|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
Why do we make such a big thing out of mode of dress.
Ignoring the clichéed coquettish porn pose, consider this young gentleman:
Now, the clothing doesn't suit him, not really, but why should sheer stockings, high heels and dresses be restricted to the ladies? And why do we call a man wearing them a transvestite or cross dresser and consider it a sexual fetish?
In past centuries the male wore more peacockery than the female.
Don't believe me?
Search for pictures of Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh and others
-
Attachment: 002.jpg
(Size: 44.10KB, Downloaded 4914 times)
-
Attachment: 003.jpg
(Size: 44.03KB, Downloaded 3604 times)
[Updated on: Sun, 10 January 2016 15:50]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've thought the same. Let us not forget that it was at one time, and for quite a long time, common practice to dress young boys the same as girls, until they reached a certain age.
I have nothing against anyone dressing how they wish. Though I find no attraction increased by males wearing more feminine attire.
In fact, I find a bit more attraction when females dress more manly than in dresses/heels, and I'm not attracted to males in typically feminine garb.
Like Timmy and others, I find male legs very sensual/sensuous. I forget which word applies. Just give me a lad in shorts and I'm happy.
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
Quote:Smokr wrote on Sat, 02 January 2016 20:39I've thought the same. Let us not forget that it was at one time, and for quite a long time, common practice to dress young boys the same as girls, until they reached a certain age.
I have nothing against anyone dressing how they wish. Though I find no attraction increased by males wearing more feminine attire.
In fact, I find a bit more attraction when females dress more manly than in dresses/heels, and I'm not attracted to males in typically feminine garb.
Like Timmy and others, I find male legs very sensual/sensuous. I forget which word applies. Just give me a lad in shorts and I'm happy.
--
As someone who admires legs I also like good male legs in self supporting stockings, sheer ones, probably white. I quite fancy a pair myself. But the impracticality of very hairy legs means they will not, quite work.
It's nothing to do with the clothes being somehow feminising. It's to do with the daily drabness of male attire. The suit and tie are awful. I want to be able to wear a sarong when I choose because I find it comfy. I wore one all the time in Sri Lanka. If I wear one here I get pointed at.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 278
|
|
|
Let us also remember that even today some men wear what to the uninitiated looks like female clothing - take the Scottish kilt, as a major example.
Similarly, in Bermuda, it's totally acceptable for adult men to wear shorts as part of formal business attire, to the point that the article of clothing is known as "Bermuda shorts." (Even in early U.S. history, men often wore pants that ended at the knees in order to better show off their calves, since having muscular calves was considered a status symbol, the more muscular the better.)
And one does not need to look back several hundred years to see guys wearing flamboyant outfits. Just take a look at Elton John (particularly during the '70s) or Elvis Presley.
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
"Mark wrote on Sun, 03 January 2016 01:00"Let us also remember that even today some men wear what to the uninitiated looks like female clothing - take the Scottish kilt, as a major example.
Similarly, in Bermuda, it's totally acceptable for adult men to wear shorts as part of formal business attire, to the point that the article of clothing is known as "Bermuda shorts." (Even in early U.S. history, men often wore pants that ended at the knees in order to better show off their calves, since having muscular calves was considered a status symbol, the more muscular the better.)
And one does not need to look back several hundred years to see guys wearing flamboyant outfits. Just take a look at Elton John (particularly during the '70s) or Elvis Presley.
--
Stage clothes, though, are stage clothes. And there is very little in the kilt or Bermuda shorts to show personality. The muscular caves thing is like comparing penis sizes. We men have moved a long way form genuinely displaying ourselves in finery to wearing a uniform of drab masculinity. And yes, even full kilt, and Scottish National Dress (a myth of multiple tartans invented by the Victorians), while it looks fancy, is a uniform.
If a woman can go happily with a little strappy number, if it suits me I want to go with a little strappy number. If I am daft enough to want high heels, I want high heels. I was young enough inthe 60s and 70s to be somewhat flamboyant and men were able to, then. Those clothes feel ludicrous today, because we the flamboyant ones, have stamped it out.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
"Quote:"notDave wrote on Sun, 03 January 2016 16:05I want one of these: The utilikilt: http://www.utilikilts.com
--
Buy one and wear it. But it is not exactly what I mean. It is just a kilt. A lungi has far more about it and is most definitely male and masculine attire.
[Updated on: Sun, 03 January 2016 17:54]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't get many odd glances these days if you do wear a kilt. I wore full highland dress on the London Underground and the train back from a colleagues retirement party. I probably put the sgean dhu in my bag, no point in inviting trouble as mine is most definitely an offensive weapon, pointed and very sharp.
And, not a drop of highland blood in me, I just lived there for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
larkinjet
|
|
Getting started |
Location: New England
Registered: November 2015
Messages: 7
|
|
|
Regardless of what feminist may say, a skimpy dress 1" below ground zero is a blatant invitation. If it wasn't, why wear such a useless and inadequate piece of clothing?
Male or female, I don't have a problem with it because I like sexual invitations and I probably need them because I am not a brute.
In the end, clothing is not required for sexual congress. But what does clothing mean? Is it 100% cultural?
There is another group that defies logical classification along sexual lines and that is transvestitism. These guys like to dress like women but they are not necessarily homosexual. Where I live in New England they have an annual event called the Fantasy Faire. For lack of a better description, it a transvestite convention.
I met one guy who was in a state of ecstasy over having the freedom to walk around the streets in daytime dressed in a beautiful print dress and cloth coat with big plastic buttons. He looked quite good as a woman and appeared to be having the time of his life.
I noticed he had his wife in tow. When her husband was parading around she looked at me and rolling her eyes said, "You have no idea."
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”
― George Orwell
|
|
|
|
|
Mark
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 278
|
|
|
Quote:larkinjet wrote on Wed, 06 January 2016 08:20Regardless of what feminist may say, a skimpy dress 1" below ground zero is a blatant invitation. If it wasn't, why wear such a useless and inadequate piece of clothing?
--
Exactly. There's no practical reason to wear something like that unless you're basically trying to legally flash other people, and it stagger me to think that feminists are so naive that they're actually shocked by the idea that straight guys are getting "inappropriate thoughts" over what they're seeing. What the heck do they think is going to happen when they insist on leaving so little to the imagination?
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
"Quote:"larkinjet wrote on Wed, 06 January 2016 15:20
There is another group that defies logical classification along sexual lines and that is transvestitism. These guys like to dress like women but they are not necessarily homosexual.
--
This, really, expresses the point I started with. "like to dress like women" and "defies logical classification" seem to me to be ironic in thsi context.
Why does your clothing define your sex?
Why may I not wear what I choose without being judged?
Society seems to have decreed that we must cover the pudenda, and also, for no obvious reason, the female breast, presumably so we don't startle the horses, or drip on soft furnishings. Remember that Sex/City thing where a guy sat arond naked and the woman raced to shove a towel under him?
But why must I wear drab because I am a man, and not be allowed to wear peacock without someone drawing a conclusion?
[Updated on: Sun, 10 January 2016 15:51]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
bisexualguy
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: United States
Registered: November 2012
Messages: 30
|
|
|
Quote:timmy wrote on Sun, 10 January 2016 09:49
"Quote:"larkinjet wrote on Wed, 06 January 2016 15:20
--
This, really, expresses the point I started with. "like to dress like women" and "defies logical classification" seem to me to be ironic in thsi context.
Why does your clothing define your sex?
Why may I not wear what I choose without being judged?
Society seems to have decreed that we must cover the pudenda, and also, for no obvious reason, the female breast, presumably so we don't startle the horses, or drip on soft furnishings. Remember that Sex/City thing where a guy sat around naked and the woman raced to shove a towel under him?
But why must I wear drab because I am a man, and not be allowed to wear peacock without someone drawing a conclusion?
--
With regard to the "shove a towel under him," many clothing optional places and nudist facilities in the United States have (sometimes unwritten, sometimes written) rules that persons sitting or laying around on chairs, benches, tables, and other places generally used by several people, should use a towel under themselves. This prevents sweat, lotions, body oils, or other sometimes not-desired fluids, etc., from being deposed on surfaces and continually requiring cleaning those surfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I find the whole clothing issue silly. Why do we have to wear anything? Other than protection from the cold or rain, or for decoration or peacockery, we should go about as nature made us.
