(laugh) Now all I want from the world is for DoA to turn into a crazy x-men/avengers style superhero team up story. Just so that “Beerleader” can be canon.
“Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.”” Song of Solomon 7:7-8
I find it amusing how few people know about Song of Solomon which is one of the most sexually explicit bits of the bible. Or, if they do, they claim that it ‘s all metaphor and not about sex at all, of course. These are usually the same people who claim to read the Bible “literally”.
…She became a weremoose after that. Fortunately because of the awkwardness of moose she’s never really hurt anyone. Well, except for that one time she fell asleep on me. Let me tell you, moose, even a slightly smaller and female weremoose, are not light. Even worse, she kept moving her head a lot so her antlers kept hitting me in the neck. The next morning was really awkward to because not only did I have a huge bruise on my neck that made it hurt to breathe, my naked sister was lying on top of me. You know, because werethings never not tear the clothing off during the transformation. And I like to see you put pants and a shirt on a moose, oh no, they do not like that and I still have the hoove marks on my chest from that. It makes me so glad that she only changes once every 3 months. Weremoose are different like that, almost compensates for the whole ordeal. Also, she not vunerable to silver but dried maple syrup. I think it’s a Canadian thing, the werebeavers and werecaribou have it too, although not the weregoose, they’re just weak to bread. Terribly ironic, really.
Honestly, I wasn’t sure where you were going once you got to:
“The next morning was really awkward to because not only did I have a huge bruise on my neck that made it hurt to breathe, my naked sister was lying on top of me”
But then I realized that WIllis wouldn’t allow Incestuous Erotica in the comments…
With that gravatar, I can’t help but read it in as teenage Ben 10 from Ultimate Alien/ Always-night-time series, even with the same slightly cocky teenager inflections.
I seriously don’t understand why some people get so indignant about donations/pay-only content. I mean, Jesus. It’s like those people who brag about how rarely they tip.
I’m just saying, paying Willis to get a Joyce bicurious makeout sketch seems like less of a deal when it keeps looking more and more like we might get Joyce bicurious makeouts in canon for free.
Unless Willis is just teasing us with the LesYay. Which is totally in-character for him.
Dammit, Willis, this is distracitng me from Jorothy. We need insecure sexually questioning Joyce to get a visit from her friend Dorothy now. Don’t make me beg.
Gah! Mikes loosing the poll! Well dina doesn’t show quite as often and he did have a pretty decent sized roll in the last comic so I suppose that does make sense.
I want Mike and Dina to appear together, and have the end result being Mike getting shot down hardcore by Dina. It’d relieve a lot of the pent up anger I have over them from Its Walky.
Except Dina contrived to be way more abusive in that relationship than Mike was, seeing as she was literally poisoning him to keep him in the relationship.
Well, with his maritan dna I’m not certain that he was vulnerable to alcohol poisoning. So it was more like she was mind controlling him, which is totally a-okay.
I wasn’t using sarcasm; I was talking about what Dina actually did. For those not aware of the events at hand, a short review:
In the Walkyverse, Mike has the unusual property that, while drunk, his personality changes – he becomes extremely nice and accomodating. Sort of a gag on the idea of nice people becoming assholes while drunk; he is the reverse. And one day Dina found out about this, and decided that she wanted a nice boyfriend. So she decided to get him drunk, and keep him drunk. Through tactics like spiking his tea, trying to pour booze down his throat while he slept, and eventually catching him in a trap and forcing a bottle into his mouth. And then she kept him drunk 24/7 for several days, keeping him happy and accommodating until he eventually puked it up and regained his senses. At which point he was decidedly NOT happy.
So yes, this was indeed “mind control through manipulation” – manipulation of his bio-chemistry. But obviously there’s nothing wrong about that, is there?
I’m pretty sure the sarcasm part was about how you were saying it was “okay”. I don’t think anyone was disputing that she was basically mind controlling him (and if they are, I don’t know what to tell them).
Oh, this is just plain unhealthy…
Especially Joyce showing, again, that she’s denying not only sexual activities but sexual urges. Which means that if she ever does meet the man of her dreams in college, she might think the sexual attraction that follows is proof that he’s leading her into temptation or is bad for her or elsewhat. Either that, or she might feel like a failure for not managing to tame the temptation. No good at all!
And I never really noticed that the font is all uppercase before. Huh!
Shaenon Garrity uses mixed case, and has pointed out in the Narbonic director’s cut commentary that this means that she doesn’t have to be cautious about flicking Clints.
Two questions:
1) What’s up with the diction on this one? It doesn’t match the diction on the other two at all.
2) What’s wrong with it? If she doesn’t need a partner at this time to be fulfilled, and she meets her sexual needs with the use of inanimate aids, then she doesn’t need a man at this time.
I think both of Baroncognito’s questions remain valid. She might not need a partner ever. It would be statistically unusual if she never had a romantic (or even sexual) relationship, but it’s not like a person can’t live a personally fulfilling life without them. Besides, this is just the way she feels about the subject at this time…and she’s only a bit older than Joyce. She certainly has a lot of time to rethink her position, but it doesn’t make her current view less valid.
Diction thing remains offensive, yep. And no, not all of us need romance. Friends and family are pretty sweet alternatives, and toys are there for people with sexual drives but still no romantic interest.
From the institution’s page: “The Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, sometimes referred to as the “Kinsey Scale,” was developed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin in 1948, in order to account for research findings that showed people did not fit into neat and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual categories.” I.E, everyone’s a little queer.
As this was from the 1950’s, you can, of course, do a quick google search and find all sorts of stuff that expands, contrasts, and generally disproves the theory’s exact words, but the core idea remains the same. In the context of basic gender theory you can safely say that pure heterosexuality is not necessarily the norm as society would have us believe, and many of us experience attraction in ways that do not necessarily fit our given gender.
pretty soon the question to ask isn’t gonna be, “Ethan is gay?” It’ll be, “Joyce is gay?” and we’ll all laugh because gay Joyce and gay Ethan will marry each other to prevent from sinning. lol. is it gay marriage if the man and woman getting married are both gay? whatever your position on the matter, look for gay marriage equality to be on the 2014 Indiana ballot.
Bible doesn’t actually condemn either flavor of gay, since the words English Bibles use as “gay” don’t mean that even a little bit in the original language. (Most of the words mean temple prostitution, which was absolutely not a predominantly gay thing, and which upset God more in a “idol worship” and “non-me religions” way.)
Sorry, but that’s a myth by people who still hope to reconcile Christianity with modern sensibilities. The words in Leviticus mean exactly what they look like, and the word Paul used is, as far as anyone can tell, a word he made up to echo the LXX version of that passage in Leviticus. It may have been that the real concern by the author of Leviticus was temple prostitution (indeed, there’s a word that turns up a number of times in Kings thought to refer to such prostitutes, which is translated “sodomite” in the KJV, so I just realized that’s probably what you’re referring to), or pederasty (just because I know someone’ll bring ol’ Philo up, too), but the letter of the law is what it is, and it’s in a passage ancient exegesis held to apply to all humanity.
(Lesbians, though, are all Paul. Mostly because they didn’t really give women enough agency to even consider it.)
The words in Leviticus are taken out of context. A man shall not lay with another man IN A WOMAN’S BED, which might *sound* like a metaphor but isn’t. There are other things you ALSO can’t do in a woman’s bed, elaborated on in the same passage, because a woman’s bed was very much her own space.
Full analysis. It takes a while to get to the point, because it translates the passage super carefully. The rest of the site is also very worth reading.
Going to the main page, and finding what I think you meant to link to, I see you’ve stuck the word “site” in for some reason.
