Syconium
216

November 2nd, 2017






Name (optional):
Link (optional, and omit the "http://"):
Your comment on this,
Syconium page #216:
       


(Hide comments)

(Turn off comments)


76 . by: Furrama November 7, 2017, 3:21 pm

Yeah. Withering/wilting plants are a good indicator for time passing.

Symbolically, it also reminds me of something the art supplier said on page 16. The spent canvas bit.
75 . by: camila sc November 7, 2017, 3:06 pm

the withering of smoothie's flower is a good call back to the withering of the fig leaf in the first couple of pages of the story.
74 . by: November 6, 2017, 8:25 pm

I apologize for the bluntness of my earlier "rude" comment, it just rubs me the wrong way when someone asks someone else to stop using a term that bothers them, and the other person just brushes them off like they're unimportant. Common courtesy costs you nothing.
73 . by: Papeipou November 6, 2017, 5:52 pm

Dang y’all. Don’t make this comment ugly with your drama. We can have different perspectives without being nasty. What’s really funny to me is how everyone is ready to throw around snark but not interested in signing a name...
72 . by: November 6, 2017, 4:38 pm

Other than a couple people that just wanted to make shitty dunks that could be about anyone here and don't actually say anything meaningful it was nice to see how civil this discussion stayed.
71 . by: November 6, 2017, 4:18 pm

@66 Yet your comment is too vague to say anything in particular and adds nothing to the conversation. Interesting that.
70 . by: Watcher November 6, 2017, 11:12 am

Well, if nothing else, at least she managed to relieve her mustelid aggression for awhile. She looks calmer now than we've seen her in weeks.

Funny, I've always had my own personal name for "Smoothie" as well. Ever since page 134, I've secretly thought of him as the Chocolate Talker, or "ChocTalk" -- due to the dark chocolate color of his speech highlights.

Come to think of it, dark chocolate is a well-known aphrodisiac ... and Fig was immediately turned on by him the moment he entered her chamber ("A Super Hot Guy Just Walked In" remains one of my favorite panels in this entire story).
69 . by: November 5, 2017, 3:42 pm

"big ideas (don't get any)" - radiohead
lyrics not from Smoothie's POV, but "Fig"/XX's internal Labyrinth.

if you use the link ignore the fucking sad clown imagery

URL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R35_vb04Lfw
68 . by: Dani November 3, 2017, 11:41 pm

@Furrama and @58/63 -- oops! My bad. Glad it's chill all around though in the end re names :).

Agreed with 67!
67 . by: November 3, 2017, 11:02 pm

@66 count your blessings, this is easily one of the most civil and easily resolved conversations I've seen in a good long while
66 . by: November 3, 2017, 10:34 pm

I just lost several IQ points reading these comments.
Easily the dumbest stuff I've read all week.
65 . by: November 3, 2017, 9:20 pm

@furrama well I am sincerely glad you feel that way! I don't want to cause grief.
64 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 9:04 pm

They weren't saying I was rude, mine was @52 not @53.

I don't care what you call things as long as you're respectful about it, and 53/60 doesn't seem to be using volcel/incel in a bad faith way, so eh? I don't like it but I don't think it's hurting anything in this instance, unless I want to pitch a fit and I don't.

Personally I try to call things whatever they're called in the comic or by whatever Zack has called them in a comment somewhere ("Fig" and Cherry II). If I have to split a name between two individuals, then I'll do my best to differentiate but acknowledge my given quirk in parentheses ((S)XY and (E)XY). If none of that is available, then I go by the most popular nickname used in the comment section. But that's me, you do you.
63 . by: November 3, 2017, 8:56 pm

@61 they were not calling furrama rude, they were calling me rude for using the names & not stopping when asked. I don't really want to make anyone here uncomfortable with my silly names, it isn't worth that, but I couldn't really understand why I should stop, when it isn't as if they are slurs, just used by less than savory types (its kinda like if I called him gamergate or something, lol; a jab at an ideology I don't like). If its super rude I'll listen, just confused as to why atm?

Using the names I do helps me keep things straight while greenie/smoothie/EXY/SEXY etc never really stuck in my brain (or disappealed to me since I dont find him 'sxy' xD)
62 . by: November 3, 2017, 8:53 pm

Vote for Brandon

I mean Pedro
I mean


Wait
61 . by: Dani November 3, 2017, 8:38 pm

I don't think it was rude of Furrama to have an opinion on that naming scheme. No naming system is more inherently right than another. Consistency does help the conversation flow, but people are only using a given system on a voluntary basis. We can suggest, but not force anything.
60 . by: November 3, 2017, 8:07 pm

@58 I'm willing to hear anyone out on why this is rude? I don't understand at the moment, I mean that genuinely. It's my personal names for discussing these characters in a way that is most digestible to me & has meaning. I understand some people like the characters and won't like my monikers due to that, but we have many varying opinions here in the comment section, and always have on nofna. I rarely comment anyhow tbh, today is jus one o them days
59 . by: @39 November 3, 2017, 7:50 pm

@58 It's their choice and it's only as rude as any other name people pick for characters without well defined names.
58 . by: November 3, 2017, 7:16 pm

@53- Rude.
57 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 6:26 pm

@53 Alright then. I guess I can deal.
56 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:18 pm

@46/47 Well said.

A total aside: This entire comment thread makes me think about this story in context of Lycosa. I haven't reread it in a long time, and I should - I remember one of the conceits of Lycosa's style being that she had to integrate all these disparate identities she had consumed, rather than trying to eliminate or subjugate them.

("Those concepts that cling to the past will not go lightly, for to cede their territory to the future is to relinquish their lives. If we cannot make peace with our pasts, they may come back to hunt us down, stronger than ever. No matter who we've become or what threats we're dealing with in the meantime.")
55 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:17 pm

@54 God, sorry to hear your parents did that to you. I can understand the apprehension because of something like that (I also feel sex work is really only as much of a thing as any other labor though, neutral at it's base with the potential for either positive or negative).
54 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:08 pm

I'll be disappointed if XY ends up at the brothel just because he slept with Fig. You all day foreshadowing. I hope not.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going into sex work, but if it plays out that way, it's basically saying "sex is a slippery slope to prostitution." Which is a scare tactic my parents used to shame me out of sex for years.
53 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:06 pm

@52 I'm aware how they're used... I don't like those communities either, but I don't like either XY or what they espouse, either, so for me, it fits. Nobody else has to use them, and I don't think anybody else is. Its fine for someone to not like it, at this point there's a lot of different terms for the same-name boys to individual preferences... I don't like (S)XY or smoothie or whatever else is out here. We're jus' doin what we wanna.
52 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 5:59 pm

@46 Sex isn't what's hurting her, at least from society's end: Sexualization is. Objectification is. "Pretty is pretty," to quote Scruffy. But Art, and sex, aren't just about what's attractive and what isn't. It's why her art is rejected, but her body is desired. AND YET Art is considered respectable, while sex is looked down on. It's out of sync. What's normal and healthy is being corrupted in society and the individual body through ancient hind brains meeting the halo brain and... well, have you ever tried growing a non native plant in your garden that took over? Like, kudzu, it's a perfectly fine plant in its native soil, but it finds itself in new place and nothing can deal with it and it takes over and everything else dies. That's what "Fig" is. And its in everyone in the comic, it's just over-pronounced in her.

(S)XY wasn't wrong broadly speaking, he -failed- in trying to put mind over matter, to put an incomplete thesis into practice, (he was doing some guesswork but I don't know the extent of that yet waiting for more comic). He can't save her now, she pulled him down into the pit with her. Hence the look of regret up there.

So... what is XX/Fig, the physical person? She wanted this, but she didn't want this. This duality, is it a power struggle with one winner, or must a balance be struck? Something new, a revolution, a recombination? Rebirth? If this is about communication, what's the final message? If the canvas can be renewed, unspent, what will she say? What does she want to say?

I don't know the solution to the issue as presented, if I did I'd have figured out how the comic's going to end.

(Can we not call them volcel/incel? It's feels very wrong to me, given how those terms are used today in certain circles.)

URL : http://www.nofna.com/?T=1-1-58-158
51 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:56 pm

syconium page 214: if you like my body and you think i'm sexy come on sugar tell me

syconium page 216: incel/volcel discourse
50 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:55 pm

@49 nobody but me uses it, a rando anon. it's sort of my joke with myself
'volcel' is short of VOLuntary CELibacy,
'incel' is short for INvoluntary CELibacy.

