Nov 12, 2013 update: "Where are my crumpets?"

[Davis8488]

The teapot is actually really useful for a settled community of any kind. It's only slightly useful for adventurers because it's a one-shot teleporter for them. But it's a lot more useful if you're a permanent town that uses it to send travelers out to any place you might happen to want them to go. Assassins might be the best example, but it's also good for "gee, I want to send a message to these guys who are on the other side of a vicious goblin tribe" and other routine stuff. Heck, even on perfectly mundane journeys, you can cut half the travel time just by brewing a few cups of tea.

A king could potentially fund his empire with the teapot if magical means of communication aren't common. Word would go far and wide of a ruler who could not only locate loved ones who you've lost touch with, but can also instantly send you to them. (I do imagine a few assassins would also need to find their "loved ones".)

[AntMac]

[

I assume you are exaggerating for effect in that first line. What I posted doesn't even come close to, for instance, the blog about the "rape culture" of Firefly recently linked here. Knowing what you have said recently about the evils of anyone forcing actions on another, I thought it not impossible you would agree with me, certainly did not expect to be put somewhere below "Mein Kampf" or Orson Scott Card's opinions on gay marriage.

I would venture to say that the ORIGINAL deal by which the three started the crawl is all but moot at this point. Then they were co-travellers and companions of circumstance, now they are friends, compatriots, and two of them are, in the classic sense, lovers. Yes, Minmax and Forgath still owe Kin escort out of the Maze if not all the way to her home as part of the bargain, but she has the right to rescind and forgive that debt, and is doing so. That doesn't force any action on Minmax.

I've already stated that what Minmax did is inexcusable. I see no point in arguing whether it was less or more heinous than GS or Ruby's actions. All are inexcusable -- with GS possibly taking the lead because it was also sadistic -- neither of the other were -- and chronic -- both the others were momentary one-time actions. GS and Ruby behaved as though they had a 'right' to do what they did, Minmax acted in desperation without considering his actions. Still inexcusable. No argument.

She has the right to break contact off if she wants, temporarily or permanently AS she wants. That forces no action on Minmax's part, if SHE is the one who leaves. Forcing HIM to leave when he doesn't want to DOES force an action on his part. This forcing is a direct result of his exerting force on her earlier, hence it is payback. Payback is not always unjustified. In fact, if it is not excessive, it is often quite justified, and this probably is. That doesn't change the nature of the situation.

Nothing in what I said justifies what Minmax did, or for that matter justifies him staying in the Maze now. He has only one honorable path, and it is one of ultimate self-sacrifice, more so than stepping in an oblivion hole would be -- which would NOT be honorable, as it would further damage Kin.

Nothing in what I said justifies using violence on anyone. There IS only one justification for violence, and that is to curb or prevent violence. Which is why I do not understand the logic behind executing someone who killed his parents to hurry an inheritance, but allowing an incurably violently insane person to live. The first is unlikely to ever repeat his actions -- he's out of parents, the second is virtually sure to, given the opportunity. But that's another issue entirely. I did not and DO not argue for any kind of justification for committing violence for any reason other than stopping a violent person.

If Kin wants to break off contact with Minmax, she has the right to LEAVE. The fact that she vowed to never run away again may prevent that -- but keeping that vow is her CHOICE and isn't Minmax's responsibility. Forcing Minmax to leave may be justified, but that doesn't stop it from being coercion. She is using neither magical compulsion or threat of (physical) violence, but she IS forcing an action on HIM, not taking an action herself.

OK, the post I responded to contained none of the reasonable things you have affirmed above, so I retract any image you may have formed about me making a line of people out of clay that starts at Orson Scott Card, works its way through various lessor criminals till I make you in effigy. I should of course have said something less excessive, something like
"MY GOODNESS, I don't know what your point is there, it *looks like it is as wrong as any person has ever been in all of human history* so please explain to me why I am reading your post wrong".
My bad.

You are right, it kinda is a form of coercion, a kind of " I want to be the one who sends you away, because I am so disappointed and angry with you " and she is possibly doing it as punishment. And like a lot of human interaction, it is only possible because MinMax isn't a bad guy, doesn't really fully deserve punishment. If he actually was a violent bully or rapist, he would shrug off the "coercion" because really it comes down to, its power comes from, the fact that MinMax feels her pain as a knife in his heart. If he was an arsehole, he would be going "Oh yeah, what if i DON'T DRINK, Bitch, Whatcho gunna do then?".

That all being said, she is perfectly at liberty to do what she is doing. It isn't violence. It isn't brutality or evil. It is a bit unkind, but even if she just suddenly woke one morn and said, "I want you to go away from me, I don't trust you anymore, Fighter, Drink !" . . . ? . . . it is perfectly fair behaviour. Her sex has nothing to do with it being fair, either, any man can wake any morn and say to his woman "I want you to go away from me, I don't trust you anymore, woman" and she must take him at his word and leave.
Insisting on staying?. The first step to beating your loved one to death over some trivial thing. If you are going to insist on inflicting your company on the person, why not inflict asphyxia, or beheading, too?.

I do disagree with you that the original deal is moot now, it seems more likely to me ( as a reflection on my own personal feelings, you see ) that the disappointed and shocked Kin says to herself, "I promised, right the way back where we escaped Brassmoon, I promised, and everything we have done together has been predicted on the promise, *I get the teapot, they get all the other treasure, they get to use the teapot* I have to brew it for them even though I actually don't want to see him again".

[Simon]

Insisting on staying?. The first step to beating your loved one to death over some trivial thing. If you are going to insist on inflicting your company on the person, why not inflict asphyxia, or beheading, too?.

I'm sorry, I respect your opinion and everything, but unless I misunderstood something, I find this somewhat ridiculous.
To create a scenario, if a man and woman (or any other combination of genders) lived together in a home, happily for whatever length of time, and one of them spontantiously decided the other had to leave, I would think it perfectly fine for the other person to disagree. Why should they have to move just for the sake of it?
If there were other reasons, like trust issues or something as you mentioned, then the obligation to leave is increased. I still think they may wish to stay and try and sort the problems out. But I highly doubt wanting to stay leads you down the path of becoming a depraved, violent murderer.

[St.Rider]

I am just worried with the possibility of MinMax suiciding in hope for a reset at this point, he does have a brand new axe that gives him +7 against his own race(and he sorta is his own race), so it shouldn't be too hard...

Well, as we know that MM will draw his sword while wearing his current green armor, it's hardly possible.

I assumed that the Teapot was an artifact of historical significance to them - although it would make a pretty awesome tool for a team of assassins

Uh-huh. Serves their victims right for not paying some wizard for protection against such things.

[stevedj]

The teapot is actually really useful for a settled community of any kind. It's only slightly useful for adventurers because it's a one-shot teleporter for them. But it's a lot more useful if you're a permanent town that uses it to send travelers out to any place you might happen to want them to go. Assassins might be the best example, but it's also good for "gee, I want to send a message to these guys who are on the other side of a vicious goblin tribe" and other routine stuff. Heck, even on perfectly mundane journeys, you can cut half the travel time just by brewing a few cups of tea.

The limitation being that you can't teleport to a PLACE, only a PERSON. So you have to know someone to go to them, though it would, indeed, make an excellent means of helping an ally or sneaking into a heavily guarded assassination target's bedroom.

Funny thing - teleportation - especially when going to a place you aren't familiar with...

Just noticed the "recap" that THunt posted, and took a good look at that last strip. The goblins are on a very narrow bridge. Just because someone teleports there, doesn't mean they will teleport ONTO the bridge, right? Now notice the angle of the FWOOM glow -- it is not directly in front of the GAP, but somewhat off to the side. I wonder if MM will be very close to the edge of the bridge, perhaps enough that the GAP can indeed just run past him (as others have previously speculated)?

Of course, it would be funny if MM appears hanging out in open space off the side of the bridge... briefly suspended in air until he notices that he isn't standing on anything... you know, Looney Tunes style...???

[AntMac]

Insisting on staying?. The first step to beating your loved one to death over some trivial thing. If you are going to insist on inflicting your company on the person, why not inflict asphyxia, or beheading, too?.

I'm sorry, I respect your opinion and everything, but unless I misunderstood something, I find this somewhat ridiculous.
To create a scenario, if a man and woman (or any other combination of genders) lived together in a home, happily for whatever length of time, and one of them spontantiously decided the other had to leave, I would think it perfectly fine for the other person to disagree. Why should they have to move just for the sake of it?
If there were other reasons, like trust issues or something as you mentioned, then the obligation to leave is increased. I still think they may wish to stay and try and sort the problems out. But I highly doubt wanting to stay leads you down the path of becoming a depraved, violent murderer.

Of course the other can disagree, if that is what they feel, but , just take it that single step past there, will you?.

"I want you to go"
"I disagree ( don't wanna go )"

?. What happens next ?.
MinMaxs disagreeing over-rules Kins expressed wish to go away, or something?. She isn't allowed to go until she lets MinMax convince her to NOT go?.

Put simply, you are either two equals, or one is a bully just waiting for his/her fuse to be lit and turn into an abuser or murderer.

Either you are living together by mutual consent, or one of you is a slave and the other a monster.
If one morning you wake up and just think, "I want out of this", that is all it takes. You itemise all the bills, you decide who keeps the dog, and say goodbye.

If that is one partners expressed will, ONLY a bully-in-training-to-be-a-murderer says anything other than "But I don't want you to go, please stay". MinMax has said that ( Actually, he is honest enough to phrase it MORE specifically" I don't want to go" it is all about his selfish wishes ) and Kin said no.

What would you have her do?. Accept that what he wants, in everything, over-rides what she wants, forever?.

"I want you to stay, I want you to give up eating mice I find it yucky, I want you to wear this Sailor Moon dress, I want you to make my friends some forking EGGS, WOMAN, I want you to apologise to me for your carelessly getting your blood on my second best pair of shoes".

If you fancied some person in the street, and said "Do you want to go get a coffee" and they said "No, I want you to go away from me", you would, right?. Me too, and it is because we consider the other persons rights equal to our own, and the right to freedom from being possessed as greater than the right to possess.
Well, and I can tell you this from years of watching a couple of "Lady Killers" * chatting up females, sociopaths the both of them, selfish bullying violent abuser males DO NOT LISTEN TO THE GIRL.
They "Know better" than her, and persist and badger and insist until, half in fright, half in obedience to social conditioning, the girl will agree to go out with them. Then on the date they get a kiss, say, and persist and badger and insist until they get more. And the whole relationship is the man with this idea of entitlement ignoring what the woman says, there are whole cultures still where this is normal interaction between men and women. Thankfully my culture has got its act a bit together, and is addressing this horrible violent and too often MURDEROUS imbalance.

If Kin wants to go, wants MinMax away from herself, that is the end of the matter, or MinMax is a selfish abuser in the comic.

This is just a fact of relationships, and because of the vast imbalance that exists still between male and female power in society, it is a fact much more important in the reality the comic is a funny mirror to.

Put yourself for the moment, in a woman's shoes. You just, for some reason, announced you want the man in your life to go away. Let us suppose that LIKE MinMax the man acknowledges he has committed a grievous fault, the reason for your decision in fact.
Instead of agreeing, He gets angry, punches the wall, talks at semi-random . . . and then announces he won't go, you won't separate. You might think this is speculation, but I promise you, almost every woman in the world knows of and FEARS this very situation arising, has heard of friends brutalised, people who wanted to leave for DECADES but the man wouldn't let them and for reasons of the power imbalance in society, successfully kept them against their will. It STILL happens, every bloody day my friend.

Here is another way of studying the behaviour. What would you say to a WOMAN who, being told the man wanted the relationship to come to an end, basically said "No, I don't want that to be so" and forced the man to agree?. What would you think of the man?. Would you see any way for her to over-ride his will that wasn't wrong?.

No. One person says "I want you to go" and either the other person does, or they are an abuser. I don't often bother to point this next bit out, as they are just codifications of societies will anyway, but, IT IS THE LAW !. "I want to go" answered by anything other than "There is the door" is a serious crime!.

*That was our un-ironic word for it, talk about your Freudian slip, that was one a whole CULTURE made.

[Nerre]

If one morning you wake up and just think, "I want out of this", that is all it takes. You itemise all the bills, you decide who keeps the dog, and say goodbye.

If that is one partners expressed will, ONLY a bully-in-training-to-be-a-murderer says anything other than "But I don't want you to go, please stay".

Sorry, but this seems very narrow minded and coldhearted to me. The other partner does not have to be automatically a bad person, just cause he does not want his partner until then to go, to instantly give up on him. This is not the same than forcing his opinion on the other. He just could be shocked, in love, think about their children, believe seeing the error of his partner that led him to the decision or whatever. There is enough good, which can also be the reason for one partner not wanting the other to go. If everybody would be forced to split if one side wants it, then there would not be anything like forgiveness, making up and learning from errors and growing even stronger by overcoming difficulties together. It would be a simple and clean act, but a coldhearted and bureaucratic one, only considering a few criteria and not the shared past or feelings of both.
Some who want out might be bad persons, as some who might them to stay might be good persons. It is not as black and white as it sounded in your explanations.

[Brings Cupcakes]

Sorry, but this seems very narrow minded and coldhearted to me. The other partner does not have to be automatically a bad person, just cause he does not want his partner until then to go, to instantly give up on him. This is not the same than forcing his opinion on the other. He just could be shocked, in love, think about their children, believe seeing the error of his partner that led him to the decision or whatever. There is enough good, which can also be the reason for one partner not wanting the other to go. If everybody would be forced to split if one side wants it, then there would not be anything like forgiveness, making up and learning from errors and growing even stronger by overcoming difficulties together. It would be a simple and clean act, but a coldhearted and bureaucratic one, only considering a few criteria and not the shared past or feelings of both.
Some who want out might be bad persons, as some who might them to stay might be good persons. It is not as black and white as it sounded in your explanations.

AntMac's post looks like oversimplification, but really it's just boiling the argument down to basic priniciples. Yes, human relationships are messy and complicated. Obviously it's a rare case where one partner suddenly decides to end the relationship and there's no ensuing drama, but drama aside, the point is unassailable: If one person decides that it's over, no-one else has the right to make them stay. They may argue, plead, reason or bargain, but if they insist then they've stepped over the line.

If everybody would be forced to split if one side wants it...

Really? What is the alternative? Being forced to stay if one side wants it? You really don't see what's wrong with that?

Of course there's room for forgiveness. And forgiveness may or may not lead to reconciliation; it's possible to forgive and still realize that you don't belong with a person. But the point is that if you reconcile it's by mutual consent, not because one party has been pressured into it, or worse, simply not allowed to leave.

Edit to add:

Some who want out might be bad persons, as some who might them to stay might be good persons.

It doesn't matter if the leaver is a cold-hearted lying cheating sack of crap, not even a saint has the right to make them stay in a relationship against their will. The leavee can try to persuade them (not sure why they'd want to, but hey that's between them and their therapist), but trying to force the issue would definitely revoke their beatific status.

[Davis8488]

Antmac, take a moment to look at the world through the eyes of the other side.

You have a limited term business partner, who needs something from you. Over time you develop romantic feelings for this person, and even though they say they don't love you, they do initiate and then allow physical contact. Because of your feelings you expose yourself to significant personal risk to help them achieve their goals. They come inches from kissing you. Minutes later you complete your contract, and are told "I don't need you anymore, and never want to see you again."

I have a hard time believing anyone wouldn't be hurt in this situation, and it's the time of situation where a person if highly likely to say (or even potentially do) something highly regrettable.

► Show Spoiler

I do not believe Kin is a "man eater", or that she is intentionally using Minmax's love to manipulate him.

[Nerre]

Insist is not crossing a line. They can insist as much as they want, it is not crossing the line, as it is only words the other can ignore (unlike you see more in that word than my translation). If the start to force it upon the other, it is crossing the line for me.

I do agree on your second and third point, but that was not like it was written by AntMac. He did use the false things as reasons for it.

The second point you quoted was about simply accepting that the other partner wants to split right away, not about accepting it (or not) in the end, after some time. In the first moment, the partner who did not quit should have at least a chance to convinve the other. Anything else is against human nature.
About the third point, he wrote that anybody who does not accept the split immediately is a bad person, which was just not right. Think about romantic movies. Some appear as very good persons and partners in the end just cause they did NOT immediately give up.

One of my best friends once was told from his girlfriend she wanted to split, take some time. He did not like it, but he let her do it, but did not fully give up on her. The got back together even stronger and more in love, and currently expecting a baby. So don't tell me everybody who does not give up right away is a bad person. Not giving up right away is part of romance if done right. And part of domestic violence if done wrong. It is not solely bad or good.

If he does want to break it down on business and therms of law, he should not forget about things as customary right. (Hope I translated it correctly)

[Brings Cupcakes]

Insist is not crossing a line. They can insist as much as they want, it is not crossing the line, as it is only words the other can ignore (unlike you see more in that word than my translation). If the start to force it upon the other, it is crossing the line for me.

It's a subtle thing, but to me "insisting" is verbal, but with a hint of threat. It is definitely overbearing, imposing your will over someone else's, with no justification beyond force of personality. Context matters, of course.

Think about romantic movies. Some appear as very good persons and partners in the end just cause they did NOT immediately give up.

Please, no. Romantic movies are terrible models for human behaviour.

One of my best friends once was told from his girlfriend she wanted to split, take some time. He did not like it, but he let her do it, but did not fully give up on her. The got back together even stronger and more in love, and currently expecting a baby.

Emphasis added. Yes, exactly! Respecting your partner's wishes does not have to mean giving up. Your friend did the right thing by giving her space when she wanted it. If he hadn't, things would likely have worked out worse for both of them.

[Nerre]

Like I said, it is not about giving space or not that I want to discuss. While you sound right, you kind of talked all around the point I wanted to stress and point out, but without ever getting to it.
The got a problem with about the texts of some in here is that they make it sound like you do have to let the other partner do it right away. Not the next day or maybe after some minutes or hours of talking about it. Giving up is not naturally, so you should treat it like that. Loss has to be accepted. You watched the panels in which MinMax went through the different phases of accepting it. So does nearly everybody, with different amounts of time required.

My friends did talk long before they both agreed on splitting up for a while and in the end, he let her do it. But it was no 5 sec "I want some space" "ok" conversation like some seem to expect it. Building up acceptance or coming to reason might take time for both sides. So accepting it only after some time or talking is still fine in my eyes, if you do nothing wrong in the meantime.

Although one has every right to stop a relationship if he wants to, it is still rude to stop it without at least talking to the other partner or giving him some time to accept it. At least if the relationship worked for some time and it did not end by something really bad like cheating, violence or something similar, but only through their lives drifting apart or different opinions about important things. If you have been with somebody so long, you can at least give him some time or talk with him to accept it is over. It helps both sides. Most problems appear (for relationships not ending because of a really bad thing) cause people are not giving time or don't want to talk about it.

