• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Calling fellow old geezers!

MoodyBlues

MoodyBlues

Compassion is cool!
VIP Member
I have a serious question about old TV shows, and it's best answered by geezers even older than me. :eek: (I grew up in the '60s and '70s.)

I'm thinking of shows like Perry Mason, The Andy Griffith Show, Gilligan's Island, Gomer Pyle USMC, The Dick van Dyke Show and others of that era. Some I watched in real time, others later in reruns. Adult men and women--and I mean mature adults in their 30s, 40s, and beyond--are shown in lives completely devoid of sex.

For example, on TAGS, Andy and Barney were in long-term, committed relationships with Helen and Thelma Lou, respectively. In an episode I watched today, three of those characters' actors were in their 40s.

As a child, completely naive, with no clue about sex, watching these shows and seeing nothing more than hand-holding and [usually off-screen] kissing, made sense to me as the way people in love showed affection. [Note that my parents divorced when I was very young; I grew up with my mother and grandmother--neither of whom ever dated.] Ending dates at the front door, with a peck on the cheek, seemed perfectly realistic to me! But did it to people who were old enough to know about sex? :thinking:

Back then, did 40-something, unmarried couples really act like that? Was that realistic behavior to adults watching at the time? Did they believe that 40+-year-old Barney and Thelma Lou weren't having sex? Or 40+ Sgt Carter (Gomer Pyle) and his long-time girlfriend, Bunny?

I know why they were portrayed as being strictly platonic, i.e., the network censors and the morés of the time, but did adult viewers really BUY that these characters led sexless lives?
 
Being an older than most geezer I think I qualify to reply. :) I don't believe for a second that any sexually active human, no matter their age, wasn't sexually active in 1960 or 0060 for that matter. Humans are just another animal after all. Even plants endeavor to propagate. It wasn't just TV censorship that kept sex from being a topic and especially the vehicle, sex was simply not something society spoke openly about. It was a much more private matter in the 60's. The far more open or realistic society we live in today has to have a positive effect and understanding of natural urges and desires. ... my .02
 
dontpanicbobby said:
The sex was implied @MoodyBlues.
Click to expand...
I disagree! There's one episode of TAGS where Andy explains why he canceled a police magazine after Barney joined the force. He said it had pictures of [scantily clad?] women, and "Barney's never been married." Barney and Thelma Lou had been a couple for five years at that point. If sex was implied, why would Andy shield him from women in a police magazine? :thinking:
 
olbriar said:
I don't believe for a second that any sexually active human, no matter their age, wasn't sexually active in 1960 or 0060 for that matter.
Click to expand...
Now, as an adult, I agree--but that's just not how those old shows portrayed it.

There were frequently scenes of the woman [in a long-term, exclusive relationship] pushing the man away, with exclamations of "[Man's name]! You know I have to go home!" or similar. Pushing away when kissing got too heated. Saying 'no!' a lot.

I don't know... I've actually been wondering this for a long time, and with MeTV airing these old shows, I've had a chance to revisit some of them for the first time in years. Contrary to DPB's assertion that sex was implied, these shows actually went to great lengths to make clear it wasn't happening.

Kissing occurred in cars--then the woman was dropped off at home. Barney and Thelma Lou were caught with the lights out/on/out/on... kissing in the courthouse. Sgt Carter and Bunny would snuggle and kiss on her couch, followed by "Vince! I have to get up early!"...and he leaves.

If anyone's interested in seeing for themselves, check out any of the shows named in my OP. In my opinion, it's very clear that these were nonsexual relationships--which, as an adult now, just doesn't make sense. Especially if you factor in the sexual revolution that started in the '60s, buoyed by the invention of birth control pills! Remember 'free love?'--that's the time period some of these shows occurred in.
 
Step back a few more decades to earlier cinema for a look at how sex portrayal has evolved. I've seen Fred Astaire propose to Ginger Rogers numerous times without a kiss prelude. :) And by gosh... she accepted. :) :) Realistic? No way no how! Those movies followed the guidelines of the time and were well received. Real life portrayal just wasn't required to be entertaining. Audiences were perfectly happy to view a "fairy tale" sort of representation of life. I think that holds true for the TV programming you mentioned in the OP but to a lesser degree. With the passing of time the audience have desired a more accurate depiction of life and the industry has pushed the envelope to deliver that product. I personally miss the old pretend life depictions. The real life scenarios I do not need. I live them daily. Obviously I am the minority consumer for most all programming leans heavily in the direction of realistic scenarios.
 
Funny that you should mention Astaire and Rogers, @olbriar, as just last night I set a DVR to record two of my favorite movies of theirs. :) There was something about that innocence, that romance, shown in their movies that made them almost magical and, yes, even believable. That era proved that you didn't have to be in-your-face about sex for audiences to have a delightful time watching a movie.

However, as something of a classic movie aficionado, I must add that the silent era was way out there when it came to sex, sexual topics, and even nudity. One movie I always recommend to people new to silents is *Where Are My Children? Its release year was 1916, and it dealt quite frankly with women's reproductive rights, birth control, and, yep, abortion. :eek:

There's a concept in movies/TV called 'suspension of disbelief.' It's where your better judgment says one thing, but what you're seeing on-screen is the opposite; you're essentially asked to suspend reality and just enjoy the show. Perhaps something similar is going on with the shows I'm talking about... :thinking:

*ETA: I'd never looked up that movie before, other than on IMDb, but just looked at its Wikipedia page; it's pretty informative.
 
Last edited:
dontpanicbobby said:
Back to the Andy Griffith Show.
Why do you think those hillbillies (The Darlings) were always after Sheriff Taylor if he didn't do Charlene?
Click to expand...
[I despise the Charlene episodes!] Anyway, it did seem mighty peculiar that Charlene named her baby--whose father was ostensibly her husband--Andalina [or however it's spelled], and told Andy she was named after him. :o
 
maire5 said:
I just think that sex is a serious part of real life and these shows were not about serious life.
Click to expand...
I get your point, but after actually watching these shows with a mature...very mature...adult perspective, I'm inclined to disagree.

I've always thought of those old shows being very idealistic, not realistic. Like everyone else, I thought it was ludicrous that June (Leave it to Beaver) wore pearls and high heels while vacuuming. There's just one problem with that: it didn't [exactly] happen. Yes, the necklace part is true, however, Barbara Billingsley explained that she thought a scar on her neck was very noticeable, and chose to wear necklaces to camouflage it. But the high heel part is nonsense.

Shows from that era, including TAGS, LitB, My Three Sons and others, actually dealt with many--I mean MANY--real-life issues. Among them: underage drinking, dropping out of school, running away from home, adoption, smoking, personal responsibility, stealing, lying, homelessness, compassion, handling money wisely, ethnicity, bullying, alcoholism and much more.

Sure, they always had happy endings--they were comedies, after all--but the fact remains that they actually dealt with a plethora of real-life issues. That's why I suggest watching them now, with mature adult eyes, knowledge, and life experience. Doing so has changed my lifelong perception of sugary-sweet, unrealistic TV from that era.
 
Last edited:
I really think that the shows back in the 1960's and 1970's were focus more on the characters and plot lines and occasionally dealing with social issues.
Back in the 60's and 70's most shows focus around the family or semi family environments. Because family was the core of society. We took 180 degree turn starting in the 80's .
In this day and age of so called new age thinking or revionist history, people would mock the shows of the 60's and 70's , they would be in uproar over the oppressive treatment of women on the show instead of seeing a strong wife and mother, people would say that the woman is always showing in a servant capacity to the husband and kids.
Today's society is extremely anti family and if you want throw in religion it's extremely anti God. Young people today are being told that marriage is unnecessary, that you shouldn't tie yourself down to one person, that you should have multiple partners, today's society is all about me, myself and I.
My Mom who passed away several months ago, told me and my sister that for a time she lived the sex, drugs and rock n roll life time to the extreme in the 1970's. By 1974 she had been married and divorce twice. She went through a period of discovering "her" she said that there were Fridays she would go to a party the drinking and pill popping would soon being and in a few hours, it was off to some room with some guy or girl and the next day or days later she's waking up with a different guy or guys or girls and having no memory of anything. She said eventually it ran its course.
I miss the shows of the 60's and 70's
 
joe71 said:
people would mock the shows of the 60's and 70's , they would be in uproar over the oppressive treatment of women on the show instead of seeing a strong wife and mother, people would say that the woman is always showing in a servant capacity to the husband and kids.
Click to expand...
See, that's what I thought the perception was--but actually watching those shows from the '50s and '60s now, I see that it's an INCORRECT perception.

Yes, 'mom' typically didn't work and 'dad' was the breadwinner, but that's about the ONLY thing that holds true to that general misconception. The fact is that 'mom' was college educated, intelligent, capable, strong, and wise. Her 'job' was to keep house, nurture her family physically [cooking] and emotionally, and do all the tasks associated with running a household. 'Dad' brought home the money, but he also participated in household chores, nurturing his children, grocery shopping, etc.

Using Leave it to Beaver as an example, Ward was often shown washing or drying dishes, June was often shown to be knowledgeable, and I mean about things unrelated to housework--like how stocks and bonds differ, which she explained to the boys after Ward stumbled.

They were absolutely equal partners; in no way was June subservient to Ward. She would defer to him occasionally--and vice versa. Neither one was more powerful or more respected than the other.

This has been a real eye-opener for me. As I said...somewhere...I bought into the whole 'those shows were demeaning to women, no one vacuums in high heels and pearls, the man is the king of the home,' etc. I was wrong.

LitB is starting over in a day or two on MeTV; here in LA it airs from 8:00-9:00am. Set your DVRs, folks! Try this for yourself and see if your long-held perceptions don't change.
 
MoodyBlues said:
See, that's what I thought the perception was--but actually watching those shows from the '50s and '60s now, I see that it's an INCORRECT perception.

Yes, 'mom' typically didn't work and 'dad' was the breadwinner, but that's about the ONLY thing that holds true to that general misconception. The fact is that 'mom' was college educated, intelligent, capable, strong, and wise. Her 'job' was to keep house, nurture her family physically [cooking] and emotionally, and do all the tasks associated with running a household. 'Dad' brought home the money, but he also participated in household chores, nurturing his children, grocery shopping, etc.

Using Leave it to Beaver as an example, Ward was often shown washing or drying dishes, June was often shown to be knowledgeable, and I mean about things unrelated to housework--like how stocks and bonds differ, which she explained to the boys after Ward stumbled.

They were absolutely equal partners; in no way was June subservient to Ward. She would defer to him occasionally--and vice versa. Neither one was more powerful or more respected than the other.

This has been a real eye-opener for me. As I said...somewhere...I bought into the whole 'those shows were demeaning to women, no one vacuums in high heels and pearls, the man is the king of the home,' etc. I was wrong.

LitB is starting over in a day or two on MeTV; here in LA it airs from 8:00-9:00am. Set your DVRs, folks! Try this for yourself and see if your long-held perceptions don't change.
Click to expand...
I for one never felt the woman in the family base shows of the 60's and 70's were ever sub servant, but if a woman is showing in any way to be weaker or not equal with the male characters people start yelling about sexism and equality rights.
I recently heard a npr (national public radio) program and the two women were discussing how in recent years they have slowly been wrestling power away from men and the women are becoming the dominant sex, they made a few jokes about women and how they were portray in the various TV shows.
If you go back and look yeah the wife is all beautiful looking like she spent the day at the spa and saloon getting herself taking care, the house is super clean and there is a seven course meal waiting for the family.
That is unfortunately what most people see. But take a second look and look carefully the house and home is the woman's domain under Neath the prim and proper perfect little house wife is this take no bull from anyone CEO, CFO, CCO, Master chef, child psychologist, drill sergeant.
Yes the husband was the bread winner , figure head of the house, but it was the wife and mother who keep things moving.
I think one of the shows people like to go and use as evidence is the 70's show All in the family. I have heard for years how the character Edith Bunker was the stereo typical house wife, people came to perceive. Weak minded totally dependant on the man.
Edith Bunker was anything but weak and simple minded, yes for comedic effect she portray to be an air head, but Edith Bunker could flip the script and lay down the law.
Rest in peace Jean Stapleton
 
joe71 said:
people start yelling about sexism and equality rights.
Click to expand...
Thank you! You just reminded me of something I should've said to begin with: I am as feminist and anti-sexism as they come!

It's because of that that I felt the long-held, [what I now see as a] MISCONCEPTION about those old shows was so awful. I thought women were subservient to their husbands, had no post-high school education, and spent their days scrubbing floors and bowing down to their husbands.

In fact, they were as I've said college educated, intelligent, and so on. They were involved in their communities and in their children's lives. They simply were NOT what people have claimed them to be.

For the most part they didn't work [at paying jobs], but that was a reflection of real life back then. My mom--who had gone to college--didn't work; she stayed home, had three children, took care of them, did the household chores, etc., while my father [a civil engineer] brought home the money. Money that allowed my mother the luxury of not HAVING to work.

After my parents divorced, my [wealthy] grandmother gave my mom two offers: one, she'd give her a house, furnish it, and we'd live there or, two, she'd buy a larger [than her current] house and we'd all live together. In both cases she would financially support my mom beyond the alimony and child support she was receiving, until we were old enough for her to get a job. My mom chose #2, and we lived with my grandmother.

The result was that I got to see two opposite types of 1960s women--one [my mom] who was a homemaker, and one [my grandmother] who was a very successful businessperson, at a time when most women who worked earned little money.

She bought properties in Pasadena, where I grew up prior to us moving to Arcadia, and rented them out. They included single/duplex/triplex homes and commercial buildings, including multiple storefronts on Lake Ave (non-locals will need to look that up, or just take my word for it: expensive!). Her tenants included State Farm Insurance.

I'd go with her as she worked, which involved overseeing painters or plumbers or construction crews, making sure vacant properties were ready to rent, etc. She was a strong, no-nonsense figure who men had to defer to. VERY unusual for the time. So when I see TV women back then, strictly homemakers, I get it that that was the norm.

My mom did eventually get a job--not because she had to financially, but because she wanted to contribute to the household. We were all well-established in school by then; she worked for years afterward, finally retiring when she hit that age.

Women like my grandmother were represented in those old shows, albeit infrequently. I've seen everything from attorneys to rocket scientists! They were rare, but they did exist--which completely contradicts the 'mom as slave, chained to her kitchen' stereotype. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Steven58 said:
Father knows best
Click to expand...
What about it? :thinking:

Yes, its blatantly sexist title sucks, but the show itself--as I recall from long-ago reruns--depicted a mutually respectful, loving relationship between the parents, and kids who got into assorted mischief. I do recall Robert Young portraying the wise head of household, but I don't recall Jane Wyatt portraying a subservient wife.

For its time period, the '50s, I think it was a pretty accurate depiction of upper-middle class families, i.e., dad worked and mom was a homemaker. But not insulting towards women.
 
Exactly, media took a diametrically opposing view to men and in the 70s on. Men were portrayed as either bigots (All in the Family) or idiots (Simpsons)... I believe things are going back to even nowadays. It was a reaction to the 50s.

Here's an interesting article from The Atlantic on the subject.
 
Steven58 said:
Exactly, media took a diametrically opposing view to men and in the 70s on. Men were portrayed as either bigots (All in the Family) or idiots (Simpsons)... I believe things are going back to even nowadays. It was a reaction to the 50s.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's been quite the rocky road! One extreme to another. But, really, that applies to both sexes.

Remember the 'T&A' shows of the '70s? (T&A for you...young people...meant 'tits and ass' and was a term for the 'jiggle' shows, like Charlie's Angels which, although they portrayed powerful women, it was obligatory that they be scantily clad at least part of the time--running in slow motion while scantily clad was a bonus.)
Here's an interesting article from The Atlantic on the subject.
Click to expand...
Thanks, buddy, I'll take a look at it in a little bit. I'm actually sitting up! at a laptop! But headed back to the bedroom...right...about....now....
 
MoodyBlues said:
Yeah, it's been quite the rocky road! One extreme to another. But, really, that applies to both sexes.

Remember the 'T&A' shows of the '70s? (T&A for you...young people...meant 'tits and ass' and was a term for the 'jiggle' shows, like Charlie's Angels which, although they portrayed powerful women, it was obligatory that they be scantily clad at least part of the time--running in slow motion while scantily clad was a bonus.)

Thanks, buddy, I'll take a look at it in a little bit. I'm actually sitting up! at a laptop! But headed back to the bedroom...right...about....now....
Click to expand...

When I was a kid? Charlie's Angels? Are you kidding me? They drove me craaaazy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom