A young woman struggling to overcome her fundamentalist past, and young man doing his level best to be respectful of that struggle and be better than his former self. If you find that dull, how much drama do you want?
Can’t speak for MordWa (whose tone I dislike), but as far as I’m concerned this is really the first strip with “drama” with these kids, as opposed to “buildup of potential drama/calm before the storm” type stuff.
Personally, I think “enough setup, get to the action already” vs “the setup IS the action” is a thing reasonable people can disagree on.
My third position here is that more setup means the action is going to be bigger. The setup isn’t the action, but the more it builds up before the storm hits, the bigger the impact.
If we’re going to have a cheating story arc, lets go all in.
While that’s generally true, I think this story in particular could benefit from some earlier consequences that set up further actions/decisions, that then leads to more drama.
I mean, I know what Telemundo is… I just wasn’t aware it had its own brand of amnesia. Was wondering if/how it was different from regular plot-induced amnesia.
Basically, it’s noting that telemundo/soap opera tend to use amnesia as a plot support device, rather than as a plot unto itself. Need to stretch out a storyline? One of the characters with key information now can’t remember that info!
The point ultimately is, the three of them alone is just as potentially juicy as any confrontation with Joe/Walky would be, because of their ongoing history.
I guess. I honestly feel like what Sarah regretted from that scenario was that Joyce got hurt? I don’t think she was ever confronted by Jacob about it, and I know she doesn’t regret ruining Raidah’s month.
In Latin languages, the K/hard C sound is more often represented by q:
Quelle dommage!
¿Qué?
From the quick Google search I just did:
While French does use the Latin (or Roman) alphabet that contains 26 letters, two of those are not native to the French language. Those are the ‘K’ and the ‘W. ‘ The ‘W’ was added to the French alphabet in the mid-19th century and the ‘K’ followed soon after.
I mean like, it’s not a bad city (though idk how it is when you’re sent to the ICC) but it was NOT a good relationship and it ended badly to boot so I haven’t been back since before we brokeup
Jennifer specifically mentioned that the newspaper was covering the protests. More to the point, the aggressively lesbian editor was covering the protest. That’s one hell of a Chekov’s Gun to leave laying around.
I will honestly be disappointed if it doesn’t come into play. Like, it would be iconic, dramatic, comedic, and both be referencing all the viral progtest-kiss photos while also leaning into the white women making the protest about them conversation.
I think it’s too early to discount the newspaper, but I think if Sarah had seen them kissing on the front page, the paper would be in her hands right now.
If anyone working for the school newspaper took pictures of them kissing at the protest, I wouldn’t be surprised if Daisy put it on the front page story.
Chekhov (Чехов), with “kh” pronounced like the “ch” as in “loch” if you know what I mean. Not the one from Star Trek – Chekov (Чеков) is a real name that exists, but it’s much rarer than Chekhov (and unrelated).
Not necessary, they’ve been acting conspicuous as fuck since they game in last night. Like it just takes the smallest amount of observational skills to notice somethings up. You could pick up what’s happening with a passive perception of 5
Plus maybe Sarah woke up early enough to hear them make out/whisper lovingly earlier
They are almost certainly not as quiet as they think they are and have been acting weird and suspicious for like 12 hours. She can put two and two together.
*actual* ‘just gals being pals’ don’t tend to have extended, awkward, probably-not-whispered-enough conversations about how to exit the bed all cool-like and seperate
Last time we see Joyce and Dorothy (as besties) in the same bed, they were completely dressed and over the covers. Joyce is slipping out of bed in a shirt and undies, Sarah might have seen them both snuggling in/under the covers, and she is already aware that they have a “gay little thing” going on as she put it. Also Joyce was whispering about being gay for Dorothy a few strips ago she might have overheard.
As for your question about close girlfriends, I’d say it depends on the person. I, for example, do not snuggle any of my friends in bed. I can barely share a bed with my friends, honestly, though that’s partially because I toss and turn like an egg beater. But even when I was younger and shared a bed with my girl friends, I never like… looped my arms/legs with them while sleeping. We just slept next to each other. Other people might have different standards for how they co-sleep with their friends but I’d say Sarah’s been around Joyce to recognize she only sleeps cuddled up and in underwear with lovers.
Personally I’m a cuddler, and other people aways think it’s super weird that my friends will specifically come to me just for this. My friend group is in dire need of comfort, I suppose.
In your undies though? I get in your PJ’s and whatnot, I’m a GD oven and have been snuggled by the iciest feeted hobbits around, so I get that. but not in my undies.
Even if it’s normal for some girl friends to snuggle in bed, I assume not for all of them, and I’m pretty sure Joyce and Dorothy have been acting differently than normal despite trying to act how they normally act with each other around Sarah.
I think if Dorothy and Joyce had sex (“again” if you count the washing machines), given how important it would be to their current storyline, it isn’t going to happen without comment off-screen. There would be a slipshine and a lead-up and decisions made.
So I don’t think that’s how they kept Sarah up. Seems unlikely.
Especially if you are sleepily “whispering” to each other about your gayness level.
With sample size n=1, college freshmen I have roomed with do not have any goddamn idea how loudly “a whisper to their girlfriend in the same bed” carries in a quiet winter dorm room.
Oh no! You mean the scene of cuddling that all these people were saying was “useless and pointless” and “meant there would be no drama, just cozy mode” was actually SETTING UP THE PLOT? What were the odds?
It’s like when Ruth got bored and annoyed with Mary, so she drew a dick on her hand, and Mary was so busy commentating on it in real time, she didn’t notice Ruth was about to slap her in the face with the inky dick hand.
Mostly the whole “people expecting no comeuppance” is just a bad faith reading.
It isn’t “we think there will be no consequences ever in the comic” it is “we think the comic, and many of the audience, are framing the relationship as cute, and that in doing so they are romanticizing and glossing over the infidelity”.
There are two different emotional responses to the cuddle scene:
1. How cute!
2. Ugh, they are awful.
If you have the first response it is because you find the intimacy in their relationship to be the most compelling thing in the scene.
If you have the second response it is because you are still primarily interpreting the scene through the lens of cheating. The intimacy isn’t “cute” rather it is another act of betrayal.
Spot-on with paragraph 2. I’m not worried about Joyce or Dorothy getting “comeuppance.” But I *am* concerned that the core message will be, “That was a really awkward time, and I regret hurting someone else, but it was worth it because now I’m with my soulmate.”
Which is just the sort of lie that people tell themselves while they are in the moment justifying cheating.
I’d know. I have experienced this from both perspectives, back in high school. I have been cheated on, and I have done the cheating, all in the span of about sixteen months. It’s now been over twenty years, and I look at this and still feel sick.
I don’t want comeuppance and I don’t want to scold and chastise and I’m not Team Dorolky or Team Joyrothy Team Joerothyce. What I wish, is that someone would treat this as if it wasn’t just either something that “Oh noes, Dorothy and Joyce are goign to get in trooouble” or “Ooo, hot, cheating lesbians” or “The sinners shall burn in the fires of Mount Doom for eternity” or something.
Joe was so scared of hurting a woman in the same way that his dad hurt his mom, that he changed his entire personality, his view on women, his goals for relationship, and the degree of which he would allow closeness, so that he would never potentially do that. Amber’s got a half-brother from the fact that her father cheated on his mother *long before* they ever got a divorce, cheated on her while he was beating her. Being unfaithful to another person used to be treated with a certain level of gravitas that seems to have been lost now.
It’s not so much about betrayal. It’s about the degree to which you demean and diminish the other person, turning their care and love for you into something that you not only don’t reciprocate, but don’t even cherish enough to be concerned for their own wellbeing.
And so no, I really don’t like this because I don’t get a kick out of watching abusive relationships, and Joyce continuing to cheat on Joe while he gives her an extremely thoughtful gift meant to help her feel happy, safe, and loved, which she then uses while sleeping with someone else… yeah, I don’t like that she treats him like garbage. Or that she’s now treating Dorothy like garbage, and Dorothy’s apparently OK with it, because it wasn’t “technically” cheating yet. With how Dorothy was the previous night when she was imagining Joe and Joyce together, that had *got* to be something that Dorothy’s compartimentalized.
I just don’t understand coming into a room looking for a fight. Like, if it was in response to somebody posting such today, OK fine. But this is a base comment just trying to start something.
good point I agree with. like, it’s not like I don’t get the impulse to go “btw you were wrong about that thing you said yesterday” or whatever but I do generally keep those to myself because it’s just a sort of unpleasant thing to do, especially about miniscule stuff like this.
anyways, that wasn’t really clear from your first comment though. if you’re annoyed with someone looking for a fight, why engange on that level?
As someone who thought the cuddling scene was useless/pointless because it was DELAYING the drama, I enjoy having been right (for reasonable values of “right”).
Absolutely fair to not have wanted the tension extended, but it did that. Also the most recent strip had Joyce say she’s bi out loud, and I think that itself was important.
Ye, I think it’s also specifically not a watch of any type but a Fitbit.
Willis has an aversion to all types of jewelry, including watches, but characters do sometimes wear fitbits and other silicone / plastic athletic accessories.
I should wear one to monitor my heart rate while I sleep, but I can’t find one with a band I won’t rip off. I put it on backwards on my dominant arm and tore the actual silicone strap and threw it across the room in my sleep. Recovering from top surgery I got out of my compression binder that had probably 16 eye hooks and a zipper, threw it across the room, and bellowed “No bra!” while asleep. My partner couldn’t wake me up to get it back on so he just waited until morning.
My partner has nerve damage in his wrist from falling asleep with a watch on (and presumably exacerbating it by rolling on top of his wrist or something).
I wonder what kind of watch band were they wearing.
I didn’t know that could happen either. And it is unnerving. I wore a watch almost constantly from when I was a kid up until I was around 50ish and started carrying a pager that always had the time. The watch came off when I was going to be in water, mostly bathing or showering, but otherwise it was on my wrist. There were some of the elastic wrist bands I had to change out because they were digging into my skin and leaving marks.
I dunno. Maybe I was just lucky. The pager was eventually replaced by a flip phone, and now by a cell phone in a holster, but I still sometimes look at my empty wrist if I want to know what time it is.
My watch monitors my heart rate, blood oxy, and snoring — I’ve got a family history of severe apnea and sinus/breathing issues, so I actually feel less comfortable without it on. What if I have a first-time bad apnea episode and NEVER KNOW?
Ye, I think it’s also specifically not a watch of any type but a Fitbit.
Willis has an aversion to all types of jewelry, including watches, but characters do sometimes wear fitbits and other silicone / plastic athletic accessories.
It’s been nice knowing all of you, I hope to see some of you on the other side of the ensuing massacre which will be committed by various cast members o7
Laurie Anderson is new to me. The song has a cool sound, but I couldn’t divine the lyrics. I know, there’s such a thing as impressionism, but I was still on the outside looking in. But then, not every song is for everyone.
Folks assumed she would but there wasn’t anything in the strip indicating she was going to, and Joyce and Dorothy specifically hoped her presence would keep them from going “too far”, so I think if she’d left, they wouldn’t have spent the night together.
Joyce apparently does chicken bakey. I believe this is a reprise of another Joyce wakey wakey but I can’t find the strip.
Robin wakey-wakeys you with Cadbury creme eggs
She just spent the last 8 hours or so cuddling Dorothy and has the prospect of doing so again in the near future. I’d put up with plenty of Sarah scorn for that.
Could this strip be endorsed by both camps? It looks like it may presage both drama (sickos) *and* consequences for Joyce and Dorothy’s actions (paladins)
The drama was always at least 50% about the consequences. The delineation between sickos and relationship paladins was a made up little joke that falls apart if you look at individual people on either side.
~ A sicko who absolutely wants lots of consequences in my stupid sexy college drama.
It seems like that people, including my paladin self at times, forget that at least some of the original delineation was “paladins wanted no cheating to begin with”.
Most folks wanted good drama, and just differed on how we got there.
I think that, as with the “is this cheating” conversations, there’s also been a separate but related argument about types of drama more generally.
But yeah, “Paladin versus sicko” has kind of grown and expanded…. like mold, heh.
“Do you want to see Joyce and Dorothy cheat” — paladins emphatically no, sickos either “yes” or “I just want to see mess” (there’s definitely a segment of readers who would’ve been just as happy if Joyce had cheated on Joe with anyone).
“Have they already cheated by doing xyz” — some sickos said yes the second Dorothy sent an accidental photo, while some paladins I saw didn’t think they’d fully crossed the rubicon until the kiss. All paladins agreed that cheating was very wrong and didn’t want it to happen, but I did see some genuine disagreements about what constituted cheating.
Like, for sure, some people were cheering Joyce and Dorothy on AND arguing that they hadn’t cheated yet, and I think for some of the cheering people, that they didn’t think Dorothy and Joyce had done anything “that bad” yet was part of why they were cheering, or part of why they were (often rudely) exasperated with Paladin-ish sentiments, but plenty of sickos we’re also like, “yes this is cheating, but it’s fiction so I don’t care.”
(Whether they mean “I don’t care about the characters enough to be invested in their happiness” OR “I do care about the characters, but I specifically want them to make bad decisions here for my entertainment” OR “I care about the characters and I’m kind of worried about them, but fictional cheating doesn’t outrage me” very much depends on the individual person, but a lot of people did specifically say “I don’t care”, and that’s very open to interpretation!)
“Do you want to see consequences” — lots of paladins and sickos would say YES. Interestingly, I think the people most in agreement on this point are the most “extreme” people in both camps, because hardline relationship paladins want Joyce and Dorothy to lose all their friends over this — and that’s also what Maximum Chaos Gremlin sickos want! Blow it all up! Burn it all down!!
I’m sure there are still some people who specifically want to see Joyce break Joe’s heart, regret everything, break up with Dorothy, and spend however long it takes trying to make this up to Joe in the hopes that he’ll take her back, the “Season 3 Willow” path. But most paladin-ish comments I’ve seen instead want Joe to turn his back on Joyce and find someone new who actually deserves the guy he’s become. I think this is part of why “poly” comments are so aggravating for this camp — they don’t think Joyce deserves Joe.
I’m sure they ALSO think a poly “solution” would be too easy or less dramatic (which I don’t think is at all true, but they do seem to be imagining it in a “and so anime was solved forever” prozd joke sort of way) — but I think the crucial issue is believing that Joyce doesn’t deserve Joe.
Now, none of the True Sickos ™ would say they DON’T want any mess, but there are certainly people in “our” ranks who want mess, and who imagine that the messiest possible solution here would be “Joe and Walky agree to try polyamory”. None of these teenagers is ready for that! It would be a disaster! But not necessarily a disaster that has to involve anyone being mad at Joyce and Dorothy for the cheating.
Different flavors of mess!
(I also think this last bit is part of the disconnect the “two camps” have been having ever since the girls started being cute together — that paladins thought sickos all wanted mess in the form of anger and tears and recriminations over the cheating, but that a fair number of sickos were already excitedly drawing up mental charts of how badly a poly arrangement might go, and therefore weren’t disappointed yet, because the kiss itself wasn’t where they expected the mess to start.)
…and of course some people ARE just cheering Dorothy and Joyce kissing regardless of circumstances because OTP or because more characters being bi is a net win. These folks have never identified as sickos and have always hoped the girls would get out of this relatively unscathed.
Ah, the most important thing: payoff for that one person yesterday who was bemoaning the fact that sleeping with your arms around your partner tends to cut off blood flow.
Sometimes if you have a squishy enough bed and a squishy enough partner you can do it for longer than you might otherwise, but yeah… Things that are great for like 15 minutes tops and then you start suffering consequences.
stiff pillows are a godsend for this. something foam with just enough give. leaves room for your forearm and they sleep at a higher up angle to help snoring.
When I was young and a bunch of us had to sleep on a floor somewhere, one guy tenderly took my hands and tucked them under his head. I was enchanted wondering whether this was romantic. Apparently just softer than the floor. Shoulda put his head on my tummy…
You know… not even thinking about the Jacob situation–Lucy included or not… Sarah also had that incident where her own sister kinda sniped a boyfriend of hers, right? Or at least a guy she was interested in before sis took him for herself…
In a really similar way to how Lucy and Jacob paired up…
So Sarah… Sarah could have some thoughts about this.
I actually spend most of my time not arguing with strangers on the internet. I have hobbies and stuff. Though it can be difficult to resist arguing when someone says something incredibly dumb and wrong online.
a bunch of them, like besides that one DoA fan game I made some time back, I basically make all my money by doing remote coding work for a lot of individuals and indie teams
like on my BlueSky you’ve seen me post stuff from a platformer I’m currently working on called Trek of the Oddities,
I also did work for Pomeraider and steam games like Dinosaur Cousin Squad, My Drug Cartel and Cross Impact
There are, but I come here to talk about the comic which sometimes includes disagreeing with people and rarely a genuine argument. I’m fine with my recreational choices, I have lots of hobbies.
besides Yak’s really disgusting diatribes relating to death penalty
yesterday on the megapost about the conversation I had with Lur (a friend of mine whose Hijabi Muslim) on Willis’ recent efforts on representing Asma more,
there was a reply which was really passive aggressively Islamophobic
like there’s lotta whitebred oblivious crap tossed around here but that’s the point where I have just HAD IT
no offense to your choices at all Nymph, just sharing how I feel
I think, if you’re this upset, maybe focus on what you can do for yourself rather than telling others to take a day off.
People suck, sometimes people in the comments section SUCK, and I totally get hitting a limit with it. I take a few days here and there when I just don’t bother with the comments. Nothing wrong with that.
Hello world! I’m breaking my 9 year lurking championship today :p
If you’d rather not engage with the Joyce/Dorothy discourse-drama and just want to enjoy today’s comic for what it is please skip this comment – I promise my intent isn’t to stir the pot, just want to let peeps know what my long-ass comment is gonna be about up front
I always read the comments because this comic is pretty though provoking and I like to get a little more perspective on the topics that come up. I started reading this comic when I was pretty young and it helped open my mind a bit especially irt LGBT folk and to understand where people raised christian are coming from. I think reading this comic has helped me to be a better friend to my queer friends and to better understand myself. (Also the best/only? depiction of grey-ace I’ve ever seen in media, shoutout Dina and kudos Willis!)
I have noticed over the years that sometimes the comments get pretty heated or I walk away from a comic with a completely different read and don’t understand the feelings expressed. (This isn’t why I’ve avoided commenting for so long tho I just prefer to be an internet ghost in general). For me, I think it’s a good sign both that I can stand my original opinions in some cases and reflect on why more people disagree with me in others. This arc seems significantly more contentious than usual, and I had some big feelings about it but didn’t comment out of pure habit. After I simmered down a little I had some thoughts that helped me untangle some of the mess for myself, and I thought I’d reach out to see if my reflections can help anyone else understand each other better or just feel more understood?
People seem to be upset about a lot of different things, but the more I read the more it seems like the core issue is about the concept of cheating itself. I’m seeking to understand specifically this concept without discussing the ships or the writing/story structure components, though I will lightly go into the specifics of the current arc. I’m hoping to explain to people who don’t understand what all the fuss is about why someone *in good faith* could be genuinely upset about it. I’m hoping to explain to people who think cheating is never ok why some people *in good faith* don’t think it’s that big a deal. (Disclaimer, obviously this is all my opinion. Sadly I am not an all-seeing expert on the human condition.) I’m going to refer to people who aren’t bothered by the cheating Sickos and people who are as Paladins even though it’s not that cut and dry for convenience and because I think the terms are kind of funny.
For Sickos, on Paladins:
The vibe that I’m getting is that many sickos think that cheating is more amorphous than paladins are giving it credit for and that there’s levels of harm involved rather than something that is always bad, full stop end of story. I think many think that the Joyce/Dorothy situation is not that harmful, and are having a really hard time understanding why the paladins are getting bent out of shape about it. There’s also the vigilance for queerphobia and misogyny, which is a good instinct! That shit can infect your brain without you even realizing it. However, if you are a sicko and you sincerely can’t think why someone could be earnestly upset about it I’ll try to explain. Even though different people have different expectations, the default expectation of ‘official’ relationships in US culture is monogamy. This isn’t to say it’s a good cultural expectation, but many people enter into a relationship expecting monogamy and believe that boundaries outside of that need to be negotiated in advance or they violate consent. Whether that’s a good system or not, that is the way most paladins are approaching the concept. What Joyce and Dorothy are doing isn’t a crime, and it’s disingenuous to compare it to one. But it can be hurtful to many people. Especially in Joe’s case, because he has trauma about cheating. Joyce isn’t a prize for character development, but she does know about this trauma and seems to care about him, and made deliberate advances despite this. I think this is why people are upset. Being in a relationship doesn’t mean you own the other person. But I think the paladins are reading it like if you told someone a deep personal secret without explicitly telling them not to tell anyone else, and they immediately told someone else. Being cheated on can cause lasting trust issues, so it’s not surprising that some people could have a strong reaction especially if it’s something they’ve experienced firsthand. Try to consider that a knee-jerk negative reaction can come from a place of genuine pain even if it’s not expressed eloquently. The characters aren’t perfect and neither are the commenters! Please try to give the benefit of the doubt where you can.
For Paladins on Sickos:
The vibe I’m getting is that for paladins cheating feels like a strict boundary and a serious violation, and it feels strange to see people not react the same way. I think paladins were less bothered about the Joyce/Jacob stuff not necessarily because of heteronormativity (though it’s good to be wary of it) but because the narrative clearly positioned it as wrong. However, I think there’s a good reason sickos don’t see it as so black and white. Most people in US culture are inherently pressured into monogamy whether they’re a good fit for it or not. As for what constitutes cheating, I think there’s truth to the idea that there’s different levels of cheating. Some people would count dancing with a friend of a compatible orientation. Some people would count having a huge crush on someone else even if you don’t act on it. I think many sickos don’t think cheating is as big a deal as paladins not because they’re callous but because they understand that it is entirely possible to genuinely love multiple people at once without having the tools for how to approach it ethically, especially when inexperienced. Also it can also be very hard to come to terms with realizing that your own sexuality is changing or is not what you thought it was. I think a lot of sickos think that what they’re doing is hurtful and are sad about the fallout, but their happiness at seeing a representation of queer self discovery long in the waiting comes to the forefront. Sicoks who do feel that cheating is a more serious thing probably feel hurt when paladins seemingly minimize the culmination of a queer story arc when paladins interpret the happiness for their relationship as equivalent to dismissal of the other characters’ feelings. Please try to consider that what’s being romanticized here is not the cheating but the relationship, even if the cheating is too big a limit for you.
Anyway those are my current thoughts about the subject. Sorry it’s ancient tome length ;_; I did my best to try to give a thorough read on the situation. I hope this can help some people to have a little understanding or just serve as a reminder if you already get it. I’m not going to argue my points, I probably won’t even comment again lol. Just thought amid all the heated responses some cooler reflections could be useful. I think the comments are full of passionate people doing their best to be ethical, and I’d like to see that energy put into being understanding of each other. And I know Willis works hard on this comic and the commenters don’t always see the behind the scenes. I’m glad Willis gets to write the stories they want to write, and I hope the comment drama isn’t getting them too down.
I would clarify that I think the vast majority of readers, both sickos and paladins, agree that what they’re doing is cheating, and that cheating is ethically and morally bad. The difference primarily boils down to how people view portrayals of “evil” in fiction. Sickos generally feel that the actions depicted are bad, but the potential for good drama outweighs that fact. A character acting in a morally gray way or even an objectively bad way does not prevent them from liking the character. In contrast, most paladins either do not enjoy depictions of morally wrong behavior at all, or are incapable of empathizing and liking a character who does bad things.
There’s a lot of people on the sicko side taking the piss and saying “No, cheating is great actually, there’s nothing wrong happening here”. While a few people may genuinely believe that way, most are doing a bit of trolling. Most of the paladins as far as I can tell genuinely believe what they say (though some are undoubtedly being hyperbolic). I can’t say they’re objectively wrong for not enjoying seeing bad things depicted, but I disagree with any premise that means they shouldn’t be depicted.
Like, from where I’m sitting, I’m on the sicko side, but I’m not going to claim they’re in the right here. They’re doing a bad thing and they’re worse people because of it. But people can make mistakes and do bad things without it permanently blighting them, and I have every hope they can recover from this and do better in the future. Even if they fail, it makes for an excellent story that I’m excited to see where it goes.
A lot of the problem, from my POV, is twofold: people are taking the piss takes as real takes due to Poe’s Law, and people are using the sicko/paladin buckets as though they actually define two relatively coherent sides instead of a vast spectrum.
From where I’m sitting, I’m fundamentally on the “paladin” side, but in the sense of “I identify less with Joyce now because I never crossed this particular line despite having a similar tale of religious repression meeting horny in freshman year, and I’m disappointed that she fucked up” rather than necessarily “liking her less”.
OK OK Look, I get that readers tend to be really emotionally invested in DOA. Hey, I read it every day (and I’m 70). But maybe have bit of humor about the whole thing? Joyce isn’t a paladin or a sicko; she’s a fictional character advancing the plot as devised by David O. Willis.
By the way, for those readers who don’t subscribe to Patron, tomorrow’s strip has Expressions.
“Sickos generally feel that the actions depicted are bad, but the potential for good drama outweighs that fact.”
I think the thing that “Paladins” generally respond to is when “Sickos” call the cheating cute. Drama is fine, but when the “cuteness” is the most important thing in the scene, when it is the first and primary response from the audience, it seems to be disregarding the whole betrayal, selfishness, and dishonesty.
I go into this more in other comments, but the short of it is that emphasizing and focusing on the cuteness indicates something about how you are perceiving and interpreting the scene.
Saying “that is cute” when two people are cheating is calling cheating cute. They might not be saying it is cute because it is cheating, but it is still cheating and they are still calling it cute.
Like I said before, how would you feel if you were watching a scene of violence against Joyce and people were clapping because they thought the attacker looked cool?
They can still think the attacker is bad, right? They are just separating that judgement from the aesthetic appreciation of how “sick” that kick looked.
Or what if you were looking at a bigoted painting. Would you be exclaiming over the exquisite brush strokes, or would you be revolted?
You are entitled to feel that way (that calling a scene cute when the scene is in the context of cheating is calling cheating cute), but folks are still gonna rightfully object that that’s not what they’re saying. Your interpretation doesn’t trump their intent when it comes to “what does someone else mean by the words they’re saying”.
And, I mean, your other examples are… not as black-and-white as you think they are? Whether it’s possible to separate art from the artist, or to admire the technical craftsmanship of even active deliberate propaganda, is an argument that’s as old as, like, recognizable human civilization.
Reasonable people are gonna disagree with you about it. And an art historian who wants to talk about the place Birth of a Nature had in the history of cinema will be unimpressed with any insistence that they must think the KKK is cool.
Also? Your last sentence…? Why is it important whether or not I’d be revolted by bigoted art? “Revulsion” isn’t a moral response. I am revolted by a lot of things — a lot of perfectly harmless things, like the idea of my parents having sex, or poop.
Some types of bigotry do make me feel physical revulsion, but that’s a lot less important than whether or not I feel compassion for the people being targeted by the bigotry, and moral outrage at the bigot. Revulsion is neither.
I don’t think aesthetics and ethics are fully different. They are just pointing towards two parts of the same thing.
I think when you are revolted by the thinking about your parents having sex it is part of your moral judgement. It is not that you think your parents having sex is wrong by itself but rather you have a moral aversion to you thinking about your parents sexually.
Sex is intimate. Imagining myself having sex with someone I am not attracted to is revolting because it is imagining something that I would find fundamentally violating.
Imagining your parents having sex is revolting because witnessing your parents having sex wouldn’t be something you, or your parents, would consent to. The imagining is supposing a sort of intimacy that would be harmful.
—
Our understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong. The feeling might not always point to the most effective response, but it does indicate that there is a problem that needs addressing.
So if you are revolted by bigotry that is because your moral intuition is telling you bigotry is wrong. You can then choose to focus your attention to where you believe it would do the most good.
I would argue both compassion and revulsion towards bigotry come from the same spot. We feel compassion because we recognize the worth and value of others. We feel revulsion when that worth and value is not respected. Our feelings are pointing us to the same place, just coming from different prompts.
@Odo The fact that your understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes you to feel something is wrong does not mean that our understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong. My understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in “does this actually cause harm?”.
Your understanding of morality may not have led you to any bigoted places, but an understanding of morality based on “intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong” is a fast route to basing your morality on internalized prejudice rather than on things being harmful.
I promise you my revulsion over the idea of my parents having sex has nothing to do with thinking about whether or not either of us would consent to me watching it?????? Genuinely: “ew”. It doesn’t get that far. It’s not assuming a lack of consent. It’s a pure gut reaction of revulsion that has nothing to do with morality.
Also, what Proxiehunter said, but I got into that more below.
Why do you care about “does this actually cause harm?” Have you figured out some logical proof for ethics?
Fundamentally, at some point, you’ve decided that harming people is bad. And you make this decision not due to cold rationality, but due to your intuition.
It isn’t just me who relies on moral intuition. Everyone does. Because all knowledge traces back to intuition.
@Odo Because all knowledge traces back to intuition.
That is such a fundamentally incorrect statement that I have no idea how to begin arguing against it. That’s like young earth creationist level incorrect. Knowledge traces back to observation of reality not intuition.
I don’t feel like you engaged with the point I made, and ironically in doing so you misrepresent it.
I am not saying “They think all cheating is cute”. I am not saying “they think it is cute because it is cheating”. I am saying “It is cheating AND they think it is cute”.
This isn’t a matter of “my interpretation” unless you disagree that the scene is depicting cheating or you disagree that some people think the scene is cute.
Maybe it would clarify things if I said “People think a particular instance of cheating is cute”.
Intent matters, but it does not override meaning. If someone said “you can do better than him” talking about your partner, maybe they intend it as a compliment towards you, but it is also an insult towards your partner. The meaning is bad even if the intent is good.
When people say “how cute” about a scene of cheating, they might be responding to the blush, the tender touches, the emotional vulnerability… but their words are also calling an instance of cheating cute.
Ask a Film Historian what is the first thing someone should hear about Birth of a Nation. Ask what the main emotional response would be.
Do you think a non-racist Historian would say “First of all, you need to pay attention to the novel use of moving camera shots”?
Birth of a Nation is actually a great example because people have already recognized that it is so racist that it is quarantined to try to keep it so that it is only viewed in the limited context of film history. The racism is dealt with first.
And the racism is addressed in how people displaying it choose to frame it. It is explicitly framed as “This is super racist. You probably shouldn’t watch this unless you have a good reason rooted in historical study”.
—
And I think you aren’t fully responding to the question I asked.
How specifically would you feel if this comic had a strip where Joe was punching Joyce in a fit of rage, Joe was presented surrounded by heroic imagery, and a major response from the audience was “How Cool”?
We don’t need to answer the whole question of how exactly to separate parts of art from the whole to answer that specific question.
And if it would disturb you to see domestic violence framed that way, if it would disturb you to see people responding primarily to the “coolness” rather than the abuse, then you are having a moral intuition that something is wrong.
— Right, but “it is cheating AND they think it is cute” is your perspective. Folks saying “aw” are still going to object that they didn’t say the cheating part is cute, and that that’s not what they think is cute.
I’m not misrepresenting your point. I’m arguing that you cannot dictate what other people mean by the words they say.
— Ask a Film Historian what is the first thing someone should hear about Birth of a Nation. Ask what the main emotional response would be.
Again this focus on what someone’s emotional response should be…
Do you think a non-racist Historian would say “First of all, you need to pay attention to the novel use of moving camera shots”?
I don’t think any version of that sentence would escape a film historian’s mouth, regardless of how racist they are or aren’t, because I don’t think they’re especially concerned with the order in which people have reactions to the movie?
I’m sure they expect strongly negative emotional reactions, but even if they’re a teacher at all (and not all art historians are), they’d be teaching adults. Adults generally agree that the KKK is bad without needing to be told, and adults that do need to be told have deeper problems.
Would it come up in discussion? Sure. And any good art historian won’t want it glossed over as unimportant context, but it is CONTEXT, and an art historian discussing the artistic merits of the film isn’t automatically also saying “the KKK is good”.
— How specifically would you feel if this comic had a strip where Joe was punching Joyce in a fit of rage, Joe was presented surrounded by heroic imagery, and a major response from the audience was “How Cool”?
I mean, yeah, I avoided answering this. In part because it’s very hard not to derail immediately into, “Why do you think those two things are in any way equivalent?” And I don’t think that’s a relevant digression, and it would not be kind to you. So I was trying to politely side step.
And if it would disturb you to see domestic violence framed that way, if it would disturb you to see people responding primarily to the “coolness” rather than the abuse, then you are having a moral intuition that something is wrong.
Emphasis mine.
And no, feeling disturbed is not “moral intuition”. As with disgust, it’s an emotional response which can be entirely divorced from morality, and conflating the two is genuinely dangerous.
I am not accusing you of anything, Odo, but lots of people use the fact that trans people disturb and disgust them as moral intuition.
Disentangling our feelings of disgust from our moral judgments isn’t always easy, but it’s worth doing.
Now, since Joyce is presumably not a Nazi, or any other person where Joe would be punching her in self-defense, that punch would be morally wrong in-universe. I think I would be less disturbed by a heroic framing than puzzled — I’d assume Willis had a reason for framing the punch as heroic, and I’d want to stick around to find out what it was.
If the predominant reaction to Joyce getting punched was “cool!”, I would likewise be puzzled. I’d want to know why people were saying that. I might suspect that some of the people saying it were misogynists, but since I would rationally know that most of Willis’s readership was unlikely to be misogynists, I’d mostly be puzzled. I would ask people for their reasons.
I don’t think I’d assume everyone saying it was specifically saying “yay violence against women is both fine and good”?
This brings something incredibly important to mind for me with this exchange.
The viewpoint is subjective. You are viewing it through the lens of someone invested, it seems specifically in Joe even, seeing his girlfriend fall in love with someone else (as depicted through their kissing.) they are cheating and it feels wrong, absolutely if you are consuming this through the lens of someone who’s main take away from this is from Joe’s viewpoint.
The people going “aww!” Are almost certainly viewing this from Joyce and Dorothy’s perspectives, with the reference of the entire strip to date establishing these girls are 100% ride or die for one another, to the point where both their boyfriends, Joe *and* Walky, have literally spelled it out.
This may be hurtful but it will be surprising to nobody who knows these two. Willis has mentioned this ship as the antidote to dynamics like Leslie/Ann from parks and rec that queerbait all day long then end with hetero life partners and the suggestion of just being Really, Really good friends. From that perspective, nobody is consuming the cheating first and foremost. They are watching two passionately in love people realise their affection for one another, I have been there myself, without any physical bonds with the person I was in love with, and did leave my boyfriend at the time. That hurt for years, it honestly hurt me longer than it hurt my ex!
But that’s it. Humans have empathy and Dorothy and Joyce are dreading telling Joe and Walky not because they don’t want to face the music, but because the very idea of hurting two people who mean so much to them is deeply devastating for them, but is a *different* track in their minds than the one where they fell in love and confirmed that love to one another. Because ultimately, their love for one another is more important to them than being good to Walky or Joe, though that is also deeply important to them.
Cheating happens not because people believe it’s right to do, but because of some amount of any combination of lack of self awareness, compartmentalisation, poor impulse control, and low emotional control. Getting hit by a tidal wave of requited love is insanely powerful when you aren’t prepared to deal with it! It makes sense that people cheat. It doesn’t make it right, but it does make it make sense. People also suffer a lot with being dumped, in my experience a lot more than they suffer with being cheated on, because anger is a secondary emotion that comes easily when you feel betrayed, but is extremely hard to manifest when you feel suddenly abandoned by someone who was your world. With cheating, the question is “how could /you/ do that?”, with dumping, the question is often “what did I do wrong?”
I’ve been cheated on multiple times, I’ve dumped a lot of people, I’ve been dumped twice myself. I felt shattered as a person after being dumped, and way more obsessed with my exes than when I’d been cheated on. When I was cheated on, my exes were garbage and not worth my time, when I was dumped, I had been judged inferior and unfit by somebody I’d loved and I could not stand it.
I speak to my personal experience rather than what I think general moral intuition is, because my personal experience doesn’t align with the conventional interpretation of moral intuition.
Dorothy and Joyce kissing is cute, they have their own arcs and their existences do not belong to nor are defined by Joe and Walky. Their falling in love has already done the damage, but the kissing is where most people draw the line, even though knowing your partner is in love with someone else while being physically faithful to you is supremely distressing. Cheating is bad to do but it’s also you know, pretty common. We can idealise the hell out of the elderly in rocking chairs together for 50 years, but there would not be cheating partner/spouse tropes rife in most media if cheating wasn’t so easy to do without feeling the full weight of what one has done to their partner.
@eskimolos I don’t have anything useful to say in response to this, except sympathy for the being-cheated-on and being-dumped alike, but I wanted you to know that I read it and appreciated the additional perspectives it added!!
It seems you dislike what I choose to write. I invite you to stop engaging with me. I suspect it would make you happier, and I know it would make me happier.
My life will be more beautiful and joyful the less I interact with you.
As a fellow writer of many words, I suggest breaking things up a lil, holding your “for Sickos on Paladins” mini headers here would help a lot with reading.
Also I do think most of us agree that Joyce and Dorothy are cheating at this point, and that the original divide, at least, was “how upset are you about fictional cheating” versus “are you excited for Dorothy and Joyce to kiss / mess up / potentially blow up their whole friend group”.
I don’t think either side has, as Big Z puts it, a clear stance — some paladins shipped Joyce/Dorothy, even, but were still upset with them for cheating, and some sickos never shipper Joyce/Dorothy and would have been just as excited for Joyce to cheat on Joe with any other character.
But I think the “this is black-and-white cheating” versus “no it’s not, they won’t have actually cheated until they have sex” or “actually since Joyce and Joe didn’t explicitly discuss monogamy, Joyce can’t cheat on him” argument is separate but related.
I think there are different threads coming from different people. These are all things I have seen people comment at different points over the saga:
“They aren’t cheating if Joe later decides he is okay with poly”
No, they are cheating. Consent isn’t retroactive.
“I hope this becomes a polycule”
Fine to hope for that, but this would be a toxic start to a polycule because it is founded on cheating. Polyamory is not a solution to cheating because the problem with cheating is not “non-monogamy” rather it is dishonesty and betrayal of trust.
“They are so cute together”
Your ability to perceive them as cute, and the fact that it is the main thing you want to observe, indicates something about what you consider to be the most important aspect of the scene.
It weirds me out to see people coo over cheating in the same way you might be weirded out to see someone exclaim how “cool!” an uppercut was in a scene of domestic violence, or laughing at a sexist joke.
I don’t like glorifying or romanticizing awful actions. I don’t like a clever pun being considered more important than the misogyny behind it. And I will never think cheating is cute.
“Bad decisions are good for the story. You just want everyone to act perfectly all the time, but that wouldn’t create Drama. I want Drama.”
Sure, but my issue isn’t with “Bad Decisions”. I am fine with bad decisions, mistakes, drama, etc…
My issue is with those bad decisions being framed as cute/romantic/adorable either within the comic or by other people.
Of course people can do what they want, I don’t have control over anyone but myself. But if you would be weirded out by someone laughing at a misogynistic joke, then you have no basis to judge me for being weirded out by people clapping infidelity.
—
It isn’t that I think there can’t be layers of harm to cheating, and I don’t think that the “Sickos” in general think cheating is OKAY… but I do think that for a lot of people the cheating isn’t a deal breaker. It might not be GOOD, but it isn’t BAD either… it is “bad”. It is tolerable. And it is less relevant to a scene for them than “cute kisses”.
Just gonna reply to the last paragraph, because really, I think the “sickos” position on cheating isn’t that it’s okay, but that it’s fine for it to be portrayed in fiction even if the fiction isn’t clearly condemning it.
Folks arguing over whether or not cheating is ever okay in real life, and whether what has happened in the comic so far should count as cheating in real life, are kind of having a dovetailing conversation. It’s related, but it’s not paladins vs sickos, even as loosely defined as those terms are.
Like, I’ve seen people who would otherwise identify as “paladins” argue that Joyce’s definition of sex is so ridiculous that “doing laundry” again with Dorothy wouldn’t have really been cheating, so much as ATTEMPTED cheating, and I’ve seen “sickos” say that Dorothy crossed the rubicon when she sent Joyce a cleavage pic — it’s not whether the person talking about it thinks a specific moment counted as cheating, but whether they were distressed about (fictional) cheating happening.
Now, ofc, we also have a new divide: “is the cheating being portrayed as romantic?” But the original divide was over whether or not readers were okay with cheating happening in the comic at all.
Hey thanks for explaining it this way, I hadn’t thought of that! I appreciate you and the other commenters for meeting me where I’m at and adding to it. In the light of day I think I made a mistake in framing this as the core issue, I think it was actually just the issue I had the hardest time understanding and reconciling. Thanks y’all for filling in the gaps where my understanding is lacking
“whether they were distressed about (fictional) cheating happening.”
What I think is constantly being missed is that the distress generally isn’t due to the cheating happening in the comic. It is about it happening in a way that seems to excuse it.
And excuse doesn’t say something was “right” or “good”. It isn’t a justification. You can think cheating is bad and still excuse it.
An excuse is about saying the person shouldn’t be held responsible, or is less culpable for their actions.
So “they are young, horny, idiots” is fundamentally an excuse. It is excusing cheating.
No, plenty of folks have expressed distress that the cheating is happening in the comic, period.
So the big umbrella is “don’t like that cheating is happening in the comic”, with sub-groups under that umbrella of “upset that other readers seem to be okay with cheating (either fictional or in real life)”, and “upset about how Willis has framed the cheating so far”, but some folks are just upset that Joyce is doing this at all, and upset on Joe’s behalf, and upset because cheating is a major squick, or even a trigger for them, due to their own traumatic experiences with it.
I mean, there are different sorts of upset. I was “upset” when Fantine died in Les Mis, but only in the sense that I was invested in the characters. I don’t mind that it was part of the story, however, because it was good storytelling.
I am “upset” for Joe because I am invested in the story. I am “upset” with Joyce because I want her to do better since I am invested in her character.
I am not upset with Dumbing of Age because cheating happened.
I dislike that Willis chose to repeatedly frame the cheating in a romantic/adorable way, choosing to add in wedding imagery, choosing to focus on tender moments of intimacy, because I feel making that so often the primary narrative frame excuses the cheating.
I dislike that people are often responding to the cheating by first perceiving the actions as cute because again this seems to be treating the cheating as something ignorable.
Right, but some people are upset with DoA/Willis because cheating happened. The cheating vs sickos poll was put up before the kiss had happened, before it was clear that cheating was going to happen at all, and so the original divide was not about people making excuses for it.
I’m not saying that’s everyone! I’m not denying your position, or saying it’s something it isn’t, I’m just saying that was the start of the divide, and various people are various dots within the landscape of each “side”, with other people not on either side.
Odo very much seems to struggle to understand that their personal experience with life and feelings and intuition and morality are not actually universal experiences and opinions. I’m not sure there’s a way around someone so solipsistic.
Replying to your other comment here since the replies ran out.
Right, but “it is cheating AND they think it is cute” is your perspective.
Do you disagree that it is cheating? Do you disagree that some people think it is cute? If not then it is our perspective.
Folks saying “aw” are still going to object that they didn’t say the cheating part is cute, and that that’s not what they think is cute.
But again, I am not saying their words meant “I think the cheating is cute because it is cheating”. That is not what I am claiming they mean.
I am claiming the meaning is “That scene is cute”. Do you think this is some awful misrepresentation? Were they not saying the scene is cute when they said “How cute!”
And I am claiming the scene is depicting cheating. I am claiming that the thing they find cute, is also something that is cheating. I am not making a point about “secret meanings” I am making a point about the thing they are talking about.
So if they think it is cute, and it is cheating, then necessarily they think of something as cute that is also cheating.
If I think a cheating scene is cute then I think a cheating scene is cute. This is a basic tautology.
this focus on what someone’s emotional response should be
Do you truly believe that emotional response can never be critiqued?
Lots of stuff are emotional responses and they indicate something about the world. Like your later example, if someone feels disgust towards trans people we should critique the hell out of that emotional response.
So we can agree that it is fair to critique an emotional response, right?
“Why do you think those two things are in any way equivalent?” And I don’t think that’s a relevant digression, and it would not be kind to you.
You are entirely correct that it would not be relevant, because it wasn’t what I said. You are correct that it would not be kind to me because it would be a dishonest attempt to derail the discussion.
I am not accusing you of anything, Odo, but lots of people use the fact that trans people disturb and disgust them as moral intuition.
Yup, which is why we should be critical of emotional responses.
And we should delve deeper into why we are feeling things. When it comes to bigotry, disgust doesn’t spring from nowhere. Bigotry exists because people want it to exist, because people work to perpetuate it, and because it helps some people get what they want.
So when someone feels transphobic disgust, that emotional response should be challenged. Even if the person’s moral ideology says “but we should still treat people decently” if they are feeling disgust that is still something to interrogate.
“Even if the person’s moral ideology says “but we should still treat people decently” if they are feeling disgust that is still something to interrogate.”
To clarify, I obviously do not mean “interrogate to discover ‘actually bigotry is good'” I mean interrogate and challenge the feeling of disgust itself to realize “maybe I still need to work on myself to address some of my bigoted mindsets.”
— For you, the cheating is inseparable from the cuddling. That’s fine, but it’s just not how everyone feels.
Whether or not I agree that they’re cheating (which I do) is irrelevant.
— Do you truly believe that emotional response can never be critiqued?
I think it’s a waste of time? I think “emotional response” is a gut feeling you either have or don’t have, like an intrusive thought. Having them is not what’s important, and beating yourself up for an emotional response isn’t productive or healthy.
What matters isn’t how we feel about other people, but how we treat them.
So: no, I literally don’t care if someone is disgusted by trans people.
I care if they can get past that disgust to treat trans people with dignity and respect.
I think emotions are important. We should be attentive to our emotions because they tell us things that are important. We don’t need to let our emotions control us, and we don’t need to accept everything unquestioningly…
Emotions are not just “intrusive thoughts”.
In terms of priorities, “people feeling disgust” is also super low on my list of problems. Addressing direct material issues is more important.
But I don’t think we can really separate feelings fully from actions. If someone is feeling disgust I think that would bleed through.
I’m not going to criticize efforts to make queer people more Sympathetic and Relatable to a pericisheterosexist society. There are some people who will be swayed by that, and this is a fight for our existence. Any tool that works on any amount of people is OK by me.
But I do think it’s failing to attack the root problem, and in failing to attack that problem, we ARE letting intercommunity hostility get worse.
If you only respect the trans people whose gender presentations you find understandable and sympathetic, you’re always going to be looking for acceptable targets who are Too Cringy and Weird to deserve respect.
This line of reasoning is also why so many queer people attack kinksters, poly people, and, like, furries. Because they haven’t done the work of telling themselves, “I don’t need to understand why another adult wants to do that thing I think is weird, it isn’t harming anyone so it’s none of my business.”
I am not saying “people need to understand us better”. Understanding isn’t really the issue.
The issue is treating people as less than. So I agree, realizing that “understanding” should not be a prerequisite for respect is important.
“Weird” and “disgust” are not the same as “I don’t understand”. They are “I feel this is abnormal, wrong or bad”.
In my case, I specifically used weird because I wanted to soften the tone. A more full representation is that I think focusing on the cuteness of a cheating scene is bad. I think it is bad because it is harmful. I think it is harmful because it is minimizing the importance of the harm being done. I think it normalizes cheating, not as something good, but as something tolerable.
I think it comes from a place that fundamentally excuses cheating. Maybe it just excuses cheating when you really want people to be together, but it excuses cheating.
So no. My response is not just “i feel ick so it is bad”. Rather it felt off to me, so I asked myself why.
And my hope is that, by considering comparisons, you might find a way to understand that you too would dislike it if people fawned over actions you thought were bad.
This line of reasoning is also why so many queer people attack kinksters, poly people, and, like, furries. Because they haven’t done the work of telling themselves, “I don’t need to understand why another adult wants to do that thing I think is weird, it isn’t harming anyone so it’s none of my business.”
…I would think it was fairly clear that what I meant was, “some people within the queer community think kinksters/furries/poly people are disgusting, and if they trust their feelings and decide that this means that it’s morally wrong to be kinky/poly/a furry, instead of learning to stop and ask themselves, ‘Wait, am I feeling disgust over something harmless?’, then that leads to bad outcomes.”
So no. My response is not just “i feel ick so it is bad”.
Maybe not, but you have certainly repeatedly argued that “feeling ick” = “my intuition telling me that the icky thing is morally wrong, and I should listen”.
And my hope is that, by considering comparisons, you might find a way to understand that you too would dislike it if people fawned over actions you thought were bad.
Right, but there’s a difference between “disliking” it when other people “fawn over” (fictional) actions I think are bad — and assuming that I know why they’re having that reaction.
And there’s an even bigger difference between assuming I know why other people are having a reaction within the privacy of my own head, and making public posts where I declare that the reason why they’re having that reaction, and then dismiss everything they try to tell me in response.
Especially if my assumed explanation for other people’s reactions is uncharitable, or even offensive, I’m… gonna tick a lot of people off by doing that.
In short, they attack those people because their understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes them to feel something is wrong.
Just for the record, since I used the phrase “attempted cheating” several times and I don’t think anyone else did in this context: It was “attempted” because they failed when the laundry room was busy, not because of problems with Joyce’s definition of sex. If they’d gone through with it, “attempted” wouldn’t have made any sense.
That was also in response to people directly saying it didn’t count at all because they didn’t succeed.
I don’t think I was thinking of you specifically? It was just an example about how opinions weren’t just “paladins have very strict ideas on what constitutes cheating, sickos have looser fuzzier ideas”.
> Your ability to perceive them as cute, and the fact that it is the main thing you want to observe, indicates something about what you consider to be the most important aspect of the scene.
No it doesn’t. Period, end of reply, end of debate.
Loki – I grew up in a different time, and the culture has shifted under me in a multitude of ways. Mostly good ways. But when I was dumbing of age, as opposed to just dumbing, playing the field was a respectable thing. It was a precursor to finding someone who was right. In college, one of my friends was dating three guys at one time and two of them knew about each other. Nobody would have accused her of cheating, though they might have admired her skill at juggling her time. Moving beyond casual dating required agreement and was a step. Formally going steady was probably rare, but it was still there as a model that was replaced by informal agreements. Girls still sometimes wore the guys class ring around their necks on a chain or wore his jacket to show the relationship had moved to a different level. And at that level, it would be cheating. This idea that casual dating isn’t a thing and that instant exclusivity doesn’t require mutual consent is alien to me and just feels wrong on a visceral level. People shouldn’t have to commit until they are ready to commit.
I know that I’ve said that cheating is wrong and icky and that Joyce and Dorothy are cute and adorable and all this makes me love them more. And this is technically true, though I’m also making fun of a reaction I disagree with. There strong implication is that cheating makes me love them more whereas the actual fact is that I find it difficult to accept there is any cheating going on at all.
But there are two subpoints to this. Joyce does have quite a strong attraction to Joe and the fact that she is *almost* willing to give him up in a heartbeat for Dorothy says something. The other subpoint is that, yes, this is going to hurt Joe who has it bad for Joyce. Having any kind of meaningful relationship requires being vulnerable and being vulnerable means that you can be hurt. Sometimes badly. It’s kind of the cost of playing the game. As the song points out, nothing says that the one you love is going to love you. And it’s why when it does happen it can be magical.
I have to think that this expectation of instant monogamy is a way in which the culture has become more toxic and not less.
I think that the idea “it isn’t cheating because they didn’t formally agree to monogamy” is a bit weak.
For me cheating isn’t about a contractual violation, it is about deception and betrayal. The deception is in hiding it. They betrayal is because you are acting in a way that would hurt someone you care about.
It doesn’t matter whether Joyce and Joe sat down and had a formal monogamy discussion because Joyce knows that Joe wouldn’t be okay with her having romantic relations with other people, and Joe knows that Joyce wouldn’t be fine with him having romantic relations with other people.
“We didn’t talk about it” is a cowards response. If they are being honest with themselves then they would know that they should talk about it first, and kiss other people second.
Lastly, the expecation of monogamy was clearly demonstrated earlier in their relationship.
Joyce expects Joe to not pursue other people. Joe expects Joe to not pursue other people.
It kind of doesn’t matter what relationship norms were like in your time. We know that Joyce and Dorothy think of their actions as cheating. We have good insight into what the norms and expectations are in Joyce and Joe’s relationship.
If someone wouldn’t want to have sex with you if they knew you were pursuing other relationships, then it is wrong to conceal, lie about, or intentionally omit that information. If the person is being deceived then they cannot give informed, ethusiastic consent.
Joyce is the one with the unrealistic definition of what cheating is. She was the one having Mike punch Joe for looking at someone else on their actual first date. I’m not sure that Dorothy’s all-in black-and-white classification is much better. I think you were the same person that further down the page was saying that breaking up with someone so you can date someone else feels shitty. I’m not that sure your take is all that realistic either.
How would you feel if your partner dumped you to go date someone else?
In a poly relationship, how would you feel if your partner told you “If I ever find someone I like more and they want monogamy I will break up with you so I can be with them”?
My standards are to act with care and honesty towards your partners. If that seems unrealistic to you I am not sure what to say.
Being broken up with is always unpleasant, but this is a very normal thing to happen that you seem to be attaching a very strange amount of moral judgement to. Why would I care?
Turn that around: would you want to date someone who, in the absence of a promised long-term commitment such as marriage, decided to stay with you with increasing unhappiness and resentment after they figured out that you WEREN’T the one?
Realizing this isn’t the relationship for you and ending it gracefully IS acting with care and honesty toward your partner. And yes, sometimes that is triggered by them meeting someone new and realizing they want something different than they thought they did, but that’s certainly not a moral failing.
It feels shitty, but that’s what you have to do. Up until you’re married, that’s *literally* how it works.
Doesn’t matter if you’re poly or monogamous. Either way. If the relationship you have just isn’t giving you what you need, and the relationship with someone else would, you are under no moral obligation to continue to be in that relationship. And in fact, in many cases the absolute wrong thing to do would be to continue with the relationship.
What, do I want to learn fifteen years later that when my spouse dated me, they REALLY wanted to be dating my hunky roommate at the time? And that she stayed with me not because she loved me more, or was more attracted to me, or that we connected better, but because by asking her out and her accepting I had apparently called dibs and froze her into *that* relationship, and I never did anything so terrible to make me *deserve* a breakup, and so she was stuck with me and eventually just decided to settle?
Only when you’re married have you promised to be there with each other through thick and thin, easy and hard times, for the rest of your lives. That’s what marriage is. Up until then, you are two people who are mutually consenting to an exclusive relationship
I gotta back up Bork here, reading this debate about whether breaking up to be with someone else counts as being shitty or not, I couldn’t help but wonder what IS supposed to be the arbitrary time between breaking up and getting with someone else? We see Lucy chafe a bit about two days, and she is 100% in the right to feel upset about that, but I’d have to argue that just because someone feels upset by another person’s decision doesn’t always mean a wrongdoing has occurred. And besides, Lucy then immediately moved on with Joe. Walky’s decision may have hurt her feelings for a moment, but they’re no longer together and they no longer have an obligation to each other.
You can consider it a bit trashy, or rude, or shitty, and certainly decide for yourself that you would wait, like, a week in between relationships, but you can’t control what other people do. I think dumping someone because you no longer have feelings for them is a reasonable break up. Like Bork said, I’d much rather have someone be honest and say “hey, I don’t feel it anymore. I’m gonna shoot my shot elsewhere” rather than stick around with me if they no longer want to.
I am now going to imagine “Joe tries polyamory with someone not Joyce” to be with Lucy and Jacob.
(I think Lucy is probably the only cast mate to explicitly reject poly for herself, but maybe she’d feel differently if it was Joe and Jacob instead of Walky and Amber!)
I think that we need to factor in the difference between comic time and realtime here.
Joe and Joyce have been seeing each other for less than 2 weeks. In reality, they’d still likely be very much in the “well, let’s see where this goes” phase. But their relationship, because of how much drama is packed into one day in DoA, has very much been portrayed as being a committed, long-term thing. It’s the same with Lucy and Walky & Jennifer and Ruth- with the former, even if they’d been friends long before, meeting parents less than 2 weeks in is ridiculous. And With the latter, they’ve been split up far, far longer than the monthlong relationship they had but still are pining over each other.
It’s a consequence of the decision to pack 15 years of drama into one year of college- there simply isn’t enough time to portray these relationships developing more naturally.
TL;DR- JoJo being an exclusive couple is caused as much by the compressed timescale as it is a sign of changing social mores.
It may have been a relatively short time officially, but it was a long slow path in the making. There was a tremendous amount of consideration and commitment involved, by Joe at least, before anything was official. This isn’t as fairly casual as most relationships would be at that point.
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again, I don’t think there’s been any shift to a
“expectation of instant monogamy”. I think dating is less formalized in many ways (and in parallel maybe more formalized when it comes to online dating, where you can do things like change your status to “in a relationship”) and that might look like such an expectation.
Some people date lots of people. Others focus on one at a time, even before there’s a implicit commitment. Some people just aren’t good at casual.
Casual dating is still a thing. Casual hookups are a thing. Friends with benefits are a thing.
Discounting the fact that “going steady” as a concept is largely outmoded in modern society… if it WAS still a thing that was regularly recognized and considered, they would be. They both are (or were, prior to the events of yesterday) demonstrating clear signs of exclusivity to each other regardless of the length of their official relationship. They ARE going steady. They are NOT playing the field.
Joyce has already explicitly stated that she feels her current actions with Dorothy are cheating. Joe will absolutely guaranteed feel the same when he finds out about them. If both partners think it’s cheating… it is. Straight up. There’s absolutely zero room for reasonable argument there. The deformalizing of the “going steady” state may make some things murky, but if all the people involved agree the actions violated their informal agreement it’s pretty clear that they did.
Like, revisit this if Joe turns around and doesn’t think Joyce has done anything wrong, but I highly doubt he will.
I think there’s no point anymore in trying to understand each other when it goes nowhere. Same debates and arguments in circles
There is a fundamental difference in view not just in storytelling but also life
For me, cheating is a thing that is something you should only care about when it’s someone you know and even then, life’s messy. There’s worlds of possibilities where it’s okay
And if you don’t have that view I honestly don’t care anymore, I will just avoid responding to another person going on and on about how disgusted they are by it
If it ain’t a conversation with depth or jokes I just don’t have the energy
I really like how you represented this. While obviously some perspectives are going to be missing, the ones you did analyse felt perfect to me. In particular the part about how for some people the cheating is unrelated to their enjoyment of a queer self discovering story.
I’ll also add that your assessment of the paladins itself also gave a good representation of the idea of why someone might dismiss cheating, especially in a fictional context. The resentment towards the assumption that society should even operate with two partners as the default is absolutley a non-zero part of why I enjoy jokingly pretending to be in the ‘cheating is good and they should do more!’ zone.
Now on one hand I don’t see Sarah being that broken up about Joe and Walkys feelings of all people when it comes to this secret affair Dorothy and Joyce seem too scared to fess up about, even if she’s getting along with Joe a lot better.
But on the other hand this might be the type of drama that stirs up shit for everyone involved with the friend group including which is not the type of Drama she has patience for.
The real question is, does she know what’s going on or is she just like “you are acting weird and are shit at lying, tell me or I’m going to figure it out.”
Oh…
That’s not an anger look is it!
That’s a, “I am about to lay your shit on the line. You have no counter. This is the way.”, look!
Interesting Times.
I think part of the reason why they keep leaping back to kissing is specifically because they wanted to avoid introspection. It is a relational garbage roof.
They don’t want to think about what they’ve done, so they escape by focusing on the positive emotions. They feel like they will be judged by other people, but since they’ve both done the same shitty thing they can be garbage together without judgement.
And not only by other people. Joyce has shown capacity for enormous guilt. I don’t know if Dorothy’s obsessive need to be a good person is a front she’s been putting up, but if it hasn’t, she’s also going to crash hard.
This ”mad love” is like a drug, and you have to come down from every high.
So far, what Joyce and Dorothy think is an earth breaking epiphany is seen by others as “Sorry kids, the writing has been on the wall for a while. In neon paint. Sixty feet high.” Their community may adjust better than they think. Even Joe acknowledged the emotional realities by asking Dorothy if she was “into Joyce”. Proverbs 26.27b, dude. 🙂
Honestly I’m hoping we don’t get shame-on-you Sarah but instead see reality-check Sarah. It’s not about whether she approves or disapproves. It’s about facing the facts and along themselves the questions they haven’t yet. Let them know they obviously can’t hide it. Ask them what their endgame is. Make sure they realize they need to get there fast. You’ve done a stupid thing, let’s deal with it before you get hurt (worse than you already will).
Because Sarah doesn’t have the moral high ground to do both. Not only did she encourage Joyce to break up Jacob & Raidah, but just a week ago she was encouraging Dorothy to break up Joe & Joyce, ie, exactly what’s happening now. If she tries to shame them for it, she’ll be a massive hypocrite.
Good! Let her try to call Joyce on this and Joyce calls her on it right back!
That’s almost as good as the speech in my head where Joe tells off Joyce for moralizing at him, and he changed, and now look how the turns have tabled.
Upon re-read, I’m not actually sure anyone NOTICED she was trying to get Dorothy to break up Joe and Joyce. And I also assume she’s got some changes in her mindset following the workout-room scene.
No one noticed that part, but Joyce certainly noticed when Sarah tried to prove Joe hadn’t changed by asking him to sleep with her. IF Joyce feels like defending herself, I think “but you didn’t even want me to date him!” would be a fair point generally.
I mean, there is a difference between breaking people up and ongoing cheating. Both are bad, and they are related, but I don’t think Sarah ever would have wanted Joyce to be with Jacob without having Jacob break up with Raidah, or Dorothy be with Joyce while Joyce was still together with Joe.
Sarah wanted Joe/Raidah to not be in the picture, not for them to be continually decieved.
I suspect if Joyce had done the right thing and gone to break up with Joe, Sarah wouldn’t be having any issue with this. Maybe a little sympathy for Joe, since she started to see him as more of a human, but not much need to rebuke Joyce over it.
Breaking up with someone so you can date someone else feels shitty, and it indicates a need for moral growth, but it isn’t a betrayal on the same level as actively cheating on your partner.
So if you have one date with someone, dating anyone else without breaking up with the first person is cheating, but if you break up with them so you can date someone else it feels shitty. Are you supposed to have one date and be married forever?
Serious question: Do you think Joe/Joyce’s relationship was comparable to a single coffee date? Is your genuine reading of the comic that Joyce/Joe saw it as “just a casual date”?
Y’know, usually I take exception to comments that rhyme with Mr D’s, because they tend to feel like a diss, but in this case yes, you don’t need to take what I said so seriously. I’m not gonna bother with “is this equivalent to that” when “this” was an airless quip.
I said there is a difference between breaking up with someone to date someone else, like what Sarah was hoping Jacob would do, and cheating on your partner.
It is well established that Joe/Joyce don’t think of this as just a casual coffee date. Joe said he wouldn’t respond to Sarah’s proposition because he was changing himself for Joyce, and Joyce defended Joe’s initial reaction by saying he was changing. Their communicated expectation was that Joe should only have sex with Joyce.
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the comic.
I think Sarah’s plan with trying to get Dorothy involved was “Tell Joyce you’re in love with her so Joyce knows she has options and dumps Joe to be with you instead” not “kiss each other while you’re still dating Joe”.
Seeing Sarah in this way reminds me of when she told Joyce that she cant just keep defending her when she behaves shitty, around the time she was exploring being newly autistic, i think. Or it may have been around the time Joyce started birth control. Anyways, I remember thinking that while I really agreed with Sarah, I think that its actually kind of necessary for Joyce to not just explore new things, but also explore how her behavior actually affects other people. Like.. she spent her whole life being a godly goody two shoes, right? Now she’s also exploring being more self focused (or self centered, depending on who you asked) and this is around the time Joyce is going to find out what her close friends think, but also the limits on how self focused you could be before your friends draw a line.
I really dont think Sarah’s going to mince her words here. Its definitely not gonna be a poly ending, and there’s gonna be real pain and grief in a lot of different ways. I highly doubt sarah’s cool with that.
Some semi-related commentary about how people handle “messing up”:
I’ve noticed some people think of “messing up” as not actually BAD if there is an excuse such as “they’re young” or “they are dealing with a lot”. This will even be applied to themselves with “I don’t need to be good all the time. It’s okay to make mistakes sometimes” which is true in a sense, but doesn’t work if you apply it before making the “mistake”. If you really thought it was bad you wouldn’t do it.
I think why people often approach “bad decisions” this way is because their morality is still influenced by shame and punishment. Somewhere they think that if someone does something BAD, really bad not just the “oh I’m a mess” bad, that they are a bad person. Being Bad means “deserving punishment” such as ostracism, denial of resources, etc…
Now faced with this, if they don’t want to punish someone, themselves or someone else, people find ways to excuse bad behavior. They correctly want to give grace, but the means they have to do so is to focus on the excuse rather than the behavior.
I think if we use a moral system that is not shame based or punitive then it changes our perspective on “bad actions”. Start with the undeniable, unquestionable, unalterable worth of all humans, and then consider the morality of actions. Under this perspective “bad”/undesirable actions aren’t avoided for fear of moral shame. We don’t try to be “good people” because “good people” are better.
Instead good actions are pursued because they are good. If we don’t manage to do everything good, that is just a limitation and a learning opportunity. We can recognize that after the fact with “I’ve realized I would like to act differently in the future” but when making plans it is nonsensical to say “It’s okay for me to be bad just this once”. The very meaning of “bad” would be that you don’t want to do it, because you recognize it as worse than an alternative.
I think its important to ask yourself if you are engaging in shame or punative based ideas not only towards joyce and joe but to the people in the comment section. It would explain a lot of defensivness if people think you are imply they are a bad or immoral person for liking joyce and dorothies relationship.
Honestly, Sarah’s going to be judgey about this because that’s kind of who she is. She was completely unable to interact with Lucy, for example, without constantly telling her how the way Lucy goes through life is wrong.
Real “whatever it is, I’m against it” vibes.
The shit of it is that she’s right 90% of the time, but it’s that last 10% that always get you.
*quick detour while I watch Groucho Marx singing while in a cap and gown*
So, what you’re saying isn’t “I’m not sure what’s going on but I smell a rat,” but more, “I’m just going to be a stick in the mud because that’s what I am; I’m being critical not because of the situation, but because I am always critical.”
… If my take is correct, I kind of feel like that’s a bit uncharitable of Sarah and all the character growth she’s been doing.
Deep down Sarah is a good person, and hopefully her new relationship with Tony will distract her, but her favorite thing to do is look for the negative in any situation. That’s been a constant with her. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad. I don’t think her character growth has really been in that direction.
After yesterday’s conversation about when representation is allowed or valid, I wanted to recommend the Book “Let This Radicalize You: Organizing and the Revolution of Reciprocal Care” here.It’s written by Kelly Hayes and Mariame Kaba, respectively a native Menominee activist and a black first-generation activist. While the book is about activism, the authors count art, poetry, and other creative works as part of activism, so it felt relevant to yesterday’s thread to me.
“As we work to build more sustainable movements, we must think hard about our strategies for responding when organizers make mistakes. Social media can often foster a ‘zero-tolerance’ attitude about political ignorance or missteps. […] Our movements are not driven by getting the words just right. They are driven by the goal of enacting change through collective struggle as we endeavor to both understand ideas and turn them into action. Fumbling is inevitable, but, as [organizer Ruth Wilson] Gilmore tells us, ‘practice makes different.’ […]
“Longtime organizer and Vision Change Win founder Ejeris Dixon emphasizes that people will show up imperfectly and that organizers have to anticipate that mistakes and harm will happen. ‘I worry we’re creating a culture now where people are so afraid to make mistakes,’ she told us. […] Dixon points out that when trust is lost, organizing not only becomes more difficult, but it also becomes more vulnerable to surveillance and infiltration: […] Therefore, she says, a key part of organizing is building bonds of trust, and that can only happen within a context where people are allowed to be vulnerable and make mistakes.”
If this resonates with anyone, I highly recommend this book. Hell, I recommend it to people who disagree with this bit too. It’s got something for everyone trying to bring about positive change in the world!
I don’t even mind that they kissed during a protest
it’s that in context, the genocide and how it affected cast members and people important to them wasn’t really made the focus
as much as this is an insensitive thing to do, I can tell that in the end Willis was just trying to reference an IRL event such that the comic felt more relevant to an audience of US college freshmen who wanted the cast and setting to be more relatable
and im not judgy as much as i am, like
I can tell Willis in basically a panic mode right now, I appreciate he’s trying to make up for it and make a better comic for us but he’s trying from the wrong angle
and like, I still acknowledge that there’s a limit to what he can do in this regard given he has to juggle so many other fucking plates in what’s ultimately a romcom comic about college students in the US who live far far away from the genocide
and like there’s a million ways the comic could be made more relevant to it’s intended audience, but in retrospect, featuring a genocide protest without serious intention to explore the depth of the issue, just wasn’t the best decision
and oh well, I guess as the message tends to be in this comic,
I tend to agree- it’s never not going to be a mistake Willis made.
But we can’t unring that bell. We can’t go back in time and change dozens of comics. So what should Willis do? On balance, I come down on liking that he’s putting acknowledgements that he fucked up in the strip, even if I’ll quibble about the execution.
Like, redoing “keesmas” as a discord server I’m on calls a big lesbian kiss between its two leads (Sleepless Domain is really good and Heartful Punch is a fantastic character to emulate if you want a fun D&D paladin) is a bit much- I think the benefit of acknowledgement and a chuckle-worthy punchline would be better served by changing the following strips.
And a muslim woman making a good point abkut “white freshmen” got undercut because it was delivered by Raidah, Known Antagonist.
But overall I approve of the idea and the intent behind it.
yeah like I’d appreciate if he be more up and front about it, instead of just hinting at it the same way he hinted at where the genocide was taking place with “”Bulmeria””
Lur (who is Hijabi Muslim) said herself that “hinting at it is for p_ss_es”.
like on top of retconning that strip, should have changed the alt-text to be like
“Yes this is a retcon. As much as I am anti-racist, I’m still an ex-fundie white dude and have a long way to go and have to acknowledge that having kissing white girls (among other things) eclipse the point of a genocide protest was a mistake.”
Did it need fixing? I thought Dorothy’s limp apathy for the protest was textual. She was heavy messing as a self-destructive behavior due to sublimated horniness.
Then again I am always against adding text to a silent punchline.
I mean, I hate Raidah as much as you do, but the point they made is still valid regardless of how shitty they are.
Like, the problem is not that Raidah made it but thinking “oh OTHER people (namely in the comments) aren’t gonna get it cuz **villains** are never allowed to make good points”
and at this point, I’m not really looking shock and awe at Willis, I’m looking his audience @-@
Which is why it’s a quibble. Willis did something he’s done before with Raidah (basically wanting we the people to quote The Dude at her [“You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!”]) and people got more hung up on the “asshole” part. Which is why I think a gentler, less antagonistic pushback from Asma would have been a better way to address it.
No, but it’s a combination of “this character is not an antagonist” and “Asma has been enough of a bit character that using her in this way would be more obvious that she’s being a mouthpiece for the author’s mea culpa”
Which I recognize fundamentally plays into the fact that there aren’t that many muslim folks in this comic, but that’s a separate thiugh obviously related issue and there’s no way to fix everything perfectly.
i think retconning this strip is the wrong move, i recognize Willis is Joycemaxxing right now, but the power of the strip is undercut by these two not immedietly accepting the consequences of what they’ve just done by going back in for seconds. pointing out “wow we sure are doing this at a genocide protest” doesn’t actually address the root of the issues people have with this happening at a genocide protest.
like personally I didn’t have any issues with the protest framing, all my issues with it were that the justification for going in felt flimsy and the strip-to-strip flow being a bit off at times, and all of the in-universe issues of “they know nothing about the issue and made themselves the main characters like dipshits” are all things that can be addressed in future strips to better effect. this retroactive change makes me feel LESS okay with it, because now it feels a bit too much like one of those MCU “well THAT just happened” quips, which feels more disrespectful of the protest setting, somehow?
i appreciate willis trying to do better and learning lessons from that arc, but the actual published strips need to be left alone imo
Did this strip get edited? I remember when I saw it last night it seemed like a lot more of Joyce’s underwear was visible, but now it seems the shirt goes down further.
Jesus this comment section is somehow even more exhausting than the like 2000 comment one. Like a bunch of yall are treating this like a morality play. I’ve seen less moral grandstanding at a church revival.
There have been a lot of genuinely strange situations brought up here, the last few days. Watching your parents fuck, chopping pieces off of people’s bodies as a common punishment, funny third thing, it’s getting increasingly odd and divorced from the actual comic.
Because its about depiction vs endorsment and or fiction vs reality the paladins are just fandom purity culture invading to say that immoral actions should not be depicted or if they are they must be punished its hayes code mixed with respectibility politics. If I wanted that I would have gone back to tumblr.
yeah im not talking about people like you if your not shaming the fans forblike being happy about joyce/dorothy then I have no problem with you. As long as the consequences arent like joyce loses all her friends and ends up alone which is a hot take I see a lot in this comment section.
I want them to lose Joe and Waljy because duh. I want Becky to have to grapple with the notion that Joyce is queer but still not into her and maybe take some distance because of that. I want Dina to be upset both on Joe and Becky’s behalf as well as payoff for her being Becky’s rebound.
I want Sal to be more down on them out of solidarity with her brother and her bf’s bestie eternal. Jacob to stand up for his workout buddy. There’s actually quite a few people I think should distance themselves significantly from Joyce and Dorothy over this.
“Losing a fairly large portion of your friends” was what happened to folks who cheated on other members of the friend group in my own college experience, which was somewhat similar to the main cast here in that we were all dorks in the same co-ed dorm who ran into each other in the lobby and whatnot.
Mostly, and I recognize I’m saying this about a comic that features Amazi-girl, I want the interpersonal relationships to continue to feel like they’re grounded in a version of reality that makes sense to me, and as Rogue 7 enumerates that will likely involve a lot of folks having their view of Dorothy and Joyce kinda blown up.
Loading ...
AND HERE! WE! GO! 😀
Honestly, I think Sarah is the best person to force this conversation.
She’s not going to explode at them, or even really be hurt, but she’s also not going to let either Joyce or Dorothy off the hook either.
” I just started liking Joe and I wake up to THIS?!”
Sarah’s headaches can move mountains
And she’s primed to be sore after overdoing it in the gym yesterday.
Sarah is Tetsuo in Akira confirmed
No, but truly imagine it from Sarah’s perspective.
She. Put effort. Real effort, into liking Joe. For Joyce. And it was all for nothing?!
I mean, luckily not, because Joe is pretty cool, now. But I’d still feel aggrieved if I had to expend social effort for nothing!
Day 3? Day 4?
Joyce and Dorothy are a dull couple. DULL.
Starting the count before these mid lesbians actually become interesting.
I’m not hopeful.
Neither one of them is a lesbian as far as we know. I’m sorry you don’t find their relationship interesting yet, hopefully you get what you want soon.
A young woman struggling to overcome her fundamentalist past, and young man doing his level best to be respectful of that struggle and be better than his former self. If you find that dull, how much drama do you want?
Can’t speak for MordWa (whose tone I dislike), but as far as I’m concerned this is really the first strip with “drama” with these kids, as opposed to “buildup of potential drama/calm before the storm” type stuff.
Personally, I think “enough setup, get to the action already” vs “the setup IS the action” is a thing reasonable people can disagree on.
nah they have to settle it in a duel actually
they can use like foam bats or whatever doesn’t have to be swords
My third position here is that more setup means the action is going to be bigger. The setup isn’t the action, but the more it builds up before the storm hits, the bigger the impact.
If we’re going to have a cheating story arc, lets go all in.
While that’s generally true, I think this story in particular could benefit from some earlier consequences that set up further actions/decisions, that then leads to more drama.
I mean WordMa is saying Joyce and Dorothy are a boring couple. Joe has nothing to do with it.
She might even tell them “why not go poly then if you love both of them ?”
Sarah, out of all of them, knows poly is utterly off the table for these characters unless one of them gets Telemundo Amnesia.
“Telemundo Amnesia?”
Telemundo is basically Spanish-language soap opera TV. So amnesia that serves to provide convenient plot drama/info reset/chaos etc. 😀
I mean, I know what Telemundo is… I just wasn’t aware it had its own brand of amnesia. Was wondering if/how it was different from regular plot-induced amnesia.
Basically, it’s noting that telemundo/soap opera tend to use amnesia as a plot support device, rather than as a plot unto itself. Need to stretch out a storyline? One of the characters with key information now can’t remember that info!
Secondly, its gonna be fun if Joyce tries to the pull the “You wanted me to break up Jacob and Raidah” card on Sarah.
Because Sarah actually grew as a person from that.
I don’t think that’s likely. The you wanted me to have nothing to do with Joe card is still in play.
Dorothy can play the “you literally asked me to get gay with Joyce to pry her off Joe” card, too.
The point ultimately is, the three of them alone is just as potentially juicy as any confrontation with Joe/Walky would be, because of their ongoing history.
Agreed.
…did she?
Specifically from that?
From the aftermath of it. Which is more then we could say about Joyce during that situation.
I guess. I honestly feel like what Sarah regretted from that scenario was that Joyce got hurt? I don’t think she was ever confronted by Jacob about it, and I know she doesn’t regret ruining Raidah’s month.
Jacob and her talked about it later, when she shot her shot and he told her no.
they better watch out for Certain Meddling Teenagers XD
That’s what I want to know! Is that what she’s doing? Because!
cuz Coolsville, get it? XD
If DOA is animated in Tom Ruegger’s style, it doesn’t come through in still comics.
… and their mangy mutt?
Oh damn! Her chickens! 😱
Hey here’s a question for you: Why are roosters specifically male chickens when hens also roost?
It’s a euphemism for the other word.
Cockerel. 🐓
There’s an old story about a sheriff testifying before a mixed-sex jury. To keep from offending the ladies, he said, “I roostered my gun.”
okay but Roostering totally sounds like some funny old-timey slang. i want to know what “roostering” actually is
Cocking. The word being avoided here is cock, which has come to mean something else in English.
It’s from French, BTW. They spell it coq there for, presumably, some reason. Perhaps you’ve heard of coq au vin?
In Latin languages, the K/hard C sound is more often represented by q:
Quelle dommage!
¿Qué?
From the quick Google search I just did:
While French does use the Latin (or Roman) alphabet that contains 26 letters, two of those are not native to the French language. Those are the ‘K’ and the ‘W. ‘ The ‘W’ was added to the French alphabet in the mid-19th century and the ‘K’ followed soon after.
Getting up at an absurdly early time of day and loudly proclaiming it to everyone around you?
hate that shit
proverbs 27:14 all the way with that one
When ya keep everything in the barnyard either settin’ or ready to lay. Willie Dixon got it, even if the Stones didn’t.
(though tbf even Howlin’ Wolf did the bowdlerised version right up until the London sessions, far as I can make out.)
Joyce just did the worst thing in her life: she’s gonna make Sarah stand up for Joe.
Send her to the Hague
oh no! my ex lives there!
I mean like, it’s not a bad city (though idk how it is when you’re sent to the ICC) but it was NOT a good relationship and it ended badly to boot so I haven’t been back since before we brokeup
Send your ex to the — oh wait
Gotta play mom and big sister catching your Joyce in the aftermath lol
^ That’s bait up there. That’s what that is.
I’m assuming that Sarah has been standing there, in that exact pose with that exact facial expression, just off-panel all night long, waiting.
Maybe not all night long, but probably for some time before Joyce and Dorothy woke up and decided to get out of bed.
Her expression might’ve gotten worse, depending on the time between “woke up” and “got out of bed.”
Oops – was gonna reply and accidentally hit report!
That thing really needs a confirm dialog.
To be fair, Sarah does that every morning.
One way to avoid the triangle smile alarm!
Joyce – ,o(Dammit, i was so smooth and charming with Dorothy! How do I do that with Sarah?? Quick, think of something!!)
Suddenly Joyce makes out with Sarah, and everything is worse forever, and that’s great.
Worse and also better! (joking)
I like to think Sarah has just been stewing on this all night waiting for the funniest moment
Next strip we zoom out to see that she had a little chair set up, and snacks so she wouldn’t miss it.
..oo(Wait no! Not like that!)
Please ignore. I’m mis-clicking everything tonight
I’m confused.
My impression is that nothing happened. Is it unusual for close girlfriends to snuggle in bed? Am I wrong?
Could be that Sarah has read the newspaper that morning.
Some of y’all are addicted to newspapers or something.
Jennifer specifically mentioned that the newspaper was covering the protests. More to the point, the aggressively lesbian editor was covering the protest. That’s one hell of a Chekov’s Gun to leave laying around.
I will honestly be disappointed if it doesn’t come into play. Like, it would be iconic, dramatic, comedic, and both be referencing all the viral progtest-kiss photos while also leaning into the white women making the protest about them conversation.
I think it’s too early to discount the newspaper, but I think if Sarah had seen them kissing on the front page, the paper would be in her hands right now.
Yes.
Love your profile pic Taffy!
As you should. Willis draws excellent yuri.
If anyone working for the school newspaper took pictures of them kissing at the protest, I wouldn’t be surprised if Daisy put it on the front page story.
HOT LESBIAN ACTION
also protests
That gun could blow a load any moment now!
Chekhov (Чехов), with “kh” pronounced like the “ch” as in “loch” if you know what I mean. Not the one from Star Trek – Chekov (Чеков) is a real name that exists, but it’s much rarer than Chekhov (and unrelated).
And it seems like it wasn’t ONLY the Indiana Daily Student (campus newspaper) covering the protest. It’s probably being covered by bigger media, because we know it was raided by the state police Joyce’s dad, who lives a ways away, saw some photo from the protest and texted Joyce asking about it.
Not necessary, they’ve been acting conspicuous as fuck since they game in last night. Like it just takes the smallest amount of observational skills to notice somethings up. You could pick up what’s happening with a passive perception of 5
Plus maybe Sarah woke up early enough to hear them make out/whisper lovingly earlier
They are almost certainly not as quiet as they think they are and have been acting weird and suspicious for like 12 hours. She can put two and two together.
Nothing happened, but it’s still obvious. See Aug. 1.
*actual* ‘just gals being pals’ don’t tend to have extended, awkward, probably-not-whispered-enough conversations about how to exit the bed all cool-like and seperate
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-8/01-face-the-strange/early-2/
Last time we see Joyce and Dorothy (as besties) in the same bed, they were completely dressed and over the covers. Joyce is slipping out of bed in a shirt and undies, Sarah might have seen them both snuggling in/under the covers, and she is already aware that they have a “gay little thing” going on as she put it. Also Joyce was whispering about being gay for Dorothy a few strips ago she might have overheard.
As for your question about close girlfriends, I’d say it depends on the person. I, for example, do not snuggle any of my friends in bed. I can barely share a bed with my friends, honestly, though that’s partially because I toss and turn like an egg beater. But even when I was younger and shared a bed with my girl friends, I never like… looped my arms/legs with them while sleeping. We just slept next to each other. Other people might have different standards for how they co-sleep with their friends but I’d say Sarah’s been around Joyce to recognize she only sleeps cuddled up and in underwear with lovers.
Personally I’m a cuddler, and other people aways think it’s super weird that my friends will specifically come to me just for this. My friend group is in dire need of comfort, I suppose.
In your undies though? I get in your PJ’s and whatnot, I’m a GD oven and have been snuggled by the iciest feeted hobbits around, so I get that. but not in my undies.
Yeah, I’m a cuddler as well, and my friends also come to me for hugs specifically.
But fully clothed, and not “sleeping in bed together”.
Sarah had to have overhead everything. She sleeps less than 3 feet below the top bunk.
They made out and then snuggled in their underwear. Sarah isn’t stupid.
Billie, is that you?
she knows what’s up, has been warming to Joe, and has a history of her sister “stealing” her boyfriends.
Even if it’s normal for some girl friends to snuggle in bed, I assume not for all of them, and I’m pretty sure Joyce and Dorothy have been acting differently than normal despite trying to act how they normally act with each other around Sarah.
That was Joyce and Dorothy’s argument before going to bed. “It’d be more suspicious if we didn’t.”
But they’ve been acting all weird and self-conscious about it this time.
At this point there are so many ways for Sarah to have found/figured this out that the only question is how many of them happened.
Them being close girlfriends is exactly the problem, if you recall
Ohh, momma is not proud of you Joyce!
I think Joyce’s best play is honestly to climb right back up that ladder and consider coming down in a month or two.
Oh for the internal struggle as Dorothy tries to come up with reasons against that.
At some point, they’ll end up needing to do laundry.
1 theory is that’s how they kept Sarah up.
I think if Dorothy and Joyce had sex (“again” if you count the washing machines), given how important it would be to their current storyline, it isn’t going to happen without comment off-screen. There would be a slipshine and a lead-up and decisions made.
So I don’t think that’s how they kept Sarah up. Seems unlikely.
You can make out loudly enough to keep someone awake without progressing all the way to sex.
Especially if you are sleepily “whispering” to each other about your gayness level.
With sample size n=1, college freshmen I have roomed with do not have any goddamn idea how loudly “a whisper to their girlfriend in the same bed” carries in a quiet winter dorm room.
The comment I responded to was talking about “doing laundry” as a euphemism for sex, not making out (unless I misunderstood).
They’re gonna have to leave the bed eventually to go to the bathroom and eat food and drink water.
MAY CHAOS TAKE THE WORLD!
Wait for it.
I wonder what tipped her off
the real swerve is she’s actually here to talk about something else!!
*Expectations subverted!*
These two are subtle as an old rusty garbage truck on a pothole street.
Hahahaha heeeeere we go
Oh no! You mean the scene of cuddling that all these people were saying was “useless and pointless” and “meant there would be no drama, just cozy mode” was actually SETTING UP THE PLOT? What were the odds?
