women as items for conspicuous consumption: sociological images

by Violet Blue on April 8, 2009

This week Details ran a short feature called “Girl Not Included” which I find pretty sexy, but Sociological Images put it in the context of conspicuous consumption in this entertaining post. Not to be confused with fornifilia (women as sexualized fetish objects of furniture) — anyone know the name of the fetish on display in “Girl Not Included”? Prize goes to the first correct answer.

Violet Blue

The London Times named Violet Blue "One of the 40 bloggers who really count" and Self Magazine named TinyNibbles one of the “Best Sex Resources for Women.” Blue is an autodidact and pundit on sex and technology, hacking and security, porn for women, privacy and bleeding-edge tech culture. She is a journalist for ZDNet, CBS News, CNET; she's an educator, speaker, crisis counselor, volunteer NGO trainer, and the author and editor of over 40 award-winning books.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook - Google Plus - Flickr - YouTube - Reddit

{ 4 comments }

1 Dandy Roddick April 11, 2009 at 8:32 am
2 Slartibartfast April 9, 2009 at 9:44 pm

These ads have been reproduced on a number of feminist websites with decrees of sexism and objectification. Yet I personally don’t find this images offensive (and I don’t think cause I’m a guy!!). In fact, I think these images are very sexy and erotic. After seeing his entire array of images, I don’t think Bela Borsodi’s intent is to degrade. What I see is an extremely hot woman covered with shoes, belts and purses.

3 violet April 8, 2009 at 3:32 pm

the fetish for statues, dolls, mannequins. win. may I email you for prize collection?

4 Dandy Roddick April 8, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Agalmatophilia

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: