Japenese gay men in suits
Garelick describes dandyism as “the artform of commodifying personality. Garelick, a scholar of the mode, argues that the idea of celebrity is rooted in dandyism and that the dandyist sensibility must reemeerge in our celebrity-oriented era. In Rising Star: Dandyism, Gender, and Performance in the Fin de Siécle, Rhonad K. Maurizia Boscagli, in Eye on the Flesh, writes, “The superman wears his muscles as a suit, and the modern male body is a new costume of masculinity, a fashionable yet far reaching style in clothing.” If your face has emotion written on it and your body is a nexus of your pride, then you have become sum of deliberate and expressive parts.īut there is another piece here. The vanity of the physique was evidence of a compensatory hypermasculinity, and male preening was back. At the same time that men’s faces softened, their bodies hardened. Men could be depressed and could talk about it. By the mid-’80s, “healthy” fellows were supposed to cry and to admit fear. As women took over work that had been the province of men and men accepted a participatory role in cooking and child rearing, newly sensitive fellows began to wear facial expressions they had not worn before. This recent revolution in male dress owes a great deal to feminism. What then? Once carefree authenticity is gone, the doors are flung wide open. You cannot spend your life in what you haven’t chosen and aren’t wearing, and if you’ve put on jeans to achieve a look, the look you have is of having achieved a look. “We may now find,” Hollander writes, “the curious spectacle of a man privately at ease fifteen stories above the city street, sipping wine and reading Trollope in a warm room furnished with fragile antiques and Persian rugs, dressed in a costume suitable for roping cattle on the plains of sawing up lumber in the North woods.” Can such a man think that his choice is somehow above fashion? The choices have simply become too manifest. The miner emerging from a mine may still be rather sexy to some people’s way of thinking, and the senator wearing a suit nearly identical to his father’s may still have an old-fashioned look of power, but for the rest of us, whatever we wear is deliberate, and so the inherent sexiness of unconsidered modes of dress has pretty much vanished. This return to style has altered even looks that are intended to be above self-consciousness.
#JAPENESE GAY MEN IN SUITS FREE#
How did we come to the idea that real men shouldn’t wear fancy clothing - which reached its epitome in the 1950s - and how is it that we hve begun to move past that notion with the advent of men’s designer clothes? Anne Hollander, in Sex and Suits, writes, “There are new eyes for the gaudy old devices that once clothed male power before the modern era the look of male sexual potency in the post-modern world is able to float free of those austere visions of masculinity that discredited any richness of fantasy.” Gilles Lipovetsky, the hip French philosopher of fashion, acknowledged a few years ago that “after a long period of exclusion marked by the conservative dark suit, men are ‘back in style.’” Our standards of desire revolved around basics - the James Dean white T-shirt, beat-up jacket, and old Levis, or the well-pressed white shirt smelling starchily of freshness, rep tie, and classic suit (not a “reinterpretation” of the classic suit, but that suit itself). The mainstream view for most of the last century was that there was nothing attractive about evident self-consciousness in a man’s dress.
![japenese gay men in suits japenese gay men in suits](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/65/bc/0765bcfcdfe53ccd353f555d758d5b6c.jpg)
What is the purpose of men’s clothing of style, be that style extravagant or controlled? What rules govern the wearing of men’s clothing? And is the principle that informs the wild runway show of club gear the same as or different from the one that informs impeccable bespoke tailoring? And perhaps most mysteriously, what is it that a dandy adds to his clothing? For Jules Barbey d’Aurevilly, whose nineteenth century treatise on Beau Brummel remains the single most important text on dandyism, wrote to Thomas Carlyle in 1845: “Dandyism is… not a suit of clothes walking about by itself! On the contrary, it is the particular way of wearing these clothes which constitutes dandyism.”
![japenese gay men in suits japenese gay men in suits](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/55/a5/0a/55a50a8c55d0cc5ff0866188e2c9e4fe.jpg)
There are ample questions posed by the two ideas. Others use it to refer to a froideur in which the affect of the subject is subsumed by a devotion to rigorously controlled and almost ascetically elegant appearance. Some use the word as a euphemism for foppish exhibitionism.