What's one question you've been expecting to be asked at your blog which has never been asked?
Do I display my collectibles prominently (visible to folks) in my home?
Why?
Because with the state of affairs in this country, it's not pc to like nudes or porn; or at least not so much as to display these things like ceramic cats or Elvis plates. Especially if you have children, which I do.
Answer it.
Most of my visual collection, such as the art pieces and statues etc., are in the 'boudoir.' But the books are out-and-about. There are so many books, including old encyclopedias, history and anthropology books, and even modern fiction, that the kids just walk past them all.
I'm less concerned with my own children seeing nude people (they take their showers naked and have to know they'll be adults one day, and I'm open with them about their bodies, sex and love) than I am with their friends coming over and asking questions that perhaps I ought not (at least in their parents opinions) be answering -- or worse yet, their parents calling or whatever.
What's one question you've wanted to ask your readers, but never have?
What do you collect? Or what are you most interested in reading about here at SPS?
Why not?
Because it sounds like I am pandering, or lazy and desperate for ideas or something. (But aside from wishing to be interesting, I am a nosy girl!)
In a two-part article written for TV Guide in 1964, best-selling author of The Feminine Mystique Betty Friedan claimed that television has represented the American woman as a "stupid, unattractive, insecure little household drudge who spends her martyred, mindless, boring days dreaming of love--and plotting nasty revenge against her husband." Almost thirty years later, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Susan Faludi suggested that the practices and programming of network television in the 1980s were an attempt to get back to those earlier stereotypes of women, thereby countering the effects of the women's movement that Friedan's messages had inspired in the late 1960s and 1970s.
I'm also not surprised.
But this was complete news to me:
NOW formed a task force to study and change the derogatory stereotypes of women on television, and in 1972 they challenged the licenses of two network-owned stations on the basis of their sexist programming and advertising practices. Although they were unsuccessful in this latter strategy, NOW and other women's groups provided much needed pressure when CBS tried to cancel Cagney and Lacey, a "buddy" cop show and the first primetime drama to star two women. Conceived in 1974 by Barbara Corday and Barbara Avedon, two women inspired by critic Molly Haskell's study of women's portrayal in film, Cagney and Lacey was originally turned down by all three networks, only getting on the air after eight years. Producer Barney Rosenzweig worked closely with organized women's groups and female fans to support the show during threats of cancellation, after CBS fired the first actress to portray Christine Cagney because she was not considered "feminine enough," and during periods when the show aired controversial episodes on such topics as abortion clinic bombings.
The best era for women on screen was not the forties, as has been commonly assumed. The best era had nothing to do with ladies with big shoulder pads and bad hairdos watching their boyfriends light two cigarettes at the same time. It had nothing to do with women apologizing for their strength in the lat ten minutes of every film. It had nothing to do with weeping and constant sacrifice and misery.
Those movies may be enjoyable. We may like those movies. But they don't represent the best in women's pictures.
The best era for women's pictures was the pre-Code era, the five years between the point that talkies became widely accepted in 1929 through July 1934, when the dread draconian Production Code became the law of Hollywood. Before the Code, women on screen took lovers, had babies out of wedlock, got rid of cheating husbands, enjoyed their sexuality, held down professional positions without apologizing for their self-sufficiency, and in general acted the way many of us think women only acted after 1968.
They had fun. That's why the Code came in. Yes, to a large degree, the Code came in to prevent women from having fun. It was designed to put the genie back in bottle -- and the wife back in the kitchen. We'll discuss this wretched Code later, and at length. But suffice it to say, to a surprising extent, it succeeded.
Another assumption that needs disposing of is the notion that directors are more important than actors. That may be true enough sometimes, but if we're talking about pre-1940 American film, the opposite is more often the case. Indeed, it's pretty pointless to discuss pre-1940 American film as the art of the director when, in most instances, the stars and the producers called the shots.
Personality was something revered and worshiped in twenties and thirties cinema. People and faces were things to be marveled at. For the first time in history, human beings had the privilege of sitting in the dark and looking at the faces of other human beings, often beautiful ones, thirty feet high and lit up with emotion. Audiences became addicted. They wanted nothing but to bask in and contemplate the faces and personalities they encountered on the screen.
Keep in mind, the close-up was something new back then, newer than the movies themselves. The close-up had only come into widespread use in the second half of the 1910s. Before that, people not only never got to see a close-up in films -- they never saw one in real life. Real life does not allow people to look at strangers so coldly, worshipfully, appraisingly -- and safely. Is it any wonder then that audiences, in the first flush of this amazing new-found privilege, became entranced and fell in love -- or that studios catered to that love? Or that it took a full generation for the huge, loving, glistening, soft-focus close-up to seem corny and to fade from view?
In a cinema that worshipped faces and personalities, the stars were, simply enough, people whose faces and personalities were deemed worthy of such contemplation. Their movies answered the need their essences inspired. Their movies were like the rock videos of today. They existed to put the star over, to capitalize on the image, and sometimes to advance the image. The stories were like little myths created around a screen personality, there to provide the audience with the opportunity to look at and think about the star.
Image -- the public's idea of a personality -- was everything. Studios packaged images, sometimes clumsily, sometimes obviously, sometimes slickly, sometimes with great sophistication. And occasionally, when forced to follow a performer's lead, they helped to create something powerful and socially important.
Greta Garbo and Norma Shearer were stars of the first order who emerged during the image-conscious era of the mid-twenties...
...When Garbo and Shearer started their careers, there were only two kinds of women in the movies. Actresses' images were confined to one-dimensional roles straight out of the nineteenth century. A woman of sexual power was evil, if she chose to exercise and enjoy her power. And a nice woman stayed virtuous, even if she did, like Clara Bow, put on a short skirt and go dancing every night. Those were the choices, vamp or ingenue. Take one or the other. Everything else was just a variation on a theme.
Garbo, by nature aloof and mysterious, was forced to play the vamp, a role she hated. Shearer, who radiated integrity, was forced to play the innocent ingenue, which frustrated her. So they rebelled. Over time, and with some struggle, they persuaded Hollywood to drop the stereotypes and greet a new day. They made the movies safe for real women, and a flood of actresses followed them.
It didn't happen all at once, but they were able to succeed thanks to certain shared advantages. First of all, they had clout. Each had the power that goes with popularity, and each had that power by the time she was twenty-two. Secondly, they worked at MGM, the studio that cared the most about cultivating stars over the long haul. Thirdly, they came along at a time when censorship was relaxed. And finally, their careers happened during a period in history when audiences could not get enough of movies about women.
The last point is all important. Since 1960, female stars have been second-class citizens, but in the twenties and early thirties, women dominated at the box office. The biggest stars were women, and it was a rare month indeed when a male face turned up on the cover of a fan magazine.
Offscreen and on, nothing was more interesting than woman's stories: Women got the vote and were increasingly attending college and pursuing careers. ten times more women were enrolled in public colleges in 1920 than in 1900. Hemlines were raised from the ankles, where they had hovered for centuries, to just below the knees. Women got to throw away their corsets. In place of corsets, women wore brassieres (a new invention), bound their breasts for a boyish look, or like Garbo, Shearer, Madge Evans, Jean Harlow, and many others, went braless.
Bobbed hair was part of the new freedom...Short hair was loose and liberating. Young women started wearing makeup, too -- and flaunting it, powdering up and applying lipstick in public. To the older generation, this was scandalous. Makeup was regarded as immoral, something associated with bohemians and prostitutes. So was smoking... Meanwhile, the availability of diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, and pessaries in the twenties resulted in real changes in sexual behaviors.
...To see (Garbo & Shearer's) films and those of other pre-Code women is to wonder where the American cinema might have gone had censorship not forced Hollywood to change course.
Honestly, I expected to hear about the silly crushes readers had, the silly things they spent their money on, as well as the 'I wonder what I did with those posters' sorts of things. (OK, and 'mistakes' too. lol)
Show us one blog you are jealous of or wish to emulate.
Wow. That's a rough one. I don't know of my blogs that focus on what I do -- not exactly, anyway. But I am completely jealous and wish to emulate the traffic and following of a few sites... Just one?
Because Eros is the oldest true sex blog I know of (many now use blogging software to publish, but they originally were 'zines' etc.), and as a collector, I'm all about seeing things grow older and more valuable. *wink* Seriously, Bacchus has done a great job and I'd love to have his readership. :Rubs hands together menacingly:
Playing along? Use this to post your name and the URL to your meme post.
All are welcome to leave comments too, of course; this is just to make linking easier (and a tad more handy for clicks *wink*).
The best of this weeks blogs by the bloggers who blog them. Highlighting the top 3 posts as chosen by Sugasm participants. Want in Sugasm #85? Submit a link to your best post of the week using this form. Participants, repost the link list within a week and you're all set.
Alongside pornography, we have erotica. Erotica is the Pepsi One of pornography, the version OK for housewives and single women. Your mom may have a few erotica books lying around, possibly a classic with Fabio on the cover, about 20 Danielle Steel books and, if she's slightly kinky, some gothic stuff by A. N. Roquelaure (a.k.a Anne Rice).
The same goes for stripping--excuse me, "exotic dancing"--and burlesque performance. One's trashy, and the other one is so hot right now.
Gloria's found some gay antiquities. I wonder if she, like I, watched last night's History of Sex: The Eastern World on the History Channel? There was quite a nice segment on the Japanese's acceptance of gay sex and prostitution.
Also, did you know that the Kama Sutra was written by a celibate scholar? Too bad I had to pee during that part... But it further explains why some of the positions seem completely unnatural. A man with time on his hands and finds it hard will imagine most anything. *wink*
In art news, Brett Whiteley's The Olgas for Ernest Giles became the most expensive Australian painting sold at auction for $3.48 million.
FYI, if you're not an artsy-type and don't see what's so erotic about the landscape, it is said "The 2.1m x 2.4m work depicts large outcrops of ochre rock that suggestively evoke the curves of thighs, buttocks, breasts and male genitalia."
I received an email regarding my post on Lewis Carroll. Not surprising, I guess. After all these years collecting sex history items I'm used to these sort of questions.
I'd like to post the email here, but as an ethical person who wishes not to feed search engines and therefore persons searching for the sorts of materials discussed here, I'll paraphrase. I'm certain you can read between my lines.
The basic question is: "Why would I post such images?" And more to the point, "Don't I realise I am only encouraging such sickos?" (Specifically, the email quoted my line about the nudes not being available online as proof of my wrongness.)
In truth, paraphrasing and condensing focuses on the real issue I'd like to get at here. Well, it's two issues.
