Easy to fix, search for something entirely unrelated to either dinosaurs or erotica. Try something like performance electronic fuel injection controllers in the books section.
I like to convince advertisers I’m French. Just one or two off-language Youtube vids (played in the background while I do other things) is enough to confuse them.
Okay, so I was going to answer “Because the internet” and decided to illustrate it with an appropriate image. Because surely there’s been some meme or image macro or demotivational poster or something at some point called that.
But it turns out that’s apparently the title of an album by Childish Gambino, because when I search for the phrase in google image search, I’m suddenly confronted with 500 identical images of a guy giving me a vaguely disapproving stare.
Somehow I actually feel that illustrates my point rather well.
What are you talking about? Chuck Tingle writes dinosaur erotica! That automatically elevates it to a literary level comparable to Wildean satire or Doylean seat-of-the-pants bullshit mysteries. (Seriously, I love Sherlock Holmes as much as the next guy but from a plotting perspective those stories make no sense, clues appear out of thin air having never been referenced — the antithesis of a fair-play whodunnit, although that term did not exist back then (sorry, my TV Tropes is showing (even though I’ve been off for months (help I’m trapped in a series of nested parentheses (no really there’s no non-awkward way to end this (I’ll just have to))))))
“Sir, I am required to inform you that I am an officer of the Grammar Police. It is my intention at this time to place you in custody for the offense of egregious overuse of parenthetic clauses. Please do not attempt to resist, escape, abscond, or conjugate.”
…does the Bible actually say anything about lesbian sex? Silly question, I know, but teeeeechnically if it’s completely silent on the subject, that means it can’t forbid it, riiiiiiiiiiight?
Besides, Romans the civilization were decidedly not like the Greeks on several points, this being one of them. Initially the moral conservatives didn’t even approve of Greek shaving, but that caught on anyway.
Well, even in Roman society having sex with another man wasn’t seen as a bad thing…so long as you were the dominant partner. It was looked down upon as wrong and womanly to be penetrated by another man’s penis, but incredibly manly to dominate another man by penetrate another man with one’s penis. Pasically, as long as one was having sex with a social inferior it was scene as a way of making sure they knew there place. Yeah, Romans were really rapey and perfectly ok with it so long as you weren’t raping a member of one of Rome’s elite patrician families.
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis into somebody’s body. And even then, the passive receiver was always despised, unless it was a woman being penetrated vaginally by her legal husband.
There were lesbians, of course, and there were people that did all kinds of kinky stuff, but mainstream morality despised/mocked/rejected those…
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis in somebody’s holes…
And even when a penis was involved, the receiver of it was always despised, unless it was a woman having vaginal sex with her legal husband.
Then, like now, oral sex was popular among lesbians (or so it was said), and that act was perceived as specially repulsive, because it implied putting your mouth in contact with somebody’s else’s genitals (which they saw as very gross) and there wasn’t even a penis involved (while the person performing a fellatio was despised, it was all right for the one receiving it).
There were lesbians, of course, and they got into relationships, and there were many kinds of people doing all kind of stuff that wasn’t penetrative sex, but mainstream morality still despised/mocked/rejected those…
The Old Testament says absolutely nothing about ladies doin’ ladies. Traditional interpretations of Romans 1:24-27 view it as prohibiting lesbian sex, but Joyce and Becky subscribe to other interpretations.
Joyce at least; Becky probably is one of those Christians who holds the teachings of Jesus (specifically in regards to the whole “love your neighbor” thing) in great import and sees the rest of the Bible as a footnote at best.
It’s been quite a while since I read most of the Bible, but a quick Google search points me toward Romans 1:26 through 1:28 as the only place lesbianism is specifically mentioned and at least one of the sites discussing this reading of that part of the text interprets it to imply that lesbianism is a worse sin than male homosexual relations.
Of the very many things that amuse me about religion, in the “Hah, some people actually believe this shit!” way, the ranking of sins is right up there. “worse sin,” “venial sin,” whatever, this sin ranking system is just absolutely hilarious.
I mean, somewhere someone must actually have a list. I can see it now:
“Ok, you wore a suit that mixed linen and wool, that’s a 17 on the sin scale. But then you said your wife’s dress didn’t make her ass look fat, and you know she weighs 215 lbs, that’s a 43. Oh, and then there was that guy you straight up murdered, and that’s a 215.”
Because (at least under most protestant interpretations) the outcome is binary – you either make it to heaven or you don’t. Either you are a sinner or you are forgiven. It doesn’t matter how bad the thing you did is, because all that matters is whether you prayed for forgiveness. Ranking some sins as worse than others is a pointless exercise.
This was one of the main sticking points that didn’t make sense to me, and is part of why I don’t believe in it.
That’s odd to me, as I’m Jewish, so we basically don’t focus on the afterlife. There’s no Hell or Judgment and so on, but there are a helluvalotta commandments, which we follow in order to be good people, or ’cause it improves the world, or ’cause God said so, or cause it’s Tradition, or it brings us closer to God, or it makes us feel spiritually fulfilled, or it connects us to our ancestors, or it gives us the opportunity to follow even more commandments (yes, really), or tons of other potential reasons from which anyone can pick.
Even if it doesn’t impact your acceptance into heaven, Protestants can still totally care about those other things!
If you take the prohibition in Leviticus as a unisex prohibition, then all it says is don’t diddle a man like you would diddle a woman. So… keep track on which position you use with which gender?
So…two men are limited to non-penetrative sex and two women limited to penetrative sex in that form of translation? I mean that is technically a completely literal translation of Leviticus *cough*Israelite tribal law *cough*for a small *cough*semi-nomadic *cough*society *cough*circa 1200BC *cough*.
My favourite theory is that it gets at “don’t assimilate with the Greeks. They eat shellfish and do dudesex, like, all the time, so don’t do that stuff, so that you can’t hang out together.” It could be that ‘Lamb in its Mother’s Milk’ was a Hittite delicacy or something. We’ll never know what was going on in that crazy desert.
Most of the dietary stuff is for health reasons, but most of the laws exist in order to keep the Israelite people from assimilating with the native Canaanite tribes (their ethnic and linguistic cousins technically) or to provide some form of security for poor Hebrews. For example, if you buy a Hebrew slave you have to free them after 7 years (unless you treat them so well they decide to permanently become your slave), you have to leave a certain portion of your crops in your field instead of harvesting them for the poor to get some food from so they don’t starve, every 7 years you have to let your fields lay fallow (probably to be used as extra grazing land in order to both cut down on farmer-herder hostilities and provide fertilizer for the fields with the added side effect of preventing overfarming rendering land barren) and every 49 years land has to be given back to the nearest of kin that it was purchased from (most likely to break up large estates and to keep tribal nobility from becoming to powerful). I always took the “don’t wear an article of clothing made of multiple fabrics” to mean the Israelites were just shit at weaving anything besides woolen cloth. From the dietary perspective, shellfish wasn’t particularly safe at this time because it was toxic when unprepared correctly, the middle eastern style of cooking pork wasn’t very good at killing tape worms or other parasites because they couldn’t cook it at a high enough temperature or for long enough, mixing dairy and meat is actually pretty hard on the digestive system, camels were weird novelties that had just started arriving and were much more useful for travel than for eating (especially as the common early ways of eating camel involve drinking it’s blood as well, which is a big no no already), bats were weird flying cave rats who lived were they shit, etc. etc. Although, now I’m wondering if there is a provision against eating other people in Leviticus. And getting rid of the foreskin actually makes contracting, and thus spreading, STDs more difficult surprisingly. Plus, if that area gets infected you have to cut it off anyway, so the Hebrews just thought it would be easier in the long term to just not get the infections in the first place by cutting it off while still young. Of course then there are all those stoning laws, and the setting up of sanctuary cities under Leviite rule, since the Leviites didn’t get their own tribal territory but both of Joseph’s sons got one. Either that or Moses, Aaron, and the tribal elders all had a lot of specific allergies for the dietary laws.
Actually, there’s evidence that suggests the pork prohibition was a political game – pigs were something that anyone could raise, as they’ll eat anything from grain to human shite and that gave independence to poor folks in the city – the bigwigs didn’t like that, so they ruled against it so as to maintain control.
My best guess is that all the Biblical sex hangups are rooted in keeping the Israelites out of all the Canaanite fertility cults. Ritual sex, temple prostitutes, etc.
If you’re trying to keep your own followers away from such things, strict rules around sex itself are a useful tool. Then, in that way that religions do, the rules wind up being preserved and even strengthened even long after the original reasons no longer matter.
Well you can twist a few passages here and there pretty far from their apparent meaning, or paint some others very broadly so that they cover it. But there’s no clear proscription.
As a matter of the tone of the Bible… well, the Bible’s basically about what men (including God) want. Men doing women is about men wanting sex, wanting babies, wanting power, etc. Men doing men is again about men want. Women doing women is about what women want, and so isn’t of interest to the Bible. If women are supposed to want anything besides God, husbands, babies, and stuff for their husbands, it doesn’t stand out in my memory.
Which makes me wonder whether that means lessing is okay because the Bible doesn’t care what kinky stuff women want, or it’s wrong because it’s not about men.
….
But of course this is about how Becky interprets it. And in that branch of Christianity’s philosophy (assuming I’ve got the right branch), extramarital sex is very wrong, and it’s on the girls to enforce that. In the division between godly and worldly, emotional love is godly and sexual acts are worldly, and you’re supposed to forsake the worldly for the godly. Embracing the worldly is a path for Satan to enter into your life, which is why he tempts you with unwholesome lusts.
… not that Becky thinks lesbian lust is particularly unwholesome, any more. Just that ANY lust is unwholesome.
The Bible was also passed down throughout generations of patriarchal society, so, if there was ever any girlstuff, it could well have been edited out.
Scribes did concentrate on keeping the written copies very exact, at least since the time of King David, and to my knowledge there have been no copies of the Torah found that are any different from modern copies, but, we’re talking thousands of years, here. We know there must have been an ancient time before everything was codified and canonized, where stories got lost because the leaders or storytellers (who were probably mostly or entirely men) didn’t care about those stories nearly as much.
The stories that got canonized later (based on their use of language) surely coincided with things that people were dealing with, at the time of that story getting put into the text. For example, you can bet that when Judeans started marrying Midianites, they reeeally wanted a story featuring an example of what a good Midianite might be, so Ruth and Naomi were probably super popular and they make it in even though it’s a story about ladies.
Er, mixed my terminology here. Bible =/= Torah =/= Book of Ruth, and these were all written at different times. But still, to Becky and Joyce, they are all the Unchanging Word of God, so hey.
The funny thing is that for its time the bible was actually pretty progressive. Even some of the most repressive seeming things were meant to improve on how things previously were. And ironically sometimes modern interpretations are more repressive than the original intent. Like I sometimes wonder if that passage about men lying with men is more a rebuke to use lube since the anus doesn’t produce it’s own like vaginas do and unlubricated anal sex is very risky.
That…could actually be a possibility. I don’t speak/read old Hebrew, but it’s notoriously hard to translate. In addition, from my research from my old college days, it normally appears that “tribal” or kin based societies (or at least non-urbanized decentralized states) do tend to be very tolerant of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender status, non-binary status, and gender fluidity, because these people are the ones friends and kin, so it’s easier to accept them, and a same-sex couple produces more for the tribe than a “traditional” couple because they don’t have to provide for biological offspring. Which in turn has influenced the “noble savage” stereotype which is a harmful stereotype, since the key word is “Savage”. So, given the tribal status of the Israelites it’s quite possible they actually were ok with LGBT individuals but these “laws” were safety precautions. Another theory is that the Israelites had same basic knowledge of venereal diseases (as I noted above, male circumcision has the recently discovered (possibly rediscovered) health benefit of making contraction and as a result spreading of sexual transmitted diseasss more difficult) and improperly conducted anal sex (I.E. no lube or protection) does make it quite risky for the receiving partner. There’s also the theory that the anti-gay Leviticus laws are actually based on the earlier adultery laws. Most (first) marriages at that time generally happened when both participants were very young (12-14 years old) and thus either unsure of or confused about there own sexuality. So if they did discover that they were in fact not-straight, they were already married and Leviticus was attempting to reinforce that any sex outside of marriage was bad, so unless you got divorced or your spouse died, it was straight sex for you only, and no orgies because then you can’t be entirely sure of the father and property rights and inheritance becomes an issue. Allowing women to own and inherit property if their fathers died without any sons was also a major biblical innovation as far as most of the Mediterranean world was concerned (though perhaps borrowed from the Egyptians they had just spent a century with).
Whatever the original intent of the passages, it’s pretty clear that the Bible can be taken to mean something completely opposite. Like a Rorschach test what you see says more about you than about what’s on the page.
Amber might have a new roommate! She needs the excitement and drama and (more) hiding by stairs anyway – it’s good for killing spiders (or leading them away from hats).
This may also be a time I’m happy Mike showed up and actually didn’t make some comment and ruin the mood. Of course, I totally just jinxed it, didn’t I?
