I often feel like an oddball among other clothing fetishists. I'm definitely not into more fetishy clothing that involves leather, latex, lyrica, crossdressing, animal costumes, etc. I certainly do care about clothing and what men wear in bondage, but the other side of the coin from fetishwear veers all the way into the dressed up with suits, ties, dress socks, dress shoes, etc., which I appreciate more than the other stuff, but it doesn't quite scratch my itch for menswear in bondage. I often joke by telling people that the outfits I like in bondage are so ordinary, they're weird, because most of the times when I get a guy to dress up for me, he immediately interprets that I want him in a full suit, a tie, or business casual at the very least, yet I prefer clothing that's a bit more casual. When I suggest attire along the lines of an unbuttoned shirt over a t-shirt, polos, henleys, or even an untucked woven shirt with jeans, people are generally polite and receptive, but I can tell that their wheels are kind of turning in confusion. I think since the context of dressing up for something kinky often involves wearing something out of the ordinary, which is usually stuff like a three piece suit when you only wear one for special occasions or some costume or uniform that you'd only wear on Halloween, that is kind of the normal standard for that context. Therefore, it is off-putting to be asked to dress pretty much as you normally would when you’re being kinky. This may just be because it isn't common for people to request that, but I think there might be a discomfort in being fetishized as yourself. Before, I've talked about how like drag personas, we put on different characters when we do bondage. For example, we become either more dominant or submissive versions of ourselves and what we wear usually informs the role we're assuming whether we're playing somebody with authority being taken down or a lower-ranking individual who is reclaiming power. So, even if we aren't wearing a distinct uniform or costume, we're still essentially playing a version of ourselves who is either more dressed up, confident, bad ass, clueless, or vanilla when we do bondage. It's an escape from who we normally are and the more distinct our outfit is, the easier it is to escape and get into character. Therefore, when you're asked to dress more like you normally would, getting out of yourself and into some other character must be more tricky. Furthermore, it probably makes you out to be a sexualized object instead of some abstract character you’re playing, so being yourself in a fantasy might feel a bit more like an invasion into your life and your likeness.
However, I tend to value authenticity in bondage over anything else. I prefer to see daddyish men with receding hairlines and bellies over young twinks with washboard abs, as well as men in outfits they’d wear for a given occasion (whether it’s a casual get-together with friends or work) and tied up in makeshift ways with unconventional materials (which excludes things like ball gags, plug gags, cuffs, leather straps, etc.). The realness of this kind of bondage is a bit more exciting to me because it feels more like something that could happen to men we encounter on a regular basis and adds fun and flair to seemingly mundane people and settings, instead of isolated muscle clones in dungeons. I feel like it really captures the essence and spirit of fetishism, which is adding sexual value to things that aren’t normally understood as sexual. Or, as I like to put it, finding something fun and arousing about the ordinary and making it extraordinary.
So Weird, It’s Normal, Or the Other Way Around: My Thing About Casual Clothing
When you consider what counts as casualwear, the possibilities are almost endless. When you compare casual to formal, for example, formalwear has a much more specific meaning. When it comes to formal menswear, it almost definitely always includes a tie, whether it's a bowtie and cumberbun as part of a tuxedo for a special, celebratory event or a tie that is worn with a suit for some kind of professional occasion. Of course, there's always some variation as far as how ties can be worn and the context for them, but this is the general understanding of what formal means. However, casual can range from anything between sweatpants and chinos, t shirts and woven shirts, shorts and trousers, or tennis shoes and oxfords because the word in and of itself is broad. A parameter that's often set for professional, informal events is "business casual," which often just means that you still essentially have to wear a suit/work wear minus a tie, but there's still some debate about whether or not jeans can be included (I believe they can depending on the cut and wash, but some people are still old school about that). Another thing that distinguishes casual from formal is comfort. Even though everyone's idea of comfort is subjective and depends on the individual or garment, it's mostly understood that any kind of formalwear (ties, blazers, slacks, etc.) isn't very comfortable while most casualwear is a bit more practical and durable to wear for a whole day, and every day, because it's a bit more comfortable.
The Masculinity of Being Confident and Comfortable
So, I've recently developed an infatuation with lapel shirts/ shirts with Cuban collars. Lapel shirts are usually short-sleeved and instead of having collars that stand up, to support a tie, they lay flat like the lapels of a blazer, creating a distinct v at the neckline when the shirt is buttoned all the way. These shirts are essentially made for comfort because they're obviously distinctly casual, seem to be meant to be worn a little looser, and come in lighter, softer fabrics. Most men seem to wear them when they're on vacation at a tropical destination or at least when the weather is warmer. Depending on the fit and styling, they can range from a kitschy dad's hawaiian shirt and a sheek way of dressing casually that nods to how the dapper men in the 1950s dressed down. My current obsession with lapel shirts is kind of showing me how much I love this classic, grown up version of masculinity. Not only are these kinds of shirts vintage and something that older men typically wear, but casual menswear that is still somewhat dressed up highlights a kind of polished masculinity that involves the choice to dress up when it isn't required.
Most of the times when a man wears a tie, there is usually some kind of obligation to wear one whether it is for work or the social standard of an older time. However, when a man has the freedom to dress down and essentially wear whatever he wants, but chooses to wear some kind of collared shirt, tuck his shirt in, wear oxfords or loafers, etc., it reveals a bit more of his personality and character because it shows his dynamic fashion sense, that he still cares about how he looks even in informal settings, and it even displays a softer sense of confidence since casual wear is a bit more relaxed (in context, fit, and fabric) and leisurely and it takes courage these days to show any effort when it isn't an obligation. General standards of masculinity are always a tricky subject, especially when it comes to clothing, but I feel that it’s worth addressing because it highlights how unjust our culture is at enforcing masculine standards. So, when we compare, say, a suit to something like athleticwear or a more blue collar outfit, most might say that the suit is more feminine because it’s more delicate and polished, involves an attention to one’s physical appearance (which is usually a feminine trait), etc. When I’ve addressed how ties are an exclusively masculine article of clothing because they are typically designated to men and menswear and women only tend to wear ties to make some sort of androgynous statement (like Madonna), I had several people tell me that they’re actually feminine because they add color and softness to a man’s look that contrasts from the starch black and white of a traditional suit. In contrast to the renegade, open-collared men in history, ties also seem to signify conformity and obedience to society or a place of work, like a collar and leash for a dog, so the absence of a tie means that you're rebelling and going against the grain, which is inherently more masculine. The problem is, these are all valid points, which kind of makes measuring the masculinity of these kinds of things a case-by-case issue that depends on context because ties can signify power AND obedience or a way of expressing individual style AND an interest in blending in. Today, people wear ties when they don't have to and even dress them down with things like jeans and sweaters.
So, I can already imagine people arguing that lapel shirts are feminine. After all, in certain cases, these shirts are referred to as blouses; they usually come in light and bright colors and prints, making the men who wear them appear more light-hearted and less serious; since they're low cut and typically have short sleeves, they reveal more skin; and they usually come in soft, lightweight fabrics. But, like the case with suits, the masculinity of lapel shirts seems mostly classed. Particularly, the masculinity that suits convey is mostly related to power and authority in an industrialized society because men who wear suits are often the bosses and heads of big corporations and companies, who are also often fairly wealthy. This contrasts from the more rugged masculinity that is often observed in the working classes that involves physical strength from manual labor, an unkempt appearance due to harsh working conditions and a lack of funds to help one look better, and less "civilized" mannerisms from living in harsher conditions and a lack of education and etiquette training. Likewise, since the idea of dressing up while remaining comfortable has roots in the idea of "leisure," something like a lapel shirt kind of conveys an upper class version of masculinity. Consider how things like leisure and comfort (such as secure homes, vacations, etc.) often come with a cost because you need money as well as time to take a vacation, acquire quality clothing, or even care about style or how you look. However, the mere idea of comfort is also inherently masculine because masculinity also comes with confidence and to be confident, one must display a sense of comfort and coolness. For example, if a man is high-strung and overly emotional, he'd likely lose masculinity points. Like, have you considered how chill male lions typically look in the wild? I feel like that's kind of the epitome of masculinity because, other than poachers and maybe some other male lions that might try to assert dominance over a pride, male lions typically don't have anything to worry about since they're such fierce, powerful animals at the top of the food chain. When you're powerful and know you're powerful, essentially everything is or can be yours and you don't have to worry about threats, which is usually the case for most powerful men. Or, if you aren't a powerful man, you can at least sustain credibility as a masculine person by being cool and confident in most settings. Not to mention, most feminine clothing, women's wear (corsets, bras, high heels, makeup, false hair and lashes, etc.), is particularly pinching, binding, and uncomfortable. Most of this merely comes with the cultural ideal that women's value primarily comes from their looks and bodies, so that should be one of their primary concerns, as well as what they primarily get judged for. Some feminist scholars even go a step further by suggesting that women ought to be rendered uncomfortable by their clothing because it physically and mentally weakens them, as well as destracts them by making them worry about superficial things instead of things that matter, like their autonomy and rights. Therefore, although appearing comfortable and relaxed might actually make you more vulnerable, the confidence in appearing comfortable is ultimately more masculine. Again, masculinity is a performance and part of the act is assuming that you could never be weak or vulnerable.
Casual Men in Bondage: The Juxtaposition of Comfort and Restriction
It's probably not as prominent of a fetish of mine, but I tend to love seeing men tied up in sleepwear, usually to their beds or just on a bed. I think I at least appreciate this more than guys tied up in athletic wear, even though they're almost the same thing as far as casualness and comfort. Not to mention, many guys either sleep or lounge around in basketball shorts. However, I think what I find appealing about sleepwear is that when men are tied up in them, it seems more like they were caught off guard when they were captured. Maybe they were ambushed at their most vulnerable moment of their day, while they were sleeping in the comfort of their locked home, in their comfy queen-sized beds. Or, perhaps they were bombarded as they were enjoying their morning coffee before getting dressed for the day. Even though there's some overlap between sleepwear and athletic wear as far as both being comfortable, a major difference is that most workout clothes are meant to be worn in public at a gym, yoga class, jogging in the park, etc., while sleepwear is really only meant to be worn in the household and seen by a few people. So, when there's a set of a man being abducted in his PJs or at least tied up, photographed, and recorded in them, there's a bit more exhibitionism and humiliation to it because that illusion of comfort and privacy has been tarnished. This man thought that he was safe and going to have a chill, comfortable day or night, but he was gravely mistaken and his outfit points out how wrong he was.
So, the masculinity of wearing official pajamas (as opposed to basketball shorts or just being in underwear) is probably also slippery because they can be a bit dorky, especially when we get into big, silky button up tops and matching pants or the long, Ebenezer Scrooge night shirts, but the connection seems to also relate to the feeling of leisure that comes with money and class, as well as maturity. There are probably men in their 20s and 30s who wear pajama bottoms or some form of official pajamas to bed, but I think the norm is primarily that older men tend to sport them. Like, I think it would be a little embarrassing to be around that college age, living with male roommates of the same age and walking around in bathrobes, pajama outfits, or night shirts. I feel that it probably takes more privacy and financial stability to reach that point in life when you’re willing to spend a little more on the clothing you sleep and lounge around in. Plus, when you’re a dad and/or have a wife around, you probably can’t or shouldn’t just let everything hang out as you did when you were a bachelor. Therefore, the masculinity associated with official sleepwear is also tied to age, where a man is at in life, and the luxury of leisure that comes with money and class. When a guy is in a suit, probably the most “un-chill” of outfits, he appears to already be enduring some level of discomfort with his top button and tie pushing against his lower neck, tucked shirt and belt making him suck in his gut, and the stiffness of his blazer limiting his mobility, which makes tying him up only add to his discomfort. Not only that, but men typically wear suits for occasions that involve being on your best behavior and essentially “selling yourself” in some shape or fashion, adding a psychological discomfort to the already physical discomfort. So, when a man in a suit gets tied up, the bondage only adds more discomfort and awkwardness to his body and situation. However, a juxtaposition comes from the fact that a man’s suit is probably the most dignified of outfits for a guy to wear and being bound and gagged is probably the least dignified position one could find themselves in. Suits are supposed to increase your confidence and even posture, but being bound and gagged kind of undoes all of that. To go a step further, tying up a guy in a suit kind of subverts his expectations. Like, maybe he’s an esteemed intellectual or CEO who gets reduced to being a sexualized body once he’s rendered helpless and taken advantage of by the wrong people or he got dolled up for a hot date, but the ones who appreciate the effort are the old creeps who swipe him off the streets on his way to the restaurant. Similarly, when a guy is more casual, expectations also appear subverted, but in different ways. For example, when a guy in casual wear is tied up and sexualized, that attention seems to be coming more out of left field to them because most seem to understand that the spotlight is on you when you look more dapper, and most people dress more casually to avoid attention being drawn to them.
Again, men typically dress more casually when they are expecting to have a more relaxed day, either at home in their sleepwear or on vacation in shorts and short-sleeved shirts. Therefore, the bondage seems a bit more like the men were caught off guard because they weren't even enduring the discomfort of a suit. Most of the time, casual/streetwear are meant to be a bit more stylish, which adds to a man’s coolness factor. So, when he’s tied up in something casual, it can indicate how his relaxing day of leisure was ruined, as well as a boring day of running errands became more interesting, he couldn’t make it to brunch with his friends, some dangerous locals at his vacation destination decided to get a taste of the good life, etc. There is a bit more range of how these stories could go and what types of men are being captured, as opposed to those who are more dressed up. However, I think that the main thing I like here is the idea of men getting dolled up when it isn’t required of them, while managing to keep it dressed-down, and winding up in the discomfort of bondage. He wore these clothes to maybe seem a bit more comfortable and approachable, but maybe he was a bit too approachable or approachable to the wrong people who’d like to take advantage of his exposed skin and seemingly lax demeanor.
Conclusion
I guess, the main appeal is the taboo and foreignness that’s involved with sexualizing men because a lot of men don’t see themselves as sexually appealing, which keeps them from expecting unwanted sexual advances or encountering any sexual threats. So, they confidently wear particular things, maybe seeing some general appeal to their look, without fully realizing what others might be getting out of that look because men’s bodies aren’t made into sexual objects and there aren’t clear discourses surrounding what is and isn’t objectively sexy about men’s appearance. Like, mainstream discourse often lauds muscular, athletic types with facial symmetry, but others may prioritize rugged, masculine features like grey hair, crow’s feet, receding hairlines, general largeness, bellies, etc. Likewise, unlike with womenswear, which mostly has some kind of male gaze attached to it, it’s sort of unclear what menswear is objectively sexy or what can be sexy about it. Of course, people probably have different tastes as far as types of women and what constitutes sexy womenswear, but there are clear things in womenswear like fishnet pantyhose; matching, lacey and silky bra and panty sets; high-heeled pumps that not only elongate the legs, but allow spectators to essentially eye-fuck women’s feet; etc, that can be understood as sexy to pretty much anybody and even be considered sexy on everybody. However, there are no male equivalents to any of these feminine articles of clothing, which kind of leaves it up to whomever is attracted to men to decide what is and isn't sexy. Some people might like men in more feminine, form-fitting clothes that emphasize their bodies, but that might not be masculine enough to be considered objectively sexy. But when clothes get more rugged, it might seem too ratty to please everyone. One might think that scantily clad men are just as objectively attractive as scantily clad women, but again, it isn’t entirely masculine to be prancing around in your skivvies and this is often limited to just men with
particular body types. Some may see a man's chest hair as an equivalent to a woman's cleavage, but men's exposed chests aren't as taboo and an appreciation for body hair isn't as universal as the appeal of women's breasts and, like with beards, often goes in and out of style. When it comes to men’s shoes, it’s a whole other ballgame because there is no male equivalent to pumps. Some might say that it’s oxfords or loafers, but others would say that it’s running shoes or combat boots. Also, women also have all of these kinds of shoes plus pumps, high heels, and many other kinds of feminine shoes.
So, trying to dissect a distinctively best article of clothing, type of outfit, etc. that makes men attractive is pretty futile because it really depends on what we value within the spectrum of pretty and masculine. I hate to end an article with questions, but this is such a weird thing to focus on and I don’t really know what conclusions to draw. Are men more attractive when their outfit shows authority or is more revealing of their body? Is it sexier when men seem more approachable or less approachable? Do we like men who put a lot of effort into their appearance or make zero effort? Is it hotter when a pretty boy is tied up or a manly man?
Commentaires