Shocking. I’m shocked. Look at the shocked expression on my face.
Maybe you need to take a nap? Come back to the comments in a few hours?
The ones expecting no comeuppance are eagerly looking forward to be proven wrong, but *can* be annoyingly loud about doubting they’ll get to see any.
And that can make others annoyed because they’re reveling in the trash fire.
It’s like when Ruth got bored and annoyed with Mary, so she drew a dick on her hand, and Mary was so busy commentating on it in real time, she didn’t notice Ruth was about to slap her in the face with the inky dick hand.
Mostly the whole “people expecting no comeuppance” is just a bad faith reading.
It isn’t “we think there will be no consequences ever in the comic” it is “we think the comic, and many of the audience, are framing the relationship as cute, and that in doing so they are romanticizing and glossing over the infidelity”.
There are two different emotional responses to the cuddle scene:
1. How cute!
2. Ugh, they are awful.
If you have the first response it is because you find the intimacy in their relationship to be the most compelling thing in the scene.
If you have the second response it is because you are still primarily interpreting the scene through the lens of cheating. The intimacy isn’t “cute” rather it is another act of betrayal.
Now that you mention it, Joyce and Dorothy ARE cery cute! And the cheating nakes it even cuter. Thanks you for that.
Spot-on with paragraph 2. I’m not worried about Joyce or Dorothy getting “comeuppance.” But I *am* concerned that the core message will be, “That was a really awkward time, and I regret hurting someone else, but it was worth it because now I’m with my soulmate.”
Which is just the sort of lie that people tell themselves while they are in the moment justifying cheating.
I’d know. I have experienced this from both perspectives, back in high school. I have been cheated on, and I have done the cheating, all in the span of about sixteen months. It’s now been over twenty years, and I look at this and still feel sick.
I don’t want comeuppance and I don’t want to scold and chastise and I’m not Team Dorolky or Team Joyrothy Team Joerothyce. What I wish, is that someone would treat this as if it wasn’t just either something that “Oh noes, Dorothy and Joyce are goign to get in trooouble” or “Ooo, hot, cheating lesbians” or “The sinners shall burn in the fires of Mount Doom for eternity” or something.
Joe was so scared of hurting a woman in the same way that his dad hurt his mom, that he changed his entire personality, his view on women, his goals for relationship, and the degree of which he would allow closeness, so that he would never potentially do that. Amber’s got a half-brother from the fact that her father cheated on his mother *long before* they ever got a divorce, cheated on her while he was beating her. Being unfaithful to another person used to be treated with a certain level of gravitas that seems to have been lost now.
It’s not so much about betrayal. It’s about the degree to which you demean and diminish the other person, turning their care and love for you into something that you not only don’t reciprocate, but don’t even cherish enough to be concerned for their own wellbeing.
And so no, I really don’t like this because I don’t get a kick out of watching abusive relationships, and Joyce continuing to cheat on Joe while he gives her an extremely thoughtful gift meant to help her feel happy, safe, and loved, which she then uses while sleeping with someone else… yeah, I don’t like that she treats him like garbage. Or that she’s now treating Dorothy like garbage, and Dorothy’s apparently OK with it, because it wasn’t “technically” cheating yet. With how Dorothy was the previous night when she was imagining Joe and Joyce together, that had *got* to be something that Dorothy’s compartimentalized.
full agreement. and I think I worded myself in a less then great way.
This post is outstanding. I couldn’t have phrased it better myself.
The patronizing is wholly unnecessary.
Never stopped anyone before, I guess.
I just don’t understand coming into a room looking for a fight. Like, if it was in response to somebody posting such today, OK fine. But this is a base comment just trying to start something.
To be 100% with you, I lost track and thought this was a reply to the top-level
good point I agree with. like, it’s not like I don’t get the impulse to go “btw you were wrong about that thing you said yesterday” or whatever but I do generally keep those to myself because it’s just a sort of unpleasant thing to do, especially about miniscule stuff like this.
anyways, that wasn’t really clear from your first comment though. if you’re annoyed with someone looking for a fight, why engange on that level?
This is not starting a fight? Or it is it certainly didn’t work.
But some people were WRONG about their webcomic predictions! They need to feel bad about that!
Most of your comments are wholly unnecessary
I say the same to you and yet neither it’s going to dtop are we? 😉
Are anyone’s comments necessary?
As someone who thought the cuddling scene was useless/pointless because it was DELAYING the drama, I enjoy having been right (for reasonable values of “right”).
It extended the tension!
Absolutely fair to not have wanted the tension extended, but it did that. Also the most recent strip had Joyce say she’s bi out loud, and I think that itself was important.
it’s a notable milestone, like with metal gear solid 2
Ooooh, Joyce, you in TROUBLE…
You got some splaining to do.
Sarah’s not having any of this shit.
JokerHereWeGoMeme.jpg
“Miss Brown…again we see there is nothing you possess which I cannot take away.”
Okay. That *would* be an interesting twist.
Goodbye, Ms. Bond:
https://youtu.be/5DtEAd9KE5c?si=D6Mkax5P3WlNncA7
Sarah….without mercy
Sending Joyce out first was a 10/10 idea from Dorothy, she’s going to need to be at least that smart for the whole rest of the day. At least.
Time will tell!
Ye, I think it’s also specifically not a watch of any type but a Fitbit.
Willis has an aversion to all types of jewelry, including watches, but characters do sometimes wear fitbits and other silicone / plastic athletic accessories.
Pff right that’s where I wanted that comment. /moves it!
plays “We Know” on the Hacked Muzak
I still cannot believe they did this!
Why would you sleep with wristbands/watches? They’re so uncomfortable!
I should wear one to monitor my heart rate while I sleep, but I can’t find one with a band I won’t rip off. I put it on backwards on my dominant arm and tore the actual silicone strap and threw it across the room in my sleep. Recovering from top surgery I got out of my compression binder that had probably 16 eye hooks and a zipper, threw it across the room, and bellowed “No bra!” while asleep. My partner couldn’t wake me up to get it back on so he just waited until morning.
This gave me a good hearty chuckle
I hope your recovery was well!
I think this is a subjective sensory thing; most of the time I only know my watch is there because it’s always there
Speaking as someone who looks around for the glasses that are setting on his face, I can relate.
Yeah, I think the sensation is not what I am used to. I am too aware of everything I wear hah
My partner has nerve damage in his wrist from falling asleep with a watch on (and presumably exacerbating it by rolling on top of his wrist or something).
Did not know that can happen- and the possibility is unnerving to me!
Jokes aside, hope the pain isn’t too bad. Such an accidental way of getting it too
I wonder what kind of watch band were they wearing.
I didn’t know that could happen either. And it is unnerving. I wore a watch almost constantly from when I was a kid up until I was around 50ish and started carrying a pager that always had the time. The watch came off when I was going to be in water, mostly bathing or showering, but otherwise it was on my wrist. There were some of the elastic wrist bands I had to change out because they were digging into my skin and leaving marks.
I dunno. Maybe I was just lucky. The pager was eventually replaced by a flip phone, and now by a cell phone in a holster, but I still sometimes look at my empty wrist if I want to know what time it is.
My watch monitors my heart rate, blood oxy, and snoring — I’ve got a family history of severe apnea and sinus/breathing issues, so I actually feel less comfortable without it on. What if I have a first-time bad apnea episode and NEVER KNOW?
I didn’t consider this at all, but that is so fair. I’m almost sold on wearing a watch now for my own health-
When I take my watch off, I am aware of its absence. This sensation is annoying enough to interfere with sleep.
That’s really interesting. As someone who frequently took of watches when I had them, I guess I’m just not used to the extra weight of it all.
Is the sensation like burning or like you’re missing a limb?
Hope y’all don’t mind me replying. I am a bit new, but have been reading DoA on-and-off.
Just delighted to get some replies from my silly comment
Ye, I think it’s also specifically not a watch of any type but a Fitbit.
Willis has an aversion to all types of jewelry, including watches, but characters do sometimes wear fitbits and other silicone / plastic athletic accessories.
So the deception lasted 0 minutes, new Joyce record!
Oh, I’m sure she’s hit negative numbers before
Sarah isn’t usually one to be less awake than Joyce in the mornings, but scorn is a bigger pick-me-up than coffee for her.
https://imgur.com/a/3acPo0W
Sometimes I draw.
Needs more blood.
chef’s kiss!!
niiice
finally I can think in that without guilty anymore
Always a good day when we get the blessing of some Yotomoe art (also Liv and Brie are adorable and I wish good things for them).
I’ve been drawing a lot of them lately. I just haven’t posted it anywhere.
Damn it, Yotomoe. How can we argue about inconsequential things if we’re busy admiring your art.
Very nice Yotomoe.
And you do so VERY well, Yotomoe. The comment section is richer for having you in it.
Gawd dayum… that’s right. You earned yourself the “two-syllable damn.” Anyway, to quote the man they call Jane, “I’ll be in my bunk.”
https://imgur.com/a/v2Mh1KG
Morning Warmups
Cuuuuute ❤️
[Tex Avery Wolf Behavior]
damn, look at these abs!
I think Coolsville sucks.
Rut roh.
The cooliest of villes!
I THINK COOLSVILLE SUCKS.
We have about thirty seconds until disaster
It’s been nice knowing all of you, I hope to see some of you on the other side of the ensuing massacre which will be committed by various cast members o7
chinhanding intensifies
Are all the strips in this story going to be primarily monochromatic? Green, blue, orange, and now pink. They all look very lovely!
If you enjoy that effect, I’d like to point you toward Go Get a Roomie!, another very nice webcomic about queers, with a similar kind of palette.
I keep getting (not so) subtle lesbian pride flag vibes from Joyce’s clothing.
I see people jumped to the Scooby doo reference but all i can think of when hearing coolsville is the game date everything.
I think of the Rickie Lee Jones song.
The Rickie Lee Jones song and the Laurie Anderson song.
Laurie Anderson is new to me. The song has a cool sound, but I couldn’t divine the lyrics. I know, there’s such a thing as impressionism, but I was still on the outside looking in. But then, not every song is for everyone.
my first thought was the iron giant
“I thought you hated waking up?”
“I didn’t. I’ve been glaring at you off-camera for the last twelve hours.”
didn’t she spend the night at her BF ?
Folks assumed she would but there wasn’t anything in the strip indicating she was going to, and Joyce and Dorothy specifically hoped her presence would keep them from going “too far”, so I think if she’d left, they wouldn’t have spent the night together.
Can’t believe Sarah wasted a perfectly good chance to wake them both up with a “WAKEY WAKEY CHICKEN BAKEY”
‘EGGS AND BAKEY’, n’est pas?
Joyce apparently does chicken bakey. I believe this is a reprise of another Joyce wakey wakey but I can’t find the strip.
Robin wakey-wakeys you with Cadbury creme eggs
While her roommate prior to Joyce was more of a “Wakey wakey, let’s get bakey” sort of gal.
Boy oh boy, sure wouldn’t want to be Joyce Right now… Wait.
Crisis averted?
Let’s do one more, I was already Booster for like, 6 months.
One upping: I was Gallaso for ages.
She just spent the last 8 hours or so cuddling Dorothy and has the prospect of doing so again in the near future. I’d put up with plenty of Sarah scorn for that.
Yes, this will do.
“Now Joyce, I’m ride or die but come on”
“I’m ride or die and now someone’s gonna die”
If this becomes a whole conversation, how long until Joyce mentions Jacob?
I think she’d legit take a swing at Joyce if she did that.
That thing that blew up in Joyce’s face, and which Joyce forgave her for because Sara had enough sense to feel shame?
She’d be bringing up a lesson she should have learned.
Well, she could bring up that Sarah solicited Dorothy to break up Joyce and Joe just a week ago.
if Sarah is that disappointed, it will scale in a very sad way
I’m not seeing disappointment. I’m seeing, “OK, Joyce, stop the bullshit and speak truth.”
Or at the very least “Lemme make sure I’m reading the room right.”
I can see it.
YES… HA HA HA… YES! >:)
Sickos keep winning
Could this strip be endorsed by both camps? It looks like it may presage both drama (sickos) *and* consequences for Joyce and Dorothy’s actions (paladins)
As a devout Paladin I am allowed one Sicko moment, as a treat, and this is my one. 🙂
The drama was always at least 50% about the consequences. The delineation between sickos and relationship paladins was a made up little joke that falls apart if you look at individual people on either side.
~ A sicko who absolutely wants lots of consequences in my stupid sexy college drama.
It seems like that people, including my paladin self at times, forget that at least some of the original delineation was “paladins wanted no cheating to begin with”.
Most folks wanted good drama, and just differed on how we got there.
I think that, as with the “is this cheating” conversations, there’s also been a separate but related argument about types of drama more generally.
But yeah, “Paladin versus sicko” has kind of grown and expanded…. like mold, heh.
“Do you want to see Joyce and Dorothy cheat” — paladins emphatically no, sickos either “yes” or “I just want to see mess” (there’s definitely a segment of readers who would’ve been just as happy if Joyce had cheated on Joe with anyone).
“Have they already cheated by doing xyz” — some sickos said yes the second Dorothy sent an accidental photo, while some paladins I saw didn’t think they’d fully crossed the rubicon until the kiss. All paladins agreed that cheating was very wrong and didn’t want it to happen, but I did see some genuine disagreements about what constituted cheating.
Like, for sure, some people were cheering Joyce and Dorothy on AND arguing that they hadn’t cheated yet, and I think for some of the cheering people, that they didn’t think Dorothy and Joyce had done anything “that bad” yet was part of why they were cheering, or part of why they were (often rudely) exasperated with Paladin-ish sentiments, but plenty of sickos we’re also like, “yes this is cheating, but it’s fiction so I don’t care.”
(Whether they mean “I don’t care about the characters enough to be invested in their happiness” OR “I do care about the characters, but I specifically want them to make bad decisions here for my entertainment” OR “I care about the characters and I’m kind of worried about them, but fictional cheating doesn’t outrage me” very much depends on the individual person, but a lot of people did specifically say “I don’t care”, and that’s very open to interpretation!)
“Do you want to see consequences” — lots of paladins and sickos would say YES. Interestingly, I think the people most in agreement on this point are the most “extreme” people in both camps, because hardline relationship paladins want Joyce and Dorothy to lose all their friends over this — and that’s also what Maximum Chaos Gremlin sickos want! Blow it all up! Burn it all down!!
I’m sure there are still some people who specifically want to see Joyce break Joe’s heart, regret everything, break up with Dorothy, and spend however long it takes trying to make this up to Joe in the hopes that he’ll take her back, the “Season 3 Willow” path. But most paladin-ish comments I’ve seen instead want Joe to turn his back on Joyce and find someone new who actually deserves the guy he’s become. I think this is part of why “poly” comments are so aggravating for this camp — they don’t think Joyce deserves Joe.
I’m sure they ALSO think a poly “solution” would be too easy or less dramatic (which I don’t think is at all true, but they do seem to be imagining it in a “and so anime was solved forever” prozd joke sort of way) — but I think the crucial issue is believing that Joyce doesn’t deserve Joe.
Now, none of the True Sickos ™ would say they DON’T want any mess, but there are certainly people in “our” ranks who want mess, and who imagine that the messiest possible solution here would be “Joe and Walky agree to try polyamory”. None of these teenagers is ready for that! It would be a disaster! But not necessarily a disaster that has to involve anyone being mad at Joyce and Dorothy for the cheating.
Different flavors of mess!
(I also think this last bit is part of the disconnect the “two camps” have been having ever since the girls started being cute together — that paladins thought sickos all wanted mess in the form of anger and tears and recriminations over the cheating, but that a fair number of sickos were already excitedly drawing up mental charts of how badly a poly arrangement might go, and therefore weren’t disappointed yet, because the kiss itself wasn’t where they expected the mess to start.)
…and of course some people ARE just cheering Dorothy and Joyce kissing regardless of circumstances because OTP or because more characters being bi is a net win. These folks have never identified as sickos and have always hoped the girls would get out of this relatively unscathed.
scandalous
Ah, the most important thing: payoff for that one person yesterday who was bemoaning the fact that sleeping with your arms around your partner tends to cut off blood flow.
*Two days ago, sorry
Learning it’s not like the movies after all was seriously a sucky lesson to learn. More so even when your partner has wild hair.
Sometimes if you have a squishy enough bed and a squishy enough partner you can do it for longer than you might otherwise, but yeah… Things that are great for like 15 minutes tops and then you start suffering consequences.
stiff pillows are a godsend for this. something foam with just enough give. leaves room for your forearm and they sleep at a higher up angle to help snoring.
People should be helped to snore?
Not everyone has enough blood pressure to sleep at an angle.
Bean soup.
When I was young and a bunch of us had to sleep on a floor somewhere, one guy tenderly took my hands and tucked them under his head. I was enchanted wondering whether this was romantic. Apparently just softer than the floor. Shoulda put his head on my tummy…
I indeed cracked a smile.
Joyce, your big sister is unimpressed
Coolsville is over. Better Joyce hides in Anxiouscity.
IT BEGINS
Ah… Sarah. I remembered why I liked her.
You know… not even thinking about the Jacob situation–Lucy included or not… Sarah also had that incident where her own sister kinda sniped a boyfriend of hers, right? Or at least a guy she was interested in before sis took him for herself…
In a really similar way to how Lucy and Jacob paired up…
So Sarah… Sarah could have some thoughts about this.
I look forward to those thoughts.
Well, hopefully she also remembers that she tried to make this happen just a week ago.
Erm,
gentle reminder to some of us here that there are OTHER forms of recreation than arguing with random strangers on the internet
take my word for it as a game developer
that is to say, I think I’m gonna be taking a break from the comments for a while
some replies from yesterday just,
ranged from grossly oblivious to hitting some scary buttons
basically me rn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9zEl00iFus&t=609s
Oof. Nothing wrong with a mental health break. Sending positive vibes your way.
Internet gesture of support, NGPZ. 🙁 I’m sure Willis appreciated the comments.
But how else will they know they are wrong and that I am right?
wouldn’t you rather conk out to badly dubbed toyetic anime or something?
i know i would
Yeah they could be subscribing to my YouTube channel for more celery facts instead.
Sell me on this channel. Give me a celery fact.
If you spell it backwards, it says “yrelec”! Crazy, right?
Amazing!
I actually don’t have many celery facts on there. It’s mostly music I made.
A clever trap, now I’m stuck listening to your demo tape and hoping it contains celery facts.
I actually spend most of my time not arguing with strangers on the internet. I have hobbies and stuff. Though it can be difficult to resist arguing when someone says something incredibly dumb and wrong online.
Well now I want to know what games you’ve made! But that’s maybe not info you want to publicly share?
a bunch of them, like besides that one DoA fan game I made some time back, I basically make all my money by doing remote coding work for a lot of individuals and indie teams
like on my BlueSky you’ve seen me post stuff from a platformer I’m currently working on called Trek of the Oddities,
I also did work for Pomeraider and steam games like Dinosaur Cousin Squad, My Drug Cartel and Cross Impact
There are, but I come here to talk about the comic which sometimes includes disagreeing with people and rarely a genuine argument. I’m fine with my recreational choices, I have lots of hobbies.
I’m here to shitpost with occasional flashes of sincerity
A noble pursuit. I like it.
valid
but like
you know what I’m just gonna say it outright
besides Yak’s really disgusting diatribes relating to death penalty
yesterday on the megapost about the conversation I had with Lur (a friend of mine whose Hijabi Muslim) on Willis’ recent efforts on representing Asma more,
there was a reply which was really passive aggressively Islamophobic
like there’s lotta whitebred oblivious crap tossed around here but that’s the point where I have just HAD IT
no offense to your choices at all Nymph, just sharing how I feel
huh, turns out the Islamophobic crap got modded out
whether that was done by Willis himself or the comment was reported enough times,
I am thankful either way
I think, if you’re this upset, maybe focus on what you can do for yourself rather than telling others to take a day off.
People suck, sometimes people in the comments section SUCK, and I totally get hitting a limit with it. I take a few days here and there when I just don’t bother with the comments. Nothing wrong with that.
Either way, I hope you feel lots better soon.
im not telling others to take a day off, but rather yeah, just a reminder of what you literally just said XD
thanks
Game developer? link games plz.
here’s one
https://ngpz.itch.io/joyces-nightmare
thanks pal…
it’s also here on newgrounds, cuz I probably ain’t gonna be using itch.io for while
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/830313
which is also unfortunate, cuz it seems that’s also banned on a lot of University and corporate internet a lot of readers here use
like, are there any GOOD sites I can host my web games from???
or am i gonna have to buckle down and set up a personal website? (-_-)
Incoming real talk. Hopefully impending wisdom is not disregarded.
Do you expect me to talk? No Ms Joyce, i expect you to…. um yeah maybe talking is a good idea…
So is this a “DUN DUN DUN” type moment or a Metal Gear Solid “!” moment?
https://youtu.be/MS8OawQegYE?si=30o15uU5BcPvn_QK
Joyce, are you okay?… Joyce? JOOYYCCE!
in which these two completely fail to postpone the inevitable
Obviously I don’t approve of the cheating, but these two are super funny together.
Don’t trust Dorothy either actually.
I still don’t trust Tony, tbh. I know he’s not here, but that’s my gong and I’mma bang it.
Somehow I get the feeling Sarah has been waiting there for a while.
Aren’t the beds, like, head to head (or head to toe, or toe to toe)? Zero privacy?
🎵 O is for the only one I see! 🎵
“Dun dun DUN!” – Elon, Order of the Stick
Would you prefer greige or taupe?
