[2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by GUTCHUCKER » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:09 pm

I'm enjoying myself. I will take your criticism on board, however.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Apocalyptus » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:55 am

Come on mate, you seem to be getting a bit directive of how other people should be conducting themselves in this discussion, which while aquiring a sarcastic tone is still staying pretty darn civil.
If you personally think it's a non issue, great, you can ignore the thread or just skim it or whatever.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by GUTCHUCKER » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:48 am

DonRetrasado wrote:Do you hate seeing gay people?


DonRetrasado wrote:I just thought it was strange that they didn't like to see gay people. Maybe they find them immoral, or that they shouldn't exist in media. If that's your opinion, then you probably wouldn't like SMBC.


Good one. You have an amazing deadpan. I could almost have believed that you were dead serious. Also, if you're tired of having this discussion then... don't?

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Kaharz » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:37 pm

Pigpooballs.jpg

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by DonRetrasado » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:21 pm

I'm making fun of them because I'm tired of having this discussion you goof

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by GUTCHUCKER » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:50 pm

DonRetrasado wrote:So not only is it ridiculous to get upset at how many gay couples there are in SMBC (who goes to a pride parade and thinks "TOO MANY GAYS"?), it's also a nonsense claim because there really aren't that many gay couples in SMBC.

There's a really strange pattern of people reading SMBC, getting upset about having to look at The Gays, and then complaining about it on the forums for no good reason.


There's also a subset of people who seem to be pointing this out every time I grace a latest comic discussion thread with my presence. Excellent, looks like everyone's pattern-recognition processes are in order. I think you fellas should calm down, you're getting awfully defensive over a non-issue. Of course, it's a non-issue for both sides of the argument, but DR is obviously escalating. Calm your tits, mate.
This thread should really have been capped off at:

Yes, because comics on the internet are supposed to be perfect representations of our society. Who cares?

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by DonRetrasado » Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:47 pm

Kaharz's actual serious response is good but I'll add that someone actually counted the number of homosexual couples in a year-long time window of SMBC:

Francois wrote:Not giving a fuck + time to waste = data

Here we go (from April 19 2015 to june 05 2016)

Couple, on a date, or some weird sex shit

Hétéro: 42
Homo: 8
Homo in simulated reallity: 2
Otter people: 1
Alien: 3
All characters from star wars at the same time: 1
Unseen people and a spoon: 1
BDSM threesome with two politicians: 1
Pinocchio:1

Family:

Hétéro couple with children: 17
Homo couple with children: 0
Dad with children: 28
Mom with children: 17
Mom with kid and children: 1
Satanist aunt with children: 1

So not only is it ridiculous to get upset at how many gay couples there are in SMBC (who goes to a pride parade and thinks "TOO MANY GAYS"?), it's also a nonsense claim because there really aren't that many gay couples in SMBC.

There's a really strange pattern of people reading SMBC, getting upset about having to look at The Gays, and then complaining about it on the forums for no good reason.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Kit. » Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:48 pm

Voice of Raisin wrote:It's a legit observation. No, SMBC doesn't have to reflect reality,

I don't know about your reality, but here on Earth there is more sex between different species than between different genders.

If we count bacteria, of course.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Kaharz » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:40 pm

I don't see how there being more gay or interacial couples detracts. It is still obvious they are romantic partners. If they weren't, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I also don't see how an aversion to homosexual relationships is an evolutionary response. I'm pretty sure it is based on social mores and not some evolved biological mechanism. Intercourse between same sex mammals is not exactly unheard of. There is a drive to reproduce, but having sex that won't lead to reproduction is not actually maladaptive. Especially in a species that derives pleasure from the act, is fertile year round, and has evolved a very resource intensive method for gestating, birthing, and raising young that naturally limits the amount of offspring that can be successfully brought to maturity. More gay men just means there is less competition for me. As a heterosexual male I should be 'repulsed' by homosexual women since I can not reproduce with them and not care at all about homosexual men. Evolution also doesn't lead to perfectly efficient adaptations, it just leads to ones that are good enough.

As far as the virtue signalling, meh. There are many possible reasons that Zach chooses to 'over represent' homosexual couples besides 'hey look how progressive I am.' You are assuming it is virtue signalling. Perhaps he over represents because most media under represents. Or maybe Zach just has a lot of gay friends. Maybe he picks at random. Maybe it is just more fun for him to draw gay couples. Even if it is virtue signalling, there is nothing wrong with signalling your values. Almost everyone does it because almost everyone wants to be included in groups they identify with and want to surround themselves with people who have values similar to theirs.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by DonRetrasado » Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:10 am

zambob wrote:Hmm, I thought the comic had a high number of gay couples and non-white people because Zach basically throws a dart at a dartboard to determine sex and ethnicity of each character.

I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Well you see it's a totally natural physiological reaction to feel overwhelming waves of nausea at having to see two gay people in the same room, apparently

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by zambob » Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:59 am

Hmm, I thought the comic had a high number of gay couples and non-white people because Zach basically throws a dart at a dartboard to determine sex and ethnicity of each character.

I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Lethal Interjection » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:22 am

Voice of Raisin wrote:It's a legit observation. No, SMBC doesn't have to reflect reality, but as with all representational art, there's a reasonable expectation that it does--unless the deviation from reality is made explicit and given focus. Normally, when SMBC features absurd or surreal elements their deviation from reality is precisely the point and it's at least part of what makes the comic funny or interesting.

So when Zach makes a huge portion of his couples gay but that ISN'T the joke, it just comes off as trying too hard to be inclusive, a.k.a. virtue signaling ("look how non-homophobic I am"). This is a thought I had a while ago and I'm glad other people did too. Virtue signalling is annoying and gets in the way of the comic.

BTW, it's not weird or wrong for a straight person to be a little repulsed by depictions of gay sex. It's a natural evolved response and it doesn't mean the straight person hates gay people or anything of the sort. If you're looking for witches to burn, the SMBC forum probably isn't the place to find them.


Does it, though? Does making SMBC inclusive, as you say, really get in the way of the comic? Or is it just your brand of normativity that stands in the way of the comic? And maybe it isn't 'weird' that this might prove a distraction but maybe that 'evolved' response isn't really as progressive as you think it is.
I'll agree that that SMBC is probably not best place to find witches to burn, but that doesn't mean that there aren't posters who aren't in need of correction. Because even with Zach's above-average inclusivity, there remain those that call it out with regularity. Witches will always come around. Sometimes they might even suggest that homophobia is a natural evolutionary response.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by DonRetrasado » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:29 pm

Image
Spicy as this is, if you're repulsed by this hot hot action, your "natural evolved responses" will probably not make you robust enough to save you from our incredibly gay earth.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Voice of Raisin » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:15 pm

Image

It's a legit observation. No, SMBC doesn't have to reflect reality, but as with all representational art, there's a reasonable expectation that it does--unless the deviation from reality is made explicit and given focus. Normally, when SMBC features absurd or surreal elements their deviation from reality is precisely the point and it's at least part of what makes the comic funny or interesting.

So when Zach makes a huge portion of his couples gay but that ISN'T the joke, it just comes off as trying too hard to be inclusive, a.k.a. virtue signaling ("look how non-homophobic I am"). This is a thought I had a while ago and I'm glad other people did too. Virtue signalling is annoying and gets in the way of the comic.

BTW, it's not weird or wrong for a straight person to be a little repulsed by depictions of gay sex. It's a natural evolved response and it doesn't mean the straight person hates gay people or anything of the sort. If you're looking for witches to burn, the SMBC forum probably isn't the place to find them.

Re: [2016-09-26] Rough Sex

Post by Kaharz » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:00 am

The robots are stealing our medications!

Top