Gloria Brame, Ph.D.

Lingerie Lady Love: Vintage lesbian fetish erotica

Filed By Gloria Brame, Ph.D. | October 23, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Gay Icons and History, Living
Tags: antique erotica, bisexual history, gay history, lesbian history, queer history

Possibly a little hardcore for the gentle Projectors, but so unusual I thought it had to be shared. Photo is from ca. 1930s, and part of a series of 1920s-1930s amateur porn photos I recently located, showing playful, frisky, happy women and men in beautiful combinations (both mixed and samesex). Given that we usually think of people back then as stuffy and prim, It was really delightful to find this documentation of their sexually liberated gay and bisexual private pleasures.

They're after the jump.

39541_1372842695075_1652037243_947336_6894169_n.jpg

Recent Entries Filed under Gay Icons and History:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


I'm so confused. Are you sure this one isn't photoshopped? The women are in different hues and the bottom one is missing the rest of her arm. Come to think of it, the first woman's right leg is missing below the knee and you'd think you'd be able to see something of her right arm too.

Gloria Brame | October 24, 2010 4:23 PM

Huh. Definitely not photoshopped, though I cannot say what the photographers in the day might have done to it!

I'd say it definitely is, the two figures are different in hue (one looks sepia-toned, another is greyscale), and scale (the fore one is proportionately larger, but not according to perspective given position in shot)and missing physiology as Bil stated. The lighting is also wrong. So it's either photoshopped or perhaps painstakingly cut out and pasted?

Love your work Gloria, and you have some excellent pics, but I think you may be off base with this one? :-)

Regards, Grace

Grace, you (and Bil) are right, it does look manipulated. But I think there is another possible explanation. I know for sure it isn't Photoshop (this is an original photo for sale on eBay right now from the 1930s). That said, it is probably a trick photo. My guess is that the girls may not have posed together, but got composed together in someone's darkroom. Probably a photo montage.


hugs,
Gloria