secret thrills  

rm_connor696 60M
944 posts
9/11/2005 2:26 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

secret thrills


So I was watching What Not to Wear the other night. Why? you ask. Well, many reasons, including the fact that I have the hots for Stacy. (Okay, I have a thing for bitchy Jewish chicks. There are more embarrassing peccadillos. But I digress.)

So the subject of the show was this guy who, although married, was clearly gay, a fact that he advertised quite loudly, though perhaps unconsciously (even to himself) through his clothes. We're talking satiny shirts with a paisley design; pleated, checked pants; and tassled loafers. Or a shirt slathered with a jagged, multicolored print topping striped trousers and black-and-white checkerboard brogans.

To put it succinctly: he was as gay as the day is long. My take was that the couple were devout Christians who were able to sublimate issues of "deviant" sexuality. At least it seemed that way.

Anyway, part of the show's weirdness arose from reading the clothes as a figure for the guy's sexuality, since the hosts were basically trying to get him to "tone it down." Ouch. But at some point the subject said that he "dressed for himself," and the hosts seized on that to suggest that he wear clothes with a hidden fabulousness--for example, a relatively austere jacket with a blazing lining inside. Only he would know. (You can see how the gay subtext was inescapable.)

At some point all this reminded me of cross-dressers who wear, say, sexy, feminine panties under a business suit. But already the format seemed to be fracturing along fault lines. For one thing, doesn't the transvestite derive the thrill precisely from the notion of a secret? It's an attitude of "I know something that would shock you if only you knew it, too." That seems to preclude the notion of doing something solely for oneself. But then, unlike homoeroticism, cross-dressing cn be predicated entirely on secrecy (and secrecy always involves more than one person). But usually it's the cross-dresser himself who is the secret. After all, the ideal in that world is "passing," where the clothing's "gender-inappropriateness" is hidden precisely because the gender is hidden. The sexy skirt is obvious, in your face, not secret at all; the cross-dressing is thus not obvious--but in a radically different way from the nonobviousness of those hidden panties.

All of which led me to muse on clothing's essentially social function. Yes, we can wear "secret clothes," but the meaning will always be constituted by social convention. Those hidden garments say things precisely because others say that they do. Secret clothing may be a way of talking to ourselves, but the very notion of talking implies the potential conversations we may have with others.

As if all this weren't enough of a mindfuck, I was reminded of a usenet post I read years ago. The post was written by a woman who employed the name "Akasha" and posted to various kink-related newsgroups. Anyway, she mentioned that her kinks were so unusual that she could enact scenes during the ordinary flow of conversation, without raising any suspicions in the person with whom she was talking. She added that she chose not to do this, because it was nonconsensual and hence, in her view, immoral. I see her point. But then, does the passing cross-dresser do something immoral simply by passing? For surely he/she has taken the onlookers into a fantasy of which they are unaware. Their misguided perception provides the thrill. The crypto-gay's secret clothes of fabulousness may escape this worry, for the issues seems to run the other way there: the greater world reviles his sexuality, so he displaces that sexuality into a code. When the code is broken--when the clothes are seen as a marker for homeroticism--it must be driven underground.

Still, it can't be a code without the possibility of someone decoding it. I hope someone does; in fact, I hope it's the guy with the fabulously lined jacket himself.

Me, I have a secret moustache. Ya wanna know where?

rm_rsp54 58F
531 posts
9/13/2005 10:39 am

Are You sure that the shows producers didn't steal Graham Norton's wardrobe? The last I saw him, he was dressed exactly as you describe?

As for the cross-dresser doing something immoral simply by passing. I find this to be a bit of a stretch. When we have fantasies, solely in our mind, is this immoral since they involve others and they have no knowledge? This could snowball here.

Stacy, huh? She has her charm.
Enjoyed your post, R.


rm_saintlianna 45F
15466 posts
9/13/2005 2:49 pm

Akasha, Queen of the Damned? I wanna know where it is, and since I don't wear underwear, what does that say about me?


MissAnnThrope 56F
11488 posts
9/13/2005 8:22 pm

Um, you have a big face tattoo on your back and had all but a moustache waxed off? *runs and ducks*

Now, I don't find the cross dresser wearing women's panties to be immoral at all. I see nothing wrong with it. There are men out there who aren't cross dressers, but who wear women's underwear because they find it more comfortable.


wynterswhym 55F
51 posts
9/15/2005 9:27 am

hummm.. but don't we all, okay.. maybe not all, but some of us, have our little secrets under our clothing. The little or not so little things that make us remember who we are every day while we are attired so properly on the outside? You, your piercings? Me, my tattoos. The things that "proper society" may get a small, accidental glimpse of, just enough to make the boss wonder if he really saw that, to keep a client thinking maybe you are a bit different then first impression gave to offer? I once did a show where the costume was a nun's habit, after a few weeks we decided to have a nightly contest to see who could wear the most outrageous lingerie under the habit. I often wondered if the audience had any idea what was under those cumbersome robes, then, in the same thought, I wondered how many of them were fantasizing unbeknownst to them about what was, in reality, under the robes *L*.

btw.. Miss Ann, I wore men's underwear the last month on my pregnancy, because it was more comfortable, no sexual statement at all, just pure fullfillment of the situation, for some reason it didn't roll down over my tummy like ladies did.. guess it answers the question of what is covering all those beer bellies out there *L*


Become a member to create a blog