Was Vegeta virgin before Bulma?

[Sadala Elite]

Also, let's not equate primitive tribes with warmongers. For example, there was the Taino tribe with whom Columbus made 'contact', who were by all accounts friendly and open. As were many other tribes who were forcefully submitted by warlike peoples.

Its a fact that "primitive tribes" are far more violent than "advanced" peoples on average. The "noble savage" is a myth.

[JulieYBM]

- You must not travel a lot or know much about the world, because a lot of primitive real-life warrior cultures act exactly the Saiyans as described by Toriyama (where do you think Toriyama got some of his ideas for them from?)

Of course, I must not travel a lot, nor know a lot about the world, I'm having a hard time believing you're this clueless. Anyway, sure, even if Saiyan warriors were inspired by real life tribes, it doesn't mean they are exactly like them, stop trying to justify your weird rape fetish you have with Vegeta. Logically looking at the Saiyan's, with Toriyama's notes, they don't seem to be the most perverse creatures and only engage in sexual activities to reproduce. I'm guessing you also now want to say most if not all Female Saiyan's were sex slaves secretly?

- This isn't the only DB related site I've visit, and yet I hardly ever encounter anyone who considers any DB male besides Yamcha to be a playboy lmao. And as far as DB girls being "hoes", I think those guys you're talking about are largely joking lol.

Well then you're blind. I've been around the fandom for 10+ years now and I still vividly remember talk of Vegeta being called a 'player'. There was a time when almost every post about females would contain remarks calling them "thots", "hoes", "sluts", it doesn't matter if it's joking, the fact it was or is when the topic at hand is about a female character or involves one, the disrespect is disgusting.

- Vegeta killed far more people on screen in the Saiyan and Namek arcs than in the Buu arc (where he knew and expected that those people in the tournament would get wished back soon afterwards, so it was no big deal).

Seriously trying to justify Vegeta in the Buu Saga being an absolute evil bastard and risking the whole Earth being destroyed? I think I know who I'm dealing with here.

"however, I find it gross that people love to get off on Vegeta when he's at his worst as an individual"

Dude, its just fiction lol. Liking that is no different from liking any other villain (and far worse) villains from any other fiction. You are taking it way to seriously lol. Its just as dumb as saying liking violent video games and movies makes you violent smh.

You do realize fetishizing rape and murder is worrisome, right? You can compare the whole video game thing all you like, but that's not really the point, I think you're deliberately missing the point. The point is that a huge chunk of the western fandom reeks of toxic masculinity, glorifying and aspiring a character at their worst point to be the "best version" of that character. There's a difference between liking Vegeta from the Buu arc as a character and seeing him grow from the experience, and putting Vegeta from that period up on a pedestal. Not to mention voicing that opinion grossly.

You clearly can't read and you're projecting your views on others.

- Nowhere did I say that I personally believe (let alone want them to) that he and other Saiyans went around going on rape raids, only that it isnt impossible or unrealistic given what they are logically. The only clueless one is you, making false assumptions about others who disagree with you.

- You failed to post any online evidence of ANYONE in the fandom seriously thinking that he's a playboy lmao. All you got is he-say-she-say, which is enough to dismiss your claims.

- No one is justifying anything (learn how to read smh).There you go again making false assumptions about others smh. The point was that Buu arc Vegeta wasn't that different from his earlier versions.

- If your that hung-up on glorified violence and "toxic masculinity" (a BS concept, really), then why are you even a Dragonball fan lmao? This is a series filled with ultra-muscled dudes who's favorite activity is fighting, where everying major conflict is solved with fist, where the violence is the main selling point (even Toriyama himself said this numerous times), where the protagonist is guy who's only interests in life are fighting and food lol, etc. Seriously, what do you expect?

And seriously, who is guy/character who's married to a trillionare, given an awesome design and on the verge of redemption at their "lowest" point? That makes zero sense lmao.

Toxic Masculinity is a real thing that many of us suffer through everyday, whether women, enby, two-spirit or man. It's a thing that exists.

Dragon Ball isn't quite about toxic masculinity, though. I certainly think there are traits of Toriyama's personality that slip into these works as being toxic but Dragon Ball is otherwise a romanticized martial arts series with some parody elements.

[FoolsGil]

Bonyu took real good care of Vegeta on really cold nights on Freeza Planet #34

[JulieYBM]

Vegeta and Bonyu? Oh gosh, thicc mommy girlfriends are the best and Vegeta having one of those is just hilarious to me.

[Slangh]

Its a fact that "primitive tribes" are far more violent than "advanced" peoples on average. The "noble savage" is a myth.

The key word is 'warmonger' here. Being able to use violence when needed and owning this doesn't make you a warmonger. Warmongering tribes get their energy from plundering and raping people and land alike. But not every tribe was like this, which was my point and for which the Taino were a great example.

Nowhere did I imply that primitive tribes could not be violent, nor does the term "noble savage". It only implies that they have more mastery of violence than us. They had to defend themselves against others and wild animals. Us people in modern civilization as individuals are harmless compared to them, but that's because we have demonized violence and outsourced it to others who do the dirty work and plundering for us, through war and mining of the Earth. Seeing how wild nature suffers from this, along with those oh so violent primitives living in it, I'd say we, the so called 'advanced' people as a collective, have a way more violent and destructive effect on all other life on this planet. We are the warmongering tribes, on a planetary scale.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

Also, let's not equate primitive tribes with warmongers. For example, there was the Taino tribe with whom Columbus made 'contact', who were by all accounts friendly and open. As were many other tribes who were forcefully submitted by warlike peoples.

Its a fact that "primitive tribes" are far more violent than "advanced" peoples on average. The "noble savage" is a myth.

The Noble Savage may be a myth but it is absolutely not a fact that primitive tribes are far more violent than agrarian soceities. The default state of just about every agricultural civilization has been war. Is there a specific book/writer you're thinking of when you make that claim?

Us people in modern civilization as individuals are harmless compared to them, but that's because we have demonized violence and outsourced it to others who do the dirty work and plundering for us, through war and mining of the Earth

There's a good bit of what you wrote that I'd disagree with but this bit here is completely spot on. Agrarian civilization allowed for the creation of a soldier class, which is ultimately what's made imperialism possible. Hunter-Gatherers may have been "harder" than the average modern day office worker but they also spent most of their lives looking for food and avoiding dangerous weather. Tribes like the Mongols are outliers.

[Sadala Elite]

Also, let's not equate primitive tribes with warmongers. For example, there was the Taino tribe with whom Columbus made 'contact', who were by all accounts friendly and open. As were many other tribes who were forcefully submitted by warlike peoples.

Its a fact that "primitive tribes" are far more violent than "advanced" peoples on average. The "noble savage" is a myth.

The Noble Savage may be a myth but it is absolutely not a fact that primitive tribes are far more violent than agrarian soceities. The default state of just about every agricultural civilization has been war. Is there a specific book/writer you're thinking of when you make that claim?

Us people in modern civilization as individuals are harmless compared to them, but that's because we have demonized violence and outsourced it to others who do the dirty work and plundering for us, through war and mining of the Earth

There's a good bit of what you wrote that I'd disagree with but this bit here is completely spot on. Agrarian civilization allowed for the creation of a soldier class, which is ultimately what's made imperialism possible. Hunter-Gatherers may have been "harder" than the average modern day office worker but they also spent most of their lives looking for food and avoiding dangerous weather. Tribes like the Mongols are outliers.

No lol, nearly every hunter-gatherer society is more violent and wat based than nearly any agricultural culture:

https://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romant ... -gatherer/

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/201 ... ality/amp/

Also, the Mongols were pastoralist, not hunter gatherers.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

No lol, nearly every hunter-gatherer society is more violent and wat based than nearly any agricultural culture:

https://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romant ... -gatherer/

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/201 ... ality/amp/

Thank you for the links but neither seems objective. Quillette is a predominantly far right magazine that purports to pro science but frequently publishes articles with little review or fact checking. And the second blogpost you link to starts off with a completely insane rant about Marxism in academia (which is especially stupid as Noble Savage myths predate the career of Karl Marx. And the entire section about post WWII Europe is its own bit of myth-making). Both links seem to be doing a lot of hand waving to get around the levels of violence agrarian soceities engaged which (tirades about Marx aside) makes me think their complaints are more ideological than anything else.

Now, I'm far from an expert on hunter-gatherers. (I'm a weeaboo after all. My expertise is limited to j-pop and the cup sizes of anime girls) But I have read a decent number of articles and papers by people who are, and even amongst those who see hunter-gatherers as war like, the general consensus seems to be that war for hunter-gatherers was oppurtunistic. It was something usually tied to scarcity of resources which is ultimately why the death counts would end up being so high. If a raid deprived your tribe of shelter and food your chances of survival dropped to almost zero. This is also why agricultural soceities, despite almost always being at war, have fewer deaths on average than hunter-gatherers. The losing side isn't forced off their land. Instead they're made to pay taxes to the new lord.

I feel like these sources are giving a very skewed picture. For example, neither mentions that the highest rates of violence seem to coincide with the transition from hunter-gatherer to simple, small scale farming but both make a big deal of the stablizing factor of hereditary rule. It sounds like both writers have a political axe to grind.

Also, the Mongols were pastoralist, not hunter gatherers.

I wasn't calling them hunter-gatherers.

[Sadala Elite]

No lol, nearly every hunter-gatherer society is more violent and wat based than nearly any agricultural culture:

https://quillette.com/2017/12/16/romant ... -gatherer/

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/201 ... ality/amp/

Thank you for the links but neither seems objective. Quillette is a predominantly far right magazine that purports to pro science but frequently publishes articles with little review or fact checking. And the second blogpost you link to starts off with a completely insane rant about Marxism in academia (which is especially stupid as Noble Savage myths predate the career of Karl Marx. And the entire section about post WWII Europe is its own bit of myth-making). Both links seem to be doing a lot of hand waving to get around the levels of violence agrarian soceities engaged which (tirades about Marx aside) makes me think their complaints are more ideological than anything else.

Now, I'm far from an expert on hunter-gatherers. (I'm a weeaboo after all. My expertise is limited to j-pop and the cup sizes of anime girls) But I have read a decent number of articles and papers by people who are, and even amongst those who see hunter-gatherers as war like, the general consensus seems to be that war for hunter-gatherers was oppurtunistic. It was something usually tied to scarcity of resources which is ultimately why the death counts would end up being so high. If a raid deprived your tribe of shelter and food your chances of survival dropped to almost zero. This is also why agricultural soceities, despite almost always being at war, have fewer deaths on average than hunter-gatherers. The losing side isn't forced off their land. Instead they're made to pay taxes to the new lord.

I feel like these sources are giving a very skewed picture. For example, neither mentions that the highest rates of violence seem to coincide with the transition from hunter-gatherer to simple, small scale farming but both make a big deal of the stablizing factor of hereditary rule. It sounds like both writers have a political axe to grind.

Also, the Mongols were pastoralist, not hunter gatherers.

I wasn't calling them hunter-gatherers.

- Quillette is NOT far-right smh, its politically moderate. Also, both the authors of the article on Quillette and the other site are center-left, not right wing at all. The 1st author himself is an anthropologist who's done much research on H-Gs and Paleolithic humans to support his views:
https://traditionsofconflict.com/

- Both sites gave links to empirical research which proves their points (all of which supports H-Gs being more violent in general). The only one being biased and unscientific is you.

- almost all war in all societies is opportunist and resource based, so your argument says nothing.

- Noble savage myths are essential to marxism and the far-left in general, that's why the other site mentioned that.

[JulieYBM]

Vegeta wasn't interested in sex. Virgins are valid.

[sailorspazz]

Ultimately, real life societies have nothing to do with this fictional race from a comic made for kids. Even if Toriyama took some influence from existing cultures, it absolutely does not mean we should assume that he meant that they were exactly like those real life examples in every way unless it was explicitly written in the story. We were shown that the Saiyans were employed to clear off planets, and they enjoyed it because they were bred for fighting. Nothing implies that they were also raping/looting/whatever, and there's really no value in making those assumptions.

And as someone who wrote a fanfic in which Vegeta was a virgin before Bulma, there absolutely are people who believe he was a player, and I got a number of comments/reviews to that effect, either expressing surprise that I would think he was a virgin, or ones that outright disagreed and said he was totally getting laid across the galaxy.

[Psajdak]

Chichi is shown to look like a young girl when she has her hair down, at the point in time when she already has a granddaughter.



Yet Goku is more interested in training.

...

Saiyans simply don't think the same way humans do.

[ZeroNeonix]

Chichi is shown to look like a young girl when she has her hair down, at the point in time when she already has a granddaughter.



Yet Goku is more interested in training.

...

Saiyans simply don't think the same way humans do.

Super does a pretty bad job of accurately reflecting a character's age. Trunks and Goten look ten years too young. Bulma's "age" is constantly the butt of jokes, and yet she looks just as young as she did in early Z. So Chichi's youth may appear to us as youthful, but Goku could see her the same way everyone in-universe sees Bulma.

[Sadala Elite]

Chichi is shown to look like a young girl when she has her hair down, at the point in time when she already has a granddaughter.



Yet Goku is more interested in training.

...

Saiyans simply don't think the same way humans do.

Everyone looks younger in Super than in Z.

And Goku is an outlier even by Saiyan standards.

[miguelnuva1]

Considering how Vegeta acted before Earth and what the saiyans are based on I personally feel Vegeta either had concubines in the Frieza force or he took an enemies wife or daughter as a form of conquest before Bulma.

I picture a teen boy like Vegeta would want to lose his virginity quick as it would one up Raditz and take away 8n advantage Nappa had over him and would make him an adult quicker.

Personally I feel the concubine theory is what happened. No way the Frieza Force didn't have sex workers outside the fact Dragonball is a kids manga and wouldn't say that.