What a sub wears?

[Abraxas Winterlight]

I am a sucker for one of my button down shirts... and nothing else.

thats one of my MAJOR hot buttons too!!!
(well, that & the Leia slave girl outfit but thats just the Star Wars geek in me.)

 

[Homburg]

Maybe it doesn't fit into a D/s framework at all, actually. While I'd do whatever he wants, I'm doing that for myself.

Eh. That *is* the D/s framework.

--

I've often said my kink is male submission, not especially female dominance.

Male dominance bores me. I have zero interest in watching male doms in porn, seeing dominant male images, etc. I don't care one lick if I'm wearing The Suit, or leather, or whatever. There is no *me* in my own sexuality.

I care about what my bottom is doing. I care about her reactions. I care about how she looks. I care about what she is feeling. Female submission is infinitely more interesting to me. But, then again, I seem to lack that streak of narcissism so common to those of my inclination.

--

To the OP, what a sub wears is what a sub wears. There is no room for a uniform in my life. They are as submissive to me in jeans, a t-shirt, and hair up in a bun while working as they are naked and kneeling. I am as likely to find them wildly sexy either way. It is a situational thing, and based heavily on my mood at the moment.

 

[ZRT]

(well, that & the Leia slave girl outfit but thats just the Star Wars geek in me.)

Word up.

 

[Netzach]

Though I totally get what you're saying, Netzach, I still want to add that I've had those Rosco dream moments, where dressing up like some cheap male fantasy fed the objectification hunger and completely obliterated my well-educated middle class morals.

The clothing dictates a kind of movement, triggers a collective memory, and I begin taking on a role that has absolutely nothing to do with who I am the rest of the time, and because I like to be psychologically obliterated for a sexual thrill, it's fun to wear that persona for a night.

In the same way I like to get dressed up for a night out at the ballet, eat petit fours and sip cappucino during intermission, talk to the ballerinas and almost feel like a proper lady, having just taken it up the ass on my way out the door.

I would just always have at the back of my mind "are you doing this because it's just hot for you, or because there's some dumb idea of what should be that you're conforming to?"

I get the ego obliteration thing. Animal play functions like that for me, frankly. Slutty too-tight crap doesn't. It just makes me wonder what the point is supposed to be. If the point is to make me totally uncomfortable embarrassed and plied for a hatefuck, that works, but I know that hatefucking doesn't work for T so I'd think his brain had been replaced when I wasn't looking.

The same goes for putting men in panties, or trashy hoochie mama getup. btw - is it actually hot for these legions of women, or are they being made to think this is Femdom, this I should love?

Which seems to be some kind of foregone logical conclusion for how to make men feel/be/act submissive, especially among submissive men.

Uh, yeah. I like men in panties just wonderfully, but the way Shank does it, not the knee-jerk unsexy way it usually is in FemDom. I'd be totally behind any guy having trepidation about my motives.

 

[Netzach]

Word up.

I'm not even a geek, but I would have liked to be Jabba.

 

[Netzach]

Eh. That *is* the D/s framework.

--

I guess. I just see that every time the emphasis is put on the internals, you get "TFTB" or "Do-me."

 

[ecstaticsub]

My PYL doesn't care what I wear on a day to day basis. But when I go to visit he cares, and cares a lot. He is into costumes and roleplay which we both get a kick out of. I always dress well for the plane trip. Not slutty, but a skirt suit or business type dress, stockings, heels. I am not alowed to wear pants of any sort while worth him. The only time I am completely naked is when we shower together

I don't see how I dress as being an extention of myself when i am with him. It is more of a way of showing obedience. If he on a whim decides he wants me to dress as a nurse it is my responsibility that I make it perfect--authentic dress, cap white stockings and well...white heels instead of nursing shoes. It isn't how I dress that is submission it is that I dressed the way that he wants that makes it submission.

 

[eastern sun]

I would just always have at the back of my mind "are you doing this because it's just hot for you, or because there's some dumb idea of what should be that you're conforming to?"

