Everybody progresses at a different rate on the romance front, and not everyone is even interested in romance.
What may come of this, time (and Jeph) will tell. Hopefully, we find out this week.
I had my first serious (and only) relationship at 19, and ended up marrying him. Which is great in many ways, although I sometimes wonder if I have 'missed out' on anything by not dating around more. Luckily my husband is the kind of person I can talk to about things like that.
QC: Subverting Expectations since 2003.
Poor Elliot though! It says a lot about him that he was expecting Clinton to say no to the point where he was actually trying to twist everything around into a coded phrase for 'no' or some kind of indirect rejection. I don't know if he's got low self-esteem or has just been rejected a lot (and, honestly, I cannot see why the latter would be the case).Self-confidence counts for a lot, and I've seen people with all different appearances and body types being bullied and outcast not any number of stupid reasons.
Burrito lady? There is a reason why you should always write down your orders.
I don't know if he's got low self-esteem or has just been rejected a lot (and, honestly, I cannot see why the latter would be the case).
BuT wHaT aBoUt Brun? I don't think she's interested in either of them, and she'll find some other person.
It's not like I'm spending my days grieving over lost dating opportunities ;) It comes up sometimes while watching movies and seeing the characters there moving through different relationships, getting over break ups and heartbreaks, etc. I've never done that, and that makes me feel like I can't really understand what the characters are experiencing. It's a small niggle, and not something that keeps me up at night.
You never know what life is going to throw at you, so I might still get to do this (break up, etc), only at a later stage of life.
Burrito lady? There is a reason why you should always write down your orders.
[...] it is implied that her former boss coerced her into letting customers sexually abuse her [...]
[...] it is implied that her former boss coerced her into letting customers sexually abuse her [...]
It is? When?
BuT wHaT aBoUt Brun? I don't think she's interested in either of them, and she'll find some other person.
Brun is a difficult case to assess; I honestly wonder if she may be aromantic.
---big snip---
I can't find anything with all those pieces together, but here are the closest things I could find:[...] it is implied that her former boss coerced her into letting customers sexually abuse her [...]
It is? When?
I wish I remembered in detail but I think it was in the same arc where Brun and Clinton went on a similar not-date to the one Clinton went on with Elliot just now. During which they talked about relationships and Brun mentioned that her employer had pressured her to let the clientele leer at her and generally disrespect her boundaries.
IIRC, it included Clinton visualising Elliot as a giant caveman ready to fight him for Brun's attention.
I always read the "ethically questionable" as things like "watering down the beer" or "not declaring things for tax", tbh.Or the Classical trick of swapping a cheaper beer with approximately the same colour in for whatever the customer actually ordered once you judge them drunk enough not to notice.
Other options include topping off discarded/abandoned drinks and serving them to new customers
:-D Poor Clinton.
In my own life, I was taught the "F*ck Yes" rule. If you ask someone out, anything other than a "F*ck Yes" (Not literally that word, but used to imply a definitive and firm yes) is really a no.
I've found it's generally true. "Maybe" "I'll get back to you" "I"ll let you know" "I'll think about it" "We might" "We could" generally are code for "no."
So I'll be interested to see how this places out.
Claire has NEVER BEEN HAPPIER. Her brother has finally asked her for relationship advice!
[...] although I sometimes wonder if I have 'missed out' on anything by not dating around more. [...]Hollywood movies keep talking about that, but why the heck would that ever be true.
I had my first serious (and only) relationship at 19, and ended up marrying him. Which is great in many ways, although I sometimes wonder if I have 'missed out' on anything by not dating around more.I started dating at 20, married her at 23, and nearly 24 years later we're still together and have three teenagers (yay...).
Claire has NEVER BEEN HAPPIER. Her brother has finally asked her for relationship advice!
In my own life, I was taught the "F*ck Yes" rule. If you ask someone out, anything other than a "F*ck Yes" (Not literally that word, but used to imply a definitive and firm yes) is really a no.
I've found it's generally true. "Maybe" "I'll get back to you" "I"ll let you know" "I'll think about it" "We might" "We could" generally are code for "no."
So I'll be interested to see how this places out.
I had my first serious (and only) relationship at 19, and ended up marrying him. Which is great in many ways, although I sometimes wonder if I have 'missed out' on anything by not dating around more. Luckily my husband is the kind of person I can talk to about things like that.
In my own life, I was taught the "F*ck Yes" rule. If you ask someone out, anything other than a "F*ck Yes" (Not literally that word, but used to imply a definitive and firm yes) is really a no.
I've found it's generally true. "Maybe" "I'll get back to you" "I"ll let you know" "I'll think about it" "We might" "We could" generally are code for "no."
So I'll be interested to see how this places out.
[...] They're not sure if you're a vampire.For the record: I'm definitely a vampire. I dont like the sun. I got a sunburn two weeks ago and it still friggin hurts. And I used a factor 30 protection creme and applied it twice. :-\ Still wasnt enough. :-\
I had my first serious (and only) relationship at 19, and ended up marrying him. Which is great in many ways, although I sometimes wonder if I have 'missed out' on anything by not dating around more. Luckily my husband is the kind of person I can talk to about things like that.
I got married at 21 and divorced at 23. If you're still happy, then I don't think you've missed out on anything.
I figured as much. Considering Clinton isn't just straight out saying "I'm not gay" then presumably he is bisexual. Well, at least Clinton has had only one and very brief on screen relationship with a woman and he's stated to have little to no real success with women before then. It's not like Jeph is contradicting any previously established history here.
Edit: When I say 'we', I mean "90s woke people" (and I agree that '90s woke' isn't very woke at all) - there was a lot of hostility towards queer people, and a lot of "tolerance for intolerance" even from 'progressives'.The way I see it, intolerance should be considered a disorder, sometimes debilitating---if the intolerant person finds himself unable to interact well with the persons he cannot tolerate. I don't think tolerance of intolerance necessarily condones intolerance, but is simply the ability to interact with the intolerant person. I'm quite tolerant of intolerance---to wit, I've years tolerant cohabitation with an aggressive bigot---but that doesn't stop me avoiding intolerants, discouraging intolerance.
In my experience, if I ask someone out and they reply with anything other than a yes, it is a no. If I follow up on a maybe, they will either give me another maybe, a "no" or simply not reply.I think the reason for this is that, by default, you're not in the relationship, and entering a relationship requires all parties' consent. I prefer having a firm ``yes,'' before considering myself in a relationship, because it makes my internal bookkeeping about it cleaner. The way I have it is that, if there's no firm ``yes,'' then the relationship that is the case might be something that's very similar, and sometimes it's only later acknowledged by all parties, at which point it could be that the only difference in the relationship is that just before, there wasn't the acknowledgement, and then there was.
I also agree that "let me think about it" can't simply be interpreted as a "no," and I am pretty confident that Clinton is not speaking in code. I don't really think that's him.
Would life have been different if you'd chosen someone else? Yes, and undoubtedly it would be better in some ways and worse in others. But that's not the point. It's not about trying to find your "soulmate" (a poisonous notion for which popular media has much to answer). It's about making a choice and a committment. Part of that committment is not spending serious time wondering about the other choices you could have made. The occasional "what if" isn't a problem, but if you find yourself asking it more and more often, you need to start paying attention to the choice you did make, because there's work that needs to be done. Any successful long term relationship needs continuing work and investment, just as a home or a car needs maintenance. It's easy to let it drift until the minor, unnoticed issues suddenly build up to something big, and a ceiling falls down or steam starts coming from the engine. We all have to guard against that tendency.
I also agree that "let me think about it" can't simply be interpreted as a "no," and I am pretty confident that Clinton is not speaking in code. I don't really think that's him.
Even if it is a no, I can see this also as another messed up thing that he's got to figure out how to deal with.
This is deep wisdom.QuoteWould life have been different if you'd chosen someone else? Yes, and undoubtedly it would be better in some ways and worse in others. But that's not the point. It's not about trying to find your "soulmate" (a poisonous notion for which popular media has much to answer). It's about making a choice and a committment. Part of that committment is not spending serious time wondering about the other choices you could have made. The occasional "what if" isn't a problem, but if you find yourself asking it more and more often, you need to start paying attention to the choice you did make, because there's work that needs to be done. Any successful long term relationship needs continuing work and investment, just as a home or a car needs maintenance. It's easy to let it drift until the minor, unnoticed issues suddenly build up to something big, and a ceiling falls down or steam starts coming from the engine. We all have to guard against that tendency.
It reminds me of an aphorism that goes something like "Don't worry about making the right decision. Make the decision right."
Comic's up!
I'm not at all sure about the way Claire is going about this. Is this about Clinton's desires, or hers?
whynotboth.gifIn fairness to Clinton's possibly non-existant heterosexuality: Claire's description is extremely appealing to me on a non-sexual level. I am deeply touch-starved due to an fear of so much as touching other people, especially women instilled by years of exhortations that, as an XY individual, I must mind my strength and raw inpulses at all times, constantly wary of the inherent beast within. One of my best friends insists on hugging me on our every parting because he knows this and accepts that aspect of my psychology.
whynotboth.gifIn fairness to Clinton's possibly non-existant heterosexuality: Claire's description is extremely appealing to me on a non-sexual level. I am deeply touch-starved due to an fear of so much as touching other people, especially women instilled by years of exhortations that, as an XY individual, I must mind my strength and raw inpulses at all times, constantly wary of the inherent beast within. One of my best friends insists on hugging me on our every parting because he knows this and accepts that aspect of my psychology.
whynotboth.gifIn fairness to Clinton's possibly non-existant heterosexuality: Claire's description is extremely appealing to me on a non-sexual level. I am deeply touch-starved due to an fear of so much as touching other people, especially women instilled by years of exhortations that, as an XY individual, I must mind my strength and raw inpulses at all times, constantly wary of the inherent beast within. One of my best friends insists on hugging me on our every parting because he knows this and accepts that aspect of my psychology.
