2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Discuss SOTR here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Giz, Eisu

Post Reply

'J'
A Figment of your Imagination
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:34 pm
Contact:

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by 'J' » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:00 am

just hang'n out in their underwear, practicing being sexy on each other while insisting that they still like boys, just like how all women spend their free time.

Gotoh
Posts: 3423
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Gotoh » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:04 am

+1 for effort, -3 for execution there, Marie. :p

Unfortunately, she has the monumental challenge trying to surmount Alex's obsession with Sandra.

Continuity
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:06 am

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Continuity » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:21 am

Not to worry. I'm sure Alex will need to practice his body painting skills prior to working on Sandra - who else would he turn to for a model?

User avatar
True_Avery
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by True_Avery » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:28 am

'J' wrote:just hang'n out in their underwear, practicing being sexy on each other while insisting that they still like boys, just like how all women spend their free time.
Just like how I imagine other girls hang out
Play Kindred Spirits on the Roof! Play Starlight Vega! Play Ladykiller in a Bind!

Gotoh
Posts: 3423
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:18 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Gotoh » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:52 am

Continuity wrote:Not to worry. I'm sure Alex will need to practice his body painting skills prior to working on Sandra - who else would he turn to for a model?
With Marie's luck and Alex's inability to take a hint...? :-\

I wouldn't put it past him to ask his sister instead.

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by brasca » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:51 am

'J' wrote:just hang'n out in their underwear, practicing being sexy on each other while insisting that they still like boys, just like how all women spend their free time.
Keep in mind Ingrid is bisexual who still thinks she can get a threesome with Alex and Marie. As for Marie she's gullible enough to believe hanging out in their underwear is part of the lesson.

Pier777
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:45 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Pier777 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:04 am

For someone who supposedly is pretty naive about queer stuff in general, I'm surprised she even knows what the Kinsey scale IS.

User avatar
Castamir
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:46 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Castamir » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:49 am

According to studies that compare reaction to images by measuring genital blood flow as opposed to self-reported sexual preferences, true-vs-reported preferences roughly match for males -- there's very few "closet" cases among men who agreed to participate in the study (obviously, that's a selection bias but you can't really eliminate it if consent to study is required). And there's no shortage of strictly hetero, homo or bisexual men.

That's not the case for females, though -- there are no, within those studies' error margin, purely heterosexual women. There's a small but non-negligible minority of pure lesbians (who also exhibit certain non-sexual mental characteristics that are typical for men rather than women), but most women react positively to images of both genders (usually the response to females is somewhat stronger but not to the exclusion of men).

That's arousal rather than actual sex -- a large majority of women have sex exclusively with men. My guess for this discrepancy are religious and social expectations.

Thus, there are no Kinsey 0 women, merely those who say so.

(I forgot the source, here's a different study.)
I hate dancing, but for your grave I can make an exception.

User avatar
Spidrift
Posts: 11188
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:11 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Spidrift » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:43 am

Pier777 wrote:For someone who supposedly is pretty naive about queer stuff in general, I'm surprised she even knows what the Kinsey scale IS.
Marie has been shown as a little naive and inexperienced, even clueless, but she's not stupid or unread. I'm happy to believe that she knows about the Kinsey Scale; she certainly didn't have to have "lesbian" defined to her when she found out about Lavali. She just doesn't have much experience mapping the theory to reality.
Castamir wrote:Thus, there are no Kinsey 0 women, merely those who say so.
From what I've seen, as usually described, the Kinsey Scale is purely phenomenological. The point isn't how people feel, at some possibly subconscious level, it's what they actually do in reality that defines their place on the scale.

Of course, that leads to its own messy confusions, if one tries to enforce the point too hard.

Anyhow, this strip involves a recurrent theme of these comics; people trying a one-size-fits-all (usually "my-size-fits-all") approach to anything to do with sex. Ingrid is perfectly equipped to use the sultry-bedroom-eyes thing (yes please); Marie isn't, so much. Marie is perfectly capable of being sexy (thanksverymuch), but she needs to work with her "cute and vivacious" asset set.
---------
Spidrift
"Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo."
-- Motto of Hogshead Publishing of fond memory, and wise words to set your Foes List by.
Avatar misappropriated from the wonderful XKCD.

User avatar
Don Alexander
Dr. Ebil SithMod
Posts: 27387
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Under the arms of the ancient oak, where daylight hangs by a lunar noose...

