NOTE: This conversation runs backwards! For the benefit of regular readers the newest comments are put at the top.
I spent some days in a hotel close to Jerez de la Frontera to get distance to the very hectic world we are in. I was dressed as I always am. Even it was very hot outside I wear my loved stockings, a very nice full slip and a dress made by Iceberg matching best the fashion of the early 60s. My outfit was completed with a nice hat and gloves. Even I may look like an "old-fashion" women I don't care. It is me and this is the way it goes.
After my first breakfast I went back to my room, the door was open and the housemaid still cleaned the room. It was a blonde Spanish girl wearing a green dress supposed for housework. I was surprised a lot because she seems to wear stockings and I must say, I never saw it before that a maid is doing this, especially in a hot country. But this was not all!
She did not realize me and all of a sudden she bent her body to straighten the sheet of the bed. For a couple of heartbeats I saw the top of her stockings and a very nice short white slip with about half an inch of lace at the hem. What a surprise to me! I stand there in the middle of the room, confused, embarrassed, frightened about my feelings. Now she saw me and started apologizing herself for still being in the room. I still was speechless for some seconds. After a while I told her that I saw her wearing a slip and stockings and I asked her why she is doing this, so it is not the things younger women wear today. Now, she went red all over her face and explained to me, that she loves this things but none of her friends understands this and they often joke about her and the way she dresses.
I made her some compliments about how nice her slips is and if the stockings are "real" ones. She was really embarrassed now and began to stammer. I did not know what I did but I took her in my arms and tried to calm down her. We sat down on the bed and I think she noticed my slip, because she suddenly stopped crying, began to laugh and touched my slip and stroke above my stockings.
Nobody did that to me for a while. My heart beat very loud and I found
my hands on her slip as well, striking the silky nylon. I realized that
Let me know if I should proceed with the story and if this type of stories fits your philosophy. SUE ESTELLE
Of course you must proceed, Sue Estelle -- you can't leave us there! But please note that we do not publish explicitly sexual material.
As an aside, your page sounds great. While I have my share of explicit photos, there is nothing sexier than a little mystery and the element of surprise. I would much more enjoy an up-the-skirt picture of a woman in panties and garters - call me crazy.
I look forward to enjoying your page and hope to hear from you soon. Thanks in advance.
If you're crazy you're in good company. This is one of the most popular sites on the Web! The idea that you have to be crazy to prefer subtlety and charm to vulgar obviousness is exactly what we are here to disprove. The idea that a woman's "naked charms" are the "real thing" and anything else is mere "dressing" is one of the grossest errors of our time. Eroticism is not concerned with mere biological copulation. It is ultimately connected with the profoundest spiritual feminine mysteries, and stockings, suspenders and frilly lace are merely a "translation" of the rich archetypal imagery surrounding the feminine into the visual "language" of our times. That is why mere nakedness and open sexuality fail to satisfy, and leave the soul of the individual and society increasingly impoverished.
High-flown theory? We think not. We think the popularity of this site is one sign that it is not and we believe that Aphroditism will become the erotic norm of the new century. It is not a mere theory, it is a deep inner need, a fundamental drive that has brought you to this page in the first place.
On a more mundane note -- we have had this complaint from A.O.L.ers before. Other people seem to be getting the site. Is there some incompatibility with the A.O.L. system? Can any one out there enlighten us?
But of course. A real lady is posed at all times.
That is part of what we mean by aisance. Colonised woman never looks posed even when she is standing in front of a camera, while a girl with that sense of her feminine identity and the quiet confidence that is the polar opposite of bongo "assertiveness" always looks as if she is posing to some extent. That is natural to a woman, while the self-conscious "naturalness" of post-60s casual-ism is the most unnatural thing in the world.
Just coming to Aphrodite once has helped me more than you can know.
I feel I really can be a girl, special and different, hiding precious frilly
secrets that are attractive to other girls and not just men. I think this
is going to change my life! I will be back often.
Especially slips are out of fashion all over Europe and usually I earn a mild smile when others are aware of them or see them showing when sit down. Thanks to you all that I am not alone.
Finally I got all the pictures and they are wonderful! Especially the series "short skirts and stockings" is the type I like very much. Well, I have some photographs of myself shot by a girl when we sat down and talked. She only was interested in that part of my body showing some inches of my slip and my real 50s stockings, no face. The slip has very nice modeled lace at the hem and it fits perfectly to the dress I wear. On some photographs you would see how strong my suspenders pull on the stockings.
All the photographs are Polaroids and I hope you will have a need for them. SUE ESTELLE
Yes, we should love to see them! Incidentally, it isn't that we object
to seeing a girl's face
We are so flattered! Elektrapost has been pouring in congratulating us on the site. Here is just a sample:
What a wonderful site! I completely agree about femininity and eroticism, and I love the piccies! Let's have more soon !! SUSAN
Hello, my name's Anne. I just want to come into the cocktail bar and
introduce myself. I've always worn stockings and garters. Now I'm looking
for real 1950s stockings. I just can't wait to get my hands on a pair (and
my legs in them). I find the shots of other girls very exciting.
I've never been excited by photographs before, but these make me feel so
Faces? Now, would that be fair? Remember, these girls were photographed unawares and they have a greater modesty than the average fourth-decade-of-darkness girl. We think perhaps we should only print faces when we have explicit permission. What do you others think?
Fantastic idea Get the new pics up soon.
Just doing a little surfing on my lunch break and ran into your web
page. I just wanted to drop a line and tell you that I hope more women
start to subscribe to your philosophy!
As a 27 year old single male I can't tell you how starved I am to meet truly feminine women. Keep up the good work!
Love it! Love it!! Love it!!! LOVE IT!!!!!
My heart stood still. This is the best thing on the Web! It makes me
feel reborn in my femininity. Any chance your thrilly photographerette
would take pictures of me?
We are sure she would love to. We can make arrangements by Elektrapost.
You do bring up something that I wish you could elaborate on. You mention that the breakdown of family, et al, is the ultimate triumph of the patriarchal revolution. What exactly is the patriarchal revolution? How do males (derived from patriarchal) benefit from Marxist Feminism?
Finally, some more on the Patriarchal Revolution. The term revolution connotes massive change. Has there been much change since history has been recorded. Do you believe that this revolution in some way is related to the recording of history. I realise that I'm not being very coherent here, I guess it's not a perspective that I have taken before. What I am trying to say is, I get the impression that some of the groups of humanity that do not have detailed written histories, (e.g. most aboriginales) seem to naturally have a greater involvement from women in certain aspects of there society. I cannot prove this, it is just an impression. Yet across much of time and space, many of the relationships that occur in modern western society between the sexes also are present in societies long since disappeared and in remote locations.
So, did this revolution occur just when writing began to take hold and if so, which came first.
p.s. I can't help but feel that this is imprecise. If my questions aren't clear, please write for some form of clarification. I would hate to see this dropped because I can't articulate properly.
We do not know a lot about pre-historic societies that did not have writing, but a great deal of evidence points to the fact that they were female-led and there is no doubt at all that they worshipped God in feminine form and had a very feminine-centred view of life. To quote Elizabeth Gould Davis, mentioned in our previous interchange:
It is remarkable that the many varied and highly expert author-archaeologists in the excellent series 'Ancient Peoples and Places' express their wonder at the evidence they have found that women were once pre-eminent in each of their areas of research, from the Near East to Ireland. Each writes as if this ancient domination of women were unique and peculiar to his archaeological province. Yet taken together these archaeological finds prove that feminine pre-eminence was a universal and not a localised phenomenon.These ancient societies were not all "primitive" in the current sense of the word. Let us take ancient Hacilar (c. 5800 B.C) of which the archaeologist James Melaart says: "the statuettes portray the Goddess and the male appears only in a subsidiary role". This is technically called a "stone age" community, because it did not employ metal; but the people lived in two-storey houses, often thirty feet in length, arranged around a central courtyard, with ovens, kitchens, hearths upstairs and down, verandas overlooking the courtyards and numerous other civilised features.
The patriarchal revolution is the movement which brought men
This is simply a little historical background. We are not necessarily hankering for a return of a female-dominated society, but we wish to make it clear that the male-centred society is not inevitable and has not always been there.
It is our belief that while the feminine principle was relegated to second place after the patriarchal revolution, it was not lost, and it continued to play a very important part in the building of the various civilisations that have existed. Femininity is not a political "invention" as modern masculinist-feminism claims and as has become the "official" ideology of the late 20th century. Differences between men and women are innate, and the two sexes are proved by modern biology to be if anything more deeply and innately different than the Victorians imagined. These findings are largely ignored by a world which is ideologically committed to believing the opposite. You will find a summary of this evidence in an interview with Miss Annalinde Nightwind in the Femmeworld lecture theatre.
