Talk:1128: Fifty Shades

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Considering dogs can only see in black and white (and all the grays in between), Fifty Shades of Grey would be a great book for Wishbone to reenact IMO! --Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct, see wikipedia:Dog#Vision. --Kronf (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected! However, I'll still leave up my comment because it gave me a chuckle thinking of it.--Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
More importantly your comment should remain for transparency reasons, one can't simply destroy any evidence that one was wrong 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Wishbone get discontinued in 1998? There can't be a Fifty Shades of Grey episode. Davidy22(talk) 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it got moved to "Adult Swim"? :) --B. P. (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, you are correct and Wishbone ended in 1998, but if xkcd had to adhere to such a rigorous use of real life elements such as the proper time period in which a TV show used to air, then today's comic would have been impossible. You must be at least a little flexible. Also, I'm certain there isn't such an episode, that would be impossible, as you pointed out. The main thing here is that Randall combined both the nature of Wishbone with the nature of Fifty Shades of Grey to produce a hilarious concept which concludes in a magnificent explosion of laughter. I for one can look the other way in regards to the fact that Wishbone ended in 1998. I'm curious. Were you trying to troll the comments section? (no offence) --DelendaEst (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't really seem like a troll post. He probably just doesn't get the comic. --SuspendedPhan (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Oi, check the history of the explanation page. I wrote the explanation, I was just nitpicking here. Davidy22(talk) 23:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fifty Shades of Grey is a "novel featuring large quantities of sex," but it is the kind of sex that is important; it is the fetish nature of the sexual exploits in the novel that set it apart from your every day harlequin romance novel, making it the fastest selling paperback. The novel is about a woman that agrees to be a sex slave for a wealthy man for a few months. She signs a lengthy contract that explains what's expected of her, and what he can do to her. The sexual acts involve combinations of BDSM fetishes, including restraints, submission, and inflicting/receiving pain for sexual pleasure. It is the inflicting/receiving pain detail that makes the noises from the TV "inappropriate" and not just someone disciplining/abusing a dog (which could also be inappropriate, just for very different reasons). -- (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I changed the explanation to "Great Illustrated Classics" rather than "Classics Illustrated" as the graphic novels are probably too old for Randall to have read extensively, but Illustrated Classics is right in his age range (speaking from personal experience). Also omitting the "great" from the title seemed more likely than reversing the words. By the way does anyone know how to add non Wikipedia links I want to link to but just dumping the url in the explanation breaks the prose and when I tried to use the ref tag it failed miserably --Chexwarrior (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You can use "[ this is a link!]" to get "this is a link!" (omit the quotes). has that and more. - jerodast (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I want this to be a thing. Just some random derp 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?