He does apologise with an actual sorry after (you sent me down a short archive dive) and part of the reason for the level of annoyance was that she was worried her presidential dreams were slipping away as her grades went downhill… I think most of the time they get on? Doesn’t mean Dotty will approve of him for Joyce though, or believe he’s really changed his attitude towards commitment…
Autogatos
Yeah I get the impression that Dorothy tolerates Joe as her ex’s best friend and even gets along with him fine at times, but would NOT want him dating her best friend. Especially given that she probably still sees him as the guy he was pre-recent-character-arc.
Why would he owe his dad an apology? What about a conversation with Dorothy would make him think that?
Owlmirror
I think the point is that his dad tried to make Joe believe that he (Richard) had changed (due to his actual love for Stacy, rather than only lust), and Joe did not believe this.
So Joe would be in the analogous situation of trying to make Dorothy believe that he (Joe) had changed (due to his actual love for Joyce, rather than only lust), and Dorothy is the one disbelieving.
So Joe would be apologizing to his dad for not believing that there was actual love, and that actual love could inspire a change in horndog behavior.
/possibly overexplaining.
Clif
Why, Galasso’s daughter, Conquest, barely shows up on his radar.
thejeff
I guess. It would depend on how Joe thinks about his changes, compared to how Richard explained himself.
Given that my recollection is that Richard’s defense was “Sex is great now, I don’t even feel like cheating” and that Joe has gone through a lot more soul-searching, I don’t think he’s got any apologies to make.
BowlerHatGuy
But we”ve never seen his dad actually change anything.
We at least saw Joe see his mistake with his list and try to apologize.
“Because maybe I’m thinking about saying yes to him sorta kinda asking me out for actual relationship stuff that might also include me being fucked silly.”
Dorothy: …. WHY.
Sajuuk-Khar
Joyce: *gesturing to Joe’s sexy man-body* Because, to quote Sarah, his DNA has heretofore undiscovered nucleobases which help spell out “fuck me”, Dorothy.
Dina: It’s true, the nucleobases do spell this. Though they are specifically “Joyce, please fuck me” nucleobases. I have tested this.
Becky: And I helped! 😀 I gathered samples while he was sleepin’! It’s fine because I’m a lesbian.
He wasn’t a misogynistic asshole. He was a horny teenager. He wasn’t tactful and thought with his dick, but he was hardly mistreating anyone.
Nova
It is misogynistic to view women primarily as source of sex and to rate their fuckability on a scale.
It is misogynistic to view Joyce’s virginity as a seal he’s eager to pop (I forget the exact words he used, but it was clear what his interest was and why).
He’s experienced some character growth, but “he was a horny teenager” is just shy of “boys will be boys” and it’s not an excuse nor does it invalidate the pretty plain evidence of misogyny.
And, honestly, I think you know that.
The Blueprint System
He literally represented women with just numbers, valuing them based on how attractive and how fuckable they were. That’s standard dehumanizing misogyny.
Autogatos
How he treated women was definitely not fine and respectful. Yes he always ensured he had consent, but that is the *bare minimum* someone should do. There are a lot of levels of behavior between “literally a rapist” and “a good guy who respects women” and not being the former doesn’t automatically make someone the latter.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Joe as a character and am totally shipping this now (I’m a sucker for morally grey characters who develop a conscience), but he was absolutely a misogynistic ass who objectified women before he finally realized how awful his behavior was and how it was making women feel. We can acknowledge he is learning to be a good guy now without dismissing the fact that he wasn’t before. People can learn and change.
Smallmoon
Also, we have to remember that Joe’s Character Development has been churning away for literal YEARS in our world, but it hasn’t even been six months for Dorothy.
thejeff
It’s also amazing to me how many readers choose to ignore that character development in favor of “No, he was always just fine.”
Makes a lot more sense that Dorothy wouldn’t have recognized his development, especially since they rarely hang out and he’s often deliberately played up his old attitudes publicly.
Autogatos
Absolutely. And yeah I think a lot of people (I see it often in the comments section here for whatever reason) have trouble with the concept that people can change, that past bad acts do not make them Forever a Bad Person (and that most people are not 100% good or 100% bad, but make a combo of good and bad choices throughout their lives).
I suspect part of the painting Joe as having always been a totally good guy is just people forgetting stuff, part might unfortunately be some people who do not get why how his previous behavior was before was not okay, but part is also likely people who have trouble with the whole “people can change and learn” thing needing him to have been totally good in the past to feel okay about liking him now.
Pretty sure the problem is that Joe loves women too much, rather than hates them, but still had zero role-model for how to treat them.
The Blueprint System
Oh please, it’s 2022, can we acknowledge that “I want to fuck them” and “I respect them as fully autonomous human beings” are not and have never meant the same thing?
Throwatron
Like, every right-wing politician on the planet seems to have an infinite stream of transgender pornography on their phone.
You do not need to see someone as equivalently human to you, to sexually objectify them. Full stop.
And both statements can be true at the same time, they’re not mutually exclusive.
Autogatos
I don’t think his love of women was about *them* but about himself. It’s not a matter of love of hate, but of empathy and lackthereof. He was focused on what they could give him and how it made him feel. He wasn’t thinking about how *they* felt at all.
His change wasn’t so much the result of getting better role models or being taught how to treat people. It was him finally thinking about how his actions were making women feel. He leveled up his empathy skill.
Autogatos
Typo, should read “not about love OR hate” not “love OF hate”
Mark
I will stick my neck out and suggest that the women Joe has associated with in the past have treated him exactly the way you describe him treating them. He, also, was a convenience, nothing more.
The problem arises when the parties’ expectations for a relationship are different. And I think that, so far, Joe is dealing with it well.
Mark
Actually, no, Joe’s expectations for this relationship are different.
thejeff
Would that include the women that, to paraphrase Rachel, he walked up to out of the blue to tell how much he wanted to fuck them?
Joy
I feel like there are nuances, where you’re right, he was being creepy, but also, mark is right, because a lot of women/Malaya treated him the same way that he treated women. He’s probably going to be more emotionally healthy now that that sort of behavior isn’t normal to him!
thejeff
Well yeah, if you come off like that kind of creep to all the women, the women who respond well to it are going to be along the same lines.
Mark
Some of them, yes. Joe’s technique is awful but it has worked well for him because it has detected potential partners who wanted what he wanted. There are lots of women who think he’s a creep, but he only needs to find a few who are looking for the same thing, and rejection hasn’t bothered him. There is no posse of deceived women shouting “I thought we had something special!” because Joe has made it plain that there was nothing special to be had.
Until now.
thejeff
That Joe’s technique has worked well for him doesn’t mean it’s good.
And I pointed out cases where the women he interacted with were hurt by it. That those were cases where his techniques didn’t work, don’t change that.
His whole approach was aimed at making sure no one got hurt, because, as you describe it “there was nothing special to be had”. But that wasn’t true. He was wrong. He was still hurting women. That was the climax of his whole first season arc – after the donuts, when Joyce told him about Ryan.
BowlerHatGuy
“Joe’s technique is awful but it has worked well for him because it has detected potential partners who wanted what he wanted.”
Well,the list was bad. And some of his behavior was bad. I think he’s trying to fix that.
But then there is a theme in doa that that sex has to be attached to love? Or something? Dorothy started a fling with walky, but then told him she loved him? When walky didnt reciprocate love, dorothy broke up with him?
Ethan was having sex with a bunch of people after mike asked him to make out. But while ethan was doing that, it had the backdrop that he secretly longed for Danny, but that was forbidden live because it would crush amber? And then mike died and ethan went goth-tragic.
Roz taped having sex with joe, no strings attached, but it was a political hit job against her sister?
Sex with vibrators is fine. Encouraged even. But doa brings along some undercurrente of the “you need to be in love to have sex” indoctrination. Liz was eagerly going to have sex with Joe, a perfectly healthy moment, then stops and say “i almost ruined myself”?
Joe could have ditched the part that treated women disresoectfully, and turned into the mal version of Roz, someone who is sex positive, hands out confoms, encourages safe sex, talks about vigorous consent, and then teaches kids new and interesting positions.
His night with Liz could have been exactly that sex positive thing, but it turned into a sex ruins you lesson?
And now he’s maybe falling hard for joyce?
Dunno. Just feels like there is a “you gotta be in love before you have sex” undertow here.
Autogatos
^What thejeff said here, exactly. His intentions to not hurt anyone and only attract people who were fine with what he wanted/expected and how he behaved doesn’t change the fact that he did manage to hurt people.
To use an analogy: if you’re fishing for tuna and your net is fine for catching tuna but also kills dolphins, it doesn’t make it okay that the dolphins got caught and hurt in the process just because you were trying to aim for the tuna, or just because you threw the dolphins back. They still got hurt in the process.
I definitely am not getting any kind of “you must be in love to have sex” message or some sort of message of shame or judgement directed at the idea of casual sex from this at all? Respectfully I think this might be reflexive defensiveness or reading way too much into things that weren’t meant that way.
It was very clear the entire time that the issue with Joe’s previous behavior was not that he had casual sex, it was how he treated women who did not want to be hit on or objectified.
Roz’ attitude towards casual sex is never portrayed as a negative, in fact many arguments are made by other characters that she is well within her rights to do that as a consenting adult with another consenting adult. I’m not sure why you’re ignoring their voices and assuming only the characters who didn’t approve are the voice of the author?
You’re completely misremembering the Walky and Dorothy storyline. She intended it to be a fling but they both ended up feeling something more, and *that* was the issue, because Dorothy specifically did not want or have time for something more. It became a problem after it stopped being a casual thing. Which seems to be saying the opposite of “casual sex is bad for everyone, you must be in love first.”
The Ethan/Mike thing was super complicated involving way too many themes and arcs to summarize but definitely seems like a stretch to boil it down to “this is to tell us casual sex is bad.”
As for Liz and Joe: Willis has said many times this comic is semi-autobiographical. About being raised in a conservative Christian environment and how being at college/out in the world can change one’s perspective after that kind of upbringing. So OF COURSE the comic would include characters wrestling with the idea that casual sex is bad. It doesn’t mean the author is trying to say that as a universal rule for everyone. The Liz/Joe thing was a character trying to be someone she wasn’t, as a way of rebelling against a belief system she had lost faith in. The only message I got from that was: don’t pretend you’re someone you’re not, and just because you’re changing, doesn’t mean you must immediately become the total opposite of what you were.
The fact that Joe is falling for Joyce also isn’t a “casual sex is bad” message. It’s a “people change a lot in college and what they want changes over time” message. It’s the story of one character. It doesn’t mean that’s the author’s commentary on how every single person and relationship dynamic should be ever.
Another one of the main characters besides Dorothy, Sarah, is only interested in casual stuff. This is never objectively portrayed as bad. She only calls off her attempts to hook up with Jacob because she realizes he doesn’t want that, and because it’s clear Joyce likes him. The messages there are: don’t pursue someone who doesn’t want the same things as you, and be sensitive to your friends’ feelings. (With a background of also: don’t manipulate your friends and the boys they like to get revenge on someone you don’t like).
And plenty of other Misc characters are showed happily having casual hookups without it being deemed objectively wrong (including several slipshines). It not being a huge focus doesn’t mean the author thinks it’s objectively wrong. Just like if an artist draws lots of cats and only a few dogs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they hate dogs and think everyone else should too. It may just mean they‘re personally more interested in drawing cats.
BowlerHatGuy
“The fact that Joe is falling for Joyce also isn’t a “casual sex is bad” message”
I get every individual decision in the comic is plausible. Its just that if you look at the strip overall, certain things dont show up often.
Like, sure its plausible that the hero in todays crime-procedural series is white and male. But if every fucking crime procedural is white and male, you start to notice the lack of minorities and women.
I get every individual character choice around sex and relationships in DoA is plausible. I just see a hole forming. DoA’s focus seems to be going after and tearing down the religious nonsense around sex, specifically gay=hell and “no premarital hanky panky”. Which is great. But not all the ways sex is turned into a guilt trip.
Its fine i guess. Just thought it was going after more than just religious nonsense around sex. I will try to adjust expectations.
