Okay, the way I see it…
Cidu Bill on Nov 6th 2009
… Little Jeremy is prosecuted for distributing child pornography for posting a video of Little Sarah’s naked behind (it would have been a lot worse if either of them had genitalia), and will be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life
Filed in Bill Bickel, Ick, YouTube, Zits, comic strips, comics, humor | 56 responses so far
Scott Nov 6th 2009 at 02:35 am 1
Only if those saps from Love Is get busted for public nudity. Ick, yes, but no ickier than its inspiration.
furrykef Nov 6th 2009 at 03:02 am 2
I dunno, I find something fundamentally disturbing about these images of Jeremy and Whatshername. Probably partly because we’re familiar with these characters, and partly because they retain their teenage heads. In cartoons, age is expressed by the head much more than any other individual element; there are cartoon styles that use head size and shape (in proportion to the rest of the body, at least) as almost the sole distinguishing feature of age.
- Kef
furrykef Nov 6th 2009 at 03:03 am 3
And by “Whatshername” I mean “Sarah”. Sorry, I should have noticed you gave the name in the description. (I used to read this strip regularly, but I stopped a few years ago, so things like that are starting to slip.)
PeterW Nov 6th 2009 at 03:29 am 4
The act of photograpy also makes it icky.
Annie Benson Nov 6th 2009 at 05:05 am 5
At first I thought that posting her butt on youtube was the whole point. Then a couple of synapes fired off in my brain and I realized that he was just capturing the hilarity of her fall for the masses. But yeah, portraying a couple of horny teenagers (I know, that’s a redundancy) naked, albiet with non-anatomically correct bodies, is just plain creepy to me. The orignal “Love is…” little nudists always seemed to be innocent little children to me, with nothing in the way of sex drives. Not so much these characters.
Sili Nov 6th 2009 at 06:26 am 6
Funny, I think I’ve always categorised the Love is couple as adults.
The having to register as a sex-offender stuff is unfortunately only all too real.
David A. Rooney Nov 6th 2009 at 08:30 am 7
“registering as a sex offender” - Which I believe is the whole point - kids who do ’sexting’ are getting arrested. We’ve developed a generation of people who have NO privacy, mostly by choice! Something that will come back to bite them in the posterior when they finally have their own kids.
Taigan Nov 6th 2009 at 08:34 am 8
I really don’t see the fuss here. I’m with Scott, if the “Love is” strips are ok then why is this any weirder?
Fett101 Nov 6th 2009 at 08:55 am 9
All of the recent stories about sexting sure aren’t helping this strip.
(this is one of the funniest strips I’ve seen recently, though for all the wrong reasons)
GP Nov 6th 2009 at 09:25 am 10
If this were in 3-D, I think we’d see that the camera is far enough forward as to not catch her posterior. But that’s certainly not what I saw at first glance. As drawn, it looks like he’s just being a pervert.
starfall42 Nov 6th 2009 at 09:53 am 11
I’m in the crowd that is somewhat squicked by the original. In the other comments thread, someone posted Homer Simpson’s description. When that show aired, someone one asked me what he was talking about. I provided a link to the comic, and this person said “My God, it IS about two naked eight-year-olds who are married!”
farmer Nov 6th 2009 at 10:21 am 12
Yeah, I’ve found these two creepy as well, and very surprised they got past the censors.
There’s a deeper problem, though, which is that the strips thoroughly don’t work if you don’t know the other strip. This is always a danger with crossover strips, like if your local paper only carries one of them and you have no idea who that weirdly drawn character is. But usually you can at least figure out that there’s a joke there involving an unknown strip and move on for the day (consider Mark Trail in Pickles; even if you don’t know Mark Trail, it’s clear from context that odd guy is meant to be a hunk from somewhere in contrast to Earl).
But with this, if you don’t know what he’s parodying, they’re really disturbing. Because Zits often does these titled series (if parents were zombies, for example), it’s not at all clear he’s just not running another one of his series with artistic license (like zombies). And if it is just another series with artistic license, which happens to feature naked Jeremy and Sarah, well, that’s pretty damned creepy. Especially since one might reasonably conclude that he intended them to be naked and their eunuch-ness is the only way he could.
I know my local paper doesn’t carry “Love Is” but does carry Zits, and I wonder how many calls they’re going to get from people wondering WTF is going on with naked people in their kids’ comics.
Rasheed Nov 6th 2009 at 10:56 am 13
The “Love Is…” cast don’t even have buttcracks. That’s something that every parody strip seems to include, and that might be what “unsettles” people.
Frosted Donut Nov 6th 2009 at 11:09 am 14
@farmer: Yeah, but “Love Is” has been running for many many (many) years and even if your local paper doesn’t carry it (mine doesn’t), most folks are probably familiar with it.
Still, it’s fun to contemplate someone with no familiarity with “Love Is” reading these Zits. “Midget zombies? Some weird disease? What happened?”
Kate C Nov 6th 2009 at 11:26 am 15
Count me as one of the people who find these funny and not-at-all icky. Like in this strip, it’s clear he’s recording her whole body (at least to me it is)–although maybe the artist could have found an embarrassing situation that didn’t end in such a questionably position.
Honestly, these are some of the funniest Zits I’ve seen in awhile.
Pirk Nov 6th 2009 at 12:33 pm 16
yeah, mostly I’m just dumbfounded that the artist would draw it this way and not really how perverse it looks. at first glance, it looks like she’s bending over and he’s taking a picture of her business. only after you’ve looked at it for a moment is it clear that it’s not crazy toon pedo-porn
Jeffrey McAndrew Nov 6th 2009 at 12:34 pm 17
When the saw the artwork in todays strip I doubled over in laughter, I couldn’t even read the caption. Zits has actually had a lot of strips in the past with not so subtle sexual undertones. Anyone remember the one with involving Sara sleeping naked with her teddy bear covered in lotion?
I’m actually really hoping they continue this parody now. I want to see how far they’ll push it.
Bob Nov 6th 2009 at 01:19 pm 18
As Frosted Donut said, “Love is” has been runninig for many years (35+ years to my knowledge), plus they had their own greeting card line for a number of years. An Ivory Soap majority of adults are aware of them.
Julie Nov 6th 2009 at 01:20 pm 19
I am one of the people who didn’t know what the “Love Is” strips are (I’ll have to google it to see originals). I thought these Zits were very strange and I wondered why they were portrayed as children. I also immediately thought they were icky.
Pirk Nov 6th 2009 at 01:21 pm 20
. . . also the degradation coupled with the nudity and sexual positioning is pretty disturbing
furrykef Nov 6th 2009 at 01:26 pm 21
I really don’t see the fuss here. I’m with Scott, if the “Love is” strips are ok then why is this any weirder?
It’s OK if you don’t think it’s any weirder, but I find it funny that you have to ask why we find it any weirder when I’ve already explained it. In only the second comment, no less.
- Kef
Dan Nov 6th 2009 at 03:14 pm 22
I don’t remember any of the Love Is… strips in which one of them is taking a naked picture of the other one. That’s what’s icky about it. That and these pubescent, nubile teen heads attached to little-kid bodies.
And the fact that you can’t actually post naked-people video on YouTube.
Cidu Bill Nov 6th 2009 at 03:21 pm 23
I suppose you could post films of naked people on YouTube in a universe where naked married 8-year-olds are a common public sight.
The more pragmatic question is… I can understand Jeremy taking a still photo of Sara on the ground after falling down — but for a video, he’d really have had to know ahead of time that she was about to fall, and that seems somewhat suspicous.
furrykef Nov 6th 2009 at 04:16 pm 24
Presumably Jeremy was recording her for some other reason and the fall was just fortuitous.
Judge Mental Nov 6th 2009 at 06:17 pm 25
“Love Is..” was referenced a few years back in Get Fuzzy when Bucky was proposing music/comics mash-ups (e.g. “Sly and the Family Circus”, “Simon and Garfield”). I finally was able to find it:
http://getfuzzyarchive.blogspot.com/2006/03/blog-post_30.html
starfall42 Nov 6th 2009 at 08:19 pm 26
“I don’t remember any of the Love Is… strips in which one of them is taking a naked picture of the other one.”
Will this refresh your memory?
http://www.gocomics.com/loveis/2009/04/01/
Bob in Nashville Nov 7th 2009 at 12:11 am 27
The nude child bodies would have been disturbing to me if I hadn’t recognized the homage to/satirical parody of the old “Love Is” toons, which I always found slightly creepy for the naked kiddies Arloed in via the “Wholesome to conservatives” meme.
The previous day’s Zits started the “Love Isn’t” series with a big eww.
The incidental sexual position didn’t come off as such to me in this one, but rather that she had fallen on her face and spilled her lunch tray and he got it on video to share with the world. That’s gotta cut down on his make-out time.
Looks like the makings of another off-again period with Sara Toomey.
Somesky Nov 7th 2009 at 01:23 am 28
I actually found this comic hilarious, probably because I find the Love Is comic to be incredibly creepy. I think it’s because every now and again the Love Is characters are shown with their offspring which is horrific because a) their offspring are basically exactly the same characters with a different hair style and drawn in 1/2 scale and b) the clear implication that at some point the Love Is characters went through the processes necessary to create children. So… basically naked 8-year olds that gave birth to naked 4-year olds. At least Zits seems to be quite open about the fact that it’s comic is perverse.