Hello world! I’m breaking my 9 year lurking championship today :p
If you’d rather not engage with the Joyce/Dorothy discourse-drama and just want to enjoy today’s comic for what it is please skip this comment – I promise my intent isn’t to stir the pot, just want to let peeps know what my long-ass comment is gonna be about up front
I always read the comments because this comic is pretty though provoking and I like to get a little more perspective on the topics that come up. I started reading this comic when I was pretty young and it helped open my mind a bit especially irt LGBT folk and to understand where people raised christian are coming from. I think reading this comic has helped me to be a better friend to my queer friends and to better understand myself. (Also the best/only? depiction of grey-ace I’ve ever seen in media, shoutout Dina and kudos Willis!)
I have noticed over the years that sometimes the comments get pretty heated or I walk away from a comic with a completely different read and don’t understand the feelings expressed. (This isn’t why I’ve avoided commenting for so long tho I just prefer to be an internet ghost in general). For me, I think it’s a good sign both that I can stand my original opinions in some cases and reflect on why more people disagree with me in others. This arc seems significantly more contentious than usual, and I had some big feelings about it but didn’t comment out of pure habit. After I simmered down a little I had some thoughts that helped me untangle some of the mess for myself, and I thought I’d reach out to see if my reflections can help anyone else understand each other better or just feel more understood?
People seem to be upset about a lot of different things, but the more I read the more it seems like the core issue is about the concept of cheating itself. I’m seeking to understand specifically this concept without discussing the ships or the writing/story structure components, though I will lightly go into the specifics of the current arc. I’m hoping to explain to people who don’t understand what all the fuss is about why someone *in good faith* could be genuinely upset about it. I’m hoping to explain to people who think cheating is never ok why some people *in good faith* don’t think it’s that big a deal. (Disclaimer, obviously this is all my opinion. Sadly I am not an all-seeing expert on the human condition.) I’m going to refer to people who aren’t bothered by the cheating Sickos and people who are as Paladins even though it’s not that cut and dry for convenience and because I think the terms are kind of funny.
For Sickos, on Paladins:
The vibe that I’m getting is that many sickos think that cheating is more amorphous than paladins are giving it credit for and that there’s levels of harm involved rather than something that is always bad, full stop end of story. I think many think that the Joyce/Dorothy situation is not that harmful, and are having a really hard time understanding why the paladins are getting bent out of shape about it. There’s also the vigilance for queerphobia and misogyny, which is a good instinct! That shit can infect your brain without you even realizing it. However, if you are a sicko and you sincerely can’t think why someone could be earnestly upset about it I’ll try to explain. Even though different people have different expectations, the default expectation of ‘official’ relationships in US culture is monogamy. This isn’t to say it’s a good cultural expectation, but many people enter into a relationship expecting monogamy and believe that boundaries outside of that need to be negotiated in advance or they violate consent. Whether that’s a good system or not, that is the way most paladins are approaching the concept. What Joyce and Dorothy are doing isn’t a crime, and it’s disingenuous to compare it to one. But it can be hurtful to many people. Especially in Joe’s case, because he has trauma about cheating. Joyce isn’t a prize for character development, but she does know about this trauma and seems to care about him, and made deliberate advances despite this. I think this is why people are upset. Being in a relationship doesn’t mean you own the other person. But I think the paladins are reading it like if you told someone a deep personal secret without explicitly telling them not to tell anyone else, and they immediately told someone else. Being cheated on can cause lasting trust issues, so it’s not surprising that some people could have a strong reaction especially if it’s something they’ve experienced firsthand. Try to consider that a knee-jerk negative reaction can come from a place of genuine pain even if it’s not expressed eloquently. The characters aren’t perfect and neither are the commenters! Please try to give the benefit of the doubt where you can.
For Paladins on Sickos:
The vibe I’m getting is that for paladins cheating feels like a strict boundary and a serious violation, and it feels strange to see people not react the same way. I think paladins were less bothered about the Joyce/Jacob stuff not necessarily because of heteronormativity (though it’s good to be wary of it) but because the narrative clearly positioned it as wrong. However, I think there’s a good reason sickos don’t see it as so black and white. Most people in US culture are inherently pressured into monogamy whether they’re a good fit for it or not. As for what constitutes cheating, I think there’s truth to the idea that there’s different levels of cheating. Some people would count dancing with a friend of a compatible orientation. Some people would count having a huge crush on someone else even if you don’t act on it. I think many sickos don’t think cheating is as big a deal as paladins not because they’re callous but because they understand that it is entirely possible to genuinely love multiple people at once without having the tools for how to approach it ethically, especially when inexperienced. Also it can also be very hard to come to terms with realizing that your own sexuality is changing or is not what you thought it was. I think a lot of sickos think that what they’re doing is hurtful and are sad about the fallout, but their happiness at seeing a representation of queer self discovery long in the waiting comes to the forefront. Sicoks who do feel that cheating is a more serious thing probably feel hurt when paladins seemingly minimize the culmination of a queer story arc when paladins interpret the happiness for their relationship as equivalent to dismissal of the other characters’ feelings. Please try to consider that what’s being romanticized here is not the cheating but the relationship, even if the cheating is too big a limit for you.
Anyway those are my current thoughts about the subject. Sorry it’s ancient tome length ;_; I did my best to try to give a thorough read on the situation. I hope this can help some people to have a little understanding or just serve as a reminder if you already get it. I’m not going to argue my points, I probably won’t even comment again lol. Just thought amid all the heated responses some cooler reflections could be useful. I think the comments are full of passionate people doing their best to be ethical, and I’d like to see that energy put into being understanding of each other. And I know Willis works hard on this comic and the commenters don’t always see the behind the scenes. I’m glad Willis gets to write the stories they want to write, and I hope the comment drama isn’t getting them too down.
Best wishes all!
– Loki
I would clarify that I think the vast majority of readers, both sickos and paladins, agree that what they’re doing is cheating, and that cheating is ethically and morally bad. The difference primarily boils down to how people view portrayals of “evil” in fiction. Sickos generally feel that the actions depicted are bad, but the potential for good drama outweighs that fact. A character acting in a morally gray way or even an objectively bad way does not prevent them from liking the character. In contrast, most paladins either do not enjoy depictions of morally wrong behavior at all, or are incapable of empathizing and liking a character who does bad things.
There’s a lot of people on the sicko side taking the piss and saying “No, cheating is great actually, there’s nothing wrong happening here”. While a few people may genuinely believe that way, most are doing a bit of trolling. Most of the paladins as far as I can tell genuinely believe what they say (though some are undoubtedly being hyperbolic). I can’t say they’re objectively wrong for not enjoying seeing bad things depicted, but I disagree with any premise that means they shouldn’t be depicted.
Like, from where I’m sitting, I’m on the sicko side, but I’m not going to claim they’re in the right here. They’re doing a bad thing and they’re worse people because of it. But people can make mistakes and do bad things without it permanently blighting them, and I have every hope they can recover from this and do better in the future. Even if they fail, it makes for an excellent story that I’m excited to see where it goes.
A lot of the problem, from my POV, is twofold: people are taking the piss takes as real takes due to Poe’s Law, and people are using the sicko/paladin buckets as though they actually define two relatively coherent sides instead of a vast spectrum.
From where I’m sitting, I’m fundamentally on the “paladin” side, but in the sense of “I identify less with Joyce now because I never crossed this particular line despite having a similar tale of religious repression meeting horny in freshman year, and I’m disappointed that she fucked up” rather than necessarily “liking her less”.
OK OK Look, I get that readers tend to be really emotionally invested in DOA. Hey, I read it every day (and I’m 70). But maybe have bit of humor about the whole thing? Joyce isn’t a paladin or a sicko; she’s a fictional character advancing the plot as devised by David O. Willis.
By the way, for those readers who don’t subscribe to Patron, tomorrow’s strip has Expressions.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
“Sickos generally feel that the actions depicted are bad, but the potential for good drama outweighs that fact.”
I think the thing that “Paladins” generally respond to is when “Sickos” call the cheating cute. Drama is fine, but when the “cuteness” is the most important thing in the scene, when it is the first and primary response from the audience, it seems to be disregarding the whole betrayal, selfishness, and dishonesty.
No one has called the cheating cute in any seriousness.
What folks are doing is saying that a given interaction between Joyce and Dorothy is cute.
That action is in the context of cheating, so I get that the two are inseparable for you, but sickos who are calling any of this cute
(which isn’t all of us, because some of us very literally just want the messy consequences and aren’t invested in Joyce/Dorothy as a ship at all)
are definitely separating the two, and some of us take issue with being told we are calling cheating good and cute, when we’re not.
I go into this more in other comments, but the short of it is that emphasizing and focusing on the cuteness indicates something about how you are perceiving and interpreting the scene.
Saying “that is cute” when two people are cheating is calling cheating cute. They might not be saying it is cute because it is cheating, but it is still cheating and they are still calling it cute.
Like I said before, how would you feel if you were watching a scene of violence against Joyce and people were clapping because they thought the attacker looked cool?
They can still think the attacker is bad, right? They are just separating that judgement from the aesthetic appreciation of how “sick” that kick looked.
Or what if you were looking at a bigoted painting. Would you be exclaiming over the exquisite brush strokes, or would you be revolted?
You are entitled to feel that way (that calling a scene cute when the scene is in the context of cheating is calling cheating cute), but folks are still gonna rightfully object that that’s not what they’re saying. Your interpretation doesn’t trump their intent when it comes to “what does someone else mean by the words they’re saying”.
And, I mean, your other examples are… not as black-and-white as you think they are? Whether it’s possible to separate art from the artist, or to admire the technical craftsmanship of even active deliberate propaganda, is an argument that’s as old as, like, recognizable human civilization.
Reasonable people are gonna disagree with you about it. And an art historian who wants to talk about the place Birth of a Nature had in the history of cinema will be unimpressed with any insistence that they must think the KKK is cool.
Ugh. Birth of a Nation.
Also? Your last sentence…? Why is it important whether or not I’d be revolted by bigoted art? “Revulsion” isn’t a moral response. I am revolted by a lot of things — a lot of perfectly harmless things, like the idea of my parents having sex, or poop.
Some types of bigotry do make me feel physical revulsion, but that’s a lot less important than whether or not I feel compassion for the people being targeted by the bigotry, and moral outrage at the bigot. Revulsion is neither.
I don’t think aesthetics and ethics are fully different. They are just pointing towards two parts of the same thing.
I think when you are revolted by the thinking about your parents having sex it is part of your moral judgement. It is not that you think your parents having sex is wrong by itself but rather you have a moral aversion to you thinking about your parents sexually.
Sex is intimate. Imagining myself having sex with someone I am not attracted to is revolting because it is imagining something that I would find fundamentally violating.
Imagining your parents having sex is revolting because witnessing your parents having sex wouldn’t be something you, or your parents, would consent to. The imagining is supposing a sort of intimacy that would be harmful.
—
Our understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong. The feeling might not always point to the most effective response, but it does indicate that there is a problem that needs addressing.
So if you are revolted by bigotry that is because your moral intuition is telling you bigotry is wrong. You can then choose to focus your attention to where you believe it would do the most good.
I would argue both compassion and revulsion towards bigotry come from the same spot. We feel compassion because we recognize the worth and value of others. We feel revulsion when that worth and value is not respected. Our feelings are pointing us to the same place, just coming from different prompts.
@Odo The fact that your understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes you to feel something is wrong does not mean that our understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong. My understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in “does this actually cause harm?”.
Your understanding of morality may not have led you to any bigoted places, but an understanding of morality based on “intuition that causes us to feel something is wrong” is a fast route to basing your morality on internalized prejudice rather than on things being harmful.
I promise you my revulsion over the idea of my parents having sex has nothing to do with thinking about whether or not either of us would consent to me watching it?????? Genuinely: “ew”. It doesn’t get that far. It’s not assuming a lack of consent. It’s a pure gut reaction of revulsion that has nothing to do with morality.
Also, what Proxiehunter said, but I got into that more below.
@Proxiehunter
Why do you care about “does this actually cause harm?” Have you figured out some logical proof for ethics?
Fundamentally, at some point, you’ve decided that harming people is bad. And you make this decision not due to cold rationality, but due to your intuition.
It isn’t just me who relies on moral intuition. Everyone does. Because all knowledge traces back to intuition.
@Odo Because all knowledge traces back to intuition.
That is such a fundamentally incorrect statement that I have no idea how to begin arguing against it. That’s like young earth creationist level incorrect. Knowledge traces back to observation of reality not intuition.
Wait, are we talking Cartesian intuitions, or Kantian, or something else?
I don’t feel like you engaged with the point I made, and ironically in doing so you misrepresent it.
I am not saying “They think all cheating is cute”. I am not saying “they think it is cute because it is cheating”. I am saying “It is cheating AND they think it is cute”.
This isn’t a matter of “my interpretation” unless you disagree that the scene is depicting cheating or you disagree that some people think the scene is cute.
Maybe it would clarify things if I said “People think a particular instance of cheating is cute”.
Intent matters, but it does not override meaning. If someone said “you can do better than him” talking about your partner, maybe they intend it as a compliment towards you, but it is also an insult towards your partner. The meaning is bad even if the intent is good.
When people say “how cute” about a scene of cheating, they might be responding to the blush, the tender touches, the emotional vulnerability… but their words are also calling an instance of cheating cute.
Ask a Film Historian what is the first thing someone should hear about Birth of a Nation. Ask what the main emotional response would be.
Do you think a non-racist Historian would say “First of all, you need to pay attention to the novel use of moving camera shots”?
Birth of a Nation is actually a great example because people have already recognized that it is so racist that it is quarantined to try to keep it so that it is only viewed in the limited context of film history. The racism is dealt with first.
And the racism is addressed in how people displaying it choose to frame it. It is explicitly framed as “This is super racist. You probably shouldn’t watch this unless you have a good reason rooted in historical study”.
—
And I think you aren’t fully responding to the question I asked.
How specifically would you feel if this comic had a strip where Joe was punching Joyce in a fit of rage, Joe was presented surrounded by heroic imagery, and a major response from the audience was “How Cool”?
We don’t need to answer the whole question of how exactly to separate parts of art from the whole to answer that specific question.
And if it would disturb you to see domestic violence framed that way, if it would disturb you to see people responding primarily to the “coolness” rather than the abuse, then you are having a moral intuition that something is wrong.
— Right, but “it is cheating AND they think it is cute” is your perspective. Folks saying “aw” are still going to object that they didn’t say the cheating part is cute, and that that’s not what they think is cute.
I’m not misrepresenting your point. I’m arguing that you cannot dictate what other people mean by the words they say.
— Ask a Film Historian what is the first thing someone should hear about Birth of a Nation. Ask what the main emotional response would be.
Again this focus on what someone’s emotional response should be…
Do you think a non-racist Historian would say “First of all, you need to pay attention to the novel use of moving camera shots”?
I don’t think any version of that sentence would escape a film historian’s mouth, regardless of how racist they are or aren’t, because I don’t think they’re especially concerned with the order in which people have reactions to the movie?
I’m sure they expect strongly negative emotional reactions, but even if they’re a teacher at all (and not all art historians are), they’d be teaching adults. Adults generally agree that the KKK is bad without needing to be told, and adults that do need to be told have deeper problems.
Would it come up in discussion? Sure. And any good art historian won’t want it glossed over as unimportant context, but it is CONTEXT, and an art historian discussing the artistic merits of the film isn’t automatically also saying “the KKK is good”.
— How specifically would you feel if this comic had a strip where Joe was punching Joyce in a fit of rage, Joe was presented surrounded by heroic imagery, and a major response from the audience was “How Cool”?
I mean, yeah, I avoided answering this. In part because it’s very hard not to derail immediately into, “Why do you think those two things are in any way equivalent?” And I don’t think that’s a relevant digression, and it would not be kind to you. So I was trying to politely side step.
And if it would disturb you to see domestic violence framed that way, if it would disturb you to see people responding primarily to the “coolness” rather than the abuse, then you are having a moral intuition that something is wrong.
Emphasis mine.
And no, feeling disturbed is not “moral intuition”. As with disgust, it’s an emotional response which can be entirely divorced from morality, and conflating the two is genuinely dangerous.
I am not accusing you of anything, Odo, but lots of people use the fact that trans people disturb and disgust them as moral intuition.
Disentangling our feelings of disgust from our moral judgments isn’t always easy, but it’s worth doing.
Now, since Joyce is presumably not a Nazi, or any other person where Joe would be punching her in self-defense, that punch would be morally wrong in-universe. I think I would be less disturbed by a heroic framing than puzzled — I’d assume Willis had a reason for framing the punch as heroic, and I’d want to stick around to find out what it was.
If the predominant reaction to Joyce getting punched was “cool!”, I would likewise be puzzled. I’d want to know why people were saying that. I might suspect that some of the people saying it were misogynists, but since I would rationally know that most of Willis’s readership was unlikely to be misogynists, I’d mostly be puzzled. I would ask people for their reasons.
I don’t think I’d assume everyone saying it was specifically saying “yay violence against women is both fine and good”?
This brings something incredibly important to mind for me with this exchange.
The viewpoint is subjective. You are viewing it through the lens of someone invested, it seems specifically in Joe even, seeing his girlfriend fall in love with someone else (as depicted through their kissing.) they are cheating and it feels wrong, absolutely if you are consuming this through the lens of someone who’s main take away from this is from Joe’s viewpoint.
The people going “aww!” Are almost certainly viewing this from Joyce and Dorothy’s perspectives, with the reference of the entire strip to date establishing these girls are 100% ride or die for one another, to the point where both their boyfriends, Joe *and* Walky, have literally spelled it out.
This may be hurtful but it will be surprising to nobody who knows these two. Willis has mentioned this ship as the antidote to dynamics like Leslie/Ann from parks and rec that queerbait all day long then end with hetero life partners and the suggestion of just being Really, Really good friends. From that perspective, nobody is consuming the cheating first and foremost. They are watching two passionately in love people realise their affection for one another, I have been there myself, without any physical bonds with the person I was in love with, and did leave my boyfriend at the time. That hurt for years, it honestly hurt me longer than it hurt my ex!
But that’s it. Humans have empathy and Dorothy and Joyce are dreading telling Joe and Walky not because they don’t want to face the music, but because the very idea of hurting two people who mean so much to them is deeply devastating for them, but is a *different* track in their minds than the one where they fell in love and confirmed that love to one another. Because ultimately, their love for one another is more important to them than being good to Walky or Joe, though that is also deeply important to them.
Cheating happens not because people believe it’s right to do, but because of some amount of any combination of lack of self awareness, compartmentalisation, poor impulse control, and low emotional control. Getting hit by a tidal wave of requited love is insanely powerful when you aren’t prepared to deal with it! It makes sense that people cheat. It doesn’t make it right, but it does make it make sense. People also suffer a lot with being dumped, in my experience a lot more than they suffer with being cheated on, because anger is a secondary emotion that comes easily when you feel betrayed, but is extremely hard to manifest when you feel suddenly abandoned by someone who was your world. With cheating, the question is “how could /you/ do that?”, with dumping, the question is often “what did I do wrong?”
I’ve been cheated on multiple times, I’ve dumped a lot of people, I’ve been dumped twice myself. I felt shattered as a person after being dumped, and way more obsessed with my exes than when I’d been cheated on. When I was cheated on, my exes were garbage and not worth my time, when I was dumped, I had been judged inferior and unfit by somebody I’d loved and I could not stand it.
I speak to my personal experience rather than what I think general moral intuition is, because my personal experience doesn’t align with the conventional interpretation of moral intuition.
Dorothy and Joyce kissing is cute, they have their own arcs and their existences do not belong to nor are defined by Joe and Walky. Their falling in love has already done the damage, but the kissing is where most people draw the line, even though knowing your partner is in love with someone else while being physically faithful to you is supremely distressing. Cheating is bad to do but it’s also you know, pretty common. We can idealise the hell out of the elderly in rocking chairs together for 50 years, but there would not be cheating partner/spouse tropes rife in most media if cheating wasn’t so easy to do without feeling the full weight of what one has done to their partner.
@eskimolos I don’t have anything useful to say in response to this, except sympathy for the being-cheated-on and being-dumped alike, but I wanted you to know that I read it and appreciated the additional perspectives it added!!
God fucking dammit can you get off your high horse you asinine morality policing motherfucker.
It seems you dislike what I choose to write. I invite you to stop engaging with me. I suspect it would make you happier, and I know it would make me happier.
My life will be more beautiful and joyful the less I interact with you.
Is that armchair comfy, Dr. Philosophy?
Hello, Loki!
As a fellow writer of many words, I suggest breaking things up a lil, holding your “for Sickos on Paladins” mini headers here would help a lot with reading.
Also I do think most of us agree that Joyce and Dorothy are cheating at this point, and that the original divide, at least, was “how upset are you about fictional cheating” versus “are you excited for Dorothy and Joyce to kiss / mess up / potentially blow up their whole friend group”.
I don’t think either side has, as Big Z puts it, a clear stance — some paladins shipped Joyce/Dorothy, even, but were still upset with them for cheating, and some sickos never shipper Joyce/Dorothy and would have been just as excited for Joyce to cheat on Joe with any other character.
But I think the “this is black-and-white cheating” versus “no it’s not, they won’t have actually cheated until they have sex” or “actually since Joyce and Joe didn’t explicitly discuss monogamy, Joyce can’t cheat on him” argument is separate but related.
I think there are different threads coming from different people. These are all things I have seen people comment at different points over the saga:
“They aren’t cheating if Joe later decides he is okay with poly”
No, they are cheating. Consent isn’t retroactive.
“I hope this becomes a polycule”
Fine to hope for that, but this would be a toxic start to a polycule because it is founded on cheating. Polyamory is not a solution to cheating because the problem with cheating is not “non-monogamy” rather it is dishonesty and betrayal of trust.
