Elle MacPherson’s Lingerie and Her Peeping Tom Adventures

By Tatiana von Tauber

What really turns you on?  Oh, come on.  We all have our little dirty minds.  Though mine can run into some risqué places, there are some erotic images that  just stop me dead in my tracks make me go “Wow!  That’s fucking hot!”  Then I sit back and let my mind go.  I don’t want to have sex.  I just want to enjoy whatever feelings it happens to ignite.

Sexy or offensive?

Several years ago, Elle MacPherson launched her Intimates lingerie apparel line and one of the wow-hot ads was the Rear Window series which depicted a peeping tom theme (above photo).  I’m not really into the peeping tom thing even though I explored the concept once in an erotic story but when I first saw these images the highest level of intimate sensuality just jumped out at me.  My husband’s mouth dropped open and his eyes bulged out like a cartoon character as he drooled and all I could think was, “Yeah, if you preferred lingerie to nudity, I could give you a private peep show!”  

It didn’t cause either of us to hop into bed to have sex or make us cringe with horror but rather it created an intimate flirtation, a  “so you wanna do a mock peep show” convo with some bashing eyelashes, raised eyebrows and sensual smiles Victoria Secrets never managed to accomplish with their freakin’ Angels strutting on a runway.  If we’d like to see a representation of stupified female objectification, look no further than “dirty girls” pretending to be Angels.  At least MacPherson’s ads represent women as respectably erotic opposed to borderline strippers upon which VC is trying to convince its audience that’s actually what’s sexy.  The way I see it, MacPherson is trying to sell eroticism; VC is simply selling sex, yet women flock to their local VC store.  Go figure.

There was a negative backlash to Elle MacPherson running this ad, of course.  They’re  mind-boggling to me:

 

• The ad was banned in the UK on the account of one (perhaps more, I don’t know) complaint that the above photo suggested the model was masturbating.  Of course a woman doesn’t put on or take off her panties with her hands so I can totally see how the model’s hand placement was an act of masturbation. 

 

• It was recently suggested at Contexts Blog that “this ad is [possibly] selling lingerie by trivializing peeping at women (or maybe stalking them)”.

 

• The Company manufacturer Bendon expressed that the images were inspired by Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window film, “… important to remember that [they] are selling intimate apparel” while claiming the ads were not exploitative or degrading; yet such was unsatisfactory whereby leading ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) to rule Bendon not repeat the image in further advertising and “to seek advice before running similar ads in the future” as the supposed masturbation suggestiveness was “likely to cause serious or widespread offence”. Read Ananova, AdRants and Vogue.

 
Before I go on let me show you two other hot images from this series (one of which could arguably be met with a masturbation theme but to my knowledge it wasn’t printed, maybe because Bendon never got around to it after ASA’s ruling)

 

 

I realize these are very sensual.  Ok, they’re amazingly tantalizing.  They push the sexual envelope but that’s what I love about them.  As an erotica photographer, this is exactly the kind of work I strive for.  Elle MacPherson’s got the entire idea of eroticism down pat (or the masterminds of her campaign).  THIS is what true eroticism is about, not pole dancing.  It’s supposed to entice.  Eroticism is mental stimulant not a genital joystick.  Erotic images do not stimulate the level of sexual lust equal to pornographic images.  We’re talking apples and oranges here and placing them into the same category shows exactly how wrongly many people connect them simply because they’re both fruits off a “forbidden” tree.  This is tastful, artistic and provocative eroticism.  It rarely gets better than this.

Vogue stated (link above) that because the first of the three pictures was run on a commercial break during the Toy Soldiers movie at 7:45pm (family tv time), it “could have an adverse effect on impressionable teenage boys”.  An angry complainant asked “What are the advertisers trying to create – more sex criminals?”  Of course!  Because masturbation, women in lingerie and “peeping tom” ads aka ads-a-la-eroticism equal boys who can’t control their dicks and so they objectify women and eventually are lured down the dark hall into sexual crimes.  Give. Me. A. Break.  This confusion between the sensuality of the erotic and the non-controlling lust of porn creates assumption and judgment when eroticism comes too close to “innocent” teens (and fearful adults).  Never mind that they’re already sending nude photos of themselves via cell phones while they play I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

Are MacPherson’s ads sexually suggestive?  Sure.  Isn’t that part of the point when it comes to lingerie?  Otherwise, stick with Hanes cotton underwear.  Who the hell wants that for a Valentine’s gift? I find the ads erotically tempting and sensually pleasing and that’s what I like and why I’d buy MacPherson’s line opposed to VC, the mass market bimbo panty/bra line where I have play angel.  If there’s one place I’d like to shed those freakin’ wings its in my bedroom.  

Are the ads revealing too much?  More than a bikini on a beach?  More than Britney Spears in her Womanizer video? Ah, no way; therefore, where is the potential crime here, the mere fact that the vignettes suggest a peeping tom activity?  The crime was in ASA’s hands by censoring something that was merely unsuitable to someone’s personal provocative taste. 

Contexts blog stated the top photo might be intended as an intimate interlude between a couple but damn those advertisers anyway for even suggesting that a little peep show – stalking (?!)  is trivialized:  ‘Cause, you know, that’s sexy’.  Actually, the blogger missed the point, as many do. What’s extremely sexy isn’t the dissected interpretation but the mere visual itself and anyone who welcomes the erotic into his/her life wouldn’t so easily classify the photograph as yet another subtle approach to harm the female but would find the beauty within it.  The pictures are very sexy if one pulls away from the feminist craze of reading into everything erotic as a form of harm to women.  Some forms of eroticism can aid women in the way they are viewed, make them look sensual in a respectable way rather than what women are used to and so defensive about.  We’ve got to give a little room for play, for exploration if we are to redefine how women and sex go together but to eliminate sexuality from women simply because the false notion is that sexual imagery primarily objectifies us is absolutely Dworkin! 
 
These photographs ooze eroticism, stir our very erotic nature and sexual curiosities and if they give a teen boy a little erection, so what?  He’s got to figure out how to use that thing one day anyway.  A little jacking off material to stimulate his mind won’t hurt him and it won’t hurt women either.  That’s second wave feminist fear.  It’s annoying that something this sensual has to be made into a big deal, labeled as perverse, potentially criminal activity inducing and banned yet we’ve got asses and tits shaking on MTV, Britney Spears naked touching herself in a sauna in her videos (though she don’t know a damn thing about motherhood or responsible sex) and we don’t hear this kind of stink about it.

Sexuality is natural.  Young boys wanting a peek is even more natural.  Grown men wanting a keyhole to look through is fantasy and Elle MacPherson Intimates is a line of lingerie intended for those mature enough to want a little erotic fantasy in their lives, who understand it’s seduction, who are not be afraid of being caught enjoying whatever eroticism they could get in their lives as they live among conservative immaturity.  In fact, I commend MacPherson and Benton for their attempt to create a mood story for its audience by showing that lingerie isn’t just something to wear, it’s something to experience.  So is our erotic imagination.  Let it go and just enjoy.

I suggest a visit to Elle MacPherson’s website.  “Rear Window” contains stunning photography.  “What the Butler Saw” is pretty damn hot as well.  Especially that first picture of the model on her knees.  And yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s “objectifying” women.  Whatever.  It’s fantasy and fantasies are about exploration.  Plus, I’d really like that outfit and wouldn’t mind getting on my knees for it – or the experience it could offer.  Take that Dworkin!