Fashion or Fetish?

[AMM]

From another thread:

... We were on the cycle path near Wells when a teenage boy jogged past. He was wearing white tights and a mini tutu.

Uhh... I'm gonna express my discomfort with this. He probably had a dancewear fetish ... Of course he can wear whatever he wants in public, but I don't see this as fashion freedom.

.. tutus are only worn on stage, or by really young children in the studio who are playing out their princess fantasy. ..

But what exactly is a "fetish"?

Corsets used to be fashion, now they're considered a fetish. Leather clothing used to be kinky, now it's trendy -- no, I'm a little behind the times, it's not even trendy any more, it has already become just another option, though not yet ready for the boardroom.

And when little girls wear their pink tutus when their mommys (or daddys) bring them along to the grocery store, is it a "fetish"? It's pretty obvious that they're wearing what they because they enjoy it; it feels good on their bodies, they like how they look in them. And they don't look lost in fantasy -- they're acting like any other little girl at the supermarket.

How is it different for the teenage boy (or a middle-aged man), aside from the expectation that by a certain age you submit not only your behavior, but also your likes and dislikes to the tyranny of social expectations?

I hear a lot of talk about freedom and about precedents for men wearing "skirt-like" garments, but let's be honest:

Would we bother if we didn't somewhere deep inside have this feeling that "it feels good" when we put on a skirt (or kilt)? Just like the little girl in the grocery cart in her tutu? So is what we're doing a fetish?

Is it the (presumed) association with sexuality? If so, then what about the feeling that a grown woman gets when she dresses "to kill" -- slinky gown, high-heels, stockings, etc. -- is that a "fetish"?

What's the difference between fashion and a fetish, except that a fashion is socially accepted, and a fetish isn't?


-- AMM

[Departed Member]

But what exactly is a "fetish"?AMM

A fetish is purely a 'fixation' with something, anything, an inanimate object or even an ideology. Doesn't have to be remotely sexual, or even sensual! There is often an 'assumed' belief by some members of society (oops! those 'media' folk again!) that it must be a a form of mental 'disorder' on the part of the said fetishist.

I hear a lot of talk about freedom and about precedents for men wearing "skirt-like" garments, but let's be honest:

Would we bother if we didn't somewhere deep inside have this feeling that "it feels good" when we put on a skirt (or kilt)? Just like the little girl in the grocery cart in her tutu? So is what we're doing a fetish?

Is it the (presumed) association with sexuality? If so, then what about the feeling that a grown woman gets when she dresses "to kill" -- slinky gown, high-heels, stockings, etc. -- is that a "fetish"?

What's the difference between fashion and a fetish, except that a fashion is socially accepted, and a fetish isn't? -- AMM

Something 'feeling good' may, or may more probably not, be a fetish. Only the person so concerned will know for sure whether they have a 'fixation' about something. Others may get apparent clues from someone's appearance/behaviour. For instance, if a person possessed, and wore, only items of clothing that were coloured blue, then they would probably have a 'blue' fetish, it wouldn't really matter what the items were. If they always wore a hat (esp. of a particular style), indoors or out, than that could also be regarded as a fetish. Now, whether always wearing 'blue' clothes or a hat is 'fashion' will be subject to factors essentially outside of the control of that (or those) person(s). At some stage, those precepts (fashion & fetish) could indeed coincide! As for 'dressing to the nines', or whatever, then the only(?) way that could be identified as a fetish, would be if they were worn 'out of context', in circumstances where it might be reasonably considered 'in-appropriate' (ballgown at a football match). On that basis, a 'little girl in a tutu in a grocery cart' might well have a fetish for that garment! Blokes who have literally dozens of Kilts almost certainly have a 'Kilt fetish'. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with fetishes, per se.
I started wearing skirts, and eventually, Kilts (cost!!!!) for the sole reason of 'comfort'. They 'feel good' because they don't cause the rash sores that I've suffered all my life through 'compulsory' tr*userisation. They're not all the same colour, material or length, so no, I don't have a defineable fetish! I don't wear them all of the time, so again, no 'must wear' fetish there!

[Big and Bashful]

He might have been doing it for a bet, you can't always judge a book by it's clothes, er- cover. Or he is a bit 'odd' or just brave, or hard of thinking, or 'avin' a larf just for the sake of it.
Good on 'im, or not, (as appropriate)

[ChristopherJ]

White tights and a tutu?


Mmmmmmmm . . . .


Might look alright. Not with a beard though.

[Charlie]

People dress up as chickens, gorillas, pantomime horses etc to do the big city marathons, so why not white tights and a tutu? One guy wore a diver's outfit - brass helmet and lead boots - it took him 3 months to finish the course

They wear out of the ordinary things like that just for the fun of it.

Charlie

[ChristopherJ]

Actually, I've been worrying about my earlier post on this thread all day. I was wrong to post such a flippant comment.

If any bearded guy wants to wear white tights and a mini tutu - then he has a perfect right to do so. Who am I to criticise him?

I don't see wearing items like that as a fetish. My Oxford English Dictionary describes the word 'fetish' as:

n. - inanimate object worshipped by primitive peoples for its supposed inherent magical powers or as being inhabited by a spirit etc.

(Psych.) abnormal stimulus, or object of sexual desire.

Actually, a Haggis might qualify as a fetish under the first part of that definition - but not a bearded guy in tights and a tutu.

[Since1982]

I sure hope that to NOT be considered a fetishist I have to feel bad. I see nothing wrong with wearing whatever flops your mop. If you're enjoying wearing whatever and what you're wearing is not sexually explicit, I can't see how anyone could accuse anyone of being a fetishist. :shake: :bouncy:

[Bob]

I'm sorry, I think the concept of fetish is being minimized. Fetish is real, and for the most part it has nothing to do with what we do here. There really is a community of guys who have a ballet wear fetish. It's not just "because it feels nice" or even "my legs feel sexy." The kind of sexy feeling that women (and many men) get when wearing a skirt and flirting about is NOT a fetish. The only people I know of who wear dancewear on a regular basis are dancers and fetish folks. And dancers (over the age of 5) NEVER wear dancewear outside the studio. Therefore, I presume with 90% certainty that the guy described at the top of this thread was probably doing something like that described in the link below.

Having a fetish is not illegal, of course. So in that sense, it really is "whatever flops your mop." But it is not something I want to be associated with, either as a dancer or as a skirt-loving guy. I don't think it helps the men's skirt movement, or the shortage of men in ballet.

To see what I mean by "fetish", please look at the link below (and other posts on the same forum). WARNING: ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NO PICTURES, THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED IN THIS LINK IS ABSOLUTELY NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY. IT DOES NOT MEET TO THE NORMAL STANDARDS OF DECENCY FOR THIS WEB FORUM. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!
http://f16.parsimony.net/forum26592/messages/3187.htm

[ziggy_encaoua]

But what exactly is a "fetish"?

An object or part of the body which creates a sexual lust

[Departed Member]

An object or part of the body which creates a sexual lust

Mmn, whilst that could indeed be a modern definition by which those wonderful media people would like to see the word 'fetish' described, it's far far too 'narrow'. Another word 'annexed', and 're-invented' by (presumably sex-starved?) quasi-journalists.

[Bob]

fetish (from Miriam Webster)

Main Entry: fe·tish
Variant(s): also fe·tich /'fe-tish also 'fE-/
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Portuguese; French fétiche, from Portuguese feitiço, from feitiço artificial, false, from Latin facticius factitious
1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : PREPOSSESSION c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3 : FIXATION

[AMM]

I'm sorry, I think the concept of fetish is being minimized. Fetish is real, and for the most part it has nothing to do with what we do here. There really is a community of guys who have a ballet wear fetish. ...

The only people I know of who wear dancewear on a regular basis are dancers and fetish folks.
...

I guess I've had a sheltered life -- I've never been exposed to a "ballet fetish", though I guess I should have known there would be one..

The only exposure I can recall having to a man (in real life) wearing a tutu, other than in a ballet, was a picture of a man (on a boat) in Australia, in a National Geographic article which referred to some sort of regular festival when guys deliberately do silly things. I'd also expect to see a few men in tutus in the New York City Hallowe'en parade, though since I haven't gone in 20 years, I couldn't say for sure.

But, let's assume that it's true that 99% of time when a non-dancer adult male wears a tutu, it's because he has a sexual obsession with them, as exemplified by the website Bob referenced.

Doesn't this situation strike anyone as a little odd? As something that needs explaining?

Why aren't there guys who just kind of like it, but don't need to go off the deep end over it? (Or gals, for that matter.)

I mean, there are indeed men who are sexually fixated on women in high heels, but there are more men who just kind of like the look. There are websites for corset fetishists and leather fetishists, but also people who like to wear one or the other without going off the deep end.

Where are the guys who occasionally wear tutus just for the heck of it? I can't help feeling that somewhere under the rockslide of socialization that we all go through, there is a significant number of people who might have liked to wear a tutu occasionally, if they hadn't learned that this was unthinkable. Isn't it a little hard to believe that only 5-year-old girls would by nature feel any attraction to ballet costumes, and never any 5-year-old boys, or 10-year-old girls?

I have to admit, I myself think tutus and other dance costumes are kinda cute. I might even consider trying one on, if I weren't afraid of being permanently branded a pervert if I did.

If my fears are typical (and remember, I'm willing to wear a skirt in public!), then you'd figure that someone would have to be pretty driven to overcome their fears and actually go out and do it.


So, in a sense, the social disapproval ends up making it a fetish activity (if only by driving away the non-fetishists.)

And to the one or two of you who haven't yet written me off as having more than one screw loose, I say:
Maybe it's time to liberate dancewear from the fetishists, in the name of Fashion Freedom.

-- AMM

"Some people see what is there and say, why? I see what is not there and ask, why not?"
(misquoted from somebody or other.)

[Bob]

AMM, the answers to your questions lie in the unspoken dancer's code. We all train or bodies very hard as dancers, with a lot of self-discipline. In order to do that, we must open ourselves, both emotionally and physically, in very vulnerable ways. Ballet clothing is constructed to physically allow this kind of flexibility and openness. But in so many ways, it is very revealing.

To do it mentally, we must feel safe. This happens by having a common code of decency and mutual respect that develops in the studio, in situations where everyone is wearing dance clothing. The flip side of that code is that dance clothing is not appropriate outside the studio. Little kids don't know any better, they will wear anything anywhere. But young dancers who have trained at least a year or two will not feel comfortable wearing dance clothing outside the studio, because that symbolizes a level of personal vulnerability that is simply not appropriate in public.

Then there's also the matter of pedophiles, who obviously see ballet schools as an easy target. For that reason alone, responsible ballet schools forbid the wearing of ballet clothing outside the studio. Regular street clothes must be worn.

The result? Dancers don't wear dance clothing on the streets. They just don't. You only wear dance clothing in the studio or as a costume for a public performance. To break this code is to put yourself at a level of vulnerability that is not appropriate for the public.

As for whether boys or girls like wearing tutus --- certainly many do. But only in the studio or onstage. As for non-dancers who wish to wear tutus --- you can always do it at home. You can also always learn to dance, which is infinitely more rewarding in the long run than just wearing a tutu at home. If you want to wear a leotard and pink tights and a little skirt in the studio while you are working on learning to dance, very few people will stop you (really).

Personally, I find pictures of dance clothing worn by non-dancers to look rather funny; non-dancers don't know how to hold their bodies to make the clothing look good. Unlike streetwear, which is a fashion choice, dance clothing is not. It is something you must earn the right to wear --- at the minimum, by studying dance. There are no shortcuts because if you don't earn the right to wear it, you just look silly. Pointe shoes are earned through 3-4 years of hard preparatory study. A tutu is earned through even more years of hard work.

And as a dancer, I find it a little strange to wear dance clothing at home. I have plenty of opportunity to do so, and I just don't and have no desire to --- although I love the way I look in it in the studio. If I haven't changed out of the leotard and tights by the time I get home, I do so at home.

[Sasquatch]

AMM, the answers to your questions lie in the unspoken dancer's code. We all train or bodies very hard as dancers, with a lot of self-discipline. In order to do that, we must open ourselves, both emotionally and physically, in very vulnerable ways. Ballet clothing is constructed to physically allow this kind of flexibility and openness. But in so many ways, it is very revealing.

Bob,
I can see that you are very sensitive about the perceptions the public may have about dancers as well as male skirt-wearers - hypersensitive, I would even say. But an "unspoken dancer's code"? Really!

I am a former dance student, although I never attained the proficiency to dare call myself a "dancer", having started rather too late in life (college) to develop the skills very well. I took modern with a local troupe and basic ballet in a private studio.

Admittedly, I haven't taken a dance class since 1985, and don't know how things may have changed in the last two decades. But for the few years when I did take, I never encountered anyone in the company who was uptight or especially apprehensive about being in public in whatever garb they wore in the studio. For me, that was usually a T shirt and tights, later on, a uni. Gym shorts in summer. In fact, since the studio was in a loft above a bar and lacked any real changing facility beyond a tiny bathroom, one couldn't help but be in public coming and going.

Perhaps it was fortuitous that the studio closed at nine, before the real drinking hours cranked up, that a small parade of people in tights and/or leotards wasn't an issue. Naturally, the males escorted the female dancers after dark. But for me, it caused no unease to be recognized as a dancer as I pedalled past the bar on my bike after class - usually still in tights, T shirt and Birkis. Would you find that exhibitionistic? Did I violate the "unspoken rule"?

I suppose I got the same feelings from exposure in dancewear that many correspondents on this site have suggested they get from skirting in public - a slight rush of fluster (can fluster be a noun?:think: ) whenever someone noticed me - but nothing to compare with the joy of movement in the studio, or the happiness I felt whenever I finally got a combination to flow.

Anyway, being publically identifiable as a dancer just wasn't an issue for me and never seemed to be for the others I knew.

The result? Dancers don't wear dance clothing on the streets. They just don't. You only wear dance clothing in the studio or as a costume for a public performance. To break this code is to put yourself at a level of vulnerability that is not appropriate for the public.

I wouldn't have dressed in tights to go out to the movies or mall, but it never troubled me to make a stop to pick up something on my way to or from the studio, or to stop off for a visit with a friend from class. Never felt threatened.

As for whether boys or girls like wearing tutus --- certainly many do. But only in the studio or onstage. As for non-dancers who wish to wear tutus --- you can always do it at home. You can also always learn to dance, which is infinitely more rewarding in the long run than just wearing a tutu at home. If you want to wear a leotard and pink tights and a little skirt in the studio while you are working on learning to dance, very few people will stop you (really).

Men would not have worn pink tights or little skirts in the studio way back when I was there - not even the ones who were flaming gay. Guess things have really changed.

Personally, I find pictures of dance clothing worn by non-dancers to look rather funny; non-dancers don't know how to hold their bodies to make the clothing look good. Unlike streetwear, which is a fashion choice, dance clothing is not. It is something you must earn the right to wear --- at the minimum, by studying dance. There are no shortcuts because if you don't earn the right to wear it, you just look silly. Pointe shoes are earned through 3-4 years of hard preparatory study. A tutu is earned through even more years of hard work.

I still have a drawer full of stuff from that era - dancewear and vintage T shirts. I wouldn't mind looking silly in it even now - but I doubt if any of it fits me after 18 years of marriage to a very good cook!

Although I do like the Trocks, I never tried on a tutu or pointe shoes - they don't call me Sasquatch for nothin'!

And as a dancer, I find it a little strange to wear dance clothing at home. I have plenty of opportunity to do so, and I just don't and have no desire to --- although I love the way I look in it in the studio. If I haven't changed out of the leotard and tights by the time I get home, I do so at home.

I do still wear some grungy, ratty old ballet shoes as household slippers! Life is short, Bob, but good. Lighten up, buddy!

Sasq

[Bob]

The ballet schools I know all have rules against coming in and out of the studio without street clothes on top of the dance clothing. I don't know anyone who goes out in public without at least throwing on a skirt and a shirt over the dance clothing. I have never seen any dancer show a leotard line or leotard top in public. I have never seen any dancer go around just wearing tights and a T-shirt, without at least shorts or a skirt on top. Maybe it's different out in the burbs or something.

I have nothing against being publicly identified as a dancer. It's very public.

Like any profession, dance has its set of unspoken rules and operational procedures.

Another issue I didn't mention is that professional dancers are obsessive about how we are pictured in public. This means many things. One is we avoid having photos taken of us, unless we can control the photo. Another is that we are very careful, at a show, not to be seen in costume except on stage. If the audience were to see you in costume off-stage, it diminishes some of the "magic" of the process. The costumes are part of a character that is created to exist only in the carefully controlled setting of the stage, not in real life.