dominate the relationship, and I know there are many very strong relationships out there that are not at all dominated by passion, but just that hint of passion can show your surrender to your significant other and show you'll love him or her in the way he or she wants to be loved.

Seems there is a big mutual misunderstanding between asexual persons and sexual persons.

I guess I do share the aversion against our sex-obsessed society, though.

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby arthurd006_5 » Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:56 pm UTC

As an antidote to the top half of this cartoon, I like the four step timing diagram in "Essays in Love" by Alain de Botton.

But I may be romanticising it.

User avatar
Glenn Magus Harvey
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Glenn Magus Harvey » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:11 pm UTC

I see that Randall Munroe is bitter about something.

However, I would be far more entertained if he estimated the probability of finding a person with the same interest. Starting with very popular items such as CSI: Miami and apple pies, then moving to less popular items, such as AD&D and and the halting function, and finally to extremely obscure things such as Eagle Riders and the Dopefish.

And finally, of course, compiling the results into a gigantic chart.

User avatar
Tokyoma
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:07 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Tokyoma » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:46 pm UTC

I'm reminded of a passage from The Prophet:

Kahlil Gibran wrote:When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams
as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.


Love in itself is perfect.
Meaning two things.
The first is that regardless of whether I lie when I say it, or whether we both feel it, or whether it feels real to me at the time, the love itself is perfect and true and if I don't doubt it, it won't fail, and if it seems to then it wasn't love or meant to be, etc.
The second is that in being perfect we can't experience, comprehend, or ever know love in its entirety or its purity.

Essentially it's a shot in the dark, anybody's guess. But given these two completely unfounded, radical claims, one might as well leap headfirst into it, even if you fail you didn't really fail. You cannot fall out of love, only into it. Break-ups, relationships, maturity, growth, only if you remove yourself from the idea (and by such attempt to claim you understand what you're removing yourself from [see second claim]) can you miss love.

Don't be so jaded, don't be so hurt, and don't be afraid.

It's not unintelligent, or uncool, or lame to really love someone. In fact, I think it's pretty awesome to see someone brave enough to have faith and courage in their feelings. It's enough that love can on a whim's notice induce every and ANY emotion at a moment's notice, couple that with broken heart's, radical feminism, public opinion, and greeting card companies and it's a wonder we can even manage lying about it to each other.

SomeFloridaKid
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:59 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby SomeFloridaKid » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:58 pm UTC

dracolytch wrote:We do not romanticize young love. Young love romanticizes itself.

You're making me think now.
EXPAND: (a+b)^n
(a+b)^n
(a+b)^n
(a+b)^n

GENERATION 191,184,382 : The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and divide the generation number by 2 if it's even, or multiply it by 3 then add 1 if it's odd. Social experiment.

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Mr. Burke » Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:58 pm UTC

philsov wrote:for once, the alt text kinda ruined it....

Single panel as stand alone was a good comic though.

For once? That happens rather frequently, I daresay.
Skip wrote:Who wants to have sex?

Well, who doesn't?

User avatar
Skip
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:47 pm UTC
Location: Maricopa County
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Skip » Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:42 am UTC

I suppose there are more important things to do. But seeing as how sex seems to be one of the things I want to do most, like the rest of you, shouldn't it be one of the most scrutinized as well as refrained from things?

Or maybe when I can actually get any, experimental data.
Reginald Beaumont Berkes

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby BioTube » Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:56 am UTC

Mr. Burke wrote:Well, who doesn't?
There's two posts announcing asexuality in this thread and I'm sure there's at least one voyeur.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby iChef » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:01 am UTC

There's a reason they call it puppy love. You see him/her the first time and they are everything you wanted. Sweet, cute, ready to follow you around and enjoy life forever. Then you get home and the damn thing need to be fed, destroys your furniture, bites your family and craps on the carpet. Only difference is when you go to rub your spouse's face in it you lose half your stuff. At least the dog is still happy to see me the next day.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

weaselsmasher
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:56 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby weaselsmasher » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:04 am UTC

Speaking geekishly, this is the fallacy which the author questions:

Code: Select all

>>> print type(TrueLove)
<type 'boolean'>

The above doesn't happen!

And this is the position the author advocates:

Code: Select all

>>> print type(TrueLove)
Traceback (most recent call last):
NameError: name 'TrueLove' is not defined
>>> TrueLove = emotion.state(person.gender("appropriate"))
>>> print type(TrueLove)
<type 'float'>

Love is not a constant, it's not something predefined, and it most certainly has nuances of strength and value.

mdistancerunner
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:31 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby mdistancerunner » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:08 am UTC

H.H wrote:Romantic love as depicted in today's pop culture is a product of the Romantic period. Prior to the late 18th century, love was perceived in a totally different, and much more realistic, sense. Attempts to approach the matter seriously and as objectively as possible started with the philosophical tradition of Plato's Symposium.

Then came the middle ages, and the concept of chivalry (which was forced into existence as a way to reconcile the violent nature of the times with Christianity, not as a real philosophical development of any sort) fucked everything up. Although the deists of the 16th and 17th centuries tried to bring the discussion back to reasonable lines, the likes of Walter Scott clinched on the notion of simplistic romantic love as a populist tool that generates interest, in lieu of meaningful insights on the matter.

This continued to our day, Romanticism going hand in hand with Consumerism, as a way of selling weekend trips to Paris and romantic comedies.

Ironically, despite Romanticism's claim of propelling social progress, it gradually became less and less relevant because of it, since societal norms now limit arranged marriages to fundamental, almost exclusively non-western societies.


The short version: there's no such thing as romantic love as seen in movies, it was created as an artistic device to sell cheap French romance novels.



PS
Romeo and Juliet was part of the above problem, only a few centuries earlier. On the other hand, Shakespeare did manage to masterfully deconstruct the illusion of young romance in A Midsummer Night's Dream. The former play was just a way to make a buck, the same reason he went into theatre in the first place, abandoning poetry altogether since it was completely unprofitable.


Sorry to point this out, but have you read your Bible lately? There are plenty of stories in there of romantic love that apparently wasn't developed according to you until the Romantic period.

User avatar
Callista
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Callista » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:48 am UTC

Azbbb wrote:Most people that describe themselves as asexual do not sympathize with the desire for passion in a relationship as typical people would be able to sympathize with the desire for a platonic relationship. They seem to have a certain aversion to sexual intimacy, are extremely uncomfortable with it. It would be very sad if I was extremely uncomfortable with being just friends with someone.

Whenever I see somebody mention being asexual I become a little sad inside, too. I wish there was a way for asexual people to pick out some of those elements of intimacy that they like, and give themselves fully to somebody that loves them. If you are truly, deeply, fully happy without a companion then yeah. But if somewhere there is that desire to have a companion and to share your soul with them, I really hope that an aversion to human intimacy does not stand in the way of that connection.

Passion doesn't have to dominate the relationship, and I know there are many very strong relationships out there that are not at all dominated by passion, but just that hint of passion can show your surrender to your significant other and show you'll love him or her in the way he or she wants to be loved.

Seems there is a big mutual misunderstanding between asexual persons and sexual persons.

I guess I do share the aversion against our sex-obsessed society, though.
...You don't know a lot of asexual people, do you? Yes, some asexuals feel an aversion to sex; for me, it's more like, "Meh." than anything else--a bodily function, and I don't understand why everyone else is so obsessed with it. I'm simply not interested. I often explain being asexual as being about as attracted to guys as a lesbian, and as attracted to girls as a straight girl is. I don't miss it because I don't want it.

Intimacy is absolutely possible--and in some cases more possible--without sex. Look at the many non-sexual relationships that are very intimate--a mother and her child; long-term friends; siblings. And look at the many non-intimate sexual relationships that hinge completely on the physical and never go past that, never allow the two people to get to know each other because sex is actually in the way.

Sharing your soul with someone has nothing to do with sharing bodily fluids. Trust me on this one. Intimacy has very little to do with sex. And yes, I am happy single. Just because you might not be happy single doesn't mean that I'm not; you're assuming I have the same preferences you do, and must necessarily respond to the world in the same way. I don't. People are different. It's like being a football fan and not being able to conceive of the idea that other human beings might not enjoy football as much as you do, and feeling sorry for them because they'll never feel what you feel when you see your favorite team make a touchdown.

It just seems odd to me that you should automatically assume that intimacy, close relationships, and sex automatically come together, and that everyone else must want the exact same things that you want...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5436
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:56 am UTC

XKCD4ME wrote:http://xkcd.com/162/

Today is a sad day for the Internet. Randall Monroe has grown up. :(

I don't think so. Those two comics don't contradict each other at all. (Nor does this one and the classic ball pit comic, or any of the other sappy romantic comics of XKCD's heyday).

In the classic sappy romance comics, you've got people who are in love for whatever reason, it could be stupid and shallow or it could be deep and spiritual; and then one of them expresses their love in a silly, cute, adorable way, that makes us all go 'awwwww'. Those comics are praising silliness as fun and romantic; saying that it's OK not to take everything so seriously, even something as serious as love.

In the scene depicted in today's comics, two kids think that their love is a singular, unique phenomenon that nobody in the entire history of history has ever experienced, because they like the same song. It's taking something utterly trivial and inane and making it much more serious than it is.

I think it takes the same kind of ironic distance to really appreciate the silliness of the earlier comics, as it does to appreciate the cynicism of this one. Both of them depend on the audience agreeing not to take things so seriously.

I filled the apartment with play pen balls, because we're grown-ups now and it's our turn to decide what that means.
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)

Azbbb
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Azbbb » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:34 am UTC

Callista wrote:Yes, some asexuals feel an aversion to sex; for me, it's more like, "Meh." than anything else--a bodily function, and I don't understand why everyone else is so obsessed with it.

To me, the line between sex and intimacy is not very strong. Both sex and intimacy are pleasure from each other's closeness. Sex adds passion, and needing sex can be a feeling that is more urgent than the need for intimacy, but the difference is not that big.

I'm simply not interested. I often explain being asexual as being about as attracted to guys as a lesbian, and as attracted to girls as a straight girl is. I don't miss it because I don't want it.

I am straight. My fantasies revolve around women, and I fall in love with women and never guys. But I can completely understand and sympathize with sexual attraction to guys. I can even imagine sexual intimacy with a guy in a culture where that would be common. So your example does not really help me understand. I don't feel lust towards guys, but that doesn't mean that I cannot imagine sexual intimacy with a guy.

Intimacy is absolutely possible--and in some cases more possible--without sex. Look at the many non-sexual relationships that are very intimate--a mother and her child; long-term friends; siblings.

The relationship between a mother and child is very intimate. But both the mother and the child derive a ton of pleasure from their bodies being physically close. If you completely ignore "what the guy would think", would you say that kind of intimacy with a guy makes you uncomfortable, or is the desire for physical closeness something you can feel yourself?

For most people, sex is a blend of love, caring, affection, desire for closeness, desire for feeling connected, joy, and a tiny bit of urgency, passion, excitement and many other things. When you say that you don't want sex, to me it seems you don't want any of that. That's why I said "pick out those elements that you like."

And look at the many non-intimate sexual relationships that hinge completely on the physical and never go past that, never allow the two people to get to know each other because sex is actually in the way.

Well, to me that is not even sexual intimacy. It may be sex, but it's more similar to a masturbation session than with actually connecting with someone. And it is a very shallow way to go about sex.

Sharing your soul with someone has nothing to do with sharing bodily fluids. Trust me on this one. Intimacy has very little to do with sex.

Physical intimacy is deriving pleasure from the physical closeness of the other person. Sex is that, and a sense of urgency, excitement. Sex is slightly more than just intimacy, but it's not like they've got nothing to do with each other.

For many people, sharing in that is a way of expressing love. The time I feel most desired and wanted is when my girlfriend feels a sense of urgency to be close to me. That's one way she can make me feel like I am loved.

And yes, I am happy single. Just because you might not be happy single doesn't mean that I'm not; you're assuming I have the same preferences you do, and must necessarily respond to the world in the same way. I don't. People are different. It's like being a football fan and not being able to conceive of the idea that other human beings might not enjoy football as much as you do, and feeling sorry for them because they'll never feel what you feel when you see your favorite team make a touchdown.

But I don't like football, and I do understand that feeling. I can share the moment with a friend that is crazy over football even though I am not. It would be a sad thing if I couldn't, and my friend would be right to feel sad about that.

It just seems odd to me that you should automatically assume that intimacy, close relationships, and sex automatically come together, and that everyone else must want the exact same things that you want...

