
Originally Posted by
Bikerpunk
Actually, Synthetic, let me ask you this, cause I'm interested in your POV on this, and anyone else wanna chime in, let me know.
So imagine that you're meeting this guy - he's in a rather expensive suit, but you notice that his shoes are compatible ones, but rather than staid brogues, they've got that unmistakable threading that demonstrates a Dr. Martens sole.
And the earrings are tribal.
He's slick, but not too much, in fact rather brash and self-effacing.
And when his shirt cuffs rise up beyond his wrist, you can see the very edges of tattoos on both wrists. A glance at the gap in the forearms of the shirts, the hole where the shirts are buttoned, reveals glimpses of those same tattoos.
If he ever removes the cross-woven shirt (which shimmers with two colours at once, but in a subtle and not sateen polyester way) you realise that the black tank is tight across hard pectorals and a rather muscled torso.....
Do those two sets of juxtaposed worlds work with each other or against each other? In other words, would you be thinking "those two don't go" or would you be thinking "there is much more to this"?
A suit can either be "I am a cog in a machine which makes me wear this" or "after this fine cigar and martini, I'm going to grab you by the shoulders and fuck your brains out until your knees are trembling so hard you can barely stand." (in a good way - not talking about a rapist here)
How do you emphasise the latter? There is nothing about me that's the former. In what I do, the dress code is "cover your genitals". In fact, bathing is optional, to my dismay....
Bookmarks