April’s first Patreon bonus strip is here, and it’s about DINA’S PARENTS! All patrons can read it at the Dumbing of Age Patreon!
And remember, you can pledge up to read tomorrow’s strip a day early!
Discussion (255) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
April’s first Patreon bonus strip is here, and it’s about DINA’S PARENTS! All patrons can read it at the Dumbing of Age Patreon!
And remember, you can pledge up to read tomorrow’s strip a day early!
Loading ...
Robin, that might as well be one single-spaced, stop wasting paper
“Get Poly-PSYCHED” reminds me of our class’s motto: EDGE
Engineering Design Graphics Extremists
(prolly why I nearly bombed, I wasn’t X-TREEM enough)
Robin is just trying to fit in with the whole “double spaced” thing. If she lets them do single space what will the other teachers think of her?
I’ve heard they’ve got mugs designed to fix that problem
You know there’s a lot of bisexual denialism floating around this campus! We exist dammit!
This is probably inappropriate to say but I’d much rather be bisexual than straight. Like…my moms pretty cool about gay stuff and I feel like being bi would be much more preferable than being squicked out by anything involving men.
Personally I don’t really believe there’s such a thing as “straight” or “gay” or “bisexual” at all. I understand the need for labels but narrowing sexuality down to two or three options just so limiting and isn’t really how humans work.
I agree on a certain level. In that the human experience isn’t something you can quantify. These terms are made for ease of us understanding each other in the simplest terms. Everyone’s definitions of these experiences will obviously from person to person and I think there’s an issue with people feeling they HAVE to do something to fit a definition or other people imparting their definitions on you. However our ape brains also find it easier to section things off and we get a bit obsessed with them. Your identity describes you but it doesn’t DEFINE you. In the same way that sour can describe a lemon or milk but those aren’t the same thing.
Honestly, it’s for this reason I don’t particularly care for labels for the first place. I understand that it’s important to other people and they’re useful as a general descriptor, which is why I use them in conversation, but that’s more out of respect for the desires of the people around me that I care about than it is about me liking the system of labels in the first place. I dunno, something about it just feels limiting to me.
Especially with regards to identity. To me, identity IS definition, rather than description, because it answers the question of “who,” rather than “what.” It’s a topic that I find both incredibly fascinating while at the same time immensely confusing and frustrating, because every time I try to put my thinking on the subject into words, it ends up coming out wrong or not making a whole lot of sense out loud, but I’ll try anyway:
WHO you are isn’t really measured in your looks, or words one labels themselves with, but by your likes, your dislikes, your loves and hatreds, your ambitions and fears, and the choices you make and the consequences of those choices. Like, the answer to the question of WHO is basically like your life story, I guess. Whereas for “WHAT” it’s physical descriptors, like height, weight, sex, gender, skin color, that kind of thing, I guess. But then again, so much of the “who” is informed or derived from the “what” and vice-versa, that the moment I think about that is when I realize this philosophical approach to my own identity stops making much sense to me.
Maybe it’s better if I use an example. I’ve mostly been attracted to women from both a sexual and romantic standpoint. I’ve had feelings towards men growing up that I believe can construed in retrospect as having been romantic, but while I have an admiration for my ideal sense of the male physical form from an aesthetic standpoint, I am sure I’ve never sexual attraction to men. I don’t know what this says about me or how I would describe it, but I do know that both “straight” and “bi” seem to be inadequate descriptions–especially given my feelings of labels as being inherently limiting. I mostly just call myself “straight” when it comes up in conversation with people at all, as it’s close enough to the truth even though it’s not terribly accurate and saves me from having to explain it to people.
But you see what I mean, right? From my perspective, a label serves to put humans into a box, and I find that box to be kind of restrictive. However, as I said, I also have to recognize that while labels seem to be restrictive and not very useful to me from an identity standpoint, it’s still important to other people, which is why I still use them. I don’t know, I find the whole thing to be kind of puzzling and mildly frustrating, if I’m being honest; but if I say that, I feel like people would get angry and I have trouble quite understanding why. This is actually my first attempt at articulating it to other people, and I really only feel safe doing so because I tend to be better at expressing myself through written words rather than speech. Even now though, I look back up and read the above and realize it probably doesn’t come across as very coherent. Sorry, this is all kind of stream of consciousness.
some of us are lesbians…..
……Yeah, that’s valid.
And totally calling myself out here, but honestly I always took gay to imply any general form of homosexuality, as well as the more specific case of m/m. Like Coke is all colas, but also just coca-cola. But context plays heavily here too. I feel like the term has narrowed over the last four decades. Contrarily, lesbian is very specifically just f/f and always was, from the obvious derivation of the Isle of Lesbos. In the formal rainbow pantheon (is there such a thing) has gay been fully distinguished as just m/m? Further, is it thus offensive to refer to lesbians as gay?
most people who experience same gender attraction refer to themselves as “gay” as a slang way to describe themselves. lesbians are gay, bisexuals are gay, gay men are gay.
I’m totally one of those guys who gets irked when people call every soda “coke”. Like..”coke is coke.” Don’t call a Dr. Pepper coke! I like Dr. Pepper waaaay more than coke so that could make me miss an opportunity! Or alternatively you might say you’ve got coke but you just have like…pepsi or something.
That one’s really weird to me. It’s like calling every sandwich a Big Mac.
In England, we never really call burgers “sandwiches” and tend to instead separate the two.
Like, a Subway is a sandwich. McDonalds & Five Guys serve burgers.
I mean…yeah that’s more or less what we do in america too. The only time I see burgers get called sandwiches here is in like…commercials or something.
Gonna back this up and say yeah, we call ’em burgers, but also expand slightly and say that at least in my region, they’re understood to be a type of sandwich even if nobody says it outright. Legally speaking, you can only get a Good burger in Nevada and Boston, and whatever the hell they’re selling in Japan is allegedly closer to what Midwesterners call a Sloppy Joe.
Coca-Cola is a cola, which is a type of soda, but if you call a bottle of Ski a Coke, you’re liable to get your shit pushed in.
And Subway makes subs. Five people in a specific county in Delaware call ’em “hoagies”, but they’re submarine sandwiches. (So named for their similarity to a WWII German U-boat captain.)
okay, well, what about the scandal of “mp3 players”? Those devices can usually play a whole range of formats! it’s an issue and no one is talking about it.
At least people don’t call generic non-Apple MP3 players “iPods”. (Unless folks who call every soft drink “a Coke” do…)
outrageous! and what about “folk music”, that’s also a total misnomer, some folk music is AI-generated probably, or will be in the future, and “folk” is some sort of synonym for “human”, it’s “music made by folks” one would assume from the name, so that’s really misleading now isn’t???
Philly guy here. They are Hoagies. Not heroes or grinders or zeppelins or subs. And Subway puts a map of the NY subway on their walls. So what?
“Lesbians” obviously means f/f, but the push to insist it can only apply to women who have never, ever been attracted to a man is relatively new. The terminology used to be more about actions than identity. Then came picking your letter out of “LGBT” (and cisnormative, heteronormative society definitely thinks it’s easier if you only pick ONE). It’s helpful in some ways to have defined, easy-to-understand categories, but flattens history in other ways. Feeling like you or anyone else has to fit a label perfectly can be confusing—as we see in this very comment thread. On the other hand, labels can give people power over their lives and their personal narrative; they can help people find community. I have an identity label of my own and I like it; it helps me make sense of things about myself.
Anyway if you meet a pair of sweet, badass old ladies who have been together for 30 years they are allowed to be lesbians without everyone investigating their previous relationships first. Maybe one is repulsed by men and the other is fine with men but prefers women. Don’t know, don’t care, not my beeswax, life doesn’t always fit into tidy categories
i would go as far as to say, if you meet anyone of any age and relationship status who tells you they’re a lesbian…. maybe just take their word for it?
Yes
That doesn’t necessarily go for straight people though. Case in point in this comic: Jennifer long denied that she was bisexual or queer at all, despite being in a long term relationship with another girl.
Thanks to heteronormativity, it’s much less likely to come up with queer people, but it’s still possible to be in denial about aspects of their sexuality, even while acting on them.
Good thing that’s (hopefully) not what many people mean when they say “gay”, “bi”, or “straight” then? Setting aside that bisexuality itself is more of a spectrum than a single thing, just off the top of my head I can reel off a bunch more.
Exactly. I never took “bi” to mean (going to absurdism), “well, my last fuck was a dude, so next up is a woman. Gotta meat quota.”
Imagine how organised your love life would be, with that sort of planned certainty.
“meat quota” is something else entirely.
“Meat quota” is what I call it when I pile a ton of shrimp and chicken on my plate at the Chinese buffet.
As a noun yes. But as a verb, it’s rather raunchier to meat your quota.
Sorry to burst your denialism, but I myself am boringly straight (much to the frustration of 9ne of my former roommates). My wofe is bi, though – does that count?
It would, but the obvious counter-argument is that you must then be so far in the closet that Aslan is your beard.
I’m not actually disputing your self-identity, but rather parodying that there are denialists in any group, including those who refuse to accept that some people just don’t have a homosexual bone in their body.
Not trying to deny your sexuality. (That would be a little ironic) Being boringly straight is fine, cool even. In fact it’s probably not as boring as you claim! My problem is more with the labels of it being used to force people into binary roles. To do that ignores the subtleties of what each individual finds attractive.
Basically. For example I’m straight cuz I really love women. I super do. But…
I really don’t care for vaginas. Now I’ve never had any experience and that could be a factor. But like I only like stuff like cuddling and boobs and smooching and stuff. But that’s still under the umbrella of “straight”.it might also land under the umbrella of “ace”, or at least somewhere along a-spec territory, but tbh that’s kind of up to you
I dunno seems weird. I’m permanently horny. I just don’t wanna do that SPECIFIC sex act. Again it’s all about what labels we’re cool with and in my case I feel like being ace doesn’t represent how I feel, insomuch that I think my aversion doesn’t really have any reflection on my actual sexuality. Just on my personal taste.
All the more reason to be bi, right? Double the amount of spank material! (I mean, not double, the Lion’s Share of porn is for straight people, but it at least increases your options.)
(NO, Deanatay, DON’T get started on how lesbian porn isn’t for lesbians…)
That sounds like you may possibly fall somewhere on the asexual spectrum, where you’re romantically attracted to people but not sexually, or only attracted sexually some times or in very specific contexts.
https://www.glaad.org/amp/ace-guide-finding-your-community
https://www.glaad.org/amp/ace-guide-finding-your-community
Naw I’m pretty much sexually attracted to people all the time. I specifically just find genitals kinda gross. I still long for physical intamacy something fierce and am SUPER down for all manner of loving. For me its less about the Genitalia and more about everything else? The boobs, the butt, the mouth, the hips, the skin, and of course the woman’s reactions. It’s just that one specific aspect of the affair that I don’t gel with.
Well it’s definitely possible to be attracted to a particular gender and be repulsed by a specific set of genitals. Out of curiosity, if it’s okay to ask, are you attracted obly to women with vulvas or just women in general and if the answer is in general, are you repulsed by all genitals or only vulvas?
You can respind by replying to my comment above yours if you want to respond.
Mostly women in general. I just find women sexy. Again I’m mostly into it for all the other parts. Granted Vulva may still be my preference, I’m a virgin, so I can’t really say what I like for sure. What I might enjoy in a video or something might not translate when it’s actually me involved.
It’s definitely good that you know that about yourself, it’s much easier to figure yourself and your attractions out when you don’t go in with preconcieved ideas of what you “should” like. Like I always knew I was attracted to individual people not sexes or genders, took years to learn the term pansexual, but had I not had hang ups about how things “should” be, it would have taken waaaaaay less time to realize I’m polyamorous.
