July 3rd, 2011 -- by Bacchus
Vintage Pony Girls
In recent years the whole pony girl aesthetic seems to have hardened into a full-coverage glossy black leather-and-latex look, with color departures into red or blue sometimes just for variety. But it used to be a bit more diverse! This looks like some of the gear Centurion used to sell “back in the day”:
Similar Sex Blogging:
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 3rd, 2011 at 9:28 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=7045
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=7045
Not getting the whole pony girl thing, someone tried to interest me in a RPG based mainly on Ponygirls, but all it left me was “meh”.
Maybe I’m just not sure of what it really en-tails. Does anybody know of some good sites for researching it, not just pictures, some places that explore/explain this particular kink.
BTW I do like those outfits better then others I’ve seen
Inquiring minds want to know. And yes I know curiosity killed the cat, but that’s a whole other kink…or maybe 2.
I love vintage photography! There’s an earthy reality about them and it seems there was more variety in the past.
Tabitha, once again your comment has piqued my interest.
Not particularly having (or understanding), that particular fetish branch of the BDSM community, I decided to try a bit of research myself. The best thing I could find was here:
http://en.wikip...eplay
and in reading this, it nearly roused a bit of interest in certain aspects of this fetish in me.
On Erosblog particularly, one must pretty much respect other’s sexual interests, so whereas some features in this area seem like they may be fun to explore, for me personally, I probably feel more like you do. For me, there are SO many other more satisfying areas of BDSM-related pleasures to explore, I feel like I should confine myself to those priorities in order to squeeze the maximum enjoyment out of life for myself.
The fact that there doesn’t seem to ever be much physical contact (particularly in a traditional sexual way), or any real emphasis on mutual orgasms, is probably why it doesn’t hold a lot of interest for me.
Even the more psychological aspects seem to me more readily and intensely achievable via other BDSM methods and practices, but I suppose that’s subjective rather than objective thinking.
Although I have often said that I wish I had even more fetishes to enjoy than I do, I also believe that one should be true to oneself. Seeing others play at bondage without being genuinely drawn to it tends to bother me as does seeing BDSM activities portrayed by photographers who obviously have no real understanding of the urge.
For the most part, I think you should respect your own feelings as you so clearly expressed them in your comment’s opening sentence. I for one, greatly respect you for that honest expression and self evaluation, but then curiosity being the cat killer that it is, if you were to ask me to explore pony-play with you, I might be out of the starting gate before the crop hits the flank.
…err… or rather you might find yourself bolting down the track. We might have to negotiate who wore the reins… ;o)
Tabitha, Doc W–
Katherine Gates’ classic Deviant Desires has a very in-depth discussion of the ponyplay scene, with long interviews with a couple participants, and is a fascinating and thoughtful book overall.
Bonus feature: my publisher wearing her Spock ears.
Thank you Dr. W and thank you Vinnie.
[…] bondage pony girls, stabled and looking a little bit […]
Interestingly, the photo is not vintage porn. It’s a vidcap from a 1969 mainstream arthouse flick from Italy called “Check to the Queen.” Here’s the IMDB listing:
http://www.imdb...6789/
It’s by the same folks who made “The Libertine.” I’ve never seen the film, I’ll bet the pony players would be very interested in it, but I don’t think it’s available on DVD, it only shows up as the occasional vidcap, generally misidentified as … vintage porn.
Are you arguing that it’s not vintage, or that it’s not porn?
Because 1969 was a long time ago, and there was a ton of arthouse porn in those days. ;-)
Forgot to say, thanks for the identification!
It’s older then I am so that makes it vintage!
I’m arguing that it was not porn in the sense that we understand it. “Arthouse porn” maybe, but not straight up porn. Much more like “The Story of O” or “Perils of Gwendoline” than “Sex and Submission #17: Tied and Fucked Again!?!” or even a roughly contemporaneous Arrow/Harmony tape of somebody’s girlfriend rolling around in the basement half naked and tied up.
I think we don’t understand porn in the same sense, then. Both of your examples strike me as obvious porn. But then again, those names signify a stunningly dirty book and a deeply-fetishistic comic strip to me, and since there’s a movie context to our discussion, I realize we may be talking past each other.
I guess my way of defining it is, if you were to walk into an old-timey video store, not a blockbuster’s but one of the mom and pop shops that had regular movies and a section of hardcore porn tapes in a curtained off section, you’d find “Check to the Queen” on the shelf with the European art house films and not in the curtained off porn section. Same with Story of O in most cases. I define porn as being something whose single purpose is sexual arousal, with no other purposes. I’ve never seen all of “Check to the Queen” but from what I’ve read about it, it wasn’t just about sexual arousal via pony girl imagery. So, in my book, not porn. Some people will define porn as anything that shows genitals or a woman’s nipples. I have a relatively narrow definition, but I think, a more sensible one.