Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25614818-20150410170303/@comment-26337057-20150423102823

This was when they spooned—it was an envelope-pushing, somewhat racy "make the audience blush" moment, as Nickelodeon has long been famous for. :) "

Is that what the fuss is all about? Seriously, you're reading into something that simply isn't there. There have been times when the Turtles have "spoon" I guess that means that the Turtles must be in romantic relationship as well.

"And no, I can't really see them as like "normal" reptiles—they're first and foremost anthromorphic animal people with a human style of sentience and human style personalities that in large degree reflect their experiences, and with a handful of select animal behavioral stereotypes thrown in for cartoon storytelling."

The Turtles are not normal reptiles I never said they were but they're still reptiles and that is the point that you're missing. The Turtles are whole different species all together, they're neither human nor reptile yet they're both at the same time. And because of this you can't treat like they're human. Yes, they have human style sentience and personalities (as anthropomorphic characters do) but if they're was nothing alien about them then the fact that they're Mutant Ninja Turtles would be irrelevant.

"And when I see two people sleeping together while spooning, I tend not to think it's because they're housecats or pet iguanas—they're either in love, or they're trying not to freeze to death in severe winter weather. Since city undergrounds (much like caverns) don't have swings of temperature nearly as large as the weather above ground (one of the reasons urban homeless people sometimes seek shelter underground), I'm inclined to think it was a scene of romance. "

I'm sorry, but that is not good enough reason to think of the scene as romantic. Homeless people may sometimes seek shelter underground but that doesn't mean therefore the would have no need to seek body heat.

"And you're right—a hug is not evidence of romance. But three separate enthusiastic leap-into-their-arms happy-to-be-with-Big-Green-Buddy emotional hugs in the same two-part episode? I'd be more inclined to think any viewer who didn't see the romance in that, has no functioning gaydar. As one of my friends remarked, "He threw himself into the man's arms at literally every opportunity."

Sorry, but that line of reasoning has no rationale whatsoever. You mean to tell me you've never seen a child leap to arms of parents? Seriously, just because there are three emotional hugs between Leatherhead and Mikey that makes them a romantic couple? That honestly makes no sense whatsoever.

"To be honest, I was rather surprised to find anyone who found the idea of their romance creepy. Part of that is that I'd never met anyone before who did tell me it was creepy. (I've met people who just plain don't like romance on the show at all, but that's a different matter entirely.) But also, all the romantic moments were my first, very strong impression, based on my conventional wisdom. When I discussed it with my friends, they told me they'd seen the same thing. Nothing forced about different friends seeing the same thing independently. And we saw it happen again and again—in most of Leatherhead's episodes. "

You honestly shouldn't be surprised that there is someone who finds it creepy. I don't see any conventional wisdom that would lead anyone to believe that Leatherhead and Mikey are romantic with each other. Also, using an ad populum to prove your case does not make for a logical argument. Your friends are just guilty of seeing something that simply isn't there.

"Well, I'm not expert with that, but if I recall correctly, Bruce Banner started out as a relatively more normal adult scientist before he started hulking out. Of course, I only saw the 2003 film by Ang Lee...I don't really read much Marvel or DC comics or anything like that. The only comic books I read heavily were TMNT—Mirage, Image and more recently some IDW. I'm not really a "comic book guy" in general. "

No, Bruce Banner had pretty rough upbringing which caused him to have psychological issues even before his transformation. But you don't have to be a comic book guy, you can just google it for yourself.

"But my point is, Leatherhead went from early childhood to abandonment to torture to escape to living underground. For all intents and purposes, he was a child—his actual calendar age could have been anywhere between teenager and senior and it wouldn't have mattered much. Michelangelo was merely lucky to have had such a happy and loving family like he did. Had fate been different, assuming they were still mutants and alive, Mikey could have been the tortured broken bird with emotional scars (which kinda happened in late Mirage Volume 4 anyway), or Leatherhead could have been quite happy and well-adjusted (like Mirage Leatherhead was before the Utroms so abruptly abandoned TCRI). "

I don't see what their different upbringing have to do with their age.

"Sorry, but that's...totally not the way I see it. I never saw Leatherhead as an adult or elder before his timeskip. And again with the Hulk references? I always see Leatherhead as more of a sensitive giant who struggled with his volatile emotions when he was younger and still had green scales. And now that he has grey scales and has mellowed out, he continues to fight mainly because he's needed, but could just as easily be the first to welcome peace. He's much more a Vincent (1980s CBS, not 2010s CW) than a Hulk. In fact, that was one of my stronger impressions—that he reminded me so much of Vincent (who lived in the "World Below")—and, as it so happened, Vincent was also a romantic character. As for Leatherhead's similarity to Vash, it's the course of Leatherhead's experiences that are what remind me of him—personality-wise, he mostly only reminds me of Vash in the times when he gets really calm and reflective. "

I realized that is not the way you see it but I still don't see a good enough reason why you see it differently. Also, you don't comprehend the Hulk references and yet you continue Leatherhead that is very similar to the Bruce Banner. Bruce Banner has scars from his past and struggles with his volatile emotions but his really a gently, kind, caring man when his not SMASHING. There is just more similarities between Leatherhead and Bruce Banner than Vincent. Again I see no similarities between Leatherhead and Vash, neither in characterization or in backstory.

"Trying to impress someone, to look like something you're not, is pretentious. Donnie tries to overemphasize a few qualities that make up such a relatively small part of his overall personality. It was when he came to April all humble and level-headed that she was really touched enough to give him a kiss—that sincere honesty was attractive of him. It's better when guys act naturally and just be themselves, and happen not to be creeps in the process. Wannabe-alpha males are fake—not attractive. And real alpha males may be superficially sexy, but they're also more likely to love-you-and-leave-you. "

No, that is not what it means to be pretentious. Here is what it means to be pretentious, v "Claiming that or behaving as if one is important or deserving of merit when such is not the case: a pretentious socialite." People who are pretentious are convinced of their own importance to the point where they don't feel the need to impress anyone. Truly, pretentious like many socialites believe that everyone is beneath them. From what I'm seeing you're projecting your own feelings to the Donnie advices at April. It sounds like to me you have something against masculinity, when there is a difference between a healthy masculinity and a toxic masculinity. In other words, alpha males (wannabe or real) are not automatically bad. The problem is that too many people don't know how to tell differentiate between healthy and pathological alpha male. The types of "alpha males" who are superficial sexy but will love you then leave are the pathological (pseudo) alpha males that shouldn't be confused with healthy masculinity.

"I always saw Mikey's relationship with Sara as more of an impulsive spark and fling that turned out to be a lot less than he actually thought it was. Basically, he was in a relationship that didn't exist, because Sara was really too vapid to begin with. He didn't seem to appreciate that sometimes a fling is just a fling. It was similar with Seri. He went way off the reservation, impulsively flirted with someone completely out of his league, had sex with her, may have even fathered children, and was naive enough to think he was in a relationship with her. That Mikey looked for love in all the wrong places, and reading about it made me wince early on because I could already tell what was going to happen—and it did happen"

So Mikey is wrong for pursuing someone who was "out of his league"? That sounds rather patronizing and condescending. Also, when you have sex with someone is it natural to think that you're in relationship with them. I know that we currently live in culture where casual sex is the "norm" but not everyone feels the same. And from what I remember Sara and Mikey had a lot in common and it was more than just fling at least in my point of view. You may have not like their relationship and thought it was unhealthy or whatever but that doesn't mean they're relationship was non-existent. I can already see that we're never going to agree on this so we might as well just stop here.