Okay, Danny gently ribbing Joe with hetro-erasure humor isnt a given, but isn’t wildly out of character for these two, particularly with Danny in a mellow phase.
Joe’s Dad x anyone: Improbable that Joe’s dad would settle down.
Blaine x anyone: Improbable because he knows Blaine is a piece of shit
Hence Joe’s mom x Amber’s mom is the likeliest result. Him going for Joe’s dad x Blaine is just him getting fixated on the gay part, though.
Okay, so time for another of my awkward, random questions, as I am wont to do when I get doubts about the more woke parts of society, and are (AFAIK) not about me:
Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?
Yes, with my source being one of my best friend’s sisters…or maybe it was the sister’s husband? I don’t remember the specifics 😛 Either way one of them is not sexually interested in the other, but they love each other romantically. To my understanding they’ve solved it by means of a sexual (though i think not romantic?) relationship with another couple, to fulfill their physical needs that weren’t being met otherwise.
Yes, it is possible. Not the most common thing, but it can occur, and so can being heterosexual but homoromantic. Might not be easy for the individual to pin that down immediately though as their exact labels.
I just think of it as an awareness that other people’s inner and outer realities can be very different from our own, and that means that there can be things routinely affecting their everyday lives that we may not even be aware are things?
For instance, I was born into a female body. I don’t have an issue with this – I’m currently 37 weeks pregnant, having female biology is something I am completely fine with. But I don’t really have a sense of gender identity beyond “I have a female body and have been socialised female and these things are fine” (I’m basically demi-gendered). If I had been born into a different body my life would have been different in several ways – not being eligible for motherhood being a big one, my husband being straight so that relationship probably not happening – but I don’t think it would make much difference to core me or how comfortable I would be in my own skin. Unless I was raised with toxic masculinity rammed down my throat constantly but that’s not how my parents raised my brother or my sister and me (gender was never seen as a factor affecting our abilities, strengths or potentials), and would screw with anybody a bit.
As a result while I fully accept other people’s gender identities really matter to them, and that body dysmorphia, being misgendered etc., can be deeply upsetting for other people and these things are not cool or OK, and a mismatch between mind and body and needing to transition externally to feel comfortable in their own skin is a real thing and of huge importance to people affected by it – I don’t really know what people in that boat MEAN by an internal sense of gender identity.
I kinda figure it’s a little like how being Jewish is important to me, part of how I identify, part of what has shaped my worldview, etc., even though I’m also agnostic. It matters to me, is part of who I am, some people will not be cool with it and there are some spaces where it would put me at risk of physical harm, I completely blew my top at a street proseltizer once who tried to tell me Judaism and Christianity are the same thing – being Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Busdhist, Tao, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, or anything else bar harmful-cultist or nasty-extremist flavour of any of the above) is fine, but I am not Christian and I found being told that highly offensive. And I also get that for many people this is a non-factor, or a minor one. (And also recognise that in some ways this is a really poor analogy – it’s generally a lot easier to “pass” in a potentially unsafe space, changing religion may involve one minor surgical procedure but can’t be compared to daily hormone injections and the types of surgery some trans people need to be comfortable in their own skin, and while some people will assume I’m going to Hell for my religious beliefs (a) they think that about a lot of people, so the agnosticism would get the same result, (b) they are unlikely to try to send me there themselves, and (c) they mostly probably don’t think I am a freak, pervert, child molester or should be put down because of it and one of the openly trans people in my friends group has definitely had all of the above levelled at him. And most people recognise religion isn’t cool fodder for jokes but that doesn’t necessarily apply to people’e attitudes towards people who are trans or gender non-conforming…)
That ended up a lot longer than I was expecting it to!
It has never occurred to me that “demi-gendered” was a thing and might be a good label to fit onto myself. Thank you! I have something to think about now. And probably read up on.
Yes. Inherently, sexuality is entirely separated from emotional bonds. It’s why open asexual+sexual partnerships can work well, if neither partner has hangups: The relationship is based solely within the bonds between the pair, and the pair has the understanding that sexual desires for the sexual partner can be addressed elsewhere.
Of course, as a more basic example, prostitution is perhaps the most intuitive example of the disconnect between sexual interaction and romantic interest.
As a functional example, consider a bisexual female who finds they prefer male partners for sex and female partners for deeper relationship interactions. The more decisive split of those considerations that your question refers to would simply be that same scenario but with more emphasized feelings toward the distinctions.
Sex as a facet of relationship is tied to the intimacy of the interaction, which is further amplified by social expectations which romanticize and emphasize sex as a key facet of relationships. That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals), so where possible, sexuality and romantic interest tend to coincide (even among those with non-heteronormative outlooks).
Basically, as for those pursuing meaningful poly relationships, a split between sexual and romantic involvements is something that’s generally too high effort and too counter-intuitive to normative expectations for many people to consider spending time on.
In short, it’s rare because it’s complicated and atypical, but it’s not impossible, nor is it even unusual when compared to relationship considerations on the whole.
For final consideration, keep in mind that what we consider feminine and masculine traits are generally just physical and societal in nature. In the end, the core of relationships lies within matching to the personality of another human being, which is something the more open sexualities fully appreciate. It’s entirely possible to appreciate cognitive or personality traits that are predominant within one gender, while preferring physical traits representative of another gender.
I’ve got to disagree with your statement about relationships between more than two people being avoided if at all possible. In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security, it’s quite possible for a poly relationship web to be stable for years.
I read it more as HeySo saying most people CBA to put in the work needed to ensure that said web is set up and maintained in a way that all participants are completely happy with, rather than that it can’t/shouldn’t be done?
Honestly I suspect that it wouldn’t necessarily occur to lots of people as a possibility as society does tend to look on two-person couplings as ideal and a lot of people would automatically assume any extensions to that would be less committed/involve breaches of trust. It’s not like poly etiquette is routinely covered in general relationship advice spaces either so people would need to look to educate themselves on it.
I’m poly-ace, myself. Miri did a fantastic job elaborating my intended meaning. 🙂
The main issue isn’t even the inherent complexities and societally unsupported nature of poly relationships, it’s- well, it’s in what you yourself noted:
“In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security”
Functional relationships are hard enough between two people. Poly relationships have the potential to be stronger and richer and more durable than the standard monogamous framework (due to poly giving a rich network of support, allowing you to benefit from the regular, deep involvement with multiple differing personalities, and due to having a support network not tied to a single individual)- however, poly is an extension of monogomy’s framework, not a simple swap-in alternative to it.
