I just came across this gem in SAGG's gallery:

[media]2427[/media]

Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 23, 2017, 09:22:43 PM
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

That's a perfectly rational explanation, but it's not very comical. The fun of taking it out of context is that we can explain it in whatever other ways we want, isn't it?

Quote from: Purgatori on May 25, 2017, 01:08:11 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 23, 2017, 09:22:43 PM
Women (and even some men) can appreciate physical beauty in a detached way that has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because in general social conditioning tends to make them a lot less homophobic than men as a gender.

That's a perfectly rational explanation, but it's not very comical. The fun of taking it out of context is that we can explain it in whatever other ways we want, isn't it?

But of course it plays into the whole Riverdale thing, and the actors playing B & V, too.

Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA, which if anything, is the opposite of comical (kinda creepy, actually... Ginger in that one is more like a stalker).

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 25, 2017, 02:05:37 AM
Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA...

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

I responded because I thought you were debunking the idea that the panel could have any LBGT references. The chances are, it wasn't intended to have any, though the author might have considered that such an interpretation was possible


Out of context, from the point of view of finding something interesting or humorous in them, all I take from the panels is the possibility that Betty is expressing a sexual interest in the other young woman

Quote from: Purgatori on May 26, 2017, 06:34:29 AM

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 25, 2017, 02:05:37 AM
Maybe I just wasn't clear on why implied LGBT is comical by default. I mean, KEVIN KELLER is a comical comic book, but it's not comical because of Kevin's sexual orientation. And then there's the whole Ginger Lopez/Nancy Woods thing in AWA...

I guess different people find humor in different things. Maybe to someone it's comical by virtue of the fact everything else we know about Betty says she isn't L/G, or maybe it's just matter-of-fact, depending on how you look at it... because not everything in even a classic Archie story is funny by default.

I responded because I thought you were debunking the idea that the panel could have any LBGT references. The chances are, it wasn't intended to have any, though the author might have considered that such an interpretation was possible


Out of context, from the point of view of finding something interesting or humorous in them, all I take from the panels is the possibility that Betty is expressing a sexual interest in the other young woman

But why would that (assuming it were true that Betty was sexually attracted to another female) be a source of humor, is what I'm wondering.

Clearly in the not-too-distant past, it WAS a source of humor, on occasion, but when that was the case, the writer made it fairly obvious and un-subtle. I'm thinking specifically of one Archie Christmas story where he has to play Santa Claus, but the suit he inherits is far too big for him, and it needs emergency tailoring alterations in order for it to fit him. Archie meets a "fruity"-type tailor who alters his Santa suit into an outrageously flamboyant creation, body-hugging but with a huge frilly, "poofy" skirt to the tails of Santa's jacket. I don't recall the actual name of the story, but anyone who's seen it will recognize what I'm talking about. When you look at that story now, those kind of attitudes about finding humor in someone's different sexual orientation seem really dated and obtuse (which is what makes the story still funny, but in a different way, today).

In the actual story the Betty panels are taken from, (unlike the intentional gay humor in the Xmas story I mention here) there's no overt attempt by the writer or artist at wringing humor out of those panels, so whatever someone sees in it is probably unintentional, and the writer and artist most likely were aware of exactly what I was talking about about females being matter-of-fact and unashamed to admit to admiring another female's beauty. Even if you choose to view it as possible evidence of Betty's bi-curious nature, it doesn't seem particularly funny.

Quote from: DeCarlo Rules on May 26, 2017, 09:22:24 AM
Even if you choose to view it as possible evidence of Betty's bi-curious nature, it doesn't seem particularly funny.

Not in the context of a story, but, out of context, it could be said to be funny, if you thought it was a reference that an Archie editor missed.

I wouldn't want to suggest that it raised more than a smile, but that seemed like the intention of the original post