Sexual enhancement in fashion.

I’m sure I’m going to put my foot in it here. So be it.

Sexual enhancement in fashion. Ok — that lead me to say one word — “PURPOSE”. What is the purpose to have sexual enhancement in a garment? Why is the person wearing the garment in the first place? It is NOT to look “nice”, “pretty” or that other heinous word “cute”. Kittens and puppies are “cute”. When one is on the prowl, it not with the intension of looking “cute”.

A wearer of sexually enticing clothing is wanting to look desirable, HOT, enticing and to a certain extent, entertaining.

The wearer does not want to look…. “boring“, “dull”… and heaven forbid, mechanical, or processed, over done… ahem, and dare I say …. Cheap, used, or uninspiring.

With that in mind, I ask… “Who is designing great sexy stuff?”

And I really run up a little dry. Let me tell you why. Perhaps it is age… I’m not exactly twenty so the same design themes that make a person look hot at twenty don’t work when you are closer to… oh, god… eeeeek… I can’t to say it… 50… gulp.

In the past, fashion has had some wonderful designers. Versace was amazing for men’s and women’s wear. He knew how to be provocative. Picking up one of his books like Men Without Ties and Do Not Disturb was like buying pornography at the time. It was very, very overt and sexual. His clothing begged comment. Some would say his men’s wear was too gaudy or too colorful. But it was FUN to wear and very sexy. Yes, you had to have a body to pull of a shirt that had 30 different color put into it.

(Just to give you a reference, a typical newspaper/magazine today is printed with 4 colors. A garment or textile may be printed with 8 to 10 a. But 30?) The shirts were museum quality because of the technical difficult to make them. It is the equivalent of wearing a Hermes silk scarf next to your skin. You FEEL desirable. Fur has that same tactile quality next to skin.

But quality aside, there was a tougue and cheek quality to his clothing. It was sexy but also kind of humorous. He took what can be a very intimidating process of wearing something sexually enticing and made it light. It was not fetish wear. Unlike the latex/ leather wear of of batman and catwoman (which tends to be more costume) his clothing was very decadently over-the-top luxury.

Please take note also, for some sexually enhancing clothing IS costume. The gay culture took this to a new level with the Village People each identifying with sexual icon. Gianni Versace however took sexually enticing clothing to a new level. Wearing Versace was like having a good glass of gin before going out, it took the edge off things and made the wearer at ease. Think Agnes in the film Auntie Mame. “Drink this and you will feel fine.” Wear Versace and you will be great! Sexually enticing clothing should put the wearer at ease not feel over exposed and nakedly vulnerable in public.

So what is “sexy”?

Think of it in this perspective. What is “sexy”? I once worked at a design house and took a poll of everyone in the office. Thank god I didn’t work at a company like IBM. I would have been fired in a NY minute. The most profound response I got was from my boss of all people. Sexy is a feeling. It comes from within. What a person wears is immaterial as it is what gets that person to unwind and discover that sexuality that lies within and makes a person glow, be confident and open up to anther person. Unfortunately for some, that may be drugs as this is a very intimidating process to dress with the intention of getting somewhere. In a word, it can be torn up jeans and a t-shirt (ok… ick on that one for me).

It can also be a sweatshirt (Jennifer Beals in Flashdance) or a Brioni Black Tie like in a James Bond film.

For some, it is more fetish-esque. Some people equate showing more skin as sexy.

I personally think a costume like what Cher wore to the Oscars is without a doubt sexy, but is also the attitude that she brought to the table with it. She came across with an attitude that said “oh…. Am I over dressed for this party?” Which of course makes the viewer burst out laughing. It is disarmingly funny and at the same time draws the viewer in and invites a conversation. What clothing does that now? What clothing designer can make clothing that is both sexually-enticing and funny at the same time? Damn… hell if I know.

And for men too, the problem comes in with many men not wanting to deem as working too hard for it. I ask you…“How many times have you seen a beautifully desirable woman with an arm charm hack with a five day scruff with shirt tails hanging out & jeans at her side? Men have to have confidence to wear sexually enticing clothing of substance. Most American men just don’t possess that je ne sais quoi to pull it off. Most do not want to be viewed or labeled as “gay”. So they don’t try. What rubbish.

Jean Paul Gaultier did some beautifully provocative work for Madonna’s Blond Ambition Tour. Again, perhaps a bit like costume, but then again,…ya have to start the conversation some where… right?

I think perhaps society is bored with sex. It is so easily available at the drop of a hat in many flavors, shapes and sizes. Log on to the internet, and it is everywhere. Like the song goes from the musical Q, “the internet is for porn”. It is in most films and television. I tossed my TV years ago. It is very easy to find fetish wear clothing. And yeah, for some, torn-up jean and a tight t-shirt work. But what if one wants to take it up a notch? Good luck. Calvin Klein and Abercrobie make great underwear and give the promise of sex in their ads. But do they deliver in the clothing? No.

I think Rick Owens is the next great white hope. His work is very sexy and now. He plays with transparency and lengths/proportion that really evoke a freshness. He brings much to the table. Personally, I see his clothing and I think he designs with himself in mind. That’s not bad thing. There are worse roll-models and the man is Hot (with a capital H).

But he is not universal. Then again, neither is Versace and Jean Paul Gaultier. I wish I could find a really good men’s wear designer that would take sexually enhancing garments to that next level. I have yet to find a designer. Versace is dead. Or sexuality is dead? Beaten like a dead horse. Can someone enlighten me? Or am I jaded? OK… don’t answer that.

Valerie Mendes, Amy De La Haye. 20th Century Fashion. Thames & Hudson London/New York 2005

Gianni Versace Do not Disturb. Abbeville Press, NY 1996

Gianni Versace Men Without Ties. Abbeville Press, NY 1994

-->

Richard Martin Gianni Versace. Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY 1998

Sue Jenkyn Jones Fashion Design, 2^nd Ed. Watson-Guptill Publications, NY 2005

Thoughts on Jeans

Jeans - not my favorite subject. When i was a kid, I was 16 before I had a pair... yeah, there is a story behind that and I'll tell it over cocktails someday. Anyway, I remember when the first designer jeans came out. Jordache was the first real brand that hit Michigan with any major impact. I can't remember what they cost but they did look good on some guys... ok, one in particular, but again, I digress. Calvin Klein ads really revved up the the visibility of jeans. In my mind, jeans became more entrenched than any previous time. I think because of the higher price tag (which added to the desirability), and seeing the Vanderbilt name on your ass gave one some kind of credibility. The “I'm in with Gloria V.” cache. The social anarchy of the 60 and early 70's melted away and was replaced with respectiblity.
I know that worn out jeans are kind of the thing. That appeal of having a pair of pants so worn in that they fit like a glove is appealing however...
Ask yourself these simple questions.

When a guy wears a dress shirts get has a dirtly ring around the collar and the armpits get a yellow stain from perspiration, does that make him more sexy?

When a guy's tighty whities get dingy grey from laundering and perhaps get a skid mark or two, and the waist band can't seem to hold them up, does that look make him look more sexually appealing?

If a t-shirt on a guy has an gravy stain or a hole in it, and perhaps the ribbing at the neck is pulled out of shape, does that make you drool with excitement and anticipation?

If a guy wears a suit to a club that is full of holes, is distressed and looks like he just crawled out of a box (that he perhaps calls "home"), does that just make you swoon with desire and yell "TAKE ME NOW! RAVAGE ME!" ?

Somehow, I think not. So why do we make the exception with jeans?
I think the denim industry is very good at selling a concept. Somehow, with the purchase of a pair of $200 (to perhaps, $775) jeans, we too can be rockstars. That a pair of Rock & Republic jeans makes a guy look way too hot for words is, in my mind, absurd.
At their best a pair of jeans can look great if they fit, but soooooo many times I see jeans on men that sag in the ass, expose a crack or worse, show me too much information. I don't dislike them so much as I think they are the Garanimals of the clothing world. Some how guys think they are appropriate for everything. Simultaneously, they think that because the jeans happen to fit around the waist (or what they see as their waist), they must therefore fit. They are so wrong. But again, I digress.
So, here we are looking at jeans. I have covered the history of jeans a couple of times before. OK. 3 times. I could choke. But in my construction and tailoring studies, has anyone ever addressed how to make a pair or what makes them fit. Simple answer. No. So with this frustration in mind, I took a seamripper to a pair of $200 jeans that were left over from a photoshoot. What I found was very interesting with respect to construction. They are so basic, it made me ponder how quickly they could be made. I went looking and this is what I found at www.jeansinfo.org.

• Jeans have about 15 pattern pieces in them.
• The average factory makes 2500 pair of jeans a day.
• A pair of jeans takes about 1.6 meters of fabric.
• It takes roughly 15 minutes to make a pair and roughly 12 steps. From my ripping apart a pair, I guess about 5 of those steps are doing the fly. Also, the fly construction is really simple when compared to a standard pair of dress slacks.
• 150 pair of jeans takes approximately 150 lbs of pumice stone and 750 liters of water to age.
• The fit comes from the yoke, the depth of the crotch (which is shallower than normal trousers) and at times the leg is cut on more of an angle than a standard pair of pants.
• All this aside, one of my next sewing projects will be a pair of jeans.

So again, I ask you. What is the real value of a garment that requires less than 2 yards of distressed cotton and is made with less than 20 minutes of labor?
Finally, where are jeans going? It seems that from a fit standpoint, many designers are trying to transition men into trousers that have the look and feel of jeans. The cut is more fitted and the designs more casual as to accomodate that yoke that is in the back of a pair. Many cities are trying to get away from the ultra-low hung pants and jeans. See the attached article from the NY Times and chart from the Flint, Michigan Police. I hope that is a trend that will go away. I don't think the marketing appeal will be there for jeans to be distressed after this recession is over. I think many folks will be quite happy to not be spending extra for something that is already worn out.
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/the-latest-in-law-enforcement-the-pants-police/?apage=2