Questionable Content XVI: Yes, Butt

[georgie_leech]

I dunno, I found it a lot worse when Claire told people that Clinton lost his hand due to self-pleasuring too much, for the sake of embarrassing him in public.

Like, if she can talk about that with him nearby, in public, and not get immediately chewed out, I feel like sharing sexual fantasies is well within boundaries.

That was obviously a lie though, and she wasnt actively attempting to invoke sexual pleasure in her brother.

So if y'all (and others) think that Claire was describing a sexual encounter, does that make this strip pornographic? She was describing a hug in vivid detail, not smut-fic-ing her brother.

[Kish]

I dunno, I found it a lot worse when Claire told people that Clinton lost his hand due to self-pleasuring too much, for the sake of embarrassing him in public.

Like, if she can talk about that with him nearby, in public, and not get immediately chewed out, I feel like sharing sexual fantasies is well within boundaries.

That doesn't make any sense. "She did B, B is worse than A, therefore A is not bad"--that's not logic.

Edited to add: Actually, looking at the "describing Elliot to Clinton" strip, I don't think Claire does anything inappropriate there. If Clinton told her she was making him uncomfortable and she kept going, it would be different, but the way Wildstag described it, I thought something else--something involving substantially more writing--was involved.

[Wraith]

How close can we get to "For #@%$'s Sake, Elliot!" for the next thread title, do you think? Feels like it should have been said before now, and will probably need saying again.

[John Cribati]

That doesn't make any sense. "She did B, B is worse than A, therefore A is not bad"--that's not logic.

Well, that’s not my logic. It was something more like:

“Claire did this thing that I would consider more of a personal affront, in public, and Clinton didn’t really have much of a negative reaction. If he’s comfortable with that, I don’t see why the other thing would make him uncomfortable.”

[Wraith]

"They were not uncomfortable with A so they probably aren't uncomfortable with B" is still an assumption. Not a malicious one or any such implication, of course, but real-world people have hang-ups and preferences that don't necessarily follow such logic, so why wouldn't fictional ones?

[Wildstag]

Edited to add: Actually, looking at the "describing Elliot to Clinton" strip, I don't think Claire does anything inappropriate there. If Clinton told her she was making him uncomfortable and she kept going, it would be different, but the way Wildstag described it, I thought something else--something involving substantially more writing--was involved.

Well, look at it this way: those cheap and trashy romance novels (the kind Fabio frequently modeled covers for) are generally looked at as soft-core smut (and usually low effort).

The scene Claire described would fit in one of those. She was clearly wanting to continue, which Pintsize of all people cut short.

Something can be soft-core without obvious inclusion of genitals. All that is necessary (in general) is the intent to elicit arousal.

Dictionary.com: of, relating to, or containing sexually arousing depictions that are not fully explicit

Since it is very clear Clinton was aroused by it, the scene fits the definition to a tee. And there's nothing wrong with the soft-core part of the scene; the issue I have with it, and I know others have, is that it's Claire delivering it. If it were, say, Tai, there wouldn't be an issue with it. It's only that it's Claire that makes it gross.

[georgie_leech]

Well, look at it this way: those cheap and trashy romance novels (the kind Fabio frequently modeled covers for) are generally looked at as soft-core smut (and usually low effort).

The scene Claire described would fit in one of those. She was clearly wanting to continue, which Pintsize of all people cut short.

Because if there's one thing Pintsize is good at doing, it's reading the room, understanding people, and being 100% accurate when he turns the converation to *****

[Wildstag]

Because if there's one thing Pintsize is good at doing, it's reading the room, understanding people, and being 100% accurate when he turns the converation to *****

That seems like one of those comments that should just be blue, but also he is good at that. Maybe one of those "every other letter is blue" kinda comments I see people try out.

[Kish]

Well, look at it this way: those cheap and trashy romance novels (the kind Fabio frequently modeled covers for) are generally looked at as soft-core smut (and usually low effort).

Oh for the love of--

Try rephrasing that in active rather than passive voice.

By which I mean, try taking responsibility for your own apparent hatred and contempt for *ptooie* romance novels, instead of pushing it off on some imaginary consensus.

[Wraith]

How close can we get to "For #@%$'s Sake, Elliot!" for the next thread title, do you think? Feels like it should have been said before now, and will probably need saying again.

"There Will be More Make-Outs" also a viable candidate. And at last we have definitive confirmation that Clinton is enjoying himself and not just "going along with it", so hooray!

Hopefully. Unless he starts angst-ing about it tomorrow. Which is not entirely unlikely.

[Wildstag]

Oh for the love of--

Try rephrasing that in active rather than passive voice.

By which I mean, try taking responsibility for your own apparent hatred and contempt for *ptooie* romance novels, instead of pushing it off on some imaginary consensus.

Bruh, I don't have a thing against those romance novels, and it's not some "imaginary consensus". There's a reason people have entire careers lampooning the genre (see the "Pounded in the Butt" series), and it's not because those romance novels are treated like works of art. Honestly, the three I have read were pretty goofy, and the gimmicks they give the characters to make them "stand out" are pretty funny.

It is possible to recognize societal attitudes towards a topic (A) and liken another thing (B) to that topic in a disdainful way without actually disapproving of (A).

And I don't mind people getting off to what they want, provided it isn't considered generally amoral (according to western values). Dictating a scene meant to arouse where one of the involved is a sibling of the orator... I don't really know how that's NOT supposed to be looked at as gross.

[Cikomyr2]

All right. Now I feel it a lot more for both of them.

[John Cribati]

Dictating a scene meant to arouse where one of the involved is a sibling of the orator... I don't really know how that's NOT supposed to be looked at as gross.

... Because neither of the characters treated it as if it was gross?

[Keltest]

... Because neither of the characters treated it as if it was gross?

That doesnt really mean a lot except that Jeph maybe misjudged the appropriateness of that particular page.

[Wildstag]

... Because neither of the characters treated it as if it was gross?

I don't know if you have siblings or not, but go ahead and ask a friend that DOES have siblings how they would feel about their brother or sister describing an erotic scene involving your friend.

I don't know many that wouldn't find it weird. It's the same thing as when children don't like hearing the sexual escapades of their parents, even when child and parent are adults.

P.S. some families might make jokes like that, but generally they don't do it seriously, which Claire was definitely doing. And keep in mind, Clinton was alarmed by the fact that his mom was having sex with someone he tutors. He explicitly thought that was more important to mention to Claire than that he'd been in a fire.

[Traab]

But again, wasnt she basically describing a HUG in graphic terms? Lingering on the emotional effects and such rather than describing some sort of sex scene? It would be one thing if she went, "Now imagine elliot putting on his robe and wizard hat, and casting Level 3 Eroticism" It seems a bit like the argument has gotten away from what it actually was.

[Keltest]

But again, wasnt she basically describing a HUG in graphic terms? Lingering on the emotional effects and such rather than describing some sort of sex scene? It would be one thing if she went, "Now imagine elliot putting on his robe and wizard hat, and casting Level 3 Eroticism" It seems a bit like the argument has gotten away from what it actually was.

The important part there is "in graphic terms." The intent was to get him... ahem, excited.

[Wildstag]

But again, wasnt she basically describing a HUG in graphic terms? Lingering on the emotional effects and such rather than describing some sort of sex scene? It would be one thing if she went, "Now imagine elliot putting on his robe and wizard hat, and casting Level 3 Eroticism" It seems a bit like the argument has gotten away from what it actually was.

Would you describe a platonic hug in those terms (answering seriously)? If she were describing a boy-girl scene, it'd undoubtedly be sexual in nature.

What if you ran your hands up his big, thick arms... what if you nestled your head between his pecs, where you could hear his heart beating, and feel the warmth of his skin, and take in the smell of him.

And of course it's gotten away from what it was. That's how conversation works. Subjects and topics shift given enough time. If it didn't, we'd all be robots discussing the same two sentences for fifty pages (instead of, what? two pages?).

Lastly, I'll refer to the quote from Genshiken again: any scene, if vivid enough, could elicit an aroused response from a viewer, especially when not immediately brushed off, even if the reader/viewer isn't sexually into the material. Clinton, until this attempt at a dinner date, has not been emotionally affected by Elliot, and spent the past outing focused on another person. And the moods have mostly been set by bystanders gushing over the two of them. Even in the bar when Clinton is drunk and saying "well, I guess I could be into a guy, I've never thought about it", the bystanders are all peeking at the scene from the edge of the panels, which will inherently pressure a person.

[DaFlipp]

The important part there is "in graphic terms." The intent was to get him... ahem, excited.

The intent was to see whether he could get "excited" or not - you know, determine whether he was attracted to Elliot? The whole reason he came to his sister in the first place? Yes, the fact it got kind of romance novel-y within three sentences was slightly absurd (as you may have noticed, you are reading a webcomic that is intended for humorous purposes and therefore absurdity is to be expected for humorous emphasis.

In reality, would his sister have probably been more gradual about it and/or asked a friend to handle it because it'd be kinda weird? Would he have gone through a long period of introspection to make sure of where he stands? Probably! And it would've made for poorer pacing and less focused characterization. Jeph wanted to establish that, divorced of his anxieties and pre-conceptions, Clinton has at least *some* attraction to Elliot, and did so fairly concisely and (given that the literal first sentence in the next comic is "Well, I guess that answers that) definitively.

Honestly, is there something about this storyline that somehow is making you abandon both suspension of disbelief *and* awareness of the conventions of this webcomic's pacing and sense of humor in general?

[DaFlipp]

Lastly, I'll refer to the quote from Genshiken again: any scene, if vivid enough, could elicit an aroused response from a viewer, especially when not immediately brushed off, even if the reader/viewer isn't sexually into the material.

When you read that sentence Claire wrote, did you collapse into your chair, beet-faced, saying "UUUUUMMMMMM HHHHHHHH" like Clinton did?

If not, you're probably less attracted to Elliot than Clinton is!

(If you did, congrats, you discovered something about yourself!)

[Wildstag]

When you read that sentence Claire wrote, did you collapse into your chair, beet-faced, saying "UUUUUMMMMMM HHHHHHHH" like Clinton did?

If not, you're probably less attracted to Elliot than Clinton is!

(If you did, congrats, you discovered something about yourself!)

Well, that makes several assumptions: firstly, that I would not normally have that kind of reaction to boy-on-boy softcore, two, that I did not know that about myself previously, and three, that I am at a level of tolerance that the scene would leave me with that reaction. And probably a couple other assumptions I didn't directly address.

As is, it did not affect me, but written word and spoken word are two very different things. The former is significantly more mechanical.

[DaFlipp]

Well, that makes several assumptions: firstly, that I would not normally have that kind of reaction to boy-on-boy softcore, two, that I did not know that about myself previously, and three, that I am at a level of tolerance that the scene would leave me with that reaction. And probably a couple other assumptions I didn't directly address.

As is, it did not affect me, but written word and spoken word are two very different things. The former is significantly more mechanical.

No, I considered those possibilities, just chose to ignore them for the sake of a better-streamlined punchline.

Which, incidentally, is part of my point about how y'all are overthinking this!

[DaFlipp]

Last point I'm going to make because this has gone in one too many loops for my liking: At no point does Claire set any terms for establishing whether he's attracted or not. She doesn't say "remember, if this turns you on, even a little bit, you're on a one-way ticket to Attracted-To-Dudes Town". She just leads the thought exercise, and then Clinton says "That answers that". Could he be confused? Maybe! But nothing (other than the highly subjective "lack of chemistry" cited by others) has since indicated otherwise.

Personally, I choose to believe that the guy who set out to figure out his feelings on this came to an accurate conclusion.

[Wildstag]

No, I considered those possibilities, just chose to ignore them for the sake of a better-streamlined punchline.

Which, incidentally, is part of my point about how y'all are overthinking this!

I dunno how new you are to the internet, but jokes and sarcasm work more clearly verbally rather than in text format; it’s why this forum usually uses blue text for the stuff.

Your assumptions left no reason for me to read it as a joke, especially framed the way they were. And even then, some people just have a harder time recognizing tone than other. Writing it all off as “taking it too seriously” just seems dismissive of people.

Lastly, your joke lacked a punchline. Or at the very least relies on me having not had that reaction, which makes it a flimsy punchline.

[Lapak]

Bruh, I don't have a thing against those romance novels, and it's not some "imaginary consensus". There's a reason people have entire careers lampooning the genre (see the "Pounded in the Butt" series), and it's not because those romance novels are treated like works of art.

My friend, if you think that the Tingle books are meant to mock the romance genre, you are not reading them right.

[Wraith]

This honestly feels like a "How Do You Do, Fellow Kids?" moment from Jeph who has just discovered vtubers and wanted to put one in his comic somehow because it's kind of random and out of nowhere. If anyone was going to be the star of a "became a streamer" plotline, wouldn't it be Sam who went out and bought a microphone for streaming?

Although that being said, that would explain where Claire's vintage console came from - Aurelia would have been ~18-25 (probably? She doesn't look like she's in her 50's after all) around 1998 when she had kids, so why wouldn't she have had a SNES when she was 11 or 12 and passed it down? Being a 'Gamer Girl' evidently runs in the family.

[Max_Killjoy]

This honestly feels like a "How Do You Do, Fellow Kids?" moment from Jeph who has just discovered vtubers and wanted to put one in his comic somehow because it's kind of random and out of nowhere. If anyone was going to be the star of a "became a streamer" plotline, wouldn't it be Sam who went out and bought a microphone for streaming?

Although that being said, that would explain where Claire's vintage console came from - Aurelia would have been ~18-25 (probably? She doesn't look like she's in her 50's after all) around 1998 when she had kids, so why wouldn't she have had a SNES when she was 11 or 12 and passed it down? Being a 'Gamer Girl' evidently runs in the family.

Jeph probably doesn't remember Sam buying the microphone.

[Willie the Duck]

I also bet this is more of a combination of 'need a Friday gag,' 'My parents are embarrassing/possibly cooler than I am,' and 'why is my life always one more random bit of insanity?' beats that Jeph is rather fond of, moreso than anything serious about streaming (which I agree, Sam should do if in an actual storyline).

[Wraith]

(which I agree, Sam should do if in an actual storyline).

I could see Marigold doing it, too. She loves gaming, has spoken about her interest in streaming, and has always been very insecure about her own appearance - taking up a vtuber identity could be an interesting combination of the three and go to some interesting places.

[Taevyr]

This one feels like word salad in comic form. Which is odd, since the premise is perfectly understandable, if not coming so far out of left field that it likely started off on the right.

I mean, it's not unlike Jeph to go with randomness, especially on fridays, but this.... is just a bit too much for me.