I don't know about you guys but I'd do so many things that that trap.
But he's not a trap yet anon. There's no tripwires or anything, you just kinda fell into a hole.
A big gay hole.Nice to have some company down here
>>81465799
Oddly enough it was that strip, at that exact moment, that I knew I wanted that asshole.
>I hate my family because they don't want me making poor life choices
Willis is in for a fucking wild ride with his children
So what's everyone's bets for what's gonna' go down?
I'm putting my money on Becky thinking that Jocelyn is gay and not whatever the fuck she is, and says so in front of the mom and thus everything just falls apart.
>>81466029
>Joyce outing Jocelyn
Willis doesn't have the guts, his fanbase would shit with rage
>>81466029
I bet Becky says she's gay for lolz for a while, then gets into a crazy relationship with a guy and it's so LOLZ CRAZY time for her
>>81466142
No she gets into a relationship with a FtM and breaks it off when she finds out, and the whole time Willis portrays the FtM as being in the wrong for lying to Becky about their true gender or some shit I don't know.
Nothing prompted this. I was just bored.
>>81465575
>Willis is now ruining pure Joyce
I will punch every dick Willis has
>>81466410
So none, then.
>>81465575
Oh for fucks sake
I hate willy.
I'm just waiting for the hotel rape scene.
>Becky, please, don't!
>You said you loved me, Joyce. I was moments away from death, and you said you love me.
>Becky, I didn't mean--
>I just want to return the favor, Joyce. I love you too. I always have.
>But what about Dina?
>...Who?
>What do you mean "Who?"
>Seriously, who's Dina?
>>81466634
What everyone thought was annoying "quirkiness" was actually personality changes brought on by an aggressively spreading brain tumor.
>>81465799
Is it stated fact Josh is a transexual?
I've yet to see anything that directly confirmed it, but I haven't seen a whole lot of this comic.
>>81466771
"I'VE COME TOO FAR TO LET YOU STOP ME NOW, JOYCE. LET IT HAPPEN. OR DON'T. I DON'T CARE."
>NO GOD HELP ME PLMMMPHF
>>81466823
It's stated a hell of a lot better than Carla, that's for sure.
Basically Ethan is introduced to Josh as Josh, Josh and Ethan talk about "hiding their true selves", and then Ethan finds out the name she goes by online is Jocelyne and puts two and two together.
>>81466870
>Turns out Dina's been in on it the whole time and is watching from the closet
If Joyce thinks Becky the Red-Headed Rapist is bad, wait until Dina "Tyrannosaurus Sex" Saruyama joins in.
>>81466029
Why hasn't he made Joyce say she's gay to piss off her parents? Could even Willis be aware of how cliche and trite that would be?
>>81466029
My money is own Becky needlessly causing shit to the point that Joyce just snaps at the nearest person, probably Becky. Joyce says legitimate grievances but they get played off as petty and Joyce apologizes for them soon after. Also the Browns call a priest to their home to get the demons out of their home
>>81466117
That's some kind of taboo within the LGTB/mentally challenged crowd?
It's funny how they perceive so many things totally within the realm of drama as off limits.
>Maybe Sal is mistaken and her parents aren't actually racist?
>"No, that's tantamount to saying racism doesn't exist, that storyline would be stupid, you're stupid, you're a bigot, etc."
>Maybe Mary doesn't actually know Carla is trans?
>"No, I have too much faith in Willis, he wouldn't do that, that would diminish transphobia, stop being a bigot you're triggering me WILLIS BAN HIM!!!"
>Maybe John is misinformed about the events Joyce was involved in? (this was before he was revealed as just another asshole)
>"No that'd be dumb, then he'd figure it out and apologize and that's bad and boring."
So we're left with a cookiecutter, copy-paste, predictable as all hell plot.
I'm completely expecting Becky to out Josh to the Browns.
>>81467238
It's not some kind of taboo, but at best it's considered to be extremely rude.
Also, does anyone else think that John's church giving him a brand new sports car despite him being a missionary who is ostensibly out of the country most of the time could be the basis of a far more interesting plot?
>>81467355
I'm expecting Josh to come out in the middle of an argument between Joyce and their parents.
>>81465916
Kids raised in the Trump era. Wooo it's gonna be fun.
>>81465916
Joyce: I want to stay in college despite all the trials and tribulations I've been through.
Joyce's Mom and Brother: You need to drop out of school and stay at home for the Baby Jesus.
They're literally trying to force Joyce into a safe space.
>>81465916
I don't keep close tabs on this comic, but I thought she was just angry because her brother complained she punched a gunman. Taking down a gunman is risky but shouldn't that be seen as a good thing? It's not like she's Amazigirl doing the whole cause a major accident on the highway thing.
>>81467400
Maybe, maybe not. As someone coming from a Christian upbringing myself, a church doing such a thing just because is completely plausible. I knew several people praised for their "selfless missionary work" who spent years and years building up funds to stay for a month or two in a nice hotel with lots of good food and so on for a glorified vacation.
Personally, I figure the only real way to spread the word Christians ostensibly believe in is to ship oneself out with little more than the clothes on ones back. Then they can toil in the same shithole conditions the poor colored folk they preach to do.
It's easy to preach with a belly full of burgers and a nice air-conditioned house to go back to. I'd like to see these Christians preaching "Jesus loves you" while sick with malaria and eaten inside out by parasites. I wonder how sincere they'll be then.
I barely care about DoA as it is, but one of the things that gets my goat here is how much of a personality shift Joyce has taken.
Like, I feel like there should at least be some kind of a transitional period between having her worldview shattered during the Toedad Saga and the current strips where she's outright willing to cut off her family for not agreeing with her. She shouldn't be defaulting to anger; it was never really her strong suit. She needs to transition somehow.
I dunno. It just feels off to me, is all.
>>81467693
Well it certainly doesn't help that, in this comic, the events of a single day -hell, a single hour- can potentially take months of time.
So we got her going through this drama in-universe over a matter of days, while in meta-time it's been months. And the discrepancy between them.
>>81467692
I know it's completely plausible, which is why I think it'd make for a better story about being and expressing Christianity. I grew up Greek Orthodox, so church isn't church without a shit ton of gold, icons, and stained glass, and my first thought to seeing someone get a free car worth at least $25,000 for doing missionary work would be that it's sketch as hell.
>>81467693
Remember, Toedad happened a few days ago in-universe, she just now starting to process and address it. It makes since if you interpret Joyce as lashing out in an attempt to preserve some sort of normalcy.
>>81467400
>at best it's considered to be extremely rude
and at worst it leads to the person getting murdered
>>81468466
Well, in their mind it always ends with someone getting murdered.
I.e. killing themselves.
Which had nothing to do with any latent mental problems ever.
>>81468527
Big contributors to the suicides are becoming homeless because their parents kicked them out, being emotionally and/or physically abused, having the people they thought loved them turn on a dime and disown them, etc.
>>81468756
Alongside having a mind that is naturally wired all wrong, of course.
I bet schizophrenics and such believe all sorts of nutty things about themselves. Don't see anybody lining up to confirm all their nutcase self-perceptions.
>>81467676
stop thinking about this.
the comic says that the brothe is in the wrong, but in case you don't think so they also added that he got a CAR payed by the CHURCH using money from CHARITY.
So whatever is the case, he is wrong
>>81468058
isn't this '' college comic'' being going for like 5 years and they are still in the first 2 months of the story?
So I fell out of the loop from this entire shit show. Can somebody give a gist of what the fuck happened here?
It's weird. On one hand what's going on here is fairly realistic (okay maybe not toedad going postal at a college campus and not ending up dead along with some bystanders for good measure) in the sense that I practically grew up around two or three of these families and he is surprisingly spot on with the hypocrisy/general fundiness/JESUS going on, but all of that doesn't matter because it's all just Willis airing out all his weird family issues for the whole world to see. It's just ugly and weird and uncomfortable. Not even in a funny way.
>>81469576
What makes it so cringey is that subtlety is not Willis' strong suit, and in Willis' world, you're either good or you're bad. Nuance is dead and bigots gonna bigot.
>>81469653
good job, anon.
the only thing you missed is the signature willis eye-through-hair meme
>>81466284
The FtM would be in the wrong in that situation
>>81465575
I was really expecting (hoping? deluding myself?) that Becky would apologize for making the awkward joke. Joyce would immediately tell her it's fine, but I thought there was some "I caused this" in the expressions she was making in the last strips she was in.
>>81469653
>drawing Becky this busty and curvy
>encouraging "where's becky generals"
>>81469576
There's also the fact that, regardless of how bigoted they are, I feel like that level of apathy toward Joyce's ordeal at the very least is ridiculously unrealistic.
There's no way, IMO, the same house that spat out John could spit out loving open-mind-prone Joyce. The "gets a car from the church" thing I can believe; there's always a level of "just don't think about it" in such fundamentalist families and individuals. But even the most bigoted people I've known growing up have positive traits, almost always including a strong sense of family bonds. None of them would try to excuse Toedad's actions; none of them would brush off their daughter's ordeal; none of them would go "you shouldn't punch maniacs" (quite the opposite, they were taught to fuck shit up when their safety was at stake, a la Joyce's near-rape).
Did they always do right by their kids? Probably not, there were hypocrisies and follies and the kids didn't turn out perfect (then again, who does?) But no, this whole situation is not a good commentary on real issues. There's too much "evil bigotry Christianity is bad (except for those token new-age Christians I threw in in a very "I've got black friends!"-esque manner)" going on, and it's all meant to hammer home how bad his mother was, when, by all evidence, she was very doting and probably just did what she thought was right by home.
Hopefully when his kids hit puberty and start whining and crying about how unfair he's treated them, how much they hate him, etc. he'll get the balls to call mommy and apologize.
>>81473686
>by home
*him
>>81467238
Mary definitely knew that Carla was trans. Mary she's a bitch, that's the kind of stuff she uses.
But John knowing that Becky's Dad pulled a gun on Joyce, and then treating Joyce's anger as if she was just spoiled, that doesn't make sense. The whole 'kids these days are just spoiled' attitude only works when Joyce didn't literally have a gun in her face. What brother would brush that off?
>>81467692
Good Works are how Catholics get into heaven. Protestants that preach are just hobbyists.
This is why I don't read webcomics. It's full of amateur SJWs who barely makes 4 panels within 2 days and they're not even good despite the time it takes for them to produce.
>>81473807
Mary probably did know, but I would keep the option of her not knowing open. Well, if this weren't Willis and I thought he had the talent to engage in such a storyline instead of "muh phobias".
>>81473828
Yeah, I remember a friend who went on a $1000 missionary trip to Ireland. Fucking Ireland, to stand on a street corner for a few hours one day with "Jesus is good" signs and goof off the rest of the week or so they were there.
"Aren't there a few more places that might need the love of Jesus more than Ireland?" I asked myself. But no, let them carry on with their vacation and post-return pat-on-the-back ceremony.
>>81465916
>poor life choices
Like going to school and having a gay friend?
>>81473828
>mfw the pope said virtuous atheists and other froms of nonbelievers could get into heaven by doing good works and living good lives
>...but also reaffirmed the church is against birth control, gay people, etc
Man, my church has one foot in the future and one foot in the past
>>81468828
*tips fedora
>>81474946
They have to be against birth control
If the African Catholics stop breeding, the Muslim population will have them besieged and wiped out within two generations
>>81474946
>Against gay people
No. your Church just believes they're called to chastity.
>Birth control
Well, if you follow Catholic sexual morality then you're never really going to need it.
>Appeal to chronology
CURRENT YEAR
>>81465575
Oh look, a missing eyebrow
>>81468058
>>81469346
Pretty sure the in-universe time has been a month. Maybe 6 weeks.
>>81469015
>>81469653
>not using the template for Joyce
>>81469480
Where'd you get up to before bailing on this trainwreck?
>>81474946
The new guy seems like he wants to bring things forward, but he's kinda timid about it. I guess some people still miss Emperor Popeatine.
>>81477827
>The new guy seems like he wants to bring things forward
He's bringing forward a few things that should be brought forward, but a lot of people seem to expect the Church to conform to the morality of the modern, progressive secular world.
They get all excited when he talks about climate change but then they hear him saying something about being sexually conservative and are suddenly reminded that they hate Catholicism anyway.
>>81477340
>No. your Church just believes they're called to chastity.
Sorry, "against gay people finding love and companionship." So their immutable desires are essentially a cruel joke played by God.
>Well, if you follow Catholic sexual morality then you're never really going to need it.
After Pre-Cana my wife and I read some Catholic forums. One woman asked if it was sinful to get her tubes tied/use a condom because her doctors told her after 5 children and a damaged pelvis that one more baby might cripple her; the other women on the forum warned her she'd go to hell if she used any form of BC and that she should pray before sex but that if God wants her to have more babies, even at the expense of her ability to walk, she should do it.
It doesn't even make sense, because you're still allowed to use the rhythm method, which is a conscious attempt to avoid getting pregnant.
>muh current year
Why didn't you add the John Oliver pic? Yeah, it's 2016. My wife is not solely defined by her ability to have children (we'll stop around 2 or 3), my benevolent gay friends who got married and do charity work aren't going to hell, women should be allowed to enter the priesthood, and priests should be allowed to marry. A monsignor recently told me that last one's probably happening within the next ten years.
>>81477827
>bring things forward
You would not believe how many Catholics are horrified by him. Not just the fake Catholics on /pol/.
>>81477895
New guy is an idiot
"Bring things forward" = crowd pleasing the lost demographics, regardless of theological logic.
He'll be fashionable for a few years for the sheer sake of the contrast he presents, regardless of how illogical and then become passé, and get a pat on the head and a biscuit for his troubles every time he tries to affect positive change in the world.
The worse is, he actually could get all that shit included in the church if he wasn't such a blithering idiot about it.
The only consolation is that unlike John Paul II, Francis seems to be mostly for show, and behind the curtain he's actually a cold and giant douche-bag to every one, firing anyone who jeopardizes his image on a dime, and not putting any effort to his words beyond propaganda.
>>81469480
>Can somebody give a gist of what the fuck happened here?
Late thirties dad-hating dad with the mind of a teenage tumblerite David Willis continued to make a boring webcomic entirely devoid of entertainment value of lesbians and opinions in drama's clothing. Characters with any redeeming features still left are losing them by the day. It continues to make reasonable but compulsive people who can't stop reading it angry.
>>81478242
You forgot "butthurt 1 or 2 anons who can't hide threads kept reporting posts to mods; butthurt janitor keeps banning people who talk about the creator drama and site comments that are half the fun of Dumbing of Age threads."
>>81478047
>against gay people finding love and companionship
I wasn't aware that love and companionship were impossible to achieve without fucking someone. The idea that love and happiness is found only through sex is a ridiculous idea that is not compatible with Catholicism. We're talking about a religion that admires chastity and views voluntary celibacy as something to be respected and revered. Get that nonsense outta here. That's like saying Priests don't know what love and companionship is. Or that straight men somehow suffer because they encounter people every day that they aren't allowed to have sex with.
>the other women on the forum
Oh boy. Anecdotal evidence. And 'women on a forum' sure do seem like great sources for Catholic advice. Why the hell would you ask for religious advice on an anonymous board? If she was Catholic why didn't she talk to her priest?
>My wife is not solely defined by her ability to have children
No one implied she was.
>my benevolent gay friends who got married and do charity work aren't going to hell
'Kay? Doesn't mean their sexual lives are compatible with Catholic views of morality.
>women should be allowed to enter the priesthood
'Kay.
>and priests should be allowed to marry
Priests should be expected to behave as Christ-like as possible and that means celibacy. The celibate lifestyle is indicative of taking on a higher calling that places other people's needs over your own carnal wants. Priests should be disciplined. You shouldn't demand a less-disciplined Priest.
Just go Episcopalian already instead of trying to dissect another Church.
>>81478047
>A religion centered on focusing on the spiritual and unseen rather than the physical and carnal
>We should make it more physical, more carnal, and more sex-positive so modern people who despise religion anyway will think better of us
You are a cafeteria Catholic.
>>81478047
>One woman asked if it was sinful to get her tubes tied/use a condom because her doctors told her after 5 children and a damaged pelvis that one more baby might cripple her
Why not just stop having sex?
>>81465916
I wouldn't really consider going to college a poor life choice.
Willis is a dumbass but that doesn't make the crazy fundies he ribs on any better, or the choices of people who aren't them any worse. It just means this guy needs to find something new to write about.
>>81466583
>I hate willy.
So you're a lesbian?
>>81478379
You're funny
>>81478459
>Join a religion with views that don't form to modern liberal sexuality
>Complain when you have to choose between your religion and modern liberal sexuality
Ha. YOU'RE funny.
MEANWHILE
IN THE GOOD WILLIS COMIC
www.itswalky.com
>>81478379
Because it's not healthy.
A healthy sex life is good for you. I mean, not that guy, but Catholicism kinda sneakily acknowledges the realities of this - and the realities of the human condition in general.
Catholicism isn't about self-denial and flagellation.
>>81474052
The Irish are predominantly Catholic, which doesn't count to some Protestant sects.
>>81473828
Sola fide is a bit more nuanced than that, plus not all Protestant faiths use strict sola fide.
>>81478527
Historically, religion has always adapted to changing times, if slowly in some areas.
Pragmatism always wins in the end. It's the reason you don't see any but the silliest Christians staying away from shellfish.
>>81478347
never said I wasn't.
>>81478560
>Because it's not healthy.
Sure it is. Plenty of people live celibate lives and their perfectly healthy, functional, and pleasant people.
>Catholicism isn't about self-denial and flagellation.
It's about temperance. And temperance can often mean denying yourself things that you want. You don't need sex. You may want it, but you don't need it. A person can refuse sex, find more productive faculties in their lives, and be all the better for it. The idea that all people need to have sex to be healthy and happy is ridiculous.
The cultivation of discipline and the acknowledgement that you don't need sex to be happy and healthy is very important.
>yet another Willis thread turns into a religious/sexuality discussion
>>81478633
>Historically, religion has always adapted to changing times
But some things stay the same. Catholic sexual morality has persisted for thousands of years. The core tenets rarely change completely without transforming into a different religion.
>It's the reason you don't see any but the silliest Christians staying away from shellfish.
Actually, most Christians are fine with shellfish because of the Biblical basis that Christ eliminated the need for arbitrary Mosaic social laws apart from the Commandments.
Jews still do the kosher thing because they can't really fall back on that.
>>81478414
Nah, It just means I'm straight
:^)
>>81478745
Without our favorite topics, what do we have left?
>>81478694
>The idea that all people need to have sex to be healthy and happy is ridiculous.
The idea that denying it at all enriches you spiritually or physically is equally ridiculous. A person isn't wasting their energies by having sex within a relationship.
Frankly, someone who engages in sex and in romantic relationships has a more complete human experience than someone that doesn't.
>>81478745
And people still wonder why the mods/janitors hate them.
>>81478822
>The idea that denying it at all enriches you spiritually or physically is equally ridiculous.
No it isn't. We're talking about a religion centered around frequently denying the physical to satisfy spiritual needs and strengthening mental resolve. Christianity has never been about physical satisfaction. The concept of celibacy as a higher form of sexual morality is one of the earliest concepts in the Church. The denial of the physical, the embrace of the unseen.
>Frankly, someone who engages in sex and in romantic relationships has a more complete human experience than someone that doesn't.
Disagree. Someone who denies those things to dedicate themselves more fully to the happiness of other people is less selfish and more closely approaches the philosophical concept of 'Christian perfection'. There's nothing wrong with denying yourself sex but there's often someone wrong with giving in to having sex.
Sexual temperance takes work and resolve. An orgasm is free.
>>81478784
Whatever.
If you're willing to take requests, could I get a drawing of 'Guns'?
>>81478942
Alright, I'll whip out the ol' sketch book and get it to you in a few minutes.
>>81478753
>Actually, most Christians are fine with shellfish because of the Biblical basis that Christ eliminated the need for arbitrary Mosaic social laws apart from the Commandments.
That's a problem when arguments against homosexuality come from the same Mosaic laws.
>>81478801
Willy isn't doing anything that's a trainwreck, like Toedad, ripe with opportunities for edits and rewrites, like Mary and Carla, right now, so we're stuck discussing things like Christian morality and doctrinal differences.
>>81467657
She's an emotionally volatile person who's so far been almost raped and had a gun pointed at her, not to mention the questionable crowd she's been hanging out with. She needs to be at home.
>>81474903
Becky would be a horrible friend even if she wasn't a dyke.
>>81478922
>An orgasm is free.
Have you ever actually been in a relationship?
Relationships are hard. They're about being patient, forgiving, and consistently kind to another person. They're about accepting the flaws that another person WILL inevitably have, and surrendering your own flaws to their inspection, and ultimately their judgement.
If you think that being intimate with a person is at all easy or free, you're just showing how cloistered you are.
>There's nothing wrong with denying yourself sex
Depression, lack of motivation, and increased aggression have all been linked to a lack of a sex life. There's a reason so many priests have been found to be not exactly as celibate as they claimed publicly.
>>81479161
There's a moral law and a ceremonial law. Shellfish are ceremonial.
>>81479015
Sweet.
>>81479198
>Relationships are hard. They're about being patient, forgiving, and consistently kind to another person. They're about accepting the flaws that another person WILL inevitably have, and surrendering your own flaws to their inspection, and ultimately their judgement.
>If you think that being intimate with a person is at all easy or free, you're just showing how cloistered you are.
None of that involves having to have sex. This is what comprises all relationships between human beings.
>Depression, lack of motivation, and increased aggression have all been linked to a lack of a sex life.
You can still be celibate without any of those consequences. Find more productive outlets and stop blaming your shortcomings on not getting laid enough.
>There's a reason so many priests have been found to be not exactly as celibate as they claimed publicly.
Temptation.
>>81478606
>The Irish are predominantly Catholic, which doesn't count to some Protestant sects.
Even so. The true answer to the question "Why not take it somewhere that actually might need it", they'd never want to admit: "Because I don't want to live with smelly brown people in a country without McDonalds."
>>81479198
>Relationships are hard. They're about being patient, forgiving, and consistently kind to another person. They're about accepting the flaws that another person WILL inevitably have, and surrendering your own flaws to their inspection, and ultimately their judgement.
H-...have you never had a friend that you haven't fucked? I mean, we got a serious problem with society if people find the idea of a platonic, loving relationship to be a radical relic of the past.
>>81478745
I don't mind. It's informative.
>>81479161
Well, the primary problem with homosexuality as a sin is that the only real references to it as a sin use terms that aren't even confirmed to be talking about it. But people are willing to just assume that it's bad, because hey, icky.
There's no point in talking about it to people, they'll never budge on it. You're probably going to be told there's a difference between edicts of ceremony and righteousness, but the division is purely a cerebral one, mostly invented to keep what people want in canon and keep out what people don't want.
If you ever find you arguing this point, it's best to just accept that these people are determined to convince themselves this thing is wrong, no matter what, and just shut up about it because you're not getting anywhere with them.
>>81479161
>That's a problem when arguments against homosexuality come from the same Mosaic laws.
I'm the cafeteria Catholic from above, so I'm totally down with abandoning the rule that gays can't have romantic companionship, but doesn't Paul totally reaffirm man lying with man is an abomination?
>>81479198
>There's a reason so many priests have been found to be not exactly as celibate as they claimed publicly.
Because some naive Vatican II types decided that allowing homosexuals into the clergy would be a good idea.
>>81479337
I think that's misrepresenting their point. There's friends, even close friends, and then there's romantic companions. It wouldn't be much of a marriage if I couldn't have sex with my wife.
Gay people are allowed, encouraged, to have close friends, but they are in no circumstances allowed to have lovers, even if they're committed for life. I say that detracts from a complete life experience, because expression of our love for our romantic companions through sex is a valuable gift given to us by God. Gays are denied a fundamental gift of God by virtue of the way God made them. Seems unfair, even cruel, in an Old Testament way (he hardens their dicks for men the way he hardened the pharaoh's heart against letting the Jews go).
I think chastity and celibacy are great if they're elective. If you are, by virtue of who you are, FORCED into a life of chastity...well, that's not the same thing, nor does it hold the same nobility. It's like a guy who chooses to abstain from meat versus a guy who is told if he eats meat he'll get shot in the head.
I might be alone here, but here goes. I've been in about three sexual relationships in my life. Until about a year ago I used to masturbate about five times a day. Watched a lot of internet porn. Got harder and harder. Fewer and fewer things sexually excited me because I became so desensitized. My sense of sexuality is so fucked up at this point that I don't think I'd have a problem becoming a celibate Priest. Like, I don't think there's a person alive who could tempt me because the last thing I jacked off to was a hyper dickgirl bisexual furry gangbang with fart noises.
Anyway, life was crummy. I slept way too much, I wasted so many hours. I jacked off and it didn't make me feel better, it made me feel depressed. I got that burst of pleasure then the drowsy afterglow and then I didn't feel like doing anything.
Then I decided to experiment. Stopped jacking off, deleted all my porn. I haven't had a donation to the Clinton Library in almost ten months. I feel fuckin' great. My productivity has went through the roof. I got more energy. I've replaced my daily Kennedy filibusters with creating things or going to the gym or actually reading comics instead of bitching about them.
I guess it works differently for everyone but avoiding sex has made me way happier. Romantic relationships are complicated but friendships are easy, fun, and still fulfilling.
>>81479283
>None of that involves having to have sex. This is what comprises all relationships between human beings.
It's what comprises a romantic relationship, though. Sharing your life with someone, and being close enough to be consistently sexually open with another person, is not easy or free, or the same as simply knowing and getting along with another person.
>>81479337
See above.
I doubt most of your friends know as much about you, and have had to forgive and accept as much about you, as your spouse (and vice versa).
You people seem to think that as soon as you add sex to relationship, it becomes somehow selfish. That it detracts from the kindness and love you're showing that person. From helping them, and caring for them, and letting them into your life. It doesn't, at all.
>>81479344
Still, the mods might delete posts for being "off topic"
>>81478942
Here you go, it's not as good as the guy who does the thick joyce drawings, but I try.
>>81479533
What is the difference between close and friends and romantic companions other than the inclusion of sex? I don't think there is one.
Our highly sexual society has perverted the idea of a platonic but loving relationship and I think that's a shame. A lover is just a close friend that you don't smooch.
>>81479161
>That's a problem when arguments against homosexuality come from the same Mosaic laws.
Actually, Jesus himself described marriage as between a man and a woman, which is the basis for that. Since non-adulterous sex can't occur outside of marriage within Catholicism that kinda rules out buttfuckin'.
>>81479551
>It's what comprises a romantic relationship, though
No it's not. There are people who are asexual or celibate and still lead 'romantic' lives. That's where you get terms like 'panromantic but asexual'.
Love isn't sex. This is just the byproduct of an unfortunately sex-obsessed culture. I think it's sad.
>>81479184
>the questionable crowd she's been hanging out with.
She's not close with the actual toxic people in the strip.
>>81479212
Tattoos and piercings are covered under those moral laws.
>>81479314
>"Why not take it somewhere that actually might need it"
That implies not only a salvation hierarchy based on personal hardship, but also reeks heavily of prosperity gospel and poverty tourism.
>>81479573
They'd do that regardless. I'm surprised they aren't banning edits.
"Off-topic" my smooth, sexy ass.
>>81479671
Does anything in that post say that love is sex? Or even imply it?
What's being said there is that having that relationship, having a relationship where you're close enough to another person to be sexually intimate with them on a long term basis, is not easy or free.
Yes, you can have romantic life with a person without sex. But does adding sex to that diminish that relationship? Make it easier? Less intimate?
No. The fact that you seem to think it does is what's sad.
Unless you personally don't have the ability to focus on the rest of your life unless you totally disavow sex, there's no real reason to cut it out. That doesn't mean doing so is bad, it's just not especially virtuous either.
>>81466029
Not even Becky's stupid enough to out someone in front of their family. That's what fucked up her own life.
>>81479804
>Does anything in that post say that love is sex? Or even imply it?
Yes. You just said that a romantic relationship involves sex. It doesn't.
>What's being said there is that having that relationship, having a relationship where you're close enough to another person to be sexually intimate with them on a long term basis, is not easy or free.
Right. But an orgasm is still free. A relationship is hard and relationships have nothing to do with having sex. You can have sex without a relationship. You can have a relationship without having sex. Feel me?
>But does adding sex to that diminish that relationship?
Sex can potentially ruin a relationship, yeah. Happens all the time. Makes things awkward. Violates certain boundaries. Shifts the dynamic from mental connection to physical depravity.
>Unless you personally don't have the ability to focus on the rest of your life unless you totally disavow sex, there's no real reason to cut it out.
Sure there is. It takes discipline and resolve. It lets you focus more on others rather than on yourself. It's more difficult and more admirable.
There is nothing special about having sex. There's lots of things special about refusing to have sex. From a Christian perspective it's virtuous.
>>81479577
Pretty good!
>>81479783
>That implies not only a salvation hierarchy based on personal hardship, but also reeks heavily of prosperity gospel and poverty tourism.
It's nothing of the sort and you'd be reaching to think so. It's a plain matter of taking comfort to those who need it.
Christians believe Christianity is the key to happiness and peace? Alright, well and good, so why take it to countries dominated by Christians already instead of somewhere it's a minority, or where people might actually need a bit of spiritual comfort?
It's like lighting a candle in a room with a fully functional lightbub, as opposed to one without.
>>81479611
...but...dude, sex between husband and wife has always been valued within the church. It used to be thought that a woman had to orgasm in order to conceive. It's not just "highly sexual society" valuing romantic love over platonic love, it's the notion of marriage itself throughout history, and most religions for that matter.
>What is the difference between close and friends and romantic companions other than the inclusion of sex? I don't think there is one.
Physical tenderness is a gift shared between romantic partners that cannot be shared between friends. That IS the difference, and it's an important one. Unless you're asexual or have deliberately chosen celibacy, intimacy beyond close platonic friendship is something people almost always yearn for.
>>81479891
>Yes. You just said that a romantic relationship involves sex. It doesn't.
Nope. I said it CAN involve sex. I said a romantic relationship requires:
>being patient, forgiving, and consistently kind to another person. They're about accepting the flaws that another person WILL inevitably have, and surrendering your own flaws to their inspection, and ultimately their judgement.
You can be sexually active in that relationship, or you can not be. Being sexually active takes away nothing.
>But an orgasm is still free.
Even in the case of casual sex, this isn't the case, in a very base sort of way. But frankly it has no bearing on whether a romantic relationship is less rewarding, or valuable, according to whether it involves sex or not.
>Sex can potentially ruin a relationship, yeah. Happens all the time. Makes things awkward. Violates certain boundaries. Shifts the dynamic from mental connection to physical depravity.
Alternatively, it accepting a person physically can add to a relationship. There are plenty of people who are sexually intimate with partners without finding them ideal in terms of attraction (let's face it - most people are not attractive). A celibate relationship is in many ways easier, as you only have to think about your partner's mind. In a sexual relationship, you're choosing to accept a person physically as well as mentally, no matter or, in some cases even, despite what they look like.
>It lets you focus more on others rather than on yourself.
You're focusing on another if you're in a romantic relationship, whether that relationship is sexual or not. And frankly, there's NOTHING preventing a sexually active person from being selfless.
>It's more difficult and more admirable.
Alternatively, it's easier and less admirable, as it means you just don't have to think about that part of your life, and you don't even need to accept a person's physicality if you are in a relationship.
There's nothing special about being celibate.
>>81480152
>...but...dude, sex between husband and wife has always been valued within the church
Right. Between husband and wife. And only in the vagina. Without birth control.
That's just one kind of relationship. Most relationships, therefore, are platonic ones and should be considered very precious without sex.
>Physical tenderness is a gift shared between romantic partners that cannot be shared between friends.
Says who? Why does that define romance? Can I have romance without physical tenderness?
Define 'physical tenderness'. Does it have to be sexual?
Why is a sexless relationship not considered intimate?
>>81480017
Proselytizing make zero distinctions between the two situations. It's like saying you can't feed the homeless in America because there is famine in Zimbabwe. You can assign personal motives to the individual missionaries.
There are also a multitude of factors at play. My church growing up did overseas missionary work exclusively in South America because the missionaries in question all spoke Spanish and as a small church it couldn't really afford to spend a lot on travel and insurance.
>>81480232
>>being patient, forgiving, and consistently kind to another person. They're about accepting the flaws that another person WILL inevitably have, and surrendering your own flaws to their inspection, and ultimately their judgement.
That is a requirement for all relationships, not just romantic ones. This should be the goal of any relationship you have with another person, romantic or not.
>Alternatively, it accepting a person physically can add to a relationship.
How? Can you not accept a person physically without sex? If your relationship was less than it was without sex then was it a very good relationship to begin with? A relationship is a non-physical concept.
>You're focusing on another if you're in a romantic relationship, whether that relationship is sexual or not
So you admit that sex has nothing to do with a positive relationship?
>And frankly, there's NOTHING preventing a sexually active person from being selfless.
Being sexually active makes you less selfless.
>There's nothing special about being celibate
Is it harder to be celibate or to be sexually active? Since most people are sexually active I'd say that means celibacy is more difficult, which makes it special.
Being rare is what makes it special. Being difficult to maintain is what makes it admirable.
>It's easier to be celibate
Don't orgasm for five years then come back and tell me how easy it was.
>>81480243
I'm really confused where you're coming from on all this. Are you asexual? A celibate Catholic? What?
>>81479891
>Sex can potentially ruin a relationship, yeah. Happens all the time. Makes things awkward. Violates certain boundaries. Shifts the dynamic from mental connection to physical depravity.
If you're a shallow person, yeah.
But being physical with another person, and indeed working through those very difficulties you're describing, is a sign of a closer mental connection than that of a celibate relationship.
Being willing to understand and work with a person's boundaries is more worthwhile than just never thinking about them. Being able to give up on certain sexual wants because they're not the same as your partner's, or go for things that you're not really into, is more worthwhile than just never approaching the issue, as it shows the dedication you have to the spiritual and mental aspect of a relationship.
A relationship that has gone through this is going to be stronger than a celibate one, because its mental connection has been tested by the physical.
You're thinking of sex as being something people just do to feel good. As something selfish. It's not, and you clearly have never been in a real relationship.
>>81480424
>Are you asexual? A celibate Catholic? What?
Pass.
>>81478299
The celibate lifestyle is all about preventing priests from leaving church property to their children.
>>81480460
Why, though?
Seriously, you just keep debating whether or not physical intimacy adds anything to a relationship or gives a relationship any special meaning beyond close friendship, but I can't even tell what your perspective is. For all we know you could just be taking the piss, questioning every attempt we make at explaining our positions and our experiences without telling us yours at all. You keep acting like you're speaking from some position of greater insight but without any context to your beliefs you sound like a child going "why? why? why that, though?"
>>81480438
>But being physical with another person, and indeed working through those very difficulties you're describing, is a sign of a closer mental connection than that of a celibate relationship.
A mental connection is non-physical, non-sexual. So no, I disagree and I don't see any basis in that.
>A relationship that has gone through this is going to be stronger than a celibate one, because its mental connection has been tested by the physical.
I don't understand your logical connection. Why does a mental connection become stronger because of the inclusion of sex? Isn't a relationship stronger if you can form that same bond WITHOUT sex?
>You're thinking of sex as being something people just do to feel good.
Is it not? You just accused people of being shallow. Is it not shallow to think of a sexless relationship as not a 'real' relationship as you've just accused?
So, is the strongest relationship in the world a sexual one? Will relationship between two people sexually involved with each other always be stronger than the relationship between two people who don't have sex? Now THAT sounds shallow.
>>81479454
>>81480539
>Why, though?
Because that has nothing to do with my argument. My perspective isn't important. Only ideas are.
>you sound like a child going "why? why? why that, though?"
And? You're being asked to elaborate on your position. That's not a problem unless you can't answer. You're convinced that your position is correct. If your position is correct then you should be able to argue on its behalf in a vacuum.
>>81480386
>That is a requirement for all relationships, not just romantic ones. This should be the goal of any relationship you have with another person, romantic or not.
It is the GOAL in most relationships.
In a romantic relationship it is a REQUIREMENT. You simply don't give as much of yourself to a purely platonic relationship. There are things that never come up, that never have to be mentioned.
>How? Can you not accept a person physically without sex?
Not sure what you're getting at here.
>If your relationship was less than it was without sex then was it a very good relationship to begin with? A relationship is a non-physical concept.
It doesn't have to be less. It isn't more if you take away sex, though.
>So you admit that sex has nothing to do with a positive relationship?
Yeah. I haven't said that you can't have positive relationships without sex. There's just nothing special or innately worthwhile about celibacy.
>Being sexually active makes you less selfless.
Prove it. WHY does it make you less selfless?
>Is it harder to be celibate or to be sexually active?
Celibacy is easy, it's a path of non-action. Being sexually active can be easy if you're just being casual about it, though I guarantee it takes more effort than celibacy, which is by definition the lack of doing something. Most people on /co/ and /tg/ and the like probably manage to be celibate for a good long time simply out of inaction and shyness.
Forging the kind of relationship that results, for most of society, in sustained sexual contact with another person, is hard. Much harder than simply doing nothing.
>Don't orgasm for five years then come back and tell me how easy it was.
Literally did this from fourteen to about twenty. No, it was not hard.
I've never wanted mods to nuke a Willis thread so badly. Take this shit to /pol/ or /his/ or somewhere. A little bit of off topic discussion where the content merits it is sometimes appropriate but 50% of this thread is now "/co/ - catholic doctrine".
>Delete comments from the author about his own strip, ban anon for a day. Reason: Not comics or cartoons.
>Allow a thread to be filled with off-topic religious discussion
>>81480562
>So, is the strongest relationship in the world a sexual one?
Not always, but ideally, a pair of people that are intimate in every way including physically has the strongest relationship, because they've been vulnerable to one another and connected with one another on EVERY POSSIBLE LEVEL AS HUMAN BEINGS, from mental to physical.
Sex does not inherently give a relationship more value. My couple-times-fuckbuddy from work 8 years ago is not as valuable or close a companion as my best friend from college. But I have given myself more to my wife, laid more of myself bare, and trusted her with more than I can my friends, or my brothers, or my parents.
You seem to think very little of sex and less of people who value it. It again makes me wonder what on earth your life is like and what led you to these conclusions.
>>81480686
>In a romantic relationship it is a REQUIREMENT
It should be a requirement in all relationships. The world will become better the friendlier we are with each other.
>You simply don't give as much of yourself to a purely platonic relationship.
You should.
>It doesn't have to be less. It isn't more if you take away sex, though.
It can be more, yes. A relationship can be made stronger when the physical ceases to matter and you can focus exclusively on their inner selves.
>WHY does it make you less selfless?
The less you focus on pleasuring yourself the more you can focus on attending to the needs of others. You having sex doesn't benefit others therefore not having sex makes you more selfless.
>Celibacy is easy, it's a path of non-action.
Non-action can be more difficult than action.
>though I guarantee it takes more effort than celibacy
That implies that resisting temptation is less difficult than physical action, which I don't think is true.
>Literally did this from fourteen to about twenty. No, it was not hard.
You didn't jack off during your most sexually active puberty years? I'm impressed.
>>81480814
reiterates my theory that all the bans are the result of one butthurt mod and the butthurt one or two anons that complain to him. Let's watch what gets deleted/gets me banned first: all the above shit or this picture.
>>81478606
>the irish are predominantly catholic
True or not, say this in the wrong place and you'll won't be able to say much afterwards
>>81480828
>Not always, but ideally, a pair of people that are intimate in every way including physically has the strongest relationship, because they've been vulnerable to one another and connected with one another on EVERY POSSIBLE LEVEL AS HUMAN BEINGS, from mental to physical.
If I fuck my Dad will we have a stronger relationship?
>a pair of people that are intimate in every way including physically has the strongest relationship
>Sex does not inherently give a relationship more value
You are contradicting yourself. Does the ideal relationship involve sex or not?
>It again makes me wonder what on earth your life is like and what led you to these conclusions.
It can't really be that alien of a concept to you.
>>81480858
>The less you focus on pleasuring yourself the more you can focus on attending to the needs of others. You having sex doesn't benefit others therefore not having sex makes you more selfless.
>pleasuring yourself
>in a sexual relationship with a partner
>making that partner feel good does not benefit that partner
>reaching orgasm with your partner only benefits you
>your partner's physical needs do not count as needs
like a virgin reciting poetry about love
>>81480562
>A mental connection is non-physical, non-sexual. So no, I disagree and I don't see any basis in that.
Be less opaque please. Yes, the mental connection is non-physical. But if your mental connection cannot even survive a bit of awkwardness it's a weak one.
>I don't understand your logical connection. Why does a mental connection become stronger because of the inclusion of sex? Isn't a relationship stronger if you can form that same bond WITHOUT sex?
You yourself have cited reasons why physicality tests and strains a relationship. Overcoming those things does indeed result in a stronger relationship.
>It's not?
No, it's really not. Sex is not just about physical pleasure.
>Is it not shallow to think of a sexless relationship as not a 'real' relationship as you've just accused?
Didn't say that. Stow that strawman, please.
>Will relationship between two people sexually involved with each other always be stronger than the relationship between two people who don't have sex?
Didn't say that, either. Stow it, if you're just going to tack stuff to other people's arguments in order to feel superior to them there's no point in this. A platonic or a sexual relationship can be casual, or powerful, or intimate, or fleeting.
But working through the very trials and difficulties you yourself brought up as part of a sexual relationship doesn't make a relationship weaker. It only makes it stronger. It only verifies and strengthens your connection to another person. Learning to understand their wants, and reevaluate your own, to accommodate and to sacrifice, brings two people close than just never approaching the issue whatsoever. It's a layer, a dynamic, a level of trust, that the celibate simply doesn't have to worry about, or even think about.
>>81480927
Christ, this is like talking to a smug wall.
>>81479783
>>Tattoos and piercings are covered under those moral laws.
>References to this verse are not present in important magisterial documents and in the principal writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is the consensus of Catholic biblical commentators that this prohibition is not part of the unchanging moral law, but part of the ritual law specific to the Old Testament.
http://www.cuf.org/2005/07/tattoos/
>>81480629
He wasn't a typical example. That's why he's used as the standout example of a bad Pope.
>>81480957
>But if your mental connection cannot even survive a bit of awkwardness it's a weak one.
If your mental connection necessitates sex of any kind to grow stronger then isn't it also shallow?
>Sex is not just about physical pleasure.
Sex has two goals. Pleasure and reproduction. That's it. Every other aspect of sex that you see as important is just as completely achieved without it.
>Didn't say that. Stow that strawman, please.
How was that a strawman? You just accused me of never having had a 'real' relationship. Define 'real relationship'.
>in order to feel superior to them there's no point in this.
I don't feel superior to you at all.
>But working through the very trials and difficulties you yourself brought up as part of a sexual relationship doesn't make a relationship weaker. It only makes it stronger.
>Verifies and strengthens
>A level of trust
>Understand their wants
None of this requires sex.
Punching a wall is good stress relief, doesn't mean there aren't better forms of stress relief.
>>81480891
You're living on the edge, friend. But it has to be done, god speed!
>>81481114
>Every other aspect of sex that you see as important is just as completely achieved without it.
Spoken like a person who has never, ever had a fulfilling romantic relationship.
>>81465575
>religious character
>cartoonist hypocrite
Obviously not liking angry, cunty females means you steal from the poor
>>81481114
>If your mental connection necessitates sex of any kind to grow stronger then isn't it also shallow?
I didn't say it necessitates sex. Stop making things up, it really is getting tiresome. I said sex CAN MAKE IT STRONGER. Not that it's the only way of doing so.
>How was that a strawman? You just accused me of never having had a 'real' relationship. Define 'real relationship'.