Autogatos
I mean, the comic is not over yet, and while there are many storylines, it is primarily focused on the growth and development of Joyce as the main character, whose arc is currently focused on slowly unpacking and moving away from her heavily religious upbringing. Again as I said above, the fact that casual sex hasn’t been a massive unending focus of the comic so far doesn’t mean the comic is trying to send the message that it’s always bad. Like my above analogy: if you have a comic about animals where most of the characters are cats it doesn’t mean the author *hates* dogs. They may just be writing/drawing what they know/what they’re interested in/what stories they want to tell.
Comparing this to the issue of white men dominating screen over marginalized actors/characters time seems like a stretch. People who have casual sex are not a socioeconomically disenfranchised/marginalized group and differing personal opinions on private intimacy is a very different sort of dynamic than the experiences of people living in a society in which they are heavily, publicly, and consistently harmed and marginalized.
This is one comic, by one person, expressing a story informed by some personal experiences and some fictionalized ones. It’s probably not gonna contain an in-depth look at every single possible style of intimacy ever. And as I said above, it already has done commentary on the idea that consenting adults shouldn’t be judged for having casual sex. So I think it’s unfair and inaccurate to argue that it’s sending the opposite message.
If you’re now arguing that you just want to see more stories about characters who engage in casual relationships, well that’s just personal preference and we all have personal preferences which may or may not ever play out in the story. Not every reader is gonna have their personal story interest be a topic of focus. There are lots of things I’d like to see more of in the media I enjoy. If there are stories not being told that you’d like to see told, you could try creating the sorts of stories and/or art you’d like to see more of! That’s what I do when I want more of a particular kind of content. Stories and art on specific subjects are always best when coming from those who have interest and/or experience in that subject.
Autogatos
Well yes some certainly did. But not all the women Joe objectified viewed him that way. This isn’t just about women who agreed to sleep with him. It’s about all the times he hit on women or ranked them on a list that got passed around, and so-on whether they were comfortable with it or not.
Joe’s first date with Joyce loooong ago before they became friends involved him objectifying her and objectifying other women while on a date with her. Her expectations for how that date (and potential relationship) would go were definitely very different than his. And he definitely did not handle it well at all at the time.
It’s pretty clear he has changed a lot since then though. His past behavior being bad doesn’t mean he can’t be a better person now, and being a better person now doesn’t mean his past behavior wasn’t bad.
She knows him very well from back when he was a total horndog jerk, for most of their lives.
This is the guy who took bets on when Dorothy would break up with Danny (his own bff). And when she did, he immediately added her to the “Do” list, which was a map to where she lived. He made obnoxious come-on jokes all semester in Gender Studies. It’s less that she has a specific beef, and more that she doesn’t know him as boyfriend material.
276 thoughts on “You remember”
Ana Chronistic
mayhaps some hard feelings we didn’t know about?
Old Joe: haha… hard.
New Joe: hey now ?
Thag Simmons
Dorothy has known Joe for a while and he’s great at fostering bad feelings.
Decidedly Orthogonal
WHY.
Edward Rhodes
https://bleedingfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IM782.jpg
You’ll have to click on it. Sorry.
Alex
“Why?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR-qdjtyYyc
AKP
Yeah I can’t help but think of this strip.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/03-the-thing-i-was-before/presidential/
Miri
He does apologise with an actual sorry after (you sent me down a short archive dive) and part of the reason for the level of annoyance was that she was worried her presidential dreams were slipping away as her grades went downhill… I think most of the time they get on? Doesn’t mean Dotty will approve of him for Joyce though, or believe he’s really changed his attitude towards commitment…
Autogatos
Yeah I get the impression that Dorothy tolerates Joe as her ex’s best friend and even gets along with him fine at times, but would NOT want him dating her best friend. Especially given that she probably still sees him as the guy he was pre-recent-character-arc.
Smallmoon
I can easily see Joe having a heart to heart with Dorothy, trying to get her on-side and suddenly realizing “Oh. I think I owe my dad an apology.”
thejeff
Why would he owe his dad an apology? What about a conversation with Dorothy would make him think that?
Owlmirror
I think the point is that his dad tried to make Joe believe that he (Richard) had changed (due to his actual love for Stacy, rather than only lust), and Joe did not believe this.
So Joe would be in the analogous situation of trying to make Dorothy believe that he (Joe) had changed (due to his actual love for Joyce, rather than only lust), and Dorothy is the one disbelieving.
So Joe would be apologizing to his dad for not believing that there was actual love, and that actual love could inspire a change in horndog behavior.
/possibly overexplaining.
Clif
Why, Galasso’s daughter, Conquest, barely shows up on his radar.
thejeff
I guess. It would depend on how Joe thinks about his changes, compared to how Richard explained himself.
Given that my recollection is that Richard’s defense was “Sex is great now, I don’t even feel like cheating” and that Joe has gone through a lot more soul-searching, I don’t think he’s got any apologies to make.
BowlerHatGuy
But we”ve never seen his dad actually change anything.
We at least saw Joe see his mistake with his list and try to apologize.
Pylgrim
See first panel
Yet_One_More_Idiot
New Joe: Hey now
Me: You’re a rockstar, get the show on, get paid. All that glitters is a gooooold, only shooting stars break the mooooooould…
darkoneko
Because fuck you, that’s why
Yumi
Maybe more, “Because fuck me, that’s why”?
Rose by Any Other Name
“Because maybe I’m thinking about saying yes to him sorta kinda asking me out for actual relationship stuff that might also include me being fucked silly.”
Dorothy: …. WHY.
Sajuuk-Khar
Joyce: *gesturing to Joe’s sexy man-body* Because, to quote Sarah, his DNA has heretofore undiscovered nucleobases which help spell out “fuck me”, Dorothy.
Dina: It’s true, the nucleobases do spell this. Though they are specifically “Joyce, please fuck me” nucleobases. I have tested this.
Becky: And I helped! 😀 I gathered samples while he was sleepin’! It’s fine because I’m a lesbian.
justin8448
This little fan-fic just made my day.
Yotomoe
I think it’s more of a “Fuck HIM, that’s why”
Yumi
Just gonna fuck in every direction, just to be safe.
Yotomoe
That would prove Jennifer’s theory correct.
Decidedly Orthogonal
In every possible direction would include “fuck you”, not just “fuck me”.
Also, “fuck them”.
Taffy
Five rounds, rapid?
BarerMender
Yeah, things aren’t going as Dorothy thinks they should go. Now we must all stop what we’re doing and make things go Dorothy’s way.
Clif
But now Becky has a chance to win back the best friend title by being ProJoe.
Amós Batista
Yes, exactly. Because of fuck.
Somebody wants to fuck somebody.
BowlerHatGuy
Meh.
Doctor_Who
Anyone else getting vibes like when Aunt May unknowingly invited both Spider-Man and the Green Goblin for Thanksgiving in the 2002 Spider-Man?
Uly
Man, that’s the best scene in that entire movie. I occasionally think of it out of nowhere and just laugh and laugh.
BowlerHatGuy
Perfect!
BBCC
Dorothy’s known Joe long enough to know what questions to ask.
She may, however, have missed some critical updates.
darkoneko
Very possibly because Joyce purposely kept it from her to make a surprise
thejeff
I think that’s more about updates in Joe’s attitudes. Which he’s kind of been keeping to himself to preserve his old image.
BowlerHatGuy
He did a fairly public donut apology tour.
Dorothy doesnt eat donuts though.
The Wellerman
Uh, remind me again of the specific beef Dorothy has with Joe? 🙁
bcb
Joe was generally a misogynistic asshole for most of the time Dorothy knew him.
MisterJinKC
He wasn’t a misogynistic asshole. He was a horny teenager. He wasn’t tactful and thought with his dick, but he was hardly mistreating anyone.
Nova
It is misogynistic to view women primarily as source of sex and to rate their fuckability on a scale.
It is misogynistic to view Joyce’s virginity as a seal he’s eager to pop (I forget the exact words he used, but it was clear what his interest was and why).
He’s experienced some character growth, but “he was a horny teenager” is just shy of “boys will be boys” and it’s not an excuse nor does it invalidate the pretty plain evidence of misogyny.
And, honestly, I think you know that.
The Blueprint System
He literally represented women with just numbers, valuing them based on how attractive and how fuckable they were. That’s standard dehumanizing misogyny.
Autogatos
How he treated women was definitely not fine and respectful. Yes he always ensured he had consent, but that is the *bare minimum* someone should do. There are a lot of levels of behavior between “literally a rapist” and “a good guy who respects women” and not being the former doesn’t automatically make someone the latter.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Joe as a character and am totally shipping this now (I’m a sucker for morally grey characters who develop a conscience), but he was absolutely a misogynistic ass who objectified women before he finally realized how awful his behavior was and how it was making women feel. We can acknowledge he is learning to be a good guy now without dismissing the fact that he wasn’t before. People can learn and change.
Smallmoon
Also, we have to remember that Joe’s Character Development has been churning away for literal YEARS in our world, but it hasn’t even been six months for Dorothy.
thejeff
It’s also amazing to me how many readers choose to ignore that character development in favor of “No, he was always just fine.”
Makes a lot more sense that Dorothy wouldn’t have recognized his development, especially since they rarely hang out and he’s often deliberately played up his old attitudes publicly.
Autogatos
Absolutely. And yeah I think a lot of people (I see it often in the comments section here for whatever reason) have trouble with the concept that people can change, that past bad acts do not make them Forever a Bad Person (and that most people are not 100% good or 100% bad, but make a combo of good and bad choices throughout their lives).
I suspect part of the painting Joe as having always been a totally good guy is just people forgetting stuff, part might unfortunately be some people who do not get why how his previous behavior was before was not okay, but part is also likely people who have trouble with the whole “people can change and learn” thing needing him to have been totally good in the past to feel okay about liking him now.
hof1991
He is still a horny teenage boy.
Decidedly Orthogonal
Pretty sure the problem is that Joe loves women too much, rather than hates them, but still had zero role-model for how to treat them.
The Blueprint System
Oh please, it’s 2022, can we acknowledge that “I want to fuck them” and “I respect them as fully autonomous human beings” are not and have never meant the same thing?
Throwatron
Like, every right-wing politician on the planet seems to have an infinite stream of transgender pornography on their phone.
You do not need to see someone as equivalently human to you, to sexually objectify them. Full stop.
Opus the Poet
And both statements can be true at the same time, they’re not mutually exclusive.
Autogatos
I don’t think his love of women was about *them* but about himself. It’s not a matter of love of hate, but of empathy and lackthereof. He was focused on what they could give him and how it made him feel. He wasn’t thinking about how *they* felt at all.
His change wasn’t so much the result of getting better role models or being taught how to treat people. It was him finally thinking about how his actions were making women feel. He leveled up his empathy skill.
Autogatos
Typo, should read “not about love OR hate” not “love OF hate”
Mark
I will stick my neck out and suggest that the women Joe has associated with in the past have treated him exactly the way you describe him treating them. He, also, was a convenience, nothing more.
The problem arises when the parties’ expectations for a relationship are different. And I think that, so far, Joe is dealing with it well.
Mark
Actually, no, Joe’s expectations for this relationship are different.
thejeff
Would that include the women that, to paraphrase Rachel, he walked up to out of the blue to tell how much he wanted to fuck them?
Joy
I feel like there are nuances, where you’re right, he was being creepy, but also, mark is right, because a lot of women/Malaya treated him the same way that he treated women. He’s probably going to be more emotionally healthy now that that sort of behavior isn’t normal to him!
thejeff
Well yeah, if you come off like that kind of creep to all the women, the women who respond well to it are going to be along the same lines.
Mark
Some of them, yes. Joe’s technique is awful but it has worked well for him because it has detected potential partners who wanted what he wanted. There are lots of women who think he’s a creep, but he only needs to find a few who are looking for the same thing, and rejection hasn’t bothered him. There is no posse of deceived women shouting “I thought we had something special!” because Joe has made it plain that there was nothing special to be had.
Until now.
thejeff
That Joe’s technique has worked well for him doesn’t mean it’s good.
And I pointed out cases where the women he interacted with were hurt by it. That those were cases where his techniques didn’t work, don’t change that.
His whole approach was aimed at making sure no one got hurt, because, as you describe it “there was nothing special to be had”. But that wasn’t true. He was wrong. He was still hurting women. That was the climax of his whole first season arc – after the donuts, when Joyce told him about Ryan.
BowlerHatGuy
“Joe’s technique is awful but it has worked well for him because it has detected potential partners who wanted what he wanted.”
Well,the list was bad. And some of his behavior was bad. I think he’s trying to fix that.
But then there is a theme in doa that that sex has to be attached to love? Or something? Dorothy started a fling with walky, but then told him she loved him? When walky didnt reciprocate love, dorothy broke up with him?
Ethan was having sex with a bunch of people after mike asked him to make out. But while ethan was doing that, it had the backdrop that he secretly longed for Danny, but that was forbidden live because it would crush amber? And then mike died and ethan went goth-tragic.
Roz taped having sex with joe, no strings attached, but it was a political hit job against her sister?
Sex with vibrators is fine. Encouraged even. But doa brings along some undercurrente of the “you need to be in love to have sex” indoctrination. Liz was eagerly going to have sex with Joe, a perfectly healthy moment, then stops and say “i almost ruined myself”?
Joe could have ditched the part that treated women disresoectfully, and turned into the mal version of Roz, someone who is sex positive, hands out confoms, encourages safe sex, talks about vigorous consent, and then teaches kids new and interesting positions.
His night with Liz could have been exactly that sex positive thing, but it turned into a sex ruins you lesson?
And now he’s maybe falling hard for joyce?
Dunno. Just feels like there is a “you gotta be in love before you have sex” undertow here.
Autogatos
^What thejeff said here, exactly. His intentions to not hurt anyone and only attract people who were fine with what he wanted/expected and how he behaved doesn’t change the fact that he did manage to hurt people.
To use an analogy: if you’re fishing for tuna and your net is fine for catching tuna but also kills dolphins, it doesn’t make it okay that the dolphins got caught and hurt in the process just because you were trying to aim for the tuna, or just because you threw the dolphins back. They still got hurt in the process.
Ok that may be kind of a wacky analogy, sorry, but basically Joe finally realized that he is responsible for the discomfort caused to women via his methods, even if he didn’t intend it. Now we have new and improved Dolphin Safe Joe ©
Autogatos
I definitely am not getting any kind of “you must be in love to have sex” message or some sort of message of shame or judgement directed at the idea of casual sex from this at all? Respectfully I think this might be reflexive defensiveness or reading way too much into things that weren’t meant that way.
It was very clear the entire time that the issue with Joe’s previous behavior was not that he had casual sex, it was how he treated women who did not want to be hit on or objectified.
Roz’ attitude towards casual sex is never portrayed as a negative, in fact many arguments are made by other characters that she is well within her rights to do that as a consenting adult with another consenting adult. I’m not sure why you’re ignoring their voices and assuming only the characters who didn’t approve are the voice of the author?
You’re completely misremembering the Walky and Dorothy storyline. She intended it to be a fling but they both ended up feeling something more, and *that* was the issue, because Dorothy specifically did not want or have time for something more. It became a problem after it stopped being a casual thing. Which seems to be saying the opposite of “casual sex is bad for everyone, you must be in love first.”
The Ethan/Mike thing was super complicated involving way too many themes and arcs to summarize but definitely seems like a stretch to boil it down to “this is to tell us casual sex is bad.”
As for Liz and Joe: Willis has said many times this comic is semi-autobiographical. About being raised in a conservative Christian environment and how being at college/out in the world can change one’s perspective after that kind of upbringing. So OF COURSE the comic would include characters wrestling with the idea that casual sex is bad. It doesn’t mean the author is trying to say that as a universal rule for everyone. The Liz/Joe thing was a character trying to be someone she wasn’t, as a way of rebelling against a belief system she had lost faith in. The only message I got from that was: don’t pretend you’re someone you’re not, and just because you’re changing, doesn’t mean you must immediately become the total opposite of what you were.
The fact that Joe is falling for Joyce also isn’t a “casual sex is bad” message. It’s a “people change a lot in college and what they want changes over time” message. It’s the story of one character. It doesn’t mean that’s the author’s commentary on how every single person and relationship dynamic should be ever.
Another one of the main characters besides Dorothy, Sarah, is only interested in casual stuff. This is never objectively portrayed as bad. She only calls off her attempts to hook up with Jacob because she realizes he doesn’t want that, and because it’s clear Joyce likes him. The messages there are: don’t pursue someone who doesn’t want the same things as you, and be sensitive to your friends’ feelings. (With a background of also: don’t manipulate your friends and the boys they like to get revenge on someone you don’t like).
And plenty of other Misc characters are showed happily having casual hookups without it being deemed objectively wrong (including several slipshines). It not being a huge focus doesn’t mean the author thinks it’s objectively wrong. Just like if an artist draws lots of cats and only a few dogs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they hate dogs and think everyone else should too. It may just mean they‘re personally more interested in drawing cats.
BowlerHatGuy
“The fact that Joe is falling for Joyce also isn’t a “casual sex is bad” message”
I get every individual decision in the comic is plausible. Its just that if you look at the strip overall, certain things dont show up often.
Like, sure its plausible that the hero in todays crime-procedural series is white and male. But if every fucking crime procedural is white and male, you start to notice the lack of minorities and women.
I get every individual character choice around sex and relationships in DoA is plausible. I just see a hole forming. DoA’s focus seems to be going after and tearing down the religious nonsense around sex, specifically gay=hell and “no premarital hanky panky”. Which is great. But not all the ways sex is turned into a guilt trip.
Its fine i guess. Just thought it was going after more than just religious nonsense around sex. I will try to adjust expectations.
Autogatos
I mean, the comic is not over yet, and while there are many storylines, it is primarily focused on the growth and development of Joyce as the main character, whose arc is currently focused on slowly unpacking and moving away from her heavily religious upbringing. Again as I said above, the fact that casual sex hasn’t been a massive unending focus of the comic so far doesn’t mean the comic is trying to send the message that it’s always bad. Like my above analogy: if you have a comic about animals where most of the characters are cats it doesn’t mean the author *hates* dogs. They may just be writing/drawing what they know/what they’re interested in/what stories they want to tell.
Comparing this to the issue of white men dominating screen over marginalized actors/characters time seems like a stretch. People who have casual sex are not a socioeconomically disenfranchised/marginalized group and differing personal opinions on private intimacy is a very different sort of dynamic than the experiences of people living in a society in which they are heavily, publicly, and consistently harmed and marginalized.
This is one comic, by one person, expressing a story informed by some personal experiences and some fictionalized ones. It’s probably not gonna contain an in-depth look at every single possible style of intimacy ever. And as I said above, it already has done commentary on the idea that consenting adults shouldn’t be judged for having casual sex. So I think it’s unfair and inaccurate to argue that it’s sending the opposite message.
If you’re now arguing that you just want to see more stories about characters who engage in casual relationships, well that’s just personal preference and we all have personal preferences which may or may not ever play out in the story. Not every reader is gonna have their personal story interest be a topic of focus. There are lots of things I’d like to see more of in the media I enjoy. If there are stories not being told that you’d like to see told, you could try creating the sorts of stories and/or art you’d like to see more of! That’s what I do when I want more of a particular kind of content. Stories and art on specific subjects are always best when coming from those who have interest and/or experience in that subject.
Autogatos
Well yes some certainly did. But not all the women Joe objectified viewed him that way. This isn’t just about women who agreed to sleep with him. It’s about all the times he hit on women or ranked them on a list that got passed around, and so-on whether they were comfortable with it or not.
Joe’s first date with Joyce loooong ago before they became friends involved him objectifying her and objectifying other women while on a date with her. Her expectations for how that date (and potential relationship) would go were definitely very different than his. And he definitely did not handle it well at all at the time.
It’s pretty clear he has changed a lot since then though. His past behavior being bad doesn’t mean he can’t be a better person now, and being a better person now doesn’t mean his past behavior wasn’t bad.
alongcameaspider
I think she’s unaware that he’s been making an effort to change and is operating on his reputation as a horny asshole
The Wellerman
Ah, yes, thanks for the refresh.
Bryy
He WAS for like a day.
Decidedly Orthogonal
Comic time dilation. Joe was at it for *months*.
Shorduie
I believe this is just the natural consequence of knowing him as a horny teenager
Leorale
She knows him very well from back when he was a total horndog jerk, for most of their lives.
This is the guy who took bets on when Dorothy would break up with Danny (his own bff). And when she did, he immediately added her to the “Do” list, which was a map to where she lived. He made obnoxious come-on jokes all semester in Gender Studies. It’s less that she has a specific beef, and more that she doesn’t know him as boyfriend material.
Sirksome