I did find the hair thing creepy. Maybe by itself it would have been more innocent but this happened AFTER Glen tried to look at Betty when she was in the bathroom. That’s what gives the whole thing an especially sexual/creepy undertone. I also totally agree with Deb about Betty being both aware and unaware of the sexual overtones of the hair lock. She’s crossing all sorts of boundaries with that kid, even if he is a weird little boy. In the parking lot scene, he came off as a lot more vulnerable and endearing.

I think during this time people thought far less about child molesting and teachers having sex with students, etc.

The ‘infant’ is around two, as I recall.

It was very hard to get a full-time, or even part-time sitter in those days, especially for an infant. Unless you could hire a grandmother type, you were screwed. And Helen doesn’t know the neighborhood (although I have to say, that part rings false; normally you keep the house and the husband moves out, or you can’t afford the house and you get an apartment—this is betwixt and between).

But for Betty’s part, I think the gift of her hair was pretty innocent. She is used to the idea of being adored for her beauty and probably never associated anything sexual with it. The fact that Helen and her husband would make that assumption shocks Betty into slapping Helen in the supermarket (which, by the way, I love for all its Stepford decor–I could stare at those rows of fruit forever).