Yes, I've had that thought. I have that thought whenever I can feel my partner doing something that is purely head-centered, and not directly connected to his dick. I figure they're doing it cause they got the idea somewhere that "this is how it's done."

My husband can snap me out of that one, though, saying "so what? Who the fuck cares what you think about what I'm doing?"

 

[Myskaninen]

It isn't how I dress that is submission it is that I dressed the way that he wants that makes it submission.

so sweet

 

[JMohegan]

Something I've always wondered is why/where did the submissive = dressing like a cheap streetwalker come from?

Why black for the D? And what's up with all the badass tattoos, weird facial hair patterns, and leather vests?

I don't have answers to any of these questions. I'm still trying to figure out why the hell anyone would purposefully cover a lovely female neck.

Death to collars!

Oh, and slutwear does nothing for me.

 

[Homburg]

I guess. I just see that every time the emphasis is put on the internals, you get "TFTB" or "Do-me."

It's Trade Protectionism directed at whatever their idea of "this is what BDSM should be".

--

Why black for the D? And what's up with all the badass tattoos, weird facial hair patterns, and leather vests?

Same as above. They have a given idea about how they *should* look.

That said, I tend to wear black on the rare occasions when I got out to play in public. The one light fetish club I go to requires "fetish" wear (with a broad definition as to what constitutes fetish-wear), and basic black counts for men.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Simply put, I'd say yes: the "every men want to fuck a whore but want to marry a virgin" thing. And kinky people rejecting the perceived limitation to their sex life cast upon by society are trying to show that they are going to fuck & marry a whore instead.

I'm sure that the above is such an over-simplification that it probably does not fit even a quarter of the regular Litsters. It seems to me to be thou a typical phase the average newcomers go through when first discovering their kink. Complexity comes later, with understanding of their kink.

My I ask what is your view of the Madonna/Whore complex?

Rida, this isn't a personalised attack on you; it's just that I got this far down the thread before I got irritated enough that I had to post. It feels to me that there is a lot of stereotyping of dominant men going on here. Of course, it may be the case that there are a lot of not very introspective, not very self-aware dominants out there who take their iconography pretty much from what mass culture offers them, without asking themselves the question 'OK, but what works for me?'

Of course, I am probably not your stereotypical dominant male. I would hate to have a partner who was submissive all the time; she'd be a complete bore. I want a partner who is intelligent, whose intellect can challenge mine, who's not afraid to disagree with me and argue her corner - in every aspect of life except sex. I want a partner who plays at being submissive during sex in the same way as I play at being dominant during sex - as a game that's fun to play, not as a reflection of the real power dynamics of the relationship.

For me part of the erotic charge in dominant/submissive sex is knowing that the person I am playing with is actually, in real life, someone energetic, forceful, competent, creative. Dominating someone who was in fact just a helpless cipher bullied in every aspect of her life would (for me) have no charge at all.

Similarly, I don't actually want to expose my partner to other people. But I do want to make her believe (and fear) that I might, to push her into her discomfort zone with a perceived risk of being exposed. So, in public, even if slutty clothes worked for me, I would not want my partner to wear them. What I like my partners to wear, when we're in public but we're playing sexually, is clothes that are not especially revealing but which can easily be removed or made revealing.

For me, one of the sexiest garments a woman can wear is a long sleeved shirt dress that buttons right down the front, from collar to knee. A game I like to play is to order her to unbutton it, one button at a time. Another really sexy garment is a wrap-around skirt, especially if tied off with a bow. Or, similarly, a halter-top dress that ties with a bow.

And underwear? Well, collar and cuffs make it easy to secure a woman quickly. But any other underwear just gets in the way of sexual play. Garments or toys which rub on the genitals in a stimulating way might be an exception - making a woman more aroused than she is comfortable being in a public place is a definite turn on - but I can't think of any underclothes a woman could wear which would turn me on (whereas knowing my partner is naked under her dress always does).

