The sexual references in this piece would leave Sigmund Freud (what did he really say?) gasping and groping for his notebook.
Rabbits, well known for their wanton and promiscuous behaviour, feature strongly here; their enormous propensity to breed being equalled only by their enormous propensity to inspire signs bearing their (highly suggestive) name. (Count them – looks like they’ve been breeding like, well, rabbits). The term ‘season’, referring as it does to the time of year reserved for mating activities, serves to heighten the sexual tension implicit in this piece. Nor is the symbolism confined to the signage of the work.
Elmer Fudd himself, a little bald character bearing a cap only half on is a clear reference to semi-protected sex, and the fact that he is grasping his gun – a phallic symbol in its own right – in such a determined fashion, makes the underlying message still clearer. The highly suggestive facial expression clearly conveys ‘I like shooting – and not just with a gun!’ Whether the intended act is onanistic or with a partner is left to the imagination of the viewer, and any interpretation of this will be, of course, purely personal. And possibly dependent on whether the viewer is male or female. The body language is also ambiguous – whether intended to convey a furtive stride, redolent with the pursuit of a quick grope in the undergrowth; or a more gallant pace, intended to convey the lure of the chase, i.e. with quick grope in undergrowth, like Paradise, postponed.
Yet, despite the references to ‘rabbit’ and ‘season’, this piece is clearly not about reproduction; the condom (at which his headgear hints), and, more importantly, the rather dead-looking spermatozoum in the lower left-hand corner make that quite plain. What we are talking about here is filth, pure and simple.
This lies in stark contrast to the work of Elmer Batters, an example of whose work is featured here:
Unlike the implicit and explicit eroticism of the previous piece, this work is devoid of any erotic, suggestive or pornographic content.
Both characters in are women, which automatically means that it isn’t sexual because women don’t do things like that with each other. Queen Victoria told us that, so it must be true. Granted, neither of them is wearing any clothes, and although this can be regarded as a sexual display in a society which is normally clothed, it does bear further scrutiny. The wearing of clothes is considered to be de rigueur in places like Northern Europe where to eschew them would lead to arrest, or to being f****g freezing, and is a practice best avoided.
However, there is nothing in this photograph to suggest that this scene actually took place in a colder climate. The background is socially and geographically neutral, though there are clues within the images themselves from which conclusions may be drawn. Both women are, racially, white Caucasian. Yet their bodies bear signs that they may have been exposed to a degree of sunlight not normally experienced in white Causasia, that is to say, bikini lines.
So they may well have travelled to this destination. They are both clearly having problems keeping their eyes open, which further heightens the impression of migration in general and jet lag in particular.
Finally, the fact that they are reduced to keeping each other’s bodies clean by licking them, hints very strongly at an environment which is totally lacking in modern plumbing. This type of grooming is common amongst primates but, again, not something which is usually seen in public in Northern Europe.
So what we are looking at her is a good example of a photograph used to illustrate travel articles. It isn't even as saucy as yer average saucy seaside postcard (which is generally reserved for destinations closer to home).
So, unlike the monstrous Elmer Fudd examined in detail earlier, this image is totally innocent and the sort of thing your mum wouldn’t bat an eyelid at were you to stick it on her fridge.
