Discussion (172) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Sophia_Nyx 
⚧️ @sophianyx.bsky.social ⋅ 15h
Onyx | 
Emerald | 
Obsidian ⚧️ 
@onua-ryder.neocities.org ⋅ 1d
Tim Onion @bencollins.bsky.social ⋅ 4m
David M Willis! @damnyouwillis.bsky.social ⋅ 3d
Reuters Legal @legal.reuters.com ⋅ 1d
the_dude @lebowski76.bsky.social ⋅ 1d
David M Willis! @damnyouwillis.bsky.social ⋅ 3d
Puff the Magic Hater @mskellymhayes.bsky.social ⋅ 2d
David M Willis! @damnyouwillis.bsky.social ⋅ 3d
Joe Chouinard @joechoui.bsky.social ⋅ 8m
Loading ...
Barb O. Saur 
“by extension, she is my mother-in-law figure”
“DINA!”
re: alt-text: who’s your Garth Marenghi figure?
This: https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1587422087/garth-marenghis-darkplace-3-45-6-dr-rick?variation0=3946341308
would be good if Becky could properly meet dina’s parents and spend time/bond with them too lol
Becky’s not a big fan of subtext. That’s why her favorite author is Garth Marenghi.
Aaaand of course I should have checked the alt-text before posting my silly reference, because naturally Willis’ mind went the same place.
I know webcomics who use alt-text, and they’re all cowards
Who can truly know a web-comic? If the alt-text they use are all cowards, maybe they just have a type. As long as the type isn’t Comic Sans, who are we to judge?
I, as well.
Dina likes subtext, because it’s usually more convenient than Becky calling her.
Oooh! x-D
When you’re Dina, every text you receive is subtext. She’s the top of the food chain.
I laughed aloud at this one. +1 to you!
Which is weird since she is such a sub *ba dum tsss*
I assumed she’d be more into Parth Ferengi.
You reference the 47th Rule of Subtext Acquisition?
Sockingly, Becky is giving Dina orders. What has happened?! /hj
Half-joking. That’s means half-joking. Not hand job, like I first came up with and was subsequently confused by. Okay.
gd it you got me while I was drinking my tea and nearly caused a literal spit-take ^^;
Pfffft
hey Dina is a dom for reals but she still allowed to play sub sometimes :)
Only when there’s sub text involved.
Insecurities for everyone!
It’s just like real life!
Just a little, as a treat?
Counter argument – continue to make subtext text, Dina!
I second this!
No, dammit, you heard Becky!
Making subtext text is THE COMMENT SECTION’S JOB!!
Don’t put us out of a job, here!
too late!
Subtext is immoral.
And unprofitable! Which as we all know is a much greater flaw in our capitalist society.
Love to be in a conversation about something that people are dancing around and being like, “Okay, I’m just going to say the thing.”
They’re all fucking about and refusing to simply express a thought, and then BAM. Saved y’all at least half an hour, which means we really can go to Taco Bell after all, get in the fucking car.
Right? Supreme Beef Burrito or bust! :9
You’d better not turn off the power window controls this time.
The fuck is a power window? You’ll turn the crank and you’ll like it.
A power window is like a power bottom but with a heavy focus on showing you new kinks.
Subtext: the power bottom’s preferred mode of communication.
Becky and Jennifer both have ‘sexuality fluidity scares’ storylines, but one is way less annoying.
becky’s so cute
all three of them really
Love the Garth Merengi’s Darkplace in the alt text
Poor baby queer building her whole personality based on their sexuality. I can empathise with that
honestly even more generally just- being in your early twenties (if we round up in Becky’s case) you end up being faced with the ephemerality of personal identity, and have to contend with the fact that as the person you used to be becomes foreign to you, the you that will be becomes a stranger to you as well, and the things you used to cling to as hallmarks of your personal identity start to feel a little less solid. I remember being there and it’s really scary!
and trauma revolving around her sexuality.
Reminder that noted ‘I-I’m not bi’ Jennifer is in this class.
Should be a fun one.
That whoosh sound is the point flying over her head.
now it’s domtext
Because we need things spelled out to us dumb naughty readers
Anyone who’s read the Slipshine can confidently say, no it isn’t.
Anything Dina says is domtext actually
Aaaand you stole my comment.
Several days late, but to circle back to Incelerator I just read about the science saying the entireity of US colleges is experiencing “male flight”, where the amount of women in college goes over 60% which causes a spiral of more and more men ditching and women getting higher education. Probably paying less and less for it as “learning stuff” becomes seen as women’s work.
Fascinating to see the reality where Paul and his internet buddies hate women so much it ends up helping all women, even if it is at the expense of all men.
(This was a paper published in October, long after the Incelerator comics was drawn, but it seems it would have been relevant.)
Consider how a lot of online “manos there” grifter are also open and proud about their own ignorance and anti intellectualism and encourage their followers to do the same that checks out.
*Manosphere
Oh. And here I thought it was an MST3K reference.
Hey, if the Manosphere cult is about anything, it’s doing things the Master wants.
Well yeah, you can’t just say you don’t like being around women, even though that’s exactly the case, one more woman in the classroom is a bigger deterrent than a $1000 tuition hike, you have to say getting an education is unmanly and for the dumbs
Interesting but I would expect a “pink tax” as women’s stuff is all more expensive than “regular stuff”.
Are there really guys refusing to go to college because there are “too many women” there? That’s profoundly fucking stupid if so.
They sure aren’t saying that, but it’s the most reliable metric to explain why fewer guys go to college.
That is not the main reason for fewer men going to college. Stronger reasons are their decreasing lack of success in high school, fewer role models of doing well academically, and increasing issues with attention, motivation, and self-regulation. Plus the usual increases in college costs and the growing societal push to get them working jobs asap.
Suppose the first two are themselves symptoms of society devaluing men’s education, and the rest would apply to women too. Then this recent research I’m citing would probably be accurate.
I think it’s less society devaluing men’s education specifically and more society devaluing education generally (decreasing respect for expertise and getting it). And, yeah, women are also experiencing a general increase in attention, motivation, and self-regulation issues. But that is (maybe) not affecting their educational outcomes as severely.
I say this from both studies and experience, as a former HS English teacher. college/career counselor, and admin of 17 years.
Maybe part of it is sour grapes. Toxic masculinity means never admitting weakness or vulnerability. Being poor and struggling in school are forms of weakness and vulnerability. So those who internalize toxic masculinity would rather argue college is useless and feminine than acknowledge how many boys are getting thrown under the bus in education and how unattainable paying for tuition has become.
(1) Yes, I agree: “sour grapes” is a major part of why adults devalue education (as they do not succeed at it, for many possible reasons). A sort of “If I can’t succeed at it, then clearly it’s not good for anyone” mentality. (2) Also American politics has used public education for decades as an issue (Let’s take away money from schools because they aren’t doing good enough; I don’t want my tax money to go pay for other people’s children’s education; Public schools should force all students to follow my religion; etc).
I think part of the problem is that high school has become nothing but college prep, instead of teaching a baseline set of practical life skills. Let’s face it, not everyone is on a college track. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, but when students aren’t interested or invested in the material they’re going to check out. Why bother learning something they’ll never use, and why make an effort if they’re going to be handed their diploma at the end of year 12 anyway? They’ll find themselves thrown out into the world with no idea how to make a household budget, or how interest works, or how to patch a nail hole in a wall, or cook a meal that doesn’t have microwave directions on the back of the box.*
Stop ram-rodding everyone through literature analysis, chemistry, and pre-calc, and ebing back home ec and shop class. Get the students engaged in learning skills they’ll use for the rest of their lives instead of just grinding math problems and grappling with theory.
*Or maybe that’s the point: just be a good little consumer and order your fast food delivered through the app! Subscribe to meal plan kits! Take on debt because you can afford the monthly payments! Buy! Consume! Enjoy! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
[USA education] Lots of states use HS as (community-level) college prep, yes. That’s mostly due to increased push from legislatures and employers generally. Even the US Military pushes for more college-prep in HS.
Money: Because of the decades-long increase of moving state money to schools into college-prep programs, _less_ money has gone to technical and vocational courses in HS. Ever since the 1980s. Those trainings are still available but mostly now from for-profit companies.
Grade inflation: Yes, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that states pressure school districts to graduate more and more kids, but with decreasing effective budget every year. So, grade inflation is objectively real. Which means the colleges and universities have to take on more burden of teaching upper-HS level material. So people think it’s getting dumbed down, and employers want more of it (plus hire less based on that and more based on experience).
Tuition: Plus states are giving less money to non-profit public universities and colleges. So they’ve been raising tuition rates yearly for a few decades. That will continue and won’t reverse any time soon.
Worth it: All of it makes college seem less worth it every year. No more American Dream promise to get a good job right out of college. And boys are increasingly immature, impatient, and uninterested to deal with the whole mess.
