@TheCrowbar: I respect your interpretation, but i don't think most people would agree with you on it.  

@TheCrowbar: Pretty sure it was meant as a double entendre.  Your links are good, but they are in the middle of the desert, navy ships might not reach there or be particularly effective.  The real telling part is the word "pair" Women have a pair of breasts, but how often is a "pair of guns" referred to?

I've never even heard of a breast joke with numbers for example.  

I can't decide if I like this thread or the one pointing out that her hair would be a 17-foot long bullwhip more.

@SC:  My only issue there again, it's not a common place joke. Not just in CV but in general. I've seen the joke "Tanks!" "You're welcome!" "NO TANKS!" before, it's a common mispronunciation of the word used in joke form.

@TheCrowbar said:

@SC:  My only issue there again, it's not a common place joke. Not just in CV but in general. I've seen the joke "Tanks!" "You're welcome!" "NO TANKS!" before, it's a common mispronunciation of the word used in joke form.

 You mean to your subjective discretion? 

If you can find a youtube or media link that uses numbers to mention breast size( And don't be coy and try using the Red Hood page, specific and clear), I will say yes it's clearly a gap in my understanding, beyond that it's not subjective, and this premise of this thread is grasping at straws.

I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of her blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. 

@TheCrowbar said:

I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of her blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. 

Just thought i would fix that  I think in terms of whether there was innuendo or not is kind of moot.  I can get numerous members of the CV community to back me up on this, including some of the almighty eyes in the sky.  

@SC:  You're better than that SC. No one can reasonably prove the absence of anything.  If you want to prove this is a joke, show me evidence of it. Show me similar jokes.  It would give me a inductive reason to believe what you're saying.  My assertion is that's not a joke, or an innuendo. Unless you can prove it is, then the only logical belief to have that it isn't, because there is no third option, If not A then B.  As for the other people in the thread, I would believe they were like me when I first read the thread. I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of his blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. In a comic that's so obnoxious with it's misogyny, this kind of subtly doesn't fit.  Numerical size joke about breasts, it's not a common usage for breast size in jokes or  normal conversations. Most readers of the Comic wouldn't even pick up on it because of that. And it would be an incorrect measure of her breast size if it was a joke even Razza points that flaw out. 

I have to say, while a lot of things annoy me in this book, referring to her by her Breast size isn't one of them. It just a quip. Doesn't offend me. I think it was just a mindless quip/line for a giggle.

@RazzaTazz said:

@ReVamp: I didnt make the claim that it was offensive, I made the claim that it refers to nothing ;)

Hm. Point taken, but I don't think that it has to refer to something, I think that for the target audience, the pun is done and acheives what it is meant to.

@TheCrowbar said:

@SC:  You're better than that SC. No one can reasonably prove the absence of anything.  If you want to prove this is a joke, show me evidence of it. Show me similar jokes.  It would give me a inductive reason to believe what you're saying.  My assertion is that's not a joke, or an innuendo. Unless you can prove it is, then the only logical belief to have that it isn't, because there is no third option, If not A then B.  As for the other people in the thread, I would believe they were like me when I first read the thread. I trust Razza's judgement on a lot of his blogs, then I reread the comic on my way to work. The innuendo isn't there. In a comic that's so obnoxious with it's misogyny, this kind of subtly doesn't fit.  Numerical size joke about breasts, it's not a common usage for breast size in jokes or  normal conversations. Most readers of the Comic wouldn't even pick up on it because of that. And it would be an incorrect measure of her breast size if it was a joke even Razza points that flaw out. 

 No, I am really that bad... just like Leeroy Brown.  lol *smile*  I believe I was the one who brought up that about proof? I don't want to prove this as a joke, I am saying that you can't prove its not. Simple yes? Then no, the logical belief is not to believe its not, unless your attempting to force the issue. The third option, is that we don't know.  We either know it is, we know its not, or we don't know. Don't make Richard Feynman sad.  Reading though the thread and reading comments it appears actually most tended to accept it was intended as a joke. I can say for certain that three people at three least did. Name one other person who holds your view? You think its subtle? Well see there's another difference, I didn't lol, I thought it was as blatant as the rest of the comic. 

@RazzaTazz said:

@ReVamp: I was just concerned that it catch on as a saying among comic book fans, or worse in pop culture.

If it does, you helped it LOL. I kid, I kid.

@TheCrowbar:

Not to join in the argument, but if I can give my two cents, I do think that it was a pun. The Tanks had 38s and Starfire has "that firepower" not only in her blasts, but... in her breasts... I guess, I'm probably explaining it bad :P

I have to say, while a lot of things annoy me in this book, referring to her by her Breast size isn't one of them. It just a quip. Doesn't offend me. I think it was just a mindless quip/line for a giggle.

At the first bold statement. That's an unreasonable request then. I can't deductively or inductively prove something doesn't exist. I can simply point out the argument calling this an innuendo doesn't add up and as such the argument fails to prove its point.  I don't get the Richard Feynman reference, I'm not big on physics. Going through this thread, on this forum in this little corner of the internet people agree with it. The idea of this thread, and correct me if I'm wrong: Lobdell made a breast innuendo but did it incorrectly. I'm saying it's not a breast innuendo so much as a reference of firepower. In the context of where they are and what's going on around them, it makes more sense than an innuendo done wrong.

@ReVamp:  The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could  see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp:  The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could  see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

 
Its a comic. Fiction.  Creative writing 101, characters aren't aiming for good grammar or sentence structure, some times they even invoke onomatopoeia, characters are written as being characters and sounding like characters. Stuff in word bubbles can be wrong. Good writers will try and make some characters actually get it wrong, if that seems like the character. Or for other reasons, like humor. Some time you also don't want to sound too inorganic in setting up a joke either. Writers discretion. Often sentence structures don't make sense in comics. 

@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp:
The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense in its literal form. Since you can't "has 38s" in term of power. Y'know. They were making it fluid for the literal meaning and there was just an extra meaning.

@SC said:

@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp: The sentence structure doesn't make any sense. Julie carries DD's? Julie carries 38DDs? The pun isn't there. If Arsenal's internal monologue was "Who do we know that has 38s" I could see the pun as it stands now though I think people are more or less conceding the point, while I'm saying the premise to the argument is completely wrong.

Its a comic. Fiction. Creative writing 101, characters aren't aiming for good grammar or sentence structure, some times they even invoke onomatopoeia, characters are written as being characters and sounding like characters. Stuff in word bubbles can be wrong. Good writers will try and make some characters actually get it wrong, if that seems like the character. Or for other reasons, like humor. Some time you also don't want to sound too inorganic in setting up a joke either. Writers discretion. Often sentence structures don't make sense in comics.

And that.

@SC: I'd be a Camptosaurus actually.

Again  "Julie carries 38DDs" breasts is not common vernacular or slang.

@TheCrowbar said:

@SC:
Show me an example of "Julie carries big breasts" and I'll agree.

@ReVamp: No but you can have a pair of 5"/38 cannons. And use the cannons as a reference to the kind of power produced. It's often done to explain the explosive force of bombs or when a new weapon is brought out to compare it to a similar weapon of that power.

LOL. But then it wouldn't make as much sense as what was written. It would be inorganic.

"Who do I know that carries guns?"
"Who do I know that carries breasts?"
 
Which one seems more inorganic? Remember they're in a firefight fleeing tanks, it would be more organic to think about the destructive power of your unnamed genderless back up(Remember Arsenal doesn't know who the back up is and there's nothing to suggest that Jason is referring to breasts, especially since Arsenal asked specifically for what kind of back up Jason has to fight the tanks) or to immediately assume he's talking about breasts?
 
@SC: 
What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.
 
Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

@SC:   It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove something doesn't exist according to any logician worth his or her salt.   Again, the sentence structure doesn't make sense for it to be a breast joke.  Which leads me to believe the writer, at that specific time, wasn't making a breast joke.  If you can show me examples of where someone says "Julie carries DD's" or something very similar to that, I could see your point, but it's such an awkward wording, even for an attempted innuendo that it doesn't make sense.  You can get 20 people to agree you Razza and you and it still wouldn't prove the premise true. It's a fallacy of consensus. There are too many irregularities in the structure and context of the phrase for it to be reasonable to assume Lobdell meant for a joke there.

@SC: What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.  Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

@TheCrowbar said:

@SC: What flaw again? Sorry I must have missed it.  Edit: And again, it's not like he made a common mistake here, this isn't the same level as using ain't wrong. To have breasts and to carry breasts have two very different meanings.

 The flaw, that if one can't prove something, then there is one alternative and therefore that alternative is true, without having to be proven true, when in fact what is true, might just not be certain.   So your being as literal as you can with the joke, leaving no room for the idea that the writer cared more about the joke than sentence structure? 

@TheCrowbar: So your assertion is that when Jason says he has 38 of them showing up, that he is in fact referring to naval guns, even though naval guns never do show up, but instead what shows up is scantily (and scandalously) clad Starfire?   

@SC:  Actually the only way to prove me "wrong" is by addressing the points I bring up and explaining them. Which there's an attempt to do. All I have to do to prove you guys "wrong" is show the inconsistencies.   The reason I brought up numbers originally is because  there were independent bloggers and people not related to CV that went through the comic with a fine tooth comb looking for all the misogynistic references. This wasn't one of them.   The reason when you bring up CVers that agree with Razza gets dismissed is because of the potential of group think.  Like when someone says "That cloud looks like a train," and you squint your eyes and say "Yeah I can see it," A filter is placed over how you perceive the cloud soon as some says it looks like a train. The audience is influenced.

Actually that's not what I said at all.  You're saying something is an apple, I'm say it's not an apple. Other alternatives are possible. If A is false, then Not-A is true. Not-A can be any number of things.   It's more of a reach for you to believe he's not making a joke at all, than it is that he'd purposefully mess up sentence structure for a poorly joke presented and very flawed joke?

@TheCrowbar said:

Actually that's not what I said at all.  You're saying something is an apple, I'm say it's not an apple. Other alternatives are possible. If A is false, then Not-A is true. Not-A can be any number of things.   It's more of a reach for you to believe he's not making a joke at all, than it is that he'd purposefully mess up sentence structure for a poorly joke presented and very flawed joke?

 Someone smart I know, tells me not to use analogies, because half the time they are used incorrectly. Like here? I am not saying that its a fact something is an apple. I am saying if we both don't what something is? You can't tell me for fact that I am wrong. I have not asserted anything as fact, I believe its an apple, and due to circumstance, neither of us will actually know. Your actually asserting something as fact. Least you did.  To you, its a reach. Humor is subjective. You think its not?   Might disappear randomly depending on how fast you type. =p

I might also point out that that measurement can change based on the cup size. Once you live with a woman you understand the burden of them trying to find a properly fitting bra and the trouble they go through to find one. Not every bra manufacturer is in agreement. VS will always tell you you are a cup size bigger than a department store. (I can't believe I know and have retained any of this. SEE! I'm listening!)

@RazzaTazz: @The Dark Huntress:

So... I'm trying to think about this like a guy.... Which shouldn't be too hard... What with me having a Y chromosome and all...

First off, I didn't get that comment at all.. I was expecting someone to come out with a pair of 38 specials. So, thanks for explaining it...

Now... I THINK I can explain why a couple of guys would say something like, "a pair of 38s" without mentioning the associated letter... And I'm going to refer to that great philosopher Bill Mahr who, in a routine, explained that men don't honestly care what size a woman's breasts are... He only cares that she has them... For me, this is ABSOLUTELY true... I think T.V., magazines, and advertisements are so inundated with images of huge breasts that many young men growing up thinking that they're supposed to be attracted to very large breasts... but honestly, most of us DON'T CARE... So, perhaps, "A pair of 38s" was simply enough to say 'BOOBS' and they were both happy with that... After a guy has actually seen a few breasts up close he absolutely understands that, when it comes to breasts, be they big or small, perky or affected by gravity, they're ALL nice.... This is a case where size honestly doesn't matter...

