Grrl Power #578 – Crane shot bust
For those wondering when Valen got there, I think I only drew him on one page, right when they arrived. Oh, here too. He just never factored into the pages before now, and sometimes I have to be a little economical about how much background stuff I draw. But yeah, he was there, as part of the Council Seat quorum needed to open the Vault.
I think every time I draw Max’s hair outside of her hat or a tie, it gets wavier. Not sure why, I guess straight hair is less visually interesting to draw. I think I’ve hit peak wave though, I’m not about to stray into curls with her.
Some people will invariably feel the need to point out that Maxima is being a bit of a hypocrite, as she ogles dudes all the time. Of course, she’s not leaning way in to their personal space when she’s doing it, which is her primary complaint here. Her M.O. is to do it from a distance (usually while tittering with female coworkers.) She knows dudes look at her and make all sorts of comments. Probably some women. People are people after all. All she asks is just don’t do it within her (potentially superpowered?) earshot. Or literally lean over her trying to get a better angle.
The difference between a woman doing it to a man and vice versa is that women generally don’t see a guy walking down the street and yell “Hey nice package! Why don’t you come over here and deliver it to my inbox!” Where as women have to put up with that shit ALL THE TIME. On the street, at work, not at work, playing games online. Playing games. What do these dudes think is going to happen? The woman will get turned on by their questions about carpet/drape coordination and boob size queries and be so overcome with lust tingles that she’ll hop in her car and drive across a city or states just for a chance to wreck that dick? I doubt it’s so calculated, it’s just Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory in action. (Time hole warning; TV Tropes link)
Anyway, my point is that when I write Maxima, I try to imagine how I would act after 20 years of the relentless hailstorm of unwanted comments and leers. I don’t think I’d be super cool about it. Of course, I do the same thing when I write for Dabbler, only she’s super into it rather than being exhausted by it.
Double res version will be posted over at Patreon. $1 and up, but feel free to contribute as much as you like.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
I figure that being an elf, he’s got pretty keen eyesight. If he wanted to perv, he could do it from the other end of the room. So I imagine something else has got his attention, something which has so far gone unnoticed by everyone else.
You know, like a slowly encroaching death field?
He looks more like a high elf rather than a wood elf, so keen eyes is probably not one of his racial traits. But you do make a good point about that expanding death field that Sciona left them with. Where is it now, what are its bounds/duration?
I think the death field got turned off as soon as the Council members opened the door.
I swear there a pair of eyes in the wall just above her bust in the 5th panel.
I think that might be what he’s looking at/for.
If there is, then it would be behind her, and he is not looking behind her
Why would eyes above her boobs be behind her?
Thought you said panel four :(
But no, what you are seeing in panel five is simply part of a either a door or rubble on the floor
Upon reflection, here’s why I don’t think he was checking out her breasts. When she says ‘do you mind?’ he says ‘What? I was….” before she finishes his sentence with what she thinks he’s doing, which is where he gets all ‘I uh…’
I literally don’t think he even thought about it being that he was looking at her breasts, which means he was likely looking at something ELSE.
At least that’s my theory. We’ll see probably in the next strip or two.
Plausible, butt, how many people, who actually were looking at a woman’s bust (or a man’s ‘package’ or butt), also deny they were looking, even, in some cases, while continue looking while denying (and no, it’s not a case of them only looking because they were accused)
It’s not that he denied it even. It’s that his first word was ‘What?’ – as if it hadnt even occured to him that the answer would be that he was leering at her breasts.
Which makes me think that he was actually doing something else and it’s going to be revealed in either the next comic or the one after that (if Maxima takes a strip to chastise the elf guy first before the reveal happens).
How often have you been so absorbed in, or focused on, something, that, when someone talks to you, your first response is “What?”
If it was just ‘what?’ then I’d agree with you. But it was ‘What?’ and without missing a beat ‘I was…’ before she cut him off. As if he’s about to tell what he’s actually looking at.
We will just have to wait and see, but it seems she cut him off before he could say “I wasn’t doing anything”, the words said by every person (regardless of age and gender) caught doing something they shouldn’t
I’ve always wondered when we’d get the explanation about Max’s ears being pointed.
Probably when we get the explanation about what makes her so shiny
Or what her skin is actually made out of :)
That’s kinda what meant :D
GMTA :)
My one issue with this page is that if Valen were really a Fae, he definitely wouldn’t care if Maxima caught him staring at her tits.
Fae don’t care who they offend in the mortal realm. That’s just natural fact.
Amen!Also if he was really a fae he probably already knows what Maxi looks like in the nude too….Im kind of hoping this is Maxi jumping to conclusions and the guy has actually noticed something important.If not its just another way of making the mighty scawry council look sad and pathetic.
He’s scared of her. It’s been all but said blatantly that Max intimidates most of the council.
He may be Fae, but I imagine he likes not getting turned into a smoking smear on the ground.
Max may be impulsive sometimes, but she’s not “murder a leader of the council for no legitimate reason” impulsive.
He probably knows that on a intellectual level.
But his experiences of growing up in, wherever Fae grow-up, has probably had him see people be killed for far lighter infractions.It might take him a hot-second to re-realize that Max can’t/won’t hurt him too bad as long as he doesn’t do anything too stupid.
Right, true.
huh, you’d think an ancient immortal who works in an environment where literal sex demons form literal hell are a possible security risk/coworkers would have the self-control not to perve on a key ally.
either his interest was curiosity about maximas psychology, or he has a really good bodyguard who’s job it is to keep him away from honey traps. If it’s the second one can we have a moment of silence for the guy whose job it is to cockblock this guy for security reasons?
Or, and I know that this isn’t going to be a fan favorite but work with me here, he wasn’t looking at Max’s tits in the first place but she is so conditioned that it is her first go-to in any situation where anyone is looking even remotely in the general direction of her tits.
Also I think you meant to say physiology and not psychology, unless you think he intended to provoke her just to see what her reaction would be.
I vote this. We the readers have the objectivity of not-being-in-that-situation to estimate that he likely wasn’t doing that. Maxima doesn’t, and went for the closest-in-her-association-field plausible explanation.
Geez, Valen, did subtlety board a Grey Ship and pass into the West?
+1 This cracked me up.
He’s likely not actually perving, but still. +1 to you.
She still manages to come across as something of a radfem, which is in no way a compliment. Not at all in a ‘I’m really tired of the treatment I get’ – which is entirely understandable, and more ‘I’m a woman, how dare you be attracted to me when I’m not attracted to you’ sort of way.
Her thinking on the subject was fundamentally exposed in her argument with Dabbler, and I fell in love with Dabbler’s thinking immediately even if I don’t agree with her whole hypnotism thing and how people think that’s okay – ‘It’s just removing inhibitions’ was the counter-argument in the comments I believe, well that’s what getting a girl drunk enough to want to have sex with you is too but that’s either rape or super skeevy depending on who you ask, so why doesn’t it apply to Dabbler? Meh, that aside.
Speaking of, Max’s reaction to Dabbler doesn’t feel like a ‘I’m tired of the treatment I get personally’ and more of the radfem misguided concept where individual instances of women not playing hard to get somehow harm all females across the globe, so long as they personally disagree with it. Then yes, of course as mentioned, she ogles guys. If her problem was just that some guys can be crass and obnoxious about their attraction, her earlier views on the subject shouldn’t feel so extreme, I believe. But as I and other readers seem to feel, it’s less her personal treatment and more that she feels her views and beliefs are being disrespected. Which makes her ‘chat about guys with the girls while ogling them’ bit factually hypocritical. If it’s okay for one and not the other, that is not equality.
To my mind I thought that was the point this whole time. To show that she has this personality flaw, and actually to take it as a FLAW, as a problem of her character, to make her out to be realistic for these perception issues she has. When a character is basically Superman people tend to look to their philosophy for their ‘weaknesses’ rather than how hard they can punch. But it looks like this wasn’t intended to be the case, which now leaves me a bit confused as to why she comes off as something of a hostile misandrist at times rather than an exasperated and fed up woman with bad luck in regards to men.
Except getting someone super drunk isn’t just a magic “no inhibitions, you can clearly decide what to do”, it’s something compromises your judgement and awareness on a sliding scale that goes all the way up to “walking is hard, sleeping right here is fine”. So, there’s a fine line, but a very crucial difference that lets Dabblers seem a bit less skeevy/rapey.
And Max has always been outspoken about her feminism, and being a feminist is not intended to be a flaw, and the fact that she takes it so (too?) far is an understandable extension of the issues she has encountered. So just because you don’t think it’s a compliment, doesn’t mean it’s not her character, even when it leads to minor moments of hypocrisy?
Drunkenness goes way beyond that. It’s quite possible to drink so much that it inhibits basic processes like breathing, but drowning in your own vomit is quite likely before that occurs unless you’re face down in that gutter. Acute alcohol poisoning is not nice in the slightest.
So, you saying that this is an appropriate setting for Elf to continue his attempt to perv on Maxi?
Assuming he is perving. We don’t know yet :) Probably will find out soon though.
