Zits Comic Strip - ArcaMax Publishing

ArcaMax Publishing > The Funnies > Zits

Comment Archive for "Zits for 11/6/2009":

Return to Story | Post a Comment

Posted Comments:

11-18-2009 20:04

lolerific wrote:

re:noobs

not that i have

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-18-2009 20:03

lolerific wrote:

noobs

u guys all act like u have never seen a porno b4 goodness get over it hippy's

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-09-2009 14:20

QuietObserver wrote:

Love Isn't...really

Yes, the cartoon is a spoof of the "love is" cartoons of years past, but this particular Zits is absolutely pornographic. Cover up the spilled tray and what you have is Jeremy's girlfriend prone and offering herself up (grudgingly, but still) to a very excited Jeremy. If that isn't a teen fantasy, I don't know what is.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-07-2009 08:55

janie wrote:

Well, where is he pointing that camera? Not at Sarah's tray that is for sure.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-07-2009 03:52

zopzork wrote:

Comments says more about commentors...

Well, if you are more tuned to porn than comedy, you will probably have a different opinon on what Jeremy is taking a photograph of. LOL!

Those comments calling it porn says a lot about the commenters.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-07-2009 00:53

wrote:

Well now we know that penis angst is the root of Jeremy's insecurities - LOL!

Seriously, there's nothing porno about this strip. It's an obvious spoof of the former "Love Is..." cartoons of 20 to 30 years ago which were drawn in the same vein and were also not pornographic.

Anybody who thinks these 'toons are "pornographic" just has a dirty mind.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 22:21

Marcster wrote:

Well, that was...weird.

These last 2 strips were probably experiments.
no need to stop reading after just 1 thing

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 21:11

paulallen1978 wrote:

Wow, what has this world come to...

I am shocked by today's Zits comic strip. I mean really,.....can you get any more borderline pornographic for a cartoon? This is ridiculous! What's the point?

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 20:02

wrote:

that was stupid.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 18:40

Mary wrote:

Nov 6 comic

Usually love Zits, but was baffled by this one. Too bad...

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 18:21

kid wrote:

LOL!!!!!!!

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 18:18

wrote:

I hate THESE types of bits.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 16:40

Paula Johnson wrote:

Naked

No. Have enjoyed Zits up until they began taking off their clothes. And now we have the teenage boy cell-phoning his girlfriends bare butt.

Did Scott and Borgman do this just to get some press? If so it's a backfire. No longer care to read Zits.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 16:05

wrote:

It's funnier that the real Love Is cartoon, and all the mindnumbed, sappy, freaks who comment over there with 5 mile long Barry Manilow lyrics, thinking they're so deep, when actually, they abuse the heck out of the comment page. They make you want to vomit with their idiocy. This is actually what naked kids WOULD do, isn't it? Take pictures of each others' butts.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 16:04

wrote:

it looks as though he is taking a picture of her as* , rather than her spilt products and tray

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 15:51

spectator wrote:

Who wants to look at naked cartoon caracters, especially little kids?

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 15:44

Mike wrote:

ugh

I've never heard of the "Love Is" comic and dislike this comic thread. I would not know how to explain this to my teen and how do you keep it from them. If they needed to do this then they should have used the parents not the teens. Or, add to it by sticking them in diapers seeing they look like toddlers anyways. Typically this is the comic I like to read the most but not this week.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 15:27

wrote:

(continuing)

It can be debated whether this parodying is funny. (Going by the toast example, no.)

And I have to say I was pondering whether this was a neat double meaning - on one hand, criticising the uploading by teens of videos of mishaps or (more commonly) plain stupid behavior on youtube; on the other hand, the uploading of way too intimate footage by teens. (Don't get me started on oh so unique pulled faces with finger gestures. Yeah, nobody else before you had thought of those, girls.)

But whether the rear-end-photography view of it was part of the joke or not --
-- how did this ever pass the editors?

The genitalia perspective interpretation is so utterly unavoidable.
That kind of forces it out of the "love is" parody mode.

Unless (and I'm sure the authors didn't mean to) one wants to do a rude parody, kind of the way it would work if the (regular) "love is" characters were posed and or looking at one another in a way that makes clear that even though the reader can't see the privates, the other character sure can...

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 15:17

wrote:

Speaking as a non-native-English-speaking immigrant to the US, I find it hard to believe anybody claiming to never have seen the stupid "love is" cartoons.
If your kids aren't mature enough to get the parody and were giggling about the toast strip, they probably shouldn't be handed the comic pages yet at all. Or perhaps there should be a more hands-on approach, anyway. (Again, they can't not have seen "Love is" before - so if they can't make the parody connection, there not ready for all sorts of things they're likely to encounter in the comics pages.
(If you're offended by the nudity in the utterly pointless "love is" cartoons, you can't be helped.)

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 14:52

Kelly wrote:

Love isn't...

These are hilarious, though I can understand some people's concerns over the surprising teenage nudity. Today's in particular--I get that the jokeis he's getting footage of her fall, but it kind of looks like he's got the camera stuck straight in her backside instead.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 14:34

Nathan Powers wrote:

Love Is(n't)

I, for one, am enjoying the parody of "Love Is" as much as I have enjoyed the "Love Is" comics themselves.

Thanks, and keep it up. :)

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 14:21

wrote:

I concur with the people who say this is stupid. It is also derivative and not funny. What's wrong with the authors lately?

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 14:13

Not a prude wrote:

Zombie and Love

These are not funny or suitable for families.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 13:58

Grace wrote:

Today's and yesterday's Zits

Thank you for parodying that cloying cartoon. Please keep it going.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 13:14

wrote:

with kids [and adults] posting anything and everything online nowdays it is very appropriate to get them to realize that it's not always a good idea. js & jm keep up the good work!

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 13:11

Mike wrote:

comic

I have to admit, it certainly does look like he's taking a picture of her butt. Probably that was unintentional, which makes it even more funny for me.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 12:49

teenager mom wrote:

Love Isn't

Jim, totally agree that the zombies were not very funny either.
Michele,I guess I am familiar with the Love IS strips but only after it was pointed out to me. Without getting the reference, when I looked at the strip today (especially after seeing them eating french toast yesterday) I thought maybe she was bringing him breakfast in bed? Most kids looking at the strip would not get the reference to Love Is and so it just isn't appropriate for a newspaper.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 12:26

"prudish" parent wrote:

Not in this home

In response to Red Sam Rackham, we prudish parents choose not to view LOVE IS comics and kindly ask that they not be incorporated in what used to be the enjoyable comic strip ZITS.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 12:21

Michelle wrote:

Not Family Friendly and zits Love Isn't,

Haven't you guys ever heard of Love Is? It's just a a parody. He's not taking a picture of her butt; he's taking a picture of the fact that she's fallen down and spilled her lunch tray. Nothing is anatomically correct, and it's not at all inappropriate.

Google Love Is, and you might understand what's going on.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 12:21

concerned mother wrote:

Zit's comic strip 11-6-09

My 3 children age 16, 14 and 10, love to come home from school and read your comic strip. Yesterday and today's comic strips were very inappropriate and I had to cut them out of the paper. Please return Zits back to the enjoyable comic strip it used to be and I won't have to cut holes in the comic page.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 12:01

Jim wrote:

Recent Subject Matter

Have you guys gone to sleep?! Last week Zombies - this week naked cherubs!!These aren't funny, guys.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 11:39

teenager mom wrote:

zits Love isn't

Have the creators of this comic lost it? I have loved this comic strip since it came out. My son is 15 and I have been amazed how spot on the strip has been. My family and friends all love it too and we often talk about how "right on" it is. But now the last 2 days have been very strange with the two kids naked? I am no prude but it is just that the teenagers are portrayed as hanging out together nude...eating french toast yesterday in the nude and him taking a photo of her rear end today? Even if kids are having sex earlier these days, I don't think at 16 they are hanging out together eating french toast? At least they should be portrayed as trying to sneak and do it? Either way, not sure if this is appropriate for the daily newspaper?

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 11:37

Red Sam Rackham wrote:

LOVE ISN'T

I really enjoy this parody of those LOVE IS™ comic panels that women love to clip and put on bulletin boards or refrigerators. It's truly Zits™ at its most brilliant. Great work, keep it up. (Do they people who find this inappropriate ever complain about the nude characters in LOVE IS™? Lighten up you prudes!)

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 11:17

wrote:

Not Family Friendly

My nine year old boys were hiding and laughing yesterday and when I asked why, they said, "These naked people are eating french toast." In todays comic, a boy is taking a picture of a girls butt with his cell phone. I'm sorry, but this comic strip is inappropriate.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 10:02

seed_drill wrote:

I have to agree, as someone with no familiarity with the "Love Is" strips, I find these somewhat disturbing.

Also agree that, knowing that Jeremy is a 16 year old horn dog, that just because his head has been superimposed on a cupie doll body doesn't mean he's still not a horn dog. Of course, if he remains as clueless as he is in the "Love Isn't" strips he can look forward to being a 40 year old virgin.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 09:43

wrote:

ok, this picture can be redrawn in so many ways. it's not so much that he's taking pictures of her dropping her tray... but her bare as$ in the air :D now THAT'S something to take a picture of! and... maybe get rid of the camera and draw some OTHER stuff on there... hehehehe

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 08:41

A mom wrote:

This is wrong...

Zits has always been my favorite--I subscribe to the daily version because the characters so hilariously capture life with teens. Everyone in my family can relate.

However the artists have turned a corner today with this one. I guess they were going for edgy and don't care if the parents who've always loved this comic are offended.

I don't know what they were thinking with the whole teen nudity thing, especially with Jeremy videotaping Sarah's vagina and anus. I will cancel my subscription.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 07:42

wrote:

remember people, if you don't like the strip don't read it and leave the rest of us to our folly

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 07:00

coolDUDE wrote:

it s starting to get annoying how zits is always some strange series thing with no real story in it now

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 06:29

Rob Miles wrote:

Baldo comic

Here's the Baldo comic you're talking about: http://www.gocomics.com/baldo/2008/12/23/ There's nothing weird about this, if you pay attention. She told Santa his zipper is open. Here eyes aren't seductive.

If you think this is about Jeremy taking a picture of a naked child, you're the ones with the problem.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 06:17

wrote:

disturbing

I love the Zits comic strip. But I find these "Love Isn't" ones disturbing. Go back to the witty, ironic style we are used to...

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 05:55

Whoa! wrote:

hahahaha

Wow, those Editors must be really Naive. Ever saw the "Baldo" comic where Baldo's little sister is sitting on Santa Clause...she's whispering in his ear and her eyes are all seductive like. Santa blush's and ...well....just take a look at it if you can find it. It was the oddest comic i ever saw, and there was no dialogue. make your own judgement. I thought "maybe I dont know the full story" but it was WIERD.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 04:11

wrote:

Come on ppl, it's got nothing to do with child pornography. Lighten up.
It based on the 'Love is' comics, which always feature 2 naked ppl,
and the idea in this comic is that Jeremy is happily filming (is it Sarah?) trip and fall, and plans to post her fail on youtube. The nudity isn't a factor!

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 04:05

Cultured enough to ... wrote:

There are old cartoons called "Love is..." They're black and white drawings portraying a couple in different situations showing their love for each other. It always starts out "Love is..." and the sentence is finished. In that cartoon the 2 characters have always been drawn with stumpy little bodies and have always been naked. The idea behind this cartoon (and the last) is that teenagers do stupid things not thinking about what love is. Just because you're to ignorant and stupid to catch on doesn't make this child pornography.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 03:21

wrote:

...I don't think Jerry, Scott or the editors thought about this very hard.

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 02:18

yes I am offended wrote:

yes I am offended

I'm sorry, but this is child pornography. That sounds extreme but what else could a young boy photographing a naked girl's body be?! This is disgusting

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 00:44

H wrote:

CP?

I'm sorry, but couldn't help but think that the first second I saw this, MUST be unintenional, right? I'm not offended or anything, no worries :)

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 00:25

your mom wrote:

+ the expression on jeremy's face is PRICLESS!!

Report Offensive Content : Discussion Policy

11-06-2009 00:22

your mom wrote: