Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by brasca »

meps98 wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:35 pm
While Teddy/Teddi might be tolerant of Abby's pranks, you can be damn sure he/she wouldn't take the same approach with Pandora's. If Pandora returns to Earth, she will find a much different victim this time. I think I might enjoy how the Demi-god Teddy/Teddi responds to Pandora's antics. She might end up longing for a return to Hell.
As Chastity is surprised at Teddy/Teddi's hearing her explanation while undergoing diagnostics, saying it was impossible, it appears that their evolution continues apace. It's not yet clear if both of them wield the same powers but it would seem logical. Also, as they share a mind, they would also share the full sensory experience should either of them have sex with another person. Is Teddi's body now just a "normal" female body or does it have the full range of succubus enhancements? I'm guessing it's normal, at least within the range of What-the-Hell-is-Normal-About-Any-of-This territory.
The next question is what is Teddy/Teddi's current sexual orientation? Male? Female? Hetro? Bi? His initial reaction to Chloe's sexual assault may give the slightest of clue's but probably not. Fear likely overrode any possible sexual attraction, though Chloe's pheromone production should have been in overdrive mode and Teddy seemed unaffected but so did everybody else.
One other thing is Teddy/Teddi's subtle display of dominance, telling Chastity not to do that again without first asking for permission. Chastity did not acknowledge or accept that request but the look in Teddy/Teddi's eyes clearly says, "I'm being polite about this. Don't test me."

In short, there is much yet to be explained and explored.
Yes. Cop a feel or prank at your own risk. :-ss

User avatar
rogermart
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:04 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by rogermart »

meps98 wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:35 pm
Chastity
She is Charity. Chastity is Pandora in angel disguise.
That's what i do... i drink and i know things...

User avatar
TJgalon
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:28 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by TJgalon »

This keep getting better and better, haveing so much fun.
"Somebody just stake me now"


OllieOrOlly
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by OllieOrOlly »

Fluffy wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:07 pm
OllieOrOlly wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:18 am
Quick, Slash-stab, kill Pandora before more *hi-goddamn-larious* "pranks" can be done!
I like Pandora - but I'd happily agree with this sentiment (so much cringe at the thoughts of what pranks shed have in mind).
Not sure why Al is telling the Teds about the reproductive nature of the female offshoot in an aside, as it makes it seem creepy when it could just be given as a matter of fact.
Probably because - due to femme Teddy's promiscuous nature - it's better to get that point out in the open so she knows to be extra cautious when it comes to any further sexual adventures now that she's officially a she and has a reproductive tract to show for it.

.........
But, let's not kid ourselves - that's not likely to happen because Teddy's got more important things to worry about (namely himself).

I initially liked Pandora but after the same vulgar shtick was done again and again, and in increasingly skeevy ways, it grew to frustration and now disdain.

Female Teddi was unrepentantly *promiscuous* (to put it mildly), though perhaps the male side having a mind link will reign in those proclivities? Beating a dead horse here, yet it gives rather unfortunate implications that the intelligent if short-sighted male became a moronic sex-monger because of becoming female - also due to "succubus stuff," but that notion got buried under a mountain of pointless *fanservice* and especially the cyclical non-plot.

Your closing point does illustrate a fundamental flaw with Teddy, male or female, they are appallingly arrogant in the sense of thinking they know what is best - never even thinking to ask another source if his/her ill-conceived whoring and ultimate blood cocktail would be a practical help to Chloe - the person he self-righteously went out to "save," whom he had aggressively turned against earlier without a moment's hesitation. This ego problem could be a character flaw to overcome, yet it never is and he never learns; thus, not exactly a relatable, likeable, or even tolerable protagonist.

User avatar
MissMadness
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:43 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by MissMadness »

I'm pretty sure it is a charater flaw, considering how he had to grow up and who he had to take care of by myself. And given that most of the supernatural beings he has met are shown to be idiots and assholes half the time, its no suprise that he tends to do what he feels is right. As an random teenage boy. There is no one to turn to for him or anyone that did had issues of their own.

It does excuse his own actions by and by but it does explain a lot of it. I will say compare to the regular supporting cast in this story Teddi is far more tolterable.

EmptyHat
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:37 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by EmptyHat »

Zorlond wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:54 pm
ven wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:37 am
Well, sounds like Teddy found the ultimate way of masturbation, he just needs to ensure contraception.
The internet has that old riddle of "incest or masturbation", but in actuality, selfcest is it's own thing.
It is the internet genie answer to the more traditional riddle: What is the sound of one hand clapping.

Passing Through
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 20-09-18 Two Teddies

Post by Passing Through »

That horrifying end panel is why I want Teddi to be strung up by her figgin. :(

Post Reply