Nay, not I. But I’d be glad to send you five pounds if I knew how; I need to lose about 40…
That’s a good illustration of how some people react entirely unreasonably to adults who still remember how to play. Interesting that it’s the youngsters who are having trouble with it; I think that says something about how desperately they’re still trying to play an idealized version of themselves. (Since I wouldn’t watch the show unless paid to do so – and you can’t afford me – I have no opinion whatsoever on it in that context.)
[Actually, what most impresses me is that he stayed in character, not reacting when referred to as “she”. He’s taking it seriously – not solemnly, but seriously – and that deserves applause no matter whether you think the scene works as improv acting or not.]
Considering that it means a person who is “excessively attentive to propriety”, it sounded like what you were driving at. I simply think the editor and especially the lazy illustrator were kind of phoning it in for this book. The word “pussy” I had no problem with. I understand fully the ramifications of a word in the mid-century, as I learned to read with Dick and Jane.
Not a parent, never married, molested when I was young - but still remaining sex-positive and anti-homophobic, visual artist, Sociology and some Women’s Studies through the lens of Film and Media Studies, artistic themes based in power play and supplication vs. independent agency (having been trained to be a pleaser as a child, which drives my introspection).
That we agree on. On the other hand, I don’t think they expected anyone to be trying to analyze an obviously low-budget publication, and I don’t find that surprising.
One or the other may, in fact, have been seeing what he/she could get away with, as a meta-comment on an assignment they didn’t really want to have to deal with. But I don’t think the target audience would have particularly noticed, and at the time I don’t think their parents would have admitted noticing.
Basically, I think the comments which opened this thread say more about the commenter than the book. Mostly I think they say that Mark was deliberately making trouble in order to incite discussion. We got trolled.
The modern version of this game is called “kitty wants a corner” - we played it in theatre classes all the time when I was in middle and high school (seven or so years ago now). The only differences being that instead of meowing three times, the “kitty” says “kitty wants a corner” just once, and instead of “poor pussy” the person being asked has to say (without laughing) “go ask my neighbor” and indicate one of the people next to them.
One additional change is that all of the OTHER people playing (besides the kitty and the person being asked are supposed to strategically attempt to switch seats with each-other (as frequently and as daringly as possible) without allowing the kitty to leap in and steal a vacant seat (the ultimate achievement being to successfully switch spots with the person directly across the circle from you). With an enthusiastic group of players, this can make the game quite athletic and hilarious.
Here’s a little thesis: the article mainly demonstrates how, in the 50’s and 60’s, the probability that someone would consciously associate kids with sexual imagery was close to nil. At the same time, any common day illustrator knows about the traps of his subconscious, that will try to sexualize just about any image he produces, be it a tree, a dog or a group of kids. In the present days, we have learned to listen to our subconscious, better than ignoring it and we will be much more aware of how it sneaks its appearances into just about anything we produce. In this case, clearly, the image is totally sexualized, not by us as modern viewers, but by the author himself who was, at the time, probably totally unaware. Today, we know that anything matter, from the crinkles on the dress to the choice of words in the title. At the time, the dissociation between (controlled) conscious and (repressed) subconscious was generally so strong, that nobody would actually see what we see today. Which doesn’t mean that it’s not there. (what am I actually talking about?)
I don’t get it. It’s a game. We played this. It only gets funnier if you know pussy can be a “bad word” because it makes it harder not to giggle. Usually the “pussy” isn’t being picked on. They are doing anything they can to break the others down into laughter.
We also used to chant “Miss Suzie has a steamboat” which IIRC has lines alluding to just about every dirty word or thing.
Next you’ll be telling me all those Stephen Gammell illustrations warped my mind.
*edited because Miss Suzie has a steamboat, not a yacht or any other kind of boat.
When I was a kid, we played this on nearly every birthday party. In Germany, it’s called “Armer schwarzer Kater”, meaning “poor black tomcat”. Being the tomcat, playing a silly role and making everybody laugh, was the most fun.
That being said, the illustration is really unfortunate …
Duck-Duck-Goose is obviously about identifying and oppressing minorities that ‘pass’ as a member of a majority culture.
One player is the investigator who evaluates people until he discovers one who is secretly a ‘goose’. When the secret goose is identified, he must get outside of his safe place and catch, then symbolically kill, the investigator before the investigator is able to reveal his secret. If he succeeds, he can go back to his place (and the investigator is replaced with an identical investigator). If he fails, he’s dead (but it’s a children’s game, so death just means you’re the investigator next time).
I think ‘gamahuche’ is due for a revival in modern parlance. Just visually, it’s an awesome word, and it opens up a whole realmed of untapped rhyming potential for dirty limericks.
So… they didn’t have blowjobs in the 1950s? Isn’t there a rich history of adult male illustrators slipping all kinds of references into their work? Heck, I posted a frame of flat out topless female nudity in an early Bugs Bunny!
The psychiatrist shows the guy a picture of a tree and says, “What do you think of when you see this?” The guy says, “Sex.” The psychiatrist shows him a picture of a car and says, “What do you think of when you see this?” The guy says, “Sex.” The psychiatrist shows him a picture of a house and says, “What do you think of when you see this?” The guy says, “Sex.”
The psychiatrist says, “You’re obsessed with sex.”
The guy says, “What do you mean? You’re the one with all the dirty pictures.”
