I guess not all comic strips have to be funny or you know make sense.
What has society come to 🤦
Eww, a religious bigot baby🖕
Mfw you get labelled a “religious bigot” because I criticise the fact that people don’t take marriage seriously anymore
People learn and grow and change overtime. If a couple realizes they’re no longer compatible, is it not better to separate than to remain together and unhappy/unsatisfied for the rest of your lives?
Marriage is such a stupid concept
You literally say in your profile bio that you enjoy talking about religion and Christianity.
Oh no we don’t take your stupid christian tradition serious anymore. Boo hoo.
Maybe people don’t want some dude in the sky to be part of their relationship?
Maybe people don’t want some dude in the sky to be part of their relationship?
Same people would be crying when He ends up not wanting them in His relationship
I’ll suck gods dick so good he’ll forget he has a son.
Tell that to Him on judgement day and film how He reacts
Why would I believe your minority fairy tale over all the other fairy tails. At best, most of you are wrong
Okie dokie.
I’d get a divorce if the person driving on the highway took both eyes off of the road.
You’d get a divorce if your partner checked the speedometer?
Yeah, I mean what is that shit
I don’t get it. Where is the joke. (Seriously, I’m lost)
Amicable divorces are apparently funny?
I don’t know. It’s an odd one.
I do think amicable divorces are kind of a little funny
The joke is the absurd and funny statement, “ladies, my wife is single (and you should date her (implied))”. Basically they are best friends who broke up and now they are supporting the other dating by joking absurdity of the situation.
They’re married?
I guess they are acting right away instead of waiting for the paperwork to get sorted out.
Not really seeing this as a haha funny moment as much as it is two people who realize their marriage isn’t going to work out having a calm and rational discussion followed by being supportive of each other. Well, it isn’t long enough to show the passenger being supportive, but kind of assume they must be based on context.
In some states you have to be separated for at least a year to file for divorce.
Part of the humor comes from subverting the expectations. You might expect this kind of conflict- that one wants kids the other doesn’t, that one wants to change their gender expression into something the other doesn’t like- to cause conflict. Fighting. Anger.
Instead they just fully support each other.
Further, it subverts the mainstream possessiveness of partners. It’s very typical for people to be like “don’t be interested in my partner!” Or to be very uncomfortable with their ex seeing other people. Instead, this person is being very supportive of their person.
A lot of behavior in typical monogamous relationships is really shitty and selfish.
It’s not the funniest thing ever, but that’s how I see the mechanics of it working. Subverting some relationship expectations.
I expected a comic strip to have a decent punch line and actually try to make the reader chuckle.
Boy, were my expectations subverted.
Instead they just fully support each other.
The driver saying they don’t line up with the passenger’s preference is the driver thinking things should end for the benefit of the passenger. I’m pretty sure the driver is still into the passenger, so breaking up is for the benefit of the passenger.
The passenger wants kids and the driver doesn’t. Breaking up is for the benefit of the passenger, not the driver.
So the driver is supportive of the passenger, but it is not reciprocated within this comic, including the extra panels.
It is still a positive outcome that is most likely a reflection of past support for each other that would add context, but if someone has only seen this one comic then it just looks like an amicable divorce with the driver hyping up their wife because the driver no longer align with their wife’s wants and needs.
The link has extra panels and a comment from the artists that explains it more. This isn’t a joke so much as it is explaining their situation in a joking manner.
Pretty sure it’s that they were a lesbian couple but one realises they’re a guy and the other realises they want kids so they break up but remain besties and try to set the other up
That’s pretty wholesome, tbh.
Comics don’t have to have a joke, they can just tell a story. This is a nice story of two people who care for and support each other in spite of discovering their selves and life goals don’t sync with continuing the original relationship. They manage to break up the romance with each feeling freed rather than dumped, so they can continue to be friends. Hopefully their eventual new partners will appreciate this.
The artist / writer literally mentions their joke in the bonus panel and they’d “die if they stopped being funny”.
The funny part is supposed to be: my wife is single.
Who would have thought that a thing called a “comic” would be funny?
It’s not like serious works of fiction using the same format would need a separate term like “graphic novel” or anything. That would never happen.
When I was a kid I asked my mom why Superman was in a comic book when he wasn’t funny. The answer is the same.
Yes, I’m sure your mother really has her finger on the pulse of nerd pop culture when it comes to nomenclature.
“I asked my mommy” isn’t exactly a compelling argument.
Comics aren’t nerd anything, they’ve been mainstream since the 1930s, honey. And a large number of them haven’t been comical, although there are plenty which are. This one may be modern but it’s nothing really new. The same story could have played out in a hetero relationship between supportive adults as far back as my mother’s era. I wasn’t using her as an authority, just a representative of the populace. And to note that only a little child thinks comics have to be funny. This one may be modern but the story here isn’t all that new. It’s personal and fresh to the author, and I’m happy for them that their life is working out so well, but the plotline is straight out of a 1950s romance comic.
Plotline? You’re giving this low effort, meaningless shit too much credit.
Hey how about instead of picking fights on the Internet, or even while picking fights on the Internet, why don’t you go to your nearest blood bank and donate a pint like I’m doing now?
You can’t call something a graphic novel if it’s only one page long though, so what do you call it?
A shitty comic.
An act of self-indulgence.
A desperate cry from an attention starved individual.
Take your pick.
Do you still “dial” a phone number? We haven’t used actual dials in forever.
Ever clicked a URL? Well, it’s actually a URI now.
Ever seen a soap opera? They don’t have anything to do with soap anymore.
I think from a technical standpoint, this is a cartoon, but that typically implies animation in the year 2024. Comic strip is acceptable lingo, even if the depiction lacks an overt comedic device.
Does it still get to be called a comic if it lacks any entertainment or artistic value?
Is there a better term for a paneled, storytelling, drawn art?
A graphic anecdote?
Wholesome AF.
That’s not funny that’s just sad
But they are both happy now? They can still be best friends.
Is this supposed to be…a good outcome? I’m sad now!
I think if you’re able to stay good friends with an ex-partner after a divorce, that’s a good outcome.
Ending a relationship it’s always, at least, a bit sad. But if that means that the people involved can continue to pursue happiness, and they can do that without resenting each other, that’s cause of celebration.
I’m slightly confused, was this a lesbian relationship where the driver came to realize they are more gender fluid or a trans man? The rest I get.
I was confused too, but the blog mentions his pronouns as he/him, so that’s the interpretation I also arrived at.
Seems like it, they are announcing that the wife is single to the ladies after all.
That’s my take on it, they’re lesbians and the driver realizes they’re more into men
No. The driver is still into women, but is realising that they prefer to present as mostly male, despite whatever their biology might be.
In oversimplified terms, you could say they’re a straight man in a biologically female body.
The implication is that when they were dating and married, driver was presenting as more female or androgynous, and non-driver, presumably, has a preference for that.
However, it’s not really that preference that’s causing the real rift - if you love someone, you love someone - it’s the desire for kids. Driver doesn’t want them. Non-driver does.
They’re both able to deal with this like adults. Win-win-win. (Third win is the eventual kid(s) who might get to have a cool uncle rather than a grumpy, distant dad. Assuming “uncle” and “dad” are terms driver would use anyway.)
In oversimplified terms, you could say they’re a straight man in a biologically female body.
It actually says they want to date all genders, so pansexual/omnisexual rather than straight.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown!
To all of the people saying this is sad, not all relationships have to last forever.
It’s okay to get separated, even if you are married. It’s actually good to realize your differences, decide that you work better apart, and provide support to an ex-spouse emotionally while you move on with your life as well.
I’m not sure that I fully agree. I mean, to each their own etc., but what you’re describing seems to be more suited for relationships without marriage. The whole idea of being married is that your discuss this stuff before your wedding and then don’t just get separated because you “don’t feel it anymore”. The idea is that, if you feel like you drifted apart, that your work on that and don’t just get out of that relationship on a whim. That’s the promise you give. And even if you agree with your partner to just go separate ways (yeah yeah, consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want, sure), a divorce has the significant chance to screw you financially for decades. I mean, I don’t know how it is in the US, but I’ve seen too many people who got their finances completely fucked by partners that they consentingly parted ways with, who they swore would treat them fairly. Too many houses repossessed, too many careers ruined.
Is it okay to get separated? Sure. It’s obviously also okay to remain close and support each other, of course. But this comic promotes a lighthearted approach to something that deserves a much more careful and serious take that I don’t agree with. Those first few panels should have made them get counselling, not divorced.
Ok, I mean if you’re getting financially screwed by your partner in a divorce, it’s probably a good thing that you’re getting divorced.
that your work on that and don’t just get out of that relationship on a whim.
y tho?
You’re making statements predicated on your beliefs that may not be shared by everyone.
y tho?
You’re making statements predicated on your beliefs that may not be shared by everyone.
This is not about my belief. You know a marriage is more than just a pinky promise? If you don’t want to take a relationship seriously, that’s fine, but marriage as a legal construct entails a lot of regulations that may screw up either partner and, with enough legal battles, both of them, so yeah, you kind of have to take it seriously and it doesn’t make much sense to just enter and exit it on a whim, unless you want to be paying for other people’s houses or cars.
The idea is that, if you feel like you drifted apart, that your work on that and don’t just get out of that relationship on a whim.
This part is separate from the legal framework.
Is your argument “you shouldn’t dissolve a marriage because the legal frameworks we built don’t support that well”?
If so, is that how things should be?
Regardless, there are steps you can take to minimize legal challenges in divorce.
