Deep Down: Fry and Leela Soul Searching

[Reply #600 on:]

Shiny - I never really got into Buffy. Although I'm a massive fan of Joss's other show, Firefly.
Re Leela not rising above her flaws... perhaps not entirely, and perhaps not yet, but nevertheless she doesn't allow those flaws to make her a bad person... that is, she she always ends up realizing when she's done wrong.
It's far more apparent in Fry, but this is the same Homer Simpson style of anti-heroism that seems to pervade Groening works.
And actually, speaking of Firefly - there's a whole bunch of damn good examples of it in that show if you're a fan. Jayne is a great demonstrative character.

Also; I didn't know I was acting fierce and scary... 

Fry_B: This is actually the second time I've lost my licence. For that reason I had to lick some major corporate clitoris to keep my job this time, as I'm required to transport clients as part of my duties.
In any case, I'm not as bad as all that. I keep getting done for speeding, but it's only small increments and always while I'm driving my own car alone... it just adds up. Still on my green Provisional plates, and as such I'm a target for the FILTH. Oh how I hate every bastard who carries a badge. May they all burn.

[Reply #601 on:]

Hey! Police are good people! They just try to make society a better place! I like them!

[Reply #602 on:]

No, they're supposed to try to make society a batter place. It's good in theory, but in practice what they are is corrupt amoral scums of the earth not worth pissing on - they thrive on human misery like rectum-dwelling parasites. A pox on them and a pox on their families.

I used to want to be a cop before I found out what kind of people they really are.

[Reply #603 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
I used to want to be a cop before I found out what kind of people they really are.

Er, well, that's just it, they are people. Same as politicians, teachers, athletes, rubbish collectors, couch potatoes, the disabled, children, folk singers - just because they have something in common and some special name to describe them doesn't mean they're all the same. There are the decent in with the corrupt for every 'group'. You split the population into those who live by 'moral standars' and those who don't, you'll have cops on both sides of the fence. You know that, I should think.

 

Originally posted by Cyberphobia:
They just try to make society a better place!

Originally posted by coldandel_1:
No, they're supposed to try to make society a batter place.

Come on, is that even possible for anybody to accomplish? If police are meant to be making society a better place, why are we not all police?

[Reply #604 on:]

Alright, most of them. Most of them are seven shades of scumbag.

Anyway, the betterment of society, and indeed society itself, is of no interest to me. The police have wronged me personally, therefore they are all my enemies, and there will never be forgiveness. They can fucking BURN.

[Reply #605 on:]

 

Originally posted by Cyberphobia:
 I choose not to have sex on a first date (or before marriage ever) because I don't want to have sex until then, not because I feel that I need to do what society thinks is right. I don't WANT to have sex with anyone other than one I am married to because I don't feel comfortable with giving that part of myself to just anyone. So I don't agree with your first theory.

[@ all] YOU GUYS STAY ON TOPIC! Make a goddamn Futurama Police thread and rant there (and I'll join in!). Ok, 2-3 posts are Ok, I err too, but a whole page... Oh cr*p I actually provoked most of it (eek..)

Sex on first date... I'd be highly suspiciuous of the human woman (since I talk about myself and I'm a man liking women - CA lets out a sigh of prudent relief) that agrees to that. From experience. I will give no details (unless you pay me a small, reasonable, nominal fee). Of course there are exceptions, that could be the greatest the love of your life, but quite unlikely. The exception would be however exceptional 

Sex only after marriage...question of choice, culture, environment...the risk of him/her not being up to it (whether you care or not)... many, many variables here, and I'm afraid I have no Pyramid for this one 

However... Cyber - I have good news: if you do manage to hold on (whether you still consider it worth in a few years it's not my business) and if you're in luck and the man you marry does it the way you like it (since you do not try before you buy - hehe) - or of course, if you get used to his ways (the truth is in between),.... soooo, if all this...and many more - then actually this will work quite well. How do I know ? Well... I know. I also know it is highly likely he will feel privileged and special and so on and on... but of course it will still be a marriage like any other...just with a great headstart towards lasting (four) ever and ever ...

 

And women so do not string men along for their own sadistic amusement! So i disagree with your second theory also.

Well... do you want to generalise? I have had girlfriends that used (as much as I allowed it or got sucked into it) me for various purposes, sadistic excepted - more like material or educational  (yes, sex). Well, as long as I got the part I was interested in...No, it's not that simple, you do get scarred. What does not kill you makes you stronger.. .up to a point where you become immune... to too many things

Oohhh... I can feel a Shiny-like Pfffft lurking around... or is it something else  but how about I stop for !@%#'s sake..

[Reply #606 on:]

I don't think sex on the first 'date' is appropriate, unless the two people have actually know each other for a long time beforehand, in which case the 'date' is really only an unnecessary technicality - for example Fry & Leela... they're already intimately familiar with each other and it wouldn't be inappropriate for them to have sex without ever going on a 'date'...

Marriage though... I don't even know what that's about. Some legal thing; a piece of paper. Don't know what it has to do with two people loving each other - intelligent mature people should be able to make a committment to each other without being assisted by the law. That has a little to do with my personal contempt for the law, but it's more to do with a (possibly over-optimistic) belief that people's feelings operate on a higher jurisdiction, far removed from mundane crap like official registers and metal bands on fingers. Are we so chained to pointless ceremony that we'll put our happiness on hold to 'go through the motions'?
That's just my opinion. There's also the religious angle to marriage, but as an agnostic that means even less to me than the legal one.

[Reply #607 on:]

You're thinking of marriage in a materialistic view.   Think about what it represents. It's a real commitment that makes a relationship official and not just the ease of breaking up at any time. Dating isn't implying that you will spend the rest of your lives together. Marriage does imply that, at least at the time of the wedding. Forget the rings, forget the law, forget the rest. For me personally, it's not about loving each other, it's about there only ever being one person who I share that experience with.

[Reply #608 on:]

Silence! I concur.

The point of sex is not for lustful enjoyment. It's sharing love, and going on to bigger things; having a family. Sex is not an action to be used lightly.

[Reply #609 on:]

 

Originally posted by Cyberphobia:
You're thinking of marriage in a materialistic view.   Think about what it represents. It's a real commitment that makes a relationship official and not just the ease of breaking up at any time. Dating isn't implying that you will spend the rest of your lives together. Marriage does imply that, at least at the time of the wedding. Forget the rings, forget the law, forget the rest. For me personally, it's not about loving each other, it's about there only ever being one person who I share that experience with.

 Let me stir you a bit. Would it matter if the other - which for you appears to also be the one - had a lot of several women already? So he shared that something special with a lot of several other... ok, let's just say females for now? Would you ask yourself sometimes if he compares you to the others, and so on? Ok, I'll shut up now. Of course the simple answer is a Kif / Amy reversed situation: 'I don't care what she did before (the hell you don't if you care for him/her!), but from now on...he/she should not...', which makes sense.

An interesting age-related aspect:

I read some brilliant post somewhere (in PEEL?) stating that Fry should not make love to Leela because she already did it with Zapp and it would be ... don't remember the word, but anyway something like 'not right'. Whhaaaa ? And then he (I think he was a he - well who knows) mentioned something about only wanting to have virgins. Hehe.... oh, my. (I would put up the link but I'm too lazy to search for it). Of course he was ridiculed and flamed a bit. But my point is, he must've been a very young male. We (males) mature a bit later, too. 

Blah-blah... but related to Fry & Leela. Sort of.. 

[Reply #610 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Fry_B: This is actually the second time I've lost my licence. For that reason I had to lick some major corporate clitoris to keep my job this time, as I'm required to transport clients as part of my duties.
In any case, I'm not as bad as all that. I keep getting done for speeding, but it's only small increments and always while I'm driving my own car alone... it just adds up.

I simply CANNOT resist replying to this one. Shiny will kill me, but I have to take one more moment. One: because of the licking (for a different and more pleasurable reason though) and Two: because of the sympathy re losing points one by one. CA, some parts of our software are sooo similar...the embedded ones especially Let's MERGE them! 

