A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register













You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Mode of dress
Mode of dress  [message #70712] Sat, 02 January 2016 13:40 Go to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



Why do we make such a big thing out of mode of dress.

Ignoring the clichéed coquettish porn pose, consider this young gentleman:

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2211&private=0http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2210&private=0

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 1613 times)
  • Attachment: 003.jpg
    (Size: 44.03KB, Downloaded 1526 times)

[Updated on: Sun, 10 January 2016 15:50]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70714 is a reply to message #70712] Sat, 02 January 2016 17:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



By pure coincidence, someone else is thinking the same way.



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70718 is a reply to message #70714] Sat, 02 January 2016 20:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr   United States

Really getting into it
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 473



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
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70721 is a reply to message #70718] Sat, 02 January 2016 23:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



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.



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70724 is a reply to message #70721] Sun, 03 January 2016 01:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark   United States

Really getting into it
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 764



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.
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70727 is a reply to message #70724] Sun, 03 January 2016 07:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"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.



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70728 is a reply to message #70727] Sun, 03 January 2016 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
notDave is currently offline  notDave   United States

Getting started

Registered: July 2015
Messages: 4



I want one of these: The utilikilt: http://www.utilikilts.com
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70729 is a reply to message #70728] Sun, 03 January 2016 17:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"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]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70735 is a reply to message #70729] Tue, 05 January 2016 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nick Deverill is currently offline  Nick Deverill   United Kingdom

Toe is in the water

Registered: November 2012
Messages: 83



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.
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70736 is a reply to message #70735] Tue, 05 January 2016 21:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark   United States

Really getting into it
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 764



A fun little tidbit is that for a while in the first few episodes of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," there was a variation of the Starfleet uniform (that was modeled from the type of uniform from the original "Star Trek" series) that was called a "skant."  Marina Sirtis (Counselor Troi) wore it in the first episode (Denise Crosby - security chief Lt. Tasha Yar - also briefly wore one in the end of the first episode).  It was also worn by several background characters in the first few episodes.

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2223&private=0

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2220&private=0

However, it was intended to be a unisex uniform, and as such was worn by guys as well as women:

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2222&private=0

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2224&private=0

"Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry wanted to show that by the 24th century, people had evolved beyond gender-specific uniforms, but the idea never really caught on (Sirtis even referred to the getup as a "cosmic cheerleader outfit").

[Updated on: Tue, 05 January 2016 21:30]

Re: Mode of dress  [message #70738 is a reply to message #70736] Wed, 06 January 2016 04:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr   United States

Really getting into it
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 473



I remember those skants. They were awful.



raysstories.com
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70743 is a reply to message #70738] Wed, 06 January 2016 15:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
larkinjet is currently offline  larkinjet   United States

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
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70744 is a reply to message #70743] Wed, 06 January 2016 19:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark   United States

Really getting into it
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 764



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?
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70767 is a reply to message #70743] Sun, 10 January 2016 15:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



"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]




Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70774 is a reply to message #70767] Mon, 11 January 2016 06:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bisexualguy is currently offline  bisexualguy   United States

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. 
Re: Mode of dress  [message #70803 is a reply to message #70774] Thu, 14 January 2016 06:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr   United States

Really getting into it
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 473



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
Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #70876 is a reply to message #70712] Wed, 20 January 2016 16:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



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.



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #70925 is a reply to message #70876] Sun, 24 January 2016 08:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JaredDreamer is currently offline  JaredDreamer   

Getting started

Registered: January 2016
Messages: 5



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. Smile



Re: Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #70932 is a reply to message #70925] Mon, 25 January 2016 04:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Smokr is currently offline  Smokr   United States

Really getting into it
Location: the burning former USofA
Registered: July 2010
Messages: 473



"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
Re: Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #70944 is a reply to message #70925] Tue, 26 January 2016 10:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



Now here is an example of peacockery gone, in my view, very wrong

http://forum.iomfats.org/?t=getfile&id=2305&private=0

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



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #72974 is a reply to message #70944] Sun, 25 June 2017 03:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark   United States

Really getting into it
Location: Earth
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 764



Speaking of school uniforms, here's a story about some British schoolboys who wore skirts to school to protests their school's uniform policy, anctually succeeded in getting a change in said policy to occur:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-british-schoolboys-who -wore-skirts-to-beat-the-heat?yptr=yahoo
Re: Brighton College scraps uniform code for all pupils  [message #72978 is a reply to message #72974] Sun, 25 June 2017 21:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy   United Kingdom

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 12894



We play by the rules to screw authority over, here!



Inconsistent use of capital letters is the difference between Bobby helping Uncle Jack off a horse, AND Bobby helping uncle jack off a horse!
Re: Mode of dress  [message #72984 is a reply to message #70712] Wed, 28 June 2017 11:04 Go to previous message
Ian John Copeland is currently offline  Ian John Copeland   United Kingdom

Toe is in the water
Location: South East
Registered: December 2012
Messages: 32



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/
Previous Topic: Of Preacher Men's Sons and the Trevor Project
Next Topic: Penis size and importance
Goto Forum: