Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Couch is going down!

Couch is going up!

-.. .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- -. --.

[Near Lurker]

She's a pure lesbian and not into men at all. And she would like to have a relationship with a woman, but she just cant get any. Obviously she's actually very frustrated in that area, even if, thanks to her cheerful character, she doesnt show it much.

Yes, she can.  She's getting plenty.  At most, she wants something more meaningful, but what's relevant to the current situation is just that she wants something with Dora.

Also, she's highly attracted to Faye and her breasts and would absolutely love to see them. Sadly Faye isnt into women at all, so Tai stands no chance in hell to have any success with Faye in this respect.

So when she sees Dora, who is comfortable around women, undressing so carelessly, she's inspired to attempt to undress Faye in a joking way.

I don't think so.  I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there.  If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.

[TheEvilDog]

I don't think so.  I think it was the only action she could think of after pulling off her own top that was clearly flirty but didn't completely blow plausible deniability out of the water; Faye just happened to be there.  If it had been Penelope or Hannelore there, she'd have done it to Penelope or Hannelore.

Prediction for tomorrow, Tai with a black eye or several bruises, gifts from the house of Whitaker. (Of course, if it had been Hanners, Tai might have gotten a concussion, what with Hanners tendency to flail about when she panics. Penelope, I think she'd be the kind of person to slap people across the cheek. Nothing says no like a stinging cheek.)

[DSL]

Just an observation ... just about every time the forum lights up with "Oooh, now shit's gonna get real," what actually happens is way less severe and a tad more comic than the predictions ( including mine).
That said, I can imagine Hanners's reaction ranging from the aforementioned flailing to "Dwah?!" to "It bothers me that I'm becoming inured to this."
Penelope's reaction could be interesting; for all her priggish rants when the situation is theoretical, she's displayed amusing aplomb when the situation finally presents itself, viz. the accidential presentation if Wil's Poetry Of Tumescence. Look at her ass, Tai, and tell her it's pretty.
Hm. The Bitter Barista could be the one to stop our little libidinous librarian dead in her tracks. For purposes of hilarity, of course.

[Emperor Norton]

The idea that because a stereotype exists, no character in fiction can be that way EVEN WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE EXIST and EVEN WHEN THE WORK HAS SHOWN OTHERS OF THAT GROUP NOT FITTING THE STEREOTYPE is absurd.

That's like saying I can't use my friend Israel as a inspiration for a gay man in something I write, just because he happens to match the very effeminate stereotype of a gay man wearing a boa and short shorts. People like this exist. Therefore, characters like this should be allowed in fiction AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT USED IN A DEMEANING WAY.

Agreed. It’s a good thing no one made that argument.

Tai is not being used in a demeaning way. Stop acting like its awful for a character who is entirely believable to exist solely because they manage to match a stereotype.

Actually she is. You may not see it, but stereotypes are demeaning.

... Ok, lets see if I read this correctly.

No one is arguing that just being the stereotype is bad, but I don't understand because being the stereotype is bad.

I'm sorry if I don't have a "HIGHER UNDERSTANDING" of your single worldview to understand a bunch of points that YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN OTHER THAN ITS BAD GUYS BECAUSE ITS BAD OMG. Which you use to prove how I am "WRONG".

I'm excusing myself from this, its apparently the view that "YOU WILL NEVER GET IT SO I SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOU HEATHEN"

[Is it cold in here?]

What worries me is that it can distort art to make it detour around all possible stereotypes. Jeph wrote a promiscuous character: should he have made her straight to avoid writing a promiscuous gay character?

[Skewbrow]

This horse is mostly sausages by now, but...

Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).

However, this is the 21st century. Apparently LJA's media exposure is totally distinct from mine. At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem! Unless I'm mistaken the goal is that a person's sexual orientation would not be news worthy at all. Something at par with, whether he or she is right or left-handed, or has coffee or tea at breakfast. At the moment we are at a point, where the young, educated generation seems to be taking variations in sexual orientation for granted. Somewhat older people (including yours truly??) are sorta walking on eggshells, have a little bit trouble acting naturally, and might prefer not to discuss the matter at all. Media is flaunting its political correctness. Not the ideal situation, but probably a necessary point on the learning curve?

Mind you, the backwash of too much PC forced down certain people's throats is coming up here, too. I am not living in a politically correct heaven free of rednecks by any means.

[DSL]

There's PC and there's ordinary decency. One, you choose to practice yourself. The other is an attitude you  try to make everyone else adopt ... Sometimes on behalf of another who may or may not particularly want you speaking or acting on their behalf. One helps people get along.. The other usually results in the opposite.

[pwhodges]

Just look at pwhodges; he was unaware of the “lesbians recruiting straight women” stereotype until this thread. And yet the stereotype existed before that.

I remain unaware of it, in that I can't think of any portrayal of a lesbian that I have come across which has shown this as a stereotype, in spite of it being mentioned here and on the Jezebel site.

Mind you, I don't read the Daily Mail or The Sun.

[tomart]

There's PC and there's ordinary decency. One, you choose to practice yourself. The other is an attitude you  try to make everyone else adopt ... Sometimes on behalf of another who may or may not particularly want you speaking or acting on their behalf. One helps people get along.. The other usually results in the opposite.

Well said.  I especially resent those who get all intolerant and censorshippy on behalf of "the cheeldren!"... then many of said children get all interested in the Forbidden Stuff, and - ironically - go seek it out.

The Bitter Barista could be the one to stop our little libidinous librarian dead in her tracks.

The new Monday comic features both of your alliterative actors!    : )

[Carl-E]

This horse is mostly sausages by now, but...

Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).

However, this is the 21st century. Apparently LJA's media exposure is totally distinct from mine. At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem! Unless I'm mistaken the goal is that a person's sexual orientation would not be news worthy at all. Something at par with, whether he or she is right or left-handed, or has coffee or tea at breakfast. At the moment we are at a point, where the young, educated generation seems to be taking variations in sexual orientation for granted. Somewhat older people (including yours truly??) are sorta walking on eggshells, have a little bit trouble acting naturally, and might prefer not to discuss the matter at all. Media is flaunting its political correctness. Not the ideal situation, but probably a necessary point on the learning curve?

As I recall, you're not in the US, but rather in a fairly progressive country in northern Europe (Denmark?).  It's really not that way here in the US at all, especially away from the two coasts.  While Barney Frank (of Massachssetts) is openly gay, there are few other politicians who are brave enough to be open about it, especially from the mid- and soutwestern parts of the country.  The rise in popularity of evangelical christianity has als led to a rather strong backlash against homosexuality in this country for the last decade or so.  Yes, we see more of them in the media, and the media does  prefer the heavy hand of a stereotype when portraying them (as it does with damn near everything else).  And some  aspects of these portrayals are problematic in that people who are anti-homosexual can seize on them and use them to point out (screaming all the way) that this "lifestyle" is "evil" (or whatever the popular buzzwords are now in that closed circle of minds...)

So I agree with Jane to a great extent.  But I also know that this is  Tai, her personality, her character.  And that character was carefully developed over the last 1000 strips or so.  It doesn't stop some people from completely misinterpreting her actions, and taken alone would indeed strengthen a negative stereotype in a lot of people's minds.  But I really can't fault Jeph for the portrayal! 

[Akima]

Historically LJA has a point. Homosexuals have been treated badly in the past. The first QC-related example that comes to mind is Alan Turing (the math dude who saved Britain during WWII by breaking the German cipher, but was prosecuted and driven to suicide shortly afterwards).

In the past? Homosexuals are treated badly to this day. Law-abiding homosexual citizens are denied equal legal rights in Australia (where I live) for example. Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy that led to the expulsion of homosexual men and women from the US armed forces, remains in force despite the passage of repeal legislation. Let's delay the back-slapping, OK?

At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem!

Media darlings? There are more, and more positive, representations of homosexuals in media than in the past, but that just means slightly more than none at all, and more positive than extremely hostile. Homosexuals featured in media are rolled out with a big "Oh look, a gay!" fuss. So yes, as you say, we still have a problem that has most certainly not been consigned to the unenlightened past. We've only barely started up the learning curve.

[cesariojpn]

108 & 519, respectively.

519 link isn't working. Might wanna rethink using LMGTFY.

[pwhodges]

Come to think of it, it's interesting that the discussion went as far as it did without cultural differences being raised.

[cesariojpn]

Mind you, I don't read the Daily Mail or The Sun.

So you read one of the other papers?

[snubnose]

At least in these parts the last couple years gays/lesbians have been the media darlings. Every talk show seems to have a quota of homosexual participants to be filled, gay/lesbian politicians and artists get a lot of air time et cetera. Of course, this proves that we still have a problem!

Media darlings? There are more, and more positive, representations of homosexuals in media than in the past, but that just means slightly more than none at all, and more positive than extremely hostile. Homosexuals featured in media are rolled out with a big "Oh look, a gay!" fuss. So yes, as you say, we still have a problem that has most certainly not been consigned to the unenlightened past. We've only barely started up the learning curve.

That reminds me of rewatching American Beauty recently and being totally surprised to find out that one of the two homosexuals in the movie was actually Captain Archer (from Star Trek Enterprise).

[Skewbrow]

I try to address some of the points and refutations.  TL; DR; alert

First and foremost. I agree with everybody that it is way too early to start patting our respective backs. Here in Finland (close enough, Carl-E!) there is probably less variation within the mainstream media than what is seen in the U.S. Mostly due to size. A population of 5 million cannot support too many TV channels for example. And the mainstream media happens to be firmly in the progressive hands (or under parliamentary control). I did forget that in a bigger country a percentage wise small group is still big enough to, say, run a TV station. So my media exposure may, indeed, be very different from yours. I should've thought about this a bit more in advance. My bad.

My U.S.A. experience is from 20+ years ago and consists of 4 years at Notre Dame, Indiana followed by a semester at Berkeley, California. Those two might represent the opposite ends of the spectrum in some sense. But even at the presumably ultra-conservative N.D. the student body had a largish enlightened faction giving support to the Gay/Lesbian student group seeking recognition. I don't know what the current status is there now. The shadow of the Vatican is long and dark. Anyway, I have been under the impression that CollegeTown, U.S.A. is a very politically correct place? Save the likes of Notre Dame and Brigham Young, where political correctness is limited to gender and race, or some really wacko smaller colleges (Is Oral Roberts still in operation?). But again. The filter formed by geographic distance means that to me U.S. mainstream media is from D.C., New York City or LA, but to LJA and you all it may mean something else. Yes, I am aware that I do not have a complete picture, but my understanding is that she was talking about stereotypes in media like nationwide TV networks, NYT and such. Not some televangelist's private channel.

I don't know if Northern Europe is more PC than the U.S.? May be we are? At least when it comes to gender equality. When dealing with racial diversity the melting pots of the world are ahead of us. Immigration to Finland is such a small phenomenon that the presumed political correctness has not been tested. A large number of people outside major towns have never met a person of a different ethnicity, so the dealings could be clumsy, even if the intentions were the best. Also a large fraction of the immigrants are refugees, and they are easy prey for some given that it takes a lot of time for them to start contributing to the economy.

I am unable to tell whether we are ahead or behind U.S. in gay rights. Here the homosexual couples were given the right to get a "registered relationship" giving them most of the same legal rights and obligations that married couples have e.g. in case of a death or a divorce and for the purposes of taxation. The currently debated questions are whether homosexual couples should have the right to adopt children, and whether the "registered relationship" should be called a marriage, and brought under the same law with heterosexual marriage. We are a little bit behind the other Nordic countries like Sweden that aspires to be the politically correct utopia.

All this is relative recent (mostly 21st century). In terms of legislation we are now at a relatively good point. The battle in the minds and hearts of people is, unfortunately, still ongoing. Gay/lesbian activities as well as the immigrants occasionally attract violent acts. Gays are excused of military service (general conscription for men, voluntary military service for women). I don't know, whether homosexuals are prohibited from service or not? So can't claim us to be more progressive than the U.S. armed forces. Our incumbent president was a gay/lesbian activist in her youth. I don't know, whether she did that to show off how progressive she is, or whether she had a personal take on the matter. We are unlikely to elect a non-caucasian president in the foreseeable future, though.

Where do I stand in all this? My choice of phrase ("media darlings", "walking on eggshells our toes") was meant to convey that I don't consider myself to be fully PC. Not all of it is second nature to me, and I occasionally need to operate on something like Momo's database of protocols. For example, I will laugh at some markedly politically incorrect jokes. While that is perhaps the most harmless form of homophobia/racism/sexism, it is also something relatively deep inside my core.

We are definitely not there, yet.

[Carl-E]

The cultural divide is probably deeper than you may have thought, skewbrow.  For one thing, college towns and campuses (including large private ones like Notre Dame) are considerably more liberally minded and accepting than most of the rest of the country.  The proliferation of colleges is one of the reasons the east coast and large cities are considered to be so liberal.  Thought there are a lot of colleges in the midwest, they are spread thinner and have less influence on the general population, and it's worse in the soutwest and the "bible belt", where the majority of colleges are smaller, private and more conservative institutions (Oral Roberts University is thriving, btw). 

Media is a whole different story - it works sooooo  hard not to step on anyone's toes for fear of offending a part of the public that their advertisers cater to.  So despite being painted as "liberal", much of the US media is held hostage by a conservative audience. 

Here in the US, states decide on marriage, it's not a federal institution.  Some have what are called "civil unions" (I think only about 10 states have these) and only 5 states and the District of Columbia have legal same sex marriage.  That's 15 out of 50.  Reciprocity laws aren't universal, and so having a civil union/marriage in one state doesn't help if you're in another state that doesn't recognize such a union.  You can't inherit, adopt, or make decisions about your partners medical issues, or even visit them in the hospital if visitation is restricted to family only, as are most ICU's.  Forget insurance from your partner's work (although most unionized jobs allow it, as do some private companies).  You live in a legal limbo, and it can be a nightmare. 

So yes, Finland (and many other European countries) are well ahead of the US, since the laws are at least nationally recognized.  And others are well behind; much of South America, Africa and Asia come to mind.  But I think we're in a unique spot, because of the hodgepodge way in which the US was cobbled together.  It'll be a much harder and longer road for us to become a nation that can deal with these issues in a consistant way. 

[Boomslang]

Honestly, I think in the US it's just a matter of time.

If you look at the graphs of positions on social issues versus age, younger people in every area tend to have more progressive views and this trend is increasing over time. The US as a whole is also becoming less religious, and let's face it- religion is one of the few reasons that people here are opposing giving gay folks the same rights as the rest of us.

I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.


However, I can't talk to people like LJA because trying to think about this from her (?) perspective makes my brain hurt and my blood pressure rise. There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line. LJA, I know you mean well, but you really should change your approach, it's ultra-confrontational and makes you out to be the thought-police.

[Carl-E]

While America has become slightly "less religious" (going from about 11% non-religious in the 80's to about 16% now), what's more telling is that the liberal denominations in most religions have declined while the conservative denominations have all showed growth (this includes Jewish and Muslim groups as well as Christians).  So what's been happening is what we see in many other aspects of the culture, including our madia and politics - a wider gap and greater polarization. 

It will come, yes.  Because it's right, indeed. 

But it's gonna be a looooong time comin'! 

[Is it cold in here?]

Not all. Ohnorobot is missing a chunk in the 900s, and stops completely somewhere in the 1200s. The completion of the professionally done transcription of everything hasn't been announced yet.

[Near Lurker]

I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.

Ridiculous.  The "right side of history" will not be the same in a hundred years as in two hundred.  And if you were living in the sixties or seventies, you might have made the same prediction, or even predicted that socialism would have taken over, and yet here we are.  Relying on this kind of teleological argument is almost as insane as relying on God.

[Is it cold in here?]

jwhouk's amazing work on the wiki and on scribd covers all the comics but doesn't try to have all the dialog, though when I search it for something memorable I usually find what I'm looking for.

[Skewbrow]

@Carl-E: Thanks for reminding me that in the U.S. the states have a lot of say on matters like this. Perhaps I should have remembered, but somehow that bit never really sank into my brain. I guess the explanation comes from the history, but it always felt somewhat alien to me. Well. It is your country, your rules and you need to play by them. Even the EU seems to operate on different principles, but then again, it is a long way from becoming anything resembling a federal government.

And... Notre Dame is one of the more liberal places? Ho'kay. Houston, we have a problem.

[cesariojpn]

Oh, it works for me. I told you the numbers of the strips you wanted, but the "joke" of using LMGTFY for the second link was to show what I typed to find the answer to your question. Since all the strips have been transcribed and put into some kind of searchable format, it's really easy to find a strip you've forgotten, if you ever feel the need.

I'm calling BS, i couldn't find the strip where Jeph is contemplating on resorting to crass methods to garner more page views.

[Carl-E]

And... Notre Dame is one of the more liberal places? Ho'kay. Houston, we have a problem.

Well no, not liberal.  It's still Catholic owned and operated, but it's also large enough that it needs to be accomodating.  

Let's call it middle-of-the-road.  Compared with Oral Roberts, or several smaller church-run colleges, it's pretty liberal.  But that's like comparing Conservative Judaism to Hassidism...

[DSL]

I'm calling BS, i couldn't find the strip where Jeph is contemplating on resorting to crass methods to garner more page views.

I don't remember what you're talking about from that description, but clicking on the wiki link from the earlier google search and searching for Jeph's name on the page leads to 1236. Is it something else, or a guest strip?

I'm not going to go dragging thru the archives to find the strip number, but it's a guest strip in which Jeph is directed by the "webcomics illuminati" to get on with the sexin' and watch the traffic climb. One assumes the intent is satire, the chief danger of which is that someone  is going to be stupidly, and loudly, literal about it.

[DJRubberducky]

In my comic, I'm going to make a homosexual serial killer the main character. I hope that doesn't offend any gay males who do not personally subscribe to the act of shanking.

Been done.

[tomart]

I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.

Ridiculous.  The "right side of history" will not be the same in a hundred years as in two hundred.  And if you were living in the sixties or seventies, you might have made the same prediction, or even predicted that socialism would have taken over, and yet here we are.  Relying on this kind of teleological argument is almost as insane as relying on God.

I believe that, all else being equal, the more intelligent, enlightened view does generally, over time, prevail, in most places, especially with open communication.  But here in the US, there are rich and powerful conservatives who generously fund radical fundamentalists, and we liberals have to "accomodate" medieval beliefs alongside modern science. For examples, evolution is being actively fought, and Al Gore's sincere efforts to warn us about global warming are met with vicious, mocking attacks. Conservative Talk Radio, in my opinion, is a curse on my country, and unfortunately succeeds in manipulating many to vote against their own (and my!) interests.

              /rant

[Akima]

I hate to be the one who says 'just wait it out', but I genuinely feel that as long as this battle takes, the people on the right side of history are guaranteed the win in the long run.

In the long run, as Keynes famously pointed out, we are all dead. There is no right side to history, no victories are guaranteed, and battles are not won by waiting them out. If someone says "wait it out" to me, I hear "I am quite comfortable with the status quo thank you; stop making a fuss". Those who live their lives subject to abuse and legal discrimination should not be asked to be patient, especially by those who don't.

There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line.

Maybe there is, but in my experience this argument is usually just another variation on "Oh, shut up!". Generally people have an extremely low tolerance for hearing things that make them uncomfortable, and saying anything at all about social bias and discrimination that they do not themselves experience, will quickly garner accusations that one is "shrill", "counter-productive", or "always going on about it".

[Is it cold in here?]

There is a "right side" to history if there are universal standards of ethics or morals. That is of course a matter of long-running philosophical debate, and of course even if you agree with it the good guys don't always win (Stalin comes to mind as an example of bad guys winning).

I do believe in progress, maybe because I'm American and that belief is part of the culture I grew up in.

Gay rights need to be fought for, but the fighters can take some comfort in knowing that on that particular issue demographics promise that they will prevail.

[Emperor Norton]

There is definitely such a thing as hurting your own side's position based on the manner in which you engage in argument, and I wish people could recognize that dividing line.

Maybe there is, but in my experience this argument is usually just another variation on "Oh, shut up!". Generally people have an extremely low tolerance for hearing things that make them uncomfortable, and saying anything at all about social bias and discrimination that they do not themselves experience, will quickly garner accusations that one is "shrill", "counter-productive", or "always going on about it".

And there are also times when I hear people who I AGREE with and just want to tell them to shut up because they represent themselves terribly and actually DO hurt their cause.

Throwing everything on people being bigoted is a cop out. He was referring to the fact that the person in this thread refused to explain things for instance because "If you don't get it you will never understand" and basically looked down on everyone that disagreed, or at the least that was the way the text came across.

If you think that is an acceptable way to win people over to your side, I really just don't know what to say to that.

[Method of Madness]

@Cold? - You could also make the bad guys winning argument about Reagan.

[TheEvilDog]

@Cold? - You could also make the bad guys winning argument about Reagan.

Expect can Reagan be remembered as a tyrant who transfromed one of the worlds most backward countries into an economic and military superpower in 15 years, while also synonomous with the slaughter of millions of his country's own citizens in various gulags?

[Method of Madness]

There are various levels of bad, although he put us trillions of dollars in debt, and can be said to be largely responsible for the anti-intellectualism movement (along with a whole bunch of things I won't even go into here).

...also, you say "transfromed [sic] one of the worlds [sic] most backward countries into an economic and military superpower in 15 years" like it's a bad thing.  I'm not saying how he did it was good by any means, but isn't making your country more powerful what a leader is supposed to do?

[Is it cold in here?]

(moderator)
Political arguments into Discuss, please.
(/moderator)

[Method of Madness]

Sorry.

[Carl-E]

I'm sorry, but the whole post supporting Stalin with the Pintsize/Fidel avatar just made me giggle. 

I'm a little warped that way, I know. 

[Method of Madness]

ˇViva la Pube-olución!