The first is that as a collector, an amateur historian, I'm documenting, researching and questioning. I find an object, which leads to a story. Or a set of questions and ideas to explore. It's the story of us all, we humans, and sometimes our own stories and ideas make us uncomfortable. But that doesn't mean the stories ought not to be looked at. The old (perhaps tired) adage says we should learn from our history. We can't do that if we selectively, defensively, ignore stories and lessons. Similarly, the "How did we get here" and "Where are we going?" cannot be clearly answered if we do not look to our past. There's more to this philosophy, but for now let's sum this up so we can get to point two: History should not be censored or otherwise ignored. Sex history is no different.
As a sub-point, I'd also like to say that I was not salacious in that post. The (brief) research was provided within context and, as with this post, specific words were not used (i.e. I did not glorify or try to sell pedophilia via arousing terms). Context and intention are important -- which leads us to point two.
As a collector I'm often either in the middle of or next to a discussion (rant) about censoring, separating &/or preventing the sale or trade of such items. One of the most commonly discussed issues is the matter of vintage nudist publications which often have images of children.
No matter that with most vintage nudist materials genitalia is air brushed into a photographic image of Ken's genitalia, or that these children are now 70 years of age or long deceased; people still get very upset. It's the idea of what someone might do to/with these images of innocent children who had no knowledge of such possibilities or ability to even consent to photos (or in fact the nudist lifestyle). They are children, and our culture currently abhors the notion of sex even touching their children's lives.
While I'm in complete agreement -- as a law abiding citizen and mother, I cringe and wail at the notion of pedophilia -- this was not the intent (for the bulk) of nudist colonies or their publications. Context and intent, remember, are important.
"But," cry the upset people, "what of the intent of the person buying the stuff now?" Ah, yes. We collectors of "smut" are a randy bunch, right? Not exactly. I can't speak for or to the proclivities or others, but the collectors I know aren't exactly 'using' their collection in such a manner. While we certainly do enjoy our collections, and most of us select items or are drawn to specific areas based on what (and who) appeals to us, this is not a sexual activity.
Could someone, would someone, masturbate to items in their collection? I'm sure they can. In fact, many collections of say Playboy likely began in pursuit of physical pleasure well before a historical or research thrill was even thought of. But this does not mean that all collectors are so aroused by their collected objects.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say they are so inclined. In the case of the previously mentioned vintage nudist publications, were they to be put to use for our worst fears this is surely a bad thing. But to prevent or otherwise ban the sale of such items to legal adults based on 'what they might do' is crazy. You never know what a person intends to do or will do with an item they've purchased. Is that pillow for sleeping or are you going to smother your spouse with it?
Limiting the scope of this conversation to 'just sex' (which is apparently the largest fear-based motivator, second only to "terrorism"), this could-they-would-they-in-a-boat thinking is near hysteria in its proportion. (And this part of the discussion becomes another sub-point really.)
If the question is, "Will they masturbate to it?" my first response is, I surely do not know. What if they do?
"Don't you care?" is met with, Why should I? The act you are worried about is a private one, a legal one, and none of my business. Should that intimate human act become the motivator for some illegal act, well then I'll entertain a discussion of the facts; but for now my answer is, 'It's none of my business'. Masturbation is a victimless act.
And really this issue really isn't about adult collectibles or any category of collecting, for that matter.
We don't know what anyone does with anything they obtain. Is that banana for eating? Is that plush Smurf toy a gift -- and for whom? What are they going to do with it? Name an object and I can point to its sexual objectification and/or satisfaction. It's not just that I'm a perv; that's just the way humans work.
So could someone use my posts as fodder for sexual fantasy? Sure. Does it matter to me? If it's legal (and so far both fantasies and masturbation are legal), then no, it doesn't matter to me. (Does it interest me? Only for research purposes. *wink*)
My collection of "smut" drives the research, and results in documentation of history. Our sexual history via the objects and persons we've objectified in sexual ways. That's what this blog (mostly) is about. That's the context and intention, for the most part. I do also hope it's entertaining -- for entertaining means it will be read, and therefore spark thinking if not actual conversation, research or collections. And if that 'entertainment value' includes masturbation, well, that's really none of my business and certainly nothing I want to police or censor.
Sally & her husband, Milo Frank, owned the former home of Jean Harlow and Paul Bern (on Easton Drive, off Benedict Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California). They purchased the home in 1955, and by 1956 Hollywood columnist Mike Connelly 'reported' that "Sally Forrest and Milo Frank, who live in the old Jean Harlow home in Beverly Hills, swear it's haunted by Jean..."
Perhaps that's why the couple rented the home to tenant Jay Sebring (nee Thomas John Kummer) -- the famous hair stylist & owner of Sebring International (salons in West Hollywood, New York and London).
Sebring dated and was engaged to Sharon Tate -- and remained friends with her and husband, Roman Polanski. Sebring was murdered along with Sharon Tate at Tate & Polanski's home in Benedict Canyon on August 9, 1969.
In 1937, Leona Chalmers seems to have produced the first commercial menstrual cup.
It was remarkably similar to cups made today.
The Tass-ette Cup could not out-sell Kotex, which is rather like cups today -- women prefer to use paper products rather than cups when dealing with the curse.
For more on Tass-ette and menstrual cup history, Mum.org.
The Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, And Little Girls
It is generally said that Alice Pleasance Liddell (1852-1934), daughter of Henry George Liddell (Dean of Christ Church, Oxford), was the inspiration for don Charles Lutwidge Dodgson ('Lewis Carroll') Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and that the in manuscript was given to her as a Christmas present in 1864.
