Nightgown Says Sex / No Sex
Seeing today’s reprint of For Better or For Worse, where John complains about Elly’s nightgown immediately reminded of this strip with Michael and Deanna, where Michael expressed a similar concern, i.e. heavy nightgown = no sex. With today’s strip I am not sure if Elly’s comment about being cold means, “We don’t have sex any more” or “You are not as active in your love-making as you once were.” Either way, it's a slam on John Patterson, which is pretty amazing considering he is all hands in Panel 3. Well specifically disembodied hands with a disembodied head. Speaking as a man, the nightgown was never the thing which stopped my efforts. It was always the woman inside the nightgown.
Nevertheless, the comparison between nightgown and sex was not limited to just this instance between John and Elly. In this strip, John spells it out specifically with a joke about sex and shopping and their place in the dictionary. Although John does not think of Elly as sexy in the heavy nightgowns, there are others who are inexplicably disturbed by it. The point is made most clearly in this strip, where the Pattersons seem to have no trouble viewing a naked Elly, but are distressed by seeing her in a nightgown. The comic strip makes a joke of that, but for some reason I found it a little more disturbing than humourous.
Elly, clearly does not have the same problem as you can tell from her attitude in this strip. She can drive all the way to Toronto wearing a nightgown. Of course we don’t know if Michael’s horror over that is due to seeing his mom in a nightgown, or the fact she didn’t bother to put on something else to drive while out in public.
Of course the best nightgown-related strip is this one. As usual, I like it because it shows a genuine affection between the characters and it is cute and funny. A rare moment in For Better or For Worse for a strip published after 2000.
Nevertheless, the comparison between nightgown and sex was not limited to just this instance between John and Elly. In this strip, John spells it out specifically with a joke about sex and shopping and their place in the dictionary. Although John does not think of Elly as sexy in the heavy nightgowns, there are others who are inexplicably disturbed by it. The point is made most clearly in this strip, where the Pattersons seem to have no trouble viewing a naked Elly, but are distressed by seeing her in a nightgown. The comic strip makes a joke of that, but for some reason I found it a little more disturbing than humourous.
Elly, clearly does not have the same problem as you can tell from her attitude in this strip. She can drive all the way to Toronto wearing a nightgown. Of course we don’t know if Michael’s horror over that is due to seeing his mom in a nightgown, or the fact she didn’t bother to put on something else to drive while out in public.
Of course the best nightgown-related strip is this one. As usual, I like it because it shows a genuine affection between the characters and it is cute and funny. A rare moment in For Better or For Worse for a strip published after 2000.
posted by howard at 7:56 PM
6 Comments:
The point is made most clearly in this strip, where the Pattersons seem to have no trouble viewing a naked Elly, but are distressed by seeing her in a nightgown. The comic strip makes a joke of that, but for some reason I found it a little more disturbing than humourous
It's not only disturbing, it's stupid; I mean, here are all these people who barge right on in when Elly isn't wearing thing one as if they have a right to do so and the second she tries preserving her modesty, they turn into pious frauds. Let's just say that if someone were ever to say that the Pattersons are revolting, I'd reply "They sure are."
Stupid, yes; but also because it doesn't make any sense. What is the embarrassment in being seen in a giant nightgown in your own house? I don't even understand the joke. This isn't a time period where people dressed up to eat dinner in their own house.
Speaking as a man, the nightgown was never the thing which stopped my efforts. It was always the woman inside the nightgown.
Speaking as a woman, the fact that my husband had just turned into a blob with hands for nipples would stop my efforts, no matter what he or I were wearing.
Of course, that last strip you show demonstrates that Elly had been lying in the previous strip where John had asked her if she'd packed that nightgown he likes....
In addition to the disembodied hands, I find the forearms in the first panel disturbing. It's as if a forearm double had been brought in and asked to hide just below the frame and try to look as if her forearms were attached to Elly. And then there is that eyelessness again. Maybe that is why she needed the forearm double.
forworse,
Speaking as a woman, the fact that my husband had just turned into a blob with hands for nipples would stop my efforts, no matter what he or I were wearing.
Maybe this is Lynn’s sly reference to the phrase, “the man was all hands”.
aprilp_katje,
Of course, that last strip you show demonstrates that Elly had been lying in the previous strip where John had asked her if she'd packed that nightgown he likes....
Quite right. I forgot the two strips are a part of the same storyline.
In addition to the disembodied hands, I find the forearms in the first panel disturbing. It's as if a forearm double had been brought in and asked to hide just below the frame and try to look as if her forearms were attached to Elly. And then there is that eyelessness again. Maybe that is why she needed the forearm double.
It’s comforting to know that even back in Lynn’s early days with her 20-year contract in hand, she had no problem turning in art that looked like this. Can you imagine Charles Schulz turning in art like this?
Post a Comment
<< Home