What a sub wears?

[CutieMouse]

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

 

[Keroin]

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

I second that question.

 

[ZRT]

Has nothing to do with subs for me. I just like the cheap streetwalker look.

 

[Netzach]

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

No clue. I'm eternally grateful that T is puzzled trying to come up with slut icons he finds arousing. I'm not the most ladylike of people, but I think a skirt being pushed up is much hotter when it's someone's skirt who does not look like that would be appreciated.

 

[Netzach]

Has nothing to do with subs for me. I just like the cheap streetwalker look.

Kudos n props, though it doesn't work that well for me most of the time. I just think that it's an amazing foregone conclusion.

 

[rida]

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

I wonder if it has something to do with a simple way to hit both objectification and humiliation buttons? (I know it does not work for many of the peeps on this forum, but fo a standard social etiquette conscious man and woman would be an almost archetypal image)

 

[CutieMouse]

I wonder if it has something to do with a simple way to hit both objectification and humiliation buttons? (I know it does not work for many of the peeps on this forum, but fo a standard social etiquette conscious man and woman would be an almost archetypal image)

Off to find and old thread with an old thread by Rosco...

Found it

 

[ZRT]

Weird. See, I never even made the association between streetwalker and sub.

There's definitely an element of objectification to it- streetwalker clothes are putting the commodity on display, that's the whole point.

But I don't associate 'streetwalker' with submissive nature, not at all. When I think streetwalker, I think sassy. And of course there are plenty of sassy subs, but 'sassy' and 'submissive' aren't automatic connections for me.

 

[CutieMouse]

Weird. See, I never even made the association between streetwalker and sub.

There's definitely an element of objectification to it- streetwalker clothes are putting the commodity on display, that's the whole point.

But I don't associate 'streetwalker' with submissive nature, not at all. When I think streetwalker, I think sassy. And of course there are plenty of sassy subs, but 'sassy' and 'submissive' aren't automatic connections for me.

Think about how often porn uses trashy whore clothing to "symbolize" a submissive's 'role'...

Which is more commonplace in terms of photographic examples of erotic submission:

A) A 'Catholic Schoolgirl' outfit that is 6 sizes too small
B) A beautifully tailored suit and dammed expensive stilettos

Look back on the thread and note how many people posted attire (or lack thereof) that fell more towards the cheap whore end of the spectrum, than not. Somewhere along the line trashy whore became inextricably [generically] linked with the submissive dress code; I'm curious how that came to be*.



(*I doubt I'll ever get an answer.)

 

[ZRT]

Think about how often porn uses trashy whore clothing to "symbolize" a submissive's 'role'...

Which is more commonplace in terms of photographic examples of erotic submission:

A) A 'Catholic Schoolgirl' outfit that is 6 sizes too small
B) A beautifully tailored suit and dammed expensive stilettos

Look back on the thread and note how many people posted attire (or lack thereof) that fell more towards the cheap whore end of the spectrum, than not. Somewhere along the line trashy whore became inextricably [generically] linked with the submissive dress code; I'm curious how that came to be*.



(*I doubt I'll ever get an answer.)

Hm. You're right.

But the answer (to me) is in your statement already- porn. Porn runs on whore garments and whorifying other kinds of clothes (nurses, office workers, etc.) So when it crosses over into BDSM, it carries that with it.

My confusion on the matter was due to the fact that I don't conflate clothing with submission. If a woman is submissive, she's submissive whether she's in any of the prototypical whore outfits, your expensive and well-tailored outfit, or a potato sack. That part of it is all about the attitude to me.

 

[rida]

Off to find and old thread with an old thread by Rosco...

Found it

good find!

Weird. See, I never even made the association between streetwalker and sub.

There's definitely an element of objectification to it- streetwalker clothes are putting the commodity on display, that's the whole point.

But I don't associate 'streetwalker' with submissive nature, not at all. When I think streetwalker, I think sassy. And of course there are plenty of sassy subs, but 'sassy' and 'submissive' aren't automatic connections for me.

Think about how often porn uses trashy whore clothing to "symbolize" a submissive's 'role'...

