Sexual mores are obviously very culture-bound. So one readily notices things that seem "different." For example, coming from the land of the Ken-doll (Barbie's "significant other," not Ken Miller!) we were surprised to see that male mannequins in store windows are anatomically correct! This one is just a boy--there weren't any grown men in this particular window, but we did wonder what that might look like. Of course, given how much classical male statuary one sees, perhaps this is unsurprising. (Sorry about the reflection of the street--no way to eliminate it when shooting through the glass.)
Ken and I found ourselves laughing uproariously at this display outside a shop advertising erotica. The two suits of armor are held in place with chains--literally! Brings a whole new meaning to the term "bondage." (The chairs in the foreground have nothing to do with anything--they were just in the way of the photo.)
And then there's the latest fashion in suggestive underwear and CFM shoes. (Ken didn't know what CFM meant...neither did I, until I heard it from my daughters a few years ago.) In case it isn't entirely clear from the photo, these shoes have about 8" heels, because the sole of the shoe is built up about 3". I guess these are dominatrix shoes?
Also not entirely clear in the photo is that the male mannequin is wearing something like a thong, except instead of a single "butt thread" (also a term I learned from the younger set), these "underpants" have what amounts to a codpiece in front and two thin strips of cloth or elastic that hold it in place around the waist and legs. What looks like a pair of lips on his left cheek is actually on the mannequin, itself. There's no cloth between the elastic around the waist and around the legs. Am I revealing a hopeless lack of knowledge about current male fashion by being surprised at this? It looks awfully drafty to me.
Oh yeah, and on the female mannequin, the "lingerie" which one would hope was black satin is actually leather (what else!?). Near as we could tell, this store, in a typical tourist neighborhood, was a somewhat harder-edged version of "Frederick's of Hollywood"--but not nearly as edgy as displays I've seen in the Frankfort airport. As I said, diff'rent strokes . . . . (no pun intended).
Ken and I found ourselves laughing uproariously at this display outside a shop advertising erotica. The two suits of armor are held in place with chains--literally! Brings a whole new meaning to the term "bondage." (The chairs in the foreground have nothing to do with anything--they were just in the way of the photo.)
And then there's the latest fashion in suggestive underwear and CFM shoes. (Ken didn't know what CFM meant...neither did I, until I heard it from my daughters a few years ago.) In case it isn't entirely clear from the photo, these shoes have about 8" heels, because the sole of the shoe is built up about 3". I guess these are dominatrix shoes?
Also not entirely clear in the photo is that the male mannequin is wearing something like a thong, except instead of a single "butt thread" (also a term I learned from the younger set), these "underpants" have what amounts to a codpiece in front and two thin strips of cloth or elastic that hold it in place around the waist and legs. What looks like a pair of lips on his left cheek is actually on the mannequin, itself. There's no cloth between the elastic around the waist and around the legs. Am I revealing a hopeless lack of knowledge about current male fashion by being surprised at this? It looks awfully drafty to me.
Oh yeah, and on the female mannequin, the "lingerie" which one would hope was black satin is actually leather (what else!?). Near as we could tell, this store, in a typical tourist neighborhood, was a somewhat harder-edged version of "Frederick's of Hollywood"--but not nearly as edgy as displays I've seen in the Frankfort airport. As I said, diff'rent strokes . . . . (no pun intended).
No comments:
Post a Comment