Pedophilic Ewww

Cidu Bill on Mar 30th 2010

yellojkt: Isn’t Tiffany like 16 or 17. I don’t like even being made to think about her underwear.

glamour.png
Okay, I’m glad it wasn’t just me. Between Luann’s boobs and Tiffany’s lacy panties, I think it might be time for somebody to remind Greg Evans “Dude, they’re 16.” -Bill

Filed in Bill Bickel, Ewww, Greg Evans, Luann, comic strips, comics, humor | 16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Pedophilic Ewww”

  1. Sili Mar 30th 2010 at 04:22 pm 1

    Age of consent is 15 in this part of the world (not the Vatican City).

    And given how tarted up kids are these days, this is nothing.

    That is to say: Where the “geezers” tag?

  2. padraig Mar 30th 2010 at 04:44 pm 2

    Several years ago he had a strip where Tiffany had just gotten back from hanging with an older boy with a car, and her hair was messed up like she’d been in a tornado. The punch line was something like, “no, it wasn’t a convertible, why do you ask?”

    So Tiff’s virtue’s been shaky for some time.

  3. Cidu Bill Mar 30th 2010 at 05:48 pm 3

    Age of consent notwithstanding, she’s still flashing her frillies at her middle-aged teacher — and there’s really no way to put a wholesome spin on this.

    Of course in the real world, he would probably be fired for acknowledging that he’d noticed her red and lacy underwear.

  4. mkilby Mar 30th 2010 at 05:57 pm 4

    Sixteen may not qualify the legal age of consent in America, but it is the age that a girl must be to expose herself (in what is effectively underwear covered by far less than these girls are wearing) for global coverage of Olympic skating and gymnastic events. However, as far as questionable taste is concerned, I think it is worth pointing out that bright red does not match that mauve dress at all.

  5. Its Justme Mar 30th 2010 at 05:58 pm 5

    He’s a play director. He’s insisted on a certain costume. She didn’t wear what she was told to. The play requires the actors to kick their legs into the air, thus the reason for the requirement in the first place. It’s his job to notice what can be a problem to the audience. In real life, this is appropriate so I don’t think he’d be fired for noticing.

    However, it may not be appropriate subject matter for a comic.

  6. Cidu Bill Mar 30th 2010 at 06:20 pm 6

    Its Justme, you’d be amazed at what male teachers have been fired for. This isn’t all that much of an exaggeration these days.

  7. George P Mar 30th 2010 at 07:04 pm 7

    One could also see this as Tiffany’s attempt to be the “star” of the show, or at least the most talked-about actress. She’s awfully upset about Luanne getting the lead AND making time with that Australian kid.

    Although you’d think she’d wait until the actual show and not tip her hand in the dress rehearsal.

  8. Mark M Mar 30th 2010 at 08:04 pm 8

    I think we are making much ado about nothing here. Leotard does not equal underwear.

  9. yellojkt Mar 30th 2010 at 09:04 pm 9

    It could be worse. She could be going au naturale like the cheerleader on the National Lampoon Yearbook cover.

  10. Esteban Mar 30th 2010 at 10:39 pm 10

    Mark,

    The problem was that she *wasn’t* wearing a leotard — just underwear.

  11. NoAlias Mar 31st 2010 at 12:04 am 11

    In the first frame, only one dancer is wearing black tights (possibly a leotard), so Tiffany isn’t the only one not following directions.

    As for Tiffany’s red frilly undies, I doubt she was aiming to show them to the teacher - she’s much more focused on Quill and the other boys. The fact that Mr. Whateverhisnameis gets a glimpse too, is just bonus.

  12. ted in fort lauderdale Mar 31st 2010 at 12:54 am 12

    NoAlias - the teacher didn’t indicate that he told them all to wear tights - just the leotard - so Tiffany way well have been the only one not following directions.

    I do agree that the teacher wasn’t the target of her “show” - that would be Quill (or the boys in general) to (as was suggested earlier) steal the spotlight back from Luann…

    Is this an Ewww? Well, by _our_ standards, Tiffany is very young. However, by _her_ standards…? I have a 17 year old (boy) and so have some exposure (no, not that way…) to 16 and 17 year old girls. _They_ would think showing themselves off to the teacher would be an Ewww, but many of them have no particular problems doing so to their peers…

  13. jjmcgaffey Mar 31st 2010 at 04:39 am 13

    Re: reminding the artist they’re 16 - yeah, they’re 16. Right at the height of the hormone rush. Boy-obsessed girls and girl-obsessed boys…I think the strip hits it about right. (Not that I was like that at 16 - I was the Stairway Reader. But the popular kids certainly flaunted everything they had…)

  14. Tom T. Mar 31st 2010 at 07:03 am 14

    Maybe it’s safest if we assume that she was wearing something red and lacy *over* her black leotard.

  15. Catlover Mar 31st 2010 at 11:14 am 15

    I don’t follow the strip, although I do follow CIDU. Exhibitionism/”fanservice” has been a theme from this strip brought up here in the not too distant past; maybe a year ago: the dunk tank?

  16. Chuck Mar 31st 2010 at 07:54 pm 16

    padraig, I don’t follow this strip so I can’t say whether or not I think Tiffany would have sex with some kid in his car, but let’s not forget that just making out can get your hair pretty messy on its own.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply