but the problem is, I don’t think Dina IS second place, I think it was just a case of Becky’s brain shutting down over the thought, she’s had a few too many worldviews shattered recently. honestly the big reaction was because Becky let her belief be eroded by something valid, this certainly isn’t a case of anyone needing to be fixed though, who hasn’t had their first love break their heart? ~<3
At the very least, if Joyce is still not Becky’s #1, events have shown that Becky still has not moved on completely from Joyce. The real litmus test is “If Joyce and Dorothy were to break up tomorrow, and Joyce wants to get with Becky, would Becky remain with Dina, or would she break up with Dina to be with Joyce?” I personally feel that Becky does love Dina, but if that situation occurred, she would 100% leave Dina for Joyce.
Tal
Honestly I don’t think I agree with that. I think if the situation were ACTUALLY put forward to Becky of her being happy with Dina or even just trying to get Dina back, and Joyce came to her and suddenly wanted to be with her, I don’t actually think she’d say yes. Because she knows Joyce doesn’t feel that way about her. Yes, she’s hurt that all this time apparently Joyce COULD like girls but never liked her, but honestly I think the level of upset she felt about it was more about how tumultuous her life has been the past few months. You have to remember, it hasn’t even been two full semesters since the start of the comic. EVERYTHING that has happened in the comic has happened over the course of a few months. Joyce being queer actually but not for her was just a lot to process and given she’s been noticeably more upset about losing Dina than not getting a chance with Joyce is I think pretty indicative that her relationship with Dina was more important to her than not getting to smooch Joyce. Her reaction, to me, was more about “why wasn’t *I* good enough for you to realize your queerness for?” than actually wanting to be with Joyce, because we have seen over and over again that the feeling of not being enough for people is something Becky struggles with a lot. Why wasn’t she important enough to her mom for her mom to not kill herself? Why wasn’t she important enough to her dad for her dad not to reject her? Why wasn’t she pretty enough for Joyce to fall in love with her? etc.
She had some bluescreening and a gutpunch reaction to the Joyce thing. Understandable. And understandable that Dina wouldn’t understand it and would assume it means she’s secondary to Joyce in importance. But I do not think it’s true.
Kazuma Shouri
before the protest sure, but after the brief update with Leslie, I think Becky’s already self-analyzed and realized who she cares about most
Big agree. Becky shut down not upon the discovery that they were kissing, but the realization that Hank’s response to this was a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘don’t tell mom’. She sacrificed everything she knew and loved to be who she is- meanwhile, Joyce pratfell backwards into it without losing anything but Becky’s respect. She’s on sentimental-smiley-moment terms with her ex-boyfriend and everything. That’s a lot of big feelings that are gonna be difficult for Becky to reconcile with in one fucking afternoon… I don’t know if she’s even identified all of this or if it’s just one big glob of ‘this shit’s so unfair’ emotion. Remember, it was AMBER who centered joyrothy as the beginning-and-end-of-it here! Becky shouldn’t have been put in the position of defusing that misunderstanding in the first place
but the problem is, I don’t think Dina IS second place, I think it was just a case of Becky’s brain shutting down over the thought, she’s had a few too many worldviews shattered recently. honestly the big reaction was because Becky let her belief be eroded by something valid, this certainly isn’t a case of anyone needing to be fixed though, who hasn’t had their first love break their heart? ~<3
i am also reading this into the situation. if dina want to be with becky, and is willing to put in the effort to try to see if becky can accept her as her #1, and becky still cannot,then dina at least can say she tried everything.
Joyce was’nt Becky’s first love – she was her first crush and an unacknowledged one at that. And “loving” someone that is unaware of your emotion leads to, well Willis has already told that story.
Most people wait until they’re over someone before they start dating seriously again
eh, whatever
Not everyone gets over someone who left them before finding someone else.
thejeff
Personally, at least when I was around that age, dating someone else was how I got over the last one.
Freemage
Eh, given that the term ‘rebound’ is a cliche for someone immediately glomming onto a new partner while still in the ‘grief for my old relationship’ phase, I don’t think this is quite accurate.
dLileh
Nah, those are unrealistic standards…
It took me and my partner at least 2 years to completely get over our exes, but we spent 1,5 of those years already together. I’m glad we handled it this way. We are great together.
Getting over someone is a gradient anyway…
IMO, I think that once Becky takes a minute to actually examine her own feelings in the cold light of day, Dina is actually more important to her. That if it somehow really came down to a choice between dating Joyce or dating Dina, she would date Dina. But it’s still gonna be hard to admit that to herself, because it’s going to mean letting go of this closely-guarded part of her heart that kept her going through the first 18 years of her life amidst all the rest of the trauma. That’s why she had the kneejerk reaction she did, and then that spiralled with her feeling like she doesn’t deserve to be happy. It’s trauma the whole way down.
If Becky does that self-examination (and if I’m right about the conclusion), Dina and Becky have a shot at working through the rest. If not, then yeah, Dina deserves better.
Yeah this here is the thing. Becky and Dina *have had an actual romantic relationship*.
Yes, Becky has a *years* long crush on her best friend… but that’s what it is: *an unreciprocated crush on her best friend*. It’s easy to fall into the trap of this meaning somehow this means Dina is second place, but that involves putting an actual intimate relationship they put time and effort into building together on par with… well, a *crush*.
Both Dina and the audience worry that because Becky’s crush was so intense, that this means somehow Becky’s feelings for Dina are diminished, or a semi-rebound (can it actually be a rebound if there was never a romantic relationship to begin with?). But the reality is, the thing Becky had for Joyce wasn’t *there*. She wished it’d been for years, and never took the time to sort through the feelings fully because she struggles with confronting the parts of herself that are painful or in pain.
But the thing she has with Dina *was and is real.*
The next step is up to Becky to realize it, and to realize the difference between what she built with Dina with a crush on her best friend that didn’t pan out.
Kimi
I also wonder how much she actually likes Joyce and how much she liked her life (sort of in a want to be her type of way). If I remember correctly, she never really liked at least some of Joyce’s changes (mainly the ones that weren’t aligned to Becky’s personal beliefs) while I can’t recall her trying to change Dina off the top of my head. Joyce was basically the safe and familiar thing that was like the home she wanted to have but never could.
It is almost as if Joyce was Becky’s last rock (of safety) from her old life, and while Dina can be a new rock, it can be very scary to see the old one change and feel like you no longer have that one to fall back to. In some ways, Becky feels very isolated. I don’t know how many friends she has in this area or that she can connection to very well. She does have two new “moms” but I don’t think she has any other family. She really needs a bigger extended support network, possibly separate from Joyce and Dina’s group so that she doesn’t feel like they have to make a choice between her or them if a problem comes up.
We know that Joyce’s community tended to be homeschooled and she was considered the most socialized. It might be the case that Becky hasn’t learned how to healthily resolve problems or fights with friends. I am quite sure that toe dad showed all the ways you shouldn’t do things. Becky is pretty good at putting up a front, but she really needs help learning how to healthily processes things imo.
The Lurker
You said that so much better than I did that I felt I needed to say thank you for that.
Yeah, I don’t understand the concern. Even if Dina WAS a rebound (and I don’t have skin in a game, could be either of options) it doesn’t mean she still IS a rebound. Feelings can change and though mostly it changes for less (people growing tired of each other), Becky clearly cares about Dina more than at the begining.
And she still can hurt from crush on Joyce. Hell, I still sometimes hurt from a crush I had ten years ago, and I’m in happy relationship for 5 years now.
I guess I’m confused, because it appears that I see relationships and marriage differently from most of the people here.
…I thought marriage is supposed to be all about finding a way to be happy with what you have. “Love the one you’re with.” “Love each other, warts and all.” “You’ll grow to love each other over time.” “Settle for settling down.” And all those platitudes.
…I mean, am I wrong? It seems that committing to take care of one another long-term is much more important than being #1 for each other.
…Maybe that’s just my own skewed viewpoint, though?
I think for some people, the idea of committing to one another long term goes hand in hand with being #1 for that person. I’ll freely admit I’m biromantic, sex-repulsed asexual and it has been… about a decade since my last relationship so I know my own values and wants in a relationship are different from your typical allosexual. If I was dating someone and they were hung up on someone else, I would probably still be with them… so long as being hung up on that other person obviously doesn’t include cheating. Otherwise, if they’re like “I’m still bummed this person I loved didn’t feel the same as me” and I love them enough to date them, I’m just gonna be like “yeah babe, sorry that happened. How about we go on a date and take your mind off things”.
Yeah I dunno. Be it a marriage or other family relationship, speaking from experience, the “tolerable level of permanent unhappiness” mentality can (and does) tend to get VERY toxic. TT~TT
Psychie
I don’t think they were referring to a tolerable level of unhappiness, but rather to continually choose your partner every day even when it’s hard and genuinely put in the work to make it work, you know, together. If you genuinely dislike your partner or there is something unhealthy about your relationship that is damaging to your mental health and you can’t find a way to fix whatever that is even working together (which usually means one of you isn’t actually putting in your share of the work, and if it’s not you, it’s them), then yeah, it’s better to leave. The issue is that far too many people are quick to dip out of relationships at the first hurdle, or because they aren’t happy even when their partner isn’t doing anything wrong to cause their unhappiness and they assume divorce will somehow magically fix their unhappiness when they can’t even pinpoint a cause. People are too quick to leave without even trying to fix or resolve whatever is wrong, without actually talking to their partner about it or otherwise addressing the issue, or if they try to they resort to accusations and fighting instead of actually working together to fix the problem.
It should never be you vs your partner, it should always be you and your partner vs the problem, if you’re fighting against each other instead of working together to find a solution, you’re not fixing anything and potentially breaking more. But way too many people these days fail to understand that and never really develop the conflict resolution skills needed to have a healthy relationship, and I think that’s what Laura is talking about, not the idea that we should normalize suffering for the sake of holding a fundamentally broken relationship together, but rather that we should normalize learning the skills and putting in the effort to try to mend broken relationships before they are fully destroyed.
The Queer Agenda [frog memes]
Agree with NGPZ, people tend to just become resentful if they’re unhappy but stay out of some misplaced sense of obligation. It also normalizes a culture of ignoring red flags and thinking you can ‘fix’ a bad relationship. The bigger societal problem isn’t that a few people are too picky, but that a lot of relationships never should have progressed to marriage in the first place. People generally aren’t taught to recognize abuse before it escalates, and just feel like something’s off without being able to explain why they’re unhappy.
NGPZ
yeah and this toxic mentality even scales to power imbalances in society at large — “Being trans is okay, just pee at home. Being autistic is okay, just don’t mind if people subject you to constant unsolicited “”helping”” and act like it’s allyship. Being a person of color is okay, just don’t mind it if you’re followed around the store like you’re about to steal something”, etc. etc. where the underlying notion is that it’s okay for minorities to suffer for the convenience of “normal” white men, that power imbalances are okay within a certain extent. But if we are to function within this society as equals, we need word that power over us will not be invoked.
Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness is very much demonstrative of the privileged mindset in action. Oblivious whitebreds often get off on us for complaining about this stuff and be like “it’s not a matter of life and death, don’t you have bigger problems?” — which is rather ironic coming from them, because according to them, be it the gender wage gap or racial wealth disparities, the bigger problems don’t EXIST. 😑
It’s only when the power imbalances are small that the socially privileged are willing to admit to us, “yes, I do have unfair power over you — and you should just let me have it”.
👀
Psychie
You’re both still missing the point, though. This isn’t about genuinely toxic or abusive relationships that should end, and it’s definitely not about social inequalities. The point is that healthy relationships utilize healthy conflict resolution skills. They practice checking in with each other, they practice articulating issues and problems as they arise, they practice working on the parts of themselves they know bother their partner, they practice recognizing that nobody is ever going to be perfect and deciding what parts of their partner that bother them are things they can live with. If you’re not willing to compromise on some things for your partner, if you bail every time something comes up because you’re “unhappy” instead of even trying to work with them to resolve the issues one way or another, you’ll just be alone, and if that’s really preferable to putting up with occasionally being frustrated with your partner or hurt because they said or did something thoughtless or whatever, then fine, you do you. But to say it’s toxic to even try? That’s bullshit. That’s an incredibly toxic mindset, IMO.
Again, nobody here is saying you should stay with someone who is abusing you, nobody here is saying that every relationship is fixable, nobody here is saying that people should stay in genuinely unhappy situations. But a lot of people these days are framing compromise and conflict resolution skills as lacking standards or having boundaries violated, and that’s absurd. You spend enough time with literally anybody and there WILL be conflict, that is 100% guaranteed, there WILL be things that annoy you, there will be things about you that annoy them, you will disagree, you will hurt each other, you will get frustrated, you will be sad, etc. That’s life, that’s being human. But to equate conflict with toxicity? That’s extremely toxic. To expect people to be perfect as the bare minimum? That’s toxic. To act like any deviation from your ideal, from what you want, is toxic? That’s toxic. To bail because things got a little hard? That’s toxic.
Yes, you should be happy *in aggregate*, but choosing to let things fester, to let the little bad things ruin the big happy things? That’s choosing to be unhappy. Yes, if someone is constantly and regularly hurting you and isn’t willing to put in the work to change, then that is a toxic relationship that you should leave, but there is a massive difference between that and what I am talking about, and what I believe Laura was talking about.
I’m sorry you’ve dealt with abuse and toxic relationships that should have ended. But a healthy relationship isn’t one free of conflict, it’s one with healthy conflict resolution, and that can only happen if both parties are 100% committed to trying. Sometimes, in the course of healthy conflict resolution you do find irreconcilable differences and you come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is end things, that’s life. But if you aren’t at least trying, then you are the one choosing not to engage in healthy conflict resolution. Yes, staying in a bad situation is toxic, but so is running away from a potentially good situation. Balance in all things.
I mean, on the one hand, you’re not wrong, per se, it is definitely important to work with your partner to build something stable and lasting than to necessarily always prioritize immediate happiness. But on the other hand, if you’re putting in that work properly I can’t really see them not being, or at least becoming over time, your number one. Like, if somebody else is your number one, why not be with them instead? And if being with them isn’t feasible for whatever reason, like you aren’t their number one, or incompatible sexualities, or your child is your number one, or whatever, what is keeping them as your number one over your partner who you are working with every day to build a lasting and permanent relationship? I do think one should put their partner before all else, so long as their partner does the same, because that’s what a partner IS, IMO, you know?
Doopyboop
I do think one’s child should take priority over one’s partner and if that person is a good partner, they should agree. I’m not saying “if there’s a fight always take the child’s side” because children can be assholes but part of becoming a parent is making your child or children the number one priority. An example, when my mom died she left me the majority of her life insurance because her logic was “you are younger than your father, you will need the money more. Your father has more life experience and money, he will be alright in comparison.” She still left him a good chunk of money, but I was given the majority and my father allowed that because he agreed.
Psychie
Your children will grow up and leave, your partner won’t. Not saying you should neglect your kids or whatever, but there is a fundamental difference between a couple making a mutual decision as partners to prioritize the kids and one partner choosing to prioritize the kids over the partnership. Yeah, kids takes over your life, and a lot of things can easily fall to the wayside, including the basic maintenance a healthy relationship requires, but there is a difference between a couple working together as a team to prioritize the kids as one unit and one partner neglecting the other and using the kids as an excuse. You and your partner are one unit, they are the other half of your life, your kids are family, and you are responsible for them, but eventually they will grow up and move on and have lives of your own and if you spend 18 years neglecting your partnership and chipping away at that bond because there was always something with the kids getting in the way, you won’t have a partnership to fall back on when the kids inevitably leave.
And frankly, the allocation of assets has little to nothing to do with the sort of emotional prioritization being discussed. Money is money, and love is love. I’m sure your mom loved you very much and prioritized you when she was raising you, but your father was her partner, that’s how she knows he’ll be okay if she leaves most of her money to you.
Think of people like planetary bodies and relationships like their orbits, a healthy partnership is like Pluto and Charon, two similarly sized bodies that orbit each other mutually. Meanwhile your kids would be a larger planetary body that you both orbit, but if you stop orbiting each other because the gravity of your kids pulls you apart, then your relationship is no longer a healthy one. You can orbit your kids together while still maintaining your equilibrium with one another.
This depends heavily on what culture raised you, and I can only speak from mine for the following comment.
–
In general, it is mostly women and girls being given this advice as a way of encouraging them not to leave men and boys who are abusive either psychologically or physically. Men historically rely on women for a support structure, raising their children, cleaning their home, giving them space to focus only on what interests them and sacrificing our own interests and lives to do so.
–
Men are not told to just accept what they’re given and make the best of it, and this pops up when the women in their lives fall ill or become upset in a way that removes that support structure they rely on. They leave women they claim to love (seriously, looking up the statistics on how often men leave women after a cancer diagnosis vs the other way around is harrowing) and find another woman to replace her as soon as possible because they are interchangeable. This includes when their wife dies and they start looking for a new mother for their children, a younger model, etc.
–
Of Note: A lot of the change in women’s attitudes toward love comes from a desire to have rights, to be happy, to be seen as human beings and not accessories for men who need a new mommy. I personally support that push toward independence and supporting their own needs and feelings, even if it looks like selfishness to people outside the situation.
–
Also of note: Not all men, yada yada
Freemage
This post is magnificent. I’ll also note that men are generally taught that the only ’emotional’ connection or support they need should be gotten via sex. (This is, of course, utterly untrue AND massively toxic, but it’s still part of the common lesson in the US and probably elsewhere). This feeds, of course, into the cancer-divorce phenomenon you talk about (since many cancer patients just lose all their sex drive for a time, if not permanently). But even in relationships where the husband stays because he knows that’s the commitment he made, there’s often a death of emotional intimacy as the sex part dies down. The two begin doing their own hobbies and interests, and occasionally bump into one another at the dinner table. It’s getting better, slowly–guys are finally waking up to the fact that it doesn’t have to be this way. But it’s gonna take a long time to dig out that particular rotten tooth.
Doopyboop
Just commenting because of the cancer-divorce thing and I wanna share some positive stories, both of my parents have had cancer and both of them stayed loyal and helped each other through it. In particular my mom’s last bout of cancer was terminal and my dad and I had to take care of her. We did all we could for her and my dad never let her feel like a burden. At her wake when we had to leave the funeral and go home, my dad broke down crying and said “It feels wrong to leave her” and he gave her one last kiss on the forehead before we went home. My dad is hardly perfect but he’s very loyal and I’m very proud of him. I know it’s not like that for everyone, and with mom’s loss we’ve actually encountered a lot of people assuming he’s gonna get with another woman when he honestly has no interest. My parents were ride or die.
“And all those platitudes.”
They sound like “marry some random person, then figure out how to emotionally survive in this permanent situation”. That seems like a recipe for chronic unhappiness.
Love is not a choice, it’s something that happens to people. I wonder if the people who say it’s a choice are all aromantic.
I’m not saying split up at the first sign of potential trouble. Of course the Joyce-style approach – “if it’s True Love there’s never going to be any problem” – isn’t realistic. But I do recommend finding out if you really make each other happy before you make deep commitments, and be aware that you can’t always find that out beforehand.
Anonymous
“Love is not a choice, it’s something that happens to people.”
A problem with allowing someone to wash their hands of the element of choice is giving them license to say “Well, I made a lifelong commitment, but then love happened to me… for a younger woman… again…” (over and over).
For another perspective, consider someone for whom love “happens to them” for someone who isn’t at all interested (or available). In a romance novel, the person might pine away forever, or watch over them as a guardian for the rest of their life and die alone and childless, or stalk them until their target gets a restraining order. In practice, even if you find yourself feeling emotional attachment to someone who isn’t a romantic option for you, you can still choose to spend time with other people and explore who else among the billions of people in this world can spark the same sort of reaction. And if you enter a relationship with someone who returns your feelings, you can choose to spend time with them and deepen your mutual feelings, giving them preferential emotional treatment above others not in a relationship with you, rather than dismiss responsibility for your emotional entanglements as something externally imposed on your without your influence.
Psychie
Love is a complex emotion, possibly the *most* complex emotion we have. It is made up of a lot of smaller emotions, and a lot of those components aren’t a choice, especially lust/attraction. Having said that, lasting love absolutely IS a choice, we have tons and tons of studies on the qualities lasting relationships have, the habits that couples who stay together until the end practice daily, and the signs of a relationship that will fail, or that a relationship is failing. And every single one of them boils down to the basic idea that both partners in the relationship need to be choosing each other every day to maintain that feeling of love. Perhaps falling in love in the first place isn’t a choice, but staying in love definitely is, as is falling out of love. If you are not choosing to love your partner every day, even when it gets hard, to practice those skills that are needed to maintain the relationship, to maintain the love, then you are choosing to stop loving them. Just about every relationship ends because one party or the other stopped choosing their partner. And in many cases they never really chose their partner in the first place and that’s why their love for them was so fleeting. It takes work to make things work.
Personally, I am resolved to never be the first one to stop choosing my partners when I have them. I’ve had relationships end because I recognized that my partners weren’t choosing me anymore, or never had in the first place, and nothing I did or said could get them to start choosing me again, and so while I was the one to end them, I’m not the one who chose for them to end, I just saw the writing on the wall and stopped wasting my time and energy. And maybe that will happen again in the future. But when I choose someone, I keep choosing them until the choice is taken from me one way or another, and I maintain hope that someday someone that I choose will choose me too in the same way.
But acting like there is no choice involved in love, especially in a long term relationship, is just abdicating responsibility for your own choices and actions. Choosing not to choose is still a choice. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice. Choosing passivity is still a choice. To maintain a healthy relationship, to maintain lasting love, you need to actively choose your partner over and over again, continually, until the choice is taken from you, maybe by them, maybe by death, maybe by circumstances, maybe by irreconcilable differences, etc. But choosing not to do that, not to actively choose them, that is, in itself, a choice too, it’s choosing not to stay in love with them. That’s a choice.
These characters are like 18 or 19 years old. Some people can marry their first girlfriend and live happily ever after, but most people shouldn’t. Breaking up, learning to move on, all of it is an important part of growing up.
Of course I *want* Becky and Dina to get back together because they’re fictional. But if this was real life? Maybe they shouldn’t. Maybe it’s time to move on and grow as individuals.
Laura
Very true, Les. “Forever” is a long time, especially when hormones and inexperience are running the show, at first.
Thank you for the insight, everyone. I truly appreciate each of you, Nymph, NGPZ, Psychie, Doopyboop, and eh, whatever. I am grateful to you for making the time to care enough to share your unique perspectives.
Food for thought…
Doopyboop
I’m always happy to share perspectives and even happier to read that of others! Thanks for the question that opened the door to people sharing their thoughts!
The advice is not necessarily wrong, but it does depend on the person’s starting point. Like you don’t tell a narcissist that they need to value themselves more, and you don’t tell someone with low self-esteem that they need to be more humble. If someone’s taking their partner for granted and whining that their relationship takes work instead of being perfect and effortless, yeah, they need a reality check. On the other hand if someone is being used by a partner who is unwilling to meet them at their level of commitment, they need a reality check in the other direction.
A long-term relationship is something you and your partner create and maintain together. It takes work and commitment from both sides. If you are not working and committed, that’s a problem. If you are but your partner isn’t, that’s a different problem.
(note: as said in a reply to someone else, I am not personally of the opinion that Becky isn’t in this, I am just speaking generally)
More folks joined in since I last responded, and I wanted to thank folks for sharing their vital perspectives.
The Queer Agenda, Freemage, and Tan, I really appreciate you for making the time and effort to share your thoughts on these important topics.
I think it’s okay to have bumps in your relationship and uncertainties and still work through them together. “You can’t fix her” is… really insensitive, actually. I get the sentiment, but all Becky did was be heartbroken that her years long crush actually did like girls, but didn’t like her. She responded to it in a hurtful way, but certainly not an unforgivable way or anything they can’t work through.
That’s definitely partly what’s going on with Becky, but I’m far from convinced that’s the only reason behind her losing her faith and “I’m the problem”.
Which I think will change the picture for Dina if Becky’s able to talk to her about it.
I would be tickled pink if Joyce’s intervention actually works and Dina and Becky get back together. Unfortunately, I suspect that Becky and her internalized self-loathing will be a bigger obstacle to that happening.
It’s also interesting how Joyce’s language is echoing what Joe told her about her and Dorothy, that he wanted her to have the things that she wanted. I wonder if Joe will add anything before we cut away.
It is so fucking stupid that this worked, I’m sorry. Joyce spewed a whole bunch of bullshit and it was supposed to be an actual powerful moment? Come on.
“Be selfish! Have what you want!” is not a strong direction to take this conflict that is fundamentally about Becky’s hangups and baggage, and it would be far more interesting and engaging to focus on exploring and resolving those instead of whatever the fuck this is.
embe13
but this may be the best way to get to that meat on the bone that is beckys trauma and issue. it all makes sense to me, the way joyce processes these thoughts, very on point for those in my adhd circle
Bryy
We don’t know if it worked or even what the consequences will be.
Dot
I would also be happy if no one ever made this argument ever again, as it amounts to “stop reacting to information as you receive it in the context of a serialized medium.”
And does Dina *want* to be Becky’s silver medal? Like, this is pretty shitty advice from the woman who’s entire experience with relationships involves pressuring a gay man back into the closet, attempting to get a man to cheat on his girlfriend, and cheating on her boyfriend a few days ago (has it been two or just the one day since August now? I’ve…lost track) while talking about being selfish and chasing what you want with him *still in the room*
*Meanwhile, Joe on the other side of the room wondering if he was ever actually something she wanted*
Grimey
I am willing to go out on a limb and assume every single person Joyce has ever shown interest in was someone she wanted *at the time*.
Dorothy is…Your Mileage May Vary just because the awareness that Dorothy was on the table did not make itself present until their Paramore moment. Longing. Panging. Subconsciously negging Walky to Dorothy every step of the way of their relationship without any other reason besides ‘he’s a dumb’.
thejeff
I do really like the contrast here between Joe, who actually got cheated on, clinging to Joyce anyway and Dina giving up on Becky for being upset finding out that her old crush rejected her despite liking girls.
I think they’re both wrong, but in opposite directions.
RexLatro
@Grimey – I love that she whole-heartedly gives this advice while not taking into account the hurt her actions have taken during her impulsive “be selfish and pursue your *own* emotional fulfillment, who cares about the emotional fallout for others?” actions may have had (I bet Raidah, Jacob, and Joe enjoyed her passionate pursuit of her own wants in these situations).
–
@thejeff – I agree with the juxtaposition of the two, and want to see more of them bonding over being hurt without interruptions like…this. I feel what they both need here is more backbone/self-respect (Dina has shown she has it in her last interaction with Becky, but if Joe is *still* making his sad puppy eyes after hearing all this from Joyce, he needs to give his head a shake) rather than listen to what Joyce has to say for this matter. While the Becky situation is more complex, both of them have been incredibly hurt/disrespected by their (former?) partners and deserve to at least be heard out
294 thoughts on “Be selfish”
NGPZ
Dina… noooo….
you can’t fix her, and you deserve so much better than being second place in someone’s heart
TT~TT
DJTsurugi
but the problem is, I don’t think Dina IS second place, I think it was just a case of Becky’s brain shutting down over the thought, she’s had a few too many worldviews shattered recently. honestly the big reaction was because Becky let her belief be eroded by something valid, this certainly isn’t a case of anyone needing to be fixed though, who hasn’t had their first love break their heart? ~<3
Zaxares
At the very least, if Joyce is still not Becky’s #1, events have shown that Becky still has not moved on completely from Joyce. The real litmus test is “If Joyce and Dorothy were to break up tomorrow, and Joyce wants to get with Becky, would Becky remain with Dina, or would she break up with Dina to be with Joyce?” I personally feel that Becky does love Dina, but if that situation occurred, she would 100% leave Dina for Joyce.