[Brings Cupcakes]

I don't really disagree with that. Of course it's unreasonable to expect people to react like automatons and instantaneously accept the situation (I thought I'd covered that when I mentioned drama), but that still doesn't mean that they get to force the other person to stay.

I gather you object mainly to this:

If one morning you wake up and just think, "I want out of this", that is all it takes. You itemise all the bills, you decide who keeps the dog, and say goodbye.

Taken literally, obviously reality seldom works like this. I took it as a sort of idealism, or a paring away of incidentals to get at the fundamental point. Perhaps it wasn't intended that way; only AntMac can say for sure.

[Davis8488]

I think the expectation for someone to walk away from a romantic relationship without argument sounds like it's being made by those who have never been left by someone they love. I can tell you, it hurts.

It is not an easy thing to get up and walk away when you love the the person on the other side of the table. I've done it, but would not have been able to accept the situation had I not been given a chance to plead my case.

You've carried the analogy to people living together. Are you suggesting that it's okay to tell someone to leave and they're supposed to be out the door? I wouldn't expect a platonic housemate to accept my moving out without some discussion. When you live with someone there are obligations.

You talk about a sense of entitlement leading to abusive men, but I say that assuming you have no responsibility to consider the emotions of those you enter romantic relationships with, or to those you live with is gross false entitlement. Man does have a right to absolve relationships, but not without consideration of the other party.

There was talk about "lady-killers". Well, the attitude that you owe nothing to your fellow man is what leads to men who don't respect the emotions and desires of women. Do you think it's sex that makes their victims hate them, or the empty bed in the morning without explanation?

[warrl]

Of course the other can disagree, if that is what they feel, but , just take it that single step past there, will you?.

"I want you to go"
"I disagree ( don't wanna go )"

?. What happens next ?.
MinMaxs disagreeing over-rules Kins expressed wish to go away, or something?. She isn't allowed to go until she lets MinMax convince her to NOT go?.

Put simply, you are either two equals, or one is a bully just waiting for his/her fuse to be lit and turn into an abuser or murderer.

Either you are living together by mutual consent, or one of you is a slave and the other a monster.

Really. A man who is half-owner of a home and refuses to leave it for no other reason that the other-half-owner suddenly, out of the blue, wants to end their relationship, is a monster for that refusal?

If the man were to refuse to leave *and* insist that the partner continue to live there exactly as if the partner hadn't decided to end the relationship, I would agree.

But your "monster" has exactly as much right to be in that house as the partner, and isn't the one trying to effect a change in status.

If one morning you wake up and just think, "I want out of this", that is all it takes. You itemise all the bills, you decide who keeps the dog, and say goodbye.

And it is primarily incumbent on the person who decides "I want out" to GET OUT. Not to shove someone else out against their will.

(Also pointing out, I am not claiming this is a good analogy for the current situation in Goblins. It fails to correspond in numerous important regards, not the least of them being that Minmax by his own words and choice voluntarily made himself subject to Kin's will so must either obey her or prove himself forsworn and unworthy.)

[AntMac]

If one morning you wake up and just think, "I want out of this", that is all it takes. You itemise all the bills, you decide who keeps the dog, and say goodbye.

If that is one partners expressed will, ONLY a bully-in-training-to-be-a-murderer says anything other than "But I don't want you to go, please stay".

*clip for concision* Some who want out might be bad persons, as some who might them to stay might be good persons. It is not as black and white as it sounded in your explanations.

Yes, you are right of course, life isn't black and white, good and bad people have relationships, and all your other points.

None of that precludes or refutes the fact that relationships are between two equals. If one JUST DECIDES they want to leave, (or, say they are the home owner, or business owner or anyway the person with more claim to that particular local, and is the dis-satisfied person) wants the other person to leave, my friend, it is EXACTLY just as black and white as this.

You leave just because the other person looks at you and says "I want you gone". And if you stay, you are a bully, if you insist on staying on your terms, you obviously are a brutal bully, and having now set the relationship on the "I am a brute, your opinion is less than mine" course, you will end up brutalising the other person just by your presence. Probably with an axe too, eventually.

AntMac's post looks like oversimplification, but really it's just boiling the argument down to basic priniciples. Yes, human relationships are messy and complicated. Obviously it's a rare case where one partner suddenly decides to end the relationship and there's no ensuing drama, but drama aside, the point is unassailable: If one person decides that it's over, no-one else has the right to make them stay. They may argue, plead, reason or bargain, but if they insist then they've stepped over the line.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly so.

The pleading and arguing etc part isn't abuse if it is done somewhere or somehow neutral, and if it stops DEAD the moment the other person says "I have heard you out, thought it through, and I totally don't want anything more to do with you, I wish you would respect me enough to go away and leave me be".

And WHY this is the unvarnished adamant truth is in our newspapers all too often. As too many of the posters here are making perfectly clear by their insistence on saying, in effect, "MinMax has rights, she is being ( bad, evil, bullying, coercive etc ) too by "forcing" him to leave",
our society allows (males, by far the most) people to treat those around them badly "Because I care so much" or whatever soi-disant "reason" the excuse is made behind.
Here is the issue pared down to simple statements to clarify its importance.

Woman leaves man. Man refuses to accept it, pursues and basically badgers woman for weeks. Woman continues to assert her right to be apart from man. Man kills woman.

And when it happens, it happens BECAUSE people allow males too much of a sense of entitlement, it is entirely due to this idea we see people here repeating , almost certainly unconsciously, that men have some sort of controlling right to special treatment from women. Controlling and brutal men hear it from all around them, and it insulates them from actually considering what they are about. This unspoken, unconscious support society gives them is the reason why, after setting their ex on fire in a service station, beating her to death with a chair leg, stabbing her fifty three times in the chest, ( all taken from court reports in the last six months ) the brute doesn't admit his guilt.

It is so terribly frustrating, because it is so important.

And relating it back to the comic, MinMax is going to KNOW this is proper behaviour, and drink, saying to her, "Alright, this is breaking my heart, but, for you *raises cup in salute, drinks* . . . That is funny, tastes like hot water"

*crosses fingers, touches wood, claps for Tinkerbell, IGNORES NASTY SUSPICIONS*

[AntMac]

Insist is not crossing a line. They can insist as much as they want, it is not crossing the line, as it is only words the other can ignore (unlike you see more in that word than my translation). If the start to force it upon the other, it is crossing the line for me.

Not giving up right away is part of romance if done right. And part of domestic violence if done wrong. It is not solely bad or good.

If he does want to break it down on business and therms of law, he should not forget about things as customary right. (Hope I translated it correctly)

Holy Sonovacrap.

I couldn't have asked for someone to more perfectly show what I was talking about when I said that the feeling of male entitlement is persuasive in many cultures. Customary Right?. In relationships where the autonomy of both parties is the heart of the question?. Did you translate it right? .
My friend, you translated it perfectly right, to portray exactly what is wrong with cultures that deny women rights of equality of choices and action.
Customary right indeed, how extremely apposite , very like you said "Women must go, pure, from their fathers household to their husbands household" or any of the other sickening degredations most human cultures used to practice, and some few, macho ones, still try to practice.

And, you are as wrong as you can be. If a woman says she wants you to go away, to insist is exactly a brutality, an assault, a damnable imposition.

And casting it in macho culture terms so you just might be able to see it, if it was two MALE friends, and one said "Go away forever, I never want you to talk to me again, you have offended me" do you tell us it would be proper for the other man to insist on staying?.

You know perfectly well it would come to blows, the person insisting on staying would be insulting and belittling ( in macho culture ideas ) the person who wanted them gone. "Treating them as a woman to be bullied" would be the macho culture implication.

Yuck, now I have a bad taste in my mouth, even thinking about the hideous and disgusting ways half the world thinks is perfectly proper to treat their women.

[Gryphonic]

@ AntMac and Nerre: I think you two are using 'insist' with very, very different connotations.
I agree with Nerre saying that if one partner wants to break up, asking to discuss it is an acceptable response. ASKING. Because it is possible that airing the disagreement out loud can help two people understand what the problem is that has led to the one wanting out, and bring either a sincere apology, or discovery that someone's behavior has been misunderstood. In Nerre's friend's example, if the man had just walked out without comment, it is unlikely they would have ever begun communicating again, because there would have been no common ground to do so.

I also agree with AntMac that no one has a RIGHT to be in a relationship with a reluctant partner, whether the unwilling one is female or male. If the offended partner is asked but is adamant they don't want to talk either, then yes, get the heck out of their life. You have no more business there. I disagree with you mostly in that I feel there is a huge difference between trying to reconcile, ONCE, and being belligerent with one's presence.

Bringing the matter back to Goblins, I think Minmax's apology and offer on this page is not wrong of him. But now Kin has heard him and drawn the line, and anything further would be bullying her.

Not giving up right away is part of romance if done right. And part of domestic violence if done wrong. It is not solely bad or good.

But also

They "Know better" than her, and persist and badger and insist until, half in fright, half in obedience to social conditioning, the girl will agree to go out with them. Then on the date they get a kiss, say, and persist and badger and insist until they get more.
....
Put yourself for the moment, in a woman's shoes. You just, for some reason, announced you want the man in your life to go away. Let us suppose that LIKE MinMax the man acknowledges he has committed a grievous fault, the reason for your decision in fact.
Instead of agreeing, He gets angry, punches the wall, talks at semi-random . . . and then announces he won't go, you won't separate. You might think this is speculation, but I promise you, almost every woman in the world knows of and FEARS this very situation arising, has heard of friends brutalised, people who wanted to leave for DECADES but the man wouldn't let them and for reasons of the power imbalance in society, successfully kept them against their will. It STILL happens, every bloody day my friend.

Very yes. This does happen, and even to those it has not happened to, it is a frightening possibility that a great majority of women will always have somewhere in the back of their minds when considering breaking up with their partner. And if this is even a fleeting concern in a specific relationship it is a sign something is already very wrong.

I think the reason I'm a bit put off by your posts, when I agree with several of your points, is that it has sounded like you're lumping most men into this abusive 'male entitlement' culture. This is not so. I've had boyfriends that were perfectly polite and accommodating when I expressed the desire to end our relationship. My male friends have also been sensitive to the fine line between attempted reconciliation and an imposition on my freedom, and have consistently stood by me.

If this was not your intended message I do profoundly apologize and retract the previous paragraph.

[Ellendra]

Crazy thought: What if the lack of ability to feel love is one of the traits the collar is supressing, only Kin doesn't realize it?

[Davis8488]

I still find this conversation troubling. Romantic relationships should be built on mutual respect between equals. When one member of a couple decides they want out, they hold all the power. They are no longer equals, but this is unavoidable. Saying that the person who doesn't want the relationship to end cannot ask for discussion of the matter is stripping the dissident of all responsibility to respect their partner.

No one has to live in a relationship they don't want, but human decency demands they end their relationship in a way that shows respect to the person they are leaving.

Antmac, I would like an answer. Do women despise a "lady-killer" because of sex, or because he leaves them afterwards without regards to their feelings?

[Sushulana]

Crazy thought: What if the lack of ability to feel love is one of the traits the collar is supressing, only Kin doesn't realize it?

Ah, a hopeful note.
Just as doomed as all the rest, I'm afraid.

It was explained that Yuan-Ti don't have that whole love thing going for them, even among themselves. "Seeing" is as close as they get.... yeah, right.
I call BS on that one.
Its a cultural thing that seems to be rooted in Evil, denial of that which is noble and giving, and whatever selfish baggage they insist on dragging around.
You know, like a society that finds Hate more entertaining than Love.

I put off looking at this comic for a couple of months, I knew what was coming and damn, it was even more hideous than I thought it would be. Dunno when I'll be back to watch Chars I have come to enjoy very much, killing each other for false reasons. Exhausting just to type this.
C'ya.

[Ultima]

Just gonna put this out there:
What if Kore wiped out the Silkscale Tribe?

[Gryphonic]

I doubt it, at least not anytime recently.
http://www.goblinscomic.org/09232006/ "Stories never tell of him coming this far south."
http://www.goblinscomic.org/05102010/ The Silkscale live even farther south.
So not impossible, but unlikely.

[AntMac]

@
I think the reason I'm a bit put off by your posts, when I agree with several of your points, is that it has sounded like you're lumping most men into this abusive 'male entitlement' culture. This is not so. I've had boyfriends that were perfectly polite and accommodating when I expressed the desire to end our relationship. My male friends have also been sensitive to the fine line between attempted reconciliation and an imposition on my freedom, and have consistently stood by me.

If this was not your intended message I do profoundly apologize and retract the previous paragraph.

No, in a way it was a small part of what I was saying. In effect, society is still bent into the shape that best suits mens' whims and wishes. We are slowly getting a handle on it, and parts of the world the young men are much better than my generation was. However, it is appalling how slanted things still are. And the perception that it is right to be that way . . . that people will still trot out knee jerk, trite reasons why , say, mens pay is 20 percent more than womens pay. And even men that want it to change, like me?. I get a dollar ninety more an hour than women that work alongside me, I am stronger than them, they are more observant than I, and our boss benefits pretty bloody well exactly the same from employing us. Do I give them fifty cents each an hour, do I blow my boss up and quit?. Do I hell, I like the money just as much as the next man. If he ever asks me what he should do, I will say "Raise their wages" and I will NOT agree that he drop mine.

Consider how much of the housework is still done, unremunerated, by women (even though there are exaggerations because they in effect ASK women "How much more housework than the men do you do?" , it would be a blind man who said , on average, men do as much unpaid work for the household as women.) It would be a blind man who didn't admit that simply walking around in the city is considered safe ( well, safer ) for men and not safe for women ( again, there are perception issues there, but isn't THAT alone an indictment of the society, women don't feel safe walking about our world, and men do.) Equality of pay. Equality before the law. Equality of sexual freedom ( Women who attempt to be free are sluts, men, studs, to too big a part of society.)

These are not new thoughts I am springing on the world. People have been pointing out these base inequities for multiples of decades. And the change is so slow, and non-existent in some places.
And then we get to specifics. I think I am the only man here who has raised his voice against people who are, in effect, arguing for their right ( through their representative MinMax) to these male privileges !.

So, yes my friend, even if it is in quiet, passive ways, as you claim, I am lumping most men ( actually I make no distinctions, all men ) into this abusive male entitlement culture, because we all, each one of us, benefit still from a positively contemptible and antiquated and shamefully HIGH stack of male privileges.

Simply the fact that I have to point out the fact that a woman wants to leave and nothing could be more clear than her absolute right to do it without explaining herself if that is her wish, and in response men are clamouring "OH NOES, she is being SO UNFAIR to MinMax, he doesn't want her to leave" . . . and I am the only man who thinks it is worth fighting for her to have the same perceived rights that every male here would insist on . . . Yeah, forgive me for pointing out that they are guilty as charged. And because I know perfectly well how high handed my own male soul is, how hard I have to work to make sure I am not carelessly taking advantage of the innate male right to be selfish barstard number 3,456,321,245 and tread without noticing on womens rights to be treated equally . . . I am including me and all the other guys in the number UNTIL things change.

I still find this conversation troubling. Romantic relationships should be built on mutual respect between equals. When one member of a couple decides they want out, they hold all the power. They are no longer equals, but this is unavoidable. Saying that the person who doesn't want the relationship to end cannot ask for discussion of the matter is stripping the dissident of all responsibility to respect their partner.

No one has to live in a relationship they don't want, but human decency demands they end their relationship in a way that shows respect to the person they are leaving.

Antmac, I would like an answer. Do women despise a "lady-killer" because of sex, or because he leaves them afterwards without regards to their feelings?

First I just want to make clear I am not at all angry or contemptible or dismissive or anything like that towards you, I simply think you are wrong about this subject, ok?. I am sure in my own mind it is because you have not had a lot of experience, and/or thought deeply enough on the topic* . And I think this because it seems to me, if you had you, you could not be equating MinMaxs mere common, everyday disappointment in love, with Kins seemingly to her correct fear of him and wish to be away from him. ( The fact that you, and I, and all of us think he is NOT a bad guy, and she SHOULD forgive him, means nothing to Kin, you are to consider. SHE has a rope around her neck and , a mere few days after she met him, he has allowed his wishes to bring him to GRABBING the rope round her neck. He frightens her, he has to go away. She thinks this, so she is RIGHT !, she is right to think it. ANY woman, any PERSON would, in her sho . . . umm?, scales? )

People get disappointments every day, they have love affairs end, it is just commonplace.

How can we compare this to a woman saying she wants to leave, and , basically, a frightening powerful and impulsive man who she has recently been dismayed to find not above grabbing a rope tied about her neck and ordering her to do his will, refusing to let her go?.

As for your question, I don't know what women really want or think, my friend, I am a male. HOWEVER, if I can be forgiven for answering what I see as your intent, I think they might feel something similar to what I would feel in their shoes. Anger because he has used them without respect, without considering them as worthy of respect. And specifically, the two guys I was referring to?. They did what they did because it gave them a thrill to degrade and trick and use the women, just that and no more. And when they would drop the girl, they let her know what they really thought of her. So if I can relate that to me, it is not the sex, it is the deliberate degrading, the treating of them with contempt, that the women hate.
Both of the guys eventually settled down and got married and now are aggressively jealous of their wives rights . . . and THAT is because they view their wives treatment as reflecting on their own standing.


*Sorry about that's seeming dismissive of you, mate, I am just being as honest as I can to you in respect for your OWN autonomy, I would consider it an insult if you were not as honest with me, you know.

[Davis8488]

I don't take it personally that you disagree with me, Antmac, and wonder if perhaps the reason we disagree is merely that we look at the situation differently, or that you misinterpret the angle from which I am looking. I don't feel Kin owes Minmax something because he's a man and she a woman, but because I believe a relationship such as theirs ought to be built on mutual respect. I agree that him physically restraining her breaks the trust of their relationship, and that after that event she has every right to flee the situation, but before her assaulted her (even if it was not his intent, what he did amounted to an assault) I believe she owed him an explanation, if they were equals.

I fail to see how a woman leaving a relationship without discussion or explanation is different than the two men you mentioned. It's merely a quiet display of not respecting the person rather than an overt one. I am a man in a fairly committed dating relationship. If I wanted out I absolutely believe I would owe it to her (for anonymity I'll call her Wonderful) to provide an explanation, and to sit down somewhere and have as long a discussion with her as she wanted. Would Wonderful be happy afterwards? I doubt it. Would she still want me to stay? Perhaps. But she would know why I had felt the need to leave, and that I respected her.
I have an ex who very nearly left me over the phone. I asked her to meet with me first to talk, which she did. I asked her to stay, and I asked if there was anything I could do that would change her mind. After we talked I threw away my coffee cup and never asked anything else of her.

If I had a friend who told me the story Minmax could have told prior to grabbing the leash I would've gotten him a stiff drink and told him he needed to get over her, advising that she was just using him, because that's what it would sound like.