Joyce’s words a few strips back where she mentions that it’d be even better if Dorothy was the one she lost her virginity to, makes today’s strip all come full circle. Fantastic character writing.
I’m not saying I approve of this, but by your definition, rape through the ages isn’t sex. That would be false. Neither love nor trust is required,
Basically all masturbation is sex. If you limit it to penetration on a female, then the equivalent actions on a male count as well. No half standards. Women don’t even have to orgasm to get pregnant, there just needs to be an egg present with sperm.
This is why, as a concept, virginity is so bad. I stops people from thinking about all results from their actions all the time.
Thomas Aquinas argued that virginity can’t be lost through rape but can be lost through masturbation because it’s lost when assenting to sexual gratification. I’m not saying I agree with him, but he adds a new, weird, historical take to the conversation.
Women don’t have to have sex to get pregnant either, though that is the most common way.
Sex is indeed hard to define, but anything that involve genitalia can be considered sex.
There is an element of necessity (medical for exemple) that most reasonable people would say makes some acts disqualify from being sexual, but in such cases, the involved people’s (including any witness) perception has to be taken into account as well.
Also, some things that don’t involve genitalia can be considered sexual in nature if they are done with certain intents, especially if they involve other body parts that are generally associated with sex.
The necessity of defining what qualifies as sex or not is not necessarily linked to the concept of virginity, though it played a role, I think having a proper definition for legal matters is more important.
There’s a difference between “sexual in nature” and “is sex”. Like kissing can be very sexual, but few would consider it be having sex.
Nor is everything involving genitalia sex.
Sex, in the sense we’re discussing here of what is required to “have sex”, is probably best left as an “I know it when I see it” kind of thing. For most, it’s more of a spectrum than a firm dividing line and that’s fine. People’s understanding can vary and that’s also fine. I don’t think there needs to be any grand unifying theory of sex that covers all possibilities and leaves nothing out.
I also think there’s no need to have a proper definition for legal matters. Not sure what the purpose of such a definition would be. For things like sexual assault and rape, you want to include sexual things that most wouldn’t think of as “having sex”, like unwanted sexual touches or kisses. It’s easy enough to legislate based on the actions rather than around a definition of “having sex.”
I think having a definition, even if it is on a spectrum, absolutely matters for the law. Someone who violates my consent to grab my genitals is not guilty of the same crime as someone who violates my consent to do so repeatedly, and should not face the same consequences. That is, groping and an unconsentual handjob would, by my understanding, fit the difference between sexual assault and full-on rape.
Neither love nor orgasms are mandatory for it to be sex. Sometimes “Hey, can I play too?” “Sure, grab a condom” followed by some PIV in a pile at the swinger club is all that’s needed for it to be sex. Sometimes it’s being bored and messaging somebody random on a ‘get laid’ website, and not even caring what gender they are, just feeling like having some fun. Sometimes it’s having a conversation about good beer with a lesbian in the beer aisle at Kroger, inviting her over for a few beers, and her flashing you, you commenting that women with fuzzy armpits are hot, and her deciding on the spot that having a guy with a goatee bring her off with his tongue is a good idea, actually.
I didn’t have an orgasm in any of those scenarios, though in at least two of them my partner did. Love wasn’t involved, I’d just met them. I still consider them all sex.
These days my sex life is calmer, I’ve been with my girlfriend for 10 years, I’ve known the FWB for about 25, love and orgasms are involved with both, and they get along with each other. My GF is thinking maybe she wants a side dick, I’m encouraging her to find somebody at least heteroflexible so I can play too, but we’re not rushing into it.
I guess I should’ve emphasized that my definition is for what constitutes as “consensual sex”. I felt like I shouldn’t have had to, but I understand that that was unclear.
eh, I think Becky would be understanding, probably want a LOT of details. more importantly, that lightbulb just hit for Joyce and fucking finally she gets it. too bad now it’ll be Dotty who is gonna ruin it. ~<3
We need a script that we can click on to remove all the report comment links until we find a comment that needs reporting, like spam. It should also add Walky removing his pants to the end of the day’s comic.
Great, now I’m wondering if there’s a way to make that sulking funny or at least endearing. Like “Aw man, but one more punch on my ticket and we could gone to Shibuya for free” or “Damn, I was really hoping we could lose it together, so my family’s 300-year blood curse could finally end.”
Joyce is gonna try and apologize to Joe for not being a virgin because Dottie took her innocence via the spin cycle. Joe will be more invested in trying to figure out what super sex move “the spin cycle” is, then the fact that Dottie cleaned her misters.
By the seat of their pants author Willis only writing this comic weeks at a time. The year long buffer either an elaborate deception or the result of time manipulation.
But that would make it a true generalisation, so it contradicts itself! Much easier to find an actual always-true generalisation. All oceans contain water. There.
I don’t know if she’s going to share the thoughts that just hit her with Becky– can see some reasons she might not– but it would allow Becky to put that together with what she knows about how Dorothy is doing, and I do want to see that.
Attempting to coherently define concepts without leaving anything out is the first step on the path to realizing that definitions, in the grand scheme of things, are bullshit.
It’s B, not because she’s not in love with Joe, but because she already knew that prior to this strip. It’s why her definition involves love to begin with. 🙂
Actually I suppose by my definition, it’s neither, because similarly if she didn’t know she loved Dorothy… :|a but I still think this is more of a “realizing that love might not be platonic” moment than a “realizing she might be in (romantic) love with Joe” moment bc again that I think she already knew.
Dorothy sex-the one time.
Joe sex-the two times.
Kinsey Scale is six, so dividing six points by the three points total gets you…
Joyce is two on the scale.
🙂
Oh and I guess the math works out that way too.
Sex with Joe: 0 + 0
Sex with Dorothy: 6
0 + 0 + 6 all divided by 6 = 1
Or I guess you oughta divide by the three times so that would be back to 2.
They hate the Joyce and Dorothy ship and don’t want to see it advanced or legitimized in anyway. Yet continue reading the comic, so that’s the risk they take.
it’s wile e coyote rules. it only becomes sex when you look down. by realizing it was sex while in a relationship with joe, she is committing infidelity
I would argue that without Becky’s talk with Joyce about accepting herself as a sexual being, she would not have gone with Dorothy. So Becky has also helped Joyce have an orgasm.
In other news, I was confused and thought you were saying “Sarah’s grandmother bought *Joyce* a vibrator.” What a generous thing to do for your granddaughter’s roommate! How did I miss that arc?
Joyce, it’s okay if your way of having sex is different than other people’s. You already learned that there’s a wide spectrum of bodies, sexualities and gender experiences. This can apply to sex too!
Ok but let’s have fun with this definition that Joyce posited about sex.
-Like if someone you love sends you a titty pic and you masturbate to it, that would be sex.
-Similarly if someone is masturbating while you talk to them, if the conversation helped in any way for them to achieve orgasm, that’s sex.
-If you buy someone a dildo and they use it to orgasm at any point, that’s sex.
-Similarly if they send you a link to a porno or a piece of erotica.
It’s a pretty versatile definition.
Which somehow disincludes making someone you DON’T love orgasm, such as Joe/Roz and Joe/Malaya. So maybe by Joyce’s definition Joe is/was a virgin too.
And also anything that doesn’t end in orgasm, no matter how much intimate contact was involved. I don’t know, I think Joyce’s first draft definition might be good for advancing her development, but she will have to revise it some before she publishes her dictionary.
God “You can absolutely have penetrative sex so long as neither of you cums” feels like a THING though. I mean I guess it’s sorta the basis for Soaking.
Oh yeah, contorting your partner into a loop, rolling them down the road with a stick until they fall over, and then fucking whichever hole of theirs lands closest to you.
One very traditional definition of sex which still has a large degree of cultural presence was basically heterosexual PIV sex in which the man specifically finishes.
look joyce didn’t say that you have to ACHIEVE orgasm
if a friend and i spend the day trying to build a bookshelf, and end the day with a pile of parts and frustration, i still helped them build a bookshelf. i just wasn’t very good at it
I’m such a virgin by Joyce’s standards, and yet I’ve been described as “the most surprisingly sexually adventurous person” in my friend group. (Some weight given to both “surprisingly” and “adventurous” there, to be fair.)
Some people haven’t been in romantic love by the time they’re 19, and then some people continue to never experience that. Could be they just don’t find anyone who sets it off for them, could be they just aren’t capable of it on some level or other, but regardless it’s a perfectly fine way to live.
We don’t know a lot about her backstory (and I wouldn’t put too much canonical weight on an alt-text punchline), but the sex she’s had that’s been seen or implied has been pretty casual with no implied serious romantic feelings.
Seems plausible, but really all we know is that {people Roz loves} and {people Roz has gotten off with} are disjoint sets, which doesn’t require either set to be empty.
Oh…oh Joyce…no. [I get that the way she phrased it is a lead in to her realizing she’s had a type of sex, at least by her definition, with Dorothy, and that might mean she has more than platonic feelings for Dorothy] But…no. If that’s what Joyce wants her sex to be, fantastic, nothing wrong with wanting to love your co-participant before having sex. But I see the “someone you love” part becoming a sticking point with traces of Joyce’s Christian expectations still looming. People have sex when they don’t love each other, Joyce. YOU might have sex with someone you don’t L-O-V-E at some point, Joyce. And that’s also ok. As long as everyone is consenting and having a good time–and that might not include orgasms, either, but that’s another discussion– sex can just be casual fun. Now I’m afraid that Joyce is going to beat herself up for having someone she later realizes she doesn’t love. Not necessarily Joe OR Dorothy, I don’t mean that to stir the ship drama, I just mean generally.
No, no you don’t have to be inclusive with YOUR sexuality. You’re allowed to be exclusionary. You’re allowed to say “This is me, this is what I’m about, everyone and everything else can have a seat. Current partner accepted.”
That’s probably not the definition I would use. Two people don’t have to love each other to have sex. But I do find it funny how Joyce’s current definition includes Dorothy.
Overall, I think that’s a pretty dumb definition of ‘sex’.
How do you define ‘help’ in the context of ‘help have an orgasm’? If I have a fantasy about someone, are they “helping” me (even if they aren’t participating)? What about a kiss, even though there is no interactions with the genitals?
And what about people who do not achieve orgasm, even through penetrative or oral sex occurs?
Joyce’s definition is both too broad and too narrow at the same time.
Well someone can still be helping even if you dont actually have an orgasm. We could swap out with “does something to intentionally give you sexual stimulation” and basically have the same meaning.
It’s pretty dumb, but less dumb than her previous definition, as in the one she apparently held when she walked in the room.
“If I have a fantasy about someone” yes that’s sex, with yourself. Your fantasy is a part of you, not a part of the target.
I don’t consider kissing sex but it can be a part of sex. Don’t consider grade schoolers kissing on the playground to be having sex.
Definitely agree about the possibility of no orgasm, that’s covered by tantra, bad sex, etc. Still sex.
Sex can also be for fun, self-destructive, exploratory, friendly, one-sided (maybe that’s still friendly), or any other motivation besides love and still be sex.
It’s not clear what her previous definition was (or to what extent she actually had one).
All we can really say about it was that she didn’t think she’d had sex with Joe, but she did think Becky and Dina had had sex. That seems like a fine conclusion to come to.
A lot of these nitpicks evaporate pretty hard if we assume that Joyce is talking about her personal definition of ‘sex’ for herself. She still needs to adjust slightly if she wants this definition to last–“with the intention of one or both of you achieving orgasm” is probably a better wording, for instance.
What interests me most here is that, despite all the changes she’s been through, and continues going through, to Joyce, the association of love and sex is a fixed mark.
So, hypothetically, if one were to have sex with Elsa, that could be considered necrophilia? She doesn’t have much need for body heat, especially after the second movie.
the distinction i would make is necrophilia requires the absence of a previously present heartbeat, sure Elsa, and Bobby may not have much need for heat but they have a heartbeat. (o.k. i will admit i do not know the status of bobbys heart beat when in full ice mode, but also do not believe many prospectinve partners can get off with frostbite)
I take the opposite view. Sex is very exclusive. In fact, I and my sexual partners are the only people who have ever had sex. Everyone else has “secks” which is a low-quality substitute.
For one thing. Doesn’t have to be someone you love. Or like, even.
Second. Define “help.” How much help? Is there a time component? Do they have to be there with you at the time?
For example. Joyce directly helped Joe on Mac and Cheese Night, and Joe helped Joyce on Gazebo night. Sex? Sex.
Dotty sat Joyce down on a dryer, sat on one herself, then after a while. Joyce told Dorothy to leave the room. Sex? Seems to be implied. With Dorothy? With the machine? There was no intimate touching between them – just, “I want to help you out.”
Sarah’s grandma got her the vibrator that Joyce was using as a lightsaber. The vibesaber has lead to *many* orgasms, Sarah’s grandma got it with that intention; and Sarah’s grandma clearly loves her, so… sex?
In what ways is Sarah’s grandma different than Dorothy and Joyce? Intimacy? There’s no intimacy there. Proximity? Joyce tells her to leave. Timing? Well, if Sarah unwraps Grandma’s gift, says “Wow, thanks grandma. I love it!” then went into another room to try it out, the timing, proximity, and directness would be about the same.
I feel like we can come up with a better inclusive definition.
When you said it was too loose of a definition, the first example was a way it was too tight.
Your definition of intimate / intimacy here might also be a bit tight or strict.
I think you were on the right track when you said in what ways are they different. I think you know they are different, in the same way that building a bed isn’t sex with its eventual owner.
I think the fundamental difference is that Joyce is now thinking she had sex with Dorothy, and Sarah is never going to think she had sex with her grandma.
That’s it. As Becky says, everyone is entitled to their own definition of what counts as sex, therefore sex is whatever you’ve done that fits your definition.
Unfortunately, that *really* doesn’t work when you take into account that sex frequently involves another person.
