Missed Opportunities in Humorama

[willjohn]

Having seen the effect linament has on football players if linament is applied to tender skin, I would think the last thing a spankee would want is linament applied to a spanked arse. That stuff burns!

[web-ed]

O.K., we arrive at last at the two examples from Humorama's early rivals that really pushed the envelope in that era. They are both in highly questionable taste, would probably never have appeared in a Humorama publication, and are being posted here to give a more complete picture of what the boundaries were at this time (the 1950s). It's my belief that the loosening up during this decade of the earlier restrictions is what made possible the more suggestive spanking cartoons we all know and love from the Humorama "Big Six" (Ward, Wenzel, Stiles, DeCarlo, Homer, and Morrice) in which the men spank for reasons other than pure discipline and the women sometimes enjoy it, but that belief is of course debatable.

Like I said, they're in questionable taste, but because we're all true scholars here let's take a look at them anyway :


From Nifty (November 1952), art by Bill Boyansky. Is the onlooker on the street supposed to be Nifty Nick?

Ah yes, the sidewalk elevator! Although not too common these days, they do still exist, especially on private property, and they used to be seen along big-city streets (as shown here) in the past. I remember only one myself, in an outdoor shopping plaza that was built in the 1950s before indoor shopping malls, and that was in a Chicago suburb. They were (and still are to a degree) certainly practical, and I can only speculate that the potential for civil liability is the reason they're not in more common use. You can imagine the problems if the elevator comes up when someone happens to be standing on the doors above, and this artist (Bill Boyansky, whom we haven't seen before) did just that. A guy looking up a woman's dress must have seemed at least a little shocking to the guys who bought Nifty in 1952, but they apparently didn't complain since the same publisher (Dearfield - these are both Wolf Book titles) gave us this next one five years later:


The dentist's eyes tell the story here, and it's not very nice. Note also the old-fashioned spit bowl, no longer used in this day and age. From Wham! (October 1957), art by J. Oakes.

J. Oakes was one of the anchoring artists on the Wolf Books, being responsible for Zip!'s mascot Zippy, and also contributed to Humorama. The dentist's name is L. Brignole, and I wonder if that name has some significance since there's no other reason I can think of why Oakes would have made it legible. The only anagram that seems like it could have been intentional is "IGNOBLER," and "ignoble" certainly describes this raunchy cartoon. You really feel sorry for the woman in this predicament, which none of us would if the dentist, say, had turned her OTK for being late or something.

Bad as these two are in my view, they are mild in comparison to the vulgarity that was to follow in the cartoons of the 70s and of course later. I do find it interesting that they could be published in the 1950s, however, and perhaps they can be considered as part of the development of the men's humor cartoons of the period. Comments?

[hugob00m]

Hi, Web-ed.

Vulgarity, and its flipside, prudishness are highly subjective. I have my own standards, which are similar, but not identical to yours.

These two drawings are hightly suggestive, and yet, they don't show the viewer what the men in those cartoons are seeing. We in the audience don't know whether the ladies' "private parts" are on public display, or if they're wearing panties. I think the implication is that the ladies are "going commando", but I don't know for sure.

Jokes based on a woman's unintentional exposure have been around for a long time, with multiple variations regarding WHAT gets shown and WHO it gets shown to.

Later publications, such as Sex-to-Sexty were a lot more explicit.

Thanks for postng them. It's something to think about and discuss.

[butch46163@yahoo.com]

The first drawing is more sexually suggested being the guy tongue is hanging as he looking up the woman`s dress the dentist saying open wider as the lady`s dress rides up could be sexual! rather seen both women spanked for their action Nice finds!!

[hugob00m]

I think I've posted a picture of this actress before. She's Vikki Dougan, often referred to as "the Back". She liked to have photographers aim their cameras at her lovely backside. And she wore a lot of outfits that tended to emphasize her best "ASS-et".

vikki.jpg (277.2 KiB) Viewed 519 times

In addition to that. she had a pretty face, and the rest of her figure... whenever anyone got around to noticing... was very nice too. Her acting skills weren't stellar, but I thought she was better than a lot of actresses that were more successful than she was.

Her acting career was a massive missed opportunity! A movie or T.V. show that featured a good spanking for one of Vikki's characters would've most likely catapulted her to stardom. And it would be heavenly for whatever actor had the "chore" of putting his hand across that gorgeous posterior! WHY didn't any casting director think of that?

We can't blame the Limeliters, though. They performed a catchy little tune extolling her "virtues".

[web-ed]

Vikki Dougan was beautiful and possessed a very spankable behind - she was truly a walking "Missed Opportunity"! It's really too bad there were no good spanking films in her day (I think the Irving Klaw stuff of that era was pretty silly, and of course all F/F). Thanks for posting more of her, B00m!

Now on to the new cartoons: I found both of these very recently, and while I have some other material with more "seniority" I thought we'd get these two out of the way before we move on to them next week. The first is quite mild but a little obscure:


From Pack O' Fun (Sept. 1954). Art by "Temes"(?)

"I always stop the fellows at the door, but would you mind unhooking my bra?"

O.K., I think we all understand what unhooking her bra is intended to lead to, but I don't understand the first clause of the sentence, "I always stop the fellows at the door". If "the fellows" are not going to be allowed to come inside, I'm not sure what good it's going to do them to get her bra off while standing in the hallway. I suppose it's possible to over-analyze these things, but couldn't the editor have come up with something a little zippier?

Next we have a third "branding" cartoon:

From Sex to Sexty #1 (c. 1970, artist unknown).

I'm actually surprised that anyone bothered to draw a third "branding" cartoon as the first two pretty well covered what ground there was to cover. (It's also interesting that B00m brought up the greater explicitness in Sex to Sexty a week ago, which is of course a week before not only this cartoon but also the "Thelma Spanked" one I posted today, wherein I also mention that this publication was more explicit than Humorama. You must be clairvoyant, B00m! )

Anyway, back to ol' Tex and his branding iron here: I think the highlight is the expression on the woman's face, and her bare bottom is characteristic of Sex to Sexty. This type of greater explicit content is one I heartily approve of, especially in a spanking context! Speaking of which, why didn't the guys doing these "branding" cartoons ever think of using a paddle instead? Ol' Tex could have put his big "T" on a paddle and then embossed its image on his intended's big "A" with a resounding swat .

Anyway, I think we've seen enough of these "branders" and I promise not to post any more unless they're really good in some way.

[hugob00m]

Hi, Web-ed.

I share your puzzled reaction at the cartoon with the girl standing in her doorway. If the man is not going to be allowed to come inside, what good is it going to do for him to unhook her bra?

And I'm not too thrilled about the idea of branding. Sometimes someone will describe a "searing heat" as a result of a good spanking... but we realize that it's hyperbole. I don't think any of us in this group want to see burnt flesh on a pretty girl's backside.

The position and expression of the girl in the cartoon do have some appeal though.

[butch46163@yahoo.com]

not a fan of branding a female bottom but the way she is position is nice!!!!

[web-ed]

Hi, Web-ed.

I share your puzzled reaction at the cartoon with the girl standing in her doorway. If the man is not going to be allowed to come inside, what good is it going to do for him to unhook her bra?

And I'm not too thrilled about the idea of branding. Sometimes someone will describe a "searing heat" as a result of a good spanking... but we realize that it's hyperbole. I don't think any of us in this group want to see burnt flesh on a pretty girl's backside.

The position and expression of the girl in the cartoon do have some appeal though.

Yes, that's pretty much my feeling as well about branding, B00m. However, I realize I spoke too soon about not posting any more of these, because I just found another one that's an obvious copy of "Tex Brands his Fiancee". It appeared in a later issue (#12) of Sex to Sexty:


Art by Pierre, who did a "Beatnik Spanking" cartoon we're going to see soon. I think that "Tex" had better positioning and expression of the girl.

