 |
|
|
|
|
Fashion Controversy | |||||||||||||||||||
|
See more ridiculous fashion photos archives on the Fashion Events Page. More recent additions to this page are added on top.
Silly and sexy pictures follow. Non-explicit, no nudity, but stop now if you are afraid of seeing some of the gayest outfits you've ever dared imagine. Or if you are afraid of someone walking behind the monitor while you have a truly ridiculous looking pair of men's underwear on the screen, which you will as you scroll further down this page. This page should also even up the score on sexy photos on this site for a while, since I constantly post nearly naked or fully naked female pictures, but hardly ever return the favor for men. Since most of the site readers are male, and most of them are heterosexual, that's probably a good plan in terms of making the customer happy, but today is a day for the ladies, or at least the gay men, to get eye candy. And it's interesting to discuss the stuff anyway. If you get uptight about this, you are a silly little bitch, since women look through thousands of pages of fashion magazines a year, most of which are full of naked or nearly naked women with perfect bodies. Do the women get upset and worry about the pictures making them gay, or accuse the hot models of being dykes? No, of course not. Only insecure and foolish men do that sort of thing. Don't be insecure and foolish; the ladies don't like it.
I don't remember exactly how it all began (my, that sounds like a story) but somehow I ended up spending a couple/few hours Tuesday night talking to Malaya while we both surfed various lingerie sites and looked at funny and sexy and ridiculous outfits. She started it, sending me some funny links to funny male outfits, and then she went on to find sexy stuff she'd like to wear (for me *cough*) and we both looked at dumb pictures. The sites we were searching were more nude and less flashy than the various Wicked Temptations stuff I posted about a couple of weeks ago, though I didn't see anything I found as sexy as the outfit the girl had on in the picture I posted March 9th. Yes, split-crotch body suits and crotchless leather panties and cupless push up bras light my fire, but nothing really compares to tight shiny latex pants and strappy bustiers. This isn't going to be in chronological order, since we were both skipping around from site to site. So I'll just do some of the women's stuff first, and then the male stuff. Which is where the real humor was found. At least in my opinion.
I've commented on it in the past, but as far as I've ever heard from asking women, the really skimpy male underwear, g-strings and thongs and transparent pantie-looking things are just not what they (the women) want. Most women think men are sexier in silk boxers, or long pants, or more dignified garb than the silly nut-hugging stuff. So as far as I can tell, that stuff is almost entirely meant for the gay male market. Which is not to say that every gay male likes it or wants his lover wearing it, but the odds are a lot better he will like it than any random woman will like it. What sort of underwear am I talking about? Well, ridiculous things like these animal thongs, which I actually laughed out loud at.
I asked three women about this and one liked, one disliked, and one was sort of ambivalent about it. I suspect it would depend a lot on the man in them, and if he was all ripped and hung, she'd be a lot more interested than if he were pudgy. Of course that's true for pretty much every item of clothing, when you think about it. After you get a good look at those (and wonder if that means you are gay now) you can check out these tiny panties. And yes, you are gay now. What I wonder is how they get their balls and cocks to look so massive in the pouch? I've never worn those type of underwear (and probably never will, given that Malaya doesn't want to see me in them) but I am, ahem, well-equipped to compare to the models, and I don't think I would look nearly as stuffed into them as they do. I think that the trunks have a pouch that you sort of tuck yourself into, and it thrusts them outwards and upwards, so you look like you are smuggling golf balls.
Speaking of, I don't even know what this is. Besides being far too small. *cough*
The guy on the left is just amazing. I mean the most perfect gay face and body, with this penetrating and yet vacant stare. And the choker suspenders g-string thing. Dear lord. His sugar daddy in the hot pink robe is from some other planet, costumed in something Harvey Firestein would wear backstage just to amuse the media. And the way the model is sort of absently admiring his fingers in perfectly idle and aimless vanity. I can see these two as a couple, or at least older man and one of his pets. The kid demands good coke and trinkets all the time, and he mostly lies around the pool in a g-string, working on his tan and throwing little bitch fits if he doesn't get what he wants the first time he asks for it.
How about this, or these? Transparent harem pants? True, the thong under them makes it look even sillier, but still, that's just god awful. I can not imagine a man alive who would wear that, or for what purpose. I asked two gay guys and they were as repulsed by it as I was, and they were. And yes, I had to put the picture up here so if someone say you surfing this they'd never let you hear the end of it.
This sort of thing, according to my research. Relatively simple things like silk pajamas. Ignore the leopard skin couch he's sitting on, if possible. Or these black PJ pants with robe, which I could actually wear and almost enjoy. I asked Malaya to try and find something weird or deviant that she wanted to see a hypothetical man in *cough* and she looked for quite a while but couldn't find anything she wanted to see in real life. Just the dignified pants and robes and such you see above. Her search further confirms to me that almost all of the "sexy" stuff is for gay men. Not just because most straight men are uptight and wouldn't wear it anyway, but because their women don't want to see them in it anyway.
Anyway, she did admit to having quite a fascination with men in leather, especially leather pants. Here's a shot she sent that she said was spicy. Since I own a pair of semi-shiny lamb-skin leather pants (that I've had for something like 10 years) I'm in luck. And yes, I took a couple of pictures, and yes she liked them, and no, I'm not going to post them, and yes I know I'm a dirty slut. And our preferences in attire for the opposite sex are totally unfair.
I mean hypothetically, of course, that's what deviants and perverts think. I don't have any interest in any of it myself, of course. Or course.
Okay, for some other pictures, here's a big visible boobie.
Why am I posting this semi-pretty model with her boobie exposed, and in such a large size? (I mean besides the obvious reason.) The reason is for the behind the scenes view of things. See that tan rectangle on the inside of her breast? That's the double-sided tape she was using to hold the unzipped top together, while still showing a lotta cleavage. The piece on her left breast is still holding, and knowing where it is you can see how oddly it is keeping the top from opening up all the way. Runway models and celebs use double-sided, flesh-toned tape all the time, sometimes to give themselves extra lift, but usually just to keep their slinky top from sliding completely off of a breast. It's recommended that you not lift up your elbows to show off your "fur is murder" outfit though, since that will put too much strain on your bit-o-tape and something may pop out.
For our last exhibit today, these five pictures have been going around the Internet quite a bit the last couple of weeks. I grabbed them from somewhere back in February, but have kept forgetting to post them here. They were in some news items initially, with the story being that this was the newest fashion craze in Japan. Not transparent dresses, but dresses with paintings on them that looked like the ass beneath. It was supposed to be a kinky way to get attention and freak people out, while not actually showing anything other than some art of a butt with panties. As you might guess, that's bullshit, and these are just fake images someone made, super-imposing the pantie-clad asses over these photos of random women in public.
And that store clerk looking woman on top, in the blue and green dress, looks way too conservatively-dressed to have something like this on her ass. My main question about these fakes is why the faker(s) put such unsexy panties on the girls? Doesn't every man hope that every woman is now wearing a thong? Especially under thin dresses like these, or they would have a very tacky panty line. Perhaps they figured that going with "granny panties" would make it seem more realistic, or make the orange one sexier by comparison? Or that it would be more likely to get media coverage if the pictures weren't too explicit? It would appear that they were correct.
Popular entirely for that little peek of panty, I suspect. I must admit to finding it sexy myself.
And here's the full size poster as presented in Spain. Image is from Spanish Yahoo, hence the caption being in... Spanish. Funny how that works, huh?
How exactly do you get to be a judge for this competition?
May
2, 2002
The look these days (one of them anyway) is for girls (not
women, at least not very often) to wear g-strings with low-rider pants, or
sagging baggy pants, so their underwear pokes out on top, like every fat male
plumber. A few examples of this can be seen here
and here.
