It’s an interesting question. My feeling is that Joyce is hetro but is so open-hearted and generous with her time and emotional energy that she often appears to be romantically interested in people.
With Sal, I think it is more of a case that Sal is so much Joyce’s mental stereotype of a strong, confident woman that she’s become something of a fangirl.
I’m impressed by how frazzled willis made her look with so few lines. I can only pick out a couple of details (lines under the eyes, spiky hair bits) that definitely contribute…
1Tonight at SEVEN there’s a floor meeting in the commons. 2It’s MANDATORY. I EXPECT to see you there. I WILL see you there. 3Because if I don’t, 4I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH MYSELF WITH YOUR OWN BLOODY FEMURS.
I mean, your version is infinitely better than the real verse: But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”
Oh my! I had no idea….. As a gay man who is anything but a prude, I found myself slightly scandalized and more than a little aroused. Who knew the Bible was a dirty dirty book!
Out of context it sounds like its about the same mentality as the sickness and health bit. Like “if youre going through a rough patch dont tell me to leave cuz i wanna be here”. And the your people bit seems to be like your family is my family whats important to you is important to me.
In context it’s…pretty much how you described it, but spoken from one no-longer-married-at-the-time woman to another. Put on some ShippingGogglestm, and it could easily be taken in a romantic way; even if not, it has been used that way by others numerous times for what seems like obvious reasons.
Both my parents called the others parents “mom” and “dad”.
My brother-in-law calls my parents “mom”, and “dad”. (I can only suppose my sister reciprocates, as I don’t witness those interactions.)
I see nothing odd about a widow telling her husbands mother she’s family, and will not be abandoning her.
I actually read the entire Book of Ruth in order to try to understand the context of the referenced verse. I can’t say it helped much. 1:16 is so intense with emotion and drama, suggesting a deep relationship. Yet, the rest of the book lacks any other emotional detail, except maybe the end when Ruth’s son is born. The story doesn’t even explain how Naomi’s husband and sons die, they are simply dead, on with the story!
An important note for our Candian friends based on some comments from yesterday that I just saw:
American Taco Bells now have fries too. It took us a while, but we got there.
It is…so weird to me that KFC is your go-to for fries. I had to Google if they even have them here, and as far as I can tell, they don’t, though they do have potato wedges.
Anyway, the Taco Bell fries here aren’t just normal fries anyway (they’re called Nacho fries; they have a special seasoning), and yes, the have Nacho Fries Supreme.
I didn’t know that! Having done a quick Google search, these are my favourite two headlines about it… the first for being so dramatic: “KFC crisis: Almost 300 branches still closed as chicken shortage continues”
The second for showing people in my country excelling at farcical stupidity: “Police urge people to stop calling them about KFC chicken shortage”
Best fries are Culver’s. Fresh. Square cut to get the right mix of oil and potato. Crunchy on the outside and melty goodness inside. McDonald’s are the worst. Plus Culver’s has custard and not the chemically mix served in so many places.
We also have two-dollar coins unimaginatively called “toonies”. When they were introduced, the suggestion was made that they be called “dubloons”. As someone who read “Treasure Island” at an impressionable age, I thought that was a fantastic idea. Unfortunately, I was in a minority, and it didn’t stick. [sigh]
For those not familiar with Canadian coinage, the one-dollar coin is called a “loonie” because the original stampings had a picture of a loon on the obverse side, this being considered an iconic example of Canadian wildlife. Since then, other images have been used, for example the Northern Lights.
If you want something to celebrate about the U.S., how about those high-school kids in Florida campaigning for gun control? They’re not going to change the NRA nor the politicians it pays for, but if they can keep it up for eight months they just might influence the mid-term election. Now THAT would be worth celebrating.
Aplogies, Dave for off-topic and overtly political post. I will understand if you delete this.
Point. However, this seems to be part of a growing resistance to the current travesty of an administration. To me this seems potentially indicative of an understanding of the importance of maintaining democracy (“eternal vigilance . . .” and all that). It could be the start of a renewal of that concept. Or as fellow Canadian Leonard Cohen put it: “Democracy is coming . . . to the U.S.A.”
Sadly the travesty that is the three houses has been ongoing for much longer than this one administration. It is just that this one has no skill at polishing turds – and yes you can polish a turd – confirmed by mythbusters – but a turd is still a turd.
It is my understanding – and I am not a historian – that the founding fathers set up a tripartate government based on the concept that a three-legged stool is inherently stable. They wanted to make sure that no small group could dominate the government. And for almost 200 years, it worked tolerably well, if you exclude the failure to prevent Jim Crow laws. Gradually, power has been shifted to the administrative branch (the white house) and the congress and senate have become too partisan to accept the level of compromise that is necessary for a democracy to function. It is not too late to turn things around, but the U.S. is, IMO, dangerously close to a point of no return which will lead to something resembling feudalism. The only way out of that is bloody revolution, which would be horrible.
If you exclude not only Jim Crow, but an entire Civil War.
And lets be clear, it’s not that somehow congress became too partisan, it’s that one party has decided that government not functioning is perfectly acceptable. We had a system that ran for generations largely on norms and informal rules. Those norms have been thrown out over a period of decades and replaced more and more with simple “it doesn’t say I can’t”. We saw it with the growing abuse of the filibuster. We saw it most blatantly with “nothing says we actually have to vote on a Supreme Court nomination.”
I don’t know how we get back from where we are, even assuming we survive the current crisis without ditching democracy entirely.
1) We don’t like mass shootings.
2) If Trump’s a fascist, running the government, he’s got the army and they’ve got bigger and better weapons anyway. Guns aren’t the way to fight that.
3) The fascist and his supporters are the ones with the most guns and the most support for keeping guns not just legal, but plentiful.
4) In our situation, guns may not be as much use resisting the fascist as in arming his brownshirts.
Read. Thanks for replying, the jeff.
1. I don’t like mass shootings either. I dislike oppressive governments even less. An out of control government is a lot more dangerous and hard to get rid of than a mentally ill individual with a gun.
2. Nukes and Tanks are surprisingly ineffective for controlling individuals. Trump isn’t actually coherent enough to be a fascist;he’s just a dangerous loony that was elected only because the Democrat establishment went with someone wildly unpopular. Why did they do that and why didn’t the Republican establishment pull the cord on Trump early on while they could? Dunno. I will never understand people.
3. I don’t support Trump, but there have been very few slaves of any kind with access to weapons.
4. Actual analogs to brownshirts exist, but in the US. they are negligible, by which I mean their numbers are tiny.
I don’t own a gun and have no desire to do so, though my 95 year old mother keeps one. But when people want to prohibit my access to one because of mass shootings which continue largely due to the massive publicity given to shooters, it makes me antsy.
@Clif: Something people don’t often don’t realize is that owning a gun does not protect you from the government.
Trump and many other republican dumbasses say they want to arm teachers. You know who was both a teacher and gun owner? Philando Castille. A black man carrying a legal weapon who was shot 7 times at a fucking traffic stop because the officer “felt threatened” by a man still belted into his seat.
The officer has faced almost zero consequences, and the NRA has been utterly silent on the matter. This shit is already happening, and has been for years. They
And the reason the republicans didn’t bail on Trump is because he is merely a symptom, not the cause. There are far too many white supremacists in positions of authority, and far too many corrupt pieces of shit who have no interest in standing up to them.
essentially Ruth pledges to follow her through thick and thin and go so far to change her beliefs for Naomi. Theyrekindareallygaycoughdespitepreexistingcircumstances
In other news, it really does sound like wedding vows/marriage proposal speak, and Joyce is using this awkwardness to try and tell Dorothy that she’ll always support and love her (it’s not awkward until viewed from Joyce’s perspective after being told it’s kind of really gay)
“… for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”
The only thing that makes this “gay as fuck” is that Ruth is speaking to another female (Naomi). Otherwise, this is not all that far removed from the traditional “forsaking all others, until death do us part” vows.
My guess (based on Googling it just now) is that the verse in question goes:
“Where you will go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge, your people shall be my people and your God my God. Where you die, I will die– there I will be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you.”
It’s said from Ruth to Naomi. Book of Ruth 1:16-17
I said “My guess” because I didn’t check the hovertext before commenting. What I did do was Google “book of Ruth lesbian” and yup, got the right thing.
god I didn’t even need to google. I just went “oh its where you lead I will follow isn’t it?” double checked- yes I was correctCan someone please come and de biblize my brain. I’m sure I could fit some really interesting information in there If I didn’t have half of Psalms memorized from my youth. And I would know 50% more about dinosaurs than I do.
“But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”
So, this lady Naomi has her sons and husband die and she tells her daughters-in-law (who came from another tribe) to go back to their original family and make new lives for themselves and leave a doddering old widow be. One (Oprah) obeys but the other (Ruth) doesn’t. That’s more or less Ruth 1:1-15.
Which brings us to Ruth 1:16. [But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”]
My interpretation (and I’m not a biblical scholar or anything, I just pulled up Ruth 1 to read) is that Joyce is saying “We have different backgrounds, but now we’re family and I’m here for you.”
As someone who is a Bible scholar, you’ve basically got it right and that makes sense for Joyce’s interpretation.
The reason this sounds so much like a wedding to us is that it’s a statement of covenant loyalty and basically the only covenant relationship that still exists in our society is marriage (and even that only kinda sorta for many people). In the biblical context this is super important because Ruth becomes the great-grandmother of David, the key nation-building figure of the golden age of Israel, so having a story explaining why he gets to be the face of the nation when his great-grandma isn’t even Jewish is super important. This statement makes her Jewish. So, in-context, there’s nothing romantic about it (lesbian or straight), it’s purely ethnic/religious, and, in-context, all indicators are that both women are straight (both marry men, Ruth marries a second man after her first husband dies) and just have a healthy mother-daughter relationship, but it’s one of the few biblical pledges of covenant loyalty between two humans (rather than God and a person, or God and a nation) and especially between two women. People take most wedding verses out of context anyway, so no unusual liberties are taken sticking this one into a wedding
Thanks you all for the very detailed replies. I did search for the verse but I wanted some context to it, which you all very kindly provided! Thanks once again!
Meh, The Book (which, keep in mind, is what we call it too – that’s what “Bible” means, coming from the Greek ‘biblion’ meaning ‘piece of paper’ or ‘paper scroll’, or ‘collection of papers’) is just as important in Islamic theology than the Quran, which is a collection of sayings and scriptural interpretations by Mohammad and not even especially long – while a lot of Muslims would get furious at the comparison, the Q’ran is closer to the Talmud in content than anything else, it’s just that it was all composed by a single individual rather than generations of scholars. There is a lot of Biblical scholarship in the Muslim world, but it follows from the interpretations given in the Quran rather than those in, say, the Talmud or the various Christian traditions.
My understanding is that most ‘copies of the Koran’ are actually Arabic translations of the Torah, the Psalms, several Gospels, and several other older Hebrew scriptures not included in the modern Torah, with the Quran added as an afterword serving as an scriptural interpretation key (and the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures are probably a lot closer to the original Hebrew than any translation to any language outside of the Semitic family – I have been told that Modern Arabic is closer to Classical Hebrew than even Modern Hebrew, though I am not sure I buy that claim, and even if it s true, Modern Aramaic is probably closer still).
As for Biblical scholarship, I will leave it to those who care about Joshua Magus & Co. to figure that out.
Though I will add that IME, most Pagans – especially those of the more intellectual traditions such as Gardnerians, Thelemites, and of course, Discordian-Finaglists (All Hail Discordia) – often know the various forms of the Abrahamic scriptures better than those who claim to believe and follow them. However, this has less to do with Pagans being smarter than it does with the fact that most people take things they grew up with for granted. Few people of any faith who didn’t convert actually look at it closely unless they are dissatisfied with it or are of a particularly spiritual bent. Since almost all Pagans converted as adults, often after spending years of trying to understand and accept the faith they eventually rejected, it stands to reason that they actually, you know, read a lot about the religion they left.
The biblical name is actually Orpah (the P and R are switched). According to some tale I heard sometime from who knows who, Oprah was supposed to be named Orpah, but somebody spelled it wrong on the birth certificate. Now obviously Oprah is such a well-known name that it’s hard to see the other spelling
It’s not. Orpah is a Biblical name. Oprah’s mother misread it and put the wrong spelling on the birth certificate, and now the previous poster made the same error.
It’s spelled “Orpah” in the bible, and that is actually Oprah Winfrey’s birth name. But, no one could ever pronounce it correctly, constantly switching around the p and the r. So it stuck, and now everyone in the world knows it that way. Fun facts!
And that – what Joyce is saying – is what gives me hope for Dorothy. I wonder if Joyce will notice that Dotty’s falling apart and force her to pull herself together.
Ruth and Naomi are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Ruth marries Boaz not long after the quote. It is best understood as an example of Jewish by choice and not blood. So in context, not gay at all.
Lots of women without power in the structure too, thus the expectation of Ruth going back to her father’s house after her husband and children die. Ruth instead chooses to stay with the m-i-l and ends up Jewish as a result.
But there is a long tradition of taking texts out of context, especially by anti-gay bigots, so the reverse is fair play. If marriage is a spiritual commitment, then this is a great example of one.
Ruth 3:16 “I just ripped out your femurs.” It’s widely debated among scholars of fake bible verses if this was ripped off from the book of Austin or if the book of Ruth was written first. Along with the long standing debate over who precisely wrote the book of love.
Perhaps you’re thinking of Judges 15:8, “And he smote them hip and thigh with great slaughter.” (AV) NASP translates this “He struck them ruthlessly …”
Everyone probably still wants Dorothy to at least have a hand in Joyce’s first positive sexual experience, but also lmao she IS a friend of dorothy after all
On one hand, Dorothy would definitely support her, but on the other, I’m pretty sure she’s straight, as per when she talked to Danny when he was still not really sure about his bi identity (bidentity, if you will)
I know lol, can see massive support happening, probably not actual direct involvement in sexytimes though b.c that’s probably too much for Joyce anyways
If nothing else, I’m sure Dorothy will be there for emotional support, high fiving, the occasional technical hint – stereotypical girl-talk in other words.
But Ruth said, “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
Not sure how that verse relates to lesbian weddings though.
Checking the entirety of Ruth 1, it looks like she was talking to Naomi, her mother-in-law. And both Naomi and Ruth were widows too. So yeah, I can see it now.
I feel like there are times when people demanding you do their research for them can be a problem, but we also don’t need to shame people for asking simple questions.
Getting the context oft a biblical quotation right actually needs a lot of reading. Asking someone about it who might already have done that and already knows is not asking others to do your research.
In this case I don’t think a ton of reading was required. But also, I was contrasting it with asking others to do your research? I mean, we seem to basically agree, so maybe I’m misreading the tone of your comment; it just seems a bit harsh.
Okay, so I know we women who like women (whether exclusively or men too) are desperate for Biblical role models. But I’ve never understood the Ruth/Naomi shipping. They were mother-and-daughter-in-law. Gross!
David and Jonathan, however unlikely as a gay pairing, at least weren’t related. Come on, people.
Yup. And considering the time not even remotely a block to relations. I think there’s something in the Bible about parents marrying the spouses of deceased offspring or something…? (I am so not a Bible expert so I may be way off base, but there’s all sorts of “if x happens thou shalt y” and a lot of that involves marrying.)
But yeah, cousins were definitely fine, so why would any relation by marriage with all relatives being dead be a concern…?
I know there’s specificallu something about brothers taking their deceased sibling’s wife. I think that’s part of the story of Onan, who came on a rock and god killed him.
Not just to “continue your brother’s family line”, but essentially as a form of welfare. Widows tended to have a pretty rough time of it back in the day. Hooking them up with a new husband with a vested interest in the existing kids was a way to ensure support for them.
As I understand it, Ruth was married to one of Naomi’s sons, so they are not genetically related. There was presumably an age difference . . . but whether that was important is a very subjective measure. As has been noted by other commenters, the pledge of loyalty/support was not necessarily romantic, but neither should we say it could not have been.
Plus, people tended to marry young in those days. The age difference between them may not have been as much as the typical age difference between mothers-and-daughters-in-law nowadays.
I think she will go with something more freestyle, like
“And lo, the lord saw her haircut and found it tootes rad and thus answered lesbian prayers and sent forth this really cool dinosaur chick who will now read to you from the gospel by Ankylosaurus.
(…)
…In sickness and in health and in case a giant astroid hits earth…”
Awww, Dotty, who seem to be on top of things (even if you SHOULD take breaks, Dotty).
Awww, Joyce, who always manages to be as girlfriendy with Dorothy as possible (and who packs a lunch for her! Did no one tell her that marriage from Gender Studies was supposed to be temporary?). I give it 50/50 that she knows perfectly well how Book of Ruth is used, and it’s her way to be progressive.
Awww, Sierra, who checks on Dorotohy (and also seem to have a good idea of the applicability of book of Ruth)
I’m kinda impressed that Dorothy is familiar with that quote and it’s usage. She wasn’t raised in religion as far as I remember. I also wasn’t raised in religion but am a slut for gay shit, and I wasn’t familiar with that verse until this strip.
Dorothy did a lot of research into deciding what religion (if any) she wanted to join, and she wants to be a progressive politician, so I think there are good odds of her checking what a lesbian wedding would be like (possible even inspired by Becky’s arrival).
It could also be that it’s just something she happens to know, but it comes across (to me) as impressive in the way that it does when a piece of trivia that you know is suddenly relevant.
I also did a lot of research into different religions when I was younger, and even once I got out of that phase would still find myself learning about Christianity because…well, you know. And there were times in my teens where I watched videos of lesbian weddings.
I guess I’m in part surprised that I didn’t know it, but also, even with what you said, still impressed that Dorothy did.
She wasn’t raised religious, but she comes from a Jewish/Catholic background – and from memory Ruth is somewhat of a big deal in the Hebrew Bible, as a close ancestor to King David (he of the “Imma kill that Goliath dude” fame) himself.
Judging by what the mouse-over says the link is, my (admittedly amateur) guess is that the last slash of the URL accidentally escaped the close quote. Is that what happened? I’m asking for the internet.
@KingDaniel
It was the wrong kind of quotation mark (RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK) so maybe something is “correcting” your input by replacing standard quotation marks with “better ones” (better looking…).
MS Software like Word / Outlook loves to do this shit!
Ruth was David’s great-grandmother. Big deal, since most of his female ancestors are not named. Thus also one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus.
Don’t forget, she wants to be a politician in the US, you won’t get anywhere without at least pretending to be a member of one of the more mainstream Christian versions. A working knowledge of the subject would be useful.
Didn’t she explicitly state her aim was to become the first female atheist president?
Still, it makes sense to know the Bible to be clear about the facts theirin (recently overheard a women on the subway say to her 5-year-old that she didn’t believe in evolution because she doesn’t believe humans were descendant from apes – which is not what evolution theory says. I nearly said she should at least understand what a theory she denies actually says. It’s a common misconception.)
Technically, you could say humans are descended from apes. Humans are apes and thus the last common ancestor of us and the other apes also would have been.
We’re not descended from monkeys, which is the usual nonsense I’ve heard.
And using the usual DoA time distortion, by the time Dorothy’s 35 and eligible, most likely either she won’t be the first female atheist president or she’ll be running for president of the wasteland that used to be America.
Ah, right, I had forgotten about the atheist president part. Still, as you say, you need to know your enemy. Still say that you can’t get elected dog catcher in the US without loudly proclaiming your faith. Stating you are an atheist in some parts of the US is worse than being LGBTQ.
And that bit about not believing humans were descended from apes always floors me, like, do you not know how similar our DNA is to our closest ape relatives?
Danny ran through a small path as he traced the giant wolf prints that littered the ground. He pulled out his sword as he heard a howling in front of him.
Danny: I can’t believe I agreed to do this.
Danny looked back for a moment and briefly saw a massive shadow in the blizzard covered sky.
Danny: Jeez, I’ve had enough problems with girls watching me from the sky for a lifetime.
Danny turns back and continues on his search ultimately coming across a giant wolf feasting on a woolly beast. Danny watches silently, as the wolf rips into its flesh and claws at its bleeding belly, lined with fat.
Danny: I really can’t believe I agreed to do this.
Danny unsheathed Joyce’s sword and pulled out Dorothy’s book. The wolf turned around and finally noticed him, its eyes grew red and it snarled.
Dorothy: Well its Danny, so badly, but in a way that he inexplicably will pull himself out of.
Danny dodged out of the way as the wolf came barreling towards him. Dorothy’s book flew out of his hands and was quickly buried by the snow and wind.
Danny: Dammit. I can’t see a thing in this blizzard.
The wolf comes bearing down once again and Danny swings at it with Joyce’s sword. the wolf howls in pain at the wound on its right front leg.
Joyce: But what if he gets hurt?
Dorothy: It doesn’t matter.
Joyce: Why?
The wolf butted with its head and knocked Danny into a tree. Blood spurted from Danny’s back pain shot through him.
Danny: Damn.
Suddenly a voice appears from above.
Skadi: Danny, I don’t normally say this, but if it’s too much I can rescue you.
Danny: Let me guess, you won’t let me into the temple then?
Skadi: I’m sorry…
Dorothy: Because he never fights for himself, and he would sooner die then fail us.
Danny: Not yet.
Danny struggles to his feet and points the sword at the wolf. He struggles to stand and his back continues to bleed. Slowly the blood makes it’s way through his thick clothing and dyes the wool.
Messy hair Dorothy is adorable, but also her current situation and watching her abandon all things in favor of schoolwork with no guarantee it’ll fix things makes me really really anxious.
Also I don’t know very much about Sierra but all the places where she tries to take care of people in little ways while being very laid back and go-with-the-flow is very endearing.
16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Actually recited at a lot of weddings, gay or not.
Whenever I see bag lunches my mind immediately jumps to the Steven Universe episode “Lion 3: Straight to Video” and I get the sudden urge to call my mother.
I find this particularly funny because that same verse is also very important to Jewish Converts (because it’s a declaration of Ruth’s intent to convert to Judaism) and as a Queer Jew-in-Progress it makes me squee every time.
I think that it’s adorable that Joyce chose to put that particular scripture on the bag lunch. To her, it’s meant to be a declaration of unconditional friendship and a warning. She’s saying that she isn’t going to listen to Dorothy if she tells her to back off and let her study; she’s her friend and she’ll be with her when she needs her, even if she thinks that she doesn’t need her.
she does need sometime to step away from her work and just chill out for a bit, not that its possible in this universe it seems for anyone to chill for more than a moment…
I think if she tried to, something terrible would happen. Either she’d fail a test, Walky would disappear, or a piano would drop from the sky on top of her!
_Winter Tide_ had “whither you go, I go” from woman B to woman C, whereas B was also rather touchy with C, and I was sure it was a stealth proposal. Then I looked it up and was less sure, especially given the context of the book, where ‘tribe’ isn’t somewhat appropriate.
Still pretty touchy, and I’m rooting for the ship, but I don’t take it as certain.
@Willis: I don’t if anyone mentioned this upcomments, but panel 5 seems to be missing the background, and the notice board on panel 6 seems to have eaten the door?
I googled the passage, and I can see how it would be quoted for weddings, but what makes it specifically lesbian? Is it because the line is being said by a woman?
It’s about money. It always was, even the Civil War. ALL campaign contributions, fundraising dinners, lobbying, EVERYTHING has to be public. Transparency, as David Brin says repeatedly (http://davidbrin.blogspot.ca/) is essential to avoid a secretive clique of oligarchs increasing their stranglehold on the body politic. They will resist this with everything they can, of course, using anti-terrorist legislation to intimidate and silence opposition. Fortunately, the technology which makes possible the Big Brother state also makes possible sousveillance, the exposure of the corrupt. To repeat myself, it’s not too late, but it is extremely close.
