The last one is a compliment. She’s observing that Joyce must be desirable enough/good enough at getting guys to manage to ‘pull’ a gay dude, like Joyce was just that good that even the gay guy couldn’t stay away. Which is… kind of a gross perspective to consider.
Katy
less that more “wow the dudes interested in her are hot!”
pope suburban
I read it more as Joyce has dated objectively very good looking dudes, which is fair. Ethan, arguably Jacob (Jennifer knew about all that and encouraged it), and now Joe are regarded as hotties by the cast, so yeah, Joyce does have a solid record there.
eh, whatever
There is no such thing as “objectively good-looking”. This is about Jennifer’s personal taste.
Scotch
While I want to agree with you, the existence of Henry Cavill disproves your theory.
Rose by Any other Name
@Scotch
As an admirer of Henry Cavill, I appreciate your comment.
Nymph
I don’t find Henry Cavill good looking at all, and his personality wrt women leaves a lot to be desired.
So, no, no one is objectively attractive. Maybe widely agreed upon, but not objective.
Lilith Rose
I had to look up Henry Cavill for this comment.
My immediate response was, “Wow, his looks are boring. There are people who consider that attractive? He’s not even a 4. I mean, at least he’s not a blob or sporting some hideous beard. But if you’re going objectively attractive, at least you should have Bowie in his role as Jareth in Labyrinth. He ranks at least a 7.”
Psychie
Relative to societal standards is fairly objective. If you get a statistically significant sample of people to rate a statistically significant sample of people on a scale from 1-10 on how attractive they are, you can pretty easily establish a fairly objective scale by which people can be rated. Not everyone has the same taste, in fact, for any given body type or feature, there’s somebody out there who’s into specifically that, but there are enough commonalities amongst enough people to use the societal standard as an objective scale.
It’s not especially useful when you’re *in* a relationship, since your partner’s opinion is the only one that matters there, but when you’re single and looking (or alternatively looking to exploit the advantages of being generally attractive) it can be useful to have a reasonable idea of how you stack up to the societal standard for a number of reasons. If nothing else it helps to set realistic expectations, assuming your ego will allow you to have such an objective assessment of yourself.
Being able to scale others can also be useful for factoring in other data points, like if someone who scores low on the objective scale is consistently successful with people who score high on the objective scale, that suggests they have something other than looks that makes up the difference. Conversely, if someone who scores high on the scale is consistently with people who score lower on the scale, that suggests there may be something holding them back from being successful with people higher on the scale, or they just happen to prefer traits that run counter to the societal standard, either way it’s potentially useful information for a variety of purposes.
Adept
While ”objectively sexy” doesn’t cross species barriers, it’s not an artificial construct either. Presumably the flappy bits of red skin on a rooster’s head are mad hot to a chicken.
The idea that beauty and hotness in humans would be entirely artificial and a social construct isn’t backed up by science.
Wizard
Maintaining the comb (the floppy red bits) requires high levels of testosterone, but this can weaken the rooster’s immune system. If the rooster can pump up his comb and still remain healthy then he’s clearly one badass chicken and therefor an appealing mate.
Some similar considerations apply to humans, even if not quite as obviously. Some qualities that are widely considered attractive are strongly correlated with a history of health. For instance, more symmetrical facial features are typically more appealing. This can signal genetic fitness, and it can also suggest better access to food and other resources. Overall it suggests a partner who’s more likely to help produce and raise healthy offspring, which is pretty important since human reproduction is so resource intensive.
thejeff
But there are also a lot of more socially constructed elements to human attraction. Preferences for body size/type, definitely style and decorations. All that kind of thing.
Psychie
This is why I feel using the societal standard as “objective” is appropriate, even if it isn’t necessarily biologically supported across all features, it IS sociologically and psychologically supported that people can tell how well people fit the standard and the way they treat them shifts accordingly, even when they personally aren’t attracted to them.
The halo effect is a real phenomenon that affects people across genders and sexual orientations, people just treat you better and associate all kinds of (baseless) positive traits (like honesty and intelligence) if you are conventionally attractive, regardless of what they are personally attracted to, straight men still treat better looking men better on a subconscious level, straight women still treat better looking women better on a subconscious level. I’m sure being personally attracted to someone might skew things further, but it’s far from necessary for the subconscious bias to have an impact. This is a well-documented and researched phenomenon. Hence why it is inaccurate to say there is no objective standard for beauty because that claim ignores a pretty significant chunk of reality.
