The images below are from a slide show to accompany the cover of a British magazine, Bizarre. You can see the slide show and the article accompanying her cover here. Thanks to Jason S. for the link!
What makes Viktoria “bizarre”? Is it her amputated leg? Is it the fact that she has an amputated leg and is still incredibly sexy? Or is it that she has an amputated leg and still considers herself a sexual person?
Is this empowering? And to who? Surely the disabled are desexualized in this country, so it’s nice to see that challenged even, I suppose, in a magazine about weirdos. And yet, I suspect her sexuality is acceptable, fetishizable, only because she conforms to expectations of feminine beauty. In the big scheme of things, does she reproduce the standard of beauty, unattainable for most women, that crushes women’s self-esteem and sense of self-worth? And will disabled women, most of whom (like most non-disabled women) could never dream of being so beautiful, actually look at her and be able to identify? Or will this just draw attention to another way in which they don’t match up?
Also, are these images really about her sexual-ness, her desire? Or are they about how sexy she is, the extent to which she can inspire desire in others? That is, is she just an object like any other pin-up girl? How are her images any different than those in mainstream pornography and men’s magazines? She speaks in the article about her own sexual curiosity and openness, but this is standard porn star talk and it’s very difficult to know whether it is genuine or performance. Would it matter if we knew?
This photo shoot of Viktoria for Bizarre magazine actually seems incredibly ordinary to me.
6 Comments
I think that you are the one objectifying Viktoria. Would you be noting this picture if it was about a woman with two legs? Now because she only has one do you notice it? Maybe the people who publish the magazine thought the same as you but I don’t think there’s anything special about it. I am sorry :S
If you read the interview the accompanies the spread, she says that she had her leg amputated because it was deformed and weak. From what I can tell, there was no medical necessity [e.g., necrosis, cancer, parasites, etc.]. So that adds a whole new level of self-fashioning and reforming of one’s body to the mix.
Hang on… Where does it say she’s a porn star? I think you’re reading things into the text that you WANT to see there…
How is the interview and how are the images different from the standard WOMEN’S magazine interviews and pictures? To me, she comes across as strong-minded, independent, and an incredibly positive role model for the disabled.
If you read the article you linked, it states very clearly (in my opinion) that this type of dress and pictures are an extension of her sexuality. I think she is beautiful, regardless of her amputee status. And I would find her beauful because of her personality along with her looks.
She also exhibits traits seen among “alternative” women, the punk look that is fairly standard. Check out blueblood.net (NSFW) for other images like this.
Also, in that particular fashion/photography world, personality matters so much more than looks. A model might show up looking like Viktoria, but the personality has to match the look.
To me, she comes across as strong-minded, independent, and an incredibly positive role model for the disabled.
Are you actually disabled? If not, could you please retract that comment? I am disabled, and I don’t exactly think seeing a person presenting as a fetish object is a “positive role model.”
In fact, speaking as someone who’s thought and observed a lot about the issue of disabled women’s sexuality (I’m a disabled radical feminist), I’d say “fetish object” is one of the two major sexual roles disabled women are allowed to have in popular culture. (The other one is “asexual,” so we may in fact be worse off than the able-bodied woman, who at least can present as a “virgin” figure with the expectation that at some point, she will get to have sex.) The fact that the fetish is considered to be a niche just makes it worse.
If we’re talking about “positive role models” for disabled women in particular, where are the media portrayals of, say, disabled female entrepreneurs, athletes, scientists, or people who actually do something other than cater to the heterosexual male gaze in a certain socially-prescribed way?
From where I’m sitting, these images are less positive than what radfem blogger Twisty Faster calls “empowerful.”
“A magazine about weirdos”. There’s open minded!
4 Trackbacks
[...] Please welcome our guest blogger, Nadya Lev. Nadya, a photographer, wrote a thoughtful post at the Coilhouse blog in response to ours on Viktoria, an amputee model on this month’s cover of Bizarre magazine (see it here). [...]
[...] notes how the site and the ad challenge the stereotype of disabled people as asexual but, much like Viktoria in Bizarre magazine, does so by conforming to normative standards of attractiveness. But I really liked her [...]
[...] have many of the same questions about this program that I have about Viktoria’s spread for Bizarre Magazine and Elizabeth had about Disaboom advertising. Notice that, of the eight contestants, at least [...]
[...] these portrayals of persons with disabilities to the portrayal of fetish model Viktoria, who was a Bizarre mag cover girl, apparently in part because she has a below-the-knee amputation. [...]