Sounds like the joke attributed to Groucho Marx: “Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.”

Only to be comparable to this, it would have to be, Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s moist and warm.

And calling such a double-entendre a “modern, blatant perversion” simply shows a lack of knowledge of history, where such crude double-entendres were common, even in famous literature.

The title of Shakespeare’s play “Much Ado About Nothing” is itself nothing more than a crude triple-entendre: the title we understand, “much ado about ‘noting’” meaning reading/spying, and “much ado about nothing” where “nothing” is slang meaning vaginas. (link)

If Shakespeare can write a play with a double-entendre title meaning “much ado about vaginas,” the only problem with this is that it’s not crude enough.

While I ultimately agree with most of your comment, I feel like you’re claiming that our current culture in this time and place values the “low” humor more, but I’m not so sure that’s the case.  I mean, look at the Three Stooges!  That kind of comedy has always been insanely popular.  I’d say, even, that we tend to value more subtle humor now — just look at how popular Colbert is!  And I’d aslo argue that we have more of a variety of humor and comedy available.  It might be that you just happen to witness more “low brow” humor than I do.

That said, it’s still all very subjective and dependent on many factors, including personal tastes.

I base my statement on a belief that, while culture shifts (differing expressions), the elements of humanity are constant. If we’ve evolved, we haven’t evolved very far. This is based on my study of non-violent resistance (distinguishing commonalities from differences). I have many liberal friends and a few ultra-conservative friends and I watch the discussions with great interest and curiosity. I’ve witnessed both sides betraying their own interests with brutal words and behaviors.

I agree that perceptions of “high” and “low” shift. Against that relative, non-commital ebb and flow I hold that “low” means being the animals that we are (with no apology or desire to diminish that) and “high” means that we have the full choice to add to and refine that nature with a myriad of disciplines and expressions. Standing around exclaiming “I see your pee pee!” does little to uplift a culture. It may be funny once or twice, but you have to draw the line, say it’s not very important, and get onto other things.

Anyway, I think it’s entirely possible that the artist(s) were having one over on the marketing execs.  Hard to know.

More likely, the phrase has merely had it’s entendre doubled over time.

Like the wonderful book, Scouts in Bondage.  Be sure to click Search Inside This Book for several other hilarious old book covers that today mean something … just a little more humorous.

Isn’t the idea of what is “high” or “low” very subjective, and dependent on culture, time, place, circumstances, etc?  What we might think of as “high” humor now may very well have been “low” humor in the past; and vice-versa.  Also, do you have any … actual supporting evidence to support your hypothesis, or is just a general feeling you’re going off of?  See my, People seem to perceive the past as being more “innocent” or somehow “better” than the present, comment above.

This thought process is very common.  ”The 1950s were so much nicer!  It was a much more innocent time!  No one had sex out of wedlock!  Everyone was so much more respectful!”  Etc. etc.

People somehow think our past was “innocent” or more “pure”, though if they’d pay attention to the history books, they’d realize it wasn’t any more innocent than our present.  Just different.

My grandpa had a big one – whoo, wow, was that a beaut
I give you my word of honor, it hung halfway down his suit!
It makes no difference what’s the size or even if it’s colored
Long or short, fat or thin, as long as the thing is solid.

It’s about mustaches (you dirty-minded people, you!) and ends with “Rub-a-dub-dub, three men in a tub…my, how interesting! Move over, boys!”

[Edit: You can download John Ryan's "Mustache Song" and other tunes for free here: http://www.archive.org/details/JohnRyan ]

To call attention to the ad is great for opening up a discussion about the state of our cynic-soaked culture. To call attention to it because it’s a “pee pee” joke is profoundly unimportant.

My own instinct tells me that the double entendre was unintended, not because that age was more innocent, but just because words shift over time.

This is like seeing an ad from the 70′s for a facial at a salon. Not an innocent time, but not a double entendre.