I get what you mean (I learned a new word today!) but with Xuriel, I figured succubi have similar biologies to these three species:
Demon (emotion and feeling are their food more than anything else depending on the source)
Dolphin (every male is a rapist that starves females until they’re so hungry that they let themselves be gangbanged. When around humans) (gets cut off because I had to click replay on Miku singing Levan Polka) (they’re very happy that our species doesn’t consider that normal)
Ferret (females HAVE to have sex or their own horniness becomes toxic in their bodies and kills them)
You can left-click and click repeat to have Youtube loop any song or video you want.
I dont think Valen is doing a boob stare, just not the sort of thing Id expect from some sort of high elf. And while Dave is free to write his characters anyway he wants I cant help but wonder about his personal life experience when he feels that women “put up with that shit ALL THE TIME”. In nearly 50 years of life I’ve never heard anyone make such a claim nor have I witnessed that level of harassment. Not saying I havent seen some boorish behavior here and there but Dave’s process on writing Max seems a little out there to me personally.
I actually dont mind it though even when I do comment on it. Maxima is human (or was) and we all have our flaws, hangups or ways of dealing with our environment. If Max was perfect she’s be boring and she’s got plenty of good traits to balance her personality out. She’s not some man-hating, closet lesbian with a radical agenda and she has room for personal growth.
People’s observation skills vary. Unless you have a pair of large breasts you are less likely to be aware of this behaviour, or how frequently it occurs. Keen people watchers do notice this though. Likewise those who listen to women relaying their experiences.
Of course if you only hang out in polite company, then guys will tend to be more discreet. But, if they think they are being unobserved, you can still spot the occasional sneak peak. And, of course, there are the situations where mother nature pushes your buttons and your instincts kick in with no intentional control.
That said it is not universally true. There are guys with no sexual urges, some of whom hang out here. And others who’s interests lie elsewhere. But if you are a woman who is getting even the odd sneak peek, but who comes into contact with a lot of men, that will certainly feel like the standard state of affairs.
AMEN, Yorp! That’s a great way of putting it. I’ll just add that, as a woman, one of the topics that always comes up in female-only company is one’s most recent experiences with pervs. One of those conversations where everyone has something to contribute.
Think about it — just one rude man can creep out dozens of women a day. The fact that one man and his friends don’t harass women doesn’t actually say anything about whether women are frequently harassed. My male friends never fail to be astonished when I tell them about my encounters for the first time.
On this issue, men and women really do live in completely different realities. Radical empathy is needed, and a willingness to entertain the notion that a woman probably knows more about her own life than you do.
Funny thing to say that “that a woman probably knows more about her own life than you do” when we are discussing a fictional female character’s reaction based on the writings of a male author as well as my own personal observations.
Now this in no way invalidates your own experiences, I would not presume to speak for you as an individual but as someone who was a trained observe of human behavior as a behavioral science specialist in the army I have not been privy to this glut of bad behavior towards women in general. Obviously some my have it worse than others as circumstances will vary but I honestly do not observe the sort of thing Dave described in his notes with any sort of regularity.
Couple that with the fact that in the 24 years that my wife and I have known each other that one of her daily complaints is not harrassement. And not she’s not shy about reporting such things to me. She’s let me know about everything from a very creepy individual at a work place who made several women uncomfortable (that guy got fired fortunately) from a close friend who got drunk and decided to make a pass at her at a party (with me present no less). There are certainly men who behave rudely to those who commit legeitamite harrassment but having asked he about that in terms of this discussion she has confirmed that this is not something that happens “all the time” as Dave put it or even daily. Maybe she’s just lucky. But again its not something either of us have noted on a regular basis.
Like me! I have no libido. Lets me concentrate on my work (I finished book 1 of my series guys).
Grats on book one.
DaveB isn’t claiming that ALL have had to put up with this ALL the time, he’s saying that Maxi has had to put up with it all the time for the last 20 years
sigh, the problem here is one of perspective. if one out of every 20 men will make a comment to a particular woman. that means that a 1.5 hour trip to a crowded Walmart that woman will likely get 1-3 comments. bear in mind that she will remember each and every one for a period of time after she leaves the store. she will not remember the 19-57 men she saw there (unless one was close to her or significant in someway) that’s the secret to how every woman has these experiences and yet it is far from unusual for a man to look in the mirror and at his friends and go.. what me?!?! and.be.right.
its a negative expression of the phenomenon that, unless you own and drive a rare car, you will see the car you drive everywhere. in the crowded Walmart parking lot you will see the car that is the same model and color as yours as well as the 2 or three same models, different color. ( I drive a kia soul and can attest that they are everywhere.. except that I never mange to count all the cars I see in between souls )
It does not matter if your daily commute takes you past 1,000 people, who do not harass you, if at the end of the day you come home having been harassed by someone. If that is happening to you on a regular basis (even once a week or once a month) it is still enough to be living in a state of oppression. Unless, of course, you consistently get support, sympathy and help to counter the negatives.
Especially true when dealing with such in a workplace environment. Whilst you may be able to modify your commute, to avoid places you get harassed (say passing a building site and getting obscene suggestions called out), you cannot do that with your place of work.
Which means that the rest of us in society should not stand by and try to downplay this as being isolated incidents. We should not badger those complaining, to make them feel that they are a burden, or ‘making false complaints’, or are an anomaly to ‘normal’ statistics – who’s evidence is thereby in doubt.
I recognize that i looks like I am supporting this kind of behavior. I am not. the OP makes a common point about this issue, he doesn’t see it as widespread as claimed. should it be called out and condemned. yes. I was attempting to answer the question- how can it be true that every woman sees this behavior, and can share many stories about it. but not every man engages in it?
no where in my comment did i talk about a commute… that confuses me.
Sydney so cute!
You essentially told your male readers “all men” and “are bad” and you did it through a character with no rationale, and then compounded on it in the comments.
I’m out. Fuck this shit.
*waves goodbye, with a tear in the eye*
*gets hankie out and blows nose*
Odd conclusion to come to mind, when faced with a fair social observation. We guys need no more rationale than a pair of breasts in eyesight. Especially when the commentary does explicitly point out that women do this too.
Not to mention saying “People are people after all”, so is most certainly is not condemning this as “bad”, rather it is just human nature. Bad manners mind, and guys are often not aware of doing it (or that they are being noticed). So it does not hurt to suggest that it is better to be discreet.
Unless, of course, talking to a guy who is just a touchy about such matters, from their side of the fence, as Maxima is on hers.
Well put Yorp, good puppy. That aside, I also like how you pointed out that both sexes do this kind of behavior. After all there was the page with Maxima and Heiro that pointed out that Max was taking full advantage of the view she was getting of her subordinate.
Oh no, someone who clearly only just got here (if they only just now were able to be offended by the first anti-men they can see and storm off in the huff), is leaving. However will the comic survive.
But yeah, it definitely didn’t say all men, just that it’s unfortunately very common, and generally only happens in one direction. Which…y’know…is true. So good work taking entirely the wrong message, presumed militant anti-feminist with poor reading skills?
Wow and I thought my reactions were too kneejerk to things in this comic *Suddenly feels better about self*.Id read the comic from the beginning and give it more of a chance man.
Honestly you’re overreeacting. A LOT. DaveB never said all men. He was talking about a hypothetically select number, and what seemslike Macima’s personal experirnces as agolden goddess with a perfect body like most supers have. Even if the harrassment online is anecdotal and not representative of most gamers, he wasnt making a blanket statement to all men. I am not sure where the anger directed at him is coming from here.
Be careful! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I’ve never understood why people feel the need to tell you when they are leaving. I’ve gotten that on things I’ve written, as well as seeing it around other people’s creating, and I always wonder…do they think we’re going to go back and rewrite/redraw something to please them **after** they’ve said they’re leaving? Or that we honestly care if they leave, given that they lack the basic social skills to use their words like a grownup?
I suppose it’s just a desire to vent but it’s still pretty juvenile.
… Yes, they do, you will find that they often hang around for awhile hoping that people notice that they left (usual people who never contributed before so wouldn’t have even been noticed in the first place) and also in the self-deluded belief that the author slash creator will change things to the way they ranted about, it even happens in games
And I’ve never understood why people seem to take this kind of feedback as being any more or less valid than any other kind of feedback. You don’t get all bent out of shape or bewildered when someone says some equivalent of “I like this comic,” do you? Is it just because it’s negative feedback, and not just fluffing the author’s ego? If that’s what you think you might want to look up the word feedback, because it has a meaning which doesn’t just mean “only stroke my dick for me because my ego is so fragile I can’t take anything but positive criticism.”
I’d go so far as to say that this kind of feedback is by far the most valuable. While no author/artist is necessarily hoping to be universally liked, they also probably don’t want a Trump-like approval rating when they hope to make a living off of their product. Knowing that something they did was a trigger that drove away a reader (whether deserved or not, and I’d lean towards “not” in this case) is or at least can be very valuable feedback. Far more valuable than some pablum about how wonderful the comic or some character or some panel in the latest strip can ever be.
What feedback? Ragequitting isn’t feedback
While I agree that criticism can be good, my main problem with J’s post was that it was based on a faulty premise and he was overreacting. Criticism is best when it is constructive criticism. And you know that I dont just post to fluff egos. I posted quite a bit of criticism about Vehemence. But the only part of this post that had anything constructive was J saying that DaveB said something in the comic that he didnt actually say.
Yeah, I’ve gotten this on my book (So, Reincarnation Didn’t Work Like I Thought…) on Royal Road Legends.
I had 20 something chapters out or so, and a new reader came, read about a third of chapter one, complained in the comments about the words “social justice” and isn’t coming back. I have one subscriber of 2 pounds (I get dollars, he donates pounds) per month, and it wasn’t him. So…
Sydney: Cuteness incarnate.
Im a cynical git who loves poking a Sydneys negative traits and even I have to agree with this verdict good sir-well when shes not looking like a manic fraggle that is ^^.
A divine manic fraggle, please.
Loyalty, thy name is Yorp.
How dare you insult the cuteness of fraggles!
I swear I was born a decade too late.
Good news: you can get them on video (or DVD), not sure where, but fairly sure you can, heck, just bought the entire first season of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers the other day (all 60 episodes), Pink Ranger was the first naked celebrity printed out
I think I’ll pass on naked pink ranger thanks :)
so you are saying, as a man, that if women were literally throwing themselves at you that you would get tired of it and disgusted? I’m calling bullshit. Women love to be noticed, they just don’t’ want to feel threatened, harassed or have it done by folk they aren’t interested in. but I’m betting if there was a magic spell that would give them either or, 90% would put up with the bad for the good.
So, what you are saying, is it is fine if the guy doing it is cute, otherwise they had better get the fuck away or they will call the cops?
The sad thing is I know some girls who literally think like that.
Same here.
To be fair, with both men and women, the more attractive you are, the more people tend to let you get away with on even an unconscious basis.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying Guesticus. hate to get political but it’s what Trump was talking about that got him in hot water. When you are good looking or rich women throw themselves at you so you can do anything and they will think it’s perfectly fine. if you are poor and ugly it’s sexual assault.
Most amusing joke/observation that I heard about 50 Shades of Grey was that, if Grey were poor and lived in a trailer, the movie would have been treated like a Criminal Minds episode.
While it may certainly be true for some men, as a man myself I can tell you that I would hate being constantly flirted at or ogled by even attractive women.
I’m not asexual (mostly aromantic, possibly), but I am generally not a social butterfly and don’t really like people trying to get into my pants when a I’m already busy with something else, even if that something else is just walking to a fast food joint.
I can confirm, however, that it was very annoying when a construction worker whistled at my skinny ass before I got a chance to cut my hair back in college. The look on his face when I turned around and he saw my five o’clock shadow, however, was entirely worth it.
Indeed. Drunk rugby players trying to take me home was funny the one time but wouldn’t have been if it weren’t novel, I wasn’t sporty enough at the time to know I could physically resist or it wasn’t obviously just long hair coupled with beer goggles making me attractive.
And, while men aren’t really my interest like that, nor are women on anything beyond a hypothetical level unless I know them well enough to have some kind of emotional connection. On the rare occasion when female strangers do come up to me looking for something short term, how attractive they are is never even a consideration and the whole thing is pure annoyance, topped off with the general assumption that anyone not into them must be gay.
I’m with you on this one.
The fact that being drunk make person more likely to flirt/harass and less likely to be welcomed doing so is certainly contributing. I think that men who can’t imagine being disgusted by women throwing themselves on them just didn’t saw what can alcohol do even with otherwise pretty woman …
I’m certainly no lothario and don’t consider myself of more than average attractiveness, but I’ve had one or two women who wouldn’t take a hint. It gets very old, very fast.
What the above have said, plus there’s always a threatening edge when it’s man to woman, regardless of whether the man means for there to be one. There are both social and (generally) physical power dynamics at play. My mother used to send me news articles all the time about men who stalk down women who reject them and rape them, kill them, and/or throw acid in their face — obviously that’s a very tiny portion of the male population, but as a woman that’s the kind of message you’re getting all the time. And how can I know whether or not I’ve stumbled across one of the few psycho ones when my taxi driver starts hitting on me? I can’t. But there are far more dangerous consequences to assuming a false negative than there are to assuming a false positive, so I have no choice but to go with the latter.
A couple decades in, this gets really exhausting.
It’s better to be scared than dead, but still need to be careful about assuming the negative and making wrong assumptions, false claims can (and do) destroy careers
Not speaking about you directly Lurkin’, just in general
And missing these accusations can lead to death or worse.
That’s why said ‘better to be scared than dead’, but if make a mistake, you have destroyed someone’s life
and the whole situation could have been avoided if the guy had just chosen to not creep a woman out.
Honestly, if a man makes sexual comments to a strange woman in an inappropriate context while empowered to do so by his job (for example, a taxi driver having a woman in his car because she’s relying on his services), he fucking DESERVES to lose that job and the whole career. All men should know better than to do that, and enforcing consequences is one way to make sure only those who can play by the rules get to stay in the game.
To all those defending the Elf: if he was looking past her at something creeping towards them, then Sydney would be the one at risk because she is on that side of Maxi
Not really defending the elf… just saying this would be a good point in the story for a fakeout on what he was actually looking at.
Yes, it could have been, but it isn’t
We don’t know that yet either way. Although I agree that it’s unlikely that it’s something no one else is seeing. Unless elven eyesight can pick up things that other people can’t.
Secret doors. Yea, I know, weird.
Secret doors, in one of their own buildings
To all those condemning the elf, you may want to wait until the next comic to pass judgement.
Same for those defending
“whereas” is one word
Look, its the virtue signal! Quick, to the virtue-mobile.
Leave the dogwhistling elsewhere, Yorp’s ears could use the break.
I wonder what species I should roleplay as. *puts down mirror as to avert gaze from the gibbering mouther*
Nice to know that even Maxima is becoming aware shes essentially Halos babysitter these days lol.This page is reminding me an awful lot about my D&D groups fervent belief that all elves are perverts who cant keep it in their pants(Essentially the entire groups-which is an even mix of guys and girls these days- explanation to why theres so many half elfs knocking about).
I cant really see the point of Valen in this scene,Heck his only purpose in the comic so far was that apparently they needed a useless npc to help jingle the doorkeys to the place and now to prove that Maximas not especially impressive enough to cause headcraning bust apparently grants Maxima the same superpower as Dabblers bust.
Makes me wonder if Valen was really needed specifically, or if he ‘persuaded’ the real member to let him take their place once he found Maxi was going to be there
We already saw how much of a perv he was back when he was introduced prior to the Council Chamber Calamity
I dont think that “nice ears” counts as pervy.:)
It was the way he said it
… “Nice ears…. bow chicka wow wow?”
An elf saying that is like a Klingon headbutt.
Plus you blunt-ears only hear “nice ears”, the rest of us hear the crooning love song underlying it.
Yups
There is a time and place for ear-fetish comments, sitting around a Council table discussing security matters is not one of them
I both marvel and lament, simultaneously, that this thread has wound up using the words ‘ear fetish’ in a serious sentence. :)
The ear is an erogenous zone ;)
I should know. I’m Ferengi.
I knew someone would bring up Ferenghi!!!
*mops mouth with a napkin*
It was not me. I do not eat sapient beings!
Other than calamari. But they are too delicious to resist!
1) This is Guesticus here, so any level of inanity is just par for her course.
2) The words “Guesticus” and “serious” do not often belong together in a serious sentence. Unless perhaps you’re asking if she can possibly be serious about some new foolishness.
Whilst genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics are far more common, we know that people can have fetishes over many things. Feet and ears are amongst the less … unusual variants.
Personally, whilst I would not elevate mine to being a fetish, I do find that I key heavily to lips and a nice smile. A woman with a stern cast to her mouth is a turn-off to me.
Mind you eyes can affect me strongly sometimes too. The most vivid shining blue eyes I have ever seen have been on a husky. I remember thinking ‘if I ever met a girl with eyes like that I would propose on the spot’!
Something, more generally speaking, that I am sure eye-tattooists and gene splicers will be exploiting in due course. Likewise (with cosmetic surgery/ splicing) elf ears.
Hopefully Ferengi ears will not take off though.
True,I kind of like your take on things =)
Thank you, when you are not being too critical, you have an interesting take on things as well, usually makes me re-examine things to see if maybe missed something
Translation: When my feels get all hurt my brain shuts down even more than it is normally. So please only be nice to me.
Understood. Need any help in Plains of Eidolon?
At least will admit when have made a mistake, unlike Mr Perfect Oberon who never makes a mistake or gets anything wrong
I make plenty of mistakes, and have no problems with admitting them. However I am flattered that you hold me in such high esteem.
It’s only a shame that you set up these amorphous, invisible lines such as “too critical” where crossing them can be just as much a matter of pure accident rather than intent., In short: You suck.
Dave does like to show characters’ capabilities. But not until a suitable time. The only event of import so far (for the good guys) has been taking down the guardian. Which would have meant whatever Valen might have done would have been way outshone by Maxima.
Whereas now they need information. Something that Maxima’s powerset does not help with. Whilst Halo does have her truesight and lightbee neither are likely to be of use here. She could try her aura sight, which might let her pick up clues about what magic has been used. Or she might be blinded by all the readings from the artefacts!
Either way though she is unlikely to be able to divine where the baddies or the artefacts have gone. But Valen may have suitable skills or technomagic. It seems likely that he is on this team for more than his door opening security rating.