Tal
Honestly I don’t think I agree with that. I think if the situation were ACTUALLY put forward to Becky of her being happy with Dina or even just trying to get Dina back, and Joyce came to her and suddenly wanted to be with her, I don’t actually think she’d say yes. Because she knows Joyce doesn’t feel that way about her. Yes, she’s hurt that all this time apparently Joyce COULD like girls but never liked her, but honestly I think the level of upset she felt about it was more about how tumultuous her life has been the past few months. You have to remember, it hasn’t even been two full semesters since the start of the comic. EVERYTHING that has happened in the comic has happened over the course of a few months. Joyce being queer actually but not for her was just a lot to process and given she’s been noticeably more upset about losing Dina than not getting a chance with Joyce is I think pretty indicative that her relationship with Dina was more important to her than not getting to smooch Joyce. Her reaction, to me, was more about “why wasn’t *I* good enough for you to realize your queerness for?” than actually wanting to be with Joyce, because we have seen over and over again that the feeling of not being enough for people is something Becky struggles with a lot. Why wasn’t she important enough to her mom for her mom to not kill herself? Why wasn’t she important enough to her dad for her dad not to reject her? Why wasn’t she pretty enough for Joyce to fall in love with her? etc.
She had some bluescreening and a gutpunch reaction to the Joyce thing. Understandable. And understandable that Dina wouldn’t understand it and would assume it means she’s secondary to Joyce in importance. But I do not think it’s true.
Kazuma Shouri
before the protest sure, but after the brief update with Leslie, I think Becky’s already self-analyzed and realized who she cares about most
Caro
Big agree. Becky shut down not upon the discovery that they were kissing, but the realization that Hank’s response to this was a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘don’t tell mom’. She sacrificed everything she knew and loved to be who she is- meanwhile, Joyce pratfell backwards into it without losing anything but Becky’s respect. She’s on sentimental-smiley-moment terms with her ex-boyfriend and everything. That’s a lot of big feelings that are gonna be difficult for Becky to reconcile with in one fucking afternoon… I don’t know if she’s even identified all of this or if it’s just one big glob of ‘this shit’s so unfair’ emotion. Remember, it was AMBER who centered joyrothy as the beginning-and-end-of-it here! Becky shouldn’t have been put in the position of defusing that misunderstanding in the first place
DJTsurugi
but the problem is, I don’t think Dina IS second place, I think it was just a case of Becky’s brain shutting down over the thought, she’s had a few too many worldviews shattered recently. honestly the big reaction was because Becky let her belief be eroded by something valid, this certainly isn’t a case of anyone needing to be fixed though, who hasn’t had their first love break their heart? ~<3
embe13
i am also reading this into the situation. if dina want to be with becky, and is willing to put in the effort to try to see if becky can accept her as her #1, and becky still cannot,then dina at least can say she tried everything.
The Lurker
Joyce was’nt Becky’s first love – she was her first crush and an unacknowledged one at that. And “loving” someone that is unaware of your emotion leads to, well Willis has already told that story.
Vukodlak
Alright now explain why the next person Dina goes put with won’t be second place after Becky.
clif
Why do you assume there will be a next person?
kdmw
Most people wait until they’re over someone before they start dating seriously again
eh, whatever
Not everyone gets over someone who left them before finding someone else.
thejeff
Personally, at least when I was around that age, dating someone else was how I got over the last one.
Freemage
Eh, given that the term ‘rebound’ is a cliche for someone immediately glomming onto a new partner while still in the ‘grief for my old relationship’ phase, I don’t think this is quite accurate.
dLileh
Nah, those are unrealistic standards…
It took me and my partner at least 2 years to completely get over our exes, but we spent 1,5 of those years already together. I’m glad we handled it this way. We are great together.
Getting over someone is a gradient anyway…
yak
They would be at first, obviously. But these things can change very quickly.
Tan
IMO, I think that once Becky takes a minute to actually examine her own feelings in the cold light of day, Dina is actually more important to her. That if it somehow really came down to a choice between dating Joyce or dating Dina, she would date Dina. But it’s still gonna be hard to admit that to herself, because it’s going to mean letting go of this closely-guarded part of her heart that kept her going through the first 18 years of her life amidst all the rest of the trauma. That’s why she had the kneejerk reaction she did, and then that spiralled with her feeling like she doesn’t deserve to be happy. It’s trauma the whole way down.
If Becky does that self-examination (and if I’m right about the conclusion), Dina and Becky have a shot at working through the rest. If not, then yeah, Dina deserves better.
Lanz
Yeah this here is the thing. Becky and Dina *have had an actual romantic relationship*.
Yes, Becky has a *years* long crush on her best friend… but that’s what it is: *an unreciprocated crush on her best friend*. It’s easy to fall into the trap of this meaning somehow this means Dina is second place, but that involves putting an actual intimate relationship they put time and effort into building together on par with… well, a *crush*.
Both Dina and the audience worry that because Becky’s crush was so intense, that this means somehow Becky’s feelings for Dina are diminished, or a semi-rebound (can it actually be a rebound if there was never a romantic relationship to begin with?). But the reality is, the thing Becky had for Joyce wasn’t *there*. She wished it’d been for years, and never took the time to sort through the feelings fully because she struggles with confronting the parts of herself that are painful or in pain.
But the thing she has with Dina *was and is real.*
The next step is up to Becky to realize it, and to realize the difference between what she built with Dina with a crush on her best friend that didn’t pan out.
Kimi
I also wonder how much she actually likes Joyce and how much she liked her life (sort of in a want to be her type of way). If I remember correctly, she never really liked at least some of Joyce’s changes (mainly the ones that weren’t aligned to Becky’s personal beliefs) while I can’t recall her trying to change Dina off the top of my head. Joyce was basically the safe and familiar thing that was like the home she wanted to have but never could.
It is almost as if Joyce was Becky’s last rock (of safety) from her old life, and while Dina can be a new rock, it can be very scary to see the old one change and feel like you no longer have that one to fall back to. In some ways, Becky feels very isolated. I don’t know how many friends she has in this area or that she can connection to very well. She does have two new “moms” but I don’t think she has any other family. She really needs a bigger extended support network, possibly separate from Joyce and Dina’s group so that she doesn’t feel like they have to make a choice between her or them if a problem comes up.
We know that Joyce’s community tended to be homeschooled and she was considered the most socialized. It might be the case that Becky hasn’t learned how to healthily resolve problems or fights with friends. I am quite sure that toe dad showed all the ways you shouldn’t do things. Becky is pretty good at putting up a front, but she really needs help learning how to healthily processes things imo.
The Lurker
You said that so much better than I did that I felt I needed to say thank you for that.
ololo-518
Yeah, I don’t understand the concern. Even if Dina WAS a rebound (and I don’t have skin in a game, could be either of options) it doesn’t mean she still IS a rebound. Feelings can change and though mostly it changes for less (people growing tired of each other), Becky clearly cares about Dina more than at the begining.
And she still can hurt from crush on Joyce. Hell, I still sometimes hurt from a crush I had ten years ago, and I’m in happy relationship for 5 years now.
Laura
I guess I’m confused, because it appears that I see relationships and marriage differently from most of the people here.
