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.[1] Worth noting? Meeko 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Meeko

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)