Shipping News

[Tom Sewell 268]

I've been thinking a lot about Susan and Diane's relationships, and I think many of you have too, of late. But I decided to start a more generic topic which might become a home for anyone to talk about 'ships in EGS.

Anyway, I've already begun shipping Diane and Lucy in the story topics, and then it struck me that there's a resemblance between Diane's now-established relationship with Lucy, and Susan's with Sarah. The only non-family member we now know that Diane might have known before Lucy is Rick, Both Susan and Sarah are uncertain about their sexual orientation. And I thought, why not? Best friends as lovers.

Now, this is from someone who has written three unpublished fanfics where Susan actually knocks boots with Matt Cohen and one where Lucy married a guy and had a bunch of kids with him. Frankly, gay sex doesn't turn me on. But romance is another matter. I'm hoping the relationship between Justin and Luke doesn't just disappear, although the way things are going I'm not sure I'll live long enough to find out. And absolutely the best kiss in EGS came at the end of Grace's birthday party.

[ChronosCat 158]

On 9/26/2018 at 5:03 PM, Tom Sewell said:

Anyway, I've already begun shipping Diane and Lucy in the story topics, and then it struck me that there's a resemblance between Diane's now-established relationship with Lucy, and Susan's with Sarah. The only non-family member we now know that Diane might have known before Lucy is Rick, Both Susan and Sarah are uncertain about their sexual orientation. And I thought, why not? Best friends as lovers.

I'm still rooting for Sarah to get together with Tedd and Grace. But maybe once Sarah and Tedd are comfortable enough with the situation, they'll let Susan watch...

[Tom Sewell 268]

A long time ago I did something called "No Need for Monogamy" which was intended as a humorous take on Tenchi Muyo, but it soon attracted a mob of creepoids, so I took it down.

Anyway, I don't buy Susan or Diane as ever being satisfied with a triangular marriage or even romance. Grace might see nothing wrong with it except that it might disturb Tedd and Sarah; I believe Dan has established that a common Uryuom arrangement is three parents in a family.

[Scotty 1,061]

On 9/28/2018 at 3:40 AM, Tom Sewell said:

A long time ago I did something called "No Need for Monogamy" which was intended as a humorous take on Tenchi Muyo, but it soon attracted a mob of creepoids, so I took it down.

Anyway, I don't buy Susan or Diane as ever being satisfied with a triangular marriage or even romance. Grace might see nothing wrong with it except that it might disturb Tedd and Sarah; I believe Dan has established that a common Uryuom arrangement is three parents in a family.

The whole, Monogamy vs Polygamy issue the way I see it, boils down to sex, those that are all "Polygamy is immoral!" don't like the idea of a person having sex with multiple partners. Take sex out of the equation and it's just a bunch of close friends, add children to that and it's a bunch of close friends sharing the responsibility of raising said children. That's pretty much Uryuoms in general  (Lavender might be an exception though) they build relationships through mental connections rather than physical so an Uryuom family would essentially be a bunch of close friends that have children together in a non sexual way.

Of course that's just using one example of polygamy, mileage may vary for others.

[ChronosCat 158]

On 9/28/2018 at 3:40 AM, Tom Sewell said:

Anyway, I don't buy Susan or Diane as ever being satisfied with a triangular marriage or even romance. Grace might see nothing wrong with it except that it might disturb Tedd and Sarah; I believe Dan has established that a common Uryuom arrangement is three parents in a family.

I don't think Diane would be; she's clearly still looking for "her true love" or the closest realistically possible approximation thereof.

As for Susan, I can't remember if she ever expressed interest in romantic relationships and if so what she said about it, but we do know she enjoyed watching Catalina kiss Elliot, and at least as of her conversation with Diane in the mall she isn't interested in "doing things" with anyone. That could possibly change (or she might decide to do "things" despite lack of interest for the sake of someone she loves), but a the moment it seems like the ideal relationship for her would be one in which she could get the benefits of an emotional relationship but only be an observer when it came to the physical.

[Tom Sewell 268]

1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

As for Susan, I can't remember if she ever expressed interest in romantic relationships and if so what she said about it, but we do know she enjoyed watching Catalina kiss Elliot, and at least as of her conversation with Diane in the mall she isn't interested in "doing things" with anyone. That could possibly change (or she might decide to do "things" despite lack of interest for the sake of someone she loves), but a the moment it seems like the ideal relationship for her would be one in which she could get the benefits of an emotional relationship but only be an observer when it came to the physical.

It's not true that Susan has never gotten physical. Now it's true this is from Grace's birthday party when Susan and Justin were TG'd, but this was spontaneous for both of them.

And it's not true she's never expressed interest in a romantic relationship. Take another look at this interaction between Susan and (again) Justin after Bad Tom tried to mess with her head and Susan has learned that Elliot has hooked up with Ashley. It seems to be famous for its' "I like to look" revelation in the last panel. But look at the fourth panel. Susan tells Justin that the situation that the new relationship with Ashley has made Elliot more like Justin to herself. Could we have a Freudian slip here? That is, could it be that Susan is actually in love with Justin but has written him off because he's gay? Remember that at that time, Justin hadn't become involved with Luke or any other man.

Could you see Susan turning male for Justin some day? After all, technically, she's already done that once...

Meanwhile "poor" little Sarah at the current point in the story has three potential romances going: Cecil, Larry, and Sam. For those of you who are into Danny Phantom (as I am becoming of late) but who haven't read the whole series or who have but forgotten about the EGS Sam, he/she is the girl who wants to be a boy Sarah met at the trading card tournament in Squirrel Prophet ten days ago in story time and made a date with which she should have gone on the same Friday when Susan finally met Diane.

[ChronosCat 158]

A link I wanted to post earlier but didn't have the time: Susan realizing she's equally uninterested in sex with men as she is with women.

Of course, given the way it's presented, it's hard to tell if it's a true lack of interest, or an extension of her dislike of touching. Dan has talked before about Susan possibly being Ace, but on the other hand the fact that she seems a lot more interested in participating when in male form suggest it might just be her aversion to touching at play. (Why being in male form would make a difference puzzles me, but brains are weird, so I'm not going to argue with it.)

1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

And it's not true she's never expressed interest in a romantic relationship. Take another look at this interaction between Susan and (again) Justin after Bad Tom tried to mess with her head and Susan has learned that Elliot has hooked up with Ashley. It seems to be famous for its' "I like to look" revelation in the last panel. But look at the fourth panel. Susan tells Justin that the situation that the new relationship with Ashley has made Elliot more like Justin to herself. Could we have a Freudian slip here? That is, could it be that Susan is actually in love with Justin but has written him off because he's gay? Remember that at that time, Justin hadn't become involved with Luke or any other man.

Could you see Susan turning male for Justin some day? After all, technically, she's already done that once...

That does vaguely imply she has some interest in romance, but it doesn't tell us what she's looking for in a romantic relationship. Barring her saying she wants a monogamous relationship and/or to one day have a physical relationship, I'm not ruling out the possibility of her being a romantic but not physically sexual partner in a poly relationship.

On the other hand, if it doesn't work out between Justin and Luke, I could also almost see her and Justin getting together - but only if he's willing to settle for someone who isn't male mentally and is only male physically on occasion. There is no way Susan would want to stay in male form long term... Unfortunately, I'm not sure the sacrifices they would both have to make to making this relationship work would be truly worth it. They'd probably be better off trying to find better matches.

1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

Meanwhile "poor" little Sarah at the current point in the story has three potential romances going: Cecil, Larry, and Sam. For those of you who are into Danny Phantom (as I am becoming of late) but who haven't read the whole series or who have but forgotten about the EGS Sam, he/she is the girl who wants to be a boy Sarah met at the trading card tournament in Squirrel Prophet ten days ago in story time and made a date with which she should have gone on the same Friday when Susan finally met Diane.

Cecil? I suppose it's possible, but he's played such a small role I'd forgotten he even existed. I had to look him up on Shiveapedia, and they don't even mention him in the "minor characters" list - I had to follow a link from the complete list of characters (which has no descriptions) to one of the comics with him to even find out who he was.

Oh, and Sam is not a girl who wants to be a boy. Sam is a boy who was born with a body type (including genital configuration) more commonly associated with girls. To use the commonly accepted modern terminology, a trans boy or trans man.

[Tom Sewell 268]

51 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

Oh, and Sam is not a girl who wants to be a boy. Sam is a boy who was born with a body type (including genital configuration) more commonly associated with girls. To use the commonly accepted modern terminology, a trans boy or trans man.

What is your source on this? I mean, I know the phenomenon really exists, but what makes you sure it applies to Sam? In other words, did Dan actually say so?

 

51 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

Why being in male form would make a difference puzzles me,

Justin isn't attracted to women; this is the reason he broke Melissa's heart. My point was that Susan might become male (again) for Justin's sake.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Tom Sewell
Correction

[ChronosCat 158]

2 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

What is your source on this? I mean, I know the phenomenon really exists, but what makes you sure it applies to Sam? In other words, did Dan actually say so?

If you want Word of Dan, the text for the first link in the commentary of the December 12 2014 comic reads, "Yes, Sam is trans male"

As for evidence in the comic, Sam was the one that pointed out that Tess would be a good feminine name for Tedd, and when Tedd told Grace this she explained that Sam probably thought Tedd was transgender (thus leading to Tedd learning both the real meaning of the word "transgender" and that there was a name for his own gender identity). Furthermore in the flashback in the July 16 2014 comic, Sam went to a lot of trouble to keep Grace from saying he was a girl, and it's indicated this conversation led to Grace learning the meaning of transgender herself; the logical conclusion is that Sam told her the basics (or at least enough for her to know she had something to look up). In light of all this, it would be quite the red herring if Sam turned out not to be a trans guy.

(Plus, even if Dan says that only things in the comic itself are truly canon, he's not likely to change his mind on this, and Sam is supposed to show up again, so I'm sure it will be fully spelled out in the comic eventually.)

2 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

3 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Why being in male form would make a difference puzzles me,

Justin isn't attracted to women; this is the reason he broke Melissa's heart.

I meant, it puzzles me why it makes a difference to Susan (in regards to how comfortable with and/or interested in touching others she is).

Of course, I can think of a few possibilities - one, the TFG tends to enhance feelings of attraction, so that would at least help explain the incident at the Birthday Party; two, she might not think of her male form as "her body", so she's not so concerned about what (or who) it comes into contact with.

[Don Edwards 561]

It's hard for most people to imagine, but romantic interest and sexual interest are NOT absolutely connected. If I remember correctly, Ellen once said that she's bisexual but homoromantic.

There's another comic (I won't name it because they're rerunning it and I try to avoid posting spoilers) where a character who is bi- and extremely-sexual ends up more or less hitched to a character who is homoromantic and asexual. Every so often they go out together with the mutual intent of getting the first of these two hooked up for a one-night stand.

[ijuin 594]

16 hours ago, Scotty said:

The whole, Monogamy vs Polygamy issue the way I see it, boils down to sex, those that are all "Polygamy is immoral!" don't like the idea of a person having sex with multiple partners. Take sex out of the equation and it's just a bunch of close friends, add children to that and it's a bunch of close friends sharing the responsibility of raising said children. That's pretty much Uryuoms in general  (Lavender might be an exception though) they build relationships through mental connections rather than physical so an Uryuom family would essentially be a bunch of close friends that have children together in a non sexual way.

Of course that's just using one example of polygamy, mileage may vary for others.

Leaving aside issues of jealousy between the participating or non-participating people, there are two sorta-rational arguments against human polygamy that I can see.

The first I would term "selfish depletion of the mating pool"--essentially, if one guy is involved with multiple girls (or one girl with multiple guys, or any combination where the number of males and females in the relationship are unequal), then it unbalances the number of people of either sex available for other relationships. To give an example, in some Mormon groups that practice multiple wives to a single husband, many younger sons are regarded as "surplus", since there are not enough girls available to provide them with wives without marrying outside of their denomination, which has led to a number of such boys being made into outcasts by their own communities. Put bluntly, every person who has two mates means that another person will probably have none.

The second is "paternity control". Basically, in any society where a parent passes property and hereditary titles/rank/privileges to their children AND where blood-related children get priority over adopted children, it becomes vital to know WHICH children are blood-related. In other words, unless you are assuming that all of a woman's children are from her husband, then you need some means of telling which are his and which are not. Given that in pre-industrial times there was no way to prove a genetic link beyond simple resemblance of appearance, the only way to be totally sure of a child's paternity is if there is only one candidate--i.e. the mother was only sleeping with one man at the likely time of conception. The only real other way to deal with the "which child will inherit indivisible titles and privileges" is by ignoring the possibility that the mother's children might not be her husband's, and therefore placing them all on the same level.

[ChronosCat 158]

16 hours ago, ijuin said:

Leaving aside issues of jealousy between the participating or non-participating people, there are two sorta-rational arguments against human polygamy that I can see.

The first I would term "selfish depletion of the mating pool"--essentially, if one guy is involved with multiple girls (or one girl with multiple guys, or any combination where the number of males and females in the relationship are unequal), then it unbalances the number of people of either sex available for other relationships. [...]

The second is "paternity control". Basically, in any society where a parent passes property and hereditary titles/rank/privileges to their children AND where blood-related children get priority over adopted children, it becomes vital to know WHICH children are blood-related.[...]

Both are practical concerns, not moral ones, however, and ones that can be solved at that.

Regarding the first argument, its' really only a problem if you have a small population or if a large part of the population is specifically practicing polygamy with the only other option monogamy (or alternately with polyandry and monogamy the only options). If the number of groups practicing polygamy and polyandry balance out, if polyamory with more than one partner per sex is the most common kind, or if in a large population only a small number are practicing whatever variety of polyamory, it really isn't an issue.

As for the second argument, as the argument itself makes clear that requires a specific set of societal rules plus an inability to perform modern paternity tests. If the good of the family is valued over that of an individual's direct descendants, it isn't an issue. ...And also, while this is no more fair than only allowing men to own property and privilege, there isn't any need to worry about paternity in societies where the women hold all the property/titles/etc.!

[Don Edwards 561]

 

A valid reason for polygamy OR polyandry - not both at the same time - is when, either because of birth rates or because of survival rates, the gender balance is significantly different from one-for-one. Of course, if it's because of survival rates, the current probably-elder beneficiaries of the imbalance have an incentive to NOT do anything that might improve the balance...

And there's an ongoing web story I'm reading where, in one culture, primary monogamy does happen fairly frequently but is not necessarily expected and even the monogamous are free to mate otherwise - particularly on occasions when two or more villages meet peacefully. Children are raised by the village their mother lives in.

In another culture in the same universe, children are raised by the Clan of Females and most people can't name their biological mothers, let alone their fathers. Attempts at monogamy are rare and generally scandalous.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

On 10/1/2018 at 11:39 PM, Don Edwards said:

There's another comic (I won't name it because they're rerunning it and I try to avoid posting spoilers) where a character who is bi- and extremely-sexual ends up more or less hitched to a character who is homoromantic and asexual. Every so often they go out together with the mutual intent of getting the first of these two hooked up for a one-night stand.

Sounds like a lot of kinky/vanilla marriages -- the kinky member usually has some sort out outlet, be it a steady Dom/me or a series of one-time encounters, so that the vanilla partner doesn't have to participate.  Sometimes there are rules, such as no sexual contact, but not always.

On 10/1/2018 at 2:36 PM, Tom Sewell said:

Justin isn't attracted to women; this is the reason he broke Melissa's heart.

You make it sound like Justin did something to her.  They had one attempted encounter, and Justin never deliberately led her on or made any promises that would have matched the fantasy expectations she apparently had built up in her head.  Melissa is the one who built up everything in her head with too little basis.  It was a bad match, but neither one did anything to the other.

On 10/2/2018 at 0:19 AM, ijuin said:

....essentially, if one guy is involved with multiple girls (or one girl with multiple guys, or any combination where the number of males and females in the relationship are unequal), then it unbalances the number of people of either sex available for other relationships....

Individuals don't generally think about such things when developing relationships, nor when sneaking in a quick mating while their partner's usual mate isn't looking.  It happens all the time in nature.  Biologists refer to "sneaky fuckers" (or more polite versions in more formal settings), often males who look like females so they can get to a more masculine male's girl(s) without being driven away.  The female is usually a willing participant in the deception.  That means both sides are being poly in their mating habits -- males seek out extra females to mate with, and females attract extra males to mate with.  We're finding that even animals we used to think of as mating for life, actually can "get a divorce" or sneak around on each other while still acting like lifemates towards each other.

Quote

Basically, in any society where a parent passes property and hereditary titles/rank/privileges to their children AND where blood-related children get priority over adopted children, it becomes vital to know WHICH children are blood-related. In other words, unless you are assuming that all of a woman's children are from her husband, then you need some means of telling which are his and which are not.

Not really.  As well as other methods of passing along property and wealth, many cultures see genetic relatedness as only one factor in choosing an heir, and not really all that important a factor.  In Japan, it's quite common for a business owner getting close to retirement to choose an heir, someone experienced and capable of running the company but a generation younger, and adopt that person so that they can inherit the business instead of having to buy it or be given it as a gift and owe far more taxes etc. than if it were "kept within the family."

[ijuin 594]

20 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Individuals don't generally think about such things when developing relationships, nor when sneaking in a quick mating while their partner's usual mate isn't looking.  It happens all the time in nature.  Biologists refer to "sneaky fuckers" (or more polite versions in more formal settings), often males who look like females so they can get to a more masculine male's girl(s) without being driven away.  The female is usually a willing participant in the deception.  That means both sides are being poly in their mating habits -- males seek out extra females to mate with, and females attract extra males to mate with.  We're finding that even animals we used to think of as mating for life, actually can "get a divorce" or sneak around on each other while still acting like lifemates towards each other.

Oh sure, it happens. I was referring rather to the idea that it would be a bad thing for it to be considered the general social norm to do so--it becomes a huge "tragedy of the commons" issue where having a majority of the population attempting to do it wrecks the entire system. Human society would get really screwed up if EVERY guy were trying to get multiple wives or EVERY girl were trying to get multiple husbands.

20 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Not really.  As well as other methods of passing along property and wealth, many cultures see genetic relatedness as only one factor in choosing an heir, and not really all that important a factor.  In Japan, it's quite common for a business owner getting close to retirement to choose an heir, someone experienced and capable of running the company but a generation younger, and adopt that person so that they can inherit the business instead of having to buy it or be given it as a gift and owe far more taxes etc. than if it were "kept within the family."

The problem arises when the deceased father has multiple children who want to fight over who gets the lion's share of the inheritance--especially if there is a huge fortune or a noble title to be had. This has been the cause of a number of wars of succession when multiple sons of the previous king all want to become the next king. This is the reason that societies tend to need some social rules governing inheritance beyond simply "Daddy put me in his Will".

[Don Edwards 561]

Quote

Basically, in any society where a parent passes property and hereditary titles/rank/privileges to their children AND where blood-related children get priority over adopted children, it becomes vital to know WHICH children are blood-related. In other words, unless you are assuming that all of a woman's children are from her husband, then you need some means of telling which are his and which are not.

 

On 10/27/2018 at 3:56 AM, CritterKeeper said:

Not really.  As well as other methods of passing along property and wealth, many cultures see genetic relatedness as only one factor in choosing an heir, and not really all that important a factor.  In Japan, it's quite common for a business owner getting close to retirement to choose an heir, someone experienced and capable of running the company but a generation younger, and adopt that person so that they can inherit the business instead of having to buy it or be given it as a gift and owe far more taxes etc. than if it were "kept within the family."

Your "not really" fails because your exception to it explicitly violates explicit conditions of the earlier statement.

Equivalent: "All red things...." "Not really, because this blue thing..."

Note: you may be entirely correct in every way except the notion that you're countering the earlier statement.

Now the earlier statement DESERVES a "not really" because it makes an assumption that "any society where a parent passes property and hereditary titles/rank/privileges to their children" will pass these things on the paternal line. There have been matrilineal societies, and male-dominated societies that used a modified matrilineal system - a man's property would be passed on to his mother's daughter's sons. In these societies, paternity doesn't matter much. Maternity does, but it's rarely in doubt unless someone is trying really hard to obfuscate it.

[ijuin 594]

You can have a system of matrilineal inheritance and clan membership and yet as long as kids are getting ANYTHING from Daddy that they (the kids) feel is worth fighting over possession of, then it becomes necessary to know who is each kid's Daddy unless their society decrees that having his blood or not is irrelevant.