I don’t think Ag gives a damn about rules. She’s lawful good, but she subscribes to her own code, which links closely with The law, but gives her enough wiggle room to practise vigilante justice, sooo
Oh dear, the extra stress might kill Amber. Actually, I wonder if Dina might not be aware that Amber would not like someone else living in her space, since she understands the need for secrecy.
When those two finally do it, I hope that she has housing by then, as otherwise someone’s gonna rat so they can get a break from the lovebird’s non-stop vocalizations and crashing.
The first time they go to the natural history museum together will end up with a rushed wedding officiated by the director (“By the power bestowed upon me by the American Paleontological Association”) followed by some… intense discussion about feathers.
Her face in panel 3 is my favorite here. Like she’s just now considering the possibility of having sex with Dina and it’s so much more intense than anything she’s ever experienced before.
Fun fact, the only reason Joyce is off screen in the final panel is because Willis couldn’t draw another set of shocked Joyce eyes (in response to Becky’s last line) so soon after the last ones.
As someone who speaks French I still don’t understand why everything sounds sexier in French than in English. Is it because of English’s Germanic origin making it very blunt, or is it because Western Romance languages are descended from Latin and somehow picked up some sort of warm Mediterranean twist? Because “ménage a trois” sounds so much sexier than “threesome”.
Them and Marcie, because seriously, if you have a bunch of roommates and the rent and bills are still high enough you need to take a bunch of double shifts and look for multiple jobs, you need a cheaper place.
Marcie may also be getting screwed because she had no previous renter references, and/or insufficient capital for a security deposit, such that other landlords wouldn’t look at her.
Her parents can’t cosign on Marcie’s first place because they’re poor too, and possibly undocumented, which would mean they have no credit.
I’d hope her roommates would be able to pull something for the deposit (seriously, there’s a bunch of you, get it together!) together and/or possibly have references, but that is a good point.
Well she has referred to herself as “unconcerned” in the past. Not caring one way or the other is the ultimate form of aloofness, and aloofness is hot to a lot of people.
Sierra: “Oooooh, that sounds fun. Count me in too. If that’s all right, Dina?”
Dina: “Um, I guess? If it’s okay with everyone else. Though I think the bed will be crowded.”
Becky: “mmmmuuuh…”
Joyce: “Yeah, the more people who are there, the purer it will be.”
Becky: “bluh…”
Dina: “…. this is one of those situations where I am missing an uncommunicated subtext, is it not?”
Yep, just because you’ve thrown out that your eventual spouse must be a man doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve also thrown out any of your values about being chaste, monogamous, etc.
That’s basically part of Spike’s shtick. He’s always popping up out of nowhere and disappearing into the ether. One of these characters is supposed to be his friend. But Spike’s basic part of this evolving story is to needle other people about their flaws, mistakes or soft spots in their psyches. He has almost no life or interior being of his own. Even when we catch him after having sex with someone, his only response is to tell someone else that he’s having more joy in his (Spike’s) life than the other guy. Even sex is only a means to attack other people.
…What I originally intended to type was as follows:
It’s nice that Dina immediately brings up asking Amber out of simple consideration.
It’s strange for me, typing that name. I used to have a sister named Amber, until he changed his name to Aven, and now I find myself trying to type that instead, even in reference to a fictional character.
Aw, that’s very nice, your brain is trying to do a replace-all function on your brother’s deadname.
You could call the character Ms. O’Malley, as long as you don’t mind being oddly formal. 🙂
Is Becky one of those ladies who never learned to jill off properly? Because seriously, that girl needs a bullet vibe, a diagram and a list of 13 different amateur nudie tumblrs before she explodes.
Not so sure about that, BBCC. After all, we know that Becky has learned to do things she wasn’t supposed to do by stealth or deception. Such as having a glue “accident” with her hair so that it would have to be cut short. As such, I’d say it’s at the very least plausible that she did learn the basics, but also learned to be very, very quiet about it.
It’s true she may have learned about it, but I’m not sure she’d have escaped the whole ‘no don’t, it’ll put you in hell’ piling on. We know their church piled on about that pretty hard.
Oh most definitely. Especially given that Joyce was also both a) unsure of the specifics involved and b) convinced it was a sin and that your grandparents in heaven would be looking down on you disapprovingly. But the idea that neither Becky or Joyce has ever masturbated is mind boggling. Believable, but mind boggling.
I know a lot of prudes. Plus, I personally didn’t figure out what it even was (much less how too) until I was 16. I didn’t even know what a red light district was until I was 17. In hindsight, I had an incredibly sheltered upbringing.
I say. I remember my parents basically buying the sex-ed book “Show me” when I was… 8, I think. They knew I already liked to read a lot (taught myself to read) and just put it on one of the bookshelves, at a height where I’d be likely to find it.
Can confirm, am female, didn’t know how to masturbate til my then-boyfriend bought me a vibrator for my 18th birthday, and a how-to-masturbate book. My brain apparently needed a lot of permission, even though I hadn’t been intentionally repressed.
Becky is not a scared late bloomer like I was. However, she was certainly and intentionally repressed, probably taught that her body was dirty and sinful etc. It’s hard work for most people to get rid of that zap, but, evolution was also sinful and Becky loves that, so she’s got a leg up, so to speak.
As Delicious Taffy said, Dina’s first concern is if it would be OK with Amber. She’s never assuming anything, not even when Danny had been sleeping over. Heck, maybe Amber could have a reason to say no that would not be particularly hypocritical, and Dina would so respect that. She is the best.
And here’s the thing: Amber might not actually be OK with this. True, she’s mostly a good person, but she’s also a stickler for rules and laws. Now, I’m mostly confident that she wouldn’t rat out Becky, but I cannot be entirely confident about that.
But on the flip side, if Chloe does find out about this, I’m not entirely sure she’s not going to cause trouble either. Chloe most certainly seems so very full of compassion and trying to do right rather than sticking by the rules.
Second, and most important:
I love that Becky does not want to rush into having sex with Dina.
And no, I’m not talking about waiting to get married. She’s not going to do that. She really isn’t. What she -is- going to do is waiting until the time is perfectly right for both of them. Sure, her sexual hormones are on overdrive, and for all we know she might be using pads to soak up all the lady syrup that Dina’s presence is constantly causing to be produced… But she wants it to be not just right, but Right with a capital R. She wants the first time with Dina to be special, and something to treasure for both of them. It will not just be sex, it will be Making Love (with lots of lady syrup involved).
And more importantly, she knows what she doesn’t quite know yet: How to make sure that she will give Dina that wonderful love-making experience. Both because of lack of knowledge about pleasing women in general*, and she really doesn’t know what Dina likes and does not like. Because they have not had that conversation yet. It’s the talk that should always happen, yet so frequently does not.
And so Becky turns into a bundle of nerves whenever she even starts thinking about this prospect. She’s so very afraid of messing it up (and not in a good way). I would in fact not be surprised if it turns out that she’s afraid she’ll mess it up so badly that it’ll ruin their relationship. It’s that whole “Imagine the worst possible outcome and get your brain stuck on that” thing that Dorothy displayed a few weeks back.
But even though there are some negatives here, it’s also a very, very, -very- positive thing that she clearly does not want to push Dina into making love until Dina is truly ready for it. THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING!
Also, even just sleeping together can be a pretty big step in what is the first real relationship for both parties. And to be honest, I’d prefer that even that would not happen until it was clear they both simply wanted it to happen, rather than as a solution to the problem of Becky not having her own bed to crash in. But then again, life isn’t really all that considerate of what is the optimal solution… If it was, then DoA would not resonate so strongly with so many people.
Third: Yeah, Dina, you do not know your own sexy powers over Becky. But then again, up until only a couple of weeks ago, nobody ever seemed to think of your traits as sexually desirable. But you will learn. Oh you will learn so much!
*Even if we assume that she knows how to please herself (which is a subject up to debate, as BBCC can attest to), she doesn’t seem to assume that’s how everyone else works; and certainly not Dina.
Like I said, someone needs to give her a bullet vibrator and a diagram so she can learn how to work her own bits first.
I like the idea of rat!Amber – that would be some primo drama after the Amazigirl incident, tho Mary going over Chloe’s head as revenge on all of them is a possiblity.
Man I know part of the whole adding so much depth in the background in this strip was to get the joke of her lyin on the stairs to work, but dang, I hope more strips are like this one, you did some stellar work here.
Loading ...
“If we were to perform a sex first, would that take the edge off?”
*BECKY A SPLODE*
Maybe Dina has some horrible bedtime habit that will ruin the romance. Like she snores loudly, or clips her toenails or eats crackers in bed.
…I meant saltine crackers, get your minds out of the gutter.
I’m reminded of that Eddie Murphy skit about the Ritz cracker.
Nah, her habit is after she wakes up, She clears her sinuses in the shower, remember?
…… This is Becky. I don’t think any of those habits would ruin the romance.
That made me think of this.
New on Slipshine: Becky and Dina Perform a Sex
*slipshine website crashes forever*
That’s not a very sustainable business model.
Shortly followed by “JOYCE A SPLODE”
ANARCHY!
JOYCE HEAD A SPLODE
Becky: “She’s a Dina! And all Dinas is poison! They’re full of wicked wiles!”
Walky: “What are wicked wiles?”
Becky: “I don’t know, but I’m agin’ ’em.”
Hey, dinosaurs are apparently pretty sexy to some people.
Seriously, look up “dinosaur erotica” on Amazon. Or rather, don’t and save your sanity.
i was better off thinking dinosaur erotica didnt exist…. THANKS
My life is forever changed with what I have witnessed with that search.
And now that you’ve done that search, so have the contents of all the banner ads you’ll encounter!
Easy to fix, search for something entirely unrelated to either dinosaurs or erotica. Try something like performance electronic fuel injection controllers in the books section.
Or there’s a new Lego Y-Wing, that’s a good thing to search.
I like to convince advertisers I’m French. Just one or two off-language Youtube vids (played in the background while I do other things) is enough to confuse them.
Google is permanently convinced that I live in a Spanish-speaking country. I find this excellent and entertaining.
I looked. Why is this a thing?
Okay, so I was going to answer “Because the internet” and decided to illustrate it with an appropriate image. Because surely there’s been some meme or image macro or demotivational poster or something at some point called that.
But it turns out that’s apparently the title of an album by Childish Gambino, because when I search for the phrase in google image search, I’m suddenly confronted with 500 identical images of a guy giving me a vaguely disapproving stare.
Somehow I actually feel that illustrates my point rather well.
Well, I guess I’ve decided on my next Gravatar.
Happy I could help you come to this momentous decision. I’m sure Mr. Gambino is very pleased as well.
I just learned who he is. Apparently he’s going to be Lando in the Star Wars Han Solo movie to come out in between Episodes VIII & IX.
I have already seen enough on wikipedia’s list of weird articles to satisfy me on that topic, thanks. 😛
….. since avians are technically dinosaurs and Big Bird is supposed to be an avian, I think I already knew that.
What are you talking about? Chuck Tingle writes dinosaur erotica! That automatically elevates it to a literary level comparable to Wildean satire or Doylean seat-of-the-pants bullshit mysteries. (Seriously, I love Sherlock Holmes as much as the next guy but from a plotting perspective those stories make no sense, clues appear out of thin air having never been referenced — the antithesis of a fair-play whodunnit, although that term did not exist back then (sorry, my TV Tropes is showing (even though I’ve been off for months (help I’m trapped in a series of nested parentheses (no really there’s no non-awkward way to end this (I’ll just have to))))))
“Sir, I am required to inform you that I am an officer of the Grammar Police. It is my intention at this time to place you in custody for the offense of egregious overuse of parenthetic clauses. Please do not attempt to resist, escape, abscond, or conjugate.”
Yule never not takes I living!
Um.
Reminds me of a scene from Warren Ellis’ “Crooked Little Vein” actually…
Coming soon from Dr Chuck Tingle: “Pounded In The Butt By My Dinosaur Girlfriend’s Chaste Yet Intoxicating Aura”
Hm, I wonder if Chuck reads DoA? It doesn’t seem beyond possibility
Pfft, that’s old news. The only thing that surprises me is that Wikipedia has a page on it.
I was disappointed with that wiki page, there were no pictures.
“i don’t want to rush into our first time! we should wait until Wednesday, which is like a year from now”
On the other hand, it could be heavy physical contact on Wednesday and the next step on that distant eternity that is Thursday.
Sympathy via light physical contact game on point.
I opened the comments this evening specifically to make sure that somebody said that. I love that she implements that useful new skill.
Yep. Maybe someday she’ll learn a second social gesture, but for now, by god, she’s gonna do the best she can with the one she’s got!
… I didn’t intend to make an IW! reference there and now I’ve made myself sad.
It was the best you could do.
…does the Bible actually say anything about lesbian sex? Silly question, I know, but teeeeechnically if it’s completely silent on the subject, that means it can’t forbid it, riiiiiiiiiiight?
My understanding is that it does, somewhere, probably in Deuteronomy or one of the epistles.
I believe their church taught that Romans said it was a no-no.
You would have thought that Romans would love the whole lesbian thing, after all they love the Greeks and Greeks love the man on boy action.
Romans the book, not Romans the civilization.
Mmm . . . Civilization . . .
I’m not to sure about their opinions on homosexuality, but they seem to love dropping atomic bombs on me.
Maybe they’re trying to nuke all the closets from orbit. 😛
If we’re talking civ 6, clearly the solution is to play as Rome because their abilities are ridiculous. Auto roads and auto monuments?
Then you just have to start conquering early with legionnaires and let the snowball effect of more cities take over.
Besides, Romans the civilization were decidedly not like the Greeks on several points, this being one of them. Initially the moral conservatives didn’t even approve of Greek shaving, but that caught on anyway.
Well, even in Roman society having sex with another man wasn’t seen as a bad thing…so long as you were the dominant partner. It was looked down upon as wrong and womanly to be penetrated by another man’s penis, but incredibly manly to dominate another man by penetrate another man with one’s penis. Pasically, as long as one was having sex with a social inferior it was scene as a way of making sure they knew there place. Yeah, Romans were really rapey and perfectly ok with it so long as you weren’t raping a member of one of Rome’s elite patrician families.
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis into somebody’s body. And even then, the passive receiver was always despised, unless it was a woman being penetrated vaginally by her legal husband.
There were lesbians, of course, and there were people that did all kinds of kinky stuff, but mainstream morality despised/mocked/rejected those…
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis in somebody’s holes…
And even when a penis was involved, the receiver of it was always despised, unless it was a woman having vaginal sex with her legal husband.
Then, like now, oral sex was popular among lesbians (or so it was said), and that act was perceived as specially repulsive, because it implied putting your mouth in contact with somebody’s else’s genitals (which they saw as very gross) and there wasn’t even a penis involved (while the person performing a fellatio was despised, it was all right for the one receiving it).
There were lesbians, of course, and they got into relationships, and there were many kinds of people doing all kind of stuff that wasn’t penetrative sex, but mainstream morality still despised/mocked/rejected those…
Romans were pretty much the height of patriarchal imperialism, those jerkfaces. Nice roads, cool aquaducts, terrible for everything else.
The Greeks also loved the girl on girl action.
The Old Testament says absolutely nothing about ladies doin’ ladies. Traditional interpretations of Romans 1:24-27 view it as prohibiting lesbian sex, but Joyce and Becky subscribe to other interpretations.
Joyce at least; Becky probably is one of those Christians who holds the teachings of Jesus (specifically in regards to the whole “love your neighbor” thing) in great import and sees the rest of the Bible as a footnote at best.
It’s been quite a while since I read most of the Bible, but a quick Google search points me toward Romans 1:26 through 1:28 as the only place lesbianism is specifically mentioned and at least one of the sites discussing this reading of that part of the text interprets it to imply that lesbianism is a worse sin than male homosexual relations.
Of the very many things that amuse me about religion, in the “Hah, some people actually believe this shit!” way, the ranking of sins is right up there. “worse sin,” “venial sin,” whatever, this sin ranking system is just absolutely hilarious.
I mean, somewhere someone must actually have a list. I can see it now:
“Ok, you wore a suit that mixed linen and wool, that’s a 17 on the sin scale. But then you said your wife’s dress didn’t make her ass look fat, and you know she weighs 215 lbs, that’s a 43. Oh, and then there was that guy you straight up murdered, and that’s a 215.”
I mean, we do have a ranking about which secular laws are the worst to break. Why wouldn’t people rank their holy laws, too?
Because (at least under most protestant interpretations) the outcome is binary – you either make it to heaven or you don’t. Either you are a sinner or you are forgiven. It doesn’t matter how bad the thing you did is, because all that matters is whether you prayed for forgiveness. Ranking some sins as worse than others is a pointless exercise.
This was one of the main sticking points that didn’t make sense to me, and is part of why I don’t believe in it.
That’s odd to me, as I’m Jewish, so we basically don’t focus on the afterlife. There’s no Hell or Judgment and so on, but there are a helluvalotta commandments, which we follow in order to be good people, or ’cause it improves the world, or ’cause God said so, or cause it’s Tradition, or it brings us closer to God, or it makes us feel spiritually fulfilled, or it connects us to our ancestors, or it gives us the opportunity to follow even more commandments (yes, really), or tons of other potential reasons from which anyone can pick.
Even if it doesn’t impact your acceptance into heaven, Protestants can still totally care about those other things!
Like, murder is still fundamentally worse than jaywalking, even if you will never get caught or punished for it.
If you take the prohibition in Leviticus as a unisex prohibition, then all it says is don’t diddle a man like you would diddle a woman. So… keep track on which position you use with which gender?
Joyce’s google-search for strap-ons will surely go to waste.
So…two men are limited to non-penetrative sex and two women limited to penetrative sex in that form of translation? I mean that is technically a completely literal translation of Leviticus *cough*Israelite tribal law *cough*for a small *cough*semi-nomadic *cough*society *cough*circa 1200BC *cough*.
My favourite theory is that it gets at “don’t assimilate with the Greeks. They eat shellfish and do dudesex, like, all the time, so don’t do that stuff, so that you can’t hang out together.” It could be that ‘Lamb in its Mother’s Milk’ was a Hittite delicacy or something. We’ll never know what was going on in that crazy desert.
Most of the dietary stuff is for health reasons, but most of the laws exist in order to keep the Israelite people from assimilating with the native Canaanite tribes (their ethnic and linguistic cousins technically) or to provide some form of security for poor Hebrews. For example, if you buy a Hebrew slave you have to free them after 7 years (unless you treat them so well they decide to permanently become your slave), you have to leave a certain portion of your crops in your field instead of harvesting them for the poor to get some food from so they don’t starve, every 7 years you have to let your fields lay fallow (probably to be used as extra grazing land in order to both cut down on farmer-herder hostilities and provide fertilizer for the fields with the added side effect of preventing overfarming rendering land barren) and every 49 years land has to be given back to the nearest of kin that it was purchased from (most likely to break up large estates and to keep tribal nobility from becoming to powerful). I always took the “don’t wear an article of clothing made of multiple fabrics” to mean the Israelites were just shit at weaving anything besides woolen cloth. From the dietary perspective, shellfish wasn’t particularly safe at this time because it was toxic when unprepared correctly, the middle eastern style of cooking pork wasn’t very good at killing tape worms or other parasites because they couldn’t cook it at a high enough temperature or for long enough, mixing dairy and meat is actually pretty hard on the digestive system, camels were weird novelties that had just started arriving and were much more useful for travel than for eating (especially as the common early ways of eating camel involve drinking it’s blood as well, which is a big no no already), bats were weird flying cave rats who lived were they shit, etc. etc. Although, now I’m wondering if there is a provision against eating other people in Leviticus. And getting rid of the foreskin actually makes contracting, and thus spreading, STDs more difficult surprisingly. Plus, if that area gets infected you have to cut it off anyway, so the Hebrews just thought it would be easier in the long term to just not get the infections in the first place by cutting it off while still young. Of course then there are all those stoning laws, and the setting up of sanctuary cities under Leviite rule, since the Leviites didn’t get their own tribal territory but both of Joseph’s sons got one. Either that or Moses, Aaron, and the tribal elders all had a lot of specific allergies for the dietary laws.