Let’s say a teenage girl thinks that getting to second base counts as sex. But she and her boyfriend have agreed that having sex means they’re in a Very Serious relationship. If they go to second base, him thinking they’re just “fooling around” but her thinking it’s a huge sign of commitment and love, that’s a setup for some *really* big problems.
Now, obviously communicating beforehand can solve that problem- defining what counts as “sex” to your partner is a good idea regardless of anything- but I feel like saying “sex is whatever you want it to be” then only works if folks are reasonable and understanding, and when relationships are involved, those are the first two things that go right out the window. There’s way too many chances for miscommunication and bad actors to mess with things for me to say that letting everyone define sex solely as they see it is an unalloyed good.
Sex of any kind without communication stands the chance of ending up with big problems and misunderstandings about what it means re: commitment and love. That has nothing to do, really, with letting people define it or not.
Also, “letting everyone”? People define sex solely as they see it, and it’s not a thing you can allow or prevent. Sex, sexuality, gender, romance, friendship, love, family… all of these are words that everyone defines for themselves. Sometimes that makes for awkward moments, but that is never a reason to stop someone from experiencing life in a way that’s true to who they are. Even if you could!
I mean, I hate to play this card (especially because I recognize that Dictionary Guy got nuked) but words mean things. It’s all well and good to say “let everyone define things personally and let communication take care of the rest”, but communication can only take us so far.
Either we only deal with people who know and accept our particular definition of “sex”, or when we talk about it with strangers (like, say, on a comments section of a webcomic), we have to make assumptions about what other people mean.
Like, to be personal: my gf and I have been intimate, but we haven’t had sex yet.
That’s the sort of sentence that relies on a ton of assumptions to understand, but I’d be very comfortable deploying it here. Because it uses more widely accepted definitions of “intimate” and “having sex”, it’s the sort of thing I can say without having to get into, frankly, overly personal levels of detail.
Words mean things BECAUSE people defined them. Language is not a stagnant thing until it dies, it grows and evolves and if you can’t deal with that then you’ll have to live with being unhappy about it because, as I said, you can’t stop it from evolving and changing.
People are GOING to define things for themselves. Subcultures pop up and die, fads come and go, things come to light as minorities are able to more frequently be heard over the crowd of oppressors.
Something being widely accepted doesn’t make it the only possible true option. Something being used by a minority or an individual doesn’t make it false. You are, as a heads up, using an argument identical to arguments made to keep oppressed people from gaining rights. “The word woman MEANS something” “The word marriage MEANS something”
It’s inane and it’s born of a need to control something you absolutely can never control. Other people’s thoughts and feelings. I’m not debating it further, you’re flat wrong and no amount of appealing to the majority opinion on it is going to convince me otherwise.
And yet, language is primarily a tool of interpersonal communication, not of personal thoughts. People do define things for themselves, but the only reason that you can write those four paragraphs, and I can look at them and understand what you mean, is because we agree on what the words “born” and “need” and “control” and “thoughts” and “feelings” mean. Otherwise, I could read what you wrote and think to myself, what on earth does baking a pizza have to do with what we’re talking about?
But 100%, words change, phrases change, meanings change. They change because we, as a whole, agree that they change. That is why the people who work at Merriam Webster have jobs; because they pay attention and catalogue all of the uses and meanings of different words within the dominant culture, as well as subcultures, and capture the way that language is being used.
Simply because it’s hard to adjust our collective phrasing to be inclusive of everyone, does not mean that we should stop trying. Nothing worth having comes easy. It is not impossible to define ‘sex’ to include non-hetero pairings – after all, we’ve been doing it for decades, if not longer. Unconsciously, we have a shared understanding of what “sex” means when we say the word to each other, and all we really have to do is put pen to that unconscious shared understanding.
However – if we, as a community, all believe that a word *only* means what the individual thinks it means, and does not have a concensus or shared meaning, then that word is no longer part of language. We have not widened the scope of the word to be inclusive; we have instead destroyed the meaning of the word.
Yesterday, I made a joke on the comments section, with regards to Joyce’s “lesbian sex” realization. I said that I really should have realized earlier that Joe was a lesbian, as the only other person who thinks about chicks nearly as often is Becky. And that was a joke because I *know* that the word “lesbian” has a very specific meaning which Joe, as a cis male, does not qualify for.
The definition doesn’t need to be ironclad. It does not need to be the only definition. It doesn’t even need to be very specific, and can include words and phrasing that give ambiguity so as to capture many similar-yet-different scenarios. But there still has to be a baseline that we all agree that the word still must mean, if we are all to understand it as the same word
First and foremost: thinking about English and how words work is my career. I’ve been teaching English as a Second Language for almost 15 years now, and I have a master’s degree in it. Said degree included not a small number of linguistics courses, where I learned details of language such as syntax, semantics, and things like the Sapier-Whorf hypothesis (which isn’t exactly *true* but still pretty interesting to talk about). I am not coming at this without being able to back up what I’m saying.
So, that said:
1) I am, like all linguists these days, very much a descriptivist and not a prescriptivist. Descriptivists say “this is how people use language right now”, while prescriptivists say “this is how people *should* use language.” I am not trying to dictate what the definition of “sex” should be. Not my place at all. But what I am saying is that the issue is far, far more complex and nuanced than the blanket statement “every person is allowed to define what sex is for themselves”. It’s so much more complex than that that I genuinely think it’s not productive to give such a broad statement without giving further context.
Because at the end of the day, yes, it’s true- people will use their own experiences and their own understandings to figure out what something means to them, and there’s nothing you, I, or anyone else can do to stop that.
But to therefore declare a free-for-all and deny the importance of shared meaning-making in communication is the equivalent of an anarchist claiming that an ideal society would completely lack borders- it’s a platitude that sounds super-idealistic and progressive, but completely breaks down when it comes to reality.
“Better communication” is not the solution here, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, because the most absolute interpretation of “people are allowed to define what words mean on their own” makes communication impossible.
Have you ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation? There’s an episode called “Darmok” that’s one of the series’ best. Picard gets trapped on a planet with an alien for whom the Universal Translator technobabble doesn’t work, because the alien’s language is entirely referential. For example: “Shaka when the walls fell” means something is bad- because the walls falling was bad for Shaka, apparently. So if a Tamarian (the aliens) want to say something is bad, they point and say “Shaka, when the walls fell”. This is a method of communication that is *incredibly* interesting. It’s capable of packing *so much meaning* into such a short amount of text or speech. I’ve genuinely had fun trying to make references in Tamarian that my friends or others on the internet could get. The one I’m most proud of goes like this: “Apollo, his dodgeball raised”. It means “be careful what predictions you make in jest, for reality has proven time and again that it is stranger than fiction, and too often shitposts turn out to be true”. How did I get there? Easy. There’s a meme of a child raising a big red ball to throw at some other kids, with the labels “Apollo”, “the gift of prophecy” and “internet shitposters” respectively for the kid, ball, and kids. But if I deployed that phrase to 99.99% of humanity, even people who have both seen “Darmok” and that meme, they probably won’t get it. It is *spectacularly* useless as a means of conveying information unless there is a ridiculous amount of context.
And Tamarian is inevitably what letting people define words their own way leads to. Again, Tamarian is *fascinating*. It’s *so cool* that one can pack paragraphs worth of meaning into a short phrase. But it is *so hard* to understand if you don’t have the necessary context.
You said: You are, as a heads up, using an argument identical to arguments made to keep oppressed people from gaining rights. “The word woman MEANS something” “The word marriage MEANS something”
This is the only point I’m going to directly counter. First: the word “woman” *does* mean something. It means “a person who identifies as a woman”. And that’s important *because* trans women are, in fact, women. We don’t let bigots get away with saying “well, by my definition…” and misgender trans folk. There is, in fact, a correct and incorrect definition of what a woman is, and it’s the one that’s more inclusive.
And second, we *also* don’t let bigots get away with defining “progressive taxation” as “communism”. By your logic, we should let them- after all, progressive taxation is (a ludicrously insufficient amount of) wealth redistribution, that can fit as a definition of communism. But I hope you agree that that would be bad, and bigots aren’t using the word correctly.
Language is an exercise in shared meaning-making. It *has* to involve giving consideration to what others think.
A curse on the lack of an edit button!
My comment here where I said “there is a correct and incorrect definition of what a woman is and it’s the one that’s more inclusive” should leave out “and incorrect”, making the sentence “There is a correct definition of what a woman is and it’s the one that’s more inclusive”. I hope that my intent is clear, but I just want to double down on making sure that folks realize that what I mean is that any definition of a woman that excludes someone who, in good faith, identifies as a woman is wrong.
I think that your comments are highlighting a problem with this. I agree that virginity is a social construct and that “sex” doesn’t only mean penis-vagina, but the wider we open this, the less meaning the word has.
My point on the prior post was that Joyce’s definition is too simplistic and flawed. Love is not a requirement, nor is orgasm (because disappointing sex is still sex). But I don’t believe that anyone is literally sitting here thinking, “It could be anything you want! Anything at all!” Because then the word loses all meaning entirely. “Reasonable” and “understanding” are fuzzy gray words that imply a higher definition that the person’s individualized definition is deviating from.
And we can’t just lose that original heteronormative definition, because if sex is whatever you think it is, then what would it even mean to be asexual? What would “abstinence” mean? If your doctor asks you “Are you sexually active” and you reply “No, I’m vegan,” can we all agree that this does not make sense?
And this sounds like I’m coming up with ridiculous strawmen (and I am, don’t get me wrong!) but that’s with a point – to bring it back around to the fact that in this moment, Joyce came up with a definition of sex that she and Dorothy technically qualified for, even though I’m 100% positive that if I went back to that strip, I wouldn’t see a single person in the comment section suggesting that this was sex.
Plenty of people nothing the queer undertones, of course. But in the grand spectrum of sex, I’d say it was closer to Sarah’s grandma gifting her the Vibesaber™ than whatever happens in the average Amber fanfic.
Instead, I’d suggest some phrasing that allows for a certain amount of ambiguity, using words like “typically” and “often” to cover instances where certain goalposts aren’t always met (e.g. mutual genital stimulation which typically brings at least one participant to climax, which often involves penetration to some degree).
Hi I’m not going to get into this all again but I have long been making the point that what Joyce and Dorothy did is absolutely something my wife and I and many other lesbsians would consider sex if we did it, hope that helps 🙂
(I mean that as intrigued and surprised, not skeptical. This is a far lower threshhold than I ever thought and is eye-opening.)
I just want to be sure. I went back and re-read the whole event because I do not trust my memory.
Two people, sitting roughly four feet apart. Neither looking at the other. Each reading something completely different and therefore thinking of different scenarios/people. One person who has repeatedly told the other that she’s not naked and is just telling her how to do it and being there so she isn’t alone; the other who is *repeatedly* telling the first person to shut up so she doesn’t have to think about her. Finally culminating in the second person telling the first one – no, demanding, multiple times – to get out of the room.
… that’s sex? Is it the fact that they held hands for a few minutes halfway in?
If that was my partner and someone else, I’d 100% say she was cheating, but I wouldn’t have said it was sex. And if my partner had a relationship like that before I met her, under that, I wouldn’t say that they had sex, but I *would* say it was probable that one of them really, really wanted to have sex with the other.
But – if you remember it the same, and that would be sex not only to you two, but also to others, then I think it’s clear that I’m the ignorant one and making assumptions that I shouldn’t.
Could you put your finger on what, exactly, makes it sex? And how similar-yet-different situations are or are not? Or is it more of a “I know it when I see it” scenario? Which is 100% valid, in my mind – this just helps me understand better.
Specifically, I’m thinking about Sal’s motorcycle, and how both Joyce and Marcie often rode behind with their arms around her, and how Marcie *absolutely* had a thing for Sal. That seems like a very similar situation, depending on Marcie’s personal experience riding, though one party would be completely oblivious.
Hey so ok, first up I think I’d better put in a bit of a disclaimer re: nobody else has to adopt our idea of sex, there’s a really big diversity of views on this and I know that we’re pretty far to one end of the spectrum (but also there’s at least one person who comments here regularly that’s further on that than I am, I had a really eye-opening conversation with them a little while ago on the same subject). Just because we consider something to count as sex when we do it doesn’t mean anyone else has to, and I think there’s a fair degree of it that is like, mental, derived from your own intent and models for how things work. I also want to make sure I’m not coming across as if I speak for all lesbians or anything, because again, big diversity of views of which ours is just one of many.
For me with sex there’s a fair degree of “I know it when I see it”, but I’ll do my best to explain why I see this scenario as very analogous to some of my own experiences that I count as sex.
I think in terms of recollections my impression varies slightly from yours in that I’ve assumed Dorothy and Joyce were sitting there holding hands for quite a while, which is probably based on my experience of these things tending to take time. It’s not the most important detail but it does change my impression a little bit if you compare like, a quick squeeze of the hands to like, sitting there holding hands while enjoying sexual pleasure together for an extended period of time.
For me I don’t think there’s any one necessary and sufficient condition that makes something sex, and I think the intent does count. A part of the reason I included in my first comment the little condition “if we did it” is because our mental models of sex are different from Joyce and Dorothy’s, and our intentions behind doing something like that would be “to have sex”, which is a pretty salient difference I think. As it is I’m on the fence on whether I’d say they did have sex, even if they did something that to me would be sex, I think it depends on their feelings about it.
In terms of why, to me, that would count as sex I’ll put it this way. I see the washing machines as pretty much 1:1 substitutes for vibrators. Lying in bed, holding hands and playing with one or more vibrators together is like, definitely something my wife and I would consider sex. While a laundry room seems a little less intimate I don’t think the change in locale impacts things too much, so yeah.
I’m trying to type this on my phone on my lunch break and trying to scroll up is a pain, I feel like I’ve probably missed some things out but hopefully you get the gist!
Just to throw this in, yes, Joyce and Dorothy were holding hands for a while during the scene. They first start holding hands here: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-13/02-turning-saints-into-the-sea/hand/
And they they are holding hands throughout the conversation they have in the following strip, and then continue holding hands until Joyce is on the edge of orgasm. I’d say that’s at least a few solid minutes of hand holding, possibly longer.
Aura – yes, actually, that helps out a great deal in understanding it. Thank you for spending the time! If I understand correctly here, the main thing that makes this sex, other than the boxes checked off for mutual stimulation, is the closeness and connection.
I think I also realized – Dorothy was the one who initiated, was the one who directed, was the one who “procured” the machine, was the one who gave her the mental imagery, and offered her presence, her hand, as she literally helped and instructed her how to do it. When I think of it in that way, and *not* how, mechanically, they were sitting, I can see that 100% that would be considered sex.
As opposed to my other examples, of Sal and the motorcycle, or Sarah’s grandma, which both have elements of the same but neither are intentionally being a part of the actual act itself.
Again – thank you very much! It really helps out to see how my initial assumptions can be limited by my own perspective
I’m glad that helped explain where I’m coming from with this 🙂
I’m not sure I’d say it’s definitely about closeness and connection. Like that can definitely be a part of it and it’s a big and important component of sex for me personally, but you can just as equally have sex without either of those things. I think for me it’s more like, the shared intentions behind it?
1. I don’t think your definition of sex has to match that of the person you’re having sex with. If it’s happening within a relationship, it certainly seems like a good idea to at least be aware of what each parties’ perspective is, but if I’m recounting something as a time I had sex and it might not meet the other party’s definition, that’s okay.
2. I think terms like this can have multiple definitions, even from the same person. Like, someone could have a general definition of sex that they use for general conversation purposes and a personal definition that might not match exactly. If a conversation becomes more personal or detailed, it could be brought up more explicitly. If I said, “I had sex with someone last night” and someone assumes some things from that about what exactly happened, it is, to me, not a big deal. If I then went on and described an act that they don’t consider sex, it’s still fair enough for me to consider that sex (and vice versa– I might assume some details, I may or may not learn they’re wrong, it’s entirely possible me knowing the details isn’t important for the conversation).
So with that– I think a somewhat shared starting point definition is good for general communication. If someone elaborates on their personal experience, that first definition doesn’t have to be strictly adhered to as some absolute.
Re: your first point this was something my wife and I absolutely had to negotiate during our relationship, particularly because we both had a lot of purity culture hangups still at that point. Over time our thinking on the subject has converged, mostly by both of our definitions expanding to include sex the ways it works for us (and as it turns out many other couples).
Joyce was fighting an imaginary Darth Vader with that lightsaber, then gave it back to Sarah, who reminisced briefly of her grandma, which resulted in Sarha taking her pants off, throwing them in Joyce’s face, and (presumably) using it for its intended purpose.
So, have Joyce, Sarah, and Sarah’s grandma had a threesome?
Pretty wild how people are litigating Joyce’s definition of sex in the comments when Becky says people should have their own definition of sex in this very comic.
This comic offers the Dumbing Of Age comment a section to both correct a fictional character AND moralize to strangers, which is like getting chocolate in their peanut butter or peanut butter in their chocolate.
yeah it’s a little funny. I kind of get it because I too am a pretty pedantic person (not in this case, idgaf) but also the first panel is right there.
Plus I just don’t think that Joyce’s definition of sex she just came up with on the spot is even remotely as important as the fact that it’s just a venue for her to see Dorothy differently (“wait did Dorothy & I have sex then. Wait do I love her like /that/?” etc.)
It’s very simple.
If someone is saying something that seems to miss the content of today’s comic, you can pretty safely assume they didn’t read the whole thing.
Someone taking Becky’s statement very literally could have a reasonable disagreement with it. People need to generally agree on what words mean to communicate, and while usually no definition can be perfect, some are better than others.
What she’s implicitly saying is that which forms of affection are sexual or non-sexual, and which of them are significant, are up to a significant amount of interpretation, which I don’t think anyone could reasonably disagree with.
Which IMO means someone taking her statement very literally in order to disagree with it (“Okay, so what if I decide virginity means you’ve never looked at anyone you’re attracted to?”) is not, in fact, being reasonable.
I think that would be good thing to say, but Becky’s framing it around virginity, which makes it a little more awkward.
And as you say, words are for communication and thus some mutual understanding is a good idea, even if like with many things, it’s hard to nail down a specific definition. And frankly, I think Joyce’s original intuitive understanding is probably more useful for communication, even if it doesn’t refer to the same physical acts with different couples. If someone says of a het couple “they’ve had sex”, most people are going to understand PiV. If some says that of a lesbian couple, most people are going to understand some combination of fingers and/or oral. Only a few assholes will try to hold them to PiV as “having sex” and say they obviously didn’t.
This theory needs a bit more work from Joyce. Lots of people have sex without loving eachother. And the helping part could use defining. But she’s getting there, double entendre intended.
The best I’ve been able to figure out is “intentional, consensual, repeated stimulation of sensitive body parts,” but that’s still fairly vague depending on how much repetition does anything and how sensitive those parts are.
You can probably massage someone’s nipples without achieving any sexual stimulation, while you could get them off by massaging their neck. As I was saying. . .
Mostly me too, but I was in the middle of reading the thread to my partner for laughs and refreshed to see if there was anything new. Instead, POOF! Entertainment gone lmao.
Either I’m doing a bit and performatively gaslighting you about something for which we both know the context, thus making the veil paper-thin, or I’ve been watching so much Jerma it’s overridden my ability to remember usernames.
Sorry phone keyboard was freaking out and miss pressed: My father likes to troll me by telling me a lie or the opposite of his anwser when I ask him and I fall for it every single time not matter how obvious it should be.
I might be AuDHD and my husband finds it funny that I have to correct him when he’s being deliberately wrong, even though I should know he’s being deliberately wrong to wind me up…
Gods, my brain has been polluted in a couple of ways. I know it was a cut-off sentence you finished afterward, but the orphaned “My father” immediately made me think of a recurring Thing™ in OneyPlays videos, where the hosts will randomly break into a voice that combines Heath Ledger’s Joker with the Nostalgia Critic and just say “My faaather” at each other. Sometimes they add on a random trait, like “My father was a gamer, and a Redditor”.
I can’t necessarily recommend the channel to people who like this comic.
That would be Zach Hadel’s cartoon, though he does appear on OneyPlays a lot of the time. I happen to enjoy most of their stuff, having followed that general group’s careers for at least a decade by now, but I don’t think most here would be able to sit through their average video.
This logic is quite a leap, but I guess it makes the comment section happy. You could just as easily frame it as non-consensual since she was not aware of it at the time, just as easily as framing it as enthusiastic participation.
It makes me happy in that the resulting blush is really funny. I’m seeing plenty of “Well, this is a pretty incomplete and oddly angled definition, but if it works for her…”, myself.
Also, anyone caught framing Laundry Day as nonconsensual will be hanged at dawn, without trial or bail.
It is definitely one of those comic strips where context matters a lot and you’d have to be emotionally blind to not see the positive reaction.
I guess just to cut off any potential misunderstandings at the pass, I meant you ‘could’ frame it that way but not necessarily should anyone do that. If Joyce took it that direction I wouldn’t blame her, but obviously her heart has gone the opposite direction.
Then the same would apply to what just happened with her and Joe– she didn’t think of it as sex at the time, so she wasn’t consenting to sex. What I think actually matters, though, is that she was consenting to what happened (in both scenarios), regardless of what she labeled/labels it as.
I do understand being uncomfortable with the sequence, I think it pushed a lot of people’s buttons in a bad way — I sympathize with that read.
But. Joyce didn’t experience it that way. And that’s honestly perfectly accurate to life. Only the participants can really know if a given thing was consensual. Optics, and whether or not a given viewer would have consented in the same scenario, only take us so far.
Honestly, I was not a fan of that scene. Didn’t like it then– to the point that I considered quitting the comic– and don’t like it now, though I feel less emotionally invested in it now. But there are still some things it wasn’t. (like non-consensual, exploitive, cheating, etc.)
Bleh, sorry if I came out the gate too strong. I did know that, but it fully slipped my mind. I reiterate that I totally sympathize with any level of discomfort! 🙁
Not as an attack, but just to illustrate how hard it is to make a simple definition based on physical actions: by that definition fingering a woman is sex, but giving a handjob to a guy isn’t?
I want to lead by saying I’m not attempting to discuss the topic of virginity in this comment! Rather, I’m also a fan of logic and objectivity, and a lot of modern logical reasoning involves dissecting the reasoning process itself to be sure we don’t miss any fallacies or errors in logic before accepting something as objective fact (e.g. the Scientific Method), so that’s what I want to do – ask about your reasoning so I can find my way to the most objective resources.
1. Why did you choose Oxford specifically and not other dictionaries as your authoritative source? I have seen this question asked, but I haven’t seen it answered yet. You linked a Google search result for a definition in lieu of access to OEM, which is the third-party dictionary Google licensed for their Dictionary Box tool, so is that why you selected OEM – because it’s the Google licensed dictionary? I don’t have OEM access, so I’m also using a search engine. I use Duck Duck Go to search, and their licensed dictionary is The American Heritage® Dictionary Unfortunately the AH entry is more restrictive in it’s dictionary definition, which defines sexual intercourse as a penis in an orifice, or as a sexual interaction using the biologic sense of sexual reproduction in organisms. How do I determine the authoritative objectivity of this source, and rank it against OEM? How do you do it, how do you make sure you’re getting the most objective result and not a subjective result with a subjective political leaning?
3. I’m thinking about this more, and wondering now who are considered the objectively highest authorities on dictionaries? Who determines which one is considered the official and objective source of English? I was trying to look this up, and my search was failing me. For some reason I just keep getting results about the new executive orders about English being defined as the official language of the United States, and the executive orders that legally change the definition of female to: ‘(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.’ Search engines aren’t awesome these days.
4. Actually these results raise a sticky wicket for me too. I’m trying to follow this process to find the most objective definitions of words, but where does an executive order like this, that has abruptly reversed the definition of many sex- and gender-related terms, fall in terms of its authority level compared to leading dictionaries? Since this redefines those terms legally, should those be prioritized over dictionary definitions, or vice versa? How does OEM refer to “female”?
2. How do you reconcile your leftist views with your values of objectivity when they do conflict? As a leftist, do you default to accepting definitions such as the one above when they are implemented by authorities? Or do you ever have situations where you’re compelled to diverge from the official or authoritative definition when you believe it doesn’t represent truth?
3. What separates the logic we’re applying here from the “argument from authority” logical fallacy? My understanding is that the faulty reasoning that occurs in that fallacy comes from a lack of evidence supporting the claim itself, so to avoid the fallacy, one has to separately provide evidence of the claim, or at least provide evidence that the authority is sufficiently qualified to stand in substitution for direct evidence. However, if the subject in question is English definitions, what qualifies as an authority? If the writer of the definition is qualified due to possession of a higher education degree and a body of professional experience, who is the most correct authority if I can find another person with equivalent qualifications who has reached a different conclusion?
I understand it’s hard to read tone, but I trust you’ll take my words and questions at face value! I highly value logic and truth, like you do, and that’s my core focus here.
Not gonna reply to the above cuz the question isn’t for me, but if Rolf’s comment got removed cuz people reported them like mentioned in a thread up above, then they won’t be able to reply to you cuz they likely got banned from commenting too
Personally speaking, I like to defer to descriptive dictionaries if I ever need to strictly define things. Merriam-Webster is my usual default? Descriptive dictionaries are nice since they will gradually shift their definitions to reflect changes in usage among the population, so it helps to keep up with the reality that is a naturally evolving language.
Sometimes the better question at play is whether something even needs to be strictly defined versus personally defined in the space you’re actively participating in. What is the consequences of letting people choose their own definitions in these instances? Are there true negative ramifications for not adhering to the dictionary? If the matter is of little to no genuine consequence, maybe just let it go. There’s likely a more productive use of your time.
Generally the issue of the appeal to authority fallacy is a lack of agreement that a given source is an authority regarding the issue at hand. If both sides agree on an appropriate authority on the specific matter being debated, that authority’s opinion is perfectly acceptable evidence (though not necessarily final say, e.g. if other authorities disagree or the opinion is outdated). For example, many parties are likely to disagree that the federal government of the United States is an authority on the English language. Or on biology. Or, in the case of the current administration, on federal law of the United States.
My definition of sex is:
A joint effort to achieve sexual pleasure of one or more parties by at least two people.
My definition of virgin:
An outdated concept.
Certain STDs and pregnancy does require a certain other level of trust of course.
Penis in vagina with someone should not be done casually since the consequences can be quite far reaching.
By that definition, one could also take the same line of thinking with celebrity crushes. You could say you “lost your virginity” to Robert Pattinson or Jessica Alba (I dunno which stars Zoomers or Alpha considers to be heart-throbs, so just insert whoever did it for you.)
So by that definition sex isn’t inherently mutual and Dorothy didn’t have sex…. that doesn’t seem like an acceptable solvable state of affairs, is moving into Joyce trying to push herself into Dorothy?
I think OP’s point was that Dorothy didn’t have an orgasm, so it wasn’t sex from her perspective. (Probably the less ambiguous phrasing is “when someone you love helps create an orgasm with you” but that sounds like an orgasm is some monstrous creature you make in a lab so idk.)
Did you have the proper lightning-bolt-conducting equipment? Did you ethically and responsibly select your body-part resources? Safe orgasm creation is important!
While not a definition that includes casual sex (or not casual from all sides involved), it is a very sweet definition. i’m on board with that for now.
Joyce is trying soo hard. Her heart is in the right place!
right? I am happy (potentially, I guess, depending on how this turns out) for Dotty but Joe deserves to not have his first “real” relationship immediately implode. AAAAAAA CONTRADICTING FEEELIIIINNNGSSS
My general feelings, with a dash of “This is like, the worst possible way we get this.” in terms of Dotty/Joyce.
I hate that its’ tied into the stupid laundry room thing. I fucking hated that plotline for a reason and it was part of the reason I stopped lightheartedly shipping Joyce with Dotty at all.
The “she lost her virginity to a washing machine” jokes would be funnier to me if there was even amy sort of wordplay rationale to think “someone you love” could ever describe a washing machine, which is neither a person nor even an object Joyce particularly likes.
also, idk, part of it feels a little like if the strip where Joe showed Joyce his super cute drawing of her with hearts around it had had a lot of people jokingingly critiquing his art. I’m glad readers at the time didn’t have to deal with that, I feel like it would’ve been a bummer.
(8 comments from the 294 on that strip even mention the drawing at all, and only about half were joking that his art was bad instead of saying it was a cute drawing. Meanwhile we’ve got a higher percent specifically joking about the washing machine and who knows how many making other jokes about what a bad definition of sex Joyce’s first-ever attempted non-patriarchal* definition is.)
(* I say patriarchal here rather than heteronormative because I think Joyce’s previous definition wasn’t just heteronormative. It was a definition that barely even worked for cis men, because it was couched in terms of “virginity is something women lose and men take”. That’s a good thing for her to unpack, even if she does still wind up wanting to rank sex acts in such a way that left PIV as a higher tier for her personally.)
i like how even joyce’s broad definition still isn’t broad enough. you don’t need to love the other person, and none of the participants *need* to orgasm
…I’m just going to avoid looking up at the rest of the comments, but don’t worry folks. I bet if you argue loud enough with the fictional character she’ll hear you and change her mind. To everybody else just excited about Joyce getting her oh moment, I salute thee.
I guess you’ve already judged without looking, but some is just having fun with the limits of her definition, the way you can with pretty much all simple definitions of complex things. Becky already offered the practical solution.
Real fans know that if you want your opinion to matter enough to change the course of the comic, you gotta argue in the comments of the day-early-posts on Willis’ patreon!
It’s very funny that Joyce’s efforts to unlearn sexual hang-ups just give her new sexual hang-ups. Orgasm isn’t the point, girl! It isn’t even necessary!
Loading ...
And that’s how Joyce decided that she must do the honorable thing and marry the CEO of Maytag.
+1
“BWAH!” I say, followed by “HAHAHA1”
Dress code: the entire wedding party has to wear that blue appliance repair suit from the advertisements.
So Gordon Jump will be presiding?
“with god as my witness, i thought mutual masturbation was straight”
mannnn y’all going WAY back for these callbacks …respect.
God, now I’m going to think about this at Thanksgiving.
Had to look that one up, but jolly good showing old chap.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/m2yZoTfuzc8 i just keep thinking of the scene from teh (American/CBS) Ghosts lol
It only counts if you hold hands… wait shit.
“And Dorothy had to remind me to put on pants afterward.”
Don’t mind me, just posting the strip citations on when Joyce exactly lost her virginity in the laundry room. Context matters afterall 😉
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-13/02-turning-saints-into-the-sea/hand/
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-13/02-turning-saints-into-the-sea/get-2/
THERE IT IS. We’ll always have the laundry room.
Joyce’s words a few strips back where she mentions that it’d be even better if Dorothy was the one she lost her virginity to, makes today’s strip all come full circle. Fantastic character writing.
Shredded a single tear over this
*monkey’s paw curls*
And gets dunked in lube cause daddy just found a new fleshlight, and he’s horny on main!
AHAHAH OH NOOOO THERE IT IS.
Welp.
HHHHHHHH
AND THAT’S THREE FOR DOROTHY!!!!
She can’t stop winning
Go back three strips and look at Dorothy. This is definitely what winning looks like!
I mean you really don’t need love to have sex.
True, and some don’t orgasm from it, but I mean, she’s finding her definition, and finding a whole lotta other stuff it’d seem in the process.
*Some* people don’t need to have love, to have sex.
Lack of willingness isn’t the same as lack of ability.
Lack of love does not mean lack of consent.
IMO you need Trust more than love. But trust and love often go hand-in-hand.
Ah yes of course… Trust… Very important… >.>
Thrust?
In hand?
I’m not saying I approve of this, but by your definition, rape through the ages isn’t sex. That would be false. Neither love nor trust is required,
Basically all masturbation is sex. If you limit it to penetration on a female, then the equivalent actions on a male count as well. No half standards. Women don’t even have to orgasm to get pregnant, there just needs to be an egg present with sperm.
This is why, as a concept, virginity is so bad. I stops people from thinking about all results from their actions all the time.
Thomas Aquinas argued that virginity can’t be lost through rape but can be lost through masturbation because it’s lost when assenting to sexual gratification. I’m not saying I agree with him, but he adds a new, weird, historical take to the conversation.
Thomas Aquinas also argued that women are defective males, so.
i hope he also argues men are defective merfolk with that last name
So… Women are defective men, and men are defective merfolk, and… God is a cephalopod?
a badass drag queen one, YEAH
fhtagn
Praise the helix
Women don’t have to have sex to get pregnant either, though that is the most common way.
Sex is indeed hard to define, but anything that involve genitalia can be considered sex.
There is an element of necessity (medical for exemple) that most reasonable people would say makes some acts disqualify from being sexual, but in such cases, the involved people’s (including any witness) perception has to be taken into account as well.
Also, some things that don’t involve genitalia can be considered sexual in nature if they are done with certain intents, especially if they involve other body parts that are generally associated with sex.
The necessity of defining what qualifies as sex or not is not necessarily linked to the concept of virginity, though it played a role, I think having a proper definition for legal matters is more important.
There’s a difference between “sexual in nature” and “is sex”. Like kissing can be very sexual, but few would consider it be having sex.
Nor is everything involving genitalia sex.
Sex, in the sense we’re discussing here of what is required to “have sex”, is probably best left as an “I know it when I see it” kind of thing. For most, it’s more of a spectrum than a firm dividing line and that’s fine. People’s understanding can vary and that’s also fine. I don’t think there needs to be any grand unifying theory of sex that covers all possibilities and leaves nothing out.
I also think there’s no need to have a proper definition for legal matters. Not sure what the purpose of such a definition would be. For things like sexual assault and rape, you want to include sexual things that most wouldn’t think of as “having sex”, like unwanted sexual touches or kisses. It’s easy enough to legislate based on the actions rather than around a definition of “having sex.”
I think having a definition, even if it is on a spectrum, absolutely matters for the law. Someone who violates my consent to grab my genitals is not guilty of the same crime as someone who violates my consent to do so repeatedly, and should not face the same consequences. That is, groping and an unconsentual handjob would, by my understanding, fit the difference between sexual assault and full-on rape.
The point is you can (and would pretty much have to) legislate based on actions rather than on “having sex”.
Rape isn’t sex. You don’t need love or trust to have sex, but you do need consent. Otherwise it isn’t sex; it’s rape.
Thank you! So many people just aren’t getting it.
Neither love nor orgasms are mandatory for it to be sex. Sometimes “Hey, can I play too?” “Sure, grab a condom” followed by some PIV in a pile at the swinger club is all that’s needed for it to be sex. Sometimes it’s being bored and messaging somebody random on a ‘get laid’ website, and not even caring what gender they are, just feeling like having some fun. Sometimes it’s having a conversation about good beer with a lesbian in the beer aisle at Kroger, inviting her over for a few beers, and her flashing you, you commenting that women with fuzzy armpits are hot, and her deciding on the spot that having a guy with a goatee bring her off with his tongue is a good idea, actually.
I didn’t have an orgasm in any of those scenarios, though in at least two of them my partner did. Love wasn’t involved, I’d just met them. I still consider them all sex.
These days my sex life is calmer, I’ve been with my girlfriend for 10 years, I’ve known the FWB for about 25, love and orgasms are involved with both, and they get along with each other. My GF is thinking maybe she wants a side dick, I’m encouraging her to find somebody at least heteroflexible so I can play too, but we’re not rushing into it.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
+1
I guess I should’ve emphasized that my definition is for what constitutes as “consensual sex”. I felt like I shouldn’t have had to, but I understand that that was unclear.
I mean, by Joyce’s definition here, masturbation only counts as sex if you love yourself.
And now I’ve made myself sad.
Or orgasms.
But sex with love and orgasms is definitely better.
points at the flavor text regarding Roz
i wonder if joyce’s head would explode if she somehow got an orgasm from someone shehated XD
@ nono yes but in joyces case she’d never have sex w/ someone she didn’t love
There it is.
So tomorrow is when Joyce obliquely mentions how Dorothy taught her to masturbate, and Becky instantly turns feral.
eh, I think Becky would be understanding, probably want a LOT of details. more importantly, that lightbulb just hit for Joyce and fucking finally she gets it. too bad now it’ll be Dotty who is gonna ruin it. ~<3
I’m more interested in how Joyce will explain this to Sarah.
“It’s not as gay as I’m making it sound.”
“It honestly couldn’t be.”
Oops! Accidentally clicked ”report” on this cosiderably normal comment! D:
It takes several reports to actually do anything, and the thing that it does is flag it up for Willis to inspect
We need a script that we can click on to remove all the report comment links until we find a comment that needs reporting, like spam. It should also add Walky removing his pants to the end of the day’s comic.
Someone is having a life-shattering epiphany. Me, though, I’m enjoying myself very much, actually.
Oh for chrissake
Hey, Joyce gets to define it for herself.
Cheese’s sake, you mean. :V
I don’t know what could possibly be getting this reaction from you in this strip.
Just the amount of overthinking Joyce and Dorothy get up to.
Ahhh lmao fair enough.
This is an excellent and hilarious way for Joyce to come to this realization.
Hey that means that Joe hadn’t had sex before he met Joyce!
She’s gonna tell him she took his virginity.
Joe’s mind blown.
This is cute.
BUT, she also has to tell him that he didn’t take hers. That… could be bad.
I both hope not and think he deserves it.
If a man is upset he didn’t take your virginity, he sulks. Throw the entire man in the trash.
I think you misspelled “sucks”, although I guess the other one is probably also likely…
Either I misspelled it or it got autocorrected, but yeah he probably sulks too lol.
Great, now I’m wondering if there’s a way to make that sulking funny or at least endearing. Like “Aw man, but one more punch on my ticket and we could gone to Shibuya for free” or “Damn, I was really hoping we could lose it together, so my family’s 300-year blood curse could finally end.”
I like the second one best, because it juxtaposes very serious stakes with an “aw darn” attitude.
good for Cornfed that it wasnt a requirement for his family blood curse.
NO INSKY OUTSKI?
Ah dang, I thought I was the first person to put this together.
okay but him and joyce are, like, on the same sexual brainworm spectrum. they’ll BOTH find that REALLY romantic
So many retroactive virgins.
But it’s great to see Joyce break her brain multiple times in one morning.
By Joyce’s definition, Roz is a virgin. Think about that.
Okay, Willis beat me to it.
Does Roz not love herself?
That’s surprising and, IMO, a little sad.
retroactive virgins
we know what we’re doing
we are here to help you
everything’s connected
Aaaand *boom* there it is.
Joyce is gonna start telling people she had sex with Dorothy and Joe without explaining that, huh.
Hopefully phrasing it exactly like that so it sounds like a singular event.
Joyce is gonna try and apologize to Joe for not being a virgin because Dottie took her innocence via the spin cycle. Joe will be more invested in trying to figure out what super sex move “the spin cycle” is, then the fact that Dottie cleaned her misters.
I am very amused at, and hoping for, exactly this turn of events!
Maybe that’s where she got the idea that was a move; she wanted to do to Joe was Maytag did to her.
“In a Row?”
TRY NOT TO LOSE ANY VIRGINITIES ON YOUR WAY THROUGH THE PARKING LOT
HEY! HEY YOU! GET BACK HERE
… I’ve heard worse definitions, honestly.
It’s finally happened Joyce, you finally done it! ^-^
hava NAGILA!!!
hava NAGILA!!!
hava NAGILA!!!
ve NISMEHA!!!
All 3 of your links redirect back to this same comic page we’re already on. Not sure if that’s intentional or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavkg5oZbuQ&t=38s
dammit, this is the one!
have a nagila!
have two nagila!
have three nagila!
(they are very small)
and while holding hands too!
so very scandalous.
Is she thinking of Dorothy in that last panel 🤔
Yes.
FINALLY! The penny drops.
That was a whole damn roll of pennies.
No, a roll of quarters. It was a washing machine, after all.
just imagining a laundry card hitting the ground
Ruh, and I cannot stress this enough, roh
Are we SURE Willis writes these all out weeks in advance?
Oh we’ve been totally predictable about this for years.
WEEKS?!?!?!
Hey, 52 is a number
By the seat of their pants author Willis only writing this comic weeks at a time. The year long buffer either an elaborate deception or the result of time manipulation.
Technically there’s weeks in there!
i believe the current backlog is somewhere around June.
of 2026.
Yes. Understanding where the story is going is a good thing.
Larry Hama has stated that he wrote his >200 issue run on GI Joe “no more than two to three pages in advance”
Well he couldn’t get too far in advance. They kept sending him new toys he had to work in.
But for Joyce this works.
In part, at least, it’s a realization that virtue isn’t in your hymen.
…and, hopefully, a realization of the trouble with absolutes.
… and?
And only Sith deal in absolutes.
Which is an absolute.
And only True Souls deal with the Absolute.
All generalizations are false.
don’tthinkaboutit don’tthinkaboutit don’tthinkaboutit
“Um… true. I’ll go ‘true’. There, that was easy. I’ll be honest, I might have heard this one before. Sort of cheating.”