Yotomoe, you might be sex-repulsed or sex-averse (I mention it because I super am), if that’s how you feel about genitals.
Humans (and many many organisms that we share an evolutionary history with) are often attracted primarily to secondary sexual characteristics (e.g.: breasts, plumage, vocalizations, smells).
I am a male Kinsey 0, and am super into breasts and hip-waist ratio. Looking at genitals does nothing for me. But when my partner and I are getting amorous, I all of a sudden get totally into, in DoA parlance, shoving my face between her legs.
Birds/dinosaurs know what to do the first time those sexy feathers draw them to proximity of a cloaca.
meh, evolutionary psychology is a risky undertaking and should be treated with lots of precaution when it comes to humans because our behaviour is complicated by layer upon layer of symbolic cues, thousand of generations deep, so while it’s possible that parts of human sexual behaviour have remained analogous to what we see in related species, it can be very hard to tease apart the relative influences of “nature vs nurture”, or better put symbolic vs genetic inheritance.
that was a roundabout way of saying, “citation needed”.
Labels are sometimes useful, sometimes not. I’ve been attracted to lots of women, and maybe 3 men in 40 years, and each man has had something like long gorgeous hair or smooth curves that my brain associates with female presentation.
While recognizing that labels and categories (and even words) are only sometimes useful, I think I’m a very good fit for the “straight” or “mostly straight” category, and it would feel weird/inaccurate to deny that that label can apply to me.
I see sexual orientation as a complex spectrum, where people can fall on either “extreme” end or anywhere else along the way, ie asexual, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, homo/heteroflexible, etc all fall somewhere along the spectrum and the label is just a way to explain experiences and find like minded people, but shouldn’t be used to say, “all _____sexual people are the same”. Everyone is unique and so is their experience of sexual orientation, but that doesn’t mean the labels aren’t useful, they’re just shorthand for one aspect of a complex being.
yeah, and look, this will sound obvious to you but i feel it’s missing from a lot of these “spectrum” models, liberating as they may be to begin with, is that:
1) you don’t need to pick a category; lots of people find it useful and relaxing but others find it stressful and constraining;
2) attraction and sexuality is not (purely) a pre-existing personality trait that you need to discover and accept; it’s also something you live, it’s also produced to some extent by the experiences that you have with people/communities/media… so whatever identity you feel fits at any one time, it can also change.
Yes this: sexual identity words are meant to be descriptivist NOT prescriptivist. i.e. you get to use the words that meet your needs to describe yourself, instead of you having to follow the rules to be the living definition of one of the words. And even picking some word(s) is an option, not a requirement.
I can agree with that, it isn’t necessary to pick a label and orientation is complex and can take time to discover, however I would be careful of attributing any part of identity to environment because it starts getting used as “proof” for ___ “makes” you gay, bi, ace, etc and while environment shapes expression of traits, it can’t change what traits exist.
oh yeah there definitely are genetic factors to sexual orientation and gender identity. But there are social factors at play also.
like, one thing that does “make” you “gay, bi, ace, etc” is the english language ^^
i mean, what is “a trait” and what is “the expression of a trait”?
putting it that way makes it sound very straightforward, but i’m not convinced it’s a line that’s all that easy to draw at all.
“A trait” meaning a genetic predisposition to a specific feature and “the expression of a trait” meaning which genes get activated and which stay dormant. For example, I know somone with psoriasis, which is a genetic autoimmune disease only presenting in somone who has two copies of the gene to cause it. This person also has an indentical twin who does not have psoriasis. Their twin obviously has both genes for it because they’re genetically identical, but they never had the gene triggered by their environment. The point of sharing this is to show that you can’t change a persons genetic traits through environment, only which ones get activated. Since it’s impossible to know what environmentally specifically triggers what gene to present and because everyone is individual, you can’t change somones orientation, it’s immutable. However, since a vast number of people are not on the most extreme ends of the sexual orientation spectrum, there is some flexibility in their sexuality. This can appear as “change over time”, but is far more likely to be that they simply understand themselves better over time.
Tldr;
Basically, orientation doesn’t change, it’s inborn, but your understanding of your orientation changes and whether you express all/any part of your orientation is somewhat linked to environment.
Besides, being bisexual doubles your chances of a date on Saturday night.
(apologies to Woody Allen)
Agreed, what with Billie/Jennifer denying her own bosexualness and all. We need to get someone as loud as Becky to represent us. 😛
Danny almost was that. Almost.
Loud? Polite disagreement.
Seriously, a Ukelele can only pump out so many decibels.
I’m sure an electric ukulele exists somewhere in the world.
My friend Google agrees with you.
Ahem. It’s pronounced, “my friend Google.”
Does your friend Google know where it is?
Because it must be destroyed.
Bisexual reader rise up!
Readers*
I really need to either proofread my shit or not start drinking an hour and a half before the next strip goes up
Ruth and Danny: “There are dozens of us! Dozens!”
Every time I hear Ruth and Danny mentioned in the same sentence I have a heart attack.
In all seriousness, though, I’d be kinda interested in seeing a friendship between them that doesn’t end in one of them dying.
Their ship name is Act with Integrity.
I mean there’s apparently at least one Walkyverse-adjacent alternate reality where that ship actually sailed, going by the kids-from-alternate-futures storyline in Joyce and Walky! The kid on the far left in this strip is apparently theirs. (SPOILERS for basically the entire old continuity)
**stands up**
….
Okay, now what?
Uhhhh… dang, I didn’t plan past this part.
*whistles awkwardly*
Wanna get coffee?
Sure!
My usual order is a large cold brew, extra sweet, with cream.
It’s a quarter past eleven, I ain’t gettin’ up for diddly squat.
Fair
for the record, butts is not constrained by the gender binary
and for what it’s worth i have rued this comic’s relative dearth of man-ass on more than one occasion*blinks sleepily* I’m up, I’m up
*falls back to sleep*
Can I come along to hang out anyways? (my bi-ness is pretty repressed and only is explored in private with myself)
No you can’t ask them to stand up! They won’t know how to sit down again!
I do not understand straight people, never mind that I’m like 95% sure that I am one.
that 5% though? UNH SO GAY
Why am I hearing Willem Dafoe’s line from boondock saints, “what a fag”?
On that note I saw the most gay fag ever last year. Seriously I should have taken a picture. Neighbors had collected their fallen sticks, bundled them up and tied them with a cotton canvas strap. It was set out on their curb for compost collection (yard waste), but frankly looked like a decoration from better homes and gardens. It was… artisanal. It put a smile on my face to see how much pride these folks had in their home. It was very literally: the gayest faggot I had ever seen.
You’d think a space unicorn is rainbow-infused already but nooooo
I smell a metaphor, and that metaphor is crucial.
No, I think Joyce is doing this one intentionally on purpose.
And I think Sarah speaks for us all.
Sarah: *epic eye-roll*
Sarah’s eye roll is perfect.
The JoyDot is strong with this one.
As is the Sarah eyeroll.
Right there with you, Sarah.
The power is already going to Robin’s head, this can only end poorly. So what are the actual odds that Robin gives Becky an A without turning anything in?
Pretty high I think. As in I doubt she’ll even look at it or for that matter read more than the first paragraph of anyone’s essay.
I can’t see her being very diligent about grading papers, writing tests, or keeping any sort of records at all, so maybe she ends up giving everyone an A because then she won’t have to do any work and will be super popular with her students.
And if called on it, she will claim that avoiding responsibility and being popular ARE the core tenets of politics, so really everyone’s getting a great education from her.
Had a teacher in highschool that gave everyone As. Someone dobbed her in for it. Next semester everyone gets Bs.
Well, that would be another lesson in politics, wouldn’t it.
Then in the following class, somebody turns in a Snickers bar instead of the homework and gets an A. Then a couple more people start handing in confections instead of assignments. It turns out Robin took the job as a long con to accumulate free candy.
You don’t make out with your friends? Jeez Kinda rude. That’s just pals being pals. How can you say you’re friends if you don’t know what their tongue tastes like.
You have an interesting circle of friends Yoto. Mine are very liberal but still not that liberal.
i can’t tell if you’re joking but this is actually pretty common in queer social circles, i have a bunch of friends who are exactly like this
I’m absolutely joking. I’ve only made out with one of my friends and she lives in new york. I am VERY touch starved and I’d love some casual lovin’.
Though I also really would rather not kiss guys. Kinda ruins my joke to say that but you seemed honestly curiousWhile the punchline landed beautifully (Joyce looking vaguely in Dorothy’s direction while she says that, hah) the first half of the joke jumped a little flat. Who are those two ladies? Are they relevant to politics?
They’re characters from Parks and Recreation, though I couldn’t tell you any more than that since I’ve never watched it.
I have a feeling that Robin focusing on a character named “Leslie” is probably significant, though…
I mean, some of us can only hope…
LEslie Knope is the protagonist of the series, and is involved in politics. She’s basically Dorothy in both looks and personality give or take a few years.
Ann Perkins is a nurse and her best friend. Leslie is ostensibly straight but has a suspicious habit of constantly heaping praise upon Ann’s looks. Like, just at random, anything she says to Ann is about 50% likely to include an aside about her attractiveness apropos of nothing.
Leslie Knope is the protagonist of the mockumentary sitcom show “Parks and Recreaction”, and… yes! They’re relevant to politics – tangibly – in that Leslie Knope works with the government as part of her city’s Parks and Rec division, with the endgame of eventually becoming president. Of, like, the United States.
I so want to read Dorothy’s essay.
Sorta. They’re characters from Parks and Recreation, a great sitcom that certainly touches on politics in that Leslie, the main character, is a dedicated public servant and most of the show revolves around her trying to get the government to do good.
That said, I actually agree with Robin here that Leslie and Ann don’t have to be read as being romantically linked. Strong, poaitive platonic relationships where both parties aren’t afraid to say “I love you” to the other are good things to see in media, IMO.
I too would like to see more strong and even intimate platonic friendships, but in my experience, fandom – hungry for representation or just plain thirsty like Daisy – isn’t having that. :p
I think Joyce is looking up as she says that, actually. If Dorothy was right behind her, she wouldn’t even have been in her peripheral vision.
They’re major characters in Parks and Recreation, namely the main character and her best friend.
Parks and Rec is a sitcom about government workers, and in addition to being just a generally good show it neatly encapsulates a certain perception of politics common to the american liberal. There’s a lot to unpack and it could be used as a very good teaching aid.
It’s a shame you don’t have internet, Mr D, otherwise you could use google.
Sometimes, it’s just more fun to see what other people have to say on a subject before you go looking.
Agreed. Google results always feel really sterile and terse to me, and I often forget what I read moments later. An actual human person sharing knowledge directly makes my brain store the info much more easily. Also, I don’t trust it not to somehow be phrased as right-wing propaganda, for some reason.
Yeah, fun to make other people do the work.
What’s the internet?
they’re characters in a show called Perks and Racks, Leslie Knope is a scatterbrained ferret who keeps almost dying from her compulsive habit of chewing on electric cables and Ann Perkins is this abrasive nyctosaurus pterosaur who’s on a time-travelling mission to stop the Chicxulub meteor and got lost. It’s a pretty great show.
I don’t casually admire the female form. I expertly do it. Professional admiring.
And we thank you for that professionalism and the work that you do.
I’m not a professional, but a hobbyist of near Olympic standard.
An amateur, in the etymologically correct sense of the term.
Yes, some things are far too important to be casual about. Give them the attention they deserve!
It’s always nice to see a professional at work.
It’s only professional if you get paid for it.
You, sir, are a hobbyist at best!