I don’t know enough about Ancient Hebrew to argue against this directly, but I know a lot of people do, and I find it suspicious that this one’s become a voice in the wilderness. I’ve got to say, of all the sites I’ve found trying to defend the Bible vis-à-vis homosexuality, that’s got to be one of the dodgiest, “super carefully” citing no sources at all. (Not to mention the Geocities-era design – didn’t we collectively decide around Y2K that background MIDIs were a horrible idea?)
I would think that if there were anything to this, with all the people picking apart the Bible all over the world, someone, anyone else would have said it, but I can’t find any such thing. Instead, what I find is Philo (paragraph VII), condemning Hellenic pederasty and ritual crossdressing (indeed, I’ve heard this passage cited to make the case that’s all Moses “meant” to ban) and saying the law calls for the death penalty for such actions. I don’t know of where the death penalty is applied for crossdressing alone in the Pentateuch, or any other related “sin,” and there’s certainly no mention in that passage of women’s beds. So no, while I don’t really know much about Ancient Hebrew, I’m very sure that if I did…
I’m on my phone, so I was trying to decode the mobile link the page kept giving me and I failed, that’s all.
1) That you’d judge a site like this based on page design is really confusing to me. And I say that as a professional web designer. Would you also judge a research paper based on its unimaginative choice of font?
2) I don’t know what “sources” you would be looking for…? This is original-source. Their “About Us” page explains, but they are doing their *own* translations. There IS no need for additional sources in this situation.
If you doubt their translations, each page *provides* the ancient Hebrew, both in actual text and in Romanized letters. They also provide competing translations and explain why theirs is better, often using as examples other passages featuring the same words that — being less controversial — were translated exactly as they are doing it (like the example of another passage featuring “thy father’s BED” with identical structure to “a woman’s BED”). Anyone who wants to can use that text to confirm or argue. They aren’t really *hiding* anything. There is nothing *dodgy* here.
Except of course that everyone involved with this project is very deliberately remaining anonymous, which probably doesn’t help them to engage in debates and get their viewpoint on the news, which I take it is another strike against their work, by you.
Fine. I wish you *did* know Ancient Hebrew so you could argue the actual translation rather than its presentation. But I understand why they would want to hide, even if I wish they weren’t doing it. The current climate is awfully hostile.
I’d like to clarify that I’m all for healthy skepticism and critical thinking. I certainly read it with plenty of both myself. But I frankly find that this version of the Bible makes more sense, and is more in line with the way the Church behaved before the book was translated. (Evidence of the Church performing same-sex marriages, though infrequently, up until about the 14th century, for example, which I’ve heard from more sources than just this site; or its notes about what Jewish scholars originally made of the sin of Soddom and Gamorrea.)
I’m more than content with their analysis and will keep spreading it around, so I’m not particularly inclined to find an additional translator to double-check their work, but you could, and so could anyone else with questions. But gosh, when we can’t stop pretending Jesus was white and blue-eyed and born in winter, I don’t know why you’d expect this to get more play.
Most of what I’ve seen in terms of trying to defend gay folks from the Bible has also focused exclusively on how we can interpret the English passages, not whether those passages are right to begin with. I’m not sure most of the people who care what the Bible says enough to dissect if in another language are open enough to the idea that it might not be perfectly translated (inerrant, and all).
I mean, I can think of literally ten reasons why this translation hasn’t been suggested before, and that’s without even getting into any conspiracy theories.
The first time I saw Godzilla: Final Wars (SPOILERS), when it’s revealed that Secretary-General Daigo survived his apparent death, he enters with a line that my copy had subtitled “I must have escaped somehow,” which when I saw someone else’s copy had become the more sensible “I managed to escape.” I looked into it, and it turned out that a particular Japanese word is used for both bafflement at means (“somehow”) and difficulty of accomplishment (“manage”), depending almost entirely on whether the means are known to the speaker, and the first translator had somehow managed to miss that. The point is that linguistics is a funny thing, and just having the words in front of me doesn’t help a whole lot, especially without any corroboration.
While it’s true that attacking the source isn’t necessarily the best way to go about arguing, you’re making an extraordinary claim and backing it up with what amounts to an unpublished, unsigned paper, with no citations, written in crayon. I can’t think of a single reason, much less “literally”ten, this could have managed to slip the notice of the numerous openly gay rabbis out there, who instead grasp at straws like that Philo passage I linked, or why those whose notice it hasn’t managed to slip are keeping this quiet. They would be putting themselves in no danger they’re not already in, and they’ve sort of got no dog in the fight of translation, since it’s my understanding Jewish tradition, like Muslim tradition, views translations as suspect by their very nature.
(P.S.: Looking deeper, they do have a “bibliography” on their Resources page, but it just links three books, not going into specifics – I expect if there’s corroboration, it’s to be found in the first, though I’d be more inclined to trust a Jewish source.)
Japanese is also an extremely high-context language, which makes translating it into English extra difficult, and some of the worst translations you find are translations that were made by professional and official translators, who were tripped up by time constraints, or not having access to the full work and therefore the full context, or (especially common) being hamstrung by the expectations and requirements of the companies that hired them.
Being “written in crayon” does not make translations automatically less accurate. And I doubt that your unfortunate subtitle was accompanied by a footnote on each individual word, explaining multiple meanings for each word both individually and in the full sentence, because if it had been you actually would have noticed the problem yourself.
I’m not saying it’s not still possible the translations provided by this site are in error. It is. But your comparison is more than a little flawed.
Anyway. I’ve already acknowledged that the work is not sufficiently cited for you. I know that sharing that link with people who firmly believed they had to change their sexuality in order to be accepted by their God has caused them to break down in relieved tears and reconsider, and that’s pretty much good enough for me.
It’s not for you, and you are more than welcome to take the link, contact the people behind it, or just present it to one of those openly gay rabbis you mention. I’m sure there’s some way to contact someone, and then you could settle it for yourself. Perhaps even get a helpful word out.
I realize how this must sound, like I am “afraid” of the truth or something, but my interest in trying to get the big bloated body of organized religion to verify these ideas is very low. One of few religious figures I’ve ever held any stock in is Martin Luther, and I think his efforts to get people to read the Bible for themselves, to interpret it for themselves and stop taking the Church’s word on everything were incredibly valuable and valid. It’s too bad that we still very much live in a world where most so-called Christians don’t even read enough of the Bible to have the English context for their own beliefs.
(For the record, I did give the link to Peter Labarbera on Twitter, after he sneered and told me I was full of “leftist propaganda” and nonsense because none of that was in the Bible! Interestingly, he never responded to me again. Perhaps he, like you, saw the “Geocities” theme and dismissed it. More likely that he never clicked on the link at all, IMHO.)
(Pretty sure they cover Paul, too, by the way; the site’s theory there is actually that that verse is condemning conversion therapy, since it’s about going against your *inborn inclinations*.)
it has reached the point where i see that gravitar and immediatly know that a rant is incoming… how do you find time to write these essays on a daily basis xD
When we as an audience were worrying whether or not Ethan was gay, Willis pointed out that orientations stay the same across his multiverse, and there’s ample evidence that Joyce is pretty heterosexual.
However, that doesn’t she won’t be heteroflexible during college.
Joyce was pretty repressed, though. she could be closer to bi in Willis’s head than the original comic bore out. Does anybody remember if Evil!Joyce “wanted tacos”?
Awww… Joyce, you just wanted all along for someone to take you into their nurturing bosom, don’t you?
And Billie, leave something for the boys, will ya 😉 ?
Though this time Billie does make a good call: that due to Joyce’s peculiar upbringing she may be even less aware of what is it that is going on than the usual person of that age.
