Yesterday the Dumbing of Age Book 6 Kickstarter launched! So far in one day we’ve funded and hit our first stretch goal of unlocking Leslie and Robin character magnets! (At launch, Jocelyne and Carla magnets were available, and these two new magnets now join them.) And now, looking forward, if we hit $35k, we’ll keep our Saturday and Sunday updates! … because even I keep forgetting that weekend strip updates were a Kickstarter stretch goal several years back that kept on getting renewed. Look, nobody wants to go back to just five days a week, so let’s hope we plow right through that marker.
This week’s Welcome to the Fuck Zone is Billie and Ruth, again, because, like, I guess we all really like those two for some reason. Look, I know just last week I said I was gonna inline the graphic here below the strip more often, but we’re all crowded out with Kickstarter stuff right now so I HAVE MADE MYSELF A LIAR. Good job, me. You jackass. You’ll have to look a few inches over to the left for your preview instead of having it front and center.
Loading ...
So today is evening out. Got its ups, its downs, breaking even at the moment.
It has its downs, and it has its… slightly less downs.
It also apparently has a lot of butts. xD
Well that’s everyday. Or everyday worth mentioning.
I love the casual acceptance Billie’s showing here. “Yeah, you were being a bongo, I kinda knew that getting into this from the start, genius”
These two have come a long way.
and yet, Billie’s still convinced she’s toxic and that Ruth is the only one she can’t hurt/make things worse.
Perhaps, but it’s been a constant two steps forward, one step back arrangement. There’s been a lot of repetition.
More of a dance, I think.
Eventually, their dance will get better and they’ll begin to move more in time and with grace. They’ll begin to enjoy each other’s company, at least I hope so.
Awwww, isn’t that what we all want; someone to be intensely dysfunctional with?
“Looking for baggage that goes with mine.”
I should tell you
I’ve got baggage too.
I should tell you
Baggage, wine and beer!
And with these two, also cheap whiskey. But hopefully less of that.
Oh my god, Billie, hug her.
Subscribe to Slipshine, you’ll get your wish.
But only if you want naked hugging? Or at least nakedness with the hugging?
I mean, I’m not against it, but I want regular hugs before sexy naked hugs.
Wow, that is like the best Gravatar for that post.
I just want some sort of “safe enough or work” hugging I don’t have to subscribe to some sort of erotica for.
Sexy is not a currency that is always traded in the fictional country of Catlandia. Or whatever I decide to call it next time.
Yes, please. I need this complex of assortment of feels to collapse into something simpler so my face can figure out how to react
Noooooooo, they’re right back where they started! Damn you, Willis.
Better than where they were two comics ago.
This is how their suicide pact began – both of them feeling poisonous to everyone else. The fact it’s better than when Chin Gramps showed up does NOT reassure me. It makes it worse! *flails*
It’s not like this is really a backslide. Ruth’s response – while echoing earlier, much more troubling statements – feels closer to a typical reaction after blowing up at someone and feeling awful about it. It doesn’t feel like downward spiral, just a bit wobbly, if that makes sense. Especially considering how much work she has ahead of her.
And Billie hasn’t had any therapy yet. Her drinking, codependency, and depression are still haven’t been addressed at all yet. She’s doing a bit better because she’s not worried about Ruth dying now, and she’s able to find things to do to help, but that only gets her back to pre-blackmail levels of stability.
I’d say they’re not managing all that badly, considering the crap that just went down.
I’d feel much better if this didn’t parallel the start of the suicide pact in the dialogue so much. It’s not unsurprising considering the points you mentioned, but damn if it’s not concerning.
If they get through Clint’s visit without an actual suicide attempt, I’m counting it as a victory. They’ve both got therapy scheduled and can get back to putting themselves back together once he’s gone.
Also, I think it’s important that last time, they were both in tears and called themselves poison (i.e. would do active harm to other people). This is a couple of degrees less intense: not good enough to DESERVE anybody. Still not ideal, but I think trending in the right direction.
And honestly, nobody *deserves* any specific other person anyway. The belief that one can (from innumerable tales where the guy ‘wins’ the girl’) is the entire cause of the concept of ‘friendzoning’ and the men’s rights movement.
I still don’t understand how someone could feel comfortable enough with someone to do the sexytimes with them if they aren’t someone you’d consider a friend.
Like not that people should feel like they have to sleep with their friends if there isn’t a common interest in that regard, but it feels like it’d be really weird to get “intimate” with someone you aren’t actually intimate with at all.
@Krys, “friendzoning” refers instead to the belief of some men that they are entitled to sleep with females they are attracted to, and if that woman just wants to be friends, they complained about being “friendzoned.”
Right. I get that much, but it seems to carry over into the excuse that its “because guys bother to befriend women” that the problem is, or something. Or at least it seems to go hand in hand with the thought of “sleeping with friends makes the friendship go weird and the sex even weirder but not in a hot way”.
When I guess generally the obvious answer is actually “Hey dude, its pretty clear you just like them in a way they obviously don’t like you. It’s not a friendship issue, just a you not knowing when to accept the fact that other people are allowed to not actually find you attractive in a sexual way issue.”
It’s not so much that they’re back where they started, it’s more that they never left.
Like, the whole mutual belief that they are poisonous and can’t be trusted in other relationships has been a codependent theme for them since the start and by far one of the least healthy things about their relationship. And they’ve never gotten rid of that even as they built healthier stuff around it.
i always want to disaprove of this relationship but it remoinds me of some of my own horribly toxic but net positive relationship experiences
‘Horribly Toxic but Net Positive’……you just summed up (nearly, one or two outliers) every relationship I’ve ever had in a succinct, to the point phrase. Definitely going to use that from now on.
Not right in the head, my best guess is BPD or something like it, need intimacy, of one sort of another, to verify my self worth. The people don’t have to be good for me in any way or even actually give a damn about me, they just have to exist and not object too loudly to my naive devotion.
I identify strongly with Billie and also have trouble deciding if any of this is a good thing for her. Taking care of Ruth seems to be the only thing keeping her going, that’s especially clear with how nonplussed she seemed to be that Ruth’s treatment is actually working. The arrival of ‘Sir’ at least gives her problems to solve and a reason to be positive, so she should be okay for the time being, but there’s always the other shoe ready to drop and I just don’t see any stable or happy ending for the BOTH of them in sight.
DAMMIT BILLIE YOU WERE DOING GOOD THERE FOR A SEC DONT RESTART THE DEATH SPIRAL
Ruth sounds like we didn’t thin Howard could be found. He probably hides when “sir” yells, so that explains it
Her eyes also go black to green, so I think it’s at least partly just relief that Billie didn’t desert her.
My read: She’s not surprised that Billie was able to find Howard, she’s surprised Billie was looking for him, because she expected Billie to just abandon her forever.
That’s how I read it too. I like the detail that it takes a moment for that information to sink in – one panel of black eyes and then one of green.
I like how Ruth apologizes immediately, and how Billie is being straight up saying ‘yeah you crossed the line there, that was too much.’ There’s a respect for the fact that these are boundaries that are being crossed there? Like, Ruth best be careful that this doesn’t continue in a pattern, right? But the fact that Ruth is ‘That wasn’t okay’ and Billie is also ‘That wasn’t okay feels like a good sign to me?
But that might just be me being happy to see Ruth’s green eyes.
Absolutely. They both recognized that there was a problem and calmly addressed it and apologized where needed. If all adults could manage that, divorce might cease to exist.
(that might be a slight exaggeration but you get what i mean)
Honestly they’re a very good match for each other except for the major issue of their mutual alcohol dependency. So once they hopefully decide to take care of that…hopefully soon…
There’s also the power dynamic issue but if Billie actually does transfer that’s no longer a thing.
There was a power dynamic issue up till the point where there was a relationship. After that, Billie was the one in charge.
Yeah god bless <3
Actually, you both deserve intimidate support and long-term safety and happiness, because you’re depressed nineteen-year-olds in a difficult situation, but I guess that’s not as morbidly pithy as what Billie said.
Who would Billie trust to support either of them, though?
Hopefully in the not too distant future, her new therapist might earn her trust.
I’ll be interested to see how Willis depicts their therapy (if he does so). I’ve hardly ever seen realistic representations of it in fiction.
