You see the picture and expect the caption will be some kind of joke based on the scribe’s manner of dress. Instead, they’re commenting about his hair. This was unexpected enough for it to be at least mildly funny to me.
Yes, and even with the tonsure there are aspects left for comparison.
What doesn’t work for me in the drawing is that the baldy chaps seem to be gazing at the lectern-person’s rear end and not at his tonsure (or indeed his hairy/hairless legs, which I initially thought must be the point of the joke).
I thought I understood the comic until the direction in which they’re looking was pointed out.
Since we can’t ignore the legs and heels, how about this possibility: The speaking monk would like to have hair on his head, even if it’s like the scribe’s, so that he could also look that good in drag.
They have hair on their head BECAUSE they shaved their legs to paste it up there! Why? That’s another rabbit hole
Comics I Don't Understand 
You see the picture and expect the caption will be some kind of joke based on the scribe’s manner of dress. Instead, they’re commenting about his hair. This was unexpected enough for it to be at least mildly funny to me.
Yes, and even with the tonsure there are aspects left for comparison.
What doesn’t work for me in the drawing is that the baldy chaps seem to be gazing at the lectern-person’s rear end and not at his tonsure (or indeed his hairy/hairless legs, which I initially thought must be the point of the joke).
I thought I understood the comic until the direction in which they’re looking was pointed out.
Since we can’t ignore the legs and heels, how about this possibility: The speaking monk would like to have hair on his head, even if it’s like the scribe’s, so that he could also look that good in drag.
They have hair on their head BECAUSE they shaved their legs to paste it up there! Why? That’s another rabbit hole