Sunday, September 4, 2011

SATURDAY'S MUSINGS

STILL STICKING TO THE CHALLENGE!!



·  dress to show some skin.


There really aren’t a lot of options for men to dress provocatively.  Sure there are satin/silk boxer and micro briefs, but unlike women, I can’t think of any everyday men’s fashion that is ‘provocative’, feel me?  And I don’t know what makes a woman get the ‘misty pants’ when they see a brother… could it be when I am dressed in expensive suit or when I finish working out in shorts and tee?

Yeah, I guess I COULD go out in a mini-skirt and tube top since I let that cat out of the bag!  But I never envisioned myself ‘tarted-up’ as much as I could see myself in a nice skirt and blouse with a broach on the lapel!!

Something else about my ‘wanting to dress up like Mom’… there are two factors that I attribute my fascination with wearing women’s clothes.  One is the denser, more face-to-face kind of reason that I won’t be getting into here.  The other is more related to the ‘goat-thinkin’’ that most of my entries emerge from, stuff that is floating almost invisible in the air, brought together by the wisps of thoughts like the collection of spun sugar on a paper cone collects to be cotton candy.  Fluff to be sure, but also enough substance for a physical presence.

When children are young and well before they are able to identify their own sexually identity, it is NORMAL to see them aping the dress and behavior of the parent of the opposite sex, if that is who they spend the most time with.  It DOES NOT indicate the child’s sexual identity in any way.  Long ago I spent time reading and talking with people about this and how the ‘feminization’ of brothers was a result of crumbling relations between black men and women on all levels, but started at the top with men and women.

BUT THIS ISN’T ABOUT THAT BUT IT IS ABOUT THIS

Women didn’t just recently become objectified by society and had to labor under an imbalanced contract in the bedroom with men.  Listening to the lamentations of what was being asked of all the girls that I wouldn’t be getting, I would use the reconnaissance to shape my attitude to the prospect of a ‘real’-ationship and the sex life that I expected to have.

A woman’s experience and willingness to perform erotic acts that may be taboo were no real concern of mine as it had no real impact on her character.  But in case that there was some doubt to that, I figured to ease their concerns by being equally willing to do what was considered ‘edgy’ myself.  Also, because the idea of a woman being satisfied was still in debate, I thought that if I made my partner’s satisfaction paramount, then I would not have to concern myself with what I call, ‘call backs’, and it would smooth negotiations for the extracurricular stuff!

In my previous entry, I spoke to the main reason I think the male’s pleasure in sex is over-valued.  We don’t even have to be awake for that to happen as much as we simply have to ‘be there’!  And I have echoes of a smarmy comment to the effect that the

pressure is on the male and the female is the one who simply has to ‘show up’.  I guess that was because the male had to do all the wine and dine stuff, along with having to put up with standards on whoever was the ‘Robert Pattinson-Ryan Reynolds’ of the day, the pressure was on them.  What was the line in the song ‘Nasty Girls’ by Vanity 6… something about ‘…I need seven inches or more’?  Something to that effect, but anywho… the reality is the pressure is on the women not only to perform but oddly enough, in the selection process as well.

IT AIN’T EASY BUT IT IS SIMPLE

Zoe Saldana may be attractive but she doesn’t ‘do’ it for me… really.  I wonder what kind of woman would be my ‘Hollywood type’ because there isn’t anyone coming to mind (but then again it could be said that there is A LOT of things that aren’t coming to mind up in my old noggin!).  Now what do I mean by ‘it ain’t easy but it is simple’? 

I talk about being fortunate when it comes to being with someone… because I feel that whoever is the object of my affections IS the object of my affections.  After they come into my life, everyone, and I mean everyone, falls to a distant second in comparison.  It took me a bit to figure that out but I really see it as a gift and I am really glad that it ‘works’ like that for me.

Anywho… there just isn’t enough stuff for men to wear that I think would qualify as ‘showing some skin’.  I would have today went out in something sexy, but shorts and tank tops is all I got, and I do that on a regular basis!  

6 comments:

Heather said...

Exposed skin in a fella doesn't "do it" for me so much as form fitting clothes that outline their ... um... features. For that matter... I think it's far more sexy when a woman shows less skin but shows attractive lines. Think about Dolly Parton... you don't really see a lot of cleavage, though she has plenty... you don't see a lot of leg... you see the silhouette. That's the ticket... a nice silhouette.

mrs. miss alaineus said...

mark, you;ve taken the assignment to a new level- i apologize for not commenting as much, your essays have been interesting to read and thought-provoking.

heather has a good point about being more classy then flashy. i also think neatness (haircut, clean shaven/ neatly groomed) counts. the grunge look did not ring my bell at all. i am more about the cleaned-up mechanic look.

xxalainaxx

Bucko (a.k.a., Ken) said...

Interesting musings.

Nebraska said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nebraska said...

I also agree with Heather...a sexy silhouette leaves something to the imagination.
For men, I think a pair of good fitting dark washed jeans, a nice colored (white if the right cut) button down shirt-longsleeve or short and some sharp shoes is sexy.

Toon said...

Why would I want to inflict more of my unfortunate flesh on the eyes of others? I'm more considerate than that!