Posts Tagged ‘fashion’

How to Crossdress – YouTube videos

December 8, 2007

Watch a man transform himself into Britney Spears…and judging by the fact that over 300,000 people have watched this first and third video (200,000 for the 2nd), it’s very popular! Learn about the drag bag, boa, makeup and more.

Figleaf on crossdressing

November 30, 2007

One of my favorite bloggers, Figleaf, of Real Adult Sex, posts on the problem with crossdressing: (it’s an older post but worth reading)

I don’t have a problem with cross-dressing per se. Whatever blows up your skirt, as my mother-in-law sometimes says. The couple of times I’ve tried it were interesting enough. It’s just that… well, it’s just that… women’s-cut clothes rarely look very good on men.

Case in point, check out this photo of former New York Mayor (and current Republican Presidential candidate) Rudolph Giuliani.

They took a bunch of women’s clothes that would fit him at the broadest point — his shoulders — and then padded the rest of him to fill in all the spaces women go but men don’t. Then they stuck a wig on him, which is fine I suppose, but then they threw on a bunch of make-up using patterns that might accentuate the geometry of the average woman’s face but kind of conflicts with Giulianis geometry.

Net effect? He’s not dressed *like* a woman, he’s dressing *as if* he really was a woman. It’s an unsuccessful deception.

PLEASE mess with Texas!

November 29, 2007

Oh my goodness this piece in The Daily Texan, by Ryan Haecker is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read! (via Figleaf)

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women – the form of a true lady – is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

It seriously gets even worse:

The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood.

I would try to rebut it but I think any thinking person can see why his blanket dismissal of pants, feminism, and, well, the entire 21st century, perhaps, is so misguided. Wonder what he thinks about men in dresses and whether they count as that “essential part of a true lady’s attire?” The ironic thing is that I almost exclusively wear skirts and dresses; probably less than five times a year do I wear pants. But not because I want to be “ladylike.” Because I’m femme and that’s how I feel the hottest!