I prefer defining the XY's by this than by 'smoothie/greenie' which just dont grock with me! I wanted to call them something that both spoke to their motivations, and the thread connecting them.
49 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:47 pm

where tf is the name “volcel” coming from
48 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:47 pm

@Furrama The narrative just as easily can be used to support the idea that the outcomes are a product of his own views and existing cultural constructs, ideas that are damaging his and Fig/XX's ability to deal with sexuality and identity as @21/22 said. The line you gave by him really only seems to strengthen the anti-sex sentiment by essentially qualifying it as a "necessary evil" vs. something that can be just as equally positive on not only an individual level, but a social and cultural level... I can't see that as less puritanical. Further those lines presented by @35 were part of his thesis, meaning something his character is not only very invested in but things that are directly part of his motivations as well. He's so invested in his thesis he made a bet with a friend around it, which ends up being a large part of his motivation to be dishonest and boundary crossing with Fig/XX in the first place.

I don't think most people upset about Smoothie are unaware that the narrative appears to be trying to confirm his biases, so much as that is part of the reason people are speaking up and why there's a hold out of hope for some sort of turn around or more balanced perspective creating something better for Fig/XX (which at this point would be better for Smoothie as well).

I... don't really have any sympathy for Smoothie at this point though, he's exploitative, manipulative, and dishonest toward someone who's autonomy was already greatly compromised. He's literally been grooming and suppressing her in a similar fashion as Greenie, just under different motivations and pretenses.

@46/47 Very much agree with and see this read, especially coming from a position of being someone that has both been through therapy many times and studied therapeutic psychology materials extensively.
47 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:25 pm

to continue, I would say that on the whole I objectively cannot understand how deciding a part of someone's identity and self is simply bad and needs to be stomped out, is a good tactic for improving mental health. Fig repeatedly identifies herself as that entity he admonishes, that he conveniently wants to believe isn't the 'real' her. Fig has to turn in on herself, either hating herself or fracturing further...

To me it makes sense that in this emotional environment, Fig has only further turned against herself because of how much she simply cannot, and doesn't want to, be released from this thing that gives her energy, vitality, has given happiness. And she doesn't need to do that to be stable at all, I think. We've already seen Fig without 'Fig' inside her... so I think volcel is wrong in how he discusses, treats, and analyzes her problems. I don't think any of what he's said leads to peace and self-acceptance. It definitely hasn't thus far. And it hasn't done him favors, either.

If he wanted to zero in on specifically whatever he might identify as 'bad' sexuality, 'objectification', he oughtn't have spoke in such broad perimeters and explicitly associated it with being primal & possessive. Not exactly encouraging one to delicately parse through their issues, kind of just steamrolling the entire issue. If he wanted to praise any part of sexuality as being a meaningful social tool, worth valuing in yourself, understandable to love and want, he coulda, but I don't read him as doing that at all? Just constrictingly broad statements.
46 . by: November 3, 2017, 5:14 pm

@ furrama the story is, to me, only confirming that Fig suffers, fractures her identity, and has been greatly manipulated by something that told her this is what she wanted and what she needs, and all she can be. volcel insists that it is sex itself, using terms like 'lust' to paint it sinfully, that she needs to resist and fight out of. That it has corrupted her for its own selfish ends, and that that isn't 'her'.

But we see Fig act out on that internal Fig's actions often. Volcel insists she ejects... herself. While trying to insist that isn't her. Which fractures her further and further. That violent side has only gotten stronger, in my perspective? Because of his influence.

But I haven't seen any real proof that sex is what's hurting her or the source of her entire complex. She had a sexuality, she liked to be sexual, and she liked to be an artist. People did not let her be both, and people violently rejected her overlapping them. So she segregated herself in a way that seemed to be the only way to exist in this world. If she couldn't have her sexuality and art, she might as well have only sexuality, because of how it is valued and her art isn't. And, because it IS important to her. It is a part of her. Fig cannot be torn from Fig.

His conclusions feel like a detour that yes, society 'confirms' because it shares the same bias and does all it can to punish sex for its own hang-ups. The mechanism behind the actual pain and suffering is, to me? Not sex at all and 'fighting' it as he has has not gotten either of them anywhere than feeling increasingly bad and primitive for their desire for something intimate and warm to share.
45 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 4:58 pm

To lighten it up a bit, for very silly reasons going back and rereading (S)XY's dialog reminds me of this:

URL : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S3aH-BNf6I
44 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 4:50 pm

@35 He's acknowledging downsides of objectification and over sexualization, as well as what sex could do if not tempered, and since Fig and "Fig" exist.... well. Everything that he said about sex that could be construed as negative has been supported by the narrative.

