I think people really need to think about the whole “suits are lingerie for men” thing.

And before I delve into this, I’m going to put a big FEMINIST DISCLAIMER so if you want to not be annoyed by the FEMINISM going below here, just scroll past:

When it comes to actual lingerie, it is hyper-feminine and super revealing, and meant to be worn by women. It exposes a lot of skin, and basically is as close to naked as possible without being naked, so it strongly suggests nakedness while also maintaining the forbidden fruit/still hidden motif which only increases desire. And with lingerie, the only suggestion is sexual, since it is designed to be sexual.

Suits, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. They cover up almost everything, leaving only the top of the neck, the head, and the hands uncovered. They are strongly masculine, being the “dressed up” clothes for masculine-leaning people, and it is primarily designed for men alone, at least traditionally. Suits, however, suggest power, wealth, dominance, and formality, and are not meant to be sexual in the way lingerie is. Instead, in the case of this “suits as lingerie” thing, suits are incidentally instead of inherently sexual. The desire does not lie in the actual body of the suit-wearer, but in the clothes themselves, which is different from lingerie.

So to assert that suits are lingerie for men is to suggest that the thing that is sexually alluring about a suit-wearer is what goes along with the suit: power, wealth, and dominance, and to assert that the masculine part of heterosexuality is to be powerful and dominant.

Now, I am not saying that to be sexually attracted to suit-wearing people is wrong, but I am just criticizing comparing it to lingerie, and how the whole idea reinforces heterosexism and the assumption that to be masculine is dominant, and that we must enforce that.