What If…Link & Cloud Strife Kissed?

What If...Link & Cloud Strife Kissed?

Brought to you by Cole

Scenario: the entire casts of Final Fantasy VII and The Legend of Zelda are having a house party to celebrate Cloud and Link‘s victory over Kratos and Dante and everyone is having a blast. All of a sudden, Cupid decides to have some fun and makes the two RPG heroe slightly amorous towards each other and…well….They (passionately) kiss in front of everyone.

1: How do Tifa and Zelda react? (Composite Link and Zelda: every bit of contact they ever had in every game is taken into consideration).
2: How do Ganondorf and Sephiroth react?
3: How do Dante and Kratos react?
4: How does EVERYONE else who’s ever been in either of their games react?
5: The magic wears off, how do Cloud and Link react?
6: The magic doesn’t wear off, will a relationship work between the two heroes?

Related Posts:



Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion.

Comments being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion can lead to the banhammer getting used. You can read more about our comments policy here.



« Previous 1 2

131 Comments on "What If…Link & Cloud Strife Kissed?"

  1. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 3:27 am -      #101

    @OriginalA- “What actually qualifies as sexual objectification? This is something that varies between person to person.
    ~
    In what way?
    ~
    I assume from your stipulation that sexual objectification being linked with a disregard with respect for the person being objectified that you don’t consider them objectified, correct?
    ~
    Could you clarify this, please?
    ~
    I DO think blanket statements are wrong… if only because the context that those blanket statements cover can so easily be misunderstood into saying something that you don’t mean.
    ~
    Sure, I agree with what you’re saying here. I’d still argue that misinterpretations don’t count, though. Lack of context just means you need more before you can declare a statement accurate or inaccurate.
    ~
    @Turtle Commando- “If I may be so bold as to say, nothing would happen. This is clearly a drug induced party foul. They would shrug it off as one of the lesser-advertised alcohol and party-fever induced nightmares, and continue.
    ~
    Agreed. People don’t change so profoundly so easily. I can imagine some upset, though.

  2. OriginalA October 11, 2014 at 6:09 am -      #102

    “Could you clarify this, please?”

    Strippers: are they sexually objectified? Yes/No?

    I assume from your previous statements that you would say “no” since there occupation does not require you to lose respect for them as a human being (which seems to me to be part of your definition of sexual objectification, which brings us back to your first question in post 101″).

  3. Sauroposeidon October 11, 2014 at 8:15 am -      #103

    “For personal clarification, my defense of sexual objectifaction to some extent does carry the stipulation that all parties involved must maintain respect for each other as people.”

    For those who enjoy being objectified, physically or mentally abused, or just having their money used with out their consent (and yes, there are men and women, mostly women for the first two and men for the last two, who very much like this.) there is a phrase.

    Safe, Sane & Consensual.

    That’s the quick way the community handles dangers involved with things like that. If you follow those, you’re all good. There’s a bit more to it than that obviously but considering all the minors here I’m not interested in further discussion of it.

  4. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 8:16 am -      #104

    Strippers: are they sexually objectified? Yes/No?
    ~
    I say yes. I do not support the stripper trade, just as I do not support pornography or prostitution, which operate on the same principle but to different degrees.
    ~
    My definition of respect: Treating something in a manner consistent with it’s value/worth. You’re right, strippers can be respected in that they are treated well and thought of as people doing something sexually gratifying rather than tools with which to get that gratification. Yet the point is still sexual gratification, and this is where I mentioned drugs. Both have a high rate of potentially negative consequences. I think stripping shows lack of respect for both parties, even if it’s not conscious or intended, because it risks their emotional well-being.
    ~
    I realize a lot of people will disagree, but its what I believe. There are very obvious examples for at least a few situations.

  5. Warlock Lowk October 11, 2014 at 8:28 am -      #105

    I love how this site shifts topics. Last time I checked it was mostly puns. Now it’s a serious discussion about objectification on a what-if that straight out of some fanfiction.
    ===
    “just as I do not support pornography”

    Your brand of evil is up there with dial-up internet loading speeds.

  6. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 8:30 am -      #106

    For those who enjoy being objectified, physically or mentally abused
    ~
    I don’t think their willingness matters; disrespect and abuse is wrong either way. Throwing someone in a lava pit doesn’t somehow become okay if they ask you to do it. Assisting suicide is wrong. Assisting wrist-cutting is wrong. I would hope no one disagrees with these things.
    ~
    @Lowk- You’ve gone too far! How dare you compare me to dial-up!

  7. Sauroposeidon October 11, 2014 at 8:45 am -      #107

    “Throwing someone in a lava pit doesn’t somehow become okay if they ask you to do it.”

    That’s where the sane in safe, sane, and consensual comes in. If the person wants to die, You should probably find help for them.

    I have thoughts on assisted suicide, many levels of which you may disagree with, but as it is outside the scope of SS&C, which was constructed for the safety of those who enjoy being objectified, I feel that discussion is with out place here.

  8. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 8:57 am -      #108

    Sane could be debated. In unrelated news.

  9. Sauroposeidon October 11, 2014 at 9:15 am -      #109

    To clarify, by help, I mean psychiatric help.

  10. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 9:21 am -      #110

    Heh, I assumed that.

  11. Shgon Dunstan October 11, 2014 at 10:30 am -      #111

    Likely has already been said, but… No way in hell I’m I wasting my time reading all of this. Still, from what little I did read, I feel obligated to point out something.

    Link is a human.

    Pointy ears aside, he is a full blooded human. Not an elf.

  12. OriginalA October 11, 2014 at 11:30 am -      #112

    “I realize a lot of people will disagree, but its what I believe. There are very obvious examples for at least a few situations.”

    I previously said: “What actually qualifies as sexual objectification? This is something that varies between person to person.”
    ~
    And you asked: “In what way?”

    Our different views on the sex industry is the crux of my point there. Because we don’t agree on that point, what either of us defines as sexual objectification will differ. Because our assumed definition and inclusion there within of that subject matter is different, when a blanket statement is made it is largely useless.

    I now understand the point of your blanket statement. I misunderstood it twice because I made assumptions about your intent and the implications therein. You corrected my misunderstanding of your intended meaning, but it wasn’t with a blanket statement but with specifics. I still could argue the merits of the difference that your blanket statement as opposed to a more thorough examination, but this isn’t really the place nor do I seriously desire to do so at this time.



    I figured out why I started this side discussion. It was your comment about blanket statements that bothered me, but now I’m better able to articulate what was bothering me.

    “Blanket statements can only be inaccurate when they are predicated on two conflicting principles; fundamentally different things being the same.”

    But Blanket Statements can be used for literally anything, often times to convey an opinion as fact. They also tend to paint a matter as black and white when in reality they are shades of grey.

    The fact that you also said…:
    “In and of itself, such a thing is not fallacious. If something is true then it’s true. Problems are only introduced to this concept when the statement in question is arbitrary or debatable.”

    …In reference to a blanket statement and then immediately equalize sexual objectification to using drugs (not even drug abuse, but just drugs) when both of those topics are very open to debate. Your entire post seems like a contradiction to me. You admit that there are problems with using blanket statements when there is ambiguity in the subject matter… and then use an ambiguous blanket statement in the very next sentence.

    A final thought:
    “I think stripping shows lack of respect for both parties, even if it’s not conscious or intended, because it risks their emotional well-being.”

    This thought bothers me. I’m not able to fully articulate why, and for that I apologize. It seems just a bit too “thought police” to me. As if the parties involved can’t or shouldn’t make decisions that might negatively effect them because it might negatively effect them. I’m probably reading too much into it though.

  13. Epicazeroth October 11, 2014 at 11:34 am -      #113

    So… This discussion is pretty interesting (the objectification one) but I’d like some clarification. Because how exactly did “Link kisses Cloud” turn into “What is the nature of objectification?”

  14. Commander Cross October 11, 2014 at 2:50 pm -      #114

    N64 Link, WW/PH Link and AlttP/Oracles/L.A Link can rip Eragon a Brand New Asshole each if you have any of the 3 at 100% Maximum Power, with all their Skills/Gear/Weapons/Etc together.

    Since Eragon’s not in there, that bit’s moot and thus Cloud is a Super-Soldier.

  15. Soulerous October 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm -      #115

    I figured out why I started this side discussion. It was your comment about blanket statements that bothered me, but now I’m better able to articulate what was bothering me.
    ~
    I feel like you misunderstood me.
    ~
    But Blanket Statements can be used for literally anything
    ~
    Either to define a single thing or to define multiple things.
    ~
    often times to convey an opinion as fact.
    ~
    In which case two different things, an opinion(1) and a fact(2) are mistakenly called the same.
    ~
    They also tend to paint a matter as black and white when in reality they are shades of grey.
    ~
    In other words, mistakenly calling black or white the same as grey. I didn’t fully realize when I said it, but that’s the basic mechanics of being incorrect; calling something what it is not. Two fundamentally-different things being the same.
    ~
    In reference to a blanket statement and then immediately equalize sexual objectification to using drugs (not even drug abuse, but just drugs) when both of those topics are very open to debate.
    ~
    I did not equalize them, per se. I claimed they had something in common: Adverse effects. I did not imply these effects all happen in the same way or to the same degree.
    ~
    You admit that there are problems with using blanket statements when there is ambiguity in the subject matter… and then use an ambiguous blanket statement in the very next sentence.
    ~
    Ambiguity is very easy to come by. It doesn’t always cause misunderstandings. It’s not always made on purpose, either.
    ~
    This thought bothers me. I’m not able to fully articulate why, and for that I apologize. It seems just a bit too “thought police” to me. As if the parties involved can’t or shouldn’t make decisions that might negatively effect them because it might negatively effect them. I’m probably reading too much into it though.
    ~
    Nah, it’s a fundamental part of the morality question. Very important. As far as I can tell, something is wrong when it either causes harm or has a risk of causing harm. That’s an imperfect statement that needs additional context, but I’m tired right now. The argument can be made that anything can potentially be harmful, yet we wouldn’t call riding a bike wrong just because you can crash and get brain damage.
    In contrast, people typically agree that drunk driving is wrong because there is a high chance of crashing and killing someone. The question is, how high of a chance for things to go wrong does there have to be? Where’s the cut-off between bike-riding and drunk driving? I do not believe we can perfectly quantify that. We can debate it to a certain degree, but it’s a difficult question.

  16. Guardian Dualgunner M1911A1 October 12, 2014 at 2:52 am -      #116

    “I love how this site shifts topics. Last time I checked it was mostly puns. Now it’s a serious discussion about objectification on a what-if that straight out of some fanfiction.”

    I am just waiting for the topic to shift to Fallout again so we can pick up where we left off in the other topic: Deathclaw baseball teams.

  17. Commander Cross October 12, 2014 at 4:35 am -      #117

    Cloud Strife’s odds against Kagato of the TM multi-verse isn’t too shabby, but that isn’t even close to being the main ‘meat and bones’ of this matter, in other words that regard’s not The Missing Link.

    Also, isn’t Link’s Power Levels Already Over 9,000 for that matter?

  18. Sauroposeidon October 12, 2014 at 5:43 am -      #118

    “I think stripping shows lack of respect for both parties, even if it’s not conscious or intended, because it risks their emotional well-being.”

    This is too hand holding to me. Like making it a law for people to buckle up in their cars, FORCING them to do it always seemed very wrong to me, and I often suspect it was to help cops meet their quota more than anything else. Human beings are not baby birds to be sheltered in their nests for all eternity. Emotional and physical risks are a key part of what makes things worth doing, what makes certain acts admirable, and mostly just what makes a lot of things fun.

  19. Soulerous October 13, 2014 at 8:57 am -      #119

    @Sauroposeidon- My point isn’t about forcing people to do things though, its about whether they should do them. People have the personal right to do whatever they wish, yet we don’t have to agree that’s it’s right just because they have the right to do it. Government is founded on agreement. People don’t have to obey the law, but it’s typically the right thing to do. The only difference is legal repercussions in addition to any practical ones.
    ~
    I don’t like stripping and I don’t like when people act like jerks. I don’t like a lot of things. I’m just not going to force people to refrain from them (unless it’s in defense).

  20. Sauroposeidon October 13, 2014 at 9:13 am -      #120

    “I don’t like stripping and I don’t like when people act like jerks. I don’t like a lot of things. I’m just not going to force people to refrain from them (unless it’s in defense).”

    Well, I suppose there’s something to be said for disagreeing with it while still permitting others to do it.

    Which I think is why making somethings a law is going too far. It’s one thing to say someone is wrong to do something stupid for not buckling up. It’s another to punish them for not doing it. Same for smoking pot. Same for stripping. Same for treating another person like a foot stool because it makes them happy. Same for punching them, if you happen to be in to a martial art and the other person willingly enters a sparring match with you. That’s ultimately my point though. What’s wrong for you is right for someone else, and anyone who thinks what’s wrong for them also must be wrong for everyone else and must be forcibly stopped I think isn’t really thinking things through.

  21. Commander Cross October 13, 2014 at 10:50 am -      #121

    Stripping I tolerate fine provided that mutual consent’s granted, Literal Breast-Humping’s iffy*, and guy-on-guy Sex better have ‘Condies’* being used.

    ___

    As for this matter, I’m so board that I’m getting a Rise in Punny ideas!
    Donut Cloud your thoughts with Link right now, and do Bee Careful when having Pun around here.

    1.) (I’d Quad-Check for mutual consent to be sure, last thing anyone wants is a broken back.
    The Act is a Grey Act and while If I were doing it I’d wanna check if the female being done to will be okay afterward, I’d rather know it’s mutually consented before the thought arrives.
    If it’s not Mutual, it won’t cross my mind.)
    2.) (Slang for Condoms.)

  22. Soulerous October 13, 2014 at 11:30 am -      #122

    What’s wrong for you is right for someone else, and anyone who thinks what’s wrong for them also must be wrong for everyone else and must be forcibly stopped I think isn’t really thinking things through.
    ~
    Well, I think perspective matters when debating morality, but it doesn’t change that there is ultimately an objective right and wrong answer, even if we can’t prove it. I also think there are definitely some things that need to be forcibly stopped, like murder. Assuming you just mean things that are not obvious such as that, we still don’t have the exact cutoff point for when things are okay to force. In the case of the law, we simply attempt to get as close as we can to that point.

  23. Sauroposeidon October 15, 2014 at 11:17 pm -      #123

    ” think perspective matters when debating morality”

    I don’t believe that “right” and “wrong” exist as objective values. Nor do I believe “good” and “evil” exist as anything more than constantly fluid and ultimately useless abstracts. I don’t debate morality. I just point and laugh at the nothingness.

  24. Warlock Lowk October 15, 2014 at 11:59 pm -      #124

    “I don’t believe that “right” and “wrong” exist as objective values. Nor do I believe “good” and “evil” exist as anything more than constantly fluid and ultimately useless abstracts. I don’t debate morality. I just point and laugh at the nothingness.”

    This is the best “I’m going to destroy the world for funsies” monologue excuse that I have ever seen. I mean that probably not where you were going, but still.

  25. Sauroposeidon October 17, 2014 at 10:59 am -      #125

    =)

  26. Commander Cross October 17, 2014 at 11:30 am -      #126

    Pyramid Head and Sauron just continue to fight Epically, somewhere at the backgrounds with Insane Power Levels.

    From The World of The ‘Certain’ Shows*, Kuroko Shirai continues to go hit on Mikoto Misaka, and if both were watching the kind of sight described in this thread, time will judge whether or not they’d go and simply wind up in a ‘Chaste’ lipslocking session or just pretend they saw nothing.

    I know some other people doing a 3-way in the sight of what’s going on.

    1.) (If you want to learn more about ‘A Certain Magical Index’, click this link, and If you want to learn more about ‘A Certain Scientific Railgun’, click this link.)

  27. Soulerous October 17, 2014 at 12:52 pm -      #127

    I don’t believe that “right” and “wrong” exist as objective values. Nor do I believe “good” and “evil” exist as anything more than constantly fluid and ultimately useless abstracts.
    ~
    So you don’t think that strangling random children for fun is immoral/unethical? That genocide of innocents is wicked? I greatly dislike that perspective. We can disagree, and I just want to share that we do. No point in us doing more than that, I suppose.

  28. Sauroposeidon October 20, 2014 at 7:02 am -      #128

    It is immoral and unethical by your standards. However there is no grand objective universal law claiming it is wrong to torture and kill human children. There is, for instance, no inherent right protecting me from being blown up by religious zealots. Rights do not really exist, as they’re merely abstract concepts. I could explain further my view but I do not believe that you are interested.

  29. Warlock Lowk October 20, 2014 at 2:32 pm -      #129

    @Sauro
    So you a nihilist?
    ===
    “I could explain further my view but I do not believe that you are interested.”

    I kind of do. I like understanding various views of the world around me. It’s not like this match is going anywhere else at this point.

  30. Sauroposeidon October 20, 2014 at 2:52 pm -      #130

    “So you a nihilist?”

    Yes. There is no meaning to life, no objective good which the will of the universe and its fate will lean towards.

    If you want “good” and “meaning” and all that jazz, it is your responsibility to work and fight for it. It must be your own creation, sculpted by your own hands.

    “I kind of do. I like understanding various views of the world around me. It’s not like this match is going anywhere else at this point.”

    The closest thing I can see to objective morals, as an Atheist, is that we have evolved the ability to feel empathy towards each other. Most of us, anyways.

    But we’re also selfish, because it’s helpful to be such as well.

    Society grew from anarchy, and so I see civilization as the epitome of anarchy in action.. something which anti-establishment anarchists seem to miss. I also laugh at that. =)

    What we define as good, usually, is something which helps continue to construct society. To help support it. Or to help continue it. Of course there’s perversions of that from religion and what not, although they often are constructive towards new societies… even if they do lose some of their empathic merits.

    Because I don’t agree in the existence of absolute good or absolute evil, and because I have difficulty with the whole empathy thing a lot of the time with anyone who is not directly related to me and sometimes even with people who are (although I often feel it towards children of every gender, race, and region), I have to work on logic, and what will be most beneficial. It seems logical to me that if we start killing one another, and it’s ok, civilization will crumble. Or any other very negative crime like that, really. Look at Somalia for why.

    I know many other Atheists base their moral codes on how their evolved in sense of Empathy feels on various subjects. Which I take no fault in. I try not to judge other moral codes.

    On a side note, I’m usually jealous of those who feel empathy easily. I think deciding what is right and wrong, on a personal level, would be a lot easier if I could just “feel” it instead of having to think on it a lot, since when I boil it down, outside of selfish reasons there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to ever do anything good. I really dislike having to work so hard to feel it. Over the past couple of months, I’ve been looking more in to the Vulcans wondering if maybe the “Great Bird of the Galaxy” had something right with them.

    If you’re wondering, no, I don’t think I’m a sociopath. I do routinely score as a INTP on the Meyers-Briggs test though, and they supposedly have empathy problems, although too are not devoid of it. Although I know it’s likely impossible to self diagnose myself one way or the other, I prefer INTP over sociopath since one doesn’t get linked with psychopaths and the other is virtually entwined with that term.

    That’s about as in depth as I can get right now, I think.

  31. Soulerous October 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm -      #131

    However there is no grand objective universal law claiming it is wrong to torture and kill human children.
    ~
    I’m not sure what the source of such a thing would logically be. I’m more inclined to think morality is determined by what promotes true happiness or fulfillment for mankind. I suppose that’s the “law.” That’s why we say ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ The goal is a correct answer to the question of what will bring the desired result. Murder? Wrong! That results in sorrow and regret. Loving your family and being loved in return? Correct; that does indeed result in happiness.
    ~
    That’s how I like to think of it.

« Previous 1 2

Leave A Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.