Holy crap, I thought I was the only person who remembered that commercial.
Wonder Woman: “You girls are developing into quite the young superheroes!”
Powerpuff girl: “Someday, maybe we’ll be as developed as you!”
Lex Luthor: “Pfftch! Snerk! LOLOLOLOL”
Assembled cast: “LOLOLOLOL”
Not true. Most brothers will go “DUDE! PUT SOME CLOTHES ON!” to which I would respond “Sure. As soon as you put down the toilet seat and put the toilet paper on the roll. If you’re gonna act like a stereotypical male, I’m gonna act like a stereotypical female.” mwahahaha!
A nether habiliment of the adult civilized male. The garment is tubular and unprovided with hinges at the points of flexion. Supposed to have been invented by a humorist. Called “trousers” by the enlightened and “pants” by the unworthy.
–My great great (who knows how many greats) uncle Ambrose.
I’m sensing some one-sided sibling rivalry. Walky doesn’t seem to care, but Sal’s still nursing a grudge. She’s just interpreting everything Walky says as a snark.
I agree. That’s far less disturbing than seeing a gal in her undies, OUTSIDE of her dorm. If he were wearing tightie whitie brands, yes, but it’s confirmed Walky wears Boxers.
When I was in high school my friend’s sister, an adult with teen children herself, answered the door in bra and panties and preceded to remain in such for the duration of our visit. Apparently, I was lucky she wasn’t naked.
That’s one where I’ve never understood the objection. I don’t fetishize it, but really, if siblings want to, then why is that odder than furries, BDSM, or crushing on cartoon characters? There’s plenty of weird sex out there, and as long as it’s consenting adults, who cares?
To me the difference is the results… if it causes a considerable increase in the incidence of genetic disorders and birth defects, that’s Mother Nature’s way of saying you shouldn’t be doing it. If it only causes permanent harm when you do it wrong, it’s fine, but be careful.
So…it’s fine as long as they use birth control? That makes sense to me, that way they don’t hurt any potential kids.
@SUTBEric, I’m not saying you should do your sister, just that if someone else wants to, they should be able to. Why do you object to a couple doing something that doesn’t affect you in any way?
Yeah, but it really doesn’t except over a period of several generations. Even then it is certainly less harmful than many legal activities. Sibling incest is traditionally reserved for divine couples, necessary to prevent their “blood” mixing with mortals (which is in many cases considered fatal for the mortal involved anyway), and is thus taboo because it is acting above your station. Every culture has incest taboos, but every culture defines incest differently; just like with cannibalism . . . hmm, cannibaltwinsim (oh yeah).
But then we get sibling marriage in royalty… you know that weird, slightly pointed thing in pictures of the Pharaohs? That’s the result of generations of sibling inbreeding. That’s what their heads looked like.
Legality often has only a passing association with morality. Sodomy is illegal in many states, but gay characters aren’t automatically objected to by anyone other than bigots.
But just because legality CAN be unconnected with morality, doesn’t mean it IS. That’d be like saying that necrophilia might be okay, even though it’s illegal. (Granted, your “consenting adults” stipulation earlier keeps that from being true, but what if they signed some sort of document prior to death? Ew this is gross I’m gonna stop talking about it.)
Just because one thing is/was illegal and shouldn’t be, doesn’t mean that all illegal acts shouldn’t be. There are some things that are just wrong, and the psychological/genetic effects that incest has are just more hints towards its wrongness.
The psychological effects are only on the involved parties, so, again, that’s no one’s business except their own. The genetic effects are iffier, but if they’re safe the issue doesn’t come up, and if they aren’t, it’s no different from a woman over 40* having kids.
As for the necrophilia example, consent is the issue. If the person who died signed a document beforehand, then I have no objection. “Sick and wrong” is not the same as immoral.
*There’s a significantly increased chance of Down Syndrome once the mother passes 40.
im·mor·al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
adjective
not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
I dunno, I think “sick and wrong” fits in there pretty well.
Immoral: Contrary to accepted moral principles.
Well, not much help, so let’s check out “moral”
Moral: Of and concerned with the principles of right and wrong in relation to human action.
I don’t see incest as morally wrong, given that definition.
Just because not all acts not sanctioned by law are wrong doesn’t mean that all acts not sanctioned by law are right?
Well okay, that’s fine. An illegal act can be either morally correct or immoral. Just…. what was up with that previous point then? The one where we were supposed to object to it because it’s illegal.
The first post was a response to comparing incest to furries or people into BDSM. The second was more saying “Just because legality CAN be unconnected to morality, doesn’t mean it should be completely ignored in processing morality.” Hopefully that keeps things clear.
Legality should be considered when making decisions, and it can be a good shorthand for determining morality in some situations, but in general, I think legality has no bearing on morality. If a moral act is illegal, then the law is wrong.
Well, homosexual acts were also against the law at some point, so I dunno if “it’s illegal” is an ironclad argument against the practice.
In a strictly pragmatic sense, it shouldn’t be a problem so long as both parties can legally consent and one of them isn’t an authority figure. In all other senses, OH MY LORD NOOOOOOOOOO.
We also imprint on our relatives that we grow up with, in a way that discourages sexual attraction. Basically, nature has designed us not to want to bone our siblings.
So it might be legal, but it suggests some… awkward social and psychological dynamics.
In layman’s terms, it is F***ED UP.
See, this makes me wonder how early on Sal was sent to Catholic school. The Westermarck effect is based off physical proximity, not biological similarity. Theoretically, if Sal and Walky were separated before the critical period, they might actually be more likely to want to bone each other, thanks to genetic sexual attraction.
…And that’s waaaaaay too much of my morning spent contemplating fictional incest. G’night, folks.
Westermarck happens between ages 0-6. They’re similar enough in age to be in college — wait, aren’t they both freshmen, too? How’s that work? — and Sal was sent off as a problem child, so I assume they had perfectly standard imprinting opportunity.
(Or anti-imprinting; the flipside is genetic sexual attraction, very strong attraction to close relatives when you *didn’t* grow up together.)
Why would Walky be telling Billie to buy pajama jeans? I could understand him telling Dorothy to get Pajama Jeans, but Billie just doesn’t make sense. Unless of course Billie has been known to bemoan the lack of pants that are both stylish and comfortable.
Or is it because Billie and Walky wear the same size pants and this is his sneaky way of getting pajama jeans for himself without going into a women’s shop(assuming that pajama jeans are strictly a woman’s item).
Billie and Walky are friends, from before they went to college. Even if Billie is being something of a bongo in an attempt to improve her social status in college.
Pajama jeans are a thing–Willis didn’t make up that ad. They do only seem to be available in women’s sizes.
Yeah, I just saw a commercial for those things tonight. The ad only showed women, so you’re probably right. The ad was for pajamajeans.com or something like that. (the sound was muted and I wasn’t really paying attention anyway)
I got the impression that he didn’t know any places where he could get women’s pants and he wanted somebody to get them for him. Then he said stuff about living vicariously through them, and now I have no idea why he wants them to get the pants.
(Damn, we really need different pronouns for gender neutral third-person singular and third-person nonspecific plural.)
What one does in the privacy of a bedroom is one thing. I see enough ick on a beach or at a pool without having to see it while I’m eating or buying new pants. Pants are not for the 99%’s pleasure. They exist to defend us from the 1%.
I lived in a co-ed dorm myself and don’t recall ever seeing the ladies answering the door in just their panties. Granted I was in the female hallways very rarely and never in the morning where they might be coming or going in various states of undress to see if answering the door in just their unmentionables was a common thing or not.
I wasn’t making a judgment, I was just saying because so many people here seem to have their mind blown by the idea that some women are okay with being seen in their underwear.
It took me a while to “get” it, but here’s the rub:
Walky really wanted to tell Billie about pants. He didn’t notice that Sal wasn’t wearing any until the last panel, upon looking down. The “unfortunate coincidence” refers to the situation described above.
It does NOT refer to the fact that Sal says “Fuck you!” to Walky while he’s staring at her crotch.
So… is that a sports bra? Or is it a wifebeater designed for a twelve-year-old dwarf? Because that’s an awful lot of exposed midriff for a wifebeater. Although I guess Sal could just cut the bottom third off her shirts ’cause, y’know, she’s a rebel.
Oh, okay storyline. I was kinda curious what happened with Dorothy and Walky the other night, but your right. What we *really* needed was an update on Walky’s ongoing quest for panjama jeans. Truly gripping entertainment.
Loading ...
A decent pair of PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANTS!
😀 🙂 😀 🙂 😀 🙂 😀 🙂 😀 🙂
HAHAHAHAH XD
I should send this to my brother-in-law. He specifically doesn’t wear pants unless he has to for work.
He must be your husband’s brother, not your sister’s husband, no?
Why would he not be my sister’s husband? Plenty of kilt-wearing husbands out there =p
Though, yes, he says he needs to get some of those tear-away pants so he can come home from work and *rrrip!* no pants!
Solomon Grundy want pants too!
Holy crap, I thought I was the only person who remembered that commercial.
Wonder Woman: “You girls are developing into quite the young superheroes!”
Powerpuff girl: “Someday, maybe we’ll be as developed as you!”
Lex Luthor: “Pfftch! Snerk! LOLOLOLOL”
Assembled cast: “LOLOLOLOL”
HA! I KNEW this was a small world!, but this small???
“But there’s a ‘d’ in ‘destroy’ as in destrooooyy them!”
…
“DESTROY them!”
I… I think I remember this xD
Look! I just want a pair of pants! A decent pair of pants!
YouTube forgets nothing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQEAiZJMco
SIR, I AWARD YOU ONE INTERNET
You know what hasn’t been commented on since http://www.dumbingofage.com/2011/comic/book-1/06-yesterday-was-thursday/hospital/ ?
Nothing important. Don’t even bother to follow the link.
WITH. UTILITY BELTS. BIZARRO. WILL CRUSH. THE SUPERFRIENDS.
Yeah, most brothers don’t look at their sister’s crotches. It’s an honest mistake.
Or he COULD just be looking at her bare legs.
He’s thinking: “I could go for some chicken thigh nuggets right about now.”
he may be looking at his sisters crotch, but he’s thinking about dorothy. Honest!
Not true. Most brothers will go “DUDE! PUT SOME CLOTHES ON!” to which I would respond “Sure. As soon as you put down the toilet seat and put the toilet paper on the roll. If you’re gonna act like a stereotypical male, I’m gonna act like a stereotypical female.” mwahahaha!
There’s a stereotype that females go around without wearing pants? That’s a new one on me. o_O
2nd girlfriend didn’t even bother with underwear around the house most of the time. You say stereotype, I say realistic.
Awkward.
Pants are highly over-rated anyhow.
True. After all, restaurants don’t say “No pants, no service.
True True.
Eew. Wincest.
You do know that what you just said is a contradiction in terms, right?
Nah, my autocorrect just converted “Wheee” to “Eew.”
That’s believable, right?
Only if there was an auto correct in these comments, so sadly NO.
But there IS autocorrect on the iPad 2, from which I posted my last two comments. So YES.
I did not know about the iPad 2 being able to do that for comments here.
It does it for everything you type, no matter where.
Fuck the iPad 2, then. Auto-[whatever] is the Devil’s arse trumpet.
Nonono, you claim Bolivian is your first language and say you got confused about the interjections.
its only a win if they enjoy it, and i think for these two it would be twincest. either way i agree: eew
I was refering to Wincest itself which in some circles is a term to describe any incest pairings that the fans love.
I thought it referred to Winchester incest from Supernatural
i was replying to Doom Shephard
Hey, if it’s good enough for the Lannisters…
a Lannister always pays his debts…with his penis
*punks*
Relax, folks. technically it’s not incest if you aren’t drawing a mental picture of the moment of penetratioOOOMG!
Thank you. Thank you very much. (Oh god, my brain!)
WINCEST: The boardgame the whole family can play.
There is just so much NO I want to yell at this. But there’s really only one statement that holds that much no.
A BAT CREDIT CARD?!?!
*wild gunfire*
WHYYYYY? Why do you have yet another avatar!?
It was a decent couple of minutes before I started reading.
Decent, you say? Ri-i-i-ight.
It was a decent couple of minutes… until they turned guuuUUURREAT! Huh? Because nothing brightens my breakfast like a lil dark meat!
It’s OK, Sal, -you- don’t need any pants.
Um, did I miss something? Why is Walky trying to tell Billie to buy pants?
Perhaps Dorothy told him something we don’t know about yet?
I’m assuming he’s referring to the pajama jeans. Not sure how he jumped to the conclusion that she would be interested in them though.
She’s got dem hips. She would LOVE pajama jeans.
He wants to tell Billie about the awesomeness of pajama jeans.
It would change her life forever!
Comfort and professionalism? What journalist could go without?
It’s the scoop of the century! hot off the presses!
Freshly pressed pants.
“I’m selling these fine pajama genes…” 😀
Pajama genes?
Did you find them with Folding@Home, or did Blue Gene discover them?
Really?
No. I’m lying.
In that case, I don’t want one.
Yep, sorry we couldn’t make a deal.
FYI – This was in response to Gargamel’s post.
:3
And can the camera just pan a little lower to her feet?
Please?
I am going to stand waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here.
RUN WILLIS, RUN!
With, like, shoes on and stuff!
Also, don’t forget on put on some PAAAANTS!
For a nickel
Oh Willis, this is the internet.
You can never get far away enough.
I wanna see Ultracar’s wheels.
Is he wearing hubcaps, or is he going “commando”?
Commando is the way to go!
Please pan the camera to the right. Yeah, that’s it. The smoke alarm onthe ceiling. Rawr. You naughty smoke alarm, you.
Run? there is no run, silly, these are the internets!
The Internet! Telling us WAY THE FUCK MORE THAN I EVER WANTED TO KNOW about other people’s fetishes!
Whether I’m kidding or not, I love the reactions this got. 😛
Pantaloons, (n.)
A nether habiliment of the adult civilized male. The garment is tubular and unprovided with hinges at the points of flexion. Supposed to have been invented by a humorist. Called “trousers” by the enlightened and “pants” by the unworthy.
–My great great (who knows how many greats) uncle Ambrose.
Yes. Billie needs pants. And Walky needs Brain Bleach.
The Pants Song
Yes. This will help Walky get him mind off of seeing his sister in her underwear.
prolly affects us more than him. we’re the perv’s thinking about twincest. to him, his sis just ain’t that attractive.
especially since shes the dominant one in the relationship.
They’re twins, what are the odds he’s never seen her in underpants before?
More than that, appearance-wise, they’re both the opposite-sex clones of each other… long hair not-with-standing.
I’m fairly sure that those bits look different on opposite-sex twins, cloned or otherwise.
MAAAAAYBE…..
I guess you don’t have siblings.
How’d you guess.
To be fair, she’s the one who answered the door without pants. She shouldn’t be getting mad at Walky.
I’m sensing some one-sided sibling rivalry. Walky doesn’t seem to care, but Sal’s still nursing a grudge. She’s just interpreting everything Walky says as a snark.
What we don’t realize, but she knows, is that beneath the McNugget sauce lies the Zen Master of Snark.
I’m fairly certain she’s right in that regard. Trying and doing are two separate things, after all.
And that made me think of an interesting idea, where Walky was the evil twin always getting his sister in trouble.
And Billie needs to know about pants in the middle of the night because….? And Sal answers the door minus her’s because…?
It’s not the middle of the night anymore. It’s Saturday morning.
I guess if Billie is hungover that implies that it’s the next morning, although we haven’t seen a window
yeah, what Aydr said while I was typing.
Like how sometimes we see the clock change, sometimes we see the sun rise. Here we find out that our protagonists are hung over. Time has passed!
sal answered the door without pants because she’s a rebel. now if you’ll excuse me, i need to go find me some rebels.
AAAAAAHHHHHH! It burns!!! The IMAGE! Get it out, out out out!
Hey, that’s my job.
Could be worse, it could be WALKY without any pants on.
Him in his boxers? That’s not disturbing.
I agree. That’s far less disturbing than seeing a gal in her undies, OUTSIDE of her dorm. If he were wearing tightie whitie brands, yes, but it’s confirmed Walky wears Boxers.
I’ve walked around in nothing but a giant t-shirt and underwear in my apartment, it’s not really THAT scandalous.
But do you answer the door that way?
When I was in high school my friend’s sister, an adult with teen children herself, answered the door in bra and panties and preceded to remain in such for the duration of our visit. Apparently, I was lucky she wasn’t naked.
…wait, your friend’s sister was double your age?
If you want to get rid of Jehovah’s Witnesses you do.
Yeah, I have actually.
Any reason why Walky should ask Billie to buy some pants?
You’re right. Billie is much better off without pants.
Wait, Sal AND Billie are without pants? What’s going on in there?
And for a srs bsness moment here, Walky’s probably still flipping out about the wonder of pajama jeans.
Vindication of a bunch of fanfics, some of which are older than DoA itself?
Was Sal >B Billie?
Until more context is provided I will be shipping this… hard. Probably after context, too.
Uh how about the they’re brother and sister angle…
Some shippers don’t care well at least the ones I know of.
That’s one where I’ve never understood the objection. I don’t fetishize it, but really, if siblings want to, then why is that odder than furries, BDSM, or crushing on cartoon characters? There’s plenty of weird sex out there, and as long as it’s consenting adults, who cares?
Not odder than. They’re on an equal level of no. At least to me.
To me the difference is the results… if it causes a considerable increase in the incidence of genetic disorders and birth defects, that’s Mother Nature’s way of saying you shouldn’t be doing it. If it only causes permanent harm when you do it wrong, it’s fine, but be careful.
So…it’s fine as long as they use birth control? That makes sense to me, that way they don’t hurt any potential kids.
@SUTBEric, I’m not saying you should do your sister, just that if someone else wants to, they should be able to. Why do you object to a couple doing something that doesn’t affect you in any way?
Yeah, but it really doesn’t except over a period of several generations. Even then it is certainly less harmful than many legal activities. Sibling incest is traditionally reserved for divine couples, necessary to prevent their “blood” mixing with mortals (which is in many cases considered fatal for the mortal involved anyway), and is thus taboo because it is acting above your station. Every culture has incest taboos, but every culture defines incest differently; just like with cannibalism . . . hmm, cannibaltwinsim (oh yeah).
But then we get sibling marriage in royalty… you know that weird, slightly pointed thing in pictures of the Pharaohs? That’s the result of generations of sibling inbreeding. That’s what their heads looked like.
Well there’s the… completely illegal aspect of it. Dressing up in a fursuit for sex? Not against the law. Doing your sister? Totally against the law.
Legality often has only a passing association with morality. Sodomy is illegal in many states, but gay characters aren’t automatically objected to by anyone other than bigots.
But just because legality CAN be unconnected with morality, doesn’t mean it IS. That’d be like saying that necrophilia might be okay, even though it’s illegal. (Granted, your “consenting adults” stipulation earlier keeps that from being true, but what if they signed some sort of document prior to death? Ew this is gross I’m gonna stop talking about it.)
Just because one thing is/was illegal and shouldn’t be, doesn’t mean that all illegal acts shouldn’t be. There are some things that are just wrong, and the psychological/genetic effects that incest has are just more hints towards its wrongness.
The psychological effects are only on the involved parties, so, again, that’s no one’s business except their own. The genetic effects are iffier, but if they’re safe the issue doesn’t come up, and if they aren’t, it’s no different from a woman over 40* having kids.
As for the necrophilia example, consent is the issue. If the person who died signed a document beforehand, then I have no objection. “Sick and wrong” is not the same as immoral.
*There’s a significantly increased chance of Down Syndrome once the mother passes 40.
“‘Sick and wrong’ is not the same as immoral.”
o.o
im·mor·al [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
adjective
not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
I dunno, I think “sick and wrong” fits in there pretty well.
Depends on your dictionary.
Immoral: Contrary to accepted moral principles.
Well, not much help, so let’s check out “moral”
Moral: Of and concerned with the principles of right and wrong in relation to human action.
I don’t see incest as morally wrong, given that definition.
Just because not all acts not sanctioned by law are wrong doesn’t mean that all acts not sanctioned by law are right?
Well okay, that’s fine. An illegal act can be either morally correct or immoral. Just…. what was up with that previous point then? The one where we were supposed to object to it because it’s illegal.
The first post was a response to comparing incest to furries or people into BDSM. The second was more saying “Just because legality CAN be unconnected to morality, doesn’t mean it should be completely ignored in processing morality.” Hopefully that keeps things clear.
Legality should be considered when making decisions, and it can be a good shorthand for determining morality in some situations, but in general, I think legality has no bearing on morality. If a moral act is illegal, then the law is wrong.
ah, that makes sense. Thank you for your patience in explaining this to me^^
Well, homosexual acts were also against the law at some point, so I dunno if “it’s illegal” is an ironclad argument against the practice.
In a strictly pragmatic sense, it shouldn’t be a problem so long as both parties can legally consent and one of them isn’t an authority figure. In all other senses, OH MY LORD NOOOOOOOOOO.
We also imprint on our relatives that we grow up with, in a way that discourages sexual attraction. Basically, nature has designed us not to want to bone our siblings.
So it might be legal, but it suggests some… awkward social and psychological dynamics.
In layman’s terms, it is F***ED UP.
See, this makes me wonder how early on Sal was sent to Catholic school. The Westermarck effect is based off physical proximity, not biological similarity. Theoretically, if Sal and Walky were separated before the critical period, they might actually be more likely to want to bone each other, thanks to genetic sexual attraction.
…And that’s waaaaaay too much of my morning spent contemplating fictional incest. G’night, folks.
Westermarck happens between ages 0-6. They’re similar enough in age to be in college — wait, aren’t they both freshmen, too? How’s that work? — and Sal was sent off as a problem child, so I assume they had perfectly standard imprinting opportunity.
(Or anti-imprinting; the flipside is genetic sexual attraction, very strong attraction to close relatives when you *didn’t* grow up together.)
@drs They’re probably twins. They were twins in their last incarnation, and the “both freshmen” thing seems to support that in this one too.
Sure David, your text says no, but your avatar says yes.
And you were creeped out by the one foot fetishist guy from before. Look what you’ve wrought with your Fire-hands of Mount Doom.
And I will now remember you as the person who argued at length on the virtues of incest.
As Evelyn Hall said, “I may disapprove of who you fuck, but I will defend to the death your right to fuck them.”
…
I may be paraphrasing somewhat.
If Riff Raff and Magenta can get it on, so can Walky and Sal.
D’you figure Sal and Walky are going to elbow fuck?
Let’s do the time warp again?
Twicest does NOT equal wincest. Also I’m going with Willis on this, this isn’t the Ultimates…. Fuck you Loeb and Millar
That was just Loeb’s fault.
Every fiber of my being is hoping you do not do this.
Never let it be said that Willis doesn’t love his readers.
I’ve just realized Sal and Billie actually have something in common–hatred of Walky. Perhaps they can bond over it.
But somehow I doubt it.
Apparently they both are in need of pants. Maybe they already have bonded over it?
Can’t stop looking at the last panel.
Ooooh Sal’s underpants. Time for them to go to my cellphone xD
I don’t get it.
Why would Walky be telling Billie to buy pajama jeans? I could understand him telling Dorothy to get Pajama Jeans, but Billie just doesn’t make sense. Unless of course Billie has been known to bemoan the lack of pants that are both stylish and comfortable.
Or is it because Billie and Walky wear the same size pants and this is his sneaky way of getting pajama jeans for himself without going into a women’s shop(assuming that pajama jeans are strictly a woman’s item).
Billie and Walky are friends, from before they went to college. Even if Billie is being something of a bongo in an attempt to improve her social status in college.
Pajama jeans are a thing–Willis didn’t make up that ad. They do only seem to be available in women’s sizes.
Yeah, I just saw a commercial for those things tonight. The ad only showed women, so you’re probably right. The ad was for pajamajeans.com or something like that. (the sound was muted and I wasn’t really paying attention anyway)
Plus Billie is the only one who has worn sweats to class at this point, I believe.
Probably because Walky is more in a “omg! these things are awesome, I must share!” mindset than a “you’d look hot in this” one right now.
I got the impression that he didn’t know any places where he could get women’s pants and he wanted somebody to get them for him. Then he said stuff about living vicariously through them, and now I have no idea why he wants them to get the pants.
(Damn, we really need different pronouns for gender neutral third-person singular and third-person nonspecific plural.)
Honestly, I think pants are just an uncomfortable lifestyle choice that society is forcing upon the populous.
I agree.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that, there are plenty of people we are all better off seeing WITH PANTS ON rather than off.