Honestly, you just don't sound like you've ever been in a romantic relationship, sexual or not.
>None of this requires sex.
Do you realize what you're saying there? You're saying that the specific awkwardness and expectation regarding sex is something a relationship can overcome and engage in without sex.
I'm not saying you can't have trust, that a relationship can't be strong, without sex.
I'm saying there is a level of trust that the celibate simply do not have to deal with. They don't have to test their mental connection against their physical one. They don't have to sacrifice some of the things they want physically or accept some of the things they don't care for because none of it is ever an issue. It's not there, it's part part of the relationship.
>>81481235
I think that's very unfair and dehumanizing thing to say just because I don't think highly of sex.
>>81473686
>Hopefully when his kids hit puberty and start whining and crying about how unfair he's treated them, how much they hate him, etc. he'll get the balls to call mommy and apologize.
They'll just think he's a namby pamby fag the way everyone does
>>81481353
I think it's pretty unfair and dehumanizing to say that a person is less selfless or worse as a human being because they have sex.
>>81481353
It's also correct, you fucking baby
>>81481349
>You're saying that the specific awkwardness and expectation regarding sex is something a relationship can overcome and engage in without sex.
Okay, why is it that 'specific awkwardness and expectation' that's the important part? When all of that is just something imposed by a society that expects it from you?
>I'm saying there is a level of trust that the celibate simply do not have to deal with.
Yes there is. It's not sexual in nature but that level of trust is there. There are intimacies and foundations of trust that go beyond sex, that go deeper than that. The intricacies and perceived difficulties in sex are not exclusive to sex nor do they make sex any more unique or special or important to cultivating a fulfilling relationship.
Trust is trust. It isn't based in sex, it's based in trust. It's based in being able to be open with someone about anything, about being comfortable enough with them that you don't have to lie about things minor or major or anything in between.
Sex is just sex. It's not trust, it's not intimacy, it's not a deepening of the relationship. It's just sex. All of those concepts you're associating with it exist independently from it.
>>81478942
I want to draw a shitty Willis character too!
who should I draw?
>>81481353
You're calling anyone who thinks sex is important shallow, saying they're inherently less selfless, claiming that pleasing your partner doesn't actually count as doing something for somebody else, and mockingly saying "try not having an orgasm for five years" when they point out the challenges a romantic couple has to navigate, dude, you don't get to whinge about unfair or dehumanizing.
I don't know if you think you sound like some sort of zen master or what but from where I'm sitting you just seem kind of pettily disdainful of sex and the people who have it.
>>81481419
I disagree. I don't think it's dehumanizing to illustrate perceived faults in specific behaviors. What you're doing, however, is making very specific personal accusations against me based upon my opinions.
Being a thief means you value ownership less than others. That's not dehumanizing, that's just illustrating a fact.
I'm not as selfless as I can be. I'm not perfect. I can be greedy. I AM greedy. I pay for luxuries and novelties that I don't need because I want them. But somewhere in the world there's someone who doesn't. There are people in the world who resist that temptation better than I do, who give their lives entirely to helping others as much as they can. They're more moral than I am. They are admirable. The acknowledgement of imperfection and the realization that other people are more moral and stronger than me isn't dehumanizing. It's reality. I am not perfect. You are not perfect. The problem arises when people insist that everyone is perfect when they're not. You see that shit all the time.
Fuckin' mindless positivity messages about being perfect just as you are. I'm not perfect but I can always be better than I am now.
They want to tell you 'No, there's nothing wrong with that or wrong with this'. But that's unrealistic. There's a lot of things wrong with most of the things we do. We have to live with that, recognize it, and strive to be better while acknowledging that there are better ways to live.
>>81481639
>You're calling anyone who thinks sex is important shallow
Yep.
>saying they're inherently less selfless
Yup.
>claiming that pleasing your partner doesn't actually count as doing something for somebody else
Correct. Sex ain't charity.
>"try not having an orgasm for five years" when they point out the challenges a romantic couple has to navigate, dude, you don't get to whinge about unfair or dehumanizing.
Uh-huh? Like I said, celibacy is harder than fucking your friends.
There's a difference between illustrating the problems you have with actions and between accusing someone of being things that are unrelated to their arguments.
I have no obligation to validate your lifestyle by telling you that it's okay and you're perfect as you are. But I think you have an obligation not to accuse me being something derogatory based upon my ideas.
>>81481509
>Okay, why is it that 'specific awkwardness and expectation' that's the important part?
Because it's what we're talking about here.
>When all of that is just something imposed by a society that expects it from you?
Society didn't invent sex. Its importance predates civilization by a longshot.
>There are intimacies and foundations of trust that go beyond sex, that go deeper than that.
Yes, there are. Having sex doesn't detract from them at all.
>The intricacies and perceived difficulties in sex are not exclusive to sex
Now, here's where you're wrong, and, to be honest, where you inexperience sort of shines through.
>Trust is trust. It's based in being able to be open with someone about anything, about being comfortable enough with them that you don't have to lie about things minor or major or anything in between.
Yep. An a sexually active pair have had to be be open and trusting about one more thing - one really big thing - than a celibate pair. The things people desire sexually are a hugely deep-seated part of them, and things that are not easy to bare in front of someone else. They're not easy to let go of, either, and deciding that your love for a person comes second to specific sexual desires is a pretty big thing. Trusting someone with these things is a big thing, and a celibate person never has to do that. They never even have to approach the subject.
Sex is an intimate experience.
>>81481736
>people have an obligation not to point out my autism
ok virglord
>>81481756
>Society didn't invent sex.
No, it just gave extra meanings to it.
>Its importance predates civilization by a longshot.
Right. Reproduction. There's the end of the important part of sex.
>Sex is an intimate experience.
Sex CAN be an intimate experience, but is often not. Even a couple who loves each other and have had intimate sex can still have sex that is not intimate.
>An a sexually active pair have had to be be open and trusting about one more thing - one really big thing - than a celibate pair.
I disagree. Nothing you can describe about that can't be translated into something else with every bit as much importance and impact.
You can bare all of those things, be open about all of those things, communicate about all of those things, etc. without sex. Not unique in the slightest.
![2016-02-13-icebreaker[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Z5WvjsV.png "2016-02-13-icebreaker[1].png")
>>81480891
I really hate this argument. I'm sure there are shitty people like the ones in Willis' story. There's also people who live lives that are completely boring. You generally don't just take the most straight take of those people to tell stories. You get into what's important to them, how moments might seem boring to someone else were big victories or defeats for them. You examine why they make the decisions they make so you end up with heightened mundanity. It's some of my favourite stuff to read.
Ditto for fundies. I know, for example, Willis probably only thinks of his mom as a weird monster with different beliefs, but there are obviously nice moments he shared with her. It is in fact those moments and kinship that make the contrasting beliefs harder to deal with. Instead though, these characters are presented as almost completely shitty and oppositional. Instead of moments of connection with others, they have what seem like excuses. It's Willis saying, "this is why this person is behaving this way and only this way, stop questioning their characterization." It's why people often have the takeaway that the villains' posiiton is etched in stone.
Take the re-introduction of Carol, for example. Haven't seen her since the first strips, she's talked to Joyce, but it's the first time she's seen her since the incident. Her first words to her gunpoint threatened daughter are "Raincheck on the hug!" and the punch line is her questioning Becky's orientation (HATE CRIME! COOKING DINNER!) She seems like a caricature, even if that moment is accurate, because we never saw 18 years of living with her and what her full range is. And again the same structure is used with John, with him ignoring what happened to Joyce so that he can focus on their difference of beliefs. At least there you got some talk about meeting his wife so they seem like they have some connection.
tl;dr "I know someone like that" doesn't excuse shitty writing.
>>81481658
>What you're doing, however, is making very specific personal accusations against me based upon my opinions.
You're specifically saying people who value sex are less selfless than people who do not. When pressed on this, you...blurt out something about thieves. Oh no, we'd better not dehumanize you, but yeah, people who value sex? Let me use people who don't value other peoples' property.
>They want to tell you 'No, there's nothing wrong with that or wrong with this'. But that's unrealistic.
Who wants to tell you that? No one in this thread is saying sex magically makes something perfect, that there's nothing wrong with sexual relationships, that romantic companionship is flawed. But THIS shit...
>>81481736
...is just asinine, judgmental, "I am a very smart virgin or celibate who's got this shit figured out" fuckery.
My accusation is related to your arguments because your arguments all boil down to personal assertions yet you seem to think they don't, that you've perceived some greater truth. You also THINK you're not talking like an asshole. You're a fucking dumbass who either came here from r9k or the #asexual tag on tumblr.
>>81481658
>What you're doing, however, is making very specific personal accusations against me based upon my opinions.
You're doing the same to anyone who doesn't believe the same things as you. Cognitive dissonance, hoooooo!
>The acknowledgement of imperfection and the realization that other people are more moral and stronger than me isn't dehumanizing.