I hope youre right because so far the senior councils capabilitys have been showing that its a miracle that the supernatural community hasnt gone extinct millenia ago and as a fan off all things supernatural that kind of depressing.
Even long-lasting superpowers can stagnate and be incompetent. Happens quite a lot. That lead to the Boston tea-party, for instance. But, yea, too many wrong calls and you need to refer to Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt for the examples.
The hope though is that it will not be drawing upon Easter Island or the Elder Dinosaur Empire.
Can I just state it’s super weird that Maxima would ever get that kind of attention. As a male my opinion is automatically null and void but…
Maxima went gold before she got boobs. Therefore, at the time she had boobs to oggle her most visible trait was “I am giant and also gold!” Thus that would be the normal source of staring.
From there we can infer that the only people that would know her well enough to bypass the “I am literally made of gold!” distraction would be those who had developed a personal connection to her.
From there we must infer that every person to sexually harassed Maxima over the last twenty years had developed at least a cursory personal attachment, either positive or hostile which should stop them leering over her like cartoon lecher… except for Mathias. But he is atypical. And has not leered at her in canon yet.
Also dude is clearly staring at her pointy ears. But my point about Dave B’s writing style remains. It is neither right nor wrong but in my opinion sociallistically unlikely.
You need to re-watch: he is shorter than her, butt the only time his eyes go up is in the panel where he is leaning way to close and she directly addresses him, all other panels (including the first one) has his eyes looking below the level of her ears
Valen doesn’t have a ‘personal’ connection to Maxi, you could tell during the initial Council meeting that she barely even knew him, and even then he was being a creep about her ears, butt this time it had nothing to do with her ears
Okay, clearly me commenting on two points has caused some confusion. The entirety of my comment before the last two sentences is in regards to Dave B’s comment where he explains his writing style for Maxima. My comment on the ears thing was separate based on the huge discussion in the comment thread.
On the ears and Valen’s pointing of the eyes, his eyes in panels 3 and 4 are pointed through Maxima’s neck, not below (sketchy middle ground I’ll grant you). They are not centred on her bosom. This is atypical of observable male skeeves who start at some point below the bosom and work their way up to it. In the 6th panel he is either focused on something at ear level or looking behind her head, a downside of our 2D medium is that we do not know which.
If he is skeeving it is on her ears (started below and worked up and supported by your council reference) or he is looking at a separate thing. Pretty sure we’ll find out next page.
Either way, I apologize for my unclear comment. I was commenting on the apparent societal need to stare at her breasts under her shirt rather than the golden skin, naturally purple hair and pointed ears. I should have remained focused so as to not undermine my own comment with an assertion that is as yet unproven.
Guesticus… Did you… Did you go through the entire comments section and respond to every comment thread regarding the apparent lewdness of Valen? I only checked one page of comments but you are everywhere.
Guesticus is actually showing remarkable restraint. People not reading previous posts is a pet peeve of his. Which he used to object to with very colourful language. So he is doing a useful service to the community by instead giving feedback, to those who do not have the time to search for earlier comments on a topic.
Again, he is shorter than her, which means his eyes are already at a point below her ears, and again, the only time he raises his eyes is after she caught him leaning in (which you don’t need to do when you are already that close, in fact, it would have made more sense to lean out if he was checking out her ears) and he is looking up at her angry eye, panel five is clearly supposed to be from his Point of View, and no ears are in sight
The two comments were actually in reverse order, butt had already commented on his eye-placement and didn’t want to retype things
Oh, and do not see why being a male would make your opinion and comments ‘null and void’
As Yorp said, a lot of people don’t read the entire comments before making their posts, so, instead of getting angry about it, will reply to their comment(s) as though it was the only comment on the matter and treat them with as much respect and consideration as they deserve
Guesticus, Yorp, allow me to politely disagree. Valen is not that much shorter than Max, based on the first panel. Possibly an inch or two at most. Now, granted, it may be a problem of perspective, but his eyes are clearly directed at her face in Panel 3; chin or neck in Panel 4 (possibly her necklace/choker), and her ear in Panel 6. *We* are given a view of Max’s assets, but based on eye position (and supposed focus) Valen is not interested in those particular attributes.
Max leaping to that conclusion is perhaps understandable, given that he is male and she has Her Views. Some may think her justified, others not; however, it is well within her established character.
I do find it a…`quirk’ of hers, if you will, as well as most women who complain about such things. Humans are visual creatures, after all. If we mere males are not meant to notice such things, why are air-conditioned burkas not the fashion? Max does little to hide her attributes…nor should she…but she should not complain if what is not hidden is observed. There is an entire industry, several of them…based on making women `look good/better/attractive’. Push-up bras are not designed with comfort in mind, after all, and no woman I’ve ever interacted with has ever extolled the comfort of her high heels.
So, the woman wears the flattering skirt, the push-up bra, the cleavage necklace, the heels, the careful makeup…and yet complains that men find her attractive? Sure, some are crass, no doubt. I doubt any male goes through a single day without his perceived manhood being called into question, either.
Men are supposed to suck it up and deal. Women being found attractive after spending a great deal of time to look attractive…are victims, somehow. Yep, that’s equality right there, it is.
I bought a new Ferrari and you *know* how many women (and men) drooled over it? How DARE they?!? It’s *my* car! I am *so* sick of being seen as just a set of wheels and a sexy chassis! They don’t care about my hopes, my dreams, my mind, my soul! All *they* care about is how much money I must have and how fast I can go!
And you ladies out there can say that doesn’t happen regularly, of course *you* don’t judge by those petty material objects. Most men don’t judge by bra size, either.
Personally, I blame society. Sex and procreation is hard-wired into us all. Continuation of the species. Men have always known (for the most part) the only thing we *need* women for is sex and procreation. Somewhere along the line, women lost that memo. Lately they’ve been trying to get it back, but it’s a long slow process, it seems.
Validity of quirks aside, Max is still my favorite character.
Didn’t say how shorter than Maxi he was, just that his eyes are below the level of her ears
Again, the ONLY reason he raises his eyes after getting way to close in panel six is because she caught him staring and called him out
Maxi’s main complaint is when people (men and Dabbles) are so blatant about it: when some one standing beside you obviously leans in to get a better look (even if it was her ear), that is being rude
I really am not fussed about the point, as the gist of the comic page is clear, and drawing/ interpreting eye-lines is tricky. But…
hardly ‘clearly’ given that Valen’s pupils are at the bottom of his eyes, in addition to the point Guesticus makes that his eyes/face are lower than Maxima’s to start with. Given that one would need to conclude that your proposed conclusions, about what he is looking at, are also flawed.
Plus you completely ignore the fact that he leans over and cranes his neck, in just the manner described.
Finally the comic only captures moments during a scene. So what we can say definitively is that his eyes were following a downward trajectory and were pointed in Maxima’s direction. Which would very much follow a ‘checking her out’ hypothesis.
But, as Pander suggests, he may yet offer a plausible face-saving explanation.
I phrase it that way because there is no particularly good explanation that springs to mind. Yes he may be curious about chocker technology, or its aesthetics, but that does not justify a sweeping downwards look, the leaning over, nor the invasion of personal space.
Valen’s main mitigating factor is that he is not human, so may have either a different mentality or social background to our baseline expectations. Overwhelming that though is that Valen does live on Earth, and has to deal with them, at a personal level, so should be well aware of human social interactions and expectations. In particular being a senior diplomat, dealing with the head of an allied organisation!
So it is especially appropriate that Maxima speak out, to allow for potential ignorance, and (again) make it clear that she does not want to be subject to this kind of behaviour. Whereas it is inappropriate to complain about someone establishing their personal boundaries. Everybody is entitled to defend their personal space and say when they feel uncomfortable.
This is an incredibly flawed argument to bring in to defend Valen’s behaviour here, because Maxima does not do that (as an aside, she does not wear make-up, despite any appearance to the contrary). Maxima has done nothing to invite sexual comments nor advances. Therefore any argument, that other women are doing so, should not be applied to women who wish to avoid that.
Especially in a working environment! Comments about appearance are fair, but should not be of a sexually suggestive nature. Rule of dew claw, if you would say something complementing a stuffy old male chief executive officer’s appearance, then the female equivalent of the phrase would be acceptable. “Nice tie” = “nice broach.” “Great suit.” “You look snappily dressed”.
If your CEO catches you repeatedly checking out his package, leaning over to check out his butt crack in the gym, or leering at you, you had better hope that he fancies you too, or you may find yourself looking for a new job! And even if he does, as you are showing a lack of restraint, which implies you would make a poor representative of the company.
Somehow this entire conversation makes me think something totally unrelated.
When Maxima peeled off her human flesh (sunburn, right?) and revealed gold, she told her brother she didn’t feel it (the peeling off). Was the gold supposed to replace her dermis or was it not supposed to do that? There is the protection field it gives. It should have (if she knew how to use it) protected her skin, too, unless it was totally cut off from its nutritional needs. Thoughts?
The geode water could killed off her upper layer of skin first. Or maybe since she was already sunburned the geode water didnt affect “dead” skin?
Skin peels off or dies constantly. Its possible the gold only replaced LIVE skin… so everywhere it went – it would have peeling skin above the transition zone.