He wasn't wrong about those downsides. And now he's been possessed by them too.

(192)"Society isn't about sex, it's about ideas. Sex is just something that happens along the way, to pass on those ideas to the next generation. We aren't beholden to you, you are beholden to us!" is a far more telling line of his. A Puritan he ain't.
43 . by: @39 November 3, 2017, 4:45 pm

@41 I'm embarrassed to admit I let that stuff influence my treatment of dogs for awhile in a bad way, but hey we're all always learning!
42 . by: @39 November 3, 2017, 4:40 pm

@40 You've pointed out a lot much better than I can right now. Now I want to do article hunting and documentary watching again (even though it's sadly limited due to biases of many researchers, as you've said).
41 . by: 33 November 3, 2017, 4:32 pm

@39 that's really interesting re: the pair bonding myths! Reminds me of the whole 'alpha wolf pack structure' theory that went on to influence so many dog training methods, only for it to be revealed as a huge myth later on.
40 . by: November 3, 2017, 4:31 pm

@39 science also has historically not considered same-sex animal pairs 'real pair-bonding' or factored in as their own sexual relationships, even if, say, a female routinely chooses female partners, display for one another, and remains with that same female for years. Only easily finding research on differently-sexed couples is common. Erases whole swathes of complexity...

There are animals that seem to pair-bond with same-sex couples yet differently-sexed couples pair only temporarily for breeding. In these cases, the same-sex couples tend to just be filed off as a 'social' thing (in progressive circles-- non-progressive research won't even give it that much credit) while breeding for procreation handled in different and more severe terms, and used to define that animal's sexual behavior, despite that it's /all/ sexuality. In herd animals some females are known to group with one another freely, regardless to whatever male comes around breeding season or takes relative ownership of this group, but we still only define their 'sexual behavior' by what the male contributes. This bias is slowly starting to peel away, but it's fighting tooth and nail. In a lot of 'exclusive' animals, there is poly behavior, it's just considered illegitimate, or fringe, for one reason or another.

The complexities of animal sexualities are really hard to actually learn the facts of due to cultural bias insisting certain concepts like "infidelity" or making random judgement on totally different patterns that are, imo, not on some spectrum of 'most faithful' to 'least'. Seeing essentially that same tone in volcel's rants made me not trust him, or where this society is on sex. Obviously it's unable to study it any more neutrally than we do, even with different instincts baked into it. Something, someone, some race, still dominated ideas of what is 'best' way to have/handle sex in communities.
39 . by: November 3, 2017, 4:07 pm

@34 Most of the animal tropes/stereotypes are more about specific human cultural constructs and social groups vs. actual animal behavior as far as I've been able to tell (they're not particularly accurate)? The fact it's stereotyped vs. literal seemed to be lampshaded by one of the characters earlier in this story as well.

@36 Wellll the idea that mammals have pair bonding is mostly a myth and funnily enough one that has been historically attributed to predators more often, such as wolves, but it's largely from early animal and human sciences misattributing human cultural constructs to nature. "Mating for life" is more of a bird thing and even then still rare among all the various species as far as I'm aware. Most mammals have fluid relationships and social structures and change partners within the same group often... but I'm not keen on the idea of pair bonding being conflated with "commitment" to begin with since that doesn't determine how tight knit and mutually beneficial a social group is or isn't, otherwise most "herd" and "pack" structures wouldn't exist as they do in nature and social structures wouldn't vary as much as they do from culture to culture. The concept of marriage arose from laws around birthrights for land and commodities during early human civilization and mostly restricted women and not men... so I kind of view "pairing" as antithetical to meaningful commitment, since it's difficult to build sincere mutuality out of ownership concepts (though not meant as a slight on whatever works for other people).
38 . by: November 3, 2017, 3:15 pm

thank you @35 I was about to dig again to pull that stuff up and you pulled up more than I even remembered being in there
37 . by: November 3, 2017, 3:01 pm

ah @35 you make me smile and feel not crazy for my reads. The comments section here sometimes (unintentionally I know, we're all just readers of a longform media) feels like its gaslighting me, lol. He has done nothing but very consistently suggest it be done away with and stamped out... outside of his weird 'love' line that I can't personally pare. even when dealing with fig's sexuality directly, he only suggests parity as an option second, as an "at least...." caveat. He would rather not have it there at all.
36 . by: 33 November 3, 2017, 2:54 pm

@34, I see what you mean. Yes, every species has different struggles. I bet predator couples in this society have lots of commitment issues too, since they aren't naturally inclined to pair off... ha.
35 . by: November 3, 2017, 2:48 pm

@Furrama that is a real stretch!

Page 157 - "Estrus, and everything nature gave us that should have become obsolete in the face of society. Hatred, lust, greed, domain. Unbidden, rising up to touch what it shouldn't, growing where it shouldn't."

Page 158 - "I believe that estrus, among other aspects of this ancient force, in desperation, commandeers our power of ART, of CREATION, in order to compete with and undermine it. The power of sexualization, this objectification, as we acknowledge it, is used to demerit, and cordon off people from achieving parity!"

Page 164 - "The primary function of sex now is to realize its most powerful side effect: to lay claim to property. Because in a persons brain, a person's instinct, that's what sex is all about... possession. Possession and confinement."

Good luck painting that viewpoint as anything but 'bad'. But I guess you're right - he never even bothered to ask whether sex is bad. He just assumed it, and has been barreling along this whole time under that assumption.
34 . by: November 3, 2017, 2:34 pm

@33 It wasn't to demean them or make it seem as if their struggle is greater, just that many instances of specific animal behavior have been brought up (even Smoothie's talk involved predator/prey species and their different sexual behaviors). I don't think things like that would be brought up if they were supposed to be directly equivalent to humans, or else the story would treat these things as essentially nonexistent. I didn't meant to make it come across like they were lesser because of it, just different.
33 . by: November 3, 2017, 2:28 pm

@32, in 10%+ and some other NofNA stories, Zack specifically removed instances of the word 'animal' and replaced them with 'human' when describing people from this society. Pretty sure it's supposed to be a direct analogy. Every species has its own unique struggles, but to assume homo sapiens as a species somehow has an easier time overcoming its animal past is a baseless and infantilizing view. If anything, these animals are WAY MORE adept at controlling and shaping their instincts than our world's humanity - they have successfully overcome millions of years of instinct compelling them to be solitary predators, and have managed to create a highly unnatural social society. Whereas us humans evolved as social creatures the whole time and just went with the flow.
32 . by: November 3, 2017, 2:08 pm

@30 I don't view Smoothie's views as correct, I'm just trying to elaborate on his perspective somewhat. They do have a prudish and unnecessarily negative view on sex in this society, as does our society in a lot of ways. This society is new, just finding its legs, and I think it's to be expected that they've developed views like this, as ours did. It's not right, and it does suck and is part of Fig's entire problem with being stuck here since society punishes sex workers, as seen with Acai.

I think you have to consider this story from an animal perspective as well. I don't know any people who would go nuts and maul multiple people during sex, just because of sex, because their species has a naturally very aggressive sexual instinct. Fig's thing with biting is typical of stoat mating behavior as well. They are animals, and they're still trying to overcome those parts of themselves. Animals are driven by instinct and impulse, and sex is a big driving force of their behavior. I've always felt like that's true in nofna, that not everything should be considered directly in line with human thought/behavior, and there are some aspects of their growth into sentience and developing society that just don't line up with our own because animals are different from people.

I may be totally wrong in that line of thinking, and I'm curious what others think about it in terms of 'should we really be thinking of this as directly analogous to human society/behavior', but I do think the context of them being animals is something to be considered. The sexual aggression in particular is specific to stoats, and it has been brought up in the story as something they need to tame.
31 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 1:59 pm

@25 Was it? Because he never said or implied that. I'm wondering if some of you are projecting things on him that aren't there because of how knee-jerk we can be when it comes to the topic of sex. It can be blinding. My previous comment was relevant.
30 . by: November 3, 2017, 1:41 pm

@27 who decides what is 'casual', 'excessive', or 'love'? Society as it is arbitrarily tacks on those judgements from a spectator's position, and this idea is exactly as poisonous to how one processes their identity ('am I excessive? does my excess deserve my punishment?''am I doing this for the wrong reasons? Is this happening because I subconciously want this punishment, for being bad?) as the more basic 'sex is bad'. In fact, it creates a moving target people desperately snake their hang-ups and identities around, in my experience. In both directions.

In fact the 'love' angle makes me specifically *sneers* at volcel. Such a classic and ugly view that renders my personal life a dirty smudge, or something. All motivations are created equal, and are human. There is no 'basic' desire. Only inflation of certain social memes significance/importance. Which again is because people hitch ID on those memes.

Ideas of how much sex, when and why to have it, damage identity terribly. We are not talking about something inherently damaging, at all, here, even when it often can be. Sex is sex.
29 . by: November 3, 2017, 12:33 pm

@21 & 22 Very with you (both?), this is how I have to continue to interpret events as well. Interpreting it as the basic Western/US-centric purity/temperance narrative that often seems implied is just too bleak. It would fly in the face of everything I know about studies on the topic in general, especially studies on the effects of specific laws or stigma based "educational" programs (the broad damage caused by DARE and abstinence programs come to mind). It would also go against the reality of countries with some of the highest happiness ratings in the world and that often are current leaders in social and technological advancements, who trend toward placing much less value in authoritarian power and the sorts of stigmas driven by such. Only vaguely touching on personal experiences, the ebb and flow of these stigmas has had huge effects on the ability for me and others I know to make progress in their life as well, the times of rising stigma have had a very markedly negative impact. Taking it as that old narrative would just feel regressive and tired, especially when the stigmas are often based in very old cultural constructs that have more to do with control of commodities or land to begin with, and very little to do with societal progress if not outright being things that have halted it at points (all of which applies to sexual stigmas in particular).

People can change the focus we approach the broader topic of temperance oriented stigmas through if they like, but it doesn't change much about what you're (both?) saying as far as the effects and damage they do go. It can be about food, sex, alcohol and other drugs, or any other number of "vices", the fact stands that a culture creating these stigmas is a huge part of what generally builds the walls to hit in the first place. The trauma it can cause tends to create lasting and unbalancing damage to people's self moderation in either direction in most cases and tends to create cycles of extremes in either direction on a cultural level. It makes the stakes far too high for extremely basic things that simply are a part of life or even are long standing pillars of social engagement. At best, if you're lucky, you'll manage to go unaffected by the presence of those stigmas or get out with a type of unbalance that does less damage to your own life on a personal level.

NofNA is it's own world, but it's very obviously informed by parts of our own, which makes it hard to imagine these things wouldn't hold true there as well. So, it's hardly a leap to say that Fig/XX probably wouldn't have ended up on the path she has if she hadn't been surrounded by such harmful people and cultural ideas that have constantly robbed her of so much of her agency and parity of self from one end or the other, and probably would have done very well with the right environment.

@K thank you for sharing, somehow had never seen that one! Beth's work is really inspiring and I feel extremely lucky to have gotten to see one of her pieces in person
28 . by: November 3, 2017, 12:22 pm

He's captured you, Fig. Perhaps in more ways than one.
27 . by: November 3, 2017, 12:10 pm

I don't really think Smoothie's views were ever about sex as a whole, just gratuitous, highly indulgent forms of casual sex such as in a brothel. He even says at one point something about sex being about possession and confinement and, if there's love, release. So I don't think his view is wholly negative. Prudish, absolutely, but not damning of sex entirely.

And no I'm not saying it's necessarily correct to say 'casual sex is bad', but in excess anything can be bad, and there absolutely ARE people that have basically become slave to their sexual needs and have ruined their lives over it. Fig is one of those people. There was a time when she was happy, when she was managing her OWN life, being able to choose when she could do sex work, but that's been stripped from her. Had things stayed that way and Greenie not interfered, I don't think we ever would have gotten here, and she could still be working maybe not without any hitches, but at least not like this.

Curious to see how he'll feel about this when he wakes up. And I'm also wondering how that collar of Fig's hasn't activated if she's stayed so long. Smoothie's probably going to have a hellacious bill for the extra hours, hopefully he doesn't wind up in an Acai level mess.
26 . by: Witticaster November 3, 2017, 11:38 am

Thaaaank you, #21/22, this is exactly my issue with Smoothie's approach too. His whole "sexual desire comes from a base, coruptive influence that is not a part of the 'real' you... deny the pleasures of the flesh for the sake of a higher cause..." schtick is word-for-word the exact same tired dogma being taught in Sunday schools and gay conversion camps across the world today. It's not innovative, it's not enlightening, and we have THOUSANDS of years of real-world evidence showing what happens when societies decide to embrace it as truth. In our world, it simply doesn't work and just causes shame and pain. There's nothing to suggest it would turn out any different in theirs.

XX has repeatedly stated beliefs that contradict Smoothie's and society's opinions of sex... I hope this massive failure of his philosophy will help push both of them towards a more healthy view of sexuality.

K, I've loved Beth's work for years, awesome to see it being shared here!
25 . by: November 3, 2017, 10:28 am

Smoothie's "lost his color" before when touching Fig and got it back right away, you can see an example of this just two pages ago. I don't know if this is anything to be concerned about.

@Furrama: commenter 21 wasn't talking about the story or NofNA as a whole, though, they were talking about Smoothie and how they dislike his particular perspective. Smoothie's question is DEFINITELY "is sex bad?"
24 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 7:51 am

This story isn't about sex. Well, I think anyway. It's window dressing and could perhaps be replaced with another instinct if one could untangle this sybolic heavy beast. It's Nature of Nature's Art, after all. So that's our first lense.

(S)XY's values weren't his problem, and neither were XX's, and neither is it that they were they incorrect about art and the future at their most starry-eyed. It's that in trying to become a greater person in themselves and society, through Art and reason, to rise to new shining hieghts of being, they hit a wall. Their wills snuffed out by bodily needs and desires. Instead of moving forward, they're stalled, weighted down, and drug back to being just an animal. Sex is just the medium. The question isn't "Is sex bad?" It's "What are we?"
23 . by: November 3, 2017, 7:04 am

21, I get what you mean and I agree for the most part, but remember the way Fig has been talking about him internally. She's been trying to *make* him go against his stated desires and have sex with her. That's a really shitty way to treat someone. Even if she's now shown to be correct that he wanted to have sex, its bad to treat someone's stated boundaries as a challenge.

Even though it shouldn't be bad to go with your feelings and have sex when you want to, and he did the right thing for himself by going with it, its one-sided.
22 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:43 am

so, essentially-- I dont think the way to frame this is she took his color, or corrupted him, or ruined anything herself, I don't think her '''mistake''' (I can't consider having simple sex with someone you like a harrowing mistake, tbh)... I think the end of his ideology, and the one he pushed at her, is that sex will rob him of his color. I think anyone at any time 'compromising' his value would have earned him this crash. I think he built that precarious house of cards himself. We don't know why exactly he built it, though, and if he has an external, demeaning catalyst like Fig did.

Same mechanism made Fig feel she couldn't get to keep her color and be a sexual being, instead embracing being colorless, wearing it on her sleeve, something she made all for herself, something to own.

Thats the only way I can kind of tolerate this narrative. What is the real mechanism that makes (consensual) sex capable of hurting people? I can't and won't view sex as something evil and corruptive, that is... f*cking boring. And not innovative.

(Its also what the mole at the early starts of this story went on about, and I'd find it kind of weird for some rando's monologue to be proved to be the ultimate truth, and not a more sinister ubiquitous mechanism like cultural shame hindering personal growth & empowerment. I got my bias here, I'll wear it on my sleeve)
21 . by: November 3, 2017, 6:13 am

this whole 'loss of color' thing happens in the first place not because of sex itself, but because of the sheer colossal weight society, culture, and their sense of self has placed on sex. I think, anyway.

Fig's mother instilled in her a deep shame that sex was depraved and lowly, a vice below an artist. Volcel was convinced it was a sign of something primal, weak, and he hinged his identity on being 'stronger' than it.

Building that much around it is dangerous. Simply having sex, having fun, making that connection for the pleasure of it, is not this somber, horrible thing.

I really don't feel bad for him? His own ideology punished his body's reactions, wants, and made him admonish himself for totally natural, healthy, exciting desires that were encouraging him to have fun. He made so much of his identity about denying himself this, that finally granting himself it could no longer a pleasure, but a loss.

I read an interesting article once, written by a woman on her experience with 'purity rings', and the unfortunate mental scar & trauma the life of framing of sex in such a way had placed on her; which she only realized after it was too late to undo its damage. She had spent her whole life hinging her purity, identity, idea of strength, on this thing... then once she finally had it, was allowed to have it (in the case of Purity rings, after marriage) she could only feel dirty, not prideful, to finally 'take' it. She'd spent a whole life with it framed as something below her. She robbed herself of ever seeing it for the pleasure it was meant to be.
She wrote the article as a cautionary tale to others... in her position. Where a community pressures you to process sex this way.

in Fig's case, this complex wasn't her own fault, it was foisted on her as she tried to understand her own sexuality and desires in a society that considered them ugly. As she still tries to understand them with her identity as an artist.
But volcel's ideology really, really rubbed me the wrong way, so I don't really feel anything for him 'losing color'. Thats where his stupid, backwards ideas get you-- feeling miserable for wanting things. Making others feel lowly for wanting them, too. Making your partners feel ugly with you.
20 . by: Downhill November 3, 2017, 5:12 am

@19 Yep, this was my immediate thought. Whether we're exactly right or not, I have a feeling that something dreadful is gonna happen to Smoothie thanks to this...
19 . by: November 3, 2017, 2:28 am

Hey, is the whole "you could be a courtesan, no question" bit from a few pages back sounding like some scary foreshadowing to anyone else, a la Acai?
18 . by: Furrama November 3, 2017, 2:17 am

He's staying white. His connection to his art was lost in the same way hers was. They're equal now.

It was sad to watch his color slowly drain away these last few pages.
17 . by: Dani November 3, 2017, 2:01 am

I think XX is a little hungover too. Regret and a headache...not a good mix.

Well said @Juna, particularly your first paragraph!
16 . by: Dani November 3, 2017, 1:55 am

@K: absolutely beautiful. The piece "The Other" by the same artist perfectly encapsulates this comic as well. It can be seen on her Instagram (@bethcavener). I just followed :p
15 . by: K November 3, 2017, 1:26 am

Not related to the panels here, but thought I'd share a sculpture of two stoats intertwined titled 'don't go' by Beth cavener

URL : http://artsy.net/artwork/beth-cavener-dont-go
14 . by: K November 3, 2017, 1:26 am

Not related to the panels here, but thought I'd share a sculpture of two stoats intertwined titled 'don't go' by Beth cavener

URL : http://artsy.net/artwork/beth-cavener-dont-go
13 . by: November 3, 2017, 1:02 am

"That's just my body. Who I am, and the will I have, have precedence over autonomic reactions. Wouldn't you agree?"

OH, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN.
12 . by: November 3, 2017, 1:02 am

"That's just my body. Who I am, and the will I have, have precedence over autonomic reactions. Wouldn't you agree?"

OH, HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN.
11 . by: November 2, 2017, 11:57 pm

By holding her like that, is she... captured?
10 . by: Juna November 2, 2017, 11:39 pm

Her face of somber reflection in the last panel is just heartbreaking. Smoothie's corsage has wilted; he'll probably feel some regret over breaking their chastity, too, but the focus in the last few pages on XX's personal crisis. We were talking about how mindFig could be afraid that her imminent victory, despite all of the favorable conditions, was going to leave her reach, and I think the same idea applies here to XX's sense of loss. Even with the one person who did the most to understand her and learn from her art, she wasn't able to protect her renascent identity from Fig. At least she managed to keep Smoothie intact(?).

But I wonder if she really needs to feel like she lost something today. I mean, Smoothie's probably still kicking, and they can still be friends, teacher and student, whatever they want it to be. But the logic of the labyrinth asserted itself, making her feel she won't have anything else but this.

Hopefully, on the contrary, the thing she said was right, that she can still yield to something new. I think she was searching for that new self by trying to look through Smoothie's eyes, by asking him the question, "What am I to you?" and found herself disappointed.
9 . by: November 2, 2017, 10:31 pm

@8. it seems to be from her point of view, so her hands are on either side of his.
8 . by: November 2, 2017, 10:22 pm

What is happening in panel 6?? is she reaching down to touch Smoothie's hands? such a weird angle
7 . by: November 2, 2017, 10:11 pm

She tried so hard to get him to have sex with her before, relentlessly teasing him, even very recently before she mauled VD. Now, all she feels is regret. She got what she wanted, but now she's unhappy, which is pretty much the story of her life at this point.
6 . by: TJ November 2, 2017, 9:52 pm

Might just be me, but Smoothie's flower in the first panel reminds me of Fig's huge tail.
5 . by: K (#2?) November 2, 2017, 9:36 pm

Shame. Scruffy mentioned that Smoothie wasn't ever going to get his flower to open, turns out he did but missed it because he was too busy looking somewhere else. Isn't that always the way?

Also that regret on her face :(
4 . by: November 2, 2017, 9:34 pm

Just more billable hours on his part, I’d guess.
3 . by: Kai November 2, 2017, 9:14 pm

I wonder how much trouble she's going to be in for not returning to the brothel.
2 . by: November 2, 2017, 8:46 pm

But when she held him that one time he turned white too. So only time will tell if he stays white. Or fuck, if he's really even alive.
1 . by: November 2, 2017, 8:44 pm

Ooh no. He's entirely blank now, too.