• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Tom Sewell

Story Thursday May 18, 2017

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering how this new revelation fits with Ellen explaining to Nanase that her feelings for guys felt "tacked on" and artificial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elliot is now the new Master of Disguise: Attraction Edition.

I say rebalancing is like the on-paper hetero attraction trying to recalibrate itself, and then some. (shaddup I make bad analogies all the time)

I believe in everything in between in Second Life as one cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I did not expect this. I was sure that Goth would be the most likely to be asexual and Heidi to be bisexual or as Lisa put it "probably isn't a lesbian, but acts like it to put on a show for men." But in the commentary for that Q&A page Dan did say the particular page wasn't a definitive answer and wasn't 100% certain about one or more of the forms. I'm kinda surprised Dan didn't reference that Q&A page in today's commentary.

As such, Dan's commentary about Heidi for today's comic does make a lot of sense, Heidi's supposed to be a party girl, dancing, singing, etc would be top priority over anything related to sex, that "friendly peck on the cheek" might have been more like the pinup if Heidi had an attraction to females.

The mention of Justin also surprised me, I had thought that Elliot becoming mildly attracted to males started with Noah and seemed to be supported with the shirts vs skins comment, Ellen's situation may or may not be exaggerating her feelings looking back at Elliot's memories of Justin, but Elliot does confirm that they exist on some level. Same goes for Tedd, though I'm still somewhat certain that Elliot's attraction to Tedd stemmed from when Tedd took off his glasses while Elliot was a girl, and Ellen's comment about Tedd being cute and such stemmed from that moment as well. I say somewhat certain because I don't recall there being any cases of Elliot thinking Tedd was cute while not under the effects of the TFG and according to Tedd's memory of the day they met, Elliot thought Tedd was a girl.

Now that I think more about it, maybe mild attraction to the same sex is normal, I'm not talking about a guy wanting to have sexual contact with another guy or girls with girls, but maybe the whole idea of friendship and wanting to be friends with someone is based on a mild level of attraction to them. You think they look good enough to want to have a few beers with and discuss sports and try to pick up girls or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WillofLava said:

Clark Kent has the Black Widow perk built in, Goth Girl has the Cherchez La Femme perk built in, and Heidi comes with other perks.

Yes, Heidi is very perky.

-----

And actually, all this fits with my theory that people who are absolutely-purely heterosexual are rather rare. I figure that for our way-distant ancestors, attraction to each other was exclusively either sexual (want to mate with them) or dietary (want to eat them), but then when our somewhat-more-recent ancestors started becoming social creatures it was necessary to form non-dietary attractions with other members of the group - of both sexes - and the sexual attraction was there to adapt and make more flexible. So the absolutely-pure heterosexual would have same-sex acquaintances but not same-sex friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I figure that for our way-distant ancestors, attraction to each other was exclusively either sexual (want to mate with them) or dietary (want to eat them), but then when our somewhat-more-recent ancestors started becoming social creatures it was necessary to form non-dietary attractions with other members of the group - of both sexes - and the sexual attraction was there to adapt and make more flexible. So the absolutely-pure heterosexual would have same-sex acquaintances but not same-sex friends.

You'd have to mean some pretty far-back ancestors, given that committed same-sex couples have been documented in not just various mammals but birds as well.

(Hmm, and given that Aves is now a sub-category of dinosaurs, that means that we have genuine gay dinosaurs running around the planet at this very moment.  XKCD, how did you miss this one???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

You'd have to mean some pretty far-back ancestors, given that committed same-sex couples have been documented in not just various mammals but birds as well.

(Hmm, and given that Aves is now a sub-category of dinosaurs, that means that we have genuine gay dinosaurs running around the planet at this very moment.  XKCD, how did you miss this one???)

Are you talking about babbons? As for "commited" true mongamy is rare in nature see hornbills, and black vutures for a couple of real life examples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, animalia said:

Are you talking about babbons? As for "commited" true mongamy is rare in nature see hornbills, and black vutures for a couple of real life examples

I can recall offhand a penguin couple who have raised eggs/chicks together, and a pair of swans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

I can recall offhand a penguin couple who have raised eggs/chicks together, and a pair of swans.

Raising kids together doesn't necessarily mean the kids belong to both parents. Before genetic testing was possible songbirds were thought to be monogamous, now it is known that they are incredibly promiscuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

Actually, pygmy chimps, maybe our closest relatives genetically speaking, are incredibly promiscuous and pansexual. So, Mother Nature seems to have a different view on human non-heterosexuality as a crime against her.

The Jungle Law notwithstanding, Mother Nature has a very simple ruleset. The fittest survive. Precisely what makes 'fittest' is always demonstrated empirically. Behavior that aids survival is good, contrasurvival behavior is punishable by death. The End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

The Jungle Law notwithstanding, Mother Nature has a very simple ruleset. The fittest survive. Precisely what makes 'fittest' is always demonstrated empirically. Behavior that aids survival is good, contrasurvival behavior is punishable by death. The End.

Not even the fittest.  Those who have the most effective strategies for getting laid by their own kind.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

The Jungle Law notwithstanding, Mother Nature has a very simple ruleset. The fittest survive. Precisely what makes 'fittest' is always demonstrated empirically. Behavior that aids survival is good, contrasurvival behavior is punishable by death. The End.