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
Brighton College scraps uniform code for transgender pupils
The headline is misleading. They have simply scrapped the necessity for boys to wear the old male uniform and girls to wear the old female one.
School uniforms will surprise some countries. We have them in order to stop 'trainer wars' and to create a level playing field within the school for kids from varying backgrounds.
That reminds me of a lad I lusted after at that school. His name was Jason, and he was on their sailing team in the late 1960s. Yummy.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a fascinating topic. Thanks, Timmy. I've only dared to write two transgender stories in my life (out of the 75 or so that are floating around out there in internet land). And I got yelled at for the first one by real trans people who thought my character was too aggressive, and the second one is published here (kind thanks) and got much better "reviews." So as for your starter-off question, "Why do we make such a big thing out of mode of dress?" I think it all goes back to some hardwired, built-in, male-primal thing. I know for a fact I'm gay, and with a gun to my head, sure, I can perform functionally with a woman, but without a doubt, I know I completely prefer guys over ladies. But I think (assume, conjecture, ponder) that 90% of guys have some weird "propagation of the species" switch built into their genetic code, where even if they clearly prefer sex with other guys because of the anatomical parts (woo!!) quite a few see a smooth, hairless, pretty young guy dressed in girl's clothes, and well, whoof, all the merrier. It's the best of both worlds. You get the guy-on-guy you need, with the nod to mating and reproducing that nature keeps shoving down our throats. Kinda like, "Yeah, I know he's really a boy, but let's try to make him pregnant anyway."
I don't think I ever realized how instantly enticing a boy-as-girl might be to me, costume-wise, until Cole Sprouse or Dylan Sprouse, or whichever Sprice it was, dressed up like a girl and seduced the mom's boyfriend in "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things." Good Lord, I was spellbound. I gulped deep in my throat and fought for air.
I am one of those aging gay guys who, for whatever fault of wiring (or blessing of wiring maybe), will proudly say, "Hey, put a guy in girl's clothing, and I won't balk, I'll be first in line."
Maybe just for the uniqueness of it. Maybe because it lets pretty boys be pretty, authentically.
If you go way back up to the top in this thread, Timmy says, "Now, the clothing doesn't suit him, not really, but why should sheer stockings, high heels and dresses be restricted to the ladies? And why do we call a man wearing them a transvestite or cross dresser and consider it a sexual fetish?"
Honestly, Timmy. I have no idea.
There are women who look hideous in sheer stockings and high heels. There are men and boys who look absolutely gorgeous in them.
"Why do we make such a big thing out of mode of dress?"
What a good, thoughtful question. Why do we??? Pretty should just be pretty. Arousing should just be arousing.
Ugh. I'm a red-hot, waffling, bisexual, transgender-loving mess in this one. Grrr. I hate forums that make me re-examine my own sexual wiring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Quote:"JaredDreamer wrote on Sun, 24 January 2016 03:16"
Yeah, I know he's really a boy, but let's try to make him pregnant anyway."
--
Cannot stop giggling!
[Updated on: Mon, 25 January 2016 04:04]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
Now here is an example of peacockery gone, in my view, very wrong
The concept is fine, use colour, but the execution is simply a parody of a business suit. This shot is from a catwalk fashion show and the trousers are poorly tailored, too.
Female fashions on the catwalk are often bizarre,extreme. Male? Not really
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13766
|
|
|
We play by the rules to screw authority over, here!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the idea that Gene Roddenberry considered the idea that some of the males in Star Trek should wear the 'Skant' as well as the women, his view that people in the future would 'get over' stereotyping clothes via gender is a nice utopian dream.
Personally, when younger I found one of the very best looks a boy could have was a games shirt and underwear, like a very short miniskirt, with glimpses of promise. It was, alas, a look that you would only come across fleetingly in the changing room and depended on which order boys changed from games kit to school uniform and vice versa.
Alas I can find no examples to post here to illustrate, but trust me, it is a very satisfying look!
Ian
Visit my Blog: http://thepaintheagony.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|