Well, no, there is no mention of other stuff in the title, which is "Furtive". So, OK, thanks for helping out with the cultural refs but why this cartoon? Explain! [pretty please] 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I believe it is referring to how Gadget looks around for three frames. Definition #2 of Furtive from Wiktionary is "Exhibiting guilty or evasive secrecy". Tryc (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"or else something to ejaculate into." no no no. It is 100% about 2 girls 1 cup. lol. It was prominent at the time the comic was created and has been referenced in other comics. 467: X Girls_Y_Cups 18.104.22.168 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I may be naive, but I always thought the cup was protection from the girls when he brought out the camera. Anonymous 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is true of other countries, but in the UK trench coats of the type worn by Inspector Gadget are commonly linked to flashers and 'pervy old men'. That would certainly ring true with the rest of the comic. --Pudder (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Changed the bit about "lesbians having sex being a common turn on for straight men." While it may be true in fiction the person who wrote this reads, this has yet to be confirmed in real life. Possible, but I highly doubt it. R3TRI8UTI0N (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- For various reasons, I'm not going to go look anything up right now, but I think that it's far from fictional that (some?) men (sometimes?) like their porn devoid of of a pesky male member getting in the way (or at least gonzo-format/'POV'-style, to pretend that it's your own bits of body). Ditto, it is known that heterosexually-inclined women can get something of a buzz from M/M porn.
- It probably gets trickier if you go from powerless video-voyeurism to having it happen in front of you, with the possibility of getting involved (hopefully with full consent!) in a threesome or moresome. Would depend on loads of factors, but as long as it's not a problem for anyone... Not all homosexuals will welcome the presence of the opposite sex (or the same, not clearly invited) around their intimate play, those on film will surely have pre-agreed or even be gay-for-pay, and going physically further than that is rude if not invited.
- Then you've got to overcome your own hang-ups. So you're confident enough to have one potential partner (or exhibitionist) in front of you, but perhaps you have to worry about what they think of you? Can you do what you think you need to do (including just sit there and enjoy it)? And can you be sure they won't do anything you won't like, like who is going to use a certain 'toy' upon whom, if you're outnumbered
- Not so many issues with anything pre-recorded, though. So long as you haven't accidentally picked up something that strays into territory beyond your specific comfort-zone (2G1C, BDSM, etc), I suspect that few heterosexual males will complain about extra female flesh on screen (who would not be appalled with just the one 'model' cavorting around, accordingly) and the bonuses would clearly outweigh the additional pitfalls of the already problematic medium.
- (They do say that the typical difference between solo/softcore and group/hardcore, of any and all flavours, is that one is "I will let you imagine that you can 'have' me" whilst the other makes it clear that someone else is already 'having' them. So you must deal with it, however you will!)
- What the comic's Inspector Gadget thinks of all this is clear enough, having (presumably) gone on to summon the spectacle somehow out of his cybernetic trouserspace (in the Loony Toons sense of the word), and I think it'd be a foolish man to deny that the abstract male gaze generally is not averse to a bit of F/F action, especially when it's the best or perhaps only option at any given time. There might be some individual men (not already disqualified by being exclusively gay) who would not enjoy it, or any other combo/non-combo, for their own reasons, and they might even be considered admirable for their fortitude in the matter, at least amongst those who wished they could entirely escape such temptation themselves.
- There is, after all, enough of it made available. Demand must be there, or there really wouldn't be quite so much supply of it. Logic dictates that fictionally engineered scenarios can't be the be all and end all of it. In this instance art clearly imitates life. Or at least a basic desire, even for those who would/could never put the fully fleshed-out fantasy into an actual practical encounter. And I won't anecdotally say how far I've been down that road, myself. You can just imagine me as the greatest and most outgoing lothario since Hugh Hefner or else the most socially repressed incel loner that ever existed, ...though I think you'd be best to consider me more likely not at either of these extremes. If I don't actually have the totally different viewpoint that comes from being a woman and thus having had to continually deal with (and/or avoid) this issue from the other side of the equation? (But TANGOTI, so it can't be that.)
- So... unnecessary edit, IMO, but I will leave it like that. Others may think stronger thoughts about it. 22.214.171.124 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)