Up The Butt, Bob

Yesterday, while waiting for Straight Dope to finish its maintenance, I visited a site that examines Urban Legends. Warning: the cited site is littered with annoying web-effects and overdone graphics, and has crashed my Explorer several times, forcing me to reboot. But I thought it worth enduring the sporadic bugginess because the site is so rich in content, so I went back again and again between crashes to read delightful stories about how urban legends started and spread.

Until I got to this one. This is not an urban legend, and I know it is not because I saw the episode myself.

Let me recap for you briefly with the facts as I recall them: Some years back, on a certain episode of either the Newlywed Game (or else the New Newlywed Game), the question was asked, “Where is the strangest place you and your wife have made whoopie?” (I think, but don’t recall for certain, that it was the final bonus question.) One of the contestants (I think it was the first one asked) responded with almost no hesitation, “I guess that’d have to be up the butt, Bob.”

Immediately, a sustained roar of hysterical laughter welled up from the audience as the show’s director switched from camera to camera, capturing the friendly and innocent smile of the caught-off-guard guest, the expression of stunned amazement on Bob Eubanks’ face, and the knee slapping, side grabbing chortles, chuckles, and screams from the delighted audience.

I myself went into one of those rare laughing fits where you aren’t sure whether you’re going to live or die because you can hardly catch a breath and your diaphragm begins to feel like you were punched in the solar plexis by one of Glitch’s students. My roommate at the time, who was watching it with me, bent over double, slid out of his chair, and finally threw himself prostrate onto the floor, experiencing an uncontrolable laughing session of his own.

I know this happened except possibly for irrelevant details. When I saw the article at Snopes yesterday, I asked my fiancee about it, and she too recalled seeing the episode on the Game Show network just recently. Snopes declared it an urban legend and categorized it as false. I’ll summarize their reasoning here, paraphrasing them to avoid copyright infringement:

(1) There is a dearth of contemporary print reference.

What? Whom did they expect to publish this? The New York Times? Newsweek? TV Guide? Who is going to print a story that basically says, “Oh wow, something funny happened on a game show yesterday.”? And if not the popular press, have the nay-sayers conducted an exhaustive search of seedier publications? Probably not. Yet they make the sweeping statement that there are no contemporary references in print.

(2) Nobody can pin down when this happened.

Well, duh. As I recall, when I was wedged between the couch and coffee table clinging to my life with what little breath I could grab, it never occurred to me, “Oh, I’d better document this date and time because some moron ten years from now might not believe me when I say I saw this.” But what I did do was inform everybody whom I knew about it for the next several days.

(3) Nobody has produced a tape of the show.

Oh, please. When has anybody ever taped the Newlywed Game? It is nothing but an alpha wave generator, intended to entertain briefly and then disappear into the bowels of forgotten thoughts. Who would ever have anticipated a chance to preserve a dream moment like this?

(4) Bob Eubanks doesn’t recall it, and is offering a $10,000 reward for anyone who can prove it happened.

Admittedly, it is remarkable if indeed Eubanks cannot recall the episode. But there are plausible reasons why he might not: he might have been jaded by his years of exposure to the many silly answers he got to his inane questions; he might have a neural anomoly that causes him not to distinguish the outrageous from the ordinary remarkable; he might just have forgotten, all in a day’s work. Besides, until I read the Snopes account, I never knew about any reward. Snopes asks why no one has claimed the “easy ten grand”. Well, what the hell is easy about it? Who (having heard of the reward) has access to all the tapings and outtakes of both incarnations of the Newlywed Show?

(5) Network censors would have caught it.

Nonsense. There is not a dirty word to be found anywhere in “up the butt”. I have seen racier stuff on the Simpsons cartoon, for heaven’s sake. Censors are a funny bunch of squirrels, and might easily have decided that this was just too precious to dedact. Anyway, why wouldn’t they censor the whole idea of “making whoopie”? Is “on the ironing board” or “on the washing machine” any cleaner?