And also, I cannot resist building that mental image of you, tough guy in that Fidel Castro jacket with the army tags (I personally never ever ever want to wear those again in my life!) doing... you know...corporate... Yeah, it's a tuff life.

[Reply #611 on:]

Oh, past is not relevant. I mean it is, if I had a boyfriend who slept with someone else, yeah, I'd like to know, but I'm not going to hold that against him or treat him differently because of it.
It's like Zapp saying it was a sexy mistake, but Leela's right in saying that it's a regular mistake; it can't be taken back, your innocence is lost, but you can learn from it and use that knowledge.

[Reply #612 on:]

 

Originally posted by Tastes Like Fry:
Oh, past is not relevant. I mean it is, if I had a boyfriend who slept with someone else, yeah, I'd like to know, but I'm not going to hold that against him or treat him differently because of it.
It's like Zapp saying it was a sexy mistake, but Leela's right in saying that it's a regular mistake; it can't be taken back, your innocence is lost, but you can learn from it and use that knowledge.

TLF, don't give Cyber hints!  And innocence...Leela ?

"Y'know...Left, down...Rotate 62 degrees...Engage rotor..."..

[Reply #613 on:]

Cyberphobia - I just think it's sad that a couple would feel it's necessary. If there is mistrust enough to warrent a binding contract then they shouldn't be together IMO.
Plus marriage is anything but permenant these days anyway.
I do understand what you're saying, but it still comes back to a solidification of a committment that should already exist anyway. Such a need on the part of the couple speaks of some level of insecurity, or lack of faith in each other... they're making each other prove it, when there should be nothing to prove.

Tastes Like Fry - your comment re: sex being not for enjoyment is rather puritanical, and while religious standpoints can't be denied without risking a holy crusade against me, I have to say I'm in sharp disagreement.
Sexually repressive sentiment notwithstanding, I can't see how you could argue against two consenting adults wanting a little fun. You can prudish and overly concerned with decorum or propriety, but one cannot deny the fact that the human is a sexual creature with natural drives that can't just be switched off at will. This is not an evil thing.
Sexuality is not purely about love, and simliarly love is not purely about sexuality. I mean, surely you check out good looking blokes who you don't love, right? There is nothing wrong with this, and the physical act of sex is just that - a physical act. There's no reason why it shouldn't be enjoyed. The person you love, however, gets something more - a part of your soul. There's a lot more to us than the physical.
Nevertheless... I know religious fervor, whether conscious or unconscious, will always prevail. It's ingrained in our Christian-centric society and handed down from parents without us even knowing it... though one should not forget the origin of that societal tendency toward repressing nature. There's a lot of nasty horrible history behind it, and a lot of beautiful things have been lost because of it.
Repressing our nature can never come to good. It should be celebrated, not shamefully pushed under the rug.
You seem to imply that sleeping with someone, anyone, other than the one, is a mistake. I can't tell you how wrong that is. The whole 'innocence is lost' thing seems to indicate that a person is somehow sullied or stained by such an act - if that's what you mean then you're being rather judgemental. People shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of having sex in a safe and consenting manner any more than we should feel ashamed of eating dinner or breathing air.


Anyway...

Fry_B... I was never military. The thing I'm wearing in that shot is a necklace pendant with a wolf on it (a lone wolf  ), not dogtags. Also, I'm not corporate myself - I'm a hands-on Disibility Support Worker. It's the people I have to answer to who work in the big city office. I hold them in contempt.

[Reply #614 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

You seem to imply that sleeping with someone, anyone, other than the one, is a mistake. I can't tell you how wrong that is. The whole 'innocence is lost' thing seems to indicate that a person is somehow sullied or stained by such an act - if that's what you mean then you're being rather judgemental. People shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of having sex in a safe and consenting manner any more than we should feel ashamed of eating dinner or breathing air.

CA, for some it's easy to separate sex from feelings. For others, especially women, it may not be that easy at all. What I reply now is really an over-simplification but I'm a bit tired now....

I believe 'innocence lost' referred to the loss of virginity which is unique - so after that you are not sullied or stained (well you may be stained a bit - couldn't resist that) but different for the rest of your life. It's natural, has to happen I guess. Some cultures actually force it to happen. Maybe I got it wrong, it would not be my first time 

Timing is also of essence here. Do you sleep with someone other that the one before or after meeting / realising that he / she is the one ? Ahaaa...


 

Fry_B... I was never military. The thing I'm wearing in that shot is a necklace pendant with a wolf on it (a lone wolf   ), not dogtags. Also, I'm not corporate myself - I'm a hands-on Disibility Support Worker. It's the people I have to answer to who work in the big city office. I hold them in contempt.

Nah, I believe you got me wrong. I thought you liked military artefacts. Most people that have been in the military don't really want them other than in a box. As for the corporate, no, I meant I imagined you in the tough guy outfit doing the nasties with the corp boss  makes sense? hehe

[Reply #615 on:]

Can't be bothered to argue. >< Personality and opinion conflict here, that can't be helped, so I'm not going to be bible bashing anyone tonight as neither of us will enjoy it. Until the conversation point changes, I bid you adue.

[Reply #616 on:]

Well I guess everyone's different. But I don't think any way should be seen as wrong. None of us has the right to make that judgement. People are free to do with their bodies and their emotions whatever they wish.
There are things I wouldn't do. Like married couples who swap partners and such. That's their choice. They love each other, but they freely participate in such activities because they enjoy it. They're not harming anyone; they're just having fun. I wouldn't be comfortable doing that sort of thing, but I won't judge those that do.
We humans have a way of placing imaginary value on things that have no inherent value for good or ill. Things are just things - the only meaning they have is that which is brought to them by us - right and wrong is in our minds.

Fry_B... Ha. I wore grubby cargo pants and hiking boots with a collar and tie to the company gala last year. I like to be incongruous.

[Reply #617 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
I just think it's sad that a couple would feel it's necessary. If there is mistrust enough to warrent a binding contract then they shouldn't be together IMO.

It's not about trust of anything to do with cheating or whatever. It's simply about a commitment, the willingness to never leave that person. If you marry someone, you are generally saying you want to be like dating them for the rest of your life.

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Plus marriage is anything but permenant these days anyway.

Yeah I know but I still have faith that my marriage will last. My parents have been together for 22 years so far and are still very happily married. My grandparents have been together for 50 years and are still very happily married.

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
I do understand what you're saying, but it still comes back to a solidification of a committment that should already exist anyway.

If you're only dating, there is no need of a permonate commitment. Just a temporary one.

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Such a need on the part of the couple speaks of some level of insecurity, or lack of faith in each other... they're making each other prove it, when there should be nothing to prove.

Ok, I sorta get what you mean here but then if you feel so secure with each other that you'll be together forever, then why not get married anyway? That would be the point of the marriage. To show the rest of the world that you plan to be together forever. It's not to prove you are so secure with each other that you get married, it's because you're so secure with each other that you get married.

[Reply #618 on:]

Also, I have no issue with others having sex before marriage, that's their choice. I only feel sex on the first date (as in Leela's case) is a bit too soon.

[Reply #619 on:]

 

Originally posted by Shiny, 'a bit' earlier - and I'm comfortable with my post looking out of whack
...  If we were academics, I’d get 60-80% of the grant money you did, and be half as likely to ever get tenure, even if my ideas were just as good and and just as solidly supported. ...

Maybe in US. Don't know the statistics you use, but here they do not know how to better attract women in IT. And as I mentioned previously, women run from IT like a bat outta hell. And from almost all engineering-related jobs. So yeah, maybe Leela's tinkering with the ship's internals (such as in The Devil's hands) and her mechanical skills are related to her being a mutant     See an example close to me: Head of School: Woman, Deputy Head of School...woman...HR boss... woman.. yes they change every few years, but the point is, they do get there. The calls for executives always mention 'applications are sought, especially from women...'. Is that not discriminatory? You can say it's all rubbish but just as well, we hear these terms and words daily and so they get ingrained in our male brains just like they do in yours. And of course you know that some females actually take unfair advantage of equal opportunity policies to get promoted in spite of their lack of skills. And you know some use their bodily parts to get promotions as well. They certainly did under the commies (ask me!) and they do it here too.

