Jeanie Bottle 413
Jeannie’s being a total ass about it, but (and I’m asking from a position of honest ignorance here) is she wrong?
On an unrelated note, last week’s comic seems to have generated an especially large amount of commentary. 86 comments as of last count. I wonder if any previous page has that many?
She loves to dig herself deeper into that hole she has already put herself into.
Think she just dug right to China with this one
I’d like to quote a line from a movie: The Human Torch: “as a friend of mine would say.. It’s Clobberin’ Time.”
I think Jean is gonna need a shovel if she wants to continue to dig her own grave
I wonder if they’re going to assume it’s Jean in drag somehow from the overwhelmingly sexist tone she has. Or, things will go the simple route and they’ll presume anyone this shallow is someone Jean DESERVES. Or think she’s a victim of self categorization.
Also, Jean just came a BIIIIIG error! She said ‘in our DNA.’ not ‘their DNA.’ Do I want to know what they’re going to think of her for that one?
And Jean isn’t as right as she thinks, she is like everyone else, but only as far as “I’ll say or think anything as long as it absolves me of any sense of guilt.”
Well, unless the genes for it are exclusively located on the Y chromosome (in which case it could never be inherited from one’s maternal-side male ancestors), then women carry the DNA too…
She did go right onto women also sleeping around so they might take it as our in humans all sleep around. Not that I agree with it but I can see it easily being ignored in favour of shoving her in the whole she dug for herself.
Jean in drag? No way. Besides, he’s standing right across the room, where everyone can see him. Naw, they’ll probably just assume that she’s been totally brainwashed by “Jean”, or else that she’s just that stupid.
And the term “our DNA” can easily be interpreted as meaning, “all humans”. So it’s not a fatal slip.
But yes, she’s going to need a long ladder to get out of this hole.
It might not be a total fatal slip, but it should leave some wonderings going on in their minds. The way he said it makes it sound like he includes himself in that group. Which, I guess he does…
He said “All guys want to sleep around. It’s in OUR dna.” then he adds “Girls sleep around too. THEY just act like the victim…” With the “OUR” and the “THEY” indicating separate groups. With him included in the “OUR”
But, since Jean looks female now, and Jean appears to be in the same room, they would most likely dismiss it as a slip of the tongue or them mishearing it. But, it would nag at them. And with enough of his slip ups, they would add together to form a strange feeling of doubt.
Especially how he keeps knowing their names, as well as little details about them, that a new GF probably would not know. Of course they could dismiss some of it to Jeannie hearing about it from “Jean.” But when it starts building up…
He better hope no one there has a genie who might get asked to find out what is up with Jeannie!
Or that Rodge doesn’t slip up and call him by name or something. Like he almost did earlier! Lets hope he doesn’t drink too much punch!
@LeadFootRT: Based on Rodge’s previous behavior, (in Vegas, he got totally blasted) I wouldn’t wager much on him staying sober.
Me neither!
The only chance she has (since she follow up with “girls do it too”) is to claim by “our DNA” she means humans.
So Jean is the type of guy that once he hits rock bottom, he just keeps digging? I guess i shouldn’t be surprised.
Still, you’d think she’d know how to read a room.
Jean just included married guys in his list of humans who don’t want to sleep around, at least with the opposite sex. That’s kind of a funny exception, but it is consistent with what Debbie said in last week’s comic about Jean sleeping with “most of the single women. As irresponsible Jean is in most things, this seems to be an exception. Apparently Jean really believes in marriage–maybe we even get a hint here that he was thinking of marrying Belle. We could even have a Freudian slip here–surely Jean isn’t stupid enough to actually believe that there are no married men who sleep around. But Jean is really talking about Jean here, and that could be exactly how she sees herself.
Whatever Jean’s standards or lack of them are, there’s a definite plot point here. Maybe two: Jean didn’t know Tina was the chief editor’s daughter until now, and the chief editor may not know (yet) that Jean slept with Tina. But as angry as Debbie and Tina look by the last panel, if the Jean’s editor didn’t know, he will soon.
