Print

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

The Dressing Montage!

2 (3.6%)

This bar has DARTS!

0 (0%)

#2 cause of facial piercings - #1 is booze itself.

0 (0%)

"IF YOU ARE DRUNK WE WILL NOT PIERCE YOU" signs all over town.

0 (0%)

They WILL let you BOOK AN APPOINTMENT. And not waste your deposit...

1 (1.8%)

Marten's responsible for no shameful piercings... "I'll need a $60 deposit first."

1 (1.8%)

Claire enters the bar! "'Sup Red, pull up a stool."

1 (1.8%)

It's bolted to the floor! (So they can't be used as weapons.)

0 (0%)

I LOVE THIS BAR!

0 (0%)

Old books and huge dust plumes? IT IS MY GREATEST LIBRARY ANXIETY

3 (5.5%)

"That's not what your wife told me when she was here this morning!"

0 (0%)

A Jukebox that has Derek and the Dominos and Einstuerzende Neubauten?

1 (1.8%)

Two different crowds or a sign of violent schizophrenia.

1 (1.8%)

I win! You gotta give me a piggyback ride! (Aw man.)

5 (9.1%)

Faye wasn't so sure about Claire at first, but she's okay in her book.

1 (1.8%)

So how long have you had a crush on Marty?

31 (56.4%)

Claire has a sudden drinking problem.

8 (14.5%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[GarandMarine]

My last hopeful comment for this week's thread.

[Is it cold in here?]

But I feel compelled to point out that my post did not speculate about genitalia or even use the word. Rather, I was pointing out in a much broader sense that while Claire might rightly consider herself a woman, and it is (I believe) the obligation of society to therefore also consider her that way, it could be a tough hurdle to get past for a heterosexual guy who's only been with cis-women. For a lot of reasons. The genital-compatibility question is by no means the most important aspect.

We acknowledge and respect your intentions and thank you for them.

Let's put the topic on the shelf until and unless Marten and Claire actually do become a couple, and then only if the discussion won't pour acid on wounds for the trans people here.

[aphanisis81]

But I feel compelled to point out that my post did not speculate about genitalia or even use the word. Rather, I was pointing out in a much broader sense that while Claire might rightly consider herself a woman, and it is (I believe) the obligation of society to therefore also consider her that way, it could be a tough hurdle to get past for a heterosexual guy who's only been with cis-women. For a lot of reasons. The genital-compatibility question is by no means the most important aspect.

We acknowledge and respect your intentions and thank you for them.

Let's put the topic on the shelf until and unless Marten and Claire actually do become a couple, and then only if the discussion won't pour acid on wounds for the trans people here.

That rather patronizing first line notwithstanding, I don't want to be the pourer of figurative acid, so yes, fine, I'll stop trying to pursue that line of thought, interesting and worthwhile as I might think it would be to discuss.

But let me add that the Draconian defensiveness toward my initial post is baffling and alarming. This talk of what's "acceptable" and "dangerous" as topics of discussion is something I've never really seen on this board. Surely, people don't get shut down for alluding to Faye's "hella issues" out of concern for those whose parents have killed themselves or who have problems with anxiety. Ditto the literally thousands of times, in-comic and on the forum, that Hanners' OCD is ridiculed.

And I don't mean to suggest that Claire's trans identity is, like Faye's and Hanners' issues, some sort of psychopathology. That wasn't the point of the comparison; the point was that, in both cases, the characters has some important trait that, to one extent or another, defines their interactions with others. Again: Jeph has gone to great effort to introduce a trans character and to make her a rounded, complex character. To ignore that aspect of her character (even if it is by no means her DEFINING aspect) and how it might color her interactions with others seems to me MORE offensive and hurtful than anything I've said here or would go on to say.

[hedgie]

I think that since Jeph has OCD himself, he's invoking his right to mock it.  As I have mentioned plenty of times before, I have OCD, and I joke about it all the time.

[aphanisis81]

I think that since Jeph has OCD himself, he's invoking his right to mock it.  As I have mentioned plenty of times before, I have OCD, and I joke about it all the time.

And I, similarly, mock my own anxiety issues. But that's not really the point. I'd say more, but I already promised to abandon this discussion. You can probably piece together my position on it by going back a dozen or so posts.

[Kugai]

In the end it'll be up to Marten and Claire - via Jeph - to decide where this goes.

[pwhodges]

But let me add that the Draconian defensiveness toward my initial post is baffling and alarming. This talk of what's "acceptable" and "dangerous" as topics of discussion is something I've never really seen on this board.

None the less, they have been issues.  They are defined by the rules, and refined by the mods' interpretation of the rules;  the mods discuss them privately as they see the need, and at times there have been open discussions as well.

Surely, people don't get shut down for alluding to Faye's "hella issues" out of concern for those whose parents have killed themselves or who have problems with anxiety. Ditto the literally thousands of times, in-comic and on the forum, that Hanners' OCD is ridiculed.

If it's felt that (regardless of intentions) it is done in a way that is likely to cause hurt or upset to some readers, then yes that will happen - and I'm sure that it has happened in all those cases at some time or other.

This is also one of the reasons there is a separate discussion forum - so that difficult subjects can be considered in isolation rather than mixed in with other stuff that can cause misunderstanding.

[aphanisis81]

In the end it'll be up to Marten and Claire - via Jeph - to decide where this goes.

That's...certainly true.

[jwhouk]

In the end it'll be up to Marten and Claire - via Jeph - to decide where this goes.

That's one reason why I don't think this is going to happen. Jeph doesn't want to get the level of hate mail he got just for showing Marigold in a bikini that one time, and I think that (for good or bad) any pairing involving Claire would be radioactive.

And with that... Who wants to start next week's thread?

[Is it cold in here?]

That rather patronizing first line notwithstanding, I don't want to be the pourer of figurative acid, so yes, fine, I'll stop trying to pursue that line of thought, interesting and worthwhile as I might think it would be to discuss.

It was not meant to be patronizing. I'll be more careful.

[mustang6172]

In the end it'll be up to Marten and Claire - via Jeph - to decide where this goes.

That's one reason why I don't think this is going to happen. Jeph doesn't want to get the level of hate mail he got just for showing Marigold in a bikini that one time, and I think that (for good or bad) any pairing involving Claire would be radioactive.

And with that... Who wants to start next week's thread?

How does Marigold in a bikini warrant hate mail?

[Zebediah]

Since when does hate mail have to be warranted?

[Kugai]

Exactly!!

[Rghfrgl]

That's one reason why I don't think this is going to happen. Jeph doesn't want to get the level of hate mail he got just for showing Marigold in a bikini that one time, and I think that (for good or bad) any pairing involving Claire would be radioactive.

I think if he was dodging a negative reaction Faye would never have dropped the bomb, since Marten rejecting Claire would definitely be a negative reaction. It would have ended with indirectly acknowledging it wouldn't happen with using Emily to establish 'can't date interns'. Since Faye brought it up though I think that's a storyline obstacle to be overcome rather than a blowoff.

[cesariojpn]

Since when does hate mail have to be warranted?

Since the internet existed. Then again, people go full baka with their FACEBOOK profiles....

We don't know anything about Claire's genitalia. For that matter we don't know anything about Dora's genitalia, or Padma's.

Uh, did you forget this strip by chance?

EDIT: Holy Shit, I didn't realize the possible foreshadowing in that strip as well in time to current strip events.

[Loki]

I highly doubt that, given it was so long ago.
We also know something about Padma's genitalia:
Marten thinks her boobs are awesome.

[Carl-E]

I highly doubt that, given it was so long ago.
We also know something about Padma's genitalia:
Marten thinks her boobs are awesome.

Technically, boobs are not genitalia.  "Secondary sexual characteristics" is the usual term, since they grow in the presence of estrogen and absence of testosterone with no regard for chromosomal makeup (I know, I've oversimplified it a bit, but that's basically the idea, it's a hormonal tug-o-war whose balance determines development). 

[Loki]

Huh. I thought the terms "sexual characteristics" and "genitalia" were largely interchangeable.

[Sidhekin]

Huh. I thought the terms "sexual characteristics" and "genitalia" were largely interchangeable.

You think of beards as "genitalia"?

... paints Hanners' reaction to Steve's "beard now" in a different light, I guess.

[Barmymoo]

No, breasts aren't genitalia. Genitals are what you've got going on between your legs, in my understanding. It occurs to me that I really ought to know a technical definition of the word, considering what I'm studying (midwifery, for anyone who doesn't know).

[Carl-E]

Genitals are sexual characteristics, but not all sexual characteristics are genitals.  Generally, genitals are the reproductive bits between the legs - the root is genitus, Latin for the past participle of the verb "To Beget". 

[Akima]

I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a trans woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a cis-woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about that aspect of her and have it influence how I see her.

If you don't accept someone, as a romantic partner or anything else, you can't say it isn't a matter of non-acceptance. You cannot acceptingly not accept someone. Suppose I recast this passage like so:

"I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a Asian woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a white woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about her race and have it influence how I see her."

How unprejudiced does that sound?

[Sidhekin]

You cannot acceptingly not accept someone. Suppose I recast this passage like so:

"I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a Asian woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a white woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about her race and have it influence how I see her."

How unprejudiced does that sound?

Pretty unprejudiced, if you ask me.  Let's not make preference a matter of prejudice, shall we?

[aphanisis81]

I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a trans woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a cis-woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about that aspect of her and have it influence how I see her.

If you don't accept someone, as a romantic partner or anything else, you can't say it isn't a matter of non-acceptance. You cannot acceptingly not accept someone. Suppose I recast this passage like so:

"I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a Asian woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a white woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about her race and have it influence how I see her."

How unprejudiced does that sound?

According to the mods, we're not supposed to be having this conversation. But what I'm trying to say is that while the person's trans status would be on my mind and likely shape how I interact with her and how I see her sexually, that doesn't mean that I don't accept her gender identity, her right to have it, or her right to be treated by and exist in society with it.

I also didn't say I categorically WOULDN'T be romantically involved with a trans woman (well, actually, I wouldn't, but because I'm married, not because of absolute preference). I'm saying that if I did, that fact about her would be something I'd have to come to terms with and would make me ask questions about my own sexuality. I don't think that translates to non-acceptance or discrimination, and I kind of resent the racial comparison (or maybe just your example; my wife is Japanese). It doesn't hold up.

I wish I could say it would make no difference at all, but that's not true, and I think most straight guys whose only experiences have been with cis-women would have to admit that that's the case. Certainly it would be the case with a guy as introspective as Marten.

[aphanisis81]

You cannot acceptingly not accept someone. Suppose I recast this passage like so:

"I know that I wouldn't be able to date or sleep with a Asian woman with the exact same mindset I'd have while dating and sleeping with a white woman. It's not a matter of prejudice or non-acceptance; there just wouldn't be any way to not think about her race and have it influence how I see her."

How unprejudiced does that sound?

Pretty unprejudiced, if you ask me.  Let's not make preference a matter of prejudice, shall we?

Thank you. And I would go further and say it's not even preference so much as being wary of unknowns and differences. Please let me reiterate that I did not say I wouldn't date or sleep with a trans woman. I said that her trans status would influence how I regarded the relationship. And I recognize that this would be due to MY issues and hang-ups, and probably based on ignorance and fear and male sexual stereotypes. But I'm being honest about it, and I think it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

I don't think that's so horrible.

[aphanisis81]

That rather patronizing first line notwithstanding, I don't want to be the pourer of figurative acid, so yes, fine, I'll stop trying to pursue that line of thought, interesting and worthwhile as I might think it would be to discuss.

It was not meant to be patronizing. I'll be more careful.

I misread your tone, then, and I apologize for being snippy about it.

[Loki]

I'd ask for the matter to be put at rest now (and also for you to use the edit button in the future instead of double-posting, but that's only a minor remark).

[aphanisis81]

I'd ask for the matter to be put at rest now (and also for you to use the edit button in the future instead of double-posting, but that's only a minor remark).

As I said, I wrote those posts fully aware that the topic had been "shelved", but I also wasn't going to let someone call me the equivalent of a racist without defending myself. I also felt I owed another mod (can't remember name) an apology for an accusation of being patronizing.

I don't know what you mean about the Edit button. I posted three times in response to three separate posts/posters.

[cesariojpn]

I highly doubt that, given it was so long ago.

Which context by chance?

If it's the foreshadowing, there is precedence to this effect.

If it's over Dora's ladybits, I point to one of many scattered references as well.

[Barmymoo]

I don't know what you mean about the Edit button. I posted three times in response to three separate posts/posters.

If you were the most recent person to post in a thread, we prefer you to edit your post to add any additional information, rather than posting again. If you're replying to multiple people and want to quote them, you can hit "quote" for each person and copy the info that appears in the box, and then paste it into one response rather than making three.

Basically it's a style thing that this forum, as a community, has decided we prefer, but there's also the fact that making three posts puts a larger strain on the server than making one with the content of all three.

[aphanisis81]

I don't know what you mean about the Edit button. I posted three times in response to three separate posts/posters.

If you were the most recent person to post in a thread, we prefer you to edit your post to add any additional information, rather than posting again. If you're replying to multiple people and want to quote them, you can hit "quote" for each person and copy the info that appears in the box, and then paste it into one response rather than making three.

Basically it's a style thing that this forum, as a community, has decided we prefer, but there's also the fact that making three posts puts a larger strain on the server than making one with the content of all three.

Roger.

[ysth]

There's a language thing going on here.  Some people are using prejudice differently than I would, describing what I would clearly call prejudice as not.  That's ok; communication works better when we share definitions, but when that's not the case it can still work, so long as we allow for others' differences.

I'm prejudiced.  In all kinds of ways, some of which I've been able to work on and some of which I haven't.  This doesn't make me an evil person; it does mean I have a responsibility to at the very minimum notice and try to compensate for it.  Better is to keep it from affecting my actions in any way.  Better yet is to use each occurrence as an opportunity to work on rooting it out.

I don't think you can grow up in any culture and not have some prejudices.

[Kugai]

Something we haven't had in a while: MOMENT OF THE WEEK!

• The Dressing Montage! ........ 2 (3.6%)
• This bar has DARTS! ........ 0 (0%)
• #2 cause of facial piercings - #1 is booze itself. ........ 0 (0%)
• "IF YOU ARE DRUNK WE WILL NOT PIERCE YOU" signs all over town. ........ 0 (0%)
• They WILL let you BOOK AN APPOINTMENT. And not waste your deposit... ........ 1 (1.8%)
• Marten's responsible for no shameful piercings... "I'll need a $60 deposit first." ........ 1 (1.8%)
• Claire enters the bar! "'Sup Red, pull up a stool." ........ 1 (1.8%)
• It's bolted to the floor! (So they can't be used as weapons.) ........ 0 (0%)
• I LOVE THIS BAR! ........ 0 (0%)
• Old books and huge dust plumes? IT IS MY GREATEST LIBRARY ANXIETY ........ 3 (5.5%)
• "That's not what your wife told me when she was here this morning!" ........ 0 (0%)
• A Jukebox that has Derek and the Dominos and Einstuerzende Neubauten? ........ 1 (1.8%)
• Two different crowds or a sign of violent schizophrenia. ........ 1 (1.8%)
• I win! You gotta give me a piggyback ride! (Aw man.) ........ 5 (9.1%)
• Faye wasn't so sure about Claire at first, but she's okay in her book. ........ 1 (1.8%)
• So how long have you had a crush on Marty? ........ 31 (56.4%)
• Claire has a sudden drinking problem. ........ 8 (14.5%)