Before getting to what I thought were the last of my "sexual innuendo" Missed Opportunities, because I was reminded this week that I had a
second folder of MOs I'm going to post what I hope is the last of my "Strip Poker" cartoons along with one that's more than a little odd.
First, let's see
Felix Andrews' take on the Strip Poker theme, published exactly fifty years ago this month(!). Andrews, it may be recalled, did a spanking cartoon for
Adam in which the spankee is over an army corporal's knee receiving (of course) "corporal" punishment, and he may have done a 2nd "spanker" I'm going to be posting soon (the signature is illegible or missing).

Art by Felix Andrews, from the February, 1974 issue of
Joker.
So our losing poker player doesn't believe in playing cards for money? In that case (and I'm sure we're all thinking the same thing here), why doesn't she put her fanny on the line and agree to a spanking if (when!) she loses the next hand? (Without checking, I'm sure B00m suggested as much when I posted those earlier strip poker cartoons a few weeks ago). Andrews' emphasis is on her ample bosom, but from what we can see it looks like she's got a spankable bottom, too.
Now for that strange one. This is earlier, from 1957, and it's by
G (George?) Lubway, an artist we haven't seen before. I think it probably first caught my eye because the girl seated at the dressing table is holding a large hand-mirror that looks quite a bit like a paddle, while the second girl is rather purposefully
bending over, but there's more:

From
Army-Navy Fun Parade #83 (1957). Art by G Lubway.
So what the hell was actually going on here? O.K., so the mirror
isn't a paddle and Girl #2 isn't requesting a spanking (if that's what popped into my over-active spanko imagination), but the caption specifically mentions "liniment," and it isn't clear why Girl #2 (the two look enough alike to be sisters) would be bending over unless that "liniment" needed to be applied to her behind. And wouldn't that imply a spanking from her boyfriend rather than his "squeezing every bit of happiness"? Or is he supposed to have pinched her? Or am I just missing something obvious?
If it was a spanking (and I'm sure we all hope it was

), why be so coy about it? This is 1957, for Heaven's sake, and Humorama is running its greatest spanking cartoons on a monthly basis at this time,
Playboy is finally about to show a bare-bottomed Playmate of the Month, plus this mag was intended for personnel in the Armed Services - were they such snowflakes (like today's mis-educated youth) that they were in danger of fainting when exposed to anything mildly suggestive? I have to believe that Lubway, whoever he was, had provided a different caption, one that probably did involved a reference to spanking, and that it was changed by the editor for some reason, although if that's the case I don't know why there are no "stinging effect" lines visible.
This one's a mystery however you look at it. Any other ideas?