That said, Clinton is doing some deep thinking guided by Claire (and Pintsize?). I hope Elliot, Clinton, Millefuille, and Brunhilde all arrive in a situation that brings the most pleasure to all of them with as few broken hearts as possible.
known heterosexual
Presumably Clinton has never fantasized about men before, or he wouldn't feel confused as he said in the first panel.
also i'm not sure exactly what it means, though i have some suspicions, that there's so relatively few of you that seem to be actually enjoying this so far
edit: i'm not here all the time for all dating stories, but there's a *marked* difference in how the aggregate you reacts to the different joyful pairings and hopeful pairings, and like... I feel like there's a paper or three in that.
edit again cuz fuckit: elliot's being adorable, clinton's being adorable, they make me squee, what can i say
I'm no longer sold on him being bi. Mainly because he didn't overheat that way over Brun or Emily. In fact, he had a conversation with Brun where he expressed uncertainty as to whether he was attracted to her. Which was a conversation I found decidedly weird at the time, since I've never had any doubts about who I found attractive. But then, I was never a gay male attempting to struggle against cultural programming telling me I should be interested in women.
er.... hey friend, I don't know if you've noticed, but *gestures at men*
that ain't how it works for... gosh, a lot lot lot lot lot of people
(1) it might end in disappointment; Jeph is certainly ruthless enough to do that
You need to be more specific here, because I have no idea what you are inferring.
Presumably Clinton has never fantasized about men before, or he wouldn't feel confused as he said in the first panel.
I wouldn't mind this being unpacked a bit. The implication seems to be that people here have some kind of problem with gay male relationships, but given what I know of this forum (and I'm a brand new poster, but I've been reading posts for a while), I don't think that's true?
Pretty sure that first panel indicates he's bi to some degree.whynotboth.gifIn fairness to Clinton's possibly non-existant heterosexuality: Claire's description is extremely appealing to me on a non-sexual level. I am deeply touch-starved due to an fear of so much as touching other people, especially women instilled by years of exhortations that, as an XY individual, I must mind my strength and raw inpulses at all times, constantly wary of the inherent beast within. One of my best friends insists on hugging me on our every parting because he knows this and accepts that aspect of my psychology.
That said, Clinton is doing some deep thinking guided by Claire (and Pintsize?). I hope Elliot, Clinton, Millefuille, and Brunhilde all arrive in a situation that brings the most pleasure to all of them with as few broken hearts as possible.
Claire's going romance novel at Clinton - but Clinton's the one who's overheating, blushing, and about to blow a gasket. Claire's fine.This is also my opinion. I would say that if someone says "maybe", then it's up to them to get back to you if they conclude that they are interested. If they don't get back to you - then either that "maybe" was actually a "no" all along or it turned into a "no" after they thought about it some more. If their "maybe" turns into a "yes" after they spend some time thinking about it, they will let you know.
Weighing in on the "Let me think about it" issue - to me, that means "no until I've come back to you about it." I wouldn't push for another answer, but I also wouldn't give up hope, at least not right away. If they haven't gotten back to me within a week or so, THEN I would assume it's a "no".
Or maybe he's just a polite young man who has yet to have any sort of long-enough term romantic relationship for sex to really be on his radar and he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.That's not how males work. Sex is definitely on your radar long, long before relationships are a possibility or sex is at all likely.
I will say that it was definitely an internal, instinctual thing.
Prior to age 13, I knew what the mechanics were, and I knew what the equipment looked like from "playing doctor," but I wasn't really interested.
Then a switch flipped and suddenly I was pretty motivated to have sex and think about sex.
As for fantasies - well, I was fantasizing about the girl down the street when I was 13. It starts pretty early for guys, (...)
Or maybe he's just a polite young man who has yet to have any sort of long-enough term romantic relationship for sex to really be on his radar and he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.That's not how males work. Sex is definitely on your radar long, long before relationships are a possibility or sex is at all likely.
Just to provide the anecdotal counter-example, I developed romantic crushes on girls well before sex was on the radar.
It's easy to assume that males develop an interest in sex early because of the omnipresent "all guys think about is sex" narrative that conflates pursuing female attention with a sexual drive.
[...] Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay. [...]Wait, thats supposed to be a POSITIVE reaction ???????? Woa, I totally though the opposite.
[...] Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay. [...]Wait, thats supposed to be a POSITIVE reaction ???????? Woa, I totally though the opposite.
if you go to the quiet and semi-secret places where men actually discuss their attractions and their fantasies, if you look at what men actually do in their lives, this statement doesn't hold water. for what rather seems to be the majority of men, this is not how it works, despite the propaganda lines too many of them too-often spout when they fear loss of status. The ideas put forth in this statement, that fantasies resolve confusion, are inadequate to explain reality.
Or maybe he's just a polite young man who has yet to have any sort of long-enough term romantic relationship for sex to really be on his radar and he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.That's not how males work. Sex is definitely on your radar long, long before relationships are a possibility or sex is at all likely.
I can't really justify it, but on further reflection the phrasing of panel one has put idea of Clinton being Biromantic and whatever the appropriate term for a greysexual who hasn't quite figured that out about themselves.I'd love to see Jeph go down the path of having a character whose romantic orientation and sexual orientation don't fully match up. And exploring how that affects dating & relationships for them etc... For example pan/bi-romantic and heterosexual (or homosexual or asexual). Or another combination. It could work well with a polyamory storyline too.
Jeph does seem to like this whole 'the one exception' trope in his romantic writing. We've seen it literally almost every time that a major cast member gets into a long-term relationship since the Dorapocalypse. These examples come to mind:My point? I think that Jeph's view is that your one true partner is quite frequently the last person you'd expect and actually quite different from your 'type'. Although, arguably, Marten/Claire diverges from that last part as Claire is, in personality terms, quite similar to Faye, Dora and Padma (assertive, strong-willed but with strong insecurities). In any case, this viewpoint is clearly being reflected in a lot of his characters' most serious romantic relationships: It is the interpersonal match between those two individuals that matters, not any pre-existing labels about romantic and sexual attraction.
- Marten is basically hetero and very, very mildly bicurious yet he has fallen head-over-heels with Claire without even a blink of hesitation other than a concern about professional ethics; indeed his reaction to her was 'You're beautiful';
- Faye has never shown the slightest bisexual interest before meeting Bubbles (who, let's not be squeamish about it, isn't even her species);
- May and Sven are clearly in a mutual orbit despite the fact neither of them have shown the slightest interest in anything beyond sex before;
- Now Clinton, who has never shown even the slightest bi tendencies, is clearly very, very attracted to Elliot on a physical level as well as clearly having a strong emotional rapport.
Jeph does seem to like this whole 'the one exception' trope in his romantic writing. We've seen it literally almost every time that a major cast member gets into a long-term relationship since the Dorapocalypse. These examples come to mind:My point? I think that Jeph's view is that your one true partner is quite frequently the last person you'd expect and actually quite different from your 'type'. Although, arguably, Marten/Claire diverges from that last part as Claire is, in personality terms, quite similar to Faye, Dora and Padma (assertive, strong-willed but with strong insecurities). In any case, this viewpoint is clearly being reflected in a lot of his characters' most serious romantic relationships: It is the interpersonal match between those two individuals that matters, not any pre-existing labels about romantic and sexual attraction.
- Marten is basically hetero and very, very mildly bicurious yet he has fallen head-over-heels with Claire without even a blink of hesitation other than a concern about professional ethics; indeed his reaction to her was 'You're beautiful';
- Faye has never shown the slightest bisexual interest before meeting Bubbles (who, let's not be squeamish about it, isn't even her species);
- May and Sven are clearly in a mutual orbit despite the fact neither of them have shown the slightest interest in anything beyond sex before;
- Now Clinton, who has never shown even the slightest bi tendencies, is clearly very, very attracted to Elliot on a physical level as well as clearly having a strong emotional rapport.
Not much to debate there.
I think (my) concern (problem is too strong a word) is that these "exceptions" are all occurring within a very small group of people.
Like... "Hmmm... which two characters can I use to squeeze into a relationship/situation which might be deemed something other than what wider society views as "normal", today...?"
And unfortunately, using these things in such a way as Ben describes above - makes them almost smack of tokenism...
Jeph does seem to like this whole 'the one exception' trope in his romantic writing. We've seen it literally almost every time that a major cast member gets into a long-term relationship since the Dorapocalypse. These examples come to mind:My point? I think that Jeph's view is that your one true partner is quite frequently the last person you'd expect and actually quite different from your 'type'. Although, arguably, Marten/Claire diverges from that last part as Claire is, in personality terms, quite similar to Faye, Dora and Padma (assertive, strong-willed but with strong insecurities). In any case, this viewpoint is clearly being reflected in a lot of his characters' most serious romantic relationships: It is the interpersonal match between those two individuals that matters, not any pre-existing labels about romantic and sexual attraction.
- Marten is basically hetero and very, very mildly bicurious yet he has fallen head-over-heels with Claire without even a blink of hesitation other than a concern about professional ethics; indeed his reaction to her was 'You're beautiful';
- Faye has never shown the slightest bisexual interest before meeting Bubbles (who, let's not be squeamish about it, isn't even her species);
- May and Sven are clearly in a mutual orbit despite the fact neither of them have shown the slightest interest in anything beyond sex before;
- Now Clinton, who has never shown even the slightest bi tendencies, is clearly very, very attracted to Elliot on a physical level as well as clearly having a strong emotional rapport.
Not much to debate there.
I think (my) concern (problem is too strong a word) is that these "exceptions" are all occurring within a very small group of people.
Like... "Hmmm... which two characters can I use to squeeze into a relationship/situation which might be deemed something other than what wider society views as "normal", today...?"
And unfortunately, using these things in such a way as Ben describes above - makes them almost smack of tokenism...
In fairness however, if most of your social circle is LGBT, and you are not, you're probably much more liable to be open to the possibilities than if everyone you know is cis/hetero and repressed as all hell.
Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.
Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.
Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella. Thus Martin/Claire is a queer relationship even though Martin himself might not be queer.
... he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.
Then completely ignore it as is right & proper because Jimbo.... he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.
Do people really do this? My fantasies get way ahead of me. That's what they're FOR.
I want to see Clinton go to the Horrible Revelation for a thoughtful beer and get some relationship advice from Jimbo.
:) :) :)
look at all these different perspectives. As a longtime lurker that's definitely been one of the benefits of reading both this comic and this forum. It's expanded my worldview and shown me so, so many perspectives and experiences! The conclusion of which has generally been--just because it's something I haven't experienced before doesn't mean it doesn't exist <3
Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.
Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella. Thus Martin/Claire is a queer relationship even though Martin himself might not be queer.
That depends. Does a relationship between, say, a bi guy and a bi girl count as "queer" just based on them being bi?
My take as a cis and het man:Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella. Thus Martin/Claire is a queer relationship even though Martin himself might not be queer.
That depends. Does a relationship between, say, a bi guy and a bi girl count as "queer" just based on them being bi?