Yeah, and how do we know Maxi’s new golden skin doesn’t ‘peel’ as well
Nicely written post :)
Looks form the last frame he is looking at her ears more than anything else and that is consistent with the earlier strip with the twilight council.
No, he is only looking up in the second last frame because she caught him out
Agreed.
You know, technically there actually is something interesting in the direction Sydney’s looking. Hur hur hur.
I thought he was looking at her ears at first…
I don’t think he’s trying to look down her top… I think he’s more of a neck guy…
Wow Max. Discriminating against the straight elf? Heterophobia’s not cool. Do you have any idea how hard it is for a straight elf in their society?
Elves don’t have a very high fertility rate, you know!
I’m glad you posted this comic & explanation but keep in mind, there’s another aspect to this: in America alone, over 52% of women who make it to adulthood will have a run-in with sexual abuse of some kind. That’s why the women’s bathroom is a natural hangout for women, it’s why they go in pairs or groups. It’s considered something of a safe zone. No one, of course, is immune to unwanted attention, though, as we’ve seen with Terry Cruz’s & Corey Feldman’s problems dealing with scumbags. And it’s getting better now that the Weinsteins, Cosbys, Spaceys, & C.K.’s of the world (man, did you see C.K.’s public apology? First time I’ve ever seen the lights go on upstairs like that – he totally did the right & proper thing with that apology – not that it forgives his weird-ass actions, but at least he gets it) can longer hide, but it still sucks for a lot of people. So thank you for attempting to show the difference (love the comic), but there is still a degree of disbelief suspension that seems to get lost when that sort of thing pops up (group ogling each other) that seems to encourage that level of creepiness. I mean, yeah, the characters are fun & hot & I love it, but the pool scene & the Maxima scene after the time loop? Don’t mean to be a downer; it’s just something that should be more in the public eye, I guess. Thanks for the awesome comics!
“in America alone, over 52% of women who make it to adulthood will have a run-in with sexual abuse of some kind.”
Um…. no. That’s incorrect. In fact, rape and sexual assault cases has been steadily declining massively over the last 40 years.
You’re incorrect about that statistic in the same way that people are wrong when they claim that 1 in every 5 women are raped or sexually assaulted in college (proven false statistic – it’s actually closer to 1 in 52.6 have some sort of non-consensual sexual contact, based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics). 1 in 52.6 is closer to 1.9%. Still not good, but…. Not 23%. Not 25%. And definitely not 52%.
The 1 in 5 statistic comes from a study conducted on the internet called the Campus Sexual Assault Study. The survey was anonymous. No one’s claims were verified. And the terms of what constituted sexual assault were not clearly defined, so that even ‘being asked out on a date and saying no’ counted as sexual violence. It sampled 5000 anonymous women, on the internet (so you don’t even know the actual number – could have been lower – could have been men – could have been made up). In addition, the authors, NOT the participants, had determined that of the 5000 participants, 1000 had been the victim of some type of ‘non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact.’ This then got conflated, by people who don’t know any better, to be ‘1 in 5 women are raped or sexually assaulted in college.’ Even the study authors later said that it was inappropriate to use their flawed study to make that sort of claim. But this sort of false statistic nevertheless gets thrown out there, with no actual basis, by places like HuffPo, the Washington Post, and the CDC. Plus a lot of politicians who are just looking for sound bites. Totally without merit, which is distressing.
Time Magazine did a good article about this, with the actual statistics. Where the CDC claimed that nearly 6.7 million women suffered from some form of sexual violence and another 2 million were raped, the Time Magazine article used the actual statistics from the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes NOT reported to the police even)… and the actual number was about 238,000. Which is still a lot, but it’s not 8.7 million. And definitely not 52 percent of the GD country. So say that 52 percent of women will have a run-in with sexual abuse of some type is pretty much ludicrous. Sorry. No. Plus then you say ‘women who make it to adulthood’…. not just women in general, as if there’s even MORE than 52 percent of women in general who are getting sexually abused or harassed.
I agree that there are a lot of scumbags in Hollywood though, who seem to make a habit of sexual assault of men, women, AND children, as we’ve been discovering. But I also don’t think that Hollywood is a good microcosm of the United States in general.
I’m beginning to wonder if you just made a mistake when you said 52 percent, and had read the actual statistics about one in 52.6 women, and thought that meant 52.6 percent? Let me know. Thanks.
It probably stems from keying on the word “abuse” and interpreting that to mean “rape and sexual assault”, whereas, contextualising it from the comic, I suspect it is intended to mean “sexual harassment”, as there are news articles with exactly that figure.
From which J then continues to the more serious offences. However it ambiguous, so is easy to read the whole as being all about the latter. Making your retorts justified.
By the way J, keep up the good work, protecting us from the scum of the galaxy! Give the pretend-dog a Yorpie Snack™, from me, and say “smell you later”.
Its still a massively flawed statistic based on faulty data, even if its called sexual harassment. Being asked out on a date is not sexual harassment. And the researchers are notvsupposed to determine what the participants think, thats for the participants to decide. And the participants shouldnt be anonymous and the claiks should be verifiable, like the Time Magazine article was.
Cant stand when people use statistics like that to create artificial victims like that. Especially when its trying to put me in that victim class :) Or the “wage gap” which doesnt actually exist, but that would take me on another long diatribe :)
If you compare the methodology of the survey I linked it lacks various of the features that you claim were flawed in the prior survey. For instance the individuals polled are by invitation, rather than being blind surveys of people in the street.
Comparing it to the methodology in the report you cite:
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
I note that has far less detail about its methodology. Which makes it harder to assess how viable it is. For instance the one I link guarantees that the individual participants cannot be identified. If that is either not the case, or is not made clear to the participants, in the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey then I could well see vulnerable victims not wanting to speak out.
Plus it is worth pointing out a worrying quote:
“If you compare the methodology of the survey I linked it lacks various of the features that you claim were flawed in the prior survey.”
Yorp… even the people who made the survey said it can’t be used like it’s been used.
Also, no offense but your sentence doesn’t make sense.
“Comparing it to the methodology in the report you cite:”
The ‘report’ I cite is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, rather than 5000 anonymous people who were asked nebulous questions, which the researchers then decided FOR them what they meant. the BJS uses actual numbers. The study the CDC used was barely a study even, and definitely not scientific. MASSIVELY flawed. Actual data points beat anonymous, unprovable survey answers which are then interpreted by someone else.
” If that is either not the case, or is not made clear to the participants, in the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey then I could well see vulnerable victims not wanting to speak out.”
Please read it again, the NCVS includes unreported cases as well. And if you’re going to try to include ‘vulnerable victims who did not speak out at all, well hell… might as well say it’s 9 in every 10 women. or 99 in every 100 women. And sure, the data doesn’t prove it but the massive discrepancies must just be that they are scared to say anything. No, that’s not how science or statistical analysis works. That’s not how evidence works. That’s not how facts work.
That’s how overblown propaganda and provably false claims work.
I respect you Yorp, but we come at these things from completely opposite ends of the spectrum sometimes. Like with the Maxima/Krona argument we’ve had in the past, I come at it from the idea of ‘you have to be able to prove something before you act on it’ … not ‘well it might be true so let’s act on it.’ Same thing here. You need to actually show evidence that something actually is happening. You can’t just say ‘well it probably is happening, so lets assume it is. That’s how you get fake rape cases like the Duke Lacrosse case and ruin people’s lives.
PS – I feel a little bad about being harsh in parts of my response to Yorp and that it might be misinterpreted… so I’m also including a Yorpie Snax.
Just hope you realize I wasn’t saying that you’re spreading propaganda – I’m saying that people who use the flawed report as if it’s factual or based on anything remotely scientific or statistically accurate are spreading propaganda, like Huffington Post or a lot of Third Wave Feminist fanatics who have political agendas which are helped by supporting fear mongering exaggerating numbers to support a false narrative. I’m not saying you. :)
Yorpie is the coolest fictional doggo.
You saying that Yorp isn’t real? Then, who’s been eating all the Yorpie’s? o_O
He’s an absolutely real fictional doggo. And adorable.
“Real’ and “Fictional” don’t normally go together :P
Yorpie breaks the rules.
Yay!
*snarf munch gobble*
I appreciate that we get a lot of lefty propaganda in our society. I consider over political correctness to be both a bane and a severe danger to us. In Scotland they are trying to criminalise all slapping of children, for example.
Likewise, in all of the UK, children are getting less (or no) access to playing grounds because they are becoming too expensive to run. Every item needs several feet of padding and an expensive risk analysis consultation before it can be allowed within five miles of a child.
So they end up having to play in the streets or waste land. A wholly counter-productive result of over PC idiocy.
However just because a report has such elements within it (notably, in this case, harming normal social life by inhibiting dating) it does not mean that we should dismiss the entirety of the report, as it included other genuinely alarming aspects to it.
Methodology though is a solid basis to challenge these things on. Respectfully though I suspect that your own replies are being flavoured by right-wing propaganda that you are subjected to. Either that, or (more likely) the known value differences between the E.U. and the U.S.
Because we value personal data privacy, and support that heavily by law, our survey gatherers and data compilers have to be far more sensitive to protecting that than in the US. To the benefit of both society in general, and (for the reasons stated in my reply below) actually helping to get honest replies.
Scotland is behind the times, it is already illegal to smack children over here, much to the detriment of families and society
Note to self, if I visit Scotland, stop smacking children when they tick me off.
I was pressed for time, so was unable to complete my reply. As such it left you the impression that I was supporting it, in its entirety. I was not. I was purely pointing out that your condemnation of it was excessive. Which it still is. On the other paw you failed to pick up on the fact that I only challenged certain points you made, leaving many to stand.
As I did not have time to investigate if there was a more detailed methodology given elsewhere for the NCVS, I was hoping that it may turn out to be more robust than it first appeared. What I was not expecting you to do was to continue to blindly support attributable reporting as an ideal.
Both methodologies are flawed. Although it will lengthen my reply, I will point out that I agree that ‘asking someone out on a date’ should not in itself be included in the total. Even if it is not from someone you fancy. However there is a point beyond which it does become inappropriate in the workplace. For instance if persisting after being rejected and asked not to continue. And I should point out that stalking is now illegal in England and Wales.
However we do not get to see enough detail about how ‘unwelcomed sexual advances’ was defined in the questions asked, so I agree that including that in the headline figures undermines its credibility.
However the report does include a lot of other specifics which we can use and thereby see the problem remains a significant one (subject to your qualms about methodology of course). Looking at the pdf, from the commissioning organisation:
https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/SexualHarassmentreport2016.pdf
We can see that (continuing to note your qualms):
• Thirty-five per cent of women have heard comments of a sexual nature
being made about other women in the workplace.
• Thirty-two per cent of women have been subject to unwelcome jokes of a
sexual nature.
• Twenty-eight per cent of women have been subject to comments of a
sexual nature about their body or clothes.
Plus others, but this shows that the headline figures are composed of a variety of different types of unacceptable behaviours other than just the one which you and I have (varying) concerns over. Further the percentages are supportive of a far higher figure than the one you are championing.
Please point out where that has been said.
Twice you have claimed that, phrased in such a way as to imply that ‘data massaging’ has occurred (unless you are saying that we, the general public, are being allowed to interpret the results?), I cannot pick out what part of their methodology causes you to make this veiled accusation.
I read that. I understood that. I based my reply incorporating that. Victims of sexual crimes often do not report them, because of shame and other causes. Sometimes it is just a delay, which gives us some measurable indicators. For the other occasions though we need to figure out the best way to reliably estimate the unreported figure.
Having a government body, asking the victims, the same kinds of questions that they have been avoiding giving the police, and still in a manner where they can be personally identified, is a flawed technique. It will self-evidently still be under-reporting the problems.
The same issues will still be inhibiting honest answers. Yes, if the individuals feel that they will not be asked to defend their claim in open court, they may be less reluctant. But that is not the only reason why victims stay silent. There will be others who do not want anyone to know the shame they have suffered.
Yes we must filter out the ‘provably false accusations’, but not to the extent of ignoring the victims shamed into silence.
Anonymity does not equate to unaccountabilty. If it did we could not use anonymous voting to choose our governments. In the EU we use robust measures to protect the victims identities whilst still working to ensure that the data sets are attributable. The methodology I linked above makes a fair effort to balance the two sides (privacy versus reliability). Not perfect, by any means, but not enough to dismiss the entire report, out of paw, as ‘massively flawed’.
We should not take the headline figure as being reliable. However that does not mean it is wrong, simply that this report failed to clarify one aspect adequately. The pdf though does mention a number of other reports, towards the end, with similar subject matter and
Cherry picking, no doubt. But from reputable institutions.
“What I was not expecting you to do was to continue to blindly support attributable reporting as an ideal.”
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘attributable reporting.’ If you mean ‘do I support the idea of reporting of numbers based on something that can be attributed to actual events that happened and can be proven to have happened, then yes, I blindly support attributable reporting as an ideal, because until we have someone who’s omnipotent, it’s FAR far better than just following a false narrative with non-existent data from anonymous internet surveys. :)
“Although it will lengthen my reply, I will point out that I agree that ‘asking someone out on a date’ should not in itself be included in the total.”
The one in five statistic includes being asked on a date where you refuse. Or someone kissing you at a party (and you kissing back) then regretting it AFTERWARDS. Or ‘feeling uncomfortable around someone. Or feeling like someone is checking you out. Or someone giving an unwanted compliment. Or feeling like someone is in your personal space. None of these things are sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual violence, or for the love of god rape on their own by a long shot. But they were all included to increase the stats from 1 in 52.6 to 1 in 5.
“However there is a point beyond which it does become inappropriate in the workplace.”
The statistics used, and especially J’s ’52 percent’ statistic, which seems to have come out of thin air, does not even REMOTELY reflect even the most lax definition of ‘inappropriate interactions in the workplace.
” I based my reply incorporating that. Victims of sexual crimes often do not report them, because of shame and other causes. Sometimes it is just a delay, which gives us some measurable indicators. For the other occasions though we need to figure out the best way to reliably estimate the unreported figure.”
Well, since we can’t read minds or have omniscience, then you just ‘assuming’ that there are almost 49-51 percent of women who are sexually harassed or sexually abused and just don’t report it because of shame seems to be a MUCH bigger stretch of the realm of believability. Especially since it’s based on absolutely no provable evidence whatsoever.
“Having a government body, asking the victims, the same kinds of questions that they have been avoiding giving the police, and still in a manner where they can be personally identified, is a flawed technique.”
Gotcha. We need psychics instead, or a chip placed in everyone’s head in case they are withholding that they’ve been sexually harassed or abused. No. It’s not a flawed technique. It’s a technique which allows for some semblance of provable evidence to be used in statistics. If you can’t have halfway reliable numbers, then everything you base on those numbers are going to be flawed as well.
“It will self-evidently still be under-reporting the problems.”
The NCVS literally does provide for a +/- of the amount of sexual harassment and abuse, in order to account for people who just kept absolutely quiet for some reason. What they didn’t do is decide it’s +50%. Because that would be ridiculous.
“The same issues will still be inhibiting honest answers.”
Why are you assuming their answers arent already honest by them not saying that anything happened to them? I’m a woman. Am I just withholding the massive amount of harassment that I have experienced in my life? Because far as I can recall, I’ve never been sexually abused or sexually harassed. You need to really stop assuming that if things do not meet up with some given narrative , that there must be ‘hidden information’ that would make that narrative true. Consider it like a crime or a tort. The presumption is always that something did NOT happen, unless there’s some proof that it did. Like someone reporting it. Or at least that the claim can be reasonably assumed to not be made up, or that there was a claim at all to anyone.
“Yes, if the individuals feel that they will not be asked to defend their claim in open court, they may be less reluctant.”
In other words, if they are told they won’t need to prove it, they might be more likely to claim victim points by saying they were abused. It’s happened before a lot. Where the woman turns out to be lying because she knows she won’t have to even TRY to prove it. Like the Duke Lacrosse team scandal. Or ‘Mattress Girl’ at Columbia University.
An estimated standard deviation from the data given already accounts for that. If the deviation is too extreme, then it’s a poor statistic and unreliable, and you shouldnt believe it because it’s the same as guessing and making stuff up at that point
“But that is not the only reason why victims stay silent. There will be others who do not want anyone to know the shame they have suffered.”
There are other reasons as well to stay silent. The most obvious one is that nothing happened. I’ve stayed silent for a lot of abuse that never happened. See what I did there? :)
“Anonymity does not equate to unaccountabilty”
Um…. actually it most definitely does. Especially when it’s anonymous to even the researchers.
“Twice you have claimed that, phrased in such a way as to imply that ‘data massaging’ has occurred ”
I’m not implying anything. I’m outright stating it.
“Please point out where that has been said.”
In the article was written BY two of the researchers, in which they outright say things like:
“If you’ve followed the discussion about sexual assault on college campuses in America, it’s likely you’ve heard some variation of the claim that 1 in 5 women on college campuses in the United States has been sexually assaulted or raped. Or you may have heard the even more incorrect abbreviated version, that 1 in 5 women on campus has been raped.”
and
“First and foremost, the 1-in-5 statistic is not a nationally representative estimate of the prevalence of sexual assault, and we have never presented it as being representative of anything other than the population of senior undergraduate women at the two universities where data were collected”
and
“it is possible that nonresponse bias had an impact on our prevalence estimates, positive or negative.”
and
“We simply have no way of knowing whether sexual-assault victims were more or less likely to participate in our study.”
And this is by the researchers themselves, so I’m doing what you’d call the opposite of strawmanning. I’m steelmanning. I’m giving the BEST argument the other side could have to offer, and still able to tear it apart. :)
“We should not take the headline figure as being reliable.”
Then we should not take that figure at all.
“However that does not mean it is wrong,”
It literally does mean it’s wrong. It’s a made up figure, based on flawed data from an anoymous and unprovable source. How is that right by any stretch of the imagination?
“simply that this report failed to clarify one aspect adequately.”
Actually by EVERY aspect it failed to report anything adequately.
You quoted an article, several times, but failed to link it.
Um…. are you trying to imply I ‘made up’ the quotes? I’m hoping you’re not implying that.
https://time.com/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/
Without the link I will be unable to make informed comment, as I am travelling at the moment and will only have minimal access to the internet again, from tomorrow, so am unlikely to get the chance to reply on this.
I only have your extracts to go on, and you have an extreme agenda, on this issue, so I cannot just take your quotes on face value. I would want to see the context and what they are actually talking about. Because, as mine was one commissioned for a UK trade union organisation, it seems very unlikely its authors would be talking about issues on US campuses!
Do bear in mind that I only got into this thread to point out where I had located a 52% figure. Since then I have only been countering the more excessive of your comments about the specific article that I linked. As contrasted to your chosen source.
As you seem to be fixating on something else, to do with US campuses, and using that to debunk an unrelated report, there would have been little point in me commenting further, even if I had the opportunity to do so.
One general observation though is that you are clearly using a mindset suited to dealing with one type of problem and applying it to a different issue inappropriately.
You are extremely adept at courtroom issues, and using an adversarial system to try and find if a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
Yet you are attempting to inappropriately draw in issues from that field in to one where we are trying to determine behaviours across the breadth of society. I am not a great fan of polls and surveys myself. However they are tools that are used by sociologists.
They do give a way to estimate things which we cannot otherwise specifically prove. As estimates we must use them judiciously and circumspectly. However I feel that it is foolish to dismiss their merits outright, as you are doing.
Yes it is vital to check the methodology. But you do that for the report under scrutiny, not for one on another continent.
There is no 52 percent figure. Even in the CDC report, which was massively flawed and that cannot be even remotely used as even a marginally correct stat\ for the reasons I’ve repeated several times, they never dared go higher than 20-23 percent.
By the way, you are also using a UK report in your post, which seems to rely in its bibliography on some highly suspicious references, like “In the Company of Men: Male
Dominance and Sexual Harassment” and “Women and Casualisation: women’s experiences of job insecurity”
The only place where actual numbers came from are from 1,533 women – hardly representative and, again, anonymously taken through online anonymous surveys. SAME PROBLEM as the CDC report.
Oh and from an unbiased website called http://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk – I know this is text but I’m dripping sarcasm when I say ‘unbiased.’ :)
I agree that I would prefer a broader survey, however I am aware that (for UK surveys) 1,000 + is considered to yield usable results for a variety of fields (e.g. politics, verifiable against election results or marketing vs sales figures). Plus the organisation who ran it indicates that they ensure that their pollsters include a representative selection to match the national demographics (for ethnicity, religion, age, etc).
You and I clearly need to agree to disagree on the merits of anonymity. I suggest you try changing the US electoral system to open voting, if you are that wedded to the merits of transparency.
Plus I should note the irony of how we as a community benefit by the advantage of having an anonymous persona. We are free to speak from the heart, without the fear that our comments will loose us our jobs, or compromise our personal relationships, or bring us shame.
So we can learn people’s thoughts on controversial matters, or subjects like sexual desires or orientation, which they may not even reveal to their nearest and dearest.
Anonymity is not a bad word. It is a tool that we can make good use of, with appropriate protocols.
“1,000 + is considered to yield usable results for a variety of fields”
No it’s not.
“Plus the organisation who ran it indicates that they ensure that their pollsters include a representative selection to match the national demographics”
If it’s an anonymous online survey, they cannot ensure that there’s a representative selection.
“Plus I should note the irony of how we as a community benefit by the advantage of having an anonymous persona”
We are not using our argument as a scientific certainty. We’re debating. I don’t give out my real life information because it doesn’t have any reflection on what I’m saying. I tend to just quote facts of law which are easily checked. Whether I’m a lawyer like I’ve said I am, or if I’m a cashier, the law I’m describing does not change (although for the record, I am an attorney, and you can decide to believe or not believe that as you will – it doesn’t change what I describe in my arguments).
There’s nothing ironic about it.
“We are free to speak from the heart, without the fear that our comments will loose us our jobs, or compromise our personal relationships, or bring us shame.”
If you asked us for a representative sample of how many of us have been the target of discrimination, then our being anonymous would make any answer we give effectively meaningless, especially for a statistic analysis with ANY hope of verifiable data.
“Anonymity is not a bad word.”
It is when you’re trying to gather scientific data which you need to know is accurate or not, when the anonymity can vastly skew the data points.
“You and I clearly need to agree to disagree on the merits of anonymity.”
When people give polls, those are not anonymous. They do find out stuff like if the person is male or female, whether they are registered and for which party, whether they consider themselves conservative or liberal, their general income levels and occupations, if any, religious affiliation or secularist, children, age, etc. And the more anonymous the people giving THOSE data points are, the less accurate the polls will be.
Only the voting is totally anonymous, and even then, it’s broken down enough that metadata can be gathered for demographics. That’s how you can’t normally just vote 20 times a night, or how (in general theory) only registered voters who are legal citizens and not ex-convicts can vote. If it was truly anonymous, there would be no way to prevent that, or to punish it when that happens.
“I suggest you try changing the US electoral system to open voting, if you are that wedded to the merits of transparency.”
Please read what I said. No offense (I hate using the word ignorant or ignorance because it just sounds insulting) but your suggestion is operating from a point of ignorance of how voting in the US actually works. Not to mention voting isn’t generally trying to get a scientific series of data points anyway – it’s trying to get the majority of votes for one side or another, and just make sure that the people voting are legally allowed to vote so that the electoral college can (generally) vote in accordance with those groupings of voters in each state.
How can they include unreported cases? If they are not reported, how can there even be a case? o_O
The context being ‘unreported to the police’, whereas this is ‘reported to a government agency’. Which does not necessarily make it the truth mind. But there are merits to it, within that context.
However you are right to pick up on this, as there is too much overlap in the two bodies, and their means of acquiring the data, to ensure that it is truly representative.
Yorp, read my reply to Guesticus, thanks :)
Guesticus:
1) They took anything reported to the colleges, not just things that got reported to the police.
2) There are things in statistics like standard deviation, variance, and standard error which are used to calculate the uncertainty and possibility of errors in the data points used. Have you ever seen a poll where they say ‘with an uncertainty of plus or minus 3 percent? That’s where they assume absolutely unreported cases. But even then, it has to be REASONABLE, or you’re just engaging in rampant propaganda and guesswork to force the narrative despite, not because, of the data presented.
I’m not sure how that changes the validity of the study, either in your estimation or in fact. If you are doubting the veracity of either kind of report, well, people can lie to campus authorities just as easily as they can lie to the police. Once you go down that road you’re basically saying that a crime without a witness besides the victim shouldn’t be considered to be truthful.
And I think you’ll find that there are a significant amount of people who will avoid seeking out police for a great many reasons, so I’m not at all surprised that reports to campus authorities were greater in number than reports to police authorities. Added to that there are multiple records of campus authorities abusing their role by actually pressuring sexual assault victims to not go to the police, simply for the detestable reason that it makes things easier for the institution. Less of a bad reputation, less bad press and publicity, less potential impact upon their donations, fewer upset parents to deal with on both the victim and the accused side of things, less paperwork, less work in general. Never underestimate how many people are willing to do any amount of talking to avoid real work or real consequences.
“I’m not sure how that changes the validity of the study, either in your estimation or in fact.”
More people report an incident to the college than actually get reported to the police. Then on top of that, there’s point 2 that I made about the standard deviation and standard error.
“Once you go down that road you’re basically saying that a crime without a witness besides the victim shouldn’t be considered to be truthful.”
Yes, it’s called presumption of innocence. You do not automatically assume that any claim is automatically true. You need to have some amount of proof to do that and ruin someone else’s life. When I was briefly working in the DA’s office, that was a pretty big deal. It’s irresponsible to go forward with the assumption that the claimant is being truthful without SOME sort of corroborating evidence. Otherwise what’s to stop me from accusing some guy who just pisses me off of sexual harassing me when there were no witnesses, and demand that I be believed just because I’m a woman and he’s a man and he can’t prove he didn’t harass me?
“And I think you’ll find that there are a significant amount of people who will avoid seeking out police for a great many reasons,”
No, I find that the police tend to require corroborating evidence, while campus authorities do not because of how the Obama administration forced campuses to interpret Title IX in a way that it wasn’t meant to be used, where they flip the burden of proof on its head.
“so I’m not at all surprised that reports to campus authorities were greater in number than reports to police authorities.”
My point is the NCVS uses campus authority reports, not police reports, so they’re already skewing it in favor of the supposed victim, and even then, the amount only comes to 1.9 percent of women on college campuses, not 20-23 percent and definitely not 52 percent. Even when it’s skewed more, with the margin of error taking account the possibility of people who might have been actually harassed but for some reason did not report it to even campus authorities, it still doesn’t go anywhere close to the numbers in the debunked CDC report.
“simply for the detestable reason that it makes things easier for the institution.”
Please show any examples of this happening. In fact, because of Title IX being mis-applied a LOT in the last decade, the thing that makes it easier for the institution is to just automatically suspend the male regardless of proof or even the attempt to see if the claim is vaguely realistic. Again, see Duke Lacrosse or Mattress Girl as two notable examples.
“Never underestimate how many people are willing to do any amount of talking to avoid real work or real consequences.”
Colleges prefer not getting sued to not doing work. And if they are told they will be sued for not automatically siding with a claimed victim, without actually investigating the veracity of that victim, they have tended to do that. Again, please show me actual examples where colleges force women to not make a report because it will just be more work for them?
And again, I don’t see where that makes those reports any less believable just because it was to college authorities instead of police authorities.
That’s a court thing, and has to do with passing a sentence on the accused. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a report is treated. When a report is made to the police or to any other authority there should be no presumption that the person making the report is lying. You’re a lawyer, Pander. I know you must know these things.
If they took anything reported to colleges, then it can not be ‘unreported’, regardless of what was done to the report
There a different levels of ‘reported.’ Reported to the police means there was some sort of corroboration or possible corroboration. Reported just to campus authorities without going to the police tends to mean there was some problem that KEPT it from going to the police – generally that there was no proof other than the claimant’s say-so. Although that has been less and less what happens at campuses because of Title IX being mis-applied to effectively deny due process to the accused.
And again, I did also make a second point involving the margin of error, standard error, standard deviations, etc.
Yes, there are different degrees of ‘reported’, but ‘unreported’ only ever means one thing
An unreported case is a case that, by definition, does not exist: how can there be a case if no one knows about it?
No. Unreported can mean unreported to the authorities vs the police. And again your concerns is why there is a margin of error
No, Pander, everything you’ve said here is pretty much just dead wrong.
No. Reported to the police means reported to the police. Period. No proof or evidence is required.
Allow me to provide an example: While I was at college there was a locally famous rapist who had been operating for a few years before my freshman year and so every new student was regaled with the stories. Party as juicy gossip and party as a warning to the incoming freshman women.
He had a very specific MO: He would sneak into a girls residence through an open window or unlocked door and rape her under threat of a knife. He wore a mask. He used a condom. He would have her shower and would remove the bedsheets. The women were cowed by the knife and did not fight him, and so had little or nothing in the way of wounds or injuries.
These rape reports had zero evidence and would be thrown out giving the restrictions you listed, but they were not. Not because they could be used to make a charge against anyone, but because they were a police report. A record. Regardless of how useless any one of them was in pinpointing the offender, they were together useful in determining the MO of the rapist. They were all catalogued and the guy was finally caught a few years after I graduated. Turns out he was a local man, mid-30s, wife and kids, the kind you’d almost never suspect. I don’t recall how he was caught but that’s not relevant. The relevant thing is that the reports of rape by these women were not just dismissed out of hand because there was no “sort of corroboration or possible corroboration.” And the police were absolutely correct in not disregarding these reports, since they finally succeeded in bringing a serial rapist to justice.
I’m starting to wonder if your claims to be a lawyer are truthful, when you have demonstrated a shocking lack of knowledge about how the justice system works.
All statistics are made up at BEST anyway, so I wouldn’t pay any attention to what is stated publicly in such a fashion.
I was, my sister wasn’t, my mother wasn’t, her twin sister wasn’t. My other two aunts were, two female cousins were, around 30 of my female friends were, and one of my cousins was raped by her brother repeatedly. At least five of my male friends were, by women they would have followed through with if given a choice.
One of my aunts never told anyone- until about 20+ years after the fact. These wouldn’t be included in such a statistical statement.
Didn’t you say you were leaving? o_O
He missed you. Give J a hug. :)
You are back!
*sets up the “WELCOME BACK” banners, and party snax*
Lovely to hear that you feel the comic is awesome!
Don’t worry about being a downer. We all let negative emotions spill into our comments, at times. Sometimes inadvertently, as it is all to easy to say something in haste, in the heat of the moment. Other times though it is fully justified.
The comic does deal with social injustice issues, and this page is specifically about casual/ inadvertent harassment, which is a downer. As are correctly sourced statistics showing how bad related issues are. So it is appropriate to discuss such things. If folks are looking for lighter comments, they can always skip to the next one.
*puts on gorilla suit, pink fluffy tu tu and roller skates*
*starts serving cocktails*
Took me awhile to get the contrast right on the edits to your selfie.
That is horrifying.
I have just seen what I cannot unsee. Help!
Why thank you kindly sir. It is so hard to find truly representative source material, on the internet.
I need steel wool to scrub my brain after looking at that link. GAH!
Thank you so much Dave for making this page. It is truly relieving to get a bit of confirmation that some men do understand what being a woman in a patriarchal society entails.
I suspect that we might get to see what colour meat-smear a grey-skinned elf get turned into as a result of pissing off the wrong (super powered) woman.
From what we’ve seen of Maxima, she actually does not go to violence as her first step, or that guy from the comic shop would have been swatted from wherever the shop is to Antarctica.
I believe Sydney made a fake story about something like that (throwing him through a window I think) when relating what happened to other people at first :)
she’s superpowered but she has discipline; there was that one guy who yelled “You all should wear burkas!” and she only yelled back at him and then it turned out he was just trying to push her buttons; she may sometimes forget how strong she is, like with the knived minigun, but she has yet to seriously injure someone who wasn’t trying to seriously injure her and had already proven to be a major threat
Yeah. Sort of how she told Sydney to ‘reprogram’ herself to grab for the shield orb instead of punching when surprised, Maxima’s probably had a lot of practice with not reacting with violence first when she gets angry. Especially considering she does get her buttons pushed quite a bit, it seems.
Not that I mind it. :) It’s fun to read and watch that sort of thing. My favorite thing she did was when she told the annoying comic store guy ….
“Impress me with your silence.”
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1861
Just remember the very first time she found out she could shoot death beams from her hand, and how close she came to being an only-child, that would be a very sobering moment
Yet another reason that Maxima has learned to NOT use violence as her first resort.
She doesn’t want to have a sobering Gwen Stacey moment like she almost had when her brother surprised her while she was sleeping with popping a paper bag.
Well you need to see it the “Animal Way”.
A Male is looking on a Female.
The first he is Checking are Face, Breasts and Hips.
When he like her he will try to get her Fokus by saying Stuff like that.
He look the Face, it show him her Health.
He her Breasts, big Breasts mean the Children can get enough Food.
He look on her Hips, because a whide Hip mean she has no Problems to get Children.
That’s the classical Courtship Ritual Way, like every Creature do it in the World.
On the other Side, Females do the same too.
A healty Face, a strong Body to protect the Family.
So it’s not bad when People check each other, it’s natural.
Just some People see it in a wrong Way.
We are people. We have self-awareness, and can decide not to be animals. That’s why people see it the wrong way. Because everyone has a choice.
“We are people. We have self-awareness, and can decide not to be animals. That’s why people see it the wrong way.”
Thats always a strange Way for Humans, they think they are better, but Humans are Animals too, just mor advanced.
Humans say they are better as Animals, because they are intelligent. A Delphin or a Crow are intelligent too.
Humans say they are better as Animals, because they can create Stuff, some Animals can that too.
The only Thing the humans are not better is in the use of their Surrounding, because Animals live in Harmony with it, the Humanity destroy it.
Humans are not better as other Creatures, so they do the same Games between the Genders.
Male look for Female and try to get her in the Mood for Reproduction.
Animals do it, humans do it and both not always are successfull in their Trys. ;-)
Of all the tedious rehashings of gender politics, the only interesting one that I felt I should comment on is yours. I actually want to congratulate you in a way. It seems like the more advanced a civilization gets, the more bored it gets. Terminally bored. In a way life itself becomes like playing a sport, imposing arbitrary limitations upon yourself that everyone can agree to in order to enjoy a pleasant distraction from every day banal existence. In the past the difference was that people understood that complex courtship rituals were a dance of sorts, a game. There was literally no need to have a masquerade except to treat it as fun and games. Complex dancing skills were just another fun distraction. The problem is now that we have more fun hating each other and arguing with each other than socializing with each other and making life more than it is or more than it needs to be. I don’t think it’s terribly fun to go straight back to animal ways, I imagine animals are quite bored with those ways and if they had the ability to, they’d make even more complex and silly rituals. It’s still fun to think about though and I’m glad someone tries to be more accepting than condemning of others.
Well, I guess remembering that humans are animals and do animal things is pretty progressive…
But reality is neither in the “humans are superior” field nor in the “humans are monsters” field. It is not only that humans are less superior than they believe themselves to be… but also that other species are… well, more monstrous in ways normally attributed to humans than most might expect.
I mean other species are entirely capable of destroying habitats and wreaking ecological havoc if they’re a little too successful. The concept of invasive species is one that usually gets chalked up to humans putting things in places where they don’t belong… but the history of life on this planet is one full of animals getting places, killing off the local competition, strip-mining the area of resources, then dying out because they oversucceeded themselves to death… OR just moving on to other places. Then eventually everything gradually stabilises out again, the land recovers, life goes on.
POINT BEING that the thing with humans is only really a matter of scale. Humans aren’t engaging in any sort of monstrosity that other species wouldn’t if given the same opportunities…
And the only reason nature seems to be “balanced” is because if it wasn’t, and something had already succeeded at consuming basically EVERYTHING in its life-given quest for self-perpetuation… then we wouldn’t be around to see it. There is a first time for everything.
All that can tear me away from TVTropes is investigating a work that seems positively represented by its examples and getting hooked by that instead.
So here I am, reading Grrl Power, due to TVTropes’ second order insidiousness.