Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, August 15, 2009

AMBER ASKS A GOOD QUESTION

The Baroness, a catalyst for thought. Art by Adam Hughes.

Friend and regular reader Amber Love sent in a comment to my post on my unashamed fascination with the Baroness from the otherwise worthless G.I. Joe, and made note of my apparently eloquent expression of appreciation for the character's fetishwear. Following that ego stroke, Amber asked, "So which is sexier? Covered up completely but tight or the nearly naked?" and I had to sit and think about that for a minute.

I'm one of those guys who never went through the "I don't like girls" stage and have harbored a deep fascination with the female since day one. Once old enough to fathom the awesomeness of the womanly form I studied curves with the fervor of a priest-in-training, hoping to be able to express my desire and admiration with flesh-to-flesh contact, and when that blessed day finally arrived it was simply a religious experience. That said, and speaking strictly for my own point of view on this, even upon becoming intimately familiar with Woman in the flesh, I still find myself immobilized like a deer caught in the headlights — semi-lewd joke not intended — when confronted with a zaftig female in an outfit that appeals to me. Case in point: there's a certain ladyfriend of mine whom I used to date who looks flat-out stunning in skin-tight dresses and the like, and though I'm familiar with her lovely geography sans clothing, I have quite often wondered what she'd look like in a forest green one-piece bathing suit. In fact, just thinking about that sight right now makes me smile and puts my thoughts into a very good place indeed.

But none of this answers Amber's question.

I suppose that when it comes right down to it, "covered up completely but tight or the nearly naked" is a very tough call. Using the aforementioned ladyfriend for my theoretical model in this debate, I can say I greatly enjoy her in skin-tight gear, but she also looks positively mouthwatering in a state of near-undress. So after careful consideration I personally would have to go with nearly naked because that state offers the best of both worlds; in the geekish context of fantasy outfits and convention-related cosplay, nearly naked allows the perfect blend of imagination-stirring and revealing gear paired with glimpses of the alluring flesh that has inspired great works of art and ensured the perpetuation of the human species. I guess considering my near-pathological jungle girl fixation, that should come as no surprise to me or anyone else.

A bit of totally gratuitous jungle girl awesomeness. Art by Frank Frazetta (as if you didn't know).

And what sez you, dear readers? Please write in with your own two cent's worth!

7 comments:

Kevin M. Hagerman said...

I like skin. Lots and lots of skin. Especially pale skin with freckles. Oh, and red hair. And blue eyes. About 5'6". And Jane Krakowski's chin. Glasses a plus.

But I haven't really thought on it much... :)

Satyrblade said...

Nearly naked. Definitly.

Daniel said...

Butt Nekid!!!

P.S. Welcome back

Deacon Blue said...

When it comes to the arousal phase...the seduction, the making out, the leading up to the grand event, I'd take tightly covered up over nearly naked.

The "second skin" motif is very powerful for me, and the idea that you cannot see the skin, but it's so close...and depending on the outfit perhaps covered in something very visually interesting (shiny, smooth, with accoutrements, etc.) and possibly carrying its own scent as well as hers (leater and latex, for example) and having tactile novelties (silk, satin, leather, latex, nylon, etc. all having their distinctions)...well, that really adds a lot, even though it "hides" stuff.

However, once it comes to the actual glorious sexual encounter, having all or most of those clothes come off is far sexier to me. Once it comes time to truly explore the terrain, I don't want much of anything in the way, except perhaps for gloves and/or shoes/boots in the right context. I mean, obviously, one can often have sex with a woman in skintight garb, since there is usually an access point or a pull-away panel somewhere...but it just wouldn't be the same to me.

So, covered up and nearly naked are pretty much equal in my book. It's just the arousal vs. fulfillment part that makes one or the other take precendence.

czelous said...

Two words:
Dejah Thoris

firefly said...

I’d say nearly all my past boyfriends would’ve picked the “scantily clad” option, though a couple preferred to see me in tight outfits revealing just a bit.

Still, I think there’s something really alluring about a barrier, however minor. And as Deacon Blue suggests, the fabric makes a big difference to the answer – leather, velvet, silk, satin, lace… each has its own appeal. Fishnet stockings and sheer body-stockings are sexy precisely because they make the legs (or the entire body) appear both naked and “dressed” at the same time. From the comments above it looks like people find “scantily clad” sexier. Most of the time I’d also feel sexier when “scantily clad.” (Building on Amber’s query, I’m curious whether other women would say the same.) Yet there’s a certain powerful sexuality inherent in being tightly wrapped… in looking both available and unreachable at once. It's both a secret and a dare.

So - for me - it seems "scantily clad" wins by a very narrow margin.

Mike Hell said...

Nylon, leather, rubber, vinyl, pvc, lycra - skin-tight is a delight.

Don't take it off until we're done.