“They are so cute together”
Your ability to perceive them as cute, and the fact that it is the main thing you want to observe, indicates something about what you consider to be the most important aspect of the scene.
It weirds me out to see people coo over cheating in the same way you might be weirded out to see someone exclaim how “cool!” an uppercut was in a scene of domestic violence, or laughing at a sexist joke.
I don’t like glorifying or romanticizing awful actions. I don’t like a clever pun being considered more important than the misogyny behind it. And I will never think cheating is cute.
“Bad decisions are good for the story. You just want everyone to act perfectly all the time, but that wouldn’t create Drama. I want Drama.”
Sure, but my issue isn’t with “Bad Decisions”. I am fine with bad decisions, mistakes, drama, etc…
My issue is with those bad decisions being framed as cute/romantic/adorable either within the comic or by other people.
Of course people can do what they want, I don’t have control over anyone but myself. But if you would be weirded out by someone laughing at a misogynistic joke, then you have no basis to judge me for being weirded out by people clapping infidelity.
—
It isn’t that I think there can’t be layers of harm to cheating, and I don’t think that the “Sickos” in general think cheating is OKAY… but I do think that for a lot of people the cheating isn’t a deal breaker. It might not be GOOD, but it isn’t BAD either… it is “bad”. It is tolerable. And it is less relevant to a scene for them than “cute kisses”.
Just gonna reply to the last paragraph, because really, I think the “sickos” position on cheating isn’t that it’s okay, but that it’s fine for it to be portrayed in fiction even if the fiction isn’t clearly condemning it.
Folks arguing over whether or not cheating is ever okay in real life, and whether what has happened in the comic so far should count as cheating in real life, are kind of having a dovetailing conversation. It’s related, but it’s not paladins vs sickos, even as loosely defined as those terms are.
Like, I’ve seen people who would otherwise identify as “paladins” argue that Joyce’s definition of sex is so ridiculous that “doing laundry” again with Dorothy wouldn’t have really been cheating, so much as ATTEMPTED cheating, and I’ve seen “sickos” say that Dorothy crossed the rubicon when she sent Joyce a cleavage pic — it’s not whether the person talking about it thinks a specific moment counted as cheating, but whether they were distressed about (fictional) cheating happening.
Now, ofc, we also have a new divide: “is the cheating being portrayed as romantic?” But the original divide was over whether or not readers were okay with cheating happening in the comic at all.
Hey thanks for explaining it this way, I hadn’t thought of that! I appreciate you and the other commenters for meeting me where I’m at and adding to it. In the light of day I think I made a mistake in framing this as the core issue, I think it was actually just the issue I had the hardest time understanding and reconciling. Thanks y’all for filling in the gaps where my understanding is lacking
❤️
“whether they were distressed about (fictional) cheating happening.”
What I think is constantly being missed is that the distress generally isn’t due to the cheating happening in the comic. It is about it happening in a way that seems to excuse it.
And excuse doesn’t say something was “right” or “good”. It isn’t a justification. You can think cheating is bad and still excuse it.
An excuse is about saying the person shouldn’t be held responsible, or is less culpable for their actions.
So “they are young, horny, idiots” is fundamentally an excuse. It is excusing cheating.
No, plenty of folks have expressed distress that the cheating is happening in the comic, period.
So the big umbrella is “don’t like that cheating is happening in the comic”, with sub-groups under that umbrella of “upset that other readers seem to be okay with cheating (either fictional or in real life)”, and “upset about how Willis has framed the cheating so far”, but some folks are just upset that Joyce is doing this at all, and upset on Joe’s behalf, and upset because cheating is a major squick, or even a trigger for them, due to their own traumatic experiences with it.
I mean, there are different sorts of upset. I was “upset” when Fantine died in Les Mis, but only in the sense that I was invested in the characters. I don’t mind that it was part of the story, however, because it was good storytelling.
I am “upset” for Joe because I am invested in the story. I am “upset” with Joyce because I want her to do better since I am invested in her character.
I am not upset with Dumbing of Age because cheating happened.
I dislike that Willis chose to repeatedly frame the cheating in a romantic/adorable way, choosing to add in wedding imagery, choosing to focus on tender moments of intimacy, because I feel making that so often the primary narrative frame excuses the cheating.
I dislike that people are often responding to the cheating by first perceiving the actions as cute because again this seems to be treating the cheating as something ignorable.
Right, but some people are upset with DoA/Willis because cheating happened. The cheating vs sickos poll was put up before the kiss had happened, before it was clear that cheating was going to happen at all, and so the original divide was not about people making excuses for it.
I’m not saying that’s everyone! I’m not denying your position, or saying it’s something it isn’t, I’m just saying that was the start of the divide, and various people are various dots within the landscape of each “side”, with other people not on either side.
Odo very much seems to struggle to understand that their personal experience with life and feelings and intuition and morality are not actually universal experiences and opinions. I’m not sure there’s a way around someone so solipsistic.
Heh. I guess I’m not gonna get a merit badge out of this, am I?
I think some of the discussion’s been interesting but that does seem to be a wall that we are running up against repeatedly.
Replying to your other comment here since the replies ran out.
Right, but “it is cheating AND they think it is cute” is your perspective.
Do you disagree that it is cheating? Do you disagree that some people think it is cute? If not then it is our perspective.
Folks saying “aw” are still going to object that they didn’t say the cheating part is cute, and that that’s not what they think is cute.
But again, I am not saying their words meant “I think the cheating is cute because it is cheating”. That is not what I am claiming they mean.
I am claiming the meaning is “That scene is cute”. Do you think this is some awful misrepresentation? Were they not saying the scene is cute when they said “How cute!”
And I am claiming the scene is depicting cheating. I am claiming that the thing they find cute, is also something that is cheating. I am not making a point about “secret meanings” I am making a point about the thing they are talking about.
So if they think it is cute, and it is cheating, then necessarily they think of something as cute that is also cheating.
If I think a cheating scene is cute then I think a cheating scene is cute. This is a basic tautology.
this focus on what someone’s emotional response should be
Do you truly believe that emotional response can never be critiqued?
Lots of stuff are emotional responses and they indicate something about the world. Like your later example, if someone feels disgust towards trans people we should critique the hell out of that emotional response.
So we can agree that it is fair to critique an emotional response, right?
“Why do you think those two things are in any way equivalent?” And I don’t think that’s a relevant digression, and it would not be kind to you.
You are entirely correct that it would not be relevant, because it wasn’t what I said. You are correct that it would not be kind to me because it would be a dishonest attempt to derail the discussion.
I am not accusing you of anything, Odo, but lots of people use the fact that trans people disturb and disgust them as moral intuition.
Yup, which is why we should be critical of emotional responses.
And we should delve deeper into why we are feeling things. When it comes to bigotry, disgust doesn’t spring from nowhere. Bigotry exists because people want it to exist, because people work to perpetuate it, and because it helps some people get what they want.
So when someone feels transphobic disgust, that emotional response should be challenged. Even if the person’s moral ideology says “but we should still treat people decently” if they are feeling disgust that is still something to interrogate.
“Even if the person’s moral ideology says “but we should still treat people decently” if they are feeling disgust that is still something to interrogate.”
To clarify, I obviously do not mean “interrogate to discover ‘actually bigotry is good'” I mean interrogate and challenge the feeling of disgust itself to realize “maybe I still need to work on myself to address some of my bigoted mindsets.”
— For you, the cheating is inseparable from the cuddling. That’s fine, but it’s just not how everyone feels.
Whether or not I agree that they’re cheating (which I do) is irrelevant.
— Do you truly believe that emotional response can never be critiqued?
I think it’s a waste of time? I think “emotional response” is a gut feeling you either have or don’t have, like an intrusive thought. Having them is not what’s important, and beating yourself up for an emotional response isn’t productive or healthy.
What matters isn’t how we feel about other people, but how we treat them.
So: no, I literally don’t care if someone is disgusted by trans people.
I care if they can get past that disgust to treat trans people with dignity and respect.
I think emotions are important. We should be attentive to our emotions because they tell us things that are important. We don’t need to let our emotions control us, and we don’t need to accept everything unquestioningly…
Emotions are not just “intrusive thoughts”.
In terms of priorities, “people feeling disgust” is also super low on my list of problems. Addressing direct material issues is more important.
But I don’t think we can really separate feelings fully from actions. If someone is feeling disgust I think that would bleed through.
Emotions have the same value as intrusive thoughts when it comes to “instruction for morality”.
Like. Let me say this very plainly:
I’m not going to criticize efforts to make queer people more Sympathetic and Relatable to a pericisheterosexist society. There are some people who will be swayed by that, and this is a fight for our existence. Any tool that works on any amount of people is OK by me.
But I do think it’s failing to attack the root problem, and in failing to attack that problem, we ARE letting intercommunity hostility get worse.
If you only respect the trans people whose gender presentations you find understandable and sympathetic, you’re always going to be looking for acceptable targets who are Too Cringy and Weird to deserve respect.
This line of reasoning is also why so many queer people attack kinksters, poly people, and, like, furries. Because they haven’t done the work of telling themselves, “I don’t need to understand why another adult wants to do that thing I think is weird, it isn’t harming anyone so it’s none of my business.”
I am not saying “people need to understand us better”. Understanding isn’t really the issue.
The issue is treating people as less than. So I agree, realizing that “understanding” should not be a prerequisite for respect is important.
“Weird” and “disgust” are not the same as “I don’t understand”. They are “I feel this is abnormal, wrong or bad”.
In my case, I specifically used weird because I wanted to soften the tone. A more full representation is that I think focusing on the cuteness of a cheating scene is bad. I think it is bad because it is harmful. I think it is harmful because it is minimizing the importance of the harm being done. I think it normalizes cheating, not as something good, but as something tolerable.
I think it comes from a place that fundamentally excuses cheating. Maybe it just excuses cheating when you really want people to be together, but it excuses cheating.
So no. My response is not just “i feel ick so it is bad”. Rather it felt off to me, so I asked myself why.
And my hope is that, by considering comparisons, you might find a way to understand that you too would dislike it if people fawned over actions you thought were bad.
Right, but when I said:
This line of reasoning is also why so many queer people attack kinksters, poly people, and, like, furries. Because they haven’t done the work of telling themselves, “I don’t need to understand why another adult wants to do that thing I think is weird, it isn’t harming anyone so it’s none of my business.”
…I would think it was fairly clear that what I meant was, “some people within the queer community think kinksters/furries/poly people are disgusting, and if they trust their feelings and decide that this means that it’s morally wrong to be kinky/poly/a furry, instead of learning to stop and ask themselves, ‘Wait, am I feeling disgust over something harmless?’, then that leads to bad outcomes.”
So no. My response is not just “i feel ick so it is bad”.
Maybe not, but you have certainly repeatedly argued that “feeling ick” = “my intuition telling me that the icky thing is morally wrong, and I should listen”.
And my hope is that, by considering comparisons, you might find a way to understand that you too would dislike it if people fawned over actions you thought were bad.
Right, but there’s a difference between “disliking” it when other people “fawn over” (fictional) actions I think are bad — and assuming that I know why they’re having that reaction.
And there’s an even bigger difference between assuming I know why other people are having a reaction within the privacy of my own head, and making public posts where I declare that the reason why they’re having that reaction, and then dismiss everything they try to tell me in response.
Especially if my assumed explanation for other people’s reactions is uncharitable, or even offensive, I’m… gonna tick a lot of people off by doing that.
In short, they attack those people because their understanding of morality is fundamentally rooted in intuition that causes them to feel something is wrong.
This. This exactly.
Just for the record, since I used the phrase “attempted cheating” several times and I don’t think anyone else did in this context: It was “attempted” because they failed when the laundry room was busy, not because of problems with Joyce’s definition of sex. If they’d gone through with it, “attempted” wouldn’t have made any sense.
That was also in response to people directly saying it didn’t count at all because they didn’t succeed.
I don’t think I was thinking of you specifically? It was just an example about how opinions weren’t just “paladins have very strict ideas on what constitutes cheating, sickos have looser fuzzier ideas”.
> Your ability to perceive them as cute, and the fact that it is the main thing you want to observe, indicates something about what you consider to be the most important aspect of the scene.
No it doesn’t. Period, end of reply, end of debate.
Congrats! You’ve ended the debate! Good Job!
Loki – I grew up in a different time, and the culture has shifted under me in a multitude of ways. Mostly good ways. But when I was dumbing of age, as opposed to just dumbing, playing the field was a respectable thing. It was a precursor to finding someone who was right. In college, one of my friends was dating three guys at one time and two of them knew about each other. Nobody would have accused her of cheating, though they might have admired her skill at juggling her time. Moving beyond casual dating required agreement and was a step. Formally going steady was probably rare, but it was still there as a model that was replaced by informal agreements. Girls still sometimes wore the guys class ring around their necks on a chain or wore his jacket to show the relationship had moved to a different level. And at that level, it would be cheating. This idea that casual dating isn’t a thing and that instant exclusivity doesn’t require mutual consent is alien to me and just feels wrong on a visceral level. People shouldn’t have to commit until they are ready to commit.
I know that I’ve said that cheating is wrong and icky and that Joyce and Dorothy are cute and adorable and all this makes me love them more. And this is technically true, though I’m also making fun of a reaction I disagree with. There strong implication is that cheating makes me love them more whereas the actual fact is that I find it difficult to accept there is any cheating going on at all.
But there are two subpoints to this. Joyce does have quite a strong attraction to Joe and the fact that she is *almost* willing to give him up in a heartbeat for Dorothy says something. The other subpoint is that, yes, this is going to hurt Joe who has it bad for Joyce. Having any kind of meaningful relationship requires being vulnerable and being vulnerable means that you can be hurt. Sometimes badly. It’s kind of the cost of playing the game. As the song points out, nothing says that the one you love is going to love you. And it’s why when it does happen it can be magical.
I have to think that this expectation of instant monogamy is a way in which the culture has become more toxic and not less.
I think that the idea “it isn’t cheating because they didn’t formally agree to monogamy” is a bit weak.
For me cheating isn’t about a contractual violation, it is about deception and betrayal. The deception is in hiding it. They betrayal is because you are acting in a way that would hurt someone you care about.
It doesn’t matter whether Joyce and Joe sat down and had a formal monogamy discussion because Joyce knows that Joe wouldn’t be okay with her having romantic relations with other people, and Joe knows that Joyce wouldn’t be fine with him having romantic relations with other people.
“We didn’t talk about it” is a cowards response. If they are being honest with themselves then they would know that they should talk about it first, and kiss other people second.
Lastly, the expecation of monogamy was clearly demonstrated earlier in their relationship.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-14/01-everybodys-looking-for-nothing/philanderer/
Joyce expects Joe to not pursue other people. Joe expects Joe to not pursue other people.
It kind of doesn’t matter what relationship norms were like in your time. We know that Joyce and Dorothy think of their actions as cheating. We have good insight into what the norms and expectations are in Joyce and Joe’s relationship.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2025/comic/book-15/03-me-and-who-you-say-i-was-yesterday/assureyou/
If someone wouldn’t want to have sex with you if they knew you were pursuing other relationships, then it is wrong to conceal, lie about, or intentionally omit that information. If the person is being deceived then they cannot give informed, ethusiastic consent.
Joyce is the one with the unrealistic definition of what cheating is. She was the one having Mike punch Joe for looking at someone else on their actual first date. I’m not sure that Dorothy’s all-in black-and-white classification is much better. I think you were the same person that further down the page was saying that breaking up with someone so you can date someone else feels shitty. I’m not that sure your take is all that realistic either.
How would you feel if your partner dumped you to go date someone else?
In a poly relationship, how would you feel if your partner told you “If I ever find someone I like more and they want monogamy I will break up with you so I can be with them”?
My standards are to act with care and honesty towards your partners. If that seems unrealistic to you I am not sure what to say.
I mean, both would suck but neither are moral failings on their part.
Would you want to date someone who would do that to their partner?
Being broken up with is always unpleasant, but this is a very normal thing to happen that you seem to be attaching a very strange amount of moral judgement to. Why would I care?
Turn that around: would you want to date someone who, in the absence of a promised long-term commitment such as marriage, decided to stay with you with increasing unhappiness and resentment after they figured out that you WEREN’T the one?
Realizing this isn’t the relationship for you and ending it gracefully IS acting with care and honesty toward your partner. And yes, sometimes that is triggered by them meeting someone new and realizing they want something different than they thought they did, but that’s certainly not a moral failing.
It feels shitty, but that’s what you have to do. Up until you’re married, that’s *literally* how it works.
Doesn’t matter if you’re poly or monogamous. Either way. If the relationship you have just isn’t giving you what you need, and the relationship with someone else would, you are under no moral obligation to continue to be in that relationship. And in fact, in many cases the absolute wrong thing to do would be to continue with the relationship.
What, do I want to learn fifteen years later that when my spouse dated me, they REALLY wanted to be dating my hunky roommate at the time? And that she stayed with me not because she loved me more, or was more attracted to me, or that we connected better, but because by asking her out and her accepting I had apparently called dibs and froze her into *that* relationship, and I never did anything so terrible to make me *deserve* a breakup, and so she was stuck with me and eventually just decided to settle?
Only when you’re married have you promised to be there with each other through thick and thin, easy and hard times, for the rest of your lives. That’s what marriage is. Up until then, you are two people who are mutually consenting to an exclusive relationship
I gotta back up Bork here, reading this debate about whether breaking up to be with someone else counts as being shitty or not, I couldn’t help but wonder what IS supposed to be the arbitrary time between breaking up and getting with someone else? We see Lucy chafe a bit about two days, and she is 100% in the right to feel upset about that, but I’d have to argue that just because someone feels upset by another person’s decision doesn’t always mean a wrongdoing has occurred. And besides, Lucy then immediately moved on with Joe. Walky’s decision may have hurt her feelings for a moment, but they’re no longer together and they no longer have an obligation to each other.
You can consider it a bit trashy, or rude, or shitty, and certainly decide for yourself that you would wait, like, a week in between relationships, but you can’t control what other people do. I think dumping someone because you no longer have feelings for them is a reasonable break up. Like Bork said, I’d much rather have someone be honest and say “hey, I don’t feel it anymore. I’m gonna shoot my shot elsewhere” rather than stick around with me if they no longer want to.
*Jacob, wrong J name
I am now going to imagine “Joe tries polyamory with someone not Joyce” to be with Lucy and Jacob.
(I think Lucy is probably the only cast mate to explicitly reject poly for herself, but maybe she’d feel differently if it was Joe and Jacob instead of Walky and Amber!)
I think that we need to factor in the difference between comic time and realtime here.
Joe and Joyce have been seeing each other for less than 2 weeks. In reality, they’d still likely be very much in the “well, let’s see where this goes” phase. But their relationship, because of how much drama is packed into one day in DoA, has very much been portrayed as being a committed, long-term thing. It’s the same with Lucy and Walky & Jennifer and Ruth- with the former, even if they’d been friends long before, meeting parents less than 2 weeks in is ridiculous. And With the latter, they’ve been split up far, far longer than the monthlong relationship they had but still are pining over each other.
It’s a consequence of the decision to pack 15 years of drama into one year of college- there simply isn’t enough time to portray these relationships developing more naturally.
TL;DR- JoJo being an exclusive couple is caused as much by the compressed timescale as it is a sign of changing social mores.
It may have been a relatively short time officially, but it was a long slow path in the making. There was a tremendous amount of consideration and commitment involved, by Joe at least, before anything was official. This isn’t as fairly casual as most relationships would be at that point.
I agree 100% on Joe’s side. I’m less sure about Joyce’s side, and I suspect that might be part of why this is happening.
I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again, I don’t think there’s been any shift to a
“expectation of instant monogamy”. I think dating is less formalized in many ways (and in parallel maybe more formalized when it comes to online dating, where you can do things like change your status to “in a relationship”) and that might look like such an expectation.
Some people date lots of people. Others focus on one at a time, even before there’s a implicit commitment. Some people just aren’t good at casual.
Casual dating is still a thing. Casual hookups are a thing. Friends with benefits are a thing.
Discounting the fact that “going steady” as a concept is largely outmoded in modern society… if it WAS still a thing that was regularly recognized and considered, they would be. They both are (or were, prior to the events of yesterday) demonstrating clear signs of exclusivity to each other regardless of the length of their official relationship. They ARE going steady. They are NOT playing the field.
Joyce has already explicitly stated that she feels her current actions with Dorothy are cheating. Joe will absolutely guaranteed feel the same when he finds out about them. If both partners think it’s cheating… it is. Straight up. There’s absolutely zero room for reasonable argument there. The deformalizing of the “going steady” state may make some things murky, but if all the people involved agree the actions violated their informal agreement it’s pretty clear that they did.
Like, revisit this if Joe turns around and doesn’t think Joyce has done anything wrong, but I highly doubt he will.
I think there’s no point anymore in trying to understand each other when it goes nowhere. Same debates and arguments in circles
There is a fundamental difference in view not just in storytelling but also life
For me, cheating is a thing that is something you should only care about when it’s someone you know and even then, life’s messy. There’s worlds of possibilities where it’s okay
And if you don’t have that view I honestly don’t care anymore, I will just avoid responding to another person going on and on about how disgusted they are by it
If it ain’t a conversation with depth or jokes I just don’t have the energy
I really like how you represented this. While obviously some perspectives are going to be missing, the ones you did analyse felt perfect to me. In particular the part about how for some people the cheating is unrelated to their enjoyment of a queer self discovering story.
I’ll also add that your assessment of the paladins itself also gave a good representation of the idea of why someone might dismiss cheating, especially in a fictional context. The resentment towards the assumption that society should even operate with two partners as the default is absolutley a non-zero part of why I enjoy jokingly pretending to be in the ‘cheating is good and they should do more!’ zone.
Every one of Dorothy’s lines today is her telling Joyce what to do.
If you’re going to singlehandedly mastermind a plan, make it a good plan.
“Uh, Sarah, I can explain.”
“I don’t think you can.”
This is so funny to do with Dorothy still in the room
Now on one hand I don’t see Sarah being that broken up about Joe and Walkys feelings of all people when it comes to this secret affair Dorothy and Joyce seem too scared to fess up about, even if she’s getting along with Joe a lot better.
But on the other hand this might be the type of drama that stirs up shit for everyone involved with the friend group including which is not the type of Drama she has patience for.
Whoop whoop somebody caled the police
Yeah, that was kind of weird, but we’re back in the club.
Ah shit, it’s the “We need to have a talk” Mom pose right there.
Beginning of the end.
The real question is, does she know what’s going on or is she just like “you are acting weird and are shit at lying, tell me or I’m going to figure it out.”
Oh…
That’s not an anger look is it!
That’s a, “I am about to lay your shit on the line. You have no counter. This is the way.”, look!
Interesting Times.
Ah, but she does have a counter.
Immediately busted. Time to face the introspection ladies.
I think part of the reason why they keep leaping back to kissing is specifically because they wanted to avoid introspection. It is a relational garbage roof.
They don’t want to think about what they’ve done, so they escape by focusing on the positive emotions. They feel like they will be judged by other people, but since they’ve both done the same shitty thing they can be garbage together without judgement.
And not only by other people. Joyce has shown capacity for enormous guilt. I don’t know if Dorothy’s obsessive need to be a good person is a front she’s been putting up, but if it hasn’t, she’s also going to crash hard.
This ”mad love” is like a drug, and you have to come down from every high.
And now, for a serious conversation about what you think you’re doing, and how much thinking you think you’re doing.
You got some ‘splainin to do!
Was that an I Love Lucy reference? I’m going to assume it was until proven differently.
It was. I’m old.
That was never actually daid in that dhow!
“You got some ‘splaining to do” *was* actually said. But it’s commonly remembered as “Lucy, you got some ’splaining to do” which he didn’t.
Doesn’t keep it from being a reference.
Yes Sarah get her
So far, what Joyce and Dorothy think is an earth breaking epiphany is seen by others as “Sorry kids, the writing has been on the wall for a while. In neon paint. Sixty feet high.” Their community may adjust better than they think. Even Joe acknowledged the emotional realities by asking Dorothy if she was “into Joyce”. Proverbs 26.27b, dude. 🙂
I don’t get the proverbs reference. How is this Joe falling into a pit he dug?
He dug Joyce while she and Dorothy were clearly digging each other and he fell pretty hard. Not into her pit though.
Honestly I’m hoping we don’t get shame-on-you Sarah but instead see reality-check Sarah. It’s not about whether she approves or disapproves. It’s about facing the facts and along themselves the questions they haven’t yet. Let them know they obviously can’t hide it. Ask them what their endgame is. Make sure they realize they need to get there fast. You’ve done a stupid thing, let’s deal with it before you get hurt (worse than you already will).
Why can’t we do BOTH?
Both?
Both.
(In stereo) Both.
Both is good.
Because Sarah doesn’t have the moral high ground to do both. Not only did she encourage Joyce to break up Jacob & Raidah, but just a week ago she was encouraging Dorothy to break up Joe & Joyce, ie, exactly what’s happening now. If she tries to shame them for it, she’ll be a massive hypocrite.
Sometimes people are hypocrites!
Good! Let her try to call Joyce on this and Joyce calls her on it right back!
That’s almost as good as the speech in my head where Joe tells off Joyce for moralizing at him, and he changed, and now look how the turns have tabled.
Honestly, that might work even better. If Joyce calls Sarah out on her hypocrisy, she loses the opportunity to attempt to avoid the subject.
And while they’re mid-argument about it, volume steadily increasing, Joe walks by to see if they want to hit the exercise room again.
Upon re-read, I’m not actually sure anyone NOTICED she was trying to get Dorothy to break up Joe and Joyce. And I also assume she’s got some changes in her mindset following the workout-room scene.
No one noticed that part, but Joyce certainly noticed when Sarah tried to prove Joe hadn’t changed by asking him to sleep with her. IF Joyce feels like defending herself, I think “but you didn’t even want me to date him!” would be a fair point generally.
I mean, there is a difference between breaking people up and ongoing cheating. Both are bad, and they are related, but I don’t think Sarah ever would have wanted Joyce to be with Jacob without having Jacob break up with Raidah, or Dorothy be with Joyce while Joyce was still together with Joe.
Sarah wanted Joe/Raidah to not be in the picture, not for them to be continually decieved.
I suspect if Joyce had done the right thing and gone to break up with Joe, Sarah wouldn’t be having any issue with this. Maybe a little sympathy for Joe, since she started to see him as more of a human, but not much need to rebuke Joyce over it.
Breaking up with someone so you can date someone else feels shitty, and it indicates a need for moral growth, but it isn’t a betrayal on the same level as actively cheating on your partner.
So if you have one date with someone, dating anyone else without breaking up with the first person is cheating, but if you break up with them so you can date someone else it feels shitty. Are you supposed to have one date and be married forever?
Don’t you know that “Hey, do you wanna go get coffee after your shift?” is a full-time commitment to a relationship?
Serious question: Do you think Joe/Joyce’s relationship was comparable to a single coffee date? Is your genuine reading of the comic that Joyce/Joe saw it as “just a casual date”?
You don’t need to take Taffy seriously, I’m pretty sure they spend like 90% of their comments just taking the piss (Is that how it is said?).
Y’know, usually I take exception to comments that rhyme with Mr D’s, because they tend to feel like a diss, but in this case yes, you don’t need to take what I said so seriously. I’m not gonna bother with “is this equivalent to that” when “this” was an airless quip.
I don’t think you are responding to what I wrote.
I said there is a difference between breaking up with someone to date someone else, like what Sarah was hoping Jacob would do, and cheating on your partner.
It is well established that Joe/Joyce don’t think of this as just a casual coffee date. Joe said he wouldn’t respond to Sarah’s proposition because he was changing himself for Joyce, and Joyce defended Joe’s initial reaction by saying he was changing. Their communicated expectation was that Joe should only have sex with Joyce.
Your hypothetical has nothing to do with the comic.
There is, I think, sufficient textual evidence that Joe and Joyce both had monogamous expectations.
I think Sarah’s plan with trying to get Dorothy involved was “Tell Joyce you’re in love with her so Joyce knows she has options and dumps Joe to be with you instead” not “kiss each other while you’re still dating Joe”.
‘It’s all Coolsville’ may be added to my list of internal phrase when I need to soothe my anxiety 😎
BUSTY AND BUSTED
Caught with her tits large, as they say in Wyoming.
Friend of mine lived in Wyoming for 6 years; she never heard that saying.
(or so she said…mighta been lying…is this a secret conspiracy thing?)
I’ve never been to Wyoming.
Referencing my dream scenario: Well, one out of three ain’t bad.
I think Coolsville sucks!
Rut roh.
like i get the scooby doo reference
but like why the “sucks” part? did i miss a meme? :0
You missed a live action Scooby Doo movie.
I did not miss much it seems :p
WHAT?
The live action Scooby Doo movies were ART!!
Terrible, silly, stupid art, but I love them.
well valid
but for me at least, nothing beats the animated movies ^^
*grabs popcorn*
I love the use of color in this storyline so far.
(Also — pinup joyce, anyone??)
Seeing Sarah in this way reminds me of when she told Joyce that she cant just keep defending her when she behaves shitty, around the time she was exploring being newly autistic, i think. Or it may have been around the time Joyce started birth control. Anyways, I remember thinking that while I really agreed with Sarah, I think that its actually kind of necessary for Joyce to not just explore new things, but also explore how her behavior actually affects other people. Like.. she spent her whole life being a godly goody two shoes, right? Now she’s also exploring being more self focused (or self centered, depending on who you asked) and this is around the time Joyce is going to find out what her close friends think, but also the limits on how self focused you could be before your friends draw a line.
I really dont think Sarah’s going to mince her words here. Its definitely not gonna be a poly ending, and there’s gonna be real pain and grief in a lot of different ways. I highly doubt sarah’s cool with that.
I love the lighting here, as someone who’s seen mid-winter dawn light first peeking in.
Oh and also any flag colors or importance are cool too.
I hope Sarah doesn’t get too self-righteous about the situation, considering she was trying to make exactly this happen only a week ago.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-14/01-everybodys-looking-for-nothing/entice/
Sure, sure. It only works if Joyce then breaks up with Joe. She didn’t want them to just start making out in secret.
everyone in the comments chattering about the cheating plotline and me taking notes about the new lighting techniques
<3
“Do you expect me to talk?”
“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to shower and get out of here!!”
mom mode activated lmao
It is funny because on one hand Sarah expresses how she wants to be left along and doesn’t want to have to deal with other people’s drama.
On the other hand she consistently goes out of her way to help Joyce when Joyce needs a hand/push.
Joyce is not, it turns out, a low drama roommate, and a certain amount of that burden has very much been shifted on to Sarah.
Some semi-related commentary about how people handle “messing up”:
I’ve noticed some people think of “messing up” as not actually BAD if there is an excuse such as “they’re young” or “they are dealing with a lot”. This will even be applied to themselves with “I don’t need to be good all the time. It’s okay to make mistakes sometimes” which is true in a sense, but doesn’t work if you apply it before making the “mistake”. If you really thought it was bad you wouldn’t do it.
I think why people often approach “bad decisions” this way is because their morality is still influenced by shame and punishment. Somewhere they think that if someone does something BAD, really bad not just the “oh I’m a mess” bad, that they are a bad person. Being Bad means “deserving punishment” such as ostracism, denial of resources, etc…
Now faced with this, if they don’t want to punish someone, themselves or someone else, people find ways to excuse bad behavior. They correctly want to give grace, but the means they have to do so is to focus on the excuse rather than the behavior.
I think if we use a moral system that is not shame based or punitive then it changes our perspective on “bad actions”. Start with the undeniable, unquestionable, unalterable worth of all humans, and then consider the morality of actions. Under this perspective “bad”/undesirable actions aren’t avoided for fear of moral shame. We don’t try to be “good people” because “good people” are better.
Instead good actions are pursued because they are good. If we don’t manage to do everything good, that is just a limitation and a learning opportunity. We can recognize that after the fact with “I’ve realized I would like to act differently in the future” but when making plans it is nonsensical to say “It’s okay for me to be bad just this once”. The very meaning of “bad” would be that you don’t want to do it, because you recognize it as worse than an alternative.
I think its important to ask yourself if you are engaging in shame or punative based ideas not only towards joyce and joe but to the people in the comment section. It would explain a lot of defensivness if people think you are imply they are a bad or immoral person for liking joyce and dorothies relationship.
Honestly, Sarah’s going to be judgey about this because that’s kind of who she is. She was completely unable to interact with Lucy, for example, without constantly telling her how the way Lucy goes through life is wrong.
Real “whatever it is, I’m against it” vibes.
The shit of it is that she’s right 90% of the time, but it’s that last 10% that always get you.
I think that she’s past “Whatever it is,” and is more into “I wasn’t born yesterday” territory.
That’s specifically a Groucho Marx reference, for the record
Ah! Missed that.
*quick detour while I watch Groucho Marx singing while in a cap and gown*
So, what you’re saying isn’t “I’m not sure what’s going on but I smell a rat,” but more, “I’m just going to be a stick in the mud because that’s what I am; I’m being critical not because of the situation, but because I am always critical.”
… If my take is correct, I kind of feel like that’s a bit uncharitable of Sarah and all the character growth she’s been doing.
Deep down Sarah is a good person, and hopefully her new relationship with Tony will distract her, but her favorite thing to do is look for the negative in any situation. That’s been a constant with her. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad. I don’t think her character growth has really been in that direction.
Love the Marx Brothers so much fff
After yesterday’s conversation about when representation is allowed or valid, I wanted to recommend the Book “Let This Radicalize You: Organizing and the Revolution of Reciprocal Care” here.It’s written by Kelly Hayes and Mariame Kaba, respectively a native Menominee activist and a black first-generation activist. While the book is about activism, the authors count art, poetry, and other creative works as part of activism, so it felt relevant to yesterday’s thread to me.
“As we work to build more sustainable movements, we must think hard about our strategies for responding when organizers make mistakes. Social media can often foster a ‘zero-tolerance’ attitude about political ignorance or missteps. […] Our movements are not driven by getting the words just right. They are driven by the goal of enacting change through collective struggle as we endeavor to both understand ideas and turn them into action. Fumbling is inevitable, but, as [organizer Ruth Wilson] Gilmore tells us, ‘practice makes different.’ […]
“Longtime organizer and Vision Change Win founder Ejeris Dixon emphasizes that people will show up imperfectly and that organizers have to anticipate that mistakes and harm will happen. ‘I worry we’re creating a culture now where people are so afraid to make mistakes,’ she told us. […] Dixon points out that when trust is lost, organizing not only becomes more difficult, but it also becomes more vulnerable to surveillance and infiltration: […] Therefore, she says, a key part of organizing is building bonds of trust, and that can only happen within a context where people are allowed to be vulnerable and make mistakes.”
If this resonates with anyone, I highly recommend this book. Hell, I recommend it to people who disagree with this bit too. It’s got something for everyone trying to bring about positive change in the world!
Now if we could only agree on what positive change was.
women cheating on their boyfriends with other women!
this but unironically
It sure seems some unironically think that
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2025/comic/book-15/04-the-only-exception/live-jocelyne-reaction/
Did Willis go back and add the last panel there in the time since the strip dropped and today? Is my memory off?
Yeah. I remember them starting to kiss again instead of delivering a punchline.
You are correct.
goddamn that’s a hell of a retcon
and like
I don’t even mind that they kissed during a protest
it’s that in context, the genocide and how it affected cast members and people important to them wasn’t really made the focus
as much as this is an insensitive thing to do, I can tell that in the end Willis was just trying to reference an IRL event such that the comic felt more relevant to an audience of US college freshmen who wanted the cast and setting to be more relatable
and im not judgy as much as i am, like
I can tell Willis in basically a panic mode right now, I appreciate he’s trying to make up for it and make a better comic for us but he’s trying from the wrong angle
and like, I still acknowledge that there’s a limit to what he can do in this regard given he has to juggle so many other fucking plates in what’s ultimately a romcom comic about college students in the US who live far far away from the genocide
and like there’s a million ways the comic could be made more relevant to it’s intended audience, but in retrospect, featuring a genocide protest without serious intention to explore the depth of the issue, just wasn’t the best decision
and oh well, I guess as the message tends to be in this comic,
“live and learn”
HANGIN’ ON THE EDGE OF TOMORROW
I tend to agree- it’s never not going to be a mistake Willis made.
But we can’t unring that bell. We can’t go back in time and change dozens of comics. So what should Willis do? On balance, I come down on liking that he’s putting acknowledgements that he fucked up in the strip, even if I’ll quibble about the execution.
Like, redoing “keesmas” as a discord server I’m on calls a big lesbian kiss between its two leads (Sleepless Domain is really good and Heartful Punch is a fantastic character to emulate if you want a fun D&D paladin) is a bit much- I think the benefit of acknowledgement and a chuckle-worthy punchline would be better served by changing the following strips.
And a muslim woman making a good point abkut “white freshmen” got undercut because it was delivered by Raidah, Known Antagonist.
But overall I approve of the idea and the intent behind it.
yeah like I’d appreciate if he be more up and front about it, instead of just hinting at it the same way he hinted at where the genocide was taking place with “”Bulmeria””
Lur (who is Hijabi Muslim) said herself that “hinting at it is for p_ss_es”.
like on top of retconning that strip, should have changed the alt-text to be like
“Yes this is a retcon. As much as I am anti-racist, I’m still an ex-fundie white dude and have a long way to go and have to acknowledge that having kissing white girls (among other things) eclipse the point of a genocide protest was a mistake.”
I’m glad he is at least trying to fix it.
Did it need fixing? I thought Dorothy’s limp apathy for the protest was textual. She was heavy messing as a self-destructive behavior due to sublimated horniness.
Then again I am always against adding text to a silent punchline.
I mean, I hate Raidah as much as you do, but the point they made is still valid regardless of how shitty they are.
Like, the problem is not that Raidah made it but thinking “oh OTHER people (namely in the comments) aren’t gonna get it cuz **villains** are never allowed to make good points”
and at this point, I’m not really looking shock and awe at Willis, I’m looking his audience @-@
Which is why it’s a quibble. Willis did something he’s done before with Raidah (basically wanting we the people to quote The Dude at her [“You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!”]) and people got more hung up on the “asshole” part. Which is why I think a gentler, less antagonistic pushback from Asma would have been a better way to address it.
well interestingly enough, Dorothy DID recently itemize her apologizing to Asma for sucking at protesting,
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2025/comic/book-15/04-the-only-exception/safely/
which both she and Joyce are going to (or SHOULD) realize that this is still a racist thing to do.
Asma is not the arbiter of Muslims, any more than Jesse Jackson is the emperor of black people (-_-)
No, but it’s a combination of “this character is not an antagonist” and “Asma has been enough of a bit character that using her in this way would be more obvious that she’s being a mouthpiece for the author’s mea culpa”
Which I recognize fundamentally plays into the fact that there aren’t that many muslim folks in this comic, but that’s a separate thiugh obviously related issue and there’s no way to fix everything perfectly.
It’s cool, just a minor strip.
i think retconning this strip is the wrong move, i recognize Willis is Joycemaxxing right now, but the power of the strip is undercut by these two not immedietly accepting the consequences of what they’ve just done by going back in for seconds. pointing out “wow we sure are doing this at a genocide protest” doesn’t actually address the root of the issues people have with this happening at a genocide protest.
like personally I didn’t have any issues with the protest framing, all my issues with it were that the justification for going in felt flimsy and the strip-to-strip flow being a bit off at times, and all of the in-universe issues of “they know nothing about the issue and made themselves the main characters like dipshits” are all things that can be addressed in future strips to better effect. this retroactive change makes me feel LESS okay with it, because now it feels a bit too much like one of those MCU “well THAT just happened” quips, which feels more disrespectful of the protest setting, somehow?
i appreciate willis trying to do better and learning lessons from that arc, but the actual published strips need to be left alone imo
sadly i must concur
like if he must retcon at least he should at least use the alt text or something to be more up and front about it
Did this strip get edited? I remember when I saw it last night it seemed like a lot more of Joyce’s underwear was visible, but now it seems the shirt goes down further.
I lookd the same ti me.
How long do you think she’s been standing there
very well-drawn joyce butt
soon would be a good time for becky to walk in
Jesus this comment section is somehow even more exhausting than the like 2000 comment one. Like a bunch of yall are treating this like a morality play. I’ve seen less moral grandstanding at a church revival.
Being fair only a couple of people are being like that, but they are very wordy about it.
What’s a church revival? I could look it up, but I’m interested in how you’d personally describe it.
No, I refuse to make you know what that is. Just know that it’s a very American Fundamentalist Christian thing often held in tents.
Its mainly just Odo doing that.
Real!!!
(sorry. I was genuinely trying to help but I fear I made things worse. I’ve said my piece tho so I promise I won’t start shit again)
Nah, this wasn’t you at all. If you hadn’t posted Odo would have posted weird shit in response to someone else instead.
There have been a lot of genuinely strange situations brought up here, the last few days. Watching your parents fuck, chopping pieces off of people’s bodies as a common punishment, funny third thing, it’s getting increasingly odd and divorced from the actual comic.
Because its about depiction vs endorsment and or fiction vs reality the paladins are just fandom purity culture invading to say that immoral actions should not be depicted or if they are they must be punished its hayes code mixed with respectibility politics. If I wanted that I would have gone back to tumblr.
Ironically Tumblr is comparatively normal about this development.
The parts of it that aren’t the fandom purity culture anyway.
That what i mean i haven’t seen basically any of that! And i check the tag every day.
I was a paladin because I’m always in favor of characters making good decisions. Plus I like Joe and don’t want to see him hurt.
Now that the bad decisions have been made, I want to see some goddamn consequences for our two protagonists.
Legit has nothing to do with the morality of cheating and its depiction in fiction.
yeah im not talking about people like you if your not shaming the fans forblike being happy about joyce/dorothy then I have no problem with you. As long as the consequences arent like joyce loses all her friends and ends up alone which is a hot take I see a lot in this comment section.
I mean…
I want them to lose Joe and Waljy because duh. I want Becky to have to grapple with the notion that Joyce is queer but still not into her and maybe take some distance because of that. I want Dina to be upset both on Joe and Becky’s behalf as well as payoff for her being Becky’s rebound.
I want Sal to be more down on them out of solidarity with her brother and her bf’s bestie eternal. Jacob to stand up for his workout buddy. There’s actually quite a few people I think should distance themselves significantly from Joyce and Dorothy over this.
“Losing a fairly large portion of your friends” was what happened to folks who cheated on other members of the friend group in my own college experience, which was somewhat similar to the main cast here in that we were all dorks in the same co-ed dorm who ran into each other in the lobby and whatnot.
Mostly, and I recognize I’m saying this about a comic that features Amazi-girl, I want the interpersonal relationships to continue to feel like they’re grounded in a version of reality that makes sense to me, and as Rogue 7 enumerates that will likely involve a lot of folks having their view of Dorothy and Joyce kinda blown up.
third thing in this case would probably be repeatadly insisting on a hypothetical about joyce getting hit
Not so Smoochie criminal.
totally not lesbian colors lighting here, nope. Just three very straight people in very straight daylight.
And then they never said Coolsville again.
Book 16: Coolsville