That’s not to say people are wrong for having personal preferences that deviate from the norm. Individual variance is absolutely a thing, the point isn’t that the “objective standard” is unilaterally correct, but rather that it’s a matter of averages and statistics. You have far better odds that a given person you encounter will find you attractive if you fit the objective/societal standard, your life will be generally easier (in some ways, at least) if you fit the standard. These are observable, proven to exist things about human psychology and the society we live in, some of it’s biological, but a lot of it isn’t.
And like, the societal standards shift over time and from culture to culture, there are some biological truisms, like symmetry and other general signs of health, but the rest can be malleable and there are documented shifts in standards over time and across cultures. That doesn’t make them not objective, since being static and unchanging is not a fundamental component of objectivity, objectivity only requires that something be real in the absence of personal bias, which is the entire point of statistical analysis.
Taellosse
Y’all are misusing “objectively” – it doesn’t matter how widely accepted a given opinion is – even if literally no one disagrees with it, any statement consisting of a subjective evaluation cannot be “objective”.
“An inch is shorter than a yard” is objectively true. “Mozart sounds better than an air horn” is, despite being likely to garner near-universal agreement amongst any set of individuals capable of both hearing and responding to questions, is still a fundamentally subjective evaluation.
This is like the corruption of the word “literally” – there’s plenty of other adverbs to use for dramatic emphasis; leave the handful that have meanings intended to convey precision or specificity alone.
PS: And get off my lawn, ya damn kids!
Taffy
Or some people are just hot and there’s nothing you can do about it.
pope suburban
Huh. Turns out there is nowhere one is safe from a “Well, actually” would-be talking down to. That’s disappointing, though not really a surprise based on my existence on this planet as I am.
Taellosse
Despite the fact that I myself weighed in just now on the unnecessarily lengthy exercise in pedantry you unintentionally kicked off, I would just like to say your handle made me smile. Kudos on the clever wordplay there.
GreyICE
I dunno, even most straight/gay people have their “I would go X for…” person (even if it’s a joke). She seems to be saying that that’s Joyce.
Which… I mean fair.
Aviator
The funny part is, I know this is how she means it here, but my understanding is that usually, girls might not take it as a compliment for someone who is strictly attracted to men, to become attracted to the girl. Maybe that says they’re just -that hot-. But it could also imply something about their appearance that is…less flattering.
Queezle
I do not understand. Do they think it makes them less feminine?
Heartlesshealer
Yeah, that’s one of the less flattering takes on that particular kind of compliment.
Erik
cf: Heartstopper
“Did you go out with me because I look like a guy?”
“No, I stopped going out with you because you don’t.”
Nymph
cf? never seen that, would you mind letting me know what it means?
StClair
Legal citation, short for confer, which in this case means the Latin form, meaning “compare”. Closely related to “e.g.”, exemplia gratia, which is more transparently a form of “for example”/”free example”.
Aura
I’ll add to the above that it’s also used outside legal contexts and I think usually indicates that the thing being compared is analagous to the subject of discussion somehow. Kind of like ‘here’s a similar example of this thing’
Yeah, it’s a good look on her. Does wonders for her appeal. Too bad she’ll change it soon. Willis did new character portraits and got her a different look.
It occurs to me she dresses a bit like Mia Wallace. Appropriate since her (former) boyfriend is a gangster. It doesn’t bode well for the future, though. Next stop might be an OD.
That’s not even journalism. I was forced to hear like an hour of it during a recent trip to the emergency room, and literally all they did was make fun of people. They weren’t even making any points, just mocking people for saying things they disagreed with and making unnecessary remarks about their ethnicity or political alignment.
So basically, this comments section except as network TV.
Jeremiah
Hey that is not fair! Most of the people here are not blantlantly bigoted or sucking billionaires off.
Taffy
I’m gonna let “most” and “not blatantly” be the keywords.
Jeremiah
That is why I put them there.
Taffy
Then again, I never have been one for plausible deniability. If anyone feels attacked, I invite them to ask themselves why.
Needfuldoer
The Two Minutes Hate, 24/7. Gotta keep the drip feed going all the time, to keep the audience addicted to anger so they don’t notice you’re picking their pocket. (And if they notice, you can just blame the out group du jour and you’ll be off the hook!)
Michael Steamweed
Fox “News” isn’t news, either. Just incitement and propaganda.
Their defense for the Dominion lawsuit was that in spite of the name they were entertainment and Not News. I don’t think that is going to work with Smartmatic either.
214 thoughts on “Coincidence”
Doctor_Who
Jennifer walks right past Amber changing into her Amazi-Girl costume in an alleyway.
(Sudden World-Shattering Realization!)
Jennifer: “Ohhhh, Tony was into Sarah, I get it now. Well, that’s why I’m in journalism, observation skills.”
Icalasari
Nah, she’d somehow conclude Tony must be gay, then try to pair him and Ethan up because she is an expert match maker
Michael Steamweed
“Oh my god, since Tony is gay, that must mean Sarah is really a trans-girl! No wonder she’s so tall!”
Jennifer, truly a dizzying intellect.
Decidedly Orthogonal
She’s just getting warmed up!
stePH
“Wait till I get going!”
Pocky
man, even her complements are gross now
JessWitt
The back-handed one for Ethan? Or is the last one somehow a compliment?
ktbear
How is the last one NOT a compliment??
Eclipse
The last one is a compliment. She’s observing that Joyce must be desirable enough/good enough at getting guys to manage to ‘pull’ a gay dude, like Joyce was just that good that even the gay guy couldn’t stay away. Which is… kind of a gross perspective to consider.
Katy
less that more “wow the dudes interested in her are hot!”
pope suburban
I read it more as Joyce has dated objectively very good looking dudes, which is fair. Ethan, arguably Jacob (Jennifer knew about all that and encouraged it), and now Joe are regarded as hotties by the cast, so yeah, Joyce does have a solid record there.
eh, whatever
There is no such thing as “objectively good-looking”. This is about Jennifer’s personal taste.
Scotch
While I want to agree with you, the existence of Henry Cavill disproves your theory.
Rose by Any other Name
@Scotch
As an admirer of Henry Cavill, I appreciate your comment.
Nymph
I don’t find Henry Cavill good looking at all, and his personality wrt women leaves a lot to be desired.
So, no, no one is objectively attractive. Maybe widely agreed upon, but not objective.
Lilith Rose
I had to look up Henry Cavill for this comment.
My immediate response was, “Wow, his looks are boring. There are people who consider that attractive? He’s not even a 4. I mean, at least he’s not a blob or sporting some hideous beard. But if you’re going objectively attractive, at least you should have Bowie in his role as Jareth in Labyrinth. He ranks at least a 7.”
Psychie
Relative to societal standards is fairly objective. If you get a statistically significant sample of people to rate a statistically significant sample of people on a scale from 1-10 on how attractive they are, you can pretty easily establish a fairly objective scale by which people can be rated. Not everyone has the same taste, in fact, for any given body type or feature, there’s somebody out there who’s into specifically that, but there are enough commonalities amongst enough people to use the societal standard as an objective scale.
It’s not especially useful when you’re *in* a relationship, since your partner’s opinion is the only one that matters there, but when you’re single and looking (or alternatively looking to exploit the advantages of being generally attractive) it can be useful to have a reasonable idea of how you stack up to the societal standard for a number of reasons. If nothing else it helps to set realistic expectations, assuming your ego will allow you to have such an objective assessment of yourself.
Being able to scale others can also be useful for factoring in other data points, like if someone who scores low on the objective scale is consistently successful with people who score high on the objective scale, that suggests they have something other than looks that makes up the difference. Conversely, if someone who scores high on the scale is consistently with people who score lower on the scale, that suggests there may be something holding them back from being successful with people higher on the scale, or they just happen to prefer traits that run counter to the societal standard, either way it’s potentially useful information for a variety of purposes.
Adept
While ”objectively sexy” doesn’t cross species barriers, it’s not an artificial construct either. Presumably the flappy bits of red skin on a rooster’s head are mad hot to a chicken.
The idea that beauty and hotness in humans would be entirely artificial and a social construct isn’t backed up by science.
