Male Bloggers Intent on Protecting Models' Sensual Virtue | Help or Hindrance?

Anna Vorobyeva | Ryan Michael Kelly | ‘And God Created Woman’ SN Living

(commentary cross-published in SN Living)

I saw this artful portfolio shoot by Ryan Michael Kelly of Wilhelmina model Anna Vorobyeva, ‘And God Created Woman’ on the Wilhelmina blog just now. The images come a minute after reading another website’s opinion of the Mario Testino images of Karlie Kloss for the October 2011 issue of Allure.

This is not the front and center, unfiltered naked penis website, who is calling for no agent or agency to ever use Testino again after the Kloss images. Perhaps I’m the only one who sees a contradiction in these two actions. Naked penis was black and white, and Testino is mostly color. Perhaps that’s the quality distinction.

The new pearl of wisdom from across another pond is that high-brow nudity and sensuality are fine for fashion, but low-brow sexuality like Testino’s (no lady parts actually show in the Testino photographs of Karlie Kloss) is not. 

As a sensual woman, I get very nervous when men starts judging high-brow pictures of women versus low-brow pictures. The gesture also smacks of class warfare against women, but I won’t go there.

High Brow vs Low Brow Women

In fact, it may be time to have some fun here — if I can get the widget installed. Let’s see what readers think are ‘high-brow’ versus ‘low-brow’, when the topic is women’s bodies.

The brow-beater editor continues; “There’s no allure to it (the Testino editorial) and, frankly, it’s not that much better than what you’d expect to find in a whole range of low-brow men’s titles.”

Wait a minute! Which low-brow titles are we talking about here? Playboy US? Playboy France? Hustler? LoveCat? Treats!? Not so fast young man.

I would also add that the demographics of the Allure audience enter into the conversation, in terms of what Allure readers want. This topic — the readers —  NEVER matters in a fashion universe where total focus is on the model and her class, status-conscious future. (Note that most of the girls fail miserably, never earning much money in the today’s post-supermodel, designer-ego dominant system, but that’s irrelevant to the quest.)

This issue is the heart and soul of AOC, SN and my 10-year career at Victoria’s Secret and as an industry consultant on female sexuaity, so I’d like to get some women in the conversation.

Insuring the Sensual Virtue of High Brow Models

I hope we can all agree that Ryan Michael Kelly’s images of Anna Vorobyeva are beautiful and ‘high brow’. In the midst of this conversation, I note also that they appeared yesterday on the Wilhelmina website, home to an agency long associated with ‘high brow’ models and consummate good taste.

This appalled male response to an Allure editorial is all sounding very British and Victorian, the global male morality police operating on women from yet another angle — all in the name of protection.

Personally, I’m not so fond of the Mario Testino-Karlie Kloss images either as I wrote, but I’m far more concerned about the judgement and condemnation around them — and Karlie’s alleged bad-girl status as pictured. 

With my specialty being “telling women’s stories from fashion to flogging” and a career as a successful business person trying to wade through global sensual waters, my radar goes into orbit when the men begin judging images of ‘high brow’ and ‘low brow’ women.

To be honest, this is the story of women’s lives, ever since the advent of monotheism — speaking of ‘And God Created Woman’. Sorry Ryan for swiping your terrific images of Anna Vorobyeva for this conversation, but I believe the big guy upstairs directed me to them, coming so quickly on the clunky, gestapo heels of the high-minded, ‘high-brow’, princely male rescue of Karlie Kloss’s virtue. Anne

Karlie Kloss | Mario Testino | Allure October 2011 | ‘Best of Beauty’ SN Living

Comments

[St Barth]

Bonjour Anne,

Not that I'm an expert on the subject or anything, but having recently read the excellent 'Sex at Dawn' book by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jethá, I'm inclined to argue that it was the advent of agriculture rather than the advent of monotheism that was the beginning of the "story of women's lives".

When humans were still nomadic hunter/gatherers, there was little need for property. But agriculture, with it's intensive labor requirements, put a price value on seemingly everything including the female's reproductive capacity.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise, I love your blog. Keep up the great work!

[Anne]

I love 'Sex at Dawn', too. Everyone should read that book. Couldn't agree with you more about agriculture and its relevance. But monotheism aggressively attacked female sexuality beyond the changes already in play with the advent of agriculture. The loss of female power is consistent from the move to agriculture but goddesses flourished with strong influence until monotheism. Cleopatra existed for real. Athena was the goddess of wisdom. Aphrodite was not a slut.

Yes, women were losing ground, but the new religion hammered our coffin shut. Also, men had discovered their role in paternity and private property was on the rise. When I speak of monotheism, I'm talking about those social changes also.

For me, the most interesting evolution is from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. In those 300 years, which coincided with the rise of monotheism, women went from being 'rulers' in the writing of Socrates to 'animals' in the writings of Aristotle. The compression around female identity was fantastically dramatic. There's a new ebook next month on this topic from a credentialed Princeton scholar on religion -- monotheism, women & sexuality. Will leave the link here for you & also send it to you. Her name evaporates in my mind -- the Gnostic gospel woman. I'll be reading it the day it comes out.

Meanwhile, this post talks about the evolution from my perspective. Under Aristotle, man became in charge of everything. We think of him as a Greek philosopher but he was heavily influenced by the Old Testament and had wide interaction with Judaic religious scholars. Prior to the Old Testament, women weren't officially private property. I don't believe that women were called property before that date. (will check though.)

http://www.anneofcarversville.com/green/returning-ancient-greek-person-status-to-dolphins.html

Thanks for your comment, especially when yours reminds readers of the fuller context of women's history. Sometimes I barrel along without fully setting the context. Glad you took the time. Best, Anne