Now, the reason this is a great debate, rather than pointless mundane stuff is that it brings into question the whole purpose, method, and motivation of the hyperskeptics who don’t believe anything exists that they do not witness themselves. Naturally, after seeing this at Scopes, I did not read another thing there because, in my mind, their credibility was already ruined.

This is a point Tris raised in the Atheist Religion Part II thread, and in this context, deserves a discussion of its own. Is it possible to be too skeptical? Whereas people who are blindly faithful miss lies, do those who are blindly skeptical miss truth? Is skepticism itself a sort of “anti-faith”? Simply a mirror concept of faith? Faith that things aren’t possible?

Is skepticism necessarily a trait of the atheist? I don’t think so. Most of the atheists I’ve encountered here are not so much skeptical of God’s existence as they are uninterested. They aren’t anti-God; they just don’t care.

There is little use in debating whether the episode in question actually aired. If you saw it you know it did, and if you didn’t you can hardly make any claim about it. But does hyperskepticism in general lead to a jaded and dull intellect the same as hyperfaith? I think it does. And I think I will take all claims that popular stories are urban legends with a grain of salt from now on.

Your thoughts?

Good job, Libby!

For my nickel, skepticism is not limited to atheists. I am a die hard skeptic. All that I believe has a rational basis to it. If it ain’t got no reason, I gots no reason to believe. I find it amusing that those who “claim” to be skeptic will believe nonsense that is founded on nothing but thin air when it suits their purposes. If your going to be a skeptic or “claim” to be one at least be consistent!
Yours,

Ken


Phaedrus, Defender of Truth, Justice, and the Native American Way

Lib, I’m sorry, but this is an example of a false memory. You never saw it 'cus it never happened. It’s not just that Eubanks “can’t recall it” – he has said flat-out that it never happened. And while you are comparing the Simpsons to this for censoring, you have to remember this was the 1970s, not the era of NYPD Blue – the network censors were not so liberal, then. They would not have allowed that to go.

So what do we have? We have no actual evidence that it occurred, other than a bunch of people who are certain they saw it. Well, you know what? There are other examples of the very same thing. For example, there was a 1950s Marlin Perkins show called Zooparade (before his better known Wild Kingdom) in which Perkins was going to show how to extract venom from a timber rattlesnake. He did a practice run so the cameraman could get the right angle and while doing so was bitten. They applied standard emergency treatment and rushed him to the hospital. A substitute took over for the actual show and did it correctly. He mentioned that Perkins had been bitten (explaining why he was subbing). But the part that’s related to your story is that, as Perkins noted, “even today I meet people who in all seriousness tell me that they sat there in front of their television receivers and watched that rattlesnake sink his fangs into my finger. At first, I used to correct them and explain I wasn’t on the show that day, that the bit occurred before we were on the air. But these people are so sure in their own minds that they have seen this thing happen that I now just let it pass and don’t try to correct them. Perhaps this shows the power of suggestion.” (Marlin Perkins, My Wild Kingdom, E.P. Dutton, 1982, pp. 118-9)

False memory is a valid paradigm for assertaining the “Truth” in a given matter. In preparing my clients for court a book I was reading described how people embellish their story with every telling until they get on the stand and then are shown by evidence that they had to be mistaken. That is way the outcomes of many trials end up the way they do. It is also why some in prison maintain their “innocence” in light of all the findings of fact. They told their “story” with embellishments over and over again until they believed it themselves. Still my previous post addresses an issue that is germane here. Many people calling themselves skeptics shouldn’t do that because they are not consistent enough to merit that title.

Ken


Phaedrus, Defender of Truth, Justice, and the Native American Way

The resuscitated New Newlywed Game (which might have included this episode) aired in the late 80s to early 90s as I recall, when the congress was controlled be democrats, and network censors were quite liberal.

With all due respect, David, it is ridiculous to assert that Bob Eubanks has a rock steady memory while the millions of us who saw the episode suffered a simultaneous mass delusion. The Perkins analogy fails because that was not an issue that something did or did not happen (a finger was cut - a man said something funny), but simply that Perkins’ substitute was cut instead. A finger was cut, and a man did say “up the butt, Bob”.

Did my roommate and I experience something akin to identical dreams, where I dreamed that he saw it and he dreamed that I saw it? Not likely. Did my fiancee experience a false memory from only a couple months ago? I don’t think so.

Your saying that I never saw it 'cus it never happened is utterly remarkable. That is like my saying that you and your wife have never made love because I’ve never witnessed it. This is the second false memory that you have attributed to me, leading me to believe that you see me as some sort of psychotic who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. That’s fine. You’re entitled. But from my perspective, knowing that I am not psychotic, it simply illustrates exactly the kind of hyperskepticism I raised in the OP.

If I were psychotic, I suppose I would blindly accept the musings of a hack on a web page buried several clicks down in a buggy site that is visited mostly by fellow skeptics who enjoy general page fault crashes, and renounce what I know to be my own experience.

Let me ask you this. If we did not see the episode, then what were we rolling on the floor laughing about? Or do you think we imagined that as well?

Phaedrus:

Oh, please.

What does it meant that false memory is “a valid paradigm for assertaining the truth in a given matter”? Your skepticism does not obligate my believing that my whole life is a lie.

Yes, Lib, that is quite true and I believe what you saw was in fact real. I do not doubt it or you. But I was pointing out that in some cases the “false memory” claim is a valid one.

As I know you, you are forthright, honest, and have a memory like a steel trap! It is well known that high I.Q. correlates with memory, so I have more than a reasonable guess that you are indeed telling the truth.

If you ever think I am saying some disparaging about you, banish the thought from your mind. I voted for you as the most popular poster for more than one reason.

Lib (clearing throat), you are my hero.

I think you are the most valuable poster here. I wish I was more like you.

Yours,

Ken

I didn’t mean to snap at you, Phaedrus. Sorry.

I just don’t understand why it can’t be that Bob Eubanks’ memory, rather than everyone else’s, is snookered. If, as David says, he flatly denies it now, why isn’t it reasonable that his position was developed over time, going from (as I said in the OP) forgetting an unremarkable (to him) event, to doubting that it happened, to a final plunge into complete denial and skepticism?

I don’t see why he is miraculously immune from the psychosis that is recklessly attributed to me and people I know very well.

Um, the producer and syndicator of, “The Newlywed Game”? Where do you think the episodes that air on the Game Show Network came from–a cattle call for old VHS tapes from people’s personal collections?

Considering the number of tapes circulating out there with all sorts of profanities, outtakes and bungles from famous TV and radio shows (some of which can be seen and heard at http://www.tvparty.com – the infamous Casey Kasem tape is not to be missed), I would be utterly flabbergasted if some tape engineer, duplicator or master control operator somewhere had not saved the “up the butt” comment if it existed.

I’m not saying you absolutely didn’t see it, Lib. I’ll venture that possibly you’re conflating a real, equally funny Newlywed Game event with a previous hearing of this legend. But I will say that I’ve worked in broadcasting; my BA in communications was concentrated in radio/TV arts. And if there’s one thing I know, it’s that people in broadcasting save outtakes. I myself have a 12" reel of 1/2" tape containing outtakes from the Cleveland Indians radio broadcast team that I compiled when I worked there. During their off-air moments, Herb Score and Tom Hamilton sure did a lot of kvetching, and Hamilton’s got a foul mouth.

(Incidentally, I would also hazard a guess that, at the time this event is alleged to have occurred in the 1970s, even oblique references to anal sex were an absolute no-no for all network and syndication Standards & Practices departments, and this would never have aired.)

If the “up the butt” comment did happen, somebody, somewhere, has got it in tape, I assure you. And as pervasive as this story is, my feeling is that they would have produced it by now. Personally, I wish they would produce it if it is out there, and put this story to rest.