I would like to contend that many of those people have or will breed, so someone disagrees.
What one does in the privacy of a bedroom is one thing. I see enough ick on a beach or at a pool without having to see it while I’m eating or buying new pants. Pants are not for the 99%’s pleasure. They exist to defend us from the 1%.
…so for the good of the county Occupy Your Pants!
I’d occupy Sal’s pants :3
Oopss… Walky just can’t win it seems XD
I don’t think Sal needs pants.
Ever.
Dammit, Joe avatar, I didn’t mean for that to me so pervy.
Somewhat pervy, sure. But not JOE pervy.
But don’t we all have a little Joe inside us?
Half of us have one on the outside too. Well, at least the ones named Joe.
And the other half, Joe wants there to be a little Joe inside them.
Oh gods… now I’m ‘shipping Walky and Sal in my mind. I really am a pirty dervert. 😀
I lived in a co-ed dorm myself and don’t recall ever seeing the ladies answering the door in just their panties. Granted I was in the female hallways very rarely and never in the morning where they might be coming or going in various states of undress to see if answering the door in just their unmentionables was a common thing or not.
Where was I going with this again?
Some women are okay with random strangers seeing them in shirt and undies. See also: My sister.
Perfect avatar for that comment. 😉
Why shouldn’t they be? You see just as much if not more when you go to the beach.
I wasn’t making a judgment, I was just saying because so many people here seem to have their mind blown by the idea that some women are okay with being seen in their underwear.
you were lamenting not visiting the female dorms in the morning.
well, there was less pointing and laughing at me by them by me NOT visiting.
Worked out better for everyone
If I still have a Walky avatar this is going to be awkward, but what the heck:
I approve the Sal-service.
Awkwardness accomplished!
Achievement unlocked!
Bleep-bloop!
Turtles all around.
All around? My dear, it’s turtles all the way down!
Walky be checkin’ out all kinds of hoochies today.
Pants are an illusion. And so is death.
There are no pants; there is the Force. 😛
pants are a lie, there is only passion…
Wow. the code of the sith just makes it sound dirty.
if walky’s going door to door talking about pajama jeans, he needs to wear a baby blue suit.
http://www.shortpacked.com/category/comic/book-8/01-skeleflex/
0_0
Some longtime readers get to be temporary workers at Shortpacked!. For you: this.
It took me a while to “get” it, but here’s the rub:
Walky really wanted to tell Billie about pants. He didn’t notice that Sal wasn’t wearing any until the last panel, upon looking down. The “unfortunate coincidence” refers to the situation described above.
It does NOT refer to the fact that Sal says “Fuck you!” to Walky while he’s staring at her crotch.
So… is that a sports bra? Or is it a wifebeater designed for a twelve-year-old dwarf? Because that’s an awful lot of exposed midriff for a wifebeater. Although I guess Sal could just cut the bottom third off her shirts ’cause, y’know, she’s a rebel.
shes a biker. its a wife beater.
probably has a wife to go with it. She’s pissed cause walky’s interrupting her.
*crack* “Thank you please may i have another!”
he needs better snaps for his sister. this is sibling banter! that third panel i’da said something like:
“Yeah, cause I care about your life. My reports to the higher ups are in MLA format.”
or “Be polite. When your roommate shaves all your hair off while you sleep, you’re gonna need help hiding the body. (points to self) Yo!”
or on the fifth panel: “BTW you may wanna stand out of the doorway before someone sees your balls hangin’ out…again.”
My snappy response for panel three would have been, “Why yes, because it’s so controversial to find you in your dorm room. Oh the horror!”
As a reader, I feel required to say HELLOOOOOOOOOOO NURSE!
Goooooooood night everybody!
This comic taught me that I don’t glance ahead when I read comics, because I certainly did NOT see panel 5 coming!
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!
Walking around with no pants. The ultimate form of rebellion.
Mr. Willis, I’m very thankful for the last panel.
Aaaaand now Sal is Sakaki..
Seriously though, apart from skin-tone there are some definite similarities there.
Oh, okay storyline. I was kinda curious what happened with Dorothy and Walky the other night, but your right. What we *really* needed was an update on Walky’s ongoing quest for panjama jeans. Truly gripping entertainment.