I don’t know why the creationists haven’t been pushing this one.
(Moved below the fold because apparently a cartoon of a naked man and woman will freak some people out. Isn’t it enough to just say it’s a Bible story? That excuses everything!)
Maybe there is a good reason to teach creationism
Thanks, PZ. I won’t be looking at Pharyngula tomorrow at work until this picture falls off the first page because it’s NSFW.
Obviously a man made that cartoon, although I suppose it’s fair enough since that Eve didn’t evolve.
I hadn’t really thought of how opposition to sex ed and promotion of creationism clash with each other, but it seems like a good angle for our side to pursue.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Cartoons with biblical nudity are not safe for work now? We are a nation of prudes.
Prediction: When the inevitable conservative complaints about this harmless cartoon start coming in, at least half will object that Adam and Eve appear to be of different races.
Yes,PZ, we are a nation of boobies.
At least you are not as bad as we repressed Brits…
Although actually the whole buttoned down, sexual repression thing is mostly just a myth, like the stiff upper lip and the idea that every Brit takes high tea.
Having said that, an image such as this would not be safe for work in the UK either, not so much for the cartoon nudity as for the fact that it might offend your Christian co-workers, and apparently if such offence is given it is tantamount to workplace discrimination.
Its the UK’s take on the Christian persecution complex.
There seems to be no link to the source of the image.
How come Eve has a better tan than Adam? Did she spend more time lying in the sun? Or … does the cartoon have a subliminal message of miscegenation! (That’ll rile up some of the fundies.)
Not only was this obviously drawn by a man, it was drawn by a man who has never seen a real naked woman before. Or maybe he hasn’t even seen a woman at all, since he seems to be under the impression that our breasts sprout from our shoulders. Also? Eve only has one leg
Reminds us of R Crumb’s Book of Genesis, a great read, by the way. It’s funny how when shown with all it’s warts and freckles, christianity is offensive… even to christians.
Gregory–Just tell ’em it’s from Page 3!
Boobies were different before the Fall.
Adam and Eve near invariably being portrayed as Caucasians in my experience, I unconsciously assumed they were meant to be that – the difference in skin colour didn’t even consciously register.
Figuring out how this makes me a racist is left as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, right, and the male’s proportions are exactly right on.
Actually, PZ, Adam seems a bit short.
Only one of three ladies has teeth, only two have noses, and let’s not even mention the eyes…
And typically of organised religion’s plot against left-handers, where’s Adam’s other arm?
I often ask religious believers that if the Adam and Eve story is true and evolution is not how do they explain the many homo sapiens phenotypes?
I have yet to receive an answer…
Where’s Steve?
There are direct quotes from the Bible that would be NSFW. I’m thinking Song of Solomon.
That cartoon is so bogus. It shows Adam with a belly button.
Is a cartoon like this really considered NSFW in the US?
A drawing like this would be SFW even in a preschool over here in germany.
It’s hard to believe that adults would consider a drawing like this as offensive.
I wonder how people whose computer monitors are under such close scrutiny manage to read blogs at work at all without getting in trouble.
Um…people?
The anatomy is no more meant to be representational than in Picasso’s work.
Unless, of course, you think that humans have beaks instead of noses, and that the upper lip is a couple times the size of the chin. Or that necks are thinner than the base of the nose, for that matter.
Or are we all assuming that the artist hasn’t even seen a clothed woman, let alone a nekkid one?
Here, let me Google that for you.
Cheers,
b&
—
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
“All but God can prove this sentence true.”
The proportions on that woman are appalling. Her eyes and nose are in her forehead, her philtrum is ridiculously long, mouth is too big, no chin to speak of, and her neck is practically a pencil. The woman on the right is hardly any better.
I demand photorealism from my political cartoons!
Bring in pictures of last week’s baby roast, and invitations to the weekly Hands-On How to Torture Puppies class. This keeps the nutters away from the desk, and you wind up having conversations with interesting and intelligent people so that you don’t have time for blogs. The fruitcakes in IT can’t touch you because you haven’t used the internet/computer, and besides, they are kept in check by the sympathetic IT staff, who are half the people gathered around your desk.
Heh, just beat me to it, Ben Gorin.
Correction, Goren.
*shuffles off for more coffee*
#23
(Background: I have been retired for about 7 years and used to work in a nuclear power plant.)
Where I used to work in the UK the internet was not available on the networked computers, not were we able to upload or download files onto our desktop machines. (e:mail was, of course, available via the company system.)
There was one machine where you could up- and down-load files. IIRC there were 3 machines where you could link to the internet. All 4 machines were in public places (such as the main “street” in the Admin building. We were strongly discouraged from internet access. The internet machines were blocked from access to the plant and company computer systems.
