this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2026
400 points (100.0% liked)

HistoryPhotos

1784 readers
67 users here now

HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.
  4. No genocide or atrocity denialism.
  5. Photos MUST be at LEAST 10 years old, and ideally over 20. We appreciate that we are living through events which will become history, but this is ultimately not a comm for news or current affairs, but events which have occurred some time in the past.

Related Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This still-shot comes from the inspired, short, legendary TV series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Addams_Family_(1964_TV_series)

Now, if I tried to talk about The Addams Family here, then we'd be here all day, and much of that time would frankly be down to me bumbling around for words and specific episodes I half-remembered.

But actually, the whole franchise started with Charles Addams' deliciously, lovingly-morbid Addams Family comic art & strip series. You're in LUCK though if you were looking for that kind of thing, because one of our comics-sharing historians here has you covered!

That would be my mate @nocturne@slrpnk.net, who's taking the time to scan and upload his books / material to help create a comprehensive, major picture of the classic Addams cartoons.

That goodness is shared at this sub (altho there are maybe other places I don't know about):
!comics@lemmy.blahaj.zone

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Contraception exists, so you can keep banging without children. Maybe they decided they didn't want more children.

Unless there's some "staunchly against jimmy caps" lore about the Addams I am unaware of.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Contraception usually is advertised with like 99% to 99.9% success rate. So still a bit of a plot hole.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Success rate isn't per time, it's per couple per year. So something with a 99.9% success rate being used by 1000 opposite sex couples will have one of those couples expecting by this time next year. This also assumes that they're having sex pretty regularly in a way where the contraceptive would be relevant. The odds of it working per session are much higher than the stated 99.9%.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you're taking this a bit seriously. But condoms do split, and I'm sure there can be failures in other methods. It was just a bit of a joke

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They're into butt stuff. Both of them.