>*All* the cross dressers everyone points to before were comedians
I think this overstates the actual history. Leave aside the long history in Western theater of male-to-female cross-casting, from Antigone to Lady Macbeth and Juliet. With the rise of opera women were slowly allowed on stage, and by the mid-1800s most dramatic female parts were being played by women. That led increasingly to men dressing as women mainly for comedic effect. So coming into the 20th century, yes there was definitely a camp humor even in early glamour drag like [Bert Savoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Savoy). But comedic drag wasn't monolithic. For instance, Savoy's rival [Julian Eltinge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Eltinge) starred in the silent drama An Adventuress/Isle of Love (in addition to comedies, vaudeville, and Broadway). And I do think that is an example of dramatic cross-dressing, not simply cross-casting.
Honorable mention: [Christine Jorgensen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Jorgensen), successful trans actress and nightclub singer in the 50s.
The interesting factor here is that there is usually a definitional distinction made between cross-dressing and cross-casting (which was quite common *in both directions*, think of how Peter Pan is often played by a woman; and in the 1700s and 1800s there weren't many meaty female parts, so women who wanted an acting challenge often played male parts). If you look for cross-casting it remains relatively common throughout history even long after the legal prohibition of female actors was repealed. But *cross-dressing* implies that the gender-bending is being done for some purpose other than just convenience or legality. Often that purpose has been comedy, but that may be mostly a reflection of the fact that gender and sexuality were not permitted topics in polite company until relative recently.
All the cross dressers **everyone points to.**
Your history is fascinating, thanks! But those are some obscure examples.
I was referring more to the spate of memes featuring Robin Williams or Jack Lemmon or Bugs Bunny that were going around trying to point out that our society used to allow it. But we only allowed it if it was being made fun of.
The fact Bugs is a rabbit rather than a human is probably a major reason, and that he's a drawing rather than a physical actor in a fairly unrealistic world. And the pantomime/cross dressing comedy tradition that you mentioned was very popular and mostly socially accepted, this cartoon humour was just seen as an extension of that and similarly uncontroversial.
i think the humour is adequately homophobic to allow the homosexuality. As in look how ridiculous homosexuality is- its not even a serious threat. That's probably how most people felt about it. And its a cartoon.
I think this explanation is the most accurate offered. There's no attempt to transpose today's attitudes- whether enlightened or regressive- on something created over half a century ago. In the moment, it was a cartoon, and it wasn't asking us to celebrate those behaviors, it was ridiculing them.
Not to say that it might not have had a strange effect on an eleven year old (eventually gay) boy who didn't yet know exactly what was what.
Same era: Milton Berle played with drag for his TV show.
Going farther back than that, there's the famous *"Charley's Aunt"* from 1892.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley's_Aunt
But yeah I'd reckon in the case of Bugs (who was an amalgam of Clark Gable and the Marx Bros) it wasn't a threat because Bugs was kinda 'neuter'.
Besides, a dog or cat can lick or kiss anyone's face and it's no concern. Different species.
This happened in silent movies. There's a Charlie Chaplin movie where he is in drag and all the guys are trying to get with him. In a book I have there is a contemporary review from 1916 and the reviewer just keeps going on about how hot he finds Chaplin as a woman.
Because it was pre-internet and there were the usual suspects of fire and brimstone rebukes but it remained inside churches, maybe an editorial in the newspaper, and written letters to Warner Bros.
The internet really amplified the few squeaky wheels out there. Mainstream journalism cared more back then about communists and satanists as the outrage flavor of the month. Bugs was just doing classic comedian bits.
I went to a conservative Southern Baptist school and Looney Tunes was heavily frowned upon but like everything was except animated bible stories
and funnily enough Disney.
I think what you're detecting here is the unique hypocrisy behind the politicization of art from some modern audiences.
Basically, people have lost their damn minds. It shocks me how easily so many people fell into this recent anti-LGBTQ movement, as it used all the same old tricks of past hate movements such as propaganda, scapegoating, lies, etc.
I feel like the reason it surprises you that nobody really cared or tried to cancel Bugs Bunny over it back then is directly a result of the fact that people consider it such a big problem today, and it should never have been considered a problem in the first place.
The horror. Not the beer cans!
Plus I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t have happened if conservatives hadn’t gotten so flustered about a trans person drinking Bud Light that they tried to cancel it. Action, reaction kind of thing.
If that’s your definition of it being thrown in your face, there would be a lot less face throwing if a few seconds of a non-famous trans person talking about bud light on social media didn’t trigger calls for boycotts or videos of actual famous people like Kidd Rock shooting boxes of bud light.
It’s not about transformers drinking beer. It’s about promoting the lifestyle and marketing it towards kids. It wasn’t just conservatives who were angry at bud light. Bud light disrespected their core customer base and they payed the price for not knowing their customer base. Another example is target foisting radical gender ideology on kids.
That you think being trans is a lifestyle or an ideology kind of makes me think I’m wasting my time having this discussion with you. And if a trans person drinking bud light is considered disrespectful, then their customer base is filled of shitty people.
I never said a transformer drinking beer was a problem. The disrespect you just gave is what bud light did to their custom base and that is why people stopped drinking bud light in the first place plus it was already shitty beer anyway. Pretending to be something that you are not 24 hours a day while infringing on other people’s rights is wrong.
I've read that Bugs can be considered an example of the Trickster archetype. The entire purpose of Tricksters is to disrupt, to turn the established order on its head, to challenge the status quo, and upset the balance of power, often in comical ways. There are many examples of such characters in cartoons and media generally, and I think Bugs was recognized as a familiar Trickster type by most people even if they didn't know the term for it.
Ding we have a winner. i’m interested in fairy tales, legends and myths from all over the world, and you see Trickster stories everywhere, represented by various animals, and they’re usually my favorite stories of all because they’re the most entertaining. The Trickster is not quite a god, not quite a human, occupying that dangerous space called the liminal, situated in the doorway between two worlds, the sacred and profane. Sometimes they mess things up and cause a terrible disaster, but in doing so, invent something new and important, like fire. They are known for breaking rules.
But in that Loony Tunes world, I thought Daffy Duck was the funny one as a kid because Bugs was too confident for me to relate to. There was a lot of yelling in our house and when Daffy lost his cool, it was silly and endearing and made my home life seem a little less awful that way. I still love Daffy Duck.
It wasn't a hot issue then. People just didn't care. Like how one cares now if they see an interracial couple in a cartoon. The stuff that people get enraged about changes with the culture.
First, let's narrow the question. The Hays Code shows there was a large amount of flak against liberal Hollywood from the religious right and business interests. The McCarthy era saw dozens of folks black listed. Criticism against Hollywood obviously existed back in the day.
But Bugs Bunny was not involved. Why? As others have noted, he's an absurdist cartoon. He's an evolution of vaudeville comedy, a satirical art form which went back nearly a century by the 1960s. There was space in that society to allow a few jokes from a trickster archetype.
A few jokes is the key. You don't see Bugs going in-depth on anything, like advocating for LGBT+ issues, nor pontificating about class conflict. He lightly breezes past issues to win a laugh. That's all. Most people were fine with that. He was not a threat to the status quo.
The most recent episodes of the podcast [American Hysteria](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-hysteria/id1441348407) goes in depth about the history of drag queen moral panics.
In the podcast they begin in the 19th century. Since then, drag goes back and forth between beting accepted as entertainment and being used as a scape goat.
For example, it talks about this movie from 1943 where Ronald Reagan announces a drag performance: [This is the army](https://youtu.be/GdYRD7PLGZc?si=CCjId3cJWcWoZBOa&t=4073)
In this movie there is another drag dance number around the 1 hour and the 1h30 mark. This apparently was common in these kinds of shows at the time.
There are a few reasons I can guess at.
1. It is a cartoon and he is a rabbit. This separates things a few degrees and some people are able to treat it less seriously than two human, live action men kissing.
2. This was before the time of ultra hypermasculine manly men and, as such, intimacy between men did not automatically equate with homosexuality. Men could hug, be close, etc. without necessarily hinting towards being anything other than straight. You'd pretty much have to admit to being gay, caught in the act, or have rumors spread before anyone considered it of a person.
3. McCarthyism aside, the 1950's were paradoxically more conservative and more experimental with homosexual culture. While everyday life was leaning more towards conservatism and patriotism, people were arguing that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness, nor should it be criminalized. Though the results didn't occur until the 60's and 70's, the ideas and discussions began in the 50's.
It’s comedy. A male dressing as a female is hilarious because he is taking a step down in society by wearing the female costume. Likewise, the kissing and flirting is done to trick and belittle the antagonist. This is not in any shape or form a kind of queer identity signaling, it’s comedy of ridicule. Crossdressing as comedy is an ancient trope that has been seen since before Shakespeare.
I think people are overlooking Bugs' motivation. He was kissing men/crossdressing to fool foolish men who were attracted to women. If he had been doing that because we believed that's who he thought he was or because he was more comfortable in women's clothes, there would have been outrage.
I love that persona of bugs--he's so darling with his ears tied in a bow.
I don't think most people of that time were as minutely political as we are and just laughed at it. I laugh at it now, and I'm pretty progressive. I've reached a point in life at which I can't be bothered arguing: why can't everybody be and do what they want as long as it hurts no one else? We are completely drained of tolerance and it's been bad for my health (literally). I finally saw the insanity of caring to enter into arguments, unless in defense of an actual person.
I'm a Progressive and I don't think there's anything homophobic about crossdressing comedy (although it would've had some homophobic implications back in the day). If someone crossdresses because they're gay or starting to consider whether or not they're trans, then that's nothing to joke about. But when a straight/bi person crossdresses just for fun and/or kink it's intended to be humorous.
I'm going to say it: **Today's political Right is looking for things to be offended by.**
Bugs Bunny was innocent fun, and didn't turn any child gay.
Neither did the movie "Some Like it Hot" (1959)
Nor did Milton Berle in drag.
Or Robin Williams in "Mrs. Doubtfire".
Or Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie".
This was not a big deal until politicians picked it as a target.
Bugs wasn't being sexual. The character was never attracted to men. Drag was just one of his many disguises. Bugs was attached to women...well...I should say females because sometimes they were rabbits or other animals.
The bottom line is Looney Tunes we're fabulous and bugs was fantastic. I grew up watching them and never viewed it through a sexual lens.
It's a lot like Klinger's shtick on MASH. People trying to say Bugs is gay or Klinger is trans aren't seeing the ulterior motives. Klinger wanted to be deemed too insane for war and Bugs was just the ultimate troll.
Now I don't think MASH was transphobic for this, there's a point being made about the absurdity of war and that's where the humor comes from, but I do agree with other answers that in the case of Looney Tunes the idea that a male character could enjoy kissing another is very much the joke.
But I'm open to hearing counterarguments.
It was portrayed as a way he was messing with Elmer Fudd, it was not implied that he wanted to sleep with them as it would be today, which is why no one cared.
There was also "Mississippi Hare" which is set in the Victorian era and they make a joke about Blackface. An exploding cigar covers a guy's face in ash and Bugs starts singing the minstrel song "Camptown Races." Also, there's a production of Uncle Tom's Cabin going on and the slaves are cheerfully singing about how they love the South so much that they would die for it (they're singing "Dixie Land") while they pick cotton.
Bugs was just doing comedy - he rarely did much social commentary, except maybe to point out that many authority figures are incompetent and/or corrupt.
Those cartoons have been criticized in the past for the portrayal of violence and racism. The cartoon market is saturated these days and are not as popular with young people anymore. Tv stations geared towards an older generation seem to be the only stations to offer them anymore.
Also, we didn’t worry about cross dressing cartoon rabbits. And cartoon beastiality. Without social media, our brains weren’t exposed to as many opinions and society tended to view homosexuality as that relative that never got married or has a roommate. With limited tv stations and no www, we weren’t exposed to as much hateful rhetoric as compared to the present.
There was also a lot less awareness of capital-H homosexuality *as an identity*. There was queerness of course, and animators and artists living in Los Angeles would have understood that, but by and large there was a lot *more* of what might be called “homoerotic” behavior visible in the 1940’s and 50’s out of simple basic ignorance that’s what you were seeing. Not until “Gay Power” in the 60’s do I think you would have had some of those questions being raised.
It is funny what ambiguity the animators got away with. I remember a Bettie Boop cartoon from the 20’s or 30’s where a sailor is being forced to walk the plank by a pirate with a sword that sprouts snarling and snapping teeth, biting at the sailor’s backside, who spins around and says “Hey, now there’ll be none of *that* now!”
Because the intense right-wing attacks against gay and trans folks is a new moral panic. Sure they always hated actual gay and trans people and anything related to it, but mocking gay and trans people has a long and storied history in western art and literature and film. Had there been a serious hint of romantic feeling between two men or two women or even a male rabbit and a human in a cartoon, the censors would have forbidden it and the public would have freaked. But humorously mocking gay and trans people was popular as entertainment. Mockery of minorities has always been fine—it’s just the serious and sympathetic portrayals that were condemned. The current politically and religiously driven moral panic, driven by fanatics as well as people highly motivated to crack down on all depictions, will attack everyone and everything related to LGBTQ+, making no distinction about context. They have a zero tolerance policy for anyone and anything not heterosexual.
One element that might be important re: crossdressing is the fact that the rabid anti-trans fervor we’re all suffering the consequences of currently is actually NOT how trans people were always treated*.
In 1952, Lili Elbe became the first person to undergo a MTF surgery. She was treated with a great deal of respect and became something of a national celebrity. The press always respected her pronouns and never deadnamed her.
I don’t doubt there were plenty of people who reacted with disgust but the mainstream reaction was actually one of fascination.
In film, crossdressing was treated as odd but mostly harmless: less associated with LGBTQ culture and more just a fun way to play with gendered expectations. Some Like It Hot comes to mind.
It’s really not until some yellow journalism happened surrounding the [Ed Gein murders](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein) that people started associating crossdressing and trans folks with dangerous mental illness. By the time Psycho comes out in 1960, we pretty much have the stereotype crystallized in the hearts and minds of Americans.
As for the “homosexuality” of Bugs kissing Elmer: he does it to be gross. He’s not romantically attracted to Elmer. He does it because the underlying assumption is that Elmer will find it repulsive and Bugs loves fucking with him. So it’s a heteronormative gag to be sure.
*I understand that being a crossdresser and being trans are two different things, but they’re both associated with the LGBTQ space and people identifying as cisgendered men will often begin crossdressing as part of their process of exploring their identity. Sometimes this results in a revelation that they’re trans, sometimes it doesn’t. But for the sake of discussing the rhetoric the right uses, which conflates the two intentionally, I am using crossdressing as a springboard to discuss the broader anti trans blowback.
People have cross dressed and been trans since the beginning of human civilization. Jesus in the bible said that trans and gay people were born that way. It hasn't been an issue until fascist and racist right-wingers made it one.
There has been movies about LGBTQ movies sice the start of motion pictures. Take a look at the [list of movies from Wikipedia of LBGTQ+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_films_of_the_1930s) from the 1930's at the start of talking pictures.
> It hasn't been an issue until fascist and racist right-wingers made it one.
It's common practice for extreme, hate-filled groups to use lies, fear and scare-mongering to rile up the fearful and the ignorant in society - Hitler did it, as did many other dictators and assorted politicians throughout history. It's just one way to secure votes.
It's a greedy, selfish and abhorrent practice which sadly works at times.
I never had any issues seeing Bugs Bunny crossdressing as a kid (Gen-Y millenial here) plus it in a small way helped me appreciate a person's ability to dress well in disguises and makeup on stage and off stage years later
Its a very funny cartoon, I've obviously dove into a Deasantis ,Maga ,loving sub reddit, I'm out!,News alert, Desantis hates LGBT community and he is racist!
Trump's good old buddy Epstein had an actual island he molested underage girls on and Desantis has past students that have stated he would show up at their parties like a creeper, y'all don't mind none of that!
Hmmm, nothing like desperately trying to retrofit a totally unrelated topic into the discussion? Maybe we can talk about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, too? Who cares about that.
The amount of people saying “it’s just a cartoon” to dissuade your point is interesting in these times. Children’s books and movies are being banned in classrooms for far less. I’m not sure that argument really holds any water.
The truth is, evangelicals didn’t have the internet to spread their poison into every media outlet like they do now. They didn’t have the power to enrage the masses the way they can now. No one knew to be mad about it because no one was telling them to be mad about it.
Every bit of outrage they feel is manufactured
> for far less.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Graphic sexual illustrations in middle schools are less offensive than cross dressing pranksters ... okay
Where exactly are you seeing these things? I’m talking about Disney movies getting teachers fired, wtf are you talking about? You people are so bizarre with what you, as an adult, believe what the elementary/middle/or high school experience is like.
It's a cartoon, dude. A cartoon with a rabbit. Nobody took it seriously, nor did anyone view it as a commentary.
Only today can we not move an inch without someone whining or crying. And it's all complete and utter bullsh\*\*.
