you can’t take three from two two is less than three so you look at the four in the tens’ place
Needfuldoer
How could they change math?! Math is MATH!
BarerMender
Math is a collection of methods. Sometimes more than one method works.
Furie
Look up “Steiner Math”.
Lilith Rose
I always found that argument funny, because I’ve read up on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and have worked in non-euclidian geometry and discrete mathematics.
And one thing I can say for certain about math is: Nothing is certain.
Seriously, not even 1+1=2 is certain.
For example, in discrete math, it’s math for ‘things that loop’, and so the numbers loop… so like if your minimum number is 0 and your maximum number is 36, 35+3 is 1. Technically, you can set the maximum at 1 (this would be like doing the math for a blinking diode). At which point 1 + 1 = 0.
And you pull in non-euclidian geometry, there’s a lot of variations where, depending on the initial rules you set down, you can make 1 + 1 = [Pretty much whatever your heart desires.]
And if you’re the type who obsesses over “what’s real” with math, like some dirty physicist, well, there’s pretty solid evidence that spacetime itself is non-euclidan and we don’t know WHAT the base metrics for it are.
In high school they just teach on one family of math, Euclidian. In college you learn, “ha ha ha, everything you learned before now? That was a joke.”
You get fun stuff like parallel lines intersecting (non-euclidean geometry), infinities bigger than other infinities (aleph 2), dividing by zero being a normal every day thing (Calculus has entered the chat), 1+1=0 (Discrete math says hi), cups without holes (Topology coughs nervously), math that looks more like philosophy than math (Set Theory glances around nervously), philosophy that looks more like math than philosophy (Logic is feeling called out), math that is primarily used to lie (Statistics tries to hides it face), and much, much more.
But common core? That’s not a different kind of math. It’s the same math as ever. It’s just arithmetic. Only difference is that it’s teaching how to do short division instead of long division (as well as the short version of everything else). It’s a little harder to grasp at first, but once you learn it, you can do math in your head MUCH faster.
Steamweed
“[L]ike some dirty physicist” Hahahaha! (much LOL!)
I’m no physicist, myself, being an old English major. But I’m a big fanboy.
I’m most amused at the sight of mathematicians and physicists throwing shade at each other.
(why, yes, i do read smbc; why do you ask?) π
Biblioholic93
Non-euclidian just means geometry on a curved surface, of course the universe is non-euclidian, we only have a single horror writer who hated math slightly more than minorities to thank for “non-euclidian” being a word for OH GOD WHAT IS THAT THING DOING
Chubseus
βHooray for new math
New-hoo-hoo math!
It won’t do you a bit of good to review math
It’s so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it!β ~ Tom Lehrer, New Math
Olofa
IUnderstoodThatReference.jpg
Steamweed
Oohhh. I get it. Shucks, I was using base-8 for the tens unit and base-12 for the ones unit. (’cause base-8 and base-12 average out to base-10, see?) Heck, I was doing it wrong.
No, pan isn’t on the kinsey scale, not enough axes. Complex would be closer but still not enough and the idea that anything outside the 0 to 6 is imaginary doesn’t make that any better.
Bisexuality is only 2 – 4, anything below 2 or above 4 is just “incidental” and not identifying. 0.5 means you’ve never touched or been touched intimately by someone of your gender, and you haven’t wanted to. Since Kinsey score is generally associated with fluidity, there’s always room to slide in between.
Li
If you want to get technical, bisexuality isn’t on the Kinsey scale, either, since it’s a measurement of your sexual activity with the only two genders Kinsey was acknowledging. It’s not 0=straight, 3=bi, 6=gay. It’s 0=you’ve only had sexual encounters with “””the opposite””” gender, 6=you’ve only had sexual encounters with “the same” gender, 3 for equal amounts of both, X for no sexual encounters with anyone.
Also bi does not mean you’re only attracted to two genders and it’s not inherently transphobic, anymore than straight or gay are inherently transphobic.
Bi has meant “attraction to more than one” gender since at least the Bi Manifesto was published in 1990, and it’s always included nonbinary and trans folks. It’s fine to prefer pan as a label for oneself, and certainly it is sometimes used by folks to explicitly signal their interest in and validation of nonbinary genders, but only bi people get to define bisexuality, period.
