[78-L] Whoopie Boop^

[Ken "Silver Showcase"]

Ron L'Herault wrote:
> Steven,
>
> If you think sex didn't exist in old post-code (I imagine that is what you
> meant by "them days") you are not paying attention.  There was plenty of sex
> it was just not thrust (pun intended) into your face at every turn.  It was
> subtle, hinted at and given visual and/or verbal euphemisms.  
>   

Well, YEAH!  Betty Boop was ALL about sex.  Her clothes were skimpy and 
those toons were stuffed with Freudian images and characters who ogled 
dear Betty.  Post code she was eventually reduced to little more than a 
sweet little lady, but until then she was all about S E X.

-- Ken
> Ron L
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
> [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Steven C. Barr
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:30 PM
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Whoopie Boop^
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Julian Vein" <julianvein at blueyonder.co.uk>
>   
>> Bill McClung wrote:
>>     
>>> The character that became Betty Boop first appeared in the cartoon "Dirty
>>> Dishes" in 1930 as a half-dog, half-human with no name.
>>>       
>> ==============
>> Shouldn't that be "half-bitch"?
>>
>>     
> Virtually all cartoons...especially that long ago...specifically omitted any
> "anatomical details"...?! S*x didn't exist in movies...filmed or 
> drawn...back
> in "them days?!" There MAY have been illicit/unofficial "Betty Boop"
> films in which s*x was depicted; however AFAIK these were (like
> "party records"...?!) undocumented and quite possibly no longer exist?!
>
> Steven C. Barr 
>