*plays Bad Company’s “Feel Like Makin’ Love” on the hacked Muzak*
Billie’s posture/arms look kinda weird and unnatural, and when I tried to replicate the position, it feels really defensive. That, plus the turned-away body language, and she’s walking away, ending the interaction pretty lickity-split, say Billie is not feeling good re Ruth rn. She’s being kinda blase and chill in speech and face, but it’s not reflected in body.
Facing away, not looking directly to her even when talking to her. Arms crossed. Yes. Billie was badly hurt by Ruth, but that happens in relationships. Only people you love can hurt you that much.
She’s done what she can for Ruth right now and is going off to heal up a bit. Once the Clintster is gone, they can talk further and make up. Until then, Ruth needs to talk to her brother and then face this new reality.
I’m glad to see this ship, while it has some holes, isn’t sunk yet.
GODDAMMIT WILLIS, YOU’RE MAKING ME CRY.
Stop it. Stop it right now!
*sniffle*
those eyes
NO I’M NOT CRYING I’VE JUST GOT SOMETHING IN MINE NO YOU SHUT UP
Yay, my ship is sailing!!
Observe Billie’s body language here – closed, armored, arms crossed under her chest. She falls into it after indicating where Howard is, and only drops it when she’s walking away, leaving the conversation… with that final bit over her shoulder, opening up a little (in a dysfunctional way).
…auuuuugh you two, I still can’t decide whether you’re good or bad for each other, but I can say for a fact you need each other. Now please get some goddamn therapy.
(yes, yes, I know they are)
Also, dilemma. I want to get the Jocelyne magnet off the Kickstarter, but I don’t use magnets, like, ever. Does anyone have a creative use for a magnet, or should I be content with a doodle of her in my book? (We get to choose which character we want doodled, right? Am new to this DoA Kickstarter thing.)
You can use a magnet as a stencil. Or just keep them on a fridge to look cute.
Stick it to a fridge or microwave.
You can give them out as really disappointing Halloween candy?
Glue it to something, like your rollerblades, or your binder, or somebody’s face.
Sick it on the tailgate of your car, and see how long it lasts before somebody steals it.
When Billie’s good, she’s great.
The WttFZ preview makes me smile for completely non-hot-naked-chicks-related reasons.
Pictures of hot naked chicks are a dime a dozen. Pictures of blissfully content snuggles are worth their weight in gold (assuming they’re printed out, since pixels kinda lack mass).
I’m so happy her eyes are back. Just that small moment broke right through. And I hope Ruth isn’t the only one being treated for depression. Billie needs help herself.
They’re both supposed to be going to group therapy. We know Ruth did while in the Pudding Zone, but I rather doubt Billie did, given her grouchiness at the time and her established pattern of forgoing things like quitting booze.
Billie wasn’t assigned group therapy, certainly not the same as Ruth’s (the mental health centre wants them to spend time apart for a while) – they just told Billie to come back on an unspecified date this in-universe week to begin therapy.
On top of that, as far as I know Billie wasn’t put on any medication either. So she hasn’t started therapy yet and is self medicating with a depressant (alcohol) which is the opposite thing she needs right now. If she wants to help Ruth, she needs to help herself as well because depressing talk like the above is NOT what someone needs to be around fresh out of the hospital before meds are fully in her system.
Assuming Billie does actually go to her therapy and the therapist’s at all decent, they’ll start figuring out the alcoholism and other problems fairly quickly.
As for “depressing talk”, that’s the closest Billie gets to a pep talk. And I suspect Ruth takes it that way. She was expecting Billie to hate her and leave her. This is a good response.
Ah, that’s right, Billie’s hasn’t started yet. Forgot how little time it’s been in-setting.
They’re not the girlfriend’s they need but the girlfriends they deserve! There’s also something about protecting Gotham city in there but that’s optional.
So glad your avatar is Amazagirl right now.
I’m pretty sure you got that backwards.
They’re not the girlfriends they deserve yet, but they’re definitely the girlfriends they need right now.
After reading it again… yay my ship is sailing, yes, woo… but also… Is Billie… manipulating Ruth? Like on purpose? Trying to make Ruth think that she can’t be with anyone else so she has to stay with Billie?
I mean don’t get me wrong, they’re my OTP and I think their feelings for each other are super genuine, but that’s kinda fucked up, Billie.
I never would’ve even considered this interpretation until you mentioned it, but hey yeah… as the kids say, “fucked up if true”
I think Billie’s just being a little dramatic. It’s her way of comforting Ruth by saying they’re both messed up.
It’s a matter of perspective – I think Billie genuinely believes what she’s saying, and she’s just rehashing old stuff Ruth said during particularly depressed moments. “I’m poison, Billie.” It’s even plausible but doubtful that she’s just agreeing for fear that telling Ruth she deserves the world would drive Ruth away, and then who’s gonna look after her, and who’s Billie gonna cuddle?
If it was anybody else, this could be horrible manipulative negging. But, we happen to know that Billie really believes it, so, it’s just brutal mutual depression.
Yeah, basically this. “You don’t deserve anybody else” would be nasty manipulation. “We don’t” is just her self-loathing speaking.
And honestly, right now Ruth might believe what Billie’s saying a lot more than she’d believe her if she said “you deserve to be loved and supported.”
Green eyes. Take warning.
Better than red.
That’s sort of adorable.
Sort of?
Oh, man, I hadn’t even noticed Ruth lost her irises until they came back.
Nobody deserves anybody. People are not trophies you can earn by jumping through a prescribed set of hoops.
But sometimes, you meet people you connect with, who want to be with you even though sometimes you’re quite unpleasant to be around. People who recognise when you are going through a bad time and – while calling you on it – will give you another chance, and see the effort you are making to change, and think you are awesome for trying even though sometimes you fail.
“Speak not of what men deserve. For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.”
-Ursula K. LeGuin, The Dispossessed.
Well put.
Well put. Also wrong.
Why do Billie and Ruth believe they don’t deserve anybody? What unpardonable sin have either of them committed that they should believe this?
Depression is a bongo.
Billy was a drunk driver and scared off her old friends that way. She found out she couldn’t just pretend it didn’t happen at the same time she found out being a cheerleader doesn’t make her important any more. HER WHOLE WORLD UPSIDE DOWN WITH BOOZE AS HER ONLY TRUE FRIEND! Which just makes her worse!
It makes sense if you’re a teenager.
Ruth has the poison her grandpa gave her for a reason, check back the last week’s comics to see. (Was it a week? Can’t recall how many comics were with Walky and company…)
Also, you have the bestest best name.
Billie shouldn’t be depressed. She is pretty and helpful. And talented
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2014/comic/book-4/04-the-whiteboard-dong-bandit/depressed/
Nobody SHOULD be depressed. It’s not a thing that humanity as a whole deserves to have exist. You don’t have to earn ‘not deserving depression’ by being a number of positive things, you just have to like… exist.
Agreed
When I’m depressed, I find that reading Shakespeare, Milton, or Wordsworth helps. Also, Sailor Moon. I don’t know if this would work for Billy though.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re describing “sadness”, which is an emotion, while what Billie and Ruth are dealing with is Depression, which is your brain being an asshole and not letting you feel happy in response to things that would otherwise make you feel happy.
You’re right. There are a lot of times when these things don’t help.
At the same time, depression doesn’t always cancel out *everything* you enjoy. For me, something that would normally make me happy just makes things a bit less painful for a little while. If I can work up the energy and the willpower to get started, which is not a given.
It doesn’t get rid of the depression, but it’s not entirely pointless. We have to do whatever it takes to just make it through to the other side while we wait for our brain chemistry to change.
This, here.
The sin of having depression, which can make you feel worthless. One of depression’s more clever tricks is making you feel worthless BECAUSE you have depression.
Reconciliation is good! Having so low self-esteem you don’t think you deserve to be loved? Bad! Having so low esteem of your girlfriend you don’t think she deserves better than your low-self-esteem impression of yourself? Also bad!
More of the former, less of the latter, and maybe this can work!
Jeeze, Willis, you’re really playing up that green-eyes-black-eyes bit on Ruth.
Personality shift? One’s there to handle Clint and all of his abuse, the other’s there for the rest of life.
Not quite that simple. Her eyes were black at first and turned green for the first time in the “throwing up hiding from firemen” sequence, as far as I can tell. They’ve been back and forth ever since. Definitely a flag for emotional state of some kind, but exactly what is a little trickier to say.
Joyce!Voice:”Now huuuuuuug and teeeeell her that you loooooove her”
I was hoping someone else was rooting for the return of Joyce Brown, Love Ghost.
She’s always there, just off panel, wherever there are people who should be smooching, but aren’t
😀
This is good… Ruth realizes how she hurt Billie, and Billie seems to know that as well and may be willing to forgive…
Maybe. With arm crossed, and walking away for now.
Awwww! :3
I’m would like to second that Awwww.
*I would
(I’ve been up all night, and I’m running on diminshed cerebral capacity.)
Oh God Willis you’ve made us a soap opera, but even better 😀
Also, you have depressed me with this page
First of all, I don’t condone homosexuality. I view it as the Bible has written it. (Too be clear, I also don’t condone treating homosexuals like dirt. We’re all human, and that is their choice.) But Billie, good handling that. Some would say you had every reason to blow back up at Ruth, but you saw what was really happening. Props there.
A) And yet here you are, treating homosexuals like shit. The biblical view is not exactly complimentary.
B) Ruth and Billie aren’t homosexuals – they’re both bisexual.
I don’t think disapproving of homosexuality on religious grounds necessarily means treating LGBTQ people poorly, though one could be forgiven for thinking that based on the way most religious people act. I don’t have a problem with someone who says “homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying and vanity and greed, and I don’t treat LGBTQ people differently from any other sinner.”
Good for you. I do.
Deciding that consenting people in a relationship that harms no one is a sin equivalent to harmful things like lying, greed, murder, etc. that will condemn them to hell unless they beg forgiveness for it if inherently homophobic and inherently shitty.
*shrug* It’s also equivalent to getting remarried, gossiping, and watching porn. I mean, the key words to me are “harms no one”. If someone wants to believe that sinners get gosh darned to heck when they die, that’s their thing to deal with so long as they don’t bother everybody else with it overly much.
Having the right to believe something and said belief being a good, non-harmful thing are two different things.
‘I don’t hate gay people and think they deserve to be tortured, the guy I dedicated my life to worshiping and glorifying hates gay people and thinks they deserve to be tortured.’ Makes all the difference, huh?
I just don’t see the value in yelling at people over what happens in their preferred fairytales.
Because their beliefs have actual tangible effects on our lives.
There are people who use religion as an excuse for their bigotry, sure.
It’s the bit where they believe that their preferred fairytale is going to torture people for eternity for being themselves that most people find worthy of argument.
It’s a tad rude. Tends to start a fuss.
Disapproving may not *necessarily* lead to treating people poorly, but announcing said disapproval is itself treating them poorly.
Feeling the need to voice your belief that certain people are just naturally sinful and will never be able to have an non-sinful relationship to those people is treating them poorly.
First of all, I don’t condone disapproval of homosexuality, particularly not in public. It’s damaging to those of us who have been at the receiving end of far too much bigotry.
That said, once you got through your disclaimer, I appreciate you treating their relationship as valid and discussing it just like you would any other relationship. Hopefully someday soon, you can arrive at a place where you’re more understanding and accepting of queer folks.
To those of you having a strong reaction to MoC’s comment: you are totally justified and it’s important to confront homophobia wherever we see it. As I see it, there’s also another argument for engaging more gently. When I think of the people in my life and the lives of my friends who started out in a homophobic place and became more accepting, it wasn’t an immediate jump from start to finish. It developed gradually, and required some recognition of progress along the way.
You know, much more definitively than homosexuality, the bible condemns polytheism. Would you have a problem with a Christian going around telling Hindus they are all sinners, like liars and greedy people, and they’re going to treat them the same? I should hope the dehumanization in doing that is obvious, and yet it’s the exact same thing as what you said.
*smack* Idiot. Forgot the difference (although didn’t know about Ruth).
The Bible isn’t too accepting of gay ones, but it doesn’t say you should treat them less as a person. People tend to overlook that. The “Golden Rule”, which comes from the Bible, states “treat others as you would yourself” (paraphrasing that, I think).
Honestly, see my above response to that.
So, you want other people to declare that they think you’re a sinner because of the way you are, with absolutely no prompting?
I’m manually upvoting you
If you don’t believe in being a dick about it, you should consider why you brought it up even though it wasn’t relevant
Whoops, a lot more people showed up while I hadn’t refreshed the page.
Your point stands anyways.
Honestly? Because probably I’m not too bright. I often think with my brand logic, which made me thing that I’ll be misconstrued by… People I don’t even know. Yeah, I don’t commonly comment on anything and forget how polarized people can be… My bad, I’m sorry, didn’t mean to offend.
The “love the sinner, hate the sin” bit is preferable to the other way around, but when what you consider a “sin” is an unchangeable aspect of who someone is, it’s a thought better kept to yourself.
Especially considering since the most charitable reason I can imagine for including that preface would be because you were worried that without it, saying something positive about a bisexual woman – even for something totally unrelated to her sexuality – would somehow make you seem “too accepting” of people like her.
Normally I would’ve thought that identifying themselves in public so that we can spot the toxic ones and deal with them healthily is better, but the last several months of US politics have me SERIOUSLY reconsidering that viewpoint nowadays.
I really don’t need to hear that you disapprove of me, every time you notice me.
Or notice people like me in media.
I disapprove strongly of you, but I only speak up about it when you actually do something harmful. “Being yourself” and “being in a caring relationship” are not harmful, and literally no one needs to be shamed for that, especially kids and teenagers.
Personally, if I were a Christian I’d be denouncing the rich and religious leaders. The prophet Isaiah said that the sin of Sodom is that they failed to take care of the poor and needy, after all, while Jesus was totes okay with eunuchs (the accepted slang term at the time).
^^^ this.
Good to know I thought it was because they were all like Ryan Scarface. I mean they targeted men but I don’t like to think God is sexist.
Sometimes polarization is a good thing. Slavery is polarizing, at least so long as anyone comes out in the “for” camp, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. Disapproving of certain types of people just for who they are should be the same. If you don’t mean to offend, don’t judge them like that.
Oh how “gracious” of you to tolerate the existence of people you’ve arbitrarily decided are sinners.
Why, you didn’t even use a slur while passive-aggressively announcing your disapproval for what you idiotically think is a both choice, and a biblical prohibition somehow deserving greater credulity than the one against wearing mixed fabrics!
I’m afraid your pat on the back seems to have been lost in shipping, though. Oh well.
See, I’m not really a scholar of religious texts, but I’m pretty sure at least one of the times they made a big rule against that in the Bible, they were dealing with a pretty serious population problem? Or lack of a proper population anyways?
From a social standpoint, when you’re a group of wandering escaped slaves trekking around the desert looking for somewhere to settle down, you’re probably wanting to encourage a population boom to keep things going. “Sodomy” was always the bigger problem to it, as far as I know. So only as bad as one considers birth control to be, or perhaps sex out of wedlock similarly.
From a sociocultural standpoint, pretty sure the planet needs all the homosexuals it can get for a while, until population levels balance out again.
As another side note, Lesbians might very well be off the hook anyways. Cause noone in the Bible really seemed to care what they thought, felt, or generally who they even did as long as it wasn’t incest? Something like that? Well, or out of wedlock, guess that might be a slight complication in some places still?
From an historical standpoint, the Exodus was fiction that was retconned into existence after the Babylonian captivity. The new Israelite nation needed a unifying mythology, so they made up a story about how Yahweh is the Best God Ever and don’t you dare worship his wife Asherah.
Also they came in from outside and genocided everyone, because their god is just that badass and if you mess with them he’ll command them to wreck your shit. And if they don’t, it’s just because he let them be defeated because they didn’t obey him enough. Take that, Babylon!
Still, one way or another, I’m pretty sure the “Commandments from Yahweh” against “the gays” tend to come at the same times they really pushed Anti-Sodomy laws.
So, unless I’m missing chunks of historical context that differ from that, it really feels like a matter of not producing more offspring to throw at the world in order to establish territorial dominance. And the King James version phrasing at least makes it pretty clear it was just a commandment to men, cause at that point in time they were the only ones who even “mattered” anyways.
So, you know just a few more things on the list of reasons why I feel its too hard to be both a “Good Person” and a “Good Christian TM”, so well, I kind of decided to just pick the first of the two, cause I’m not with it enough to manage to swing both and I actually want to at least try to be the first one for myself anyways.
The Bible as we know it is the translation of the translation of the translation of badly translated text hand picked to please some king centuries after the fact.
The so calledention of homosexuality as a sin has been disproved, I’m fairly certain. There’s only ambiguous texts that the haters and the ignorants love to zero in.
That might even be originally based on laws that don’t even apply anymore at best anyways.
Translation is a tough project even with one language, but that doesn’t mean people should go to Japan and act like the same rules apply as were in place under the rule of the Tokugawa Shogunate.
Or you know, going to Modern Day Germany and snapping off Nazi salutes and “Heil Hitler”s isn’t going to win you any good will either.
Laws and rules…change to fit the times? Something people still won’t accept about Mormons who did the polygamy thing for a short while due to Women’s Rights not being a real thing at the time and a improper balance of gender and age ratios, that was abolished after things had settled down and it wasn’t really needed anymore and clear abuses of the system were occurring.
So, yeah, maybe some of the rules don’t really apply anymore. I mean, murder is still generally illegal, unless done by ones own government to someone else’s people through the use of military force.
Having sex in ways that try to avoid resulting in a baby, not so much, except for corner cases that seem more at targeting marginalized people than about the lack of babies being created.
Um, the ratios weren’t the reason Mormons did that. It was actually because Joseph Smith couldn’t keep it in his pants, and then Brigham Young took everyone out to Zion so that he and his friends could have all the “wives” they wanted (of whatever ages they wanted).
They “stopped” polygamy-ing twice, and it didn’t take until they were facing the confiscation of all their assets by the US government. Which is the reason they give in Official Declaration 1, in the back of every modern copy of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Before that time, their leaders preached that only polygamists would make it into the highest part of the Celestial Kingdoms; that monogamy brought about the fall of the Roman Empire; and that if they ever told anyone to stop doing polygamy, it would just be a ruse and they should keep doing it. Which, modern LDS church members don’t remember this, but “fundamentalist mormon sects” most definitely do.
Today, a Mormon AMAB person (assigned male at birth) can be sealed to more than one eternal wife, if the first one(s) die. If an AFAB person’s husband dies, though, she’s still sealed to the first one, and he gets her in the eternities.
Note: Asking Mormons about this is kind of “fun,” since polygamy and racism are things the church is trying to pretend never happened without actually contradicting themselves. The older the Mormon in question, the more likely it is that they’ll defend “plural marriage” and “mark of Cain” stuff, especially if they think you’re a Mormon who needs to be brought into line. The younger the Mormon, or the more set they are on impressing you, the more likely they are to say that “we don’t believe that!” and then bear their testimony at you.
Re Jewelfox
Well, thats the “Fun” part about the LDS Church. The biggest perk of a “Living Gospel” is that it can be amended afterwards. And all the Fundies don’t get to be part of the club anymore.
Just like the United States Government. But yeah, the big reason they like to give now that other more modern old people have to try and answer for protocol of the past is that someone had to look after the old ladies whose husbands got killed on the trek west.
Which, in the context of pre-WWII “Rosie the Riveter Women Can Take Care Of Themselves” mindsets…seems like a legitimately sound reason to go about the arrangement?
But yeah, the big plus side is being able to throw out previously bad ideas that got pushed through in order to come up with setups that allow people to be more decent to each other, especially with all these newer fangled concepts and terminology that we as a culture need to get better about not being jerks over.
That said, its still a group composed of people, and sometimes the group you end up getting are horrible people pretending to be good so as not to get in trouble with their wealthy parents who may not always be the best at following religious or government mandated laws all the times anyways.
And thats when you sleep in or arrange to work on Sundays to avoid toxic people.
I don’t suppose you live in Utah? I did for a year and a half, back when I was still Mormon.
I don’t like dwelling on them, but they’re also obsessed with their public image, so I try to contradict their official lies whenever I can. I left because they were killing people like me.
Nah, thats one of the few Midwest States I never lived in.
Idaho, Oregon, Oklaholma for a while, North Cali, Arizona….to name a few.
I mean, I’ve gone to Utah into the heart of Mormonland before, but… Utah always seems super split down the middle in that regard. The super Mormon Mormons on one end and the super Not Mormon Everyone Else on the other.
I mean, I’m still on their books as…I guess a backup measure, or something. I just figured I shouldn’t settle for the few decent people in the mixed bag of organized religion when I could find more consistantly better batches of individuals if I handpicked them based on being decent people instead of how “godly” of ones they were.
I am like the worst “JackMormon” ever.
Texts condemning homosexuality as a sin haven’t yet been disproved by better translators, sadly, but I’m firmly convinced it’s only a matter of time.
Enough of the NT arguments against hinge on a currently unreliably-translatable word that the day a smart translator finds a previously ignored text and connects the dots will come as exactly no surprise to me (especially given the friendliness that Jesus, Matthew, Luke, and Philip all regarded eunuchs with). Current scholarship re LGBT Christianity seems very much like scholarship about women just before Katharine Bushnell came along and said, in effect, “What the hell’s wrong with you lot that you can’t even bloody read?”
A sad corollary: it could take a hundred years for said scholarship to even start getting wide recognition. Sigh.
(apologies to Willis if I’m sailing too close to his fully-reasonable proselytising rule; I’d like to think the position I’m stating here is useful context for the position Joyce is developing.)
I’m not a Christian, but I’m honestly not sure how a better translation can ever get past Romans 1. It pretty explicitly describes God inflicting homosexuality on the Gentiles as a punishment/curse for their idolatry and sinful behavior.
Is this like saying, “I’m an unrepentant racist, but Sierra is the best character?”
(She is, btw)
Thats a weird way to spell Carla. ;p
(Joking. Not joking. Sorta, I mean I think Carla is super great, but other people are allowed to like characters who aren’t Carla more if they want.)
Why would you even read this comic if you don’t “approve” of homosexuality(or bisexuality in this case)?
And how can you read the comic up to this point and not have your mind changed about homosexuality being a “choice” or a “sin” (even if just a little bit)?
Honestly wondering if MoC’s actually gone through the archives…
Good thing we didn’t ask for your approval, eh?
The main trouble with hating the sinner vs. hating the sin is that nobody can tell the difference.
There really isn’t a difference.
“I hate the way you are now, but if you became a person like me I would love that!”
Look, I’m going to try and extend the olive branch here even though there is really, really no reason that anyone should be obligated to do so on your behalf, and I’m doing so because I hope it will make you more amenable to the counterargument and what everyone here is (to the best of my reasoning, I do not mean to speak for them) trying to say.
“I don’t condone homosexuality” = Homophobic. End of story. There is no way around it. I’m sorry if this goes against what you’ve assumed and I’m not saying this to hurt you. But it is homophobic. That is why people are attacking you. It’s homophobic.
And if anyone else in the comments with more / better rounded perspective would like to amend or append to the above, please go 100% right ahead
*sigh*
I remember being literally homophobic, as in when I realized two of the people I invited to a D&D game were gay I was all “don’t do anything gay, you guys D: this is not that kind of game!!”
Actually hanging out with gay people helped me see that basically everything I’d been taught about how icky and evil they are was a lie, and that the one and only reason what they were doing was “wrong” was because god said so.
When I realized that, I asked him “why does it have to be this way? why do people have to suffer just because they don’t like the opposite sex?” And I didn’t get an answer, because there wasn’t one.
Its all just stereotyping combined with the insidious idea that “all people secretly want to do all the sins all the time” and will be “corrupted” by “the gays” anyways.
I mean, I can understand not wanting to have to watch people having sex right in front of you and there’s nothing wrong with not being into or specifically not into any or all of the varieties available. Its the judgement calls and not stopping to look and realize that whatever the orientation the people are just….people, that’s the harmful part.
Well, and I kind of have a limited amount of people I know are gay, but honestly, basically all the ones I’ve met and known have always been in serious steady relationships, so I kind of feel that some people’s supposedly “legitimate worries” about being “come onto” are pretty baseless. I mean, unless they’re like a heterosexual person who prowls the homosexual bars, but I’m pretty sure homophobic heteros who do that sort of thing have other issues beyond getting hit on by people they don’t want to be hit on by.
Plus, its not like its any different than being hit on by anyone else who you’d not want hitting on you for whatever reason. In theory anyways? I can’t say I’m an experienced person on the subject of receiving complements of that sort. Or noticing complements either.
Girl gets hit on by a guy: Nothing wrong with that, she should learn to accept compliments and stop being so cold!
Guy gets hit on by a guy: DUDE NO WHAT IF IT’S CONTAGIOUS DUDE?!?!
Guy hits on a girl who reciprocates his affections, then finds out that she was assigned male at birth: The defendant claimed that he didn’t know the murder victim was “really a guy,” and said that he choked her to death because “he was trying to make me gay.”
Gah, sorry. That’s kind of triggering, and I don’t need to remind myself of it either.
It also isn’t kind of me to imply that all guys do those things. Just the ones who are really scared of their own feelings, and are willing to hurt other people instead of confronting them.
Well, or are just raised to be horrible for one reason or another.
Guys are people too, and actually all different as a result. A lot just like to pull a Joe and hide behind the mask of “Normal” so they’re socially accepted, and in some cases that “Normal” is even worse than being emotionally unavailable and obsessed with the physicality of the world around them.
It’s kind of seems like the proscribed approach to be a “Man’s Man Tough Guy” though, which I’m all for that image being broken down and decomposed like the garbage those idealogies are. Seriously, if you have to hurt someone, whether yourself or others to try and “prove” something about yourself, maybe it actually isn’t worth proving?
Pretty sure you missed “Guy gets hit on by a girl he doesn’t find attractive: Value judgments on her value as a person due to not fitting the Hollywood version of hotness.”
Which is maybe still less hostile than examples 2 and 3 in your list? Even though its basically the same as 2 as far as not being attracted to the other person goes?
I mean, this all seems like stuff that should be able to be sorted out peacefully by people just stopping and getting to know other people and start treating them as people, instead of like animatronic blow up dolls. Or serial rapists I guess? I mean, it often seems like those are the general two ways people look at people, with the few exceptions being the ones in variably workable relationships based on actually caring about each other?
I don’t really get it personally.
I was assigned male at birth, and it’s hard to overstate how fragile toxic “masculinity” is and how awful people can behave because of it.
Whenever guys complain about not being able to understand girls, it’s because they’re conditioned to not be able to empathize with their victims.
Whenever guys complain that their girlfriends won’t tell them anything, it’s because their girlfriend has learned that her feelings don’t matter.
And then you get the people who don’t feel like they mesh period with either of the “proscribed gender labeling system” due to how toxic the stereotypes can be on both sides.
Which is why the joke is that I’m a cat. Cause I do what I want, and don’t care about other people’s stupid nonsensical categorization systems. I mean, generally I just let people call me whatever gender they want, cause I just care about not causing a ruckus over it, but I identify more as a willful loner than anything else people try and force me to select, so yeah might as well make up my own label when I can if I’m allowed to.
P.S.: Not sure if this is rude to ask…I’m kind of deficient in knowing all the fancy new transgender stuff, but if its okay to ask, by “I was assigned male at birth”, does that mean you identify as female now instead?
P.P.S.: Sorry if the phrasing was bad, I really am trying to understand better so I can more properly talk to people with that sort of circumstance.
Hah, I had a friend who it ended up was pretty uncomfortable with gay people, who met another friend who was decidedly out, who, upon their meeting, said to my gay friend, “Look, just don’t hit on me and we’ll get along fine.”
To which my gay friend replied, “Don’t worry; despite popular stereotypes, gay men aren’t attracted to assholes.”
Heh, that actually broke the ice (and the first guy’s misconceptions) nicely and they got along great after that. That comment deserved a high-five, though, ha ha.
Honestly, why would you follow that to the letter?
At best, assuming a god actually talked to a human at the beginning, and you actually read at the end, you read a translation of a translation of a book written by the guy who heard it. Even if that actually meant only three people with good intentions had their hands in it, that’s a lot of room for errors and bias to get through.
I don’t expect a recent book to remain the same when a die-hard fan makes a movie about it. Trusting that it’s definitely still true to the source after centuries seems ludicrous.
To err is human, to forgive… also pretty human, because: empathy.
this thread is like that scene in jurassic park where the cow is lowered into the velociraptor pen, except the cow is lowering himself in and also the cow thinks he’s going to win
This thread is like Luke thinking he can beat Vader first try, even though he’s skipped through Yoda’s training
“T. Rex doesn’t want to fed, he wants to be accepted without having to fight for it all the goddamn time”
Oh but what about the scene in Scarface where Tony Montana fights all those gunmen, he’s riddled with bullets and he’s still standing but in the end he gets shot in the back? Sounds like a good description to a comment thread to me.
That is a pretty good metaphor. Plus it avoids all the messy incest type feelings Tony has throughout the movie.
Or the scene in Firefly where they rescue River just as she’s about to be burned as a witch… No wait, it’s not like that at all.
But there are some big damn heroes here, for sure.
I know everyone else has already gotten a turn, but you know what? This sorta thing genuinely wrinkles my fuckin’ sprinkles.
I have been in a committed relationship for almost 5 years now. There has been a lot of laughs, cries, and joy throughout it. Me and my partner love each other very much- our lives has improved immensely since we got together and especially since we moved in together. Everyday we spend together makes life worth living. We have nothing but the utmost love and respect for each other. This is the person I’m going to marry. No, seriously, I proposed to her two months ago.
Oh yes, that’s right. Her.
And people like you come in, with the MOTHERFUCKIN’ GALL to tell people like me that you don’t condone who we are. That somehow, two people of the same gender being in love- even if they are truly happy together- is wrong. I mean, I’m pretty sure the implications of using the Bible to justify your feelings is putting my relationship with the likes of thievery and, you know, murder! Every time I see this justification, I just assume that the person would sooner approve of an abusive relationship if it were between a man and a woman, because, hey, at least it’s a straight relationship.
And on an extra note, I’d feel so much better if you’d provide some introspection on your homophobia. Because I am surrounded with people from all walks of life, and plenty of them are Christians who support us, who love us and want the best for us. And I know them to have read the Bible. So what’s the difference between you and them here, really? Because saying the Bible says so isn’t really an excuse at this point.
*Standing Ovation.*
Technically the Bible is a book of mostly factual stories written with anecdotes made by worshippers of God. It is not made by God, and as years pass, it grows less reliable. Indeed in the time it was written there was homophobia, but they should still respect those with different sexualities, and change parts of the Bible that imply homophobia and non-heterosuxal people are sinners. In disrespecting those “sinners” as they call us, they are sinning themselves. They are achieving NOTHING!
As another person whose opinion matters none whatsoever to how you live your life, I’d just like to officially condone everything you do. ‘Cause with a comment like that, you deserve some form of upvote.
Upvoted! *makes new account* Upvoted! *repeats for a few hours*
After reading your second paragraph, Amber… I feel like I should probably congratulate you on the marriage end of things.
I mean, a 5 year committed, happy relationship is something that seems like a lot of people don’t end up with anymore, so proposing and getting married after that as well, well I wish you and your fiance the best of futures together.
You know, for whatever the well-wishing of a random stranger on the Internet is worth.
Aww, shucks, I appreciate it a lot! It’s been a bumpy ride at times but it has all the meaning in the world to me, and it never stops feeling nice to get people’s random bits of kindness along the way. Just because you’re a random internet stranger to me doesn’t mean you’re not a real person somewhere.
(I mean unless you’re a bot I mean that could be a possibility, computer-y stuff is pretty advanced these days)
Well, the joke is that I’m a cat.
Along with a list of other things, including a fruit bat (cause blood tastes icky), an elf, a vampire (refer to fruit bat), the list goes on of assorted non-labels I’ve picked up because I like them or at least feel they fit better than any of the labels people like trying to stick on me. I guess robot might be in there, but being a robot isn’t actually very fun unless it means you can lift and throw cars.
Anyways, basically all I have to give people for the most part is well wishes, and/or occasionally an attempt at comedy that doesn’t fall horribly flat, but you know, if people find some way to be happy that doesn’t actually directly involve hurting someone else, it seems really stupid to not applaud that and wish them the best.
The world is way too depressing and full of misery as is, so at least someone being able to make it through the rough times with some lasting scrap of happiness, seriously, how could there be anything “wrong” with that?
I mean, what you’re into is just something that’s between you and your fiance anyways, so if other people aren’t into that, they can just go back to living their own lives, instead of critiquing someone else’s like its a TV show. I mean, tbh, its probably none of a large portion of people who are into its business either.
If you love someone and want to be together with them forever, and they feel the same way, pretty sure thats kind of what marriage is about, what with all the vows that boil down to basically that.
So, yeah, Congratulations again!
Actually I gained the accolade robot for my smarts!
Congrats!
Congratulations, you two!
Congratulations! And that’s a whole lot of win in the rest of your comment, too.
Adding to the congratulations. Congratulations, you two! 😀
Also, hell yeah, preach, sister! <3
I want to both manually up vote you and offer congratulations to you. I hope you and your spouse have a long happy marriage together.
You know how when Jesus was around he basically revised some of the more arbitrary laws of the Pentateuch? They had been in effect for a thousand years by then and were written for very different people in very different circumstances. And Jesus was like “look, you are missing the point of what the law was trying to do by adhering to the letter.” Then he went to say, “I’ll make it easy for you: the whole point of the law is that you must love God, your neighbour and yourself. That’s all there is to it”. Well, now 2000 years have passed and we’re very different people in very different circumstances so even more of the old, specific laws are obsolete. But we don’t need Jesus to come again and tell us that they are obsolete because he already explained what was the only one commandment that really matters. So your “not condoning” is out of line.
Humans want clear rules on how to live and be a good person, because then they don’t have to wonder or worry or think about it. (Thinking is hard, and takes up a lot of time you could spend on doing other things.)
Really, everything would be so much easier if life could be reduced to a very short and simple set of rules.
Well, and/or they sometimes just want selective rules that lets them get away with hurting one small group of marginalized people without being a “bad person”. Like Mary and her attempt to be allowed to have Carla as someone to torment still.
People who don’t actually want to take the effort to care about others, who want to not have to think about anything at all… I’m not sure they want to “be a good person” as much as “feel like they already are one no matter what they do or say”. Which, sadly is a pretty vast difference in practice.
Which is probably why Jesus mainly focused on the “Don’t be horrible to others, okay?” angle.
See, that’s what I don’t understand. How exactly can one not think? Outside of sleeping, I mean.
Years and years of effort. Practice meditation. Eventually, so they tell me, you can get the monkey to shut up and just be.
Well, I mean there’s also death. But yeah, I can’t really shut my brain off either. At best I can concentrate on something I have to think about just enough to keep myself mentally engaged so I can shove the rest of my brain off to the side to run in the background.
Which makes it hard to understand the “Normal” people who seem not to think or profess not to have thought about things at the time.
“Don’t be a dick.” 🙂
Honestly, if not for the fact marijuana was unknown to the western world at the time, Jesus and his disciples would have been the first hippies. Hard-working, communal hippies.
Hmmm. I hadn’t known this, but it looks like marijuana was probably in the middle east somewhere around then. Not sure if it was known in Israel, but the Greeks and Romans knew of it.
And then he went on, like almost directly afterwards to further specify “Also, your neighbors include the Samaritans. Your neighbors are literally fucking everyone.” (The samaritans and the israelites got along like-well. Suffice to say some Samaratins had, among other things, snuck into the Temple at night, slaughtered a few pigs, and SMEARED THEM EVERYWHERE.)
It’s kind of funny how, thanks to the parable, Samaritan has become a term for a good, charitable person, and the original context of the parable basically lost.
Okay, clarify something for me.
When you say that it (being homosexual… or as you later amended, bisexual) is their choice…. what exactly do you mean by that?
Because I don’t recall ever choosing my orientation, and no one I’ve spoken to ever chose their orientation either.
Also, clarify something else for me, please. In what sense do you not condone this?
From wiktionary, to condone something means to forgive, excuse, overlook, allow, accept, or permit it. Which of these are you not doing?
I mean, most of us aren’t overlooking that this is a same-sex relationship. We’re aware of that fact. We’re not ignoring it. Are you not condoning it in the sense that you’re aware of it and not overlooking it?
Most of us could be said to be forgiving or excusing it… except that’s silly, like forgiving or excusing someone for enjoying a pleasant day, or something else that there’s no reason to forgive or excuse in the first place. Are you not condoning it in the sense that you won’t forgive it or excuse it because you don’t think it’s wrong?
Are you not condoning it in the sense that you DO think it’s wrong, and won’t forgive or excuse it?
Are you not condoning it in the sense that you refuse to allow it, or permit it, or accept it?
All of the above? None of the above?
What exactly does not condoning it mean?
Yay! Another Dictionary Definer like me!
Honestly, I’m going to bet they used the word cause they’re used to hearing it used in that context without really researching the definition of the word itself. Its much easier to say “Bible says thats bad so I don’t like it”, but condoning or not condoning sounds so much more mature and official, so phrasing it that way probably ‘sounds better’.
Like Hipsters “liking things ironically”, even though that makes no sense either. Well, except if you account for Facebook Likes, maybe. Usually I’m pretty sure they just mean “I like getting reactions out of people by pretending I like something that isn’t considered normal for my ‘type’ to like, but I don’t actually really care about it beyond that.”, well or its a cover story for something they actually like but aren’t brave enough to admit.
My interpretation: “I think what you’re doing is a sin but I won’t try to stop you, legally or by physical intervention”.
Like, gee thanks.
I think it’s something like your interpretation.
Functionally, it seems to be “I won’t try to stop you by force or deny that you have a right to live, but I’m still going to voice every time the subject of your private life comes up my deeply-held (but not deeply-examined) faith and the way it declares your love for each other to be illegitimate, and the two of you to be second-class people worthy of denouncing and marginalization. I won’t grab a gun and and commit any mass shootings against you people, but I will contribute to the stigma that makes other people feel willing and justified in doing so. Also, if I have a gay kid I’ll either kick them out on the streets, or abuse them in various ways in an attempt to make them straight, or at the very least make it my mission to make them feel shitty about this unalterable aspect of themselves in various ways that can drive them to suicide or at least a lifetime of therapy.”
They sure packed a lot into that one word “condone”, I’ll give them that.
Yup. A friend wrote a blog post on the effects of targeting others so as to make them a, well, a target for violence. It gives the person the excuse of being able to say they weren’t the one that actually did the violence (even though they definitely share the blame), while absolutely creating and supporting an environment in which it can happen:
Labels and Lasers
Worth a read.
Stochastic terrorism.
Good term for it. Yes, precisely.
Describing someone’s orientation as “choice” is treating them like dirt. Try again.
wuv,
a pentecostal believer who signed the box marked “Witness” at a gay wedding about a year back, and I dares ya to make something of it.
“But if you can’t choose an orientation, then that means conversion therapy is actually just inhumane torture methods.”
You know what, that actually sounds about right. Like I was trying to put together a sassily constructed argument that makes fun of a possible justification for the mindset, but I think I just formulated the perfect equation there.
That said, I’m pretty sure how the “Corruption of Sin” ideology works is that you’re only a certain orientation when you start acting on it. Which you know is stupid, cause its like saying “Oh, you only like ice cream when you’re eating it” or some similarly well received food or beverage.
Its bad logic, that I’m pretty sure is generally perpetrated by people who never made a choice to begin with on the subject.
Thinking about it, the only people who really get to choose if they want to choose would be bisexuals…maybe? They could at least say “Boys/Girls haven’t been working out very well for me, so lets try the other end of things exclusively” if they wanted to. I mean they’d still have to deal with feelings of people being “hot” on either end, but there are more viable choices in that regard.
At least compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals, and the various ranges of asexuals. That said, its probably still a bad way to phrase it, since its not like a bisexual gets less bi innately just by deciding to stick on one side of the gene pool.
I’ve figured for a while that at least a lot of the hardcore anti-gay “stop choosing to sin” people are themselves gay or bi, who have been taught by their toxic culture that their natural feelings are sinful temptations sent by Satan, and they genuinely don’t understand that it’s not a matter of everyone having those feelings and straight people choosing the path of righteousness and gay people choosing to sin.
Well, yeah, there’s nothing quite as homosexual seeming as a ‘macho man’ who spends his their time denouncing gays and having to prove how manly he is in ways that seem to glorify men a bit overly much. There’s definitely some repressed gays in the bunch, who actually just believe the ‘sin’ to be ‘following the temptation to give in an do the act’.
They aren’t “gay and therefore irredeemable” until then in their minds though.
Seriously, a lot of extremists in any group often just feel like their belief is actually so weak that any threat to it must be destroyed or it’ll crumble.
To Master of Chaos: I have a co-worker who prefaces every statement with something like what you said. I told him that was like disapproving of being left-handed. And just try to imagine how condescending it sounds!
Ultimately I don’t give a flying faht what the bible says about it; the book was written by people who thought slavery and genocide were OK. And didn’t know where the sun goes at night.
Hey, disapproval of left-handed people is a thing, historically. It wasn’t that long ago that lefties were being forced to write with their right hands and such. At least that horror has pretty much faded away.
I’ve basically started parsing every minority issue this way. Cause being left-handed is like an easymode introduction to marginalization.
I mean anymore there’s not a lot of the physical abuse to force people to use their right hand for fear of punishment, and people don’t even know that several words for “evil” or “bad” people are based on words for left handedness, but it is still something where just by the numbers it “makes sense” for it to be a “right hander’s world” that us southpaws just have to deal with.
We get slightly more positive representation than other groups as well, at least until motion sensing technologies make that ‘inconvenient’.
So yeah, it makes it slightly easier to understand people who have things they were born with that makes their lives even more difficult, and why they are upset about their marginalizations and troubles over stuff they had no choice in being.
Yep; my wife got in trouble for being left-handed in grade school. Seems the complaint was it didn’t work with the illustrations in the handwriting book. After her left-handed mother complained, she got shoved to the back of the room.
I dunno. Those lefties are kind of sinister.
Nah, its the sinister that are by definition lefties. ;p
First of all, I don’t condone judging people. I view it as the Bible has written it. (Too be clear, I also don’t condone treating judgmental people like dirt. We’re all human, and that is their choice.)
The second anyone says “I don’t condone homosexuality” the only words i hear after are “I am a rampaging douchecanoe”
Ok. But here’s something to consider, even if you are the most literalist of bible readers and a creationist. There are over 220 species of mammals, not including humans, that have been observed as having members that fit into our definitions of homosexual and bisexual (especially giraffes and bonobos). Now, since God made everything and said that “it was good” (Genesis literally every time he makes something) then there are only two logical explanations. Explanation one: homosexuality and bisexuality are natural, thus made by God, ergo they are good. Explanation two: Animals are fully rational beings with free will. Meaning that they would have to possess some type of soul. Thus, killing an animal is murder and a sin. Add into this the fact that the Bible was translated in stages. First from Hebrew (Old Testament) and Aramaic (New Testament) into Koine Greek (the main language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the conquest of Alexander to around 600 AD. Then from this form of Greek into Vulgate Latin. Then from Vulgate Latin into the vernacular around 1500 AD. So, which line of reasoning do you follow? Follow explanation one and admit that homozexuality and bisexuality are natural and thus part of God’s creation. Or insist that homosexuality and bisexuality are “choices” and go vegan because only a creature with a rational mind and free will can make a choice that would result in a “sin” based on a text that’s been translated three times over the period of thousands of years by multiple writers. I personally find it easier to “love thy neighbor” and love my fellow human beings given that line of thinking.
Also, on that note – if animals are rational beings with free will and therefore being capable of sin, God condones their murder, because he gives very specific rules about how you can prepare your meat, thereby implying eating meat is okay.
This invalidating explanation 2 and leaving explanation 1 as the sole logical response…just got to wait for the Vatican to use some Aquinas logic to come to the same conclusion. Any year now. Any year.
I’m not sure animal behavior in the fallen world means anything about God’s nature. The Fall of Man changed everything, not just him, but the animals that were made for him as well. Before the Fall they were all herbivores.
While it’s not explicitly stated, sexual behaviors like homosexuality would likewise only exist among animals after the fall and are thus not part of God’s design.
Or so I’ve heard some fundies argue in response to similar arguments to yours. 🙂 It’s not that easy to crack through the shell.
Or you can just become a Buddhist. Because of reincarnation, every sentient being was once your kind mother. So behave appropriately.
I guess I chose to interpret this as Billie saying that even if Ruth fucked up back there, Billie’s acknowledging that she’s also imperfect and fucks up herself, but that the two of them can always be there to support each other whether they’re ‘deserving’ of it or not.
OK people, I need to make sure we all got through the Howard scene. Are all Chrises (or how you spell it) here. Raise your hand and say here please.
Woops that was meant to be a comment not a reply XD
No prob, I was like…wondering…what I was supposed to have read from the Howard scene.
You were supposed to read that Howie deals with abuse by distracting his mind with sexual urges and that him and Ruth are very similar
I think anyways
Chres. >_>
Here?
Do I count as one too?
Okay, looks like only one or two got left behind. Eh, they probably are just stuck somewhere. Anyways, let’s move on
Sometimes have a friend who’s as fucked up as you are doesn’t work out very well. Other times they’re the only friends that work.
I have officially watched too much Mystery Incorporated when I instinctively read “Hot water” as “Hot Dog Water.”
Same here.
Too bad there’s already a Marcie in the cast 8(
We can have another one, right? For instance, in my school, I know 3 Emilys and 3 Jacobs
But then she’d have to be ‘Other Marcie’ OR WORSE
ACTUALLY HOT DOG WATER
We just say their first name and last initial
Interactions like this between Ruth and Billee always leave me conflicted. On the one hand, the support they get from each other and the self-awareness they both show here is touching and sweet. On the other hand, Billee’s last statement reminds me a little too much of their “pact” mentality. The “we don’t deserve better, so we’ll be each other’s only connection” mindset helped get them here in the first place. As always, I have faith Willis knows what he’s doing with that set up, but there’s clearly still work to be done.
Ah Feelings………Gay feelings
you mentioned gay feelings? i am here for gay feelings.
Oh my God David Willis your tweets are so hilarious and true XD! This is another reason why I love your comic. 6/5 stars
Lemme see if my Gravatar change trick works with specific emails
Yay! It works
I read this comic regularly and comment infrequently, I’m sorry to say. 😛
However, am I the only person who sort of read Billie’s comment the other way around? As in, maybe she and Ruth don’t “deserve” anyone else because no one else out there is good enough to “derserve” them. They “deserve” each other because, despite their very real problems, they are slowly helping to heal each other.
I am a damaged person who is in a long-term relationship with another damaged person. However, we have always supported each other and I am currently less damaged because of my partner. No one else out there “deserves” him – because they are not good enough for him. And I believe he feels the same way about me. 🙂
Well, Billie does say “anybody” without an else at the end. I mean, honestly yeah, your view feels like its one of the better ones to have, just as a life mindset? So go you?
I read it as more of a “Yeah, well its not like I’m perfect either.” because Billie knows she can be “a bongo” too, followed up with sort of a sideways reassurance that she’s not going to actually ditch Ruth over something like that.
Oh, that is a wordfilter. I had been wondering. Good to know.
Yeah, it’s one of those comments from the depths of self-loathing. You don’t feel you deserve anybody or anything. But hey, at least you got each other and maybe somehow you can believe you deserve the happiness from that.
It’s not healthy and they could both seriously use support to get out of that reflexive self-loathing and see their value in all things. But it’s definitely something Billie intended to sound sweet.
I’m trying to decide if “yeah, you messed up, but we’re both very messed up, so whatever, we deserve each other” is a good mindset or a bad one.
im not entirely certain of that either.
like theyre both screwed up people and if they try to get in relationships with anyone else, that person will either try too hard or walk away, which’ll make things even worse for ruth and billie. billie’s in this for the long haul. she’ll never find someone like ruth and the reverse is true for ruth as far as never finding someone like billie.
when theyre together, they could balance each other out to some sense of normalcy.
It’s the best that Billie can manage in her current state of mind and with her untreated depression.
It’s horrible mindset, but it’s still probably better than both of them just being “I’m toxic and don’t deserve anybody.” See: Suicidal depression.
Hopefully with time and therapy, they’ll both get better.
…on one hand, “neither of us deserve anyone but each other” Billie REALLY needs that group therapy too
on the other, “shyeah you were being a bongo” = A+ resolution of the momentary conflict
acknowledge that it was not okay, accept her implict apology and show that you don’t think it reflects on her as a whole (not “you are a bongo” but “you were BEING a bongo” ah nuances)
Agreed on all points.
Probably the one thing that Ruth finds it nearly impossible to believe: That someone cares enough for her to overlook her shortcomings. I wonder how long she’s been told that’s simply never going to happen?
Billie then drops dead because she just snapped her neck completely.
Well that was the cheesiest line of the year… I love it.
Slightly ot, but I don’t think anyone would care for a Robin magnet at this point?
I dunno, some people might want to re-enact scandal tier smoochings. Though I guess thats harder with the magnets facing the same direction.
I don’t actively hate her and her stunted levels of maturity, even if she’s a horrible politician who has a horrible advising team. I wouldn’t vote for her, but never picked the morbid death options on the poll either.
I mean…probably can’t back the book myself this time around, but if I did I’d want to go with a Carla magnet over the rest. Cause she’s a “motherfucking goddess” after all. That’s what her phone’s to do list told me anyways.
Carla has amazing taste in pizza too. Guess I have to look over my budget.
They could do the Spider-Man smooching?
I’d be tempted by either a Robin magnet or a Leslie magnet, but getting them as a set is just wrong at this stage.
I’m still holding out hope that she’ll get less awful eventually. Until then I can just pretend it’s Shortpacked! Robin instead of DoA Robin.
Though to be honest my primary concern is the Becky magnet being unlocked. I NEED IT
Okay, here’s what I want to know about the Leslie + Robin magnets:
How do the magnet parts align relative to each other?
Will they mutually attract if you put them on top of each other, or will they be mutually repulsed?
Will they need to spin around so that one’s head is down and the other’s head is up before they’re attracted?
Are they incompatible as is but fine if one is placed a bit above the other?
And what can be said or inferred based on the answer to these questions about the respective characters?
I dunno, but so far it looks like people only want them as a set.
I’d love the whole shebang…
But postage to the UK would end up costing as much as the actual merch…
PDFs it is then…
🙁
Yeah, its pretty spendy for the whole thing anyways. Well, at least on a college student budget.
BTW: Hi again, Joe!
What, you never stacked REE magnet-equipped fridge decorations and toys as a kid? I did it all the time!
I swear this is the only couple I actually care about in this series haha. but historically I’ve apparently only cared about one couple per Walkyverse titled comics. Though Dina always sneaks in as she’s my favorite character.
Billie sure knows her love well and knows what she was getting into
I was honestly surprised she didn’t say “bongo”
OK this is like, third day in a row where Billie is doing good. And I want to put a force field around these two to protect them from awful things…
Comic Reactions:
Panels 1-3: Yay, Ruth’s green eyes came back! The sweetness of Billie’s gestures really break through to her even if she’s in an awful headspace right now thanks to “sir’s” abuse.
Panels 4-6: Really breaks through to her. It’s a small gesture, but I suspect to Ruth, this is the sweetest, most perfect thing Billie could have done.
Panel 7: I love Ruth acknowledging the inappropriateness of her blowup to Billie. One of the shittier parts of the relationship has been how when Ruth blows up at Billie and uses her as a dumping ground when she feels trapped, she doesn’t apologize, so this is a much healthier development in the relationship.
I suspect realizing that her blow-up words were really “sir”-like really shook her and hopefully this is a good sign for the rest of the relationship.
Also, Billie acknowledging the inappropriateness of Ruth’s actions to her face is good. She’s been often afraid of calling out bad behavior in the past for fear of triggering an emotional spiral so for her to say she was being a bit of a percussion instrument is another healthy sign of growth.
Panels 8-9: But all the growth is still somewhat hampered by the central unhealthy premise that has dogged them their entire relationship and has never ever gone away (especially for Billie). And that’s the belief that they are inherently toxic for others, but in a co-dependent relationship they can actually be with someone without breaking them.
And well, it’s not a backslide, it’s more a reiteration of what Billie has always believed since the start of the relationship. They’ve never actually tackled this part and I doubt they’re going to be able to until Billie starts her therapy, which luckily does seem to be soon.
But given that, it’s a sweet statement on Billie’s part, a reaffirmation of their relationship, a public act of forgiveness, and just her being really sweet in the way she can.
And I get that, because I’ve struggled with depression a long long time, and I’ve made statements that on their face were corrupted by my self-loathing, but really were intended to be sweet and affirming of how much I appreciated the person in my life and our relationship.
It’s been a long slow slog to get out of that and I don’t always succeed and I dunno, this strip feels super hopeful. Like, yeah, they have a lot of work and a lot of rough edges that need polishing, but this is the first strip that’s felt like they are actually getting better and building something healthy rather than just holding on with their teeth using the codependence of their relationship as a crutch.
And I think a lot of it is owed to Ruth’s therapy sessions and them helping her see herself and her relationship to Billie in new and positive ways. It’ll be a slow process and I still don’t like how they got into the relationship, but I have a lot of hope for these kids and their ability to actually use this relationship to heal.
On 8-9, I remember someone (maybe you?) saying that Ruth and Billie being able to break up would be a good sign. Not a good step, not a part of healing, but a sign that healing had taken place. But yeah, that mental distortion that led to the Sexy Alcoholic Lesbian Suicide Pact has got to go, out the window, into a fire.
I’m really hoping for these two, because of moments like these that have highlighted their individual growth and growth as a relationship. These two still have issues and as someone else who suffers with severe depression (of the lay catatonic in bed for hours staring at the ceiling wondering if I’m worth the air I breathe variety) I know that it is hard (and hellish) to get out of. But if these two can get out of that headspace, if can get the help that they need,…well what they’ll have as a result will/would be beautiful. And a key think to remember is that despite the depression and the unhealthy start, Billie still secretly wants that happy ending. From that one comic (I think it was a year or so ago at this point) where Ruth sarcastically asked Billie if she (Billie) could ever really see them doing those happy couple things, Billie saying that’s not what she wanted, and Ruth saying she was lying and Billie admitting that was true. Deep down, even though, she thinks she’s toxic, Billie still thinks it doesn’t have to be that way. Remember what Walky said, “She’s like the Giving Tree.” I mean sure he followed it up with the snarky “If the Giving Tree used to shove me in my locker”. But it’s that first part. Billie wants to help people deep down, but DUI, her former cheerleader “friends” from high school abandoning her because of it, and the self-medication with alcohol has made her believe that it is physically possible for her to help people, or to care about them without making things worse…Sorry bit long winded. It’s just…it reminds me of when I was in college and was abusing my anti-depressant medication because I couldn’t figure out why nothing was working, why I felt so tired, and why I was always sad. I’m on something different now which actually works. I apparently had begun building up a resistance to the first medication and eventually actually needed a does larger than the amount I had been abusing, but that made me really angry and aggressive which scared me, so I stopped taking it and then the depression came back and hit me like a speeding train. Not the best years of my life by a long shot.
Billie wants to help people, deep down.
She always has, as shown in (http://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/03-answers-in-hennessy/alpha-bongo/)
“Head cheerleader. Problem solver. I’m an alpha boingo. I scope parties for roofies. I sneak girls into abortion clinics. I take down abusive boyfriends.”
Lots of “top girls” in high school don’t have that attitude of helping others in the not-quite-rules-following-way it’s needed.
(Yes, I put in “boingo” on purpose.)
Seriously, I love these breakdowns of the comic panels, if just because of how much depth goes into the analysis. They always give me new insights that I can add to my initial read through to better understand things when I reread the comic over again right afterwards.
Nawwwwwwwwwwwww? Maybe Nawwwww?
Ruth has grown but seriously Billie has to go therapy as well or she’s going to keep pulling down Ruth with her “we must be together because we are toxic” bullshit
Dammit, you made me cry. So Kudos to fantastic story telling.
cheers
ulrich
*somewhere, for no good reason, Walky sneezes*
The “Master of Chaos” thread up there contains multitudes.
Ruth and I seem to be pretty similar, both in taste and in apology faces.
Okay, I really want that jumbo Galasso magnet. He should be towering over everyone, yelling the word “FOOLS!” in a huge text box
Isn’t Billie becoming the more toxic one here? The phrase ‘we don’t deserve anyone but each other’ is pretty harmful. It almost sounds like she’s manipulating Ruth (albeit unintentionally).