Students engaged: That’s not going to happen. Unless you (the voter) force the congressperson (ie, the lawmaker and budget controller) to seriously increase the money for schools grades 6-12. Engagement takes better trained faculty and staff, better labs, more access to vocational and technical hands-on, more access to digital tech, less emphasis on standardized testing (which your politicians demand to make themselves look better), and more money for smaller classes and smaller schools, more field trips into companies to see employment, and lots more money to train POC Men to be quality engaging teachers at all grade levels.
This is America. We will not finance our public schools at even 1/4th what they should receive. And we get what we pay for.
As somebody who works as an educator (college level) it’s so fucking depressing to see just how poorly education is handled in this country. It infuriates me just how hypocritical politicians are about this shit. Everybody says “think of the children” when it comes to pushing through something terrible like anti-LGBTQ+ shit in schools, politicians talk so much about wanting to “support traditional families” but nobody wants to actually spend money on schools.
No, just spend that money on more cops and more military. People want more money spent on ways to hurt people than to actually teach kids. It drives me fucking insane. The idea that “the schools aren’t doing things well, so we should take money away from them” doesn’t make any sense to me at all. What do people expect to happen? I feel like people aren’t even thinking about cause and effect, they just think “bad thing happen? Let’s punish people!” without thinking about whether that will make things better.
Yeah. 100%.
*buys you a drink
The most reliable metric according to whom? What study? Sounds a whole lot like you’re just reading your own prejudices into the situation rather than using anything that could be considered “metrics”
I have no idea what it is about saying that I’m citing from sources that you think sounds like I don’t actually do but I’m just lying to sound authoritative while making shit up that would be easy to fact check. But I did post a link further down in the thread if you’d prefer to address that.
The article you posted isnt a study. Its an opinion piece at best. There are a lot of factors for why men are leaving college and certain professions. Sone of it is social pressure, with more emphasis being placed on young men on the importance of trades, while the importance of college tends to still be the focus for women. Some of that article is taking economic or demographic issues and conflating them with social issues. Take the main example of veterinary science. According to the author the ONLY reason less men take up teh profession is the number of women studying it. That is a patently ridiculous assumption, and ignores factors like the profession becoming more urban and pet centric rather then rural and farm animal centric. This is primarily due to large scale husbandry operations needing a smaller spread and thus smaller number of vets. Men tended to be more likely to become rural farm focused vets. Women are far more likely to be pet owners then men and therefore more likely to become urban pet-focused vets. Now is the assertion completely wrong? No, both genders tend to want to stay in their own spaces tonsome extent. You dont see women rushing to construction, oil wells or other male dominated industries either.
Your assertion is not completely wrong, but it’s coached in so much defensiveness it’s clear I’m wasting my time here. Let’s just say your argument about why “genders tend to want to stay in their own spaces” needs some work.
Right? Person who leans on the phrase “that’s not a study” pulls an unfounded sexist opinion out of their ass at the end of their whole critique. “Their own spaces” LOL.
First, so I should just bow out of everything as a nonbinary person, because no one assigned me a “gender space”? Second, as someone female-passing who has absolutely worked in “”””men’s””””” spaces, I can assure everyone that at least one reason women and femme people don’t show up often in that “male space” is because we get bullied or harassed right out again.
I got hired for a “male spaces” role; my manager found ways to isolate me, and give me three times as much work with a third of the support. Where my male coworkers hired at the same time at me were paired with buddies for heavy and dangerous work, and also received one-on-one training with the manager, I was assigned to do the same work alone and the manager only came by to criticize me for small things. When I complained, he heavily implied I was just not cut out for the work, and used that opportunity to dangle the “woman’s space” job in front of me and say I could do that work instead. I was humiliated and abused for daring to pursue a job in labor, so people can get out of here with the concept that I just want to stick to my assigned gender space.
I don’t even have a dog in the fight about the topic of why men are leaving higher education, but I sure have a lot of opinions about that claim about gender spaces. It’s the people hiring for and supervising those roles who don’t want women or femme folks there.
Ok to clarify on my last point, since I obviously didn’t make it sound good. I dont think its a good thing men and women tend to stay to their own spaces. I think we are sociologically trained to do so though. Most things are heavily gendered in our society so we tend to continue that trend, consciously and subconsciously when making major decisions about things such as careers and education. Also to bullying in the workplace as someone whos last two jobs were in female dominated workplaces, I saw similar bullying with myself being given any highly physical or drudgery tasks while being isolated and excluded from any team building activities and being talked down to.
I’ve read the article. It’s pretty bad. Literally no attempt to look at actual numbers, sequences, to control for any of the other factors in a way that might actually support the causative claim they’re making.
Which, okay. I’ll admit that’s pretty standard for discussions around college admissions and the reasons why they are this or that, but that’s sort of why the topic is such a pet peeve for me. It’s a bit ironic for them to be pulling from Freakonomics, who dug into the problems with the approach they are taking to the issue at length several years back (despite being pop sci and having plenty of problems of its own).
I think the biggest problem is that their central argument is that “almost none of them address what has actually CHANGED in recent decades to cause the drop” – after directly quoting several reasons talking about exactly what has changed in recent decades and in what ways that could explain the discrepancy. Like the fundamental argument is based on either misunderstanding what they’ve already quoted or trying to portray it dishonestly?
I *do* agree with the author that the other folks trying to talk about this are ignoring misogyny and possible male flight as an element, which they shouldn’t be doing since it certainly seems possible, but I really wish everyone involved would actually follow the evidence (or try to get some evidence!) instead of deciding what they want to be true and then trying to cherrypick data to say what they want (even though it doesn’t) to “prove” their prejudice.
Was there a citation?
OK it’s below rather than above. Sorry for noise.
I think the unspoken part there may be “too many smart, career-focused, non-servile* women” there. Not the demographic they’re looking for.
*except some of them as part of a carefully-negotiated D/s relationship
Smart, career-focused, non-servile women and no meathead tater tots?
Sounds like paradise.
Education is officialy for girls now. If you step into a university, your dick falls off.
But you’ll still be a man and belong in men’s toilets, and if you go to the wrong ones it’s coz you’re a predator
/s
But honestly, wouldn’t that be a great way for Trans women to save on op costs if they wanted a university education plus bottom surgery, if it worked??
Must be part of the trans agenda.
(I say positively)
Even more stupider is how some of them argue that liking women is – gay -.
Just another version of “war is peace” and “poverty is wealth”.
I could understand some guy saying, “yes, it’s a fine school, but there’s not enough women there.” (As in: I’m gonna be all alone on weekends.)
With that kind of attitude, they’ll be all alone on weekends no matter how many women enroll.
Dunno about other countries, but in the US, it’s uncommon for colleges and universities to have a male-majority student population (51%+). Maybe 15-20% campuses at most?
Citation? This sounds imteresting.
Let’s see if the link gets through moderation. https://celestemdavis.substack.com/p/why-boys-dont-go-to-college
I haven’t seen much evidence for “male flight” from post-sec education.
Multiple reasons (why men are decreasing in population at college / university campuses) are in the article and other sources. These reasons are real and are significant factors: Attention / motivation issues; education and literacy issues (less success in HS); post-secondary unaffordability issues; growing preference to join the military (and hopes to get the military to pay for post-sec education); American societal views about education and expertise (with the notable general exception of immigrants).
I have seen evidence of all those reasons in my former profession. I worked in HS in the college / career prep and guidance for 10 years. I saw real differences between boys and girls regarding college / university interest, starting in 8th grade, through 12th grade. We tracked this stuff with dozens of metrics, across millions of boys and girls in their 12 years of public education in 50 states. The boys weren’t looking at the men/women populations of careers. They weren’t paying attention to that and probably wouldn’t have cared then. They were less interested overall in education (be it HS or college), less patient for more study or being out of work or okay with taking on that much debt. They were becoming less successful due to inattention and illiteracy issues, which were affecting girls less. They were devoting more aspirations to success in sports and physical work, and less to knowledge-work.
How shall I say this without repeating myself or the article too much. The idea is we’ve now, presently, reached the point of “male flight” (60% female presence, basically) where it will snowball and more men will abandon the field in question (college) specifically because there’s too many women. We’re pretty sure about this figure being the tipping point because it’s happened before in numerous industries and academic fields. Even reasonable men will flee as the social status and career prospects related to college sink. Within a generation only the individuals most passionate about learning and the most defiant of gender norms will remain.
I can see men avoiding a field when society devalues it, and I can see women avoiding a field when society devalues it. As is going on in public education, for example. I don’t see anything credible or in my experience showing that men are getting out of a field because there are too many women.
What you miss is the long tradition of devaluing a field when it becomes associated with women’s work. That lets a cycle emerge.
