Pixie Trix Comix & Hiveworks Community

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.

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

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

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?

'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

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.

'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.

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

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.)

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.

"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."

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.

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)

Marie's love struggle begins!

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^