Generally, it’s easier to find a single person who matches you better than anyone else you’ve found, and try to build something meaningful with them, than to divert your attentions into trying to build a relationship with multiple individuals (be that due to a sexual/romantic split, or to more general poly considerations). That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, if you have the opportunity- it means that most people are not aware it’s an option, and even when they become aware it is, they may not be able to add in another dynamic of that significance to their existing relationship.
More simply put, I was noting that a romantic/sexuality split would imply a need to include a third individual, even if that’s “only” for sex, and thus such interaction would match closely to either the ace+sexual and/or poly relationship frameworks: In other words, both partners need to feel comfortable with including a third individual, even if it’s for casual sex alone.
And, generally when that does happen?
It gets grouped in as a [bi]sexual poly relationship, or as an open [bisexual] relationship. The distinction of romantic and sexual preferences is very unlikely to be emphasized publicly, and may even not be fully clear to the individuals who have such preferences [due to concepts such as bisexuality and open relationships being far more socially familiar].
All that said, my phrasing was incredibly misleading, now that I reread it. Allow me the opportunity to change it to fit my actual intended meaning:
“That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals)” –> “That form of intimacy is important to most people, and establishing relationships with more than a single partner is generally something people avoid, unless their preferences or the specific circumstances make establishing such a relationship worth the additional effort”
Of course. In fact, I use the example of the “two lesbians” all the time to explain the difference between cultural and academic accuracies of language.
Two people (I use lesbians for whatever reason), both identify the same way. Both are 100% accurate to that being culturally true for them: they ARE lesbians.
Both are attracted to cisgender women. One is attracted to trans men but not trans women; and the other vice versa. Using academic definitions now, one is “heterosexual biromantic;” the other “bisexual heteroromantic”.
I tend to use this conceptualization to explain that, no matter what the even ACCURATE definitions are (let alone whatever a person mythologizes personally alone in their own head), it would never be appropriate to attempt label a person a way other than the way that they choose to identify. As proof: the lesbians from above. Were one to imply the person who is attracted to trans women is “bisexual” in the cultural identity way, you would not only be wrong, you’d be being a trans-erasing asshole.
So……long-winded way to say: OF COURSE! I’ve spoken of the difference LOTS with people and potential lovers, explaining how being attracted to me or another trans person does not alter who they are in identity…
I wrote a long rant about how I dislike other people asking me to find a label for what I am on scales relevant to them (butch/femme, sm, gender, attraction to …) but not to me but my browser ate it.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but trans women are women. If you’re sexually attracted to trans women, you’re sexually attracted to women. I know lots of lesbians who are sexually attracted to trans women with zero sexual attraction to cis men.
It’s not clear to me why an attraction to trans men but not trans women or vice versa switches one from “heterosexual biromantic” to “bisexual heteroromantic”.
The difference, as I understand it, is between sexual attraction ( and romantic attraction, but you don’t seem to be making that distinction, but some other one that I’m not following.
I’m not entirely sure but I THINK it’s because Sex and Gender are, like, Separate, AFAIK, right? Like, Sex is genetic, set in stone, even after going through surgery, genetically speaking you have the same chromosomes.
However, GENDER is a totally different thing, as you can be whatever you identify as, be it Man, Woman, Non-Binary or undecided.
Maybe, but I still don’t see how that applies to the given example. There is “attraction”. Where does the distinction between “romantic” and “sexual” come in?
In the given example, where is there romantic attraction without sexual attraction, or vice versa.
That’s a very outdated view of sex as well. Sex, like gender, is a spectrum. There are people who do not fit the biological definition of male or female. We call them intersex when they have congenital differences in hormones, chromosomes, genitalia, or gonads (and, if they’re congenital, in secondary sex characteristics). Differences that aren’t congenital (like with castration) are called sex divergencies. And no, you don’t know what your chromosomes are unless you get a karyotype test done. And HRT can make your hormones near impossible to tell from a cis person’s.
Not to mention you can experiences sexual attraction to someone without knowing anything about their genitalia or chromosomes, so that doesn’t work either.
In my understanding of the definitions, “homo“ and “hetero“ “gay“ “lesbian“ (and all similar terms) refer to GENDER, not SEX. – at least i think they should, because that’s how they are spoken of: “i’m lesbian“ “oh so you are into women“. Now, i know that the general assumption tends to be “oh, so you like vulvas“ (but people don’t SAY that, they talk about the GENDER of the person. – and if they actually don’t even mean gender, but genitals, i think language needs to change to be clearer)
The term “SEXUAL attraction“ means “who am i interested in having sex with“(mostly used: gender-wise, although i see the term in a broader way than just choosing via gender or sex) more than simply meaning “who has genitals i am attracted to“ – but both play together in defining whether an attractive sexual encounter is likely to happen.
What i think is possible and might be helpful to distinguish, but does not have a word yet (?), is to divide sexual attraction into a) attraction by gender and b) attraction by genitals (or more general: by specific markers of sex, like e.g. body hair / shape of face / voice / …).
I, myself, would like a specific word for “primarily sexually attracted to people who have vulvas (no matter how they identify gender-wise, and no matter whether they were born with the vulva or got one later)“. Queer is a nice term, but often too wide for what i want to specify. But “lesbian“ has a connotation that is partly based on genitals, but also – more commonly – based on gender. So it’s inaccurate…
Also, it is possible to be sexually attracted to the gender / gender expression of a person (as in, “i want to be sexual with you…”) without being attracted to their genitals (“… but can we please do sexual things that don’t involve your breasts / penis / vulva / …“). It’s kinda difficult (like the homoromantic+heterosexual combination is) but at the very least, it exists.
Aouf, I’ve had people pissed at this notion in some parts of the LGBT community in my country.
I’ve seen some dismissing passive-agressive definitions like : “Heteroromantic : man who uses other men for sex but is not above exploiting women for emotional labor” and other stuff like that.
I’ve been guilty of using the terms “homoromantic heterosexual” for a guy I know who will do anything to protect and cherish his rapist best friend but only has sex with women he couldn’t care less about.
So yeah, it’s a thing and it’s being conflated with terrible behavior by its detractors because well, we’re not all ready to deconstruct this part of what we believe about attraction and relationships.
Do we really need to define “predator” in any other terms?
I really couldn’t care less of who other people are attracted to in which way as long as all persons involved have all requiered information and are able to say yes or no or a real “maybe, asked me again in a few”, to any given combination.
And where “no” isn’t a real option, the person insisting is a predator and I don’t care at all what they think of themselves.
What’s kind of cool is I’ve been reading about coparenting and there’s a fair few people who aren’t interested in each other sexually but live together and raise a child together whilst dating other people. They get an emotional and familial need fulfilled by one person but sexual need fulfilled by others. And I’ve read about all sorts. Gay men and straight women, two straight people, gay women and straight men. It’s a clear delineation of romantic, familial and sexual needs. It’s fascinating. And as an asexual person, kind of uplifting.
Is it common to name your car, even if you don’t really are a car freak? I nicknamed mine “whiskey”, because of it’s colour, and it’s one of my favourite alcoholics. It’s also funny, because I drink any kind of alcohol on a rather irregular basis, and if, not much of it, usually.
My husband and I have named our cars. The first one was a Ford Focus named Franklin (because that all starts with F). The second one was a Ford Fusion named Fuchsia (because it sounds like “fusion” ). The third car, which is our current car, is another Ford Focus, and we got it from Carmax, so her name is Carma (like Karma).
I honestly don’t care much about cars beyond “oh cool I can transport myself really far in a short amount of time,” but naming them is fun.
Mine’s a Ford fiesta, so I really just refer to the colouring. But you’re both right, it IS kinda fun to think about and simply use the name for my car, mostly because of the reaction I get out of people when using it. 🙂
The friend of a friend’s brother had a small car with a white roof and the rest of it was blue, so they called it “smurf” – the car itself I was told had been really ugly, but with the fitting name, it kinda had more legitimation to be there.
I didn’t read it as Danny messing with Joe OR as Danny being stupid. I read it as Danny trying really hard to cling to any scenario that isn’t Amber’s mom dating Joe’s dad. You can see his look of concern in the last panel when he suggests that the dads are together. It’s like he knows the answer is really Amber’s mom and Joe’s dad, but he’s exhausting all other options first to avoid that possibility.
Huh, we haven’t seen Joe’s mom in this universe yet, right? The only glimpses we got of her in the Walkyverse was when she pretty much got into a bidding war after the divorce to get Joe to side with her.
We know she took Joe to his orientation, but we haven’t seen her yet, no. Maybe at Parent’s Day, which is apparently separate from Freshman Family Weekend.
Love Danny’s “…I mean, Amber’s dad is a POS and Joe’s dad’s not the best person in the world but who should I say doesn’t deserve this clusterfuck of a relationship?” expression in the last panel.
It’s Joe’s dad, Danny. HE at least TRIES to be a better person.
I mean, the fact that Joe is genuinely concerned about the people involved suggests that at the very least he’ll avoid being Amber’s worst Stepbrother.
Going by Joe’s expressions, he doesn’t like the first option, recognizes the inherent sadness of the second, and by the third is just trying to stop the options from coming before any more get mentioned.
As fun as Danny forgetting straight people exist is, y’all forget he knows about how shitty both Joe and Amber’s dads are. I think theres another layer joke there that hes got such a low opinion of his friends’ dads he cant even their moms could possibly get together with them.
I don’t know, I think this is more Danny being unable to accept the real answer because in his experience it just doesn’t make any sense at all. If I had known Joe’s dad, this isn’t a move I’d expect of him either.
It’s instigated some substantial growth for him as a person, as well as him discovering important things about himself and becoming a much happier, we-rounded person
Is it just me or this Dan is way better than the old Dan? Also, since Dan met Ethan, it seems he can only think of women hooking up with women or men hooking up with men, the alternative doesn’t exist for him anymore 😀
I’m surprised by the number of people who leap straight to Dan forgetting hetero is a thing rather than, ya know, knowing Joe’s dad. College campuses are their own little world, sure, but they aren’t -that- insular.
Honestly, it’s not that uncommon when a person is newly out (at least by their own choice). It’s the mentality of “MAKE IT GAYER” because they’re over the moon and don’t know what to do with this newly discovered facet or their identity, and it’s a little all-consuming until you settle into that new knowledge of yourself.
I am here for this version of Danny. He is adorable and I want to protect him. And I really, really recognize the “I now believe every person is not straight until proven otherwise” from my own life. It took a while for me to get to that point, with a lot of internalized homophobia and biphobia, but Danny seems to have gotten there fast and I love him for it.
Honestly, I fully believe Joe’s mother is probably every bit as flawed as Joe’s dad if not more so. Why? Because a big part of Joe’s characterization is his realization his ideas about masculinity are wrong. One of them is that he’s put all of the blame on Joe’s dad for his parent’s marriage failing even as he hypocritically indulges in all the same behavior.
I’m willing to believe Joe’s mom has her own flaws, which made the divorce worse than it had to be and made Richard miserable in the marriage. These might have been his excuse to cheat even if his real reason was simply he wanted to.
Given that we know absolutely nothing of Joe’s mother, I’m not sure why we need to decide she’s as bad as his dad is, when we’ve seen and heard his flaws. I mean, it’s possible of course, but there’s really no reason to think so.
No reason to think she made Richard miserable either.
Panel 1: I love Danny’s attempt to spin this in its best possible form. Oh, two women who have been through hell with their shitty exes find love, support, and healing with each other.
Danny knows that’s not it, but it’s the most sympathetic match he can come up with, with the least likelihood of damaging Amber for whom he still cares very deeply. And the fact that that is so important for his mind to drift to is just beautiful and why he’s such an amazing cinnamon roll these days.
Panel 2: Which speaking of that, I’m just happily blurbing about him noticing bi-erasure in his language and correcting himself. He’s growing up so fast! *sheds proud tear*
Panel 3: He knows. He absolutely knows, but there’s a reason he’ll go in the direction he does. It’s because both of Amber and Joe’s dads are awful people who have massively used the women they have been with and left scars and damage after the fact.
So either of them dating two nice women who are in recovery from abusive relationships is a terrifying prospect and extremely sad. So of course, he’s going to cling to a different possibility in hope, especially as again, he wants Amber to be well.
Perhaps its changing values but has JoeDad (which I coin as a new term based on ToeDad) shown he’s actually a terrible person other than being a serial adulterer? While that is an awful thing by itself, it seems to me it could simply be the fact JoeDad was genuinely unhappy in the marriage and his son is choosing to blame him for the match continuing.
He hits on people his son’s age, and does not seem to respect the bounderies around about annoying others, and creeping others out with his advances. He is likely no Blane, or middle name Ryan but cheating is not the single wrong thing he did.
Given how strongly Joe feels about his father’s treatment of women – Joe, Joe Mr. Do List Joe, thinks his father treats women terribly – I’m comfortable saying his father is a terrible person.
gd system just ate reply a 2nd time, so short answer:
Joe’s not a hypocrite bc he’s not pretending to offer or want anything more than sex. He sees his father hurts women by getting into relationships that supposedly are about more than sex, but which Richard is incapable of maintaining.
Joe hurts women in general by his effed up view, but Richard hurts individual women he supposedly cares about.
I’m not saying Joe isn’t an ass, or that he hasn’t learned his father’s sexist view of women, but he is different in that he sees and understands the emotional damage caused by betrayal. Hence his studied avoidance of anything more meaningful than sex.
Panels 4-5: And this is the last eh choice available. Two horrible people finding each other and no longer hurting others is not great, but it’s better than them finding new victims to damage. It’s a mental last grasp to avoid confronting directly the reality of the awful situation that Amber’s mom once again finds herself enmeshed with a shitty guy who causes harm.
And it’s something that Danny and Joe are close to. It’s strongly obvious how much Joe’s dad’s ways have fucked up Joe, both in teaching him what being a man meant as well as in leaving other scars about marriage and romantic connections.
And it’s clear that has left some marks on Danny as well who was likely in the role of support for Joe as he watched his mom get devastated by her husband’s harassments and cheating.
Could Joe’s dad and Amber’s mom work? It seems very doomed and relying primarily on good sex, NRE, and Amber’s mom feeling financially trapped by Stabface’s shitty parents. And Joe is very convinced that Joe’s dad will revert to his pattern of being “distracted by the next shiny object” at any moment (and certainly his past behavior of creeping on kids reflects that).
It’s a tragic trainwreck waiting to happen and those can be the worst to observe from the outside. So why not imagine a hopeful alternative?
Joe blames JoeDad for all of the marriage problems but, frankly, my mother left her husband for my dad and it was the right decision. It strikes me he’s holding a very adolescent view of marriage (“Mom=Good”, “Dad=Bad”) which we haven’t seen any sign of being justified.
We’ve actually seen almost nothing of Joe’s views of his mom. We’ve seen his views of his dad and from what little we’ve seen of him, they’re completely justified.
Not entirely sure why you feel the need to jump in and make up blame for Joe’s mom with no evidence about her whatsoever.
Loading ...
This conversation is going better than I expected 😀
What did you expect?
Okay, Danny gently ribbing Joe with hetro-erasure humor isnt a given, but isn’t wildly out of character for these two, particularly with Danny in a mellow phase.
finally, danny is relatable
This is not the way I expected this to go but it is so funny and I love it.
Someone needs to buy Danny tickets to Gay! A Gay Musical.
It got some pretty good reviews!
Oh danny
He does try so hard…
And he gets so far.
It’s important to always put in your best effort.
But in the end, it doesn’t even matter. 🙁
If I link linkin park. . . does this get meta or ironic?
Moreso if you do so from Lincoln Park
While you are parked in a Lincoln.
And holding a small statue of Lincoln
Danny has forgotten straight people exist. College is amazing.
Or he just can’t conceive Joe’s dad and Amber’s mom together…
Has Danny and Amber’s mom met? I know Amber’s talked some about her to Danny
Yes they met when Stacy brought Amber back after she went home to recuperate from fighting off Ryan.
I think it’s rather that he doesn’t want to.
They’re as rare as hen’s teeth, I guess?
I KID I KID.
I imagine Danny’s reasoning is:
Joe’s Dad x anyone: Improbable that Joe’s dad would settle down.
Blaine x anyone: Improbable because he knows Blaine is a piece of shit
Hence Joe’s mom x Amber’s mom is the likeliest result. Him going for Joe’s dad x Blaine is just him getting fixated on the gay part, though.
That’s how I read it, but I like the different interpretations – they add to the entertainment factor!
wouldn’t that be the dream
I mean, he’s just being realistic
Okay, so time for another of my awkward, random questions, as I am wont to do when I get doubts about the more woke parts of society, and are (AFAIK) not about me:
Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?
I don’t see why not
Probably? I can’t imagine it’s common, but anything’s possible.
Yes, with my source being one of my best friend’s sisters…or maybe it was the sister’s husband? I don’t remember the specifics 😛 Either way one of them is not sexually interested in the other, but they love each other romantically. To my understanding they’ve solved it by means of a sexual (though i think not romantic?) relationship with another couple, to fulfill their physical needs that weren’t being met otherwise.
That actually sounds ideal to me…
i believe that’s called compulsory heterosexuality
No, dude.
Yes, it is possible. Not the most common thing, but it can occur, and so can being heterosexual but homoromantic. Might not be easy for the individual to pin that down immediately though as their exact labels.
Well, yeah. It’s how bros are bros. :p
whoa this never occurred to me
I’d think the bros would be heterosexual but homoromantic. Want sex with women, but close relationships with other guys are more important.
im really confused by the whole thing about wokeness but yeah i imagine so
I just think of it as an awareness that other people’s inner and outer realities can be very different from our own, and that means that there can be things routinely affecting their everyday lives that we may not even be aware are things?
For instance, I was born into a female body. I don’t have an issue with this – I’m currently 37 weeks pregnant, having female biology is something I am completely fine with. But I don’t really have a sense of gender identity beyond “I have a female body and have been socialised female and these things are fine” (I’m basically demi-gendered). If I had been born into a different body my life would have been different in several ways – not being eligible for motherhood being a big one, my husband being straight so that relationship probably not happening – but I don’t think it would make much difference to core me or how comfortable I would be in my own skin. Unless I was raised with toxic masculinity rammed down my throat constantly but that’s not how my parents raised my brother or my sister and me (gender was never seen as a factor affecting our abilities, strengths or potentials), and would screw with anybody a bit.
As a result while I fully accept other people’s gender identities really matter to them, and that body dysmorphia, being misgendered etc., can be deeply upsetting for other people and these things are not cool or OK, and a mismatch between mind and body and needing to transition externally to feel comfortable in their own skin is a real thing and of huge importance to people affected by it – I don’t really know what people in that boat MEAN by an internal sense of gender identity.
I kinda figure it’s a little like how being Jewish is important to me, part of how I identify, part of what has shaped my worldview, etc., even though I’m also agnostic. It matters to me, is part of who I am, some people will not be cool with it and there are some spaces where it would put me at risk of physical harm, I completely blew my top at a street proseltizer once who tried to tell me Judaism and Christianity are the same thing – being Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Busdhist, Tao, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, or anything else bar harmful-cultist or nasty-extremist flavour of any of the above) is fine, but I am not Christian and I found being told that highly offensive. And I also get that for many people this is a non-factor, or a minor one. (And also recognise that in some ways this is a really poor analogy – it’s generally a lot easier to “pass” in a potentially unsafe space, changing religion may involve one minor surgical procedure but can’t be compared to daily hormone injections and the types of surgery some trans people need to be comfortable in their own skin, and while some people will assume I’m going to Hell for my religious beliefs (a) they think that about a lot of people, so the agnosticism would get the same result, (b) they are unlikely to try to send me there themselves, and (c) they mostly probably don’t think I am a freak, pervert, child molester or should be put down because of it and one of the openly trans people in my friends group has definitely had all of the above levelled at him. And most people recognise religion isn’t cool fodder for jokes but that doesn’t necessarily apply to people’e attitudes towards people who are trans or gender non-conforming…)
That ended up a lot longer than I was expecting it to!
It has never occurred to me that “demi-gendered” was a thing and might be a good label to fit onto myself. Thank you! I have something to think about now. And probably read up on.
Yes. Inherently, sexuality is entirely separated from emotional bonds. It’s why open asexual+sexual partnerships can work well, if neither partner has hangups: The relationship is based solely within the bonds between the pair, and the pair has the understanding that sexual desires for the sexual partner can be addressed elsewhere.
Of course, as a more basic example, prostitution is perhaps the most intuitive example of the disconnect between sexual interaction and romantic interest.
As a functional example, consider a bisexual female who finds they prefer male partners for sex and female partners for deeper relationship interactions. The more decisive split of those considerations that your question refers to would simply be that same scenario but with more emphasized feelings toward the distinctions.
Sex as a facet of relationship is tied to the intimacy of the interaction, which is further amplified by social expectations which romanticize and emphasize sex as a key facet of relationships. That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals), so where possible, sexuality and romantic interest tend to coincide (even among those with non-heteronormative outlooks).
Basically, as for those pursuing meaningful poly relationships, a split between sexual and romantic involvements is something that’s generally too high effort and too counter-intuitive to normative expectations for many people to consider spending time on.
In short, it’s rare because it’s complicated and atypical, but it’s not impossible, nor is it even unusual when compared to relationship considerations on the whole.
For final consideration, keep in mind that what we consider feminine and masculine traits are generally just physical and societal in nature. In the end, the core of relationships lies within matching to the personality of another human being, which is something the more open sexualities fully appreciate. It’s entirely possible to appreciate cognitive or personality traits that are predominant within one gender, while preferring physical traits representative of another gender.
I’ve got to disagree with your statement about relationships between more than two people being avoided if at all possible. In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security, it’s quite possible for a poly relationship web to be stable for years.
I read it more as HeySo saying most people CBA to put in the work needed to ensure that said web is set up and maintained in a way that all participants are completely happy with, rather than that it can’t/shouldn’t be done?
Honestly I suspect that it wouldn’t necessarily occur to lots of people as a possibility as society does tend to look on two-person couplings as ideal and a lot of people would automatically assume any extensions to that would be less committed/involve breaches of trust. It’s not like poly etiquette is routinely covered in general relationship advice spaces either so people would need to look to educate themselves on it.
I’m poly-ace, myself. Miri did a fantastic job elaborating my intended meaning. 🙂
The main issue isn’t even the inherent complexities and societally unsupported nature of poly relationships, it’s- well, it’s in what you yourself noted:
“In the absence of jealousy, and in the presence of trust and security”
Functional relationships are hard enough between two people. Poly relationships have the potential to be stronger and richer and more durable than the standard monogamous framework (due to poly giving a rich network of support, allowing you to benefit from the regular, deep involvement with multiple differing personalities, and due to having a support network not tied to a single individual)- however, poly is an extension of monogomy’s framework, not a simple swap-in alternative to it.
Generally, it’s easier to find a single person who matches you better than anyone else you’ve found, and try to build something meaningful with them, than to divert your attentions into trying to build a relationship with multiple individuals (be that due to a sexual/romantic split, or to more general poly considerations). That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried, if you have the opportunity- it means that most people are not aware it’s an option, and even when they become aware it is, they may not be able to add in another dynamic of that significance to their existing relationship.
More simply put, I was noting that a romantic/sexuality split would imply a need to include a third individual, even if that’s “only” for sex, and thus such interaction would match closely to either the ace+sexual and/or poly relationship frameworks: In other words, both partners need to feel comfortable with including a third individual, even if it’s for casual sex alone.
And, generally when that does happen?
It gets grouped in as a [bi]sexual poly relationship, or as an open [bisexual] relationship. The distinction of romantic and sexual preferences is very unlikely to be emphasized publicly, and may even not be fully clear to the individuals who have such preferences [due to concepts such as bisexuality and open relationships being far more socially familiar].
All that said, my phrasing was incredibly misleading, now that I reread it. Allow me the opportunity to change it to fit my actual intended meaning:
“That form of intimacy is important to most people, and relationships involving more than two individuals are generally to be avoided if at all possible (due to the challenge of making a relationship work even among just two individuals)” –> “That form of intimacy is important to most people, and establishing relationships with more than a single partner is generally something people avoid, unless their preferences or the specific circumstances make establishing such a relationship worth the additional effort”
Hopefully I got it written properly this time. 🙂
Of course. In fact, I use the example of the “two lesbians” all the time to explain the difference between cultural and academic accuracies of language.
Two people (I use lesbians for whatever reason), both identify the same way. Both are 100% accurate to that being culturally true for them: they ARE lesbians.
Both are attracted to cisgender women. One is attracted to trans men but not trans women; and the other vice versa. Using academic definitions now, one is “heterosexual biromantic;” the other “bisexual heteroromantic”.
I tend to use this conceptualization to explain that, no matter what the even ACCURATE definitions are (let alone whatever a person mythologizes personally alone in their own head), it would never be appropriate to attempt label a person a way other than the way that they choose to identify. As proof: the lesbians from above. Were one to imply the person who is attracted to trans women is “bisexual” in the cultural identity way, you would not only be wrong, you’d be being a trans-erasing asshole.
So……long-winded way to say: OF COURSE! I’ve spoken of the difference LOTS with people and potential lovers, explaining how being attracted to me or another trans person does not alter who they are in identity…
I wrote a long rant about how I dislike other people asking me to find a label for what I am on scales relevant to them (butch/femme, sm, gender, attraction to …) but not to me but my browser ate it.
Ashley expressed it better than I do anyway:
http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2045
I understand what you’re trying to say, but trans women are women. If you’re sexually attracted to trans women, you’re sexually attracted to women. I know lots of lesbians who are sexually attracted to trans women with zero sexual attraction to cis men.
