Sal Biondo: ”What are you staring at?” “Your camel toe.”

Cidu Bill on Jun 30th 2010

staring.gif

FrogChemist seconds the answer.

Filed in Bill Bickel, For Better or For Worse, Lynn Johnston, camel toe, comic strips, comics, humor | 24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Sal Biondo: ”What are you staring at?” “Your camel toe.””

  1. Elyrest Jun 30th 2010 at 03:41 pm 1

    Oh my! I so did not see that when I read the comic yesterday (maybe I did years ago, but who’d remember that long ago). It’s amazing that one little line can change an image so much. Do you think Lynn Johnston was trying to get away with something? Most likely not as she comes across a little prudish.

  2. Paperboy Jun 30th 2010 at 04:01 pm 2

    And check out those charlies!

  3. retropink Jun 30th 2010 at 04:29 pm 3

    Great. Now I need eye AND brain bleach.

  4. ShawnV Jun 30th 2010 at 04:57 pm 4

    I second that, retropink (shuddering)

  5. Daniel J. Drazen Jun 30th 2010 at 05:36 pm 5

    It’s probably a perfectly natural reaction during June in Canada.

  6. Dave Jun 30th 2010 at 09:18 pm 6

  7. someone else Jul 1st 2010 at 04:04 am 7

    Following Dave #6’s link and reading the public comments, I am once again amazed at how many people think ‘vagina’ is a correct or even more proper term for the overall female genitalia or specifically the external parts — the labia or vulva. That’s like saying that ‘cochlea’, because it is a medical term, is somehow a more proper or polite way of referring to the earlobes.

  8. Heather D Jul 1st 2010 at 06:34 am 8

    I noticed this when it came out (not originally, I mean, but a few days ago). I’m 99.9% sure that it’s no cameltoe, it’s just an unfortunate line that is actually merely indicating the edge of the leg of the shorts.

    That being said, yeah it certainly does look like a cameltoe. I just don’t think she was “trying to get away with something”, I think it was merely sloppy artwork.

  9. Detcord Jul 1st 2010 at 08:34 am 9

    Wow! The things I learn on this site. I had no idea cameltoe meant, well anything. Nevertheless, after looking at this ‘toon with a new perspective, I have to concur with Heather D, or rather bow to her knowledge as the images still look … unremarkable to me.

    Now, the husband’s leer I recognise, but why is the wife still boggled or disconcerted in the last panel. I’d have thought she’d be pleased, given it’s her husband doing the leering.

  10. Elyrest Jul 1st 2010 at 11:38 am 10

    Heather D & Detcord - I don’t think anyone thinks that Lynn Johnston was intentionally trying to be salacious - especially when this strip was originally drawn in 1981. It is an unfortunate slip of the line though. I don’t remember the first time I heard camel toe though I know it was years ago. Although I don’t like the phrase it is all too appropriate.

  11. Molly J Jul 1st 2010 at 12:53 pm 11

    And this wasn’t an Ewwwwwww because…..???

  12. Keera Jul 1st 2010 at 03:33 pm 12

    The term in Norwegian are “pants for the deaf” (døvebukser) because you can read the lips (which is what labia means). ;-)

  13. Elyrest Jul 1st 2010 at 03:41 pm 13

    Keera (12) Pants for the deaf!!! I love it. It’s a good play on words. Do the blind get to do their Braille version?

  14. Keera Jul 1st 2010 at 03:47 pm 14

    No, but that’s a good suggestion, Elyrest!

  15. Mark in Boston Jul 1st 2010 at 05:18 pm 15

    someone else #7 : There are plenty of words like that. “Song” for instance when applied to an instrumental piece. It’s not a song unless someone sings it. (Blame Mendelssohn for this one I guess.) “Loud pedal” on a piano. There is no “loud pedal”. If you’re a pianist the pedals from left to right are the soft pedal, the sustaining pedal and the damper pedal; if you’re a piano tuner they are the shift pedal, the sostenuto pedal and the sustaining pedal.

  16. Heather D Jul 1st 2010 at 06:17 pm 16

    Mark in Boston #15 — Really, “soft pedal” is no more accurate than “loud pedal”. It’s the “una corda pedal” — because, at least on a grand, the action shifts over so that the strings only hit one string per note instead of all 3. Well, in fact, on most modern pianos the u.c. gives you 2 strings, not 1, but that was the original derivation of the term.

    I think it’s true enough that we pianists will say “soft pedal” vernacularly more than we use “loud pedal” — that’s really something only little kids would say. But it’s the same sort of word problem. The u.c. pedal’s purpose is NOT to make a softer (ie, quieter) sound. It’s to change the tone, in part by hitting a different number of strings, but also in large part due to the hammers striking the strings with a different part of the felt, where it is less compressed due to less frequent hitting.

    But yeah, “song” bugs me. “Lieder ohne Wörter” — “Songs Without Words” — you could blame Mendelssohn, though I’d argue the concept had been used before, just not NAMED as such. Anyway, he was using it as a metaphor, not literally.

  17. Detcord Jul 2nd 2010 at 03:31 am 17

    Heather D (16)

    “…we pianists will say “soft pedal” vernacularly…”. I’ll say. We non-musically gifted (and by we I mean me) will say “soft pedal”, intending to mean “play down” or “obscure”. I had no idea of the origin of this phrase. I blame it on my tin ear.

    The things I learn on this site! :-)

  18. Sal Jul 3rd 2010 at 11:27 pm 18

    Detcord, you have never listened to Bob And Tom the radio guys and this song

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBIGwtyqBhA

  19. Detcord Jul 4th 2010 at 04:41 am 19

    Sal (18)

    I thought I’d seen it all… I have now. :-)

  20. Therese Jul 4th 2010 at 02:49 pm 20

    Keera (12)

    It’s “mumble pants” (mummelbyxor) in Swedish, because you can see the lips moving, but you can’t hear a word they’re saying. The male version is “woodcraft pants” (Mullebyxor), because you can see both wood and stones.

  21. Keera Jul 4th 2010 at 02:59 pm 21

    Therese @20, LOL! I think a good Norwegian equivalent would be golf pants, since “club” and “balls” have a dirty and male meaning in that language.

  22. Dan Jul 6th 2010 at 03:36 pm 22

    Well, I *have* heard the expression “those pants are so tight, you can read her lips” …

    Anyway, ITA - this is just really sloppy artwork, a hallmark of FBoFW.

  23. paperboy Jul 6th 2010 at 05:36 pm 23

    Dan#22, you and Heather D#8 call it “sloppy” artwork, but you’re both wrong. The art is loose, but not sloppy. There’s two lines in the groin area of her shorts in panel#1; both are due to the position of her legs while walking. She’s not in my top 30 of favorite comic-strip illustrators, but she’s not “sloppy”.

  24. Steve Jul 18th 2010 at 12:09 am 24

    Lynn Johnston, before she became a cartoonist, was a medical illustrator.

    So, maybe it’s not sloppy cartooning?

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply