I am old enough to remember seeing calendars with art like that, it wasn't until later that I realized that the dude who painted that particular series had a serious kink - bad waistband elastic combined with celery or other vegetables with a similar aspect ratio, woman with her hands full and a befuddled male standing and watching. Not a scene one often witnesses, yet Art Frahm painted that over and over. You can look it up.
Okay, I went to the site and the explanation is that the elastic in the panties broke. Not buying it. The panties slipped down due to the, ahem... agitated motion of her lower regions.
yet Art Frahm painted that over and over. You can look it up....I will say it again - that is an odd obsession, even by '50's standards.
Mark it down as another lampoon painted with a bent toward voyeurism on the part of the artist. A winky, silly way to create and perpetuate the impression of a woman innocently bursting with untapped sexuality so powerful it makes the elastic on her panties break and puts her in compromised positions she never expected or anticipated. Even though she's oh so purposeful in attending to life and buying healthy foodstuff, she's stupid and silly enough to let her meter expire and wear underpants that fail to stay hidden and result in public exposure.
Was there really enough fabric gathered at her tiny waist to effortlessly and unexpectedly slip past her hips without her awareness of something major about to happen? See how the mind works?
It wasn't innocently titillating then or now. There was a point and a pervy kink to it, a strong, particular and peculiar focus, or fixation on the part of the artist as Sixty notes. In reality I've not heard of women's underpants publicly collapsing in such a manner, nor have I had such an experience myself.
Which makes me wonder about the honesty or provocation present in the title of the post?
What part of it do you "hate" deborah? The experience itself (Have you had "it" happen to you once or more than once?) or the way women were/are lampooned and presented as silly and powerless in the face of their own personal vitality and sexual energy?
I don't see this series on the part of the artist as the result of a censoring culture, so much as a choice and focus on his part that allowed him to express what worked for him.
Early childhood exposure to sexually explicit acts, pictures, and inappropriate touching without the means to process what was seen with a healthy adult or understand how it fits with life as a whole can leave a child with unresolved baggage. A fixation on women as innocent and powerless, with panties as a focal point raises more questions for me than it does answers or hatred.
Some years ago, when I was still living near Philadelphia, a talk radio host on a slow news day asked the innocent question of women, "Ever have your elastic snap in public?".
He filled 3 hours, one caller after another.
What I think a lot of women (and more than a few men) fail to realize is this is a theme throughout the ages. Like the old gag in the Canterbury Tales and elsewhere when a man gets out of bed in the middle of the night and a woman gets out of a different bed and each returns to a different bed and both manage to get a little before realizing, oops.
And, yes, most men are always on the lookout to see a little more than is intended (women, I can't say).
The issue is that women in the 50s were all supposed to be so strait-laced and proper, no sexual content shown to the world. Now the inner self emerges.
Men get lampooned all the time, but we're not supposed to do it to women
I get the joke, deborah. I hate it when I witness a woman's underpants falling down and don't know what to do. Should I offer to hold her groceries or should I quickly pull them up for her before others notice. I think I know the answer.
Lileks has her covered. Under the heading of An Artistic Study of the Effects of Celery on Loose Elastic he reviews the series with enough insight and humor to make me laugh. https://www.lileks.com/institute/frahm/art1.html
Now that you're in the vicinity of the scene, what prompted this post, deborah?
Was it ChipA's mention of Victory Girls? Bubba's ogling of ass and possible fantasies of dropped panties at the funeral? Or the short eye catching black dress worn by the singer?
Is this your first exposure to Frahm's puddled pink pants?
I like the nostalgia aspect. It's the sort of thing I remember from 1950's pinup calendars which tended to be hung in gas station back rooms or on shop walls in areas where women weren't apt to see them. It was a male guilty pleasure of that era. I suppose Hugh Hefner did more than anyone to bring all that into the open by publishing photos of the girls next door without their clothes.
17 comments:
Ladies, don't buy your panties from the Acme Undergarment Co.
I am old enough to remember seeing calendars with art like that, it wasn't until later that I realized that the dude who painted that particular series had a serious kink - bad waistband elastic combined with celery or other vegetables with a similar aspect ratio, woman with her hands full and a befuddled male standing and watching. Not a scene one often witnesses, yet Art Frahm painted that over and over. You can look it up.
Okay, I went to the site and the explanation is that the elastic in the panties broke. Not buying it. The panties slipped down due to the, ahem... agitated motion of her lower regions.
I didn't even notice the link, I just remembered that style. I will say it again - that is an odd obsession, even by '50's standards.
lol Amp
I really don't know, Sixty. It seems like something that would come out of a censoring culture. Innocently titillating in the day.
A lot of 40s and 50s pinuppery focused on the unexpected exposure. Gil Elvgren was the master.
Or, as Benny Hill once observed, girls who trust in cheap elastic should never trip the light fantastic.
The Good Old Days really were.
yet Art Frahm painted that over and over. You can look it up....I will say it again - that is an odd obsession, even by '50's standards.
Mark it down as another lampoon painted with a bent toward voyeurism on the part of the artist. A winky, silly way to create and perpetuate the impression of a woman innocently bursting with untapped sexuality so powerful it makes the elastic on her panties break and puts her in compromised positions she never expected or anticipated. Even though she's oh so purposeful in attending to life and buying healthy foodstuff, she's stupid and silly enough to let her meter expire and wear underpants that fail to stay hidden and result in public exposure.
Was there really enough fabric gathered at her tiny waist to effortlessly and unexpectedly slip past her hips without her awareness of something major about to happen? See how the mind works?
It wasn't innocently titillating then or now. There was a point and a pervy kink to it, a strong, particular and peculiar focus, or fixation on the part of the artist as Sixty notes. In reality I've not heard of women's underpants publicly collapsing in such a manner, nor have I had such an experience myself.
Which makes me wonder about the honesty or provocation present in the title of the post?
What part of it do you "hate" deborah? The experience itself (Have you had "it" happen to you once or more than once?) or the way women were/are lampooned and presented as silly and powerless in the face of their own personal vitality and sexual energy?
I don't see this series on the part of the artist as the result of a censoring culture, so much as a choice and focus on his part that allowed him to express what worked for him.
Early childhood exposure to sexually explicit acts, pictures, and inappropriate touching without the means to process what was seen with a healthy adult or understand how it fits with life as a whole can leave a child with unresolved baggage. A fixation on women as innocent and powerless, with panties as a focal point raises more questions for me than it does answers or hatred.
Very eloquent, Mama.
Some years ago, when I was still living near Philadelphia, a talk radio host on a slow news day asked the innocent question of women, "Ever have your elastic snap in public?".
He filled 3 hours, one caller after another.
What I think a lot of women (and more than a few men) fail to realize is this is a theme throughout the ages. Like the old gag in the Canterbury Tales and elsewhere when a man gets out of bed in the middle of the night and a woman gets out of a different bed and each returns to a different bed and both manage to get a little before realizing, oops.
And, yes, most men are always on the lookout to see a little more than is intended (women, I can't say).
The issue is that women in the 50s were all supposed to be so strait-laced and proper, no sexual content shown to the world. Now the inner self emerges.
Men get lampooned all the time, but we're not supposed to do it to women
I get the joke, deborah. I hate it when I witness a woman's underpants falling down and don't know what to do. Should I offer to hold her groceries or should I quickly pull them up for her before others notice. I think I know the answer.
You could offer to put a coin in her meter.
“You could offer to put a coin in her meter.”
That would make the needle pop straight up.
Definitely a first world problem, DB :)
Lileks has her covered. Under the heading of An Artistic Study of the Effects of Celery on Loose Elastic he reviews the series with enough insight and humor to make me laugh.
https://www.lileks.com/institute/frahm/art1.html
Now that you're in the vicinity of the scene, what prompted this post, deborah?
Was it ChipA's mention of Victory Girls? Bubba's ogling of ass and possible fantasies of dropped panties at the funeral? Or the short eye catching black dress worn by the singer?
Is this your first exposure to Frahm's puddled pink pants?
With this as the ongoing hook: Frahm's fallen panties continue to draw looks, surprise, comment and unrevealed thoughts!
I like the nostalgia aspect. It's the sort of thing I remember from 1950's pinup calendars which tended to be hung in gas station back rooms or on shop walls in areas where women weren't apt to see them. It was a male guilty pleasure of that era. I suppose Hugh Hefner did more than anyone to bring all that into the open by publishing photos of the girls next door without their clothes.
The "Girls" Alberto Vargas and George Petty portrayed in their pin-ups appear saucier and more in the know than the ones with the problem underpants.
Post a Comment