Talk:Little girl (comics)

From Spanking Art
Jump to: navigation, search


As Markstein states in his online [Toonopedia], John Stanley was one of the most accomplished cartoonists working within the children's genre. His version of Lulu is today the most familiar (better known, in fact than that of her creator, Marjorie Henderson Buell), and his visual style is known to have influenced an entire generation of artists during the fifties and sixties. Almost undoubtedly, this influence included Stanley's climactic spanking scenes, echoes of which would be seen in many later strips.

Numerous sources describe Little Audrey as a cheap knock-off of Marjorie Henderson Buell's Little Lulu, subsequently minimising her importance to the emerging genre. This is something of an oversimplification. While Audrey was never quite as popular as her predecessor, her basic design turned out to be one of the most influential of the post war period. In contrast to Lulu's lean angularity (typical of the 1930s), Audrey was portrayed as softer and rounder; more characteristic of Famous Studio's output of the mid-forties (cf Casper the Friendly Ghost, Baby Huey et al).

Reserve image:

I edited the link as it was a direct link to to the old wikia location --Roguebfl (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream comix did not show bare bottom spankings?[edit]

I read here that Lulu, Nancy and Little Iodine were spanked frequently, but not on their bare bottoms. But in the site Handprints, there are galleries devoted to these and other characters who are spanked, and a few (not many) DO indeed show the girls spanked on the bare. Are these frames the real McCoy, or have they been doctored? eric 11:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe many of these have been non-bare originally but have been edited by fans into bare bottom spankings. Maybe HandPrince can tell you more about which of these are original (to the best of his knowledge) and which are manipulated. Spankart 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
They're all photoshop edits, Eric. If you go back to Handprints and look carefully through the comics galleries, you'll see that some of the pictures have two different versions. It's not difficult to see which was the original; here's an example: Nancy1 Nancy2.
There may have been exceptions during the 1930s, but as a general rule, comic strip girls were depicted spanked on the underwear. As mentioned in the article, it was an extremely common convention employed by cartoonists from the 'golden age' to about the beginning of the 80s.
BB spanking was employed in Japanese manga from the 1970s, but it only became an accepted convention in Western comics during the 1990s - partly due to the rise of the internet. The World Wide Web made BB spanking imagery - and Japanese comics - available to a much wider audience; the result was a more fetishistic approach to the subject, and a virtual sub-genre of edited comic strips.
Ciao, Blackshade9 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC) .

I'll get onto Handprints. For my part, maybe I'm a purist, but I think the photoshopping these piccies defeats the whole purpose of showing historical comix. After all, if you are going to have reddened bottoms on display, why not just stick with the modern stuff? The allure of the likes of Nancy and Lulu et al, is that they are wholly a product of their time, without any knowing or postmodern subtext. At the very least, if they are going to photoshop stuff, they could at least leave a note like "altered image". Still, I'm wondering if there are ANY such images of bare bottomed spankings on file anywhere. eric 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a gallery of more than 200 spanking pics from various old comics (enjoy browsing!). None of the old ones are bare bottom as far as I could see. Spankart 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Spankart, I found one here [Little Dot], and there may be others. But this could be one of those like some in Handprints, which have been altered. And another one here [Dennis]The Dennis one looks legit, and I like the frazzled expression on Dad's face, and the look of gratification on Mum's is just perfect. The artist who did this was very accomplished. eric 08:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dennis the Menace image of his father giving him a pants-down hairbrush spanking is from Mad Magazine.
And the Little Dot pic is probably altered, I think. Handprince or Gauis Marius might be able to tell. Spankart 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
At least one editorial cartoon shows bare bottom spanking...

The Little Dot panel is definitely an edit. I've seen the original, and the dress completely covers her bottom, you can't even see her underwear. In regards to editorial cartoons: you'd be far more likely to see BB spanking in newspaper strips and editorials; newspapers weren't bound by the same censorship codes as comic book publishers. Ciao Blackshade9 06:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC) .

Renaming this article[edit]

How about renaming this article to something like Little girl character, Little girl characters in comics or Little girls in comics, to make the lemma fit better to the contents? Spankart 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Little girl characters in comics looks better to me, what do the principle editors of the page think? --Roguebfl (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How about just Little Girl (Comics) ? Ciao, Blackshade9 06:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC) .

I feel lower case is better because "Little Girl" sounds a bit like a title because of the capitalization... as if there was a specific comic strip or series named "Little Girl". How about Little girl (comics)?

Sounds fine to me. Ciao, Blackshade9 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) .