This is absolute proof that pornography has been around for a long, long time. I’m guessing from the Victorian Era, anywhere from the 1870’s to the 1890’s. What is more to the point, notice how the woman doesn’t have the mans dick in her mouth, that it is in plain sight, while at the same time hiding her face. Yet, you can see her mouth is wide open as though ready to insert it.
It is hard to tell if this was geared toward a male or a female audience. But I suspect it was for females, only because of the prominent display of the dick, as oppossed to it being in the womans mouth. Had it been aimed toward men, my guess is that it would be wholly and obviously in her mouth.
On the other hand, the look on his face speaks of an attitude of a successful triumph, nearly arrogant. Note that he is somewhat muscular, thogh somewhat bowllegged, the body of a sportsman, I think. He has the body of I am guessing a tennis player. It’s too bad, really too bad, that the womans face is hidden. I wonder why that is, but I am suppossing she might have been married. She was very well buildt, beautiful actually.
These were upper class people, I think. They certainly weren’t poor. Maybe what would in the day have passed for upper middle class. Possibly even aristocrats.
I post this not only out of just general interest and curiosity, but to point out a little known fact about the Victorian Era. There was quite a bit of pornography, actually, although most of it admitedly was written prose. A typical story, based on an even older one by the Marquis DeSade, revolved around a convent in which occurred sexual shenanigans with a priest, a gardener, and every single nun in the convent, one of whom was a new arrival, and, of course, a virgin-though not for long.
The Victorian Era as wild and raucous in it’s own time sexually as is our own. This is the era after all that gave us Jack The Ripper, whose chosen victims were all Englsih prostitutes, of whom the numbers were obviously considerable.
This is the era in which upper class males in many cases in addition to maintaining a marriage and family, had outside the home what were termed as “kept women” for their extra marital pleasures. In not a few cases these women were presented the wholesome task of initiating their lovers teenage sons to the mysteries of sex.
And this is the Era from which this picture originated, which I acquired from another blog, and which is only one known survivor of what was obviously many more. What a treausre trove were they still around, yet to be disovered.
As for the blog in question, it unfortunately hasn't been updated since December of last year. Were it updated on a regular basis, it would be a definite addition to the Blogroll. Still, if you would like to view "Vintage Erotica", this Blogspot blog may be accessed in the link via the post title.
Ahhhhh, yes-the good old days, indeed.
29 comments:
Really objective and interesting post.
To me vintage porn is with John Holmes.
Yes. His movies are probably already collectors items, and will be worth a mint some day. Somebody should really do a biographical dramatic movie about his life.
Interesting post. The picture, however, is what gets me. Particularly the placement of the man and the woman, and the man's facial expression. Based on these elements, I believe that this was CLEARLY a piece of pornography intended for men. By making the judgment that it was intended for women because the women has yet to have inserted the man's penis seems to be placing too much weight on current standards for judging past events.
The man has higher placement in the photo. The woman isn't even seen as being worthy enough to have her face shown. She's below the man, symbolically portraying that this is her position in life - to serve him from a diminished position. The man's posture conveys this sense that he has conquered something, i.e., the woman and her sexuality.
Ugh. For men, indeed. Even in its tameness it still degrades the woman.
He does seem somewhat arrogant, doesn't he? Still, it was quite gentlemanly of him to allow her to hide her face with his dick.
Absolutely agree with autogate....not for the ladies.
I have yet to meet a woman who honestly becomes aroused looking at a penis, anyway. I mean, no offense, but there's something to be said about women getting turned on in the mind, not the eye.
I think that in the Victorian Age, erotica was written for ladies, and photos like this were (and still are) for the men.
You might be right, Meowkaat, but I wasn't necessarily thinking of the guys dick, so much as the pose. This might conceivably have been meant for women who were sexually frustrated by their husbands lack of imagination. By someone who were unsatisfied in their sex lives and wanted some fantasy of someone they might not mind being controlled by, even to the point of doing what would be the unthinkable for most women in this day and age. It might have even been intended for upper class women, as a demonstration of techniques they might use to satisfy their men.
It's really impossible to know just exactly what it was, without being able to see it in it's proper context, which might have been a collection of different poses, some even with captions. I'd really love to know who these people were, where they lived and where the photos were taken, and when, who the photographer was, who the publisher was, etc. But all that information is probably forever lost to history, unfortunately.
An interesting discussion indeed. I remember my own first content analysis of a fashion spread...
For intrigued others, there's a great book to complement this discussion: "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger. Visit http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze08.html for an introduction.
Funny, in a not funny way, but most of what is considered porn is stuff normal people do every day, well maybe not every single day. But when pictures are taken or painted of the acts, then it becomes a no-no. Why is that?
As for this pic, I have no idea who it was meant for but I know it does nothing for me. Notice the man is not touching the lady or reciprocating in any way. I think the lady is a whore and he's just laying back and getting what he paid for. Maybe this painting was meant to hang in a whore house as an ad.
Yes, you bet, I could be way wrong. It's happened before. LOL
Patricia, I think this is a photograph, not a painting. On the other hand, you might be right, I just assummed it was a photo, if it's a painting it's a good one. Also, you noticed something right off I didn't, that they are both actually reclining, though the angle makes it look as though the man is standing and the woman is kneeling. Yet, you can see the mans outstretch left leg and foot, whiich shows they are both lying on a divan of some sort.
The more I think about it, the more I think Meowcat and Autogato are right about it being intended for a male audience. I never looked at it that way, he just seems to be laying back enjoying it, the conquest actualy more than the sensual nature of the act, and not reciprocating in any way, as you said.
I agree that the intended onlookers are male.
For me, the man's posture is one of smug triumph... hands almost on hips, with his head cocked in the air.
The woman's identity (i.e. concealed face) is irrelevant; she's but an object afterall. I agree that her position is a subservient one, and very uncomfortable at that - balancing with one knee on a presumably hard floor, hand behind her back.
Her full frontal exposure is for the pleasure of her invisible audience, not the man in the picture.
I guess that's the one thing that had me thrown, and still leaves me unsure. The idea that the womans face is so hidden, yet the man is fully revealed. Most men would want to see the womans face, but that could be a tease as well in addition to protection of the womans identity, who may well have been married.
It's easy to jump to conclusions as to the smug, arrogant look on the mans face. It could well mean what you and the others have said. On the other hand, this is the Victorian Era we're dealing with, and this might have been seen as a quite natural pose for a man in a picture.
To give you an example of what I mean, back during the same period of time, in rural parts of Kentucky, photographers quite often travelled through these small, isolated mountain Appalachian communities and photographed families.
In almost every single example, with few if any exceptions, you never saw any of these people pose with a smile on their face. They alwasy looked grim, serious.
Most people assume this was due to the fact that they all lived hard lives, and had little to smile about. Though in a great many cases this was true to an extent, the main reason for this was simply because they simply thought it was wrong to be seen as frivolous, or what they might call foolish.
In other words, the seriousness of the poses had everything to do with their perceptions of what it meant to be dignified. And being dignified was of singular importance during the Victorian Era.
So, when you stop to think about it, this mans dignified, aristocratic pose might be, as much as anything, a satirization of the Victorian morals, and moral pretensions of the day.
You’ve made an interesting point about the satirization of Victorian morals. Afterall, while we commonly characterize the Victorian era as one of sexual repression, it was so only ‘officially’.
Exactly. Officially, as you say, it was something that wasn't discussed in "polite company", and was assummed among theupper classes that sexual matters was something that was only openly discussed among the "lower classes". In other words, "ladies", as well as "gentlemen", were suppossed to be more dignified than that. Of course, they were no different at all than the lower classes, who themselves assummed they were the more God-fearing, and humble, while it was the upper classes who were debauched. Of course, all the way around, it was pretentousness. When you look at that picture in this context, whether it was intentional or not, it makes the mans pose look all the more foolish, and satirical.
I'd have to agree with the many people who said the intended audience is male. This mostly has to do with the fact that, with lots and lots of explicit porn available today, the market for all levels of explicitness is still predominantly male, as it always was. Women do purchase erotica (and some porn), but they are (generally speaking and with many, many exceptions) far, far pickier about plot, mood, lighting, and emotional content. The explicitness of the act depicted here points to a male audience. Even the hidden woman's face isn't much of an indicator, as it's probably mostly due to the fact that the model was probably trying to do her best to conceal her identity. Such pictures may not have been so uncommon back then, but the social cost of posing in them was far, far, far higher. So, that's probably the main reason she has concealed her face.
Stuff from that era is always trippy, though. It definitely does indicate that there's very little "new under the sun" when it comes to the oldest of pasttimes . . .
That much is very true. I used tio have a book written in the Victorian Era, the one I mentioned in the post, but lost it-luckily it wasn't a first edition.
Also, even Mark Twain is said to have written some pretty hard core porn, though I don't think he actually published it, it was more a joke that he shared with friends. But it was suppossed to be pretty explicit. Now if that were to turn up, I imagine the price would be through the roof.
Well, that would have been in Twain's private repotoire, I think. Have you ever read "Some Thoughts on the Science of Onanism"? One of the most controversial things he ever wrote in his life . . .
No, Fondfire in fact I had never heard of it. Thanks for the link. Too bad that hadn't been published in his lifetime, can you imagine the eyebrows it would have raised, had it been printed inhis name?
I think this is for men. It clearly has the woman at the service of the man. We must remember that photography has not always been snap and go. People used to have to sit still for a while (minutes) as the picture was taken. This is another reason that people often do not smile in earlier photos. No one could hold one for long enough. So, this pose may be look staged because it was the only way to depict fellatio without getting a fuzzy picture or a REALLY sore cockjaw from lack of movement.
I guess I'm just the one lone holdout for the posibility it may have been geared toward women. I guess more than likely everybody else is right, the more I think about it.
Still, I can't help but think there is an obvious satirical edge to this photo. The standard, for the age, aristocratic "dignified" pose of the man seems so out of place here, it was almost certainly meant to be satirical, to my way of thinking.
As far as the method of photography of the age, it is true it took some time to set up the equipment, but the people didn't necessarily have to be in any particular pose for that long a time. That could have been the partial purpose of the divan, or items around it, to help bring the photo in the proper focus and alignment, after which the people in the picutre could have resumed their previous practice poses.
That is a good point though, Saras-p.
It is possible that the concealment of her face was for anonymity, as pornography was an underground (prohibited) pastime. But I’m still inclined to think that her identity is largely irrelevant; is it not easier to objectify her this way?
Regardless of whether (upper class) women were in fact flower-like, passive and engaging in sex with their husbands only out of duty, it was the prevailing attitude of the time. This undoubtedly would have influenced how women were portrayed (even if it is not how they acted). Furthermore, women were also considered biologically inferior (bear in mind, for example, the comparison between men’s and women’s brain sizes during the Victorian era); I recall from my research that this inferiority was believed to make them more susceptible to carnal influences. Thus for me it is difficult to conceive of a pornography for women.
You know, in responding to your post, Sock Puppet, I think I've just hit on something. How about this as the reason her face is hidden-it made it easier for a male viewer to fantasize about who she was. Had her identity been fully revealed, that would be it-no fantasy that she could conceivably be the recently newlywed neighbor you might be attracted to, for example. That allurring woman from down the street who seems so mysterious, so unaproachable, and yet so attractive. That kind of thing.
My only caution would be not to romanticize the fantasy…
Men seldom do that, at least if you are talking about the porn. They might tend to romanticize the person they know, in some cases, but seldom even then to a great extent. Most men keep their sexual fantasies pretty seperate from their more romantic inclinations. Most of the time they intersect primarily in marriage, if but relatively briefly.
Agreed. Apologies, as I interpreted your previous post as romanticizing the scenario...
"That alluring woman from down the street who seems so mysterious, so unaproachable, and yet so attractive".
Actually, I've been prone at times to romanticize porn. I would say that I think the very act of immersing yourself in porn begins to stunt your ability for romance, in time, though. I think that's a lot of why previous cultures prohibited it . . . It's the way it affects the viewer that's detrimental, not so much the act of creating it, which can be done with care (though it most often probably is not) . . .
Porn would have to evolve to remain relevant, in my opinion, and it can do that in one of two ways, either by becomming ever more outrageous, or by becomming more creative. There's just too much out there today, and there's very little that hasn't been done, or seen. Theefore, it tends to appeal mainly to people that don't have that much imagination or, I'm afraid to say, intelligence. It can of course have a deletorious effect on these kinds of people, but I don't see how it can have much of an effect on a more intelligent person, except someone that has been very repressed in life. I guess what I'm saying is not so much a matter of intelligence as it is a person who is well balanced, healthy both mentally and emotionally.
Terefore, in order to reach a broader audience, it would have to become higher quality, more artistic. Of course, it rakes in billions now, so for now there is little impetus for it to grow. Eventually though, that should change.
I could perhaps be considered "repressed," but I don't think that whether or not porn has a detrimental effect on a person is a function of whether or not they are "weak-minded," to use a word you did not to sum up what I think you were saying.
If people are choosing to watch pornography, they are engaged with it. Usually, masturbating to it. That has a powerful effect on the mind. So, I think talking about it as if it's something that intelligent and ballanced people can keep in it's place is incorrect. Pornography is an object of desire that is used to satisfy an urge. It shapes subsequent desires that arrise from that urge. I've never noted intelligent and ballanced people who use pornography, when you get right down to it, who aren't nearly as susceptible as anybody else to having their desires reshaped and warped by the acts that they witness, especially given that they respond strongly to those acts, most often.
If you're equating psychological health with being so familiar and jaded about modern porn that it often fails to arouse you, I would have to say that I don't find that to be a dimension of psychological health.
There have been a lot of pscyhological studies about the effects of porn. I think they underscore the point I'm trying to make.
And finally, I don't speak as someone who has consistently avoided pornography. I speak as somebody who has realized how pornography has changed the content and nature of my desires. I am uncomfortable with the influence that that has had on me and I do not think I'm a happier person for that. I don't think I'm a damaged person, either, but I'm certainly not healthier for it.
I've seen it, I've made efforts to see it, both in films and in magazines,and I can tell you with all confidence it has had no effect on me whatsoever. For one thing, most of it is so damn stupid, so over the top, I can't take it seriously, not in the least.
I've seen photo spreads in Playboy and Penthouse, that were very visually appealling and stimulating. But these were merely models-or "playmates", or whatever- dressed either seductively, or not at all, while posing in various styles. The only effect I can notice from this is an awareness of my own natural appreciation of truly beautiful women. But that's about it.
The closest I've ever come to being aroused by "porn", as such, is when I have encontered it in written word form. Steven King is one of the best prose pornographers who ever put pen to paper, in my opinion.
Now that style of pornography has had somewhat of an impact on me, particularly on my writing. I tend to write like that, and mor ofthenm than not, I find myself usually having to take a "break".
Thanks for sharing the vintage vixen picture! Where did you find it? :)
Post a Comment