21 Comments

  1. Husband came home early so her lover had to hide in the closet until her husband fell asleep and he could sneak out. The pajamas are because this is a 50’s cartoon and they could only be “so” risque.

  2. Thinking the actual gag is that the husband is wearing a blindfold, unwittingly facilitating the escape.

    Somehow reminded of a captionless gag by French cartoonist Sempe: A couple is watching TV. Wife falls asleep. Husband sneaks out, jumps in the car, and speeds to an apartment when an eager woman welcomes him. They watch TV.

  3. Minor Annoyance, might have it. Usually the gag is the must rush the man out silently and invisibly while the husband can’t see or her. With a night-mask on the husband they have to be silent (tiptoes and bare feet) but they can be as visible as they want even to the point of waving goodbye to each other.

    But maybe I have it, it’s become routine he has his own pajamas.

  4. In my experience most people sleep with their eyes closed. So I don’t think the blindfold facilitates the escape all that much.

  5. Do people having affairs generally sleep in pajamas?

    (Or, for that matter, generally sleep?)

  6. He had to wait for the husband to fall asleep and it was cold in that closet: why not put on pajamas?

  7. I think Olivier is correct, but I would think most guys don’t keep pajamas in the closet, more likely in a drawer. And if we are to assume that the husband came home unexpectedly, the other guy should have some clothes that he wore there. So kind of an odd comic IMO.

  8. I honestly thought the sneaker was the husband. Wifey is waving to him (as he leaves to go sleep on the couch?) as thanks for not waking her lover.

  9. Reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s old joke where Ole comes home in the middle of the day and Lena’s naked in bed, claiming that’s because she hasn’t got anything to wear. Ole opens the bedroom closet, starts riffing through her dresses and says, “You got plenty to wear, you got a green dress, you got a red dress, oh hello Sven, you got a brown dress…”

  10. The cartoon makes perfect sense if the pajama-clad man lives in another apartment in the same building, or even the house next door. Perhaps his wife is snoozing blissfully behind her own sleep mask (not “blindfold”).

  11. The man in pajamas has his shoes in hand and a coat over his arm — all the signs of the lover who was hiding in the closet now leaving when the husband is finally asleep. Usually he’d be in his underwear, or naked, but I guess this was the 50s –be glad at least it’s a double bed…

    I think that’s all there is, and we’re supposed to be titillated by the risquéness of the whole thing, but only in that vague, “knowing” way, because we don’t actually really understand exactly what they where doing — playing tiddly-winks? “You know how to whistle, don’tcha? Just purse your lips and blow!” [nudge, nudge, wink wink!] (“I mean, you’ve slept …with a lady…” “Yes?” “What’s it like?”)

  12. > but I guess this was the 50s –be glad at least it’s a double bed…

    > but only in that vague, “knowing” way, because we don’t actually really understand exactly what they where doing

    Not in the New Yorker.

    (also by Arno)

  13. That puts a whole new understanding to “making out in the back seat”… (And I mean that totally seriously — I would never have guessed that in the 20s or 30s they’d actually take the back seat out and use it in the secluded area they’d driven to…)

  14. ” I would never have guessed that in the 20s or 30s they’d actually take the back seat out and use it in the secluded area they’d driven to…”

    you know… there are two type of people who both love jokes and have great senses of humor but utterly incompatible outlooks.

    1) There are those, like larK, who think if a joke is logically implausible it can’t be funny.

    2) And there are those, like me, who think if a joke is exaggerated beyond plausibility is can heighten and make the joke surreal and funnier.

    larK, takes it for granted, as did many in this discussion, that because a car can’t be stolen when two people are going at it in the back seat, that the couple had detached the seat (seat covers were detachable then) and while they were busy elsewher, the thieves had stolen the vacated car. The story just isn’t plausible otherwise.

    I, on the other hand, take it granted they the car was stolen while they themselves were in the back seat inside the car but too engaged to notice that the thieves came, dislodged them and the seat, and drive off . To my mind that makes it funnier because it *is* so implausible.

    …..

    Then there is the editor Howard Ross who completely missed the sex angle and that it was just the idea of having just a single part of the car in hand and thought it’d be just the same if he had had a steering wheel. (And admittedly when I first saw it that’s what I thought too.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s