In private (and I include out of door spaces which are remote enough that unexpected interruption is unlikely), a woman should be, with the exception of bonds necessary to secure her, naked. Of course.

 

[Keroin]

Why black for the D? And what's up with all the badass tattoos, weird facial hair patterns, and leather vests?

I don't have answers to any of these questions. I'm still trying to figure out why the hell anyone would purposefully cover a lovely female neck.

Death to collars!

This made me laugh heartily.

I think I avoided this part of me for so long because I'd see those stereotypical images and think, "Wow, that's not me at all, I am not the least bit aroused, obviously I am not kinky, just weird."

 

[SimonBrooke]

It's not banging a hooker that's the fantasy, it's the power to demand that a woman conform to a man's precise tastes that's the fantasy. No strings, no demands, just 'be my object'.

So they don't want whores, they want women who are as sexually pliant as whores.

That is true, of course. But, if the iconography a man uses to demonstrate the sexual pliancy of his partner is just taken from Pretty Woman, he's not a very creative or interesting lover, is he? What woman would want to submit to a man as dull as that?

 

[Netzach]

Yes, I've had that thought. I have that thought whenever I can feel my partner doing something that is purely head-centered, and not directly connected to his dick. I figure they're doing it cause they got the idea somewhere that "this is how it's done."

My husband can snap me out of that one, though, saying "so what? Who the fuck cares what you think about what I'm doing?"

See, that's the thing. Prior to T, I never felt like I was playing with someone for whom it was not "just whatever you're supposed to be into" and now that I'm bottoming for him I know his tastes and it's not him. Alien brain switch or really weird one-time mood would be the only explanations. If he suddenly changed his mind, I'd probably warm up to it, but I like that our notions of hot line up as well as they do.

I like the same kind of idea for him as I do for me, because we still can and do and will switch. Respectable alpha to the naked eye, naked and exposed to me alone.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Now tilt your head a bit to the left and consider an alternative view of the classic M/W complex... she is the Madonna, the Ice Princess. The cool, calm, elegant, socially pristine Lady at all times in dress, speech, mannerism... no slutty schoolgirl outfits, no micro-minis without panties... always perfectly proper through and through - even while being her Lover's Whore (literally or figuratively).

There's a very elegant [hot] dichotomy to it...

Can I echo Netzach, 00Syd, eastern sun and say...

Abso-bloody-lutely.

There's no sense of power in controlling someone who looks as if she's available to anyone. But to have a woman who looks as if she's available to no-one, and yet know that she will submit to you - to you but no-one else - doing anything to her anywhere... now that's a thrill.

 

[Netzach]

That is true, of course. But, if the iconography a man uses to demonstrate the sexual pliancy of his partner is just taken from Pretty Woman, he's not a very creative or interesting lover, is he? What woman would want to submit to a man as dull as that?

Hey some people like squirting food on you and licking it off. It doesn't do anything for me, but for the right person, no skin off my ass.

It's not the kink that I question, it's the motivation. It's the pervasive crappy false equation that says:

hetero femsub = short tight spandex with everything hangin' out.

hetero FemDom = pvc boots to the ass and hot shorts and a sneer!

If someone has always been into skimpy trashy, always will be, and that's that, that's them. It's organic. Some girls LOVE to wear that stuff, obviously, too.

PVC boots to the ass, hot shorts, and a sneer made me want to grow up to be that the first time I saw it, actually. Ha. I was in the stage of having unicorns all over everything though.

 

[ZRT]

That is true, of course. But, if the iconography a man uses to demonstrate the sexual pliancy of his partner is just taken from Pretty Woman, he's not a very creative or interesting lover, is he? What woman would want to submit to a man as dull as that?

I wasn't even referring to dominant men with that example, I was referring more to the porn image of women in general, and specifically the question about men wanting the Whore. In this case, it's not the clothing they're seeking, it's the no-demands fucktoy, and they associate this image with streetwalker garb.

As for boring lovers, the world is full of them. Most people don't put much consideration into their sexuality, because of how firmly the taboos are rooted.