However, there have been questions as to the relationship between Alice and Carroll. In fact, some question Carroll's desire for and relationship with other children. This based largely upon Carroll's photography.
''His were sad, scrawny little nymphets, bedraggled and half-undressed, or rather semi-undraped, as if participating in some dusty and dreadful charade,'' said Vladimir Nabokov, the Russian translator of Lewis Carroll's ''Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.'' Nabokov noticed ''a pathetic affinity'' between Carroll, who photographed little girls clothed and naked, and Humbert Humbert, the pedophilic narrator of his own ''Lolita.''
But was Carroll a pedophile? As you walk through ''Reflections in a Looking Glass: A Lewis Carroll Centenary Exhibition,'' organized by the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin to mark his death in 1898 and now at the Equitable Gallery in Manhattan, the question seems oddly irrelevant. What is most startling, and attractive, in his portraits of girls is not what he saw in them but what they saw in him.
''Lewis Carroll . . . came to our country home to photograph the children,'' wrote Dymphna Ellis, one of the children Carroll photographed. She added: ''I feel sure I was a 'favorite.' He made every child that. He developed the photographs in our cellar . . . I remember the mess and the mystery . . . We cried when he went away . . . We were absolutely fearless with him. We felt he was one of us, and on our side against all the grown-ups.''
These don't sound like the words of a victim of childhood seduction. But something in them is still alarming: cellar, mess, mystery, fearless. The words make you think that whatever Carroll and his little subjects were up to, it was exciting and seductive for all concerned. They were co-conspirators.
This aspect of Carroll's life raised a few eyebrows in his day, but speculation about it has intensified with the passing of time. Certainly Carroll idolized girls, wrote his stories down because they told him to, photographed them frequently. A brilliant and talented man, Carroll nevertheless had difficulty interacting with anyone who had hit puberty. He had a bad stutter around most adults and surrounded himself with armies of little girls. He is famously quoted as saying, "I am fond of children (except boys)," and photographed many pretty little girls -- some languidly stretched out on a bed, some nude. As a result, Lewis Carroll has a vaguely icky aura about him in some people's minds, leading to pop-culture references of a nasty nature.
Calhoun continues:
The nude form Carroll found especially inspiring, and while the HRHRC exhibit contains none of the nude photos themselves -- most of the few that survive reside at Princeton -- there are in the exhibit seven letters which Carroll wrote to Mrs. Annie Wood Gray Henderson between the years 1879 and 1881 about using her daughters Annie and Francis as nude models. In one, Carroll writes: "Their innocent unconsciousness is very beautiful, and gives one a feeling of reverence, as at the presence of something sacred." There was at the same time a reluctance to use boys in the same context. The girls' younger brother posed early on but in another of the letters Carroll said that the boy was not invited back to sit the next year because "a boy's head soon imbibes precocious ideas ... It is hard to say how soon the danger might not arise."
Calhoun, then continues to share the thoughts of Morton Cohen, a preeminent Carroll scholar, who belives that Carroll "remained beyond reproach in his behavior."
In interviews that Cohen conducted in the 1960s with some six or eight of the little old ladies who were once Carroll's child-friends, none of them ever said anything (even when pressed for the gory details) but that he was the nicest, the most gentle, charming, delightful, etc., etc., man they had ever known. Though Cohen believes that Carroll may indeed have wanted to marry one or more of the girls at various times, they came of age and it never happened. By all accounts, Carroll died celibate.
Edward Wakeling, Lewis Carroll Collector, Consultant, Researcher, and Writer, also champions Carroll.
Let me list, in my view, the ten most frequently used myths about Dodgson – in no particular order of merit or level of controversy:
1. He was shy and ill at ease in the company of adults
2. He only liked little girls; he did not like little boys
3. There was a major split with the Liddell family in 1863
4. His relationship with his illustrator, John Tenniel, was strained and terminated after the publication of Through the Looking-Glass
5. He visited Alice Liddell at Llandudno and this inspired him to write Alice
6. He was a mediocre mathematician
7. He was a bad stammerer, but lost his stammer in the company of children
8. He wanted to marry Alice Liddell
9. His relationship with children was unhealthy
10. He gave up photography as a result of scandalous gossip.
There are other more spurious and far-fetched accusations such as the following which I will ignore and treat with the contempt they deserve:
11. He was Jack the Ripper
12. He had an affair with Alice’s mother
13. He didn’t write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland at all - Queen Victoria did!
If I am going to convince you that these statements about Dodgson are mythical and untrue, I will need to provide you with strong and compelling evidence. This I am able to do. I shall use the primary source of his diaries to support my arguments, and the research material I have uncovered in order to edit them thoroughly. It will be a major task because most of you will have read various biographies, so these ideas will already be accepted and adopted as true. But I don’t mind the challenge. And, of course, it doesn’t really matter if you disbelieve what I say. If I just unsettle a few of your views and opinions concerning the real character of Dodgson, I shall be content.
Was Carroll inappropriate? Did he have inappropriate thoughts? We likely will never know... But it's worthy of questioning. Some turn to the cultural differences between 'now' and Victorian times for the answers. But that, my friends, will have to be another post.
Images via here and here. None of the nude images are to be found online -- I imagine that is by design.
Based on your comments (posted and emailed), I asked the folks at behind it to provide more information; here are the answers.
The website for collectors of adult items will be very similar to the mainstream collectors site (Collector's Quest, aka CQ), except that:
* The adult collectibles site will charge a membership fee while the mainstream site will be free. "CQ is free because we can support ourself through mainstream advertisers and sale of collectibles. This would not be the case in the adult arena."
* The adult site would have original blog content, like the mainstream one, but not video "as this presents a HUGE screening problem for us."
* In order for collectors to be assured that the other members are in fact over 18, and therefore trading and selling without that risk, members will be pre-screened via a credit card authorization process.
Regarding traffic and/or ranking of Collectors' Quest. Deb and others were concerned that the site, though over a year old and dedicated to the huge area of collecting, had little traffic or at least a poor Alexa ranking. I asked them to respond.
CQ: Alexa is an unfair comparison for two reasons. Most of the traffic on Alexa comes from Asia and while we are global, most of our traffic is US based. Secondly and more importantly, Alexa only tracks those users who use the Alexa toolbar. Most of our traffic comes from Google searches and therefore we would not be accurately represented.
CQ: CQ currently has 40,000 visitors monthly. This is all without marketing. Once we open the community piece, we are starting formal marketing and expect this to grow exponentially.
As mentioned, Collector's Quest is planning on launching their community soon. It is in Beta testing and :knock wood: it will be released in a week or so. This will be done before the adult sister site would begin for several reasons, including working out bugs and pricing, as well as putting the age screening mechanisms in place. (This credit card authorization process is more complex for programmers.) They are hoping to have it up in July, if not before.
Regarding pricing...
CQ: We are looking to keep the fees low. There has been talk of $10/month with discounts for those who sign for 3, 6 and year terms. What is important to remember is that we do not charge people for listings like ebay does and you can keep an item displayed for as long as you want. We also do not take a commission on a sale from our site. You can also put up as many items as you like.(although if you are a dealer - there will be a different fee structure for above a certain amount of photos) These things alone would be less money than what it would cost you to use eBay for the same services.
So that those interested can try the site and see if it's worth the fees, there will be a trial period.
CQ: We will be offering a 30 day free trial period and those who sign up early will receive an extra discount. We want to encourage people to test it and tailor it for the community.
Again, I ask that you all post your thoughts in the comments section &/or email me privately if that's more comfortable for you. The more information we provide to CQ, the better the community & website will fit our needs. (Again, I promise not to share any of your personal information, only the sentiments/questions/concerns.) Thanks!
My sincere thanks to Ms Gloria Brame for pointing out Sex, porn and a discreet taste for the bizarre: With 6,000 brothels and 80,000 prostitutes in London, sex was an 1857 obsession. John Sutherland charts expression and repression of the dirty-book trade of the day.
With lots of information packed into a relatively short article, this is my favorite quote:
Pornography, whether in 1857 or 2007, is one of many useful litmus papers for determining what strange mixtures are at work culturally. The Victorians were not prudish, nor are we enlightened. Different times, different porn.
I never knew that Billie Holiday left the stage midway through the song and allegedly slashed the heckler with a knife -- then resumed singing. The song? Strange Fruit, a song about the lynching of a black man in the American South.
You can find more here, at PCL. (The link they direct us to, the Walter Gordon Collection, is not working now... I keep my fingers crossed for its return. Meanwhile, use the Google cache.)
The text reads: John Levy (left) and Walter Gordon stand in the court hallway before Billie Holiday’s criminal assault trial. Levy was Holiday's manager and boyfriend for much of her turbulent career.
Huggin' & Chalkin' (words and music by Clarence Leonard Hayes and Kermit Goell) is a cute little song about a fellow's love for his BBW... With a bit of a twist.
Huggin' & Chalkin'
I got a gal who's mighty sweet Big blue eyes and tiny feet Her name is Rosabelle Magee And she tips the scales at three-oh-three
Oh, gee, but ain't it grand to have a gal so big and fat That when you go to hug her, you don't know where you're at You have to take a piece of chalk in your hand And hug a ways and chalk a mark to see where you began
One day I was a-huggin' and a-chalkin' and a-chalkin' and a-huggin' away When I met another fella with some chalk in his hand A-comin' around the other way over the mountain A-comin' around the other way
Nobody ever said I'm weak My bones don't ache, my joints don't creak But I grow pale and I get limp Every time I see my baby blimp
Oh, gee, but ain't it grand to have a gal so big and fat That when you go to hug her (You don't know where you're at) (You have to take a piece of chalk in your hand) (And hug a bit and chalk a mark to see where you began)
One day I was a-huggin' and a-chalkin' and a-beggin' her to be my bride When I met another fella with some chalk in his hand A-comin' around the other side (over the mountain) A-comin' around the other side
She's a mile wide! (Chalkin' up a markdown and yellin' "No More!") When I met another fella with some chalk in his hand A-comin' around the other side (over the mountain) Over the Great Divide!!
Hoagy Carmicheal brought this song to #1 on the Billboard charts in 1947, so he's most famous for it. In 1946, Kay Kyser charted at #8, and after Hoagy, both Johnny Mercer (reached #8) and Herbie Fields (#14) also had chart success.
We don't just put pretty women on mirrors, we photograph them with mirrors.
Now I can understand when the mirror is so strategically placed that it allows for one single photo to show more than one angle, but we often pose nude babes with mirrors which either only the model can see in, or just as a prop.