It’s not clear to me why an attraction to trans men but not trans women or vice versa switches one from “heterosexual biromantic” to “bisexual heteroromantic”.
The difference, as I understand it, is between sexual attraction ( and romantic attraction, but you don’t seem to be making that distinction, but some other one that I’m not following.
I’m not entirely sure but I THINK it’s because Sex and Gender are, like, Separate, AFAIK, right? Like, Sex is genetic, set in stone, even after going through surgery, genetically speaking you have the same chromosomes.
However, GENDER is a totally different thing, as you can be whatever you identify as, be it Man, Woman, Non-Binary or undecided.
Maybe, but I still don’t see how that applies to the given example. There is “attraction”. Where does the distinction between “romantic” and “sexual” come in?
In the given example, where is there romantic attraction without sexual attraction, or vice versa.
I think those were supposed to be sepperate points where they differ, not a description of the same one.
That’s a very outdated view of sex as well. Sex, like gender, is a spectrum. There are people who do not fit the biological definition of male or female. We call them intersex when they have congenital differences in hormones, chromosomes, genitalia, or gonads (and, if they’re congenital, in secondary sex characteristics). Differences that aren’t congenital (like with castration) are called sex divergencies. And no, you don’t know what your chromosomes are unless you get a karyotype test done. And HRT can make your hormones near impossible to tell from a cis person’s.
Not to mention you can experiences sexual attraction to someone without knowing anything about their genitalia or chromosomes, so that doesn’t work either.
In my understanding of the definitions, “homo“ and “hetero“ “gay“ “lesbian“ (and all similar terms) refer to GENDER, not SEX. – at least i think they should, because that’s how they are spoken of: “i’m lesbian“ “oh so you are into women“. Now, i know that the general assumption tends to be “oh, so you like vulvas“ (but people don’t SAY that, they talk about the GENDER of the person. – and if they actually don’t even mean gender, but genitals, i think language needs to change to be clearer)
The term “SEXUAL attraction“ means “who am i interested in having sex with“(mostly used: gender-wise, although i see the term in a broader way than just choosing via gender or sex) more than simply meaning “who has genitals i am attracted to“ – but both play together in defining whether an attractive sexual encounter is likely to happen.
What i think is possible and might be helpful to distinguish, but does not have a word yet (?), is to divide sexual attraction into a) attraction by gender and b) attraction by genitals (or more general: by specific markers of sex, like e.g. body hair / shape of face / voice / …).
I, myself, would like a specific word for “primarily sexually attracted to people who have vulvas (no matter how they identify gender-wise, and no matter whether they were born with the vulva or got one later)“. Queer is a nice term, but often too wide for what i want to specify. But “lesbian“ has a connotation that is partly based on genitals, but also – more commonly – based on gender. So it’s inaccurate…
Also, it is possible to be sexually attracted to the gender / gender expression of a person (as in, “i want to be sexual with you…”) without being attracted to their genitals (“… but can we please do sexual things that don’t involve your breasts / penis / vulva / …“). It’s kinda difficult (like the homoromantic+heterosexual combination is) but at the very least, it exists.
Aouf, I’ve had people pissed at this notion in some parts of the LGBT community in my country.
I’ve seen some dismissing passive-agressive definitions like : “Heteroromantic : man who uses other men for sex but is not above exploiting women for emotional labor” and other stuff like that.
I’ve been guilty of using the terms “homoromantic heterosexual” for a guy I know who will do anything to protect and cherish his rapist best friend but only has sex with women he couldn’t care less about.
So yeah, it’s a thing and it’s being conflated with terrible behavior by its detractors because well, we’re not all ready to deconstruct this part of what we believe about attraction and relationships.
Do we really need to define “predator” in any other terms?
I really couldn’t care less of who other people are attracted to in which way as long as all persons involved have all requiered information and are able to say yes or no or a real “maybe, asked me again in a few”, to any given combination.
And where “no” isn’t a real option, the person insisting is a predator and I don’t care at all what they think of themselves.
What’s kind of cool is I’ve been reading about coparenting and there’s a fair few people who aren’t interested in each other sexually but live together and raise a child together whilst dating other people. They get an emotional and familial need fulfilled by one person but sexual need fulfilled by others. And I’ve read about all sorts. Gay men and straight women, two straight people, gay women and straight men. It’s a clear delineation of romantic, familial and sexual needs. It’s fascinating. And as an asexual person, kind of uplifting.
“Is it possile to be Homosexual yet Heteroromantic?”
Yes.
Danny’s got a blue ukelele. Blukele.
unrelated, but that suddenly made me think of the car I share with my dad. My boyfriend has dubbed it the bluberu, and my family went with it.
Sounds like a nice name?
Is it common to name your car, even if you don’t really are a car freak? I nicknamed mine “whiskey”, because of it’s colour, and it’s one of my favourite alcoholics. It’s also funny, because I drink any kind of alcohol on a rather irregular basis, and if, not much of it, usually.
My husband and I have named our cars. The first one was a Ford Focus named Franklin (because that all starts with F). The second one was a Ford Fusion named Fuchsia (because it sounds like “fusion” ). The third car, which is our current car, is another Ford Focus, and we got it from Carmax, so her name is Carma (like Karma).
I honestly don’t care much about cars beyond “oh cool I can transport myself really far in a short amount of time,” but naming them is fun.
lol yeah, same. He came up with it because it’s a periwinkle blue subaru, and i think fam went with it b.c it’s not wrong.
Mine’s a Ford fiesta, so I really just refer to the colouring. But you’re both right, it IS kinda fun to think about and simply use the name for my car, mostly because of the reaction I get out of people when using it. 🙂
The friend of a friend’s brother had a small car with a white roof and the rest of it was blue, so they called it “smurf” – the car itself I was told had been really ugly, but with the fitting name, it kinda had more legitimation to be there.
I think it’s just generally cool to name important things like cars, houses, pets, children etc
I really want to believe Danny’s messing with Joe. I really do
“Nobody is as dumb as HE seems!”–The Count in Doctor Who, “City of Death”
He’s like just a few whiskers from being Hobbes in panels 2 & 6.
That’s it: Danny’s just a figment of Joe’s imagination. All the relationship storylines involving Danny have been all Joe.
So, wait. It’s a Fight Club thing where Joe(‘s alternate) was dating Amber’s alternate?
DIDN’T DICK-DAD JUST WARN HIM NOT TO DO THAT???
Figment? Hobbes is REAL.
Well, now I just imagine Joe carrying around a Danny Doll complete with that hat and a mini ukelele. I don’t think this image is improving…
*steeples fingers*
EX-cellent…
I really want to as well, but he IS playing the ukulele and wearing an extremely bad hat, so that doesn’t exactly give points in his favor.
Eh, the hat could be worse
Danny’s been taking stupid pills.
His “dapper hat” is cutting off circulation.
I didn’t read it as Danny messing with Joe OR as Danny being stupid. I read it as Danny trying really hard to cling to any scenario that isn’t Amber’s mom dating Joe’s dad. You can see his look of concern in the last panel when he suggests that the dads are together. It’s like he knows the answer is really Amber’s mom and Joe’s dad, but he’s exhausting all other options first to avoid that possibility.
No Ace adoption via parental, social-gravitational fields?
I’m not sure if Danny’s serious or just screwing with Joe here.
It’s just, he’s met both Joe’s dad and Amber’s mom. It’s a surreal match.
It will be interesting to see if Danny actually is being serious here, or if he’s pulling Joe’s leg.
And we won’t even see the rest of the conversation to figure that part out
Joe, Danny’s your childhood friend, how did you expect this conversation to go any differently than it is?
Huh, we haven’t seen Joe’s mom in this universe yet, right? The only glimpses we got of her in the Walkyverse was when she pretty much got into a bidding war after the divorce to get Joe to side with her.
We know she took Joe to his orientation, but we haven’t seen her yet, no. Maybe at Parent’s Day, which is apparently separate from Freshman Family Weekend.
Wonder if any of those interesting Kickstarter comissions are being reflected here…
Love Danny’s “…I mean, Amber’s dad is a POS and Joe’s dad’s not the best person in the world but who should I say doesn’t deserve this clusterfuck of a relationship?” expression in the last panel.
It’s Joe’s dad, Danny. HE at least TRIES to be a better person.
in which danny is me
seriously, i forgot straight men could have girlfriends once
But… why would they want to when they could have boyfriends? That just makes more sense.
I mean, the fact that Joe is genuinely concerned about the people involved suggests that at the very least he’ll avoid being Amber’s worst Stepbrother.
Not exactly a high bar to clear…
True, but now I’m wondering about Blaine’s new partner, and wondering what that relationship is like.
You know, at least Danny was being optimistic in that first panel.
I initially parsed Danny’s comment “Way to bi-erase, me,” as “Way to bi-erase me.”
Oh, good. it wasn’t just me.
“Way to dry-erase me”
Danny’s got some stuff to work out. But he’s doing it just fine.
Going by Joe’s expressions, he doesn’t like the first option, recognizes the inherent sadness of the second, and by the third is just trying to stop the options from coming before any more get mentioned.
Wait, what inherent sadness of the second?
Joe does not like his father right now and does not wish him on anyone.
Danny’s train of thought is literally me thinking about anything NEW DANNY IS SO DANG RELATABLE
I don’t think not even Richard deserves to be stuck with Blaine.
Nobody deserves Blaine. I’m not even sure another Blaine would deserve Blaine.
Attack of the Blaine Clones.
You mean you don’t appreciate the idea of a Bonny & Clyde styled fic involving Toedad & Blaine? 😛
Richard/Blaine ship name = Raine?
*cleans out tear cistern*
As fun as Danny forgetting straight people exist is, y’all forget he knows about how shitty both Joe and Amber’s dads are. I think theres another layer joke there that hes got such a low opinion of his friends’ dads he cant even their moms could possibly get together with them.
Yeah, I think that’s the first layer, and ‘forgetting straight people exist’ is the second.
Danny, that ukelele is making you stupider. I didn’t think that was possible.
when you know joe’s dad, you start making assumptions, dan’s are pretty stupid, but still assumptions
Ah, yes, the “Everybody’s gay now” phase.
I don’t know, I think this is more Danny being unable to accept the real answer because in his experience it just doesn’t make any sense at all. If I had known Joe’s dad, this isn’t a move I’d expect of him either.
There can be layers!
Look, there was only one combination there that could get a “Congratulations” so he just decided to go with that one and hope for the best.
(I keep getting error messages on this comment page. Just me?)
Maybe Rich/Blaine gets a congratulations, if Joe hates Rich.
(Me too. Seems done now.)
Yep, that was my feeling too.
I ship Blaine with Clint.
Blint? Claine?
FUDGING FUDGERS THAT FUDGE!!!
Where, to Antarctica?
Get Toe-Dad in there for the worst dad threesome you ever did see
The gravity of their hatefuck would be so immense it would compact the earth and create a sub-brown dwarf.
“Nightmare Daddy: The game sequel nobody asked for.”
“Chose between a staggering number of awful dads to date… for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone.”
I honestly believe it could be both a hit and a valuable piece of art…. but I would never PLAY it.
You get the option to spec “serial killer”.
If you get all the endings, you unlock the special character: “Sir”, the awful grandad.
The PC is Mary
Dan became a fanficker
I hope it’s not german.
Woohoo! Not only is Danny by now aware of the existence of bisexuals, but also that bi-erasure is a thing.
He has come so far *wipes away imaginary tear*
God, Dan… what has this campus DONE to you!?
The campus broadened his horizons.
It’s instigated some substantial growth for him as a person, as well as him discovering important things about himself and becoming a much happier, we-rounded person
It’s not campus, it’s having met Joe’s dad.
Bahahahaha!!! Oh Danny boy.
Well at least he’s not being heteronormative.
Is it just me or this Dan is way better than the old Dan? Also, since Dan met Ethan, it seems he can only think of women hooking up with women or men hooking up with men, the alternative doesn’t exist for him anymore 😀
“The two nice parents?”
“No.”
“The two not nice parents?”
“No.”
“Dude, I don’t like where this is going.”
^^^ eeyup
To be fair, this was the least worst alternative.
well put.
This is basically Willis getting his own back on everyone who complains that his strips only have homosexual couples in them, isn’t it?
Seeing how he also made us consider Blaine x Joe’s Dad those kind of even out…
At first I missed the comma in “way to bi-erase, me” and I was pretty confused by the implication that Danny was Amber’s/Joe’s mother
I feel like that last panel was Danny just messing with Joe, if this is what new Danny is about I approve.
Is Danny really self-aware enough to mess with someone though
im not sure anyone named danny/i is self-aware enough to mess with people.
Is… is that a confession?
i dont know
A confession would normally imply self awareness. So possibly not?
makes ya think, dont it?
THIS IS THE BEST VERSION OF DANNY.
yup!
You can see the wheels turning in Danny’s head, even if they are being driven by one sad, aged lonely hamster.