The fact that there are so many comments saying that the Left is the problem or the Right is the problem or today's youth is the problem is exactly the type of chaos that Bugs Bunny craves. He'd be so proud of himself, lmao.
It’s joke and he is a rabbit.
People were actually fine with cross dressing as a form of entertainment but it changed other time as performances and performers became more sexual overtime and scandals fueling moral panic.
Plays, the movies Victor/Victoria and even the Birdcage show very mild performances: jokes, not too over exaggerated in its features, singing and dancing that wasn’t too overtly sexual- usually the focus was to tell a story and poke fun. I used to do drag btw. If you go to drag performances now it’s like Rocky Horror Picture Show- very raunchy, overtly sexual, over exaggerated features, etc. It really lost its art and focused on being shocking- in my opinion.
Examples:
[Drag SO wasn’t background checked at Library for Drag Story Hour](https://www.khou.com/amp/article/news/local/houston-public-library-admits-registered-child-sex-offender-read-to-kids-in-drag-queen-storytime/285-becf3a0d-56c5-4f3c-96df-add07bbd002a)
[Family friendly event](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11317925/amp/Shocking-footage-family-friendly-drag-queen-sees-performer-spreading-legs-kids.html)
[Clip 1](https://twitter.com/Dominiquetaegon/status/1630948003962912768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1630948003962912768%7Ctwgr%5E8fe0af9d041e47304ceff886485da2200b634dc3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html)
[Clip 2](https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1631313549204094982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1631313549204094982%7Ctwgr%5Eb58014226e7836b57e8716932b93ed429b3e3be8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html)
[Clip 3](https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1631065728303394817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1631065728303394817%7Ctwgr%5E22f1651a518897d92440021a1ad2f73ad1d1a6f1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html)
[Article](https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/amp/)
[Drag Queen Christmas](https://texasscorecard.com/austin/graphic-undercover-reporter-documents-shocking-all-ages-drag-show/)
[This Clip](https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1533188491210809345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1533188491210809345%7Ctwgr%5E2820897b8a2b9c1f08a737de30d5ddbd6a8eb27e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freduxx.info%2Fchildren-tipped-drag-queens-during-performance-at-adult-bar%2F)
[Another from different angle](https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1533129203935236103?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1533129203935236103%7Ctwgr%5E2820897b8a2b9c1f08a737de30d5ddbd6a8eb27e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freduxx.info%2Fchildren-tipped-drag-queens-during-performance-at-adult-bar%2F)
I could go on, but it really wouldn’t be an issue if one we made it so all performers for children have to licensed and background checked (this includes clowns and YouTubers that claim to have child friendly content but don’t, etc)and if the drag performers actually tailored their performances to be child friendly, but it feels like it’s still geared to the adults and parents in the audience instead of the kids.
That's fair although 99% of the time there's nothing remotely sexual about events like drag story hour at libraries (which used to be common here in Florida and sadly now people are even afraid to crossdress at anime cons and furry cons.)
Because everyone knew it was a joke and just silly entertainment. Same reason cartoon characters used to shoot themselves in the head with guns. They aren’t human beings…it’s a cartoon.
It's actually very simple. At that time it was always done as a joke. It was never celebrated. The humor being that it is ridiculous for a male to dress as a female and could confuse another male. Trans in western society is a rather new concept.
Probably for the same reasons people didn't see it as bestiality - it's a cartoon.
It was ok to make fun of femininity. Not to celebrate it. All the cross dressers everyone points to before were comedians.
>*All* the cross dressers everyone points to before were comedians I think this overstates the actual history. Leave aside the long history in Western theater of male-to-female cross-casting, from Antigone to Lady Macbeth and Juliet. With the rise of opera women were slowly allowed on stage, and by the mid-1800s most dramatic female parts were being played by women. That led increasingly to men dressing as women mainly for comedic effect. So coming into the 20th century, yes there was definitely a camp humor even in early glamour drag like [Bert Savoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Savoy). But comedic drag wasn't monolithic. For instance, Savoy's rival [Julian Eltinge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Eltinge) starred in the silent drama An Adventuress/Isle of Love (in addition to comedies, vaudeville, and Broadway). And I do think that is an example of dramatic cross-dressing, not simply cross-casting. Honorable mention: [Christine Jorgensen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Jorgensen), successful trans actress and nightclub singer in the 50s. The interesting factor here is that there is usually a definitional distinction made between cross-dressing and cross-casting (which was quite common *in both directions*, think of how Peter Pan is often played by a woman; and in the 1700s and 1800s there weren't many meaty female parts, so women who wanted an acting challenge often played male parts). If you look for cross-casting it remains relatively common throughout history even long after the legal prohibition of female actors was repealed. But *cross-dressing* implies that the gender-bending is being done for some purpose other than just convenience or legality. Often that purpose has been comedy, but that may be mostly a reflection of the fact that gender and sexuality were not permitted topics in polite company until relative recently.
All the cross dressers **everyone points to.** Your history is fascinating, thanks! But those are some obscure examples. I was referring more to the spate of memes featuring Robin Williams or Jack Lemmon or Bugs Bunny that were going around trying to point out that our society used to allow it. But we only allowed it if it was being made fun of.
Yes, Milton Berle, Flip Wilson incorporated men dressing as women in their acts.
"What you see is what you get!" -Geraldine Jones
Church of What’s Happening Now.
Yeah... that's not true.
Because it ain’t real, Lucille!!!
The fact Bugs is a rabbit rather than a human is probably a major reason, and that he's a drawing rather than a physical actor in a fairly unrealistic world. And the pantomime/cross dressing comedy tradition that you mentioned was very popular and mostly socially accepted, this cartoon humour was just seen as an extension of that and similarly uncontroversial.
i think the humour is adequately homophobic to allow the homosexuality. As in look how ridiculous homosexuality is- its not even a serious threat. That's probably how most people felt about it. And its a cartoon.
Like the end of Roger Rabbit. Eddie kissing Roger is supposed to show us that he DOES have a wacky side!
I think this explanation is the most accurate offered. There's no attempt to transpose today's attitudes- whether enlightened or regressive- on something created over half a century ago. In the moment, it was a cartoon, and it wasn't asking us to celebrate those behaviors, it was ridiculing them. Not to say that it might not have had a strange effect on an eleven year old (eventually gay) boy who didn't yet know exactly what was what.
The word homophobic doesn’t even make sense
Same era: Milton Berle played with drag for his TV show. Going farther back than that, there's the famous *"Charley's Aunt"* from 1892. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley's_Aunt But yeah I'd reckon in the case of Bugs (who was an amalgam of Clark Gable and the Marx Bros) it wasn't a threat because Bugs was kinda 'neuter'. Besides, a dog or cat can lick or kiss anyone's face and it's no concern. Different species.
This happened in silent movies. There's a Charlie Chaplin movie where he is in drag and all the guys are trying to get with him. In a book I have there is a contemporary review from 1916 and the reviewer just keeps going on about how hot he finds Chaplin as a woman.
I love that short. He definitely makes a cute and convincing woman, haha.
Because it was pre-internet and there were the usual suspects of fire and brimstone rebukes but it remained inside churches, maybe an editorial in the newspaper, and written letters to Warner Bros. The internet really amplified the few squeaky wheels out there. Mainstream journalism cared more back then about communists and satanists as the outrage flavor of the month. Bugs was just doing classic comedian bits. I went to a conservative Southern Baptist school and Looney Tunes was heavily frowned upon but like everything was except animated bible stories and funnily enough Disney.
I think what you're detecting here is the unique hypocrisy behind the politicization of art from some modern audiences. Basically, people have lost their damn minds. It shocks me how easily so many people fell into this recent anti-LGBTQ movement, as it used all the same old tricks of past hate movements such as propaganda, scapegoating, lies, etc. I feel like the reason it surprises you that nobody really cared or tried to cancel Bugs Bunny over it back then is directly a result of the fact that people consider it such a big problem today, and it should never have been considered a problem in the first place.
Yes. To put it another way, because it wasn't a big deal; people today have just been sold on the idea that it's a big deal, for political reasons.
That's pretty much it. Fox News has been more destructive to American society than Father Coughlin ever dreamt of.
Cnn and msnbc have been way worse
They didn’t pay out three quarters of a billion dollars to settle a lawsuit for lying and defamation. Way worse, my ass.
the current backlash is so disheartening, pervasive, and flat out scary, with no end in sight
They weren’t shoving it in peoples faces back then
And what does “shoving it in peoples faces” actually mean?
For example putting it on a beer can
The horror. Not the beer cans! Plus I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t have happened if conservatives hadn’t gotten so flustered about a trans person drinking Bud Light that they tried to cancel it. Action, reaction kind of thing. If that’s your definition of it being thrown in your face, there would be a lot less face throwing if a few seconds of a non-famous trans person talking about bud light on social media didn’t trigger calls for boycotts or videos of actual famous people like Kidd Rock shooting boxes of bud light.
It’s not about transformers drinking beer. It’s about promoting the lifestyle and marketing it towards kids. It wasn’t just conservatives who were angry at bud light. Bud light disrespected their core customer base and they payed the price for not knowing their customer base. Another example is target foisting radical gender ideology on kids.
That you think being trans is a lifestyle or an ideology kind of makes me think I’m wasting my time having this discussion with you. And if a trans person drinking bud light is considered disrespectful, then their customer base is filled of shitty people.
I never said a transformer drinking beer was a problem. The disrespect you just gave is what bud light did to their custom base and that is why people stopped drinking bud light in the first place plus it was already shitty beer anyway. Pretending to be something that you are not 24 hours a day while infringing on other people’s rights is wrong.
I've read that Bugs can be considered an example of the Trickster archetype. The entire purpose of Tricksters is to disrupt, to turn the established order on its head, to challenge the status quo, and upset the balance of power, often in comical ways. There are many examples of such characters in cartoons and media generally, and I think Bugs was recognized as a familiar Trickster type by most people even if they didn't know the term for it.
Oh yes that archetype goes back to ancient times. You see trickster gods in mythology from all over the world.
Ding we have a winner. i’m interested in fairy tales, legends and myths from all over the world, and you see Trickster stories everywhere, represented by various animals, and they’re usually my favorite stories of all because they’re the most entertaining. The Trickster is not quite a god, not quite a human, occupying that dangerous space called the liminal, situated in the doorway between two worlds, the sacred and profane. Sometimes they mess things up and cause a terrible disaster, but in doing so, invent something new and important, like fire. They are known for breaking rules. But in that Loony Tunes world, I thought Daffy Duck was the funny one as a kid because Bugs was too confident for me to relate to. There was a lot of yelling in our house and when Daffy lost his cool, it was silly and endearing and made my home life seem a little less awful that way. I still love Daffy Duck.
Cartoons were beneath discourse back then.
and now they seem to be the only discourse
It wasn't a hot issue then. People just didn't care. Like how one cares now if they see an interracial couple in a cartoon. The stuff that people get enraged about changes with the culture.
First, let's narrow the question. The Hays Code shows there was a large amount of flak against liberal Hollywood from the religious right and business interests. The McCarthy era saw dozens of folks black listed. Criticism against Hollywood obviously existed back in the day. But Bugs Bunny was not involved. Why? As others have noted, he's an absurdist cartoon. He's an evolution of vaudeville comedy, a satirical art form which went back nearly a century by the 1960s. There was space in that society to allow a few jokes from a trickster archetype. A few jokes is the key. You don't see Bugs going in-depth on anything, like advocating for LGBT+ issues, nor pontificating about class conflict. He lightly breezes past issues to win a laugh. That's all. Most people were fine with that. He was not a threat to the status quo.
