[ SECRET POST #3352 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3352 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 032 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[scrubber]

http://yeshomo.net/dar/

IDK man, the commentary may be the most insufferable thing ever but it's matched by the smug lack of self-awareness that the comics also have so I think these two people might just deserve each other.

This review is still an awful review though.

[feotakahari]

Maybe we mean it in different ways, but there were points in DAR when I wanted to shake Moen and tell her to stop being so self-aware. I felt like she spent too much time worrying about whether she was accurately and fairly representing the people in her life. (For instance, there were multiple points where she talked about how her ex-girlfriend felt she was portrayed too negatively in the comic, and it came off as overcompensation to me.)

[scrubber]

I guess I see true self-awareness as an inherently good thing that is always in sync with reality, while wildly self-obsessed and narcissistic is what Moen comes off as to me.

And I just can't articulate why your comment on the reviewer's relationship with sexuality was so baffling to me but it was. I mean, you really think Moen's "dyke with an exception" angle comes off like a healthy mentality and not some BS political rationalization? I think both these people are just trying and failing at applying their own SexPos Liberal Feminist beliefs to everything to different results. These two people are the same, which is why them turning on each other is the natural result.

I don't know why I'm picking this bone and you can just walk away from this thread if you want lol.

[feotakahari]

For lack of a better phrasing, I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate Moen any other way than how she evaluates herself. She put so much time, effort, and thought into dissecting her identity, and in the end she couldn't really come up with a better idea of who and what she was than "I guess I'm just me." Her self-evaluation seemed interesting and internally consistent to me, and without actually knowing her, I can't say any more than that.

As for the reviewer and sex, it came off to me like the reviewer thought it was immoral for a woman to have sexual thoughts about another woman because that meant "objectifying" her. It felt like coming full circle to the "gay is bad" viewpoint I get from conservatives.

Edit about self-obsessed: isn't that kind of the thing with journal webcomics? I wouldn't say DAR shows any more self-obsession than The Oatmeal, for instance.

[scrubber]

That seems perfectly fair.

I really think the issue with that comic was all in the presentation. The first half just comes off as an exercise in "I'm not like other girls" which I guess is fine, but then the "punch-line" is basically a point on how now she and her husband can check out women together, as opposed to maybe something concluding some kind of meaningful self-exploration. Or Hell, just something funny. But what it is a panel of her announcing in public that she would totally bang a stranger, concurred by her husband (who apparently calls lesbians "dykes" no problemo), while the stranger is displeased. The cherry on top is in the subtitle where she refers to her "love of pussy" which I can see why people would think is crude and well, objectifying. (I just think it's a try-hard attempt to prove her attraction is valid by making it as crude as possible but whatever.) It's a pretty textbook example of "If you were a guy no one would think this was funny but a girl being shitty is okay." I think having a bad reaction to that comic is pretty valid. (EDIT: the execution of the message is the issue, not the message, is what I was trying to say)

You're probably right that making a webcomic that is just your life is pretty self-obsessed, but I can let it go if I really feel that the artist is funny, insightful, or interesting. Moen strikes me as someone with just nothing to say. Hence stuff like that Dead Dad comic. What a bunch of fart noises.

[blitzwing]

Are you sure you're not holding her to a different standard than you do straights and gay males? Because people make "wants the d" jokes left and right, but a queer woman acknowledging she loves pussy is somehow wrong and gross?

There is a very real problem with female/female love being desexualized, with this idea being perpetuated that girl/girl love is supposed to be so special and pure and fluffy and not be tainted by icky things like wanting to fuck each other.

F/F relationships are frequently sexually objectified, but there's a flip-side where they're nonsexually objectified and fetishized. Queer women are caught in a nasty false dichotomy-either you're expected to be a performing sex object, or you're scolded for wanting to fuck other women-how can you be gross and nasty and lust after women's bodies, just like those nasty men!

[scrubber]

It's a pretty textbook example of "If you were a guy no one would think this was funny but a girl being shitty is okay."

Yes, I'm sure.

[blitzwing]

I've heard straight guys talking about sticking their fists up girls' vaginas and the noises it makes, and no one batted an eyelash, let alone gave them flack over it. But a queer woman admits she likes pussy and that's "crude"? Well, I'm glad you're sure.

[scrubber]

Maybe you should talk to them instead.

[blitzwing]

Oh, I did. It was more fun than talking to someone who thinks queer woman shouldn't admit to liking pussy.

[scrubber]

Man, you really are as great as they say.

[blitzwing]

Thanks. You should take a leaf out of my book and try not shaming queer women for being queer--it does wonders for your moral character.

[scrubber]

Ho

ly

shit.

[blitzwing]

I can give you pointers if you're not sure where to start.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would it be "BS political rationalization" if it's how she really feels? They say everyone has an "exception", and Kinsey says that hardly anyone is fully gay or fully straight.

Now, get to her fetishization of trans people and you have my disgust. But as far as her actual sexuality, there's no reason to believe that it's anything but legit.

[(Anonymous)]

They say everyone has an "exception",

who is "they" and why do they presume to know the true sexuality of everyone?

[(Anonymous)]

Sexuality studies. And nobody is presuming anything, since it's on a scale.

[scrubber]

Maybe that is how she feels, but should she say that in public? Maybe that is how she feels, but does that make it correct or functional? Kinda just looks like she enjoys having the right to say "dyke" to me.

And Kinsey was a guy conducting primitive studies on sexuality in the 40s and 50s using a limited pool of test subjects. His research was a necessary stepping stone that has since been outmoded. Citing him on the topic of sex is almost on par with citing Freud. Especially in the context of defending a lesbian identity by admitting she may just be bisexual.

[(Anonymous)]

That point is still demonstratably true in subsequent studies. And Freud wasn't wrong about EVERYTHING so citing him needs to be a case by case basis.