 

[ZRT]

It has to be kept in mind that porn is generally marketed toward the lowest common denominator, as in the men who absolutely cannot get normal contact and relations with women. The problem is that there aren't premium brands that take more intellectual approaches to the subject, so that's what we're stuck with and it's shaped our societal tastes. In this specific case had a very notable effect on the kink.

 

[eastern sun]

The problem is that there aren't premium brands that take more intellectual approaches to the subject

I've always kind of thought that was what we were doing here at lit. Or at least could be doing.

 

[Netzach]

As a purveyor of erotic material, I can say that the "desperate consumer of porn" stereotype doesn't hold at all. In my experience they're often married, often girlfriended, often OK, and just still yet horny. Men, on their own, in the absence of women, just have an enormous drive. Get two male sex drives together and OMG, you get craigslist M4M - a veritable fuckfest of astronomical proportions.

 

[Netzach]

Heh, I'm still looking at my posts on that old thread. As a piece of class consciousness theater, I *still* want to dress someone else in that stuff.

For me, it's a little too close to home to be erotic. But as a tool for humiliation of someone else, I'm still there.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with sex though in the obvious way, isn't that funny?

 

[JMohegan]

Same as above. They have a given idea about how they *should* look.

That said, I tend to wear black on the rare occasions when I got out to play in public. The one light fetish club I go to requires "fetish" wear (with a broad definition as to what constitutes fetish-wear), and basic black counts for men.

But who gave them that idea? That's the question. Where did this start?

It's been quite a few years since I visited a kink club or organized group, but I can tell you from personal experience that a guy in jeans and a button down Oxford shirt rolled up at the sleeves was rarely going to blend.

Perhaps fetish clubs influence a lot of people who are introduced to kink through this venue. A quick google found this and this. The stated rationale for the dress codes presented may provide insight into the origin of stereotypes for attire.

This made me laugh heartily.

I think I avoided this part of me for so long because I'd see those stereotypical images and think, "Wow, that's not me at all, I am not the least bit aroused, obviously I am not kinky, just weird."

A lot of people are turned off by the stereotypical trappings of kink.

But power and pain have nothing at all to do with latex or slutwear or leather. There are a whole lot of kinky people out there flying under the radar, invisible not just to conventional society, but also to the world of stylized kink because they don't adopt the mores of modern BDSM.

 

[Netzach]

But who gave them that idea? That's the question. Where did this start?

It's been quite a few years since I visited a kink club or organized group, but I can tell you from personal experience that a guy in jeans and a button down Oxford shirt rolled up at the sleeves was rarely going to blend.

Just attract me like flypaper, though. Both M and T were working business normal, as was I at the time. It was magnetic. It was like "I am kinky but I am not renfaire sci fi gothbaby automatically as extension."

I get really pissy about munches being interpreted as "as much kink as street legal will allow." Uh, no, I want plausible deniability to be the whole point for that, thanks.

I do happen to like very extreme latex and very traditional layered leathers, but not at a munch. At a pride parade, a club, a dungeon and for God's sake not because I "have to."

 

[midwestyankee]

A lot of people are turned off by the stereotypical trappings of kink.

But power and pain have nothing at all to do with latex or slutwear or leather. There are a whole lot of kinky people out there flying under the radar, invisible not just to conventional society, but also to the world of stylized kink because they don't adopt the mores of modern BDSM.

Exactly. The one time that I went to a public playspace here in Chicago I word dark chinos and a blue short-sleeved turtleneck (not particularly dark in color, btw). I'd have worn a button-down oxford shirt with rolled up sleeves or perhaps a long-sleeve turtleneck had it been a cooler time of year. I don't imagine that I will ever be seen anywhere, public or private, wearing the "traditional" dark leather garb. It. Just. Isn't. Me.

Of course, I also hold the opinion that if I'm going to advertise my kink by my selection of public venue, then my evening out is all about being the real me. That means that I dress like me. Simple as that.