But that would make it a true generalisation, so it contradicts itself! Much easier to find an actual always-true generalisation. All oceans contain water. There.
What about Oceans of Time?
or the lunar maria, including Oceanus Procellarum (“Ocean of Storms”)?
Right now I thinks she’s preoccupied with the realization that she lost her virginity to Dorothy.
I thought with the realization that she loves Joe.
— it could be her realizing that she loves both, of course. But previously she hadn’t considered the laundry room time to be sex.
Right but under the definition she just settled on, she’s realized that what happened with Dorothy *would* be considered sex.
I don’t know if she’s going to share the thoughts that just hit her with Becky– can see some reasons she might not– but it would allow Becky to put that together with what she knows about how Dorothy is doing, and I do want to see that.
I want Becky to figure it out after Joyce leaves. Like a full five panels of Becky just standing there, and suddenly POW! enlightenment.
Gonna have a hard time thinking your way out of this little revelation
I like that Becky and Joyce are getting to hangout just the two of them I feel like that hasn’t happened in a while.
Me too.
Dina is Right There.
We learned a few comics back that Dina was elsewhere before this conversation started.
Elsewhere is in the next room. Becky called out to Dina and got a response in the previous strip.
The day that Joyce met her match, she told everyone, everyone.
Attempting to coherently define concepts without leaving anything out is the first step on the path to realizing that definitions, in the grand scheme of things, are bullshit.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sex does not have to be a hard and fast rule… like it doesn’t have to be a hard and fast sex
no the Maytag must not count… it’s not somebody
But on the Flipside… 😀
It’s a good comic. I’m a big-time enjoyer of Polly and Moby, myself.
On the Flipside…
The Maytag Man?
All right… trivia time!
Is Joyce realizing this means:
A) She might be in love with Joe
B) She might be in love with Dorothy
C) She might be in love with both!
C. Totes C.
Both ?
Both.
Both.
Both is good
-nod nod-
Hey you’re allowed to bang your friend like once. Them’s the rules according to Jennifer.
It’s B, not because she’s not in love with Joe, but because she already knew that prior to this strip. It’s why her definition involves love to begin with. 🙂
Actually I suppose by my definition, it’s neither, because similarly if she didn’t know she loved Dorothy… :|a but I still think this is more of a “realizing that love might not be platonic” moment than a “realizing she might be in (romantic) love with Joe” moment bc again that I think she already knew.
D. Realizing that she already got her wish that her first time could be with Dorothy.
or as some one above mentions, E realizing she needs to tell joe about the maytag
She’s not a Republic serial villain. She did it a week ago.
*captain america’s i understood that reference meme
D) The Washing Machine
E ) Ambz’s fanfics
D) If she had sex with Dorothy, she didn’t realize that’s what it was at the time, which is perilously close to saying she did not consent to it.
Dorothy sex-the one time.
Joe sex-the two times.
Kinsey Scale is six, so dividing six points by the three points total gets you…
Joyce is two on the scale.
🙂
The math checks out but by definition it’s Probably a one.
Oh and I guess the math works out that way too.
Sex with Joe: 0 + 0
Sex with Dorothy: 6
0 + 0 + 6 all divided by 6 = 1
Or I guess you oughta divide by the three times so that would be back to 2.
See? Can’t go wrong applying math to sex!
Lmao I’m betting more like a 3.
*DBZA Krillin voice*
“Oh noooooooooooo.”
Oh my fucking god.
“i gotta be inclusive of people’s definition of my virginity” Joyce no
(also lol at the realization…)
She’s being inclusive of peoples’ demolition of her virginity.
Aaaaaaand there it is.
Siiiigh
Sure whatever
Lmao, again, not sure where comments like this are coming from.
Pretty sure they support Joyce’s previous views of virginity but don’t want to say that exact thing
They hate the Joyce and Dorothy ship and don’t want to see it advanced or legitimized in anyway. Yet continue reading the comic, so that’s the risk they take.
Took Joyce a second to realize she defined it in a way that counts Laundry Time with Dorothy.
The lightbulb in the dryer went off
Joyce: OH NO I HAVE DONE AN INFIDELITY
She wasn’t with Joe when the laundry thing happened
No, but she’s cheating on Dorothy right now
With Becky, no less.
it’s wile e coyote rules. it only becomes sex when you look down. by realizing it was sex while in a relationship with joe, she is committing infidelity
(this is a joke)
HERE WE GO
I would argue that without Becky’s talk with Joyce about accepting herself as a sexual being, she would not have gone with Dorothy. So Becky has also helped Joyce have an orgasm.
Also, Sarah’s grandmother bought her a vibrator.
I know the wording is for her realization. Just thought I could make it weird by taking “help” more broadly.
I like your points.
In other news, I was confused and thought you were saying “Sarah’s grandmother bought *Joyce* a vibrator.” What a generous thing to do for your granddaughter’s roommate! How did I miss that arc?
Right? What a cool Nana!
Still indicates a pretty cool grandmother imo tho
“Do this in memory of me”
Sarah comes back to their room later and Joyce goes, “I lost my virginity to your grandma.”
“I mean, it was just my glottal virginity, but it counts!”
I want to discord but, hey, Joyce will decide everything.
Anyway, Joyce is gay for Dorothy and there’s nothing more to talk about it
Joyce, it’s okay if your way of having sex is different than other people’s. You already learned that there’s a wide spectrum of bodies, sexualities and gender experiences. This can apply to sex too!
Ok but let’s have fun with this definition that Joyce posited about sex.
-Like if someone you love sends you a titty pic and you masturbate to it, that would be sex.
-Similarly if someone is masturbating while you talk to them, if the conversation helped in any way for them to achieve orgasm, that’s sex.
-If you buy someone a dildo and they use it to orgasm at any point, that’s sex.
-Similarly if they send you a link to a porno or a piece of erotica.
It’s a pretty versatile definition.
Which somehow disincludes making someone you DON’T love orgasm, such as Joe/Roz and Joe/Malaya. So maybe by Joyce’s definition Joe is/was a virgin too.
And also anything that doesn’t end in orgasm, no matter how much intimate contact was involved. I don’t know, I think Joyce’s first draft definition might be good for advancing her development, but she will have to revise it some before she publishes her dictionary.
God “You can absolutely have penetrative sex so long as neither of you cums” feels like a THING though. I mean I guess it’s sorta the basis for Soaking.
You can get railed hardcore on every surface in the building, but it’s not sex if nobody gets off. These are the rules.
You can even get off as long as no one catches feelings. Casual fucking doesn’t count.
This is a much better “loophole” than the traditional one.
Oh yeah, contorting your partner into a loop, rolling them down the road with a stick until they fall over, and then fucking whichever hole of theirs lands closest to you.
Huh. I thought I was the only one who had done that.
the Jedi Order seemed to think so. :p
One very traditional definition of sex which still has a large degree of cultural presence was basically heterosexual PIV sex in which the man specifically finishes.
hmm i guess i may not be alone in having highschool sex ed have a “educational video” specifically debunking that one
look joyce didn’t say that you have to ACHIEVE orgasm
if a friend and i spend the day trying to build a bookshelf, and end the day with a pile of parts and frustration, i still helped them build a bookshelf. i just wasn’t very good at it
I’m such a virgin by Joyce’s standards, and yet I’ve been described as “the most surprisingly sexually adventurous person” in my friend group. (Some weight given to both “surprisingly” and “adventurous” there, to be fair.)
Everything is sex. Nothing is sex.
…Wait, Roz has never been in love? 🙁
Some people haven’t been in romantic love by the time they’re 19, and then some people continue to never experience that. Could be they just don’t find anyone who sets it off for them, could be they just aren’t capable of it on some level or other, but regardless it’s a perfectly fine way to live.
We don’t know a lot about her backstory (and I wouldn’t put too much canonical weight on an alt-text punchline), but the sex she’s had that’s been seen or implied has been pretty casual with no implied serious romantic feelings.
Seems plausible, but really all we know is that {people Roz loves} and {people Roz has gotten off with} are disjoint sets, which doesn’t require either set to be empty.
THANK YOU! I was so hoping this would happen.
Oh…oh Joyce…no. [I get that the way she phrased it is a lead in to her realizing she’s had a type of sex, at least by her definition, with Dorothy, and that might mean she has more than platonic feelings for Dorothy] But…no. If that’s what Joyce wants her sex to be, fantastic, nothing wrong with wanting to love your co-participant before having sex. But I see the “someone you love” part becoming a sticking point with traces of Joyce’s Christian expectations still looming. People have sex when they don’t love each other, Joyce. YOU might have sex with someone you don’t L-O-V-E at some point, Joyce. And that’s also ok. As long as everyone is consenting and having a good time–and that might not include orgasms, either, but that’s another discussion– sex can just be casual fun. Now I’m afraid that Joyce is going to beat herself up for having someone she later realizes she doesn’t love. Not necessarily Joe OR Dorothy, I don’t mean that to stir the ship drama, I just mean generally.
*having sex with someone she later realizes she doesn’t love.
So if you later realize you didn’t love your partner, you re-virginize yourself?
But yeah, it’s amusing because it leads to this reconceptualization of laundry time, but it’s really a pretty lousy definition of sex.
No, no you don’t have to be inclusive with YOUR sexuality. You’re allowed to be exclusionary. You’re allowed to say “This is me, this is what I’m about, everyone and everything else can have a seat. Current partner accepted.”
on a maytag preferrably?
“…that isn’t in a laundry room!”
The plot thiccens
STOCKS ARE UP
too bad president dotty is about to impose tariffs
Oops
I’m not even lying I facepalmed so hard that the sound echoed around the room I’m in
Joyce, I sincerely hope you and the washing machine are happy together
Wait a sec, does that mean that all of the women I have had sex with are still virgins?
Depends. Did anyone they love give them an orgasm?
…not about the contents but I relate to the kind of thought process portrayed in this strip so hard.
*ding!* Whoop, coffee’s ready!
Well, you sure called it.
And then all at once, that light flipped on for good
Oh, THERE’S that lightbulb!
That’s probably not the definition I would use. Two people don’t have to love each other to have sex. But I do find it funny how Joyce’s current definition includes Dorothy.
Laundry day is a very dangerous day.
Rocko’s Modern Life reference in the thread!!
yeah HIGH FIVE!!!! ^-^
I’m going thru a Rocko’s marathon with my partner and it’s lot more progressive than I’d ever be able to fathom as a kid.
The one where Rocko has to marry to avoid being deported was especially ‘hey does this seem familiar?’
Overall, I think that’s a pretty dumb definition of ‘sex’.
How do you define ‘help’ in the context of ‘help have an orgasm’? If I have a fantasy about someone, are they “helping” me (even if they aren’t participating)? What about a kiss, even though there is no interactions with the genitals?
And what about people who do not achieve orgasm, even through penetrative or oral sex occurs?
Joyce’s definition is both too broad and too narrow at the same time.
And nothing you do will be sex if you don’t love the person doing it.
It’s like she’s new to this.
Don’t make me tap the title banner.
Well someone can still be helping even if you dont actually have an orgasm. We could swap out with “does something to intentionally give you sexual stimulation” and basically have the same meaning.
It’s pretty dumb, but less dumb than her previous definition, as in the one she apparently held when she walked in the room.
“If I have a fantasy about someone” yes that’s sex, with yourself. Your fantasy is a part of you, not a part of the target.
I don’t consider kissing sex but it can be a part of sex. Don’t consider grade schoolers kissing on the playground to be having sex.
Definitely agree about the possibility of no orgasm, that’s covered by tantra, bad sex, etc. Still sex.
Sex can also be for fun, self-destructive, exploratory, friendly, one-sided (maybe that’s still friendly), or any other motivation besides love and still be sex.
It’s not clear what her previous definition was (or to what extent she actually had one).
All we can really say about it was that she didn’t think she’d had sex with Joe, but she did think Becky and Dina had had sex. That seems like a fine conclusion to come to.
while not explicitly stated, it is heavily implied her definition of virginity was a willy bungee jumping in a cave.
Except she explicitly said that Becky wasn’t a virgin. “No! You’ve had sex with Dina.”
Yesh it is almost like it is something that she came up with on the spot and it isn’t mean to be taken as gospel.
Obviously. We’ll see if she realizes it.
But we can still critique it.
Some posters are so preoccupied with whether or not we can, they don’t stop to think if we should.
A lot of these nitpicks evaporate pretty hard if we assume that Joyce is talking about her personal definition of ‘sex’ for herself. She still needs to adjust slightly if she wants this definition to last–“with the intention of one or both of you achieving orgasm” is probably a better wording, for instance.
Sex is when someone else directly causes you to otgasm, or you directly causing someone to orgasm.
So this definition excludes the laundry room scenario, since the dryer causes joyce to orgasm, Dorothy only there as a guide.
So a couple using sex toys doesn’t count, since the actual instrument of orgasm was a dildo, fleshlight or othersuch?
heh, is it just me or has Joyce’s bust gotten like, a little bigger? :0
The Freshman Fifteen has been kind to her.
Hormonal cycles are a thing. She’s been really horny too, so it tracks.
For a second, I thought you meant that Joyce being horny is what made her breasts get a bit larger.
What interests me most here is that, despite all the changes she’s been through, and continues going through, to Joyce, the association of love and sex is a fixed mark.
It’s not an uncommon belief, even among people who HAVEN’T escaped from a “sex is only licit in marriage when trying for babies” religion recently.
I wouldn’t be surprised, particularly, to find out that a majority of people hold that association in some way or form.
Recalculating. Reconfiguring.
“…Oh.”
the further we get into this storyline the more I’m starting to think “Joyce is straight, with one exception” is where it’s going.
THERE we go
winner winner chicke, uh
well
somebody definitely was a winner of something xD
Winner winner on the spinner
winner winner chick dinner
c’mere dorothy
winger winger chicken fingers
Winner winner, dickn’t in her?
Not yet, anyway.
I’m confused now, I thought Joe just had the chicken finger dinner??
I hope they go for nonmonogamy
Same. I have no idea how realistic a hope this is, and definitely plenty of drama first, but same.
Virginity is when liquid has been obtained without the use of heat or chemicals, just through smooshing hard enough.
Glad I waited until after reading this to open my seltzer. This is a new phone, it doesn’t need to get sprayed so frequently.
Also, sorry for calling you a citrus-fucking Frenchman yesterday.
I definitely missed however things progressed there, but the phrase “triple citrus fuck” has been stuck in my head all day.
I don’t remember the French part, but I was just sorry to have upset you that much.
Nah, I was already on one at the time, so I was just goin’ off everywhere.
No heat is just necrophilia, no chemicals is hard to think of an example for. Even two robots would involve chemicals. AI sex?
So, hypothetically, if one were to have sex with Elsa, that could be considered necrophilia? She doesn’t have much need for body heat, especially after the second movie.
the distinction i would make is necrophilia requires the absence of a previously present heartbeat, sure Elsa, and Bobby may not have much need for heat but they have a heartbeat. (o.k. i will admit i do not know the status of bobbys heart beat when in full ice mode, but also do not believe many prospectinve partners can get off with frostbite)
[Cackling]
“So Becky? I MIGHT be a *little* gay after all”
“Nope, too late, already bagged by a hot dino girl, you had yer chance”
THIS IS HOW I HAVE BEEN EXPLAINING MY THOUGHTS ABOUT IT FOR YEARS! It’s such a good way, I’m happy to see it in a popular comic for others to read it
omgomgomomgomgomgomgogmmgomg!!!
It clicked!
IT CLICKED!
Second time I’ve actually gasped reading this storyline.
Waiting with sinking horror for Dorothy to announce she’s transferring to Yale…
now THIS is the kind of long term payoff I love to see in my webcomics!
god i love reading DOA
1. love your user name!
2. do you also hear the screams of the vegetables?
no, but i’m an avid clairvoyant and can explode squirrels with my mind (these are all psychonauts references)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
amazing canadian comedy band i’m referencing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJsrcbVGsa4&list=PL3mhGTA9JQQCNZrdRu1ZcSG6Nnxz9hRL4&index=515
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IehQRVylI0U&list=PL3mhGTA9JQQCNZrdRu1ZcSG6Nnxz9hRL4&index=522
more Worms
“Could use Half Deadly Nelson. Like Deadly Nelson, but less dying.”
“How much less?”
“Eh, half?”
I take the opposite view. Sex is very exclusive. In fact, I and my sexual partners are the only people who have ever had sex. Everyone else has “secks” which is a low-quality substitute.
I’m not sure I love this definition but I do love this definition *for Joyce*
This is AMAZING and HILARIOUS!
Talking about exclusive definitions…
But this one worked fine to break Joyce.exe once again.
Truly couldn’t think of a more autistic way to get there. Gotta put things in boxes. Qunatify it.
joyce does indeed gotta put things in her box
A+ way for Joyce to figure it out, no notes.
Ohhh nooo!!
I like that definition, good for Joyce. 🙂
Not that you absolutely need to have an orgasm, obviously.
Give her some slack, it’s a work in progress.
Or love, though both are nice.
And “helps” probably needs a bit more definition.
But you know, other than all the parts of the definition, it’s a good start.
The realization pile doesn’t stop from getting taller!
back to the starting point lmao
Too loose of a definition.
For one thing. Doesn’t have to be someone you love. Or like, even.
Second. Define “help.” How much help? Is there a time component? Do they have to be there with you at the time?
For example. Joyce directly helped Joe on Mac and Cheese Night, and Joe helped Joyce on Gazebo night. Sex? Sex.
Dotty sat Joyce down on a dryer, sat on one herself, then after a while. Joyce told Dorothy to leave the room. Sex? Seems to be implied. With Dorothy? With the machine? There was no intimate touching between them – just, “I want to help you out.”
Sarah’s grandma got her the vibrator that Joyce was using as a lightsaber. The vibesaber has lead to *many* orgasms, Sarah’s grandma got it with that intention; and Sarah’s grandma clearly loves her, so… sex?
In what ways is Sarah’s grandma different than Dorothy and Joyce? Intimacy? There’s no intimacy there. Proximity? Joyce tells her to leave. Timing? Well, if Sarah unwraps Grandma’s gift, says “Wow, thanks grandma. I love it!” then went into another room to try it out, the timing, proximity, and directness would be about the same.
I feel like we can come up with a better inclusive definition.
When you said it was too loose of a definition, the first example was a way it was too tight.
Your definition of intimate / intimacy here might also be a bit tight or strict.
I think you were on the right track when you said in what ways are they different. I think you know they are different, in the same way that building a bed isn’t sex with its eventual owner.
Dangit, you’re right. I was thinking “loose” as in “inaccurate,” not as in “restrictive” vs. “inclusive.”
Ayup. When I read Joyce’s new definition, I instantly went “That immediately leaves out sex workers, so can’t be true.”
Sex workers aren’t having sex, they are Doing a Business that sometimes involves spinning on a cock like a top.
I think the fundamental difference is that Joyce is now thinking she had sex with Dorothy, and Sarah is never going to think she had sex with her grandma.
That’s it. As Becky says, everyone is entitled to their own definition of what counts as sex, therefore sex is whatever you’ve done that fits your definition.
Unfortunately, that *really* doesn’t work when you take into account that sex frequently involves another person.
Let’s say a teenage girl thinks that getting to second base counts as sex. But she and her boyfriend have agreed that having sex means they’re in a Very Serious relationship. If they go to second base, him thinking they’re just “fooling around” but her thinking it’s a huge sign of commitment and love, that’s a setup for some *really* big problems.
Now, obviously communicating beforehand can solve that problem- defining what counts as “sex” to your partner is a good idea regardless of anything- but I feel like saying “sex is whatever you want it to be” then only works if folks are reasonable and understanding, and when relationships are involved, those are the first two things that go right out the window. There’s way too many chances for miscommunication and bad actors to mess with things for me to say that letting everyone define sex solely as they see it is an unalloyed good.
Sex of any kind without communication stands the chance of ending up with big problems and misunderstandings about what it means re: commitment and love. That has nothing to do, really, with letting people define it or not.
Also, “letting everyone”? People define sex solely as they see it, and it’s not a thing you can allow or prevent. Sex, sexuality, gender, romance, friendship, love, family… all of these are words that everyone defines for themselves. Sometimes that makes for awkward moments, but that is never a reason to stop someone from experiencing life in a way that’s true to who they are. Even if you could!
I mean, I hate to play this card (especially because I recognize that Dictionary Guy got nuked) but words mean things. It’s all well and good to say “let everyone define things personally and let communication take care of the rest”, but communication can only take us so far.
Either we only deal with people who know and accept our particular definition of “sex”, or when we talk about it with strangers (like, say, on a comments section of a webcomic), we have to make assumptions about what other people mean.
Like, to be personal: my gf and I have been intimate, but we haven’t had sex yet.
That’s the sort of sentence that relies on a ton of assumptions to understand, but I’d be very comfortable deploying it here. Because it uses more widely accepted definitions of “intimate” and “having sex”, it’s the sort of thing I can say without having to get into, frankly, overly personal levels of detail.
Words mean things BECAUSE people defined them. Language is not a stagnant thing until it dies, it grows and evolves and if you can’t deal with that then you’ll have to live with being unhappy about it because, as I said, you can’t stop it from evolving and changing.
People are GOING to define things for themselves. Subcultures pop up and die, fads come and go, things come to light as minorities are able to more frequently be heard over the crowd of oppressors.
Something being widely accepted doesn’t make it the only possible true option. Something being used by a minority or an individual doesn’t make it false. You are, as a heads up, using an argument identical to arguments made to keep oppressed people from gaining rights. “The word woman MEANS something” “The word marriage MEANS something”
It’s inane and it’s born of a need to control something you absolutely can never control. Other people’s thoughts and feelings. I’m not debating it further, you’re flat wrong and no amount of appealing to the majority opinion on it is going to convince me otherwise.
And yet, language is primarily a tool of interpersonal communication, not of personal thoughts. People do define things for themselves, but the only reason that you can write those four paragraphs, and I can look at them and understand what you mean, is because we agree on what the words “born” and “need” and “control” and “thoughts” and “feelings” mean. Otherwise, I could read what you wrote and think to myself, what on earth does baking a pizza have to do with what we’re talking about?
But 100%, words change, phrases change, meanings change. They change because we, as a whole, agree that they change. That is why the people who work at Merriam Webster have jobs; because they pay attention and catalogue all of the uses and meanings of different words within the dominant culture, as well as subcultures, and capture the way that language is being used.
Simply because it’s hard to adjust our collective phrasing to be inclusive of everyone, does not mean that we should stop trying. Nothing worth having comes easy. It is not impossible to define ‘sex’ to include non-hetero pairings – after all, we’ve been doing it for decades, if not longer. Unconsciously, we have a shared understanding of what “sex” means when we say the word to each other, and all we really have to do is put pen to that unconscious shared understanding.
However – if we, as a community, all believe that a word *only* means what the individual thinks it means, and does not have a concensus or shared meaning, then that word is no longer part of language. We have not widened the scope of the word to be inclusive; we have instead destroyed the meaning of the word.
Yesterday, I made a joke on the comments section, with regards to Joyce’s “lesbian sex” realization. I said that I really should have realized earlier that Joe was a lesbian, as the only other person who thinks about chicks nearly as often is Becky. And that was a joke because I *know* that the word “lesbian” has a very specific meaning which Joe, as a cis male, does not qualify for.
The definition doesn’t need to be ironclad. It does not need to be the only definition. It doesn’t even need to be very specific, and can include words and phrasing that give ambiguity so as to capture many similar-yet-different scenarios. But there still has to be a baseline that we all agree that the word still must mean, if we are all to understand it as the same word
Alright neighbor, here we go.
First and foremost: thinking about English and how words work is my career. I’ve been teaching English as a Second Language for almost 15 years now, and I have a master’s degree in it. Said degree included not a small number of linguistics courses, where I learned details of language such as syntax, semantics, and things like the Sapier-Whorf hypothesis (which isn’t exactly *true* but still pretty interesting to talk about). I am not coming at this without being able to back up what I’m saying.
So, that said:
1) I am, like all linguists these days, very much a descriptivist and not a prescriptivist. Descriptivists say “this is how people use language right now”, while prescriptivists say “this is how people *should* use language.” I am not trying to dictate what the definition of “sex” should be. Not my place at all. But what I am saying is that the issue is far, far more complex and nuanced than the blanket statement “every person is allowed to define what sex is for themselves”. It’s so much more complex than that that I genuinely think it’s not productive to give such a broad statement without giving further context.
Because at the end of the day, yes, it’s true- people will use their own experiences and their own understandings to figure out what something means to them, and there’s nothing you, I, or anyone else can do to stop that.
But to therefore declare a free-for-all and deny the importance of shared meaning-making in communication is the equivalent of an anarchist claiming that an ideal society would completely lack borders- it’s a platitude that sounds super-idealistic and progressive, but completely breaks down when it comes to reality.
“Better communication” is not the solution here, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, because the most absolute interpretation of “people are allowed to define what words mean on their own” makes communication impossible.
Have you ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation? There’s an episode called “Darmok” that’s one of the series’ best. Picard gets trapped on a planet with an alien for whom the Universal Translator technobabble doesn’t work, because the alien’s language is entirely referential. For example: “Shaka when the walls fell” means something is bad- because the walls falling was bad for Shaka, apparently. So if a Tamarian (the aliens) want to say something is bad, they point and say “Shaka, when the walls fell”. This is a method of communication that is *incredibly* interesting. It’s capable of packing *so much meaning* into such a short amount of text or speech. I’ve genuinely had fun trying to make references in Tamarian that my friends or others on the internet could get. The one I’m most proud of goes like this: “Apollo, his dodgeball raised”. It means “be careful what predictions you make in jest, for reality has proven time and again that it is stranger than fiction, and too often shitposts turn out to be true”. How did I get there? Easy. There’s a meme of a child raising a big red ball to throw at some other kids, with the labels “Apollo”, “the gift of prophecy” and “internet shitposters” respectively for the kid, ball, and kids. But if I deployed that phrase to 99.99% of humanity, even people who have both seen “Darmok” and that meme, they probably won’t get it. It is *spectacularly* useless as a means of conveying information unless there is a ridiculous amount of context.
And Tamarian is inevitably what letting people define words their own way leads to. Again, Tamarian is *fascinating*. It’s *so cool* that one can pack paragraphs worth of meaning into a short phrase. But it is *so hard* to understand if you don’t have the necessary context.
You said: You are, as a heads up, using an argument identical to arguments made to keep oppressed people from gaining rights. “The word woman MEANS something” “The word marriage MEANS something”
This is the only point I’m going to directly counter. First: the word “woman” *does* mean something. It means “a person who identifies as a woman”. And that’s important *because* trans women are, in fact, women. We don’t let bigots get away with saying “well, by my definition…” and misgender trans folk. There is, in fact, a correct and incorrect definition of what a woman is, and it’s the one that’s more inclusive.
And second, we *also* don’t let bigots get away with defining “progressive taxation” as “communism”. By your logic, we should let them- after all, progressive taxation is (a ludicrously insufficient amount of) wealth redistribution, that can fit as a definition of communism. But I hope you agree that that would be bad, and bigots aren’t using the word correctly.
Language is an exercise in shared meaning-making. It *has* to involve giving consideration to what others think.
A curse on the lack of an edit button!
My comment here where I said “there is a correct and incorrect definition of what a woman is and it’s the one that’s more inclusive” should leave out “and incorrect”, making the sentence “There is a correct definition of what a woman is and it’s the one that’s more inclusive”. I hope that my intent is clear, but I just want to double down on making sure that folks realize that what I mean is that any definition of a woman that excludes someone who, in good faith, identifies as a woman is wrong.
Why is it that I always get the longest replies after I’ve said I’m not interested in continuing the debate? Weird happenstance.
I think that your comments are highlighting a problem with this. I agree that virginity is a social construct and that “sex” doesn’t only mean penis-vagina, but the wider we open this, the less meaning the word has.
My point on the prior post was that Joyce’s definition is too simplistic and flawed. Love is not a requirement, nor is orgasm (because disappointing sex is still sex). But I don’t believe that anyone is literally sitting here thinking, “It could be anything you want! Anything at all!” Because then the word loses all meaning entirely. “Reasonable” and “understanding” are fuzzy gray words that imply a higher definition that the person’s individualized definition is deviating from.
And we can’t just lose that original heteronormative definition, because if sex is whatever you think it is, then what would it even mean to be asexual? What would “abstinence” mean? If your doctor asks you “Are you sexually active” and you reply “No, I’m vegan,” can we all agree that this does not make sense?
And this sounds like I’m coming up with ridiculous strawmen (and I am, don’t get me wrong!) but that’s with a point – to bring it back around to the fact that in this moment, Joyce came up with a definition of sex that she and Dorothy technically qualified for, even though I’m 100% positive that if I went back to that strip, I wouldn’t see a single person in the comment section suggesting that this was sex.
Plenty of people nothing the queer undertones, of course. But in the grand spectrum of sex, I’d say it was closer to Sarah’s grandma gifting her the Vibesaber™ than whatever happens in the average Amber fanfic.
Instead, I’d suggest some phrasing that allows for a certain amount of ambiguity, using words like “typically” and “often” to cover instances where certain goalposts aren’t always met (e.g. mutual genital stimulation which typically brings at least one participant to climax, which often involves penetration to some degree).
“Are you sexually active?”
“No, I’m a vegan.”
“With a meat fetish?”
Kinky.
Hi I’m not going to get into this all again but I have long been making the point that what Joyce and Dorothy did is absolutely something my wife and I and many other lesbsians would consider sex if we did it, hope that helps 🙂
Really? Wow.
(I mean that as intrigued and surprised, not skeptical. This is a far lower threshhold than I ever thought and is eye-opening.)
I just want to be sure. I went back and re-read the whole event because I do not trust my memory.
Two people, sitting roughly four feet apart. Neither looking at the other. Each reading something completely different and therefore thinking of different scenarios/people. One person who has repeatedly told the other that she’s not naked and is just telling her how to do it and being there so she isn’t alone; the other who is *repeatedly* telling the first person to shut up so she doesn’t have to think about her. Finally culminating in the second person telling the first one – no, demanding, multiple times – to get out of the room.
… that’s sex? Is it the fact that they held hands for a few minutes halfway in?
If that was my partner and someone else, I’d 100% say she was cheating, but I wouldn’t have said it was sex. And if my partner had a relationship like that before I met her, under that, I wouldn’t say that they had sex, but I *would* say it was probable that one of them really, really wanted to have sex with the other.
But – if you remember it the same, and that would be sex not only to you two, but also to others, then I think it’s clear that I’m the ignorant one and making assumptions that I shouldn’t.
Could you put your finger on what, exactly, makes it sex? And how similar-yet-different situations are or are not? Or is it more of a “I know it when I see it” scenario? Which is 100% valid, in my mind – this just helps me understand better.
Specifically, I’m thinking about Sal’s motorcycle, and how both Joyce and Marcie often rode behind with their arms around her, and how Marcie *absolutely* had a thing for Sal. That seems like a very similar situation, depending on Marcie’s personal experience riding, though one party would be completely oblivious.
Hey so ok, first up I think I’d better put in a bit of a disclaimer re: nobody else has to adopt our idea of sex, there’s a really big diversity of views on this and I know that we’re pretty far to one end of the spectrum (but also there’s at least one person who comments here regularly that’s further on that than I am, I had a really eye-opening conversation with them a little while ago on the same subject). Just because we consider something to count as sex when we do it doesn’t mean anyone else has to, and I think there’s a fair degree of it that is like, mental, derived from your own intent and models for how things work. I also want to make sure I’m not coming across as if I speak for all lesbians or anything, because again, big diversity of views of which ours is just one of many.
For me with sex there’s a fair degree of “I know it when I see it”, but I’ll do my best to explain why I see this scenario as very analogous to some of my own experiences that I count as sex.
I think in terms of recollections my impression varies slightly from yours in that I’ve assumed Dorothy and Joyce were sitting there holding hands for quite a while, which is probably based on my experience of these things tending to take time. It’s not the most important detail but it does change my impression a little bit if you compare like, a quick squeeze of the hands to like, sitting there holding hands while enjoying sexual pleasure together for an extended period of time.
For me I don’t think there’s any one necessary and sufficient condition that makes something sex, and I think the intent does count. A part of the reason I included in my first comment the little condition “if we did it” is because our mental models of sex are different from Joyce and Dorothy’s, and our intentions behind doing something like that would be “to have sex”, which is a pretty salient difference I think. As it is I’m on the fence on whether I’d say they did have sex, even if they did something that to me would be sex, I think it depends on their feelings about it.
In terms of why, to me, that would count as sex I’ll put it this way. I see the washing machines as pretty much 1:1 substitutes for vibrators. Lying in bed, holding hands and playing with one or more vibrators together is like, definitely something my wife and I would consider sex. While a laundry room seems a little less intimate I don’t think the change in locale impacts things too much, so yeah.
I’m trying to type this on my phone on my lunch break and trying to scroll up is a pain, I feel like I’ve probably missed some things out but hopefully you get the gist!
Just to throw this in, yes, Joyce and Dorothy were holding hands for a while during the scene. They first start holding hands here: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2023/comic/book-13/02-turning-saints-into-the-sea/hand/
And they they are holding hands throughout the conversation they have in the following strip, and then continue holding hands until Joyce is on the edge of orgasm. I’d say that’s at least a few solid minutes of hand holding, possibly longer.
Aura – yes, actually, that helps out a great deal in understanding it. Thank you for spending the time! If I understand correctly here, the main thing that makes this sex, other than the boxes checked off for mutual stimulation, is the closeness and connection.
I think I also realized – Dorothy was the one who initiated, was the one who directed, was the one who “procured” the machine, was the one who gave her the mental imagery, and offered her presence, her hand, as she literally helped and instructed her how to do it. When I think of it in that way, and *not* how, mechanically, they were sitting, I can see that 100% that would be considered sex.
As opposed to my other examples, of Sal and the motorcycle, or Sarah’s grandma, which both have elements of the same but neither are intentionally being a part of the actual act itself.
Again – thank you very much! It really helps out to see how my initial assumptions can be limited by my own perspective
I’m glad that helped explain where I’m coming from with this 🙂
I’m not sure I’d say it’s definitely about closeness and connection. Like that can definitely be a part of it and it’s a big and important component of sex for me personally, but you can just as equally have sex without either of those things. I think for me it’s more like, the shared intentions behind it?
Oh also thanks for the clarification Yumi! 🙂
1. I don’t think your definition of sex has to match that of the person you’re having sex with. If it’s happening within a relationship, it certainly seems like a good idea to at least be aware of what each parties’ perspective is, but if I’m recounting something as a time I had sex and it might not meet the other party’s definition, that’s okay.
2. I think terms like this can have multiple definitions, even from the same person. Like, someone could have a general definition of sex that they use for general conversation purposes and a personal definition that might not match exactly. If a conversation becomes more personal or detailed, it could be brought up more explicitly. If I said, “I had sex with someone last night” and someone assumes some things from that about what exactly happened, it is, to me, not a big deal. If I then went on and described an act that they don’t consider sex, it’s still fair enough for me to consider that sex (and vice versa– I might assume some details, I may or may not learn they’re wrong, it’s entirely possible me knowing the details isn’t important for the conversation).
So with that– I think a somewhat shared starting point definition is good for general communication. If someone elaborates on their personal experience, that first definition doesn’t have to be strictly adhered to as some absolute.
Re: your first point this was something my wife and I absolutely had to negotiate during our relationship, particularly because we both had a lot of purity culture hangups still at that point. Over time our thinking on the subject has converged, mostly by both of our definitions expanding to include sex the ways it works for us (and as it turns out many other couples).
But… Does Joyce think that Sarah has had sex with her grandma..?
Better question.
Joyce was fighting an imaginary Darth Vader with that lightsaber, then gave it back to Sarah, who reminisced briefly of her grandma, which resulted in Sarha taking her pants off, throwing them in Joyce’s face, and (presumably) using it for its intended purpose.
So, have Joyce, Sarah, and Sarah’s grandma had a threesome?
Pretty wild how people are litigating Joyce’s definition of sex in the comments when Becky says people should have their own definition of sex in this very comic.
This comic offers the Dumbing Of Age comment a section to both correct a fictional character AND moralize to strangers, which is like getting chocolate in their peanut butter or peanut butter in their chocolate.
yeah it’s a little funny. I kind of get it because I too am a pretty pedantic person (not in this case, idgaf) but also the first panel is right there.
Plus I just don’t think that Joyce’s definition of sex she just came up with on the spot is even remotely as important as the fact that it’s just a venue for her to see Dorothy differently (“wait did Dorothy & I have sex then. Wait do I love her like /that/?” etc.)
It’s very simple.
If someone is saying something that seems to miss the content of today’s comic, you can pretty safely assume they didn’t read the whole thing.
Doesn’t that go both ways?
What’s the first way and what’s the second way?
Joyce certainly does.
*rimshot*
Someone taking Becky’s statement very literally could have a reasonable disagreement with it. People need to generally agree on what words mean to communicate, and while usually no definition can be perfect, some are better than others.
What she’s implicitly saying is that which forms of affection are sexual or non-sexual, and which of them are significant, are up to a significant amount of interpretation, which I don’t think anyone could reasonably disagree with.
Yep, that’s what she’s saying.
Which IMO means someone taking her statement very literally in order to disagree with it (“Okay, so what if I decide virginity means you’ve never looked at anyone you’re attracted to?”) is not, in fact, being reasonable.
Well, some people just take things very literally.
I think that would be good thing to say, but Becky’s framing it around virginity, which makes it a little more awkward.
And as you say, words are for communication and thus some mutual understanding is a good idea, even if like with many things, it’s hard to nail down a specific definition. And frankly, I think Joyce’s original intuitive understanding is probably more useful for communication, even if it doesn’t refer to the same physical acts with different couples. If someone says of a het couple “they’ve had sex”, most people are going to understand PiV. If some says that of a lesbian couple, most people are going to understand some combination of fingers and/or oral. Only a few assholes will try to hold them to PiV as “having sex” and say they obviously didn’t.
Sometime soon Joyce is going to remember “Love thy neighbor as yourself”…
heeeheee heee hee heee :3
[Record-scratch] ….. [Light Bulb] ….. Oh….
That’s three realizations fighting for dominance in a paper bag. At least she’s blushing instead of pale as a ghost.
Ladies, fellahs and gentlethems, she got there finally
”Dorothy pulls, actually”
HAH!
joyce would never say this about someone who’s dated walky
She just hasn’t seen The Abs
The mouse boys are pretty cute when age-appropriate.
Wait, no, sorry, that never happened.
That is what she said (whilst sat upon the washing machine)
Hoo boy. Realisation incoming.
This theory needs a bit more work from Joyce. Lots of people have sex without loving eachother. And the helping part could use defining. But she’s getting there, double entendre intended.
The best I’ve been able to figure out is “intentional, consensual, repeated stimulation of sensitive body parts,” but that’s still fairly vague depending on how much repetition does anything and how sensitive those parts are.
I dunno, maybe sex is more about being vulnerable and intimate together!
So massage?
You can probably massage someone’s nipples without achieving any sexual stimulation, while you could get them off by massaging their neck. As I was saying. . .
Realization about Dorothy in 3…2…1…
By the last frame of the comic, Joyce is already at -5 and counting
Bisexual love triangle, go! I hope this works out for all three of them though.
Glad that one dictionary obessesed weirdo got reported the hell out.
💯
Thank You Willis doesn’t have quite the same ring to it but it does describe my current sentiment accurately
Mostly me too, but I was in the middle of reading the thread to my partner for laughs and refreshed to see if there was anything new. Instead, POOF! Entertainment gone lmao.
Yeah wish I made more screenshot to show to my friend. Absolute clonw behavior.
What the hell are you talking about? Ctrl+F only turns up one use of that word.
You know with you I genuinely cannot tell if you are asking seriously or doing a bit.
Either I’m doing a bit and performatively gaslighting you about something for which we both know the context, thus making the veil paper-thin, or I’ve been watching so much Jerma it’s overridden my ability to remember usernames.
I am autistic so many even paper thin gas lighting gets me. My father
Sorry phone keyboard was freaking out and miss pressed: My father likes to troll me by telling me a lie or the opposite of his anwser when I ask him and I fall for it every single time not matter how obvious it should be.
I might be AuDHD and my husband finds it funny that I have to correct him when he’s being deliberately wrong, even though I should know he’s being deliberately wrong to wind me up…
Same with mine.
Gods, my brain has been polluted in a couple of ways. I know it was a cut-off sentence you finished afterward, but the orphaned “My father” immediately made me think of a recurring Thing™ in OneyPlays videos, where the hosts will randomly break into a voice that combines Heath Ledger’s Joker with the Nostalgia Critic and just say “My faaather” at each other. Sometimes they add on a random trait, like “My father was a gamer, and a Redditor”.
I can’t necessarily recommend the channel to people who like this comic.
Oooo the smiling friends guy? Yeah I heard his humor can be… Rough.
That would be Zach Hadel’s cartoon, though he does appear on OneyPlays a lot of the time. I happen to enjoy most of their stuff, having followed that general group’s careers for at least a decade by now, but I don’t think most here would be able to sit through their average video.
Hah! There’s the realization.
Also – Joyce, by that definition you and Joe already had sex when you gave him the handjob.
Thinking about it, the definition as stated is also one way.
Joe had sex in that because someone he loved helped him to orgasm. Joyce did not, because he didn’t help her (that time).
But the memory might have helped her in her solo efforts.
This logic is quite a leap, but I guess it makes the comment section happy. You could just as easily frame it as non-consensual since she was not aware of it at the time, just as easily as framing it as enthusiastic participation.
Of course, Dorothy was also not aware of it at the time. (Or at least in enough denial to plausibly claim so.)
This is also a pretty valid take!
It makes me happy in that the resulting blush is really funny. I’m seeing plenty of “Well, this is a pretty incomplete and oddly angled definition, but if it works for her…”, myself.
Also, anyone caught framing Laundry Day as nonconsensual will be hanged at dawn, without trial or bail.
It is definitely one of those comic strips where context matters a lot and you’d have to be emotionally blind to not see the positive reaction.
I guess just to cut off any potential misunderstandings at the pass, I meant you ‘could’ frame it that way but not necessarily should anyone do that. If Joyce took it that direction I wouldn’t blame her, but obviously her heart has gone the opposite direction.
Ugh gross I just realized framing it as non-consensual is a Mary take. 🤮
Then the same would apply to what just happened with her and Joe– she didn’t think of it as sex at the time, so she wasn’t consenting to sex. What I think actually matters, though, is that she was consenting to what happened (in both scenarios), regardless of what she labeled/labels it as.
This, right here.
I do understand being uncomfortable with the sequence, I think it pushed a lot of people’s buttons in a bad way — I sympathize with that read.
But. Joyce didn’t experience it that way. And that’s honestly perfectly accurate to life. Only the participants can really know if a given thing was consensual. Optics, and whether or not a given viewer would have consented in the same scenario, only take us so far.
Honestly, I was not a fan of that scene. Didn’t like it then– to the point that I considered quitting the comic– and don’t like it now, though I feel less emotionally invested in it now. But there are still some things it wasn’t. (like non-consensual, exploitive, cheating, etc.)
Bleh, sorry if I came out the gate too strong. I did know that, but it fully slipped my mind. I reiterate that I totally sympathize with any level of discomfort! 🙁
My definition would be: Any kind of insertion by a second party into a down-south orifice.
Of course I get Joe when I make this comment.
Not as an attack, but just to illustrate how hard it is to make a simple definition based on physical actions: by that definition fingering a woman is sex, but giving a handjob to a guy isn’t?
Just finger his pee-hole and you’ve met all requirements.
let me tell you about muffing
oh i love muffins
blueberry, chocolate chip, or wrong?
cinnamon choccy chip pumpkin muffin
Oh, wrong muffins are my favorite.
They’re okay. I just wish we could have come up with more than three flavors of muffin.
There definitely are wrong muffins – rye raisin muffins, for example
I mean, yeah – and a handjob for a woman would involve rubbing without inserting anything, which is absolutely a thing.
So things like prostate exams. 🙁
Unless you’re upside-down during it. Then it can’t be downstairs because it’s above the stairs.
That’s why men put off getting them for so long – to protect their virginity!
butt stuff tee hee
Careful – there was a whole comment chain that got deleted because people got mad about that line of thought apparently
So blowjobs aren’t sex?
Mr. Clinton, is that you?
So Malaya is a virgin.
I want to lead by saying I’m not attempting to discuss the topic of virginity in this comment! Rather, I’m also a fan of logic and objectivity, and a lot of modern logical reasoning involves dissecting the reasoning process itself to be sure we don’t miss any fallacies or errors in logic before accepting something as objective fact (e.g. the Scientific Method), so that’s what I want to do – ask about your reasoning so I can find my way to the most objective resources.
1. Why did you choose Oxford specifically and not other dictionaries as your authoritative source? I have seen this question asked, but I haven’t seen it answered yet. You linked a Google search result for a definition in lieu of access to OEM, which is the third-party dictionary Google licensed for their Dictionary Box tool, so is that why you selected OEM – because it’s the Google licensed dictionary? I don’t have OEM access, so I’m also using a search engine. I use Duck Duck Go to search, and their licensed dictionary is The American Heritage® Dictionary Unfortunately the AH entry is more restrictive in it’s dictionary definition, which defines sexual intercourse as a penis in an orifice, or as a sexual interaction using the biologic sense of sexual reproduction in organisms. How do I determine the authoritative objectivity of this source, and rank it against OEM? How do you do it, how do you make sure you’re getting the most objective result and not a subjective result with a subjective political leaning?
3. I’m thinking about this more, and wondering now who are considered the objectively highest authorities on dictionaries? Who determines which one is considered the official and objective source of English? I was trying to look this up, and my search was failing me. For some reason I just keep getting results about the new executive orders about English being defined as the official language of the United States, and the executive orders that legally change the definition of female to: ‘(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.’ Search engines aren’t awesome these days.
4. Actually these results raise a sticky wicket for me too. I’m trying to follow this process to find the most objective definitions of words, but where does an executive order like this, that has abruptly reversed the definition of many sex- and gender-related terms, fall in terms of its authority level compared to leading dictionaries? Since this redefines those terms legally, should those be prioritized over dictionary definitions, or vice versa? How does OEM refer to “female”?
2. How do you reconcile your leftist views with your values of objectivity when they do conflict? As a leftist, do you default to accepting definitions such as the one above when they are implemented by authorities? Or do you ever have situations where you’re compelled to diverge from the official or authoritative definition when you believe it doesn’t represent truth?
3. What separates the logic we’re applying here from the “argument from authority” logical fallacy? My understanding is that the faulty reasoning that occurs in that fallacy comes from a lack of evidence supporting the claim itself, so to avoid the fallacy, one has to separately provide evidence of the claim, or at least provide evidence that the authority is sufficiently qualified to stand in substitution for direct evidence. However, if the subject in question is English definitions, what qualifies as an authority? If the writer of the definition is qualified due to possession of a higher education degree and a body of professional experience, who is the most correct authority if I can find another person with equivalent qualifications who has reached a different conclusion?
I understand it’s hard to read tone, but I trust you’ll take my words and questions at face value! I highly value logic and truth, like you do, and that’s my core focus here.
(This is a reply to Rolf’s thread, if that’s not obvious)
Not gonna reply to the above cuz the question isn’t for me, but if Rolf’s comment got removed cuz people reported them like mentioned in a thread up above, then they won’t be able to reply to you cuz they likely got banned from commenting too
I guessing it is an honest error but the lack on order on the number drives me crazy.
I love it and think more lists should be numbered in such a way.
I went hunting for the two. Upset by the placement, but somewhat delighted?
I’ll be honest, it was a sleep deprivation error. But it’s so funny on this thread that I’m not sorry
Personally speaking, I like to defer to descriptive dictionaries if I ever need to strictly define things. Merriam-Webster is my usual default? Descriptive dictionaries are nice since they will gradually shift their definitions to reflect changes in usage among the population, so it helps to keep up with the reality that is a naturally evolving language.
Sometimes the better question at play is whether something even needs to be strictly defined versus personally defined in the space you’re actively participating in. What is the consequences of letting people choose their own definitions in these instances? Are there true negative ramifications for not adhering to the dictionary? If the matter is of little to no genuine consequence, maybe just let it go. There’s likely a more productive use of your time.
*what is the consequence
I am such a menace without an edit button.
Generally the issue of the appeal to authority fallacy is a lack of agreement that a given source is an authority regarding the issue at hand. If both sides agree on an appropriate authority on the specific matter being debated, that authority’s opinion is perfectly acceptable evidence (though not necessarily final say, e.g. if other authorities disagree or the opinion is outdated). For example, many parties are likely to disagree that the federal government of the United States is an authority on the English language. Or on biology. Or, in the case of the current administration, on federal law of the United States.
Joyce realizing she *has* indeed had lesbian sex, but not with Joe
So now the most important question. Will Joyce blurt out what just occurred to her (as she is wont to do) right here and now in front of Becky?
No one’s got Panel Seven Joyce Face for their gravatar? I’m disappointed!
(i know; i’m being demanding; still got standards)
Her face in that last panel…the realization…this panel is perfection.
My definition of sex is:
A joint effort to achieve sexual pleasure of one or more parties by at least two people.
My definition of virgin:
An outdated concept.
Certain STDs and pregnancy does require a certain other level of trust of course.
Penis in vagina with someone should not be done casually since the consequences can be quite far reaching.
You know, by Joyce’s definition, I lost my virginity to my favorite cartoon character
haven’t we all
By that definition, one could also take the same line of thinking with celebrity crushes. You could say you “lost your virginity” to Robert Pattinson or Jessica Alba (I dunno which stars Zoomers or Alpha considers to be heart-throbs, so just insert whoever did it for you.)
So by that definition sex isn’t inherently mutual and Dorothy didn’t have sex…. that doesn’t seem like an acceptable solvable state of affairs, is moving into Joyce trying to push herself into Dorothy?
what about the last month makes you think Dorothy doesn’t love Joyce back? it seems very clear cut that its mutual.
I think OP’s point was that Dorothy didn’t have an orgasm, so it wasn’t sex from her perspective. (Probably the less ambiguous phrasing is “when someone you love helps create an orgasm with you” but that sounds like an orgasm is some monstrous creature you make in a lab so idk.)
Is that NOT what an orgasm is? Fuck, I have been doing everything wrong.
Did you have the proper lightning-bolt-conducting equipment? Did you ethically and responsibly select your body-part resources? Safe orgasm creation is important!
While not a definition that includes casual sex (or not casual from all sides involved), it is a very sweet definition. i’m on board with that for now.
Joyce is trying soo hard. Her heart is in the right place!
FUCK MY JOE/JOYCE SHIP OH NO
right? I am happy (potentially, I guess, depending on how this turns out) for Dotty but Joe deserves to not have his first “real” relationship immediately implode. AAAAAAA CONTRADICTING FEEELIIIINNNGSSS
If Joe gets his heart broken we riot!!!
My general feelings, with a dash of “This is like, the worst possible way we get this.” in terms of Dotty/Joyce.
I hate that its’ tied into the stupid laundry room thing. I fucking hated that plotline for a reason and it was part of the reason I stopped lightheartedly shipping Joyce with Dotty at all.
Oh for fuck’s
PREMARITAL HANKY PANKY
Congrats, Joyce; you’re now married to a Maytag
The “she lost her virginity to a washing machine” jokes would be funnier to me if there was even amy sort of wordplay rationale to think “someone you love” could ever describe a washing machine, which is neither a person nor even an object Joyce particularly likes.
THANK YOU
fff well this is an unexpected honor!
also, idk, part of it feels a little like if the strip where Joe showed Joyce his super cute drawing of her with hearts around it had had a lot of people jokingingly critiquing his art. I’m glad readers at the time didn’t have to deal with that, I feel like it would’ve been a bummer.
(8 comments from the 294 on that strip even mention the drawing at all, and only about half were joking that his art was bad instead of saying it was a cute drawing. Meanwhile we’ve got a higher percent specifically joking about the washing machine and who knows how many making other jokes about what a bad definition of sex Joyce’s first-ever attempted non-patriarchal* definition is.)
(* I say patriarchal here rather than heteronormative because I think Joyce’s previous definition wasn’t just heteronormative. It was a definition that barely even worked for cis men, because it was couched in terms of “virginity is something women lose and men take”. That’s a good thing for her to unpack, even if she does still wind up wanting to rank sex acts in such a way that left PIV as a higher tier for her personally.)
I lost my virginity to Jefferson Airplane’s “Somebody to Love”.
Different connotations, though! Everyone would assume the song was just playing while you had sex with an actual person.
Hey, using Joyce’s logic, we can also lower the threshold: french kiss? Sex! Holding hands? Sex. To think about how beautiful a nail is? Sex!
That’s why it’s called “getting nailed”
Stairwell safety rails sex led to “getting railed”.
Wait, does that definition require success, or only attempt?
Hey look at that, Joyce! You didn’t lose your virginity last night after all!
this punchline
was so worth it all
i like how even joyce’s broad definition still isn’t broad enough. you don’t need to love the other person, and none of the participants *need* to orgasm
Isn’t an orgasm kinda the point though?
I turn 25 the day Joyce realizes dotty slammed her down big style, whoo!
Happy Birthday Comic!!
Wait this makes me wanna read all the comics that have ever come out on my birthday, see if there are any good ones
Okay 2013 I do get the first Ruth/Jennifer kiss so that’s a win in my book
Aw.
…I’m just going to avoid looking up at the rest of the comments, but don’t worry folks. I bet if you argue loud enough with the fictional character she’ll hear you and change her mind. To everybody else just excited about Joyce getting her oh moment, I salute thee.
I guess you’ve already judged without looking, but some is just having fun with the limits of her definition, the way you can with pretty much all simple definitions of complex things. Becky already offered the practical solution.
Real fans know that if you want your opinion to matter enough to change the course of the comic, you gotta argue in the comments of the day-early-posts on Willis’ patreon!
It might just take a year to reach the buffer limit.
I’m just staring at this strip. I don’t know where what I’m thinking is going, but I can’t help but just…stare at it. Let it sink in.
This strip is a lot to me.
Is Joyce about to knock on a certain door and ask Dorothy if they technically had sex?…
Joyce that also isnt sex, if you want to claim queer sex you have to actually have queer sex
It’s very funny that Joyce’s efforts to unlearn sexual hang-ups just give her new sexual hang-ups. Orgasm isn’t the point, girl! It isn’t even necessary!