Well, Leviticus outrights bans homosexuality, under penalty of death, but then, it bans eating meat on a friday under penalty of death. It is mentioned as a sin in Genesis, I want to say, but then, it’s Christianity, lot’s of things are sins. That’s why we have confession.
And actually, later on, Leviticus is cancelled out entirely by Romans 6:14, where Paul writes “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace”. Leviticus was the Hebrew book of law, which, pre the bible, Christ came to strike down, as the Pharisees used it to brow beat people with dogmatic religion.
Are you sure it’s man as in male, or man as in human?
I still don’t care what Leviticus says. The comparison I read (based on intensity of the condemning words, iirc) put homosexuality somewhere in between eating ham-and-eggs for breakfast and going to work on a sunday, and I have done those. And my catholic sister didn’t bat an eye.
The thing about this is that it ignores the fact that these prohibitions, specifically, were held to apply to all humanity, and the ones it’s compared to weren’t. Those forms of unlawful intercourse punished by the death penalty in the law of Moses it was held were laid down by God when he wed Eve and Adam. This is why a blanket prohibition on “porneia” is one of the three prohibitions (the other two being idolatry and eating blood) Paul tells the Greeks to follow when he decides they don’t have to convert after all – there are supposed to be seven laws given to Adam and/or Noah, which applies to all humanity, and the three Paul gave the Greeks are the three of those they were most likely to break (the other four being blasphemy, theft, anarchism, and murder).
Seriously, Billie is taking this really well. Three unwanted sexual advances in a week. I guess it helps that Joyce is less sexually threatening than a titmouse.
It’s okay Joyce, everyone likes boobs, regardless of their sexuality.
They may differ in shape and size preferences, but most agree they’re a God’s gift to mankind.
To be fair, when women check out other women it’s not necessarily buried bisexuality coming to the surface, it can also be evaluating what their subconscious is identifying as competition for their man.
Feminine sexuality is SO poorly understood, SO rarely and poorly studied, because for a super long time it was considered irrelevant. Medically it used to just be assumed that women didn’t have orgasms, and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense has been and continues to be “scientifically” applied to women and womanhood. (Example: unbiased studies have shown that the entire concept of moodiness is a big fat lie, women do not actually become measurably more moody during “that time of the month”, and testosterone and estrogen fluctuations have *just as much affect* on men’s moods, yet the stereotype persists, and loads of estrogen-centered tests sure claimed that it was causing wild mood swings without ever even looking at testosterone or men for comparison. Even earlier last ducking year some genius was claiming that a woman’s menstrual cycle made her more or less likely to vote Democrat. Ugh.)
Further points of order:
The “study” in question (I looked it up) had NO control group, and its sample size was MINUSCULE (26 couples). Though these couples were all male/female, there is no way to know what the actual sexuality of anyone involved was. The conclusion that women are “checking out the competition” is absurd, because NO single women were studied; I’d be willing to bet that single heterosexual women are just as likely to check each other out, but again with only 26 women it’s also equally likely that the entire sample was composed of bisexual women or even closeted lesbians — women who enjoy boobs for their own merits.
A *good* study to reach the conclusion this one pretends it did would have been: double-blind, with a much larger sample composed of women dating men and women dating women and women who are HAPPILY single. The control group would have looked at unattractive women in G-rated poses and the other groups would have looked at a) sexy women in non-G-rated poses and b) attractive women in G-rated poses.
This would help to compensate for the possibility that women were staring at boobs because they like boobs, but ideally you would ALSO have a group of women who is FULLY CONFIDENT IN THEIR OWN BODIES, to be sure that they aren’t *also* staring at other women’s boobs and thinking, “I hate my body, if only I had breasts like these.” (A good start for this would be making sure you include a variety of cup sizes — big girls envy small girls and vice versa, the grass is always greener.)
Without any of this, all that study shows is that some sexist, unimaginative researchers assume that everything a woman ever does must be *all about men*.
I prefer to respond to the study with, “Eh, the study was probably mostly done by men, who only interpret checking out the same sex as ‘comparison’ because they’re projecting their own denial of their own homosexuality.”
(I should note that I haven’t read the study.)
Also, the linked article claimed that men weren’t likely to check out boobs. (Not just that women did, but that men didn’t.) Presuming that the news site isn’t smoking something, I’d say that based on personal experience that this shows that the study is definitely methodologically flawed. What, did they let the men *know* that their leers were going to be tracked and examined or something?
/snork Equally valid, but it isn’t — sadly — only men who have been socialized to assume women’s actions are all about men.
(The study explained men’s apparent lack of interest in boobs as “MEN STUDY THE EYES TO BETTER PREPARE FOR ATTACK”, because I guess men are always in “never lower your eyes to an enemy!” mode.)
Mental picture: Shredder squaring off against a human female opponent, struggling to maintain eye contact despite a cleavage window baring a well-presented bosom.
I really really wanted to make that more literally a TMNT reference but I couldn’t remember the name of the guy who actually said it, which imdb tells me is Tatsu.
As a man who finds it very easy to start at breasts if I don’t stop myself, even when I don’t think they’re about to attack me, I still am HIGHLY dubious of any article or study that claims that the gazes of men linger only on the face, and no other body parts.
This is a fair point. Speaking for myself, I thought that was the name of a rag, but I wasn’t sure. Also, on my phone, which doesn’t hamper my ability to type eight million things a minute but does tend to slow down my factchecking.
And I didn’t even bother looking at anything but the text of the article. I think I’ve been trained to avoid anything surrounding the text because of ads.
Eh appreciating a good pair of boobs makes ya human, not necessarily gay.
Of course, when “crawl into them and be safe” turns into “Lick the bra off of” then you may need to reconsider.
Why is Joyce embarrassed from grabbing Billie’s shirt? Is it simply because her hands were close to her chest? Joyce can’t be THAT afraid of physical contact…right?
I’m sensing some foreshadowing… although not joyce and Billie, but maybe Billie and Ruth… oh dear god the shippers are probably LINING UP in excitement…
different studies have produced some conflicting results. There are indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component, and other studies that indicate that it can be influenced by environment. It’s hard to wade through because both sides of the debate have idealogues who will cook the books to favor their pet belief about sexuality.
While there may not yet be consensus on whether sexual predisposition is learned or inborn, one thing that -is- certain is that it isn’t a choice you make.
I think when a lot people say being gay is a choice, they really mean acting upon gay impulses. There’s plenty of gay dudes (in the sense that they are more attracted to men) who get married, have kids, etc. just because they think that makes them happier. Rather like Ethan (for now), to use a DoA example.
No, not really. I mean, some people make that distinction, yes, but they are acknowledging that being gay itself is not a choice by doing so.
There are pleeeenty of people, meanwhile, who genuinely insist that “gay” is not a thing, that EVERYONE is straight but some people are just sinning. These people seem to think everyone is being constantly tempted by gay devils (which makes it seem like they themselves are closeted, because that’s just not true; some people have gay thoughts, but not everyone, and certainly not everyone is constantly “TORMENTED” or “PLAGUED” by said gay thoughts).
So: when people say being gay is a choice, sometimes they mean “acting on your gay feelings is a choice”, but sometimes they genuinely mean “being gay is a choice”. Just because it’s total nonsense doesn’t mean it isn’t a widely-held anti-gay belief.
I think that counts as a homosexual experience, Joyce. Like, that mental image alone is a more profound sensuous experience than at least one out of six encounters involving actual intercourse with other people.
Loading ...
Joyce is converting already.
Turning women into lesbians seem to be Billie’s mutant power.
It is her blessing…as well as her curse.
“HOMOSEXUAL PRE-MARITAL HANKY PANKY!”
MUST HAVE!!!
ALL homosexual hanky-panky is premarital! Because Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! YOU HEATHEN!
“You can’t be heterosexual! God said Adam AND Eve, not Adam OR Eve!”
LOVE THIS COMMENT
It took me longer than it should have to understand that. Adam is taken, Eve is taken, Steve is taken…
Cursed with Awesome.
C’mon!
I wanted to say that joke, now my oportunity to get attention is gone 🙁
HK, do you have issues that you want to get off your chest (and onto Billie’s)?
Yes:
I was not hugged for an entire month.
I wasn’t breast-fed as an infant.
It’s all I can do to make up for it now!!
Bitty… Want bitty!
It’s a bit terrifying how appropriate your Gravatar is, right now…
She came out as Boobneto in X-men #57.
“Bwahaha! Even the mighty Evangeligirl is no match for my Sapphic Radiation Field! Face the wrath of the Beerleader!”
(laugh) Now all I want from the world is for DoA to turn into a crazy x-men/avengers style superhero team up story. Just so that “Beerleader” can be canon.
Sapphic Radiation Field is gona be the name of my Post Apocalyptic Diesal/Steam Punk Fem Rock Band thats gonna dip into Industrial Metal occasionally.
It’s like she has some kind of… gravitational pull.
“That’s no boob… it’s a space station!”
It’s too big to be a space station…
So it must be then a ginormous space boob!
I’m reminded of Gretta Gravity from Spinnerette.
Okay, I’m glad I’m not the only one.
Only Sal is immune, and able to reflect the power back at Billie.
YOU WANT A BOOBHAT YOU KNOW IT
Boobhat is second best cranial accessory.
I’d say third… the combined version would be best.
*walks away so everyone can think about it*
Chest hat is best hat!
I picture it being like Dina’s hat, only a boob.
Will it still have the eyes?
YOU JUST HAD TO GO THERE!!! WHY? WHYYYYY?!?!?!
IT BEGINS.
IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END!
Billie just seems to bring something out in people, doesn’t she?
She’s just too sexy for her own good.
It’s the Billingsworth gland.
It doesn’t work so well on guys though…
It works on me.
And me.
It doesn’t work so well on ‘fictional’ guys though…
FIXED!
Yeah cause I was about to say,
“As a young Black male, I am totally interested in a thick, curvy, half White, half Asian woman.”
And me, so much.
And my axe!
I just realized that Billie has the same power as Jamie in GWS. Her breasts are all-powerful!
You can’t ignore its girth.
Gasp! if they combine…Jamie’s power over men…and Billie’s power over women….they would be UNSTOPABBLE!!!
They really put the jugs in juggernaut, don’t they?
Or Super MILF in Spinnerette.
The fact that they were in the closet?
“Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.”” Song of Solomon 7:7-8
See Joyce, it’s in the Bible.
God never said anything about lesbians, just gay men. And, you know, let’s not forget Ruth.
Billie is certainly trying to, if recent events are any indication.
I hope she’s okay.
I find it amusing how few people know about Song of Solomon which is one of the most sexually explicit bits of the bible. Or, if they do, they claim that it ‘s all metaphor and not about sex at all, of course. These are usually the same people who claim to read the Bible “literally”.
Billie’s boobs: converting girls to Greek citizenship since 1992.
That right there? That’s the great American Dream…
Motorboating dem puppies?
I cannot blame Joyce in this chestr err case.
I don’t think anyone could.
Billie’s huge…..tracts of land is hypnotic to some folks.
It certainly is to me…
Yes Mistress…
Kerny, NO! Don’t look at those…huge….
TOO LATE!
NO-ONE IS SAFE!!!!
Your avatar makes that comment better by a factor of 173.5.
So… Billie got her groove back?
I think the correct term here is cleavage not groove. 😀
Cleavage has grooves… and… grooooooooves…
Homosexuality is not inevitable, unless you’re a woman in a room with Billie.
Or a man in a room with Jacob.
Or Ethan in a room.
Or Dib in a room with a Moose.
Not the Moose. ANYTHING BUT THE MOOSE.
A Moose once bit my sister…
The Kernanator responsible for sacking the Kernanator has also been sacked.
The remainder of these comments have been composed in an entirely different style at a much reduced budget.
…She became a weremoose after that. Fortunately because of the awkwardness of moose she’s never really hurt anyone. Well, except for that one time she fell asleep on me. Let me tell you, moose, even a slightly smaller and female weremoose, are not light. Even worse, she kept moving her head a lot so her antlers kept hitting me in the neck. The next morning was really awkward to because not only did I have a huge bruise on my neck that made it hurt to breathe, my naked sister was lying on top of me. You know, because werethings never not tear the clothing off during the transformation. And I like to see you put pants and a shirt on a moose, oh no, they do not like that and I still have the hoove marks on my chest from that. It makes me so glad that she only changes once every 3 months. Weremoose are different like that, almost compensates for the whole ordeal. Also, she not vunerable to silver but dried maple syrup. I think it’s a Canadian thing, the werebeavers and werecaribou have it too, although not the weregoose, they’re just weak to bread. Terribly ironic, really.
Interesting…
Honestly, I wasn’t sure where you were going once you got to:
“The next morning was really awkward to because not only did I have a huge bruise on my neck that made it hurt to breathe, my naked sister was lying on top of me”
But then I realized that WIllis wouldn’t allow Incestuous Erotica in the comments…
Female moose (or Cow Moose) don’t have antlers.
Me must have confused his sister with a caribou then, well, unless she changed genders for the transformation. That would explain the pants thing.
With Billie’s impressive pups? You might even be safe and warm for fiveever.
Maybe even as much as sixer!
She IS a very sixy lady.
All the girls want a taste of Billie.
With that gravatar, I can’t help but read it in as teenage Ben 10 from Ultimate Alien/ Always-night-time series, even with the same slightly cocky teenager inflections.
Sometimes I forget how awesome Billie is.
Yes, go to her.
Snuggles. Snuggles forever.
I don’t think there’s a way for me to comment on Billie’s boobs without coming off as a weirdo, so I’ll just say boobs.
Because boobs.
And just a friendly reminder that BOOBS.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS!
Joyce: Are you okay?
Billie: I’m fine, shut your boobs.
Joyce: That’s good to–
Billie: Your BOOBS!
Joyce: But–
Billie: BOOOOBS!
I would do the same too, Joyce.
BTW, what did I miss?
Feel like we could’ve used another beat panel in between three and four.
Ok, Willis. I see the writing on the wall. You clearly desire another Tomoe fanart.
“You know, I just gotta do a subtle adjustment and I’ll crush you like a christian rice cracker”
The level of cuteness is disturbing.
KAWAII!!!! So very KAWAII!!!
That pic would be so much improved with color, as well as her cold weather detectors in Test Mode!
I really hope you don’t take this as an insult, but Joyce looks like a hamster. And man, you work quick. 40 mins, from declaration to posting.
Guh. Terminal levels of cute.
*makes unintelligible sound of moe appreciation*
Do you mean “Squeeeeeeeee !” ?
No, that’s intelligible.
ahem.
KAWAAIIII!
thank you.
what can I say the ladies just can’t resist Billie. Watch out joe you got some serious competition now.
I think Joe would be happy to watch.
They could team up!
I’m just waiting for someone to do some sort of freudian slip today. Don’t know why.
Your mom did a Freudian slip today. For a nickel.
Darn it, Muscle Man.
Sears special today on Freudian Slips, Paradigm Shifts and Desert Camisoles.
Thus, a thousand (more) fanfics were launched.
That’s what happens with every strip. It’s the Willis Way.
wait I thought the Willis Way was to find a new reason make us curse him each friday
At this rate, it may have to happen on Saturdays.
Ya, but then the wait won’t be as bad.
