If it’s the worst, but the most viral and the one that made them well-known, maybe that’s just, like, your opinion. 😉 I enjoy it. I haven’t listened to any of their other songs. I realize I probably should based on this recommendation. If I like their “worst” song, I’d probably like their other work.
Honestly, not one of their worst songs. It was their chart-topper for a reason. What made it so great though wasn’t the music. It was the fact it was probably the most epic troll they ever concocted.
Talk Show Host: “So what inspired you to make the song?”
Ylvis: “We wanted to teach kids about the sounds animal makes.
Song: Literally titled “What does the fox say”
Google in response to “What sound does the fox make”: “Yiff”
Google in response to “Yiff”: “Enable 18+ content?”
Furries: “Yay it’s a furry song!”
Ylvis: “No it’s not.”
Music video: Literally has Ylvis wearing fur-suits.
Song: Made in hip-hop genre
Song: Has fox singing nonsense lines from various Hip-hop artists.
Song: “Will you speak in morse?”
Song: Has Morse code that says, “Quality Control… Quality Control? Is this thing even on?”
Song: Has Fox singing gibberish while people get drunk
Media: Has Fox news spouting gibberish to people who can only be drunk
And that’s just some of it.
For those who don’t know, a long tradition going back before the Vikings is entendres. In Norse myth, Odin’s greatest gift to humanity was literally literacy, literally. This resulted in a Viking-era belief that entendres were divine in nature, and the more entendres something had, the more important it was. (For example, the word “Viking” has more than 5 meanings, including Kings of the Sea, Death to Kings, Commoner Kings, waterway finder, village-founders, and more… side note, this creates a real headache for Etymologists who seem to insist on only one or two origins for every word, used to natural evolution of language instead of OCD viking linguists word-building construction of language who, too this day, can’t seem to wrap their heads around the complexity of Norse words and are obsessed with seeing them as “dumb barbarians” and keep trying to find dumb reasons for clever words)
By blending so many messages and concepts and ideas and critiques and criticisms and their joys into a single song, Ylvis epitomizes the Norse tradition of multiple entendres.
In that regard, “What does the Fox say” is a head-alien-damned masterpiece.
To be fair, I’ve always strictly defined “sex” as “uncovered genital-to-genital interaction”, so by my definition, what Joe & Joyce have done isn’t sex, and whether Dina & Becky have had sex depends on whether or not they have scissored, which I do not know, because I have not accessed that consent.
Other ‘sex’ (like oral sex or finger sex or phone sex) under my understanding, are modifying adjectives, that make it so the target word is no longer what it was, but adjacent to that thing, like how ‘republican Jesus’ isn’t Jesus and ‘taco salad’ isn’t exactly a taco or a salad but something in-between.
Genesis 19:8: “Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
So clearly, virginity is having known man; and lesbian sex does not change your virginity status. Also Lot’s daughters were not under the shadow of Lot’s roof for some reason. Biblical morality!
That Joy answered “no, you’ve had sex with Dina” to Becky’s question shows either that she’s outgrown that part of her bible indoctrination; or that this part of Genesis had been edited out of the bibles she had.
(Probably the later; I’ve long suspected American bibles to only contain the bit from the Leviticus where it says it’s okay to hate gays ‘cuz I’ve never seen American Christian political groups care about anything else.)
It’s definitely in there, but I’m not convinced many Christians have read the whole thing. If they have, they can get some pretty arbitrary ideas about which parts of Leviticus should still be enforced.
Obviously not the part about mixed fabrics, or about eating shellfish. Or the part about women menstruating being put away from everyone else not menstruating.
All those rules mentioned, and most of the others, are part of the Jewish covenant, not general laws for humanity. So most (at least; arguable gray area if you’re converted from Judaism) Christians don’t have to abide by them. This isn’t Christian special pleading: Jews would say the same thing. Christians do tend to think the Ten Commandments are still binding; Jews think gentiles should obey the Noahide laws; neither set of laws abjures mixed fabric or shellfish.
Of course, Christians have “love your neighbor as yourself”, “sell all you have and give it to the poor”, and “don’t get divorced” as laws that _should_ be binding on them.
Those distinctions are difficult to pull out of the text of the Bible itself. They’re more clearly defined in the Talmud.
So it’s kind of special pleading, it’s just old special pleading. 🙂
But in this context, it’s even more special pleading. Christians do not rely on the Noahide laws, the Talmud or other ancient Jewish distinctions. Those Christians who are obsessed with sexual rules, like women’s virginity and homosexuality, go back to the parts of the Jewish covenant that forbid them, while ignoring other parts they’re not concerned with, like the mixed fabrics and shellfish.
Having spent most of my teenage years as an edgy pre-reddit athiest growing up in the deep south: Most Christians down there only know the parts of the bible that someone has read aloud to them. Most folks don’t know about the passages that would conflict with their ways of life and thinking.
Maybe even more sadly, most folks don’t know about the crabsolutely hilarious bits from the bible. You can’t read about the two bears or the time God popped out of a bush to put a dude in a headlock without chuckling.
I’m particularly fond of the part in Exodus when Aaron makes the golden calf, and when Moses questions him about it, says, “Well, I just threw some gold in the kiln, and out came this golden calf…um.” 😶🌫️🫥🫥
What if you both stare at each other so intensely you get off without touching or speaking? Not saying it’s not sex just want to know what kind it would be.
I assume you’re on about the spaghetti scene, so I’ll be the brave one and say the breakfast scene with the donut and suspiciously clear coffee is sexier. Breakfast bongoes got more pins on their strap.
There’s a new advert for something where the actors from that go back to the same place and she has something really good again, and another woman wants to have what she’s having.
I made my comment, hoping people would create this thread in this way. Went to sleep. Woke up, checked against my darest of hopes, and, lo, I am appointed (the opposite of disappointed). Thank you, all!
I can’t think of any exceptions to this rule, but there are reasons we tend to modify the term, e.g. “oral sex” “phone sex” “sexting” etc. Different activities have different levels/varieties of risks, and levels of intimacy (which is subjective/varies by person).
Oh dang, I said in my other comment that I couldn’t think of any exceptions to that rule, but you immediately found one. I would not consider that sex between Dorothy and Joyce. Perhaps side by side sex with themselves.
Now I’m wondering if there’s got to be some level of intentionality about doing it with that other person, that that specifically enhances the experience. Which doesn’t necessarily clear up your example, though. I think there’s gotta be a space for instruction that isn’t sex.
Pretty sure the space for instruction that “isn’t sex” would be teaching sex ed. But intention matters somewhat too, because it gets sticky here (hehe):
Instruction in an activity which includes practise, pleasure, and orgasm, is reasonably still sex. Clinical/academic instruction intended to avoid the same, is reasonably *not* sex.
But I would find it less surprising if someone had derived pleasure and possibly gratification while at school (sex ed or otherwise), than if it has never happened. In such a case I still wouldn’t count the student as having had sex with a partner, because the partner neither consented, nor – presumably – was aware.
On the other hand, I absolutely count sexting with someone to the point of climax as some kind of sex, even while it’s not as concrete as something like digital stimulation, despite it still be digits doing the stimulation.
So… yeah. There can be instruction, sex,and instructional sex. But I’m sceptical of drawing a hard boundary between them, so much as having a space with clearly defined sectors, that still have a big no-man’s-land of intent, interpretation, and effect between them.
TL;DR – On a spectrum between academic sexual education and education involving sex, what Dorothy and Joyce did together in the laundry may not have been firmly the latter, but it sure weren’t the former. Hooray humanity and our desire for classification in the face of futility. 😅
I think I lean “mutual masturbation” on that one, but whether that counts as sex depends on the individuals involved? If Dorothy had still been holding her hand when she finished, I’d probably feel differently.
I think the important thing in edge cases like that (ha!) is whether the participants considered the act to be sex or not, either at the time or later.
And with her new definition of sex being “sensual acts performed with another person” I think Joyce would probably consider the laundry room to be sex.
And I think Dorothy is also coming to that conclusion – it wasn’t her intention at the time, she hadn’t considered her own emotional connection at the time, but when Dorothy was recontextualizing her relationship actions with Joyce, the laundry room likely loomed large.
I do think there’s a difference between a sexual activity and “sex”, like I dunno that I’d say two people using webcams to masturbate for each other is /sex/.
I do not recommend taking advice from Bill Clinton in matters of sex and intimacy. I mean I wouldn’t recommend taking advice from him about most things, but especially this one
I think, at least up to a point*, it matters whether the participants consider it sex. Particularly when you get into kink (but even outside that), the exact same actions between two people might be sex or might not be sex depending entirely on the mental state involved
(this does require that said participants be making their classification in good faith, get out of here with your “soaking” nonsense)
You put the penis into the vagina, but you don’t move it around. Apparently there’s a specific version where a friend can jump on the bed to make your penis move.
Purity culture and the patriarchy: hurting everyone! Google Brigham Young Universal (BYU) if you need to know more.
Given that intercourse without orgasm is indisputably still sex (sorry “soakers”, you’re only lying to everyone), climax is probably considered a sufficient, but not a necessary condition of sex.
No doubt there’s a joke to be made about disappointed women the world over saying, “tell me about it.”
i mean, idk how many sex ed classes talk about homosexual/lesbian sex (tho it might be diff these days), but i can understand why ppl might not consider a ‘straight’ girl getting fingered losing a virginity even if someone else does it, or a toy, hymen aside, virginity is just a social construct anyways
tho i can imagine her wanting to move on to the ‘next step’ next time if not one more hand session lol
Sure. Which is how you know it’s a social construct, like Ray says. Because it’s not actually a specific and measurable thing, but a threshold that social groups and individuals construct a definition for.
And it’s given WAY too much weight as a means of controlling and shaming people in possession of vaginas.
All the time one spends wondering what “””counts””” as losing virginity (as though it’s only ever one big crossing of some sexual Bank of the Rubicon), we tend to forget why we are even made to care so much about it to begin with
ain’t no denying that stems from a world where rules and social custom are not there to guide, but to judge and stigmatize for “stepping out of line”
the all to common culture of Compromise™ may compel us towards making lowering the bar of what constitutes virginity loss to be more lenient or expanding “exceptions cases”, but honestly even taking that route is unwittingly agreeing to the premise that it’s okay for this form of Power held over us to exist in the first place within a certain tolerance,
in other words, it validates the privileged mindset via Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness that we “JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH” in our society
(-_-)
No, that is not how communication works. You need to have at least one other person who agrees with your definition otherwise it isn’t a concept, functionally speaking.
Cishet interpretation of what classifies as sex are so limited. Queer sex is far more adventurous. Especially if it’s kinky queer sexuality. heck, so many ace people have kink lives even if they aren’t conventionally sexual
It’s not like cishets don’t do basically everything queer people do, including plenty of kink. It’s not that they’re any less adventurous necessarily, it’s just that there’s a convenient historical expectation for what sex means – without that actually limited what you can do.
I mean, don’t tell us that cishet people can be kinky, tell cisheteropatriarchy that kink isn’t inherently queer. Because it super duper does not agree with you on that, and is constantly trying to criminalize kink.
That’s not a reason to tell them kink isn’t queer. That’s a reason to tell those stupid motherfuckers to go fuck themselves. The message should be queer is good, queer solidarity, cishet kink is still queer, and together we win.
I apologize if that came off as me saying I didn’t think kink was inherently queer, hah. That was not my intent, I was just exasperated. Solidarity forever with the kinksters, the perverts, etc. We are all in this together and we are stronger united.
I think a big problem with concept of virginity is that it took on a life of its own beyond the real-life practical problems it arose to help people confront. Blood-type paternity tests are only a century old this year. The birth control pill are only decades old and the overwhelming majority of human history lacked effective prophylactics. Historically, enforcing a taboo on activities that could spread STDs or result in children out of wedlock was the only way to make sure sexually transmitted disease didn’t spread out of control and the only means available provide some strong evidence to a child’s paternal lineage (thereby encouraging and pressuring the father into stick around and care for the kid). The Catholic church forcing celibacy on its clergy meant that, in theory, they weren’t all bedding local women which might produce children or personal attachments. Those could call their impartiality into question and distract them from their duties to the church, the only real source of some-what nonbiased international authority that could curb the nobility’s endless internecine bloodlust, rampant barbarity, and tendency to break any inconvenient oath or societal obligation.
The problems arose from the fact that virginity become more than an imperfect tool for solving a practical problem, it spread to include acts beyond the most directly infectious and those capable of producing children. It took on a religious, spiritual, and moral significance which was both disproportionate to the physical problems it was meant to solve and which persisted even as technology significantly reduced the risks associated with premarital sex. Virginity was also, almost always, a burden shifted onto women and the poor. A woman who had sex before marriage was not only less likely to find a wealthy husband or earn her family a large dowry, but was shunned by society as morally corrupt. An upper-class bachelor was expected to mess around with women of a lower class – the risks of disease or bastards and damage to the fabric of society for the lower classes be damned.
Yeah, this. Virginity is real. Virginity is bullshit. In an ideal world Joyce’s answer to Becky’s question might be something like “Why, you planning on having kids via traditional techniques for some reason?”
On clerical celibacy, I think it was less about impartiality than about preventing them making church offices hereditary or leaving church assets to legitimate children (since they wouldn’t have any).
Which didn’t stop those things from happening in the long run…
Well said. Having hit sexual interest at the point where the average woman could get her hands on effective contraception, I’d say the ball game changed in a very short period of time. Admittedly, condoms got left out for long enough for the effect of leaving them out became apparent. But, yeah, virginity became pretty moot in a pretty short span of time.
At which point people cottoned on to the idea that curbing population growth was much better served by giving the contraception to the women.
Everyone should be, but since women are the most directly affected by contraception, them having control over their own contraception is what has the real social effect. That’s not misogyny, but simple reality.
Yes, everyone should manage their own and there are good reasons for men to do so, but it’s women having access to safe, effective contraception that changes everything.
“since women are the most directly affected by contraception”
Also, women have a lot more options. For men, the reversible options are condoms (which can change the experience for both partners), withdrawal (not that effective), or abstaining from vaginal sex entirely.
“A lot” more options meaning hormonal birth control?
Because that’s really just one additional option.
Like, you’re not counting stuff like Plan B, right, because that’s a.) still hormonal, b.) an emergency option for after other contraceptives have failed that no one enjoys having to try.
Also “male” hormonal birth control has been in development for decades. One of the things holding it back has been side effects, which. “Female” hormonal birth control absolutely also has. But interestingly the very similar side effects became unacceptable once they were for a product aimed at cis men. The latest thing is apparently a topical gel applied once daily with far fewer side effects and a higher efficacy level in trials.
But also hormonal birth control can take a lot of different forms, some of which will have better or worse side effects than others. Like the Mirena IUD can reduce or eliminate periods, which is considered a positive side effect by most people. IUDs, patches, and implants are all available options for people like me who would simply fail a method that required daily application (at the same time of day no less, I have no idea how anyone manages that). And all of these will interact with your body a little differently, so if you don’t love one there’s not a bad shot one of the others will work (though, even as someone who swears by the IUD I can definitely understand getting IUDs or implants put in could be a bit spooky for trying something out).
We should have male hormonal birth control and men should be aware of it and comfortable using it, but unless there’s some tech I don’t know of out there men aren’t going to have access to the “do it once and you’re safe for the next three to ten years, reversible at any time” options at all.
I just strongly dislike the implication that this is like, female privilege. It’s not. It’s that the same level and type of side effects in products targeted at presumed cis men… have not been considered acceptable.
“Female” hormonal birth control, IUDs, etc, have awful side effects. And also don’t work if you’re over a certain weight. Etc, etc.
Not saying they shouldn’t exist, not saying no one should take them, not saying there aren’t people for whom the side effects are much more minor… just saying that the reason why the “male” versions haven’t become available yet is because a looooooot more care is being taken to try to develop products that don’t suck for huge swaths of the target population.
Also, the fact that non-reversible birth control is functionally unavailable for “female” people? Yeah. That’s misogyny. Could NOT have found a doctor willing to sterilize me in any permanent way when I was 18 or 20, and even now in my early 40s, the odds are extremely high that I would be whined at and concern trolled because I haven’t given birth yet and am I suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, how can I be suuuuuuuure, can they please speak to the husband I don’t have to make sure he doesn’t want me to have a baby first lol
While vasectomy can sometimes be reversed, it’s considered generally permanent.
There is an implantable valve thing that’s been being developed for a decade or so, but it’s not made it to clinical trials yet.
I’d phrase it as “not taking away from” rather than “giving to”, since the former makes access to contraception sound like the right it is and the latter makes it sound like a privilege that’s granted.
The Catholic church forcing celibacy on its clergy meant that, in theory, they weren’t all bedding local women which might produce children or personal attachments.
Or heirs. Apparently, priests lacking heirs other than the Church was considered the only way to ensure that church property stayed church property.
(Interesting that the Orthodox church never had that problem. Its priests must marry; only bishops and upwards must not – they all start their careers as monks.)
the risks of […] bastards be damned
Poor bastards, though. They were damned, too, unless they managed to, like, conquer England.
shouldn’t be a big deal, although being too ‘dismissive’ of it has its own issues too, but i guess as long as ur safe/careful i’m sure some ppl would wanna go all out and ‘debut’ as a pornstar/join an orgy on their 18th birthday or so
but even if sex was guaranteed to be 100% safe/risk free everytime there’s still other things to do with friends/as a couple , since casual intimacy is nicel ike “that was nice, now let’s play vid games/watch a movie/etc”
In this case, the gift was Joyce denying Dorothy three times, playing into Becky’s performative Dotty hatred while also making a sweet Bible reference.
I wonder what happened with Peter after he did that.
The “Virginity maintained! Like a fox.” line is interesting because like… Joyce, it’s not like you had to outmaneuver anyone here; your desires were the ones pushing things toward sex. And no matter where you wanted to stop, it would have been respected.
Just. Obviously she has more to (un)learn, and it’s interesting how some of it comes through in that phrasing.
Agreed, it’s both an interesting thing to have said, and an interesting look on her face as she said it.
There’s another interpretation springing to my shipper-mind, but since I honestly was not one of the people subscribing to the idea that Joyce had pumped the brakes because of Dorothy (at the very least, I’d assumed it was something that would’ve happened anyway), I’m still reluctant to go there even as a joke until tomorrow’s strip reveals more of Joyce’s state of mind here fff
Just commenting on the fact if she’s uncomfortable with the situation and needs to go slow due to programming, she should go slow despite her being the fox she fools.
Okay, so then not really connected to what I was saying other than the fox bit?
I mean, obviously Joyce should get to go at the pace she wants and that should (and, with Joe, would) be respected. That’s why I included that in my original comment.
Okay. Starting a comment with “eh” sounds like disagreement, and then the rest felt more relevant to other comment threads on here (like defining what sex is– I agree that people should get to define it for themselves), so I was confused.
She’s outmaneuvering God! Who she doesn’t presently think really exists. But she’s still trying to outmaneuver him to hedge her bets in case Heaven exists~! Like a FOX.
“Fur farms are an ethical abomination and your societies continued allowance of the practice is a stain upon the fabric of your nation and the substance of your soul.”
Either that or a sort of high pitched yelp or cackling giggle sound.
I just want to hug and reassure all these babies. And sign them up for therapy on campus. And hope Dorothy starts being honest with her therapist. And stops weaponizing therapy speak against herself.
I remember hearing a couple have an argument about this back in high-school. Can’t remember the full logic but they decided it was (mutual?) masturbation instead of official sex.
They were later that year caught having full-blown baby making sex in the boarded concession stand during gym class
Agreed, as far as personal sense-making goes. But I also think some standard definitions are helpful for certain settings, like medical. Probably best to be more specific about actions in that context.
Such men probably thinks real lesbians look like those blow-dried, fully-makeup, Freddy Krueger fingernails (which seems REALY dangerous, under the circumstances) “lesbian” models he sees in his porn videos.
I’ve also talked to someone who believed “lesbian sex” must inherently involve toys and therefore isn’t “real.” (Granted, it’s been nearly ten years since this came up. I no longer talk to this person, for reasons that may be obvious.)
I was there too, and IMO, the internet today is shit in ways we never dreamed of. (Social media and enragement engagement algorithms are a big part of that.)
At least in the United States it has, even many of their leftists
unfortunately adopt this way of thinking, a mentality more or less revealed in this interaction between Roz and Becky.
The goal of discussion is (or should be) to cooperate to arrive at the truth,
the idea that it’s this zero-sum game about competing for “reputation points” by one-upping each other for attention and shit is literally a right-wing tool
People in our country don’t often realize this cause let’s face it, that’s just the way our overton window leans by default (-_-)
Most generously, the religious person has doubts they’re trying to repress, and they’re using an atheist(s), real or imagined, as a foil. The “checkmate” type conclusion means they have, to their satisfaction, deployed a rhetorical or mental countermeasure to that doubt.
“An’ what particular acts would y’imagine our sex… included?”
“I have no idea, I haven’t read the Slipshine yet. [turns to face the reader] But YOU can, for $24.99 and then further monthly charges of $9.99 each! Don’t delay, catch up on the sexy scenarios and pinups that just can’t be shown in a wholesome Christian webcomic. [turns back to Becky] [classic shocked Joyce face]”
Does it come with an expanded free trial which you can play through the entirety of A Realm Reborn and the award-winning Heavensward expansion up to level 60 with no restrictions on playtime?
According to tomorrow’s strip, she’s actually just realized she left the oven on in the dorm kitchen. Don’t worry though, Sal’s watching it for her while she waits for Danny.
Does Becky know that Joyce handjobbed Joe? She got him a cookie (’twas done in the other patreon, but still), and he got her a cookie (not yet done in the other patreon…). So, yeah, Joyce, you ain’t a virgin person. You’re totes a lady of the world.
That was a verbal pause indicating he was addressing Miss Lewinsky; letting her know he didn’t have sex with that future presidential candidate. You have to follow the logic on these things.
Joyce.EXE has crashed. Please contact David M Willis for technical support. Please do not disassemble Joyce. There are no user-serviceable parts inside.
Ehhhhh yes Becky has seized on a correct opportunity for a semantic ‘gotcha’ here about what the word ‘virginity’ means, but it’s really kind of missing the point and derailing an important moment for Joyce in a way that’s unfair.
Obviously what Joyce *means* here is ‘I still haven’t had PiV intercourse, the thing that has enormous emotional and symbolic weight to me personally, which is also the thing where almost all the risk of pregnancy and STDs come from and therefore a significant threshold even outside my emotional and cultural reactions to it, and I’d like to discuss this emotionally significant series of events in a safe space with friends.’
And like, yes, sure, *technically* Becky has an opening here to say ‘acksually that semantic definition of ‘virginity’ is outdated and exclusionary to me the lesbian girl, lets stop talking about you and make this about me and how you’re being a bad ally instead’ but like come the fuck on, this is Joyce’s moment and Becky knows exactly what she *means* and cares about here.
Sure, that’s a wildly inaccurate read on Becky’s motivations. You can definitely keep that going if you want.
Orrr you could see someone alerting her best friend that ~actuallyyyy~ you probably did have sex so you might need to recontextualize some things.
“Obviously what Joyce *means* here is ‘I still haven’t had PiV intercourse'” Sure, obvious to someone who considers PiV as the only “real” sex and everything else as a “loophole”. Someone with a fundie upbringing who might be benefitted by re-examining that biased definition of sex, for instance.
I mean, it’s obvious that’s what Joyce means because she describes what she did instead.
And yeah, that’s something that she could benefit from re-examining, but maybe not right now, when she’s clearly excited, but also a bit freaked out by what she’s done (and by what she chickened out of.) Can’t she have her moment and a little support?
Becky didn’t actually say anything. She involuntarily lost her smile, due to Joyce’s unintentionally hurtful phrasing. Joyce then asked after that lost smile, at which point Becky opted to be honest instead of lying.
Sorry thejeff, this should really have been a reply to Darwin.
I’m much more arguing with the “well ACTUALLY!!!” characterization of Becky than with your comment.
I just don’t think Becky is responding out of pedantry here at all.
(Also, I think Joyce is in a headspace where she’d actually prefer to be corrected on this kind of thing, rather than her friends letting it go to focus on supporting her. But I really don’t think that’s at all where Becky was coming from. Sometimes, instead of being just a social media avatar looking for a “gotcha” moment, marginalized people are real human beings with feelings that matter to the people who care about us.)
The more I think about this, the more I think she doesn’t need to be corrected at all here, because I don’t think she’s wrong. (The focus on virginity sucks, but that’s not what Becky’s objecting to.)
At worst, this is a semantic argument and those usually suck. If Joyce wants to think of PiV as “sex” when it comes to sex stuff with guys, there’s nothing wrong with that. She doesn’t need to be corrected and made to understand that she’s really “had sex” even though she wasn’t emotionally ready to.
If she was actually thinking the same terminology applied to lesbians and thus Becky’s and Dina’s sex doesn’t count, that would be a problem that needs correction, but she doesn’t think that. She obviously hasn’t logically thought through why, judging by that last panel, but she was right about it anyway. As usual, her instincts were right.
All that said, I agree that Becky’s not really intentionally doing pedantry, but she’s still diverting away from what Joyce’s excited and maybe a bit freaked out about.
That just conversations go sometimes, one can start with it being about something and for a reason of another it’s turns into something else. That is perfectly fine.
I think it’d be hard on Becky to have this discussion without at least bringing up some nuance here so her experiences feel less erased. Joyce can define sex yow she wants for her, but she also hasn’t thought that through rather than going off what was ingrained in her. Becky had these same things ingrained and has had to unlearn them in different ways.
I find it totally fair for Becky to want to clarify some things before trying to have an excited conversation about what Joyce is calling “almost sex.”
+1. It’s not an attack on Joyce to blanch in response to that, and most people *want* their friends to feel safe to express uncomfortable things. There is zero way Becky won’t be super supportive of Joyce around this, and Joyce knows that. (Now I’ve written “Joyce” waaay too much.)
On the one hand – Becky is correct, but Joyce isn’t wrong to consider PiV sex different than other kinds of sex (especially for a young person whose sex ed probably involved being told she’d get pregnant and and STD if she had sex outside of marriage). It’s not wrong to put different values on different kinds of sex. But overall Becky is right.
Yeah, it’s definitely not wrong for a woman to consider PiV a bigger step among the sexual activities she could do with a man than fingers are. (Probably with oral in between?)
And it’s also important to note that Joyce doesn’t think that Becky and Dina haven’t had sex because they haven’t done the thing that she uses to define “sex” between a man and a woman.
She obviously hasn’t stopped to consider the implications, but it’s also alright if she eventually reaches the conclusion that her first instincts were right and the Becky and Dina have had sex, but she and Joe still haven’t.
Becky’s certainly right that she’s had sex with Dina, but I’m not at all sure that she would be right to say that Joe and Joyce have had sex. But at this point it’s merely an argument over terminology, which is usually pretty useless. They’ve done some sex stuff, but still have more in mind.
What counts as sex for someone is up to them and their partner(s). In the moment Joyce wasn’t ready for what she sees as sex, so Joe offered what would be an emotionally safer option. If it had only ever been about finding a loophole, which is how she’s presenting it, I would say it’s sex. It’s about intent and consent. All this said, the definitions ONLY apply in your own circumstances. Becky and Dina get to decide if they’ve had sex, and they have.
Sex also depends on your relationship status. If I kiss my significant other good morning (AFTER brushing my teeth!) that’s not sex. If I kiss someone else, no matter how chastely and my S.O. finds out about it, you’d think I had a full-on Roman orgy.
I disagree. If breaking the hymen is the point (which is a quite cis-normative viewpoint anyway) you can do that with your fingers. Or other toys besides strap-ons. If it’s just about having sex the first time, then you’ve decided that scissoring and strap-ons are the only real ways to have lesbian sex.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a lot of trouble making sense of your comment. Why would those two things be the dealbreaker? And not every lesbian is going to want to do those things, so do they just remain virgins forever?
I’d argue that a lesbian loses her virginity when she/they say so. Virginity is a social construct, and thus it’s up to the individual to decide what constitutes losing it for them. Same for lesbians as everyone else.
All this PLUS a desperate request that people educate themselves about what the hymen actually IS (not you personally just people). It’s not a freshness seal that “breaks” most of the time. It stretches, sometimes to the point of tearing a little, but it isn’t usually intact like a drumhead (and if it is, that’s actually a serious issue because it means period blood can’t get out). For some women it’s barely even noticeable both before and after first penetration.
Virginity was a deeply misogynistic concept when it was clearly defined as the loss of the hymen, but divorced from that straightforward definition it becomes ever more pointless.
I suspect pretty much everyone has some kind of hierarchy of how serious sexual acts are and places the defining moment for “having sex” somewhere on that scale. Even for bisexuals, I suspect many would consider PiV to be the defining moment for “having sex” for a man and a women, while still seeing queer couples as having sex.
The way that my parents explained it, and what was common knowledge in ye olde 1990s, was simple: if it was a penis entering a vagina, it was sex. If it didn’t, it wasn’t. The 7th grade and 8th grade science teacher, who were a husband and wife, handled the “sex ed” course, which wasn’t so backwards that it was abstinence-only, but was 100% assuming hetero and thus had major gaps. Other forms that happened between two men or two women were “gay sex,” which, somehow, were… different?
Then again, it was the 90s, and so nobody would dare ask a question that would ever imply that they weren’t straight. And so the definition of “sex” was in my mind *always* penis-vagina, and “gay sex” was “don’t worry about it, they do what they do, that doesn’t affect you.”
Seeing Joyce’s Blue-Screen-Of-Death face here, makes me wonder what I would have looked like in like 2004-ish, if I suddenly realized all at once that hey, whoops, me and my girlfriend actually WERE having sex, and not just “fooling around.” Instead of very slowly over four years, culminating in a honeymoon that was mostly “OK, this is great, but we’re actually far better the other way because we’ve had years of practice.”
It’s always been kind of fuzzy and context dependent, whatever the simple explanations given to kids. “But it wasn’t really sex” has never been defense to upset parents, for example.
Even if kids were taught that all of those things were “sex”, I’m pretty sure that some would be seen as more consequential than others.
I feel like we’ve got only one final Shocked-Joyce face left and it’ll follow the biggest of earth shattering reveals. Despite this i feel we are VERY close to it.
I had my first time MUCH later than Joyce. And I also started to question what my “first time” qualified as.
Because if we’re talking kissing, or touching, or stroking, or inserting, or inserting DOWN THERE, then everything has a different day and some a different person.
It was weird to consider how I’d NEVER considered where that boundary actually lay. Only what porn had shown me was and… wasn’t. I mean IS foreplay sex? It’s part of it, but is foreplay alone, sex. And what counts as foreplay? Does kink count as foreplay? Does kissing?
It’s interesting to think about, especially when you consider everyone may have different, and 100% valid answers.
Ten buck says that *if* she even thought about it before, she just kind of assumed that when two lesbians love each other, and kiss and hug and are close together, there’s that Transformers sound effect and then at one of them just kind of manifests a strap-on.
I know the hymen is considered to be some kind of “seal” that proves a woman’s virginity to stupid people, but the fact is it can be broken without having sex, and it’s possible to have sex without breaking it…so it proves literally nothing.
Also you can still get STDs and STIs from doing hand, mouth, and butt stuff so I would say they count as sex
While Becky has a good point, I’m going to side with Joyce.
Virginity is made up so what does and doesn’t count as “taking” it would be a personal thing. With Becky and Dina, they considered fingering sex for them, therefore not virgins. But Joyce didn’t consider Joe fingering her as sex, therefore still virgin
And it goes more broadly than that, since Joyce considers Becky and Dina to have had sex too.
It’s perfectly reasonable have a line for where “have sex” falls and for that not to be in the same place for couples with different genital configurations.
Just want to say I’m really glad to be seeing this (the arbitrary bs nature of the concept of virginity and the malleability of the definition of sex) addressed in-comic ^^
Oh good, I got Ruth’s image again. Her hair’s the color my beard used to be back when I had way more hair….somebody’s been dyeing it white now for a decade and a half, possibly in my sleep.
The next step is for Joyce to angrily confront Joe: “We were totally having sex last night and you didn’t tell me!” Which will cause much confusion: “But that’s exactly what we were planning to do.” Unable to fault this logic, Joyce becomes even more upset.
If i were a horrible God who first made sexuality fun, and then commanded my believers not to have it, i’m pretty sure i’d be too sadistic to go “yeah no obviously non-penetrative sex doesn’t count”.
Then again, making the topic ambiguous was a pretty sadistic move as well 😛
Loading ...
does Joyce or does Joyce not know about foxes
particularly the yiffy ones
Plays *What Does the Fox Say?” on the hacked dorm-room boombox…
That is the worst Ylvis song. Gimme the one about knots instead. Or season 1 of Kongen Befaler.
“When there’s war and all is hell, send in Jan Egeland!”
Over-played maybe, but personally I maintain there is no “worst” Ylvis song.
If it’s the worst, but the most viral and the one that made them well-known, maybe that’s just, like, your opinion. 😉 I enjoy it. I haven’t listened to any of their other songs. I realize I probably should based on this recommendation. If I like their “worst” song, I’d probably like their other work.
It all tends to be tongue-in-cheek, but mad brilliant. Check out Someone like me for a great example. They are insanely talented.
And of course:
WHAT’S THE MEANING OF STONEHENGE?!? 😀
Honestly, not one of their worst songs. It was their chart-topper for a reason. What made it so great though wasn’t the music. It was the fact it was probably the most epic troll they ever concocted.
Talk Show Host: “So what inspired you to make the song?”
Ylvis: “We wanted to teach kids about the sounds animal makes.
Song: Literally titled “What does the fox say”
Google in response to “What sound does the fox make”: “Yiff”
Google in response to “Yiff”: “Enable 18+ content?”
Furries: “Yay it’s a furry song!”
Ylvis: “No it’s not.”
Music video: Literally has Ylvis wearing fur-suits.
Song: Made in hip-hop genre
Song: Has fox singing nonsense lines from various Hip-hop artists.
Song: “Will you speak in morse?”
Song: Has Morse code that says, “Quality Control… Quality Control? Is this thing even on?”
Song: Has Fox singing gibberish while people get drunk
Media: Has Fox news spouting gibberish to people who can only be drunk
And that’s just some of it.
For those who don’t know, a long tradition going back before the Vikings is entendres. In Norse myth, Odin’s greatest gift to humanity was literally literacy, literally. This resulted in a Viking-era belief that entendres were divine in nature, and the more entendres something had, the more important it was. (For example, the word “Viking” has more than 5 meanings, including Kings of the Sea, Death to Kings, Commoner Kings, waterway finder, village-founders, and more… side note, this creates a real headache for Etymologists who seem to insist on only one or two origins for every word, used to natural evolution of language instead of OCD viking linguists word-building construction of language who, too this day, can’t seem to wrap their heads around the complexity of Norse words and are obsessed with seeing them as “dumb barbarians” and keep trying to find dumb reasons for clever words)
By blending so many messages and concepts and ideas and critiques and criticisms and their joys into a single song, Ylvis epitomizes the Norse tradition of multiple entendres.
In that regard, “What does the Fox say” is a head-alien-damned masterpiece.
I enjoy your infodump!!
Ayy Ana’s back! She’s okay!
All hail! Her majesty returns!
As always there was great relief as the universe returned to it’s proper shape.
Ain’t it wonderful?
Well Zootopia 2 is going to come out so
She’s just starting out on the horny training
yiffing is like; chapter 12 or something.
Long has it been since I’ve seen “yiff” in print. :O
Nobody tell Randall Munroe!
https://m.xkcd.com/919/
Ahh, an ancient horror. Long has it been since I’ve thought of that.
I’ve been worried about you 🤣 hadn’t seen you in a while and you hadn’t popped up as first comment lol
That’s a good Joyce face right there.
That’s
joyce.exe has stopped responding.Also: Joyce imagining lesbian sex, but it’s just her and Dorothy doing totally normal bestie things, and … gosh darn it — Becky can never know,,,
Perhaps Joyce is imagining but with herself and Dorothy substituted in?
Yeppers, the face of “I need to apologize to so many people. But I don’t know how.”
the retrograde wheelbarrow?
“Triple reverse Cow-Girl-Friday” position.
Is that on the balance beam or the vault?
The uneven bars.
Something involving a cloaca?
Becky: *Fist of the North Star voice* YOUR HANKY WAS ALREADY PANKIED
Joyce: OHHHH NOOOOOOO *head explodes*
That’s not usually the part that explodes when you use fisting like that.
Feels the same though… just in a good way.
Was gonna make the same reference but your version is better
Omae wa mou Fucked-eiru! ✨
my favorite thing is once again, Becky was underestimated. god I want to be her when I grow up. ~<3
Becky’s fast becoming my favorite. a nice patina of nuance and personal honesty over the goof troopin’..
To be fair, I’ve always strictly defined “sex” as “uncovered genital-to-genital interaction”, so by my definition, what Joe & Joyce have done isn’t sex, and whether Dina & Becky have had sex depends on whether or not they have scissored, which I do not know, because I have not accessed that consent.
Other ‘sex’ (like oral sex or finger sex or phone sex) under my understanding, are modifying adjectives, that make it so the target word is no longer what it was, but adjacent to that thing, like how ‘republican Jesus’ isn’t Jesus and ‘taco salad’ isn’t exactly a taco or a salad but something in-between.
Heteronormative concept of virginity: Shattered.
Genesis 19:8: “Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
So clearly, virginity is having known man; and lesbian sex does not change your virginity status. Also Lot’s daughters were not under the shadow of Lot’s roof for some reason. Biblical morality!
That Joy answered “no, you’ve had sex with Dina” to Becky’s question shows either that she’s outgrown that part of her bible indoctrination; or that this part of Genesis had been edited out of the bibles she had.
(Probably the later; I’ve long suspected American bibles to only contain the bit from the Leviticus where it says it’s okay to hate gays ‘cuz I’ve never seen American Christian political groups care about anything else.)
It’s definitely in there, but I’m not convinced many Christians have read the whole thing. If they have, they can get some pretty arbitrary ideas about which parts of Leviticus should still be enforced.
Obviously not the part about mixed fabrics, or about eating shellfish. Or the part about women menstruating being put away from everyone else not menstruating.
“not the part about mixed fabrics…”
All those rules mentioned, and most of the others, are part of the Jewish covenant, not general laws for humanity. So most (at least; arguable gray area if you’re converted from Judaism) Christians don’t have to abide by them. This isn’t Christian special pleading: Jews would say the same thing. Christians do tend to think the Ten Commandments are still binding; Jews think gentiles should obey the Noahide laws; neither set of laws abjures mixed fabric or shellfish.
Of course, Christians have “love your neighbor as yourself”, “sell all you have and give it to the poor”, and “don’t get divorced” as laws that _should_ be binding on them.
Those distinctions are difficult to pull out of the text of the Bible itself. They’re more clearly defined in the Talmud.
So it’s kind of special pleading, it’s just old special pleading. 🙂
But in this context, it’s even more special pleading. Christians do not rely on the Noahide laws, the Talmud or other ancient Jewish distinctions. Those Christians who are obsessed with sexual rules, like women’s virginity and homosexuality, go back to the parts of the Jewish covenant that forbid them, while ignoring other parts they’re not concerned with, like the mixed fabrics and shellfish.
Having spent most of my teenage years as an edgy pre-reddit athiest growing up in the deep south: Most Christians down there only know the parts of the bible that someone has read aloud to them. Most folks don’t know about the passages that would conflict with their ways of life and thinking.
Maybe even more sadly, most folks don’t know about the crabsolutely hilarious bits from the bible. You can’t read about the two bears or the time God popped out of a bush to put a dude in a headlock without chuckling.
Or the time the apostle Paul gave a sermon so long and boring someone fell out a window and died. (He got better.) (Acts 20:7–12)
I’m particularly fond of the part in Exodus when Aaron makes the golden calf, and when Moses questions him about it, says, “Well, I just threw some gold in the kiln, and out came this golden calf…um.” 😶🌫️🫥🫥
Joyce Face
How long before we see it as a Gravatar?
Not long, I should think.
Well played!
Kneejobs?
God I hope I correctly remembered that weird nonsense Joyce printed out for Dorothy to sort.
Elbowjobs. As shown in the historical documentary The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Not that anyone asked me, but if two or more people engage in activity intended to cause at least one of them to have an orgasm, it is sex.
What if you both stare at each other so intensely you get off without touching or speaking? Not saying it’s not sex just want to know what kind it would be.
Psychicsex, a lower-tech version of phonesex* or cybersex.
(Now I recall that sexy eating scene in, umm, some movie.)
*Is that still a thing?
Could you find it in your heart to remember which movie this was?
“9½ Weeks”, I think.
It’s been
9 1/2 WEEKS SINCE YA LOOKED AT ME
COCKED YOUR HEAD TO THE SIDE AND SAID “HE FINGERED ME”
+1 point for you
dammit why are your comments always so cultured *cries*
Lady And The Tramp maybe.
I assume you’re on about the spaghetti scene, so I’ll be the brave one and say the breakfast scene with the donut and suspiciously clear coffee is sexier. Breakfast bongoes got more pins on their strap.
For the spaghetti scene and a different webcomic, that’s sort of how Marten’s parents met:
“You know that scene in Lady and the Tramp where they’re slurping up both ends of a noodle and end up kissing?”
“It was like that, but with a line of cocaine instead of pasta.”
“It was the ’70s! We didn’t know any better!”
https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2386
I can’t believe that strip is already twelve years old. It’s older than the comic was when it went up!
Also, Hot Shots! (1991)
When Harry Met Sally
There’s a new advert for something where the actors from that go back to the same place and she has something really good again, and another woman wants to have what she’s having.
I have no idea what it’s an advert for.
There’s an advertisement for shampoo like that. Something something “botanicals”. Takes place in a supermarket aisle.
I was thinking of “Tom Jones”* from 1963:
* No relation to the singer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLhWVLiF68
Some would say it’s Tantric sex 🙂
Source: Lots of experience with New Age culture.
Isn’t that the famous ship that sank in 1912?
No, that’s the Titanic. Tantric is a puzzle of possible Chinese origin made of seven wooden pieces.
No, that’s a Tangram. The Titanic is the movement of the Earth’s plates that cause earthquakes and create mountains.
No, that’s plate tectonics. The Titanic is a Belgian electronic music project known for their 1989 single, “Pump Up the Jam.”
No, that’s technotronic.
And if I might get us off the Titanic and back to tantric; that’s when a player scores three goals in one match.
I made my comment, hoping people would create this thread in this way. Went to sleep. Woke up, checked against my darest of hopes, and, lo, I am appointed (the opposite of disappointed). Thank you, all!
no aquila, that’s a hat trick. Tantric is a line that just touches a circle in Euclidian mathematics
No, Casi, that’s a tangent.
Returning to the Titanic, it relates to the ancient Germanic peoples of Europe.
No, the Tantric hit an iceberg very calmly and deliberately, and then very consciously sank
Wow, the comments from today (tomorrow from this strip’s perspective) and yesterday (today, here) are really giving me laughs.
I think I’ve heard the term “eye-banging”
That is – no joke – called “premature ejaculation”.
Bingo. Oblig. citation
But I still want to propose calling it a spiritual dutch rudder.
I can’t think of any exceptions to this rule, but there are reasons we tend to modify the term, e.g. “oral sex” “phone sex” “sexting” etc. Different activities have different levels/varieties of risks, and levels of intimacy (which is subjective/varies by person).
How are we counting the laundry room incident then?
Hard to say, as we had a kind of “fade to black”… but fade to black usually means there was something going on to fade out.
Mutual or assisted masturbation. Self sex? Non penetrative orgasm? Stress relief? They did hold hands.
Oh dang, I said in my other comment that I couldn’t think of any exceptions to that rule, but you immediately found one. I would not consider that sex between Dorothy and Joyce. Perhaps side by side sex with themselves.
Now I’m wondering if there’s got to be some level of intentionality about doing it with that other person, that that specifically enhances the experience. Which doesn’t necessarily clear up your example, though. I think there’s gotta be a space for instruction that isn’t sex.
Pretty sure the space for instruction that “isn’t sex” would be teaching sex ed. But intention matters somewhat too, because it gets sticky here (hehe):
Instruction in an activity which includes practise, pleasure, and orgasm, is reasonably still sex. Clinical/academic instruction intended to avoid the same, is reasonably *not* sex.
But I would find it less surprising if someone had derived pleasure and possibly gratification while at school (sex ed or otherwise), than if it has never happened. In such a case I still wouldn’t count the student as having had sex with a partner, because the partner neither consented, nor – presumably – was aware.
On the other hand, I absolutely count sexting with someone to the point of climax as some kind of sex, even while it’s not as concrete as something like digital stimulation, despite it still be digits doing the stimulation.
So… yeah. There can be instruction, sex,and instructional sex. But I’m sceptical of drawing a hard boundary between them, so much as having a space with clearly defined sectors, that still have a big no-man’s-land of intent, interpretation, and effect between them.
TL;DR – On a spectrum between academic sexual education and education involving sex, what Dorothy and Joyce did together in the laundry may not have been firmly the latter, but it sure weren’t the former. Hooray humanity and our desire for classification in the face of futility. 😅
You’re right that it’s in a gray area.
Tricky… is that doing it *together*, or just doing it separately in the same room at the same time?
I think I lean “mutual masturbation” on that one, but whether that counts as sex depends on the individuals involved? If Dorothy had still been holding her hand when she finished, I’d probably feel differently.
I think the important thing in edge cases like that (ha!) is whether the participants considered the act to be sex or not, either at the time or later.
And with her new definition of sex being “sensual acts performed with another person” I think Joyce would probably consider the laundry room to be sex.
And I think Dorothy is also coming to that conclusion – it wasn’t her intention at the time, she hadn’t considered her own emotional connection at the time, but when Dorothy was recontextualizing her relationship actions with Joyce, the laundry room likely loomed large.
Lasciviously and lewdly!
I think we’re about to find out whether Joyce thinks it’s sex. Like, next strip.
3rd recent: Joyce got fingered by Joe.
2nd recent: Joe got handjobbed by Joyce.
1st recent: Joyce got…guided?…into masturbation by Dorothy.
Since Joyce asked Dorothy to leave before she finished I would say it doesn’t count under the definition above.
Would we say that Joe and Liz had sex?
I do think there’s a difference between a sexual activity and “sex”, like I dunno that I’d say two people using webcams to masturbate for each other is /sex/.
Bill Clinton disagrees!
It depends on what “is” is.
I do not recommend taking advice from Bill Clinton in matters of sex and intimacy. I mean I wouldn’t recommend taking advice from him about most things, but especially this one
what about food gasms 8D;
“I’ll have what she’s having.”
I think, at least up to a point*, it matters whether the participants consider it sex. Particularly when you get into kink (but even outside that), the exact same actions between two people might be sex or might not be sex depending entirely on the mental state involved
(this does require that said participants be making their classification in good faith, get out of here with your “soaking” nonsense)
What is soakin
You put the penis into the vagina, but you don’t move it around. Apparently there’s a specific version where a friend can jump on the bed to make your penis move.
Purity culture and the patriarchy: hurting everyone! Google Brigham Young Universal (BYU) if you need to know more.
So icky.
whatthehellisthatmentalgymnasticbullshit
I believe that is one of the acts described in the kama sutra.
…At least, my first boyfriend told me it was…
Soaking with bed jumping, or the mental gymnastics?
Both! 😆
What if part of their play includes deliberately not reaching it? Does it stop being sex no matter what?
Given that intercourse without orgasm is indisputably still sex (sorry “soakers”, you’re only lying to everyone), climax is probably considered a sufficient, but not a necessary condition of sex.
No doubt there’s a joke to be made about disappointed women the world over saying, “tell me about it.”
Hm. By that definition, through the various Slipshines and the naughty Patreon, Willis has had sex with a large portion of his readership.
Umm… yup.
Joyce needs a sex ed class.
i mean, idk how many sex ed classes talk about homosexual/lesbian sex (tho it might be diff these days), but i can understand why ppl might not consider a ‘straight’ girl getting fingered losing a virginity even if someone else does it, or a toy, hymen aside, virginity is just a social construct anyways
tho i can imagine her wanting to move on to the ‘next step’ next time if not one more hand session lol
Looking forward to _that_ class with Professor Lesley Bean.
Joyce this close to realizing that Virginity is a social construct
What matters is what virginity means to her not anyone else.
I prefer Heinlein’s definition of virginity.
“A correctable perversity of no great interest”
Definitely not without a sense of humour 😆
Sure. Which is how you know it’s a social construct, like Ray says. Because it’s not actually a specific and measurable thing, but a threshold that social groups and individuals construct a definition for.
And it’s given WAY too much weight as a means of controlling and shaming people in possession of vaginas.
^ THIS.
All the time one spends wondering what “””counts””” as losing virginity (as though it’s only ever one big crossing of some sexual Bank of the Rubicon), we tend to forget why we are even made to care so much about it to begin with
ain’t no denying that stems from a world where rules and social custom are not there to guide, but to judge and stigmatize for “stepping out of line”
the all to common culture of Compromise™ may compel us towards making lowering the bar of what constitutes virginity loss to be more lenient or expanding “exceptions cases”, but honestly even taking that route is unwittingly agreeing to the premise that it’s okay for this form of Power held over us to exist in the first place within a certain tolerance,
in other words, it validates the privileged mindset via Tolerable Level of Permanent Unhappiness that we “JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH” in our society
(-_-)
No, that is not how communication works. You need to have at least one other person who agrees with your definition otherwise it isn’t a concept, functionally speaking.
Those are not rigorous definitions of concept or of communication.
As ingrained into her by her social upbringing, thus a social construct.
“Joseph! You get inside me right this second! We need a do-over!”
Manual upvote
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
–Groucho Marx
Cishet interpretation of what classifies as sex are so limited. Queer sex is far more adventurous. Especially if it’s kinky queer sexuality. heck, so many ace people have kink lives even if they aren’t conventionally sexual
It’s not like cishets don’t do basically everything queer people do, including plenty of kink. It’s not that they’re any less adventurous necessarily, it’s just that there’s a convenient historical expectation for what sex means – without that actually limited what you can do.
I mean, don’t tell us that cishet people can be kinky, tell cisheteropatriarchy that kink isn’t inherently queer. Because it super duper does not agree with you on that, and is constantly trying to criminalize kink.
That’s not a reason to tell them kink isn’t queer. That’s a reason to tell those stupid motherfuckers to go fuck themselves. The message should be queer is good, queer solidarity, cishet kink is still queer, and together we win.
I apologize if that came off as me saying I didn’t think kink was inherently queer, hah. That was not my intent, I was just exasperated. Solidarity forever with the kinksters, the perverts, etc. We are all in this together and we are stronger united.
it’s lame English even has a word for “virginity”
the social construct has done orders of magnitude more harm than good :(
I think a big problem with concept of virginity is that it took on a life of its own beyond the real-life practical problems it arose to help people confront. Blood-type paternity tests are only a century old this year. The birth control pill are only decades old and the overwhelming majority of human history lacked effective prophylactics. Historically, enforcing a taboo on activities that could spread STDs or result in children out of wedlock was the only way to make sure sexually transmitted disease didn’t spread out of control and the only means available provide some strong evidence to a child’s paternal lineage (thereby encouraging and pressuring the father into stick around and care for the kid). The Catholic church forcing celibacy on its clergy meant that, in theory, they weren’t all bedding local women which might produce children or personal attachments. Those could call their impartiality into question and distract them from their duties to the church, the only real source of some-what nonbiased international authority that could curb the nobility’s endless internecine bloodlust, rampant barbarity, and tendency to break any inconvenient oath or societal obligation.
The problems arose from the fact that virginity become more than an imperfect tool for solving a practical problem, it spread to include acts beyond the most directly infectious and those capable of producing children. It took on a religious, spiritual, and moral significance which was both disproportionate to the physical problems it was meant to solve and which persisted even as technology significantly reduced the risks associated with premarital sex. Virginity was also, almost always, a burden shifted onto women and the poor. A woman who had sex before marriage was not only less likely to find a wealthy husband or earn her family a large dowry, but was shunned by society as morally corrupt. An upper-class bachelor was expected to mess around with women of a lower class – the risks of disease or bastards and damage to the fabric of society for the lower classes be damned.
Yeah, this. Virginity is real. Virginity is bullshit. In an ideal world Joyce’s answer to Becky’s question might be something like “Why, you planning on having kids via traditional techniques for some reason?”
On clerical celibacy, I think it was less about impartiality than about preventing them making church offices hereditary or leaving church assets to legitimate children (since they wouldn’t have any).
Which didn’t stop those things from happening in the long run…
Well said. Having hit sexual interest at the point where the average woman could get her hands on effective contraception, I’d say the ball game changed in a very short period of time. Admittedly, condoms got left out for long enough for the effect of leaving them out became apparent. But, yeah, virginity became pretty moot in a pretty short span of time.
At which point people cottoned on to the idea that curbing population growth was much better served by giving the contraception to the women.
That last sentence is misogyny squicky, because everyone should be managing their own contraceptive measures, not just “giving [it] to the women”.
Should, yes, but that’s not how it played out in the patriarchal societies of the 1970s.
Everyone should be, but since women are the most directly affected by contraception, them having control over their own contraception is what has the real social effect. That’s not misogyny, but simple reality.
Yes, everyone should manage their own and there are good reasons for men to do so, but it’s women having access to safe, effective contraception that changes everything.
“since women are the most directly affected by contraception”
Also, women have a lot more options. For men, the reversible options are condoms (which can change the experience for both partners), withdrawal (not that effective), or abstaining from vaginal sex entirely.
“A lot” more options meaning hormonal birth control?
Because that’s really just one additional option.
Like, you’re not counting stuff like Plan B, right, because that’s a.) still hormonal, b.) an emergency option for after other contraceptives have failed that no one enjoys having to try.
Also “male” hormonal birth control has been in development for decades. One of the things holding it back has been side effects, which. “Female” hormonal birth control absolutely also has. But interestingly the very similar side effects became unacceptable once they were for a product aimed at cis men. The latest thing is apparently a topical gel applied once daily with far fewer side effects and a higher efficacy level in trials.
You’re forgetting about the copper IUD.
But also hormonal birth control can take a lot of different forms, some of which will have better or worse side effects than others. Like the Mirena IUD can reduce or eliminate periods, which is considered a positive side effect by most people. IUDs, patches, and implants are all available options for people like me who would simply fail a method that required daily application (at the same time of day no less, I have no idea how anyone manages that). And all of these will interact with your body a little differently, so if you don’t love one there’s not a bad shot one of the others will work (though, even as someone who swears by the IUD I can definitely understand getting IUDs or implants put in could be a bit spooky for trying something out).
We should have male hormonal birth control and men should be aware of it and comfortable using it, but unless there’s some tech I don’t know of out there men aren’t going to have access to the “do it once and you’re safe for the next three to ten years, reversible at any time” options at all.
I just strongly dislike the implication that this is like, female privilege. It’s not. It’s that the same level and type of side effects in products targeted at presumed cis men… have not been considered acceptable.
“Female” hormonal birth control, IUDs, etc, have awful side effects. And also don’t work if you’re over a certain weight. Etc, etc.
Not saying they shouldn’t exist, not saying no one should take them, not saying there aren’t people for whom the side effects are much more minor… just saying that the reason why the “male” versions haven’t become available yet is because a looooooot more care is being taken to try to develop products that don’t suck for huge swaths of the target population.
Also, the fact that non-reversible birth control is functionally unavailable for “female” people? Yeah. That’s misogyny. Could NOT have found a doctor willing to sterilize me in any permanent way when I was 18 or 20, and even now in my early 40s, the odds are extremely high that I would be whined at and concern trolled because I haven’t given birth yet and am I suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, how can I be suuuuuuuure, can they please speak to the husband I don’t have to make sure he doesn’t want me to have a baby first lol
^^^ though that last part is because I’m white and neurotypical passing.
If I were brown or Black or indigenous, if I were low-IQ enough, etc, doctors would very happily permanently sterilize me without my consent.
I thought there was such a thing as reversible vasectomy?
While vasectomy can sometimes be reversed, it’s considered generally permanent.
There is an implantable valve thing that’s been being developed for a decade or so, but it’s not made it to clinical trials yet.
Huh. Today I learned…
https://www.healthline.com/health/vasectomy-reversal
Reversal not a sure thing!
Good.
I’d phrase it as “not taking away from” rather than “giving to”, since the former makes access to contraception sound like the right it is and the latter makes it sound like a privilege that’s granted.
Or heirs. Apparently, priests lacking heirs other than the Church was considered the only way to ensure that church property stayed church property.
(Interesting that the Orthodox church never had that problem. Its priests must marry; only bishops and upwards must not – they all start their careers as monks.)
Poor bastards, though. They were damned, too, unless they managed to, like, conquer England.
shouldn’t be a big deal, although being too ‘dismissive’ of it has its own issues too, but i guess as long as ur safe/careful i’m sure some ppl would wanna go all out and ‘debut’ as a pornstar/join an orgy on their 18th birthday or so
but even if sex was guaranteed to be 100% safe/risk free everytime there’s still other things to do with friends/as a couple , since casual intimacy is nicel ike “that was nice, now let’s play vid games/watch a movie/etc”
Becky that may not be the best time to ask Joyce that question.
Unless she’s seen the Slipshine, and she already knows.
Becky going full Deadpool would be hillarious.
now why would a fox maintain its virginity
better yet, what was with the “birthday” part yesterday
“is it my birthday?” And variations Is a phrase often used to mean the person had received something really good, akin to a gift, unexpectedly.
In this case, the gift was Joyce denying Dorothy three times, playing into Becky’s performative Dotty hatred while also making a sweet Bible reference.
I wonder what happened with Peter after he did that.
He got a sweet motorcycle.
If the line stays parallel, Joyce is about to get cooler.
Look, foxes famously have a hard time abstaining, let them if they want to.
>”wait this means i’ve already had sex with joe TWICE?”
>”wait does this mean i’ve already had sex wi-“
And before she and Joe were officially a thing.
i would half expect a joke like “you mean i lost my virginity to a tampon?!” but we know joyce canonically uses pads lol
Joyce: Are you saying i had lesbian sex with Joe?! Did I turn him lesbian?!?
Becky: Pretty sure the only way that could happen is one a’those ‘Estrogen Could Save Them’ moments Carla keeps goin’ on about, Joyce babe.
Omg. You called it.
Elementary, my dear Straximus
“So, that means that when Dorothy and I… when we… when she brought me to…?”
“Dotty did what to you when!?”
lol that convo would be fun if it happened at one point assuming she doesn’t blurt it out now
When Joyce said she wasn’t there for Dorothy, and Becky was so happy, she asked, is it my birthday?!
Becky hearing Joyce had sex/mutual masturbation observation/whatever with Dorothy…
UNBIRTHDAY APOCALYPSE.
It was at that moment…when Joyce realized…she is no longer a virgin.
Not sure how you test for that sort of thing without a unicorn handy.
Maybe Fuckface can substitute.
Here’s one!
https://ridethecowgirl.com/products/the-unicorn-premium-riding-sex-machine
(NSFW)
And then nothing else changed at all, because we made virginity up.
Joyce: … I’m a slut?
Becky: Yep. Welcome to slut-dom. Not so bd, huh?
joyce is going to have a field day with this realization
or a panic attack 😛
Becky’s going to get another Joyce-face for her collection.
….
… in retrospect, I’m starting to suspect that Joyce-faces were the whole reason she wanted to be able to talk with Joyce about sex in the first place.
I can here that glass breaking effect at deafening volume
The “Virginity maintained! Like a fox.” line is interesting because like… Joyce, it’s not like you had to outmaneuver anyone here; your desires were the ones pushing things toward sex. And no matter where you wanted to stop, it would have been respected.
Just. Obviously she has more to (un)learn, and it’s interesting how some of it comes through in that phrasing.
She still has some of that internalized religious guilt it seems. It’ll sneak up on ya. Like a fox.
Agreed, it’s both an interesting thing to have said, and an interesting look on her face as she said it.
There’s another interpretation springing to my shipper-mind, but since I honestly was not one of the people subscribing to the idea that Joyce had pumped the brakes because of Dorothy (at the very least, I’d assumed it was something that would’ve happened anyway), I’m still reluctant to go there even as a joke until tomorrow’s strip reveals more of Joyce’s state of mind here fff
Eh, Joyce should be allowed to move at the pace she wants.
What sex means should be determined by her and no one else.
Not sure this this comment was misplaced or if it’s somehow meant to do with what I was talking about?
Just commenting on the fact if she’s uncomfortable with the situation and needs to go slow due to programming, she should go slow despite her being the fox she fools.
As well as the fox doing the fooling.
Okay, so then not really connected to what I was saying other than the fox bit?
I mean, obviously Joyce should get to go at the pace she wants and that should (and, with Joe, would) be respected. That’s why I included that in my original comment.
Yeah, I wasn’t arguing but agreeing.
Okay. Starting a comment with “eh” sounds like disagreement, and then the rest felt more relevant to other comment threads on here (like defining what sex is– I agree that people should get to define it for themselves), so I was confused.
My bad. Apologies.
Someone who gets it.
Joyce has spent the last fifteen years trying to outmaneuver herself; this is nothing new.
She’s outmaneuvering God! Who she doesn’t presently think really exists. But she’s still trying to outmaneuver him to hedge her bets in case Heaven exists~! Like a FOX.
True, you don’t want to give God the chance to go, “Checkmate, atheist.”
So it’s probably a good thing Joyce never learned what soaking is.
I did not know the thing until this day. I regret knowing the thing now.
I heard about it years ago. I was like “But that’s just sex. Really, really stupid sex, but definitely sex.”
Sure, but you’re not a horny teenager looking for an excuse to have sex while pretending it really isn’t sex.
And what does the Fox say, Joyce?
“Fur farms are an ethical abomination and your societies continued allowance of the practice is a stain upon the fabric of your nation and the substance of your soul.”
Either that or a sort of high pitched yelp or cackling giggle sound.
Obligatory fox laughing vid. So cute!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GegN_AXWWqc
Poor Liz.
She would have loved to heard this conversation.
I just want to hug and reassure all these babies. And sign them up for therapy on campus. And hope Dorothy starts being honest with her therapist. And stops weaponizing therapy speak against herself.
Damn, Dorothy is REALLY going through it.
This is the real conversation Joyce needed in the only way it could happen possible. Becky landing that scholars mate in 1.
I remember hearing a couple have an argument about this back in high-school. Can’t remember the full logic but they decided it was (mutual?) masturbation instead of official sex.
They were later that year caught having full-blown baby making sex in the boarded concession stand during gym class
Hopefully none of the babies looked at anyone there. 🙁
“The baby looked at you?”
woops.
Honestly speaking, I think it’s really up to the participants to decide if they want to judge it as the grand event, so to speak.
Agreed, as far as personal sense-making goes. But I also think some standard definitions are helpful for certain settings, like medical. Probably best to be more specific about actions in that context.
This makes me think of some guy on Usenet in the late ’90s who didn’t think lesbians had sex because a penis isn’t involved.
They are, statistically speaking, probably still some people that think like this.
As of a few months ago, 100% there was at least one person who thought so. Having said it while in my presence.
I did have to explain to a co-worker once what a lesbian is, and I’m still not entirely convinced he believed me.
Mind you, he also watches sasquatch hunting videos on Youtube, so I’d definitely say he’s at the end of a few bell curves for ideas.
Such men probably thinks real lesbians look like those blow-dried, fully-makeup, Freddy Krueger fingernails (which seems REALY dangerous, under the circumstances) “lesbian” models he sees in his porn videos.
I’ve also talked to someone who believed “lesbian sex” must inherently involve toys and therefore isn’t “real.” (Granted, it’s been nearly ten years since this came up. I no longer talk to this person, for reasons that may be obvious.)
Oh Usenet in the 90s. I pretty much lived there, it was what the whole internet turned into later. an utter, steaming shit factory.
I was there too, and IMO, the internet today is shit in ways we never dreamed of. (Social media and
enragementengagement algorithms are a big part of that.)“Web 2.0” they tried to call it. I like “enragement algorithms” much better.
Checkmate, atheist!
Heh, the “checkmate” part of that “checkmate atheists” has always been weird to me.
Guess cuz it’s itself a form of question begging, the general question being,
Was the goal of the discussion in the first place “victory”, or progress?
Is the underlying gameplay competitive, or cooperative?
Competitive. 100% of the time.
yup. it’s not a conversation/discussion, it’s an argument/debate.
Like this.
I mean, it’s not SUPPOSED to be competitive…
But yeah, it totally has become that.
At least in the United States it has, even many of their leftists
unfortunately adopt this way of thinking, a mentality more or less revealed in this interaction between Roz and Becky.
The goal of discussion is (or should be) to cooperate to arrive at the truth,
the idea that it’s this zero-sum game about competing for “reputation points” by one-upping each other for attention and shit is literally a right-wing tool
People in our country don’t often realize this cause let’s face it, that’s just the way our overton window leans by default (-_-)
Most generously, the religious person has doubts they’re trying to repress, and they’re using an atheist(s), real or imagined, as a foil. The “checkmate” type conclusion means they have, to their satisfaction, deployed a rhetorical or mental countermeasure to that doubt.
Omg too funny! And the alt-text, even funnier, and soooo appropriate!
The “Hokey Pokey”?!
Good God, what kind of sex act begins with putting your left foot in?
The Tango! 🌹 Leading to the horizontal tango! I’m joking, of course.
I was thinking of orher verses, like hands, faces, fingers … Although last night i had an image of using chicken fingers…..
Legitimately lmao
The paradigm! It has shifted!
“An’ what particular acts would y’imagine our sex… included?”
“I have no idea, I haven’t read the Slipshine yet. [turns to face the reader] But YOU can, for $24.99 and then further monthly charges of $9.99 each! Don’t delay, catch up on the sexy scenarios and pinups that just can’t be shown in a wholesome Christian webcomic. [turns back to Becky] [classic shocked Joyce face]”
Becky develops fourth wall awareness and she is using to it to shill for porn. Good for her.
That reminds me, I should catch up on The Rock Cocks.
Now is always a good time to catch up on that comic!
Does it come with an expanded free trial which you can play through the entirety of A Realm Reborn and the award-winning Heavensward expansion up to level 60 with no restrictions on playtime?
No, it’s even better because the trial goes up to level 70 and you can play the entirety of the game through Stormblood now.
Genuinely a good deal, and you only lose out on market interaction, forcing you to actually play the fucking game.
Worldview shattered!
Like a FOX.
I believe Homer Simpson once claimed to be “Stupid like a fox!”.
gadzooks
Recalculating….recalculating….
Joyce now thinks she’s a lesbian.
According to tomorrow’s strip, she’s actually just realized she left the oven on in the dorm kitchen. Don’t worry though, Sal’s watching it for her while she waits for Danny.
“Wait a minute…..he didn’t pay his tab!”
Does Becky know that Joyce handjobbed Joe? She got him a cookie (’twas done in the other patreon, but still), and he got her a cookie (not yet done in the other patreon…). So, yeah, Joyce, you ain’t a virgin person. You’re totes a lady of the world.
Oh no no, her cookie is other-Patreoned, sir, I assure ye
Excellent. Thanks for the confirmation! But I don’t believe you. I must go read it all carefully myself. For confirmation purposes.
We immediately suspect that you have a confirmation bias.
“Ah did not have sex with that woman” Unforgivable to call someone you had sex with “that woman”.
That’s why he waited only half a second before following it up with “Miss Lewinsky”.
That was a verbal pause indicating he was addressing Miss Lewinsky; letting her know he didn’t have sex with that future presidential candidate. You have to follow the logic on these things.
Joyce.EXE has crashed. Please contact David M Willis for technical support. Please do not disassemble Joyce. There are no user-serviceable parts inside.
IDK Joe serviced an inside part just last night. Maybe he’s a licensed technician.
He’s practically a professional…
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Fuse breaker goes POP!
Really none of what Joyce has done counts as sex at all, she hasn’t spun like a top even once
Panel 3: Joyce, you do realize that one of the last terms people would equate with someone who is still a virgin is “vixen”, right?
As a sexual slang term, “vixen” is, as I understand it, usually used to refer to femme-presenting swingers, SO
I don’t know a lot about foxes, but I imagine they don’t care too much about maintaining virginity.
Foxes are famously haste creatures. That’s why furrows get so horny over them.
Holy shot the autocorrect.
Someone needed to.
Joyce realizing she unintentionally had sex. Lesbian sex (in her mind), but still sex. Now she’s going to have to act all weird.
Ehhhhh yes Becky has seized on a correct opportunity for a semantic ‘gotcha’ here about what the word ‘virginity’ means, but it’s really kind of missing the point and derailing an important moment for Joyce in a way that’s unfair.
Obviously what Joyce *means* here is ‘I still haven’t had PiV intercourse, the thing that has enormous emotional and symbolic weight to me personally, which is also the thing where almost all the risk of pregnancy and STDs come from and therefore a significant threshold even outside my emotional and cultural reactions to it, and I’d like to discuss this emotionally significant series of events in a safe space with friends.’
And like, yes, sure, *technically* Becky has an opening here to say ‘acksually that semantic definition of ‘virginity’ is outdated and exclusionary to me the lesbian girl, lets stop talking about you and make this about me and how you’re being a bad ally instead’ but like come the fuck on, this is Joyce’s moment and Becky knows exactly what she *means* and cares about here.
Sure, that’s a wildly inaccurate read on Becky’s motivations. You can definitely keep that going if you want.
Orrr you could see someone alerting her best friend that ~actuallyyyy~ you probably did have sex so you might need to recontextualize some things.
“Obviously what Joyce *means* here is ‘I still haven’t had PiV intercourse'” Sure, obvious to someone who considers PiV as the only “real” sex and everything else as a “loophole”. Someone with a fundie upbringing who might be benefitted by re-examining that biased definition of sex, for instance.
I mean, it’s obvious that’s what Joyce means because she describes what she did instead.
And yeah, that’s something that she could benefit from re-examining, but maybe not right now, when she’s clearly excited, but also a bit freaked out by what she’s done (and by what she chickened out of.) Can’t she have her moment and a little support?
She’s getting both of those.
Where?
As soon as she said what she’d done, she got the stare from Becky that led to her “…What?”
God forbid a woman stare at another woman
Alternatively:
Becky didn’t actually say anything. She involuntarily lost her smile, due to Joyce’s unintentionally hurtful phrasing. Joyce then asked after that lost smile, at which point Becky opted to be honest instead of lying.
Sorry thejeff, this should really have been a reply to Darwin.
I’m much more arguing with the “well ACTUALLY!!!” characterization of Becky than with your comment.
I just don’t think Becky is responding out of pedantry here at all.
(Also, I think Joyce is in a headspace where she’d actually prefer to be corrected on this kind of thing, rather than her friends letting it go to focus on supporting her. But I really don’t think that’s at all where Becky was coming from. Sometimes, instead of being just a social media avatar looking for a “gotcha” moment, marginalized people are real human beings with feelings that matter to the people who care about us.)
The more I think about this, the more I think she doesn’t need to be corrected at all here, because I don’t think she’s wrong. (The focus on virginity sucks, but that’s not what Becky’s objecting to.)
At worst, this is a semantic argument and those usually suck. If Joyce wants to think of PiV as “sex” when it comes to sex stuff with guys, there’s nothing wrong with that. She doesn’t need to be corrected and made to understand that she’s really “had sex” even though she wasn’t emotionally ready to.
If she was actually thinking the same terminology applied to lesbians and thus Becky’s and Dina’s sex doesn’t count, that would be a problem that needs correction, but she doesn’t think that. She obviously hasn’t logically thought through why, judging by that last panel, but she was right about it anyway. As usual, her instincts were right.
All that said, I agree that Becky’s not really intentionally doing pedantry, but she’s still diverting away from what Joyce’s excited and maybe a bit freaked out about.
That just conversations go sometimes, one can start with it being about something and for a reason of another it’s turns into something else. That is perfectly fine.
I think it’d be hard on Becky to have this discussion without at least bringing up some nuance here so her experiences feel less erased. Joyce can define sex yow she wants for her, but she also hasn’t thought that through rather than going off what was ingrained in her. Becky had these same things ingrained and has had to unlearn them in different ways.
I find it totally fair for Becky to want to clarify some things before trying to have an excited conversation about what Joyce is calling “almost sex.”
Yep! This.
+1. It’s not an attack on Joyce to blanch in response to that, and most people *want* their friends to feel safe to express uncomfortable things. There is zero way Becky won’t be super supportive of Joyce around this, and Joyce knows that. (Now I’ve written “Joyce” waaay too much.)
Exactly this, yep.
Bruh
In about ten seconds Joyce will realize she had sex with Dorothy.
hokey pokey doesn’t count as losing your virginity if you stop before the “turn yourself around”.
Well, that *is* what it’s all about.
“What is sex” is really a question of intent. 🙂
Baby don’t hurt me?
Nice! 😀
But what if they WANT to be hurt (in a good way)? 😉
What is love?
Baby, don’t hurt me…
Don’t hurt me…
No more.
Remember,
Unless I say my safe word
My safe word,
I want more.
Swat swat swat
Swat-swat
Swat swat swat
Swat-swat
Excellent. +1 point.
Joyce pulled up her Task Manager and found out that
fundie.exeis still running.Sadly it seems to be a System Process at this point.
And hogging all the memory!
She doesn’t know, Joyce hasn’t subscribed to the other Patreon or read any Slipshines, the poor soul…
On the one hand – Becky is correct, but Joyce isn’t wrong to consider PiV sex different than other kinds of sex (especially for a young person whose sex ed probably involved being told she’d get pregnant and and STD if she had sex outside of marriage). It’s not wrong to put different values on different kinds of sex. But overall Becky is right.
Yeah, it’s definitely not wrong for a woman to consider PiV a bigger step among the sexual activities she could do with a man than fingers are. (Probably with oral in between?)
And it’s also important to note that Joyce doesn’t think that Becky and Dina haven’t had sex because they haven’t done the thing that she uses to define “sex” between a man and a woman.
She obviously hasn’t stopped to consider the implications, but it’s also alright if she eventually reaches the conclusion that her first instincts were right and the Becky and Dina have had sex, but she and Joe still haven’t.
Becky’s certainly right that she’s had sex with Dina, but I’m not at all sure that she would be right to say that Joe and Joyce have had sex. But at this point it’s merely an argument over terminology, which is usually pretty useless. They’ve done some sex stuff, but still have more in mind.
Dang, you’ve outfoxed yourself. Well done. Might as well go all in now. So to speak.
My brain on the last picture instantly fired up Poe’s “not a virgin” and I haven’t heard that song in years, heh.
rip joyce
Ah, the crashed joyce process expression, been a while since i don’t see it!
What counts as sex for someone is up to them and their partner(s). In the moment Joyce wasn’t ready for what she sees as sex, so Joe offered what would be an emotionally safer option. If it had only ever been about finding a loophole, which is how she’s presenting it, I would say it’s sex. It’s about intent and consent. All this said, the definitions ONLY apply in your own circumstances. Becky and Dina get to decide if they’ve had sex, and they have.
The alt-text had me laugh out loud.
Sex also depends on your relationship status. If I kiss my significant other good morning (AFTER brushing my teeth!) that’s not sex. If I kiss someone else, no matter how chastely and my S.O. finds out about it, you’d think I had a full-on Roman orgy.
I definitely could not be in that kind of relationship.
I am not an expert, but I’d say the moment a lesbian lose her virginity is when she is scissoring.
Or use a strap-on.
I disagree. If breaking the hymen is the point (which is a quite cis-normative viewpoint anyway) you can do that with your fingers. Or other toys besides strap-ons. If it’s just about having sex the first time, then you’ve decided that scissoring and strap-ons are the only real ways to have lesbian sex.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a lot of trouble making sense of your comment. Why would those two things be the dealbreaker? And not every lesbian is going to want to do those things, so do they just remain virgins forever?
I’d argue that a lesbian loses her virginity when she/they say so. Virginity is a social construct, and thus it’s up to the individual to decide what constitutes losing it for them. Same for lesbians as everyone else.
All this PLUS a desperate request that people educate themselves about what the hymen actually IS (not you personally just people). It’s not a freshness seal that “breaks” most of the time. It stretches, sometimes to the point of tearing a little, but it isn’t usually intact like a drumhead (and if it is, that’s actually a serious issue because it means period blood can’t get out). For some women it’s barely even noticeable both before and after first penetration.
Just super incorrect. Not all lesbians trib and not all lesbians use strap-ons. That doesn’t mean they haven’t had sex, or are still a virgin.
five beat panels
“Virginity Concluded! Like a Fox!“
Virginity was a deeply misogynistic concept when it was clearly defined as the loss of the hymen, but divorced from that straightforward definition it becomes ever more pointless.
I suspect pretty much everyone has some kind of hierarchy of how serious sexual acts are and places the defining moment for “having sex” somewhere on that scale. Even for bisexuals, I suspect many would consider PiV to be the defining moment for “having sex” for a man and a women, while still seeing queer couples as having sex.
The way that my parents explained it, and what was common knowledge in ye olde 1990s, was simple: if it was a penis entering a vagina, it was sex. If it didn’t, it wasn’t. The 7th grade and 8th grade science teacher, who were a husband and wife, handled the “sex ed” course, which wasn’t so backwards that it was abstinence-only, but was 100% assuming hetero and thus had major gaps. Other forms that happened between two men or two women were “gay sex,” which, somehow, were… different?
Then again, it was the 90s, and so nobody would dare ask a question that would ever imply that they weren’t straight. And so the definition of “sex” was in my mind *always* penis-vagina, and “gay sex” was “don’t worry about it, they do what they do, that doesn’t affect you.”
Seeing Joyce’s Blue-Screen-Of-Death face here, makes me wonder what I would have looked like in like 2004-ish, if I suddenly realized all at once that hey, whoops, me and my girlfriend actually WERE having sex, and not just “fooling around.” Instead of very slowly over four years, culminating in a honeymoon that was mostly “OK, this is great, but we’re actually far better the other way because we’ve had years of practice.”
It’s always been kind of fuzzy and context dependent, whatever the simple explanations given to kids. “But it wasn’t really sex” has never been defense to upset parents, for example.
Even if kids were taught that all of those things were “sex”, I’m pretty sure that some would be seen as more consequential than others.
Honestly surprised Joyce didn’t do her shocked face
I feel like we’ve got only one final Shocked-Joyce face left and it’ll follow the biggest of earth shattering reveals. Despite this i feel we are VERY close to it.
I had my first time MUCH later than Joyce. And I also started to question what my “first time” qualified as.
Because if we’re talking kissing, or touching, or stroking, or inserting, or inserting DOWN THERE, then everything has a different day and some a different person.
It was weird to consider how I’d NEVER considered where that boundary actually lay. Only what porn had shown me was and… wasn’t. I mean IS foreplay sex? It’s part of it, but is foreplay alone, sex. And what counts as foreplay? Does kink count as foreplay? Does kissing?
It’s interesting to think about, especially when you consider everyone may have different, and 100% valid answers.
Solely because Joyce is semiautobiographical.
Ten buck says that *if* she even thought about it before, she just kind of assumed that when two lesbians love each other, and kiss and hug and are close together, there’s that Transformers sound effect and then at one of them just kind of manifests a strap-on.
Only if they’re doing it correctly. Sorry, ladies, but if you don’t The Transformers a strap-on, you’re fucking incorrectly.
Goddammit, I have to tell my girlfriend she was right and stop calling her Mecha Cockzilla now.
Joyce’s takeaway: ‘I just had lesbian sex with Joe.’
Ha. Called it. Almost word for word.
I know the hymen is considered to be some kind of “seal” that proves a woman’s virginity to stupid people, but the fact is it can be broken without having sex, and it’s possible to have sex without breaking it…so it proves literally nothing.
Also you can still get STDs and STIs from doing hand, mouth, and butt stuff so I would say they count as sex
I love that Joyce face so much
I can only manage Joyce’s brain sounds like a 90’s PC connecting to the internet right now.
imagine*
While Becky has a good point, I’m going to side with Joyce.
Virginity is made up so what does and doesn’t count as “taking” it would be a personal thing. With Becky and Dina, they considered fingering sex for them, therefore not virgins. But Joyce didn’t consider Joe fingering her as sex, therefore still virgin
And it goes more broadly than that, since Joyce considers Becky and Dina to have had sex too.
It’s perfectly reasonable have a line for where “have sex” falls and for that not to be in the same place for couples with different genital configurations.
A long-running joke in a friends group is that lesbian sex involves belly buttons. My headcanon is that Joyce is thinking of belly buttons.
Well, that was MY guess…
really, the more belly buttons the better ^-^ <3 o3o
Just want to say I’m really glad to be seeing this (the arbitrary bs nature of the concept of virginity and the malleability of the definition of sex) addressed in-comic ^^
For some reason I thought lesbian sex required vaseline-smeared camera lenses, but I’m an old…
Also, re: church and chastity, the word ‘nepotism’ comes up. Those aren’t actually the Cardinal’s nephews he’s favoring…
Oh good, I got Ruth’s image again. Her hair’s the color my beard used to be back when I had way more hair….somebody’s been dyeing it white now for a decade and a half, possibly in my sleep.
That damned white hair dye fairy has been visiting me at night too…
That last panel had me cackling the hardest I have in a while
“Mama stroked his ding-er; Daddy got a sticky finger in those days of long-a-go!”…Frank Zappa “Wild Love”…1977
Written in 1977..not released until March, 1979…
The next step is for Joyce to angrily confront Joe: “We were totally having sex last night and you didn’t tell me!” Which will cause much confusion: “But that’s exactly what we were planning to do.” Unable to fault this logic, Joyce becomes even more upset.
If i were a horrible God who first made sexuality fun, and then commanded my believers not to have it, i’m pretty sure i’d be too sadistic to go “yeah no obviously non-penetrative sex doesn’t count”.
Then again, making the topic ambiguous was a pretty sadistic move as well 😛