I can't really justify it, but on further reflection the phrasing of panel one has put idea of Clinton being Biromantic and whatever the appropriate term for a greysexual who hasn't quite figured that out about themselves.I'd love to see Jeph go down the path of having a character whose romantic orientation and sexual orientation don't fully match up. And exploring how that affects dating & relationships for them etc... For example pan/bi-romantic and heterosexual (or homosexual or asexual). Or another combination. It could work well with a polyamory storyline too.
From a meta perspective - given that this is something we haven't seen in the comic yet and that Jeph is very big on inclusion - I think there's a decent chance that this is where this is leading. *Gets out my probably-panromantic-and-grey-heterosexual flag to wave vigorously*
(And hopefully it would still lead for happiness for Elliot #TeamElliot)
That depends. Does a relationship between, say, a bi guy and a bi girl count as "queer" just based on them being bi?
:) :) :)
look at all these different perspectives. As a longtime lurker that's definitely been one of the benefits of reading both this comic and this forum. It's expanded my worldview and shown me so, so many perspectives and experiences! The conclusion of which has generally been--just because it's something I haven't experienced before doesn't mean it doesn't exist <3
I can't imagine anyone normal being turned on by any sort of erotic scenario narrated by their sibling. It's too damn close to incest. I mean, a family member is telling you an erotic story, and then you like pop a woodie or something?
I can't imagine anyone normal being turned on by any sort of erotic scenario narrated by their sibling. It's too damn close to incest. I mean, a family member is telling you an erotic story, and then you like pop a woodie or something?
Yeah, I'm surprised nobody else is touching on this part.
I thought it was a bit weird, but so are those two... She advised him to visualise a situation with someone (literally) unrelated, and got carried away in supporting the visualising because Claire. Clinton's reaction could be more embarrassed than "popping a woodie"? Though I do think it looks like he likes the idea...I can't imagine anyone normal being turned on by any sort of erotic scenario narrated by their sibling. It's too damn close to incest. I mean, a family member is telling you an erotic story, and then you like pop a woodie or something?Yeah, I'm surprised nobody else is touching on this part.
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
Also, people somehow seem to assume that Clinton being involved with both Elliot and Brun would rule out Brun being involved with Millefeuille?
Edit to add more comments that are going to be ignored:
- In my understanding of Clinton's previous conversation with Elliot, he didn't feel the need to categorise his orientation. He wasn't aware of being attracted to men, but he was open to the possibility.
- In my social circle, I've had someone come out as straight... (That's completely fine, of course, we are open-minded and everything)
I thought it was a bit weird, but so are those two... She advised him to visualise a situation with someone (literally) unrelated, and got carried away in supporting the visualising because Claire. Clinton's reaction could be more embarrassed than "popping a woodie"? Though I do think it looks like he likes the idea...I can't imagine anyone normal being turned on by any sort of erotic scenario narrated by their sibling. It's too damn close to incest. I mean, a family member is telling you an erotic story, and then you like pop a woodie or something?Yeah, I'm surprised nobody else is touching on this part.
As for the comic, I hope things go the polyam route because I've enjoyed various character interactions that might be expanded upon, but right now I'm just really rooting for the Clinton/Elliot element to happen because this is...very cute.
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
As a tangent, it comes to mind that I seriously don't think that the comic has yet depicted an AI-to-AI romantic relationship -- but then again, there was that one strip of Winslow being stunned speechless over Roko, of which absolutely nothing has resulted since.
QuoteAs a tangent, it comes to mind that I seriously don't think that the comic has yet depicted an AI-to-AI romantic relationship -- but then again, there was that one strip of Winslow being stunned speechless over Roko, of which absolutely nothing has resulted since.
There was Seven and the previously-just-an-arm AI whose name I can't remember for the life of me, and my archive-fu is not very good.
That would be Jeremy (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3434)
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNNG!
A forum member has employed logic and common sense in the WCDT!
DEPLOY THE DRONES! RELEASE THE BATTLE-PANDAS!
This is NOT a drill!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNNG!
A forum member has employed logic and common sense in the WCDT!
DEPLOY THE DRONES! RELEASE THE BATTLE-PANDAS!
This is NOT a drill!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man, the battle Pandas, are you sure!? Might be an escalation too far. I mean, I’ve seen some stone-cold badasses in my time, but those pandas... they don’t give a f*ck!!
That was an adorable exchange. Also I've been giggling nonstop at this week's strips, maybe because I can relate to Clinton a lot.
Clinton: "So how long does 'personal growth and acceptance' TAKE? I'm on a schedule."
Claire: "......"
Clinton: "What?"
I'm sorry if I'm being ignorant about the poly relationship stuff. Any talk I've received about sexual orientation and relationships has completely skipped over that as an option; in fact, prior to Marten meeting Tai (which I first read ~4 months ago), I really didn't know they truly existed at all. Please tell me if I say anything else rude or offensive or just plain forgetful on that front.Oh, nothing rude or offensive that I noticed. Just that in all the speculations and last week's poll listing all kinds of constellations, Brun/Mille + Clinton/Elliot and Clinton/Elliot/Brun were treated as mutually exclusive and the idea of "all of the above" didn't come up, but that doesn't make sense. Well, not to me at least. Then again, the whole concept of monogamy doesn't really make sense to me. It's a common misconception, though also a preference of some, that everyone has to be involved with everyone in a polyamorous relationship. While the more common reality seems to be along the lines of "A is involved with B and C, B and C hopefully get along, B is also married to D, C is casually dating a few other people, monogamous friends regularly ask for diagrams", oh and "A and B are looking for a 'third' to 'add to their relationship' and are surprised at the shortage of hot bi girls lining up to date both of them".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oh no, I'm terribly sorry, it's an annoying habit of mine it won't happen- wait did I do it again? Ugh, I'm defenseless against battle-pandas!
WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNING! PROTOCOL BREACH! WARNNG!
A forum member has employed logic and common sense in the WCDT!
DEPLOY THE DRONES! RELEASE THE BATTLE-PANDAS!
This is NOT a drill!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then completely ignore it as is right & proper because Jimbo.... he's making an effort to not get ahead of himself with fantasies.
Do people really do this? My fantasies get way ahead of me. That's what they're FOR.
I want to see Clinton go to the Horrible Revelation for a thoughtful beer and get some relationship advice from Jimbo.
Sigh... How about, relationships don't have orientations or gender identities so they can't be queer or straight? :?
They have every right to their opinion. They have no right to be an asshole about it.
Please do not take their behaviour as representative of how inclusive queer folk are generally.
known heterosexual
sorry friend, but citation needed
there's been a helluva lot of ink spilled on cultural assumptions, so i hate to spill more, but... yeah.
I find myself agreeing with Pintsize. Which is generally not a good thing.
Seriously, the narrative Claire spins doesn't do anything for me, because, y'know, I'm not at all attracted to men, or male sexual attributes like bulging muscles. Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay.
I'm no longer sold on him being bi. Mainly because he didn't overheat that way over Brun or Emily. In fact, he had a conversation with Brun where he expressed uncertainty as to whether he was attracted to her. Which was a conversation I found decidedly weird at the time, since I've never had any doubts about who I found attractive. But then, I was never a gay male attempting to struggle against cultural programming telling me I should be interested in women.
In fairness however, if most of your social circle is LGBT, and you are not, you're probably much more liable to be open to the possibilities than if everyone you know is cis/hetero and repressed as all hell.What difference does it make if they are repressed? In fact it seems to me that it ought to be worse if they were outspoken about it, so I don't know why you added this clause at all (it comes aross to me as a little bit of gratuitously implying that cis/hetero people are just that way because they are repressed, but presumably that's not what you intended). If you do think that would make it worse I'd be interested to know why.
Who should Clinton go to for relationship advice?Pintsize, of course!
Can we just skip to the relationship we ALL really care about? Anthropomorphic French bread and Roko!Maybe she should try going out with one of the toaster AIs (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1999) (one who is willing to engage in conversation rather than just flinging toast at her à la Pintsize). Although we know she also has a weakness for Human Abs, and has fantasised about Clinton before.
Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.
Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella. Thus Martin/Claire is a queer relationship even though Martin himself might not be queer.
For a pop culture example of writers fucking this sort of thing up, see the show Big Mouth having a pansexual character explain her sexuality as being into men, women, men transitioning into women, and women transitioning into men (using tacos and hot dogs or something - idk, I don't watch it, just saw a clip back when this was a thing).
For a pop culture example of writers fucking this sort of thing up, see the show Big Mouth having a pansexual character explain her sexuality as being into men, women, men transitioning into women, and women transitioning into men (using tacos and hot dogs or something - idk, I don't watch it, just saw a clip back when this was a thing).
In addition to the offensive statement about trans* people's genders "not counting," they also completely left out nonbinary, agender, gender-fluid, etc. from under the pansexual umbrella.
I have the perfect analogy: gender/sexual identity is a vector space with infinite dimensionSo if someone masturbates, then they're a unitary operator.
The ideal partner for Roko is a freshly baked loaf of french bread with absSo, Elliot? [emoji16]
The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?
I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.
The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?
I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.
I get what you mean, and I like the analogy, but where would something like pansexuality fall on the scale?
Or, is it more like a series of gradients? Like, this is where I fall on the bisexuality scale, this is where I fall on the demisexuality scale, etc.
Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
Prediction!
Despite Renee's advice, Elliot is going to get more and more dejected. Eventually he will reach that state of depression known as "completely out of fucks".
This will actually feel strangely liberating to Elliot, like a nirvana made of screaming obscenities at pressmen (your experiences may vary).
So the next time he see's Brun, he'll ask her out, bluntly, without hesitation, expecting a refusal because he figures that's all he deserves.
She'll say yes. This will eventually register with Elliot.
Then Clinton will show up to discover that Elliot is now going out with Brun. He will also lapse into depression.
Except Brun tells him that it's okay if he also goes out with Elliot, because she's normalized the behavior of casual relationships from watching Renee, and will consider it perfectly reasonable for a person to try dating multiple people before settling on one person. Jumping into a commitment right from the get go is stupid, after all.
This will cause Clinton to ask if... maybe... it would be okay if they also went out. Brun will reply sure.
This is the point where Elliot wakes up to his cat sitting on his chest demanding brekky.
I wonder if it's more a matter of personality for Clinton?I find myself agreeing with Pintsize. Which is generally not a good thing.
Seriously, the narrative Claire spins doesn't do anything for me, because, y'know, I'm not at all attracted to men, or male sexual attributes like bulging muscles. Clinton's reactions make him out to be pretty gay.
I'm no longer sold on him being bi. Mainly because he didn't overheat that way over Brun or Emily. In fact, he had a conversation with Brun where he expressed uncertainty as to whether he was attracted to her. Which was a conversation I found decidedly weird at the time, since I've never had any doubts about who I found attractive. But then, I was never a gay male attempting to struggle against cultural programming telling me I should be interested in women.
You're assuming too much. Not being attracted by a woman (or even two, for that matter) doesn't mean not being attracted by women.
Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
Jeremy - the former assembly arm - has been one of my favourite minor characters ever since he spoke up to help Bubbles way back then... I'd love to see more of him and Seven, and how they're going with the new robot fighting gym.Quote
As a tangent, it comes to mind that I seriously don't think that the comic has yet depicted an AI-to-AI romantic relationship -- but then again, there was that one strip of Winslow being stunned speechless over Roko, of which absolutely nothing has resulted since.
There was Seven and the previously-just-an-arm AI whose name I can't remember for the life of me, and my archive-fu is not very good.
Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?
Does Scotch count as food? :-DSourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?
The way I perceive it, homo-, hetero- and bisexual are "just" points on a gradient. The question is: how far towards one end are you, actually? Too far out to ever consider it? Far enough inward to fantasise about it? Not enough for something serious? Or, like Faye and apparently Clinton - if you met the right person, you realise you're not that far off to one end?
I hope, my late night rambling makes enough sense to you, and doesn't offend anyone. It's just how it makes most sense to me, personally.
I get what you mean, and I like the analogy, but where would something like pansexuality fall on the scale?
Or, is it more like a series of gradients? Like, this is where I fall on the bisexuality scale, this is where I fall on the demisexuality scale, etc.
Does Scotch count as food? :-DSourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
I take it, then, that you're not a fan of fermented foods in general?
Quick note that being attracted to Claire does nothing to alter Marten's sexuality. He's no less hetero for falling for a trans woman.
Again, I'm not up on my modern terminology, but my understanding is that trans people are by definition under the queer umbrella.
. Science 1974 Dec 27; 186 (4170): 1213-5
In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970's, guevedoces ... These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these 'girls' sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects. Their underlying pathology was found to be a deficiency of the enzyme, 5-alpha Reductase
Okay: So it seems that, like some forumites, Elliot has assumed that 'let me think about it' was code for 'no' and has gone to a dark and sad place as a result. Which makes me think I know where this may go next.
If there is one thing that makes you vulnerable to making snap decisions its feeling down like this. So, when someone walks into the bakery (Roko?), sees sad Elliot and starts trying to cheer him up in way that could be interpreted as flirting with him, he's going to grab the chance with both hands. So, Clinton is going to come in to say 'yes' to find that the boat has sailed. Then he'll be the one feeling bad and likely to make a snap and poor choice and so on. So, we're going to have a chain of interim relationship choices which may or may not turn out to be long-term but with this unfinished business always hovering in the background.
If I'm right, Jeph has basically given himself about 3,000 strips of material as everything slowly works itself out.
I still think it's weird to call relationships queer or straight or gay in general, just because one or more of the people involved are. Or, think about this: you'd call a relationship queer because ONE of the people involved is - but wouldn't it just as well be straight because one of the people involved is? Hmm? Unless that one person somehow taints the whole relationship with their queerness...
I have the perfect analogy: gender/sexual identity is a vector space with infinite dimensionSo if someone masturbates, then they're a unitary operator.
Someone who has a conjugal visit with someone just like them is Hermitian.
Clinton seems to be finding traces of bisexuality. Clinton and Elliot can have a good time together if they're determinant to do so. :clairedoge:
I was going to make more awful puns, but it's been at least ten years since the last time I've taken a class in linear algebra. :psyduck:
Whiteness is an idea built around a default and an absence of a perceived characteristic. As harmful as that idea historically was, that's how it's still used, including by non-white people.I'm not an expert on racial matters, but someone whose (more immediate, visible) ancestry includes non-white people will be subjected to racism and treated much more like a POC than like a white person. Relationships between people who appear to have different racial heritage are also treated accordingly, so it makes sense to me to call them "interracial". I don't even know if this comparison is any good, as the whole concept of race is pretty much Western colonial bullshit as far as I've understood it. Though... the concept of straight vs. gay or queer seems to be quite recently made up Western bullshit as well, so... sigh. I digress.
Similarly, if we say a relationship involving a queer person is queer relationship, I don't think it *automatically* follows that a relationship involving a straight person is a straight relationship.
I continue to wonder if the "queer" label for a relationship should be metonymic for the people in it, or a description of something about the relationship itself. Is there any semi-broad consensus on that?Is there any good reason to use the "queer" label for a relationship that's not even visibly challenging any norms? The only reason I can see for saying "queer relationship" in a metonymic way would be having a shorter term for "relationship that's not between a man and a woman". Other than that, what's the point?
Risky click of the day.
That being said, whether a relationship (or an individual) is considered is really up to them.
Going back to my original point about "queer relationships" - I understand the argument that relationships can't be queer or straight. However, we talk about queer politics, queer art, queer music, queer fashion, queer culture., etc. Does queerness inhabit everything queer people do, except for interpersonal relationships if the other person happens to be cis and of the (perceived) opposite gender?
If you're going at it with the presumption (which is what the comic suggests) that Claire "passes" I do agree on a day-to-day basis Martin's lived experience is pretty conventional. However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life. Sort of like how if you're white and date a black person (as I have in the past) you become much more aware of casual racism that you would otherwise have been blind to. It wouldn't make Martin himself queer of course, but it would make the "personal political" for him.
Going back to my original point about "queer relationships" - I understand the argument that relationships can't be queer or straight. However, we talk about queer politics, queer art, queer music, queer fashion, queer culture., etc. Does queerness inhabit everything queer people do, except for interpersonal relationships if the other person happens to be cis and of the (perceived) opposite gender?...Ah, oddtail already made the points I just typed, plus another good one.
If you're going at it with the presumption (which is what the comic suggests) that Claire "passes" I do agree on a day-to-day basis Martin's lived experience is pretty conventional. However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life. Sort of like how if you're white and date a black person (as I have in the past) you become much more aware of casual racism that you would otherwise have been blind to. It wouldn't make Martin himself queer of course, but it would make the "personal political" for him.
Does a person need to be "visible" in order to be queer?I hope you're not putting words in my mouth that I never said in any way. A person obviously doesn't need to be visibly queer in order to be queer. My question was about relationships, and it was a question. That you didn't answer. Why would you want to say you're in a "queer relationship" because of something about the identity or orientation of your partner? How does that make the relationship queer? I can see it make some amount of sense if the partner is visibly queer and it affects the way the relationship is treated (like in eschaton's example), but not if it doesn't make a difference for the relationship.
That being said, whether a relationship (or an individual) is considered queer is really up to them.
I mean, if people can self-identify their gender whatever they wish, they can also self-identify their sexuality however they wish. So if someone who is in a relationship with a transwoman wants to call themselves queer, that's kinda up to them.Well, if an otherwise straight man wants to call himself queer on the basis of being in a relationship with a trans woman, I sure hope he tells her that so she can choose to let him self-identify without her. (In case it wasn't clear, that's implying she's not a "real woman", again.)
Again, queer is a self ascribed label and shouldn't be thrust upon anyone from the outside.
I mean, if people can self-identify their gender whatever they wish, they can also self-identify their sexuality however they wish.
I mean, if people can self-identify their gender whatever they wish, they can also self-identify their sexuality however they wish.
But it's not a matter of self-identifying as they wish - which implies a free choice. It's self-identifying what they are - i.e. not necessarily what other people think they are.
However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life.
Whoever bakes it for you may be doing something wrong then. The sourdough culture needs to be ... cultured. My wife has pretty much nailed it. It does become a bit too potent over time. I'm afraid I don't know exactly what she does to avoid that. Best consumed within a couple of days.Sourdough is made of nothing but happiness, Jeph, you heathen.Sourdough tastes like bread that has gone rancid to me.
However, if Claire did not pass he would deal with transphobia and (wrongly assigned) homophobia as part of his everyday life.Perhaps you might care to rephrase that? Referring to Claire as "him" is, ...
The way I read it, they were referring to Marten, really. As in, "if Claire didn't pass, Marten would have to deal with..."I figured that it was referring to Marten, but strictly speaking, pronouns refer to the latest thing mentioned that that pronoun could refer to: a gendered personal pronoun would refer to the latest-mentioned person of that gender; whether a gendered personal pronoun refers apply to the latest-mentioned person depends on that person's gender. Of course, associateing different gender as that person's gender might cause a reader to misconstrue that sentence. (This ability to misconstrue based on the reader's (mis-) understanding of someone's gender might be used to to covertly signal one's ideas about someone's gender to like-minded persons.) I try to avoid that confusion by using ``he'' for any gender.
Really obvious from the preceding sentence, really.
The way I read it, they were referring to Marten, really. As in, "if Claire didn't pass, Marten would have to deal with..."
Really obvious from the preceding sentence, really.
I try to avoid that confusion by using "he'' for any gender.
"He'' only came to connote the masculine gender after some persons tried to make persons of the feminine gender somehow inferior by introducing "she.''
A similar history can be seen with the word "woman''---"man'' was always just short for "human'' (yes the moon-landing quote was faked) but "woman'' was introduced to try to dehumanize humans of the feminine gender.
``He'' only came to connote the masculine gender after some persons tried to make persons of the femmenine gender somehow inferior by introducing ``she.'' A similar history can be seen with the word ``woman''---``man'' was always just short for ``human'' (yes the moon-landing quote was faked) but ``woman'' was introduced to try to dehumanize humans of the femmenine gender. Since ages of using the dehumanizing terms in reference to humans of the femmenine gender, while their dehumanizing intent is kept covert, many have assumed that the primary meaning of the terms is to refer to the femmenine gender.I find your assertion dubious. Citation needed.
I googled.
Where did ‘she’ come from? (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/where-did-she-come-from/)
TLDR: There's no definitive answer.
If avoiding confusion truly is the goal, I'd suggest that the use of the pronoun 'they' has become far more common than the previous use of 'he' as a gender-neutral pronoun, and would therefore cause less confusion (not to mention upset). Regardless of etymology.
The way I read it, they were referring to Marten, really. As in, "if Claire didn't pass, Marten would have to deal with..."
Really obvious from the preceding sentence, really.
Indeed, the subject of the paragraph is Marten, not Claire - which is clear from the sentances before and after.
One wonders what Renee's ANGRY bread tastes like? :laugh:If the world isn't ready for Chaos Loaf (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=4077), it's probably not ready for Angry Renee Bread either.