…I thought marriage is supposed to be all about finding a way to be happy with what you have. “Love the one you’re with.” “Love each other, warts and all.” “You’ll grow to love each other over time.” “Settle for settling down.” And all those platitudes.
…I mean, am I wrong? It seems that committing to take care of one another long-term is much more important than being #1 for each other.
…Maybe that’s just my own skewed viewpoint, though?
Doopyboop
I think for some people, the idea of committing to one another long term goes hand in hand with being #1 for that person. I’ll freely admit I’m biromantic, sex-repulsed asexual and it has been… about a decade since my last relationship so I know my own values and wants in a relationship are different from your typical allosexual. If I was dating someone and they were hung up on someone else, I would probably still be with them… so long as being hung up on that other person obviously doesn’t include cheating. Otherwise, if they’re like “I’m still bummed this person I loved didn’t feel the same as me” and I love them enough to date them, I’m just gonna be like “yeah babe, sorry that happened. How about we go on a date and take your mind off things”.
Laura
I really like that approach, Doopyboop.
embe13
a beautifully adult way to handle things! <3
NGPZ
Yeah I dunno. Be it a marriage or other family relationship, speaking from experience, the “tolerable level of permanent unhappiness” mentality can (and does) tend to get VERY toxic. TT~TT
Psychie
I don’t think they were referring to a tolerable level of unhappiness, but rather to continually choose your partner every day even when it’s hard and genuinely put in the work to make it work, you know, together. If you genuinely dislike your partner or there is something unhealthy about your relationship that is damaging to your mental health and you can’t find a way to fix whatever that is even working together (which usually means one of you isn’t actually putting in your share of the work, and if it’s not you, it’s them), then yeah, it’s better to leave. The issue is that far too many people are quick to dip out of relationships at the first hurdle, or because they aren’t happy even when their partner isn’t doing anything wrong to cause their unhappiness and they assume divorce will somehow magically fix their unhappiness when they can’t even pinpoint a cause. People are too quick to leave without even trying to fix or resolve whatever is wrong, without actually talking to their partner about it or otherwise addressing the issue, or if they try to they resort to accusations and fighting instead of actually working together to fix the problem.
It should never be you vs your partner, it should always be you and your partner vs the problem, if you’re fighting against each other instead of working together to find a solution, you’re not fixing anything and potentially breaking more. But way too many people these days fail to understand that and never really develop the conflict resolution skills needed to have a healthy relationship, and I think that’s what Laura is talking about, not the idea that we should normalize suffering for the sake of holding a fundamentally broken relationship together, but rather that we should normalize learning the skills and putting in the effort to try to mend broken relationships before they are fully destroyed.
The Queer Agenda [frog memes]
Agree with NGPZ, people tend to just become resentful if they’re unhappy but stay out of some misplaced sense of obligation. It also normalizes a culture of ignoring red flags and thinking you can ‘fix’ a bad relationship. The bigger societal problem isn’t that a few people are too picky, but that a lot of relationships never should have progressed to marriage in the first place. People generally aren’t taught to recognize abuse before it escalates, and just feel like something’s off without being able to explain why they’re unhappy.
NGPZ
yeah and this toxic mentality even scales to power imbalances in society at large — “Being trans is okay, just pee at home. Being autistic is okay, just don’t mind if people subject you to constant unsolicited “”helping”” and act like it’s allyship. Being a person of color is okay, just don’t mind it if you’re followed around the store like you’re about to steal something”, etc. etc. where the underlying notion is that it’s okay for minorities to suffer for the convenience of “normal” white men, that power imbalances are okay within a certain extent. But if we are to function within this society as equals, we need word that power over us will not be invoked.
Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness is very much demonstrative of the privileged mindset in action. Oblivious whitebreds often get off on us for complaining about this stuff and be like “it’s not a matter of life and death, don’t you have bigger problems?” — which is rather ironic coming from them, because according to them, be it the gender wage gap or racial wealth disparities, the bigger problems don’t EXIST. 😑
It’s only when the power imbalances are small that the socially privileged are willing to admit to us, “yes, I do have unfair power over you — and you should just let me have it”.
👀
Psychie
You’re both still missing the point, though. This isn’t about genuinely toxic or abusive relationships that should end, and it’s definitely not about social inequalities. The point is that healthy relationships utilize healthy conflict resolution skills. They practice checking in with each other, they practice articulating issues and problems as they arise, they practice working on the parts of themselves they know bother their partner, they practice recognizing that nobody is ever going to be perfect and deciding what parts of their partner that bother them are things they can live with. If you’re not willing to compromise on some things for your partner, if you bail every time something comes up because you’re “unhappy” instead of even trying to work with them to resolve the issues one way or another, you’ll just be alone, and if that’s really preferable to putting up with occasionally being frustrated with your partner or hurt because they said or did something thoughtless or whatever, then fine, you do you. But to say it’s toxic to even try? That’s bullshit. That’s an incredibly toxic mindset, IMO.
Again, nobody here is saying you should stay with someone who is abusing you, nobody here is saying that every relationship is fixable, nobody here is saying that people should stay in genuinely unhappy situations. But a lot of people these days are framing compromise and conflict resolution skills as lacking standards or having boundaries violated, and that’s absurd. You spend enough time with literally anybody and there WILL be conflict, that is 100% guaranteed, there WILL be things that annoy you, there will be things about you that annoy them, you will disagree, you will hurt each other, you will get frustrated, you will be sad, etc. That’s life, that’s being human. But to equate conflict with toxicity? That’s extremely toxic. To expect people to be perfect as the bare minimum? That’s toxic. To act like any deviation from your ideal, from what you want, is toxic? That’s toxic. To bail because things got a little hard? That’s toxic.
Yes, you should be happy *in aggregate*, but choosing to let things fester, to let the little bad things ruin the big happy things? That’s choosing to be unhappy. Yes, if someone is constantly and regularly hurting you and isn’t willing to put in the work to change, then that is a toxic relationship that you should leave, but there is a massive difference between that and what I am talking about, and what I believe Laura was talking about.
I’m sorry you’ve dealt with abuse and toxic relationships that should have ended. But a healthy relationship isn’t one free of conflict, it’s one with healthy conflict resolution, and that can only happen if both parties are 100% committed to trying. Sometimes, in the course of healthy conflict resolution you do find irreconcilable differences and you come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is end things, that’s life. But if you aren’t at least trying, then you are the one choosing not to engage in healthy conflict resolution. Yes, staying in a bad situation is toxic, but so is running away from a potentially good situation. Balance in all things.
Psychie
I mean, on the one hand, you’re not wrong, per se, it is definitely important to work with your partner to build something stable and lasting than to necessarily always prioritize immediate happiness. But on the other hand, if you’re putting in that work properly I can’t really see them not being, or at least becoming over time, your number one. Like, if somebody else is your number one, why not be with them instead? And if being with them isn’t feasible for whatever reason, like you aren’t their number one, or incompatible sexualities, or your child is your number one, or whatever, what is keeping them as your number one over your partner who you are working with every day to build a lasting and permanent relationship? I do think one should put their partner before all else, so long as their partner does the same, because that’s what a partner IS, IMO, you know?