I should be able to feel loved in the way that I want to be loved. And you should be loved in the way that you want to be loved. What I am afraid of is that because of misunderstandings between sexual people and asexual people, they'll never really be able to make each other feel loved. That is why I am sad.

Taymon
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:52 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Taymon » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:53 am UTC

I greatly enjoyed this comic. In fact, I see it as one of Randall's best, and as part of a great quality streak over the past few weeks.

That being said, I also enjoyed the earlier comics, such as "Angular Momentum", that celebrated romance rather than deconstructing it as this one does. I don't view them as contradictory in any way; on the contrary, they simply reflect different aspects of reality.

I call my philosophy "romantic realism". Basically, it holds that the romanticized notions of love that pervade the media are not the norm in reality. They do exist, however, and where we find them, they are to be celebrated and treasured. Also, just because romanticism doesn't reflect reality doesn't mean that it's an inherently bad thing.

I'm 18 years old. High school was a very short time ago, and it was where I began observing people. Overwhelmingly, high school romances are as depicted in this comic. (Reading the Facebook statuses of people in relationships makes me want to throw up and then quit Facebook.) I have one friend in particular who always talked about love in exactly the way described in the alt-text. (She read too many Victorian romances.) For this reason, I generally put very little faith in young couples—even if I have known both members for a long time and have total faith in them as individuals.

But it's not always like this. The idea of "true love" is really vague, and I think everyone has a different definition (which are all equally valid, in a way). However, here's a working definition that I personally believe in:

"The truest form of love is to be with the person who knows and appreciates you for who you really are, and who is always there for you when you need them."

(Note: I came up with this definition rather quickly about a month ago in an IM conversation, then decided I'd better hold onto it. I don't know if the wording is any good, but I think it sort of expresses what I'm trying to say.)

A person is lucky to ever find this, and finding it as a teenager is incredibly rare—so rare, in fact, that when teenagers do find it, the natural (and correct) response from society is total skepticism. But I know two people, both younger than I am, who have done just that. They're both wonderful and brilliant (and yes, nerdy) people for whom life isn't always easy. But they always support each other through it—and not just superficially, but on a deeply personal and emotional level. And they have a bond that plenty of older couples would envy.

These two give me hope for humanity. Because they remind me that for all the horrible glurgey Facebook statuses, true love really is out there—even in high school. And it's the most beautiful thing in the world.

Of course, as people grow older their attitudes resemble the comic less. (Though as with the reverse, there are plenty of exceptions. Another friend didn't enjoy this comic as much as I did—because his mother is going through something like it, and it's causing problems.) This doesn't mean that true love comes easily to people who've left adolescence—only that they change their strategy to one that works a somewhat higher percentage of the time.

And finally, why do we romanticize things? Because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, and that is an end in and of itself.

This was a long post, but I feel like I had something to say on this subject. So in the end, it seems to me that xkcd is still a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

(Final note for nerds: If you're familiar with Robert Sternberg's triangular theory of love, you may have noticed that the two parts of my definition above correspond to intimacy and commitment. I noticed this while writing it and decided to go with it. Passion is absent because, well, I don't have much to say about it—or at least about its role in "true love", at any rate.)

not good at these things
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby not good at these things » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:00 am UTC

I actually liked this, but I'm generally easily annoyed by the "Oh me yarm! You like the same food/music/thing? meant to be~~". I don't know, I'm all for love but not cheesy romance.

itsmattknox
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:41 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby itsmattknox » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:02 am UTC

ITC: Randall's finally solved the mystery of the definition of true love. It's okay! You're free!

NotAllThere
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:54 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby NotAllThere » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:29 am UTC

As with many of the cartoons, it's mildly amusing, provokes a smile, and adds a little lift to the day. And if it doesn't, the great thing is, there'll be a new one out tomorrow.

But no freefall, because the author is on holiday. :cry:
yangosplat wrote:So many amazing quotes, so little room in 300 characters!

User avatar
jacog
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:55 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby jacog » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:53 am UTC

Giric wrote:2) The only pure, perfect, and eternal love is God's love. You can disagree, but I'm Christian, and that's what I believe.


Not so sure about that. "If you so much as look at another god, I will damn you to hell!" - that's not love, that's cause for alarm. I foresee a restraining order in that relationship's future.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:51 am UTC

jacog wrote:
Giric wrote:2) The only pure, perfect, and eternal love is God's love. You can disagree, but I'm Christian, and that's what I believe.


Not so sure about that. "If you so much as look at another god, I will damn you to hell!" - that's not love, that's cause for alarm. I foresee a restraining order in that relationship's future.



This just made me think of

Image
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

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

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby SirMustapha » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:34 am UTC

CodexDraco wrote:Personally I like this comic. Romanticizing love, or anything, only cloud your perceptions. Life is more enjoyable when you have all your senses at 100%.


"This is the sort of thing that should only appeal to emotionally stunted self-diagnosed Aspies who congratulate themselves on their poor understanding of social dynamics, thinking that they are profound realizations that pierce the veil of dishonesty that shroud all human interactions."

- Rob

Callista wrote:Just because you might not be happy single doesn't mean that I'm not; you're assuming I have the same preferences you do, and must necessarily respond to the world in the same way. I don't. People are different.


Yah. Some people need to eat, other's can live happily without food. Some people can't live without water, while others can't even get close to it. Some people produce excrements, while others can live without ever seeing a toilet. Some people breathe, while some people can't stand even the smell of air.

We are ALL DIFFERENT.
Last edited by SirMustapha on Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:30 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
monicaclaire
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:39 pm UTC
Location: Where you will never get to me. Sometimes, but not all the time, on P3X-774.

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby monicaclaire » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:41 pm UTC

@Locoluis

I pity you. ):

User avatar
Callista
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Callista » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:44 pm UTC

Of course I can think about what it might feel like to have sex with somebody. Like the vast majority of asexuals, I respond physically in the exact same way anybody does (or at least to the extent that they respond to someone to whom they're not attracted). I just don't want to have sex. Seriously, is that so hard to understand? It seems to me that the misunderstanding isn't on the asexual's part--it's on the part of the people who haven't got a clue that it could ever be possible not to like sex, or to have a romantic relationship that's just as good without it. Or who simply refuse to believe that what they've idolized ever since puberty isn't a universal desire, but more of a matter of personality and preference. Emotional intimacy often comes with sex; but that's like saying it's impossible to eat strawberries unless you are eating strawberry ice cream. There are ever so many ways to get to know each other, and sex is only one of many.

SirMustapha: Unlike breathing or eating, sex is not a necessary bodily function. Necessary for a population's survival, yes; for the individual, no. It is closer to the growth of one's hair than to breathing--useful, but not essential for life.

User avatar
thevicente
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby thevicente » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:54 pm UTC

When I was in jr. high, all I wanted was a girl with big boobs.

In high school, I dated a girl with big boobs, but there was no passion. So I decided I needed a passionate girl.

In college, I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional. Everything was an emergency, she cried all the time. So I decided I needed a girl with some stability.

I found a very stable girl, but she was boring. She never got excited about anything. So I decided I needed a girl with some excitement.

I found an exciting girl, but I couldn't keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She was without direction.
So I decided to find a girl with some ambition.

After college, I found an ambitious girl and married her. She was so ambitious, she divorced me and took everything I owned.

Now all I want is a girl with big boobs.

2dot
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:16 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby 2dot » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:15 pm UTC

I like Tim Minchin's take on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHJl711OTCI

User avatar
StNowhere
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:24 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby StNowhere » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

thevicente wrote:When I was in jr. high, all I wanted was a girl with big boobs.

In high school, I dated a girl with big boobs, but there was no passion. So I decided I needed a passionate girl.

In college, I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional. Everything was an emergency, she cried all the time. So I decided I needed a girl with some stability.

I found a very stable girl, but she was boring. She never got excited about anything. So I decided I needed a girl with some excitement.

I found an exciting girl, but I couldn't keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She was without direction.
So I decided to find a girl with some ambition.

After college, I found an ambitious girl and married her. She was so ambitious, she divorced me and took everything I owned.

Now all I want is a girl with big boobs.


Here is wisdom.

Azbbb
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Azbbb » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Callista wrote:Of course I can think about what it might feel like to have sex with somebody.

I'm not asking if you can imagine how it feels. I'm asking if you can understand why people desire it. I'm a vegetarian, and I'd really rather not eat meat. I respect people that do, they respect that I don't.

Like the vast majority of asexuals, I respond physically in the exact same way anybody does (or at least to the extent that they respond to someone to whom they're not attracted). I just don't want to have sex. Seriously, is that so hard to understand?

