Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Image via Bacchus of the generally NSFW ErosBlog: The Sex Blog

I’m not exactly sure what the date is for the comic shown here — I’d say it’s a comic from the early 1950s, when both cars and drive-throughs were pretty new.

But there’s something not… exactly timeless about the representation of genuine but oblivious aloof women in the face of clearly interested, and clearly much older men that’s just…

I mean… the images represent adult women not early teens, whose physical development sometimes begins before cognitive registration of sexuality. Nor do their posture or facial expressions present them as stupid or incapable or even excessively/paternally sheltered. Or even (as compared to, say, wait staff at “Hooters” style restaurants today) as sexually accessible.

Instead the implication is that they’re completely failing to register their own allure despite what appears to be continuous daily sexualized but non-sexual contact with myriad interested men.

No-sex class much?

Update: I think I probably should have been way more clear about that last point: I’m not saying actual people would be as naive about the impact of their appearance as the women represented in the cartoon. Instead I’m saying the cartoon was part of a tradition that represented women to men as that naive. And did so at least in part because that reinforced men’s expectations of women. It certainly would have been the context for the intended humor of that particular punch line.