Skip to content

Webcomic Header


For a NSFW comic which contains sex, the “kids after marriage” bit reads odd.

But hopefully Phil isn’t a biological Null. Maybe Michelle will find out first…

NSFW? Really?

Maybe my meter’s off…..

The scenery censor/positioning censor/Godiva hair/skipping over *very* NSFW scenes is very well and consistently done, but a hurried look from outside a cubicle could give the (mistaken) impression that everything shows but you just didn’t catch it.

Is that perhaps a common problem with non-blatent but also non-neutered comics?

Obviously we don’t have those kinds of taboos around where I live, which is why it is all odd for me. Nude? Check! Sex? Check! Hitting others, stealing food from plates, … oh, well, maybe there are some taboos we have and comics doesn’t have.

Most companies err on the side of caution to such a degree it’s absurd. I worked for a company a few years ago where a guy was fired for having a pic of his wife in a bikini from a recent vacation on his desk. It wasn’t even a revealing pic, but some blue haired freak reported it to HR and they fired him over it.

I wouldn’t say that is a screen use taboo, but a matter of work environment and personal exposure. Such photos would be frown on here too.

Why do you label a person which opinions and actions you don’t agree with “blue haired freak”? Does the hair color has some significance, and how do you know it was an irrational act? (My guess is that it wasn’t irrational since the company HR acted on the report and that person did get the disturbing photo removed. FWIW I did find a – unknown to me – recent connection to US gender and additionally US conservative politic opinions on the “Blue hair” Wikipedia entry. But those seem parochial, I can’t assume that use.)

Leave a Reply

Primary Sidebar