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

[herringbonekid]

i'm still not sure where turning yourself into an 'object' begins. do you have to take photos and make money from them first ?

 

[C-dot]

... Betty Page never was a "porn actress".

That's a matter of opinion - Bettie posed for and performed in "soft-core", highly fetishised photos and short subjects as well as her more wholesome pin-up shots. But, that doesn't make her a bad person either.

Bettie Page has had a few waves of cult following long after her career, and there is a strong one now. I believe its because she is the perfect embodiment of our sexualized society and the conflicting, contradicting and downright confusing views we take on it. Here was a God fearing, deeply religious lady who posed for Playboy with no inhibition; a naive girl-woman who didn't catch on to the dark sexual undertones of her fetishised poses. A woman very much ahead of her time, and yet, so behind it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Spot on! In a nutshell, it should be noted that the Flower Children of the '60s merely morphed into the Me Generation of the '70s which in turn evolved into the Yuppies of the '80s and their "Greed is Good" ethic. In actuality nothing more than "hippies with money" to quote Andy Griffith in the movie Pray for Wildcats.

I think there's a danger in assuming all "hippies" were the same, though -- I think you're right about a pretty big slice of them, the spoiled middle-class suburban kids whose "rebellion" only amounted to an excuse for sex and dope. But there was a subset of so-called hippies who actually had values not far from my own on a lot of things -- we called them "back to the landers" when they showed up here in the mid-seventies, determined to reject a consumption-oriented society, and a lot of them are still here working farms and such, and seem quite sincere in holding onto their beliefs. I might not care much for their clothes, or their music, and I might think there's just something sad about a 65-year-old pothead, but so far as rejecting consumerism goes, they're the ones who didn't sell out.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's a matter of opinion - Bettie posed for and performed in "soft-core", highly fetishised photos and short subjects as well as her more wholesome pin-up shots. But, that doesn't make her a bad person either.

Bettie Page has had a few waves of cult following long after her career, and there is a strong one now. I believe its because she is the perfect embodiment of our sexualized society and the conflicting, contradicting and downright confusing views we take on it. Here was a God fearing, deeply religious lady who posed for Playboy with no inhibition; a naive girl-woman who didn't catch on to the dark sexual undertones of her fetishised poses. A woman very much ahead of her time, and yet, so behind it.

Freud would have called her the very embodiment of the madonna-whore complex.

 

[C-dot]

Freud would have called her the very embodiment of the madonna-whore complex.

He would have been right. The same complex can probably be successfully applied to the idea of female empowerment our society extolls (at the moment).

Feminism is still a struggle, only mostly for the victors now. We still haven't gotten it right, but we're trying.

i'm still not sure where turning yourself into an 'object' begins. do you have to take photos and make money from them first ?

No. Objectification for a straight woman, no matter by what means you get there, is becoming or being perceived as an object solely existing for male pleasure. Your personality, wants, likes, dislikes, even your name do not matter - You exist to make him happy, much like his car or iPad does, and you can be disposed of just as easily when he's no longer entertained by you.

 

[herringbonekid]

Objectification for a straight woman, no matter by what means you get there, is becoming or being perceived as an object solely existing for male pleasure.

i've never met a single woman who fits that description in the vintage scene. nor do i imagine the young lady at the start of the article would fit that description either.
also, there's quite a difference between being and being perceived as.

 

[C-dot]

i've never met a single woman who fits that description in the vintage scene. nor do i imagine the young lady at the start of the article would fit that description either.
also, there's quite a difference between being and being perceived as.

I'm not arguing with you - You asked for a definition and I gave you one from my perspective. Most women have had an experience when a man treated, or tried to treat her like a plaything. Some women turn themselves into playthings for a variety of reasons. Whether or not you are apart of "the vintage scene" or you are the young lady in the article makes absolutely no difference.

 

[sheeplady]

i'm still not sure where turning yourself into an 'object' begins. do you have to take photos and make money from them first ?

For me, personally, it depends upon why someone wears something. The problem is that you can go anyplace and see 20 people wearing the same thing who might have 20 different reasons. Where there is a problem, in my mind, is when a lady thinks something like: "I have no value unless I wear this little tiny bikini" or "I'll never get a (date, spouse, etc.) if I don't wear it" or "Those girls are better than me because they do wear it (or I think they have a better body for it)." They are being subconsciously forced to wear it by society because society has taught them that their body is all that matters.

Those are some pretty damaging thoughts. I'd see any lady, but particularly a young woman or girl, as being a victim if she thought any of those things. Those thoughts don't come from her, they come from society. She can't see any or much self-value beyond her sexuality and physical attractiveness.

 

[William Stratford]

i'm still not sure where turning yourself into an 'object' begins. do you have to take photos and make money from them first ?

An "object" is something to be used, often to sate an appetite and typically to be easily discarded. If a woman (or man for that matter) presents themselves in such a way, they are turning themselves into an object.

 

[herringbonekid]

Whether or not you are apart of "the vintage scene" or you are the young lady in the article makes absolutely no difference.

many people on this thread seem to think that the young lady of the article - because she wears red lipstick, Bettie Page hairdo, and capri pants - is already halfway to turning herself into an 'object'.

 

[Flicka]

i'm still not sure where turning yourself into an 'object' begins. do you have to take photos and make money from them first ?

I have no idea what you're driving at. If you are referring to my comment I was talking about men and women objectifying OTHER women. 'Objectifying' is done by the the person looking, not by the person being looked at. And by objectifying I mean reducing (in this case) a woman from a person who matters in herself to an object whose only purpose and worth is derived from her status as an object for male desire. In short, objectifying does not necessitate any action on behalf of the person being objectified. It is not about how she behaves, but how she is being looked at.

You seem to be very interested in exploring if she has a part in that or not. I don't know why that matters so much to you, but I think it's sad that so many young women today grow up thinking they don't deserve better than that. I am not saying that is true of the specific woman in the article, I'm making a comment on young women in general.

And people in 'the vintage scene' are people. They don't come in one shape, colour or with one single set of values, and thank God for that. I like diversity.

 

[Flicka]

many people on this thread seem to think that the young lady of the article - because she wears red lipstick, Bettie Page hairdo, and capri pants - is already halfway to turning herself into an 'object'.

Seriously, you're not saying I ever implied that? I mean, seriously?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Those thoughts don't come from her, they come from society. She can't see any or much self-value beyond her sexuality and physical attractiveness.

Exactly. It's society, that dominating hive mind, that pushes these beliefs quite beyond anything any one individual might do or not do or think or believe. You might insist you're an individual, wearing that bikini because you want to wear it, and not an object in such circumstances as you describe -- but don't kid yourself: society sees you in quite another way.

An experiment: take the woman who insists she'll wear whatever she wants, and put her in that bikini and turn her loose on the beach -- and have her be forty pounds overweight. How does society react?

 

[herringbonekid]

In short, objectifying does not necessitate any action on behalf of the person being objectified.

apart from wanting to be looked at in a sexual way, e.g. posing for erotic photographs or paintings ? would the person be complicit in their own objectification then ?

 

[Flicka]

apart from wanting to be looked at in a sexual way, e.g. posing for erotic photographs or paintings ? would the person be complicit in their own objectification then ?

Because I really don't have the energy to explain several generations' worth of feminist theory on my iPhone to someone whom I feel isn't really interested in listening, I'm just going to advice you to buy the excellent book by Ariel Levy that Lizzie mentioned.

 

[Undertow]

many people on this thread seem to think that the young lady of the article - because she wears red lipstick, Bettie Page hairdo, and capri pants - is already halfway to turning herself into an 'object'.

I would highly recommend reading (or re-reading) the article prior to further discussion as it seems you're going one direction while the discussion is travelling another.

This entire article draws comparison between porno of the 50's and porno today. The participants discuss how the "less sexualized" porno of the 50's is somehow "more mature", and therefore a desireable practice to emulate.

I don't think a single person has stated that wearing cherry lipstick, or cutting one's bangs, or wearing capri pants - or any combination of these things - somehow indicates self-objectification. 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. Furthermore, a few people persist in raising inane questions and then accusing others of veering from the discussion when others try to illustrate their point. It's certainly not productive.

Let me ask you this - what did Ms. Clifford study in college? We're only left to assume some artistic pursuit as the author noted she was an "art photographer". But don't you think it might have been of any interest to the reader? The article is about dressing as a pin-up, but it mentions college-aged women at least twice. Why doesn't anyone go to the trouble of detailing these intellectual pursuits? Aren't they important?

Porno objectifies women. Objectifying, or being objectified is not classy. Therefore, emulating porno of the 50's is not classy. Seems pretty straightforward to me.[huh]

 

[C-dot]

apart from wanting to be looked at in a sexual way, e.g. posing for erotic photographs or paintings ? would the person be complicit in their own objectification then ?

This is what I was trying to demarcate - Some people do want to be looked at that way, for a variety of reasons. But Flicka is right when she says objectification necessitates no action on the part of the person being objectified. 'A' can exist without 'B', but 'B' cannot exist without 'A'.

We (in this thread) have explained it as best we can, I think.

Porno objectifies women. Objectifying, or being objectified is not classy. Therefore, emulating porno of the 50's is not classy. Seems pretty straightforward to me.[huh]

I agree, which is why I think Ms. Clifford made an error selecting the work "classy" for what she was trying to say. Honestly, I think she probably meant that Bettie Page's pin-up poses seem tame compared to their modern counterpart (I'm thinking of a greased up blonde straddling a motorcycle on a mechanic's garage wall).

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think too people are misunderstanding exactly what the article was referring to in its discussion of so-called "classier porn." The sort of images that Betty Page was most notably involved in during the fifties -- and which were largely responsible for her rediscovery and cult reputation in recent years, the bondage and fetish shots, were not the sort of thing that would be sold down at your friendly neighborhood drugstore. While they weren't explicit in the same way as modern-day pornography, and thus might seem more "innocent," the purpose for which they were produced was exactly the same. That's the point. The men who bought those packs of mucky photos from the little ads in the Police Gazette were purchasing them for exactly the same reason and purpose that a man today surfs X-rated websites -- the content has changed as the barrier has been pushed outward, but there's no difference at all in the level of objectification that's going on. To suggest that the clothing of the model in the photos makes all that much of a difference is about as disingenuous as it gets -- for what other conceivable purpose would photos of a lingerie-clad woman being tied to a chair and whipped be produced?

 

[Amy Jeanne]

the bondage and fetish shots, were not the sort of thing that would be sold down at your friendly neighborhood drugstore.

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."

 

[Undertow]

...Flicka is right when she says objectification necessitates no action on the part of the person being objectified. 'A' can exist without 'B', but 'B' cannot exist without 'A'.

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.

...I agree, which is why I think Ms. Clifford made an error selecting the work "classy" for what she was trying to say. Honestly, I think she probably meant that Bettie Page's pin-up poses seem tame compared to their modern counterpart (I'm thinking of a greased up blonde straddling a motorcycle on a mechanic's garage wall).

Agreed. It's also quite difficult to know one's internal motivations.

It seems these women were trying to point out that having hips and wearing clothes could still be attractive. It's just unfortunate that this article's tone spoke otherwise.