Which is more commonplace in terms of photographic examples of erotic submission:

A) A 'Catholic Schoolgirl' outfit that is 6 sizes too small
B) A beautifully tailored suit and dammed expensive stilettos

Look back on the thread and note how many people posted attire (or lack thereof) that fell more towards the cheap whore end of the spectrum, than not. Somewhere along the line trashy whore became inextricably [generically] linked with the submissive dress code; I'm curious how that came to be*.



(*I doubt I'll ever get an answer.)

* Cheap Psych attempt to explanation here:*

I think we need to focus on the emotions and values that mainstream associate with streetwalkers and exposed flesh to understand where it comes from. People that are comfortable with their sexuality and are actively learning about it are going to have a different view on it.

For the mainstream view on sex and women, a streetwalker is both the ultimate male sexual fantasy and subjugation of a woman into a not threatening "object": she is powerless and for you to take advantage of. Even paying is used as a form of denigration.

So even people into BDSM have during their life absorbed the above societal view and perception and I can imagine that at first, their freeing themselves of societal values in relation to power dynamic in the relationship is going to take a visual manifestation in having the woman wear attires that society looks down upon: both as an enhancement of the submissive role and of the sexual nature of the interaction.

Both men and women seems to enjoy such flashy and slutty attire, and this is a telling point of the whole "societal rebellion" that is being acted out.

*end of my confused two yen worth of explanation *

 

[CutieMouse]

good find!


* Cheap Psych attempt to explanation here:*

I think we need to focus on the emotions and values that mainstream associate with streetwalkers and exposed flesh to understand where it comes from. People that are comfortable with their sexuality and are actively learning about it are going to have a different view on it.

For the mainstream view on sex and women, a streetwalker is both the ultimate male sexual fantasy and subjugation of a woman into a not threatening "object": she is powerless and for you to take advantage of. Even paying is used as a form of denigration.

So even people into BDSM have during their life absorbed the above societal view and perception and I can imagine that at first, their freeing themselves of societal values in relation to power dynamic in the relationship is going to take a visual manifestation in having the woman wear attires that society looks down upon: both as an enhancement of the submissive role and of the sexual nature of the interaction.

Both men and women seems to enjoy such flashy and slutty attire, and this is a telling point of the whole "societal rebellion" that is being acted out.

*end of my confused two yen worth of explanation *

So it's the Madonna/Whore thing, without the Madonna part? Makes sense... although my view of the Madonna/Whore complex is a wee bit different than most.

 

[rida]

So it's the Madonna/Whore thing, without the Madonna part? Makes sense... although my view of the Madonna/Whore complex is a wee bit different than most.

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?

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

For the mainstream view on sex and women, a streetwalker is both the ultimate male sexual fantasy and subjugation of a woman into a not threatening "object": she is powerless and for you to take advantage of. Even paying is used as a form of denigration.

I don't think bangin a hooker is the ultimate male sexual fantasy.

Usually that's a last resort.

 

[ZRT]

Makes sense... although my view of the Madonna/Whore complex is a wee bit different than most.

So what's your view of it? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[ZRT]

I don't think bangin a hooker is the ultimate male sexual fantasy.

Usually that's a last resort.

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.

 

[rida]

I don't think bangin a hooker is the ultimate male sexual fantasy.

Usually that's a last resort.

Didn't mean it "literately". I meant in the way that "men want women that are pro's in bed while dating/casually fucking".

ETA: ZRT said it much better!

 

[CutieMouse]

So what's your view of it? Inquiring minds want to know.

The "Madonna/Whore" complex is as old as the sun... most view it as dating/marrying the "good girl", but nailing the "slut" as if they are two entirely separate personae. You know... wife and mother at home, secretary on the side, never the twain shall meet. Once Madonna becomes the whore all respect is lost; once the whore becomes the Madonna, desire wilts.

Forgive the snobbish attitude, but [to me] it lacks artistry.

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...

 

[Netzach]

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...

Yes yes fuck yes. Drool

And this is the gestalt I happen to be working. Well, even more than Ice Princess, Kicker of Butts. I always got off on the feeling of inaccessibility, now it's specific accessibility which I happen to choose for myself.

If anything, being submissive to T has amped my feelings of personal sexual power. I don't really know how to explain this. I think easternsun touches on it in her thread, but I don't see it really expressed often in the mainstream of M/f discussions. I mean the whole point of submission is supposed to be a waning of power, but I find that quite the opposite ensues when I roll over for this particular wolf.

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.

 

[00Syd]

Easy answer is whatever I damn well please.

Tricky part is making sure my personal tastes re: fashion align with whomever I'm involved with.

What she said.

I wouldn't be able to get into a relationship with anyone that wanted me to change the way I dress.

And I don't care if that makes me any less submissive or whatever the fuck.

Fuck. I'm tired of feeling like I'm somehow less submissive for being myself. Can we start to dismantle all of the submissive stereotypes and common expectations now, please? Kthnx.

 

[eastern sun]

Yes yes fuck yes. Drool

And this is the gestalt I happen to be working. Well, even more than Ice Princess, Kicker of Butts. I always got off on the feeling of inaccessibility, now it's specific accessibility which I happen to choose for myself.

If anything, being submissive to T has amped my feelings of personal sexual power. I don't really know how to explain this. I think easternsun touches on it in her thread, but I don't see it really expressed often in the mainstream of M/f discussions. I mean the whole point of submission is supposed to be a waning of power, but I find that quite the opposite ensues when I roll over for this particular wolf.

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.

Yes, me too.

But I think it does fit into D/s frameworks, because "doing what he wants" is not necessarily disempowering. I retain my power, I just channel it in certain directions. Use it to perform certain acts.

In my own case, I was blocking my sexual power for many years. As I began to explore its full expression, tremendous energy was unleashed. And we both benefited.

And I like your take on the Madonna/whore complex, CutieMouse. I think it's really sexy to find kink and passion behind conservative and/or elegant fashion. But I also get turned on to find poetry and wisdom behind violent and/or rebellious masks.

as an aside - Isn't it funny that Madonna as an icon is considered asexual, but she had sex with God (can you imagine that penetration!), and whores are considered sexual, but pretty much every whore I ever met considered it a chore.

 

[ZRT]

Forgive the snobbish attitude, but [to me] it lacks artistry.

It's not the lack of artistry about it that gets me, it's the fact that the 'whore' is dehumanized, and the Madonna to some extent as well. It smacks of fear and inability to deal with real women. I actually find the concept pretty revolting and weak.

I can see the appeal of your take, though it doesn't work so much for me. Elegance is a veneer to me, and a large part of my kink is stripping away the veneers as much as the clothing- dignity, pride, fear, all in order to effect a return to a primal and free state.

I like my women in tarty clothing not to degrade them but because as I said I associate it with sass. In that light they're displaying themselves for me, flaunting their beauty that I can then take, conquer, and make my own.

So, different tastes and all. Rock on with your bad self. And you are right in terms of general sexual mores.

whores are considered sexual, but pretty much every whore I ever met considered it a chore.

It's a job, and oftentimes a pretty shitty one. That's why I don't consider whores a symbol of submissiveness. They're earning money to survive by doing something that they'd generally not do on their free time, which is what the most of us do, dom and sub alike.

Oh and hey Sub42, sorry about hijacking your thread and all. We do that a lot.

 

[Netzach]

I'm honestly not trying to pick on ZRT, whose appreciation for trashiness I believe to be a mere matter of visual taste. However in the larger kink community "what does a ___ look like" where women are concerned takes up a giant chunk of space and time, even if people insist it doesn't and it's just a personal taste thing. And the "rules" are pretty fucking ridiculous, as well as the rejection of those rules.

Yes, a Dom doesn't have to be ripped 7 feet in Armani, but a bath and a change of T shirt might not kill you.

In some ways it's just as limiting to me to have to wear sweats and fuzzy slippers to prove my "real" as it is to have to wear boots all the time to signal I'm a Domme. Or white lace fluffy bunny lingerie as the official sub uniform.

I like syd and CM's take on it, a strict, what I won't do for love sense of self that comes from taking ones own presentation in hand and if you want to be near me, appreciating the package or finding another.

I can't say I'd accept anyone fucking with these stylistic flourishes of self-presentation overmuch, because to me it begs the question why me? I mean if you don't like the identity I construct when I dress, find one you like. I'll happily be T's pet, but if I begin to feel like a project, I'm in serious doubt of the agenda.

At one point in my life, to say "what does a sub wear" I'd say she wears jeans, assless chaps, an ace bandage and a large packing dick. I'd be willing to be force feminized maybe once or twice but if that became the top's whole point, she could fuck off.

You see, that's my primal sense of laying it down and doing and taking anything. It's teased apart to its essential, and what's at the bottom is a boy more than a girl. If you want to dress it like a hoochie mama, go ahead, but expecting it to feel *comfortable* as such is laughable.

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

I still find myself drifting into a male headspace when I think of submission, at 35 I just don't feel like I *need* a dick to do it. And I have this other, kind of womanly thing going too, which is the same. If you want to dress it like a hoochie mama, go ahead, but you're not liberating her futher, you're making her hate you and the world and everything in it and you will soon bore the shit out of her.

 

[eastern sun]

I'm honestly not trying to pick on ZRT, whose appreciation for trashiness I believe to be a mere matter of visual taste. However in the larger kink community "what does a ___ look like" where women are concerned takes up a giant chunk of space and time, even if people insist it doesn't and it's just a personal taste thing. And the "rules" are pretty fucking ridiculous, as well as the rejection of those rules.

Yes, a Dom doesn't have to be ripped 7 feet in Armani, but a bath and a change of T shirt might not kill you.

In some ways it's just as limiting to me to have to wear sweats and fuzzy slippers to prove my "real" as it is to have to wear boots all the time to signal I'm a Domme. Or white lace fluffy bunny lingerie as the official sub uniform.

I like syd and CM's take on it, a strict, what I won't do for love sense of self that comes from taking ones own presentation in hand and if you want to be near me, appreciating the package or finding another.

I can't say I'd accept anyone fucking with these stylistic flourishes of self-presentation overmuch, because to me it begs the question why me? I mean if you don't like the identity I construct when I dress, find one you like. I'll happily be T's pet, but if I begin to feel like a project, I'm in serious doubt of the agenda.

At one point in my life, to say "what does a sub wear" I'd say she wears jeans, assless chaps, an ace bandage and a large packing dick. I'd be willing to be force feminized maybe once or twice but if that became the top's whole point, she could fuck off.

You see, that's my primal sense of laying it down and doing and taking anything. It's teased apart to its essential, and what's at the bottom is a boy more than a girl. If you want to dress it like a hoochie mama, go ahead, but expecting it to feel *comfortable* as such is laughable.

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

I still find myself drifting into a male headspace when I think of submission, at 35 I just don't feel like I *need* a dick to do it. And I have this other, kind of womanly thing going too, which is the same. If you want to dress it like a hoochie mama, go ahead, but you're not liberating her futher, you're making her hate you and the world and everything in it and you will soon bore the shit out of her.

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.

 

[ZRT]

I don't feel picked on, it's been a good discussion so far. Also: not a weenie, thanks.

Also I change t-shirts every day.

Anyway, let me make a distinction on my tastes here: on a day to day basis, I don't tell the women in my life what to wear, unless specifically asked for an opinion, or if I'm in a very particular 'Yeah, wear that blue dress' mood. When I take a woman in, I'm not looking to change her because as we know that's a fool's game. So if she has a particular style she favors, I'm not going to change that, because if it was a sticking point of taste, then I'm not entering into the relationship. About the only thing I'll make a move on is the choice between longer and shorter hair, and on that point I'll always go in for 'enough that I can curl my hands in it and drag you around by it' because that's how I roll.

Dressing up a sub, for me, is pretty much strictly a scene thing, unless it's part of what a particular woman wants direction in. Otherwise, be comfortable, be clean, and be ready to crawl a lot and we're good to go.

I will say that any woman who did expect me to order her in the sartorial department would be opening up some seriously interesting avenues for my sadism to express itself. Not in the 'fun-humiliating' kind of way either, but more in the 'bunny slippers and cocktail dresses look hilarious together' kind of way.