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Don Alexander » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:00 pm

"We interrupt our running program in an attempt to fix Alex's head after it went BOOM. So, here's a continuation of a plot that stopped 50 strips ago."
ImageImage
Sithlord of the Sithling and best customer of McLovecraft's Image, in the business of keeping the little Platypus in business
Moderations in GREEN and signed by the DAMNed. I am not anonymous! Also, MODSMACK!! Image
Winner of the... 2010 Kilopost FRANKIE; 2010 Mad March Nom Off; 2010 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2010 Fan-Thing Contest; 2010 Mimic Contest (tied); 2011 Joker Cleavage Contest; 2011 Contest-for-the-next-Contest (tied)

KittyHat
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:57 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by KittyHat » Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:00 pm

Castamir wrote:According to studies that compare reaction to images by measuring genital blood flow as opposed to self-reported sexual preferences, true-vs-reported preferences roughly match for males -- there's very few "closet" cases among men who agreed to participate in the study (obviously, that's a selection bias but you can't really eliminate it if consent to study is required). And there's no shortage of strictly hetero, homo or bisexual men.

That's not the case for females, though -- there are no, within those studies' error margin, purely heterosexual women. There's a small but non-negligible minority of pure lesbians (who also exhibit certain non-sexual mental characteristics that are typical for men rather than women), but most women react positively to images of both genders (usually the response to females is somewhat stronger but not to the exclusion of men).

That's arousal rather than actual sex -- a large majority of women have sex exclusively with men. My guess for this discrepancy are religious and social expectations.

Thus, there are no Kinsey 0 women, merely those who say so.

(I forgot the source, here's a different study.)
That's not a link to a study; that's a link to a news story about a study. I'd want to examine the original study (and others of its kind) before saying too much about it.

That said, the suggested findings are interesting, but one question I have right off the bat is this: in looking at findings such as, "In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern," did the structure of the study successfully rule out the possibility that heterosexual women may, for example, become aroused by female erotica because they focus more on identifying with the women involved rather than on any interest or lack thereof in the bodies involved?

I'm not saying that the conclusion you're drawing couldn't be possible, mind you. I'm simply questioning whether we can actually make such a claim based on this study.

nilof
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by nilof » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:24 am

Just a thing I kind of felt like mentioning. The Swedish accent in the first panel doesn't really feel Swedish at all, and actually feels farther from Swedish sentence structure than it is from English. It feels more like the grammar mistakes you'd expect from Russians or Eastern Europeans which tend to skip words like "the". This is kind of impossible in Swedish though due to how conjugating Swedish nouns works.

As a native Swedish speaker and general language geek, to make the sentence feel Swedish I would suggest something like: "When one seduces men is the body language important, but the most important is the eyes." which is a literal translation of "När man förför män är kroppspråket viktigt, men det viktigaste är ögonen."

Caveats of the translation:
"man" refers to an unspecified (not necessarily male) person here, kind of like "someone" or "anyone" but not quite. I guess a Swedish speaker would just naturally use "you" or "one" here when speaking in English because they'd be looking for any monosyllabic pronoun. "Men" would be the logical next word after "seduce" ("förför"). The alternative would be "guys" ("killar" in Swedish), but that feels off/forced in that sentence. "Boys" when referring to adult or nearly-adult men isn't really a thing in Swedish.

A few minor variations:
"When you seduce men is the body language important, but the most important is the eyes."
"When one seduces men, so is the body language very important, but the most important is the eyes."
"When you seduce men is the body language important, but nothing is more important than the eyes."

(I spent way too much time thinking about this)

User avatar
rakedan
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:58 pm

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by rakedan » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:17 am

Marie's love struggle begins!
An idiot on internet with memory problem.

User avatar
Eisu
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:20 am

Re: 2016-12-13 From a kinsey zero to a two

Post by Eisu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 am

nilof wrote:Just a thing I kind of felt like mentioning. The Swedish accent in the first panel doesn't really feel Swedish at all, and actually feels farther from Swedish sentence structure than it is from English. It feels more like the grammar mistakes you'd expect from Russians or Eastern Europeans which tend to skip words like "the". This is kind of impossible in Swedish though due to how conjugating Swedish nouns works.

As a native Swedish speaker and general language geek, to make the sentence feel Swedish I would suggest something like: "When one seduces men is the body language important, but the most important is the eyes." which is a literal translation of "När man förför män är kroppspråket viktigt, men det viktigaste är ögonen."

Caveats of the translation:
"man" refers to an unspecified (not necessarily male) person here, kind of like "someone" or "anyone" but not quite. I guess a Swedish speaker would just naturally use "you" or "one" here when speaking in English because they'd be looking for any monosyllabic pronoun. "Men" would be the logical next word after "seduce" ("förför"). The alternative would be "guys" ("killar" in Swedish), but that feels off/forced in that sentence. "Boys" when referring to adult or nearly-adult men isn't really a thing in Swedish.

A few minor variations:
"When you seduce men is the body language important, but the most important is the eyes."
"When one seduces men, so is the body language very important, but the most important is the eyes."
"When you seduce men is the body language important, but nothing is more important than the eyes."

(I spent way too much time thinking about this)
Now, I'm not the writer of the comic, so I can't say much about this, but you might have missed this part?

http://www.sandraontherocks.com/strips- ... g_miyamoto

I don't know if this really explains the whole thing, but ehhh... might help ^o^

Post Reply