Rubber mackintoshes - a period fetish?

In an online conversation recently, someone told me he'd read my blog and formed the impression that I was heterosexual. Thinking about it, I can see how he arrived at that conclusion. There's the title, which was originally meant to be a sly dig at the (to my mind, dodgy) practice of gay men describing themselves as straight-acting plus a reference to straitjackets - but which often just gets taken at face value.

Then there's the fact that I don't talk a great deal about sexuality in the conventional sense within this blog. I do have a sexual identity - I identify as gay and have a long-term male partner - but in many ways (and certainly for the purposes of writing here) fetish/bondage is my sexuality. It's my impression that a large proportion of gay men (perhaps men in general) see fetish as a sort of accompaniment to a more straightforward or vanilla sex life, a spice or exotic garnish. I don't; I see fetish as the entire dish.

I think this is possibly why several of my play partners have been straight or bisexual or even asexual in terms of how they approach sex/gender but primarily bondophile or fetish-orientated in terms of what they like to do.

Anyway, I was thinking about all of this recently when I had opportunity to peruse a load of ostensibly "straight" fetish magazines from the '80s and '90s: mainly Dressing For Pleasure, I think, but also Rubberist, Shiny and some original Atomage. I was reminded of this amazing retro-rubber clip from 1977:



(I've posted this before, but any fetish-related clip has a habit of disappearing so here it is again, albeit truncated.)

Looking through vintage rubber/fetish publications always interests me, particularly when they precede the era of custom-made fetish gear. It has its place too, but I like the phenomenon of people getting erotic pleasure from garments originally designed for utilitarian purposes: industrial waders, fishing waterproofs, rubberised raincoats. Going through my stack of Rubberists and DWPs, I got the sense of a slightly older generation of rubber fetishists attracted to a particular combination of gear, almost a "uniform": shiny black rubber mackintosh (worn fully buttoned and belted), high boots, souwester or hood. The outfit occasionally includes heavy rubber gloves and/or mask/respirator/open-face "helmet", but often just the mac and boots.

The magazines predominantly feature women in this garb but also a few men and I did find myself quite drawn to their outfits, partly for the retro look/feel and partly because the idea of being strapped and belted into a shiny waterproof coat appeals to me on more than one sensual level.

This chap clearly has quite a collection, and likes getting dressed up to walk in the woods:



That whole attraction to rubberised macs and raincoats strikes me as something of a period fetish and possibly a mainly heterosexual one. One generally doesn't see many rubber-macked men on the gay scene, more's the pity. I wonder whether some of that's because gay men are put off by an apparent overlap between the mac-'n'-souwester and cross-dressing: it's a fairly unisex outfit, arguably slightly "sissy" (in the sense that, as a kid, being that rainproofed often reflected a clucky, overprotective mother and risked one being teased for being a Mummy's Boy) and a fair proportion of male mac-wearers seem, like our woodland friend, either not to mind wearing a lady's mac (right-over-left buttoning) or to actively enjoy it. The feeling of gender transgression, perhaps, or the element of humiliation? Perhaps if one is attracted to women in mackintoshes, then wearing a woman's mackintosh is a logical progression?

Cross-dressing does nothing for me - in fact, it's a bit of a turn-off - but, despite that, I identified strongly with some elements of the (heterosexual) mackintosh/bondage fantasy story currently appearing in installments on my friend Petermacs' blog...

I've talked before about the complex but oddly potent mixture of physical discomfort (sweating in a hot raincoat) and potential humiliation, especially in public. Some of that may well hark back to embarrassing childhood experiences of well-meaning parents (usually mother) overdressing one for a supposedly rainy day which turned out sunny. Perhaps we eroticise the embarrassment and the feeling of being protected?

Hmm. Psychologically complicated stuff. But, bottom line: it's just clothing. It doesn't particularly matter why a particular garment feels good; if it feels good, wear it!

A visit to Weather Vain is definitely on the cards...