January 12th, 2009 -- by Bacchus
She Walks All Over Him
The trampling fetish, in which men fetishise being walked on or stomped on by women (I haven’t heard of the gender obverse version, which is not to say it’s not out there) has a long and colorful history, from Japanese geishas forward. But I was stunned to see it so explicit in this fragment from a 1950s magazine advertisement for fitted sheets. She’s stomping all over him, there’s probably two kids and a dog bouncing offscreen to the left, he’s looking up her lacy night-slip (or whatever you call that thing) with a big grin on his face, a great time being had by all, and it’s all because of the miracle of fitted sheets!
This entry was posted on Monday, January 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2842
Shorter URL for sharing: http://www.erosblog.com/?p=2842
I think that is actually his daughter… You know how kids like to Hop on Pop and all that… and the ad says “Pop’s” down to stay, and the bow in her hair, so… I would venture a guess that they were trying to show that the kids could roughhouse with dad and the sheet would still stay down/on/whatever. Non?
See, this is how I imagine the 1950’s – I love the fashion, the colors, the utter delight… there’s this guy in town called Floorman who keeps wanting me to walk on him, but I refuse to do it for free. And there was this other guy who was going to pay me $200 to stomp on his face, but he ended up chickening out.
I would agree with that interpretation… but there a lot of sexuality in that image even so!
Do you think the artist saw what was required and then had a little fun with it?
Jodie, you could be right. But the housecoat she’s wearing is something I associate with suburban women of that era, I’ve never seen any hint that they were worn by younger people.
The daughter hypothesis is presumably less likely since he’s shown getting a good solid upskirt.
I thought it was his wife until I saw the caption too. Then I looked at the pic again and realized how much smaller and younger she looks. I’m going with the people who say daughter.
But did they intend for him to be getting an upskirt? Sometimes the 50s advertising contains really obviously inappropriate material and no one seemed to notice at the time because, well, here it is anyway.
That said, why is Pop’s right underarm bleeding?
Look, you guys do realize you’re arguing about the family relationships between one bit of ink and another bit of ink, right? Art interpretation is all well and good, but it helps to keep in mind that there’s no “real” answer.
Bacchus is of course correct that there is no “real” answer as to whether ink is a woman or a girl, but it’s still fun & interesting to try to guess what the artist intended to represent (to which there is perhaps a “real” answer in that the artist had thoughts of what he was doing, but we’ll never now for sure). Was it intended to be innocent? and was it innocent by contemporary standards (though we might raise an eyebrow)? or Was s/he deliberately ambiguous about the female’s age or the platonic/sensual nature of the picture? Perhaps a bored artist completing a job lazily, or subversively.
Personally, I’d guess she’s meant to be a child (judging by the smaller frame, the housecoat looks borrowed from mom, it says “Pops,” and her child-like bow). I also doubt it’s meant to be sexual, but more along the lines of a daughter rough-housing with her dad.
Looks like she’s going to give him a good working over with her fingernails too. Young girls love to rake and claw with their nails as they pinch your face with their toes. She just wants to see what he has, and when he shoots his load, she’ll make him lick it up.