Comments on: Male nipples are OK, female nipple bulges are not

Male nipples are OK, female nipple bulges are not

asnider — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:43:10 -0800

Nipplegate: Why the New Yorker Cartoon Department is About to be Banned from Facebook

In addition to banning photos of actual breasts, Facebook has taken a hard stance against the New Yorker's depiction of nipples in a cartoon about Adam and Eve. As a result, the New Yorker Cartoon Department's Facebook page was temporarily banned.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:45:53 -0800

Right decision, wrong reason.

By: Egg Shen

Egg Shen — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:48:53 -0800

Children must be kept away from nipples!

By: King Bee

King Bee — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:48:53 -0800

I don't even understand the offending comic. You doodle a couple a bears at a cocktail party discussing the stock market and think you're doing comedy!

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:49:16 -0800

Well, at least Facebook didn't just grab some sharpies and paint leave and branches over the naughty bits.

By: justkevin

justkevin — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:50:32 -0800

Nipples on pre-op MF cartoon transexual: yay or nay?

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:51:23 -0800

The most depressing part of that scene griphus is that the actual offices are no where near that nice.

By: deathpanels

deathpanels — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:52:44 -0800

Maybe they should have just changed the caption to be about Facebook.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:54:42 -0800

Last I heard (from you, Whelk?) the cartoon office is basically a closet with a weary man inside.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:55:14 -0800

What was Roger Ebert's caption for this one?

By: Slothrup

Slothrup — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:55:16 -0800

I, for one, am happy that Facebook is working so hard to shield our children from the oversexualization of Western society. Already, my wife is having to tell our six-month-old daughter "eyes up here, buddy".

By: Sing Or Swim

Sing Or Swim — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:56:45 -0800

I don't think any of us wants to live in a world where people are allowed to view their own body parts.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:57:12 -0800

fantastic midtown views however griphus (and free coffee)

By: wcfields

wcfields — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:57:31 -0800

"My wife is a slut."

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:59:17 -0800

I don't even understand the offending comic. The woman had asked for a chocolate-chip cookie, and the man made one so big that it grew into a tree. The man pointed at the tree, asking, "Do you like the cookie tree I made you?" The woman stared up it, terrified, and began weeping. She slumped to the ground. "That was a horror," she whispered. The man sat next to her, concerned. "I just thought... anyone can make a regular sized cookie. I wanted to make something beautiful. Original." And what we see in this moment is the woman reluctantly agreeing that the cookie-tree which looms above them is indeed original, which is funny, because she's not into the idea at all, but is trying to be diplomatic, the same way that you would be if you got a big cookie tree. They're both naked in the cartoon because they're not PRUDISH FUCKING AMERICANS FOR A CHANGE

By: wreckingball

wreckingball — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:59:40 -0800

⊙

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:00:03 -0800

is this a penis allegory greg

By: goethean

goethean — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:01:05 -0800

Given that my Facebook feed consists of anti-Obama slogans and Footprints in the Sand, I'm guessing that it's not the right market for New Yorker cartoons

By: bicyclefish

bicyclefish — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:02:50 -0800

Once you allow one set of nipples in, no matter how innocuous, you have to let all the nipples in. It's the classic nippley-slope.

By: benito.strauss

benito.strauss — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:02:57 -0800

NSFW?

By: Bulgaroktonos

Bulgaroktonos — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:03:51 -0800

I get the problems with the gender disparity and the prudishness about nudity, but given Facebook's status as America's number-one producer of underage non-nude pornography, I can't say I don't empathize with them wanting to have that rule.

By: El Sabor Asiatico

El Sabor Asiatico — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:04:27 -0800

Christ, what an asshole!

By: Stagger Lee

Stagger Lee — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:05:45 -0800

"America's number-one producer of underage non-nude pornography..." What?

By: grubi

grubi — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:06:17 -0800

is this a penis allegory greg Dude, what isn't?

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:06:55 -0800

non-nude pornography Is this like those Christian side-hug things?

By: chavenet

chavenet — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:48 -0800

Unfunny New Yorker cartoon followed by unfunny New Yorker essay confounds unfunny New Yorkers (and Facebook). Film at 11 (edited for broadcast)

By: asnider

asnider — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:56 -0800

NSFW? I think it's probably SFW in most workplaces, but if cartoon breasts will get you in trouble then perhaps you should wait until you get home.

By: Flashman

Flashman — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:59 -0800

Needs NSFW tag

By: MuffinMan

MuffinMan — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:09:11 -0800

The most offensive part of that cartoon is that a) it was published and b) someone got paid for it.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:09:31 -0800

Good Smell Perplexes New Yorkers

By: DU

DU — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:10:16 -0800

Facebook's reply: This is not underage non-nude pornography. We take the finest non-nude pornography and age it in oak caskets.

By: RobotVoodooPower

RobotVoodooPower — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:10:56 -0800

First they came for the nipples, and then they got distracted by the nipples, so they forgot what they were going to say, and were embarrassed.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:11:28 -0800

(Also, who, exactly, is simultaneously concerned about something being NSFW and clicks on a link marked "Nipplegate"?)

By: Beardman

Beardman — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:12:31 -0800

This led me to Philip Roth's enormous open letter to Wikipedia about its page for The Human Stain, which was also enjoyable.

By: Bulgaroktonos

Bulgaroktonos — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:13:50 -0800

"America's number-one producer of underage non-nude pornography..." What? Underage, non-nude pornography is a genre of pornography featuring underage girls who aren't nude, but are sexually posed or scantily clad or otherwise presented in ways that the consumers of said pornography find sexual. They are not naked because they're underage, but it's being used as pornography (hence, non-nude pornography). One easy way of this stuff getting into the circles where people consume it as pornography is for it to start as pictures taken by underage girls of themselves, posing sexually, wearing bikinis, wearing the kind of revealing clothes, and generally doing things that are totally fine for a 14 year old girl to take pictures of themselves doing, but are creepy when grown men are looking at them and masturbating. Unsurprisingly, a lot of these photos start out on Facebook. Google, Non-nude pornography if you're interested.

By: Fizz

Fizz — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:08 -0800

Metafilter: Right decision, wrong reason.

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:14:09 -0800

Good Smell Perplexes New Yorkers Ironically the source was New Jersey.

By: Bulgaroktonos

Bulgaroktonos — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:15:53 -0800

Google, Non-nude pornography if you're interested. Shit. Obviously, I mean "interested in learning more" not "interested in jerking it to pictures of 14 year olds with braces."

By: "Elbows" O'Donoghue

"Elbows" O'Donoghue — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:17:11 -0800

What, you didn't really think that was a diaeresis over the second o in cooperate, did you?

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:19:45 -0800

No, I'm just happy to see you.

By: notyou

notyou — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:20:56 -0800

No kidding, Bulgaroktonos. Braces are creepy.

By: Stagger Lee

Stagger Lee — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:18 -0800

Jesus. If we start banning any image that someone might theoretically want to masturbate to, the internet is going to be a really quiet place really fast.

By: naju

naju — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:21:56 -0800

posted by "Elbows" O'Donoghue at 9:17 AM on September 11 [+] [!] Those "elbows" are really female nipples, aren't they? BAN THIS USER IMMEDIATLY

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:23:20 -0800

If we start banning any image that someone might theoretically want to masturbate to, the internet is going to be a really quiet place really fast. Seriously. I almost lost it to a photoset of grilled cheese the other day.

By: Devonian

Devonian — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:23:37 -0800

I saw some nipples when I was thirteen, in an 'art' book that had pictures by Botty Chelly. The shame, degradation and misery lives with me still. Children must be taught that nudity, especially when disguised as 'art', is the source of all sin, and entirely unnatural. Otherwise they'll grow up like me, in thrall to filth and reproduction, and worst of all - European, liberal, and committed to both personal freedom and social responsibility. God hates nipples, those who bear them and those who bare them. Who told me I was naked? Satan. God would never have let on.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:24:45 -0800

I don't even understand the offending comic. It's a joke about original sin right? With a pun on "original" meaning novel or creative rather than being the source of sin.

By: naju

naju — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:25:46 -0800

I thought it was a break-the-fourth-wall metajoke about how disappointing the comic itself is.

By: Ickster

Ickster — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:25:53 -0800

I'm operating under the assumption that people calling for NSFW tags are joking.

By: MCMikeNamara

MCMikeNamara — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:26:15 -0800

(*)(*)

By: DU

DU — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:29:59 -0800

It's a joke about original sin right? With a pun on "original" meaning novel or creative rather than being the source of sin. Yes, but what is the referent to "that" in the comic? Sex? Or the apple? I seriously didn't get the comic either. Unless it's that they didn't like sex? In which case, I guess covering the nipples is in keeping with the tone.

By: notyou

notyou — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:31:52 -0800

It "was" original. But only that once. Now it's common. Maybe fig leaves and a little more distance from Eden might have helped it read better.

By: phong3d

phong3d — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:32:12 -0800

ಠ_ಠ ⊙

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:37:56 -0800

Where the hell is the T party! Should we really be allow nipple panels to make these decisions?

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:38:26 -0800

For whatever reason I've befriended a couple of porn actresses on Facebook and while they mostly post about taking their pets to the vet or shopping or whatever, they "like" pages with a lot of quasi-sexual content - bikinis and bums, and a surprising amount of skin. Those pages are still up. I like another page devoted to Hollywood in the fifties and sixties. It's all photos of movie stars from that period, often on-set. That page gets suspended or taken down at least once a month, and there is nothing remotely risque on it, although the admin sometimes posts burlesque stuff. What's happening is that someone is actively and regularly complaining about the Hollywood page, and it gets taken down. The same thing is happening here - someone has a hate on for the New Yorker, and they are working hard to make sure the page gets suspended.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:38:44 -0800

FWIW, I really like New Yorker cartoons.

By: Madamina

Madamina — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:44:36 -0800

I saw some nipples this morning. Touched 'em, even. They're MINE. HOTCHA

By: naju

naju — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:45:25 -0800

YouTube's started to allow some tasteful nudity, I don't see why Facebook can't.

By: ook

ook — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:45:27 -0800

The UPDATE JOKE ALERT JOKE ALERT is the best part. The obvious is indeed not obvious to Gawker. New Yorker cartoons have been getting more and more naked lately. I wonder whether this one counts as "obvious sexual activity".

By: grubi

grubi — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:46:04 -0800

Madamina, you are a pervert and I'm reporting you.

By: stormpooper

stormpooper — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:50:06 -0800

My 3 year old often goes "NIPPIES" and starts beeping at people's nipples. Guess he'll soon graduate to sr. editor at The New Yorker. I' m so proud.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:51:58 -0800

FWIW, I really like New Yorker cartoons. You spelled 'rarely' wrong. You probably have autocorrect on.

By: mephron

mephron — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:56:58 -0800

Some people like cartoons from the New Yorker. I'm sorry for those of you with overdeveloped senses of snark, but it's true. So you can stop commenting about your ever-so-pomo dislike of them, and go back to your tenth martini this lunch.

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:01:16 -0800

As someone who often enjoys New Yorker cartoons, I find this thread hilarious. Also the link in the FPP. I'm likely a boring dinner guest.

By: smorange

smorange — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:01:42 -0800

The trouble with New Yorker cartoons is: you have to think so much that by the time you've figured it out--if you do--you go, "Oh." Which is why I think they're more about aspirational marketing than anything.

By: chavenet

chavenet — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:02:19 -0800

If we start banning any image that someone might theoretically want to masturbate to, the internet is going to be a really quiet place really fast. The sound of no hands fapping?

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:02:20 -0800

Madamina, you are a pervert and I'm ~~reporting you.~~ wondering what you're doing for dinner this evening.

By: theodolite

theodolite — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:04:52 -0800

There's always two or three good cartoons per issue. Last week it was this one, this one, and this one. If you don't grin at at least one of those then I don't know what to say, maybe go take a nice walk or something

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:04:56 -0800

FWIW, I really like New Yorker cartoons. You spelled 'rarely' wrong. You probably have autocorrect on. If you had dropped the "You spelled 'rarely' wrong" line, this would have been very New Yorker-like.

By: RogerB

RogerB — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:05:07 -0800

Wait, now you can be "ever-so-pomo" just by thinking New Yorker cartoons are unfunny? You're telling me I read all that Deleuze for nothing?

By: computech_apolloniajames

computech_apolloniajames — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:06:36 -0800

Davejay, you would be a welcome dinner guest at my house any day.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:06:46 -0800

Pomeranians are well known for their dislike of droll humor.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:15:18 -0800

Basically since there was nobody there to marry Adam to Eve, they were having sex out of wedlock, so those are sinning nipples right there. Also, that makes all of their descendants illegitimate bastards? . Sorry all of humanity! That is what nipples do! Render an entire species illegitimate!

By: bukvich

bukvich — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:15:20 -0800

I did not understand the Adam and Eve cartoon until somebody explained upthread for me it's a play on original sin. It might be interesting to see what fraction of the readers laughed at that cartoon right off. I'm thinking far fewer than a half. We could take a poll: 1%, 10%, 40%, 70%. What do you think?

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:16:59 -0800

You spelled 'rarely' wrong. You probably have autocorrect on. I also accept and have no problem with the fact that there is a considerable number of intelligent people out there who just don't get New Yorker cartoons. The great thing about Jim Carey and Robin Williams is that you always know when they're being funny, and when to laugh.

By: hexatron

hexatron — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:20:13 -0800

The trouble with New Yorker cartoons is: you have to think so much that by the time you've figured it out, the doctor is ready to see you.

By: MuffinMan

MuffinMan — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:21:58 -0800

I think the New Yorker should take its lead from Viz.

By: ook

ook — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:22:39 -0800

I started reading New Yorker cartoons differently ever since I first visited my future mother-in-law's house and saw a framed copy of a cartoon from the magazine that was drawn specifically, though not explicitly, about her (then-deceased) husband. It was one of those sort of vaguely confusing 'huh I guess that's funny, sort of' cartoons, unless you know about the particular details of the particular corporate merger it was in reference to, and a particular detail of my father-in-law's personality. Now whenever I fail to understand one of their cartoons, which is often, I just assume it's another in-joke aimed at some subset of NYC wealth.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:53 -0800

Oh hey guys did you hear the one about how New Yorker cartoons are obscure and unfunny because I think after Seinfeld had a whole episode about it everyone is ready for my fresh take on the material.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:27:08 -0800

For anyone who actually enjoys New Yorker cartoons, I suggest picking up the digital archives (or the giant-ass book), and taking a look at the ones from between the 20s and the 50s. Many are actually ha-ha funny, and they're considerably more biting and satirical than the stuff that runs today (which generally varies from "wholly inoffensive" to "somewhat liberal.")

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:27:23 -0800

WHY DID THE NEW YORKER CARTOON CROSS THE ROAD

By: naju

naju — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:29:42 -0800

I only read New Yorker for the articles.

By: Bwithh

Bwithh — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:31:28 -0800

I don't even understand the offending comic. I thought it was quite straightforward - Adam and Eve have just had sex for the first time. For all the excitement of sinful knowledge that the forbidden fruit/serpent promised, the sex wasn't very good and actually very awkward. Eve is awkwardly trying to make Adam feel better about his lacklustre clumsy performance: "Well, it *was* original [sin]"

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:33:36 -0800

WHY DID THE NEW YORKER CARTOON CROSS THE ROAD To get away from the cocks who kept criticizing it. and something about a hen

By: Bwithh

Bwithh — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:33:51 -0800

and yes, I laughed. Inwardly and intellectually, in a rarified and dignified Yankee Brahmin way

By: chavenet

chavenet — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:34:55 -0800

By: phaedon

phaedon — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:40:53 -0800

Jesus. If we start banning any image that someone might theoretically want to masturbate to, the internet is going to be a really quiet place really fast. And yet, surprisingly, this place is still around.

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:45:39 -0800

There's always two or three good cartoons per issue. Last week it was this one, this one, and this one. I truly did not believe you, but the first and third ones were indeed pretty good, and the beret one is fucking stellar.

By: East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:46:19 -0800

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:48:09 -0800

The beret comic was probably the best one I've seen in weeks. Mainly because it's exactly how I feel when I wear half the things I do.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:51:26 -0800

and the beret one is fucking stellar. Roz Chast is hilarious.

By: IAmBroom

IAmBroom — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:00:51 -0800

mephron: So you can stop commenting about your ever-so-pomo dislike of them, and go back to your tenth martini this lunch.

Since the indigenous people of California are probably not known for drinking martinis by the decade, I'm going to have to assume you object to advocates of a Permanent Open Market Operation. Which, like many New Yorker cartoons, is neither funny nor comprehensible.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:01:14 -0800

Yeah, Roz Chast is a national treasure. Of all the regular cartoonists, she's the most reliably funny and insightful.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:02:18 -0800

> For anyone who actually enjoys New Yorker cartoons, I suggest picking up the digital > archives (or the giant-ass book), and taking a look at the ones from between the 20s and > the 50s. WARNING! If you are at all tempted by the "absolutely every single cartoon" from the whole era claim, they're pdfs. And if they were originally full page cartoons the pdf version can't be blown up to full-page size without going all pixely.

By: naoko

naoko — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:04:06 -0800

It's a joke about original sin right? With a pun on "original" meaning novel or creative rather than being the source of sin. Yes, but what is the referent to "that" in the comic? Sex? Or the apple? The badger they poked with a spoon is just out of the frame, see.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:06:50 -0800

What about this contest? Rarely has "Christ, what an asshole." been such a perfect solution. Though my preference would be "Of course, the horsehair wigs are all recreations based on archaeological remains and indigenous oral histories."

By: JHarris

JHarris — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:30:06 -0800

One easy way of this stuff getting into the circles where people consume it as pornography is for it to start as pictures taken by underage girls of themselves, posing sexually, wearing bikinis, wearing the kind of revealing clothes, and generally doing things that are totally fine for a 14 year old girl to take pictures of themselves doing, but are creepy when grown men are looking at them and masturbating. ...what? "Non-nude pornography," is this actually a thing now? Because this, defining the wrongness of a thing by what some hypothetical actors might do with it, sounds exactly like our current national hysteria over child pornography spinning off the track and becoming an entirely new kind of crazy, the Satanic panic of our age.

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:39:55 -0800

defining the wrongness of a thing by what some hypothetical actors might do with it The idea as to whether morality is absolute or relative, objective or subjective, inherent or acquired, is a very interesting one.

By: Bulgaroktonos

Bulgaroktonos — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:40:49 -0800

...what? "Non-nude pornography," is this actually a thing now? Because this, defining the wrongness of a thing by what some hypothetical actors might do with it, sounds exactly like our current national hysteria over child pornography spinning off the track and becoming an entirely new kind of crazy, the Satanic panic of our age. I wasn't suggesting any additional panic or that such pictures should be banned, but it most certainly is a thing. It's what /r/jailbait was, before they shut it down. I was merely expressing some sympathy for Facebook, because these pictures are often identified as being "from Facebook" and I wouldn't want my brand associated with what's basically closeted child porn.

By: Chrischris

Chrischris — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:44:26 -0800

Came for the cartoons, stayed for the crypto-9/11 Truther reference.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:46:39 -0800

Chrischris, that's a military drone.

By: naoko

naoko — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:47:21 -0800

Came for the cartoons, stayed for the crypto-9/11 Truther reference. I'm not really sure I get it, but I think that's meant to be a Predator drone? Not sure I see the 9/11 reference.

By: naoko

naoko — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:48:11 -0800

Whoops, shakesperian beat me to it.

By: naoko

naoko — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:49:31 -0800

And on top of that, I spelled his or her name wrong.

By: burnmp3s

burnmp3s — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:49:36 -0800

Because this, defining the wrongness of a thing by what some hypothetical actors might do with it, sounds exactly like our current national hysteria over child pornography spinning off the track and becoming an entirely new kind of crazy, the Satanic panic of our age. That takes an extra leap of saying that everything that can be used as pornography is wrong though. It's entirely true though that a relatively large amount of what is functionally used as pornography isn't explicitly sexual or obscene, especially for more fringe fetishes that focus on things other than naked people having sex. If people use a shoulder massage device for sexual purposes, it makes sense to talk about it being a sex toy, and similarly if people get off looking at something that isn't intended to be sexual or wouldn't been seen in a sexual way by most people then it makes sense to talk about it being pornography.

By: Chrischris

Chrischris — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:53:09 -0800

By: TheWhiteSkull

TheWhiteSkull — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:56:34 -0800

You're telling me I read all that Deleuze for nothing? Considering there is no good reason to read Deleuze, probably.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:14:30 -0800

I thought it was quite straightforward - Adam and Eve have just had sex for the first time. For all the excitement of sinful knowledge that the forbidden fruit/serpent promised, the sex wasn't very good and actually very awkward. Eve is awkwardly trying to make Adam feel better about his lacklustre clumsy performance: "Well, it *was* original [sin]" Interesting. I think you have hit on why this cartoon is so problematic. Original Sin has nothing to do with sex but rather with the fall of man and therefore mankind's expulsion from Eden. After the expulsion every man is born into sin. The Bible never specifies whether or not Adam and Eve had sex in the Garden but eating the forbidden fruit made them ashamed of their nakedness. Since they were not ashamed before, you must decide for yourself whether or not they had engaged in sexual congress but bear in mind that animals have sex without shame. Therefore in order to find this cartoon amusing, you must first think "Original Sin" but that isn't something that might pop into your head when you look at two naked people sitting under a fruit tree. Therefore you must go through some tortured reasoning. Which makes it less successful. However I do have the big ass book of complete cartoons and I can attest to them being very amusing.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:17:58 -0800

When I see a New Yorker cartoon, my reaction is is to fall on the floor waving my arms and legs around wildly like an infant, suddenly unable to process any logic or comprehend any art. The cartoons are just so impenetrable and absurd that they break my ability to understand anything about the world. All suppositions about the cartoons meaning seem equally likely. Am I even reading it right side up? Why are the caption letters all slanty? Is this in English? What is language? It's the best I can do not to choke on my own spit-up.

By: griphus

griphus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:22:30 -0800

Are you totally sure that's a New Yorker cartoon and not a gas leak? It wouldn't be the first time they were mixed up.

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:24:33 -0800

After eating the apple, Adam and Eve were now ashamed of their nudity. Why? What does this have to do with "knowledge of good and evil"? The answer might help us understand this whole Facebook mystery a little better, or even more pressing, the intended-punchline-of-this-New-Yorker-comic mystery.

By: Stagger Lee

Stagger Lee — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:28:28 -0800

Tough crowd.

By: asnider

asnider — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:56:16 -0800

After eating the apple, Adam and Eve were now ashamed of their nudity. Why? Adam's penis was kind of small and, no longer blissfully ignorant, he is now ashamed. Eve tries to comfort him by claiming the sex they've been having -- which she now recognizes as embarrassingly inadequate due to Adam's small penis and lack of cunnilingus skills -- was at least "original."

By: naju

naju — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:16:50 -0800

This discussion inspired me to start a new absurdist twitter account! New Yorker cartoons without the cartoons.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:28:51 -0800

That takes an extra leap of saying that everything that can be used as pornography is wrong though. That's a leap that, when it comes to kids, our nation has shown itself able to make, readily, every time.

By: lometogo

lometogo — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:34:18 -0800

I'll never forget the day. I was working for IBM, about 1981, and hopped on the elevator on the 4th floor, going to the 15th, and there she was: proud, defiant, with one strongly protuding nipple, bulging against her tight-weaved Angora sweater. White, if I remember correctly. The sweater, not the girl. I couldn't help but look. I was young, and this was the first time I'd seen such a sight. She caught my gaze, no, my stare; and she looked me straight in the eye and said "CNS". "What?" I asked. "Crippled Nipple Syndrome" she said as she exited on the 13th floor. I never saw her again. And by the grace of the gods, I've never seen another CNS woman.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0800

> The cartoons are just so impenetrable and absurd that they break my ability to understand anything about the world. Favorite thing about them! Most recent one I went to the length of cutting out showed a fellow in a suit trying to go up a very heavily traveled Down escalator. Off to the side there's a fellow telling another "Bob was raised in the wilderness by salmon."

By: yath

yath — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:57:53 -0800

A military drone being flown over Central Park Sailboat Pond by a shadowy figure whose face we can't see? I guess I was commenting on the questionable taste of the cartoon more than anything else. I knew it was a Predator drone. My interpretation was that the drone is the end result of one-upmanship taken too far. The spook is a big child with his big toy, overshadowing the boy and his boats, just as adults sometimes do with their gas-powered RC vehicles. Only much more sinister.

By: davejay

davejay — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:35:48 -0800

Huh. I thought the nipple cartoon was simply that they're kind of shocked at how the whole thing went, and a bit stunned, because they'd had no frame of reference for what "sin" would actually be like. So they're kind of in shock, and have nothing to say, so they say the only thing they can: "well, that was original." Like, you'd go into a circus tent to see a show advertised as "astounding!" and inside, instead of what you'd expect (circus stuff) you witness, say, two elephants stomping up and down on top of actual children, who were now dead and bleeding profusely all over the ring. You might then walk out of the circus tent, overwhelmed, in shock, having seen this thing you cannot unsee and can never unsee, and you turn to your companion and say "well, that was astounding." or like if you went into a plate of beans, expecting them to be overthought...

By: Acheman

Acheman — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:56:03 -0800

You're telling me I read all that Deleuze for nothing? Guys, we have a new Christ, what an asshole. This works as a caption for any New Yorker cartoon, ever. It really does. Think about it.

By: Brocktoon

Brocktoon — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:58:52 -0800

They can't all be Ziggy.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:42:55 -0800

I'm not really sure I get it, but I think that's meant to be a Predator drone? Not sure I see the 9/11 reference. I'm guessing it's a commentary on life in a post-9/11 surveillance society. Or maybe it's an ad for the new Robocop film.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:19:31 -0800

Explaining humor is a lot like dissecting a frog etc.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:53:47 -0800

jfuller writes "Favorite thing about them! Most recent one I went to the length of cutting out showed a fellow in a suit trying to go up a very heavily traveled Down escalator. Off to the side there's a fellow telling another 'Bob was raised in the wilderness by salmon.'" Now that's funny.

By: asnider

asnider — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:27:23 -0800

Explaining humor is a lot like dissecting a frog etc. Interesting for a kid in 8th grade science class?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:28 -0800

Your Facebook is False (with Rainn Wilson)