Exactly. The reason Hornbills are monogamous can be described as a kind of Nature's version of M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. Basically for those of you unaware of them. Hornbill are a type of bird. The female will nest in a tree hollow, which the male will wall shut with mud. The exception being a narrow slit that he delivers food through and she drops waste out off. This serves to both protect her, and the young until they are developed enough to leave the nest, but it also means that she is quite literally incapable of seeing anyone else. In the meantime the male spends so much time and energy in order to feed them that he is literally incapable of spending energy on another mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vorlonagent said:

Not even the fittest.  Those who have the most effective strategies for getting laid by their own kind.  :)

There are also some species of bees, where when the males can only expect to mate once in a lifetime, their parts, will explode after mating in order to obstruct the mating canal of the female and prevent any rivals from having intercourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scotty said:

Huh, I did not expect this. I was sure that Goth would be the most likely to be asexual and Heidi to be bisexual or as Lisa put it "probably isn't a lesbian, but acts like it to put on a show for men." But in the commentary for that Q&A page Dan did say the particular page wasn't a definitive answer and wasn't 100% certain about one or more of the forms. I'm kinda surprised Dan didn't reference that Q&A page in today's commentary.

As such, Dan's commentary about Heidi for today's comic does make a lot of sense, Heidi's supposed to be a party girl, dancing, singing, etc would be top priority over anything related to sex, that "friendly peck on the cheek" might have been more like the pinup if Heidi had an attraction to females.

What Lisa accused her of was "act like lesbian on party and then leave with man" ... but seems Heidi is more like "act like bisexual on party and don't leave with anyone ever".

14 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

I'm wondering how this new revelation fits with Ellen explaining to Nanase that her feelings for guys felt "tacked on" and artificial

Apparently, existing feelings for guys enhanced with TF gun and supported by second life memories were still weaker than her feeling for girls. Or at least Nanase specifically.
 

9 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Ellen, get a note pad and a tweed suit.  You are ready to be an unlicensed psychological therapist.

If there is so serious shortage of therapist Susan still didn't get appointment, maybe she can get license easily?

3 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Actually, pygmy chimps, maybe our closest relatives genetically speaking, are incredibly promiscuous and pansexual. So, Mother Nature seems to have a different view on human non-heterosexuality as a crime against her.

Well, maybe Mother Nature does consider crime not being attracted to opposite gender, but it definitely doesn't consider crime being attracted to the same gender.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Not even the fittest.  Those who have the most effective strategies for getting laid by their own kind.  :)

Dude, Don Juan can tell you right away that that IS the definition of 'fittest.'

The definition of fittest is that you get biggest number of your children to reproduction age. Getting laid often doesn't help if your children don't survive. So it's not so simple, but as you said,

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Precisely what makes 'fittest' is always demonstrated empirically.

Also note that it's long term game. You can only consider yourself winner if EVERY living organism on planet descended from you. Talk about awarding posthumously ...

(And that's still only winner of first round. Galaxy awaits.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also note that it's long term game. You can only consider yourself winner if EVERY living organism on planet descended from you. Talk about awarding posthumously ...

Genghis Khan made a pretty good go at it. Apparently 2% of all modern humans can trace their bloodlines back to him. Give it a few more centuries and he may at least have the majority of all humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Actually, pygmy chimps, maybe our closest relatives genetically speaking, are incredibly promiscuous and pansexual.

It seems entirely appropriate that Pan paniscus should be pansexual.

5 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Not even the fittest.  Those who have the most effective strategies for getting laid by their own kind.  :)

Sometimes it's a matter of luck. If competitive pressures force you out of the prime hunting grounds and way up into the mountains just before a huge flash flood destroys the prime hunting ground and kills everything there, you're obviously more fit than the critters that forced you out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also note that it's long term game. You can only consider yourself winner if EVERY living organism on planet descended from you. Talk about awarding posthumously ...

Genghis Khan made a pretty good go at it. Apparently 2% of all modern humans can trace their bloodlines back to him. Give it a few more centuries and he may at least have the majority of all humans.

He will still lose if we manage to go extinct. There are no aquatic animals descendant from him for example ... as I say, long term.

For now, hypothetical ancestor of all eukaryotes still don't have their victory secured.

5 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Sometimes it's a matter of luck. If competitive pressures force you out of the prime hunting grounds and way up into the mountains just before a huge flash flood destroys the prime hunting ground and kills everything there, you're obviously more fit than the critters that forced you out...

Yes. They should go for chase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

He will still lose if we manage to go extinct. There are no aquatic animals descendant from him for example ... as I say, long term.

For now, hypothetical ancestor of all eukaryotes still don't have their victory secured.

Sure thing. Mind you, I still feel safe in stating that both Genghis and that hypothetical proto-eukaryote made a good go at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

 

Sometimes it's a matter of luck. If competitive pressures force you out of the prime hunting grounds and way up into the mountains just before a huge flash flood destroys the prime hunting ground and kills everything there, you're obviously more fit than the critters that forced you out...

I am not positive but I believe the factor that chance has on evolution is called Field Of Bullets

 

Also, how many of you have heard of kin selection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now