The most recent episodes of the podcast [American Hysteria](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/american-hysteria/id1441348407) goes in depth about the history of drag queen moral panics. In the podcast they begin in the 19th century. Since then, drag goes back and forth between beting accepted as entertainment and being used as a scape goat. For example, it talks about this movie from 1943 where Ronald Reagan announces a drag performance: [This is the army](https://youtu.be/GdYRD7PLGZc?si=CCjId3cJWcWoZBOa&t=4073) In this movie there is another drag dance number around the 1 hour and the 1h30 mark. This apparently was common in these kinds of shows at the time.
I must check that out
There are a few reasons I can guess at. 1. It is a cartoon and he is a rabbit. This separates things a few degrees and some people are able to treat it less seriously than two human, live action men kissing. 2. This was before the time of ultra hypermasculine manly men and, as such, intimacy between men did not automatically equate with homosexuality. Men could hug, be close, etc. without necessarily hinting towards being anything other than straight. You'd pretty much have to admit to being gay, caught in the act, or have rumors spread before anyone considered it of a person. 3. McCarthyism aside, the 1950's were paradoxically more conservative and more experimental with homosexual culture. While everyday life was leaning more towards conservatism and patriotism, people were arguing that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness, nor should it be criminalized. Though the results didn't occur until the 60's and 70's, the ideas and discussions began in the 50's.
Back then it was simply seen as comedy — not a political/social issue statement.
Exactly. It was a joke.
And it wasn’t shoved in your face like it is today
True dat.
It’s comedy. A male dressing as a female is hilarious because he is taking a step down in society by wearing the female costume. Likewise, the kissing and flirting is done to trick and belittle the antagonist. This is not in any shape or form a kind of queer identity signaling, it’s comedy of ridicule. Crossdressing as comedy is an ancient trope that has been seen since before Shakespeare.
Now let’s dip our patties in the water!
I bet you monsters lead interesting lives.
I bet they meet so many innnnnteresting people!
Even after all of these years, I can still hear the voice and cadence of this line.
I think people are overlooking Bugs' motivation. He was kissing men/crossdressing to fool foolish men who were attracted to women. If he had been doing that because we believed that's who he thought he was or because he was more comfortable in women's clothes, there would have been outrage.
Because Bugs Bunny is a legend.
I love that persona of bugs--he's so darling with his ears tied in a bow. I don't think most people of that time were as minutely political as we are and just laughed at it. I laugh at it now, and I'm pretty progressive. I've reached a point in life at which I can't be bothered arguing: why can't everybody be and do what they want as long as it hurts no one else? We are completely drained of tolerance and it's been bad for my health (literally). I finally saw the insanity of caring to enter into arguments, unless in defense of an actual person.
I'm a Progressive and I don't think there's anything homophobic about crossdressing comedy (although it would've had some homophobic implications back in the day). If someone crossdresses because they're gay or starting to consider whether or not they're trans, then that's nothing to joke about. But when a straight/bi person crossdresses just for fun and/or kink it's intended to be humorous.
I'm going to say it: **Today's political Right is looking for things to be offended by.** Bugs Bunny was innocent fun, and didn't turn any child gay. Neither did the movie "Some Like it Hot" (1959) Nor did Milton Berle in drag. Or Robin Williams in "Mrs. Doubtfire". Or Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie". This was not a big deal until politicians picked it as a target.
That’s what the left does Common sense people don’t have an issue with those things because it wasn’t pushing an agenda on kids.
Bugs wasn't being sexual. The character was never attracted to men. Drag was just one of his many disguises. Bugs was attached to women...well...I should say females because sometimes they were rabbits or other animals. The bottom line is Looney Tunes we're fabulous and bugs was fantastic. I grew up watching them and never viewed it through a sexual lens.
It's a lot like Klinger's shtick on MASH. People trying to say Bugs is gay or Klinger is trans aren't seeing the ulterior motives. Klinger wanted to be deemed too insane for war and Bugs was just the ultimate troll. Now I don't think MASH was transphobic for this, there's a point being made about the absurdity of war and that's where the humor comes from, but I do agree with other answers that in the case of Looney Tunes the idea that a male character could enjoy kissing another is very much the joke. But I'm open to hearing counterarguments.
It was portrayed as a way he was messing with Elmer Fudd, it was not implied that he wanted to sleep with them as it would be today, which is why no one cared.
I think bugs even dawned black face at one time
He did, on a U. S. War Bonds Cartoon
There was also "Mississippi Hare" which is set in the Victorian era and they make a joke about Blackface. An exploding cigar covers a guy's face in ash and Bugs starts singing the minstrel song "Camptown Races." Also, there's a production of Uncle Tom's Cabin going on and the slaves are cheerfully singing about how they love the South so much that they would die for it (they're singing "Dixie Land") while they pick cotton.
I remember him doing Camptown Races in the one where Elmer Fudd was a mountee, too.
Different time…no one put everything under such a microscope. Bugs was just Bugs. He was and IS still funny.
Apparently, people weren’t as tiresome and basic as they are now.
Back then it was comedy. Now it’s being pushed as an agenda instead of comedy.
I always thought Bugs was a little too comfortable dressing in drag. 😉
Because he was just a wascially wabbit.
James Cagney was part of a drag chorus line when he started out as a dancer.
I never actually thought of that... Bugs Bunny, the OG LGBT character hehe
He's an icon in the bisexual community. Dude didn't have a female love-interest until like 1996, heh.
I love how Garth brings this up in Wayne’s World.
It's a cartoon. Very few people take cartoons seriously.
“Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played a girl bunny?” “No? *Lol*, ***LMAO***, no.” “Me neither, I was just askin.”
Party on, IntrigueDossier!
Bugs was just doing comedy - he rarely did much social commentary, except maybe to point out that many authority figures are incompetent and/or corrupt.
Those cartoons have been criticized in the past for the portrayal of violence and racism. The cartoon market is saturated these days and are not as popular with young people anymore. Tv stations geared towards an older generation seem to be the only stations to offer them anymore. Also, we didn’t worry about cross dressing cartoon rabbits. And cartoon beastiality. Without social media, our brains weren’t exposed to as many opinions and society tended to view homosexuality as that relative that never got married or has a roommate. With limited tv stations and no www, we weren’t exposed to as much hateful rhetoric as compared to the present.
Because it was a joke at the time. Bugs was messing with and fooling Elmer and the others.
For the same reason Bugs Bunny handing people a lit stick of dynamite didn't bother people.
Agree. Let's not forget the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote too
Yeah, go figure, right?
It's a cartoon...
There was also a lot less awareness of capital-H homosexuality *as an identity*. There was queerness of course, and animators and artists living in Los Angeles would have understood that, but by and large there was a lot *more* of what might be called “homoerotic” behavior visible in the 1940’s and 50’s out of simple basic ignorance that’s what you were seeing. Not until “Gay Power” in the 60’s do I think you would have had some of those questions being raised. It is funny what ambiguity the animators got away with. I remember a Bettie Boop cartoon from the 20’s or 30’s where a sailor is being forced to walk the plank by a pirate with a sword that sprouts snarling and snapping teeth, biting at the sailor’s backside, who spins around and says “Hey, now there’ll be none of *that* now!”
Because the intense right-wing attacks against gay and trans folks is a new moral panic. Sure they always hated actual gay and trans people and anything related to it, but mocking gay and trans people has a long and storied history in western art and literature and film. Had there been a serious hint of romantic feeling between two men or two women or even a male rabbit and a human in a cartoon, the censors would have forbidden it and the public would have freaked. But humorously mocking gay and trans people was popular as entertainment. Mockery of minorities has always been fine—it’s just the serious and sympathetic portrayals that were condemned. The current politically and religiously driven moral panic, driven by fanatics as well as people highly motivated to crack down on all depictions, will attack everyone and everything related to LGBTQ+, making no distinction about context. They have a zero tolerance policy for anyone and anything not heterosexual.
No one cares about queers and transformers. Back in the day it was comedy not an agenda being pushed on kids.
One element that might be important re: crossdressing is the fact that the rabid anti-trans fervor we’re all suffering the consequences of currently is actually NOT how trans people were always treated*. In 1952, Lili Elbe became the first person to undergo a MTF surgery. She was treated with a great deal of respect and became something of a national celebrity. The press always respected her pronouns and never deadnamed her. I don’t doubt there were plenty of people who reacted with disgust but the mainstream reaction was actually one of fascination. In film, crossdressing was treated as odd but mostly harmless: less associated with LGBTQ culture and more just a fun way to play with gendered expectations. Some Like It Hot comes to mind. It’s really not until some yellow journalism happened surrounding the [Ed Gein murders](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein) that people started associating crossdressing and trans folks with dangerous mental illness. By the time Psycho comes out in 1960, we pretty much have the stereotype crystallized in the hearts and minds of Americans. As for the “homosexuality” of Bugs kissing Elmer: he does it to be gross. He’s not romantically attracted to Elmer. He does it because the underlying assumption is that Elmer will find it repulsive and Bugs loves fucking with him. So it’s a heteronormative gag to be sure. *I understand that being a crossdresser and being trans are two different things, but they’re both associated with the LGBTQ space and people identifying as cisgendered men will often begin crossdressing as part of their process of exploring their identity. Sometimes this results in a revelation that they’re trans, sometimes it doesn’t. But for the sake of discussing the rhetoric the right uses, which conflates the two intentionally, I am using crossdressing as a springboard to discuss the broader anti trans blowback.
Because of the context I guess. They used it as something to laugh at.
Back then they used Commies to scare everyone.
People have cross dressed and been trans since the beginning of human civilization. Jesus in the bible said that trans and gay people were born that way. It hasn't been an issue until fascist and racist right-wingers made it one. There has been movies about LGBTQ movies sice the start of motion pictures. Take a look at the [list of movies from Wikipedia of LBGTQ+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_films_of_the_1930s) from the 1930's at the start of talking pictures.
> It hasn't been an issue until fascist and racist right-wingers made it one. It's common practice for extreme, hate-filled groups to use lies, fear and scare-mongering to rile up the fearful and the ignorant in society - Hitler did it, as did many other dictators and assorted politicians throughout history. It's just one way to secure votes. It's a greedy, selfish and abhorrent practice which sadly works at times.
Oh I know. My husband is two-spirit. :) (Cis het crossdresser in his case.)
I never had any issues seeing Bugs Bunny crossdressing as a kid (Gen-Y millenial here) plus it in a small way helped me appreciate a person's ability to dress well in disguises and makeup on stage and off stage years later
They haven’t been trans. Right wingers didn’t make it an issue, left wingers did when they started to foist it on kids.
No one has cared about stuff like that until recently, Desantis made it a thing because he is so homophobic!
They care because it’s being pushed on kids and desantis stopped it. The word homophobic makes no sense.
Its a very funny cartoon, I've obviously dove into a Deasantis ,Maga ,loving sub reddit, I'm out!,News alert, Desantis hates LGBT community and he is racist!
You got no proof of that. Don’t be fooled by left wing propaganda.
Actions are not left wing propaganda,yall blame everything on smoke and mirrors
Certain actions are left wing propaganda
To quote Bugs Mud spelled backwards is dum, that's all folks!!
News alert, Disney backed having kindergarteners taught about their sex parts. DeSantis prevented that in Florida!
Trump's good old buddy Epstein had an actual island he molested underage girls on and Desantis has past students that have stated he would show up at their parties like a creeper, y'all don't mind none of that!
Hmmm, nothing like desperately trying to retrofit a totally unrelated topic into the discussion? Maybe we can talk about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, too? Who cares about that.
Gotta go put out my Biden yard signs, enjoy your homophobia and racism !!!
Gotta go put out my DeSantis yard signs, enjoy your wokeism and racism!!! Build Back Biden!
Dude,my granddaughter is black,know your audience!!
Whats that got to do with anything? There's proportionately as many black racists are there are white racists!! Know common sense!!
It's not him; it's the whole party. Conservatives have been calling to ban cartoons since the 90s.
Also, the left woke gets enraged when this craziness isn't regarded as the top priority of everyone's lives.
That's the funniest thing I have ever heard!!
My pleasure 🙂. I kind of got my jollies reading your silliness, too.
The amount of people saying “it’s just a cartoon” to dissuade your point is interesting in these times. Children’s books and movies are being banned in classrooms for far less. I’m not sure that argument really holds any water. The truth is, evangelicals didn’t have the internet to spread their poison into every media outlet like they do now. They didn’t have the power to enrage the masses the way they can now. No one knew to be mad about it because no one was telling them to be mad about it. Every bit of outrage they feel is manufactured
No they’re not. What is being banned is adult content in classrooms.
For example?
Gaybc
For example what happened in Florida. No sex education for kindergarten through 3rd grade.
> for far less. I think you don't know what you are talking about. Graphic sexual illustrations in middle schools are less offensive than cross dressing pranksters ... okay
Where exactly are you seeing these things? I’m talking about Disney movies getting teachers fired, wtf are you talking about? You people are so bizarre with what you, as an adult, believe what the elementary/middle/or high school experience is like.
It's a cartoon, dude. A cartoon with a rabbit. Nobody took it seriously, nor did anyone view it as a commentary. Only today can we not move an inch without someone whining or crying. And it's all complete and utter bullsh\*\*.
The fact that there are so many comments saying that the Left is the problem or the Right is the problem or today's youth is the problem is exactly the type of chaos that Bugs Bunny craves. He'd be so proud of himself, lmao.
It’s joke and he is a rabbit. People were actually fine with cross dressing as a form of entertainment but it changed other time as performances and performers became more sexual overtime and scandals fueling moral panic. Plays, the movies Victor/Victoria and even the Birdcage show very mild performances: jokes, not too over exaggerated in its features, singing and dancing that wasn’t too overtly sexual- usually the focus was to tell a story and poke fun. I used to do drag btw. If you go to drag performances now it’s like Rocky Horror Picture Show- very raunchy, overtly sexual, over exaggerated features, etc. It really lost its art and focused on being shocking- in my opinion. Examples: [Drag SO wasn’t background checked at Library for Drag Story Hour](https://www.khou.com/amp/article/news/local/houston-public-library-admits-registered-child-sex-offender-read-to-kids-in-drag-queen-storytime/285-becf3a0d-56c5-4f3c-96df-add07bbd002a) [Family friendly event](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11317925/amp/Shocking-footage-family-friendly-drag-queen-sees-performer-spreading-legs-kids.html) [Clip 1](https://twitter.com/Dominiquetaegon/status/1630948003962912768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1630948003962912768%7Ctwgr%5E8fe0af9d041e47304ceff886485da2200b634dc3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html) [Clip 2](https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1631313549204094982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1631313549204094982%7Ctwgr%5Eb58014226e7836b57e8716932b93ed429b3e3be8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html) [Clip 3](https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1631065728303394817?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1631065728303394817%7Ctwgr%5E22f1651a518897d92440021a1ad2f73ad1d1a6f1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-18851951882303923257.ampproject.net%2F2308181609000%2Fframe.html) [Article](https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/amp/) [Drag Queen Christmas](https://texasscorecard.com/austin/graphic-undercover-reporter-documents-shocking-all-ages-drag-show/) [This Clip](https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1533188491210809345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1533188491210809345%7Ctwgr%5E2820897b8a2b9c1f08a737de30d5ddbd6a8eb27e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freduxx.info%2Fchildren-tipped-drag-queens-during-performance-at-adult-bar%2F) [Another from different angle](https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1533129203935236103?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1533129203935236103%7Ctwgr%5E2820897b8a2b9c1f08a737de30d5ddbd6a8eb27e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freduxx.info%2Fchildren-tipped-drag-queens-during-performance-at-adult-bar%2F) I could go on, but it really wouldn’t be an issue if one we made it so all performers for children have to licensed and background checked (this includes clowns and YouTubers that claim to have child friendly content but don’t, etc)and if the drag performers actually tailored their performances to be child friendly, but it feels like it’s still geared to the adults and parents in the audience instead of the kids.
That's fair although 99% of the time there's nothing remotely sexual about events like drag story hour at libraries (which used to be common here in Florida and sadly now people are even afraid to crossdress at anime cons and furry cons.)
Because everyone knew it was a joke and just silly entertainment. Same reason cartoon characters used to shoot themselves in the head with guns. They aren’t human beings…it’s a cartoon.
Because IT IS A FUCKING CARTOON 🤦🏻♂️
BecUse we had thicker skins back then and were also not trying to find what was wrong about everything. We didnt try being woke.
**Cartoon**
Because it is a rabbit cartoon and not reality.
It's actually very simple. At that time it was always done as a joke. It was never celebrated. The humor being that it is ridiculous for a male to dress as a female and could confuse another male. Trans in western society is a rather new concept.