Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.
Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.
Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.
Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.
Why was Schulz always so intent in showing these small children in love? He has Charlie Brown, who ages no higher than eight, madly in love, going on dates, sending all sorts of love letters, stalking and so on.
These are little kids, were children so sexually active back then?
| by Anonymous | reply 10 | September 19, 2019 8:06 PM |
Yes, OP. Children at that time were all sleazy whores.
| by Anonymous | reply 1 | September 18, 2019 2:35 PM |
What a stupid post and topic.
| by Anonymous | reply 2 | September 18, 2019 2:37 PM |
He had a talking dog too. Pervert!
| by Anonymous | reply 3 | September 18, 2019 2:38 PM |
It was puppy love, not pornographic schoolyard gang bangs. You're viewing the Peanuts as "sexually active" says more about you, than it does about Charles Schulz
| by Anonymous | reply 4 | September 18, 2019 2:42 PM |
*your
| by Anonymous | reply 5 | September 18, 2019 2:43 PM |
OP is a real fussbudget.
| by Anonymous | reply 6 | September 18, 2019 3:52 PM |
Small children can have innocent crushes, that don't have anything to do with sex. I did. Stop projecting sex onto little ones.
| by Anonymous | reply 7 | September 18, 2019 3:57 PM |
Children do not go on dates and they do not have proms where they have to kiss the prom queen and they do not stalk little red haired girls outside their houses.
Schulz was subtly forcing sexuality on these little tykes long before they should've even knew what sex they were.
Snoopy and Woodstock are fantasy so that's fine, but the other kids are representations of innocence.
| by Anonymous | reply 8 | September 19, 2019 9:37 AM |
Peanuts has always been slightly creepy.
| by Anonymous | reply 9 | September 19, 2019 10:16 AM |
"but the other kids are representations of innocence."
You don't understand Peanuts. It was never, ever about portraying childhood innocence. Instead it recognized, way ahead of its time, that there was never anything particularly "innocent" about childhood - but rather that adult insecurities are deeply rooted in childhood anxieties.
At the same time, despite Charlie Brown's longing for the Little Red-Haired Girl, Lucy's crush on Schroeder, etc., there was never anything remotely "sexual" about the strip. It was about anxiety.
The only real "child" of the strip was Snoopy, who like many children under the age of 5 or so lived deep in a fantasy world of his own creation.
| by Anonymous | reply 10 | September 19, 2019 8:06 PM |
Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.
Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!