Anyway, I think we all agree with B00m that we'd rather have "Heat for the Seat" refer to some kind of spanking rather than branding.

[willjohn]

Has the man with the ring on the end of the stick just been told what to do with his proposal?

[web-ed]

Has the man with the ring on the end of the stick just been told what to do with his proposal?

It's just possible, Willjohn - this is, I think, the weakest of these weak "branding" cartoons. At least Tex intended to brand his monogram where presumably few would ever see it, but this guy does seem even stranger.

[web-ed]

The first of these is one of those "pat on the 'back'" specimens we've probably already seen enough of, and not a particularly good example at that:


From Cartoon Carnival #6 (1964).

Our second cartoon is of the "shot to the behind" genre, and I've got so many saved up in the files for a future "history of the spanking cartoon" special that I don't need this one which I found recently in Sex to Sexty. But the "bend over, get a shot" gag never really seems to get old - at least not to me, even though I'd much prefer to see "shot" replaced by "swat" .


"Yes, please bend over to read this suspiciously-placed notice on the floor." From Sex to Sexty #7. Art by Pierre Davis.

[web-ed]

The first of these is a standard pinch-the-bottom-with-an-excuse exercise. It's a little strange to have to keep a trained lobster around, though:


Art by Posner Murray, from Good Humor Vol. 1 No. 36.

The second is by Lou Magila, who did two spanking cartoons for Humorama as well as a lot of truly strange collages, and this
cartoon is pretty weird also. I really don't know how to explain the light being propagated along a curved path, or how it managed to tag the female pedestrian's backside to produce stinging effect lines. What a nut Magila must have been!

[willjohn]

The most likely result of the hypodermic shot is the victim going head-first into the closed door.

Three Stooges material.

[web-ed]

The most likely result of the hypodermic shot is the victim going head-first into the closed door.

Three Stooges material.

True, and we must concede that it's highly questionable as a medical procedure. But it's fun for comic purposes if we don't have something better to look at - like a spanking.

[web-ed]

These two are from Pack O' Fun (November 1954):





Both of these are based on gimmicks we've seen before, the pantomime horse and the naughty boy with the slingshot/pea-shooter, but they're still fun, especially the second one where the "naughty boy" is damn near as old as we are! Judging from how high the lady nudist jumps and the "stinging effect" lines radiating from her bottom as she tries to rub away the sting, his aim was true!

[hugob00m]

Hi, Web-ed.

I've never seen an actual performance by two actors in a pantomime horse costume, only old cartoon gags. I can see that the person in front has the easier job. He (or she, as in this case) gets to stand and walk upright and portray the horse's head and front legs. The person in back has to stoop over to be the torso and back legs. That would be an uncomfortable position to have to spend much time in. It would be made less onerous if the person in front is a pretty girl, so that, at least he could watch a cute butt wiggling around at face-level... and hope she hasn't eaten beans earlier in the evening!

In ths cartoon, not only is there a pretty girl in the front position, but she's stripped down to her bra and panties under the horse costume. I think he should be grateful and shave, so that he'll have a smooth face to rub against her buttcheeks!

In the other picture, I can't tell if the cartoonist's perspective is off, or if the man is supposed to be much shorter than the woman. He's pretty good with that slingshot, though, to hit the target while shooting through a knothole in a fenceplank.

[willjohn]

The "little boy" with the slingshot looks like a very short priest.

[butch46163@yahoo.com]

The side eye that woman giving to the guy that patted her rear is epic Great finds

[web-ed]

In the other picture, I can't tell if the cartoonist's perspective is off, or if the man is supposed to be much shorter than the woman. He's pretty good with that slingshot, though, to hit the target while shooting through a knothole in a fenceplank.

I think he is rather short, b00m, and the artist was trying to suggest the woman was jumping up from the sting, but he may have overdone it as she appears to be setting a world's record for the high jump!

The man's hat (cappello romano or saturno) is the kind priests in some countries wore and perhaps still do, so perhaps, as Willjohn suggests, he is a priest although I don't see a collar or a cassock.