I mean, yeah, money’s important, but there’s no “secretive clique of oligarchs” running everything. There are multiple, mostly openly known, groups of rich bastards (and a few halfway decent ones) pursuing their own goals and often clashing with each other.
And a decent chunk of the modern crazies in politics are actually true believers who’ve come up through the ranks of the conned. That’s one reason it’s so nuts. You’ve got actual politician who don’t understand that they’re just supposed to give lip service to the wacko ideas they sold their voters on and keep business running smoothly and collect their payoffs.
Loading ...
Hmmm, Joyce’s subtle proposal seems to have gone over Dorothy’s head.
Sierra looks like she picked up on it though.
Sierra knows what’s up.
Or she’s thinking about pandas.
Pandas are up?
That would be really helpful to their breeding programs
Joyce is that friend you swear is gay, but only ever dates the opposite sex.
Bi-romantic, hetrosexual?
It’s an interesting question. My feeling is that Joyce is hetro but is so open-hearted and generous with her time and emotional energy that she often appears to be romantically interested in people.
With Sal, I think it is more of a case that Sal is so much Joyce’s mental stereotype of a strong, confident woman that she’s become something of a fangirl.
I think she’s stated that her interactions with close female friends have been shaped by her childhood best friend having a romantic crush on her.
Poor Dorothy looks like she’s pushing herself pretty hard here
I’m impressed by how frazzled willis made her look with so few lines. I can only pick out a couple of details (lines under the eyes, spiky hair bits) that definitely contribute…
Book of Ruth?
1Tonight at SEVEN there’s a floor meeting in the commons. 2It’s MANDATORY. I EXPECT to see you there. I WILL see you there. 3Because if I don’t, 4I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH MYSELF WITH YOUR OWN BLOODY FEMURS.
dang, superscript doesn’t work
It still works.
…by which I mean, the joke still works. The superscript is obviously busted.
First edition copy of the Book of Ruth.
“blessed be the femurs, for they shall be thy instrument of vengeance”
[Ruth 1:16]
I mean, your version is infinitely better than the real verse: But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”
I’d expect the Book of Ezekiel to be more up Ruth’s alley.
Whenever I think of the Book of Ezekiel, my mind goes to Ezekiel 23:20.
Trust me, that is only one of the delights to be found in that book.
Oh my! I had no idea….. As a gay man who is anything but a prude, I found myself slightly scandalized and more than a little aroused. Who knew the Bible was a dirty dirty book!
Most people who read the Song of Solomon. Unfortunately the subtext in Psalms has long ago been lost in translation.
I admit I was expecting something a bitt punchier, or a little deeper if it was the lesbian wedding verse.
I guess it is about… not being kicked out of the club?
It’s in response to a woman telling Ruth to go back to her family and followed by Ruth stating that not even death will separate them.
Gay AF
Out of context it sounds like its about the same mentality as the sickness and health bit. Like “if youre going through a rough patch dont tell me to leave cuz i wanna be here”. And the your people bit seems to be like your family is my family whats important to you is important to me.
Course i dunno what the actual context is. Cuz i dont read anything biblical.
In context it’s…pretty much how you described it, but spoken from one no-longer-married-at-the-time woman to another. Put on some ShippingGogglestm, and it could easily be taken in a romantic way; even if not, it has been used that way by others numerous times for what seems like obvious reasons.
Both my parents called the others parents “mom” and “dad”.
My brother-in-law calls my parents “mom”, and “dad”. (I can only suppose my sister reciprocates, as I don’t witness those interactions.)
I see nothing odd about a widow telling her husbands mother she’s family, and will not be abandoning her.
I actually read the entire Book of Ruth in order to try to understand the context of the referenced verse. I can’t say it helped much. 1:16 is so intense with emotion and drama, suggesting a deep relationship. Yet, the rest of the book lacks any other emotional detail, except maybe the end when Ruth’s son is born. The story doesn’t even explain how Naomi’s husband and sons die, they are simply dead, on with the story!
Shut thine faaaaace or else I will shove femurs into it.
An important note for our Candian friends based on some comments from yesterday that I just saw:
American Taco Bells now have fries too. It took us a while, but we got there.
And Willis is wondering why people in his Tumblr feed are describing fries as “flaky” and “creamy”.
But do they have fries supreme? That’s the only reason people care about Taco Bell fries, the normal ones are just the ones you get at KFC.
It is…so weird to me that KFC is your go-to for fries. I had to Google if they even have them here, and as far as I can tell, they don’t, though they do have potato wedges.
Anyway, the Taco Bell fries here aren’t just normal fries anyway (they’re called Nacho fries; they have a special seasoning), and yes, the have Nacho Fries Supreme.
It was a sad day when the local KFCs here stopped selling potato wedges.
KFC in England has stopped selling chicken.
(Ok, they mostly had to close because their supplier fluffed up all their chicken and didn’t deliver any but that is essentially what I said.)
I didn’t know that! Having done a quick Google search, these are my favourite two headlines about it… the first for being so dramatic:
“KFC crisis: Almost 300 branches still closed as chicken shortage continues”
The second for showing people in my country excelling at farcical stupidity:
“Police urge people to stop calling them about KFC chicken shortage”
Ironically, I was just watching news coverage of that silliness, just minutes before I read your post.
Oh, we’ve got dual KFC/Taco Bells here, they both take their fries from the same fryer, that’s how I know they’re literally the same.
I just had some Nacho Fries Supreme for breakfast. (I work the graveyard, so it’s currently mid-morning for me.)
But are they the best fast food fries in the world like TB fries up here are?
I DON’T KNOW BUT IT’D TAKE ME AN HOUR AT MOST TO GET TO WINDSOR SO MAYBE I’LL FIND OUT
But they are pretty good in my opinion.
No they are not. Because Rally’s/Checkers has the best fast food fries in the world.
No, because Five Guys has the best fries in the multi-verse!
The fries are good, but any burger place you can’t get chili to put on said burger leaves much to be desired.
Well… until ChrispCo branches into making fries.
Best fries are Culver’s. Fresh. Square cut to get the right mix of oil and potato. Crunchy on the outside and melty goodness inside. McDonald’s are the worst. Plus Culver’s has custard and not the chemically mix served in so many places.
Agreed. Culver’s also has the best fast-food class burgers, as declared by Frank Bruni, New York Times food critic, in 2006.
Took you long enough.
We were too busy, uh, throwing parties…for…our guns.
(Do you ever want to brag about your country but it’s…really hard to come up with anything?)
(We were too busy laughing at what a ridiculous term “loonie” is for a piece of currency. Zing.)
Calling them loonies is cute.
We also have two-dollar coins unimaginatively called “toonies”. When they were introduced, the suggestion was made that they be called “dubloons”. As someone who read “Treasure Island” at an impressionable age, I thought that was a fantastic idea. Unfortunately, I was in a minority, and it didn’t stick. [sigh]
Toonies are also cute. But I agree dubloons would be cute.
*high five* I also rooted for dubloon to catch on.
For those not familiar with Canadian coinage, the one-dollar coin is called a “loonie” because the original stampings had a picture of a loon on the obverse side, this being considered an iconic example of Canadian wildlife. Since then, other images have been used, for example the Northern Lights.
Also because a lot of us thought it was a stupid idea, heh.
Since then I think we’re pretty much all agreed that couch change that could legit add up to like a pizza is pretty danged awesome.
–Of course, most of us use debit anyways so it’s more couch crumbs than couch change in there these days but still
Also polar bears.
If you want something to celebrate about the U.S., how about those high-school kids in Florida campaigning for gun control? They’re not going to change the NRA nor the politicians it pays for, but if they can keep it up for eight months they just might influence the mid-term election. Now THAT would be worth celebrating.
Aplogies, Dave for off-topic and overtly political post. I will understand if you delete this.
I’m proud of them, but I wouldn’t say it’s something I’d “celebrate.” How sad is it that it’s come to this?
Point. However, this seems to be part of a growing resistance to the current travesty of an administration. To me this seems potentially indicative of an understanding of the importance of maintaining democracy (“eternal vigilance . . .” and all that). It could be the start of a renewal of that concept. Or as fellow Canadian Leonard Cohen put it: “Democracy is coming . . . to the U.S.A.”
Sadly the travesty that is the three houses has been ongoing for much longer than this one administration. It is just that this one has no skill at polishing turds – and yes you can polish a turd – confirmed by mythbusters – but a turd is still a turd.
It is my understanding – and I am not a historian – that the founding fathers set up a tripartate government based on the concept that a three-legged stool is inherently stable. They wanted to make sure that no small group could dominate the government. And for almost 200 years, it worked tolerably well, if you exclude the failure to prevent Jim Crow laws. Gradually, power has been shifted to the administrative branch (the white house) and the congress and senate have become too partisan to accept the level of compromise that is necessary for a democracy to function. It is not too late to turn things around, but the U.S. is, IMO, dangerously close to a point of no return which will lead to something resembling feudalism. The only way out of that is bloody revolution, which would be horrible.
*tripartite
If you exclude not only Jim Crow, but an entire Civil War.
And lets be clear, it’s not that somehow congress became too partisan, it’s that one party has decided that government not functioning is perfectly acceptable. We had a system that ran for generations largely on norms and informal rules. Those norms have been thrown out over a period of decades and replaced more and more with simple “it doesn’t say I can’t”. We saw it with the growing abuse of the filibuster. We saw it most blatantly with “nothing says we actually have to vote on a Supreme Court nomination.”
I don’t know how we get back from where we are, even assuming we survive the current crisis without ditching democracy entirely.
Due to clumsiness on my part, my reply was treated as a new comment, and is (for the moment) at the bottom of the comments.
Trump is a fascist.
Hey, let’s give his government all our guns.
I will never understand people.
Probably too late for anyone to read, but:
1) We don’t like mass shootings.
2) If Trump’s a fascist, running the government, he’s got the army and they’ve got bigger and better weapons anyway. Guns aren’t the way to fight that.
3) The fascist and his supporters are the ones with the most guns and the most support for keeping guns not just legal, but plentiful.
4) In our situation, guns may not be as much use resisting the fascist as in arming his brownshirts.
Read. Thanks for replying, the jeff.
1. I don’t like mass shootings either. I dislike oppressive governments even less. An out of control government is a lot more dangerous and hard to get rid of than a mentally ill individual with a gun.
2. Nukes and Tanks are surprisingly ineffective for controlling individuals. Trump isn’t actually coherent enough to be a fascist;he’s just a dangerous loony that was elected only because the Democrat establishment went with someone wildly unpopular. Why did they do that and why didn’t the Republican establishment pull the cord on Trump early on while they could? Dunno. I will never understand people.
3. I don’t support Trump, but there have been very few slaves of any kind with access to weapons.
4. Actual analogs to brownshirts exist, but in the US. they are negligible, by which I mean their numbers are tiny.
I don’t own a gun and have no desire to do so, though my 95 year old mother keeps one. But when people want to prohibit my access to one because of mass shootings which continue largely due to the massive publicity given to shooters, it makes me antsy.
@Clif: Something people don’t often don’t realize is that owning a gun does not protect you from the government.
Trump and many other republican dumbasses say they want to arm teachers. You know who was both a teacher and gun owner? Philando Castille. A black man carrying a legal weapon who was shot 7 times at a fucking traffic stop because the officer “felt threatened” by a man still belted into his seat.
The officer has faced almost zero consequences, and the NRA has been utterly silent on the matter. This shit is already happening, and has been for years. They
And the reason the republicans didn’t bail on Trump is because he is merely a symptom, not the cause. There are far too many white supremacists in positions of authority, and far too many corrupt pieces of shit who have no interest in standing up to them.
We were too busy preparing for the gold medal match in Olympic women’s hockey. There we go.
(“What about all the other years?” What about shut up.)
On one hand, my Canadian pride is annoyed. On the other, maybe four times in a row was enough for us…
US Taco Bells had fries before, but they stopped carrying them.
And the flavoring on the new ones… isn’t good, really. I don’t think I’m gonna get them again.
I like the flavoring, but to each their own.
And American Del Tacos have had fries for ages already. Just another in a long list of reasons why Del Taco > Taco Bell.
Hahahahahaha no
Yeah, and the fries suck. Fucking fight me, they taste like BBQ pork rinds. I finally dislike something from Taco Bell.
Anyone care to explain the significance of that verse?
curious as well
essentially Ruth pledges to follow her through thick and thin and go so far to change her beliefs for Naomi. Theyrekindareallygaycoughdespitepreexistingcircumstances
In other news, it really does sound like wedding vows/marriage proposal speak, and Joyce is using this awkwardness to try and tell Dorothy that she’ll always support and love her (it’s not awkward until viewed from Joyce’s perspective after being told it’s kind of really gay)
http://biblehub.com/ruth/1.htm
The story of Ruth, depending on translation, is gay as fuck. Ruth 1:16 is the key line.
“… for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”
The only thing that makes this “gay as fuck” is that Ruth is speaking to another female (Naomi). Otherwise, this is not all that far removed from the traditional “forsaking all others, until death do us part” vows.
Vows which, when said to one woman by another, are gay as fuck.
The statement was that the story is gay, not that any specific sequence of words in it are.
Sounds more like a knight’s pledge of loyalty to me, but I guess that’s not really all that different when sex isn’t involved.
It felt much more mother/daughter than gay to me, but if there’s any book open to interpretation it’s the Bibe
See here.
It’s a declaration of love/devotion that was spoken from one woman to another.
My guess (based on Googling it just now) is that the verse in question goes:
“Where you will go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge, your people shall be my people and your God my God. Where you die, I will die– there I will be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you.”
It’s said from Ruth to Naomi. Book of Ruth 1:16-17
I said “My guess” because I didn’t check the hovertext before commenting. What I did do was Google “book of Ruth lesbian” and yup, got the right thing.
god I didn’t even need to google. I just went “oh its where you lead I will follow isn’t it?” double checked- yes I was correctCan someone please come and de biblize my brain. I’m sure I could fit some really interesting information in there If I didn’t have half of Psalms memorized from my youth. And I would know 50% more about dinosaurs than I do.
With an asses jawbone, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass I have slain a thousand men.
C’mon, these are essential for everyday conversations.
Maybe read some Steven Hawkings? That should get this inaccurate translation of 1000 ACE bedtime stories out of your head.
Whoops messed up. Judges is obv. older, 2.5x that old.
“But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”
I could totally see that at a wedding
So, this lady Naomi has her sons and husband die and she tells her daughters-in-law (who came from another tribe) to go back to their original family and make new lives for themselves and leave a doddering old widow be. One (Oprah) obeys but the other (Ruth) doesn’t. That’s more or less Ruth 1:1-15.
Which brings us to Ruth 1:16. [But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.”]
My interpretation (and I’m not a biblical scholar or anything, I just pulled up Ruth 1 to read) is that Joyce is saying “We have different backgrounds, but now we’re family and I’m here for you.”
As someone who is a Bible scholar, you’ve basically got it right and that makes sense for Joyce’s interpretation.
The reason this sounds so much like a wedding to us is that it’s a statement of covenant loyalty and basically the only covenant relationship that still exists in our society is marriage (and even that only kinda sorta for many people). In the biblical context this is super important because Ruth becomes the great-grandmother of David, the key nation-building figure of the golden age of Israel, so having a story explaining why he gets to be the face of the nation when his great-grandma isn’t even Jewish is super important. This statement makes her Jewish. So, in-context, there’s nothing romantic about it (lesbian or straight), it’s purely ethnic/religious, and, in-context, all indicators are that both women are straight (both marry men, Ruth marries a second man after her first husband dies) and just have a healthy mother-daughter relationship, but it’s one of the few biblical pledges of covenant loyalty between two humans (rather than God and a person, or God and a nation) and especially between two women. People take most wedding verses out of context anyway, so no unusual liberties are taken sticking this one into a wedding
Thanks you all for the very detailed replies. I did search for the verse but I wanted some context to it, which you all very kindly provided! Thanks once again!
I love that you got a Muslim character as your icon while talking about being a Biblical scholar.
Meh, The Book (which, keep in mind, is what we call it too – that’s what “Bible” means, coming from the Greek ‘biblion’ meaning ‘piece of paper’ or ‘paper scroll’, or ‘collection of papers’) is just as important in Islamic theology than the Quran, which is a collection of sayings and scriptural interpretations by Mohammad and not even especially long – while a lot of Muslims would get furious at the comparison, the Q’ran is closer to the Talmud in content than anything else, it’s just that it was all composed by a single individual rather than generations of scholars. There is a lot of Biblical scholarship in the Muslim world, but it follows from the interpretations given in the Quran rather than those in, say, the Talmud or the various Christian traditions.
My understanding is that most ‘copies of the Koran’ are actually Arabic translations of the Torah, the Psalms, several Gospels, and several other older Hebrew scriptures not included in the modern Torah, with the Quran added as an afterword serving as an scriptural interpretation key (and the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures are probably a lot closer to the original Hebrew than any translation to any language outside of the Semitic family – I have been told that Modern Arabic is closer to Classical Hebrew than even Modern Hebrew, though I am not sure I buy that claim, and even if it s true, Modern Aramaic is probably closer still).
As for Biblical scholarship, I will leave it to those who care about Joshua Magus & Co. to figure that out.
Though I will add that IME, most Pagans – especially those of the more intellectual traditions such as Gardnerians, Thelemites, and of course, Discordian-Finaglists (All Hail Discordia) – often know the various forms of the Abrahamic scriptures better than those who claim to believe and follow them. However, this has less to do with Pagans being smarter than it does with the fact that most people take things they grew up with for granted. Few people of any faith who didn’t convert actually look at it closely unless they are dissatisfied with it or are of a particularly spiritual bent. Since almost all Pagans converted as adults, often after spending years of trying to understand and accept the faith they eventually rejected, it stands to reason that they actually, you know, read a lot about the religion they left.
Lo, the days of brotherhood and sisterhood are long forgotten and treated as gay.
just gals being pals
Holy-
A response from an author!
I almost never get that!
i….did not know oprah was a biblical name. i was so confused.
The biblical name is actually Orpah (the P and R are switched). According to some tale I heard sometime from who knows who, Oprah was supposed to be named Orpah, but somebody spelled it wrong on the birth certificate. Now obviously Oprah is such a well-known name that it’s hard to see the other spelling
Yeah, my bad on that one.
It’s not. Orpah is a Biblical name. Oprah’s mother misread it and put the wrong spelling on the birth certificate, and now the previous poster made the same error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpah
It’s spelled “Orpah” in the bible, and that is actually Oprah Winfrey’s birth name. But, no one could ever pronounce it correctly, constantly switching around the p and the r. So it stuck, and now everyone in the world knows it that way. Fun facts!
Jeez, double ninja’d.
And that – what Joyce is saying – is what gives me hope for Dorothy. I wonder if Joyce will notice that Dotty’s falling apart and force her to pull herself together.
Ruth and Naomi are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Ruth marries Boaz not long after the quote. It is best understood as an example of Jewish by choice and not blood. So in context, not gay at all.
Lots of women without power in the structure too, thus the expectation of Ruth going back to her father’s house after her husband and children die. Ruth instead chooses to stay with the m-i-l and ends up Jewish as a result.
But there is a long tradition of taking texts out of context, especially by anti-gay bigots, so the reverse is fair play. If marriage is a spiritual commitment, then this is a great example of one.
I wonder whether there’s anything in the book of ruth about femurs…
Ruth 3:16 “I just ripped out your femurs.” It’s widely debated among scholars of fake bible verses if this was ripped off from the book of Austin or if the book of Ruth was written first. Along with the long standing debate over who precisely wrote the book of love.
Perhaps you’re thinking of Judges 15:8, “And he smote them hip and thigh with great slaughter.” (AV) NASP translates this “He struck them ruthlessly …”
With a slight modification of Leo’s slightly unusual cite of Judges 15:15:
With your femurs, heaps upon heaps,
with the femurs of yours I have slain a thousand men.
Was this subconscious or intended on Joyce’s part? The world may never know
Sierra knows.
I SEE THAT SMIRK
:3
Sometimes accompanied by the less well-known Book of Billie.
Book of Billie 1:8 “And she proclaimed unto Joyce – FAAACE!”
At this point I think Joyce is pretty ok with that.
OMG suddenly I have Sierra as my gravitar BEST DAY EVAR!
Everyone probably still wants Dorothy to at least have a hand in Joyce’s first positive sexual experience, but also lmao she IS a friend of dorothy after all
On one hand, Dorothy would definitely support her, but on the other, I’m pretty sure she’s straight, as per when she talked to Danny when he was still not really sure about his bi identity (bidentity, if you will)
I will not.
I know lol, can see massive support happening, probably not actual direct involvement in sexytimes though b.c that’s probably too much for Joyce anyways
I would so be down for Dorothy/Joyce consensual cuddles.
I will!
If nothing else, I’m sure Dorothy will be there for emotional support, high fiving, the occasional technical hint – stereotypical girl-talk in other words.
…something like this…
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/02-i-was-a-teenage-churchmouse/less/
I See What You Did There
You think that’d work?
Dorothy/Joyce endgame confirmed
Ruth was like the anti-Les-Dawson.
In the last panel Sierra’s thinking about what names to give a Joyce and Dorothy pairing.
She’s narrowed it down to Breener and Doyce.
Not Jorothy?
But Ruth said, “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
Not sure how that verse relates to lesbian weddings though.
Was she talking to a woman? Because if so, I can see it.
Indeed, Ruth was saying this to Naomi.
Thing is, it was a mainstay for regular weddings as well, and probably still is, as far as I know.
Checking the entirety of Ruth 1, it looks like she was talking to Naomi, her mother-in-law. And both Naomi and Ruth were widows too. So yeah, I can see it now.
You’re…you’re not? I mean, it’s said between two women…
Really? Do you not see the parallel to
For richer, for poorer
In sickness and in health
. . .
until death do us part
?
It seems clear to me.
It’s pretty common at straight weddings, even (this is said to her mother-in-law).
It’s a woman committing herself fully to someone. That seems pretty apt for lesbian weddings.
Context. Who’d she say it to?
As has been said numerous other times by now, Ruth – a recently-widowed woman – is saying this to Naomi, another recently-widowed woman.
Google fu, friend- you’re swimming in information, why you asking for handouts
I feel like there are times when people demanding you do their research for them can be a problem, but we also don’t need to shame people for asking simple questions.
Getting the context oft a biblical quotation right actually needs a lot of reading. Asking someone about it who might already have done that and already knows is not asking others to do your research.
In this case I don’t think a ton of reading was required. But also, I was contrasting it with asking others to do your research? I mean, we seem to basically agree, so maybe I’m misreading the tone of your comment; it just seems a bit harsh.
Sierra’s fashion game is on point. She pulls off floral print really well.
“Faz will not eat kale. But he will listen to JJ Cale.”
there’s a Ruth book ?
…is there a Dorothy book ?
Honey, there’s a whole SERIES of them.
–Dave, other folks got in on it too, there’s like 26 books of fanfic in the series
I have to wonder about the “your God will be my God” when written from a believer to an atheist.
Maybe Joyce is letting slip that her faith is having serious problems?
Excellent question. I don’t expect we will see an answer any time soon.
More likely Joyce’s god will be Dorothy’s.
Yeah given everything in Joyce’s life right now that’s entirely possible.
We don’t see the actual quote on the bag, it’s possible she didn’t quote the whole thing.
Considering Christian tradition, she probably just wrote “Ruth 1:16”.
I’m just gonna keep repeating ‘Dorothy NO’ until she stops self destructing, so y’know. Expect that.
Dorothy, NO!!!
Okay, so I know we women who like women (whether exclusively or men too) are desperate for Biblical role models. But I’ve never understood the Ruth/Naomi shipping. They were mother-and-daughter-in-law. Gross!
David and Jonathan, however unlikely as a gay pairing, at least weren’t related. Come on, people.
Hey, that ‘in-law’ part makes all the difference. >_>
Yup. And considering the time not even remotely a block to relations. I think there’s something in the Bible about parents marrying the spouses of deceased offspring or something…? (I am so not a Bible expert so I may be way off base, but there’s all sorts of “if x happens thou shalt y” and a lot of that involves marrying.)
But yeah, cousins were definitely fine, so why would any relation by marriage with all relatives being dead be a concern…?
I know there’s specificallu something about brothers taking their deceased sibling’s wife. I think that’s part of the story of Onan, who came on a rock and god killed him.
Yeah, IIRC the intention was ostensibly “to continue your brother’s family line” or something of that nature.
Also, every so often there’s some uncle who marries his niece.
Not just to “continue your brother’s family line”, but essentially as a form of welfare. Widows tended to have a pretty rough time of it back in the day. Hooking them up with a new husband with a vested interest in the existing kids was a way to ensure support for them.
As I understand it, Ruth was married to one of Naomi’s sons, so they are not genetically related. There was presumably an age difference . . . but whether that was important is a very subjective measure. As has been noted by other commenters, the pledge of loyalty/support was not necessarily romantic, but neither should we say it could not have been.
Plus, people tended to marry young in those days. The age difference between them may not have been as much as the typical age difference between mothers-and-daughters-in-law nowadays.
P.S. See also DinaJoyce’s comment above.
Well there’s something for her to read at Becky’s wedding.
I think she will go with something more freestyle, like
“And lo, the lord saw her haircut and found it tootes rad and thus answered lesbian prayers and sent forth this really cool dinosaur chick who will now read to you from the gospel by Ankylosaurus.
(…)
…In sickness and in health and in case a giant astroid hits earth…”
. . . and in conclusion, nature always finds a way.
Awww, Dotty, who seem to be on top of things (even if you SHOULD take breaks, Dotty).
Awww, Joyce, who always manages to be as girlfriendy with Dorothy as possible (and who packs a lunch for her! Did no one tell her that marriage from Gender Studies was supposed to be temporary?). I give it 50/50 that she knows perfectly well how Book of Ruth is used, and it’s her way to be progressive.
Awww, Sierra, who checks on Dorotohy (and also seem to have a good idea of the applicability of book of Ruth)
I’m kinda impressed that Dorothy is familiar with that quote and it’s usage. She wasn’t raised in religion as far as I remember. I also wasn’t raised in religion but am a slut for gay shit, and I wasn’t familiar with that verse until this strip.
Dorothy did a lot of research into deciding what religion (if any) she wanted to join, and she wants to be a progressive politician, so I think there are good odds of her checking what a lesbian wedding would be like (possible even inspired by Becky’s arrival).
It could also be that it’s just something she happens to know, but it comes across (to me) as impressive in the way that it does when a piece of trivia that you know is suddenly relevant.
I also did a lot of research into different religions when I was younger, and even once I got out of that phase would still find myself learning about Christianity because…well, you know. And there were times in my teens where I watched videos of lesbian weddings.
I guess I’m in part surprised that I didn’t know it, but also, even with what you said, still impressed that Dorothy did.
It might also just be luck – maybe she heard the quote at a wedding she attended.
She wasn’t raised religious, but she comes from a Jewish/Catholic background – and from memory Ruth is somewhat of a big deal in the Hebrew Bible, as a close ancestor to King David (he of the “Imma kill that Goliath dude” fame) himself.
dangit, I remembered to close my link tags properly but not my bold-for-emphasis tag…
If it helps, your link was a little messed up too.
argh!
Here’s the correct link… D:
ugh
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2012/comic/book-2/02-choosing-my-religion/catholic/
Sorry about all that, haven’t messed up HTML tags in a while so it was bound to happen sooner or later.
Judging by what the mouse-over says the link is, my (admittedly amateur) guess is that the last slash of the URL accidentally escaped the close quote. Is that what happened? I’m asking for the internet.
Nah, it was a quotation mark that accidentally made it into the URL somehow and messed it up.
@KingDaniel
It was the wrong kind of quotation mark (RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK) so maybe something is “correcting” your input by replacing standard quotation marks with “better ones” (better looking…).
MS Software like Word / Outlook loves to do this shit!
Considering David and Jonathan’s relationship, I’m guessing bisexuality runs in the family.
Ruth was David’s great-grandmother. Big deal, since most of his female ancestors are not named. Thus also one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus.
It’s the quote used in Fried Green Tomatos with which Ruth tells Idgie to come and rescue her.
You don’t have to be into bible to know.
Dammit, and I’ve seen that movie too. Or is it only in the book? Haven’t read it.
No, it’s in the film. I looked it up after seeing the film, only read the book much later.
https://youtu.be/GdSr-h0rd2k
Don’t forget, she wants to be a politician in the US, you won’t get anywhere without at least pretending to be a member of one of the more mainstream Christian versions. A working knowledge of the subject would be useful.
Didn’t she explicitly state her aim was to become the first female atheist president?
Still, it makes sense to know the Bible to be clear about the facts theirin (recently overheard a women on the subway say to her 5-year-old that she didn’t believe in evolution because she doesn’t believe humans were descendant from apes – which is not what evolution theory says. I nearly said she should at least understand what a theory she denies actually says. It’s a common misconception.)
Technically, you could say humans are descended from apes. Humans are apes and thus the last common ancestor of us and the other apes also would have been.
We’re not descended from monkeys, which is the usual nonsense I’ve heard.
And using the usual DoA time distortion, by the time Dorothy’s 35 and eligible, most likely either she won’t be the first female atheist president or she’ll be running for president of the wasteland that used to be America.
At least it wasn’t the old: “How can we be descended from monkeys, if there are still monkeys?”.
Ah, right, I had forgotten about the atheist president part. Still, as you say, you need to know your enemy. Still say that you can’t get elected dog catcher in the US without loudly proclaiming your faith. Stating you are an atheist in some parts of the US is worse than being LGBTQ.
And that bit about not believing humans were descended from apes always floors me, like, do you not know how similar our DNA is to our closest ape relatives?
Or Dorothy googled it because we all know Joyce would remember to cite the verse.
I like how Sierra’s smile/smirk is just THAT much bigger in panel 6 than in panel 5.
–Dave, little things mean a lot
Yeah, I also wondered. Was that unfinished work?
Also why is Sierra smiling in panel 5. The smile makes sense in panel 6, but what is the reason for smiling in panel 5?
That was expected to be an answer to this comment, sorry.
Heh, indeed. Sierra is happy-go-lucky, but a smirk now and then is called for.
Dungeons and Dumbing part 18
Danny ran through a small path as he traced the giant wolf prints that littered the ground. He pulled out his sword as he heard a howling in front of him.
Danny: I can’t believe I agreed to do this.
Danny looked back for a moment and briefly saw a massive shadow in the blizzard covered sky.
Danny: Jeez, I’ve had enough problems with girls watching me from the sky for a lifetime.
Danny turns back and continues on his search ultimately coming across a giant wolf feasting on a woolly beast. Danny watches silently, as the wolf rips into its flesh and claws at its bleeding belly, lined with fat.
Danny: I really can’t believe I agreed to do this.
Danny unsheathed Joyce’s sword and pulled out Dorothy’s book. The wolf turned around and finally noticed him, its eyes grew red and it snarled.
Danny: Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit. Fuck me, fuck me.
Meanwhile back at the village.
Joyce: I wonder how Danny’s doing?
Dorothy: Well its Danny, so badly, but in a way that he inexplicably will pull himself out of.
Danny dodged out of the way as the wolf came barreling towards him. Dorothy’s book flew out of his hands and was quickly buried by the snow and wind.
Danny: Dammit. I can’t see a thing in this blizzard.
The wolf comes bearing down once again and Danny swings at it with Joyce’s sword. the wolf howls in pain at the wound on its right front leg.
Joyce: But what if he gets hurt?
Dorothy: It doesn’t matter.
Joyce: Why?
The wolf butted with its head and knocked Danny into a tree. Blood spurted from Danny’s back pain shot through him.
Danny: Damn.
Suddenly a voice appears from above.
Skadi: Danny, I don’t normally say this, but if it’s too much I can rescue you.
Danny: Let me guess, you won’t let me into the temple then?
Skadi: I’m sorry…
Dorothy: Because he never fights for himself, and he would sooner die then fail us.
Danny: Not yet.
Danny struggles to his feet and points the sword at the wolf. He struggles to stand and his back continues to bleed. Slowly the blood makes it’s way through his thick clothing and dyes the wool.
Skadi: What?
Danny: Forget about helping me.
Skadi: Heh, so you’re finally ready?
Danny: yeah.
I feel like I may have slightly epicized Danny past the point of believability
Just go with it Dorothy
I’m having a hard time believing that Joyce didn’t know.
How should Joyce know anything about lesbian weddings?
Oops I read it as rejected and not recited.
Well, Joyce did do research on the Bible and homosexuality after Becky came out, so actually it would make sense if she did know.
Friend of dorothy indeed
The biggest friend of Dorothy
(or as Walky put it – my girlfriends girlfriend)
Yeah, the Book of Ruth is something of an outlier in the Old Testament.
A lot of the later Books are, actually.
Shit, Judas is only two/three pages and it’s just that Monstro story.
WHY HASN’T TUMBLR ALREADY TOLD ME ABOUT BIBLE LESBIANS.
YOU HAD ONE JOB
ONE JOB!
Quick! Make sure everyone else knows! Tumblr doesn’t tumbl itself you know!
Too busy baying for the blood of white cis people I guess…
It’s not specific to bible Lesbians! Bible anything had one Job.
I used Ruth 1:16 at the (lesbian) wedding I officiated. This made me grin.
You rock!
“And your femurs shall be my femurs.”
“-after I rip them out of you.”
Austin 3:16
Messy hair Dorothy is adorable, but also her current situation and watching her abandon all things in favor of schoolwork with no guarantee it’ll fix things makes me really really anxious.
Also I don’t know very much about Sierra but all the places where she tries to take care of people in little ways while being very laid back and go-with-the-flow is very endearing.
I love Sierra now.
Does anyone else read Dorothy in Kate Micucci’s voice?
i do now
which verse is that?
16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Actually recited at a lot of weddings, gay or not.
Whenever I see bag lunches my mind immediately jumps to the Steven Universe episode “Lion 3: Straight to Video” and I get the sudden urge to call my mother.
I do love Sierra’s smile in panels 5 & 6. I get the impression that Joyce is becoming the floor’s smiling and sweetly good-natured happy mascot!
I do worry about Dorothy though; I think she’s working herself into a breakdown and probably a serious one.
Bible verses written on bags of food makes me crave In N Out.
My tears have been my food day and night,
while they say to me all day long “Where is your God?”
Eat Arby’s!
I find this particularly funny because that same verse is also very important to Jewish Converts (because it’s a declaration of Ruth’s intent to convert to Judaism) and as a Queer Jew-in-Progress it makes me squee every time.
Pretty sure kale wraps is a reason to stay inside.
Kale was put on this Earth to make arugula better by comparison.
Or to rapidly recover from a debilitating Zinc deficiency.
ooooh, interesting tidbit. Now I’ll just look up the signs for being zinc-deficient.
Hey now, arugula rocks all on its own.
I agree, but some think otherwise (i.e my dad).
I feel you. My husband loves romaine & iceberg lettuce and our leafy green tastes baffle each other.
I think that it’s adorable that Joyce chose to put that particular scripture on the bag lunch. To her, it’s meant to be a declaration of unconditional friendship and a warning. She’s saying that she isn’t going to listen to Dorothy if she tells her to back off and let her study; she’s her friend and she’ll be with her when she needs her, even if she thinks that she doesn’t need her.
Ruth x Naomi (Bible) forever.
A kale wrap is only food if you are a rabbit.
Now, a rabbit wrap, that’s food.
Girl if you think that’s the only thing that fuels you you are going to end up in the hospital.
Hover text hasn’t been working for me for the past couple days. Anyone else?
(I’m using iOS Safari)
Ruth 1:16
she does need sometime to step away from her work and just chill out for a bit, not that its possible in this universe it seems for anyone to chill for more than a moment…
Yeah, she could go chill with her boyfriend for a bit…
Oops.
I think if she tried to, something terrible would happen. Either she’d fail a test, Walky would disappear, or a piano would drop from the sky on top of her!
i love sierra’s smile in the end panel
Sierra, being Sierra, is trying to work out how to get Joyce and Dorothy out on a date together.
And coming to the conclusion that maybe she doesn’t have to do that much at all (except, she might possibly have to leave at a strategic time point).
_Winter Tide_ had “whither you go, I go” from woman B to woman C, whereas B was also rather touchy with C, and I was sure it was a stealth proposal. Then I looked it up and was less sure, especially given the context of the book, where ‘tribe’ isn’t somewhat appropriate.
Still pretty touchy, and I’m rooting for the ship, but I don’t take it as certain.
@Willis: I don’t if anyone mentioned this upcomments, but panel 5 seems to be missing the background, and the notice board on panel 6 seems to have eaten the door?
Yeah, I also wondered. Was that unfinished work?
Also why is Sierra smiling in panel 5. The smile makes sense in panel 6, but what is the reason for smiling in panel 5?
Whatever happened to the background there for a bit? Looks like they were transported to another dimension for a moment.
the exact reading at my wedding! ya can’t get much better than one woman promising lifelong commitment and devotion to another woman.
I wonder if Sierra is a pirate, and her hair acts as her eyepatch to help her adjust more quickly to the low light when she goes below deck.
“Just gals bein’ pals”, says Joyce, as she writes a lesbian wedding vow on the sack lunch she has lovingly prepared for her girlfriend.
I googled the passage, and I can see how it would be quoted for weddings, but what makes it specifically lesbian? Is it because the line is being said by a woman?
By a woman, to a woman.
So is that why the “holy” book is called the bible?
Also, WOOO! Finally a strip without one or more punchable faces!
It’s about money. It always was, even the Civil War. ALL campaign contributions, fundraising dinners, lobbying, EVERYTHING has to be public. Transparency, as David Brin says repeatedly (http://davidbrin.blogspot.ca/) is essential to avoid a secretive clique of oligarchs increasing their stranglehold on the body politic. They will resist this with everything they can, of course, using anti-terrorist legislation to intimidate and silence opposition. Fortunately, the technology which makes possible the Big Brother state also makes possible sousveillance, the exposure of the corrupt. To repeat myself, it’s not too late, but it is extremely close.
This is a reply to theJeff, thread much higher.
I mean, yeah, money’s important, but there’s no “secretive clique of oligarchs” running everything. There are multiple, mostly openly known, groups of rich bastards (and a few halfway decent ones) pursuing their own goals and often clashing with each other.
And a decent chunk of the modern crazies in politics are actually true believers who’ve come up through the ranks of the conned. That’s one reason it’s so nuts. You’ve got actual politician who don’t understand that they’re just supposed to give lip service to the wacko ideas they sold their voters on and keep business running smoothly and collect their payoffs.
Is…there something wrong with Sierra’s shading or is my monitor acting up somehow? I swear I’m seeing an odd red over her somehow.
Otherwise – love the strip.
What, Liefeld, you won’t draw Sierra’s feet?
Censorship, I tells ya! Bloody censorship!
Coltish
(googles the Bible verse)
…. Awwwwwwwww! <3