welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

July 31, 2014: s'dat one guy again
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
EverythingsJake



Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 291
Location: The Jazz Age

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronald wrote:


Never underestimate the practicality of a good hat:

http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2013-11-24


That's the one!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3247

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if Tat's not going to take his own premises seriously, I'm not sure how seriously he expects us to take his efforts to be "significant."

But nobody asked me, anyway. Shrug.

===

On a separate note, if Tange let PX borrow her jacket, and stuffed the "tail sleeve" to make it look like PX has a tail (which she, of course, does not), then maybe people would mistake PX for a Devil Girl instead of recognizing her as a Fembot. If she ends up needing a disguise, well, that seems like a pretty good one.

Looking at the other strip that I cited, it occurred to me that Tange and PX look like a pair of literally wide-eyed innocents seated on that bench, but then I realized that PX, who has all of the programming to be "the perfect girlfriend," including (I'd really have to presume) full knowledge of a wide variety of sexual techniques, might not really fully qualify as an "innocent." Oh well.

Incidentally, the fact that today's guy has no visible tail should not be taken as "evidence" that he's not a Devil Man. Neither does Legion the devil club guy, and he's definitely a Devil Man.

So, is that guy and that guy also this guy?


http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2012-04-19

If so, well, at least he's friendly to Zombies, he's got that much going for him, anyway.

Wait, I just realized:


http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2014-04-20

Everybody's that guy...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't like the "bro factory" comics because it's essentially Tats Othering people he doesn't agree with. It's fine to have difficulty identifying with people but the implication of the production line is that to him they seem less than fully human. The symbolism is a glimpse into his mental processes, and it isn't particularily flattering.

If the entire idealogical movement is based on the premise that being Othered is wrong, how does that make any of his Othering justified? It doesn't. The Dudebro Factory comic practically makes my stomach churn at the idealogical hypocracy. Part of holding true to an idealogy is applying that ideology consistently, not only when it is practically or emotionally convenient.

I know not everyone on this board thinks the best of me, but you all have always been people to me whether we agreed or not. People with complex histories, families, ideals and emotions who aren't just the mass-produced product of a faceless system. Even the KillAllMen troll must have a reason for what he does. Dehumanization is as anti-feminist as you can get and I am appalled any time a self-proclaimed feminist resorts to it as a symbolic or rhetorical tactic against their perceived opposition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3247

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jabberjay wrote:
If the entire idealogical movement is based on the premise that being Othered is wrong, how does that make any of his Othering justified?


I'm pretty sure that Tat's not particularly interested in justifying himself to us. After all, we visit here. He didn't go looking for us. Wink

Same thing with Clio's anti-porn booth (which we haven't seen in a while). If people don't like her message, they can just not stop to listen to her.

Also, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Tat's "othering" is fictional. It's a skewed mirror held up to real-world "othering." OSLT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KillAllMen



Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An excellent reminder of the creepy cishet white male fedora wearing MRAs that are out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diagram12345



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is that the guy who destroyed and threw away one of the fembots? If you destroy an expensive piece of sex machinery, you don't just go out and buy another one, buddy. It's like a woman destroying her Sybian in a fit of rage and then blowing another couple hundred a new one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronald wrote:
It looks like the guy temporarily (if we presume he's the same guy as today's guy then, obviously, it's back again, what with the pupillessness and all) transferred his Devilness to the woman. So he went home as a mortal when he left as a Devil while she went home as a Devil when she left as a mortal, is that it? So, any Devil Person who wants a break from being a Devil Person can instead be a mortal for a few days, weeks, whatever by having sex with a mortal? Is that it?


after he is with her, he has a) lost his horns; b) resumed normal coloring; and c) the direction of his hair part is reversed. this, to me, echos the mirror-image nature of slick/sleaze. which suggests other people (or at least other men) have, and can express, that same dual nature.

of course, we still haven't figured out exactly what that dual nature _means_ but...

also, you can't just assume everyone with a hat is the same. the three guys all have different hair: first guy (and today's guy) has hair hanging over forehead, voter-guy has slicked-back hair and production guys have no hair. so: different guys.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Night Spade



Joined: 13 Jan 2010
Posts: 1204
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Istancow wrote:
I'm in total agreement. This man's clothing is appalling. How dare he dress in the style of men in the 1950s.

The 1890s had far superiour selections in clothing.


Cravats need to come back.
_________________
“I believe in benevolent dictatorship provided I am the dictator”
- Richard Branson -
----
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

with stickpins!
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6080
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tailcoats could stand for a revival as well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3247

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diagram12345 wrote:
Is that the guy who destroyed and threw away one of the fembots?


No, that guy didn't even have a hat.

http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2013-06-30

He's lucky if he still has a head.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EverythingsJake



Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 291
Location: The Jazz Age

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
tailcoats could stand for a revival as well


Nothing looks more dashing on a man than a meticulously tailored cutaway tailcoat with a low-cut white waistcoat.

For women -- frocks and gowns of the early 30's when fashion designers rediscovered the location of a woman's waist, and started cutting fabrics on the bias to drape and cling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6080
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

basically gentlemen this is not just a song, it is a manual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like boaters. And ascots, and puff ties.

And trousers that don't ride obnoxiously low on our waist, with buttons that you can loop your suspenders around. Why don't they make trousers like that anymore?
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Echo



Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 652

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, reading these differing interpretations about the bomfstitution strip have been eye-opening. I mean, it's a pretty simple depiction of the whole men-get-horny-and-NEED-sex-to-be-normal-but-women-who-have-sex-are-cheap-and-"used" thing.

As for fashion, is it wrong for me to like modern fashion? I mean, I'm struggling to remember what I did before skinny jeans got fashionable.

But whatever period clothing you prefer, I recommend a long dark coat on top, and "accidentally" happening to hang around places with a strong breeze. Dramatic and striking is always a good look.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group