2010 has been a good year for Bonnie & Clyde revelations. To me, it's felt like Christmas many times this year. And just as I was about to reveal perhaps the most important 2010 B&C revelations to date, I open a seemingly innocent e-mail. I receive many e-mails regarding B&C, but this one captured my attention to the point-- I wanted to offer a post and comment concerning this subject right away. I've chosen to save much time here, by posting some useful links which delve into the fascinating and seedy world of Tijuana Bibles.
These anonymously drawn and sexually explicit short comic expressions, were apparently underground favorites for decades-- including the depression riddled years of the 1930's. These no holds barred erotic comics, not only provided spoofs of many existing comic strip characters-- but sometimes parodied true life individuals as well. It seems movie stars and other famous people, were fair game to be exploited as subject matter for Tijuana Bibles. Dillinger had one-- so did Cary Grant and Dorothy Lamour. Clark Gable, William Powell & Mirna Loy, Esther Williams, George Raft, Gracie Allen and Robert Mitchum-- were also targets of these sordid expressions. Even the affable Robert Young, had a Tijuana Bible title. This brings us to our topic for this post.
It's been made known to me, that a Tijuana Bible exists for Bonnie Parker. The cover art for this old time comic, has been cataloged along with other B&C media pieces-- however it's likely rare, to find an intact "adulterated" version of this B&C relic. This undated 8 page glimpse into racy 1930's consciousness-- is titled "Amputated". A PDF of this recently obtained original Tijuana Bible was e-mailed to me, along with the educational links posted.
B&C forums all have their own standards for content and discussion-- as I have standards here. Based on the raw explicitness of this comic material and out of respect for the Parker family-- I've chosen not to provide an open link to "Amputated" within The B&CHB. However as I support full disclosure concerning B&C materials, I will provide a copy of this Bonnie Parker Tijuana Bible in PDF form-- to all who e-mail me requesting one. And to be fair, a disclaimer is also provided. **Please note-- the content of this Tijuana Bible portrayal of Bonnie Parker is blatantly sexual and explicit. Some may be offended by it's content or depiction of Bonnie-- but all will be enlightened, concerning the survival of this historically relevant parody. There-- now with that behind us, I make these observations.
As I've often made a point to discuss B&C sexual rumor and innuendo-- in viewing this fascinating BP Tijuana Bible, I wonder where the openly torrid "Amputated" fits within existing rumors concerning Bonnie Parker promiscuity?? With this is mind, an intriguing question can be asked-- could a sordid 1930's comic, actually "be" the source of Bonnie Parker sexual rumor?? It's seems obvious, that "Amputated" clearly spells out the inference that Bonnie has trouble being satisfied sexually. Thus a link could be made between this spoof of Bonnie, and the rumors advanced over the years-- concerning her sexual appetite. To some, "Amputated" could be viewed as a damning reflection on Bonnie, but in real terms-- this 8 page piece of old style smut, may serve best to reveal itself, as perhaps the source of decades of rumor. So which came 1st, rumors to inspire "Amputated"-- or the underground comic itself??
After 76 years, there doesn't seem to be verifiable evidence to support claims of Bonnie being a loose woman. Maybe for some in today's reality driven world, where truth is often contrived-- these B&C rumors are convincing enough to count as fact. But the "facts" as I see them concerning B&C sexual rumors, are such that no empirical evidence seems available-- to support these innuendos which so many may wish to be true, but have not been substantiated. You would think if facts could be shown to demonstrate these realities, someone would have made the case by now. Instead as if by osmosis, these rumors just seem to seep into our collective consciousness from sources unknown. There are clues (or maybe not)-- within obscure references which live within literary expressions and seedy cartoons. But I would ask-- where is the proof, the smoking gun-- the 1st hand testimony to back these B&C rumors which are professed?? It's truly not good enough, for these rumors to be touted as "reality"-- without any discernible source!!
I don't have a hard time believing that people in the past, would have been crass enough to spread these rumors-- without evidence to back them up. But I do have a hard time believing, that if there really was something to B&C sexual innuendo, that some evidence wouldn't have surfaced by now. Perhaps the opposite is indeed the reality-- no sources-- no truth-- just playful/hurtful rumor, created by a free and loose press, some crime rag, an underground cartoonist-- or a B&C author just to be sensational. But that never happens does it?? The true untold stories of Bonnie and Clyde, are always told straight up aren't they??
It's strange enough concerning these rumors of Bonnie promiscuity. But what about the rumor of Clyde being homosexual. Where is the proof for that assertion as well?? You would think that an author with the credentials of a John Toland, would diligently verify his sources for any info he used-- including rumors?? The fact that a Pulitzer Prize winner, didn't or couldn't defend innuendos he decided to include within his only book on the criminal element of the '30's-- may speak volumes, concerning these stories perhaps just being rumors. Toland's book The Dillinger Days along with it's B&C references, was published in 1963-- long after any notion of politeness or sugar coating would need to be employed. Where are the footnotes??-- where are the facts for these assertions??
Perhaps Toland was a closet fan of Tijuana Bible humor??-- or just ran with stories passed down from others who were?? Could a dash of Tijuana Bible "shock value"-- together with a pinch of sensationalized fodder, combine to form the recipe for 3/4's of a century of scurrilous rumor?? Is that what this is really all about?? Or perhaps there's something to all this scuttlebutt?? Were earlier literary references, passed down without regard for the truth-- or is the truth still unknown?? I"m still asking where is the evidence??-- which for these self perpetuating rumors, seems not to exist.
Many like to hang their hats on the gossip within this history, without caring to examine what is actually known. Yes the gossip is known too-- but should innuendo carry equal weight, as accounts documented from credible sources?? That's the nature of evidence vs hearsay. Some people seem to relish hearsay concerning B&C, and bandy it about-- as if excited over some new phone app. A fair question to ask of these individuals might be-- would "they" want hearsay to be the standard applied in court-- should they become involved in some issue where the truth needs to be known?? The B&C families would likely and unanimously support B&C-- which is understandable. But surely with enemies having been out there, if evidence "was" available to support nefarious activities for B&C-- doesn't anyone feel some real evidence would be known??
I wonder why there's not a Tijuana Bible for Clyde being gay, if that was so believed back in the day-- like the one for Cary Grant?? Wouldn't a Clyde Barrow homosexual rumor, have made for a spectacular and juicy underground Tijuana Bible?!? I would bet so. I don't know-- all of these rumors just seem perpetuated without any real source, as if by smoke & mirrors. So does that make these rumors less relevant??-- or should we be digging to discover the truth regarding these sexual innuendos as well?? Perhaps "Amputated" is the answer to this Bonnie Parker mystery?? It's hard to know for sure, but I guarantee you one thing-- with this post up, those interested in B&C sexual rumors will flock here. "Yea Baby"!! But even though this topic needs to be addressed, as I've asked before-- sex sells, but at what cost to B&C History??? My approach is to go right at these fascinations-- to make people think-- and question what standards of truth should be applied to this history?? I welcome your comments.