Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Sex and Armour

11:42 / 12.05.03

Bit of a half-formed stream of musing here, a sort of pulling-together of notions of separatism, Cholister's description of 'stone' sexuality (with subsequent advice on busting one's 'character armour' a la Wilhelm Reich), and recent personal experience of fetish clothing-as-armour.

Anyway...

A couple of weeks ago, Xoc and I visited The Hoist, possibly London's best-known all-male leather club/bar. As a generalisation, gay male fetish clubs tend to be 'heavier' than their mixed-sex equivalents; less playful, more hardcore. The Hoist, tending towards specifically leather (as opposed to the usual dress-code list of rubber, PVC, uniform, blah blah) fits this archetype. Experiencing a Dressy Authority Figure Moment, I decided to drag up in my (rather nice) all-leather NYPD cop outfit - complete with a pair of those very thin, very tight, wrist-length leather gloves.

Now, I quite like gloves but they're a fairly minor fetish for me; as they get in the way of drinking, I usually whip them off within ten minutes of arriving. This time, seeing a few gloved leathermen around, I decided to keep them on and practice manipulating glass, wallet, etc.

Interesting thing is, keeping a pair of gloves on made me feel much... 'toppier' than usual. I felt more confident, more swaggery and, when we started getting frisky, much more able and willing to hurt. It struck me, then, that muffling the sensory input from my fingertips might represent a sort of 'tactile separatism' - being that little bit more 'cut off' (more 'stone'?) made it much easier to contemplate causing someone pain, albeit a ritualised SM kind of pain. I wondered whether, as well its obvious protective function, the wearing of gloves by certain (widely-fetishised) authority figures (police, doctors, etc.) makes it easier for those individuals to distance themselves from the causing of pain...

... which might, in turn, relate to Cholister's thread and the idea of developing a carapace of less literal Reichian 'character armour' in conjunction with assuming the 'S' role in SM-themed sex.

What do people think? Anyone else aware of donning armour - sartorial or emotional - for sex?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

13:57 / 12.05.03

Not for sex, but I know that when I put on my skirts I get a burst of confidence...

21:42 / 12.05.03

Very interesting idea. I'm certainly aware of donning emotional armour during sex (sometimes) - using aggression or something similar (humour frequently) to ward off feelings I'm uncomfortable with - usually tenderness, loving feelings or whatever. This has happend in bed and certainly occurs as well, in daily life. Using our behaviour and attitudes to guard against feelings - I suppose we all do this and are aware of it, to a degree. I think actually, this probably happens more in day to day, because by the time I get nuddie with someone, I'm going through the process of opening up. At least sometimes, in relationships certainly, not in acts of random promiscuity.

Taking off the clothes represents this, I suppose - "stripping off" - has a physical and emotional correlation. So I can see how doing a uniform would act, quite easily, as a kind of armouring (albeit a fun one). I don't have any experience of this myself being a bit "vanilla" (sometimes I read Barbelith and feel so boring).

I thought about something similar while walking past Chelsea Barracks recently (near to where I work) and watching the soliders parade up and down. I was thinking more in terms of the continous drilling, the loss of personal identity within the group, which the uniform obviously lends itself to. I can see how this mindset could lend itself to violence, and distance from one's actions.

Any more thoughts?

08:39 / 13.05.03

What I want to know is: How do you know when to drop your emotional armour and when to keep it on? This comes from opening up emotionally with my last gf and then getting dumped whereas I couldn't give a flying fuck about most of the women I'm with now. When I see my ex I still can't lie or cover up. Once I drop my armour with someone I feel they can see right through me. I feel like a little bitch when I see her around now (we're still friends which is a first for me) even though I know its not going to go anywhere. Met someone really nice & smart a couple of weeks ago and I'm still not sure whether I put her off with my "I can't ever see myself in a long term relationship" babble or whether she just thought I'm too much of a crazy bastard.
Anyway the armour is up and reinforced now but I want to have a better understanding of myself because I hate meeting someone I really like and them thinking less of you when you finally open up.
Or is it just feminism gone mad?
I don't think I'll ever know.

10:22 / 13.05.03

I agree with Mr Illimatic about clothing - I can see how armour (in the form of disguise) can distance you from yourself, and so can leave you more able to do things you wouldn't normally allow. I don't think it has to be military, it just has to be 'not you'.

Part of keeping your gloves on is remaining entirely within the 'authoritarian' uniform (officers never slack). You are placing yourself under greater control than you would normally. I don't think it is just the cut-off from sensation that make you 'toppier', rather remaining more fully in character.

I think the armour (if used) is primarily against yourself, not anybody else. Thinking about going out to clubs, it is clear that the clothing and make-up worn (by myself and my friends at least) is deliberately chosen to make us more confident. It is armour to protect self-esteem and shut out anxieties. While this isn't related specifically to sex, it is preparation for somewhere with sexual politics.

I missed Cholister's description of a 'stone' sexuality - which thread is it in?

As for emotional armour during (vanilla) sex, again I agree with Illimatic that armour is not used there as much as on a day-to-day basis. I had the following idea as an extension of those above - what does anyone else think?

Discussing fetish vs vanilla -
"The point of vanilla sex is to feel loved" (words from a friend).

I'm running into trouble with what I mean by 'vanilla' here. I think that is possibly the wrong word. I might argue that vanilla sex (however you do it) is sex without emotional armour in order to feel connected with someone, rather than pursuit of pleasure.

Obviously this isn't exactly right, but I am trying to highlight that there is something other than the specific actions that differentiate between vanilla and fetish. I think my point is that if you have to use emotional armour with 'vanilla' sex, then it's not. I find this true for myself - if I was not able to be entirely open and relax with someone, it would be masochistic for me to sleep with them because it would hurt. I can see that this is quite an extreme reaction though, and that it is probably not as extreme for other people.

20:58 / 13.05.03

So hang on, you mean that, for you, vanilla sex is any sex in which the primary motivation is emotional connection? And any sexual act pursued primarily for pleasure is fetishistic? I'm just trying to clarify to see whether I agree with you or not... I can see what you mean (though I don't think I have the same reactions as you). I think I probably don't agree with you, as I think that motivations for any one act can be totally different from motivations for the next, even within the context of a relationship (cripes, motivations can change during the dirty deed). I tend to think of vanilla and the kink as referring to the flavour rather than the, er, nutritional content, if you see what I mean... because a vanilla experience can be just as complicated emotionally as a fetish one (I'd imagine from my extremely limited experience of the latter). Perhaps, in fact, what the uniform etc. do is to makes one's sexual responses more predictable in some ways? In terms of the ritual aspects of it, I mean. Which might remove some of the fear and worry which goes with all that sort of thing...

21:19 / 13.05.03

I think it probably does distance you emotionally. But also physically. You'll squeeze (or whatever) harder because you can't feel what you're squeezing. And your grip will be stronger (like when you use a tea towel to remove lids stuck on jars) and I guess it's quite difficult to resist exercising this power.

22:13 / 13.05.03

Harmony, it's started off in this thread if you've not seen it yet.

- also, to follow, I don't know if the response Ganesh maetioned can be seperated from the gloves. I'm thinking of the intimacy that results from touching somone else with yopur bare hands - sometimes this feels like the best bit of sex to me, that tripping out feeling you get, eyes shut just touching or being touched - I can see how wearing gloves might distance yourself from this. esp. if your engaged in acting out other,perhaps heavier roles.

I'd like to hear from people who engage in fetishic practices, I'd like to hear about what exactly goes one. You'll have to forgive me here for going on about one of my hobby-horses (Reich, character armour and suchlike). As i said elsewhere I'm very much open to critque of these ideas, this is one of the things I was trying to get at in my post linked above, is that Reich's stuff is very "hetro-normative" and I think deserves critquing on these grounds.

One interesting idea I have found in his work is re. emotional expression - he states we have 1) a social veneer, politeness etc. our social mask, and beneath this we have 2) a lot of surpressed anti-social, sadisic, fucked up impulses heldin check by our "good manners" and behaviour (1). His idea is that the anti -social stuff arises, in part, because of our surpression of (3), these being our feelings of real contact, openess and tenderness - genuine feeligns that we stifle because of their intensity and power.

I wonder if a part of SM behaviour is to express (2) here so as to open a way up to (3) - what do people think? Anyone like to comment?

'Scuse if the above is not totally coherent - bit drunk.

23:08 / 13.05.03

I don't frequent the SM clubs much, well, not really at all, but I do have a couple types of expieriances that may be relevant,

When I was in the marine corps and we'd be on a range, or training course, a marine would not be permitted to wear a glove on his firing hand. Though the glove may be a perfect fit, it didn't matter. A certain connection is lost with a rifle when you can't feel it with your skin, it gets harder to handle, and your aim is not accurate, you can't feel the slack in the trigger as acurately. It's something you can feel, like rifle dissasociation, the rifle feels like dead weight in your hands, not like a part of you.

Also, when giving first aid, I've had to give a few IV's, and it was deffinately easier with the latex gloves, a bit of detachment went a long way.

20:00 / 15.05.03

KKC - that was the distinction I was trying to highlight. I'm not sure it makes sense anymore! I think you summed it up rather better with vanilla and the kink as referring to the flavour rather than the, er, nutritional content.

I do see what you mean about a fetish environment making explicit the roles of dom/sub within sex (I would really like someone with some experience to comment on this). I suppose that playing with control is inherent in any form as the act itself requires a small degree of submission - you have to let someone have an effect on you.

I'm not entirely sure how this answers the original question, except that too much armour leaves you without any effect at all - like the idea of 'stone' in fact. What I am curious about now is how fetish 'armour' (which gives you a certain kind of freedom) is related to 'stone' armour (which appears to have the opposite affect), if at all.

08:54 / 16.05.03

I should probably say somewhere that my definition of stone was somewhat limited in the sense it was mostly applied to me and only applied to sexuality. I have no good links, or rather, I am too tired to check for any right now, but it needed to be said...

11:06 / 16.05.03

eeek - sorry. I was going from personal experience but didn't say so - when I identify as 'stone' (and I do occasionally) it is because I cannot allow myself to drop my barriers to those around me. If that persists, I feel like what you described as stone.

11:12 / 16.05.03

What I meant was that some people do consider it an emotional thing, a wall around one's emotions... I've always considered stone to be a physical thing, as regards myself. I should probably think more about the emotional aspect, however.