I just gotta say if that's how peach really thinks of her relationship with mario and it turns out to be canon then really she only has herself to blame
Well that’s the interesting thing about a “marriage based on a boner” if you think about it. To a certain degree all of them are, aren’t they?
There’s a reason why people don’t marry their platonic friends. There’s a reason why you can have a deep long lasting relationship with someone, but the romantic partner is considered the big one that matters most
I’d say the power of boners, ie, sexual attraction is a lot more of a powerful force than people like to admit. It’s the aspect of romantic love people like to SAY is secondary but it’s the thing that defines the relationship in the first place if not for that “boner” ones wife would just be they’re really good female friend.
That “boner” makes families. That “boner” forms a bond that’s so deep people are willing to die for them.
The interesting part of this is that it DOESNT NECESSARILY require anyone to be bisexual or genderluid at all. After all. These are heterosexual relationships based off of heterosexual attractions. Bowser is a woman now, apparently an anatomically correct one.
There’s a reason why the internet(for the most part) wasn’t interested in bowser sexually until he became like this. There’s a reason Mario wasn’t either. There’s a reason bowser wasn’t pursuing Mario either.
Would this have occurred if bowser remained himself? I guess that depends on what the writer thinks.
That’s why I’m interested in how much this power up impacts personality and even preferences. The question of if bowser was attracted to men before, or that becoming a woman simply turned him into a heterosexual woman.
As for “loving bowser for bowser” Mario didn’t seem to before why does he now? What changed? I the answer is obvious isn’t it? But is it causative or did it just help things along?
Is it that
“It always was this way but things can progress more naturally now that bowser is a woman”
Or
“It only became this way by literally and physically changing the nature of the people involved”
Both are interesting concepts to explore
Plus there’s the huge elephant in the room that bowser is a literal imitation of o peach. A peach that is actually attainable unlike the real one. It’s like making a sex doll of your crush. One can’t just pretend like this isnt material, especially since these two were brought together by their mutual love And rejection of peach in the first place. These feelings can’t have just magically disappeared into thin air for either of them. If they did, what does that say about the both of them and how “real” their love is? If they can just fall out of love this quickly and drastically? Is that the basis of a long lasting relationship?
This all seems to be spur of the moment. In da t it’s based off a TEMPORARY power up. What if, ultimately this isn’t meant to last? What if it was never really meant to be in the first place?
There are other fairy tales liek this where the monster becomes human temporarily.
Look at what bowser is saying. His primary motivation is rejection and his empathy with that rejection and Mario’s struggles plus, a desire to be loved. It’s hard to ignore that someone who is lonely tends to cling to attention. a lot of lonely people end up acting this way. When I had my first relationship, my loneliness made me far more dependent and desperate too. I loved the fact that I was being loved...more than the person. If that makes sense. This is a common problem a lot of people have and is pretty believable here.
i guess I’m saying “a relationship based on a boner” is far more of a deep concept with deeper implications than one would think.
Also I disagree about mutual rejection “not being the basis for a long lasting relationship” long lasting relationships can have a number of bases.
There are many cultures where people marry for financial, political, culturally obligatory reasons. My friends grandparents have been married longer than I’ve been alive and it was arranged. Some people marry just because the woman became pregnant. And those relationships can last. Whereas there are just as many relationships based off “Love” that end ridiculously quickly. If anything I’d say “Lovey dovey feelings” aren’t a basis for a long lasting relationship on their own.
But honestly, many things can drive eachother together. I mean, didn’t they already have a long lasting relationship before this? How long have they known eachother and fought together? They were brought together by their mutual love of peach and that was enough for them to constantly fight eachother. If the emotions are that powerful, who says they can’t be a glue for a relationship?
Especially since this seems to be born out of what started mutual respect.
....but yeah. This is just what I’m thinking, seeing this.
It depends on what the artist wants, how deep we’re going, how idealistic we’re going, how the artist views the characters and love in general etc.
You're assuming Bowsette is canon(she's not). You're assuming the scenario that must be set to make Bowser decide to become a woman is canon(it's not). You're assuming the interpretation of Bowsette in this comic is canon(it's not). You're assuming all portrayals of Bowser across all games are equally canon(it's not). You're assuming Mario and Bowser's attraction to each other are genuine and will be long lasting(evidences please). You're assuming Bowsette's mentality works 100% the same as Bowser(most artwork clearly show that not to be the case, even when ignoring her relationships with any characters). You're assuming there are only one version of "marrying for love", "marrying for sex", "marrying for benefits" each(very certainly not true). You're assuming one person can only have one form of attraction to another, be it at one time or throughout a long period of time(also very certainly untrue).
Bowsette was a product of a joke comic. A thing meant for shits and giggles. Most comedy, even the greatest ones like Monty Python breaks down once you try to take them beyond face value.
Please don't pretend you have just discovered the universal truth for all mankind from a comedy 4koma.
You're assuming Bowsette is canon(she's not). You're assuming the scenario that must be set to make Bowser decide to become a woman is canon(it's not). You're assuming the interpretation of Bowsette in this comic is canon(it's not). You're assuming all portrayals of Bowser across all games are equally canon(it's not). You're assuming Mario and Bowser's attraction to each other are genuine and will be long lasting(evidences please). You're assuming Bowsette's mentality works 100% the same as Bowser(most artwork clearly show that not to be the case, even when ignoring her relationships with any characters). You're assuming there are only one version of "marrying for love", "marrying for sex", "marrying for benefits" each(very certainly not true). You're assuming one person can only have one form of attraction to another, be it at one time or throughout a long period of time(also very certainly untrue).
Bowsette was a product of a joke comic. A thing meant for shits and giggles. Most comedy, even the greatest ones like Monty Python breaks down once you try to take them beyond face value.
Please don't pretend you have just discovered the universal truth for all mankind from a comedy 4koma.
The thing is, Bowsette may not be canon, but it references canon. The original comic is based directly off of Odyssey's ending, where Peach snubs both Mario and Bowser and walks off. This comic also references that aspect of canon, and slave2thedrago is building off that, so there is canon that this discussion can be built off of.
The other thing is that as soon as you start talking about one game's plot being "more canon" than another, you are basically going straight to my own point about Mario "canon" and "lore" being so loosely defined that you can pick-and-choose whatever canon you want to make whatever point you want. (I mean, there are images with Bowsette doing the "cover Bowser Jr.'s eyes" from the parental guidance video, which portrayed Bowser as a good and caring parent... which is kind of wildly different from most Bowser portrayals.)
Beyond that, however, as much as this fanon continuity is built upon pick-and-choose canon, it's still capable of keeping its own internal continuity straight, and clearly wants to play itself out seriously (at least after the first page), so taking it seriously when it's being serious isn't crazy, either.
In the first strip, it's shown that Mario seems to go for marrying Bowsette basically on a whim, and he's not in subsequent strips actively showing his motivations, so questioning why he's attracted to Bowsette is totally valid. Bowsette is motivated by fear of losing Mario, but why exactly she wants to keep Mario in the first place isn't well-explored either.
As for whether Bowsette is inherently motivated differently than Bowser just by being Bowsette is unclear and possibly irrelevant because, as you point out, this isn't canon Bowser's motivation, and non-Bowsette Bowser never appears, so it's impossible to tell unless Bowsette actually does lose the Super Crown at some point and behaves differently.
You're assuming Bowsette is canon(she's not). You're assuming the scenario that must be set to make Bowser decide to become a woman is canon(it's not). You're assuming the interpretation of Bowsette in this comic is canon(it's not). You're assuming all portrayals of Bowser across all games are equally canon(it's not). You're assuming Mario and Bowser's attraction to each other are genuine and will be long lasting(evidences please). You're assuming Bowsette's mentality works 100% the same as Bowser(most artwork clearly show that not to be the case, even when ignoring her relationships with any characters). You're assuming there are only one version of "marrying for love", "marrying for sex", "marrying for benefits" each(very certainly not true). You're assuming one person can only have one form of attraction to another, be it at one time or throughout a long period of time(also very certainly untrue).
Bowsette was a product of a joke comic. A thing meant for shits and giggles. Most comedy, even the greatest ones like Monty Python breaks down once you try to take them beyond face value.
Please don't pretend you have just discovered the universal truth for all mankind from a comedy 4koma.
Uh lolwat? I’m just talking about this comic and the concept of the character in general and going through my thoughts. I didn’t make any “assumptions”