Christmas is almost here, with its perennial promise of expanding our wardrobes, often with gifts so unnecessary and trendy we’d feel too guilty to buy them for ourselves. Magazine ads are all about retail, where waxy models put away the swim trunks and don the most up-to-date name brand clothing.
That’s good news for the oglers, because there’s something about a well-dressed man that never disappoints, even as we grow so accustomed to exposed 6-packs that they get boring.
Fashion is something I forgot through college, where everyone conspicuously dresses like shit. But in high school, attire was a person’s primary identity statement, and conversations about attraction used to go like this:
Question: “What kind of guys do you like?”
Answer: “Skaters* and preppy boys. No goths, ew.”
A guy’s “type” was determined entirely by what he wore. It wasn’t body type – since just about every openly gay high school male I knew was absurdly skinny – it wasn’t personality or approach to relationships, and was rarely skin, hair or eye color. It certainly wasn’t the (IMHO) now-overplayed “top” vs. “bottom” dichotomy. Sweaters and Abercrombie and Fitch were the classic style of the popular kids at my predominantly-white suburban school. “Skaters” were their foils – kids who wore beanies and stuck big safety pins all over their clothing, sock bands over their wrists and flashy stickers on their backpacks and bedroom furniture.*
Being desirable wasn’t only about being physically attractive then. We were all still superficial, but about more than just the body. Clothes were what made you cute; big ears or pimples were routinely overlooked, they were so common anyway. The sexy guys were the guys “with style.” Thus the idea that you could “make someone hot” by giving him or her a new haircut and wardrobe was commonly acknowledged.
Adult gay style is defined as nice clean suits, but just a little wrinkled or off-kilter to make them sexy; the belt buckle is on one side, the top two buttons of the shirt are undone and the tie is loose or under the collar. As a bonus you can see something approaching fifteen different necklaces under the shirt, drawing attention to the tiny bit of skin showing.
There are lots and lots of layers, the more layers the better. That’s one thing consistent between high school and adult gay fashion of my generation – guys still put on as much expensive shit as possible. You must have a t-shirt under the shirt, a heavier shirt over the shirt, then a jacket, then a heavier jacket, opened and peeled back so each layer is visible.
I know I don’t need to lecture an audience of gay men on what makes an attractive look, especially considering how fashion-defunct I am at this point in my life. But I can at least muse: if the goal of sex drive is to eventually see somebody naked, it’s ironic that what he’s wearing can aid his attractiveness so much.
Is it culture, or just class? Expensive clothing means wealth, wealth means power, and power has been sexually attractive to human beings for recorded history. We all understand how a little covering is sexy when it leaves something to the imagination, but you could cover a body in anything, from dead leaves to bed sheets, without the same effect as that of a well-dressed man. Is it that advertising is so effective that we think buying Calvin Klein boxer-briefs makes us look like the chiseled man in the photo? I think there’s more; there is something we are acculturated to, in subtle or obvious ways, that turns the social preference for certain clothing to an instinct as primal as sexual desire.
In high school, power was being “popular,” which meant that regardless of wealth you were tuned-in to what others thought and you knew how to work them. Part of being tuned in was being up to date in your style, combining the correct levels of conformity with the correct levels of individuality or novelty. Though we weren’t consciously aware then, the wealthier kids were “preppy,” while the kids with divorced parents or who took the bus chose to be skaters. Skaters could be popular in their own circles if the were crude and funny enough, so created their own sense of allure.
In the adult gay man’s world, power and sex appeal are found in two distinct places: wealth and masculinity. Either dress up to the nines, or wear t-shirts, workout clothes and baseball caps to convey that you are some hung-over college frat boy. If you dislike or can’t afford upscale clothes and don’t have the body to look jock, your only option is to dress like a hipster, who even hipsters don’t admit to being. You can create a world of difference in the way you are perceived by growing stubble and adding six inches in length to your hair, and while there are plenty of “bears” out there, they don’t seem to make it into the magazines.
That is a gross generalization – what we idealize or see in advertisements is not necessarily what we go out in on an average Friday, and there are obviously generational differences, too – but it’s as close as I can get to the truth in so few words. As much as we love to think our teenage years are behind us, the themes linger. The right outfit still makes a guy look good. We still think we haven’t quite achieved the style we’ve always envisioned, but oh, maybe the next few pieces we buy will get us there. We still use clothes as an identity statement and our tastes still envision guys along those lines. Some go for the jocks only, I personally like the absurd number of layers if its winter. We think our tastes have matured. But in the end, its all just a complex version of the way we thought in high school.
*Being a skater did not require knowing how to skate.
If you’re like us, you wouldn’t object to watching an endless sea of well-dressed men being very, very dirty with one another, and that’s exactly what you’ll find at Men at Play, one of all all-time-favorite smut sites, for obvious reasons. Check it out.
I had to re-read the editorial several times cause I kept getting distracted by the pictures. OMG (high school flashback) who is he??
While I agree with what I assume is the ultimate point of this article, that “We still use clothes as an identity statement,” I cringe at the mention of “adult gay style,” and the thought of what messages about identity we’re trying to convey. As you describe it, gay style is “put[ing] on as much expensive shit as possible.” What that brings to mind are the droves of gay men who look like they didn’t dress themselves, but instead had department store sales clerk dress them up like they would a window display. In other words, its everything overstated, nothing simple, price tag practically left on to announce how much they spent on the wardrobe (and large purse–not even man bag–as I’ve seen recently), and everything uncomfortably perfect. That level of fussiness hardly translates into “sexy” for me. I’ll give gays some benefit though: straights make that mistake too.
I’m confused by the idea of layers being style, as described here. Last time I checked, well-cut clothes in a single, simple layer were the road to a good look, and brand wasn’t that important. I don’t see a lot of stylish gay guys walking around in the five layers described by the article. They’d look like tubby upscale hobos with hair gel.
Steve, I’m not trying to presume our age but it’s a generational thing. If you shopped at American Apparel or Abercrombie and Fitch around 1999-present you know the layers. They even make jackets and shirts that give the appearence of being several layers.
Those photos don’t remind me of highschool or college. I guess I’m not at the point where mid 30s blends in with the rest.
James: That’s Ted Colunga; he goes by various other names as well but I think he’s mostly known by that. He’s a well-known Eastern European porn actor; as far as I know, exclusively a bottom.
I must say he wears a suit very well. And what fun when you take it off and find ALL THAT waiting for you!
Ted Colunga in what can only be a Men At Play photoshoot. No pornographer is more obsessed, not just with clothing but a pretty specific set of clothing, than MAP and those goddamned suits, spread collars and Windsor knots.
I don’t know about a lot of layers being sexy . . . except maybe on Brokeback Mountain, and even then, they didn’t have underpants, excuse me, drawers, on . . . For me there’s nothing sexier that a man with one layer on, the thinner the better so you can see chest hair and (stiffening) tits right through the material. Leave a few buttons open!!
Love to all of you from wet-and-cold Holland, have a sexy holiday season
I absolutely love the article and i think that Ted Colunga is just the best he is so sauve!!! I would read anything that had to do with him even if it was a load of junk but i really enjoyed this please we want more of him!!!!!! Even with our very slow internet here in zimbabwe i found time to connect and read it now that says it all!
more like ted cowabunga! love him, love the article. keep it up and keep it real.
why is the 2nd half of this article in bold but not the first half?
Interesting article, Matt. It seems to me there are multiple elements at work in the sexiness of how a man dresses. The suit thing very likely has something to do with the aphrodisiacs of power and success. But I find it interesting that you can’t just stick a hunk in a suit and make him instantly hot. You can tell when a man knows how to wear the suit, it hangs on him like it belongs there. There are little subtleties of it working that make it sexy. It’s clear that a lot of the hot men on the (mind-bogglingly sexy…) Men at Play site aren’t familiar with the costume. It shows. When you see one of them who clearly knows how to wear it, it’s unmistakable, and it ramps up the heat.
Another aspect of it may be a phenomenon related to the arousal a lot of us experienced as kids looking at the underwear ads in the Sears catalogue. There’s an aspect of gay sex that you’re maybe afraid of. You’re wildly, unmistakably attracted to a man and his equipment, but it’s hairy, maybe it’ll smell bad, maybe it’ll hurt. In the Sears ad the threatening nastiness was just there, but protected by a layer of pure white cotton. That associated it with something pure and clean, and that somehow made a difference. It was like, when the shorts got peeled down, and that thing really was kinda nasty, the association with the clean white cotton lingered over it in some way. Similar thing with the suit (and, I reckon, other forms of fetish dress). Again referring to Men at Play, a lot of those guys are hotter when completely naked for the fact that they were wearing a suit.
The writing on this site used to be a lot better. Can we please stop hearing about high school? We used to read about manly shit, shit that went along with the kind of men displayed here, macho, muddy, horny, adult, but essentially cool shit — with a dose of humor and intelligent observation thrown in. Now we’re getting a lot of pedestrian musings about high school and fashion? Note the number of people who have started to leave comments on articles saying “I totally disagree with your point” without backing it up. It’s hard to come up with a diplomatic way to tell someone/a site that you generally really enjoy that uh … hey you’re really sucking lately. Keep a sense of humor about everything you write about – after all, this is a porn site – and quit with the detailed analyses of reflexive details, philosophizing on the gay experience as a whole based on singular happenings from your past, and the bitter/sarcastic – and again – pedestrian humor. I’m sorry but it’s emo and bitter and not fun to read. Let’s not hear anything else about your time at college or high school or whatever – look beyond yourself because almost everything on the internet is more interesting than your own individual experiences. I say all of this out of love – I used to love reading this site and I only want to see it improve!
The reason the writing on this site isn’t as sharp and funny as it used to be is because John Caliendo isn’t writing here anymore. But don’t rag on Matt or the new writers. They’re younger and have less experience maybe but also fresh “now” attitudes that I like as well.
Tate, why is it not obvious that MenAtPlay had requested an article to make use of these shots of Mr. Colunga to drum up business? Apparently this is what Matt came up with.
It’s not entirely about his HS experience. It just starts there. While that part may not have been universally appealing, I do feel that he got into some interesting territory with the connection between that HS mentality and what we end up with as adults. Of course it would have an effect. From high school to full adulthood isn’t so far that people generally completely change 180 degrees in every possible way.
I will agree that the writing isn’t exactly the same as it was, but I am sure it is difficult to be sent a set of photos and told to find something to talk about that incorporates these promo shots, and turn it in by Wednesday. And it captured my attention for a few minutes, and inspired some actual commentary as well as your complaint. So maybe it didn’t completely suck.
The question is, could you do better? If you are sure of this, then complain away. If not, maybe you should dial it down a notch or two.
Colunga’s a bottom? With a cock like that? What a waste. I had my fantasy all worked out until I read that! Long live hairy chests.
TEd is not only a bottom. He is now a top too.
Visit his website : (link)
Point taken, point taken. It is an interesting idea, comparing high school and our adult desires. I do like this site a lot and I didn’t mean to offend anyone. The writers do a good job and I’m sure no one has stopped visiting the site because of the changes – perhaps I illustrate that well. Anyhow keep up the good work guys.
I WOULD FUCK THE MAN RIGHT NOW AND LICK HIS DICK
Wow.
I thought the mainstream press was bad.
I just stumbled into Nightcharm again (after a few years) and I am reminded why I never revisit.
To say that what I read is narrow minded is too kind. Blind to real life outside of a certain (imposed?) perception of life and reality?
Closer…
But that still ignores the problem inherent in the article posted. You have no idea what you are talking about. You show no grasp of any of the subtleties of the high school social dynamic, you most certainly have no idea of what it is to be an adult (although you may be one)and I cannot imagine your string of ill informed opinions playing to anyone who pays attention, and has contact with, the world outside of the bubble you apparently exist in.
I found the article simplistic and bizarre to say the least. Just as an example, preface your statement about “wealth and masculinity” with any race, gender or nationality and think if such a…
I am sputtering…
“generalization” would hold up.
To paint gay men with such broad (and oh so certain) strokes insults not just me, but yourself as well. If you were trying to be cute (and I do not think you were) you failed miserably.
If you want to be wealthy, look around you. If you do not find richness and value in who is around you, maybe you need a change.
If you are looking for masculinity, look within yourself and be strong. Do not post a softball article that has had a hundred variations posted before.
If you think I am trolling by saying the above.
Good luck with the site.
Crazy right wing blogs and racist sites (as insular and disconnected as they are from the world around them) have their fans too.
paf
Dude, paf, for something you hated to read you sure got engaged, didn’t you? This is a PORN SITE, trying to give a little text to your hard-on, not trying to encapsulate the breadth and depth of human experience. Looks like the article served its purpose.
Wow, that guy is so bitter I bet people he passes on the street need to rince their mouths.