Doopyboop
I do think one’s child should take priority over one’s partner and if that person is a good partner, they should agree. I’m not saying “if there’s a fight always take the child’s side” because children can be assholes but part of becoming a parent is making your child or children the number one priority. An example, when my mom died she left me the majority of her life insurance because her logic was “you are younger than your father, you will need the money more. Your father has more life experience and money, he will be alright in comparison.” She still left him a good chunk of money, but I was given the majority and my father allowed that because he agreed.
Psychie
Your children will grow up and leave, your partner won’t. Not saying you should neglect your kids or whatever, but there is a fundamental difference between a couple making a mutual decision as partners to prioritize the kids and one partner choosing to prioritize the kids over the partnership. Yeah, kids takes over your life, and a lot of things can easily fall to the wayside, including the basic maintenance a healthy relationship requires, but there is a difference between a couple working together as a team to prioritize the kids as one unit and one partner neglecting the other and using the kids as an excuse. You and your partner are one unit, they are the other half of your life, your kids are family, and you are responsible for them, but eventually they will grow up and move on and have lives of your own and if you spend 18 years neglecting your partnership and chipping away at that bond because there was always something with the kids getting in the way, you won’t have a partnership to fall back on when the kids inevitably leave.
And frankly, the allocation of assets has little to nothing to do with the sort of emotional prioritization being discussed. Money is money, and love is love. I’m sure your mom loved you very much and prioritized you when she was raising you, but your father was her partner, that’s how she knows he’ll be okay if she leaves most of her money to you.
Think of people like planetary bodies and relationships like their orbits, a healthy partnership is like Pluto and Charon, two similarly sized bodies that orbit each other mutually. Meanwhile your kids would be a larger planetary body that you both orbit, but if you stop orbiting each other because the gravity of your kids pulls you apart, then your relationship is no longer a healthy one. You can orbit your kids together while still maintaining your equilibrium with one another.
Nymph
This depends heavily on what culture raised you, and I can only speak from mine for the following comment.
–
In general, it is mostly women and girls being given this advice as a way of encouraging them not to leave men and boys who are abusive either psychologically or physically. Men historically rely on women for a support structure, raising their children, cleaning their home, giving them space to focus only on what interests them and sacrificing our own interests and lives to do so.
–
Men are not told to just accept what they’re given and make the best of it, and this pops up when the women in their lives fall ill or become upset in a way that removes that support structure they rely on. They leave women they claim to love (seriously, looking up the statistics on how often men leave women after a cancer diagnosis vs the other way around is harrowing) and find another woman to replace her as soon as possible because they are interchangeable. This includes when their wife dies and they start looking for a new mother for their children, a younger model, etc.
–
Of Note: A lot of the change in women’s attitudes toward love comes from a desire to have rights, to be happy, to be seen as human beings and not accessories for men who need a new mommy. I personally support that push toward independence and supporting their own needs and feelings, even if it looks like selfishness to people outside the situation.
–
Also of note: Not all men, yada yada
Freemage
This post is magnificent. I’ll also note that men are generally taught that the only ’emotional’ connection or support they need should be gotten via sex. (This is, of course, utterly untrue AND massively toxic, but it’s still part of the common lesson in the US and probably elsewhere). This feeds, of course, into the cancer-divorce phenomenon you talk about (since many cancer patients just lose all their sex drive for a time, if not permanently). But even in relationships where the husband stays because he knows that’s the commitment he made, there’s often a death of emotional intimacy as the sex part dies down. The two begin doing their own hobbies and interests, and occasionally bump into one another at the dinner table. It’s getting better, slowly–guys are finally waking up to the fact that it doesn’t have to be this way. But it’s gonna take a long time to dig out that particular rotten tooth.
Doopyboop
Just commenting because of the cancer-divorce thing and I wanna share some positive stories, both of my parents have had cancer and both of them stayed loyal and helped each other through it. In particular my mom’s last bout of cancer was terminal and my dad and I had to take care of her. We did all we could for her and my dad never let her feel like a burden. At her wake when we had to leave the funeral and go home, my dad broke down crying and said “It feels wrong to leave her” and he gave her one last kiss on the forehead before we went home. My dad is hardly perfect but he’s very loyal and I’m very proud of him. I know it’s not like that for everyone, and with mom’s loss we’ve actually encountered a lot of people assuming he’s gonna get with another woman when he honestly has no interest. My parents were ride or die.
eh, whatever
“And all those platitudes.”
They sound like “marry some random person, then figure out how to emotionally survive in this permanent situation”. That seems like a recipe for chronic unhappiness.
Love is not a choice, it’s something that happens to people. I wonder if the people who say it’s a choice are all aromantic.
I’m not saying split up at the first sign of potential trouble. Of course the Joyce-style approach – “if it’s True Love there’s never going to be any problem” – isn’t realistic. But I do recommend finding out if you really make each other happy before you make deep commitments, and be aware that you can’t always find that out beforehand.
Anonymous
“Love is not a choice, it’s something that happens to people.”
A problem with allowing someone to wash their hands of the element of choice is giving them license to say “Well, I made a lifelong commitment, but then love happened to me… for a younger woman… again…” (over and over).
For another perspective, consider someone for whom love “happens to them” for someone who isn’t at all interested (or available). In a romance novel, the person might pine away forever, or watch over them as a guardian for the rest of their life and die alone and childless, or stalk them until their target gets a restraining order. In practice, even if you find yourself feeling emotional attachment to someone who isn’t a romantic option for you, you can still choose to spend time with other people and explore who else among the billions of people in this world can spark the same sort of reaction. And if you enter a relationship with someone who returns your feelings, you can choose to spend time with them and deepen your mutual feelings, giving them preferential emotional treatment above others not in a relationship with you, rather than dismiss responsibility for your emotional entanglements as something externally imposed on your without your influence.
Psychie
Love is a complex emotion, possibly the *most* complex emotion we have. It is made up of a lot of smaller emotions, and a lot of those components aren’t a choice, especially lust/attraction. Having said that, lasting love absolutely IS a choice, we have tons and tons of studies on the qualities lasting relationships have, the habits that couples who stay together until the end practice daily, and the signs of a relationship that will fail, or that a relationship is failing. And every single one of them boils down to the basic idea that both partners in the relationship need to be choosing each other every day to maintain that feeling of love. Perhaps falling in love in the first place isn’t a choice, but staying in love definitely is, as is falling out of love. If you are not choosing to love your partner every day, even when it gets hard, to practice those skills that are needed to maintain the relationship, to maintain the love, then you are choosing to stop loving them. Just about every relationship ends because one party or the other stopped choosing their partner. And in many cases they never really chose their partner in the first place and that’s why their love for them was so fleeting. It takes work to make things work.
Personally, I am resolved to never be the first one to stop choosing my partners when I have them. I’ve had relationships end because I recognized that my partners weren’t choosing me anymore, or never had in the first place, and nothing I did or said could get them to start choosing me again, and so while I was the one to end them, I’m not the one who chose for them to end, I just saw the writing on the wall and stopped wasting my time and energy. And maybe that will happen again in the future. But when I choose someone, I keep choosing them until the choice is taken from me one way or another, and I maintain hope that someday someone that I choose will choose me too in the same way.
