Vintage Smut Sunday: Victorian male nudes

There’s a scene towards the end of Junk where a mysterious bookshop owner offers to show Brandon his collection of vintage erotic photography. I had in mind the explicit pictures of our two young crossdressing friends, but those sorts of pictures are very hard to come by from that era–featuring male models at any rate. These pictures here are the sort that are more readily available. Arty enough to be legally acceptable at the time, but I bet most of the men buying these nude “studies” were interested in something other than pure aesthetics!

#1: I love the look on this man’s face, and he’s rather handsome. Gorgeous long, lean body showed off to perfection by that incredibly uncomfortable looking pose!
Victorian male nude

#2: And speaking of uncomfortable poses, wtf? Just look at the strength in that body, though. Gorgeous.

male nude headstand

#3: This is one of the few pics I’ve ever posted where I know the date it was taken, the name of the model AND of the photographer! 1887, Bill Duckett and the famous American artist, Thomas Eakins :) Do you think Bill’s got a book hidden behind his arm, or is he just staring at the carpet?

Reclining male nude

Which is your favourite pic, and why?

Next week: I’m planning a post featuring men in spectacles, but I’m having immense problems finding any. It might end up being women in specs instead, as I have a few of those already. If you find any vintage male optically-challenged hotties, please do send them my way!

18 thoughts on “Vintage Smut Sunday: Victorian male nudes

    • It certainly wasn’t required for men to be as developed in the muscle department back then–and I appreciate the leaner, more athletic physiques. I think that’s one of the key reasons I prefer my smut vintage style!

    • Isn’t he just?! And yes, very awkward. At least he wouldn’t have had to hold it for too long, unlike in a life drawing class ;)

  1. I’m with Chris, number 3 for me too. Although number 1 does appear to be out of his time. Both facially and in hairstyle I would have expected him to come from our end of the 20th century, or even the 21st.

    • I know exactly what you mean, and I suppose it’s possible this is a modern pic given some vintage photoshopping, but I suspect not. I reckon the photographer was going for a deliberately rumpled hairstyle just to make us think naughty thoughts!

  2. These are all quite beautiful, and definitely would get through as artistic studies.
    And yet they’re all erotic.
    The first man makes that post effortless, and he has the whole pale-British look going there too.
    The second – ah, he’s wonderful. His arse is to die for, as I’m sure many of his viewers thought. His thighs are a beautiful shape. Not overdone, just muscular and lovely.
    But number 3 is my favourite. He looks so relaxed – I think he has a book. But his balls – ah his balls, Jo! Such a lovely shape so carefully displayed, (if only he had a foreskin – no! I mustn’t be greedy).

    • Oh yes, Bill does have lovely balls–trust you to notice, Sue! ;)

      I love acrobats’ bodies so 2 is a real winner for me, although I think 1 is incredibly handsome.

  3. They’re all very attractive and attractively posed, but I prefer 1 and 3 equally for different reasons. 3 looks more natural/comfortable, but I like that we can see more of 1′s entire body — not just his physique (after all, we see more of 3′s private parts), but his face as well.

  4. They’re all fantastic this week, but #2 is the one that keep captivating me. Esp with knowing that he’d likely be holding that pose steady long enough for the photographer to get a non-blurred shot, depending on when the pic was taken.

  5. I think I like the second one the best. It’s just really beautiful – all his muscles so clearly defined (weird pose) but yeah, just really beautiful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>