It’s not clear how much that will hold up in modern times. It’s harder to separate fields now than when you could just openly advertise in the “women’s section” of employment ads
I get it. We have a history including a field starting as mostly men (patriarchal society won’t let women do professional work). WW2 came along and changed many mostly-male industries. But today’s economy, I see much less inclination for men to avoid work if they can get it, unless it’s for crap-pay. (In the case of public education, yeah, I get that definitely.) I’m expecting money is going to be far more powerful than societal pressures.
Not making social subtext into text is for cowards. Live your best life, Dina!
Okay willis, fess up. Are you intentionally colour coding the characters’ outfits with pride flags? Cos I love it, but you’re better at doing it more subtly than me so I’m a also envious
Ooo, having created the dance gear in all the colours of the rainbow for our group, and having run out of colours, adding at both ends and interpolating, I’m moving on to trans pride flag colours because it turns out nearly half of us are somewhere on a trans journey, and only 3 of us are apparently not at all queer!
I love Leslie. She’s a ray of mildly neurotic sunshine. I’m always glad to see her. No further notes.
Honestly, if Dina does turn out to be some form of sapphic-but-not-lesbian, I hope Becky takes it as well as Joyce took learning she has a sister…….. but I’ve also seen way too much biphobia in the sapphic community (and Becky’s aversion to sexuality/gender being fluid is definitely leading up to *something*)
Speaking of–as mentioned above, the pride flag color coding is so fun… but I also mistook the top of Dina’s jeans in the first panel for scarf tassels and so I accidentally misinterpreted her shirt as a genderfluid-colored scarf. And thought “oh wow, this could go SO much worse than just Becky reacting badly if Dina turned out to be bi/pan/etc.” (As some level of genderfluid on top of being an autistic ace, that’d be SO cool to see… but I also know 1) Becky would take it poorly, and 2) after the weird amount of transphobia in the comments lately even about *binary* trans people, I know the comments would be a bloody minefield)
Dina *is* sapphic-but-not-lesbian, and Becky knows and is cool with it. Whatever Becky’s issues are, it’s not that she doesn’t think people can be bi.
It’s more about _Dina_ possibly not being cis, I reckon
I think it’s that she’s mortally afraid of not being able to call herself a Lesbian anymore
like it works like the Vegan Police from Scott Pilgrim or something XD
I think Becky is still working through her recent “I’d rather die than not be lesbian” vs her mother’s suicide foot in mouth episode.
Ohhh, my bad. I remembered her being ace-spec for sure but it’s been SO long since they got together that I forgot the gender specifics of Dina’s romantic attraction. Thanks for the reminder! (And ofc she knows people can be bi, it’s more the potential fluidity of sexuality that throws her.)
She made Joe blush describing how she’d scientifically document his responses once…
I don’t think Becky minds the idea of Dina being sapphic-but-not-lesbian, her reaction when Joyce asked if Dina was a lesbian was “apparently liking both is a thing”. https://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-5/04-walking-with-dina/item/ I think what Becky’s terrified of is the idea of Dina being sapphic NOW, but let’s say in a year or so, as Dina grows, she “becomes” no longer sapphic. Whether that means hetero or aromantic or whatever else in-between, I think Becky’s terrified of Dina no longer loving her.
I also think it could be that second part you said, that if Dina were to not identify as a woman, it could lead to a crisis for Becky since she is an out and proud lesbian. After all, if her girlfriend is no longer her girlfriend, does that mean she’s no longer a lesbian? Then who is Becky after all?!
Why not both, why not both. Dina gets a new identity and Becky loses hers. Nobody knows anyone anymore (??)
Gimme the drama.
Thanks for the link!
And yeah, sadly it IS a valid fear sometimes. Some people, when they have to choose between their rigid ideas of their own identity and a partner’s gender changing (either literally or just them coming to terms with something about themself), they’ll choose their ideas over their partner. (Can confirm, sadly.) It’s admittedly something I haven’t seen portrayed in fiction–at least, not in a queer-*affirming* light like this comic has. It’d be interesting.
Is this a thing in a like… “I can’t be with you because you being the other gender would invalidate my words” way rather than a “unfortunately I am not attracted to the gender presentation and/or body shapes you’re doing now” way? I feel like I’ve encountered a lot of discussion about the latter and this is my first time encountering information about the former. What does that tend to look like?
Honestly, I can only speak for my specific situation with one person. It was probably a mix of both of those things, but re: the former… Idk, my ex can be quite pedantic sometimes (affectionate–she’s still my best friend/basically family) and while she’s very supportive of me and the other nonbinary people she knows, she doesn’t seem to entirely *get* it. Again, entirely supportive–but she likes being able to put things into neat little boxes. Which I get, since I literally have the “wants to categorize everything” kind of autism, but identities like mine don’t fit neatly into a box even if I wish they did, lol
she seems to hear “I’m a guy, AND ALSO” and filter out everything after “guy.” Like for a couple years after I started presenting the same way I do now, she didn’t *seem* to have an issue with it? But despite being told “idc if you want to see me as a girl, it’s not like it’s totally inaccurate or anything,” she couldn’t really get it.
Ofc, it’s hard to determine exactly how much was the first vs the second thing you mentioned, bc she tries to hide her feelings if she knows they’ll upset someone else, even when it’s harmful to her. So even if it seemed to start with the words, it could’ve started with the presentation and she just didn’t show it. (Why, yes, it *was* messy and complicated and agonizing for a few years. How did you know? But it’s all good now. Sorry this got rambly, I hope it actually answered the question somewhat? It’s difficult to explain.)
Yeah, thank you for talking about your experience. I feel like you explained pretty well!
You’re welcome! And agreed. I’m actually curious where the story’s going to go with Becky, because whatever’s gonna happen, there’s been build up to it like a volcano about to burst.
> Some people, when they have to choose between their rigid ideas of their own identity and a partner’s gender changing (either literally or just them coming to terms with something about themself), they’ll choose their ideas over their partner
Sometimes it’s not psychological rigidity, but just what is attractive to a person. A kid I know had a *-friend come out as trans. They were supportive of the person’s identity, but the more their *-friend presented as the other end of the spectrum, the less attracted they were. They still liked their (now ex) friend as a person, but are just not attracted to them as they are. Quite reasonably, they broke up amicably. Unfortunately the kid was bullied for this, because others assumed it meant they were anti-trans. It doesn’t. It just means this particular person isn’t attracted to same gender presenting people.
In the same manner that a person deserves support for finding out/realizing they’re somewhere else in the rainbow, a partner who is, or is not, attacted to a different gender presentation also deserves support. No matter how much it hurts, it’s better to let each other go (kindly), than to hold on and try to force something that doesn’t – to work.
I was specifically talking about cases where a person’s presentation doesn’t even change, where it really is just them having really strict ideas of how [x identity] works and picking it over a person they like. Because that does also happen–especially with the weird label policing going on rn in the online queer community.
I’ve *been* in a situation where people try to force something to work that doesn’t, and I know it just ends up creating more trauma for all parties involved in the end. Letting the relationship go if it isn’t working is better (and I wish my ex-partner had done that from the start), you’re entirely right.
I’m admittedly shocked that it was the kid who broke up with their friend who got dogpiled instead of the trans person, because 99% of the time, I see SO much support for “trans widows”–gross term people use for people (usually women but I assume there’s a male equivalent) who “lost” their partners to the “trans agenda”–both online and offline, with people bashing the trans person just for being themself. I guess it’s a relief that people are getting less transphobic? But it still sucks that the kid got bullied when they still supported their friend. I hope they’re doing okay now.
I haven’t the experience to untangle any of this, but let me just add that being loved and being desired are two related but distinct pleasures. Having one but not the other, either way, can be…not fun.
100% true, can confirm
Y’know, considering Becky loves wearing lesbian flag colors. You might be onto something here.
Autistic Aspec Genderfluid (Kinda) Sapphic is a mouthful but it describes me and almost half of my friends. It’s a thing. Also I admittedly like the Green/White/Purple flag way more than the enby with the yellow TwT It’s a nice palette, ok!
You mean the genderqueer flag? Genderfluid flag is different. (I personally prefer the nonbinary flag to the genderqueer flag, so hey, different strokes!)
Had a lapsus. My apologies, indeed is the Genderqueer flag sdklgjsd I read and comment at like. Between 2:00 and 2:30 am, local time (it’s when the comic’s out here)
It’s hilarious sometimes how queer people can all flock together, even before any of us are out to ourselves yet sometimes. I’ve known my friend group for over half my life now (so, over a decade and a half) and nobody was out at the time. But now, there’s very few cishets among us (and tbh, among those, there’s one or two who might not be; hard to tell where the joke-flirting stops and the real-flirting stops with people so comfy with each other).
And the good thing about an identity where there are overlapping flags is, we can pick the one we like best! I like the genderfluid flag a lot myself (even if I’m still learning which order the colors go in).
Yeah didn’t seek it out but the number of non-queer people in my friend group slowly dwindles… and not because anyone’s leaving. Even amongst the unqualified straights a majority are polyamorous. It’s kinda funny. I know more than 90% of folks aren’t queer even in my very queer city, but you’d never know from my experiences.
Do not underestimate the power of conformity when comfortable. It is a lot easier to turn “I once thought what it would be like to lick [genital type]” into “I am bi-curious” in a social setting where exploring such an idea is socially rewarded than in a social setting where exploring such an idea gets tolerated. It doesn’t always mean they are actually bi-curious, often it would just mean they had that thought once and they see only upsides to mentioning it.
Of course that goes both ways, oppressive societies are more likely to leave people closeted.
If you find a way to trim a syllable, you could instead sing it to the 90’s TMNT theme song.
I thought that it had been more or less made clear with Dina that she is demi-sexual and that’s basically the gist of it.
I don’t know if, in an other time-line, she could have eventually developed feeling for a guy the way she did for Becky, which would mean she could be considered bi, or if she could only ever develop that kind of feeling for a woman, (or even just Becky), which would mean she could be considered lesbian (or Becky-sexual), but none of that seems to me to be “sapphic-but-not-lesbian”.
Well, to be honest, I don’t really know what the term “sapphic-but-not-lesbian” is meant to convey, but that might be due to how, as far I understand it, a woman having either even just romantic or even just sexual (as well as both, obviously) feeling for a woman and no such feeling for a man, is a lesbian.
My point is, so far, from what I have seen of Dina, I see no reason to consider Dina as “not-lesbian”.
Sapphic but not lesbian is, from my own assumption and reading of the phrase, meant to mean that Dina is currently dating a woman, but has not been stated to be only into women. The only specifics we know so far are that Dina has stated she is unsure if gender factors into attraction for her, and that she experiences sexual attraction in very specific instances. In which case I agree with you that she’s demisexual.
I think sapphic but not lesbian is just meant to respect that Dina’s more grey. Like, yeah, we’ve never seen her develop feelings for a guy, but unless Dina herself (or Willis through word of god) states “I’m a lesbian”, I think sapphic but not lesbian is just meant to keep from erasing the possibility that Dina could be biromantic or panromantic. Also, in ‘another time-line’ (aka the It’s Walky webcomic that predates DoA), we do see Dina develop feelings for both Walky and Mike. …Not very HEALTHY feelings, but she dated both of them!
“Also, in ‘another time-line’ (aka the It’s Walky webcomic that predates DoA), we do see Dina develop feelings for both Walky and Mike. …Not very HEALTHY feelings, but she dated both of them!”
Damn, how did I manage to completely forget about that? Somehow, I remembered IW Dina dating IW Becky during the dimension-hoping journey post-soggies invasion, but not her previous dates…
Yeah, Dina was a little bit of a scumbag at points in that continuity.
Given the older slang meaning of scumbag,
that’s a brutally vulgar description of a character that used to date men.
I’m just curious if you meant it, or just that she was a bad person.
I couldn’t have meant the version you’re introducing me to with this response, no.
Pretty sure the scumbags were Walky and Mike, both using her to some extends.
To boil it down: Dina hasn’t enough data points to characterize herself in these matters, and she’s the sort of person who won’t commit to an assertion without certainty. (One of the reasons I like her.)
I missed Becky and Dina wacky antics
Well shit, I was kinda hoping today’s comic would involve Joe reacting to everything Joyce was talking about the last couple days. That was a conversation that I really wanted to see both sides of.
Oh well, Leslie being Becky’s mom is always a win. Yay Leslie!
personally i never touch subtext, can’t stand the stuff.
But of course if you say that everyone get I. Your case about being a “picky reader” like it’s a y of their business.
What?
*But of course if you say that everyone get in Your case about being a being a “picky reader” like it’s any of their business.
I hate my phone fucking keyboard sometimes.
…oh my
Leslie looking damn sexy today
I’m a little confused as to why Becky has been getting nervous every time gender or sexual fluidity is brought up. Is she afraid that one day Dina will say “you know what? I like guys now” and just leave her? Or has she hammered in the outdated notion that you’re either born gay or straight, and there’s no such thing as a bisexual person?