I agree.
Still haven't told me why sex, or desiring sex, makes a person less perfect. There's literally nothing that drives a person engaging in sex to be less giving, or less courageous, or less humble.
>Fuckin' mindless positivity messages about etc etc etc
Wow, talk about a spiel. And not the subject at all.
>>81481931
>hoooooo!
>>81478801
jesus fucking christ, that guy
How do you write ten paragraphs every day about FUCKING NOTHING
>>81481858
Okay firstly, if you think sex has never had a psychological purpose in nature, you're just uneducated.
Secondly, yeah, a celibate pair and chastely confess their deepest desires to one another (not that they commonly do). But it means nothing, because they don't need to accept this about one another. It has no weight. They don't need to understand a their partner's desires, because they're never going to be engaging with them. They don't need to take chances, to close off some of those parts of themselves while learning to accept other such parts of someone else, because... none it will ever manifest as an issue.
>>81481736
>claiming that pleasing your partner doesn't actually count as doing something for somebody else
>Correct. Sex ain't charity.
I genuinely pity you, anon. Deriving happiness from your partner's pleasure is one of the greatest things about sex with someone you love. You might not enjoy (or have the opportunity to enjoy) making others feel good, but that doesn't mean nobody can. And this is coming from someone who hasn't had much sex at all or for a long time.
>>81481931
>You're doing the same to anyone who doesn't believe the same things as you
Give me one quote where I have accused you of being anything you weren't.
>Still haven't told me why sex, or desiring sex, makes a person less perfect
Already said it makes you less selfless. Makes you either focus on your own pleasure or the very short, fleeting, unimportant physical pleasure of one other person. It's a drop in discipline, a lessening in responsible fortitude.
Celibacy is admirable because it requires more discipline and allows you more time to focus on needs rather than wants.
>Wow, talk about a spiel. And not the subject at all.
It's relevant. People want to say 'It's all fine no matter how you want to live'. Which is a lie.
Some ways of living are better than others. Logically, there has to be one way of living that is more beneficial to others than any other.
>>81482132
I prefer making others feel good by feeding them when they're starving or helping them build a house.
>>81482084
>But it means nothing
It means everything. You are putting your trust in another and hoping they'll accept you and love you just as much as before.
>>81473686
When was the near rape?
>>81482137
>allows you more time to focus on needs rather than wants
Like the need to shitpost on 4chan in a thread about a terrible webcomic?
>>81482226
oh shit.
>>81482137
>Give me one quote where I have accused you of being anything you weren't.
You've said that I, a person who is sexually active, is automatically less perfect, therefore inferior, to someone who is celibate. Less selfless, too.
>Already said it makes you less selfless. Makes you either focus on your own pleasure or the very short, fleeting, unimportant physical pleasure of one other person. It's a drop in discipline, a lessening in responsible fortitude.
Is this some kind of silly slippery slope argument? You can have an active sex life without being a whirlwind of depravity.
Sex has literally no detrimental effects on your life if you can handle the responsibility of it. Just as celibacy has no detrimental effects on your life if you can channel the depression, increased aggression, etc, it causes, and overcome the lack of motivation it triggers in most people.
It's not a switch that makes you more prone to thinking of yourself. You can be perfectly celibate and far more selfish than a person who is sexually active.
>Some ways of living are better than others.
And I assume you believe you've found that way?
There's no provable detriment caused by having sex. None. Being irresponsible and foolish with your dick, yes, but nothing innate to the act of sex itself. You're accusing others of attaching things not related to sex to it, but I suspect that you're relating it to selfishness and to consequences that can arise from irresponsibility... which are the results of selfishness and irresponsibility, not sex.
Celibacy doesn't make your life more beneficial to others. If it did, /co/ would be full of incredible philanthropist virgins out solving the world's problems.
>>81482226
No, that's a want, and I'm a bad person for doing it.
>>81482180
>I prefer making others feel good by feeding them when they're starving or helping them build a house.
Hey, me too.
Then afterwards I can have sex with my girlfriend and make her feel good too, probably after a nice dinner we've worked on together.
But I guess it would have been more virtuous to lie alone in bed that night and twiddle my thumbs. Or rant at people about how awful sex is on a message board.
>>81482422
>You've said that I, a person who is sexually active, is automatically less perfect, therefore inferior, to someone who is celibate. Less selfless, too.
Correct. So, like I said, give me one quote where I have accused you of being anything you weren't.
>You can have an active sex life without being a whirlwind of depravity.
Doesn't make it a good thing that should be defended or should be viewed as 'nothing wrong with it'. Only important sex for society is reproductive.
>Sex has literally no detrimental effects on your life if you can handle the responsibility of it
Literally nothing has detrimental effects onf your life if you can 'handle the responsibility of it'.
>Celibacy doesn't make your life more beneficial to others
Voluntary celibacy while actively working for a better world, I would argue, does make your life more beneficial to others. People on /co/ aren't celibate, they just can't get laid even though they're actively trying to.
>>81482514
Anon, stop it. You're proving his point. It's SELFISH to own someone this much.
>>81482514
>Then afterwards I can have sex with my girlfriend and make her feel good too, probably after a nice dinner we've worked on together.
Why don't you just spend more time doing good for the world?
>Or rant at people about how awful sex is on a message board.
Yup, that's bad too. Shouldn't do that. But lot of people do because we aren't perfect. At least I don't have a need to defend my imperfect lifestyle as just fine and having no need of improvement.
>>81482084
Boredom and practice for college courses that have minimum writing requirements but give out topics that require less than the minimum to fully expound?
>>81481899
I think a big problem is that the importance of Toedad's actions are inconsistently portrayed. On the surface it'd be unlikely to be a big story, guy shows up at campus, fires a single round into the air, tries to take his daughter to pray-the-gay-away camp, gets apprehended a few minutes later. No reacts strongly, classes aren't cancelled, everyone goes on like normal. Then you've got the fact that a chick in a superhero costume tried to stop them by climbing on the vehicle, caused a car wreck, and nearly go run over before escaping and the kidnapped girl was squatting with a friend to hide from her dad after getting kicked out of a Christian college for being gay. Everyone knows what happened, who Becky and Ross are, and that it's national news. Meanwhile, Joyce's parents wait until the weekend to see Joyce, despite one of their friends point a gun at their daughter, and, as far as we know, Dina's parents haven't even gotten in contact with her despite Dina being physically assaulted by Ross.
It's a local news, non-event of massive, national importance depending on which characters are talking about it.
>>81482585
> At least I don't have a need to defend my imperfect lifestyle as just fine and having no need of improvement.
You certainly seem to need to defend it to multiple people on an anonymous laotian irc channel at 2 in the afternoon.
>>81482657
I'm not though. My lifestyle is imperfect. I'm not defending it.
I am a hypocrite. Now, how does being a hypocrite make my opinions wrong?
>>81482534
>So, like I said, give me one quote where I have accused you of being anything you weren't.
Wow, that's some grade A passive-aggressiveness.
This is an internet forum, and nothing we say about one another has any real weight or meaning, but I'm willing to bet that I've been a better person than most celibates.
>Doesn't make it a good thing that should be defended or should be viewed as 'nothing wrong with it'. Only important sex for society is reproductive.
What's important for society isn't what's important for people.
>Literally nothing has detrimental effects onf your life if you can 'handle the responsibility of it'.
Can I get that in writing, please?
I mean, wow... it's almost like the only things you perceive as wrong with sex are actually the products of irresponsibility and selfishness. That are actions are not inherently good or evil and it's what drives them, and what we intend to derive from them, that give them their moral color.
Interesting, that...
>Voluntary celibacy while actively working for a better world, I would argue, does make your life more beneficial to others.
A person who is sexually active and works for a better world is no less effective at doing, nor are their actions less worthwhile. If you believe either of those statements wrong, please prove it. With actual evidence.
>>81482585
>Why don't you just spend more time doing good for the world?
Because I can't spend literally all my time feeding people, or healing people, or building houses. Just as a priest or a missionary has downtime - and they do, it's impossible to function without it - so do I.
Are you going to tell me now that my downtime should be spent in prayer? That engaging in a relationship with another person is worthless?
I constantly feel the need to improve myself. I'm just wise enough to know that giving up sex won't do that, and won't really help anyone.
>>81482736
>but I'm willing to bet that I've been a better person than most celibates.
Even if you could prove you were that wouldn't mean anything. You'd have to also prove that your being a better person would be because of a lack of celibacy. That's a different issue altogether from celibacy or intense sexual conservativism being superior or inferior.
>What's important for society isn't what's important for people.
Yes it is. If it's good for society then it's good for people.
>I mean, wow... it's almost like the only things you perceive as wrong with sex are actually the products of irresponsibility and selfishness.
Exactly. Sex, when done with complete and total responsibility and lack of selfishness, would only be done for reproductive purposes.
>A person who is sexually active and works for a better world is no less effective at doing, nor are their actions less worthwhile.
Not necessarily. A non-celibate person can do more good for the world than a celibate person, but the condition of being celibate allows for more opportunity to do good for the world and is, therefore, a superior life option.
I can smoke and be healthy. That doesn't mean I won't be healthier if I don't smoke.
>>81482137
>the condition of being celibate allows for more opportunity to do good for the world and is, therefore, a superior life option.
seriously dude this isn't nearly as self-evident as you seem to think it is
>>81482850
>it's impossible to function without it
No it isn't. For you and me, it may SEEM impossible, but it's not. Let's not equate our own personal shortcomings with absolutes of human behavior.
>That engaging in a relationship with another person is worthless?
You can do this while helping others and without having sex. Relationships are constantly formed with every human interaction.
>I'm just wise enough to know that giving up sex won't do that
How will giving up sex NOT give you more opportunities for self-improvement?
>>81482850
What the fuck even are you, dude? You refuse to tell us your background and yet you go on and on about how noble your behavior is most of the time. Literally all we know about you is that you're a hypocrite and kind of a dick.
>>81482889
>You'd have to also prove that your being a better person would be because of a lack of celibacy.
I'm not saying lack of celibacy makes a person better. I'm saying it doesn't make them worse.
>Yes it is. If it's good for society then it's good for people.
'Society' is not one huge monolithic thing. Societies are individual things with arbitrary goods and evils.
>Exactly. Sex, when done with complete and total responsibility and lack of selfishness, would only be done for reproductive purposes.
Nope. That demonstrates a total lack of understanding for the functions of sex in nature. You're probably not going to budge on this, though, because you don't seem the type to really care about such norms.
>the condition of being celibate allows for more opportunity to do good for the world
It really doesn't. Doctor A, who spends his off-hours praying, and Doctor B, who spends his off-hours with his wife, do exactly the same good, assuming the same level of skill and motivation.
>>81482976
>No it isn't. For you and me, it may SEEM impossible, but it's not. Let's not equate our own personal shortcomings with absolutes of human behavior.
Hah, no. Literally no human being can function at 100% effort all the time with no rest. It is impossible.
>You can do this while helping others and without having sex. Relationships are constantly formed with every human interaction.
And having sex detracts nothing from those relationships. How is having a non-sexual relationship a more virtuous way to spend your time? Either way, you're not advancing society or helping people.
>How will giving up sex NOT give you more opportunities for self-improvement?
No, that's not the question. If you want to propose that something has tangible positive effects, you have to prove it.
How WILL sex give me more opportunities is the question. The answer, of course, is it won't, unless you believe that the mere act having sex itself is evil. In which case, there's no way we can ever agree with one another.
>>81483067
>I'm saying it doesn't make them worse.
It does. Having sex without an objective warrant to do so, like with reproduction, makes you worse.
>'Society' is not one huge monolithic thing.
A society is just an aggregate of people living together in organized community. Anything good for society is good for the people within that society, and often for people outside of that society.
>Doctor A, who spends his off-hours praying, and Doctor B, who spends his off-hours with his wife, do exactly the same good, assuming the same level of skill and motivation.
Which one's the celibate one?
>>81483049
>How noble your behavior is
I'm talking about how noble A behavior is. Not necessarily my behavior.
This whole thing began with a disagreement on Catholic doctrine. Someone claimed that the Church should allow Priests to marry, should soften their views on sexual behavior. I think it's silly to replace a notion of 'highest potential moral behavior' with 'Well, do some good things and then after that do whatever makes ya feel good, bro'.
>>81483183
>Hah, no. Literally no human being can function at 100% effort all the time with no rest. It is impossible.
Maybe not, but you can always give more than what you're giving now. The one who gives more is clearly exhibiting better behavior than the one who gives less.
>And having sex detracts nothing from those relationships
I disagree. I think fucking all of your friends would potentially detract a lot from those relationships.
>How is having a non-sexual relationship more virtuous
Because you spend less time on physical pleasure and more time on practical, useful actions and behaviors that serve definite, objective purpose.
Sex won't give you more opportunities to do good. Abstaining from sex will you more opportunities to do bad or good, and if you choose to do good then that makes celibacy the better moral position.
A purposeless action is, at worst, an evil action and, at best, a completely neutral action that benefits no one.
>>81483397
>useful actions and behaviors that serve definite, objective purpose.
>objective
>what I say is objective is objective
there you go again, now tell us which comic books are objectively good
>>81474946
The Catholic Church is against homosexuality but has said gay people should be treated with the same respect as straight people. I believe it was John Paul II that said that, two Popes before Francis.
It's the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing
>shying away from sex and proclaiming yourself a better person because of it
Disgusting.
Goodness is action, not inaction. As a person who got into their current career because I wanted to help people, I find the entire notion that there's some kind of checklist of arbitrary things that make a person innately 'good' almost evil.
Foregoing sex doesn't make your vacuous, lazy life any better. Going out and doing good deeds makes it better. I've never met a cloistered, celibate priest who did more good or saved more lives than a sexually active surgeon.
>>81483545
This slick fucker toppled multiple dictatorships. That probably saved more lives than most surgeons.
>>81483397
They're not saying to fuck your friends they're saying fucking a romantic partner will not intrinsically detract from your relationships with your friends.
>>81483545
Not the weird autist with the sex = eww platform but there's nothing inherently wrong with choosing a life of celibacy and foregoing physical needs/romance for a life of complete servitude. It's not just inherently superior to having a life WITH sex and romance. Which is why Catholic priests aren't inherently more virtuous than Episcopalian priests.
>>81483631
JP was pretty based. He had the opportunity to act well outside of the scope that most people can, though. Which is why I said "I've never met", because I've never met a Pope, whereas I have met many priests.
And his positive acts were... actions. They weren't him being inactive in some area. They were the result of him being an incredibly charismatic, powerful man.
>>81483805
Yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with it.
Proclaiming that it makes you a better person is horrendous, though. Unless you do something good with your life, your celibacy means nothing.
This thread sure is active.
>>81484029
Make more edits
>>81484117
>loose
>>81484117
God, please change REASONABLE? into something that follows from John's dialogue. It's been bothering me every time.
>>81477708
>"I'm not like other guys" is here
PERFECTION
NPERFECTIO
ONPERFECTI
IONPERFECT
TIONPERFEC
CTIONPERFE
ECTIONPERF
FECTIONPER
RFECTIONPE
ERFECTIONP
>>81478047
I remember seeing a bunch of South American Catholics get really excited that he was chosen, but I guess that's just because he's South American
>>81478745
Par for the course, really. And as >>81478801 points out, we need Cerebus' madness to really get our hackles up.
>>81479454
And who decided to let the pedophile priests in?
>tfw reading about one priest whochose deaf-mute boys to molest, because he knew they wouldn't be able to tell anyone
>he hardens their dicks for men the way he hardened the pharaoh's heart against letting the Jews go
I like your style.
>>81479577
8/10, would perv on in the gym when she's not looking and feel too intimidated to actually hit on
>>81480637
That's a reeeeally pretentious way of saying "I don't have to, and you can't make me!"
>>81481593
Sal.
>>81465575
>tfw willis makes a good joke for once
>>81485048
>joyce doesn't produce snikt bub claws
It's inferior.
People! We are missing the big issue here!
How soon until Jocelyn and Carla have a Trap-Out?
>>81485160
Jocelyn wins by default for not being a shitty person, though.
When we getting a FtM, Willis?Probably never.
>>81485228
seems like everyone forgets they exist
>>81485228
Don't worry, when Jocelyn gets his own arc, I'm sure Willis will unintentionally make him shitty.
>>81479783
>She's not close with the actual toxic people in the strip.
Her best friend is Becky.
>>81480381
That might be, if the mission in question had been to feed the homeless or something actually charitable.
As it was, it consisted solely of standing on a street corner with a sign that said "praise jeezus" for an hour or two, then a week or so of sightseeing, then a return ceremony where they all gave each other a pat on the back for what good Christians they'd been.
Point still stands. I'd like to see how honest they are when they try to preach God's love to people whose every day is a living hell, all the while sharing it. None of them are willing to pull a Job, which would be fine if they didn't make a show of being in the same league.
>>81480891
As someone who grew up in shitty Fundie culture, this comic is still retarded.
Also, I've had the bad luck to only know homos/trans/etc. who were compete nutcases. So my frame of reference for these people basically tells me they need to be locked up.
>>81480017
>Alright, well and good, so why take it to countries dominated by Christians already instead of somewhere it's a minority
Because depending on where you go, you'll get killed
>>81485228
nobody cares about female to male because you can't fetishize them.
>>81488101
Indeed. And I don't have a problem with people not wanting to take that risk; not everyone's a hero.
I do have a problem with a bunch of giggling sluts and thugs going on vacation with a token spiritual undertone, and then have the gall to feel like they belong in the ranks of people who actually have risked their lives doing what they think is best for the world as a whole.
>>81485228
>disgusting tranny
>not a terrible person
