If we mentioned the word “lingerie” to any person, we can assume that they may think of lacy, frilly, revealing clothing that is worn for mere minutes before it is being thrown all over the bedroom. It’s the stuff that we primarily see women wearing that is supposed to get men who are attracted to women SUPER wound up.
Thinking of lingerie in that sense isn’t wrong. The technical definition for lingerie, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is “women’s intimate apparel.” Once you think about this definition, the obvious loophole is that “men can wear this stuff, too.” So the definition there has already changed, since it’s not strictly just for women.
After breaking down that wall, we then have to think about whether or not traditional “lingerie” would be attractive for women who are attracted to men. Would they enjoy seeing their boyfriend in that sort of apparel? Or would they rather have him wear something on the more masculine side? Would it still be considered lingerie even if it’s not feminine?
A lot of these questions were spurred by this one picture from the internet:
We know it’s not a definitive statement, because every woman is going to think differently about what sort of clothing will attract them to a man. However, it got us thinking about whether lingerie can really be condensed into just one standard of clothing. Because lingerie is primarily meant to arouse a partner, why WOULDN’T a suit be considered lingerie for some people? If it turns them on in the bedroom, why not have their partner wear a suit and have them consider it as “lingerie?”
Unless wearing other types of clothing for sexual arousal is mostly considered “fetish”…but then is lingerie just a TYPE of fetish? Or does it just belong to its own category?
As you can see, this has become something puzzling to our brains at XDress. However, we would like to know what you all think of this! What do YOU consider “lingerie” to be? Is it primarily the frilly, feminine clothing that we think of first? Or do you think it’s broadened out to be so much more?
Have a wonderful day and happy XDressing!
Team XDress
27 comments
I agree with melissa and dave
Its only fair that we have options for sexier choices to fit our mood and personalities
Lingerie means I can be free to enjoy my feminine side. Though I have to in private, married, wife wouldn’t accept my fem feelings. When I dress it’s not just sexual. I feel whole. Confident. I talk to gurls of same interest and would luv to play girlfriends. I wear silk briefs under my male clothes almost all the time and sexy bodysuits when alone or when out under my clothes. Thank u for this forum to express self. It’s helpful
I agree with Michele. My preference for wearing lingerie doesn’t mean I have to be any less of a man. Its how I express myself and while I won’t force it upon those who aren’t into this sort of thing, I also know there are some women who do like this and I can still be confident and dominant for a woman. Lingerie is definitely worn to be flattering even in its most comfy and basic form rather than lots of mens underwear which tends to be utilitarian.
I am a straight woman who ADORES seeing straight men wearing stockings and suspenders. Heels too. My personal bent doesn’t extend to bras. I identify as submissive in the bedroom, and I still love being dominated by a man. I don’t see his wearing stockings as being in any way feminine, feminising or in any other way emasculating. This is how I see it: If a man’s masculinity or sexuality can be “threatened” by lingerie, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with, was it! A real man who is confident in himself can wear anything, even stockings and stilettos, and still be as masculine and dominating (for me) as always. And that confidence, that sureness of oneself and one’s sexuality, THAT is what is so very, very, brain-meltingly sexy to me :)
Stevie I saw your post asking if Angie was still doing blogs. I agree Angie is missed and we hope still around. Loved seeing Angie’s notes after some of the posts.