Is there any conceivable non-Arlo way in which this comic makes sense?

Cidu Bill on Jan 3rd 2013

Submitted by Another BR


Filed in Agnes, Arlo Award, Bill Bickel, Tony Cochran, comic strips, comics, humor | 23 responses so far

23 Responses to “Is there any conceivable non-Arlo way in which this comic makes sense?”

  1. Usual John Jan 3rd 2013 at 07:59 pm 1

    Agnes is talking about things that are obscene and need pants. This is a single entendre, and it doesn’t even pretend to be a double entendre. It’s different from the Arlo & Janis posted below at (Janis’s “highbeams” remark to herself), in that the Arlo & Janis hides its meaning; Agnes does not.

  2. Lola Jan 3rd 2013 at 08:11 pm 2

    and it’s a LLLLLLOOOOOOLLLLLL too.

  3. Elyrest Jan 3rd 2013 at 08:36 pm 3

    I’m not even going to try to make a comment on this one.

  4. Jeff S. Jan 3rd 2013 at 09:32 pm 4

    No, Bill, there’s not… and since it is so blatant, I’m not even sure it qualifies as an Arlo.

  5. John Small Berries Jan 3rd 2013 at 10:13 pm 5

    The irony, of course, is that his ears display neither folds nor a hole.

    I can’t tell if “callous” is misspelled accidentally, or deliberately as an attempt at a pun.

  6. Larry Jan 3rd 2013 at 10:23 pm 6

    I personally loved the term “flopped out”. But, that’s just me. :)

  7. mitch4 Jan 4th 2013 at 12:31 am 7

    Grammar grouch: I hate this way of breaking parallelism. There is just one conjunction, as though it were a series of three things — but it is a series of two at verb-phrases higher level, of which the first is itself a coordination (”are” and its two complements).

    There are various ways to correct this. Simplest: “They’re pink and squishy, and have little folds around a hole.”

  8. AMC Jan 4th 2013 at 01:32 am 8

    Do your ears hang low?
    Do they wobble to and fro?
    Can you tie ‘em in a knot?
    Can you tie ‘em in a bow?

    Is this a bondage reference evading the screening
    like an Arlo page double meaning?
    Do your ears

  9. minorannoyance Jan 4th 2013 at 02:16 am 9

    The joke of a usually ignored body part — say, the elbow — being obscene and/or erotic is an old one. In “The Mikado” by Gilbert and Sullivan, a fearsome-looking woman assures us a few unlikely points are, in fact, greatly admired by the male sex. Today it would not surprise me to learn there is such a think as ear porn (and I’m not about to Google it).

    There’s also the idea of making something obscene / erotic by covering it and teasing its existence. Victorians would get sweaty over the mere fact women had the same number of legs as men, even while being comparatively blase about tight, low-cut bodices. A old magazine cartoon had a sexy girl in hot pants walking past two geezers on a bench, who wistfully muse on how go-go boots have rendered ankles invisible.

    This strip goes beyond such conceptual humor by explicitly likening ears to various specific and generally agreed-on naughty bits — bits not visualized or named in respectable funnies — and applying the modern garment most often used to cover same instead of introducing more practical attire. Ergo, the classification of genus arlo.

    I’m partly naked right now. That is to say, my hands and head are uncovered to facilitate typing. Ho ho.

  10. FrankTheCurmdgeon Jan 4th 2013 at 04:25 am 10

    And the Victorians often covered their furniture legs with skirts.

  11. Kilby Jan 4th 2013 at 04:48 am 11

    @ Frank (10) - One alleged explanation for the terminology “white” and “dark” meat is that in Victorian England, it was uncouth to refer to “breasts” or “thighs”, even when speaking of poultry.

  12. Powers Jan 4th 2013 at 07:20 am 12

    What’s all this about single- and double-entendres? The Arlo Award does not require a joke to be a double-entendre. It only requires a cartoonist to slip something naughty past the censors.

    And no, I cannot conceive of any other analogy Agnes might be drawing except to “lady parts”. How this got past the censors is a complete and utter mystery.

  13. Tonya Jan 4th 2013 at 10:08 am 13

    WOW. and the award goes to…

  14. The Bad Seed Jan 4th 2013 at 10:14 am 14

    Eeww, it’s going to take me a long time to get this one out of my brain. If my hair didn’t totally cover my ears, I’d need to wear ear muffs all day today.

  15. J-L Jan 4th 2013 at 12:16 pm 15

    John Small Berries (#5) said:
    “The irony, of course, is that his ears display neither folds nor a hole.”

    Actually, he’s a she, and her name is Trout.

    (Though I’ll admit: Your mistake is an easy one to make.)

  16. Elyrest Jan 4th 2013 at 01:31 pm 16

    minorannoyance #9 - There is ear porn, but it refers to music. Even Urban Dictionary, which I’m usually loathe to click on, defines it as “quite literally: awesome music”. It’s analogous to food porn which is just pictures of food.

  17. Keera Jan 4th 2013 at 02:26 pm 17

    I saw the movie “The Intouchables” and the paraplegic character talked about how his ears had become his erogenous zones.

  18. Paperboy Jan 4th 2013 at 02:52 pm 18

    I’m just a modern guy, of course I had it in the ear before.

  19. Another BR Jan 4th 2013 at 04:23 pm 19

    I’m surprised no one’s yet made a comment about getting it aurally.

    There. Someone just did.

    And Powers #12 - that’s exactly right. “How this got past the censors is a complete and utter mystery.” is what qualifies this for the Arlo Award (not to be confused with the Arlo Page)

  20. Lost in A**2 Jan 4th 2013 at 04:37 pm 20

    (I thought John was referring to the artist, who draws incomplete ears.)

  21. James Pollock Jan 4th 2013 at 04:52 pm 21

    This reminds me of the epic prank of creating the “Society for Indecency to Naked Animals” which had the goal of covering up animals’ naughty bits, and generated actual contributions.

  22. Mark in Boston Jan 4th 2013 at 05:32 pm 22

    “It’s analogous to food porn which is just pictures of food.”

    So shouldn’t ear porn be just pictures of sheet music?

  23. yellojkt Jan 6th 2013 at 06:58 am 23

    Here is a very Not Safe For Work song about certain body parts that are also gross to look at.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply