The pleasure of keeping clothes on

[Mistress Rey]

 Remember the first time you were naked with someone? How exhilarating it was to finally pass that threshold, how painfully self aware it felt to have all of you exposed in front of someone, how erotic it was when your senses were intoxicated by their scent and feel of skin. Contemporary American culture has done away mostly with the taboo of nakedness, nudity is thrown in our faces every day, from the way we dress, to how promiscuous our culture has become, internet pornography, to our collective images in media. (I am not saying this is good or bad, merely an observation.) It's a long way from nearly a century ago when table cloths were necessary to cover piano or table legs because they would otherwise compromise someone's otherwise "moral" mind. A time where it was improper for the legs of anything, inanimate object or person, to show. Where women undressed in the dark, shaded their lamps, wore hooded bonnets and rode in closed carriages. (Sounds claustrophobic to me.) 

 

 Victorian rebels had interesting, miniature gestures of combatting this. It was all in the little coded details, that others who understood what they meant could learn something about their sexual freedom. They would pierce their nipples and other parts of their body, and wear silk petticoats, which rustled seductively when up close. So sensual appeal came through preparations which were hidden by clothing. A Victorian symbol of sexual freedom was an invisible one. What would a man imagine when he heard that rustling of petticoat? It would have probably driven him wild with desire.

 

 It all sounds so absurd, but that stifling, heavy clothing of the Victorian era was a response to a new era of secularism, where meaning in daily life didn't revolve around the King of a feudalist age or around God. Before mass production, clothes were handmade, and people had few unless you were wealthy. They were an indication of class rather than emotions or personality. It's hard to imagine a world where clothes were not signifiers of individual personality, because today clothing expresses so much of who we want to be in public. A dress in 1750 was not a matter of what you feel, it was a marking of where you stood in society. A dress in 1890, could express your inner self; make you feel chaste, or sexy. So that Victorian prudery was a backlash against the new concept that you can decipher meaning and personal traits from clothing. So they covered up, laced themselves tightly, veiled their faces even, to hide their inner selves in public in a society that valued sexual chasteness. There was a strong division between public life and private life that didn't exist before and to transgress that boundary was quite serious, even if you were married. 

 

In another thread, Beardlessbard brought up how taboo intensifies crossing boundaries. Imagine how intensely erotic it must have been to even see someone's inner wrist, their ankle, their bare neck. Nudity became hyper fetishized in this context, it was more than to be simply undressed. It was about being allowed into someone's life, about trusting someone with their reputation in a strictly chaste society, about granting permission to an intimacy that few would ever have access to.

 

  The danger of rejection or shame to one's reputation, the barriers of outer garments, finally shed, the sharp, ecstatic relief once accepted. We've come a long way sexually in some ways, but it's always interesting to look back at history and see what was forgotten and could be appropriated to our benefit today. The fun of that is that we are self aware when we engage, and can still benefit from the emotional thrill.  The privilege of intimacy is something we can take from the Victorians and make into a game of permission. The more value placed on it, the more the seeker savors it once he or she finally gets it. The more present we are as we peel the layers of clothing away, revealing gifts of intimacy one after the other. A heel slipped off, a lacy stocking peels away, a sweater comes off, a bra unclasped. Parts are exposed slowly and with much effort, making it that much more rewarding to behold and worship. 

 

 Wouldn't that be a fun worshipping game?!

[BeardlessBard]

Mistress Rey,

 

I must say, it is a simply enlightening experience whenever I read once of your posts. I spend much of my time grading essays, and your writing is a refreshing break from it all. You certainly compose better paragraphs than my students (but frankly, that isn't surprising). I scheduled an appointment on the second weekend of July, and I'm tempted to switch one of the mistresses out for you, simply because I feel like the discourse would be elating.

 

Regardless, this is a lovely analysis of the links between fashion and taboo. I actually just finished teaching a unit on the Middle Ages, and clothing and religion were two elements that we frequently discussed in class. Don't let the garb of the time fool you, text certainly suggest that even such sheltered and conservative cultures had their raunchy sides. Chaucer does a lovely job of giving some subtler views of society at the time. I wish I could comment more on the Victorian era but my specialty is Postmodernism in American Culture, and our society had already begun its downward descent into the debauchery that we all enjoy today.

 

It is clear that you know quite a bit about this topic. While it seems expected, I had no idea that their idea of being risque was so subtle. It is amusing to think that they displayed their more primal urges via undergarments or piercing, things that couldn't be seen. They were clearly more symbolic in their rebellion their contemporary counterparts. The very concept of the meekest flash of flesh, such as a wrist or ankle being considered sultry is nearly unimaginable. They are just nonsexual objects at this point, but years ago, it could stir any man I suppose. Of course, we can still find examples of this behavior all over the world. Indeed, even communities in our own country (though they may not be mainstream) still hold this moral view point. Maybe we can pay a visit to an Amish community and see what their idea of being indecent might be. Maybe they flirt by coloring coding their socks.

 

I personally still find the idea of being nude with someone to be an embarrassing, and intimate experience, whether it is the first time or millionth time. It has nothing to do with shame, but something about the inherit nature of being so exposed.

 

That begs the question though, considering that counter culture is always finding a way to rebel against the status quo, what is the next step? The beatnick era started us on a path to the modern era, and now sexuality is something so blatant and boisterous that it is hard to avoid. How does it keep pushing the envelope? Entire styles of life that were once considered taboo are now quite common place and easily accepted in our society. Do we somehow continue to one up it? If so how? Or do we take a step back and reevaluate? Counter the extreme with regression and fight back by returning to a simpler time?

 

Your game does have some lovely creative and historical aspects to it! Perhaps it is something to test out. Does the slow teasing and taunting amplify the desire or simply frustrate? Either result can be desirable depending on the mood. 

[jonnycupcakes]

Mistress Rey,

 

Thank you for sharing this intuitive and highly intelligent. post. There is a great deal of truth in what you say. I once read a book entitled "The Tyranny of Beauty" and a part of it dealt with the breaking of Victorian taboo. That which is carefully hidden possesses the power to excite the imagination.  When an ankle or a glimpse of thigh is artfully revealed , the effect produces a magnification or perhaps even a revelation in the mind. One feels oneself being slowly drawn into the whole, much in the same way as one becomes absorbed in a fascinating book or movie. Whether subtly hinted at or boldly exposed, it is all intrinsic to the feminine art of beauty.

[Mistress Rey]

Beardlessbard:

 

Im delighted that my historical musings piqued your interest. It would be lovely to talk about in depth in person, especially about postmodernism as there are so may interesting concepts that have come out of that era. We are still somewhat in that time...aren't we? Thank you for the compliment on my writing, may I ask what grade your students are in? Many professors notice that students are no good at writing- I don't know how that happened when communication is one of the most important skills you can have. 

 

I would love to know how Amish deal with their repressed sexuality. As far as I know, none have ever made it to the Fortress. Ha. I guess they would have to have permanently left the community for that. Anyway, sexuality is such a strong part of human nature, no matter how conservative a society may be, from Medieval period, Victorian or Amish country, it finds it's way of expressing itself. 

 

 We are more sexually open but we most certainly are not liberated, not at all. But once we've reached the height of sexual progression, I imagine a world that is more respectful and open to different sexual preferences, accepting of the gender spectrum, fetishes are seen as normal. A world without shame and judgement.

[Mistress Rey]

Mistress Rey,

 

Thank you for sharing this intuitive and highly intelligent. post. There is a great deal of truth in what you say. I once read a book entitled "The Tyranny of Beauty" and a part of it dealt with the breaking of Victorian taboo. That which is carefully hidden possesses the power to excite the imagination.  When an ankle or a glimpse of thigh is artfully revealed , the effect produces a magnification or perhaps even a revelation in the mind. One feels oneself being slowly drawn into the whole, much in the same way as one becomes absorbed in a fascinating book or movie. Whether subtly hinted at or boldly exposed, it is all intrinsic to the feminine art of beauty.

 

Exactly, "one feels oneself being slowly drawn into the whole, much in the same way as one becomes absorbed in a fascinating book or movie."

The Magnification effect would be a great coined term to describe it.

It's giving time to acknowledge every part of the greater whole as to appreciate it fully.

 

I am interested in reading that book now! 

[BeardlessBard]

Beardlessbard:

 

Im delighted that my historical musings piqued your interest. It would be lovely to talk about in depth in person, especially about postmodernism as there are so may interesting concepts that have come out of that era. We are still somewhat in that time...aren't we? Thank you for the compliment on my writing, may I ask what grade your students are in? Many professors notice that students are no good at writing- I don't know how that happened when communication is one of the most important skills you can have. 

 

I would love to know how Amish deal with their repressed sexuality. As far as I know, none have ever made it to the Fortress. Ha. I guess they would have to have permanently left the community for that. Anyway, sexuality is such a strong part of human nature, no matter how conservative a society may be, from Medieval period, Victorian or Amish country, it finds it's way of expressing itself. 

 

 We are more sexually open but we most certainly are not liberated, not at all. But once we've reached the height of sexual progression, I imagine a world that is more respectful and open to different sexual preferences, accepting of the gender spectrum, fetishes are seen as normal. A world without shame and judgement.

I suppose postmodernism never truly ended, but as many of the primary themes of the movement are still prevalent within our society. Some might argue that postmodernism is dead (Really the whole thing is absurd in general, how can something come after modern, if modern is the current time? Why not call it futurism? Then again, the play of words here is something they probably intentionally toyed with). I've heard terms like "metamodernism" and "pseudorealism," given our society's love for fake reality and bubble gum pop culture. George Saunders work comes to mind as far as literature, but given his affinity for Vonnegut, it is difficult not to simply label him as another postmodernist. David Foster Wallace is probably a better example, but I haven't had the chance, and frankly the desire, to read Infinite Jest. Despite that, I've always wondered if people living during a specific "era" or "movement" realize they are in fact a part of a cultural shift, or is it more of a retrospective thing? Did the Victorians call themselves Victorians or was that a term ascribed to them later? Are we currently in a movement that has yet to be labeled?

 

I'll say that I teach middle school and leave it at that. It should explain why the essays that I critique aren't exactly filled with academic rigor. It is depressing to say that I don't generally get to explore my literary period of choice very often, if at all. I believe that I have had a single student even recognize the term.

 

I am shocked that no Amish have ever visited the Fortress! Maybe we should make fund a research project on the topic. Maybe write a peer-reviewed journal entry on the sexuality of their society. I'm not exactly sure who would want to review it to be fair. I didn't mean to suggest that our society is tolerant of all sexuality, but rather far more open than it once stood. This past weekend is a stark reminder that we have a long way to go. The society you described seems like a natural progression, but it is a journey that will be arduous. There is still much that bars us from living in a world without judgement, and without getting too political or philosophical, it mostly revolves around ideologies and ignorance from both sides.

[ConsentOptional]

I'm stunned.  Whatever it is that deer say when they are locked on the headlights, I'm saying it.  We don't typically read a bdsm blog expecting the fruits of a well-honed intellect.  Not meant as an insult, just not the general direction of things.  Absolutely disarming.  Dangerous.

[Mistress Rey]

I suppose postmodernism never truly ended, but as many of the primary themes of the movement are still prevalent within our society. Some might argue that postmodernism is dead (Really the whole thing is absurd in general, how can something come after modern, if modern is the current time? Why not call it futurism? Then again, the play of words here is something they probably intentionally toyed with). I've heard terms like "metamodernism" and "pseudorealism," given our society's love for fake reality and bubble gum pop culture. George Saunders work comes to mind as far as literature, but given his affinity for Vonnegut, it is difficult not to simply label him as another postmodernist. David Foster Wallace is probably a better example, but I haven't had the chance, and frankly the desire, to read Infinite Jest. Despite that, I've always wondered if people living during a specific "era" or "movement" realize they are in fact a part of a cultural shift, or is it more of a retrospective thing? Did the Victorians call themselves Victorians or was that a term ascribed to them later? Are we currently in a movement that has yet to be labeled?

 

I'll say that I teach middle school and leave it at that. It should explain why the essays that I critique aren't exactly filled with academic rigor. It is depressing to say that I don't generally get to explore my literary period of choice very often, if at all. I believe that I have had a single student even recognize the term.

 

I am shocked that no Amish have ever visited the Fortress! Maybe we should make fund a research project on the topic. Maybe write a peer-reviewed journal entry on the sexuality of their society. I'm not exactly sure who would want to review it to be fair. I didn't mean to suggest that our society is tolerant of all sexuality, but rather far more open than it once stood. This past weekend is a stark reminder that we have a long way to go. The society you described seems like a natural progression, but it is a journey that will be arduous. There is still much that bars us from living in a world without judgement, and without getting too political or philosophical, it mostly revolves around ideologies and ignorance from both sides.

 

"How can something come after modern, if modern is the current time? Why not call it futurism? Do people living during a specific time realize they are a part of a cultural shift, or is it more of a retrospective thing? Are we in a movement that has yet to be labelled?"

 

 The word modernity is used too liberally to describe current times, and the words modernity and post modern feel confusing until you take a closer look at what they really mean. We still live in the age of modernity, but post modernity is a word to describe the period of time (after the World Wars) when we realized the projects of social change put into motion by modernity were not sustainable. There has yet to be a seismic cultural shift from the age of modernity, so we are still functioning on ideals that we know are dysfunctional, but we have yet to move into a new way of functioning and thinking. 

 

Modernity shaped our culture by introducing individualism, secularism, capitalism, and 'universal truth' to us. Think of the Italian Futurist Manifesto defining the Fascist era in the 1930s (end of traditions and religion), the Bauhaus ideal of streamlined capitalist skyscrapers that homogenized global cities around the world (universal ideals applied everywhere despite cultural difference), cult of celebrity and fame with icons like Andy Warhol, Madonna or Michael Jackson (cult of personality/individualism). Modernity was embraced with incredible fervor and optimism, systemically reversing old values like they were the plague. Novelty became the chief emblem of positive value. No matter if it's good or bad, it's just new.

 

  I think the downfall of modernity was that it's sense of intellectual independence was capitalized upon. There's this pressure by capitalism to generate new ideas constantly, and it's affected every industry negatively, because it's no longer innovation when it doesn't serve a genuine purpose to improve society. Rather, "innovation" has become a concept to drive capitalism, and  do we over consume! We consume products, things, and ideas tirelessly and greedily, and now we've reached innovation fatigue because it was for the wrong reasons. Our avant garde has exhausted it's task. This is where postmodernism comes in. I think post modernism basically means, acknowledging that modernity was not sustainable, but still functioning within it. We are finding it harder and harder to believe in another stylistic breakthrough, and we find ourselves constantly looking back at the decades before for inspiration. Collective thought was so focused on rejecting tradition, (every movement is a rebellion of sorts), they forgot to replace it with a new ideas of how we should live. We are experiencing "enantiodromia", a principle introduced by Carl Jung, which explains that the superabundance of any force produces its opposite. We have been obsessed with the super force of the new, that overturning conventions has become conventional in itself.

 

German psychoanalyst Eric Fromm analyzed how our modern capitalist society failed us psychologically in his book, The Sane Society, (1955). He thinks that the basic human needs of belonging, self fulfillment, a sense of identity and purpose are not being met by a society that revolves around commercialism, secularism, and individuality. It's a really interesting analysis, although written almost sixty years ago, is still quite relevant and I would recommend reading. 

 

Moving forward, I think once we wake up from our crazed modern hang over, we will take time to contemplate on how to live more sustainably, sustainable for our mental wellbeing and the environment. I think sustainable is a good word to describe a new era, the new ideal "utopia" beyond the age of modernity. We will realize that tradition is not something to fear, that we have to create progressive ones with good intentions. Individuality and freedom are great achievements of modern culture and provided us with so many beautiful ideas, but we learned that absolute freedom for each individual leads to social alienation, which isn't healthy for the nature of human beings. We will have to find the perfect balance between individuality and tradition, and a sustainable way to live. I really can't imagine what that world could look like, could you?

[OddOne]

I completely agree it always amazes me how different fetishes and other such interests are from history. In some time periods believe it or not chubby women were favored over skinny women this was because in mideval times the rich were often provided more then the poor so chubbiness was a sign of wealth. Over the centurie there became a sort of pattern that developed the popularity would fluctuate from skinny to plumb over the generations what happened though with the invention of modern modeling is that people became use to skinny women an the fluctuating stopped. I learned this from my Psychology Class in College.

 

I also find it interesting how they make jokes about the ankle thing in movies when really it's entirely understandable men did not know what a woman's body looked like. It causes their minds to wander that's how some fetishes start. Ironically the word fetish originally mean something like a idol or talisman of power. At least I think. I read it as definition online so its probably not very reliable truly amazing the history that can surround something.

 

When you think about it clothing isn't natural it's a conditioned state of mind.

[questionmarks]

What a brilliant little essay, Mistress Rey, thank you for sharing this.

 

So much of our identities and personalities—things that feel as solid and necessary as the air we breathe—is contingent on fleeting factors beyond our control. Often enough fashions and norms change without us knowing, and our tastes, and even our identities, chance accordingly without much notice. Clearly it's possible to find ways to rebel. (I never knew there were Victorians with nipple piercings!) And clearly some people, like you, can cultivate a wider view and train themselves to observe contingencies and changes as they arise and fall. Yet I wonder how much freedom from this kind of contingency is possible...

 

Existentialists have worried about this problem for a while, but the way your essay resolves into sensuality and play gives me a different thought. Rather than can we be free I want to ask whether it even matters whether we can be free. I really love the playfulness and creativity of your view. You show how the limitations and restrictions of the past can be transformed into possibilities for the present. I love that you assert both that we've come a long way and that old ways can benefit us now. Some people might see these as contrasting ideas, but in your hands they complement and deepen each other. 

 

I'm reminded somewhat of the Epicureans. We use that word as a stand-in for hedonism, and we think of hedonism as little more than gluttony, but the Epicureans—and you—prove how profound hedonism can be. Gluttony dulls the senses; in the right hands, the pursuit of pleasure heightens and sensitizes them. In the end your musings take us to the idea for a game, a fun and pleasurable game... and it's a game that both relies on and leads to a profound feeling, sensitivity, insight... the privilege of intimacy.

 

Who cares about freedom when we can have that?

[Mistress Rey]

What a brilliant little essay, Mistress Rey, thank you for sharing this.

 

So much of our identities and personalities—things that feel as solid and necessary as the air we breathe—is contingent on fleeting factors beyond our control. Often enough fashions and norms change without us knowing, and our tastes, and even our identities, chance accordingly without much notice. Clearly it's possible to find ways to rebel. (I never knew there were Victorians with nipple piercings!) And clearly some people, like you, can cultivate a wider view and train themselves to observe contingencies and changes as they arise and fall. Yet I wonder how much freedom from this kind of contingency is possible...

 

Existentialists have worried about this problem for a while, but the way your essay resolves into sensuality and play gives me a different thought. Rather than can we be free I want to ask whether it even matters whether we can be free. I really love the playfulness and creativity of your view. You show how the limitations and restrictions of the past can be transformed into possibilities for the present. I love that you assert both that we've come a long way and that old ways can benefit us now. Some people might see these as contrasting ideas, but in your hands they complement and deepen each other. 

 

I'm reminded somewhat of the Epicureans. We use that word as a stand-in for hedonism, and we think of hedonism as little more than gluttony, but the Epicureans—and you—prove how profound hedonism can be. Gluttony dulls the senses; in the right hands, the pursuit of pleasure heightens and sensitizes them. In the end your musings take us to the idea for a game, a fun and pleasurable game... and it's a game that both relies on and leads to a profound feeling, sensitivity, insight... the privilege of intimacy.

 

Who cares about freedom when we can have that?

 

 I love your response to this so much. Especially this line, " Gluttony dulls the senses; in the right hands, the pursuit of pleasure heightens and sensitizes them." You totally get that restraint can maximize pleasure. 

[Mistress Rey]

So what do you think? Would fetishes exist without taboo?

[Dannyboy]

So what do you think? Would fetishes exist without taboo?

Dear Ms. Rey:

 

I understand that a fetish is an attachment to something non-sexual for sexual gratification.  I understand a sexual taboo to be something prohibited by society, custom or religion. So I believe that fetishes exist independent of taboos.  i also believe sexual taboos do not necessarily involve fetishes.

 

Just imagine a society without religious strictures and also sexually nonjudgemental.  Anthropologically there would still be definitions of normal or usual sexual activities and the existence of fetishes would be recognized as types of sexual behaviors without any taboos being attached to those behaviors.

 

Dannyboy

[wild willie]

Mistress first I would like to say great thread. I am not sure if fetish would  evolve with out taboo. The  only example I can offer is the following......At 12 I was punished in front of my older sisters friend. Banished to my room I got very hard. I guess my intro to humiliation and pain as one. I was powerless as to releve myself......IT was taboo in a Methodist house hold. Making me want all the more. So I just kept screwing up........The love of  pain i a humileated form, just grew. was I shocked when I choose to react. I played with myself mom caught me...........She Ignored it..........What a gift my journey began

[ConsentOptional]

So what do you think? Would fetishes exist without taboo?

Probably so.  I had fetishized bondage well before I started to care about social norms.  I can remember first tying myself up around 6 or 7.  Not "slut bondage".  But just endeavoring to make myself helpless with belts.