The controversy of that one panel has always seemed kind of thin the whole time. Though Razza has explained the concept to me earlier from the point of her view on this, I know that when I read that one line "breast size" was not what was going through my mind. It wasn't till I turned the page and saw Starfire hovering over destroyed tanks that gave me sort of a context clue as to what was being referred to by a "pair of 38s". I attempted to play dumb, but a later line killed that for me when I finally became aware that Kori could not remember a single thing about her past.

What I don't understand though is why would an author knowingly do this? As a writer myself I pour over my work before I publish it, so I find it hard to believe that the author would not notice a controversial line in his own work. Was it simply an attempt to get a character thrown out of a book or was it a middle finger to the female comic reading populace?

@SC:  At the level he writes at(professionally) I think it would require him to write in way suited to that level. Being most of Lobdel's work(from what I remember of it) doesn't have that same kind of error for the sake of joke. I think it's reasonable to believe he's not doing it for the joke.  I'm not the light shiner no. I was pointing out the difference between my appeal to the majority isn't a fallacy of consensus while this one could be.  I will bring it up to a few female friends I know and see if they say it's the same as Razza points out, but I don't see the pair of 38's anywhere which makes me believe it's not just me who doesn't believe that was intended as a joke.   As for snarkiness, you did a very good job with your arguments. You stayed on topic and kept your attacks related to the arguments. I can only hope all my internet discussions go so well.

Actually I'm not referencing you in particular but the argument presented in this thread as well.  And that does state that there's an innuendo here, and I'm saying it not. A is false, then Not-A is true.

Anyway, and as so far your arguments have all been ultimately reasoned from your self as in, what you consider professional level writing and what that requires and what a writer should prioritize. When your argument basically boils down to being the way you think it should be, its not an argument its an opinion trying to be a fact with no actual facts

Plus, you are not arguing Not-A, you are arguing B - refers to her firepower. That is Not-A is true. Its like... your trolling or something... *raises eyebrow*

@SC:  It's not even slang SC. To say he's using his discretion to write that line weird, is too much of a stretch. Especially since we don't see anywhere else someone refer to breast size by its number. There's nothing to indicate he's making a joke there, there's an attempt by some to make it look like another innuendo but it's not there.  

1.) He would have to purposefully screw up a commonly known measurement for breast sizes. Hell even in the thread Razza posted there wasn't anyone claiming "PG has breast over 9000! durrr"
http://www.comicvine.com/power-girl/29-4915/what-size-are-they/92-617830/?page=3 
2.) He would have to be willing to create a slang term that's not used what so ever. Then never use this made up dialect ever again. Seriously in none of Roy's dialogue do we see the usage of such skewed slang other than in this one place. It would be so odd and out of place for Lobdell to do that it's not even funny (no pun intended).
3.) Carrying anything means you're holding something and moving it from one place to another. I'm carrying the groceries. I'm carrying a gun. You don't carry body parts that belong to you. 
4.) The context of it is all wrong. They need help. Roy asks for what kind of help Jason has planned. I know deep down inside I want to believe breasts solve everything but it's pretty evident in the dialogue they have her there for the firepower(In that specific scene)

All of this gives me good reason to believe that Razza's premise is wrong. Too many hoops that need to be jumped and not a sufficient enough explanation for them.   

There's something you're missing here. I'm not making an argument. It's a criticism. The argument that Razza is presenting has holes in it, glaring hole.  I'm pointing them out and they ought to be addressed before this discussion can continue.   

Threads can clarify. But here's the issue with that concept, the thread she's responding to didn't have the issue she's trying to respond to. What there's to clarify? What's there to respond to? 

Her firepower is my assumption but it can be her shoe size for all we know and it's just as likely as breasts after firepower.  I believe it's firepower and I've given reasons why I think it is, but that doesn't mean all of Not-A is firepower only a part of it is. Anything not related to breast size can be "Not-A" Firepower is not related to breasts and therefore part of Not-A. 

You've taken your argument from a focus on the topic to the person. I don't want to deal with that, as such I'll be bowing out of this thread now. I've stated all I need to state.

Boobies.... everyone needs em at some point ;)

Great read Razz, but its 2am so no logical comments from me :P