Actually, there’s evidence that suggests the pork prohibition was a political game – pigs were something that anyone could raise, as they’ll eat anything from grain to human shite and that gave independence to poor folks in the city – the bigwigs didn’t like that, so they ruled against it so as to maintain control.
My best guess is that all the Biblical sex hangups are rooted in keeping the Israelites out of all the Canaanite fertility cults. Ritual sex, temple prostitutes, etc.
If you’re trying to keep your own followers away from such things, strict rules around sex itself are a useful tool. Then, in that way that religions do, the rules wind up being preserved and even strengthened even long after the original reasons no longer matter.
We definitely can’t eat people. That would count as mutilating the human body.
(Plus we don’t have cloven hooves and chew our cud, so even the littlest monkey would be right out.)
Well you can twist a few passages here and there pretty far from their apparent meaning, or paint some others very broadly so that they cover it. But there’s no clear proscription.
As a matter of the tone of the Bible… well, the Bible’s basically about what men (including God) want. Men doing women is about men wanting sex, wanting babies, wanting power, etc. Men doing men is again about men want. Women doing women is about what women want, and so isn’t of interest to the Bible. If women are supposed to want anything besides God, husbands, babies, and stuff for their husbands, it doesn’t stand out in my memory.
Which makes me wonder whether that means lessing is okay because the Bible doesn’t care what kinky stuff women want, or it’s wrong because it’s not about men.
….
But of course this is about how Becky interprets it. And in that branch of Christianity’s philosophy (assuming I’ve got the right branch), extramarital sex is very wrong, and it’s on the girls to enforce that. In the division between godly and worldly, emotional love is godly and sexual acts are worldly, and you’re supposed to forsake the worldly for the godly. Embracing the worldly is a path for Satan to enter into your life, which is why he tempts you with unwholesome lusts.
… not that Becky thinks lesbian lust is particularly unwholesome, any more. Just that ANY lust is unwholesome.
The Bible was also passed down throughout generations of patriarchal society, so, if there was ever any girlstuff, it could well have been edited out.
Scribes did concentrate on keeping the written copies very exact, at least since the time of King David, and to my knowledge there have been no copies of the Torah found that are any different from modern copies, but, we’re talking thousands of years, here. We know there must have been an ancient time before everything was codified and canonized, where stories got lost because the leaders or storytellers (who were probably mostly or entirely men) didn’t care about those stories nearly as much.
The stories that got canonized later (based on their use of language) surely coincided with things that people were dealing with, at the time of that story getting put into the text. For example, you can bet that when Judeans started marrying Midianites, they reeeally wanted a story featuring an example of what a good Midianite might be, so Ruth and Naomi were probably super popular and they make it in even though it’s a story about ladies.
Er, mixed my terminology here. Bible =/= Torah =/= Book of Ruth, and these were all written at different times. But still, to Becky and Joyce, they are all the Unchanging Word of God, so hey.
The funny thing is that for its time the bible was actually pretty progressive. Even some of the most repressive seeming things were meant to improve on how things previously were. And ironically sometimes modern interpretations are more repressive than the original intent. Like I sometimes wonder if that passage about men lying with men is more a rebuke to use lube since the anus doesn’t produce it’s own like vaginas do and unlubricated anal sex is very risky.
That…could actually be a possibility. I don’t speak/read old Hebrew, but it’s notoriously hard to translate. In addition, from my research from my old college days, it normally appears that “tribal” or kin based societies (or at least non-urbanized decentralized states) do tend to be very tolerant of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender status, non-binary status, and gender fluidity, because these people are the ones friends and kin, so it’s easier to accept them, and a same-sex couple produces more for the tribe than a “traditional” couple because they don’t have to provide for biological offspring. Which in turn has influenced the “noble savage” stereotype which is a harmful stereotype, since the key word is “Savage”. So, given the tribal status of the Israelites it’s quite possible they actually were ok with LGBT individuals but these “laws” were safety precautions. Another theory is that the Israelites had same basic knowledge of venereal diseases (as I noted above, male circumcision has the recently discovered (possibly rediscovered) health benefit of making contraction and as a result spreading of sexual transmitted diseasss more difficult) and improperly conducted anal sex (I.E. no lube or protection) does make it quite risky for the receiving partner. There’s also the theory that the anti-gay Leviticus laws are actually based on the earlier adultery laws. Most (first) marriages at that time generally happened when both participants were very young (12-14 years old) and thus either unsure of or confused about there own sexuality. So if they did discover that they were in fact not-straight, they were already married and Leviticus was attempting to reinforce that any sex outside of marriage was bad, so unless you got divorced or your spouse died, it was straight sex for you only, and no orgies because then you can’t be entirely sure of the father and property rights and inheritance becomes an issue. Allowing women to own and inherit property if their fathers died without any sons was also a major biblical innovation as far as most of the Mediterranean world was concerned (though perhaps borrowed from the Egyptians they had just spent a century with).
Whatever the original intent of the passages, it’s pretty clear that the Bible can be taken to mean something completely opposite. Like a Rorschach test what you see says more about you than about what’s on the page.
*plays James Brown’s “Sex Machine” on the hacked P.A. speakers*
*follows with “You Don’t Know You’re Beautiful” by One Direction*
The song is actually called What Makes You Beautiful… /unashamed 1D purist xD
Technically, Walky just suggested that Becky and Dina should sleep together, and I’m all for that happening.
He probably just assumed they already were.
My kingdom for seeing Joyce’s face when he said that.
Amber might have a new roommate! She needs the excitement and drama and (more) hiding by stairs anyway – it’s good for killing spiders (or leading them away from hats).
This may also be a time I’m happy Mike showed up and actually didn’t make some comment and ruin the mood. Of course, I totally just jinxed it, didn’t I?
Yahbut, Amber don’t like the rule-breakers.
Or, rather, Amazi-Girl don’t like rule-breakers, and she’d be a roommate too.
Also, Becky discovering the Amazi-suit.
AG totes saved Becky’s life, so there’s that
I don’t think Ag gives a damn about rules. She’s lawful good, but she subscribes to her own code, which links closely with The law, but gives her enough wiggle room to practise vigilante justice, sooo
Oh dear, the extra stress might kill Amber. Actually, I wonder if Dina might not be aware that Amber would not like someone else living in her space, since she understands the need for secrecy.
She’s a real Dinamo in bed.
IN bed?
It might start in bed, but I doubt it would stay in bed.
I mean consistently, right from the start, Becky’s loved it when Dina debunks her.
*flees for dear punning life*
SHAME!!!!
(by which I mean, ouch, well done)
When those two finally do it, I hope that she has housing by then, as otherwise someone’s gonna rat so they can get a break from the lovebird’s non-stop vocalizations and crashing.
What’s the difference between a punning life and a regular life?
A punning life is a running life, apparently.
Poor Becky lmao. I have a feeeeling (just a hunch :p) that she might not make it until marriage before she has sex xD
The first time they go to the natural history museum together will end up with a rushed wedding officiated by the director (“By the power bestowed upon me by the American Paleontological Association”) followed by some… intense discussion about feathers.
Amber is gonna need to keep her Amazi-Laundry in a tight, secure space.
or, this might happen. again. http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/02-i-was-a-teenage-churchmouse/trumpet/
I literally cannot remember who Dina’s roommate is. Will this be a problem?
Amber. It’s Amber.
There might be a problem.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
On the other hand…
(I really want this to happen now, just to see what kind of explosions it sets off.)
On the other hand…
Reminds me of Peridot when Garnet suggests fusing with her. “Oh my stars!”
You mean like THIS?
Becky’s face in Panel 4, though. That is the look of a person whose brain is just going “UNFFFFF.”
Her face in panel 3 is my favorite here. Like she’s just now considering the possibility of having sex with Dina and it’s so much more intense than anything she’s ever experienced before.
I don’t think it’s JUST her brain going “UNFFFFF”.
Fun fact, the only reason Joyce is off screen in the final panel is because Willis couldn’t draw another set of shocked Joyce eyes (in response to Becky’s last line) so soon after the last ones.
I constantly get you and Reltzik mixed up because you have the same avatar and I hope that stays the same when Willis gets around to updating them
I’m going to grav-roulette to get Walky back (or maybe Jason).
Rukduk, will you do the same?
Maybe. Probably. Most likely. Yes.
so ruth and becky will now be roomies cuz they need to split costs… thats where this is going right?
I’m telling you. Reverse Three’s Company Gambit. It’s gonna happen eventually anyways.
What is the Reverse Three’s Company Gambit? Telling your landlord you’re straight so they will let you live together?
More like pretending you’re in a polyamorous relationship with two other women so you can avoid having any wacky hijinx whatsoever.
I suppose it’s more of a Reverse Menage A Trois.
As someone who speaks French I still don’t understand why everything sounds sexier in French than in English. Is it because of English’s Germanic origin making it very blunt, or is it because Western Romance languages are descended from Latin and somehow picked up some sort of warm Mediterranean twist? Because “ménage a trois” sounds so much sexier than “threesome”.
Them and Marcie, because seriously, if you have a bunch of roommates and the rent and bills are still high enough you need to take a bunch of double shifts and look for multiple jobs, you need a cheaper place.
Marcie may also be getting screwed because she had no previous renter references, and/or insufficient capital for a security deposit, such that other landlords wouldn’t look at her.
Her parents can’t cosign on Marcie’s first place because they’re poor too, and possibly undocumented, which would mean they have no credit.
Being poor is very expensive.
I’d hope her roommates would be able to pull something for the deposit (seriously, there’s a bunch of you, get it together!) together and/or possibly have references, but that is a good point.
Maybe Becky can spend the nights at the restaurant sleep on one of the booth bench. Would be cheaper than an alarm system for Galasso :p
Dina confirmed for boiling cauldron of sexual temptation
Well she has referred to herself as “unconcerned” in the past. Not caring one way or the other is the ultimate form of aloofness, and aloofness is hot to a lot of people.
No, becky, it’s okay, you are allowed to try over the clothes groping here, you won’t get sent to gay conversion therapy.
I don’t see what the big deal is, Becky. Dina sleeps with her hat on.
You can leave your hat on.
Hat or no hat?
hat’s the way to do it!
Cap it off with the hat puns.
Or as the red queen would say:
Off with her hat!
But the hat is still on Becky’s top five favourite things about Dina of about a billion things she likes about Dina.
Becky’s face in panel face is amazing. Simply processing this new possibility is clearly causing some overheating.
* in panel 3
Panel face. 😛
Also, the US’s true contribution to global warming, repressed lesbians.
I have to give Dina points, her ability to read subtext has risen dramatically.
better than mine honestly,
Just mouse over the comic, it pops right up!
+ten thousand and *slow clap*
Joyce: If it’ll help to keep you and Dina chaste, I can sleep with both of you.
Becky: *wibble*
Becky: *wobble*
Joyce: Hey, aren’t you Becky from three years ago?
Sierra: “Oooooh, that sounds fun. Count me in too. If that’s all right, Dina?”
Dina: “Um, I guess? If it’s okay with everyone else. Though I think the bed will be crowded.”
Becky: “mmmmuuuh…”
Joyce: “Yeah, the more people who are there, the purer it will be.”
Becky: “bluh…”
Dina: “…. this is one of those situations where I am missing an uncommunicated subtext, is it not?”
Next morning, everyone is found dead.
Drowned in Becky’s lady syrups.
Occasionally, we are reminded that Becky is at least as innocent and as nervous about intimacy as Joyce is!
“You Don’t Know Your Sexy Powers!” is also the chart topping single from Becky’s band: The Nuked Closets.
Becky’s just trying to fit in some product placement in that final panel.
No, really. She has no idea.
What a pair of adorable dorks.
Stupid sexy Dina!
What you mean, “Sooner”? These not Sooners. These Hoosiers. Get the words correct.
Is this the first time we’ve seen Becky blush?
Nah, I think she’s blushed a lot in the past. (Usually around Dina and her hat.) Probably not this much, though. XD
When I first saw Panel 5, I thought that the idea of sharing a bed with Dina had gotten Becky so hot that she’d melted all over the steps.
I have a hard time believing that sex before marriage is what trips you up as an out gay Christian.
I wonder if it’s more the pre-marital aspect or the inexperienced-and-extremely-nervous aspect?
I know some out gay Christians who are all about the no sex before marriage thing.
Which must be tough for them, since same-sex marriage still isn’t legal in my country.
Yep, just because you’ve thrown out that your eventual spouse must be a man doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve also thrown out any of your values about being chaste, monogamous, etc.
If they’ve found a church that’s cool with their gayness, they can potentially still get married in the eyes of the Lord, if not the State.