FeelinOld Nov 7th 2009 at 01:45 am 29
I’m with Kate C on this one, but perhaps it helped that I saw this one immediately after the prior days, the nudity was never the point in the love is and I think the same goes here.
It probably would have been less upsetting to the overly purient if sarah was facing right instead of left.
And I know plenty of kids that would jump at the chance to post a video of their ‘friends’ falling down so it’s probably an accurate sentiment (Lesson one in how to piss off your significant other
)
mkilby Nov 7th 2009 at 02:56 am 30
I agree with FeelinOld (29) - if the composition had been a little more carefully done (mirroring Sarah’s image horizontally, or placing the subcaption between the two figures), it would have defused the nudity/censorship issue entirely. This series is brilliant satire on a worn-out comic that truly deserves a bit of scathing parody, and I hope it runs a while longer.
Todd Nov 7th 2009 at 05:21 am 31
While I do consider any nudity in movies to be gratuitous, I think everyone who finds the nudity here (the Zits comics in question, or the Love is comics in general) creepy or offensive is overreacting.
On the other hand, that particular Love is strip that is linked to above, appears to be glamour photography, which is somewhat at odds with the Love is theme.
Todd Nov 7th 2009 at 05:21 am 32
Oh, and Jeremy is to the side, not directly behind.
Keera Nov 7th 2009 at 08:07 am 33
If I were forced to define “annoying”, I’d pick “Love is”. I’ve always hated the artwork (I use that term loosely). With “Zits” parodying it, I am firmly both annoyed and nauseated. I also support what Furrykef said in comment #2.
Jeff S. Nov 7th 2009 at 08:52 am 34
Bill, I suspect Jeremy had the camera ready because he planned on tripping her.
Mitch4 Nov 7th 2009 at 10:20 am 35
I don’t really know how to mathematically project the 3-D location as GP #10 suggests, but going just by how it looks to me, I must disagree with Todd #32 (and others): it looks like he’s positioning the camera absolutely squarely behind the behind!
Lihtox Nov 7th 2009 at 12:31 pm 36
To point out the possibly obvious: the nudity in “Love is…” is purely stylistic, as it is here; there isn’t actually nude photography going on, nor has anyone been castrated. Or maybe it would help to imagine them wearing bodysuits, specifically designed to hide primary and secondary sexual characteristics (but with dots for nipples and bellybuttons).
furrykef Nov 7th 2009 at 12:59 pm 37
While I do consider any nudity in movies to be gratuitous, I think everyone who finds the nudity here (the Zits comics in question, or the Love is comics in general) creepy or offensive is overreacting.
The problem is, Todd, we can’t choose what emotions the strip gives us. Either it creeps us out or it doesn’t.
Rainey Nov 7th 2009 at 02:14 pm 38
Annie Benson, I was never a horny teenager. I always have been ( and still am ) turned off by the thought of sex. ( Though I understand its necessity in reproduction. ) I am proud to say that at the age of 34, I have never even considered having sex.
turquoise cow Nov 7th 2009 at 04:33 pm 39
i don’t read Love is, but I’ve seen it around on the interwebs. it’s cute in the instances that i’ve seen, though reading it on a daily basis would probably make my blood sugar go through the roof. i’ve not yet been able to find answer to the question of exactly WHY the characters have to be naked, though.
I mean, the tiny, stylized characters are cute on their own, but the idea of them nude is, depending on your point of view, either perverse or distracting. why can’t they wear cute little outfits? is the artist incapable of drawing clothing in general? are they supposed to be cherubs? if so, why do they do things that humans do? Is there actually an answer to this question? anybody know?
buzz Nov 7th 2009 at 05:46 pm 40
Todd: Joe Bob Briggs, the drive-in movie critic, once explained that nudity in movies was always absolutely essential ‘cuz without it there would be no reason to make the movie.
Mark in Boston Nov 7th 2009 at 07:06 pm 41
If the “Love Is” kids didn’t have bellybuttons they wouldn’t look naked. It’s the bellybutton that removes all doubt.
Frosted Donut Nov 7th 2009 at 07:12 pm 42
@turquoise cow: In search of the answers to your questions, I found this web site which consists of modified “Love Is” cartoons. They put clothing on them, and it doesn’t really alter the cartoon meaning at all.
http://www.loveisfan.com/
The answer to your questions seems to be: nobody cares enough to explain any of this. The original artist, however is dead (since 1997) and it’s now done by her son. Presumably, they’re naked on purpose, since it’s been that way for the last 40 years.
mkilby Nov 8th 2009 at 03:45 am 43
The “rejected Love is… comics” take the opposite approach: leave the artwork unchanged, and just substitute a new caption. The results are a bit extreme, possibly even beyond the “Arlo” page.
