The current story arc started with this strip: Slut.
Larisa undoubtedly places the value of personal freedom above all else so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that she’s arguing for the radical reduction of social and legal obligations and the decriminalization of all victimless crimes in the first panel. I guess she could be convinced that certain kinds of behavior which are not causing harm to anyone but are potentially very dangerous when even the biggest morons would be allowed to do it (carrying guns in public for example) should still be disallowed. However, realizing such a worldview would still cause a large number of revolutionary consequences, for example the legalization of any kind of drug. I myself am of the opinion that the correct line may be hard to draw but that there are currently way too many laws that restrict one’s personal freedom. It is interesting that every country seems to have its own, most often irrational, opinion which type of behavior is a big no-no and which isn’t. In Germany prostitution is completely legal, but proving yourself to be an idiot by saying that the holocaust didn’t happen can land you in prison. Cutting all laws against behavior which is allowed almost everywhere else in the world seems to be a good starting point in my opinion.
- Larisa: I say as long as nobody gets hurt, everything should be allowed! Life is too short to let stupid conventions ruin all the fun!
- Larisa: … And, hey, it’s not like I make any boy think that we’ll still be together in college… or at the end of the week.
- Larisa: So if I’m called a slut just for enjoying my life, then I don’t mind being called a slut at all!
- Sandra: Liz, are you aware that every girl in our class got warned about you by her parents since you’re setting such a bad example?
- Larisa: Really, all of you? Cooooool.
|
I don’t keep up on the comments, and I didn’t read them for this yet… I wanted to say that, with thinking about the scene with her taking pills in the abandoned factory, and putting things together with this latest scene….
I kinda think more strongly that she might also have cancer or something too. I know it’s a big mystery (unless I missed something), that is yet to be revealed… but her attitude seems to indicate that she is wanting to both leave her mark, as well as pull out any stops on life… which would be characteristic with someone that may be terminal in some fashion… esp at that young age.
Of course I expect no answer, as this is reader-speculation.
The whole ‘morality’ thing changes from place to place, culture to culture, generation to generation. So frankly, I can’t see where anybody can complain about how she is acting. In fact she has stated one of the very few tenants that might be considered a basis for a consistent moral structure: As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt.
Morals are tricky, what mean “nobody get hurts” (who is sombody to begin with). If I go into your house and steal all your things you are not geting “hurt”, and If I kill for selfdeffense some one is going to get hurt. If a 23 year old man dates a 13 year old girl ¿is she geting hurt? age of agreement depends in every country, the list goes on. And in fact Larisa`s behaviour is hurting not someone but something.
@shippou-chan:
Sure, basing laws on morality sounds like a good idea – but WHOSE morality? I´m sure I could drag up a morality (or five) according to which a webcomic like Sandra & Woo, which does not portray a girl like Larisa (kissing before marriage – how sinful!) as the embodiment evil would have to be illegal, so as not to endanger the moral development of the youth. Or what about the moralities according to which Larisa´s parents would be okay, or even practically required, to kill Larisa for bringing dishonor on her family? Or, for that matter, the morality of the Burmese junta, the results of which we see here and there in the comic? Doesn´t sound like a good idea, does it?
No, I think the best idea is to keep morality out of legislation, and design laws in such as way to strike a compromise between preserving a person´s freedom, and protecting everyone else´s freedom from that person.
As some Law student (or acording to the french ilustration) the laws have a natural fundament (hence natural law , a comon class for law students) and the goberment have to take the form of habits of a country, Cause conduct based in customary and habits is the stronger than the conduct based on strange impositive laws from outside.
The spirit of the laws was the first book in investigate this subject
I agree with Fesworks. As I stated several strips back, I believe Larisa has a serious and potentially terminal illness which will probably cause her to die early.
In the light of that information, Larisa’s behaviour makes perfect sense. She’s trying to cram an entire lifetime’s worth of experiences into the short amount of time she believes she has left. “Boys” is just one aspect of life which she’s concentrating on.
Which makes funny strips concerning Larisa’s behaviour somewhat pathetic (in the old sense of strong emotion, not the modern sense of weakness), since they also contain an element of tragedy.
Great idea, Novil. I’m going to be watching with interest to see where you take it.
Do ya mean show proof of shootings in Texas? It’s just a stereotype and I only used it as an example, sorry if I offended anyone. 🙁
No; documentation that outlawing the guns of everyone would cut down on gun crimes by criminals. (Since they’re already criminals, I wouldn’t think they’d turn in something that will give them an even bigger edge over their (presumably) honest victims.)
I’m not offended, just curious.
prehaps moar fire would cut down on the boys, though one REALLY cant tell which is more dangerous…. id say boys what with all the STDs and shit nao. moah FIRE!
Same thing here, pal. 😉
— merge of double post —
Hmm … I think not.
Why wait for a potentially dangerous act to make victims to ban this act ?
(I’m not sure I’ve correctly written the sentence above.)
@Melkior: I hope you´re wrong about the reason for Larisa´s behavior… although I have to admit it would make sense.
By dictate, I mean just that (you will do/think/believe this or that). Complicated? You mean you would want someone else telling you what to believe? I don’t. Would you be willing to persecute someone for what they believe and think? I see little complication in that issue. Read Fahrenheit 451, it’s kinda scary how close we are becoming the society described in that novel.
On one end, we have confidence, individuality, and living life to the fullest. On the other end, we have pyromania, concerning behavior with unfortunate implications, and risk of legal/other problems. She has an interesting thing going for her. If she cut down on the anarchy, she’d make a fine motivational speaker. But, really, is it fair to ask her to? And, is it realistic to expect her to listen?
Oh like that, no I didn’ mean that part. Criminals always have guns no matter what the law so that’s out of the subject in my comment. What I meant was again the stereotype that guncrazed ppl live in texas(not true I know that’s why it’s a stereotype) and with that “()” part I wanted to say don’ start thinking on that line since it’s not the point it was only an exaggerated examlpe to make my point clear.
PS: Thought about my comment there and yeah I realized I was misunderstandable sorry for that. XP
My argument on laws and morality is as follows. Every good law is based on the premise that certain behavior is good, and ought to be followed, and/or that certain behavior is bad and ought to be prohibited. Thus, any good law will be inherently based on some sort of morality.
You wouldn’t pass a law mandating or prohibiting behavior that is neither good nor bad. It wouldn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t accomplish anything good.
Now you do have a good question with “whose morality”. My best answer is that the morality will tend to reflect the society it governs, especially in a democratic-type government. I recognize that this does differ, sometimes greatly, from culture to culture.
I also recognize that while I (and even the society in general) believe a certain behavior to be wrong, it does not mean that prohibiting that behavior by law is always a good idea.
No problem, Gaboris. I guess I just reacted to what I saw as an over generalization on a touchy subject. 🙂 Thanks for the explanation!
@shippou-chan:
Good point, but I think we can get around that whole potential shipwreck of which morality to pick if we design laws with the freedom angle in mind.
A priori, Larisa has the freedom to have fun, in whichever way she chooses. However, if the the way she exercises that freedom interferes with someone else´s freedom, such as say that former boyfriend´s freedom not to have serious burn injuries inflicted on him, we´ll have to weigh these freedoms against each other.
That way it is not even necessary to designate behavior as good or bad per se; “good” or “bad” then derives not from itself or from a code of morality or some higher power, but from how it affects peoples´ freedoms – setting your boyfriend on fire is bad not because it says somewhere “Thou shalt not set thine boyfriend on fire”, but because it interferes with his freedom not to have injuries inflicted on him. Being prevented from setting your boyfriend on fire of course interferes with Larisa´s freedom to have fun, but neither is that freedom as “valuable” as that of not having injuries inflicted, nor does preventing her from setting people on fire prevent her from having fun in any other say – so we would have a fairly strong case against setting boyfriends on fire, even without any code of morality.
On the other hand, the case for or against Larisa smooching pretty-eyed boys who don´t really mean anything to her isn´t nearly as clear-cut… 😉
do anyone read the new comic yet. i do, but i won’t spoil it for you.
i’d rather have that no-denying-the-holocaust law being global. you guys have it right: anyone THAT idiotic is just plain DANGEROUS.
Obviously Larisa is dieing from what ever she’s taking all those medications for, and is acting out and trying to enjoy her life to the best that she knows how. By setting fires and being friendly with the guys.
Obviously not all things should be allowed, but I wouldn’t mind it if people stopped using the word slut to criminalize those with less sexually-stifled approaches. Not necessarily Larisa, since I think she’s breaking a few hearts along the way, but for consensual adults who know what they’re doing.
Rationale for those who see their own headstones on the horizen, sooner than anyone ever should.
Google “ethical slut”.
That is all.
Do what you will but bring harm to none.
Larisa has the same view at this as I do. Or, she seems to be leaning towards it.
I am a slut and I am proud. I’d make out with pretty much anyone I feel like making out with, I flirt if I find someone attractive, I dress in a way that some people find provocative.
I do not sleep with anyone, but if I like a person I see no reason to wait until a symbolic time like a third date.
Call me a slut. I don’t care. It only means that I get more girls than you do.
Has she read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by any chance?
So, I just gotta say… I started from page one. It’s my tradition, read the full archive of a webcomic and it gains a spot in my Google Reader…but the buck stops here. Every comic has been more and more offensive or unfunny since about 10 strips ago and I’m done. Thanks for the laugh or two that you gave me, but in the end I hope you learn to be less of a prick and learn to write scripts actually worthy of the beautiful art.
I swear, Larissa is a female, more-slutty me.
“Life is short”, huh? I find it funny there weren’t (at least not that I saw) any comments pointing this out? Maybe Larissa’s attention seeking behaviours are related to her medical conditions (she may not have a long life ahead of her / she may fear she doesn’t have a long life ahead of her) after all?
The eternal question: Is Larisa a sl*t or isn’t she?
No, she isn’t. She is a FLIRT. There’s a difference. Besides. Even if she was a sl*t, she’d still be awesome ^^
I know this comment is probably far too late to get a reply, but still…
Shippou-chan wrote:
My argument on laws and morality is as follows. Every good law is based on the premise that certain behavior is good, and ought to be followed, and/or that certain behavior is bad and ought to be prohibited. Thus, any good law will be inherently based on some sort of morality.
You wouldn’t pass a law mandating or prohibiting behavior that is neither good nor bad. It wouldn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t accomplish anything good.
I disagree, there are good laws, which forbid things that are not of themselves, bad. For instance, it the UK there is a law forbidding driving on the right-hand side of the road. Driving on the right is not bad, as demonstrated in much of the rest of the world, but driving on the right in the UK often proves fatal. In this case, and others, the law enforces a standard, but the standard is not morally, ethically, or in any way, better than its inverse. What is important is that everybody follows it.
@ Ha:
Immoral things? Immoral things like being cruel to other people? THAT’S immoral, for sure.
Sex? Sex, in and of itself, isn’t immoral.
Think I might have been too harsh in my comment on the last strip 🙂 Still think Sandra should be ashamed that she’s acting so scummy about this, but like you’ve said in the past if the characters weren’t flawed they wouldn’t be realistic, the important thing is that as it turns out you’re *not* letting her slut-shaming go unchallenged.
Legalise murder and I’d be a happy kitty… for the remaining few hours of my existence.
I’m surprised these bunch of strips are colored. Good job on everything.
I remember reading some statistics that Texans who own a gun are about 1/10th as likely to commit a crime compared to Texans who don’t. Or possibly 1/5th. Either way, much less likely. And the violent crime rate there is less than half that of the UK, which has just been going up and up for decades. One guy mentioned he’s from Vermont? Looking at the stats, they have even more guns than Texas, and about 10% of the violent crime rate of the UK?!? OK, I want to move to Vermont. Anyone know the easiest way into the US? 🙂
I love Larissa, if I’m honest
I believe that there is no “line” per se, but rather one big blur.
Hey three comments in three comics, I. am. on. a. roll.
I’ve found something to aspire to.