February 4th, 2006 -- by Bacchus
Escaping From His Pants
This time it’s a vintage handjob:
It’s interesting that her face is shown while his is not. Could this be, like much early erotic photography, an essentially amateur production? Perhaps by a couple of well-to-do “gentlemen” who dare not commit their faces to film, making a souvenir of a dalliance with a lower-status woman who does not care, or cannot afford to object?
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 4th, 2006 at 10:55 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: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=1634
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=1634
Bacchus – My take would be a little different: seems to me that she’s smiling and supporting it in her open hand: displaying it – rather than grasping it – perhaps with a sense of accomplishment. The missing face? Yeah – dangerous to not crop that pic if the owner is entangled with someone else.
Actually, I can see an even more likely explanation. Ever notice how most pornography involving heterosexual couples rarely shows much of the man beyond his equipment? Margaret Cho says this has to with hetero mens’ fear of a “homo moment”, wherein their dicks are hard and they happen to be seeing another man. If this was intended as pornography (rather than a souvenir of fun times), that could explain the lack of detail about the man.
Bacchus – My take would be a little different: seems to me that she’s smiling and supporting it in her open hand: displaying it – rather than grasping it – perhaps with a sense of accomplishment. The missing face? Yeah – dangerous to not crop that pic if the owner is entangled with someone else.
Sorry if this was posted twice – first time didn’t seem to accept it…
*agrees with ArmyWife, above* How much porn do you see that’s intended for hetros that actually shows the guy enjoying the action? The feeling is that men want to see women, and women want to see the womens’ reactions. Ergo – rarely do we see the mens’ reactions.
Is it just me, or is anyone else reminded of those old WPA photos of brave homesteaders doing the best they could in the midst of the Depression era dustbowl? I’m betting that these two were reminiscing about when they were actually able to plow the North 40…one giggled at the innuendo…and then…hey, what ELSE was there to do in Oklahoma in 1932?
It remember me an ad of jeans where we saw the face of a female but not the one of the man.
people in that time doing that in a picture, satan will get his soul :O
Erotica is marketed largely to a men. Producers found out a long time ago that if they show the man’s face the product doesn’t sell as well. Men want to use fantasy to insert their face into the picture with the pretty girl. That is why guys wear hoods in BDSM photos, not to protect their identity, but to allow a male viewer to insert their own face.
It looks like a deguerrotype probably spelled wrong. which tells me that this probably not amature. I remember hearing in class that as early as the birth of photography people where producing and profiting off of erotica. porn is as old as photography.