And if this were EGS and Susan was anywhere around, it would be hammer time.
Can the Hammers be used on characters who are currently female, though?
Interesting question. We’ll have to pose that to Dan Shive for the next EGS Q&A.
after she awakened susan was able to use the hammers on anyone
… and in unrelated event happening close to when Susan awakened, hammers stopped working for anyone else.
Welp, Before Susan’s awakening she used her hammers to defend Tedd. And Dan’s avatar switched genders one, from male to female, to evade the hammer. So…. the hammers work on male only, and being transformed would prevent them.
Also, any male looking androgynus enough would be protected.
But yeah, Hammers just stopped working, since Jerry the immortal had to be reborn.
Of course, Jean may be thinking that married men are an exception only because their wives keep too close an eye on them.
I don’t think she’s wrong, to be honest, even if she’s, as everyone said already, digging her own grave. It’s just that girl etiquette implies that the girl is always the dumped and the guy the jerk who dumped her… or that only the guy is at fault.
As a girl who dates girls, I often found myself in that conundrum: to my friends, I had been dumped and to the other girl’s friends, I was the jerk. Honestly, we girls are that complicated.
Thank you for responding to my question in the author comment! It’s great to get insight into this, since, being a guy, I have no experience of my own to draw on. 🙂
Robert, it’s not wrong to be honest, but (a) there’s a time and a place for honesty, and this isn’t it, plus, (b) you can be honest without being callous about it. Jeannie’s phrasing leaves a lot to be desired.
So, technically, she’s not absolutely wrong but it’s a dumb thing to say and a really bad way of putting it.
And she IS wrong to imply that her statements apply equally to everyone. She’s speaking for herself, but that’s just her opinion; a lot of guys would disagree. (I’m thinking Neil, here.)
Yeah, Jean is right, but he is saying it the wrong way to the wrong people. His character flaws are being insensitive, not too bright, not knowing when to STFU, and being a player, so he just can not help himself.
Maybe he will learn, but that would make this strip a little less interesting!
Guess I don’t see that as being ‘complicated’. ‘Prejudiced’, is more like it. It IS a kind of cultural presumption, I’ll admit.
Jean is only partly right. It is very common for both guys and gals to “sleep around” – but it’s not universal, i.e. not ALL guys or gals sleep around. There are plenty who realize that physical intimacy is inextricably linked with real emotional intimacy and decide that they don’t want to commit that part of themselves to someone casually.
Among those guys and gals who DO sleep around – yeah – the guy usually gets blamed for it even when he is the one being dumped. For a guy to admit that he was not “man enough to hold on to her”, i.e. got dumped might be considered a strike against his masculinity so he will not speak up to defend himself from accusations that he was the dumper. If he does the dumping he also doesn’t defend himself much or ask for sympathy because needing help to defend himself against the accusations is seen as weakness. Guys seldom play the victim card – to do so is seen as weak Gals are taught to do it and are free to ask their friends to support them and give them sympathy.
Guys are more likely to play the “psycho bitch” card so when she really is the problem people dismiss it as him just posturing. If she cheats on him and he complains or dumps her he gets accused of of trying to apply a double standard – under the assumption that all guys cheat – even if he was faithful.
Putting the blame on other people is easier than making your ego or you pride face your own failer.
Wars have been fought over saving face in the past as well. Human’s are not a totally enlightened species sadly.
Quick, pretend to be a dumb blonde and run!
Already coming off as one.
“Pretend”?
Tee-hee-hee! Why, Robert, I did’t think you had it in you! 🙂
Dammit. Why exactly Jean is supposed to be in the wrong here?
Unless you believe that all premarital sex is wrong, and any guy who was sex with single woman must shotgun-marry her to protect her honour, their complains have no leg to stand on.