You are making the assumption that the divorce won’t be amicable. The situation in the original text here is extremely amicable.
If the legal framework was adjusted to remove the risks of “paying for other people’s cars”, would you still advocate for taking it seriously? Why?
Depends. Marriage being for ever is social baggage. Marriage existing is social baggage. Society unfortunately doesn’t make it easy to get divorced because it doesn’t tolerate any alternative types of unions. Why can’t I marry my two boyfriends if we all live together?
What? You and your two boyfriends can live together all you want, but marriage is a legal construct that shares responsibility and burden between people and because of the responsibility part it’s by design hard to get out of. Don’t like how hard it is to get divorced? Easy: Don’t get married.
I didn’t criticise that this comic promotes getting in and out of relationships. I criticised that it suggests that a divorce has virtually no ramifications and boils down to two respecting adults separating on best terms, which is pretty fucking far from both, my personal experience and what’s written in the law.
Thank you and that’s why I won’t get married ever because it’s very unlikely that my understandings and morals aligne with anyone else. We live in a time of tiktok and people don’t seam to feel obligations for anything anymore. Then they shouldn’t get married, but you can’t trust the other one anymore to be mentally grown up enough to understand this.
Marriage is just for a fancy dinner and tiktok short clips to share online, right? /s
Maybe your limited experience and the law is not respecting people who just happen to fall a bit outside the norm? The OP comic and my personal experience being just 2 examples of how the law is incompatible with our lives. You’re making a hell of a lot of assumptions about our lives to decide that we’re not serious about marriage. Heck, western countries were still figuring out gay marriage some yes ago.
The main reason why we can’t have different modes of marriage is bureaucracy.
People change. They discover things about themselves. Their goals change. Of course anyone thinking of getting married should try to uncover any potential deal breakers before committing, but it’s still no guarantee they won’t encounter unsolvable problems later.
I know and that’s also not what I said.
unsolvable problems
That’s the key word right here. Two panels of “you know, I’m feeling boyish” “and I kinda want to have kids” isn’t “trying to solve it and realizing it’s not possible”, that’s just “starting to share feelings and needs”. The way this story is told just suggests that this slight notion of plans no longer being aligned perfectly warrants a divorce, which is far from what that legal construct of “we’re a financial union now which means we can royally fuck up each other’s lives if we feel like it” should entail. This isn’t a story of unsolvable problems, this is the story of two people that don’t take the legal responsibility they got into seriously. It suggests a lighthearted approach to getting divorced that is so far from the possible legal fallout of it that I just think it’s absurd.
If this was a comic that told years of them trying to meet each other’s needs and not being able to, I’d be on the same page. But that’s not the story that was told here. There wasn’t a single panel where either person even just tried to suggest how things might still work for them or find some common ground. No panel about acknowledging the other person’s desires and trying to merge them with one’s own needs. The comic was “I feel this”, “I feel that”, “great, let’s just happily divorce”, which is absurd as soon as we’re talking about anything that’s beyond teenage finances.
Well, it’s a comic, not a documentary. Yeah in real life this would take a lot of discussion and a long time, but this is a comic about how you can find out that your desires no longer align and still be friends.
Also, the comic itself says it took months.
They’re talking about wanting children. Disagreeing on that is absolutely an unsolvable problem.
It certainly is if you don’t talk about it. There may be various middle grounds here but you won’t find them if you just get divorced.
Buddy, let me explain something to you. I do not want children. Ever. If I were married to someone who decided they wanted children, I would for sure get a divorce, because there is no compromise to be made. Having a child is all or nothing. You can’t halfway become a parent.
Of course, anyone I might marry would understand why a divorce is necessary and wouldn’t fight me on it.
That’s why the very first panel says “several months ago”, not “several seconds ago”
And that’s why the third panel says “present day”?
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
Lol why? what moral ground are you coming from to suggest that other people should be serious about what you think is serious? Nothing is serious, we’re all just meat bags. If you want to get counseling go for it. For most people it’s better just to divorce quicker and not prolong your dissatisfaction because of some weird social or pseudo-religious adherence to norms.
Nice nihilism you got there. If “nothing matters and we’ll all die eventually” is your counterpoint to “marriage is a legal construct that goes beyond well meant promises and might result in severe financial issues so don’t lightheartedly get married or divorced”, then fine, yeah, in the grand scheme of things I guess you’re right.
Those that want to keep the small existence they built and don’t want to lose their house in the current economy might disagree though. The universe doesn’t care about their demise, true, but they themselves might just do.
Im not a nihilist. I didn’t say nothing matters. There’s no -objective- meaning. I create my own. What matters to me is education, sex, music and freedom. I want to create a society where people don’t need to stay in bad marriages to survive.
Cool. Try the “there’s no objective meaning, I create my own” strategy in court when they tell you that the meaning of the law is that you have to pay up after a divorce and tell me how that went for you.
I’m divorced, it was amicable and there was no property to divide. Not everyone is living in your sad little world. For example, the people in the comic. Which I thought we were talking about.
A random person on the internet would like you to not die. Take a breath.
The whole point of marriage though is for it to last forever
The whole point of marriage used to be ownership, not anymore. Things change. Divorce is better than the alternatives. Cold bitter resentment that lasts until one of you dies and then just the feelings of what might have been. Or murder.
It’s ok to change your mind. To grow apart. To recognize that and to act on it is a blessing.
Then don’t marry someone you’d resent
People grow and learn and change over time. Unless you have the power to predict the future you can’t “just not marry someone you’ll later resent”
Cringe
we used to call it caring
Why is it cringe?
It’s making it out like such a revelation wouldn’t be damaging. Being a single woman and not being young is not easy. Her taking it in stride like that is unrealistic.
Ask yourself how you would feel in that situation after investing years in a relationship. Would you be that thrilled to be on the dating scene again and having to start over with someone new?
Not saying it couldn’t be amicable like it has been portrayed, but this strip makes it out like there is nothing sad or difficult about the situation, only focusing on the perspective/agenda of the trans person.
The person you expect to be sad also wanted to end the relationship because they realized they wanted children and were married to someone who didn’t. It isn’t just about the perspective/agenda of the trans person.
If I was faced with a choice between breaking someone who I loved’s heart or never being a mother, it would be relieving to have that no longer be weighing on me.
I hang out with many queer and poly people that this didn’t even seem unusual. Sometimes I forget how basic and unexamined most people’s relationships are.
Kind of a missed opportunity to examine other relationship models, but can’t have everything.
Alright… So lesbian relationship. One of them decides they’re not a woman anymore. They both decide to devorce…
Maybe I’m missing something, but is there supposed to be a joke somewhere in here?
Their mutual regard for one another transcends what they want from the relationship, which contrasts humourously with hetero norms of trying to change one other to get what you want
Being selfish is hetero normative? I’m probably being defensive but this feels like a weird statement to make.
I’m here as a het to tell you that the gays do laugh at us, and it’s fine
So stereotyping is suddenly okay if the gays are the ones doing it?
As long as they stereotyping gayness and they are gay it kinda seems ok. Laughing about your self is okay i think
Please understand the difference between punch-down and punch-up comedy on your own time.
If your jokes made around stereotypes in queer communities are offending people the jokes are probably just veiled insults. You can do things, you just need to be at least a little versed in the community and understand how to make respectful jokes instead of demeaning ones.
Or some queer people are too sensitive. Some people live to get offended, they choose to get offended about damn near everything everyone says.
Yeah it’s weird how people holding bigoted views are also often easily offended. People are people ig…
It’s societally normative, as is heterosexuality. Correlative, not causative.
Ok, but… That’s not something that’s funny.
It would work in a greater narrative, perhaps, where we as readers know the characters. Not this one off thing.
Not every joke is gonna be for you, don’t worry about it
This isn’t the “jokes” community, it’s the “comic strips” community
The humor for me is that you kind of expect something like this to end in bitter tears and a sad goodbye, but they’re both actually totally fine with a divorce and even hype each other up for new relationships.
A lot of trans discovery/coming out stories don’t end very happily, so it’s nice to see one that does.
Also, it’s a comic strip, which does not necessarily mean there is a joke.
Brenda Starr and Mark Trail were goddamn laugh riots.
Reverse U-Haul uno card.
Tossing relationships like this away is a sign of narcissism. It’s fine to move on but it’s definitely maladapted to be giddy about it.
Why should you have to be miserable about it? They still have a relationship, it’s just no longer a romantic one.
You don’t have to be miserable, but the misery from leaving someone you love, even if it’s 1000% mutual and friendly is not really a choice, but a natural and healthy emotional reaction.
Sure, but it’s not the only valid response. It’s perfectly natural to be upset when a relationship falls apart, but it’s just as natural to mutually decide things aren’t working out and move on without grief or regret.
“Several months ago” … Not exactly suggesting it would happen over night. Recognizing a schism and supporting eachother through the changes in life is preferable to doing so depressed and hatefully, no?
Amicable divorces are narcissistic?
I see you didn’t read my post.
I literally did. I don’t see why you’d believe people have to mournful about an amicable divorce or why that would be narcissistic otherwise.
They said “tossing away relationships like this is narcissistic” not “amicable divorce is bad”.
But the way this relationship is ending is amicable divorce lol.
The way this relationship is ending is throwing away a relationship. The divorce method is irrellevant.
The author specifically stated they’re still close friends. So they’re still in a relationship. Again, how is this narcissistic?
I’m still confused here, what’s the difference?
The difference is having a relationship with the strength of a wet noodle and celebrating it.
My brain hurts