“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather

David, remember that there are also good reasons why Eubanks might have denied it: his bosses might have told him to, or he might have decided himself that denying the whole thing would be the easiest way to bury it. I can’t give his denial much weight as evidence that it didn’t happen. If that’s the principal piece of evidence, maybe this is an example of the hyperskepticism to which Lib refers.

Lib, when did this happen - approximately? You must have some recollection of when you were living where you were, when you roomed with this guy, and maybe even what time of year it was. Of course you can’t remember the day, but within a year or three…?

Apology accepted.

Libby, I hear you when you say what you did about David, however I am certainly NOT a person to say anything about him that is bad.

You and David are both very intelligent men, I hope that the two of you can work on issues like this without resorting to “inferences” that place each other in a bad light.

Besides, it makes the board a nicer place to be. :slight_smile:

Phil, Firefly:

There was a resurrected New Newlywed Game that aired after censorship was much more lax, and I concede that that might have been the show, rather than the older one.

Like I said before, I didn’t make firm enough associations to peg the space-time context of the show. I mean, it was a really really funny thing, but I can recall at least two other times off-hand when a TV episode left me bent over with laughter: one was a Real McCoys episode when Kate turned on the faucet and saw running water for the first time; and the other was from a show whose name I cannot now recall, where the lady was lined up with a blind date and gave the most sublime reaction when he walked in wearing his Elvis impersonation regalia. And I don’t remember when I saw those either, except that they were many years ago. What was significant to me at the time wasn’t where I was or when it was, but what I saw.

I think that I can pin down “up the butt” to sometime within the last ten years, and probably the last five or six — but I could be wrong. I don’t recall it being in the context of an out-take, but rather in the context of the full show. But my fiancee is absolutely sure that she saw it sometime in December on the Game Show Network before she went to help with Dawson.

Furthermore, I couldn’t have merged my memory with some tale about an urban legend because, because I didn’t even know it was an alleged urban legend until yesterday.

I just know that I had an experience, and to hear it discounted on the basis of an unwarranted skepticism is very very frustrating.

Along the same lines:

I have spoken to a number of people over the years who said that they saw JFK’s assassination when it happened.

Phaedru:

What did I say about David that was bad? I like David despite that he has said that I annoy him lately. I have no problem with him at all, other than that I think he has me stuck in a pidgeonhole and doesn’t really listen to me, but rather reads my posts through filters of certain preconceptions.

But in a fight with outsiders, I would stand right with David. In fact, I did exactly that when the LBMBers invaded.

First of all Lib, being accused of having false memories is not akin being called psychotic. False memory is common occurance, and a part of human nature.

Do I believe you? I believe you are not lying. But I have to admit I’m leaning towards the false memory theory. This is not reflection on you, so please don’t take it that way.

Even a cursory study false memory will show easily it can take place. Take a look in the “repressed memories” thread for more details.

A good friend of mine swears he saw the Zsa Zsa Gabor / Carson “Would you like to pet my pussy” interview. I think it’s more likely that he saw the interview with Jane Fonda where she mentions the urban legend, and it manufactured a false memory.

Regarding why it wasn’t taped, wasn’t it actually “filmed” on tape? I thought all game shows in the seventies were. Isn’t it routine for them to archive this stuff? It doesn’t matter that it was pure pap. It was still product.

And of course, your claim that they didn’t tape them falsifies your fiancee’s claim that she saw it on the Game Show network.

It was 20 years ago. Perhaps you were watching the Newlywed Game, and during the broadcast a friend mentioned the urban legend. Being a very funny story, it caused the laughing fit you remember.

Going from that incident to the memory is not that big a change.

Don’t get too defensive, this is NOT the same as calling you a liar. It is merely saying that your memories may not be as solid as you think they are, like every other human on Earth.

OTOH…

This may be off topic, Lib, but I feel compelled to point out this as an instance of your tendency to force everything into your political world view, whether it’s a good fit or not.

The liberalization of broadcast content in the 1980s, which has continued unabated since, is overwhelmingly attributable to one man: the fellow that Reagan appointed as FCC chair in 1981 (Mark Fowler, IIRC, but it’s been awhile).

The requirement that broadcasters serve ‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity’ had been in the Communications Act since way back; through 1980, the notion existed that we could debate what sort of use of the airwaves served our interests, and resolve the question through an extension of the political process.

Fowler abandoned that approach in favor of one of the market deciding what was in the public interest. This led to increasingly more explicit sex, coarse language, sexual references, etc., on television and radio. (No surprises there.)

This is not about whether that’s good or bad (I expect that you favor his approach, now that you know); this is what happened, and how it happened. The political spin you put on it was (a) forced, and (b) wrong. I think the moral is, don’t force it quite so much.

Revtim

[sigh]

Again, it wasn’t twenty years ago, the show was renewed in the late 80s / early 90s, and we probably saw it on a local syndication.

And I never said it wasn’t taped (by the studio). I have no idea where you got that from. I said that it is not remarkable that people like us didn’t have tapes in their VCRs at the ready for taping the Newlywed Game.

And I’m sorry for being so defensive, but you cannot imagine how frustrating this is. I’ll try to calm down. For me, it brings into question, as I said, the whole nature of hyperskepticism. I feel like whats-her-name in Contact.

Firefly:

With all due respect, I made an innocent comment. You gave it the spin. I don’t like the democrats any less than the republicans, I assure you.

Lib said:

Except it wasn’t the New Newlywed game. It was The Newlywed Game. You can’t change your story halfway through – or the story of so many other people who have said the same thing. It’s an urban legend, Lib. Nothing personal – I thought the story I related showed that. Yes, many people think they saw it. They didn’t. Because it never happened.

Good thing I never asserted that, then. Heck, you are showing why it has all the hallmarks of an urban legend! First it was The Newlywed Game. Now you claim it was the New Newlywed Game. And your fiance saw it on The Gameshow Network but there’s no tape of it anywhere. Look at these things objectively, taking yourself and your fiance out of the picture – doesn’t it all look rather fishy to you? It’s not a “mass delusion,” but merely an urban legend that has parked itself in people’s minds. If people hear about something often enough, they may actually think they were there. In the thread on Repressed Memories, somebody mentioned a study on folks related to the space shuttle explosion. They asked them right after it happened where they were and what they were doing. Then they asked them somewhat later. Their answers often changed, and they were damned sure the later answers were right. Memory is not perfect, Lib. It’s not a character fault; it’s a fact. And this is an urban legend.

Um, did you actually read what I said before criticizing it? The other man’s finger was not cut. Perkin’s finger was bitten before the cameras were on and the other man subbed in and did it all without any mishap. But he mentioned the incident and now people believe they saw it. In fact, the situation is a perfect comparison to this one. But you’re not being objective enough to recognize that.

Not really. If it never happened, you couldn’t have seen it. Since it never happened, it follows that what I said is correct.

Not even close. And you’re a logician? That’s two illogical statements already in this message (Perkins and now this). I didn’t say you didn’t see it because I didn’t see it. I said you didn’t see it 'cus it never happened. Certainly you can see the difference in these two statements.

Looks like Mr. Thin Skin is back. Too bad. I like the regular Lib a lot better.

Lib, I’m not accusing you of being psychotic. I don’t know what other false memory I’ve attributed to you (see, memory isn’t perfect). But just because somebody’s memory doesn’t act like a VCR doesn’t mean you are nuts. It means you are a normal human being.

Using the evidence at hand to reach a conclusion is not “hyperskepticism,” it is logical. You are so sure of your own memories that you are not being objective, or you would see this.

I have no idea. As Phil mentioned, it may have been a different episode. Memory is a tricky thing, Lib. Nobody is immune – not even me, believe it or not. :wink: I have done the same thing – putting together two different memories and thinking they were one. But when the evidence arose to show that it couldn’t have been that way, I realized that my memory had been wrong.

Whoops! I just realized what the previous case of me mentioning Lib’s “false memory” probably was – the tooth healing thing. (Duh, should have remembered that since I just posted about it again!)