Talk:Lovely Weather

We have a picture of her now, Chris has discussed her and his traveling into the future and having sex with her as being not rape, in addition to her significance (the Bride of Chris) can warrant her own article now.

Maybe discuss the implications of him traveling into the future and then meeting his wife after he came back as ruining the laws of time as allowing it to affect his future, undermining free will. Maybe something about how this relates to the theory of time inevitability (see some episode of Doctor Who and also popularized in The Twilight Zone).--Champthom 14:25, 22 December 2009 (CET)

This whole thing is creepily similar to a ronery nerd fantasy involving a MILF and a 18 to [my age] boyfriend-free-girl thought experiment I had once, except both people fully knew that the other is from another time, etc. etc.. The entire question was basically: If you travel to the future and have sex with your future spouse, whom you had met in the present and were involved with (either romantically, sexually, or both), but not yet married them: Is that adultery?

I have a point here: In Chris' skull, he hasn't had sex 'outside' of marriage, because he's done his future wife, and in the time period his future-self is married to her. The fact that present-Chris hadn't even met her is irrelevant. I just need a less confusing way to word that. -- Needlepants 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to reword it here - you mean to say that Chris can get away with having sex with his future wife just because he will marry her and that, since he's married to her in the future, there's no problem with any possible repercussions.

...

Ladies and gentlemen, he have hit 88 miles an hour. We are witnessing some serious shit.--Blazer 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's about the jist of what I was getting at. (and I just remembered something about my thought experiment, it actually was that the theoretical couple was married in both time periods, still, it's uncannily similar.) .... The  psuedotroll in me wonders if Future!Chris joined in on the fun. Present!Chris only said that he had sex with Future!Lovely, and never gave any details.  Goddammit, I'm using fangirl notation.--Needlepants 06:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Crocker resemblance?
A friend of mine pointed out that Lovely looks an awful lot like a brunette Chris Crocker. Worth noting? Meeko 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Meeko
 * I doubt Chris-Chan even is aware of Chris-Crock. They (Lovely and Crocker) do look kind of alike, but that just might be Lovely's manliness making them look similar. Needlepants 03:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Told you guys
From Mailbag 50: "And her name comes from the Christmas Song, "Sleigh Ride", with the lyric that can be repeated over and over to continue to be good, "(Come on, it's) Lovely Weather for a Sleigh Ride Together with" "Lovely Weather for a Sleigh Ride Together with" "Lovely Weather for a Sleigh Ride Together with" Love Weather, she's a beautiful girl."

--Champthom 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wallflower
The article is stating that Lovely Weather is in fact the Wallflower, but I have not heard of any confirmation of this fact. Double Nega 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's just because of the time of their meeting estimated to be around January and Weather = (Wallflower's secret first name which Chris is not keeping secret so I think I can mention it's just Weather with an H). Cutelittlerosey 21:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is pure coincidence. I can tell you that Chris came up with Lovely Weather in December (hence the Christmas connection) whereas Wallflower didn't meet Chris until January. --Champthom 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Lovely Weather and Wallflower's name have the same amount of letters.  When spoken in reverse, "Weather Lovely" sounds a lot like Wallflower's name.  Reversing the names of people in an attempt to keep them anonymous is a common Chris-tactic.  Mary Lee Walsh, anyone?  It's a pretty big coincidence but okay.--MoarLurk 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris is too stupid to rhyme, if he were hiding the wallflower's name, he would be literal and just reverse her name directly, like Reldnahc. If Chris had any good idea, Reldnahc's name would be, you know, not stupid. Basgon 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lovely Rape?
Disclaimer: This information comes second hand, is really only applicable to Australian law and is on the Internet. If you rely on something you read on the CWCki for legal advice you are more retarded than Chris.

First off, I'm moving the stuff about rape to the Chris_and_rape article where it belongs.