If we only have to wait one day between cliffhangers and resolutions, we may have to update our standard reaction to “Darn you, Mr. Willis sir.”
or “Willis this inconvenience isn’t appreciate”
This is, without a doubt, in my top 5 DoA strips ever.
Maybe even number 1.
It was her Boobs, Mr. Krabs!!!
SHE WAS # 1!!!
#1 in Boobieland!
Jenny Werben Jeggerman Billingsworth
Remember, licking doorknob is illegal in other planets.
Yes Billie, keep hanging around joyce.
Joyce’s dialogue in the first panel reminds me of this ad which ran shortly after a certain historic Penny and Aggie strip went up.
Can’t help but notice that Joyce is peeking through her fingers there.
I’m not surprised. Penny’s boobs are also of the “could crawl up into them and be safe and warm forever” variety.
Apparently Billie’s milkshake brings all the girls to the yard.
I will say once again, DOA is awesome this week.
It’s as if thousands of fan fictions cried out and were suddenly silenced.
“Silenced”? I think you mean “started”.
GENTLEMEN(AND LADIES), START YOUR SHIPPING ENGINES.
Silenced in AWE!
Give yourself to the dark side, Joyce.
Yes, because in addition to cookies, there are sweater puppies.
Jeeze Willis, you’re not even being subtle when you challenge Rule 34 anymore
Yes, more lesbians.
And suddenly that $300 pledge is looking like a better and better option.
It’s seeming more and more like paying for something we’re gonna get for free, honestly.
I seriously don’t understand why some people get so indignant about donations/pay-only content. I mean, Jesus. It’s like those people who brag about how rarely they tip.
What?
I’m just saying, paying Willis to get a Joyce bicurious makeout sketch seems like less of a deal when it keeps looking more and more like we might get Joyce bicurious makeouts in canon for free.
Unless Willis is just teasing us with the LesYay. Which is totally in-character for him.
Agreed on all points.
Now make them talk about evolution!
Just a quick edit I did of the second panel.
Aaaaand Joyce is a titgirl.
Is there a club she can join?
If there is, I’m sure Joe’s the curator.
Joe strikes me as more of an ass man.
Are you implying Joe would find any part of the female anatomy lesser than another?
Joe strikes me as more of an ass, man.
They have a drink.
Their drink has a password.
There’s also a special menu at Taco Bell.
Joyce has learned more about herself in this one comic than i did in my first 17 years of life
The tits that launched a thousand ships.
Better than ships that launch 1,000 tits.
I think I see a typo in your sentence. It should read, “Not better than ships that launch 1,000 tits.”
I should’ve said pair. “The pair that launched a thousand ships”.
That sounds way better.
Boobs are fantastic. Straight men love boobs, gay men love boobs, gay girls love boobs and straight girls love boobs.
Can’t beat ’em.
unless they themselves have them of such intensity that it affects their balance.
She is actually right, but for the wrong reason.
safe and warm forever. that would be so nice, and ive had that thought.
ew the fanservice, it’s getting on my keyboard
In your newest poll “Who do you want to see more of?”, I was disappointed that Marcie wasn’t included as a choice.
At least you can vote, all it gives me are the results for some reason, and I haven’t even voted at all.
I want to see more Penny!
Also a sad omission.
I wouldn’t mind the introduction of Conquest, unless I’ve mistakingly missed her introduction!
i believe she was a waitress?
Conquest is a waitress at Galasso’s Pizza (and subs). Hasn’t shown up in a while, though.
Man, me too. Made all the worse by the fact that upon seeing the question, I thought “Well, Marcie, obviously,” and then she wasn’t there.
Also deeply disappointed that Marcie isn’t an option.
My first comment ever to say, yes please, the poll and the comic would be improved by more Marcie
Presumably as you increase the rate of Sal the rate of Marcie would also increase…
Wait, having a Déjà vu moment here…
THIS IS THE REVELATION THAT WILL MAKE JOYCE GO INSANE!
http://goo.gl/WBtBv
Dammit, Willis, this is distracitng me from Jorothy. We need insecure sexually questioning Joyce to get a visit from her friend Dorothy now. Don’t make me beg.
You might have to call it Joyothy instead, because I thought you were taking about Joe/Dorothy for a second.
Joerothy seems like a ship that’s unlikely to get off the ground.
But then, when Joe’s involved it’s less like shipping and more like door-to-door salesmanship.
Hmmmm….A solid point. (climbs down on the hull of the ship and paints a shoehorned “y” onto the nameplate)
Gah! Mikes loosing the poll! Well dina doesn’t show quite as often and he did have a pretty decent sized roll in the last comic so I suppose that does make sense.
I want Mike and Dina to appear together, and have the end result being Mike getting shot down hardcore by Dina. It’d relieve a lot of the pent up anger I have over them from Its Walky.
Except Dina contrived to be way more abusive in that relationship than Mike was, seeing as she was literally poisoning him to keep him in the relationship.
Well, with his maritan dna I’m not certain that he was vulnerable to alcohol poisoning. So it was more like she was mind controlling him, which is totally a-okay.
Yup because that’s just what women naturally do, mind-control their mates through manipulation, so of course it’s okay!
oh stereotypes = / although i think in Dina’s case she was more of an archetype. = P
He was clearly using sarcasm…?
I wasn’t using sarcasm; I was talking about what Dina actually did. For those not aware of the events at hand, a short review:
In the Walkyverse, Mike has the unusual property that, while drunk, his personality changes – he becomes extremely nice and accomodating. Sort of a gag on the idea of nice people becoming assholes while drunk; he is the reverse. And one day Dina found out about this, and decided that she wanted a nice boyfriend. So she decided to get him drunk, and keep him drunk. Through tactics like spiking his tea, trying to pour booze down his throat while he slept, and eventually catching him in a trap and forcing a bottle into his mouth. And then she kept him drunk 24/7 for several days, keeping him happy and accommodating until he eventually puked it up and regained his senses. At which point he was decidedly NOT happy.
So yes, this was indeed “mind control through manipulation” – manipulation of his bio-chemistry. But obviously there’s nothing wrong about that, is there?
I’m pretty sure the sarcasm part was about how you were saying it was “okay”. I don’t think anyone was disputing that she was basically mind controlling him (and if they are, I don’t know what to tell them).
But how do you even have sex without a penis? Checkmate, atheists!
37 times … in a row?
It’s not your fault, Joyce. She has huge… Tracts of land.
At least she doesn’t have to worry about sinking into the swamp.
That is Joyce’s worry though…
Thousands of Joyce-Billie shippers just exploded with pure, unfiltered joy.
I ship it
Oh, this is just plain unhealthy…
Especially Joyce showing, again, that she’s denying not only sexual activities but sexual urges. Which means that if she ever does meet the man of her dreams in college, she might think the sexual attraction that follows is proof that he’s leading her into temptation or is bad for her or elsewhat. Either that, or she might feel like a failure for not managing to tame the temptation. No good at all!
And I never really noticed that the font is all uppercase before. Huh!
i THINK THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT MANY IF NOT MOST COMIC BOOK FONTS USED IN WEBCOMICS ARE ALL CAPS.
Shaenon Garrity uses mixed case, and has pointed out in the Narbonic director’s cut commentary that this means that she doesn’t have to be cautious about flicking Clints.
Oh god, Integra
WeLl SoMeTiMeS tHeY dO a SoRt Of, Uh, MiXeD-cAsE eFfEcT tOo.
honk. :o)
Everyone is gay for Billie
Such is the power of a Head Cheerleader.
Joyce just summed up my feelings about cleavage in the last panel.
I imagine Joyce speaking with Fluttershy’s voice. Both first and last panel. And I’m not even really into FiM.
I am never going to unhear this.
Agreed. And that wide-eyed Aslan avatar? Makes that comment all the more appropriate.
Dammit, now Billie is Rainbow Dash, Sal is Applejack, Dorothy is Twilight, Roz is Pinkie, and Danny is Rarity.
Sal… sounds like applejack anyway?
Her FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE is up there, Joyce.
Yes, she doesn’t appreciate people looking at her femurs.
It’s funny because for the past 3 strips every character’s been saying absolute bullshit.
“I must find a man to live with for the rest of my life, I’m 18”
“yo I ain’t need no man I have mah toys”
“everyone is a little queer”
“yo I ain’t need no man I have mah toys”
Two questions:
1) What’s up with the diction on this one? It doesn’t match the diction on the other two at all.
2) What’s wrong with it? If she doesn’t need a partner at this time to be fulfilled, and she meets her sexual needs with the use of inanimate aids, then she doesn’t need a man at this time.
What you said. ^
+2
The point isn’t that she uses vibrators. It’s just that she acts like she will never need a partner in her life ever because she’s better off alone.
I think both of Baroncognito’s questions remain valid. She might not need a partner ever. It would be statistically unusual if she never had a romantic (or even sexual) relationship, but it’s not like a person can’t live a personally fulfilling life without them. Besides, this is just the way she feels about the subject at this time…and she’s only a bit older than Joyce. She certainly has a lot of time to rethink her position, but it doesn’t make her current view less valid.
Also bugged by the diction thing.
Diction thing remains offensive, yep. And no, not all of us need romance. Friends and family are pretty sweet alternatives, and toys are there for people with sexual drives but still no romantic interest.
Absolute bullshit? I’d like to refer you to the Kinsey Scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html
From the institution’s page: “The Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, sometimes referred to as the “Kinsey Scale,” was developed by Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin in 1948, in order to account for research findings that showed people did not fit into neat and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual categories.” I.E, everyone’s a little queer.
As this was from the 1950’s, you can, of course, do a quick google search and find all sorts of stuff that expands, contrasts, and generally disproves the theory’s exact words, but the core idea remains the same. In the context of basic gender theory you can safely say that pure heterosexuality is not necessarily the norm as society would have us believe, and many of us experience attraction in ways that do not necessarily fit our given gender.
That really isn’t a bad thing.
I seem to remember a time (few weeks ago ?) when there was a strong debate wether Joyce deserved to be broken or not.
But apparently absolutely everyone is totallycool with her being broken by lesbian tempations.
Let’s it keep it that way !
it seems like a more fun way of being broken, I guess
pretty soon the question to ask isn’t gonna be, “Ethan is gay?” It’ll be, “Joyce is gay?” and we’ll all laugh because gay Joyce and gay Ethan will marry each other to prevent from sinning. lol. is it gay marriage if the man and woman getting married are both gay? whatever your position on the matter, look for gay marriage equality to be on the 2014 Indiana ballot.
Isn’t there evidence that Joyce has feelings for men and thus would be more of a bisexual? (In-universe evidence, not her boning Walky elsewhere.)
And yeah, Random832, I think the Bible is silent on lesbian activity. Would love to see someone point that out to Joyce…
Bible doesn’t actually condemn either flavor of gay, since the words English Bibles use as “gay” don’t mean that even a little bit in the original language. (Most of the words mean temple prostitution, which was absolutely not a predominantly gay thing, and which upset God more in a “idol worship” and “non-me religions” way.)
It is literally a translation error.
Sorry, but that’s a myth by people who still hope to reconcile Christianity with modern sensibilities. The words in Leviticus mean exactly what they look like, and the word Paul used is, as far as anyone can tell, a word he made up to echo the LXX version of that passage in Leviticus. It may have been that the real concern by the author of Leviticus was temple prostitution (indeed, there’s a word that turns up a number of times in Kings thought to refer to such prostitutes, which is translated “sodomite” in the KJV, so I just realized that’s probably what you’re referring to), or pederasty (just because I know someone’ll bring ol’ Philo up, too), but the letter of the law is what it is, and it’s in a passage ancient exegesis held to apply to all humanity.
(Lesbians, though, are all Paul. Mostly because they didn’t really give women enough agency to even consider it.)
The words in Leviticus are taken out of context. A man shall not lay with another man IN A WOMAN’S BED, which might *sound* like a metaphor but isn’t. There are other things you ALSO can’t do in a woman’s bed, elaborated on in the same passage, because a woman’s bed was very much her own space.
http://hoperemains.webs.com/site/leviticus1822.htm
Full analysis. It takes a while to get to the point, because it translates the passage super carefully. The rest of the site is also very worth reading.
“Not found,” here as below.
Going to the main page, and finding what I think you meant to link to, I see you’ve stuck the word “site” in for some reason.
I don’t know enough about Ancient Hebrew to argue against this directly, but I know a lot of people do, and I find it suspicious that this one’s become a voice in the wilderness. I’ve got to say, of all the sites I’ve found trying to defend the Bible vis-à-vis homosexuality, that’s got to be one of the dodgiest, “super carefully” citing no sources at all. (Not to mention the Geocities-era design – didn’t we collectively decide around Y2K that background MIDIs were a horrible idea?)
I would think that if there were anything to this, with all the people picking apart the Bible all over the world, someone, anyone else would have said it, but I can’t find any such thing. Instead, what I find is Philo (paragraph VII), condemning Hellenic pederasty and ritual crossdressing (indeed, I’ve heard this passage cited to make the case that’s all Moses “meant” to ban) and saying the law calls for the death penalty for such actions. I don’t know of where the death penalty is applied for crossdressing alone in the Pentateuch, or any other related “sin,” and there’s certainly no mention in that passage of women’s beds. So no, while I don’t really know much about Ancient Hebrew, I’m very sure that if I did…
I’m on my phone, so I was trying to decode the mobile link the page kept giving me and I failed, that’s all.
1) That you’d judge a site like this based on page design is really confusing to me. And I say that as a professional web designer. Would you also judge a research paper based on its unimaginative choice of font?
2) I don’t know what “sources” you would be looking for…? This is original-source. Their “About Us” page explains, but they are doing their *own* translations. There IS no need for additional sources in this situation.
If you doubt their translations, each page *provides* the ancient Hebrew, both in actual text and in Romanized letters. They also provide competing translations and explain why theirs is better, often using as examples other passages featuring the same words that — being less controversial — were translated exactly as they are doing it (like the example of another passage featuring “thy father’s BED” with identical structure to “a woman’s BED”). Anyone who wants to can use that text to confirm or argue. They aren’t really *hiding* anything. There is nothing *dodgy* here.
Except of course that everyone involved with this project is very deliberately remaining anonymous, which probably doesn’t help them to engage in debates and get their viewpoint on the news, which I take it is another strike against their work, by you.
Fine. I wish you *did* know Ancient Hebrew so you could argue the actual translation rather than its presentation. But I understand why they would want to hide, even if I wish they weren’t doing it. The current climate is awfully hostile.
I’d like to clarify that I’m all for healthy skepticism and critical thinking. I certainly read it with plenty of both myself. But I frankly find that this version of the Bible makes more sense, and is more in line with the way the Church behaved before the book was translated. (Evidence of the Church performing same-sex marriages, though infrequently, up until about the 14th century, for example, which I’ve heard from more sources than just this site; or its notes about what Jewish scholars originally made of the sin of Soddom and Gamorrea.)
I’m more than content with their analysis and will keep spreading it around, so I’m not particularly inclined to find an additional translator to double-check their work, but you could, and so could anyone else with questions. But gosh, when we can’t stop pretending Jesus was white and blue-eyed and born in winter, I don’t know why you’d expect this to get more play.
Most of what I’ve seen in terms of trying to defend gay folks from the Bible has also focused exclusively on how we can interpret the English passages, not whether those passages are right to begin with. I’m not sure most of the people who care what the Bible says enough to dissect if in another language are open enough to the idea that it might not be perfectly translated (inerrant, and all).
I mean, I can think of literally ten reasons why this translation hasn’t been suggested before, and that’s without even getting into any conspiracy theories.
…I wasted so many words on this…
The first time I saw Godzilla: Final Wars (SPOILERS), when it’s revealed that Secretary-General Daigo survived his apparent death, he enters with a line that my copy had subtitled “I must have escaped somehow,” which when I saw someone else’s copy had become the more sensible “I managed to escape.” I looked into it, and it turned out that a particular Japanese word is used for both bafflement at means (“somehow”) and difficulty of accomplishment (“manage”), depending almost entirely on whether the means are known to the speaker, and the first translator had somehow managed to miss that. The point is that linguistics is a funny thing, and just having the words in front of me doesn’t help a whole lot, especially without any corroboration.
While it’s true that attacking the source isn’t necessarily the best way to go about arguing, you’re making an extraordinary claim and backing it up with what amounts to an unpublished, unsigned paper, with no citations, written in crayon. I can’t think of a single reason, much less “literally”ten, this could have managed to slip the notice of the numerous openly gay rabbis out there, who instead grasp at straws like that Philo passage I linked, or why those whose notice it hasn’t managed to slip are keeping this quiet. They would be putting themselves in no danger they’re not already in, and they’ve sort of got no dog in the fight of translation, since it’s my understanding Jewish tradition, like Muslim tradition, views translations as suspect by their very nature.
(P.S.: Looking deeper, they do have a “bibliography” on their Resources page, but it just links three books, not going into specifics – I expect if there’s corroboration, it’s to be found in the first, though I’d be more inclined to trust a Jewish source.)
Japanese is also an extremely high-context language, which makes translating it into English extra difficult, and some of the worst translations you find are translations that were made by professional and official translators, who were tripped up by time constraints, or not having access to the full work and therefore the full context, or (especially common) being hamstrung by the expectations and requirements of the companies that hired them.
Being “written in crayon” does not make translations automatically less accurate. And I doubt that your unfortunate subtitle was accompanied by a footnote on each individual word, explaining multiple meanings for each word both individually and in the full sentence, because if it had been you actually would have noticed the problem yourself.
I’m not saying it’s not still possible the translations provided by this site are in error. It is. But your comparison is more than a little flawed.
Anyway. I’ve already acknowledged that the work is not sufficiently cited for you. I know that sharing that link with people who firmly believed they had to change their sexuality in order to be accepted by their God has caused them to break down in relieved tears and reconsider, and that’s pretty much good enough for me.
It’s not for you, and you are more than welcome to take the link, contact the people behind it, or just present it to one of those openly gay rabbis you mention. I’m sure there’s some way to contact someone, and then you could settle it for yourself. Perhaps even get a helpful word out.
I realize how this must sound, like I am “afraid” of the truth or something, but my interest in trying to get the big bloated body of organized religion to verify these ideas is very low. One of few religious figures I’ve ever held any stock in is Martin Luther, and I think his efforts to get people to read the Bible for themselves, to interpret it for themselves and stop taking the Church’s word on everything were incredibly valuable and valid. It’s too bad that we still very much live in a world where most so-called Christians don’t even read enough of the Bible to have the English context for their own beliefs.
Again, you’re welcome to it.
(For the record, I did give the link to Peter Labarbera on Twitter, after he sneered and told me I was full of “leftist propaganda” and nonsense because none of that was in the Bible! Interestingly, he never responded to me again. Perhaps he, like you, saw the “Geocities” theme and dismissed it. More likely that he never clicked on the link at all, IMHO.)
(Pretty sure they cover Paul, too, by the way; the site’s theory there is actually that that verse is condemning conversion therapy, since it’s about going against your *inborn inclinations*.)
it has reached the point where i see that gravitar and immediatly know that a rant is incoming… how do you find time to write these essays on a daily basis xD
Sob… I do a lot of it on the bus. Not much else goin’ on.
When we as an audience were worrying whether or not Ethan was gay, Willis pointed out that orientations stay the same across his multiverse, and there’s ample evidence that Joyce is pretty heterosexual.
However, that doesn’t she won’t be heteroflexible during college.
Joyce was pretty repressed, though. she could be closer to bi in Willis’s head than the original comic bore out. Does anybody remember if Evil!Joyce “wanted tacos”?
I don’t think this is sexual, though, at all. After all, what are breasts for, really?
Joyce has touched the boobtacular one! Quick, grab the antidote for Dogmatism!
Y’know here’s a funny story, that’s what every WBC members say during their coming of age.
The smarter ones simply learnt to leave.
Awww… Joyce, you just wanted all along for someone to take you into their nurturing bosom, don’t you?
And Billie, leave something for the boys, will ya 😉 ?
Though this time Billie does make a good call: that due to Joyce’s peculiar upbringing she may be even less aware of what is it that is going on than the usual person of that age.
So, out of curiosity, a question for those who know more about it than I do…
What does the Bible say about this? I mean, as far as I know, most of the passages condemning homosexuality are specifically talking about men.
Well, Leviticus outrights bans homosexuality, under penalty of death, but then, it bans eating meat on a friday under penalty of death. It is mentioned as a sin in Genesis, I want to say, but then, it’s Christianity, lot’s of things are sins. That’s why we have confession.
And actually, later on, Leviticus is cancelled out entirely by Romans 6:14, where Paul writes “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace”. Leviticus was the Hebrew book of law, which, pre the bible, Christ came to strike down, as the Pharisees used it to brow beat people with dogmatic religion.
Nope, it doesn’t!
http://hoperemains.webs.com/site/leviticus1822.htm
(Doesn’t ban homosexuality, anyway.)
Leviticus said a man should not lay with a man … makes no mention of women laying with women.
Are you sure it’s man as in male, or man as in human?
I still don’t care what Leviticus says. The comparison I read (based on intensity of the condemning words, iirc) put homosexuality somewhere in between eating ham-and-eggs for breakfast and going to work on a sunday, and I have done those. And my catholic sister didn’t bat an eye.
Not to mention the fact that Christians are not beholden to ancient Jewish law as laid out in Leviticus.
The thing about this is that it ignores the fact that these prohibitions, specifically, were held to apply to all humanity, and the ones it’s compared to weren’t. Those forms of unlawful intercourse punished by the death penalty in the law of Moses it was held were laid down by God when he wed Eve and Adam. This is why a blanket prohibition on “porneia” is one of the three prohibitions (the other two being idolatry and eating blood) Paul tells the Greeks to follow when he decides they don’t have to convert after all – there are supposed to be seven laws given to Adam and/or Noah, which applies to all humanity, and the three Paul gave the Greeks are the three of those they were most likely to break (the other four being blasphemy, theft, anarchism, and murder).
I wish they were real so I could touch them
Seriously, Billie is taking this really well. Three unwanted sexual advances in a week. I guess it helps that Joyce is less sexually threatening than a titmouse.
By this point I think she has just given up caring.
Heh heh, titmouse.
Appropriate avatar is appropriate.
http://3-akamai.tapcdn.com/images/thumbs/taps/2013/05/flbp-714-1104a077-sz850x1149-animate.jpg
Someone digitally put Joyce’s head in there, and we’re set.
Didn’t Joyce want to comb Sal’s “chocolate river” in an earlier strip?
Wow, by this point Joyce and Ethan are mutually playing the beard.
Also one step closer to Joyce/Dina
The power of Boobs compels you!
It’s okay Joyce, everyone likes boobs, regardless of their sexuality.
