FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Entertainment

Dressing For Pleasure

We chat to Jonny Trunk, author of Dressing For Pleasure, a book compiling pictures and articles from fetish-wear bible, ATOMAGE.
Jamie Clifton
London, GB

If there's one man responsible for making leather and rubber a staple of pretty much every contemporary designer who doesn't deal in twee, flowery prints, it's John Sutcliffe. In the early 60s, he was the leading maker of fetish-wear before fetish-wear was even a thing, and to publicize his designs he started ATOMAGE, a mail order brochure with his friend modeling all of his designs. Before long, ATOMAGE was the bible for those into wearing leather, rubber, and vinyl, in a sexy way, and John was their God.

Advertisement

Jonny Trunk, founder of Trunk Records, stumbled across a copy and realized the world had to know who it was that made fetish-influenced clothes a fixture on our catwalks, TVs, and high streets. He put together Dressing For Pleasure, a book that compiles images from all 32 issues of ATOMAGE, as well as articles like Love of Leather and Riding and Wading that featured in the magazine.

VICE: So, ATOMAGE was started to showcase John Sutcliffe's designs, but quickly turned in to a lot more, right?
Jonny Trunk: Yeah, that's right. A mate of his suggested starting a brochure to show off some of the costumes and leatherwear he was making. The company was already called ATOMAGE, so he kept the name for the catalog. After a couple come out it sort of became a journal, which you could only get via him, then it just grew with every issue. As more people found out about it who were into that scene, it developed amongst that funny crowd of people who were into various forms of what you would now call fetishism. It was completely by accident, it just grew completely organically.

And suddenly it was the go-to magazine for people into that kind of thing?
Yeah. There's a story about when they used to sell it in this one shop in Victoria station, actually. On the day of publication, which was always quite unpredictable, there would always be this huge, curious looking queue outside waiting to get a copy.

Advertisement

I bet that freaked commuters out during the 60s. Why do you think there was suddenly such a surge in interest for leather, latex, and vinyl clothing in that decade?
Well, I don't think it necessarily developed then, it's just there weren't any publications out about it before that. There was no way of communication for those involved. Today, there'll be hundreds of websites and forums for any sort of scene, but back then there was absolutely nothing at all. It was completely unique.

How long had it been going on for? I can't really imagine rubber fetishes being a thing in the 50s.
Oh yeah, there was definitely stuff around back then, but it wouldn't have been as focused, concentrated, or accessible. I mean, Sutcliffe started this membership thing where they could all communicate with each other through the ATOMAGE society and hold parties where they could talk about their various outlets and interests. So I think that was the first platform that allowed people to discuss those sorts of things.

Was that when people started submitting their own photos to the magazine?
Yes, and that's where it started getting really interesting. Originally he was just selling his own creations and had his friend Helen Henley model all of the clothes. She started running articles called stuff like Dressing For Pleasure, which was about her standing in the woods just wearing a mackintosh and a cap, making a funny ruffling noise. Then, from there, all the members started submitting their own photographs.

Advertisement

Was rubber and leather wear widely available or did they have to make their own stuff?
Not at all, no. You could only get it from people like Sutcliffe, or mail order companies who would just specialize in rubberwear. There were a few funny, little rubber magazines that didn't do too well. There would be adverts for them in the back of newspapers masquerading as mackintosh companies, and most the time, half the stuff in there would be weird outfits. There's a company called Sealwear and in their catalogs from the 60s there are photos of women in these hilarious rubber nighties, which are ridiculous, but it was kind of the look at the time. Nowadays, Sealwear are selling rubber stuff that you shove up your arse.

A subtle change from nighties. Was it nowhere as extreme as that back then?
No, no way. I mean, from what I gathered, there was a little bit of gas mask activity. Oh, and this funny thing called wading, which is where they dress up in leather first, then cover themselves in rubber, then go out wading in a river up to their necks.

Ha ha. I assume that has some sort of sexual appeal?
Yeah, of course. I think it's, like, a weird warming, nostalgic, throwback thing. There were also people who used to go into swimming pools with breathing apparatus on and just lie at the bottom of the pool. Just lie there. There's another really interesting one where people get turned on just by going out in stormy conditions, which is one of those things that could only be turned into a fetish in England.

Advertisement

Very true. How did that one work?
Well, people went out completely covered, which I think was the idea—you remain dry while everything around you is getting completely soaked. Fascinating, really.

