Clementine gets a boyfriend?

1234568»

Comments

  • I agree. Luke seems kind of like an oblivious guy, imo. But still, Nick's comment "You gonna tuck me in?" felt kind of subtext-y, and if it were a girl saying it to a guy or vice-versa, people would've probably seen something there. I dunno.

    And yeah, it would be an interesting plot point. Luke, while I think he's mostly oblivious to subtle romantic gestures, seems like the type of guy who wants to be independent and would probably move out of a relationship quickly. So even if he did notice, I can't see it happening with either of them canonically.
    skoothz posted: »

    Mm, to be honest, I see less validity in Nick/Luke now, I kind of more just feel like Nick's got a thing for Luke and it's not rec

  • That's a wonderful mindset to have, AusZombie, I think you'll be a great parent.

    Nah, nah, me voicing my opinion is usually this kind of thing. There was a Nuke thread a while back where I had to call out a handful of people for making really cruel remarks, and luckily I got a lot of up-votes, but still. Feels a bit overwhelming.
    AusZombie posted: »

    Well putt it this way, i'm straight and I see the possibility of Clem being into girls the same way that I would see my own daught

  • I think I remember that thread and if I remember correctly I did compare it to all the Cluke threads in that it was a nice improvement seeing as it involved two consenting adults.
    skoothz posted: »

    That's a wonderful mindset to have, AusZombie, I think you'll be a great parent. Nah, nah, me voicing my opinion is usually t

  • Honestly him just babbling about Luke, defending Luke, agreeing with Luke, all that shit in episode 3 sealed the deal for me. For a while I was like "Well I like the theory but right now it's just subtext here" but now I'm like "Damn yeah he's gay he's really gay." But I don't see Luke reciprocating that. You're right--I think he'd be oblivious and it just wouldn't really be his thing even if he did realize it.

    So at this point I don't see "Nuke" being a realistic possibility but I honestly do think Nick is gay. The problem is that I'm not sure if Telltale quite realizes how they set it up to look. He could have just gotten the brunt of bad characterization in episode 3. I hope that's not it but... he was pretty heavily neglected, so if this is just poor writing that's making him look like he's head over heels for Luke, I'll be disappointed but I won't be surprised.
    sayakamiki posted: »

    I agree. Luke seems kind of like an oblivious guy, imo. But still, Nick's comment "You gonna tuck me in?" felt kind of subtext-y,

  • Yet people act like it's the same kind of depravity. It's NOT. And it's immensely offensive to even compare the two. There is nothing wrong with two consenting adult men in a relationship.
    AusZombie posted: »

    I think I remember that thread and if I remember correctly I did compare it to all the Cluke threads in that it was a nice improvement seeing as it involved two consenting adults.

  • No. Just no.
  • You are thoroughly agreed with.
    skoothz posted: »

    Yet people act like it's the same kind of depravity. It's NOT. And it's immensely offensive to even compare the two. There is nothing wrong with two consenting adult men in a relationship.

  • You guys and your arguements xD xD xD. I love it! Argue more please :D
    JonGon posted: »

    I'm glad text on the internet is enough to make you hurl lol. And pairing an 11 year old with a mid 20 year old is the start of pedophilia.

  • It's ok my jokes are worse :(

    More like 6/66, would Sat-in again. GET IT! Man, I'm bad at jokes.

  • edited May 2014
    I say Clem and 12 yr old Lee. ;D
  • Do you see my name? That was meant to be a legitimate tongue-in-cheek.

    Oops.
    OmegaTise posted: »

    It's ok my jokes are worse :(

  • I don't know what a tongue-in-cheek is :(

    Do you see my name? That was meant to be a legitimate tongue-in-cheek. Oops.

  • I'm a bit offended by your implication of asexuality/aromanticness being a bad thing. It's a person's own choice if they want to engage in a sexual or romantic relationship or not, there's no shame or badness in not wanting either. And besides, not experiencing sexual and/or romantic desire is something a lot of people simply can't help, but implying that they're missing out on a great aspect of life isn't a very tactful thing to say, especially considering how oppressed and ridiculed asexuals and aromantic people are.
    Personally, while I'm not asexual or aromantic, I don't see the big deal with sex or romance, and therefore I can't really see from your point of view on it being such an enriching part of life.

    If you don't agree with my headcanon and you personally would like to see Clem in a relationship someday, that's fine, I don't mind. She's fictional, after all.
    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Forgive my ignorance, but why is not having any romantic or sexual desire a good thing? Those are pretty large aspects of the huma

  • No, maybe in season 3, because season 2 is at that point where people start dying off, and anyways, lesbian Clem, I'm no homophobe but, not Clem
  • Whoops, pressed post... I think having Ellie from last of us as lesbian was enough

    No, maybe in season 3, because season 2 is at that point where people start dying off, and anyways, lesbian Clem, I'm no homophobe but, not Clem

  • Clem doesn't even like being pat on the head, she's not going to want a boyfriend or girlfriend cramping her style.
  • Possibly? I wouldn't care what her sexuality is, she's still Clementine all the same.

    I can see her being bisexual.

  • edited May 2014
    Well, yes. I assumed that we were talking about the cases in which people can't experience romantic or sexual desire, and not cases in which people simply choose not to. But just because someone can't help having a certain condition doesn't exclude the possibility of it being an undesirable condition.

    Some people have allergies to fruits or shellfish or nuts or chocolate. It's certainly not their fault and there's no reason they should feel ashamed for having that allergy, but it would still be weird to wish that allergy upon another person. And those are just classes of food. An asexual/aromantic person would be deprived of an entire category of human interaction.

    I'm not a particularly romantic person either, but I can still appreciate that the feelings that come with those romantic love can be among the most intense and profound that a person can experience. Why else would so much of our art, music, and literature be centered on those things?

    Look, it's fine that your preferred headcanon involves Clem never finding love or a stable partner to share her life with. But, personally, I don't see the appeal of wishing upon her the inability to find enjoyment in one of the few attainable pleasures she has left in the world.
    sayakamiki posted: »

    I'm a bit offended by your implication of asexuality/aromanticness being a bad thing. It's a person's own choice if they want to e

  • It means a joke, one that isn't meant to be taken very seriously.
    OmegaTise posted: »

    I don't know what a tongue-in-cheek is :(

  • she said she was 15 in episode 1 in my game clem is 11

    In Episode 1 he mentioned that they are both in the same age :3

  • I was attracted to men and women as soon as I hit puberty. Before then, no flippin clue, lol.
    sayakamiki posted: »

    I forgot about that. There's this huge stigma that if you make a child character anything but straight, you're "sexualizing" them,

  • Aroace Clem is the BEST.
    sayakamiki posted: »

    Naw. #AroAceClem

  • (Insert cluke joke here)
  • Hey, I'm asexual. Not aromantic, though, just ace. Some people can be both (like the Clem headcanon above), but not always. I, personally, get crushes and feel romantic affection. I can love people and relate to romantic art, music, and literature just as you can. However, sex just isn't my thing. That doesn't mean I'm allergic to it or that I'll remain celibate my whole life. It just means I'm not as into it as other folks are, and I don't need it's presence in my life to fully love someone.

    I can't speak for aromantic people so forgive me for not going in depth on that, but I hope I was able to shed a little light on asexuality?
    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Well, yes. I assumed that we were talking about the cases in which people can't experience romantic or sexual desire, and not case

This discussion has been closed.