Men's Clothing Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 130 Posts

Russell Street

· Banned
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Can we do this?
I am aware that it could be tricky...
(I'm still hung up on what clothes mean.)

We are all grown up & Trad here, & not going to mess about on this thread, aren't we?

I want to put forward the point of view that a 'Gay Trad' isn't using the style to 'pass' for straight, but using it to subvert the style...

Making that pink BD just that bit more pink.

Points of view please.
Especially I welcome my old friend MCPSB (hope I got your name right). MCPSB is cool & a player, as far as I'm concerned.

A subversive U.S. Trad is very close to an ordinary U.K. Trad in my book.

David James Frost Mellor

I'm doing this one for Jim & Paddy who have bought me more drinks than I can remember, not wanting anything in return, except that I should sing 'Nobody knows you when you're down & out' at their parties when Nina comes on the Hi-Fi.

Enough vodka and I'm always happy to join in.
 
I got into trouble when this topic was last broached, not sure why.

I'll just say I'm in favor of gay trads.

If anyone had the misfortune of seeing the Stepford Wives remake of a few years ago, there is one mildly amusing sequence in which a flamboyantly gay character is "Stepfordized" into a Brooks Brothers-clad stiff.

His friends are utterly horrified.
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
Rich says a lot to those who can read. Thanks R.
Brownshoe - You're cool, thanks.
Trip - Good to hear from you. All I want on this thread is wit or insight, but thanks for joining in.

This one was always going to be sensitive.

I'd rather see nothing here than something written which means nothing.

Happy to let the thread die.

If I'm here in ten years we can try again.

All I'm doing right now is testing the water...

Wish it was cooler.

David
 
quote:Originally posted by Russell Street

I want to put forward the point of view that a 'Gay Trad' isn't using the style to 'pass' for straight, but using it to subvert the style...

Making that pink BD just that bit more pink.
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Could you elaborate?
 
Discussion starter · #7 ·
Whoever knows what I'm on about?

Trad in The U.S.A. is an 'Establishment' look.
If you are an 'outsider' (and don't play games - If you're known to be Gay, you do have to work that bit harder, agreed?), ... ... ...

...

Where was I?

...

OK, if you are Gay & dress Trad you could be accused of assuming a disguise to blend in.
In England a Queen doing the English orthodox equivalent of Trad, say 'Sloane Ranger Man', would get the same criticism.

My point is that a Gay in Trad isn't a Gay in disguise.
He's just wearing what the F. he wants, and if he plays with the conventions at the same time (I look straight, but I act otherwise) then what could be more fun?
The irony.
The meaning upon ironic meaning.

Etc.

No more explanations!

Either you get my point or not.
I'm not recruiting here.
Just want to talk to those who 'get it'.
Always happy that no one 'gets it' & my threads die.
Life goes on...

David
 
Are there any openly gay men in the public eye who dress in a trad manner purely because that is their chosen style?

Or perhaps wear it in an 'ironic' manner as has been suggested that Miles Davis did.

I've seen pics posted on AA of a trad dresser in 'camp' company at CBGBs, Studio 54 or a similar club. I'm not insinuating that he was gay, merely that he chose some exotic companions for someone dressed in such a straight manner.
 
quote:Originally posted by Russell Street

In England a Queen doing the English orthodox equivalent of Trad, say 'Sloane Ranger Man', would get the same criticism.
Okay, David, but what if you're a gay Sloane Ranger? [?]

They're out there. Just sayin'.
 
Save
I've dressed traditionally all my life, and continue to do so (though I'm not overly fond of the word "trad"). Are you saying that because a man is gay he's expected to dress differently? Most of us dress the same as everyone else. Honestly, we don't have a special uniform that enables us to identify one another.
 
quote:"I want to put forward the point of view that a 'Gay Trad' isn't using the style to 'pass' for straight, but using it to subvert the style..."
Isn't it more likely that, just like the straight man, it's simply what he's always worn and what he's comfortable wearing? One could get the impression that you think gay men never do anything without seizing the opportunity to turn it into an ironic twist, wry commentary, or subtle parody. Sometimes they just get dressed and go to work like everybody else.
 
quote:Originally posted by RickStacy

I've dressed traditionally all my life, and continue to do so (though I'm not overly fond of the word "trad"). Are you saying that because a man is gay he's expected to dress differently? Most of us dress the same as everyone else. Honestly, we don't have a special uniform that enables us to identify one another.
What?? You don't?[8D]

Based on the previous discussion -- where I don't recall Brownshoe getting into trouble -- it seems that most of the gay members of AAAC dress the way they dress (trad or otherwise) because they enjoy dressing that way. Sure, some people dress in ways to forward their ow agendas, but I don't think there are too many of those here. Not that I think there'd be anything wrong with that; it's just that most people here primarily enjoy clothing and stylishness and dress for themselves.
 
Save
I think I see what the original poster means, not necessarily being trad in manner (the old money thurston howell way) but dressing in the trad fashion and then giving it a good twist. Maybe a pocket square that's a bit garish and to far exposed. Or pink socks to match the pinker shirt. God forbid (lightly) bleached hair. That sort of thing?

I think it'd be a great look if pulled off correctly, maybe it'd be called a trad dandy.
 
quote:Originally posted by capnpyro

I think I see what the original poster means, not necessarily being trad in manner (the old money thurston howell way) but dressing in the trad fashion and then giving it a good twist. Maybe a pocket square that's a bit garish and to far exposed. Or pink socks to match the pinker shirt. God forbid (lightly) bleached hair. That sort of thing?
Well, I don't see it. Where do you get these ideas? Did you ever consider that plenty of gay men dress just like everybody else in their family, in their fraternity, at their office, or at their club? And if anything might be more restrained than average so as not to draw attention to their clothes? Garish pocket squares and bleached hair???
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
I've no agenda on this one, just really enjoy the debate.
All our choices are for a reason aren't they?
I like the idea of subversion - That's just me.
I always thought that the worst thing about Punks was that they looked like Punks.
Someone with a Punk sensibility dressed as a bank manager is, to me, much more interesting.
And my imagined bank manager Punk will be able to 'get away' with so much more...

David
 
quote:Originally posted by RickStacy

I've dressed traditionally all my life, and continue to do so (though I'm not overly fond of the word "trad"). Are you saying that because a man is gay he's expected to dress differently? Most of us dress the same as everyone else. Honestly, we don't have a special uniform that enables us to identify one another.
Well said. I guess I'll weigh-in on this one. While the original question was clearly - and I mean this in a totally positive way - intended to "tweak the tiger's tail" on a sensitive subject, it has brought out some common misconceptions about how putatively straight men assume that gay men act/walk/dress/live, etc.

At some point in their lives, I think that every gay man has met some sweet old lady (usually someone's great aunt), who upon hearing that one is gay says, "oh, I have a gay nephew - maybe you know him?" somehow assuming - totally innocently in great aunt Grizelda's case - that we are all on each other's Christmas card list, IM buddy list, etc. - or that there is some huge directory that we all share.

Likewise, many folks assume that it is easy to tell who is gay by virtue of mannerisms, dress, job (the old hairdresser/florist cliche), etc. As is the case with ALL sterotypes, it seems plausible on the surface because it is historically TRUE - but NOT anywhere even close to exclusively true! And this is where some of the AAAC posters seem to trip up - along with all of the other AAAC members who have been lurking on this thread, but haven't (yet?) had the nerve (balls, maybe?) to post.

I dress "trad" (sorry, I just hate that term!) because I do. I was raised that way, and while I detoured in my youth into various areas of fashion, I ultimately returned to where I started. Why? Because I like it; it's comfortable; and maybe most importantly the clothes I bought years ago are still wearable today (except, maybe, for expanding waistlines), and those that I buy today will continue to be "correct" for years to come. I never have to worry about whether my lapels are too wide, or the toes of my shoes are too square, etc. etc. etc.

Do I take liberties? Of course I do! I have a huge collection of ties - both FIH & bow - with varying colors, patterns, etc. I am often remembered for my ties - not because they are over-the-line gaudy or flashy, but because I do not hesitate to use and have fun with colors on the one piece of clothing that a man can have fun with. I also have some fun socks, though when in "business drag" I generally keep the socks relatively conservative, and save the fun ones for casual/weekend wear. I wore my checked-flag socks while watching the Daytona 500 (yes, I've been a NASCAR fan since I was knee-high-to-a-grasshopper, and have been known to wear a bow tie to races).

Now, by this point you may have asked yourself, "what has all of this got to do with sexual orientation?" Excellent question, and the answer is the very point of this whole thread . . . NOTHING!

Ain't the world a fun place these days? ;)

BRS
New York, NY
 
Save
1 - 20 of 130 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.