‘Gay Girls in Trousers’ from an era when “gay” meant “happy” or “carefree”...

Usually, the prurient fodder of the past is merely the quaint cheek of the present, but this 1903 “article” from Vanity Fair (a short-lived trashy mag unrelated to the Condé Nast publication of today, or its 1913 to 1936 predecessor) just screams Dangerous Minds—“Bifurcated Girls” is downright tawdry! First of all, the term “bifurcated,” meaning “split in two,” has some distinctly labial implications. I think the last time I referred to a woman as “bifurcated,” it was in reference to a pair of yoga pants that appeared conducive to very intimate frictions; to me, the term implies a cleft right up to the fundaments. But while it’s hard to imagine the social vulgarity of an inseam that remains a safe and comfortable distance from the vulva, it’s the overt lesbian subtext that steals my heart.

The “spread” itself (no pun intended),  has a distinctly Russ Meyer kind of vibe, with models engaging “tomboyish” behavior like “rough-housing,” and spanking—you know, just the sort of normal stuff that totally platonic and heterosexual lady-friends do! There’s one man in the entire shoot, but his presence feels very, very incidental, with only a handful of women even acknowledging him. (“Oh him? That’s Jeff. He’s cool.”) And if you’re not sold on the obvious Sapphic symbolism, please note the photo depicting a femme-ier lady actually pulling a giggling bifurcated woman out from under her bed.

Dian Hansen, author of the fascinating History of Men’s Magazines series, believes this issue of Vanity Fair to be the foundation of American girlie mags, and the single pampered man in the midst of some kind of gender-bending trouser orgy seems to support her claim. But I like to think a few actual girlies-who-like-girlies got a kick out of these photos—there’s some solid cleavage and thigh on display!
 

 

 

 

 

first half of a “bifurcated” panel
 

second half of previous panel
 

 

 
Via The Public Domain Review