Mainstream American society accepted premarital sex as okay.
Its just girls being girls.
“He’s SUCH a jerk”
“Yeah, what an asshole!”
“Lets find ourselves another, even bigger asshole!”
“Yeah! Badboys are so dreamy!”
If divorcing people on the ground of dissatisfaction is considered okay, so should be dumping.
Yes. I do believe all premarital sex is wrong.
I’m sorry to hear that.
That name…
Right, Nobody believes all premarital sex is wrong. Nobody.
It’s also in bad taste tell someone you’re “sorry to hear that” about their beliefs, like they have a disease.
When you go out on a limb with a comment like that, you don’t have much room to complain when someone saws it off behind you.
You have the right to express yourself as you please. However, that does not extend to getting automatic respect for whatever you said. Especially when what you said suggests that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. So complaining because a response is in “bad taste” is pretty much laughable.
> It’s also in bad taste tell someone you’re “sorry to hear that” about their beliefs, like they have a disease.
Well, I meant it in two ways:
1) Not knowing beforehand if you’re sexually compatible with your spouse can be a recipe for a disastrous marriage, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce.
2) This one’s going to be controversial, but you brought up beliefs, so I’m not going to shy away from sharing what I believe. I feel sorry for people who were brainwashed as children to believe in fairy tales. I consider force-feeding religion to your kids to be a form of abuse. Do you not feel sorry for children who were psychologically abused by their parents?
>> 1) Not knowing beforehand if you’re sexually compatible with your spouse can be a recipe for a disastrous marriage, regardless of whether or not it ends in divorce.
This is observably false. High n-of pre-marital partners directly correlates with divorce and failed marriage. And with the rate of divorces, and ease of filling for no-fault divorce, you cannot claim that virtually all disastrous marriages don’t end in divorce.
>> 2) This one’s going to be controversial, but you brought up beliefs, so I’m not going to shy away from sharing what I believe. I feel sorry for people who were brainwashed as children to believe in fairy tales. I consider force-feeding religion to your kids to be a form of abuse. Do you not feel sorry for children who were psychologically abused by their parents?
Religion is just meme. As in, self-replicating idea that exist in mind. Any idea, be it religious, political, and cultural should be judged in its own merit.
As far as meme goes, I’d take christianity, sikhism, or shintoism any time over any supposedly rational, but effectively quite crazy ideologies and worldviews.
Just because idea is not explicitly religious, it isn’t anymore logical, grounded in observable reality, or less of a fairy tale. I’ve not observed supposed rationalists behaving anymore rational than my parish priest. They’re worse. My parish priest merely makes unprovable claims, whereas “rationalists” routinely make claims that are observably false (reality is non-PC).
@Mackus:
You are completely disregarding the actual reasons behind why premarital relationships and divorce correlate and making a blanket statement which uses the same kind of internally flawed reasoning that you’re complaining about. Worst of all, you’re claiming facts without giving support for them, which is a major no-no when it comes to making rational arguments.
The reason premarital relationships correlate with higher rates of divorce is because partners often ‘slide’ into marriage without discussing it, and thus the relative ‘costs’ of marriage increase. It’s notable that the negative effects of cohabitation on marriage are substantially reduced if the couple became engaged before cohabiting. This is because a lot of couples mistakenly assume that cohabitation is similar to marriage, even though cohabitation is far more ambiguous than marriage, and make the equally erroneous assumption that they don’t need to seriously discuss getting married beforehand.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/201303/does-cohabitation-lead-more-divorces
http://www.newswise.com/articles/premarital-sex-cohabitation-and-divorce
That being said, while it is true that an idea being non-religious does not make it logical or grounded in observable facts, it is worth noting that no religions (at least none of the ones I am aware of, which includes all of the ones that you mentioned) are truly logical or grounded in observable facts. You clearly know this because otherwise you wouldn’t have referred to your parish priest making unprovable claims.
Your complaint that rationalists make claims that are observably false while your parish priest only makes claims that are unprovable completely misses the essential point – the fact that the rationalist claims can in fact be proven false in the first place. So it does not say good things about your own rationality that you would trust someone who makes unprovable claims over someone who has made claims which were subsequently proven false. Like it or not, a claim which can be proven false – even one which has been proven false – is going to be more useful than a claim which cannot be verified or falsified.
Now, that being said, it is true that many rationalists get things wrong. In fact, it takes a long time before being rational allows you to do anything besides make new and interesting mistakes. But at least these rationalists you criticize are making the effort to at least try, even though they fail. As the saying goes, fall seven times, stand up eight. Can you say the same about your parish priest?
@Mackus:
Wow, you not argued against positions I didn’t take in both of your responses, but you then went on to rant about something entirely different from the topic of conversation. The sad thing is that I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or not.
@jaimehlers
Yeah, pre-engagement cohabitation is bad. That does not contradict what I said.
>>Worst of all, you’re claiming facts without giving support for them, which is a major no-no when it comes to making rational arguments.
Try: Jay Teachman, Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women
I don’t give up sources unless asked for, because most people don’t read them. You can search for summaries or refutations. Most interesting refutation I’ve found was “yes, its true, but I prefer wild girls. I don’t think divorce or serial monogamy is bad”
>>So it does not say good things about your own rationality that you would trust someone who makes unprovable claims over someone who has made claims which were subsequently proven false.
I do not trust my parish priest to lead me to heaven, if there’s even any. What made you think I am actually religious?
>>it is worth noting that no religions (at least none of the ones I am aware of, which includes all of the ones that you mentioned) are truly logical or grounded in observable facts
The point of unprovable claims is to give you plausible deniability to believe something that’s convenient to you. Not to convince you of nature of reality. Religions aren’t supposed to provable – that like people who don’t even play vidja complaining Doom has too much violence.
“Jesus died for you!” – “well, it COULD be true. I like singing. Lets sing carols.”
“We have purged the kulaks comrades!” – “Great, now we’re literally starving”
I do not care that my sports team isn’t objectively correct either. That’s not a point of sport team. The point is to entertain me, and to get endorphin rush when they win.
We can spend all week can arguing whether Isis or Stalin are worse. No point in bothering.
Enough with the stupid focking rants already…
We are here to enjoy this web comic and to discuss it in semi-mature or at least non-obnoxious ways. And when you manage to have one of the site’s contributor/manager/moderators call you out on it and not know if you are trolls or are being serious, you have failed at that!!!
So just shut up and enjoy the show.
@LeadFootRT
I was enjoying the show.
Someone started to share his belief.
Mods shares his belief, while lampshading that he knows they’ll be considered controversial.
Someone disagrees and points out that I didn’t back my opinions.
I provide sources in response, elaborate some more.
LeadFootRT is shocked and appalled that I shared my belief.
Yes, topic drifted to religion. I don’t see how its my fault, given that mod said out of blue that religion is abuse.
I forgot a line:
>Mods shares his belief, while lampshading that he knows they’ll be considered controversial.
>I share my opinion
>Someone disagrees and points out that I didn’t back my opinions.
Yeah… don’t go putting words or emotions in my mouth.
Shocked and appalled? No. More like annoyed really.
Interesting that the clear assertion Robert makes is that one must be brainwashed into thinking premarital sex is not a good idea. I personally know a great many smart and extremely well educated folks – PhD’s etc – both religious and non-religious who have come to that conclusion on their own. (I work with and socialize with the aforementioned folks) Most of them did so based on their own observations about the effects it has had on their friends and acquaintances. I also know a lot of folks who think it’s no big deal. We have lively discussions about why we believe what we do, but at the end of the day we don’t call names or imply that the other people who disagree with us are stupid or crazy. We agree to disagree. My personal belief is that we should respect the rights of others to believe what they choose and be able discuss why we believe what we do in a respectful manner.