Absolutely not! Pay is _not_ a requirement to be a professional. It can be an indicator, but is neither sufficient nor a requirement of being professional. Professional has more to do with a calling to a specific activity, that may (often) have an associated code of behaviour.
Does she get the same rush from saying “class dismissed” as he does when she “casually admires” Leslie?
I can’t tell if Joyce is making a deliberate joke here or not, since even for her, that’s…
A “neat friendship” eh? At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I think Joyce just might be hinting at some sort of mild desire to smooch on Dorothy once or twice.
Yeah, is it me, or is this the first actual author hint/foreshadowing that Joyce is attracted to Dorothy?
I know we’ve had all Walky’s jokes, and Becky’s pile of jealously, and Joyce’s weirdly passionate disapproval of Walky as Dorothy’s boyfriend, but all that was coming from flawed, immature characters who couldn’t see past their own noses in those situations. The framing of that last panel is a deliberate author move, which hits very differently.
I agree, but I may just be wearing shipping goggles. The only characters I’m more interested in seeing as a Pair are Ruth and Carla, so I’ll leap at any crumb of fuel.
My goggles are so thicc at this point that I don’t even need my phone turned on to surf internet porn.
I think the first actual hint was when she drew a comic with characters that obviously stood in for her and Dorothy, and then announced out of the blue that the characters certainly did not have feelings for each other.
“Here’s two very nice young ladies who definitely are not romantically entangled why did you even ask look they made out once for like five minutes and that’s it and they both go to the same school.”
Yeah, I think we’ve definitely moved beyond “funny misunderstandings” at this point. Willis has been laying the hints on thick enough lately that I think it’s not just a joke anymore. What is novel to me about this particular strip is that Dorothy’s expression her almost seems to suggest that she actually reciprocates– which I was absolutely not expecting to happen.
As for Joyce potentially being bi, though, that’s been hinted at since… at least 2013.
The comic immediately after the one you linked is extra evidence.
Yeah, but then there was this one where she apparently realized that the feelings she’d been having for women weren’t “lustful in nature.”
I choose to interpret that strip as Joyce being able to contextualise the sexual urges she’s been feeling within the heteronormative framework she was given growing up. Feelings about Girl™? No idea what to do with this. Feelings about Boy™? Yeah, that scans.
I’ve read the whole comic and I don’t remember this at ALL. Thanks for the reminder! I still think the comic thing was the first instance of real hint at romantic feelings for Dorothy, though.
I think the first was the “friend of Dorothy” joke back in the Whiteboard Dingdong Bandit chapter.
Hell, as early as Strip 2, Joyce was talking about wanting more boxes.
Which is a weird fucking euphemism, by the way.
I don’t understand the boxes thing BUT I did go back and start from the beginning and a few strips in, as Becky is walking away from Joyce, she tells Joyce not to let anyone change her. In between Becky and Joyce, we see Dorothy for the first time.
Damn, Willis! That planning!
The dance halls and the galleries
And betting at the OTB
Synchronized like magic
Good Friends, you and me!–Joni Mitchell (with Michael McDonald and Thomas Dolby)
Yesterday’s Dina was the greatest facial expression in DoA‘s history, but today’s Sarah-face is a pretty close second
Sarahs face is a pretty accurate representation of how I’m feeling about this comic as of late.
I get she’s meant to be rolling her eyes, but my dumb ass brain initially jumped to “damn, did someone let a rank one rip?”
It could be both.
Oh kid, of course you do.
What a neat friendship
What a beautiful Doroyce! chew
Just gals being pals. Gal pals. Real friends. Like Joyce is a real friend of Dorothy.
Becky could just write her paper arguing that Leslie is not necessarily bisexual because she is actually a lesbian who hasn’t accepted it yet, and all her male love interests are just beards.
I don’t know that she’d be able to come up with a very convincing argument for it, but it would be a response to the topic!
and a very well executed, if rather pointed, nudge at the person who assigned it.
I’m with Becky on this one.
I don’t think Leslie’s necessarily bi (or necessarily straight, I don’t have a good read on her other than that I will go with canon and assume she likes men), but I’m with Becky, let’s not write essays about un-queering characters.
oh my god now i ship Jot.
ONE OF US!
ONE OF US!
ONE OF US!
TWO OF US!
TWO OF US!
TWO OF US!
…riiiiding nowhere
But if Jot wears jorts, or a skort, I am going to burn the eastern seaboard from Nunavut to freaking Chilé.
Huh, never would have considered Nunavut to be on the eastern seaboard.
Most wouldn’t consider Chilé there either, but if you go far enough, there it is.
I think one of the best things Parks & Recreation does as a sitcom is show a ton of positive relationships that are not romantic in nature. Not only do you have Leslie and Ann as a good example, but also Leslie and Ron, who are two people the show portrays as straight who have an extremely close relationship but also know that they wouldn’t last 2 seconds as a romantic couple. The episode of Ben’s bachelor party is probably one of my favorite episodes of any sitcom, because it’s a group of guys being mutually supportive and positive and having a good time in doing so. That’s the sort of thing I want to see in my media- strong supportive platonic relationships. I think that too often the search for romantic love ends up devaluing those, and it’s why I dislike it when fans twist relationships, gay or straight, to read a romantic interest that doesn’t have to be there for the relationship to be incredibly meaningful.
Chris is definitely bi, though.
I wish I could upvote this. Media really devalues strong or intimate platonic relationships. Parks and Rec really was ahead of its time in that regard. Not many shows have properly done it since.
Thiiiiiiiiiis.
Turk and JD are still one of my favorite pair of friends in anything ever. It’s just guy love. Between two guys.
For real. I’ve always thought that that show had either the most wholesome depiction of a platonic male relationship between two straight guys secure in their masculinity and sexuality that I’ve ever seen (which is both rare and extremely positive), OR they’re both in denial about their sexuality and should just hurry up and get together, maybe form a poly group with Carla and Elliott if they’re down.
Either reading seems plausible, and I kind of like them both. Scrubs was one of my favorite shows growing up, but the dynamic between Turk and JD as well as the mentor/mentee (or father/son-figure) role between JD and Dr. Cox were my favorite parts of it. Some of the comedy didn’t necessarily age well of course, but that’s kind of par for the course for a show from the mid-2000s. Man, I loved that show–it always makes me happy when I see that people still remember it.
“That’s the sort of thing I want to see in my media- strong supportive platonic relationships. I think that too often the search for romantic love ends up devaluing those, and it’s why I dislike it when fans twist relationships, gay or straight, to read a romantic interest that doesn’t have to be there for the relationship to be incredibly meaningful.”
This. As an aro-spec ace, I really can’t see why every meaningful relationship has to be romantic when a platonic relationship can be just as deep. (Especially as I don’t always see the romantic overtones that are intended to be in a work) Why can’t people “just” be friends?
Thank you.
It’s frustrating to see Leslie and Anne’s deeply loving platonic relationship devalued. They’re both pretty open about their (disappointing, according to Leslie) lack of attraction to each other. I may be a romo-ace but honestly I yearn for a friendship like that in the worst way. I have friend-ships the way many fans ship romantic pairings. ;;
I just wanna say. That is one of the cutest Joyce faces Willis has drawn yet
Robin, do not assign your students an essay filled with nonsense lies projected from your lie centers and closeted status. That is terrible. You have committed your first Professorial Sin.
Teaching politics?
You mean the politics of teaching, or the teaching of politics? Or the politics of teaching politics? Or maybe the teaching of the politics of teaching politics? Or (gazing at navel) … jeeze, when did that get so deep? Or maybe the ethics of teaching (in politics)?
I’m not sure. I kindof lost track.
Assigning your students an essay filled with nonsense lies borne of the fact that you, Robin DeSanto, are buried in the closet and mistake the cracked open door for the headlight of an oncoming train is a Professorial Sin even if you are teaching them how to manipulate the levers of Hell World with terrible grim efficacy. It’s not on.
Well put.
Right up there with sleeping with your students, even if they are (as in Jason and Sal’s case) (1) of legal age and (2) literally smokin’ hot.
(my own tastes run more to Penny, though. aside from that whole ‘evil’ thing.)
I’ve never watched it so I’ve got no idea if it’s full of nonsense lies or not, though it’s definitely coming out of her own denial.
The bigger Professorial sin might be assigning an essay based on a long tv series that many of them have likely never seen. Some will be fans with opinions and others will write some nonsense based on wikipedia and a few youtube clips.
They’ll have seen it if they did the previous homework: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2020/comic/book-11/02-look-straight-ahead/homework/
Which, yeah, is a ridiculous homework assignment, especially in the timeframe given. But this assignment isn’t out of nowhere.
I’d forgotten about that. So it’s a larger problem then.
No, no, assigning Parks and Rec as homework is, according to the sacred texts, totally fine. It’s what a Cool Professor is allowed to do.
Writing essays that insist certain characters cannot be read as queer, on the other hand, is not cool and does not get a pass.
WAIT HOLY SHIT THAT SARAH EYEBROW. God, what a perfect eyebrow raise. It belongs in the Louvre.
You can practically hear her eyes rolling, it’s just too perfect.
today’s Sarah is the Mona Lisa of eyerolls
I don’t think I’ve ever been as fond of Sarah as I am now. That face in the last panel is the Helen Of Troy of eyerolls.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand, Bi erasure is obviously bad and people should avoid doing it. On the other hand, I really do detest the push to romanticize or sexualize every intimate relationship between people. I certainly don’t agree with Robin’s presumed motives, given that she’s clearly homophobic and in denial, but I generally agree with her overall point.
This too. :/
I’d say there’s a difference between not being interested in shipping something, which is fine, and trying to insist somebody can’t possibly be anything but straight, which is what Robin’s doing. You could easily argue Leslie is bi AND still think she and Ann are better friends than they would be romantic. Hell, shipping characters doesn’t mean erasing all strong friendships. Characters can have other friends. To use Leslie and Ann as an example, Leslie and Ben can still be friends. So can Ann and Chris. Not to mention people like April, Andy, Donna, Ron in his own way. There’s options.
And I’m not saying this is what you’re doing, but I’ve noticed people are a LOT more likely to complain ‘why can’t we just enjoy a strong friendship’ when it’s an M/M or F/F ship.
To be clear, I’m criticizing people’s tendency for shipping from primarily an asexual perspective: this insistence on romantic and sexual relationships being the natural evolution for pair bonding causes considerable damage to asexual people in particular. I’m criticizing the tendency regardless of which way they swing it, although I tend to find myself criticizing LGBT shippers more often because not only do they insist on highly implausible ships more often, but they often exude an insufferable air of moral righteousness while doing it, and I will readily admit that the combination of moral righteousness and self serving behavior triggers me. Straight shippers can certainly be obnoxious, but I’ve never seen one act like they’re fighting oppression or whatever while doing it.
Okay, now I’m saying it – criticizing LGBT shippers more often for the same thing (shipping canon friends) is a double standard and seriously uncool. “Highly implausible” ships are everywhere in M/F ships and claiming otherwise is just not factual. Neither is the claim LGBT shippers are the ones who claim moral righteousness. F/M shippers do it all the time, usually co-opting either feminist or anti-racist talking points to do it.
I agree shipping isn’t activism (though discussions on the way M/M ships are portrayed in fandom can address important issues regarding representation, fan media portrayal, etc.), but neither is criticizing people for shipping things, particularly when you are conscious you’re doing it to a harsher standard with LGBT shippers.
I understand not wanting to see friendships devalued, but just shipping people who are canonically friends doesn’t inherently devalue friendship. As I said above – characters can have other friends. Say Dorothy and Joyce do get together – that doesn’t change that Joyce is friends with Sarah, Sal, Walky, Jennifer, Becky, Ethan, or Joe. Nor does it change Dorothy’s friendships with Sierra, Joe, Amber, Sarah, or even people like Danny or “reluctantly” Becky.
The problem isn’t devaluing friendships, although that’s certainly a conversation that could be had. The problem is limiting what friendships can be, and pushing them into the relationship box with the justification of “they do X together”, or whatever.
As for why I criticize LGBT shippers more: I simply see them do it more. Every serious male friendship in an anime or video game will have throngs of people pushing it as a gay ship even with there being absolutely no inkling of evidence that either character is even slightly gay. Also, these F/M shippers that cite feminist or anti-racist talking points? If they exist, I’ve never seen one. However, I’ve seen plenty of instances of gay shippers who act like they’re merely revealing a ship that the developers were too homophobic to include explicitly, and these people will accuse you of homophobia too if you disagree with their specious interpretation. Straight shippers can be, and often are absolute twats, but I’ve never had one call me a bigot for saying that their ship is nonsense. Frankly, I expect you to call me one too for doubling done on my criticism, because that’s just how these things go, in my experience. In fact, I consider it so incredibly likely that I’m not gonna even bother coming back to this comment later. Goodbye.
What the hell kinda response is that? “I’m just gonna assume you’ll call me a bigot without your input and then treat you like you’ve already done it, goodbye and implicitly go fuck yourself”? This ain’t Twitter.
We could have had a pleasant conversation on the nature of a lack of representation and how that can make folks read hard into relationships to the point where platonic friendships *have* to become romantic in such a way that while they’re never in danger of going extinct you could conceivably argue we do have kind of a problem distinguishing between the two, and instead you had to act like you’re being oppressed.
Sometimes it’s about seeking representation, I get that.
Sometimes, IMO, it’s just about “I think these two characters/actors are hawt and I want to fantasize about them bangin’.”
Yeah. Nothing wrong with either of those things. There’s ten million reasons for shipping something. Other include ‘It reminds me of me and my SO’. ‘I think they’d have an interesting dynamic, even if its an unhealthy one’. ‘I think there could be a story here’ ‘These two are my favourites’ ‘They make cute aesthetics’ and that’s all off the top of my head.
I mean, it’s a pretty rude thing to call people’s ships nonsense because you don’t think it will happen or w/e. That’s been established as a big Fandom No since forever. If you come at a ship with the intent of validating it with how likely it is going to be canon, you’re gonna miss a lot of really, really good stories. Not all ships are based on ‘oh this is totes gonna be canon’ or what have you. A lot of shipping is people just finding two characters with good personalities/baggage that they want to explore dealing with, along with the issue/problem of love.
When I was younger I loved trawling ff dot net for fics of Hinata Hyuuga with all sorts of crack ships because I adored her character and her baggage. Not to mention the best fics could write well enough that I genuinely found the romance actually working, even if the two characters never had canon interactions. It was so interesting seeing how different personalities would work.
I can understand what you mean, and while I think it’s worth saying that people who do X can still be friends instead of romantic, I also think it’s worth pointing out there’s lots of things that friends AND couples do and that most couples are basically ‘friendship + romantic/sexual attraction’.That’s where lots of non canon ships come from – not insisting that something is canon, but adding that element of attraction.
There usually isn’t anything explicitly stating the character is straight either. Just being to attracted to a woman does not a straight man make. As for seeing them do it more, I have to wonder if that’s down to where you’re looking because there is definitely no shortage of F/M shippers with major fan preferred ships.
I find it difficult to believe you’ve never seen one considering how huge some of the ships are, but I’ll take you in good faith and say again it may be down to where you’re looking and say, again, acting like you’re just revealing the truth is par for the course for F/M shippers. I’ve seen ten million of them talking about how X ship was supposed to be canon but the writers backed out without any source that that’s true, and I’ve definitely seen folks called racist or sexist for not shipping something (or, in the case of lots of ships involving black folks, racist for shipping them ‘why can’t they be a cool single person?’. Usually there’s a preferred white ship involved there).
I’m not interested in defending a comment I didn’t make. Bye.
Also, pro tip – if you don’t wanna be called a homophobe, maybe stop going around telling people you criticize LGBT ships more frequently for reasons that are equally true of F/M ships. Might be helpful.
Bad flashbacks: I had a professor who insisted we all listen to Don Imus and comment on it. Cramming up on someone’s favorite show for a grade blows no matter what it is.
In this case it makes some sense. Parks and Rec is both a generally entertaining show and also a show with a lot of political baggage to unpack and dig into.
Of course, there’s a difference between “analyze this show’s depiction of politics” and “give me an essay validating my own anxieties”.
It’s also bad here because any opinion on this topic would need to be based on a broad knowledge of the show. Analyzing the depiction of politics in a particular episode would be reasonable. Doing so for the show in general isn’t. Some of them might be fans, while others would need to watch multiple seasons to form any kind of coherent opinion. By Friday.
And honestly, it’s kind of unlikely that most of them have seen it: On our current timeline, it ended when they were 12 or 13.
Pretty sure she assigned watching it to them in a previous class.
Is it just me or is Dorothy looking particularly adorable?
It’s not just you, I promise. She’s lookin’ perty good.
The art is just generally looking good lately
Plaid button-downs are one of my weaknesses, it’s at least partly that.
It a long riverboat journey, the one Joyce and Dorothy are on and, by the looks of it, Sarah really thinks that she should be paid to be forced to be a spectator!
Robin, I realize that Leslie Knope is a politician, but don’t you think this essay subject is less suited to politics than it is for, um gender studies?
Given that this is probably doubling as a dig at Leslie, I think it counts as office politics.
These kids are going into debt for life, just to get the privilege of experiencing… this?!?
Not under President Jake Manley they’re not!
Sarah is always relatable, but especially here
How the hell did Robin even get this job? She has literally no qualifications to be a professor, and is just, like… the worst person.
She walked in wearing a suit and asked a few strategic questions. Add in a clipboard and you’ve got a proper Bavarian fire drill.
If you’ve got a clipboard and a purposeful expression, the world is yours to explore.
“Hi, I’m a former politician. I understand that a low-energy job in academia is considered part of the retirement package?”
Professor Nicholson departed on short notice to get his own cable news program, so the college was in a bind, way behind, willing to make a deal. https://www.dumbingofage.com/2020/comic/book-11/02-look-straight-ahead/endeavor/
Her qualification for teaching a politics class is having been an elected federal level politician
That logic also qualifies a cancer patient to surgically remove a brain tumor.
Or maybe the tumor itself to be the surgeon… I mean, DeSanto was the one removed from politics.
Even after burning her bridges with her party and staff she still probably would have been re-elected if she hadn’t dropped out for personal reasons. She removed herself from politics, by her own choice
Though apparently only because of the sympathy vote from the high-profile crime involving her campaign manager.
Last we heard before then she was so far behind as to not be a threat.
Short term the students in her class get a dubious education, long term the University gets to add her to their brag sheet of why you should buy education from them.
It was either this or think tank work. And since think tanks are bound and determined to drive national policy, I think we dodged a bullet here.
Sarah’s got the look of “I can’t believe I need this for my law degree, FML”
Someone needs to clear the air with Joyce, even if they’re completely wrong. She’s starting to sound like Tobias Fünke.
Robin really wants to get her class to watch Parks and Rec, doesn’t she?
Its a great show!
Whatever you say, Joyce ♡. It’s sweet to see how her friends are aroun her.
As always, Sarah is me.
Wait, is there a grav of that Sarah face? If not, can we have it? Please, Willis.
here you go. (it’s png so the transparency should be preserved?)
ALL the gracias!
my pleasure, i’m sure you’ll put it to good use ^^
Yes, I’m SURE your faith in humanity will not result in utter disappointment.
See, it’s appropriate already. :p
oh my god, it’s… it’s perfect
You did an amazing job. ^_^
you know… yes and no?
it’s very unbalanced, i see it now (mine too lol, nevermind)
so, maybe you don’t care but here’s a second, zoomed-in, version that makes maximal use of the available resolution and is now almost square (although you can also crop it directly on your gravatar profile i think)
take your pick i guess!
No, no, the original one is better, because the way it aligns with anyone I might be replying to – it’s a well-aimed eyeroll.
oh right yes well that was of course completely deliberate.
Leslie’s straight, but Ann’s a lesbian.
I had to Google this to find out who these people are. I guess I’m one of the few souls who’s never watched Parks & Recreation.
I honestly couldn’t tell you if Parks & Recreation was even broadcast in the UK.
Wait: Had Joyce been talk to us, readers? Just look where she’s looking at last panel…
Is Joyce able to *tcham tcham tcham* break the 4th wall?
I feel like at least one persons essay will just turn into Parks and Rec fanfiction and that person will get an A for it.
Becky, at Cambridge University, at least one professor in the 1960s was known to toss exam transcripts down the stairs and, the further they got, the higher their grade. That is Higher Educational standards for you!
Last panel Sarah is sick of good cheer, she hungers for your misery…
The next slipshine is gonna be called “Neat Friendship” isn’t it?
Nice panel all around, they all look cute.
But… what is going on with Dorothy’s arms. Her left hand is invisible and her coat is mangled, I didn’t notice till now that she’s a mutant! And she has no right arm at all. Nor a shoulder, for that matter. Perhaps Dorothy is Head Alien in this multiverse, and this is the first time I’ve noticed the visual clues???
Or, she’s putting on her coat, and I’m just not recognizing that. Thoughts?
I think it’s putting the coat on, though it’s weird she already has the backpack on.
she’s putting on her coat.
(compare with panel 1 Ruth a few weeks ago, i remember because it also took me a minute to understand what was going on with her arms)
On any other character (ok first: i didn’t even notice), but for example on Walky it would make total sense. I have watched people do things in a completely bonkers way, for no evident reason. Given that Dorothy is generally about logic and efficiency, it’s surprising to see her struggle into her jacket with the pack still on. At the same time, I have been on the move before, and walked a block single strapping my bag one shoulder, then the other, to take my jacket off. I doubt it would sit well or feel ok gping the other way though.
Oh my god it’s happening.
I choose to believe Robin can mispronounce “Ann” as “Anne” and that’s how she thinks it’s spelled, rather than the comic having a typo.
Also, prepare to read some extremely weak arguments from fifty students who can hardly take a break from writing Les/Ann fanfiction.
I want Joyce and Dorothy to happen because they would make a cute and mutually supportive couple. But I also want it to happen to see the look on Becky’s face.
I really want it to happen for the first reason you mentioned, but I also know it’d really really hurt Becky, which would suck.
Sarah’s eyeroll is EPIC 👌🤣
eh I’ll stir the pot.
1) I’m frustrated that Leslie and Anne cannot be friends who are not romantically involved but have a deep platonic connection. (Miss me with queerphobia claims, this is from a pan-romo ace perspective. I’m not at all against the ship, but the characters repeatedly verify their lack of attraction to each other in canon while also demonstrating it pretty well. Though I love how Leslie is openly disappointed about her straightness in regards to Anne. XD ) Regardless this assigned perspective and homework is really weird and manipulative from Robin.
and
2) I do not like Robin’s expression in the second panel. My instinctive reaction is that I need an adult? Its funny so don’t take my dislike too seriously but uh… if that happened IRL I would want to drop the class. x_x
tldr: I would rate Robin very poorly on ratemyprofessor.com
At least manipulative, if not Machiavellian.
So fair rating.
Am I wrong that I want Becky to become a cold political operator willing to do bad things for personal gain? I really liked it when she sold out for Robin’s campaign. Not every protagonist has to be a moral paragon.
Robin desperately wanting to believe that about herself. Sorry, about Leslie.