No. I can understand.

It seems to me that the misunderstanding isn't on the asexual's part--it's on the part of the people who haven't got a clue that it could ever be possible not to like sex, or to have a romantic relationship that's just as good without it. Or who simply refuse to believe that what they've idolized ever since puberty isn't a universal desire, but more of a matter of personality and preference.

It's a mutual misunderstanding. There are some things that make you feel loved, make you feel special, make you really happy to have a companion in it. Your relationship is not going to be as good, for you, if your partner doesn't do those things that make you feel loved. What if very many people feel special and loved if you show them you urgently need to have them physically close?

Emotional intimacy often comes with sex; but that's like saying it's impossible to eat strawberries unless you are eating strawberry ice cream. There are ever so many ways to get to know each other, and sex is only one of many.

True. But sex is also a form of surrender to the other person. And perhaps it's precisely that what a lover might crave.

User avatar
Rowadanr
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:34 am UTC
Location: Living in my solar dome on a platform in... somerset.
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Rowadanr » Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:59 pm UTC

I'm... alternately genuinely puzzled and fairly amused by how an offhand and pretty damn funny comic has turned into a huge and convoluted discussion on the definition/worth/romanticisation of love and speculation about Randall being bitter or having 'grown up'/become cynical. Some of the more convoluted theories about triple-blind extended metaphors actually had me laughing as much as the comic itsself. I think Narsil said it rather well - way over in the Books thread (in Worst/Overrated Books) -

Narsil wrote:SOMETIMES A FUCKING FOREST CAN JUST BE A MOTHERFUCKING FOREST.


Now, as far as I can see, this comic is a throwaway joke about certain teenagers being shallow and not-very-self-aware and this making some of their "romantic declarations" incredibly comical to an outsider. Maybe you can splice some of the other transient factors in a lot of young relationships in there too, if you just can't help collecting meanings. The alt text was about the model of love that turns up in rubbish romance being somewhat inflexible and extreme when judged against the far more diverse and interesting scape of Real Life.

That's it.

I, presonally, found it hilarious.

This dosen't look anything like a reversal of the comic's usual, rather nice portrayal of love, such as in Angular Momentum. There, the characters seemed to be really connecting as people and enjoying themselves and expressing it in really interesting ways (and also with one or two mentions of one of my favourite expressions of any shade or flavour of love: Staying Up All Night Talking). In this comic, the characters are saying they share the most intimate connection in the history of anything in the universe ever ever, on grounds of liking a song.
The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.
- John Cage

Clarckk
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:40 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Clarckk » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:55 pm UTC

Oh wow, look guys! Two youngsters who think they're in love, because they like the same song! And they even think their love is special!! Haha, how foolish of them! But don't worry; they can't help it, they're just not old/experienced to know what true love is like!

Gosh I really hate this comic. I really really do. The alt-text makes it even worse.

woktiny
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:42 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby woktiny » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:08 pm UTC

I've been away a while, is Randall having relationship issues?
What's with the alt/title text?
*sigh*

Why can't imperfect Love be honest Love? And whoever defined that ones Love for another is at all dependent on compatibility, or the other person at all?
Randall seems to be questioning the connection between Love and romance, and rightly so, but seems to be at the same time confusing Love with relation(ship).

It's perfectly common to Love someone with incompatibility and irreciprocity (invented word?), just not advisable to enter a romance with such a person.

User avatar
Rowadanr
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:34 am UTC
Location: Living in my solar dome on a platform in... somerset.
Contact:

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Rowadanr » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

I don't think anyone said it wasn't real, the comedy lies in "I bet no two people in the history of the world have ever..."; I mean come on, you've either got to laugh or wince at a sentence like that in context, unless the person has a mitigating or justifying factor, such as being about seven.
The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.
- John Cage

User avatar
Callista
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Callista » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:59 pm UTC

Uhh... I didn't say that asexuality was superior, or that people who have sex don't have valid experiences. I didn't say that I don't think sex is enjoyable and wonderful to people who want it.

And why in the world would I date someone who wasn't also asexual? We'd just be incompatible.

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: 0807: Connected

Postby Mr. Burke » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:00 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:We are ALL DIFFERENT.

I'm not!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 119 guests