Becky definitely understands that bisexual people exist. As for why she’s nervous, a big part of it has been the fact that Becky has fought very hard to be a lesbian. She was kidnapped by her father, because she is a lesbian. As soon as she was able, she yelled it to the sky that she is a PROUD lesbian! I think the idea that she could one day just ‘decide’ (it’s more complicated than that, obviously, but I’m going off of Becky’s perspective here) that she isn’t a lesbian after all, or somehow just grow up to no longer be a lesbian, it makes everything that happened, have happened ‘for nothing’. Up to and including her father kidnapping her, resulting in him being sent to jail, then being bailed out by Blaine and dying in the end.
Which is sad. Even if her sexuality flows, that is what it was and had to be for her at that time. None of what happened was her fault, but it was all likely traumatic. So some amount of (misplaced) self-recrimination wouldn’t be surprising.
What frightens me from an IRL stance, is that we see very few characters getting therapy, when seemingly half the cast – or more – should be. 🧸
Right?? I feel like basically everyone in the cast should be in therapy for something at this point. (I mean, I feel like *good* therapy would benefit basically everyone in general. You’d hope that our cast, having been involved in such traumatic incidents, would be offered easier access to therapy than a lot of us IRL, though)
Which, now that you mention it, could be why she’s clinging to religion.
I think it stems from the comment that Jocelyn made which was that as she underwent her hormone treatments, she started finding guys sexually attractive, which she didn’t before. And this revelation stunned Becky because she was under the impression that sexuality was an inviolate thing that never changed once you figured out who you were into. And building on that, I think Becky’s hesitation/fear is that, if the implication is that sexuality can change, then the old harangue that “sexuality is a choice!” from her religious upbringing was perhaps true after all.
Also, in a previous class Becky also responded to the idea of changing her identity with “I’d rather die,” which was immediately followed with guilt and fear in relation to her mother’s suicide. Becky had thought that she was immune to suicidal ideation, so I wonder if she also feels worried that she could someday change to become like her mother, in addition to the fear of invalidating all her struggle/sacrifice and all the lives lost thus far. Brains ain’t hardly rational; fear and guilt certainly ain’t. So I wonder if it’s all a big ol’ tangled up knot in her head.
I think there may be a connection to her statement, madesome time ago, that nothing she’d had was ever hers. It would be unsettling indeed to think that even who one is can be conditional.
As an autistic person, I often have trouble catching subtext. I’d prefer if people be more direct and “make subtext text”.
I would definitely appreciate seeing closed captioning for social subtext.
Give the AI time to develop.
But the virtue of subtext is its ambiguity. Which is useful.
AI doesn’t even understand text, how can it understand subtext? I mean, it has no understandy bits.
generative AI is not nearly as capable or useful as people often make it out to be, despite so many “entrepreneurs” pouring money into it and firms going out of their way to add chatbot support to every application under the sun when over half of them haven’t even worked out how to regularly test data back-ups.
If there is a lesson to be learned from the inevitable crash of this speculation bubble, it’s less about the limitations of the technology itself, and more about Illusions of Value created by vast concentrations of money and the small fraction of society who are able vote with it (-_-)
um
are you serious?
New yearning unlocked
As a person with no diagnosis, I’m the same way.
I look the quote but yeah I really wish people would actually do that.
Turning subtext into text that is.
SAMESIES! ngl would make life hell of a lot easier for me ^^
OFF: As Leslie, I love to carry a big bag. Day is very long and I stay outside home all day.
If the bag’s big enough, you can always hide inside it like a tent!
I think the quote “Don’t turn subtext into text” is something I want to put on t shirt.
Becky: I don’t want to become some sort of heterosexual mutant!
Leslie: This isn’t queer Spider-Man, Becky.
Becky: Can it be?
Leslie: There are some theories about trans Spider-Gwen…
Bitten by a radioactive pronoun
Doctor Connors wanted to cure his hetersexual leanings and due to an accident with the injection became the… Hetmonster!
I’m fucking stealing this.
It belongs to the world!
Leslie: We are going to talk about sexuallity.
Dina: Yes, Leslie. You may be free to ask me about any doubt you have about this theme, I’ll gladly help.
Leslie: What?
Dina: About this theme.
Looking forward to Dina’s contribution in class!
On the topic of flag-themed clothing, I have a sweater I bought because it’s trans flag colors. I went on a trip last year and took it with me because I’d be there on Easter, and it also worked as Easter colors. Then I realized that Easter and Trans Day of Visibility were the same day that year. It was great.
Why did I never pick on the Sexuality/Mom connection before?