Clothes: Strange Symbols of Freedom, by Gillian

I simply do not like
baseball caps. Maybe it’s no more than the fact that I grew up in a land
without them; maybe it’s simply that they are, to me, and I apologize to the
many of you, including my beautiful Betsy, who wear the things, the least
flattering of headgear – though I can think of some very close seconds, like
the British flat cap, or those German and Russian military caps of WW11 with
the exaggeratedly high fronts. But really, baseball caps are everywhere. If
some variety of hat had to go viral ….. no, that’s the wrong term: I
occasionally become over-excited by modern idiom! … had to become universal,
why not, say, the cowboy hat? Most people are enhanced by a jaunty Stetson. Or
a variation on one of many military caps such as the Aussie Slouch or the U.S.
army cap with that sexy curved bill? No! The entire world, or the greatest part
of it, had to go for the baseball cap, or, even worse, its offspring the
trucker hat with that flat bill, high foam front panel, and adjustable mesh in
the back. Those are the ones I really dislike; mostly worn by Bubba and
guaranteed to make the most modest, most harmless, of men, look like a
rapist/mugger and a woman (why would a woman wear one? But they do!)
resemble an escapee from the nearest Dickensian madhouse. 
O.K. So the world is,
for whatever incomprehensible reason, obsessed with variations of the American
baseball cap. But why do they proudly wear them complete with American logo;
almost invariably a sports team. Young Russians, Brits, Australians, now even
Chinese, strut their stuff under caps proudly proclaiming Red Sox or White Sox
or New Orleans Saints, most often accompanied by a t-shirt emblazoned with
Notre Dame or S.M.U. If you must adopt American clothes, why not, at least,
proclaim the Tchaikovsky Moscow State Conservatory, or the
Tsinghua University of Beijing?
I suppose, when it
comes down to it, it’s all about marketing; the U.S probably takes Best of
Breed. But I do get angry when people in other countries sigh, shake their
heads, and regret ‘the Americanization of everything,’ placing the blame firmly
on the doorstep of the United States.
I hold our country
responsible for many things of which I am not proud, but, please! We don’t
force anyone to wear these clothes any more than we forced the world to install
over 33,000 McDonalds, and frequently in the most inappropriate places. No, we
did not invade Poland and force them to put a McDonalds in a historic medieval
vault in Krakow, or Russia to impose what claimed to be, at the time I visited
it, anyway, the most exotic McDonalds in the world. It’s in the St. Petersburg
railway station in a cavernous space with polished marble floors, exquisite
woodwork, and beautiful chandeliers hanging from a high, arched, beamed,
ceiling.
People tut-tut over the
amount of ‘American rubbish’ on T.V. across the world, but we don’t hold a gun
to the BBC producer’s head, and most certainly not to the head of Russian-controlled
TV.  Yet, in the early 1990’s when I was
there, they were glued to already outdated productions of ‘Dallas’ and ‘The
Young and the Restless,’ and ‘Dynasty.’ Gazing obsessively at the imaginary
American way of life, or at least one experienced by very few of us, they
proudly wore their New York Jets ball caps and their University of Michigan
tees. I suppose it was all part of the dream. Free at last, they could be
anything: anybody.
One universality which
puzzles me is the world-wide use of the word fuck. You see it scrawled
on walls everywhere, or at least in every country I have been in, and hear it
used by people who, apparently, speak not one more word of English. You hear an
endless stream of conversation in another language, and it is almost invariably
punctuated with the only words you can understand; an occasional fuck or
fucking. Why in the world this particular word has become so
wide-spread, I haven’t a clue though probably some linguist somewhere is, even
as I write this, doing his or her Ph.D. on this very subject.
Yeah, yeah, call me old
fashioned. but I do have a certain yearning for the days when clothes told a
story. (And of course, come to that, when the F word was not so
prevalent!) “Clothes and manners do not make the man,” said Henry Ward Beecher.
But clothes did make the man, at least in the eye of the beholder. Days gone
by, you could tell your bank manager from your milkman from your doctor by his
clothes. In that sense, they did indeed make the man. I don’t mean only when he
was at work, but when he was not. Now, if your plumber, financial advisor, and
grocery clerk walk their dog in the park, they probably all wear blue jeans
with tees proclaiming Rice University and ball caps bearing the Florida Gators’
logo.
Perhaps, I muse, if we
all dress alike we will find it harder to go to war against each other, though
I confess I have seen little evidence of this so far. And I do regret the
individuality.
When I was in school we
used to watch, once in a while as a special treat in geography class, an old
grainy jerky black and white film released from an 18″ diameter reel. It
showed workers collecting rubber in Brazil, or farming pineapples in Hawaii, or
cutting sugar cane in Jamaica. They dressed very differently depending on their
country. If we see a cable documentary about such activities today, chances are
the majority will be sporting Cardinals or Dodgers caps and Harvard or M.I.T. tee-shirts.
I have to hand it to
the countries of the Islamic world. They are almost alone in refusing to change
their traditional dress, for which I admire them. On the other hand, I abhor
the way women are, for the most part, treated, and forced to dress. I find
myself wishing and hoping that somehow some of these women are concealing a
Baltimore Colts cap and bright orange Denver Broncos tee-shirt beneath the
burqa – well, it would be a beginning, a tiny hint of freedom, wouldn’t it? –
but somehow cannot imagine it.
You know what?
In writing this, I have
talked myself round! Maybe the universal Atlanta Braves cap and Ann Arbor tee
is not so bad. We can all, in many countries and in these times, dress more or
less however we please, and after all, knowing a person’s social status by the
clothes they wear is in fact nothing desirable or positive at all. And being
able to identify a person’s nationality in the same manner means little
individual choice is available. So, now I think it all through, baseball caps
don’t look so bad after all. If they cover the world it is because individuals
have chosen them. I fear I shall never be able to find them aesthetically
appealing, but perhaps they can be, to me, a rather unattractive symbol of
freedom.
Afterthought
Reading through this I
was overcome by the most horrific of visions!
What if the universal
love for ball caps and that tiresome F word had collided? The world
would be covered in caps saying, simply, and with great lack of originality, FUCK.
© September 2014  
About the Author 
I
was born and raised in England. After graduation from college there, I moved to
the U.S. and, having discovered Colorado, never left. I have lived in the
Denver-Boulder area since 1965, working for 30 years at IBM. I married, raised
four stepchildren, then got divorced after finally, in my forties, accepting
myself as a lesbian. I have now been with my wonderful partner Betsy for 25
years.

Clothes by Lewis

[I would like to begin by looking back at what happened last week with the topic being “The Person I Fall in Love with Should Be…”. As we were leaving, I was feeling disheartened for two reasons: 1) I realized that the topic I had been responsible for was not inclusive of those in the group who are in a committed relationship. It essentially left them with almost nothing to say. I apologize for that and will not allow that to happen again. 2) One of our participants made it very clear that they were not at all happy with the word “should” and made quite a point of saying that “should” is a word that should never be used as part of a topic. I wonder if we want to engage in such disparagement of a topic, especially if, as was the case last week, the originator of that topic is present.

One more comment: We have been very clear that no one is required to write on the “topic of the week”. However, I think that it is conducive to the creative process to make those deviations the exception, rather than the rule. Hearing diverse perspectives on the same topic is what makes for a stimulating hour-and-a-half and also forces us to channel our creative forces in constructive ways. ‘Nuff said about process.]

Clothes are worn for many purposes: style, status, and modesty for three. I’m going to talk about a fourth: body image. People tend to model what they think is going to “surprise and delight” the casual observer or, perhaps, significant other. Popular opinion has a way of letting someone know when they have stepped over the line of decorum and/or vogue. As a repressed exhibitionist with an eroticized libido, I have been an avid follower of these taboos for most of my life. There exists in modern American society a very distinct double-standard when it comes to the line between dress that titillates and that which commits sensory trespass.

I would like to share with you a letter written to Annie’s Mailbox advice column that was published in the Denver Post on June 29, 2003, along with the response from the columnists, Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, —

[Read letter from photocopy.]

