Hey
B00m - I just got to these now. Thanks for doing all the hard work in presenting them. I think the one with Suzie typing the report while standing due to being spanked is a very ingenious use of the original composition.
Now let me address
Dan's question:
daneldorado wrote:I understand, I really do, that the creators and editors of "Suzie" wanted to shy away from any toons that would show the beautiful blonde Suzie being spanked... other than the one toon where she is spanked by a young boy (Fauntleroy?) and the other toon where she is spanked by her Dad. But that was 1954! What did the editors have to fear, after that late date?
Smilin' Jack and The Phantom, two other very popular comic strips, had already spanked at least a dozen ladies in the funny papers by then. I don't remember reading about any feminist protest against those stories. Also, Superman supervised the spanking of Queen Arda in 1946. And Superman himself took a misguided young woman over his lap and spanked her during WWII, calling her a "saboteur." There were many, many other comic strips in the early days that showed us men spanking naughty females. You know there were. So why, in the relatively late year of 1954, would Suzie's editor have to fear the wrath of the public by subjecting their main star to repeated spankings... especially since their stock in trade was the regular abuse of Suzie's rear end anyway?
Yes, I realize there is now a thing called feminism, and the women behind that movement are determined to stamp out any mistreatment of women. But spankings are not mistreatment. In the comics and on TV and the movies, they are supposed to be funny... and they are!
The two basic problems, Dan, were that comic
strips and comic
books were seen as two very different things (they still are today as well, but to a lesser extent), with the latter seen as a children's medium, and that beginning around 1947 they were coming under increasingly intense criticism (and not from feminism, by the way, for this movement didn't really exist yet). This criticism culminated in the creation of the
Comics Code Authority in 1954, and the number of non-parental spankings in comic books dropped off, with the 1956-65 period being akin to baseball's "Dead Ball Era" for it was practically dead to spankings.
I tell the whole depressing story in
The Effect of the Comics Code on Spanking, a 4-part article I wrote back in 2012. One of comics' chief detractors was
Dr. Fredric Wertham, who assailed among many other things what he termed "Erotic Spanking" and "Sexual flagellation upon the buttocks". (It was discovered early on the spanking panel he reprinted in his book
Seduction of the Innocent had come from
Frontier Romances #1 - follow the link if you can stand reading my lengthy commentary from 2010).
Note that spanking in comic books was under explicit attack, at a time when both juvenile delinquency and sexual perversion were subjects of great concern to parents - a U.S. Senate hearing on comic books was actually held(!) although spanking was not mentioned in the partial transcripts I have read. The publishers were running scared, and the content was clearly affected, for as we know one spanking from
Candy was toned down to the point that her boyfriend Ted pictures himself whacking some other guy with a tennis racquet (blechh!) and the two spankings from
Kaanga were chopped out completely when these stories were reprinted.
That is what the editor and publisher of Suzie had to worry about - ironically, just as
Humorama was discovering the erotic potential in spanking, comics were afraid of that potential being any further realized.
Luckily, the Code's attitude began loosening in 1966, and we began to see comic book spankings again. But
Suzie had been gone for 12 years by then - sigh

.