Today's Pinup Fashion a Sly Wink to the Past - New York Times

[Noirblack]

I think everyone has been missing the point. It isn't about porn/class/objectification. Just read to the end of the article. It is about feeling good. As the article states:

Ms. Clifford, the Bettie Page enthusiast, has long been obsessed with the fashions of film stars and old-time burlesque queens, partly because of their feel-good sensibility. The hot rods, the music, the pinups: they are, she said, “part of a therapy culture.”

“For me those things are like a baby blanket.”

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just a side note -- my dad said you had to get them at certain places (places "in the know") and they would be behind the counter in brown paper bags. He said pictures like Bettie's could get the seller in trouble and it could also result in embarassment to the man purchasing. Just from the mouth of someone who was "there."

Exactly. When we were cleaning out my grandparents' house, we found, carefully hidden under the linoleum in what had been my uncle's teenage bedroom, a tidy collection of "Stocking Tops" magazines and similar publications, which he had gotten from god-knows-where. Apparently a certain gas station in town sold them under-the-counterr (Not *our* gas station though -- ours was the one with the slot machine in the back.)

 

[Amy Jeanne]

Exactly. When we were cleaning out my grandparents' house, we found, carefully hidden under the linoleum in what had been my uncle's teenage bedroom, a tidy collection of "Stocking Tops" magazines and similar publications, which he had gotten from god-knows-where. Apparently a certain gas station in town sold them under-the-counterr (Not *our* gas station though -- ours was the one with the slot machine in the back.)

Haha! My dad showed me the gas station in our town where you could get such pictures. He also said they showed "movies" there in the attic lol

 

[Atticus Finch]

Dang...this thread is moving fast! Don't we have an ongoing thread that kinda taps into exactly what this article discusses? Should we ask the women who post on our Pinup thread if they are seeking to be objectified? Or if their contributions to that thread expose them to being objectified? And if it is a bad thing...

I'm fully braced for the incoming bricks...but, honestly, I'm just asking...

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

THere's a reason why we bar male comments in the Pinup thread. And we strictly enforce that ban. We know men are looking, and we know *which* men are looking, at whom they're looking, and how often they look, but by keeping their comments out of the thread we at least maintain some sense of privacy for the gals involved. The rest of it is up to them.

 

[Atticus Finch]

THere's a reason why we bar male comments in the Pinup thread. And we strictly enforce that ban. We know men are looking, and we know *which* men are looking, at whom they're looking, and how often they look, but by keeping their comments out of the thread we at least maintain some sense of privacy for the gals involved. The rest of it is up to them.

But Lizzie...for years porno was illegal...as in criminally illegal...some of it still is. None of that stopped people from buying it and viewing it. Do the women posting on the pinup thread actually think that only women look at their photos? Because the lounge bans looking at their photos?

My question stands. I would enjoy hearing the opinions of some of the people who post on that thread. It just seems to me the article Scott linked discusses that thread's very essence.

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

We don't ban men looking -- we ban them commenting, because such comments, left in place, invariably deteriorate into fratboy leering.

I've never yet deleted a thread because I personally didn't care for its premise -- pinuppery existed in the Era, so for better or worse it's on topic for the Lounge. I've warned those who post their photos in an open section of the Lounge, which the PR is, that they're opening themselves to having their photos used or abused for any conceivable purpose without their permission. If they're OK with that, as long as the Lounge rules on nudity are not violated, it isn't my problem. If however, someone posted a shot in which they reenacted, say, one of Bettie's tied-to-a-chair poses, it would be deleted, regardless of how "vintage it is." There's a line, and such pictures cross it.

And if my hypothetical daughter were to post on such a thread, she'd get deleted so fast it'd make her head spin.

 

[Undertow]

...I'm fully braced for the incoming bricks...

:eyebrows:

:brick:

:yo:

 

[Atticus Finch]

We don't ban men looking -- we ban them commenting...

Whew! There for a moment I was feeling more like a perv than normal....

AF

 

[herringbonekid]

My question stands. I would enjoy hearing the opinions of some of the people who post on that thread. It just seems to me the article Scott linked discusses that thread's very essence.

i would too.

 

[herringbonekid]

You keep setting that strawman up and hoping to knock it down. In fact, it would seem you're purposely missing the point of others' arguments as if to somehow ignore the fact that women are objectified at all.

not at all. i'm simply interested in hearing whether people think that women who have a vintage pin-up look are willing (unknowing or not) participants in their own objectification (and are reinforcing stereotypes that were created for male interest) ... or if they are genuinely empowered by it for their own reasons. if you re-read the first five pages of this thread you'll see that the commenters are clearly not seeing eye to eye on this one, hence the disjointed nature of the thread.

 

[C-dot]

not at all. i'm simply interested in hearing whether people think that women who have a vintage pin-up look are willing (unknowing or not) participants in their own objectification (and are reinforcing stereotypes that were created for male interest) ... or if they are genuinely empowered by it for their own reasons.

Reinforcing a stereotype? I believe that is what is behind your inherent misunderstanding of the female perspective here. Like I said a few posts back, pin-ups were, and still are, art. Vargas, Moran, De Vorss, Elvgren, Petty etc. were all artists painting portraits of lovely women - So, for that matter, were Joyce Ballantyne, Jessica Dougherty, Zoe Mozert, Ruth Deckard, and Julie Bell (notice a trend?) We should not be mixing up the more provocative poses of Bettie Page or nude Playboy centrefolds with pin-up art, which was frequently created for advertisements, book covers and widely circulated magazines.

Edit: Before we quote Ms. Clifford again, I will restate that I disagree with her use of the word "classy" for Bettie Page's fetish poses and doubt that she would have been so ambiguous had she known her words would be picked apart like this. She is simply a girl who prefers a style from another era. Not a calculated move to reinforce a sexual stereotype or two.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Reinforcing a stereotype? I believe that is what is behind your inherent misunderstanding of the female perspective here. Like I said a few posts back, pin-ups were, and still are, art. Vargas, Moran, De Vorss, Elvgren, Petty etc. were all artists painting portraits of lovely women - So, for that matter, were Joyce Ballantyne, Jessica Dougherty, Zoe Mozert, Ruth Deckard, and Julie Bell (notice a trend?) We should not be mixing up the more provocative poses of Bettie Page or nude Playboy centrefolds with pin-up art, which was frequently created for advertisements, book covers and widely circulated magazines.

Edit: Before we quote Ms. Clifford again, I will restate that I disagree with her use of the word "classy" for Bettie Page's fetish poses and doubt that she would have been so ambiguous had she known her words would be picked apart like this. She is simply a girl who prefers a style from another era. Not a calculated move to reinforce a sexual stereotype or two.

C-dot, for years, the Vargas Girl graced the pages of every edition of Playboy. While I agree that the people you mention are artists, I think your analysis ignores the huge grey area that exists between some of Alberto Vargas' more conservative images and Bettie Page. Even Vargas himself often ventured well into that grey area. For example, google his 1974 illustration titled "Play Leapfrog".

AF

 

[C-dot]

C-dot, for years, the Vargas Girl graced the pages of every edition of Playboy. While I agree that the people you mention are artists, I think your analysis ignores the huge grey area that exists between some of Alberto Vargas' more conservative images and Bettie Page. Even Vargas himself often ventured well into that grey area. For example, google his 1974 illustration titled "Play Leapfrog".

AF

You're right - I've seen many of Vargas' more daring illustrations in books, one of which I own, and many of the same illustrations I mentioned were created for "men's eyes only".

I suppose if I were to cover all the bases of pin-up art, I'd need a lecture hall and about 6 hours of speech time - However, this only reinforces my point that nothing is simple, and as such we can't assume that admirers/emulators of pin-up style are aiming for it's naughtier side, because that's not all there is to it. I'm not; Hell, I have my hair in jelly rolls and a Vargas centrefold hanging on my wall right now.

 

[herringbonekid]

Reinforcing a stereotype? I believe that is what is behind your inherent misunderstanding of the female perspective here.

there's more than one female perspective so far on this thread, and please re-read the question; it is open ended. i haven't actually said anywhere that i believe women are objectifying themselves. i've simply asked the question and people are getting excited saying "you believe women are objectifying themselves !!"

 

[Flicka]

there's more than one female perspective so far on this thread, and please re-read the question; it is open ended. i haven't actually said anywhere that i believe women are objectifying themselves. i've simply asked the question and people are getting excited saying "you believe women are objectifying themselves !!"

Can you point me to the post(s) in which "people are getting excited saying 'you believe women are objectifying themselves'"? Because I must have missed them.

 

[Edward]

Quite right. Red lipstick is just make-up, and capris are just pants, and neither right or wrong. But when someone combines them with other details in such a way as to emulate a pin-up girl, it is certainly possible that Joe Hustler is going to objectify Sally Pinup. And maybe that's what she wants? Doesn't really matter in any case, because Joe certainly gets his.

There's a Joe Hustler for any way a woman might dress. That lady who wears a burka because she believes that level of modesty is the appropriate thing for her? Two minutes on Google and you'll find a dozen and more porn sites with pictures (and more) of ladies dressed just like her.... and the guy who gets off on those will certainly be looking at her in the mall. That's the way of the world. If you live your life too much by what other people might think...

Reinforcing a stereotype? I believe that is what is behind your inherent misunderstanding of the female perspective here. Like I said a few posts back, pin-ups were, and still are, art. Vargas, Moran, De Vorss, Elvgren, Petty etc. were all artists painting portraits of lovely women - So, for that matter, were Joyce Ballantyne, Jessica Dougherty, Zoe Mozert, Ruth Deckard, and Julie Bell (notice a trend?) We should not be mixing up the more provocative poses of Bettie Page or nude Playboy centrefolds with pin-up art, which was frequently created for advertisements, book covers and widely circulated magazines.

Edit: Before we quote Ms. Clifford again, I will restate that I disagree with her use of the word "classy" for Bettie Page's fetish poses and doubt that she would have been so ambiguous had she known her words would be picked apart like this. She is simply a girl who prefers a style from another era. Not a calculated move to reinforce a sexual stereotype or two.

Dita is probably the closest we have today to what Bettie did back then - the mainstream pinup on the one hand, and the fetish / light BDSM stuff on the other. I wouldn't describe what she does now as porn by today's market. Times change. So many other cultural mores and changes have tamed down Bettie's images, I think, than just only "porn" getting harder. Vivienne Westwood brought a lot of bondage imagery into mainstream awareness (if not wardrobes) with her Sex and Seditionaries collections, and in the process effectively desexualised it for many of us. Geography as well as time is an issue. Bettie's simple nudes would have been considered pornographic in the US/UK, of course, but across much of mainland Europe there has long been mild bemusement at our English-speaking world's conflation of nudity and sexuality. Interestingly, the Nazis tried to stamp out naturism in pre-War Germany, but they had no luck.

Anyhow, I digress.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

There's a Joe Hustler for any way a woman might dress. That lady who wears a burka because she believes that level of modesty is the appropriate thing for her? Two minutes on Google and you'll find a dozen and more porn sites with pictures (and more) of ladies dressed just like her.... and the guy who gets off on those will certainly be looking at her in the mall. That's the way of the world. If you live your life too much by what other people might think...

I agree with this. Gotta say -- as a woman -- I could care less if a man looks at me like an "object." I don't dress in any way "sexy", but if a guy is going to "check me out" because he may have a fetish for black hair with a bright red streak then he can knock himself out. I could care less if a man sees a photo of me (on here for example) and keeps it in a "retro girl" (not PINUP) collection for his own special "needs" lol No matter now many clothes we have on, it makes no difference. Someone, somewhere has a special "retro girl" collection. There is porn/fetish for ANYTHING.

I am reminded of my Live Journal days when I had a short Louise Brooks haircut. I had men sending me messages ALL THE TIME asking for photos of me getting my hair cut. GETTING A HAIR CUT. This is also a fetish and there is absolutely nothing sexy about wearing that big plastic apron and getting a haircut. But I got messages from many men requesting pictures so they could put them in their own special "girls getting haircuts" folder I never sent any, BTW lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

Somebody once said "you can point to any item in the Sears catalogue, and somebody, somewhere wants to sleep with it." I don't think there's anything anyone can do about that, really, and if somebody has an unnatural attachment to a garden hose or a socket wrench, that's their own business. As long as I don't have to hear about it, knock yourself out.

I think what we've been talking about here is something entirely different, though. Ariel Levy writes about "internalizing the objectifying male gaze," which basically means a woman defining herself and her own sense of sexuality according to what male culture tells her she's supposed to do. She ceases to see herself thru her own eyes, and instead sees herself thru "the male gaze." That's what's meant by self-objectification, and it seems to me that would be the very opposite of any kind of actual empowerment -- no matter how you slice it, it's letting someone else define an intimate part of your identity. I don't say that everyone who's interested in the pinup look does this -- but I don't doubt for a minute there are quite a few who do, and without even realizing it.

That's another reason we don't allow male comments in the pinup thread. We can't take away "the male gaze," but at least by silencing the male voice we can perhaps blunt its impact a bit and give the women here a bit more room to define themselves on their own terms. I don't think it's coincidental that a great many of the photos in that thread are much closer to Golden Era fashion photography than the sort of stuff you'd find hanging on a gas station wall.

 

[sheeplady]

Ariel Levy writes about "internalizing the objectifying male gaze," which basically means a woman defining herself and her own sense of sexuality according to what male culture tells her she's supposed to do. She ceases to see herself thru her own eyes, and instead sees herself thru "the male gaze." That's what's meant by self-objectification, and it seems to me that would be the very opposite of any kind of actual empowerment -- no matter how you slice it, it's letting someone else define an intimate part of your identity.

It almost seems to suggest that some ways of self-viewing are "unacceptable" by women, because any indication of a self-view that incorporated such components *must* be internalized from the male viewpoint, and therefore that view is invalid. It's a fine line between "you think that way because you've been brainwashed" and "women aren't supposed to think like that/ do that." It totally discounts that women might have natural components to themselves that lead them to participate in things like pinup and it assumes that those aspects are totally created by male culture. It's like saying that women can't sort out the difference or that a difference can't exist.