It is, although we should get back to the magazine. I imagine business boomed when punk hit?
Yeah. Well, there's a lot of theories about Westwood and the whole bondage thing coming straight out of ATOMAGE. When there was that 25 year retrospective at the V&A, she ran the film Dressing for Pleasure, which is about Sutcliffe, on a loop. There's a scene where it's Jordan and McLaren in the SEX boutique and they're going, "Yeah, leather's great, rubber's great, we're all wearing rubber now because of this, because of that", but you can trace it all back to ATOMAGE. A guy online actually got that Westwood cowboy t-shirt and compared it to a photo from the pages of ATOMAGE. It's exactly the same picture, except they aren't cowboys and they haven't got their cocks out, but there was definitely a lot of cross-pollination. I think, at the time, it was one of the few places you could buy the magazine.

Do you think Sutcliffe had any idea of the influence he was having at the time?
Probably not. I don't think he was bothered with his influence at all, I think he was just into what he was into and completely entrenched in it. He was doing his job because he couldn't do anything else, really.

And then it got shut down just after that in the mid-80s. Do you think that was because people had reverted back to that old, conservative way of thinking a bit more?
Yeah, but I think it was more because there were two things they published that were just a bit too kinky. Someone, who possibly had a bit of a grudge, reported it as an obscene publication and they got raided by the police, who had all the back catalog destroyed. That was the deal. They said they could carry on but they had to get rid of everything they had already.

Advertisement

That must have made it pretty hard to find images for the book, no?
No, it was OK, in the end. But yeah, all the original magazines are very hard to find now.

Why did you decide to put the book together? Are you a closet rubber fetishist yourself?
Not in the slightest, no. I mean, I like vinyl, but for records—not to wear! Actually, I was round the house of a mate of mine and he has a sort of leather artisan company—they make stuff like the batsuit and they just made Captain America's suit, so they're kind of bespoke leather makers—and I saw this funny magazine on their work bench, which was an ATOMAGE. Everything about it was interesting—the way it was art directed, the way the pictures looked, the way it was shot. I've always thought things like that are interesting and need to be explored and shown to a wider public. It's funny, once you get your eye in to this stuff, you look around and you see it everywhere.

Yeah, it's clearly had a huge influence on high fashion.
Definitely. Lots of people think he's as influential as, say, Mary Quant, because he was the first person to give people like Marianne Faithfull that kinky leather suit, which is massively iconic. Putting women in the large, kinky leather boots—that's all him, too. Actually, there's one guy up north who's written about him and thinks he's an absolute god, in terms of his influence. Although, he says no one really noticed at the time because they were all looking at, you know, Mary Quant and mini-skirts when, in actual fact, a lot of this female, modern styling came from all that kink, you know?

Advertisement

And that's what he was kind of attempting to do, right? To completely normalize rubber and leather wear?
I think so, because he always saw it as completely normal himself. He started by accident. He was out on a motorbike with his girlfriend at the time and she got all soaked because there weren't any outfits for women on bikes. All you could buy at the time were huge, clomping motorbike boots and badly fitted jackets for women, so he changed it all. He said, "You could look amazing if I made it for you." He did and then it all caught on.

So, how did you choose what images to include? Were any of them chosen to highlight the influence he's had on contemporary fashion?
Not really, no. The thing is, a lot of it looks massively contemporary anyway. But yeah, I think it was Marc Jacobs who recently did a load of the fetish-looking stuff and, you know, now it's so mainstream the whole rubbery, kinky look. You can imagine those people would have maybe seen the book because it is just such a bonkers thing to approach with no context. In fact, just as I said that to you, a woman walked past me in the street wearing unbelievably kinky boots and a leather top. So, you know, it's everywhere.

Ha ha, he's created a legacy that's worked its way all the way down to the high street.
Without a doubt. It's just interesting that no one really knows who he is. He's this very secret man, it seems.

More people need to know.
They do, because he is an absolute monster. You see some of those outfits and they're incredibly now and very weird. Saying that, though, they're also very 'back then', aren't they?

Yeah, they are, but I think that has more to do with the photo quality and styling rather than the clothes themselves.
Well, yes, they didn't have half the equipment we do now. There's no retouching and if there is you can normally see it, which I actually think brings more of a charm to it. Also, if you look at the covers, they just look amazing. There are issues where the woman is on the front cover but she's not looking out, she has her back to the camera, which is just unheard of now in fashion, or any magazines really, for that matter. But, you see it, and it's just unbelievably powerful.