The key to understanding the present state of our society is in the first paragraph of the response:

“Most 14-year-old boys would not be willing to put up with the teasing that Jonah is getting from his peers. Stylish or not, they would stop wearing the swimsuits. Either Jonah has tremendous self-assurance or he is enjoying these bikinis on an entirely different level.”

I have to wonder–what level would that be? The same level upon which girls of that age might enjoy wearing a bikini? I don’t think that is what is meant at all. As the responders also write, “Bikinis and thongs usually indicate something more sensual. Exhibitionism and cross-dressing are possibilities but they aren’t the only ones.” What, exactly might the others be? Homosexuality? Pedophilia? Has anyone ever asked models for the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue if they are exhibitionists? And to even suggest that “Jonah” might be a cross-dresser is to imply that thongs and bikinis are the sole province of the female gender, which is begging the very question that I am asking: Isn’t what is good for the gander also good for the goose?

When I was about 10 years old, I took a swimming class at the Hutchinson, KS, YMCA. The rules were that swimming suits were not allowed in the pool, as they might carry germs. We had to shower before we got into the pool, as well as after. I was terrified but soon got comfortable with letting it all hang out. By the time my own children were about that age, boys did not even take their swimming suits off to shower after swimming. Why the vast difference? I would welcome any and all ideas on this.

In 1990, my wife, kids and I set out for Disney World in Orlando. Wanting to appear “with it”, I bought my first pair of “surfer-style” swim trunks just for the occasion. When we went to the water park, the first thing on the kids’ agenda was the huge, serpentine water slide. Not wanting to appear skittish or square, I enthusiastically joined them. Just one problem: about 6 feet down the slide, my ridiculously bulky “trunks” grabbed hold of the slide and held on for dear life. I had to “scoot” down the remaining three stories of slide while trying not to get “rear-ended” by an unsuspecting kiddie. I have worn nothing but trusty Speedos ever since. Yes, sometimes I do feel a little “over-exposed” but at least I don’t carry a gallon of water with me whenever I get out of the pool.

[As an illustration of the fact that America’s discomfort with the male form is not universal, I am passing around a copy of Down Under: To glorify the Australian lifesaver. I have flagged a few pertinent pages.]

© September 22, 2014

About the Author

I came to the beautiful state of Colorado out of my native Kansas by way of Michigan, the state where I married and I came to the beautiful state of Colorado out of my native Kansas by way of Michigan, the state where I married and had two children while working as an engineer for the Ford Motor Company. I was married to a wonderful woman for 26 happy years and suddenly realized that life was passing me by. I figured that I should make a change, as our offspring were basically on their own and I wasn’t getting any younger. Luckily, a very attractive and personable man just happened to be crossing my path at that time, so the change-over was both fortuitous and smooth. Soon after, I retired and we moved to Denver, my husband’s home town. He passed away after 13 blissful years together in October of 2012. I am left to find a new path to fulfillment. One possibility is through writing. Thank goodness, the SAGE Creative Writing Group was there to light the way.

Clothes by Lewis

[I
would like to begin by looking back at what happened last week with the topic
being “The Person I Fall in Love with Should Be…”.  As we were leaving, I was feeling
disheartened for two reasons:  1) I
realized that the topic I had been responsible for was not inclusive of those
in the group who are in a committed relationship.  It essentially left them with almost nothing
to say.  I apologize for that and will
not allow that to happen again.  2) One
of our participants made it very clear that they were not at all happy with the
word “should” and made quite a point of saying that
“should” is a word that should never be used as part of a topic.  I wonder if we want to engage in such
disparagement of a topic, especially if, as was the case last week, the originator
of that topic is present.
One
more comment:  We have been very clear
that no one is required to write on the “topic of the week”.  However, I think that it is conducive to the
creative process to make those deviations the exception, rather than the rule.
Hearing diverse perspectives on the same topic is what makes for a stimulating
hour-and-a-half and also forces us to channel our creative forces in
constructive ways.  ‘Nuff said about
process.]
Clothes are worn for
many purposes:  style, status, and
modesty for three.  I’m going to talk
about a fourth:  body image.  People tend to model what they think is going
to “surprise and delight” the casual observer or, perhaps,
significant other.  Popular opinion has a
way of letting someone know when they have stepped over the line of decorum
and/or vogue.  As a repressed
exhibitionist with an eroticized libido, I have been an avid follower of these taboos
for most of my life.  There exists in
modern American society a very distinct double-standard when it comes to the
line between dress that titillates and that which commits sensory
trespass. 
I would like to share
with you a letter written to Annie’s
Mailbox
advice column that was published in the Denver Post on June 29, 2003, along with the response from the
columnists, Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, 
[Read
letter from photocopy.]
The key to
understanding the present state of our society is in the first paragraph of the
response: 
“Most
14-year-old boys would not be willing to put up with the teasing that Jonah is
getting from his peers. Stylish or not, they would stop wearing the
swimsuits
.  Either Jonah has
tremendous self-assurance or he is enjoying these bikinis on an entirely
different level.”
I have to wonder–what
level would that be?  The same level upon
which girls of that age might enjoy wearing a bikini?  I don’t think that is what is meant at all.  As the responders also write, “Bikinis and thongs usually indicate something more sensual.  Exhibitionism and cross-dressing are
possibilities but they aren’t the only ones.”
  What, exactly might the others be?  Homosexuality?  Pedophilia? 
Has anyone ever asked models for the Sports
Illustrated
swim suit issue if they are exhibitionists?  And to even suggest that “Jonah”
might be a cross-dresser is to imply that thongs and bikinis are the sole
province of the female gender, which is begging the very question that I am
asking:  Isn’t what is good for the
gander also good for the goose?
When I was about 10
years old, I took a swimming class at the Hutchinson, KS, YMCA.  The rules were that swimming suits were not
allowed in the pool, as they might carry germs. 
We had to shower before we got into the pool, as well as after.  I was terrified but soon got comfortable with
letting it all hang out.  By the time my
own children were about that age, boys did not even take their swimming suits
off to shower after swimming.  Why the
vast difference?  I would welcome any and
all ideas on this.
In 1990, my wife, kids
and I set out for Disney World in Orlando. 
Wanting to appear “with it”, I bought my first pair of “surfer-style”
swim trunks just for the occasion.  When
we went to the water park, the first thing on the kids’ agenda was the huge,
serpentine water slide.  Not wanting to
appear skittish or square, I enthusiastically joined them.  Just one problem:  about 6 feet down the slide, my ridiculously
bulky “trunks” grabbed hold of the slide and held on for dear
life.  I had to “scoot” down
the remaining three stories of slide while trying not to get “rear-ended”
by an unsuspecting kiddie.  I have worn
nothing but trusty Speedos ever since. 
Yes, sometimes I do feel a little “over-exposed” but at least
I don’t carry a gallon of water with me whenever I get out of the pool.
[As
an illustration of the fact that America’s discomfort with the male form is not
universal, I am passing around a copy of Down Under:  To glorify the Australian lifesaver.  I have flagged a few pertinent pages.]
© 22 September 2014 

About
the Author 
 
I came to the beautiful state of Colorado out of my native Kansas by way of Michigan, the state where I married and I came to the beautiful state of Colorado out of my native Kansas by way of Michigan, the state where I married and had two children while working as an engineer for the Ford Motor Company. I was married to a wonderful woman for 26 happy years and suddenly realized that life was passing me by. I figured that I should make a change, as our offspring were basically on their own and I wasn’t getting any younger. Luckily, a very attractive and personable man just happened to be crossing my path at that time, so the change-over was both fortuitous and smooth. Soon after, I retired and we moved to Denver, my husband’s home town. He passed away after 13 blissful years together in October of 2012. I am left to find a new path to fulfillment. One possibility is through writing. Thank goodness, the SAGE Creative Writing Group was there to light the way. 

Clothes by Will Stanton

I’m not going to talk about the $10,000 gowns that some wealthy women wear nor the $2,000 suits that some well-healed men wear. I also am not going to talk about the way I dress. I don’t have a GQ figure, and I don’t wear GQ clothes. Instead, I’m going to talk some about the clothes that many young people wear and contrast that with my own generation.

I was sitting in a restaurant, and the young waitress came up to my table. I noted that she was wearing jeans that were so tight that the waistline was bound to cut off blood circulation. Doctors have warned women about that. She wore them so low that her plump tummy hung out over the jean-tops and below the tight blouse that came down just below her breasts. I suppose that she considered showing off a bare tummy was sexy. Some testosterone-agitated boys and aging men probably found her appearance titillating, but I wondered how this peculiar clothing style had come about and why girls choose to dress that way at work.

Ironically, girls’ wearing very tight clothes is in marked contrast with boys’ baggy apparel for a long time now. While seated at the table at the very same restaurant, a teenage boy came in. He probably weighed all of 110 pounds, but his shirt was so huge that it could have fit a man who weighed 250 and stood a foot taller. Even more silly was that he was wearing his jeans literally below his butt, or more accurately, where his butt should be; for this young kid didn’t have any butt, hips, or waist. At least his boxer shorts covered that area. His pants were so ridiculously baggy that two boys could have worn them at the same time. I hope that he realized that, if he tried to rip off a 711, there would be no way of his outrunning a cop. Those baggy pants undoubtedly would become tangled up around his legs, tripping him.

Shorts and swim suits are not comfortably and practically short anymore. They hang half way down the calf. Are males’ bare thighs now considered to be too shocking to see? They aren’t for women. Trying to swim in those things is like having a drag-line attached to the legs. Where did this idea come from, and why has this bizarre style lasted so long?

Boys and girls certainly did not dress that way when I was young. Of course, I grew up in an era that is roundly satirized in the movie “Pleasantville.” That biting satire portrayed life in the 1950s and ’60s as “black-and-white, overly conservative, restrictive, unimaginative.” There is some truth to that; however, I have to admit that I viewed the clothes that young people wore then to be appealing. Girls did wear slacks or shorts on occasion, but they also often wore cotton dresses that reached just down to below the knee which, I thought, enhanced their femininity. I thought the girls attractive in either case, even without having their tummies hanging out or the tops of their thighs showing.

Boys once wore shirts and T-shirts that naturally fit their form and did not hang down below their butts. They also tended to wear form-fitting slacks and jeans, pants not so baggy as to make Charlie Chaplain’s trousers look tailor-made in contrast. Their pants still could be sexy enough, even with keeping them up around their waistlines. Most boys chose pants that were somewhat loose but not so floppy as to obscure the wearers’ gender, as many girls and some of the boys were quick to note. 

I do admit that a few of the boys I knew in school wore pants so tight that one could tell whether or not they were circumcised. That certainly was true with Randy, the very sexy kid whose pants appeared to be in danger of cutting him in half or exploding apart at one particularly revealing seam, which I actually saw happen on one occasion. That sort of thing tended to draw attention. He was a school-band member, and I was amused to learn that, when the band went on over-night tours, some band members argued as to who would have the privilege of sharing a motel room with Randy. I have no evidence as to whether just his appearance fostered such controversy or other factors contributed to his popularity.

It appears to me that, at some point in America’s history of clothing styles, arbitrators of taste chose to affect a reversal for the younger consumer. Modesty no longer is a factor in designing clothes for females. From bathing suits to ball gowns, young women can choose to expose as much skin as they dare. As for young guys, especially teens, the goal appears to be to camouflage the physical form as much as possible. Have clothes-makers concluded that the male form is too titillating or even obscene? I don’t necessarily advocate returning to Randy’s style of pants that were so tight as to potentially emasculate the wearer, but I do maintain that the return to more sensible, form-fitting clothes for males is long overdue. Let’s get rid of bagginess once and for all.

© 01 September 2014

About the Author

I have had a life-long fascination with people and their life stories. I also realize that, although my own life has not brought me particular fame or fortune, I too have had some noteworthy experiences and, at times, unusual ones. Since I joined this Story Time group, I have derived pleasure and satisfaction participating in the group. I do put some thought and effort into my stories, and I hope that you find them interesting.

Clothes by Pat Gourley

I really was never much of a clothes person. Growing up on a
farm did not lend itself to high fashion and certainly not in rural Indiana in
the 1950’s. My family could certainly be considered lower middle class even in
the heady economic postwar years and clothing budgets were always tight. Also
attending Catholic grade school and continuing on with the Holy Cross nuns
through high school dress codes if not uniforms were required. I wonder in
hindsight if perhaps my parent’s real motive for insisting on Catholic
education wasn’t that the dress codes really cut down on clothing expenses?
I often did farm chores in the morning before catching the
school bus and the most important thing on my mind was not my regimented
clothes for the day but making sure I did not smell like pig shit going out the
door. As soon as I got to college my hippie days started in earnest and we know
what fashion mavens’ hippies can be.
Thanks to some rather ironic and unfortunate body changes due
to HIV medicines where one wastes extremity fat but seems to pile it on in
one’s mid section viscerally I have become a total fan of scrub pants, which
often come with an elastic waste band. The elastic waistband is one of the
great inventions of modern civilization. 
And nurses bless their hearts have made this the primary mode of work
dress. That has meant for years now that I can live almost 24/7 in relative
comfort. I have in fact incorporated wearing black scrub or chef’s pants to
nearly any social outing I participate in. I do own a few sport jackets but
these most often get paired with a tasteful t-shirt and the subtlest black
scrub pants I can find. T-shirts are of course another modern clothing
invention worthy of praise.
As far as shopping for clothes go I would really rather watch
paint dry. They just need to be baggy and loose fitting and of course comfort
rules always over fashion. This is a fashion statement that also endeared me to
the Radical Fairies. Especially when Harry Hay put out with the first call for
a large national gathering and in that call said something to the effect that
if clothing was to be worn at all it needed to be and I quote “flowing
non-hetero garb”. Since this first Radical Fairie gathering was in southern
Arizona in late summer the nudity won out over even the flowing non-hetero garb.
The opposite option to clothes I suppose is no clothes or
that wonderful word ‘nudity’. This option was truly reinforced for me in my
bathhouse days primarily in the 1970’s. The bathes were such a great gay male
creation. I mean lets all get together in place where clothing is truly frowned
on and actually considered rude. Nudity even if a bit of towel is involved
really does throw all pretexts for why we are here out the window. The lack of
clothes in the bathes really was a great facilitator for the main course if you
will, a great time saver.
The bathes though took a real hit in the mid-1980’s with the
AIDS epidemic beginning to really pick up steam and for me personally they were
no longer a legitimate avenue of play. I did miss the communal nudity with many
other gay men and perhaps that is why I was briefly attracted to a group called
the DAN-D’s, an acronym for “Denver Area Nude Dudes” that described itself as a
“nonsexual, social naturist club” in the early 1990’s. I did though only attend
a couple of their events the most memorable being a nude bowling outing
somewhere up in Northwest metro Denver. Trust me even the most buff individual
can look a bit strange pitching a bowling ball down the alley and jumping for
joy at a strike.

I was though delighted to find the DAN-D’s current web site
and that they seem to be thriving almost 25 years after being founded in 1990.
They actually have an event this evening if anyone might be interested. It is a
nude shopping spree at a local men’s underwear store on Broadway. Clothing
apparently not optional but a purchase does not seem to be required. It is
between 5 and 8 PM and I assume the store will be closed for this “private
event”. There is a modest membership fee to join the DAN-D’s but if you hang
out in front of the store you might be able to tag along in as someone’s guest
for the evening.
© September 2014
About the Author
I was born in La Porte Indiana in 1949, raised on a farm and schooled
by Holy Cross nuns. The bulk of my adult life, some 40 plus years, was spent in
Denver, Colorado as a nurse, gardener and gay/AIDS activist. I have currently returned to Denver after an
extended sabbatical in San Francisco, California.