They may differ in shape and size preferences, but most agree they’re a God’s gift to mankind.
That’s true, remember when Thad wanted to look at Robin’s
How could we ever forget? 🙂
Obligatory awesome link : the Origin Of Boobs and other things.
So for the make-out tier I could totally get a picture of Sal making out with her motorcycle, right? Tongue and everything?
All the girls want to “be curious” with Billie
Soo…when is this comic going to devolve into an orgy already? Tick tock, Willis. My dreams won’t fulfill themselves!
To be fair, when women check out other women it’s not necessarily buried bisexuality coming to the surface, it can also be evaluating what their subconscious is identifying as competition for their man.
Seriously, there was a study done: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241333/Checking-competition-Women-spend-time-ogling-females-male-partners-do.html
Though also, Joyce looks like she’s just falling prey to the old “try not to think about it” trick.
All my skepticism, sorry.
Feminine sexuality is SO poorly understood, SO rarely and poorly studied, because for a super long time it was considered irrelevant. Medically it used to just be assumed that women didn’t have orgasms, and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense has been and continues to be “scientifically” applied to women and womanhood. (Example: unbiased studies have shown that the entire concept of moodiness is a big fat lie, women do not actually become measurably more moody during “that time of the month”, and testosterone and estrogen fluctuations have *just as much affect* on men’s moods, yet the stereotype persists, and loads of estrogen-centered tests sure claimed that it was causing wild mood swings without ever even looking at testosterone or men for comparison. Even earlier last ducking year some genius was claiming that a woman’s menstrual cycle made her more or less likely to vote Democrat. Ugh.)
Further points of order:
The “study” in question (I looked it up) had NO control group, and its sample size was MINUSCULE (26 couples). Though these couples were all male/female, there is no way to know what the actual sexuality of anyone involved was. The conclusion that women are “checking out the competition” is absurd, because NO single women were studied; I’d be willing to bet that single heterosexual women are just as likely to check each other out, but again with only 26 women it’s also equally likely that the entire sample was composed of bisexual women or even closeted lesbians — women who enjoy boobs for their own merits.
A *good* study to reach the conclusion this one pretends it did would have been: double-blind, with a much larger sample composed of women dating men and women dating women and women who are HAPPILY single. The control group would have looked at unattractive women in G-rated poses and the other groups would have looked at a) sexy women in non-G-rated poses and b) attractive women in G-rated poses.
This would help to compensate for the possibility that women were staring at boobs because they like boobs, but ideally you would ALSO have a group of women who is FULLY CONFIDENT IN THEIR OWN BODIES, to be sure that they aren’t *also* staring at other women’s boobs and thinking, “I hate my body, if only I had breasts like these.” (A good start for this would be making sure you include a variety of cup sizes — big girls envy small girls and vice versa, the grass is always greener.)
Without any of this, all that study shows is that some sexist, unimaginative researchers assume that everything a woman ever does must be *all about men*.
I prefer to respond to the study with, “Eh, the study was probably mostly done by men, who only interpret checking out the same sex as ‘comparison’ because they’re projecting their own denial of their own homosexuality.”
(I should note that I haven’t read the study.)
Also, the linked article claimed that men weren’t likely to check out boobs. (Not just that women did, but that men didn’t.) Presuming that the news site isn’t smoking something, I’d say that based on personal experience that this shows that the study is definitely methodologically flawed. What, did they let the men *know* that their leers were going to be tracked and examined or something?
/snork Equally valid, but it isn’t — sadly — only men who have been socialized to assume women’s actions are all about men.
(The study explained men’s apparent lack of interest in boobs as “MEN STUDY THE EYES TO BETTER PREPARE FOR ATTACK”, because I guess men are always in “never lower your eyes to an enemy!” mode.)
Mental picture: Shredder squaring off against a human female opponent, struggling to maintain eye contact despite a cleavage window baring a well-presented bosom.
I really really wanted to make that more literally a TMNT reference but I couldn’t remember the name of the guy who actually said it, which imdb tells me is Tatsu.
That someone else got it anyway makes me WEEK. <3
As a man who finds it very easy to start at breasts if I don’t stop myself, even when I don’t think they’re about to attack me, I still am HIGHLY dubious of any article or study that claims that the gazes of men linger only on the face, and no other body parts.
I find it hard to believe that you guys are actually spending part of your time discussing something that got published by the Daily Fail. Seriously.
This is a fair point. Speaking for myself, I thought that was the name of a rag, but I wasn’t sure. Also, on my phone, which doesn’t hamper my ability to type eight million things a minute but does tend to slow down my factchecking.
And I didn’t even bother looking at anything but the text of the article. I think I’ve been trained to avoid anything surrounding the text because of ads.
XXDD
IT HURTS SO FUCKING MUCH TO LAUGH THIS HARD
Eh appreciating a good pair of boobs makes ya human, not necessarily gay.
Of course, when “crawl into them and be safe” turns into “Lick the bra off of” then you may need to reconsider.
Boobs are awesome!
Somebody forgot to add Robin to the poll.
SO funny.
How many times in a month has Joyce had her mind blown?
Well the entirety of this comic hasn’t even been three weeks (I think it’s Wednesday or Thursday of week three now), so nobody knows.
She must be running out of braincells.
Who’s the cool, blonde avatar from, PM?
Poor girl is so repressed. She needs to get something blown, so to speak.
Okay, Willis, now your just trolling the Billie/Joyce shippers…
Man,.. she’s just digging a hole.
(Pun not intended.)
Why is Joyce embarrassed from grabbing Billie’s shirt? Is it simply because her hands were close to her chest? Joyce can’t be THAT afraid of physical contact…right?
Hahahahahaha, you have NO idea.
I’m sensing some foreshadowing… although not joyce and Billie, but maybe Billie and Ruth… oh dear god the shippers are probably LINING UP in excitement…
Are there studies that indicate if everyone is preset with attractions to respective genders, or if everyone is bisexual, etc, etc?
I hear contradicting things from psych-majors I bump into, and I am curious about what the current views of the topic are.
different studies have produced some conflicting results. There are indications that sexual orientation has a genetic component, and other studies that indicate that it can be influenced by environment. It’s hard to wade through because both sides of the debate have idealogues who will cook the books to favor their pet belief about sexuality.
While there may not yet be consensus on whether sexual predisposition is learned or inborn, one thing that -is- certain is that it isn’t a choice you make.
I think when a lot people say being gay is a choice, they really mean acting upon gay impulses. There’s plenty of gay dudes (in the sense that they are more attracted to men) who get married, have kids, etc. just because they think that makes them happier. Rather like Ethan (for now), to use a DoA example.
No, not really. I mean, some people make that distinction, yes, but they are acknowledging that being gay itself is not a choice by doing so.
There are pleeeenty of people, meanwhile, who genuinely insist that “gay” is not a thing, that EVERYONE is straight but some people are just sinning. These people seem to think everyone is being constantly tempted by gay devils (which makes it seem like they themselves are closeted, because that’s just not true; some people have gay thoughts, but not everyone, and certainly not everyone is constantly “TORMENTED” or “PLAGUED” by said gay thoughts).
So: when people say being gay is a choice, sometimes they mean “acting on your gay feelings is a choice”, but sometimes they genuinely mean “being gay is a choice”. Just because it’s total nonsense doesn’t mean it isn’t a widely-held anti-gay belief.
We all want to, Joyce.
I think that counts as a homosexual experience, Joyce. Like, that mental image alone is a more profound sensuous experience than at least one out of six encounters involving actual intercourse with other people.
Doing a mini-trawl through the archives, I just had to stop and note Joyce’s textbook-perfect use of the subjunctive in the first panel.