For some reason it reminds me of the video where Penn Jillette is ripping on practically everyone he disagrees with but shares a story of when someone gave him a Bible. He was genuinely touched that the person cared enough to try to share something they valued with him. He is pretty famous for being an adamant agnostic – of not atheist – but he respected the person who felt strongly enough about their belief to share it respectfully with him. The person simply offered him a Bible saying that they thought it was a good thing that would benefit him, not “here’s a bible and you will burn in hell if you don’t read it”.
We need to be civil. I’ve seen far too many religious people who are self-righteous in condemning non-religious folks and at least as many, if not more non-religious folks who mock and disrespect anyone who is religious – mostly because they don’t agree with them.
How about a little bit more along the lines of
“Here’s what I believe and why I believe it”
“ok – i disagree – here’s what I believe and why I believe it”
“I see – well – I see we disagree but I respect you and your right to believe what you choose”
“Well – then let’s agree to disagree and respect each others right to choose what to believe- and by the way thanks for caring enough about me and trusting me enough to share”
“Likewise”
Jeannie is in the wrong for being insensitive to the concerns of the people she’s talking to.
And it’s not about breaking up with [“dumping”] someone, it’s about cynically using them for an ulterior motive and then casually discarding them like a dirty tissue once they’ve served their purpose.
Yes, women are guilty of the same things on occasion, but that doesn’t make it better. It’s wrong when anyone does it. but Jean just happens to be the one under the microscope, here.
> it’s about cynically using them for an ulterior motive and then casually discarding them like a dirty tissue once they’ve served their purpose
And we have no evidence that Jean is guilty of this. The ladies in this scene are accusing him of this, but Jean’s line in panel 2 muddies those waters considerably. It’s entirely possible that he’s just a playboy, and not a douchebag.
@Robert: Agreed, it’s an accusation, but since this is a comic, not a court case, it seems unlikely that we’ll get any conclusive evidence one way or the other, so we have to go with what we have.
So far, (based on prior behavior exhibited) Jean’s credibility seems pretty low, and the fact that multiple women seem to be agreeing on the particulars would seem to indicate that they aren’t making this up. So it seems like the evidence is stronger against him.
Yes, he did make one comment that could be read the other way, but consider that it doesn’t actually contradict the accusations. Being loud when you’re drunk doesn’t prove that he WASN’T using her. It’s just kind of a snarky comeback that doesn’t address the point.
So I think, on the balance here, Jean still isn’t looking good. Of course, that could change. (shrug)
Of course, Jeannie is free to express any opinion she wants… whether it’s factual or not. But there are plenty of times when it’s a lot smarter to keep quiet.
And as a side note, Jean is definitely wrong in the factual sense about DNA and behavior – there are way too many exceptions. She’s projecting her attitudes onto everyone else. Which is exactly what a lot of people do.
Aye. AFAIK it seems that Jean was not using them for ulterior motives and just wanted a fling in bed with each of them. Not that “love em and leave em” is a virtue, mind you, but having sex with them was the goal unto itself, not a means to some other goal.
You (and Robert) are both assuming the Jean is telling the truth, and she (Tina?) isn’t.
I’m more inclined to give HER the benefit of the doubt, because we’ve seen Jean pull sneaky, manipulative stuff before, as well as falsely dismiss things. Whereas Tina hasn’t given us any reason to disbelieve her story. The fact that Jean brushes it off, is meaningless. Of course he would say that, he’s a self-centered jerk; nothing’s ever his fault.
Jean can deny things if he wants, but given his previous behavior, he’s not very credible.
As far a Jean is concerned, Jean is about doing what Jean want to do and Jean doesn’t have any real good friends as such. Jean is the kind of person, if it served his goal or needs at the time, he the kind of person that could double cross Neil too and probably laugh about that too. The only reason that he hangs around Neil is probably because he the only guy that will tolerate Jean antic and such. Jean is kind of like a Leach that suck off of people.
Neil is the the one that the real friend here and certainly he knows who Jean is and generally put up with Jean antic’s.
As far as religion goes: Pass yourself off as Christian or some other religion from some other faith. More people have died in the name of some religion than just about any other thing. People hide doing evil in the name of GOD and there evil agenda’s and ulterior motives and such.
However when you have people who want to do good and are Men and Women of good will and such and also need the authority and a foundation on which to work from, Christianity and what the Bible really says and is properly interpreted, then all bet are off to Christianity being a bad thing. When it done properly, it establishes a Net Worth of individuals, how your suppose to treat other people and how they should expect to be treated. Whether not they do is beside the point. The US Constitution is based on those principals too, but, since then, it has been mis-used and subverted too be people who truth and doing what right or following NATURAL LAW. There is such a thing as NATURAL LAWS and ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because if there wasn’t any such thing, there would be no Universe to live in or no Planet Earth. If you still don’t believe there is such a thing, then go jump off the Empire State Building and see what happens. See if NATURAL LAWS ABSOLUTE TRUTH don’t just kick in and you fail to your death, unless something intervenes to block the ultimate results of your action of jumping off the building. Most people don’t recognize these ABSOLUTE, because, there appears to be no emidiate results to there action.
@Robert
Problem is, Jean has never been portrayed as trustworthy, so Tina is far more sympathetic by default.
Unfortunately, Natural Law and Absolute Truth run into the is/ought fallacy–Natural Law is about what IS, not about what Should Be. Natural Law, for example, does not tell us not to hunt prey species to extinction, except after the fact by us having to suffer their absence. Natural Law also tells us to look out for our in-group above the out-group–i.e. things that benefit those closest to you are more important than benefits to humankind as a whole (e.g. you would choose to save a loved one over saving multiple strangers if faced with an either/or dilemma). That which is Natural is not necessarily that which is Ethical.
Because he is wrong, he’s being a sexist pig here.
“Mainstream American society accepted premarital sex as okay.”
And people wonder why Western society has gotten so selfish, greedy and irresponsible. It all starts at home…
If Rodge wasn’t Jean’s double here, I would swear that Jeannie was about to out himself in a misunderstood way…
He keeps slipping up, by speaking as a guy, and by knowing too much about these girls. If they would somehow come to doubt Rodge as being Jean, say… by him obviously not knowing what he should know, or acting in a way that proves him not to be Jean, they might add 2+2 and realize who Jeannie really is, and that some changes have been made in his lifestyle!
And I am sure he would be in for quite a reckoning!
And speaking of Rodge, I wonder how he is doing now with Jean’s boss…
Somehow, I have a feeling that Rodge is doing a lot better than Jean is. Just a hunch.
He isn’t surrounded by, and pissing off a group of women, so yeah I am sure he is doing better!
But. how is he holding up as being someone he is not, in front of Jean’s boss. And without having the knowledge to do it. I can see him “winging it.” And being just as good at it as he is being ambitious and dedicated at his job!
Oh. the possibilities! Such a wonderful comedic set up! Well done CD! I can’t wait to see how you play this all out!
I love how you set these situations up. It really is harder than it looks. I keep respecting your writing skills more and more!
Referring to Panel 2: It’s funny: I would have expected that Jean would think that a girl who spent the night drunk and yelling would be just great.
Maybe he doesn’t like having competition.
Drunk, yes. Drunk and yelling, no.
I dunno. I can see Jean being loud and mouthy when drunk. Why not her, too?
Besides, some men like it when she’s loud. Unless the room has thin walls. OK, maybe even then. 😉
Maybe, but even if you are drunk and being loud, someone else doing it is still annoying. And we do not know what type of drunk he is. All we have seen of Jeannie drinking is that moonshine. And that did not end very well! But he wasn’t being loud, just sneezey!
I wonder how strongly Jean will keep thinking that here. It could comically come back to bite ‘her’ rosy ass someday, feeling the girls’ side of being an dumpee. No one would enjoy that feeling.
Granted, it takes both the woman and man to engage with sex. Women aren’t fully innocent when they do it willingly with a guy. Jean here just acts like ‘she’s’ untouchable or too good to deal with negative consequences to being loose or disrespectful like this. Too much hubristic ego in ‘her’ brain.
Do you mean if one of those girls decided to “teach that bitch a lesson,” and proceed to seduce and steal Jeannie’s fiance from “her?”
I could see that happening. I am sure Rodge would not have the capacity to see how wrong that could be.
I believe that Rodge would think it was FINE idea, and go right along with it…
Seeing so far how Jean’s plans tend to go, it’s kinda hit or miss. So there’s a 50/50 chance that Jean could get ‘her’ up-comings for ‘her’ obnoxious behaviour or Jean could conjure some magical revenge on those who do the screwing.
One (or all) of the three women seducing Rodge would be a fine complication. What would make it sublime if Belle shows up to give Jean a nice surprise and catches “Jean” with them–beyond sublime if Jeanie is with them. That could even end up with Jeanie finally telling the truth to Belle–so much the better if he proves that truth in front of the Dumped Sisters.
Yes, a fine idea, that plot development, LeadFootRT.
Why thank you! It seemed to be a poetically justified possibility! And something I could see happening!
I doubt that Belle would show up. This is New York. And I doubt that she would be at this gathering since she appears to be from Florida, and not part of that crowd.
…gay guys are less likely to sleep around? That’s new.
Jean has some very… “unique” ideas in her blonde head.
I believe he meant that as in not sleep around with lots of girls.
For high numbers of comments, look around strip 297 and 298. Over 130!
Wow, I’d forgotten about how popular those pages were for discussion!
Thought most of “married or gay” also slept around.
Oh s**t, CAT FIGHT! CAT FIGHT EVERYBODY! Get your popcorn and settle in for the show.
WOW way to get them all pissed at you at once. Jean clearly needs to learn what the meaning of Tact is. He is like a Bull in a china shop when he opens his mouth.
If these were guys he would get a beat down but since they are women i am guessing one or more of them are going to go out of their way to screw up his life some how.
Between Jeanie/Jean and Rodger/jean my bet is his job is toast ill go 8/10 on that.
Seriously, as far as I am concerned the only people that don’t sleep around are asexuals.
To be more honest, it’s on a case by case basis. Some men sleep around, some women sleep around. Some are loyal, and don’t sleep around. Some just flit from partner to partner.
Jean is so wrong here. Married men and gays sleep around too.
I’m not saying ‘all guys sleep around’ but then Jean isn’t either (He/she actually said “All guys want to sleep around.” ). Neither statement is strictly true but both guys and girls DO sleep around and many more of both “want” to sleep around so the idea that it’s part of our species nature isn’t far off.
BTW isn’t anybody going to comment on what was said in the first 2 panels?
Jean did have a long term girlfriend – Belle Lows – and we saw no one else at the time so we know he was capable of being in a committed relationship. Maybe to him sleeping around is just part of the process of looking for the right girl and some one who spent “all night yelling and drunk” isn’t his idea of the right girl?
That’s about how I’ve interpreted this scene as well. Jean slept around a lot while looking for Ms. Right, and may have found her in Belle.
Unless, of course, he slept with these women AFTER getting into the relationship with Belle. Which would completely change the picture. 😉
Remember how sure Belle was, that Jean was cheating while he was “in the Mideast”? Unless she’s really paranoid, that sounds like maybe it’s happened before. Just a thought.
Belle may be Jean’s Ms. Right, but it’s doubtful if Jean will ever be Belle’s Ms. Right, despite Neil’s censored fantasy way back when in #22. And here are two references to Jean’s pre-bottle position on bedroom playmates:
*Strip #2: “I would so do her.”
*Strip #75: What Jean would have done if Neil had been the one turned into a beautiful genie
So it looks to me at that point Jean may have decided Belle was Ms. Right, but not that he should give up on all the Ms. Right Nows yet. After seeing Belle with another guy, and hearing her talk about him and how “Jean would be doing the same thing,” perhaps Jean’s attitude changed or began to change. But I’m not sure that was more True Love than missing the toy he can’t play with any more.
I would say Jean is partially right, but being in the right doesn’t protect you from getting your ass kicked when you piss off everyone around you. You have to know your audiance.
It’s been nice knowing you, Jean. We’ll have a nice service in your honor, but don’t worry, it won’t be open casket.
At least Jean dies in the most fitting manner: ripped apart into pieces by a mob of hot angry women.
I kind of figured that’s how we all want to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMLctf4o6feQ&has_verified=1
Like this preferably :). Not as bloody, but essentially the same thing
I’d rather kamikaze my fighter into the enemy command ship, thank you very much!
That sorta reminds me of a scene from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life!
I’m amazed Jean can never taste that foot in her mouth, cause it’s there almost all the time.
I’m guessing it’s so far down her throat that it’s past her taste buds.
Hahaha! LOL!
Technically speaking, Jean is right. It is in the primal male instinct to “sleep around”, to mate with as many viable females as possible in order to ensure one’s genetic legacy. However, I’d like to think to think that well over ten thousand years of culture, civilization and evolution has dulled that instinct to the point that it is easily suppressed and overcome.
I’d like to think so, anyway. Reality has a habit of disappointment me.
However,, Jean is incorrect about females having that same instinct. That particular drive applies ony to the male instinct. Some females DO sleep around, but I think that’s more choice than succumbing to primal instinct (technically, it’s a choice for the men that do, too. It just they have a an excuse, unfortunately) No, the female equivalent instinct is to choose the strongest, fittest, male to mate with to ensure superior offspring. Again, over 10,000 years worth of progress has dulled this instinct, too…or at least changed the definition of “strongest” and “fittest”.
Actually, that “strongest, fittest male” instinct WOULD cause females to sleep around long term. It’s just that for male, “as many as possible” can be more than one per day, while for female, “as many as possible” is one per ten months, meaning she needs to be more careful in choosing.
Note: Some females didn’t upgraded their definition of “fittest” and are still going for strongest males. Some did and are now going for males with thickest wallets.
I don’t know if Jean is wrong so much as lazy.
I find that a lot of people’s desires have prerequisites. For example, if you take a guy’s desire to have sex with some woman. Most guys have prerequisites that they find her at least somewhat attractive (if sober) and that she agrees enough that they aren’t going to be arrested for the act. Also the overwhelming majority of guys have a prerequisite that she has a pulse.
As a guy, I can’t be certain, but it’s always appeared that women, on average, have a somewhat larger and/or less trivial prerequisite list for wanting to have sex than the average guy does (but you can definitely find a specific girl with less of a prereq list than a specific guy, if you look hard enough and get honest answers).
Either way, either gender, once all prereqs are checked off, degree of “full speed ahead” seems mainly based on confidence/shyness (and are still some lingering social conditioning factors that seem to slow women down a bit at times too).
So I think Jean fails to recognize his own prerequisite list (past, “is she hot”-type prereq) and thus fails to recognize others’ lists as well.
I don’t think guys check woman pulse before having sex. They do, however, usually check if she’s breathing and has body temperature in reasonable range.
Also, drunk men don’t sleep with women they don’t find attractive. It’s just that their judgment about what is attractive is impaired similarly to their judgment of what direction is down and what is straight line.
I don’t have any prerequisites at all because I’m morally against sexuality in all forms. Just getting that out there. I’ll just sit back down and shut up now