Mike disappeared after panel 1. I am worried, for everyone else.
That’s basically part of Spike’s shtick. He’s always popping up out of nowhere and disappearing into the ether. One of these characters is supposed to be his friend. But Spike’s basic part of this evolving story is to needle other people about their flaws, mistakes or soft spots in their psyches. He has almost no life or interior being of his own. Even when we catch him after having sex with someone, his only response is to tell someone else that he’s having more joy in his (Spike’s) life than the other guy. Even sex is only a means to attack other people.
…Spike? The Spike I know doesn’t do any of those things! 😛
My girlfriend has a plaid shirt just like Becky’s.
…What I originally intended to type was as follows:
It’s nice that Dina immediately brings up asking Amber out of simple consideration.
It’s strange for me, typing that name. I used to have a sister named Amber, until he changed his name to Aven, and now I find myself trying to type that instead, even in reference to a fictional character.
Aw, that’s very nice, your brain is trying to do a replace-all function on your brother’s deadname.
You could call the character Ms. O’Malley, as long as you don’t mind being oddly formal. 🙂
Nope it’s just Becky who doesn’t know the full power of her unsealed libido.
BUT WE DO!
Is Becky one of those ladies who never learned to jill off properly? Because seriously, that girl needs a bullet vibe, a diagram and a list of 13 different amateur nudie tumblrs before she explodes.
Consider her upbringing. I guarantee she didn’t learn it. If it was mentioned, it was an EVIL DIRTY BAD WRONG sin.
Not so sure about that, BBCC. After all, we know that Becky has learned to do things she wasn’t supposed to do by stealth or deception. Such as having a glue “accident” with her hair so that it would have to be cut short. As such, I’d say it’s at the very least plausible that she did learn the basics, but also learned to be very, very quiet about it.
It’s true she may have learned about it, but I’m not sure she’d have escaped the whole ‘no don’t, it’ll put you in hell’ piling on. We know their church piled on about that pretty hard.
Oh most definitely. Especially given that Joyce was also both a) unsure of the specifics involved and b) convinced it was a sin and that your grandparents in heaven would be looking down on you disapprovingly. But the idea that neither Becky or Joyce has ever masturbated is mind boggling. Believable, but mind boggling.
Is it really? I’m sure plenty of non religious folks their age haven’t.
I know a lot of prudes. Plus, I personally didn’t figure out what it even was (much less how too) until I was 16. I didn’t even know what a red light district was until I was 17. In hindsight, I had an incredibly sheltered upbringing.
I say. I remember my parents basically buying the sex-ed book “Show me” when I was… 8, I think. They knew I already liked to read a lot (taught myself to read) and just put it on one of the bookshelves, at a height where I’d be likely to find it.
Oh yeah, I suppose not everyone’s read that book.
It was… very explicit sex-ed, to say the least.
Can confirm, am female, didn’t know how to masturbate til my then-boyfriend bought me a vibrator for my 18th birthday, and a how-to-masturbate book. My brain apparently needed a lot of permission, even though I hadn’t been intentionally repressed.
Becky is not a scared late bloomer like I was. However, she was certainly and intentionally repressed, probably taught that her body was dirty and sinful etc. It’s hard work for most people to get rid of that zap, but, evolution was also sinful and Becky loves that, so she’s got a leg up, so to speak.
…aaaanyway yes, a college freshman lady may not have ever tried to masturbate at all, it is possible.
OK, so these things to notice:
As Delicious Taffy said, Dina’s first concern is if it would be OK with Amber. She’s never assuming anything, not even when Danny had been sleeping over. Heck, maybe Amber could have a reason to say no that would not be particularly hypocritical, and Dina would so respect that. She is the best.
And here’s the thing: Amber might not actually be OK with this. True, she’s mostly a good person, but she’s also a stickler for rules and laws. Now, I’m mostly confident that she wouldn’t rat out Becky, but I cannot be entirely confident about that.
But on the flip side, if Chloe does find out about this, I’m not entirely sure she’s not going to cause trouble either. Chloe most certainly seems so very full of compassion and trying to do right rather than sticking by the rules.
Second, and most important:
I love that Becky does not want to rush into having sex with Dina.
And no, I’m not talking about waiting to get married. She’s not going to do that. She really isn’t. What she -is- going to do is waiting until the time is perfectly right for both of them. Sure, her sexual hormones are on overdrive, and for all we know she might be using pads to soak up all the lady syrup that Dina’s presence is constantly causing to be produced… But she wants it to be not just right, but Right with a capital R. She wants the first time with Dina to be special, and something to treasure for both of them. It will not just be sex, it will be Making Love (with lots of lady syrup involved).
And more importantly, she knows what she doesn’t quite know yet: How to make sure that she will give Dina that wonderful love-making experience. Both because of lack of knowledge about pleasing women in general*, and she really doesn’t know what Dina likes and does not like. Because they have not had that conversation yet. It’s the talk that should always happen, yet so frequently does not.
And so Becky turns into a bundle of nerves whenever she even starts thinking about this prospect. She’s so very afraid of messing it up (and not in a good way). I would in fact not be surprised if it turns out that she’s afraid she’ll mess it up so badly that it’ll ruin their relationship. It’s that whole “Imagine the worst possible outcome and get your brain stuck on that” thing that Dorothy displayed a few weeks back.
But even though there are some negatives here, it’s also a very, very, -very- positive thing that she clearly does not want to push Dina into making love until Dina is truly ready for it. THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING!
Also, even just sleeping together can be a pretty big step in what is the first real relationship for both parties. And to be honest, I’d prefer that even that would not happen until it was clear they both simply wanted it to happen, rather than as a solution to the problem of Becky not having her own bed to crash in. But then again, life isn’t really all that considerate of what is the optimal solution… If it was, then DoA would not resonate so strongly with so many people.
Third: Yeah, Dina, you do not know your own sexy powers over Becky. But then again, up until only a couple of weeks ago, nobody ever seemed to think of your traits as sexually desirable. But you will learn. Oh you will learn so much!
*Even if we assume that she knows how to please herself (which is a subject up to debate, as BBCC can attest to), she doesn’t seem to assume that’s how everyone else works; and certainly not Dina.
Like I said, someone needs to give her a bullet vibrator and a diagram so she can learn how to work her own bits first.
I like the idea of rat!Amber – that would be some primo drama after the Amazigirl incident, tho Mary going over Chloe’s head as revenge on all of them is a possiblity.
Man I know part of the whole adding so much depth in the background in this strip was to get the joke of her lyin on the stairs to work, but dang, I hope more strips are like this one, you did some stellar work here.