Wizard
Maintaining the comb (the floppy red bits) requires high levels of testosterone, but this can weaken the rooster’s immune system. If the rooster can pump up his comb and still remain healthy then he’s clearly one badass chicken and therefor an appealing mate.
Some similar considerations apply to humans, even if not quite as obviously. Some qualities that are widely considered attractive are strongly correlated with a history of health. For instance, more symmetrical facial features are typically more appealing. This can signal genetic fitness, and it can also suggest better access to food and other resources. Overall it suggests a partner who’s more likely to help produce and raise healthy offspring, which is pretty important since human reproduction is so resource intensive.
thejeff
But there are also a lot of more socially constructed elements to human attraction. Preferences for body size/type, definitely style and decorations. All that kind of thing.
Psychie
This is why I feel using the societal standard as “objective” is appropriate, even if it isn’t necessarily biologically supported across all features, it IS sociologically and psychologically supported that people can tell how well people fit the standard and the way they treat them shifts accordingly, even when they personally aren’t attracted to them.
The halo effect is a real phenomenon that affects people across genders and sexual orientations, people just treat you better and associate all kinds of (baseless) positive traits (like honesty and intelligence) if you are conventionally attractive, regardless of what they are personally attracted to, straight men still treat better looking men better on a subconscious level, straight women still treat better looking women better on a subconscious level. I’m sure being personally attracted to someone might skew things further, but it’s far from necessary for the subconscious bias to have an impact. This is a well-documented and researched phenomenon. Hence why it is inaccurate to say there is no objective standard for beauty because that claim ignores a pretty significant chunk of reality.
That’s not to say people are wrong for having personal preferences that deviate from the norm. Individual variance is absolutely a thing, the point isn’t that the “objective standard” is unilaterally correct, but rather that it’s a matter of averages and statistics. You have far better odds that a given person you encounter will find you attractive if you fit the objective/societal standard, your life will be generally easier (in some ways, at least) if you fit the standard. These are observable, proven to exist things about human psychology and the society we live in, some of it’s biological, but a lot of it isn’t.
And like, the societal standards shift over time and from culture to culture, there are some biological truisms, like symmetry and other general signs of health, but the rest can be malleable and there are documented shifts in standards over time and across cultures. That doesn’t make them not objective, since being static and unchanging is not a fundamental component of objectivity, objectivity only requires that something be real in the absence of personal bias, which is the entire point of statistical analysis.
Taellosse
Y’all are misusing “objectively” – it doesn’t matter how widely accepted a given opinion is – even if literally no one disagrees with it, any statement consisting of a subjective evaluation cannot be “objective”.
“An inch is shorter than a yard” is objectively true. “Mozart sounds better than an air horn” is, despite being likely to garner near-universal agreement amongst any set of individuals capable of both hearing and responding to questions, is still a fundamentally subjective evaluation.
This is like the corruption of the word “literally” – there’s plenty of other adverbs to use for dramatic emphasis; leave the handful that have meanings intended to convey precision or specificity alone.
PS: And get off my lawn, ya damn kids!
Taffy
Or some people are just hot and there’s nothing you can do about it.
pope suburban
Huh. Turns out there is nowhere one is safe from a “Well, actually” would-be talking down to. That’s disappointing, though not really a surprise based on my existence on this planet as I am.
Taellosse
Despite the fact that I myself weighed in just now on the unnecessarily lengthy exercise in pedantry you unintentionally kicked off, I would just like to say your handle made me smile. Kudos on the clever wordplay there.
GreyICE
I dunno, even most straight/gay people have their “I would go X for…” person (even if it’s a joke). She seems to be saying that that’s Joyce.
Which… I mean fair.
Aviator
The funny part is, I know this is how she means it here, but my understanding is that usually, girls might not take it as a compliment for someone who is strictly attracted to men, to become attracted to the girl. Maybe that says they’re just -that hot-. But it could also imply something about their appearance that is…less flattering.
Queezle
I do not understand. Do they think it makes them less feminine?
Heartlesshealer
Yeah, that’s one of the less flattering takes on that particular kind of compliment.
Erik
cf: Heartstopper
“Did you go out with me because I look like a guy?”
“No, I stopped going out with you because you don’t.”
Nymph
cf? never seen that, would you mind letting me know what it means?
StClair
Legal citation, short for confer, which in this case means the Latin form, meaning “compare”. Closely related to “e.g.”, exemplia gratia, which is more transparently a form of “for example”/”free example”.
Aura
I’ll add to the above that it’s also used outside legal contexts and I think usually indicates that the thing being compared is analagous to the subject of discussion somehow. Kind of like ‘here’s a similar example of this thing’
shadowcell
Dumbing of Age Book 15: Wow, Joyce Pulls, Actually
Michael Steamweed
I’m voting for “Dumbing of Age Book 15: Sudden World-Shattering Realization”.
But only if the book cover keeps that fiery font.
Nono
Jennifer: wait… that means Joe is only into dudes!
Furie
Just laughed my dog off my lap at that. She’s miffed. I’m not. I wanted a coffee anyway.
Mike
Was “Joyce pulls, actually” the other name for the Patreon comic?
Proxiehunter
Sounds more like a Slipshine than a Patreon comic.
Ray
Naw, that’d be “Joyce TUGS, actually”
Chaucer59
If it were for Slipshine, it would have to be Joyce Tugs, Actually—wouldn’t it?
Michael Steamweed
“Joyce pulls, actually.”
“Joyce pulls Joe, actually.”
“Joyce pulls jobs on Joe, actually.”
hatman
GASP! Are you trying to say that……… Joyce is a JOBBER!?
Wizard
That doesn’t work for me, brother.
Lee
Laughed and woke the cat. Not sure why this tickled me so much but thank you ?
Needfuldoer
Four minutes past midnight and you already won the comments for the day.
Sirksome
And nothing important was lost.
Wendy
I gotta say, Jennifer’s Akane-esque hair endears her to me even when she’s being an oblivious asshole.
Thomas
Yeah, it’s a good look on her. Does wonders for her appeal. Too bad she’ll change it soon. Willis did new character portraits and got her a different look.
Needfuldoer
The extra cowlick near her forehead works, but I think it’s still too short to make a ponytail.
Leadsynth
She looks real rough in that character portrait. Ruth’s looks a little rough, too.
Thomas
It occurs to me she dresses a bit like Mia Wallace. Appropriate since her (former) boyfriend is a gangster. It doesn’t bode well for the future, though. Next stop might be an OD.
Kyrik Michalowski
Trying to wrap my head around the logic in the alt-text made my head hurt; so thanks for that?
Billie/Jennifer is concerning me; that she is so far in her own head can’t be healthy.
Coatl
This is too early, but I think this could be a prelude to something not pleasant.
Chaucer59
Well, it’s Jennifer, so—duh.
Clif
Don’t worry about the alt-text. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
reed
well, you can push a horse into a lake..
MM
I’m not sure thirstiness is the issue here.
Michael Steamweed
Part of her issue is thirst, yes. Another part is stubbornness. Yet another part is cluelessness.
Deanatay
But is it a gift horse?
Sloegin
Part savant, but all idiot.
Acebender
Is Jennifer sure she wants to do journalism?
Jeremiah
She do numbers on fox news!
Dante
It’s legit the only way I can see her career working, at NO POINT we’ve ever seen her be good at it sdgkljsdk
NGPZ
TMZ as well, given how much she likes to pester people 9-9
Taffy
That’s not even journalism. I was forced to hear like an hour of it during a recent trip to the emergency room, and literally all they did was make fun of people. They weren’t even making any points, just mocking people for saying things they disagreed with and making unnecessary remarks about their ethnicity or political alignment.
So basically, this comments section except as network TV.
Jeremiah
Hey that is not fair! Most of the people here are not blantlantly bigoted or sucking billionaires off.
Taffy
I’m gonna let “most” and “not blatantly” be the keywords.
Jeremiah
That is why I put them there.
Taffy
Then again, I never have been one for plausible deniability. If anyone feels attacked, I invite them to ask themselves why.
Needfuldoer
The Two Minutes Hate, 24/7. Gotta keep the drip feed going all the time, to keep the audience addicted to anger so they don’t notice you’re picking their pocket. (And if they notice, you can just blame the out group du jour and you’ll be off the hook!)
Michael Steamweed
Fox “News” isn’t news, either. Just incitement and propaganda.
Opus the Poet
Their defense for the Dominion lawsuit was that in spite of the name they were entertainment and Not News. I don’t think that is going to work with Smartmatic either.