yeah but like, you don’t need to specify that one individual is naked. If that’s a required factoid of the statement, the engineer, mathematician, and physicist should also be naked. But there’s no mention of that.
Now i don’t have much experience in relationships, particularly inter personal ones, but to my knowledge, you are generally clothed most of the time.
You are overthinking it. This is just a premise to setup the joke that an engineer deals with approximation while the other two give up because they’ll never reach 0.
It could be a bowl of ice cream for all that matters, but people like corny jokes, so that’s it.
I don’t think it’s the same joke when it’s three turtles or a goat, because the joke is “I think I can get close enough…to engage in unspecified sex acts with this woman.”
You think the same chemicals that turned the frickin frogs gay is responsible for this aversion to sexual thoughts? “Could it not be a naked woman? That clutches my pearls.”
“I think I can get close enough…to engage in unspecified sex acts with this woman.”
that’s what i would assume, but then again it never states anything, so this is like walking into a fucking storage shed and seeing a colonoscopy going on. It’s just fucking weird.
The mathematician is naked, something about pure and direct truth. The physicist is wearing a bow tie, chippendale cuffs and a banana hammock. The engineer has on his new invention: Assful chaps.
Is it really that confusing? If it had said there was a pot of gold the implication is clear that the person who reaches it will be rich. You ask “why a nude woman?” and the answer is simply because, just like being rich, desiring a sexual partner is a common desire.
i still don’t see what the point is.
The engineer will never reach her, but his boner will.
im pretty sure most people have arms. An engineer almost certainly does.
Because a sexual relationship requires 2 people to touch, so it is a relatable setup.
yeah but like, you don’t need to specify that one individual is naked. If that’s a required factoid of the statement, the engineer, mathematician, and physicist should also be naked. But there’s no mention of that.
Now i don’t have much experience in relationships, particularly inter personal ones, but to my knowledge, you are generally clothed most of the time.
You are overthinking it. This is just a premise to setup the joke that an engineer deals with approximation while the other two give up because they’ll never reach 0.
It could be a bowl of ice cream for all that matters, but people like corny jokes, so that’s it.
no i understood that part. Unless the naked woman has something to do with that part of the joke itself, then i don’t know why it’s mentioned.
Were you neutered as a child?
no i just don’t fucking understand why the naked woman matters here.
Could be fucking anything, a pile of a billion dollars. Three turtles, or a goat, it’s the same joke.
Like a naked woman.
i mean yeah, that’s one of the options. Could also be an orphan source.
I don’t think it’s the same joke when it’s three turtles or a goat, because the joke is “I think I can get close enough…to engage in unspecified sex acts with this woman.”
You think the same chemicals that turned the frickin frogs gay is responsible for this aversion to sexual thoughts? “Could it not be a naked woman? That clutches my pearls.”
that’s what i would assume, but then again it never states anything, so this is like walking into a fucking storage shed and seeing a colonoscopy going on. It’s just fucking weird.
You objection is noted Mr. Spock. Man your station, please.
also, if the woman is naked, does that mean the mathematician, engineer, and physicist are also naked? Because that would make a lot more sense.
The mathematician is naked, something about pure and direct truth. The physicist is wearing a bow tie, chippendale cuffs and a banana hammock. The engineer has on his new invention: Assful chaps.
i like this interpretation of it.
Exactly, it’s the same joke regardless so why get bent out of shape over it?
i mean yeah, i guess so, but that’s not what im confused over.
I just want to know why specifically it was written with a nude woman? It never alluded to anything in particular.
I thought it implied an erection.
that could be it.
Is it really that confusing? If it had said there was a pot of gold the implication is clear that the person who reaches it will be rich. You ask “why a nude woman?” and the answer is simply because, just like being rich, desiring a sexual partner is a common desire.
A pot of gold explaining the rules to you about it ringing a bell would definitely be even more suspicious than a random naked woman.
i would definitely be more suspicious of it. This is probably another paradox frankly.
It’s a pot of gold. Obviously there’s a leprechaun involved who will be presenting the riddle.
i think it would make equally as much sense, if not more, if the word naked was just removed.
It’s just fucking shoehorned into it.
It could be a research grant.
engineers love research grants, well known behaviorism of an engineer.
I have friends who are engineers and whose job is to turn theoretical research into applied projects to find research grants for their team.
schrodingers engineer