Look, I am not trying to inflame things here, we all know it is not typical, but it is present.


 

you see a man at work bristle with outrage and stomp off because you fixed a broken latch that had stumped him, and then have him treat you with icy, barely-concealed resentment for the next three weeks...

So you have true, hearty idiots there as well? Well they are sex-less... but I see your point. Treat him just as icy, no, in fact, icier    An idiot is an idiot is an idiot...

(Yes I know, CA, stop poking me, I'm scared too, I'll tell you when to turn around and run....no....no...not yet.....NOW!! GO-GO-GO!!!)


[EDIT]

OOps - how could I forget?

 

Originally also posted by Shiny
Although, if you were very very VERY kind, you might possibly refrain from your more "provocative" discussion starters until Saturday mornings when I can compulsively post as much as I please (and often do).

OMG, what have I done. Shiny, pls ignore this one till Saturday!

CA, does that mean I'm safe for now?

[Reply #620 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
But I don't think any way should be seen as wrong. None of us has the right to make that judgement. People are free to do with their bodies and their emotions whatever they wish..

Oh we don't have the right but we do take it... Most of us anyway, I am quite sure... more or less... Many causes. Historic. Cultural. etc..

And it's also gender-oriented - as Shiny said, females are judged more harshly (am I ranting excessivley here? Thanks, I knew it) Look how they've made everyone constantly nag Leela about Zapp. Even the mutants...Even in the most desperate moments, Leela is reminded of what she's done. How's that for judgemental? And typical for us all, here in their past as well... It is human nature (and funny - in Futurama of course). Sorry.

[Reply #621 on:]

Cyberphobia, such boundaries like dating/married to me are artificial impositions of 'digital' order on a chaotic 'analogue' issue. It's not that clear cut. People meet, get to know each other, gradually fall in love. There's infinite shades. That happens regardless of meaningless lables that are imposed... but those lables can in themselves be constrictive - you demonstrate that yourself by labelling a state of togetherness as 'dating' you have imposed upon yourself a lesser value of togetherness where the possibility of failure and unfaithfulness is almost encouraged... but it's just a word; why use words to paint yourself into a corner? It's not like a couple aren't in love until some dipshit preacher says they are - who the fuck is he to have any say in the matter? I am resistant to such systematic impositions or rigid order on something that should flow naturally, unfettered by the chains of labels. If I was in love with a woman I would deeply resent any presumption on the part of the Church or the State, or even God Him/Herself, to have some kind of view on the matter, even if it's a blessing - I don't care. It's nobody else's business. THAT is why I dislike the idea... it's almost like you're asking permission, and that really grates.
As for showing the rest of the world... yeah, I guess I understand that from the perspective of someone who doesn't absolutely hate and despise the world at large, but I do... passionately, and I feel no need to prove anything to that world. The world can blow me. It's a big blue ball of idiots hell-bend on seeing themselves consumed in their own moronic inferno, THEY may not presume to have anything to do with my love either. Love is greater than any lables - it does not need permission, it doesn't need an audience.
Beh!! Damn everyone to hell. Now I've made myself angry.

Fry_B
Well I don't judge Leela about Zapp. It was a meaningless encounter. If she claimed to love him, I'd be a little concerned for her mental health though...
But as for gender bias in judgement of mroality, I can happily say I don't have that. My little sister got in trouble from our parents 'cause she was caught doing... something... with her boyfriend of the time. I wasn't living at home, but I happened to visit at the wrong moment and walked into the middle of the screaming match. She was 18 though, and I stuck up for her right to do... whatever (don't want to think about it, she's my sister    ). Told the olds that it was her decision and it was perfectly natural and such.
How many older brothers would do THAT?

Yeah, so don't anyone ever call me sexist.

[Reply #622 on:]

The marriage issue isn't about God either. I don't think I even believe in God.

But yeah, I suppose if you had an understanding with your partner that you intend to be together forever but you aren't married, it's the same thing. But there are very few girls who don't want to go through the glamour and experience of a wedding. That's supposed to be the best day of a woman's life or something. But I was just saying that for most people, marriage symbolises that understanding.

[Reply #623 on:]

Yes. Symbols. Good way of putting it. That is, I guess, what I was getting at... people's need for a symbol. I don't understand why it's seen as necessary. Symbols have never meant a thing to me... I don't salute flags, wear badges, display brand names, or accept titles. Perhaps I am the oddity here.

As for the glamour thing for the ladies. Well...  Obviously that's different, and certainly something I cannot comment upon. It really goes beyond my field of expertise as a pasty sci-fi geek.

[Reply #624 on:]

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Yes. Symbols. Good way of putting it. That is, I guess, what I was getting at... people's need for a symbol. I don't understand why it's seen as necessary. Symbols have never meant a thing to me... I don't salute flags, wear badges, display brand names, or accept titles. Perhaps I am the oddity here.

I think I know what you mean in that sense of the word. But the fact is, everything is a symbol for something. 'a' is a symbol, it symbolises a sound you use to make up those words in the English language you so adore.
And what about those symbols that aren't for classifying things, like, say, the little candy heart Leela still kept in that 'Memories of Fry' box? Even the box itself is a symbol of something. Do those sorts of symbols mean anything, or are they still lumped into the same category as a flag might be for symbolising a group of people who're the same as the rest of the planet, only they want to be seen as different? 

[Reply #625 on:]

A memento is different. It's a reminder of an event in the past. And language is a means of communication. These things serve a practical purpose. Anything that does not serve a practical purpose is extraneous and should be eliminated.
...well, not really, I just don't indulge in frivilous things.

[Reply #626 on:]

A flag could be a reminder for some of an event in the past though. Really, it's just things that are PERSONAL reminders, rather than someone else's that you prefer? Unless we're talking about fictional characters', because theirs are even more interesting...

[Reply #627 on:]

Huh?
You have a way about you... you like tying knots in my little rants against the world, don't you? 
I should spank you.

[Reply #628 on:]

Muahahaha.
You just make it so easy to want to scratch at the inner workings of your mind.
I just find that if I agree with you, you don't say anything, but if I play twister, you gripe. It's amusing, and I can get away with it.  (mainly because I'm bonkers, but shh.)

Pfft, where is this topic headed?

[Reply #629 on:]

 

Originally posted by any1else:
Muahahaha.

As Robot Devil said : You're not nice 
 

Pfft, where is this topic headed?

I can only say: towards page 17. I can't find any other clear direction right now. [whinge]It's a mess - soem stuff in here should be in the other shippy thread and viceversa.[/whinge] but no matter, important thing is, they're both alive.

[Reply #630 on:]

 

Originally posted by Fry_B:
 

Originally posted by any1else:
Muahahaha.

As Robot Devil said : You're not nice   
 

Pfft, where is this topic headed?

I can only say: towards page 17. I can't find any other clear direction right now. [whinge]It's a mess - soem stuff in here should be in the other shippy thread and viceversa.[/whinge] but no matter, important thing is, they're both alive.

For now..... ( sinister laughing)
        

[Reply #631 on:]

Getting back on track...

Not surprised there are so many pages to this thread and that there are others like it.  It's quite a relationship to ponder isn't it?  And to think they evoked this much thought and feeling about it with just a few episodes that focus on it and a sprinkling of lines scattered amongst three and a half production seasons.  I sure hope something happens between Leela and Fry when the new material comes out.

Well my two cents say that Fry represents the polar extremes of the ideal man: a miserable provider who is weak, lazy, and unmotivated on the one hand but highly romantic, sometimes poetic, dedicated and loyal on the other.  As a guy I focus on the concrete aspects so Fry wouldn't appear very attractive to me and I think since most of the writers are men, Leela can almost not see past Fry's many bad qualities. 

Leela herself hardly has a bad side.  She is heavily skewed toward the ideal (ultra)modern woman.  She holds most of the cards: intelligence, capability, leadership qualities, yet still can be sensitive and caring and of course she is loaded with sexual attractiveness.  It seems the only thing holding her back is her relatively dim view of her own attractiveness.  She mopes in a jealous stew while Amy picks up the most eligible guys in the bar, not realizing (or caring?) that she could at least hold her own with Amy if she learned how to turn on the "cute" like Amy can.  Also, Leela's standards might be a bit too high (seeing herself as a senator's or a tall doctor's wife); mind you they are not out of her reach (dated a major general webelo <lol>, a mayor's aide,  a tall doctor, and we've seen her with other "suits" ), but she doesn't go out of her way to meet and greet and put herself on the market the way some would-be trophy wives do.  I wouldn't expect her to.  Her high standards hold the door open and give Fry a chance yet at the same time they make that chance seem very slim. 

Nevertheless I think "Devil's Hands" leads us to believe that Fry may have finally pulled off the game-winning big play like writing "I love you, Leela" with the stars, but this time she'll remember it.  Towards the end of the fourth season Fry's stupidity seems to moderate, but I still agree with Leela when she asks rhetorically if she doesn't deserve better than Fry.  All-in-all though, for Fry's sake I'd like to see the lovable looser win her over.

[Reply #632 on:]

Rarr! I don't know what the thread's about anyway.

[Reply #633 on:]

Its name has lost all meaning

[Reply #634 on:]

 

Originally posted by HipNoJoe:
Nevertheless I think "Devil's Hands" leads us to believe that Fry may have finally pulled off the game-winning big play like writing "I love you, Leela" with the stars, but this time she'll remember it.  Towards the end of the fourth season Fry's stupidity seems to moderate, but I still agree with Leela when she asks rhetorically if she doesn't deserve better than Fry.  All-in-all though, for Fry's sake I'd like to see the lovable looser win her over.

[Reads.Looks shocked]
 
No.No.NO
Not loser-hero.Not moderate-become less noticable.Not game-winning big play-justa lot of honourful stuff in a row.You dont think-you know.
Do not be anal-Be hopeful.Do not be wise-be even more hopeful.
Sorry about that.
[looks at his other errors,does TTTAWHD(Too Tired To Argue With HypNoJoe Dance)]

[Reply #635 on:]

 

Originally posted by CA:
Rarr! I don't know what the thread's about anyway.

Originally posted by Decapodian:
Its name has lost all meaning

CA, Decapod - if you want to know what the thread is meant to be about, read the first post and also search through the thread for the answers to the question why are you here?

As for my post on heading towards page 17: I was being sarcastic - because sometimes people (including myself) divagate a bit too much and then we stop and go...wow, where were we ?? It's Ok as long as you stop and...do that.

Initially, I thought there were just a handful of people (thank you guys and gals) posting / reading this thread. Interestingly however, several other PEELers seem to lurk in the shadows and jump in only when the thread appears to really derail - and usually to derail it more... hmm...well it's a free world.

Cyber: regarding marriage - it's a beautiful thing; forget the gory off-putting details. E.g. it does not have to involve all your possible living and zombie relatives - it can only be you and your man and .. whoever you believe in, or Mother Nature. It is a possible milestone in your life. No wonder women dream about it, no matter their standing or education - they just dream about it in a different way.

So as I said: if you can hold on and you believe it's worth it, there is hope. But you will have to fight for it. And I believe delaying them (I refer both marriage and ... the other thing) for a while is in fact beneficial. You will be more mature, and enjoy so much more what is happening to you. Anyway... I'm done preaching, sorry. Amen 

[Reply #636 on:]

 

Originally posted by HipNoJoe:
Getting back on track...

Thanks my man, we were lost and welcome to the DD thread 
 

Well my two cents say that Fry represents the polar extremes of the ideal man: a miserable provider who is weak, lazy, and unmotivated on the one hand but highly romantic, sometimes poetic, dedicated and loyal on the other.

Heheheh...  I wonder if Cyber or Shiny (for example) would settle on such an 'ideal man'... Well ladies?

 

Leela herself hardly has a bad side.  She is heavily skewed toward the ideal (ultra)modern woman.  She holds most of the cards: intelligence, capability, leadership qualities, yet still can be sensitive and caring and of course she is loaded with sexual attractiveness.  ...[and he goes on]

I have to agree with WU32, quite a bit of bold statements, but I'll leave you to the ladies....mwhahahaa ... wait! OMG - is there something SHIN(Y)ing in the sky? DUCK!Phew, no, it was a plane...

 

... Fry may have finally pulled off the game-winning big play ....  Towards the end of the fourth season Fry's stupidity seems to moderate, but I still agree with Leela when she asks rhetorically if she doesn't deserve better than Fry. 

Whoa. Ok, I'd put on the helmet about now if I were you. Still, nothing may happen.
to Shiny - Shiny, I know this pushes your buttons, please do not answer this in the morning, you will be late again!

 

All-in-all though, for Fry's sake I'd like to see the lovable looser win her over.

the loose loser... For Fry's sake, or because you're a miserable shipper like the rest of us 
[Panucci] Come ooooonn!! [/Panucci]... 

[Reply #637 on:]

   

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Fry_B
Well I don't judge Leela about Zapp. It was a meaningless encounter.

I didn't mean you, I said 'look how almost eveyone in Futurama rubs it in on her' and that may also be meant to be merely funny not just imply a deep cultural (or otherwise) trend. And I was raised in a culture that favoured this view, so of course I have to fight it, but you have to fight so many other things anyway such as not getting fat and ugly, not giving in to soo many addictive things, from smokes to alcohol, to speed (not speeding, that is Ok    but watch for the speed cams CA!!) to hookers, to gambling, to... anything that either is immoral or illegal or gets you fat. There. So it's Ok.

ColdAngel number 1, a question for you. What if you fell in love really badly and you wanted to be with her for the rest of your life (ditch the lonely wolf mask for a while will ya - howw-howww-howwwwww) but your Baaad Luuuv wanted a marriage - you choose whether a big fat or a threesome (don't think nasties, I mean the PreacherBot - [rant]'by the power vested in me by the state of NNY...[']whirrr' go PBots' clamps.. can't forget that moment in TDHAIP - everything hung in balance there - and again FRY was the one who had to run the gauntlet - um... his fault][/rant]). Would you break up with her just because of that ? Or would you do it? We are talking here of your greatest love, the one you described in your post, not about a meaningless relationship of sorts.

So?

[EDIT] SPELLCHECK - Arrgh

[Reply #638 on:]

Ok and a last post - do forgive me, as I said I can only post in a limited window, after you had your fun and went to bed   

If you would have to choose one Futurama pic / frame only to describe the shippy between Fry & Leela  what would it be? WHY?


My answer: it'd be Fry & Leela poorly sketched walking away in TDHAIP. Although my fav is The Sting. What about you?

[Reply #639 on:]

 

Originally posted by Fry_B:
Heheheh... I wonder if Cyber or Shiny (for example) would settle on such an 'ideal man'... Well ladies?

I think he means polar extremes of an ideal man as the unmotivated, weak, lazy, miserable provider being one extreme vs the highly romantic, loyal, poetic, dedicated man being the other extreme. He didn'y mean that all those traits should be in one ideal man, just the latter. The former is the opposite to the ideal man.

 

Originally posted by Fry_B:
 but you have to fight so many other things anyway such as not getting fat and ugly, not giving in to soo many addictive things, from smokes to alcohol, to speed (not speeding, that is Ok      but watch for the speed cams CA!!) to hookers, to gambling, to... anything that either is immoral or illegal or gets you fat. There. So it's Ok.

It's not that hard to resist all the things you mentioned. Except possibly getting fat. And no one can stop getting ugly, it's not usually something you can control.

I have no trouble resisting smokes, alcohol, speed, hookers (LOL) and gambling. They're not even a mild temptation.