I… I’m not sure if I would wish Blaine on anyone… even Joe’s dad…
not even joes dad deserves that
Toedad though… hit him and Blaine with short-working but intense love potion and let’s watch that disaster.
Ross/Blaine = Rogaine? (Not sure where the ‘g’ came from, the rest works, tho)
Rossaine
You don’t have to put up the red flag
I’m surprised by the number of people who leap straight to Dan forgetting hetero is a thing rather than, ya know, knowing Joe’s dad. College campuses are their own little world, sure, but they aren’t -that- insular.
Honestly, it’s not that uncommon when a person is newly out (at least by their own choice). It’s the mentality of “MAKE IT GAYER” because they’re over the moon and don’t know what to do with this newly discovered facet or their identity, and it’s a little all-consuming until you settle into that new knowledge of yourself.
*facet of
Newly out? More like 10 years later, for me.
And it’s not really any less sensical than assuming everybody is straight instead.
I am here for this version of Danny. He is adorable and I want to protect him. And I really, really recognize the “I now believe every person is not straight until proven otherwise” from my own life. It took a while for me to get to that point, with a lot of internalized homophobia and biphobia, but Danny seems to have gotten there fast and I love him for it.
This comic made me laugh so much.
Danning it up as hard as you can.
Honestly, I fully believe Joe’s mother is probably every bit as flawed as Joe’s dad if not more so. Why? Because a big part of Joe’s characterization is his realization his ideas about masculinity are wrong. One of them is that he’s put all of the blame on Joe’s dad for his parent’s marriage failing even as he hypocritically indulges in all the same behavior.
I’m willing to believe Joe’s mom has her own flaws, which made the divorce worse than it had to be and made Richard miserable in the marriage. These might have been his excuse to cheat even if his real reason was simply he wanted to.
Given that we know absolutely nothing of Joe’s mother, I’m not sure why we need to decide she’s as bad as his dad is, when we’ve seen and heard his flaws. I mean, it’s possible of course, but there’s really no reason to think so.
No reason to think she made Richard miserable either.
Comic Reactions:
Panel 1: I love Danny’s attempt to spin this in its best possible form. Oh, two women who have been through hell with their shitty exes find love, support, and healing with each other.
Danny knows that’s not it, but it’s the most sympathetic match he can come up with, with the least likelihood of damaging Amber for whom he still cares very deeply. And the fact that that is so important for his mind to drift to is just beautiful and why he’s such an amazing cinnamon roll these days.
Panel 2: Which speaking of that, I’m just happily blurbing about him noticing bi-erasure in his language and correcting himself. He’s growing up so fast! *sheds proud tear*
Panel 3: He knows. He absolutely knows, but there’s a reason he’ll go in the direction he does. It’s because both of Amber and Joe’s dads are awful people who have massively used the women they have been with and left scars and damage after the fact.
So either of them dating two nice women who are in recovery from abusive relationships is a terrifying prospect and extremely sad. So of course, he’s going to cling to a different possibility in hope, especially as again, he wants Amber to be well.
Trust Danny to look for a silver lining.
Perhaps its changing values but has JoeDad (which I coin as a new term based on ToeDad) shown he’s actually a terrible person other than being a serial adulterer? While that is an awful thing by itself, it seems to me it could simply be the fact JoeDad was genuinely unhappy in the marriage and his son is choosing to blame him for the match continuing.
He hits on people his son’s age, and does not seem to respect the bounderies around about annoying others, and creeping others out with his advances. He is likely no Blane, or middle name Ryan but cheating is not the single wrong thing he did.
Given how strongly Joe feels about his father’s treatment of women – Joe, Joe Mr. Do List Joe, thinks his father treats women terribly – I’m comfortable saying his father is a terrible person.
On my view, I think that’s more a sign YoungJoe is a hypocrite than he has standards his father doesn’t.
gd system just ate reply a 2nd time, so short answer:
Joe’s not a hypocrite bc he’s not pretending to offer or want anything more than sex. He sees his father hurts women by getting into relationships that supposedly are about more than sex, but which Richard is incapable of maintaining.
Joe hurts women in general by his effed up view, but Richard hurts individual women he supposedly cares about.
I’m not saying Joe isn’t an ass, or that he hasn’t learned his father’s sexist view of women, but he is different in that he sees and understands the emotional damage caused by betrayal. Hence his studied avoidance of anything more meaningful than sex.
And Part 2:
Panels 4-5: And this is the last eh choice available. Two horrible people finding each other and no longer hurting others is not great, but it’s better than them finding new victims to damage. It’s a mental last grasp to avoid confronting directly the reality of the awful situation that Amber’s mom once again finds herself enmeshed with a shitty guy who causes harm.
And it’s something that Danny and Joe are close to. It’s strongly obvious how much Joe’s dad’s ways have fucked up Joe, both in teaching him what being a man meant as well as in leaving other scars about marriage and romantic connections.
And it’s clear that has left some marks on Danny as well who was likely in the role of support for Joe as he watched his mom get devastated by her husband’s harassments and cheating.
Could Joe’s dad and Amber’s mom work? It seems very doomed and relying primarily on good sex, NRE, and Amber’s mom feeling financially trapped by Stabface’s shitty parents. And Joe is very convinced that Joe’s dad will revert to his pattern of being “distracted by the next shiny object” at any moment (and certainly his past behavior of creeping on kids reflects that).
It’s a tragic trainwreck waiting to happen and those can be the worst to observe from the outside. So why not imagine a hopeful alternative?
Good to see your energy levels are coming back! Hope the recovery continues apace!
Because, as Rachel put it, “Redemption is not real.”
Neither Stacy nor Doctor Dick come off well here.
Joe blames JoeDad for all of the marriage problems but, frankly, my mother left her husband for my dad and it was the right decision. It strikes me he’s holding a very adolescent view of marriage (“Mom=Good”, “Dad=Bad”) which we haven’t seen any sign of being justified.
We’ve actually seen almost nothing of Joe’s views of his mom. We’ve seen his views of his dad and from what little we’ve seen of him, they’re completely justified.
Not entirely sure why you feel the need to jump in and make up blame for Joe’s mom with no evidence about her whatsoever.
Eh, they’re not real people. *Tinkerbell dies* So I’m just suggesting possible story avenues.
I always love Dumbing of Age, but this one actually made me lose control of my laughter.
“dan, they’re straight,” is the new “harold, they’re lesbians.”
Dan’s grasp of biology troubles me
I see nothing here that speaks to biology…
Those were two ships that had never crossed my mind before, but I’m certain at least the last one has crossed someone’s mind before.
Eef
Hulu’s Runaways series just used basically the same joke.