I'm not sure what we are saying here... Is it that the hand mirror is a common item on the vanity and so it seems to speak to intimate settings? Or it is that the hand mirrors reflect our cultural questions of the connection between beauty and vanity?
The cover features a clearly recognizable Candy Barr, which is important because while the contents page has a pink-colorized photo of the same model with a rose, I didn't recognize her, nor was she credited.
This is why it's so hard for a collector to see magazines cut up like this -- you can't verify models. Even if the publication didn't credit the models, a good collector can research to find verification of what models were in what issues, but when pages are found loose, you can't even tell what publication they were from. (The contents page only lists Candy Barr on page 15 -- but if I have that page, so far I have not discovered it.)
Back to what I do have and what I discovered...
In November of 1956, Body Beautiful Publications birthed a new baby, Jem magazine. I say "birthed" because publisher Danny Ross compared the starting of the new magazine to having a baby in this, the first issue, under the heading "Diamond Dust" which seems to be the publisher notes section. Here's an excerpt:
Like a baby, a new magazine must be named. And friends and relatives of the Mother-Publisher will come forth with beauts. Among those suggested for this publication were Suave, Debonair, Jewel, Gala, Fiesta, Carnival, Circus and a number of equally eye- and ear-catching titles. The Publisher, however, liked Gem and since it is a time-honored custom to defer to the wishes of those who have just presented the world with a new offsrping it was decided Mother Knows Best, and Gem it was. Until the matter came to the attention of a female member of the staff. She came up with that little touch that would occur only to a woman.
"Why not spell it JEM?" she suggested.
And so JEM it is. Which proves you should never underestimate the power of a woman, or the devastating effect of her touch.
***
At first it was planned to JEM a slogan by which it could readily be identified. Something like "LS/MFT," "It Floats," "Even Your Best Friends Won't Tell You," or "They Satsify." But the best thing we could think of was "All The Nudes That's Fit To Print," so that phase of the project was dropped.
***
Anyway, the new baby is home from the hospital and safely in the hands of you -- its foster parents. We hope you like it. As for the staff, their attitude toward the new baby can best be summed up by what the hen told the square egg: "You were an awful pain, but I finally laid you."
Things to note are:
Of the seven suggested titles, nearly all of them went on to become actual magazine titles with one publisher or another.
By the time this issue hit the stands, Jem had a slogan: Jem, A Treaser Chest Of Rare Spice.
One of the suggested slogans was "LS/MFT," which I had to look up, but didn't explain completely why this would be a good slogan. Perhaps another euphimism lost to time... It's sure been played with, even today.
Also in the "Diamond Dust" section was a "Daffy Dictionary" entry, which I mentioned to Gracie and she quickly made a post about -- beating me to this article myself.
In my excerpt there's clearly a condescending attitute toward women, but it is also delicately clothed in words of worship. However it's important to note Gracie's post because Jem, while a vintage men's mag, definitely pushed the boundaries of condesention into blatent sexist behavior.
In fact, Jem was rather well known for such a sexist editorial policy. This cover of the 1958 March issue is an example of that. Here a topless French maid scrubs the floor while a dapper gent lords above her.
(Image from a private collector who allowed me to share the scan -- thanks DB!)
This editorial slant remained with the magazine (some claiming it even increased over time). Most collectors do agree, however, that the very best issues of Jem were the first few years. During these years Jem had high production standards with wonderful photography and an imaginative, playful design.
One of the reasons Jem was/is a favorite is that it has lots of photos -- and color photos.
Lovely photos of Jayne Mansfield and Anita Ekberg, each "A Jewel From The Jem Box."
In the first issue, the poster babe (two pages, but not in the center like a true 'centerfold') Betty Brosmer is featured as the official welcome to Jem.
Posing in a lovely sheet peignoir, Betty profers a come-hither gaze and champaign for two. The text reads, "WELCOME to JEM with a toast To Gaiety, Beauty, Entertainment from Betty Brosmer."
Note how Betty's face has transformed. The photo used in the magazine seems to have been airbrushed as the copy I have shows less lines on her face and more defined cheekbones. (I'm not saying Brosmer needed such things -- on the contrary, I find it interesting how even the slightest things in such a beautiful woman are 'imperfections' to be corrected.)
In keeping with the birthing metaphore, let's look at bit at the Jem family.
Jem was one of the Body Beautiful Publications, part of the Joe Weider family of magazines and the body building empire.
Betty Brosmer herself married Joe and became Betty Weider in the 60's.
From that point on, Betty, who had been the highest paid pin-up model in the 50's, became a real Weider and virtually stopped modeling and became an active participant in Joe's health and fitness empire.
When most folks think of Joe Weider they think of all his male muscle magazines.
These vintage muscle mags were controversial and even were tested by US censorship laws. From the New York Times dated April 29, 1957:
Magazines Indicted for Indeceny
The Union County grand jury today returned indictments against the publishers and distributors of seven national magazines on charges of conspiracy to sell indecent literature. The true bills are the first of their kind in New Jersey, according to Prosecutor H. Russell Morss, Jr.
Consiracy is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three years in state prison and a $1,000 fine. Among the publishers indicted was Body Beautiful Publications, Inc. (Wonderful Weedy)
(I wonder what Betty thought of this? She herself had refused to pose for Playboy because she of her self-imposed rule to only do chaste cheesecake shots.)
Wonderful Weedy, a not-so-affectionate nick name for Joe Weider, and his publications upset the suposed 'real keepers of the sport of body building,' including Harry B. Paschall, managing editor of Stength and Health. Here's how Harry responded to the news of Body Beautiful Publications indictments:
We are not in favor of censorship as a rule, and we believe in the fundamental freedom of the press, but there are certain cheap publishers who will stoop to anything to make money, even the perversion of children. It is about time some action is taken to stop this sort of indecency.
It is an odd twist of fate that at practically the same time the York Chamber of Commerce was honoring the York Barbell Club and Bob Hoffman with a testimonial plaque, the Union County Grand Jury (where the Weedy enterprises are located) was indicting Mr. Wonderful for consiracy to sell indecent literature. Perhaps the Mills of the Gods grind slowly but they grind exceeding small.
Weedy and his group of unscrupulous hirelings have been spouting for a long time about their idealism and how they were martyrs to the cause of pure, unsullied bodybuilding. They write letters to credulous columnists like Dan Parker (who should know better), of the N.Y. Mirror, telling how Bob Hoffman is the big, bad wolf who runs A.A.U. weightlifting to suit himself. They fail to bring into the open the fact that they themselves are mainly engaged in the business of selling dirty pictures and dirty magazines.
Anyone who takes one look at their current publications, such as Jem, and their small, dirty homo books Body Beautiful, and Adonis, cannot fail to see the category into which such literature falls. Indecency is a mild word for it. Pornography is better.
The Weedy books cannot be sold in their own home city. They have been banned by the League of Decency. Yet thousands of credulous lads, not yet dry behind the ears, take for truth the wild mouthings of these imitation experts, when they read the sensational articles in their trashy magazines.
Perhaps their long career of fooling some of the people some of the time is drawing to a close. Perhaps the Great Imitator (he has recently copied the labels of Hoffman's Hi-Proteen products so closely they can almost be sold as the real McCoy) may be forced by public opinion and the law to go back to his original slum hideway, where he and his pals can still make a living peddling French postcards. Apparently you can take a kike out of the slums, but you can never take the slums out of the kike.
Well, well, wel... If Weider's muscle men mags were dirty and obscene, what should we make of the racism of Paschall?
This is one of the books I got this weekend, for a quarter:
One More Time! by Casey Scott, A Tower Book, copyright, 1965.
From the cover:
A soaring, powerful new novel -- charged with all the driving urgency and go-go excitement of the jazz world.
On the back:
Duet
He was the boy with the golden horn, living and loving like he played, straight from the hear, with all the soaring joy and big-beat intensity that was in him.
She was the go-go girl with the honeysweet eyes and a taste for excitement, wthe kind that came from riding high on a free-wheeling merry-go-round of emotion.
They made the scene togethr, in the dusk-til-dawn world of blue lights and blue notes, climbing the scale of passion and reaching for a high note that wasn't there.
First printing anywhere.
The title of this post is the tagline on the first page, which also reads:
That was Cal Lewis, who poured his life into his glittering soprano sax. He gave up asking why, because he found out long ago that the why was in the music.
But one day he looked over the bell of his horn and he saw Wynne. She wasn't real and she dragged him down to the bottom. THIS IS CAL'S STORY...
I wasn't selected for the top picks, but I did 'make' the list as my two favorites did *wink*
The best of this weeks blogs by the bloggers who blog them. Highlighting the top 3 posts as chosen by Sugasm participants. Want in Sugasm #83? Submit a link to your best post of the week using this form. Participants, repost the link list within a week and you’re all set.
This is a record sleeve, which I suppose is a kind of advertising. The album, by that most uncompromisingly British of veteran rock bands, The Kinks, dates from 1975. This cartoon image (credited to one Mickey Finn) was already the height of retro when it first appeared, and the era alluded to is probably really the late 1950s, when Kinks leader/songwriter Ray Davies and his brother Dave were at school in suburban north London. The lyrics of one song on the disc, Headmaster, clearly refer to getting the cane. From a cultural historian's point of view, it's extremely interesting that there is such a clear reference -- in the lyrics and in the drawing -- to bare-bottom canings, since even in the 1950s that was not at all the norm for ordinary local secondary schools:
Headmaster, this is my confession, I've been such a little fool. I've dishonoured one who trusted me, I have broken all the rules. I've been such a little fool. Don't tell all my friends I bent over, Don't tell them you made me cry. Don't tell them I've been sacrificed, Don't tell all my friends or I'll die. Headmaster don't beat me I beg you, I know that I've let you down. Headmaster please spare me I beg you, Don't make me take my trousers down.
Sex has always been a part of the music. There are risqué R&B numbers, raunchy blues ditties; rock and roll took its name from slang for doing the horizontal mambo. Don't even get me started on opera... talk about some weird fetish freaks!
I was too cool to be boy-crazy about the Bay City Rollers. (I'm not saying that I didn't have silly teen dreams or think of kissing the posters on my walls, I just didn't do this with the Bay City Rollers.)
Sure, I had the album, but who didn't love that ear worm S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y NIGHT? (If you were a teen in '75 you had to love the "rockin' party anthem." I think it was a law or something.)
Some girls so love the boys in plaid that they swooned over I Only Want To Be With You.
In fact, I had one album (the Greatest Hits) and in the early 80's some guy I dated twice borrowed it.
Yeah, "dated" -- it's not like I let him pick me up in a bar and go home with him. Or called him one a few weeks later when bored just to have sex. A two-night stand is so terrible to admit to. Especially to a short, swarthy little man who you cringe when you think about -- the things I do in the name of honesty here.
He never gave the record back. And I, apparently over that self-loathing low point in my life, never called him to get it -- it wasn't worth it. If the price of leaving the little sweaty troll behind was one Bay City Roller's record, that was the (exceedingly low) price I'd have to pay. While that price was even lower than my standards to hook-up with the guy, the loss of the record doesn't remove the personal blot, the stain on my history (were that as easy to remove as those on my sheets!).
So why am I posting this Bay City Rollers Kissing Kit?
Well, for one, we all had silly celeb crushes and it's fun to mock those of others. :p
Second, it's also important to remember that even as you mock another for their tween-lust of a goofy band or other mistake -- you have bigger mistakes to cringe over.
It's important to recognize your own personal sex history -- including those moments that aren't warm and fuzzy.
That, my friends, is part of nostalgia.
So here's to you, guy whose name I can't remember. Enjoy the record if you still have it.
As a collector who spends most weekend hours at rummage and estate sales, I wake each Saturday morning hoping for good weather. Today, my prayers were not answered. It rained all day, and still is raining now.
I suppose I could have sat around naked and read the paper, but the husband and I don't let a little thing like rain stop us from our appointed rounds as collecting hounds.
We were some of the few out hunting for goodies (and naughties), so the competition was less -- and sellers were willing to deal. I got quite a few books, mostly paperbacks, some cool sheet music, and a few magazines. Hubby got a giant load of records (which we are listening to as I type). In a few minutes, he'll call me for wine coolers and we'll sort through everything. I do have to make my piles of things that he must scan so that I can share them with you here, right? *wink*
From my own collection, a vintage plaster (or chalkware) piece. A nude 'exotic' lady dances in the fire at her feet. She's large, standing 17 inches tall.
I love that her arms and hands are raised above her head and in hair, which sort of mirrors the flames. Her 'skirt' is made of string fringe -- in the photo I twisted it, normally she's modest. *wink*
She was once broken and repaired, near her knees, but other than that she's in lovely shape.
She has no markings for maker, year etc. So I know nothing about her... If you do, please tell. I'd love to find out there is a series of these nude figurines.
If you want to contact me, post a note. If you wish to talk in private, Naughty dot Words at gmail dot com is the current solution -- however, if it's about link swaps, affiliate programs etc., read the FAQfirst!
If you insist on knowing more about me...
I've been interviewed on Radio Blowfish (direct link to the specific podcast download here).
Peter of
Jane's Guide says, "This blog site is perfectly charming. What an enjoyable time I had here. Your hostess, and the site, is named Silent Porn Star - with no doubt interesting and untold stories behind the name. The focus here is in curating - and celebrating - sexual iconography. I browsed the site's last couple of years of archives, hip hopping over such delights as old pulp fiction cover art, black & white vintage photography, occasional contemporary censorship issues, and even - to my delight - a link to a YouTube clip of Cher and Raquel Welch, all glitter-glamoured up in their prime and glory, singing Peggy Lee's "I'm A Woman". If that isn't as iconic as you could ask for, you're not looking. The commentary is smart, positive, and insightful. This is just the sort of unique site we love to encourage." (Silent Porn Star even made Peter's list of favorite sites!)
Cinema Retro says, "[A] gem of a site that will appeal to any libertines among our readers. Silent Porn Star is an addictive, often hilarious look at how sex and pornography has presented in pop culture over the last century. There are vintage postcards of topless Polynesian dancers, tasteful nude starlets of yesteryear and some delightfully distasteful photos and stories of more recent vintage. We don't expect too many contributors to Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign to patronize the site, but those of us who are proud to be less pure can have a field day looking through those old ads for movies about promiscuous teenagers as well as reveling in other forbidden delights. There's plenty to gawk at whether you're straight, gay or in between - fun for the entire family!"
"Required reading," and "When it comes to sex and collecting, there is no better blog to read because it is always about the sex and the collecting," says Shon Richards.
Blowfish Blog says, "Although the writing is warm and friendly, an aura Sphinx-like and cool surrounds Silent Porn Star. Written by a female collector of historical erotica and risque objects, in it we find out a great deal about a great many things, although not much about the author. But that is part of its charm; like an expert strip-tease, you think you see everything, and then realize that you only saw what you were permitted to. If you are a lover of historical smut, this site is simply mana from heaven, of course. But for everyone, the commentary is learned and witty, intellectual without being snobbish. And we learned so much about the mafia, too."
Starla of The Naughty Guide says: "The writing is elegant and flows off the screen with ease and the site is packed full of information. Some humorous, and some thought provoking. I am sure you will find something to tease your taste buds on this site."
Engaging in "rampant presentism," says anonymous. (Ha!)
Erotic Mandy of Sexy Blog Reviews says, "This is a sex blog of a more 'cerebral nature'," and gives Silent Porn Star 3/5 Orgasms because I'm, "interested in vintage sexuality and is probably quite smart."
Terra at The Naughty Guide gushes, "Silent Porn Star was a joy of a find for me, due to my fetish for vintage erotica. LOVE IT!! This is a blog that is a collection Vintage Erotica bringing it to us in one spot. It is a must visit for those of us that are curious or enthralled with the history of erotica. ...Content is slick, almost as if it was a commercially produced site. I usually read personal blogs, but this interest blog is one that I am adding to my daily read list."
Questions from Gracie (The Marketing Whore).
