i don’t have strong preformed ideas about this so i’m going to examine the facts. from what i know about twinks, the number one thing that would rule him out is having hair on his torso.
i need to tell you not to search “jon arbuckle nude torso” because the first thing you will see is a pencil sketch of jon arbuckle wearing nothing but an expression of uncertainty, legs splayed to display the dick, which has unfortunately been drawn upside down (classic error). in this depiction he’s completely hairless above the waist and has sick abs, but the signature on the piece is not that of jim davis so i don’t believe this is a canonical garfield artifact (garftifact).
also, the second result is a full-nude jar jar proudly displaying a ken doll type situation, which isn’t shocking to see but its presence is a little surprising. further down the page, however, we hit the jackpot.
a fully nude jon arbuckle, as drawn by jim davis himself in august 2006. let this text be our bible. you will note - of course - the absolute lack of hair on jon’s pasty, naked torso. if you were going to argue for his exclusion from twinkdom based on this image, you would have to base your argument on his body type, and i just don’t see it. he’s neither muscular (like a twunk) nor pudgy (like a… i don’t think there’s a word for this those are just regular dudes).
now, the so-called experts at wikipedia do suggest that jon is 29 in the strips, which by most standards is too old to be a twink, but i think it’s clear to anyone who reads the tuesday, december 23rd 1980 strip this claim comes from that this claim is part of a joke and shouldn’t be taken as gospel. i would stress that jon is a cartoon character for whom age is a nebulous concept which is at the same time both fixed and highly mutable.
now, obviously i haven’t addressed whether jon arbuckle is gay which is part of the twink equation but it’s going to take a lot of research before i feel ready to put my views across in the contentious “is liz jon’s beard” debate, because i know how vicious that all can get. but my conclusion for today is that the facts plainly show that the idea cannot be ruled out by any means, and that furthermore it is my personal belief that jon arbuckle is a twink.
On a spiritual level, on a place where you want to be a better human being and listen more, I try. I joke, but it has. I mean, I don’t consider myself a card-carrying Buddhist, you know. But I do believe deeply in the ideas, and I think anytime you have interest in anything, it somehow humbles you.
Yeah… If you’ve just gone through a row or something, the last thing you want to do is talk about it… I put it in ‘When We Was Fab’: 'The microscopes that magnified the tears/Studied warts and all.’ Well, it’s like that, now I’m able to remember all the good things as well, and we really had a laugh when we were really good friends… We got through all that by giving each other strength and support and all that.
So all the time that’s gone between means we remember the good things as well as the bad, and even the bad things we can see [more calmly] in retrospect. It’s like, everybody thinks the Beatles were really this big thing, and maybe they were in one way. But having been one, I can say, 'Well, not really.’ I mean, John was very clever in many ways, but he wasn’t exactly what everybody thinks, and neither were Ringo or Paul or myself. We weren’t all as clever or stupid as we’ve been made out to appear.
George Harrison in response to Chris Willman’s question, “Is it easier to talk about the Beatles after so many years?”, 1987, published by EW, 14 December 2001