Femininity is real. It has always played an important part in the shaping
of society. The home, for example, is an essentially feminine concept and
creation. It has always been created by women. Men belong essentially to
The place of Marxism in this equation has less to do with socialism
than with the rather unsubtle Marxist supposition, inherited by today's
liberals and largely believed by conservatives too, that history is determined
by the power of "ruling
That is why we call the masculinist version of "liberation" the ultimate triumph of patriarchy.
I enclosed "men" in inverted commas above, because I do not see this
as being a conspiracy of men against women. The masculine principle is
something that has, as it were, an historical life of its own. Its complete
triumph is not consciously plotted by men
Earlier generations had at least a vestigial belief that there was a
mystery and a sacredness about erotic feelings; that they were connected
with something higher; that they reflected the inner meaning of life and
could not be explained away in purely physical terms. We believe they were
right and that the Freudian banalisation of eroticism and of life in general
is not a new knowledge but a new
But we believe that all is not lost. We can bring about a re-feminisation of women and a remythologisation of life; we can find again the sacred chalice and shed once more the light of the feminine upon a darkening world.
And that is the ultimate message of this site.
Dear Aphrodite's friends.
Here is Paris, France.
We walked through your Aphrodite Web and my wife Muriel and me found that your idea is very good. But this is not exactly the kind of pictures we are looking for : we love together very much to guess the shapes through the fabric and my wife is always wearing very fitted clothes (panties, underwear, briefs, etc...) and I can guess her all body with this second skin, and she ask me to do the same for her eyes pleasure.
And we think that it is a part of the femininity to let guess and not
show ... If you have some other pics of this kind, please inform us. We
would like to know if, in the future, you will sell CD's with the pictures
you will show on your Web ?
Hear you soon.
MURIEL AND GEORGES
You mention that "The Liberation" which occurred in the sixties expunged femininity from society. Why did it take this route? Why, at this time?
As well, what does your vision of a more balanced society look like?
Why did it take this route? That is a good question. Some of us feel that a new feminist movement was indeed needed in the 1960s -- something that would have elevated the feminine principle; recognised its beauty and importance. Some of the early "second wave" feminists did realise this. Elizabeth Gould Davis (authorette of The First Sex) is a case in point. The First Sex was in a way written in answer to Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex which put forward the Marxist doctrine of feminism according to which men represent "the ruling class" and femininity is a false consciousness imposed on women by men. The answer, according to this school, is to jettison every trace of femininity and make women "equal to" (i.e. the same as) men.
The other school of feminism argues that femininity is not a masculine fraud, but a genuine and important quality, that masculinity tends to be materialistic and that the history of the world since the patriarchal revolution has been shaped and mis-shaped by masculist materialism (to borrow Miss Gould Davis's term). Of course this was anathema to the Marxists who were by definition wedded to materialism. The feminine feminists believed in a revitalisation and re-establishment of the feminine principle. The masculine feminists believed in the total destruction of femininity.
So essentially, "feminism" can mean two different, and indeed diametrically opposite, things. But the side which won and dominated the new feminist movement in the 1960s was the Marxist or masculinist side. Of course only a minority of feminists actually identified themselves as Marxists (though more did than is now remembered). But their theory came directly from Marx (or rather indirectly, via the New Left).
Now, ironically, while Marxism has perished in nearly all its official strongholds from Siberia to Germany, the Marxist view of feminism has become enshrined in the mainstream of all Western capitalist countries and is reflected in their education systems, social legislation, in the political programmes of all parties and in practically every word said on the "woman question" in the mass-media. Indeed Marxist feminism has become an integral part of late capitalism and entirely necessary to its strategy of breaking down family and other small-scale human loyalties and integrating every individual into the work-force as a separated unit with her primary connexion being not to her friends and family but to the economic system. This is the ultimate triumph of the patriarchal revolution.
In the 1960s the nascent feminist movement might have become a force for good or a force for evil. It took the wrong turning then (as did society as a whole) but we believe it is not too late to take the right one now.
Your question as to what our vision of a more balanced society looks
like is obviously a very big one and could be the subject of a book at
least; but one remark is worth making. Here as elsewhere there is a masculine
approach and a feminine approach. I am not saying either is wrong, but
the feminine approach is in danger of being forgotten, even by women. The
masculine approach, being naturally related to the agora the market-place,
the public world
Suppose our task were to break a glass. The masculine approach is to take a hammer to it. The feminine approach is to sing a high note which will set up a vibration that will shatter it. One is essentially exterior the other essentially interior.
BACK TO BELLADONNA