I remember when that was first a look, in like 1987, I'd see wanna-be ghetto black guys (there was nothing approaching a ghetto in Tierrasanta) in my high school wearing that, and we'd (me and my friends) just laugh and giggle at how gay and stupid it was. Fast forward 5 years and by the mid-90's it was becoming sort of popular, and then 5 years later every pudgy white 16 y/o was wearing that, with their dog chain wallet in their baggy pants. Black guys had by then moved on to baggy parachute pants with one leg rolled up to the knee, with way too expensive basketball shoes on. It's so nice to not be a teenager, so you can look back at the stupid stuff you wore, and what kids wear these days and just laugh and be glad you're not still so insecure and caught up in whatever the current fashion victim trend is. I can remember just begging my parents to waste money on whatever type of t-shirt the cool kids were wearing when I was in junior high, obsessed with the thought that I wouldn't be cool, and others would pick me out. Of course I never had any idea what my friends were wearing, and paid it zero attention, and no one would have cared if I'd come to school in anything more than a burlap sack, but try getting a 13 y/o to understand reality to that extent. Hah. Anyway, so is the g-string poking out look sexy? Obviously someone must think so, and girls are even more obsessed with appearance and trend chasing than boys are, so if Britney wears it, and they see it on the news, then they figure they have to wear it. Plus it pisses off their parents (since it looks idiotic and slutty) which is of course a huge motivation to wear it. As the highwater underwear boys can attest. Oddly, I wrote the rest of this last night, and then today checking the most popular stories on Yahoo, and saw this one.
Probably some ex-nun with hips the width of a barn door, angry about sexy little tarts flipping their skirts and showing some skin. There's more detail about it in an article here. As most every guy over 25 says, "Where the hell were g-strings when I was in high school?" I still clearly remember a young woman in a Philosophy class I had in college. Long long before anyone thought of g-strings and low pants. She used to wear a leotard every day, with a g-string back. Over that she wore usually jeans and a denim jacked, or a t-shirt. But the legs of her spandex were cut so high that there was usually a slice of skin visible above her jeans and below the leotard. I found that just indescribably sexy, and a glance at it would set my brain to bubbling to where nothing the instructor said about Kant or Hegel made even a dent. Which might explain my dropping that class eventually, despite the incentive of her barely-visible hips. Tragically I had a semi-GF at the time, and felt like since I was dating, I shouldn't talk to another woman. So I didn't. Fortunately I've moved well beyond that point now, and no longer consider talking to any women, for any reason. Too much trouble; easier to just be alone. Don't have to shave or clean up the apt either. There was a picture in a Newsweek article about teen sex or dating (or whatever), probably 2 or 3 years ago, and I still clearly remember one shot, which was a close up from the side, with a guy and girl embracing, and the guy had his fingers gripping under the girls' high side string of her panties, above the side of her pants. I found that really sexy and appealing. So I like visible panty strings on the sides, but not in back? I dunno, I can't explain it. This is all just an excuse to talk about girl's underwear anyway. Same as the rest of the internet.
The teacher of the infamous panty-checks has been doing local media here (not that I'd know, I never watch the local San Diego news, and saw the news on UK Yahoo, oddly enough) and tearfully defending her actions on checking the underwear. Her excuse is that the little sluts are freaking and dry humping for 2 hours in a dark gym at the dance, and if she can't stop them from publicly simulating intercourse, she wanted to at least keep their firm young buttocks from being so well-displayed when they lifted their skirts up in the back and ground their moist, naughty bits into the upper thigh of their boyfriend. Who could see it in the dark gym is unclear, and what the difference between teen age girls showing off their asses with french-cut bikini panties or thongs isn't real clear though. But that was her motivation, anyway. None of which really matters, since no one thought she was a pervert. By all accounts she was a real bear for the rules, but very caring and involved in the student's lives. She just showed unacceptably poor judgment in this instance, and it's ended her career, at least in this area. There's no way she can do her job with the notoriety she's gotten from the media coverage of this, at least not in the San Diego area.
Abercrombie and Fitch now selling training-thongs, for girls age 10-16, and they're small enough to fit even younger girls. Parents are pissed. The article has a picture. No, just of the thong, not it being worn. You sick puppy. I don't see the point in saying the size of them would fit different ages; there are grown women who have hips the size of a 9 y/o, and 10 y/o's with hips larger than most grown women. I see girls around 13 every day at work who are nearly as tall as I am, and probably wearing thongs, which are apparently all the rage now. Damn I wish I were 16. And sexually active. Hell, I'd settle for either one, at this point. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Express your lusting disgust. |
|
All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007. |
ashions
for women change perpetually, and at least for the last 10 or 20 years, seem to
be steadily moving towards "slut on wheels". Whether or not you
disapprove of this depends largely (but not entirely) on whether or not you
possess a penis. I've written about changing fashions and issues some
people have with them several times.