BarerMender
People who study these things are now saying the range isn’t from straight on one end to gay on the other. The range is from straight or gay on one end to bi on the other. I don’t remember where I got this, and I didn’t see the rationale.
Li
How you label the axes doesn’t really address my point, though, which is that Kinsey’s original scale was measuring homosexual versus heterosexual behavior, not measuring anybody’s identities, and didn’t take nonbinary or intersex people into account even as objects of potential sexual interest, much less as subjects whose expressed sexual interest could further throw off the simplistic scale.
I’m not saying 0-6 aren’t useful for some people, mind you. Especially as kind of a baby step to introducing the idea of fluidity and spectrums. I’m just saying that if Risky is going to argue that pan people aren’t on the scale, we have to also acknowledge that bi people aren’t really on the scale, either.
No one is, because it’s never been about your sexual orientation, only about your sexual behavior (because that’s easier to measure).
Aus
I’ve never seen the 0-6 scale as being meant to be taken too literally anyway. Not in the sense that anyone who’s a 5 is precisely-less-gay than a 6.
Li
And in that sense I have no problem with it, for real.
idk the “pan isn’t on the scale because it would need more axes” claim really got to me, it only makes sense if you’ve got a very narrow definition of bi, one which bi activists have been fighting against since like… forever.
AK
Honestly if I had to guess the rationale probably looks something like at one end we have strict preference for sex characteristics and/or gender presentation and at the far other end we have no sex characteristics or gender presentation based preferences full stop, with most people in between. It does feel intuitive to me that absent cultural stuff the monosexuality to pansexuality spectrum feels more relevant than what genders the monosexuality is pointed at.
Unrelated tangent, it’s eternally frustrating that the words we use for this stuff are based on the similarity or difference of your gender to the partner’s gender. Why does my sexuality change if I trans my gender if who I’m attracted to has not changed at all? Language is stupid.
Li
This kinda thing is why so many of us eventually just go “fuck it I’m queer”. When your gender starts going sideways, but your attraction to everyone still feels just as gay as it ever did, the descriptive utility of them for your feelings gets increasingly questionable.
Which isn’t to say everybody ALWAYS winds up identifying as queer or that other labels are bad or less useful for everyone, etc etc. Plenty of people instead expand the definition of a given label and that’s absolutely an equally valid strategy.
It’s the same thing that gave us the pan / bi divide in the first place, really: some multisexual folks went, “I need a new word that includes the full spectrum of human gender,” and other mutlisexual people went, “I need to reclaim this word society imposed on me and redefine it so that it includes the full spectrum of human gender,” and both strategies are fine actually.
Disastroid
The pans need a lot of medieval weaponry, I guess.
Steamweed
I dated a pansexual once. Can confirm they need (and have) a lot of medieval weaponry.
Amara
Not that Iβd ever police anybodyβs self identifications. But if weβre talking about definitions, then:
There is no functional difference between pansexuality and bisexuality. And I say this as someone who used to identify as pan like 18 years ago. Any differences are so minute that they might as well not exist. Because no two people experience attraction in exactly the same way. So trying to make some official sounding objective explanation of differences is ultimately meaningless.
Yumi
Interesting. I always found the standard definitions– pan being “attraction regardless of gender” and bi being “attraction to two or more genders” to be… pretty understandably different. Like, I understand there are similarities, and anyone’s actual subjective experience is theirs alone to describe. It just doesn’t seem “so minute that they might as well not exist” from the definitions.
This might be useful for you. Another famous definition of bisexuality was the one offered by Robyn Ochs, aka The Mother of Pride, who described her own bisexuality as: “the potential to be attractedβromantically and/or sexuallyβto people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”
Some folks have definitely tried to carve out exclusive definitions so that bi means being attracted to fewer genders than pan, but mmmooooostly I’ve heard that from:
a.) crypto TERFs trying to sew discord and get bi and pan people to fight over which label is “better” (by for example making “PSA” posts where they pretend to be a trans-inclusive biphobic pan person and say stuff like “remember, only pansexuals are attracted to nonbinary people!”) (or vice-versa, where they pose as panphobic bi people, and try to argue that you can’t be attracted to nonbinary people without fetishizing them)
b.) young pan people who have been sucked in by the above arguments, or who are insecure in the validity of their own label, so they try to define bi as smaller than it is in order to make room for pan
c.) transphobic bi people who want to pretend that the bi label somehow means “attraction only to cis men and cis women, the only two genders”
Mainstream bi orgs and bi activists, meanwhile, always seem to have much broader definitions to reflect the fact that there are more than two genders and that bi is not and has never been binary.
thejeff
I don’t think you’re really disagreeing? The Robyn Ochs definition at least is basically a longer version of the one Yumi gave.
And there’s nothing in Yumi’s two definitions that even implies bi applies to fewer genders than pan does.
Li
@thejeff: If it doesn’t seem like I’m disagreeing with Yumi, then I really failed to express myself. Fair enough.
My objection is basically this:
Bi people didn’t create the term bisexual. It was created to describe non-human organisms like plants or earthworms. It was a synonym for a word I don’t even want to type because it’s also used as a slur for intersex people. That is where the “two” comes from.
There have been plenty of attempts to rehabilitate that two, to justify it, whether as “same and different” or as “two or more” β but not all bi people want the two in there. Most bi orgs reject it. Plenty of bi people consider “regardless of gender” to also describe them.
So, again I ask: standard definitions according to whom? If bi orgs and bi activists don’t get to be the source for a “standard” definition of bisexuality, who does?
(Pansexual is also a reclaimed identity, for the record. It was coined to describe hypersexual people, derogatorily! Almost all of our identity words have this type of origin. ?)
just use a black sharpie to draw nipples on your buttcheeks
cain
With Danny’s skin tone, black nipples would be slightly concerning. For like skin cancer or something. He should find a brown or pink sharpie.
VicMortimer
That depends on how big the bra is. If my girlfriend wore bras, I could probably do it. Never tried with my FWB, but probably could if I tried. They’ve both got pretty huge boobies.
He knows she’s a perfectionist in everything she does. No way she’ll be just a 0.5 or 1.0 Ultimately she’ll achieve 6.0 status, so halfway there is 3.0. But she hasn’t had time yet to get halfway to her realizations. So, yeah, 2.0 to 2.5 is a good start. Easy calculations. It’s just math. π
They reek of school friends who were middle to low popular, and when puberty hit, they just hooked up. Joe was probably Danny’s social anchor, while Dottie got mean girl’ed because she was a lisa simpson.
Weirdly enough, this interaction has me wondering if Dorothy/Joyce is going to even happen, or painful heartbreaking lesson for Dorothy. Also I’m amazed this plotline is still happening and hasn’t been shuffled to come back to in 5 months.
197 thoughts on “Clear now”
Ana Chronistic
check your hearing, Danno
it’s 27
Steamweed
Going outside the range of 1-6? Must be that “new math” stuff I hear about. Or maybe that “common core” stuff. (i’m always mixing this stuff up.)
Qube
you can’t take three from two two is less than three so you look at the four in the tens’ place
Needfuldoer
How could they change math?! Math is MATH!
BarerMender
Math is a collection of methods. Sometimes more than one method works.
Furie
Look up “Steiner Math”.
Lilith Rose
I always found that argument funny, because I’ve read up on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and have worked in non-euclidian geometry and discrete mathematics.
And one thing I can say for certain about math is: Nothing is certain.
Seriously, not even 1+1=2 is certain.
For example, in discrete math, it’s math for ‘things that loop’, and so the numbers loop… so like if your minimum number is 0 and your maximum number is 36, 35+3 is 1. Technically, you can set the maximum at 1 (this would be like doing the math for a blinking diode). At which point 1 + 1 = 0.
And you pull in non-euclidian geometry, there’s a lot of variations where, depending on the initial rules you set down, you can make 1 + 1 = [Pretty much whatever your heart desires.]
And if you’re the type who obsesses over “what’s real” with math, like some dirty physicist, well, there’s pretty solid evidence that spacetime itself is non-euclidan and we don’t know WHAT the base metrics for it are.
In high school they just teach on one family of math, Euclidian. In college you learn, “ha ha ha, everything you learned before now? That was a joke.”
You get fun stuff like parallel lines intersecting (non-euclidean geometry), infinities bigger than other infinities (aleph 2), dividing by zero being a normal every day thing (Calculus has entered the chat), 1+1=0 (Discrete math says hi), cups without holes (Topology coughs nervously), math that looks more like philosophy than math (Set Theory glances around nervously), philosophy that looks more like math than philosophy (Logic is feeling called out), math that is primarily used to lie (Statistics tries to hides it face), and much, much more.
But common core? That’s not a different kind of math. It’s the same math as ever. It’s just arithmetic. Only difference is that it’s teaching how to do short division instead of long division (as well as the short version of everything else). It’s a little harder to grasp at first, but once you learn it, you can do math in your head MUCH faster.
Steamweed
“[L]ike some dirty physicist” Hahahaha! (much LOL!)
I’m no physicist, myself, being an old English major. But I’m a big fanboy.
I’m most amused at the sight of mathematicians and physicists throwing shade at each other.
(why, yes, i do read smbc; why do you ask?) π
Biblioholic93
Non-euclidian just means geometry on a curved surface, of course the universe is non-euclidian, we only have a single horror writer who hated math slightly more than minorities to thank for “non-euclidian” being a word for OH GOD WHAT IS THAT THING DOING
Chubseus
βHooray for new math
New-hoo-hoo math!
It won’t do you a bit of good to review math
It’s so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it!β ~ Tom Lehrer, New Math
Olofa
IUnderstoodThatReference.jpg
Steamweed
Oohhh. I get it. Shucks, I was using base-8 for the tens unit and base-12 for the ones unit. (’cause base-8 and base-12 average out to base-10, see?) Heck, I was doing it wrong.
Matthew Davis
I got it π
VicMortimer
Somebody say “New Math?”
Deanatay
Nonono. That would suggest sheβs more lesbian than Becky, and you donβt want to see what kind of rampage Becky would go on if she heard that.
Casi
Dina would not survive that rampage
thejeff
Yeah, Becky’s only like 24 or 25.
Dorothy’s nowhere near that lesbian. Probably only 10 or so.
anon
i wonder how much math she had to calculate for that tho feels like 2.7 might be a bit more honest or so or higher XD
Steamweed
“The panic tells me you’re at LEAST two!”
darkoneko
two point five
Steamweed
I thought bisexuality has only integers between 1 and 6. While pansexuality has all the floating numbers?
marcus erronius
Pansexuality is on the complex plane. I’m 4.5+3i.
Freezer
I think you have to break out the irrational numbers for pansexuality.
Steamweed
I know several pansexuals. Can confirm they’re irrational.
Andy
No need to over complicate the scale, I’d argue pansexuality is every number on the scale simultaneously.
Steamweed
So pansexuality is a quantum superposition of sexualities?
Steamweed
Pft. You’re imagining that.
Opus the Poet
0 to 6, as explained in the comic linked yesterday
Risky
No, pan isn’t on the kinsey scale, not enough axes. Complex would be closer but still not enough and the idea that anything outside the 0 to 6 is imaginary doesn’t make that any better.
Bisexuality is only 2 – 4, anything below 2 or above 4 is just “incidental” and not identifying. 0.5 means you’ve never touched or been touched intimately by someone of your gender, and you haven’t wanted to. Since Kinsey score is generally associated with fluidity, there’s always room to slide in between.
Li
If you want to get technical, bisexuality isn’t on the Kinsey scale, either, since it’s a measurement of your sexual activity with the only two genders Kinsey was acknowledging. It’s not 0=straight, 3=bi, 6=gay. It’s 0=you’ve only had sexual encounters with “””the opposite””” gender, 6=you’ve only had sexual encounters with “the same” gender, 3 for equal amounts of both, X for no sexual encounters with anyone.
Also bi does not mean you’re only attracted to two genders and it’s not inherently transphobic, anymore than straight or gay are inherently transphobic.
Bi has meant “attraction to more than one” gender since at least the Bi Manifesto was published in 1990, and it’s always included nonbinary and trans folks. It’s fine to prefer pan as a label for oneself, and certainly it is sometimes used by folks to explicitly signal their interest in and validation of nonbinary genders, but only bi people get to define bisexuality, period.
BarerMender
People who study these things are now saying the range isn’t from straight on one end to gay on the other. The range is from straight or gay on one end to bi on the other. I don’t remember where I got this, and I didn’t see the rationale.
Li
How you label the axes doesn’t really address my point, though, which is that Kinsey’s original scale was measuring homosexual versus heterosexual behavior, not measuring anybody’s identities, and didn’t take nonbinary or intersex people into account even as objects of potential sexual interest, much less as subjects whose expressed sexual interest could further throw off the simplistic scale.
I’m not saying 0-6 aren’t useful for some people, mind you. Especially as kind of a baby step to introducing the idea of fluidity and spectrums. I’m just saying that if Risky is going to argue that pan people aren’t on the scale, we have to also acknowledge that bi people aren’t really on the scale, either.
No one is, because it’s never been about your sexual orientation, only about your sexual behavior (because that’s easier to measure).
Aus
I’ve never seen the 0-6 scale as being meant to be taken too literally anyway. Not in the sense that anyone who’s a 5 is precisely-less-gay than a 6.
Li
And in that sense I have no problem with it, for real.
idk the “pan isn’t on the scale because it would need more axes” claim really got to me, it only makes sense if you’ve got a very narrow definition of bi, one which bi activists have been fighting against since like… forever.
AK
Honestly if I had to guess the rationale probably looks something like at one end we have strict preference for sex characteristics and/or gender presentation and at the far other end we have no sex characteristics or gender presentation based preferences full stop, with most people in between. It does feel intuitive to me that absent cultural stuff the monosexuality to pansexuality spectrum feels more relevant than what genders the monosexuality is pointed at.
Unrelated tangent, it’s eternally frustrating that the words we use for this stuff are based on the similarity or difference of your gender to the partner’s gender. Why does my sexuality change if I trans my gender if who I’m attracted to has not changed at all? Language is stupid.
Li
This kinda thing is why so many of us eventually just go “fuck it I’m queer”. When your gender starts going sideways, but your attraction to everyone still feels just as gay as it ever did, the descriptive utility of them for your feelings gets increasingly questionable.
Which isn’t to say everybody ALWAYS winds up identifying as queer or that other labels are bad or less useful for everyone, etc etc. Plenty of people instead expand the definition of a given label and that’s absolutely an equally valid strategy.
It’s the same thing that gave us the pan / bi divide in the first place, really: some multisexual folks went, “I need a new word that includes the full spectrum of human gender,” and other mutlisexual people went, “I need to reclaim this word society imposed on me and redefine it so that it includes the full spectrum of human gender,” and both strategies are fine actually.
Disastroid
The pans need a lot of medieval weaponry, I guess.
Steamweed
I dated a pansexual once. Can confirm they need (and have) a lot of medieval weaponry.
Amara
Not that Iβd ever police anybodyβs self identifications. But if weβre talking about definitions, then:
There is no functional difference between pansexuality and bisexuality. And I say this as someone who used to identify as pan like 18 years ago. Any differences are so minute that they might as well not exist. Because no two people experience attraction in exactly the same way. So trying to make some official sounding objective explanation of differences is ultimately meaningless.
Yumi
Interesting. I always found the standard definitions– pan being “attraction regardless of gender” and bi being “attraction to two or more genders” to be… pretty understandably different. Like, I understand there are similarities, and anyone’s actual subjective experience is theirs alone to describe. It just doesn’t seem “so minute that they might as well not exist” from the definitions.
Li
Standard definitions according to whom?
https://queermushroomforest.weebly.com/bimanifesto.html
This might be useful for you. Another famous definition of bisexuality was the one offered by Robyn Ochs, aka The Mother of Pride, who described her own bisexuality as: “the potential to be attractedβromantically and/or sexuallyβto people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”
Some folks have definitely tried to carve out exclusive definitions so that bi means being attracted to fewer genders than pan, but mmmooooostly I’ve heard that from:
a.) crypto TERFs trying to sew discord and get bi and pan people to fight over which label is “better” (by for example making “PSA” posts where they pretend to be a trans-inclusive biphobic pan person and say stuff like “remember, only pansexuals are attracted to nonbinary people!”) (or vice-versa, where they pose as panphobic bi people, and try to argue that you can’t be attracted to nonbinary people without fetishizing them)
b.) young pan people who have been sucked in by the above arguments, or who are insecure in the validity of their own label, so they try to define bi as smaller than it is in order to make room for pan
c.) transphobic bi people who want to pretend that the bi label somehow means “attraction only to cis men and cis women, the only two genders”
Mainstream bi orgs and bi activists, meanwhile, always seem to have much broader definitions to reflect the fact that there are more than two genders and that bi is not and has never been binary.
thejeff
I don’t think you’re really disagreeing? The Robyn Ochs definition at least is basically a longer version of the one Yumi gave.
And there’s nothing in Yumi’s two definitions that even implies bi applies to fewer genders than pan does.
Li
@thejeff: If it doesn’t seem like I’m disagreeing with Yumi, then I really failed to express myself. Fair enough.
My objection is basically this:
Bi people didn’t create the term bisexual. It was created to describe non-human organisms like plants or earthworms. It was a synonym for a word I don’t even want to type because it’s also used as a slur for intersex people. That is where the “two” comes from.
There have been plenty of attempts to rehabilitate that two, to justify it, whether as “same and different” or as “two or more” β but not all bi people want the two in there. Most bi orgs reject it. Plenty of bi people consider “regardless of gender” to also describe them.
So, again I ask: standard definitions according to whom? If bi orgs and bi activists don’t get to be the source for a “standard” definition of bisexuality, who does?
(Pansexual is also a reclaimed identity, for the record. It was coined to describe hypersexual people, derogatorily! Almost all of our identity words have this type of origin. ?)
darkoneko
it’s the alt text
Charles Phipps
Danny really was reveling in the schadenfreude of being more self-aware than Dorothy.
It wasn’t the right thing to do but a lot of people wouldn’t be able to engage in some light teasing.
darkoneko
yeah, defintiely do not send them boob pics
Doctor_Who
I’d say Danny is unlikely to send boob pics, but this whole storyline features them coming from the wrong people anyway, so who knows.
Thag Simmons
I mean there’s nothing stopping him from trying.
Nono
What about butt pics?
GholaHalleck
It’s hard to get your butt inside the bra cups.
Meagan
I like your comment.
clif
Wouldn’t that depend on the size?
Nick Piers
Well certainly not with THAT attitude you can’t!
Steamweed
Anything’s a bra cup if you’re cheeky enough.
(hm, that ain’t quite right…)
Embe13
just use a black sharpie to draw nipples on your buttcheeks
cain
With Danny’s skin tone, black nipples would be slightly concerning. For like skin cancer or something. He should find a brown or pink sharpie.
VicMortimer
That depends on how big the bra is. If my girlfriend wore bras, I could probably do it. Never tried with my FWB, but probably could if I tried. They’ve both got pretty huge boobies.
FinalGwen
Danny’s bi-fi is strong, that’s uncannily targeted considering he doesn’t know the situation.
Doctor_Who
Gaydar
Bi-Fi
GPAce
Trans…istor…radio?
Scraping the barrel a bit.
Steamweed
Pan-handler
Steamweed
He knows she’s a perfectionist in everything she does. No way she’ll be just a 0.5 or 1.0 Ultimately she’ll achieve 6.0 status, so halfway there is 3.0. But she hasn’t had time yet to get halfway to her realizations. So, yeah, 2.0 to 2.5 is a good start. Easy calculations. It’s just math. π
Nono
The decimals are kinda arbitrary though and there just because it’s a 6 major point scale. If it was a 12 point scale she would be a 1.
someone
She’s not going to go for 6.0, she’s going to go for Ο.
DailyBrad
Even if the two obviously grew apart into a poor romantic match, I imagine he’s very good at reading Dorothy specifically on certain things.
GholaHalleck
They reek of school friends who were middle to low popular, and when puberty hit, they just hooked up. Joe was probably Danny’s social anchor, while Dottie got mean girl’ed because she was a lisa simpson.
Fireprincesslily
Come on… It’s at least a 2.5
Dara
You, me, the alt text, we’re pretty much in agreement.
Opus the Poet
That makes 4 of us, and when you consider one of those is Word of God…
Dara
Yeaaaah but God lies a lot. xD
Steamweed
Wait. Is that OLD Willisament, or NEW Willisament?
Li
Dara is saying the alt text on this comic is Word of God.
Thag Simmons
Shut up brain, those all count as incidental.
Rabbit
Weirdly enough, this interaction has me wondering if Dorothy/Joyce is going to even happen, or painful heartbreaking lesson for Dorothy. Also I’m amazed this plotline is still happening and hasn’t been shuffled to come back to in 5 months.
MeghanTheDreamCrusher