So, yeah. Today the whole "Lovely Rape?" question was being tossed over and over in my head. I happen to have a lawyer friend who's actually specialized in rape cases, having both prosecuted and defended many over her quite long legal career (she's retired). I spoke to her at length regarding this particular incident, explaining the details behind it. Her unsurprising conclusion was that the specific mechanics of temporal displacement are insufficiently known to science at this time to make a conclusive judgement, but she does cite several relevant cases:


 * A woman once refused to have sex with her partner unless they got legally married. The man staged a sham wedding which was not legally binding. They subsequently had sex. When she found out, she pressed him for rape charges and he was successfully convicted. (+1 for rape)
 * A woman was once gang-raped by eight men. When the eighth man arrived for his turn, she said to him, "Well come on then, you might as well... the rest did." The eighth man was acquitted on the ground she gave consent and that HE said he wasn't going to have sex with her unless she said it was okay, which she (technically) did (not knowing that, even if what he said was true, he wouldn't have sex with her if she didn't say yes). Lovely Weather verbally consented to the sex, even if the full circumstances were not fully available to her. (+1 for not rape; personally I "WTF'd?" at this, but she assures me it was true)

So in short, she wasn't a great deal of help directly as paradox-causing timetravel-rape hasn't been tested in Australian courts... yet. However, I did some other research and yielded the following (relevant) cases:


 * The Massachusetts High Court ruled, in the case of a man who (under cover of darkness) pretended to be his brother and had sex with his brother's girlfriend, that obtaining consent for sex by fraud is not rape (source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/05/state_high_cour.html). Although that's a state-specific law and Chris resides in another state, this is an important source. (+1 for not rape)
 * The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of a woman (again, in a dark room) who had sex with a man who had an identical twin brother that this was, in fact, rape as the other brother should have done more to identify himself (source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/identical-twin-accused-of-duping-brothers-lover-into-having-sex-with-him_100329696.html). The man was sentenced to six months imprisonment, a light sentence for rape, but certainly not a trivial one. Again, the wrong state, but certainly a strong precedent. It's worth noting that the man was an active service policeman which may have been a factor in sentencing (police are generally held to a higher standard of truth and honesty than citizens). (+1 for rape)

For those who have an eye for details, the following discussion on SciFi Forums (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82799) might prove to be very insightful; it contains a HUGE amount of examples, quotes from legal scripture, etc.

The bottom line: Was it rape? Well, after giving this due thought and finding a bunch of sources with relevant information, I have to answer with a definite... possibly. It would depend on the state (Virginia, obviously, but I couldn't find any sources from there), the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the defense, the political and social movement at the time... any number of factors. A clear cut answer on whether the term 'rape' applies here is not clear nor, it's likely, will it ever be in our lifetimes. One thing that IS universally agreed upon however, is that Comic!Chris's behaviour in this case is most definitely highly unethical and repugnant, skirting a very fine line if not actually over it. Consent which relies on strict conditions (such as being legally married to each other at the current time where sex would be denied if the marriage is invalid (Chris would say Lovely Weather would be up for it anyway; no woman says no to Chris), not being the knowing carrier of an undisclosed STD, knowingly and deliberately sabotaging protective/contraceptive measures, hookers being paid for sex, etc) would, in most jurisdictions, be classified as rape. Consent which relies on less strict conditions is, as Shepherd Book said, a mite... fuzzier. It certainly has unsavory implications, that's for sure.

Feel free to discuss further either here or on the rape page. --Ronichu 10:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm 4 years late to the party, but I might as well comment here as I feel that Lovely Weather is relevant in light of recent events. Fact is, Lovely Weather married Chris in the future, so if we are to assume that it's more or less the same Chris, consent is implicit. She wanted the D, so any deception is beside the point. Why would she, a very thin and attractive woman, be attracted to him in the first place? Who knows? The point is, she was/will be. -AReasonableMan (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Statutory rape section
I don't think statutory rape is the correct term for Chris' shenanigans with Lovely Weather. I think it should be changed to "Rape by deception", but I wanted to get feedback in case I'm completely off the mark. --BlueberryRagamuffin 15:30, 8 March 2012 (PST)