But acting like there is no choice involved in love, especially in a long term relationship, is just abdicating responsibility for your own choices and actions. Choosing not to choose is still a choice. Choosing to do nothing is still a choice. Choosing passivity is still a choice. To maintain a healthy relationship, to maintain lasting love, you need to actively choose your partner over and over again, continually, until the choice is taken from you, maybe by them, maybe by death, maybe by circumstances, maybe by irreconcilable differences, etc. But choosing not to do that, not to actively choose them, that is, in itself, a choice too, it’s choosing not to stay in love with them. That’s a choice.
Les
These characters are like 18 or 19 years old. Some people can marry their first girlfriend and live happily ever after, but most people shouldn’t. Breaking up, learning to move on, all of it is an important part of growing up.
Of course I *want* Becky and Dina to get back together because they’re fictional. But if this was real life? Maybe they shouldn’t. Maybe it’s time to move on and grow as individuals.
Laura
Very true, Les. “Forever” is a long time, especially when hormones and inexperience are running the show, at first.
Laura
Thank you for the insight, everyone. I truly appreciate each of you, Nymph, NGPZ, Psychie, Doopyboop, and eh, whatever. I am grateful to you for making the time to care enough to share your unique perspectives.
Food for thought…
Doopyboop
I’m always happy to share perspectives and even happier to read that of others! Thanks for the question that opened the door to people sharing their thoughts!
Tan
The advice is not necessarily wrong, but it does depend on the person’s starting point. Like you don’t tell a narcissist that they need to value themselves more, and you don’t tell someone with low self-esteem that they need to be more humble. If someone’s taking their partner for granted and whining that their relationship takes work instead of being perfect and effortless, yeah, they need a reality check. On the other hand if someone is being used by a partner who is unwilling to meet them at their level of commitment, they need a reality check in the other direction.
A long-term relationship is something you and your partner create and maintain together. It takes work and commitment from both sides. If you are not working and committed, that’s a problem. If you are but your partner isn’t, that’s a different problem.
(note: as said in a reply to someone else, I am not personally of the opinion that Becky isn’t in this, I am just speaking generally)
Laura
More folks joined in since I last responded, and I wanted to thank folks for sharing their vital perspectives.
The Queer Agenda, Freemage, and Tan, I really appreciate you for making the time and effort to share your thoughts on these important topics.
clif
Dumbing of Age 16: It is True, I Should Not be Denied BOTH Becky AND Accurately-Portrayed Dinosaurs in Popular Media
Anon
better than expected , tho i expect it to cut to becky putting her foot in her mouth
Lena
I think it’s okay to have bumps in your relationship and uncertainties and still work through them together. “You can’t fix her” is… really insensitive, actually. I get the sentiment, but all Becky did was be heartbroken that her years long crush actually did like girls, but didn’t like her. She responded to it in a hurtful way, but certainly not an unforgivable way or anything they can’t work through.
thejeff
That’s definitely partly what’s going on with Becky, but I’m far from convinced that’s the only reason behind her losing her faith and “I’m the problem”.
Which I think will change the picture for Dina if Becky’s able to talk to her about it.
xaeon
Don’t worry. What Dina is actually contemplating is becoming a film director.
Doopyboop
If they work together, things can be BETTER than the way they were before.
embe13
exactly!
Nono
And thus Dina decides to go into a filmmaking career.
Christopher
LOL. This is, I think, one of the more ironic turns that could happen here. Delicious.
Astariel
Last panel Dina is spot on.
I would be tickled pink if Joyce’s intervention actually works and Dina and Becky get back together. Unfortunately, I suspect that Becky and her internalized self-loathing will be a bigger obstacle to that happening.
It’s also interesting how Joyce’s language is echoing what Joe told her about her and Dorothy, that he wanted her to have the things that she wanted. I wonder if Joe will add anything before we cut away.
The Lurker
Joe is’nt in the room., according to the tags.
Sirksome
I do not like or trust this message from Joyce.
Spacie
Good advice. I don’t trust or like Joyce.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
So instead of getting Becky back, President Keener will institute the Prehistoric Fauna Accuracy Authority.
Dot
It is so fucking stupid that this worked, I’m sorry. Joyce spewed a whole bunch of bullshit and it was supposed to be an actual powerful moment? Come on.
dinerkinetic
yeah, it’s narratively unsatisfying + doesn’t really make a lot of sense
Dot
“Be selfish! Have what you want!” is not a strong direction to take this conflict that is fundamentally about Becky’s hangups and baggage, and it would be far more interesting and engaging to focus on exploring and resolving those instead of whatever the fuck this is.
embe13
but this may be the best way to get to that meat on the bone that is beckys trauma and issue. it all makes sense to me, the way joyce processes these thoughts, very on point for those in my adhd circle
Bryy
We don’t know if it worked or even what the consequences will be.
Dot
I would also be happy if no one ever made this argument ever again, as it amounts to “stop reacting to information as you receive it in the context of a serialized medium.”
RexLatro
And does Dina *want* to be Becky’s silver medal? Like, this is pretty shitty advice from the woman who’s entire experience with relationships involves pressuring a gay man back into the closet, attempting to get a man to cheat on his girlfriend, and cheating on her boyfriend a few days ago (has it been two or just the one day since August now? I’ve…lost track) while talking about being selfish and chasing what you want with him *still in the room*
*Meanwhile, Joe on the other side of the room wondering if he was ever actually something she wanted*
Grimey
I am willing to go out on a limb and assume every single person Joyce has ever shown interest in was someone she wanted *at the time*.
Dorothy is…Your Mileage May Vary just because the awareness that Dorothy was on the table did not make itself present until their Paramore moment. Longing. Panging. Subconsciously negging Walky to Dorothy every step of the way of their relationship without any other reason besides ‘he’s a dumb’.
thejeff
I do really like the contrast here between Joe, who actually got cheated on, clinging to Joyce anyway and Dina giving up on Becky for being upset finding out that her old crush rejected her despite liking girls.
I think they’re both wrong, but in opposite directions.
RexLatro
@Grimey – I love that she whole-heartedly gives this advice while not taking into account the hurt her actions have taken during her impulsive “be selfish and pursue your *own* emotional fulfillment, who cares about the emotional fallout for others?” actions may have had (I bet Raidah, Jacob, and Joe enjoyed her passionate pursuit of her own wants in these situations).
–
@thejeff – I agree with the juxtaposition of the two, and want to see more of them bonding over being hurt without interruptions like…this. I feel what they both need here is more backbone/self-respect (Dina has shown she has it in her last interaction with Becky, but if Joe is *still* making his sad puppy eyes after hearing all this from Joyce, he needs to give his head a shake) rather than listen to what Joyce has to say for this matter. While the Becky situation is more complex, both of them have been incredibly hurt/disrespected by their (former?) partners and deserve to at least be heard out
Jahu
I mean, the narrative is still fully ongoing. We don’t have to act like this has solved the problems Joyce is trying to fix until it does.
Sirksome