2 reasons were given:
1) Waste of time (not just porn but it is easy to get carried away on the internet – blinding glimpse of the obvious).
2) Concern about system contamination – deliberate sabotage but also viruses, Trojans etc. etc. The plant was computer-controlled with data being uploaded and downloaded mant times a second. Our work management, stores, staff qualifications, chemical safety data and risk assessments were all interconnected and their integrity was essential to demonstrate to our Regulatore that all was being down to high safety standards. (The system used which was available from all desktop computers via password control cost many 10s of millions of pounds). We were (quite rightly) paranoid about safety and security concerns.
If anyone tried to download anything that was not strictly work-related it would have been a disciplinary matter with loss of job a serious possibility for repeat offenders.
Re: multiple comments on human proportions, shapes etc.
For crying out loud! These are cartoons, guys!!
If you want drawings with proper proportions, go to Gray’s anatomy or similar.
Eve was black? You learn something new every day
Clearly this cartoon was drawn by a deaf and blind person, because human speech SO does not take the form of text hovering in the air. Well, most of the time it doesn’t anyway, and when it does it never uses that silly looking font.
Now if only the cartoon had been an illustration of the story of Lot and his daughters…
More like light brown.
It’s nice to see that Adam is uncircumcised, but it’s sad that he only has one arm (since god doesn’t heal amputees.)
How about Rachel and Leah pimping out their servants in a reproductive arms race? There’s some Biblical family values right there, I tell you what.
xmx@9-
That’s OK. Adam has three.
And now I am hoping to have received my Robert Crumb’s illustrated Genesis for the Lot scene. Dang the postal services, must be some communist plot to keep my book out of my reach.
@33:
I’m imagining something like this:
http://bit.ly/hr6vj
“Also? Eve only has one leg”
and Adam only has one arm. (obviously a match made in heaven)
I don’t know how, but it does. Absolutely everyone and everything is racist. If I didn’t know better I’d suspect the intention behind this trend was to dilute the meaning of “racist” to the point where the people to whom the term, as conventionally understood, genuinely applies don’t feel guilty any more. >.>
It’s funny you should mention Lot. A video was banned from YouTube after it was flagged by some Christian moralizers because it contained Hendrik Goltzius’s painting of Lot and his daughters.
Come the fuck on. Racists have never felt guilty.
The unsightly pubic hair is what I object to.
Thank Jebus for Brazilian bikini wax.
Smooooooooooooooooooooooth, baby.
Oh, great, now you’ve done it… >.>
There. Much smooooooooooooother now.
I think we need to some full on, filthy porno based on the Bible. Adam and Eve, the guys with all the wives, Soddhom and Gommorra (sp), all of that.
Then, because it is a truthful depiction of our holy book, demand that it be shown to all of Ohio’s fourth graders.
Adam has a navel, but not Eve. I guess that settles one question.
Yawn, what’s that annoying buzzing I hear? It must be nothing…cogent…
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=df97c0f5-fed6-44af-9c9a-faa3e22a6170
@19
He’s with Bruce.
@21
Maybe god has one too.
Creationists appalled to see depictions of the creation myth of their holy book.? I’m shocked.
Hirnlego @18:
The pair must have shared in some combination the three genes for dark skin color and their analogues for light skin color. At least one of them also had epicanthic eye folds. Genes for things like red hair and blue round eyes were present but not expressed. I hope these facts don’t alarm any of the racist readers.
This looks as if it has been taken from an issue of The Guardian educational section, as it’s in the style of resident cartoonist Ros Asquith:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/series/lines
But of course. God gestated in Mary’s womb. As you would know if you weren’t misled by the foul and disgusting heresies of the Arians and the Mormons.
The problem of below the fold is not because of nudity. It is creationism that is NSFW. It is also NSFL (not suitable for life).
I don’t get it. What is it in this cartoon that is Not Safe, whether For Work or anything else for that matter?
I don’t see how this cartoon would put my safety at risk when I am at work. Or at home. Or in the bus.
OK, if I’m driving, it would not be safe to read Pharyngula at the same time. Or the Wall Street Journal. But at work?
There are plenty of unsafe things, even in places supposedly safe (think Columbine). A cartoon isn’t (except Muhammad’s cartoons).
Greetings from France.
@6
“just a myth, like… every Brit takes high tea”
Wait…they don’t?
@9
“he seems to be under the impression that our breasts sprout from our shoulders”
Wait…they don’t?
I honestly wonder where this stupid “Not Safe For Work” wank started. If you’re browsing the internet from a work site, then the undoubted graciousness of your employer in allowing you to do so is something you may well value, but it doesn’t justify your wish to impose the prudishness, whether presumed or real, of your workplace on the rest of us. If you think your employer or your fellow employees might disapprove of what you do with work equipment in work hours, have the good grace to keep it to yourself.
No think. My employer has a policy of no porn, and keeps track of what you visit, and simply won’t load certain sites. And this not an uncommon practice, since the company owns the local networks and is responsible if somebody is offended…
Well duh! So don’t use their computer to visit this blog. This isn’t rocket science.
This site is fine. It has “science” in the url.
NoR,
I’m offended. Pubes, boobs, a penis, camel toe. I had no idea these things even existed until I saw this drawing.
Oh, yeah, well I do have pubes and a penis. But I never look at them.
Tonysidaway: “Well duh! So don’t use their computer to visit this blog. This isn’t rocket science.”
Consider these four points:
1) Lots of people view this website at work.
2) Lots of people work for companies which will fire you for viewing nudity on their computers.
3) This website’s homepage does not usually contain any images which depict nudity.
4) This post contains an image of nudity.
Now, the nudity concerned is admittedly biblical, and therefore blessed and good.
But nudity it still is. Hence, it is hidden behind one simple click.
SS, are you trying to somehow make yourself fit in here or something?
It’s not working.
SS is still doing worthless trolling posts. Still not cogent. But the, I doubt if he is.
boygenius, #65: “are you trying to somehow make yourself fit in here or something?”
Not really. If I were, is there something I could write to expediate the process? “PZ Myers has an enormous penis, and I would take great pleasure in allowing it to slide down my throat”. Something like that?
I think that, despite your self-imposed tag of “genius”, you maybe don’t understand what this website is fighting for. I’ll give you a quick course: people who have taken authority upon themselves to govern us, to tell us what to do, and to tell us what to say, are to have such self-imposed authorities removed ASAP. We are all independent-minded people who can decide all by ourselves what we’d like to do, read, watch, etc.
I think that you are succumbing to the hardwired human propensity to follow a leader. I reckon you were probably brought up in a mildly Christian family. You’re an atheist by declaration, but your brain is still screaming out for someone – SOMEONE WITH A COGENT WORLDVIEW WHICH HALFWAY VALIDATES YOUR OWN – to lead you along life’s unpredictable path.
I don’t like idiots, which includes people who can’t grasp that NSFW is a useful tag. My comment was as simple as that.
SlantyTroll:
<spoing!>
John Morales there, with a wonderfully constructed and deeply meaningful response.
Bravo, sir.
Then don’t look in the mirror, you won’t like what you see…
My ‘nym is not soi-disant.
Not even close. Born and raised atheist, momma and poppa.
I don’t need validation, unlike some people.
Self-loathing must be a hard burden.
Simple is as simple does.
There is an opportunity for teh ECO to quotemine here:
Though, giving attribution to SS may detract from the glory of it all.
SS wrote
3) This website’s homepage does not usually contain any images which depict nudity.
Well maybe not human nudity.
I always look the bawling prudes straight in the eyes and exclaim, “Yeah! If Gawd didn’t intend nakedness to be shameful we would have been born without clothes on!”
Results in a blush and toe-staring about 95% of the time.
The cartoon is by Ros Asquith who usually publishes in Education Guardian.
Here’s the link to her site:
link
There seems to be a degree of mutual incomprehension on the subject of “Not Safe For Work”.
The fact that the picture in question is a completely innocuous cartoon apparently from a daily newspaper only makes the dialog more surreal. The slow spread of prudishness and grundyism in one’s own lifetime is a painful reminder that the gains of one’s youth will not live on.
The infliction of limitations on a medium, justified by appeal to presumed limitations imposed on viewers from outside and entirely under their control is embarrassing. Would we put a mention of Tibetan independence “behind the fold” lest a Chinese reader get fired or worse? My guess is not, so why limit ourselves in this far less serious case where the employee only has to turn image downloads off while browsing websites not explicitly authorised by his employer? Or better still, browse from his own home system or laptop where he will not be tempted to ask up to coddle his sensitive employer.
That particular Eve has had a boob job.
Prompting questions as to how the first cosmetic surgeon got created.
Oh, wait – maybe it was Adam.
maglione.k @42
Allow me to offer a sincere thank you for my new desktop.
@blf #26 This cartoon keeps the unwashed out of my cube
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/03/02/schrodinger-will-kill-you-like-a-cat-in-a-box/
#44 so you prefer the pre-teen look?
Oh, puh-leeze. Teh Big Penis is so overrated. Right, ladies? RIGHT???
Why doesn’t he have a beard?
Her right leg is obviously up her arse..
The old TV show, Lucky Louie, has a sketch which explains it all.
“Jim Norton debates god”.
As for penis size, a group called the Swallows had a song about it in the fifties, “It ain’t the meat, it’s the motion”.
@SlantedScience:
hehehe. Expediate.