Dressing to undress

My three favorite things are fashion, sex and hot dogs. Today, I’ll be talking about two of them. \nHot dogs have actually had a tremendous effect on the fashion industry since their introduction to the market in the 1880s. This year, buns are all over the runway. I have even heard rumors that Dolce & Gabbana’s next runway show will feature emaciated models riding the Wiener Mobile and squirting ketchup and mustard at each other. Yum.\nHow long would everyone keep reading if I had actually devoted this entire column to wieners? I shudder at the thought.\nBut speaking of hot dogs, possibly the world’s most phallic food, let’s just talk about sex, baby. (Who doesn’t love a good Salt-N-Pepa reference?)\nThink of all the similarities between sex and fashion. First of all, they’re both selfish indulgences, unless you’re donating a nickel to the Boys and Girls Club every time you have an orgasm. That’s not to say that others are not involved, but the motives for both are individual and self-serving, which is probably what makes them both so appealing.\nSecond of all, fashion can cause attachments just like sex. Remember that first lucky guy or gal who deflowered you? Remember when he or she actually used the term “deflower” when you were already naked and you realized it was too late to get out? It’s unlikely that you’re still cultivating your garden together, but I’m sure you were slightly attached to his or her hoe and shovel for awhile.\nWell, clothes can have a similar effect. I have a forest-green plaid button-up that I keep within a 3-foot radius of my bed at all times. I think my sister bought it at a garage sale when I was 9 and it didn’t fit her, so she threw it at me violently and I haven’t parted with it since. Obviously, one person’s trash is another person’s creepy teddy-bear substitute. But for reasons far beyond my knowledge, I have grown attached to it. More recently, I have grown attached to some Diesel boots and a Betsey Johnson necklace – motives change, but the attachment remains.\nThere are also unspoken rules for both. In fashion, don’t wear white after Labor Day. Never wear socks with sandals. Keep your thong hidden. Velour sweat pants are the insignia of the devil, etc. \nIn sex, wrap it before you tap it. Come inside, sleep outside. Beggars can’t be choosers. \nI think you get the picture here. \nAnd let’s not forget about label whores, who are actually just like regular whores but with a closet full of Hollister. For them, it doesn’t necessarily matter what the fabric, color, or style is as long as it’s flying high with the bird motif. Similarly, some people don’t place much emphasis on who they’re going after, but what they’re going after (validated self-esteem, proof of independence, status symbol, etc.).\nSo how does this liaison actually come into play? Well, in my opinion, we’re in the midst of a sexual liberation – we’re doing things we haven’t done before, and more importantly, we’re all talking about these things out loud, finally. This liberation is blurring lines of fashion all over the place – in particular, between men’s and women’s fashion. This has manifested itself as the androgynous look. It’s a melding of both gender’s fashion to create a sort of mysterious aura around its wearer. Is it a boy? Is it a girl? Or could it just be a really skinny chick wearing a pin-striped hat and a fedora?\nSometimes fashion takes inspiration from itself and sometimes it draws from the outside world – here, it’s doing both. Not only is women’s fashion being motivated by men’s fashion, but they’re all riding on the coattails of this new sexual freedom. \nAs Samantha once said in “Sex and the City,” “I’m a tri-sexual. I’ll try anything once.” \nI couldn’t agree more. Everyone’s got a little Prince inside.