Mitch4 Nov 8th 2009 at 09:17 am 44
Kilby, those were eye-openers!
Mitch4 Nov 8th 2009 at 10:37 am 45
And Sunday’s “‘C’est la Vie” also is a take-off from “Love Is”. Is something going on, like an anniversary?
Greg Nov 8th 2009 at 01:37 pm 46
If Sarah was just drawn facing the other way, the joke still works and removes the taint of perversion:
http://img20.yfrog.com/i/zitsfixed.jpg/
Mitch4 Nov 8th 2009 at 02:12 pm 47
To clarify a little … I’m among those saying they are nude (albeit “symbolically” or “schematically” or “stylistically”), and the camera is aimed square-on to her raised presenting-posture posterior. … But that’s not a criticism or complaint!
David N Nov 8th 2009 at 03:11 pm 48
Me, I just wondered how he carried his cell phone. Holster clip, ouch.
Paul Nov 14th 2009 at 02:01 am 49
Haven’t seen ‘Love is . . . ‘ in several years, but they were always cute and innocent and not even slightly offensive or titillating. The parodies in Zits are also not even slightly offensive or titillating. Most important, they are funny.
So if you’re grossed out by these strips, that is your problem. But if you’re trying to read anything else into them, please stop! Do we have to analyze everything to death? Exception for David N, because his comment was funny. Me, I just assume that the cell phone is simply a cartoon prop, used as needed. Note that we don’t see Sarah’s wallet, which she would have needed to pay for her lunch. Why isn’t it there? Because it isn’t pertinent to the gag.
Elyrest Nov 14th 2009 at 12:32 pm 50
“Do we have to analyze everything to death?”
Paul - what would our purpose here be otherwise?
Paul Nov 14th 2009 at 01:37 pm 51
Yes, I know — but let’s keep the analysis on track, please. Debating whether the gag is funny or whether it’s a good or bad parody is fine (even though the matter is so subjective, there’s really little to debate). Trying to make sense of cartoons where the gag doesn’t come across right away — if at all — I can also understand. But debating whether the CARTOON characters in question have real, anatomically correct body parts that are inappropriate for a family website takes it to an absurd level.
Mitch4 Nov 14th 2009 at 04:39 pm 52
Paul, why are you lumping the amused debate over what the camera might be seeing with an exaggerated concern about propriety in family newspapers? I’m noting mostly the former in this thread, very little of the latter.
trlkly Dec 1st 2009 at 02:27 pm 53
I’m pretty sure the child porn thing is part of the point: it’s a Take That recognizing how creepy the “Love is” cartoons actually are, when understood in the right context.
Paul Dec 3rd 2009 at 11:53 am 54
Mitch4: Well, ‘amused debate’ is in the eye of the beholder. My subjective impression was grossed-out debate, but I could be wrong (emotions are often hard to discern in posts, compared to face-to-face conversation). I take things very literally (always loved to read, hated it when teachers asked us, ‘What was the author trying to say in this story?’) So I take the little naked people in ‘Love Is . . .’ and the parodies in ‘Zits’ as cartoons, nothing more. No deep analysis or hidden meaning. That’s why my comment argued for keeping the focus on what the joke was meant to be and whether it was funny.
trlkly: The above is why I (one subjective person) enjoy the cartoons, and could never come to the conclusion that there is some ‘right context’ in which they would be deemed ‘creepy’.
Dan Dec 3rd 2009 at 12:00 pm 55
In reflection, the reason I see the Zits one as creepy - or maybe just creepiER, not necessarily offense - is just that the characters in Love Is.. aren’t meant to be realistic in any way. They’re more like bobbleheads or Trollie dolls. Jeremy and Sarah, on the other hand, are supposed to be much more representative of actual human beings. So if anyone does find the Zits one sort of off-putting, that might be why.
KateinPA Dec 3rd 2009 at 02:57 pm 56
At first glance, I thought Jeremy was just being a jerky teenage boy by shoving Sarah on her face. Then I read the caption and noticed that it must be a little digital camera in his hand. That made me think he, in a teenage prank-way, pushed her so he could get the shot to put on youtube. It also looks to me that he was taking a shot of her tush.
Am I the only one who thinks that most teenage boys would make a point of aiming to include the fanny in the picture?
I never much liked the “Love is…” figurines and I didn’t know there was a strip. I never thought the figurines were creepy just weird and a bit preachy. This comic on the other hand struck me as a bit creepy.